32806
Post by: Chumbalaya
You didn't get this from me. 
http://www.mediafire.com/?cajzcejcw38124h
EDIT: updated link, thanks Katie.
8316
Post by: J.Black
Free Virus?
32806
Post by: Chumbalaya
J.Black wrote:Free Virus?
If by virus you mean potentially leaked 6th ed rulebook, then yes.
7301
Post by: Ivan
pancake
10345
Post by: LunaHound
The cake is a lie
Since this thread is still alive, i assume its safe from virus will take a look.....
50687
Post by: radarbabyeater
Let us know how that goes.
45116
Post by: bombboy1252
LunaHound wrote:The cake is a lie
Since this thread is still alive, i assume its safe from virus will take a look.....
I'm waiting a few more mins, than checking 
50768
Post by: tenrag
so safe or not ?
5636
Post by: warpcrafter
I downloaded it, then got the "Windows would like to know what program you would like to use to open this file with" message, so that's the end of that... If anybody can PDF it, that would be awesome.
10345
Post by: LunaHound
1,140 KB thats 1 MB right? I dont believe it.
827
Post by: Cruentus
No artwork, no diagrams, just text in a .pdf
8316
Post by: J.Black
The entire rulebook? in 1.1k? rly? safe?
pfffffffffffffffffffft
10345
Post by: LunaHound
Who leaks just texts. Which means if believable, its just experimental rules, or play testing stages.
actual leak product that is legit would include art works ( something that is hard to create NEW )
34385
Post by: doktor_g
waiting for an update!!!!
DrG
19754
Post by: puma713
J.Black wrote:The entire rulebook? in 1.1k? rly? safe?
It's a 1.1k .rar, which is compressed.
827
Post by: Cruentus
Its formatted, columned, just without artwork. Could be a hoax, dunno. I think its 'in process' stuff. But seems fairly complete.
8316
Post by: J.Black
puma713 wrote:
It's a 1.1k .rar, which is compressed.
Have you opened it?
827
Post by: Cruentus
Yup. Seems okay to me.
50768
Post by: tenrag
Waiting for a safe pdf?
32806
Post by: Chumbalaya
It's formatted like previous rulebooks, with placeholders for art and illustrations. Something similar made the rounds before 5th ed dropped.
That said, it's a pretty significant change, much moreso than 3rd to 4th or 4th to 5th, and it references Titans and multi-player games, so I'm not getting too invested in it.
Still, some nice ideas in there and definitely good for discussion, even if it's just idle speculation.
24567
Post by: Kroothawk
It's 2 pdf's, no apparent virus. Content seems legit with flyer rules and overwatch and all. Format reminds me of the 5th edition leak.
But I guess it will be taken down fast. And I won't distribute it.
10345
Post by: LunaHound
Hmmmmmmm...................
19754
Post by: puma713
It is safe. And fairly convincing.
Redistribute it in a .pdf format? No thanks.
53173
Post by: Fralethepalewhale
I got it do PDF form... I just need password, its encrypted. You need a WinRar program to run it...and apparently a password...
32806
Post by: Chumbalaya
If it gets taken down, just send me a PM or ask around at 3++.
Fralethepalewhale wrote:I got it do PDF form... I just need password, its encrypted. You need a WinRar program to run it...and apparently a password...
I edited the OP. Password is pancake.
827
Post by: Cruentus
There are some glaring typos - must be legit!
25300
Post by: Absolutionis
I got it and scanned it. No viruses.
It's legit in that it's two PDFs with one being "codex updates" and the other being the "rulebook".
Legitimacy on whether this is a hoax or not is up in the air.
10345
Post by: LunaHound
Cruentus wrote:There are some glaring typos - must be legit!
Thats the thing. I would be semi convinced if its a leaked play test pdf.
But an actual leaked completed rule book, 100% no.
8316
Post by: J.Black
Looks more like a fanfic/wishlist.......
We're gonna have titans in standard rules now?
25300
Post by: Absolutionis
Someone spent a lot of time on this if it's not real. Regardless, it's still a decent read.
19754
Post by: puma713
. . .
Leaked 6th Ed. Rulebook wrote:A note to veterans
On first sight you might think that everything has
changed, but if you take your time to play some
games (which is always a splendid idea) you will
notice that your units act basically the same as in
previous editions of Warhammer 40,000. Once
you have mastered the rules, a game is
considerably faster than before. This enables you
to play even larger battles in the same amount of
time. The new rules allow us to expand the ways
the game is played - first and foremost the option
to give each unit its own turn instead of the usual
unified player turn.
Warmachine anyone?
32849
Post by: Mechanicum Jon
Just downloaded it. Can confirm that it looks legit.
33427
Post by: Deathwolf
I agree with Absolutionis. If this isn't real then someone has spent an enormous amount of time faking it. That said though, this is still playtest and I'm sure things will change between now and July.
827
Post by: Cruentus
Wow.
Move
Assault
Shoot
Consolidate
That there is quite a change in the turn sequence.
10345
Post by: LunaHound
Cruentus wrote:Wow.
Move
Assault
Shoot
Consolidate
That there is quite a change in the turn sequence.
Sort of like Fantasy?
827
Post by: Cruentus
LunaHound wrote:Cruentus wrote:Wow.
Move
Assault
Shoot
Consolidate
That there is quite a change in the turn sequence.
Sort of like Fantasy?
Pretty much. It also gets a lot more complicated. Complaints of 'dumbed down' won't apply anymore, I think.
It does look like a playtest, and as mentioned, an interesting read.
19754
Post by: puma713
I hope this is a playtest rulebook (and why wouldn't it be?). This is a lot of rules.
24567
Post by: Kroothawk
LunaHound wrote:But an actual leaked completed rule book, 100% no.
You mean: Not again like with 5th edition? 
Very different turn sequence as rumoured before.
I believe it is the real thing. Might feature later corrections in production, but that's normal.
Good to see GW's improved security working
10345
Post by: LunaHound
Kroothawk wrote:LunaHound wrote:But an actual leaked completed rule book, 100% no.
You mean: Not again like with 5th edition?
Very different turn sequence as rumoured before.
I believe it is the real thing. Might feature later corrections in production, but that's normal.
Good to see GW's improved security working
I can believe if its the play test version.
But an actual completed leaked, that i dont.
18297
Post by: Exalted Pariah
So what's it say about "flyer" rules?
7942
Post by: nkelsch
I only hope that if the ruleschange are so drastic the code codexes simply no longer function (like the lack of an evasion stat in legacy codexes) that the game isn't basically destroyed the way Fantasy was when they basically had to make erratta codexes. I am not against change, but 3rd-5th has been a very similar ruleset when it comes to many rules, turns and stats... I am just worried it will harm the gaming community with too much change.
24567
Post by: Kroothawk
LunaHound wrote:I can believe if its the play test version.
But an actual completed leaked, that i dont.
Maybe, but not fan-made. And Codex Updates look complete.
Just remember 5th edition leak.
19754
Post by: puma713
nkelsch wrote:I only hope that if the ruleschange are so drastic the code codexes simply no longer function (like the lack of an evasion stat in legacy codexes) that the game isn't basically destroyed the way Fantasy was when they basically had to make erratta codexes. I am not against change, but 3rd-5th has been a very similar ruleset when it comes to many rules, turns and stats... I am just worried it will harm the gaming community with too much change.
Evasion isn't a 'stat' that you have on your statline, according to this. It is a chart with which you calculate how hard it is to hit your target.
For instance, if you're a tank, you're considered 'massive', and that is a -1. Now, if you were also stationary in your last turn, then it is also a -1. So, my Long Fang ( BS 4) shooting at your tank would usually need a 3 to hit. But I apply your Evasion, and I only need a 2+ to hit you (modifier can't go below 2+ or above 6+).
Edit: The chart is your BS vs. my Evasion. Evasion starts at 3, unless you're a flyer, then it is base 6 at all times (according to this).
32806
Post by: Chumbalaya
I hope this is fake, if only because the idea of Eternaler, Most Eternal Warrior and Super Instant Death is so ridiculous.
35006
Post by: Medium of Death
Necrons are missing from that Codex update...
19754
Post by: puma713
Exalted Pariah wrote:So what's it say about "flyer" rules?
There's two pages about Flyers. Among other snippets across the rulebook. There's also a lot of Titan rules. Automatically Appended Next Post: This is obviously geared toward making 40K bigger. Some of the missions are geared toward 3-5 players. And there are only two mission objectives, Annihilation and Seize Ground.
Tactical Gambit sounds stupid, imo. If you don't go first, you get 'Strategems' and you go back and forth, betting Strategic Points? WTF?
18153
Post by: tree667
any word on assaults out of deepstrike?
25300
Post by: Absolutionis
Ooh.
"Patch Up" on pg76 is a wonderfully elegant way to stop annoying people playing musical-wounds.
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
puma713 wrote:Tactical Gambit sounds stupid, imo. If you don't go first, you get 'Strategems' and you go back and forth, betting Strategic Points? WTF?
Werid... we heard a rumour about that a while ago.
19754
Post by: puma713
The first paragraph of this text makes it sound like a supplement, not a rulebook:
Leaked Text wrote:If you are reading this, you are probably either a veteran of a
hundred games or have already mastered the basic rules and are up for a new
challenge.
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.
Automatically Appended Next Post: H.B.M.C. wrote:puma713 wrote:Tactical Gambit sounds stupid, imo. If you don't go first, you get 'Strategems' and you go back and forth, betting Strategic Points? WTF?
Werid... we heard a rumour about that a while ago.
Did you download it?
21196
Post by: agnosto
The whole evasion thing smacks of more, "I know, let's make the sci-fi game even less about shooting high-tech weapons and more about melee."
Lots of things borrowed from fantasy, shooting to hit penalties, look out sir (sergeant) etc... Stand and shoot (defensive fire)....
Love directed hits, bye bye nob with klaw hiding in unit of boyz or sergeant with fist (as long as they have the same saves as the rest of the unit).
827
Post by: Cruentus
agnosto wrote:The whole evasion thing smacks of more, "I know, let's make the sci-fi game even less about shooting high-tech weapons and more about melee."
Lots of things borrowed from fantasy, shooting to hit penalties, look out sir (sergeant) etc...
Evasion is only for shooting. Basically, the bigger and less mobile, the lower your evasion (easier to hit with ranged weaponry). The smaller and faster you are, the higher your evasion (harder to hit). And it is calculated when you are shot at.
With re: to the eternal warrior and ID 'levels' it actually makes for better game design are more nuance in various weapons, and for making some creatures/characters even more durable (ie not able to be IDd at all)
38789
Post by: Deathly Angel
My computer doesn't have any program that supports it; would anyone by willing to make an Adobe Reader version?
827
Post by: Cruentus
Well, we made it to page 2 before the 'sky is falling' started. I would like to thank the early posters for starting a measured discussion.
We will now return to the end of the world as we know it.
33541
Post by: Rented Tritium
If this is a hoax, the hoaxer has earned my attention with the work put into it.
It seems too good to be true, so I'm not taking it super seriously, but I'll be damned if I'm not going to read the whole thing.
21196
Post by: agnosto
Deathly Angel wrote:My computer doesn't have any program that supports it; would anyone by willing to make an Adobe Reader version?
It's already in adobe, you need to unrar it. Download winrar or the like.
BLAST SIZES
Blast marker come in different sizes.
The diameter of the blast marker is
clearly indicated in the weapon’s
profile. The following notations are
used for the four most common sizes.
Type Diameter
Blast 3”
Large Blast 5”
Massive Blast 7”
Target unit is swarm. 10”
Bye bye swarms! lol
And for my fellow Tau players:
Rail
Some arcane weapons fire high powered shots
that are nigh unstoppable. Even several meters of
stone are pierced with ease. Psionic lances, alien
sonic weapons and of course the Tau weapons of
the same name count to the most common
weapons of this type.
If a model fires a rail weapon, mark one point on
the table within range but not necessarily in line
of sight. At least one model of the target unit
(and no friendly model or model locked in
combat) must be under the line between the
firing model and the marker. Roll to hit against
the EV of the target unit. If the rail weapon hits,
the marker stays in place. If you roll a miss, the
marker scatters as described on page 83. If the
marker scatters and reaches a table edge, it stops
there.
Once the marker has reached its final position,
draw an imaginary line between the firing model
and marker. A unit receives one hit for every
model in the unit that is under the line, even if
the firing model cannot see the unit. Determine
the cover save as normal; models that are not
visible for the squad leader of the firing model
receive a 4+ cover save.
Multiple Rail Weapons
If a unit is firing more than one rail weapons,
resolve each shot, one at a time, as described
above, determining and recording how many hits
are scored by each template. Finally, fire any
other weapon in the unit, then add up all of the
hits and roll to wound.
Indirect rail weapons
If the rail weapon is indirect as well, units receive
only cover saves if they are in terrain. Because rail
weapons can fire on units without line of sight
anyway, those parts of the indirect rule
33033
Post by: kenshin620
Hmm idk, the skeptical part of my brain has its alarms beeping everywhere. I can easily see a group of 5 or so friends spending a week typing this up, taking various rumors out there for 6th and combing it with their own ideas. I applaud their effort if its fake though, I think quite a bit of it is well written although I only skimmed. It would make a great "Fan 40k" if you're into these rules
If its a rough draft though of whats to come though, very interesting
19754
Post by: puma713
So, I just have to work this out in in writing.
Tactical Gambit - one person starts with a bet (can be 0 Strategic Points) and the players go back and forth betting Strategic Points until one "bails out". Whoever bails out is the 'loser'. The winner is the person that chooses who goes first. The loser can take his 'bet' and spend his points on Strategems.
Then, Seize the Initiative, on a 6, the 'winner' can spend 25% of his original bet on Strategems.
Some Strategems include making it Night Fighting the entire game (see ya, Imotekh), giving USRs to some of your units, buying a Fortification, Preliminary Bombardment, etc., etc.
My head is spinning.
45116
Post by: bombboy1252
I'm not completely sold that this is legitimate. Mostly because of this.....
PREFERRED ENEMY
Universal Damage special rule
Some warriors are able to predict the moves of
the enemies they are used to fight. They have
developed special techniques that enable them to
counter such enemies more effectively. Such
troops hit always on a roll of 3+ for Shooting and
Combat actions against their preferred enemy. If
they would hit on a 3+ anyway, they hit on a 2+
instead. This ability cannot be used against
vehicles. Vehicles don’t show emotions and are
unpredictable for this reason.
If a shooting unit with this ability targets a unit
that is not a preferred enemy, check if the unit
could have successfully targeted a preferred
enemy instead (i.e. it is in range, in line of sight
and is not out of distance for the Veiled special
rule, etc). If a model in the unit attacks a unit that
is not a preferred enemy, check if it could have
attacked a preferred enemy instead. If the model
or unit could have attacked or shot at a preferred
enemy (even if it could not damage it), the unit
loses this special rule for the rest of the game.
411
Post by: whitedragon
It looks very shooting oriented. You get to make an Overwatch or defensive fire action when assaulted in most cases, or when a unit deep strikes within 12", and then still get to perform your normal shooting action.
Very shooting focused. Also, don't be stationary (like long fangs) because you're easier to hit as well.
Seems to me like this will make assault armies even less viable in 6th edition.
21462
Post by: Ehsteve
puma713 wrote:The first paragraph of this text makes it sound like a supplement, not a rulebook:
Leaked Text wrote:If you are reading this, you are probably either a veteran of a
hundred games or have already mastered the basic rules and are up for a new
challenge.
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.
there appear to be 'introductory rules' which are not included. What these are I cannot imagine. For all we know the 'introductory rules' could be the small tutorial game at the local GW (as a ploy to bring more people into the stores) or part of the upcomming starter set (whatever it might be).
19754
Post by: puma713
kenshin620 wrote:Hmm idk, the skeptical part of my brain has its alarms beeping everywhere. I can easily see a group of 5 or so friends spending a week typing this up, taking various rumors out there for 6th and combing it with their own ideas
I'm hoping for this.
33541
Post by: Rented Tritium
The metadata indicates that these were created in may 2011 on the mac version of the adobe compiler. That data is pretty easy to fake, but I think it's worth bringing up either way.
Someone with better utilities than me can probably dig deeper and search the rest of the metadata for inconsistencies. I know we cracked a lot of fake magic cards that way back when I followed that mill.
39505
Post by: DeadBabySoup
im a bit worried...
5+ big mek FF saves
directed fire
and patch up....
my poor orks =(
19754
Post by: puma713
Rented Tritium wrote:The metadata indicates that these were created in may 2011 on the mac version of the adobe compiler. That data is pretty easy to fake, but I think it's worth bringing up either way.
Maybe GW leaked it themself to see what kind of "sky is falling" reaction they would get.
827
Post by: Cruentus
Several months ago there was a laundry list of leaked rumors about 6th ed. These seem to include a lot of those, and then some. If it is fake, its quite an elaborate way to go about it.
It definitely does change things up - as mentioned re: assaults being tougher, vehicles being hit more easily (at least non agile skimmers, units being removed faster (i.e. broken within 12" of an enemy at the start of your move), etc.
I haven't looked at the codex specific stuff to see what they did there.
I think Jervis said (in Standard Bearer?) that gamers like a shake up in their rules, so this might be that shake up, since3rd-4th-5th was an evolution.
19754
Post by: puma713
Cruentus wrote:Several months ago there was a laundry list of leaked rumors about 6th ed. These seem to include a lot of those, and then some. If it is fake, its quite an elaborate way to go about it.
It definitely does change things up - as mentioned re: assaults being tougher, vehicles being hit more easily (at least non agile skimmers, units being removed faster (i.e. broken within 12" of an enemy at the start of your move), etc.
I haven't looked at the codex specific stuff to see what they did there.
I think Jervis said (in Standard Bearer?) that gamers like a shake up in their rules, so this might be that shake up, since3rd-4th-5th was an evolution.
It baffles me, though, to take a system that was fairly streamlined and easy to play and complete;y upheave it. Granted, this could be a hoax, it could be early testing stages (alpha testing), or it could be extremely streamlined once you get the whole thing down. But adages like "if it's not broken, don't fix it" are adages for a reason.
49823
Post by: silent25
Leaked 6th Ed 40k rule book.
Rumor of Matt Ward canned.
Coincidence?
34976
Post by: CajunMan
Surrounded
If a single model of the unit is within 12” of an
enemy model that is not locked in combat at the
end of its own Movement phase, the whole unit is
destroyed.
Whoa. Bye Bye low leadership.
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
Well it certainly reads like a GW rulebook - tons of pages of special rules that tell you to look at other pages in the book...
827
Post by: Cruentus
puma713 wrote:Cruentus wrote:Several months ago there was a laundry list of leaked rumors about 6th ed. These seem to include a lot of those, and then some. If it is fake, its quite an elaborate way to go about it.
It definitely does change things up - as mentioned re: assaults being tougher, vehicles being hit more easily (at least non agile skimmers, units being removed faster (i.e. broken within 12" of an enemy at the start of your move), etc.
I haven't looked at the codex specific stuff to see what they did there.
I think Jervis said (in Standard Bearer?) that gamers like a shake up in their rules, so this might be that shake up, since3rd-4th-5th was an evolution.
It baffles me, though, to take a system that was fairly streamlined and easy to play and complete;y upheave it. Granted, this could be a hoax, it could be early testing stages (alpha testing), or it could be extremely streamlined once you get the whole thing down. But adages like "if it's not broken, don't fix it" are adages for a reason.
Agree, I'm not getting any younger, and massive changes and added complexity aren't my idea of fun. It could certainly be that it'll play easier once the basics are understood.
It could also be GW's typical hamfisted way to fix what they perceive as imbalances in the way the game plays - i.e. mech spam, parking lots, lots of assault, etc. Now, granted, they caused it all with their constant changes and never being able to finish a codex cycle within an edition. They also clearly 'intend' the game to play a certain way, and continue to be baffled by players who spam units, use wound allocation to make tough units, etc., all completely legal, but GW wonders "why would you do that?".
39783
Post by: theunicorn
The date code on the material is 5-17-11, it looks like it could fit into the timeline for a playtest set
38789
Post by: Deathly Angel
agnosto wrote:Deathly Angel wrote:My computer doesn't have any program that supports it; would anyone by willing to make an Adobe Reader version?
It's already in adobe, you need to unrar it. Download winrar or the like.
Thanks, I'm not all too familiar with most computer software despite my age  .
25300
Post by: Absolutionis
As a primarily Eldar/Tyranid player, the following strike me as odd:
-Monstrous Close Combat weapons are Strength 2S. My Carnifex strikes at S18 now? Even if it's max-of-10, Trygons are going to be attacking with an incredibly large amount of armor-ignoring rerollable S10 attacks.
-Eldar Scatter Lasers are 5pt less than anywhere else in the codex.
-Eldar Starcannons are +1Str.
-Eldar Farseers and Warlocks have an inexplicably innate reroll to their Invul saves.
-Bikers and Space Wolves on Thunderwolves and all dudes riding things are their original toughness value in close combat.
-Swarms have eternal warrior. They're not useless anymore!
-Instant Death Weapons and shots with double toughness are not automatically instant-death! Warriors with their W3 simply take an additional wound! They're not useless anymore! Eternal Warrior isn't also so greatly needed on MCs anymore!
1464
Post by: Breotan
I got the codex update file done but the rulebook file threw an error "corrupt file or wrong password"
53259
Post by: Mar'tacus
whitedragon wrote:
Seems to me like this will make assault armies even less viable in 6th edition.
Yeah, because 5th edition doesn't favor melee or anything...
827
Post by: Cruentus
Absolutionis wrote:As a primarily Eldar/Tyranid player, the following strike me as odd:
-Monstrous Close Combat weapons are Strength 2S. My Carnifex strikes at S18 now? Even if it's max-of-10, Trygons are going to be attacking with an incredibly large amount of armor-ignoring rerollable S10 attacks.
-Eldar Scatter Lasers are 5pt less than anywhere else in the codex.
-Eldar Starcannons are +1Str.
-Eldar Farseers and Warlocks have an inexplicably innate reroll to their Invul saves.
-Bikers and Space Wolves on Thunderwolves and all dudes riding things are their original toughness value in close combat.
-Swarms have eternal warrior. They're not useless anymore!
The Innate Reroll to invulns for eldar psykers could be their "Channelling" ability with their forcesword/spears
Swarms might also have 'Vulnerable to Blasts" which means they suffer ID from them now, so a mixed bag.
I think the others still max out at 10, but I'd have to look specifically.
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
And Kill Points based on how many points a unit costs. Just like 2nd Ed.
19754
Post by: puma713
Absolutionis wrote:*snip*
Also take a look at Beasts/Cavalry. They have a 'Move' of 7, and the Bounding Leap/Gallop rule. So they can move triple their 'Move' on a Charge action.
So, Swarms have EW and a 21" charge range? Scarabs anyone?
25300
Post by: Absolutionis
Whoa. Instant-Death changed a lot. It's no longer an outright instant-kill, but it's extra wounds dealt. Tyranids actually stand a chance against Grey Knights and their force weapons now.
Warriors can actually take a krak missile the the face and still be standing (barely).
30167
Post by: BoyMac
Wound allocation on page 35 is way different! Now it it based on armour saves rather then wargear. In the example given, a 5 man tactical squad is wounded 8 times. The models in the unit is a sergeant, a flamer and a missile launcher. They allocated 2 wounds to the sergeant because he had a different save and 6 to the remaining 4 modes. The sergeant dies and the other four took 3 wounds and the player chose to have the missile launcher live. This can benefit a lot of armies and lower the effectiveness of cheesy nob units and such.
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
Multi-Targeting.
(/thread)
That rule alone fixes my single biggest complaint of 3rd-5th Editions. If that is real, I could actually see myself playing 'official' 40K again.
19754
Post by: puma713
H.B.M.C. wrote:Multi-Targeting.
(/thread)
That rule alone fixes my single biggest complaint of 3rd-5th Editions. If that is real, I could actually see myself playing 'official' 40K again.
Too bad there are other rules that will create brand new gripes. 'Tactical Gambit' alone may have me turning away, if this is true.
21196
Post by: agnosto
puma713 wrote:Absolutionis wrote:*snip*
Also take a look at Beasts/Cavalry. They have a 'Move' of 7, and the Bounding Leap/Gallop rule. So they can move triple their 'Move' on a Charge action. So, Swarms have EW and a 21" charge range? Scarabs anyone?
Yeah but any blast weapon targeting a swarm uses a Apoc size template. Take all the swarms you want, 3 marines with missile launchers clears the field. BLAST SIZES
Blast marker come in different sizes.
The diameter of the blast marker is
clearly indicated in the weapon’s
profile. The following notations are
used for the four most common sizes.
Type Diameter
Blast 3”
Large Blast 5”
Massive Blast 7”
Target unit is swarm. 10”
25300
Post by: Absolutionis
agnosto wrote:puma713 wrote:Absolutionis wrote:*snip*
Also take a look at Beasts/Cavalry. They have a 'Move' of 7, and the Bounding Leap/Gallop rule. So they can move triple their 'Move' on a Charge action.
So, Swarms have EW and a 21" charge range? Scarabs anyone?
Yeah but any blast weapon targeting a swarm uses a Apoc size template. Take all the swarms you want, 3 marines with missile launchers clears the field.
That really seems justified and fluffy. If I'm throwing hordes of Rippers or Scarabs at you, the shrapnel from an explosion should be able to clear them rather well. I like it this way.
The question is whether or not this Swarm thing can make blast weapons explode into non-swarm units. If I have a single ripper standing around and you decide to shoot at it with a Frag missile, are you suddenly launching Apocalypse-Sized Blast Templates at my entire army centered on the swarm?
19754
Post by: puma713
It is interesting that everything to do with a unit is handled by the Squad Leader:
Leaked Text wrote:
Whenever one of your units must take a
Characteristic test, use the respective value of
the squad leader.
When a unit checks if an enemy unit is in cover,
use the perspective of the squad leader.
If you check if an enemy unit is in point blank
range, your squad leader must be within 12” of
the unit.
To determine in which vehicle’s facing a unit is,
use the squad leader’s position.
And if your squad leader dies, your opponent gets to choose which model leads the squad next. Unless there is an icon or standard bearer, then he immediately becomes the squad leader and a Character.
This seems more and more salty. . .
21196
Post by: agnosto
That was my thought as well; don't recall reading anything about it. I'll have another look.
6005
Post by: Death By Monkeys
Medium of Death wrote:Necrons are missing from that Codex update...
That's because they were written with 6E in mind and don't need an update.
7637
Post by: Sasori
If this is a Hoax, people sure put a lot of effort into it.
I really like some of the changes I've read about, but I'm not going to become vested in this.
31962
Post by: lucasbuffalo
Space Marine power armor= 2+ save according to this.
Not saying wtf, but wtf.
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
Opponent chooses who leads? Ok that and Tactical Gambit just sounds really dippy to me.
"Ha! Your Company Commander just died. Now Mr. Lasgunner leads your Command Squad."
"But I have a Commissar in that unit! And a Fleet Commander!"
"Nope. Mr. Lasgunner is now in charge."
"Fine whatever. You bid so high that I've got 8 million SP's to spend on all sorts of crap..."
19754
Post by: puma713
Here you go, H.B.M.C., new Squadron rules:
Leaked Text wrote:
The crews of a squadron help each other to fix
superficial damage. Whenever a vehicle in a
squadron suffers a Crew - Shaken, Crew - Stunned
or Damaged - Immobilised result, roll a D6 and
add +1 for each vehicle in the squadron after the
first to the roll. If the result is a 5 or more, the
damage is ignored. On any other result, the
whole squadron suffers the result. An unmodified
roll of 1 is always a failure. If the squadron
consists of only one vehicle, it cannot use this
ability, obviously. Protective wargear and abilities
cannot prevent the other vehicles from being
affected. To keep things as easy as possible, the
roll is made directly after the damage from the
shooting or attacking unit has been completely
resolved.
4412
Post by: George Spiggott
I'm liking what I'm reading. There are some real improvements here.
Now all they have to do is give Imperial Guard sergeants their lasguns back (and option to take Bolters) and I'll be a happy man.
53259
Post by: Mar'tacus
Are Tau in the codex update part perhaps?
21196
Post by: agnosto
Mar'tacus wrote:Are Tau in the codex update part perhaps?
Yep. Some nice changes especially with the railgun rules.
6646
Post by: Morathi's Darkest Sin
Sounds like some serious changes if at all accurate. Would love to download it, but will save my sanity in case it is all fake. Happy to read what folks are putting in here mind.
25300
Post by: Absolutionis
Hah!
"Note: Vehicle drivers, gunners and other crew are
considered killed if their vehicle is destroyed
(either result). We recommend the Warhammer
40,000 Vehicle Damage Dice to keep track of the
the various damage results."
Uncle GW sez: buy our stuff
This alone makes me believe that this is real. Either that, or the hoaxer both spent a lot of time (and earned my time reading this) and they have a great sense of sardonic humor.
Morathi's Darkest Sin wrote:Sounds like some serious changes if at all accurate. Would love to download it, but will save my sanity in case it is all fake.
Well, it's a lot of stuff and it's rather well-made. If someone spent this much time, they, at worst, earned some of your time.
Ultimately, if this is a hoax, the hoaxer is the loser here for both spending so much time on a fanbook and making a fanbook better than what GW will inevitably release.
34595
Post by: Soul of Iron
I'm kind of floored by these rules. I may dust off my nids after all.
SoI
19754
Post by: puma713
Morathi's Darkest Sin wrote:Would love to download it, but will save my sanity in case it is all fake.
Don't do it. I'm already regretting it.
53259
Post by: Mar'tacus
agnosto wrote:Mar'tacus wrote:Are Tau in the codex update part perhaps?
Yep. Some nice changes especially with the railgun rules.
I saw someone posted that. Seems pretty cool.
I wonder how Broadsides will work then? If they benefit from this a lot, then I may be getting some instead of the full mech I run with my Hammerheads
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
So do we start taking bets on how long it'll be until Blackmoor starts posting BatReps with these rules?
19754
Post by: puma713
Running just doubles your 'Move' rate. So, normal Infantry have a 'Move' of 6 and a run of 12. However:
Leaked Text wrote:
FLEET
Movement special rule
There are many variants of this rule: Fleet of Foot,
Fleet of Claw, even Fleet of Hoof. Title aside, units
with this ability add 2” to the Move value of their
unit type. For example, infantry with Fleet can
move 8” during a Combat move and run 16”.
39783
Post by: theunicorn
I am throwing my hat in the ring, I think this was/is a playtest copy that GW made. Judging by the mid May date on the file it may be a little different but I can see most of this showing up.
11311
Post by: MasticatorDeelux
To to bed, /tg/!
Or, y'know, not...
19754
Post by: puma713
H.B.M.C. wrote:So do we start taking bets on how long it'll be until Blackmoor starts posting BatReps with these rules?
Sure. Whaddya say, 8 strategic points?
34242
Post by: -Loki-
If GW wanted to be spiteful, they could throw in a few bandaid patches into 5th edition, release it as 6th edition, just to annoy people who like this.
19754
Post by: puma713
Ha! FNP fails on a AP1, AP2 and AP3 weapons, and weapons that cause Instant Death.
14152
Post by: CT GAMER
The new wound allocation rules should make all non-ork players happy...
"Alpha Strike" attack option at INT10 is interesting...
21196
Post by: agnosto
Mar'tacus wrote:agnosto wrote:Mar'tacus wrote:Are Tau in the codex update part perhaps?
Yep. Some nice changes especially with the railgun rules.
I saw someone posted that. Seems pretty cool.
I wonder how Broadsides will work then? If they benefit from this a lot, then I may be getting some instead of the full mech I run with my Hammerheads
Well considering the Multi-Tracker would convey the Multi-Targeting(2) rule on the equipped model, you'd be able to fire your twin-linked railgun 4 times if you didn't move the previous turn...
19754
Post by: puma713
Instant Death has a rubric - it doesn't just statically remove 1 extra wound.
If the strength of the weapon is 4 higher than the model, the model loses 1 extra wound. 5 higher, the model loses 2 extra wounds.
6251
Post by: NecronLord3
Looks pretty legit to me actually. Nice change to sweeping advance for necrons. Puts them on par with everyone else and only makes it easy for the enemy to get away from lower initiative units.
53259
Post by: Mar'tacus
agnosto wrote:Mar'tacus wrote:agnosto wrote:Mar'tacus wrote:Are Tau in the codex update part perhaps?
Yep. Some nice changes especially with the railgun rules.
I saw someone posted that. Seems pretty cool.
I wonder how Broadsides will work then? If they benefit from this a lot, then I may be getting some instead of the full mech I run with my Hammerheads
Well considering the Multi-Tracker would convey the Multi-Targeting(2) rule on the equipped model, you'd be able to fire your twin-linked railgun 4 times if you didn't move the previous turn...
Sweet Jesus, I'm getting some then. Prolly springing for Forgeworld even...
I need a unit of them anyway, even if this is fake.
14152
Post by: CT GAMER
NecronLord3 wrote:Looks pretty legit to me actually. Nice change to sweeping advance for necrons. Puts them on par with everyone else and only makes it easy for the enemy to get away from lower initiative units.
Ork rokkits still AP3 yet marine power armour went to 2+  We might as will use them as clubs now...
2776
Post by: Reecius
live blogging this as we read it on
www.frontlinegaming.org
and
Blood of Kittens!
19754
Post by: puma713
CajunMan wrote:Surrounded
If a single model of the unit is within 12” of an
enemy model that is not locked in combat at the
end of its own Movement phase, the whole unit is
destroyed.
Whoa. Bye Bye low leadership.
Yeah, but you're not destroyed until the end of your movement phase. So, if you break in the assault phase and you run, you won't test to be destroyed until the end of your following movement phase. And since 'Run' is a move action now (and not a shooting action), a normal infantry unit would be able to run 12" away.
21196
Post by: agnosto
CT GAMER wrote:NecronLord3 wrote:Looks pretty legit to me actually. Nice change to sweeping advance for necrons. Puts them on par with everyone else and only makes it easy for the enemy to get away from lower initiative units.
Ork rokkits still AP3 yet marine power armour went to 2+ We might as will use them as clubs now...
What, you don't already?
53259
Post by: Mar'tacus
CT GAMER wrote:NecronLord3 wrote:Looks pretty legit to me actually. Nice change to sweeping advance for necrons. Puts them on par with everyone else and only makes it easy for the enemy to get away from lower initiative units.
Ork rokkits still AP3 yet marine power armour went to 2+ We might as will use them as clubs now...
*gasp*
The plot (armor) thickens!
Maybe they'll stop beating around the bush and release a new chapter called the Mary Sues...codex by Ward, of course.
20774
Post by: pretre
Aren't these the same 'leaks' that came out last time, just in a doc file this time?
21196
Post by: agnosto
pretre wrote:Aren't these the same 'leaks' that came out last time, just in a doc file this time?
But...it's a pdf...
11
Post by: ph34r
Rail
Some arcane weapons fire high powered shots
that are nigh unstoppable. Even several meters of
stone are pierced with ease. Psionic lances, alien
sonic weapons and of course the Tau weapons of
the same name count to the most common
weapons of this type.
If a model fires a rail weapon, mark one point on
the table within range but not necessarily in line
of sight. At least one model of the target unit
(and no friendly model or model locked in
combat) must be under the line between the
firing model and the marker. Roll to hit against
the EV of the target unit. If the rail weapon hits,
the marker stays in place. If you roll a miss, the
marker scatters as described on page 83. If the
marker scatters and reaches a table edge, it stops
there.
Once the marker has reached its final position,
draw an imaginary line between the firing model
and marker. A unit receives one hit for every
model in the unit that is under the line, even if
the firing model cannot see the unit. Determine
the cover save as normal; models that are not
visible for the squad leader of the firing model
receive a 4+ cover save.
14152
Post by: CT GAMER
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
19754
Post by: puma713
silent25 wrote:Leaked 6th Ed 40k rule book.
Rumor of Matt Ward canned.
Coincidence?
Heh heh, maybe Matt Ward really was fired, and he leaked it!
18032
Post by: jspyd3rx
Ugh, nid Doom just got a massive buff with the way instant death works. That creature is gonna be unstoppable:(
19754
Post by: puma713
CT GAMER wrote:
Land raiders just got more badass
And easy to hit too! They have an EV of 1.
14152
Post by: CT GAMER
All weapons fire by units made from inside a transport is limited to 18" range...
21196
Post by: agnosto
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.
25232
Post by: mrfantastical
BoyMac wrote:Wound allocation on page 35 is way different! Now it it based on armour saves rather then wargear. In the example given, a 5 man tactical squad is wounded 8 times. The models in the unit is a sergeant, a flamer and a missile launcher. They allocated 2 wounds to the sergeant because he had a different save and 6 to the remaining 4 modes. The sergeant dies and the other four took 3 wounds and the player chose to have the missile launcher live. This can benefit a lot of armies and lower the effectiveness of cheesy nob units and such.
Yeah that cheesy nob unit thing didn't help against grey knight force weapon shenanigans. Also if you can single out any model in a unit, and overwatch before combat than it looks like it's time to sell off my Orks. Greenskinz didn't have a lot of things going for them, and this just took what we did have away.
19754
Post by: puma713
Hm, they changed Weapon Skills - now you can have a 2+ to hit in HtH or a 6+.
2304
Post by: Steelmage99
Where did the Power Armour is 2+ come from? Can't seem to find it in either doc.
19754
Post by: puma713
jspyd3rx wrote:Ugh, nid Doom just got a massive buff with the way instant death works. That creature is gonna be unstoppable:(
Wow, yeah. Didn't think about him. Even hitting him with a Str. 8 weapon is only going to cause an extra wound. My Doom would stay around 8-10 wounds normally. So, if he got hit by 4 Krak Missiles and failed all of his 3++, he'd take 8 wounds, where it may have only taken 1 to kill him before.
20774
Post by: pretre
agnosto wrote:pretre wrote:Aren't these the same 'leaks' that came out last time, just in a doc file this time?
But...it's a pdf...
PDFs are a type of document...
34243
Post by: Blacksails
Squadron rules made me smile.
Time to dust off my 7 russes and acquire two more...
14152
Post by: CT GAMER
Stratagems are part of setting up a game. Many allow you to add terrain and fortifications, etc.
KP is variable now and based on unit cost now (Praise the emperor).
21196
Post by: agnosto
pretre wrote:agnosto wrote:pretre wrote:Aren't these the same 'leaks' that came out last time, just in a doc file this time?
But...it's a pdf...
PDFs are a type of document...
Not to be an arse but usually when someone says "doc" in relation to electronic media, it's in regards to a .doc file or a file produced via MS Word. Neither here nor there, you can be right if you want to.
19754
Post by: puma713
Steelmage99 wrote:Where did the Power Armour is 2+ come from? Can't seem to find it in either doc.
I think it is a misprint, because they say 3+ in the blurb right below the box.
14152
Post by: CT GAMER
mrfantastical wrote:BoyMac wrote:Wound allocation on page 35 is way different! Now it it based on armour saves rather then wargear. In the example given, a 5 man tactical squad is wounded 8 times. The models in the unit is a sergeant, a flamer and a missile launcher. They allocated 2 wounds to the sergeant because he had a different save and 6 to the remaining 4 modes. The sergeant dies and the other four took 3 wounds and the player chose to have the missile launcher live. This can benefit a lot of armies and lower the effectiveness of cheesy nob units and such.
Yeah that cheesy nob unit thing didn't help against grey knight force weapon shenanigans. Also if you can single out any model in a unit, and overwatch before combat than it looks like it's time to sell off my Orks. Greenskinz didn't have a lot of things going for them, and this just took what we did have away.
it was in fact one of the few things that they had going for them comparable to the cheese of other codexes....
21196
Post by: agnosto
CT GAMER wrote:mrfantastical wrote:BoyMac wrote:Wound allocation on page 35 is way different! Now it it based on armour saves rather then wargear. In the example given, a 5 man tactical squad is wounded 8 times. The models in the unit is a sergeant, a flamer and a missile launcher. They allocated 2 wounds to the sergeant because he had a different save and 6 to the remaining 4 modes. The sergeant dies and the other four took 3 wounds and the player chose to have the missile launcher live. This can benefit a lot of armies and lower the effectiveness of cheesy nob units and such.
Yeah that cheesy nob unit thing didn't help against grey knight force weapon shenanigans. Also if you can single out any model in a unit, and overwatch before combat than it looks like it's time to sell off my Orks. Greenskinz didn't have a lot of things going for them, and this just took what we did have away.
it was in fact one of the few things that they had going for them comparable to the cheese of other codexes....
Shhh, if he wants to quit, I'll buy his Orks for $20. Automatically Appended Next Post: puma713 wrote:Steelmage99 wrote:Where did the Power Armour is 2+ come from? Can't seem to find it in either doc.
I think it is a misprint, because they say 3+ in the blurb right below the box.
In the paragraph it says 3+, the 2+ might be a typo.
20774
Post by: pretre
agnosto wrote:Not to be an arse but usually when someone says "doc" in relation to electronic media, it's in regards to a .doc file or a file produced via MS Word. Neither here nor there, you can be right if you want to.
You're right, I can. Largely becaues doc without the . in front of it is usually short for document. Thanks though.
11973
Post by: Slackermagee
I can see this being one of four things:
>The actual play-test version of 6th edition
>A copy someone leaked spitefully in an attempt to Ward off complexity in the game
>A copy someone leaked hoping to garner enthusiasm for 6th edition rules changes (and I am completely behind a little more complexity here)
>A very elaborate April Fools Day joke that will spool out for many many more weeks.
20774
Post by: pretre
Also, no codex update for SoB. Seems strange.
21196
Post by: agnosto
pretre wrote:agnosto wrote:Not to be an arse but usually when someone says "doc" in relation to electronic media, it's in regards to a .doc file or a file produced via MS Word. Neither here nor there, you can be right if you want to.
You're right, I can. Largely becaues doc without the . in front of it is usually short for document. Thanks though.
In your world maybe. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DOC_(computing)
Dare ya to google "doc" and see how many results refer to just "document". Anyway, like I said, go ahead and be right it appears to be important to you.
At all:
I'm off to bed so you folks messaging me for copies of the pdfs will have to find someone else.
Enjoy!
19754
Post by: puma713
CT GAMER wrote:Stratagems are part of setting up a game. Many allow you to add terrain and fortifications, etc.
Yeah, and you have to start each game with a betting game to see who'll go first/who gets SPs. You know there will be players that will always want SPs. Who cares about going first, when you can spend 12 SPs to make the ENTIRE GAME night fighting?
I, as a Tyranid general, will start the bidding at 12, just so I know that when I lose, I will be able to do that.
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
CT GAMER wrote:Stratagems are part of setting up a game. Many allow you to add terrain and fortifications, etc.
KP is variable now and based on unit cost now (Praise the emperor).
It's almost enough to make me care about 40K again (the game I mean, not the universe... never stopped caring about that).
I don't think the 'bidding' shenanigans is necessary - why not make the SP variable like the KP? A single D6 roll like 1-2: Gain 1 SP for every 1000 points in your army, 3-4: Gain 1 SP for every 500 points in your army, 5-6: Gain 1 SP for every 200 points in your army.
26489
Post by: Revarien
pretre wrote:Also, no codex update for SoB. Seems strange.
We is sad pandas :(
19754
Post by: puma713
Reserves have changed a bit too. You have a pool of dice - one for each unit in reserve. But you can assign up to 3 of your dice to your units to bring them in. Example:
I have 9 Squads in reserve, so my Reserve Pool is 9 dice. But I only want 3 units to come in this turn. Therefore, I simply give 3 dice to the 3 units I want in. As long as one of those 3 dice roll a 4+ on Turn 2, I get them in.
Basically, you can manage your reserves now.
14152
Post by: CT GAMER
Another thing I was overjoyed to see: woods/forests/etc. are classified as "dense" again meaning you can't draw LOS through them!!!
You actually might have to maneouver again rather then set up shop in a parking lot... Automatically Appended Next Post: puma713 wrote:Reserves have changed a bit too. You have a pool of dice - one for each unit in reserve. But you can assign up to 3 of your dice to your units to bring them in. Example:
I have 9 Squads in reserve, so my Reserve Pool is 9 dice. But I only want 3 units to come in this turn. Therefore, I simply give 3 dice to the 3 units I want in. As long as one of those 3 dice roll a 4+ on Turn 2, I get them in.
Basically, you can manage your reserves now.
I like this. Automatically Appended Next Post: H.B.M.C. wrote:CT GAMER wrote:Stratagems are part of setting up a game. Many allow you to add terrain and fortifications, etc.
KP is variable now and based on unit cost now (Praise the emperor).
It's almost enough to make me care about 40K again (the game I mean, not the universe... never stopped caring about that).
I don't think the 'bidding' shenanigans is necessary - why not make the SP variable like the KP? A single D6 roll like 1-2: Gain 1 SP for every 1000 points in your army, 3-4: Gain 1 SP for every 500 points in your army, 5-6: Gain 1 SP for every 200 points in your army.
Agreed.
And yes, The bidding seems a little unneeded, but we'll see...
17152
Post by: Andrew1975
I like a lot of this actually. I was hoping for a return to shooting and weapons modifiers instead of cover saves, but there are some interesting concepts here.
25580
Post by: Maelstrom808
The various Codex books and supplements use
different terms for casualties at times. A model
may be destroyed, killed, incapacitated, removed
from play or removed as a casualty. All these
terms refer to the same thing. The model is taken
from the table and does no longer take part in
the game unless it has a special rule that says
otherwise (e.g. Necrons). If a unit is destroyed,
every model in it is removed as a casualty.
Yay for this being clarified finally...
18032
Post by: jspyd3rx
No more half strength on blast markers if the hole isn't over a vehicle. Instead, its a -3.
33033
Post by: kenshin620
Revarien wrote:pretre wrote:Also, no codex update for SoB. Seems strange.
We is sad pandas :(
Not even possibly fake rules care about them
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
jspyd3rx wrote:No more half strength on blast markers if the hole isn't over a vehicle. Instead, its a -3.
I probably would have gone with the simpler "Can only ever glance if the centre dot is not touching", but -3 is better than nothing.
Again, fixes a rule I hated from 4th/5th.
34242
Post by: -Loki-
CT GAMER wrote:Another thing I was overjoyed to see: woods/forests/etc. are classified as "dense" again meaning you can't draw LOS through them!!!
You actually might have to maneouver again rather then set up shop in a parking lot...
Seriously? This is official now? My friend and I always played forest like this, ever since 3rd edition. It's the best way to block fire lines down the table without covering it in 3 story tall buildings.
20774
Post by: pretre
Don't know where you got the hair up your ass, but read the article:
Wikipedia wrote:DOC (computing)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article is outdated. Please update this article to reflect recent events or newly available information. Please see the talk page for more information. (October 2009)
In computing, DOC or doc (an abbreviation of 'document') is a filename extension for word processing documents; most commonly for Microsoft Word. Historically, the extension was used for documentation in plain-text format, particularly of programs or computer hardware, on a wide range of operating systems.
There you go. Outdated Wiki article that says exactly what I said, that Doc is also an abbreviation for doc that has also been used to represent formats for a large number of programs.
Dare ya to google "doc" and see how many results refer to just "document". Anyway, like I said, go ahead and be right it appears to be important to you.
Top result was for Google Documents. 8th result for your Wiki article and the rest had nothing to do with documents or .doc.
Either way, what's your beef?
33033
Post by: kenshin620
Whoa dude, dont copy paste the whole darn thing! 
14863
Post by: MasterSlowPoke
edit: jesus christ someone delete that post
pretre wrote:Also, no codex update for SoB. Seems strange.
If it was really written in May, then the lack of SoB and Necrons (and Black Templar...) makes sense, as those books weren't finalized yet.
32849
Post by: Mechanicum Jon
Been browsing through and noticed this interesting hint of a new Tyranid unit (that agrees with the 'nid unit in WD rumors that have been going around):
"There is a wide variety of transports on the
battlefields of Warhammer 40,000 - the staunch
Rhinos of the Imperium of Man, the lightning fast
Raiders of the Dark Eldar, or the caterpillar-like
Cerebores of the Tyranid swarm fleets."
20774
Post by: pretre
MasterSlowPoke wrote:edit: jesus christ someone delete that post
pretre wrote:Also, no codex update for SoB. Seems strange.
If it was really written in May, then the lack of SoB and Necrons (and Black Templar...) makes sense, as those books weren't finalized yet.
But it has Tesla weapons?
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
pretre, enough with the 'doc' stuff! No one cares. You're just making this go on longer and going off-topic.
20774
Post by: pretre
H.B.M.C. wrote:pretre, enough! No one cares. You're just making this go on longer and going off-topic.
Aww, but you care, H.B.M.C! At least enough to berate me.
18032
Post by: jspyd3rx
Look at fire sweep special rule.
A model with a suitable weapon may execute a
fire sweep instead of its normal attacks if its unit
has assaulted this turn. The model makes D6
attacks regardless of its Attack value or any bonus
attacks. The attacks are made at the Initiative
value of the model and hit automatically. Roll
separately to determine how many attacks the
model makes if it assaults again in a later turn.
the restrictions of these conditions
Could pyrovores be viable?
33033
Post by: kenshin620
Mechanicum Jon wrote:Been browsing through and noticed this interesting hint of a new Tyranid unit (that agrees with the 'nid unit in WD rumors that have been going around):
Cerebores of the Tyranid swarm fleets."
Apparently, they exist in the 40k card game
Someone's interpretation of it
29784
Post by: timetowaste85
Sad to see there is nothing on my favorite marine chapter...but maybe that means my book is next, no? Excited for that-and to think I just grabbed the BT upgrade box for about $23 today
Haven't looked through the full "leak" yet, but I'm excited for possibilities. I prefer troops over tanks, so if the modifications are accurate, as are BT rumors, I will be enjoying my black tide something immensely...
19754
Post by: puma713
jspyd3rx wrote:
Could pyrovores be viable?
Lots of these changes seem to favor the Tyranid book, for now.
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
Flame weapons in HTH. Some of this actually reads like the stuff we've been doing for years.
26489
Post by: Revarien
kenshin620 wrote:Revarien wrote:pretre wrote:Also, no codex update for SoB. Seems strange.
We is sad pandas :(
Not even possibly fake rules care about them
I know! That's the saddening part!
In all ernest... I'm halfway though this thing... and I really really can't see much that will change sisters of battle anyway... maybe adding some SP's and some fortifications, but... er... yeah, even outflanking in my immolators won't be a problem with my Dominions (weird how the scout and outflank things are worded though... scouting units that deploy on their dedicated transport give scout to the transport and scout says it gives outflank.... but outflank says you can't outflank in a vehicle unless the vehicle had it to begin with... but.... then it's given scout so it's given outflank?! wtf?!)
Otherwise, i kinda am liking the rules... loving deep strike stuff... some cool stuff for deamons that like to drop danger close... no more 'auto destroyed', but be prepared to get torn apart by defensive fire.
8617
Post by: Hulksmash
In a way I could see it. Quite a bit of it reminds of the not horrible parts of 2nd edition. On the other hand it could be a total fake like a certain other codex formatted relatively properly. And speaking of formatting it's kinda all over the place.
I'd be interested. Though I haven't gotten to the bidding thing that would be something I'd hope that could be avoided in a tournament format since it would add lots of time to the game.
18032
Post by: jspyd3rx
Bwahaha, Termagaunts with preferred enemy? Naw, that ain't broken.Oh, flame weapons work on transports.
19754
Post by: puma713
Ha - seems like they took all of the neat Necron powers and turned them into Strategems. Night Fighting for the game, making the enemy be in Difficult Terrain, etc.
And I love that some of the strategems require you to bring the terrain piece with you to the game! The GW landing pad is perfect for the 'Skyshield Landing Pad' strategem!  And remember. . .
Leaked Text wrote:If you haven’t brought fitting terrain to
the game, you cannot choose this stratagem.
53259
Post by: Mar'tacus
I bet Creed's gonna be a boss in 6th ed.
He's a tactical genius, ya know.
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
puma713 wrote:Reserves have changed a bit too. You have a pool of dice - one for each unit in reserve. But you can assign up to 3 of your dice to your units to bring them in. Example:
I have 9 Squads in reserve, so my Reserve Pool is 9 dice. But I only want 3 units to come in this turn. Therefore, I simply give 3 dice to the 3 units I want in. As long as one of those 3 dice roll a 4+ on Turn 2, I get them in.
Basically, you can manage your reserves now.
I... really really like that rule. puma713 wrote:And I love that some of the strategems require you to bring the terrain piece with you to the game! The GW landing pad is perfect for the 'Skyshield Landing Pad' strategem! And remember. . .
Hey, at least the text says 'b rought' rather than 'bought'.
14152
Post by: CT GAMER
What I like about this is that the stratagem system being included allows for a lot of play variation.
They could release custom scenarios in WD with new stratagems for that scenario, or they could allow Apoc./cityfight stratagems as options as well, etc.
Lots of potential for non-standard play and variety of play game to game.
26489
Post by: Revarien
Revarien wrote:kenshin620 wrote:Revarien wrote:pretre wrote:Also, no codex update for SoB. Seems strange.
We is sad pandas :(
Not even possibly fake rules care about them
I know! That's the saddening part!
In all ernest... I'm halfway though this thing... and I really really can't see much that will change sisters of battle anyway... maybe adding some SP's and some fortifications, but... er... yeah, even outflanking in my immolators won't be a problem with my Dominions (weird how the scout and outflank things are worded though... scouting units that deploy on their dedicated transport give scout to the transport and scout says it gives outflank.... but outflank says you can't outflank in a vehicle unless the vehicle had it to begin with... but.... then it's given scout so it's given outflank?! wtf?!)
Otherwise, i kinda am liking the rules... loving deep strike stuff... some cool stuff for deamons that like to drop danger close... no more 'auto destroyed', but be prepared to get torn apart by defensive fire.
I take it back: I just read about pistols in close combat, grenades against monstrous creatures and flame weapons being incredibly boss... Sisters are gonna freaking rock face!
25580
Post by: Maelstrom808
I love that rule...one of my biggest complaints about the game is that you can't use reserves the way reserves are supposed to be used.
19754
Post by: puma713
You need a BS of 6 to hit a Flyer on 4+
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
Revarien wrote:Sisters are gonna freaking rock face!
Yeah... if you ever get a real Codex. *insert Ork equivalent of trollface.jpg here* puma713 wrote:You need a BS of 6 to hit a Flyer on 4+
Why is that a bad thing? Shooting at planes ain't easy!
10347
Post by: Fafnir
Little less than halfway through the book right now, but it looks to really favour hordey armies so far. Considering GW, not surprised.
The one thing I'm really miffed about is that with the wound allocation being fixed, my two favourite units, Nobz and Paladins, are no longer viable in a competitive environment. I understand that wound allocation needed to be fixed, but on a personal note, the two armies that I actually play frequently are now no longer any good.
34242
Post by: -Loki-
That reserves rule suddenly makes the Trygon tunnel worthwhile.
18032
Post by: jspyd3rx
Don't kill the Ethereal or Aun'Va! That will suck hard if facing Tau.
Their FAQ rocks.
25580
Post by: Maelstrom808
And lictors/deathleaper to a degree. I might actually hang onto my nids if this goes through.
19754
Post by: puma713
Interesting that ALL weapons have a profile now, even hand-to-hand weapons. It is Strength S and if it is a power weapon, it is AP2. Combat type.
Meltabombs have Str. 8, AP1. Guess that ends that debate.
26204
Post by: candy.man
At first glance, it looks like the rules might be a lot better than 5E. There seems to be a lot of add-on shooting rules that might make the shooting phase clunkier. Also at first glance, it looks like mech and wound allocation has been fixed.
The new unit sergeant rules sound interesting. I like the idea of the squad leader being the focal point for determining things. I also like the entry bit whereas icon Bearers count as the replacement Unit Leader if the sergeant has been killed.
As a side note, how many 40k rule books has Kharn the Betrayer been listed as an example in the character section? It’s been at least 2-3.
53259
Post by: Mar'tacus
jspyd3rx wrote:Don't kill the Ethereal or Aun'Va! That will suck hard if facing Tau.
Their FAQ rocks.
The official FAQ, or the update thingy?
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
It's only Preferred Enemy against the thing that killed the Ethereal, not the entire enemy army.
19754
Post by: puma713
Holy. Crap. Mobile 'Fortune'!
14863
Post by: MasterSlowPoke
pretre wrote:But it has Tesla weapons?
Hm, yeah it does, and it mentions the Catacomb Command Barge too. It would make sense that they'd have some ideas/concepts down this early (the lead time for plastic models is a few years, IIRC) but not enough to do a full errata.
agnosto wrote: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.
Where do you see that you get to fire the same weapon 4 times in a single shooting phase?
puma713 wrote:Interesting that ALL weapons have a profile now, even hand-to-hand weapons. It is Strength S and if it is a power weapon, it is AP2. Combat type.
Meltabombs have Str. 8, AP1. Guess that ends that debate.
There never was a debate - for 5th edition they're not AP1, and for 6th edition (assuming these rules are accurate) they are AP1. They also need to get a better font for that S - I misread it as a 5 pretty much every time.
25580
Post by: Maelstrom808
Where do you see that you get to fire the same weapon 4 times in a single shooting phase?
He didn't read the enitre entry...
MULTI-TARGETING (X)
Individual Shooting special rule
Tanks, battle suits, jetbikes, walkers and aircraft
are all equipped with a wide array of deadly
weaponry. They are equipped with targeting
systems that allow them to fire several weapons.
These fire support systems can be enhanced
sensors, psycho-reactive matrices, artificial
intelligences computational support devices or
symbiotic organisms. In most cases the ‘targeting
system’ consists just of extra manpower - every
weapon is manned by a different crew member.
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.
The number of actions, often called multitargeting
value, can decrease during the game
through battle damage. Apply this before you
double the number for a stationary model.
Models with this special rule can carry out the
following action.
19754
Post by: puma713
Interesting. Objective-holding has changed. You get a VP for every full turn you hold on objective.
14152
Post by: CT GAMER
I found this particular blurb very intriguing:
A note to veterans
On first sight you might think that everything has changed, but if you take your time to play some games (which is always a splendid idea) you will notice that your units act basically the same as in previous editions of Warhammer 40,000. Once you have mastered the rules, a game is considerably faster than before. This enables you to play even larger battles in the same amount of time. The new rules allow us to expand the ways the game is played - first and foremost the option to give each unit its own turn instead of the usual unified player turn. Games with more than two players are now fully incorporated into the rules. Upcoming Warhammer 40,000 supplements will pick these loose ends up and present scenarios previously unthinkable.
19754
Post by: puma713
CT GAMER wrote:I found this particular blurb very intriguing:
A note to veterans
On first sight you might think that everything has changed, but if you take your time to play some games (which is always a splendid idea) you will notice that your units act basically the same as in previous editions of Warhammer 40,000. Once you have mastered the rules, a game is considerably faster than before. This enables you to play even larger battles in the same amount of time. The new rules allow us to expand the ways the game is played - first and foremost the option to give each unit its own turn instead of the usual unified player turn. Games with more than two players are now fully incorporated into the rules. Upcoming Warhammer 40,000 supplements will pick these loose ends up and present scenarios previously unthinkable.
Yeah, saw that too. One mission in the book is for 3-5 players, 1500 pts. per player.
18032
Post by: jspyd3rx
There is a wide variety of transports on the
battlefields of Warhammer 40,000 - the staunch
Rhinos of the Imperium of Man, the lightning fast
Raiders of the Dark Eldar, or the caterpillar-like
Cerebores of the Tyranid swarm fleets. Whole
battleforces rely exclusively on the mobility of
transports be it the Kult of Speed of the Orks, the
Swordwind hosts of the Eldar or the mighty Land
Raider attack forces of the Iron Hands Space
Marine Chapter.
What is this? "Cerebores "
42179
Post by: ObliviousBlueCaboose
Orks will have no armor save in hth. Basic close combat attack is ap 6...
Am digging the shooting rules. Esp that I can shoot you during your turn... Wahhahah
19754
Post by: puma713
Um wow:
If you are a model on a base, you do not grant cover to anyone behind you and you DO NOT BLOCK LOS. So if a Hive Guard is sitting behind a tervigon, I can shoot it as if the Tervigon wasn't there, and it doesn't get cover.
Leaked Text wrote:Line of sight
Firing models can always draw a line of sight
through all models with a base - just as if they
were not there. We can assume that their posture
on the base is only an approximation of their real
stance. Flyers and skimmers are too fast to block
the line of sight for more than a second and even
walkers or monstrous creatures shift their
positions often enough to be unreliable cover.
38486
Post by: Far Seer
Yay for 16 inch fleet move for Howling Banshees!
1615
Post by: Slave
Absolutionis wrote:As a primarily Eldar/Tyranid player, the following strike me as odd:
-Monstrous Close Combat weapons are Strength 2S. My Carnifex strikes at S18 now? Even if it's max-of-10, Trygons are going to be attacking with an incredibly large amount of armor-ignoring rerollable S10 attacks.
-Eldar Scatter Lasers are 5pt less than anywhere else in the codex.
-Eldar Starcannons are +1Str.
-Eldar Farseers and Warlocks have an inexplicably innate reroll to their Invul saves.
-Bikers and Space Wolves on Thunderwolves and all dudes riding things are their original toughness value in close combat.
-Swarms have eternal warrior. They're not useless anymore!
-Instant Death Weapons and shots with double toughness are not automatically instant-death! Warriors with their W3 simply take an additional wound! They're not useless anymore! Eternal Warrior isn't also so greatly needed on MCs anymore!
Yes, if these are real, suddenly, I am getting 10K points of models back out, and spending money on more hormagaunts, and a few trygons.
17152
Post by: Andrew1975
It's about time they nerfed closr comabt, if all I want is close combat I'll play WHFB.
37231
Post by: d-usa
Without having read the actual document, but judging by the comments, it seems like they made close combat more interesting.
Just from the reactions it sounds like CC is both easier with a potential for big payoffs, but also a lot riskier...
25300
Post by: Absolutionis
If these rules are true, and I Tebow-hope they're true... GW may have justified their gigastomping of non-Imperial armies all this time.
The mere fact that all these comments are so overwhelmingly positive is a great thing.
I call it now, if this leak ends up being false, the writer(s) of this .PDF are now officially the rules that all 40k players should use from now on. Ignore GW.
19754
Post by: puma713
Absolutionis wrote:
I call it now, if this leak ends up being false, the writer(s) of this .PDF are now officially the rules that all 40k players should use from now on. Ignore GW.
There's a part of me that really does believe that this is an elaborate hoax - one that was worked on by a lot of people for a while. There's just something fishy about it.
38486
Post by: Far Seer
The 'randomness' of 5ed has certainly been dumbed down. Fleet and consolidation are now set values instead of dice rolls...I like
25580
Post by: Maelstrom808
"if it's too good to be true...?"
I know, the same thing is nagging at me, but I'm going to allow myself some hope for a change.
On a side note, reading through the reserve rules, and deep strike in particular has made me a very very happy camper.
19370
Post by: daedalus
They could always come out and market the game as "Battlemallet" or something.
19445
Post by: Warboss Gutrip
jspyd3rx wrote:There is a wide variety of transports on the
battlefields of Warhammer 40,000 - the staunch
Rhinos of the Imperium of Man, the lightning fast
Raiders of the Dark Eldar, or the caterpillar-like
Cerebores of the Tyranid swarm fleets. Whole
battleforces rely exclusively on the mobility of
transports be it the Kult of Speed of the Orks, the
Swordwind hosts of the Eldar or the mighty Land
Raider attack forces of the Iron Hands Space
Marine Chapter.
What is this? "Cerebores "
My god. This "Cerebore" could be the rumored tyranid transport thingy, promised rules in the WD release...
Please, let it be so...
34618
Post by: Cryage
HOLY CRAP
Monoliths are super heavies (read the superheavies on page 96 of the .pdf, but is written "117" on the bottom right)
Heavy - Super-heavy vehicles with a single structure point are sometimes referred to as 'heavy'
-3 on the damage chart against the monolith (until you roll a natural 6 on the damage chart then that structure point is gone... then I believe its just treated as a tank which is still -1 on the damage chart)
My mind... blown
42179
Post by: ObliviousBlueCaboose
I use winrar. Its free. Google it.
26489
Post by: Revarien
Ya know... if these are real... I really really will respect them for these changes. Seriously... I am all for adding some strategic aspects to the game, as apposed to 'luckiest wins' on some games... lol.
If this is fake... it was well done and I was amused
17152
Post by: Andrew1975
If they are fake, I may use them anyway.
26241
Post by: Soo'Vah'Cha
Love the railgun rules....sun doth shine on my motorpool!
that and the new EV vs BS is a nice elegant system, looks to be a much shootier edition.
I hope at least. 
7075
Post by: chaos0xomega
I would say its fake, this is the same document that was posted about a year ago, just cleaned up and reworded to make it look more professional. Also,some of these rules are contradicted by the Necron release (the "Heavy" vehicle rule as described in the Necron Codex is not the same as the "Heavy" rule in this document for example)
Anyway, as someone else pointed out, if this is legit, it will be taken down in a few hours...
13655
Post by: combatmedic
This does look awfully fishy, but the leaked GK and even the old 5th leak look strikingly similar. I always take these rules with a grain of salt but if true, I may very well forgive GW for the last few years of crap and continue playing.
25300
Post by: Absolutionis
chaos0xomega wrote:I would say its fake, this is the same document that was posted about a year ago, just cleaned up and reworded to make it look more professional. Also,some of these rules are contradicted by the Necron release (the "Heavy" vehicle rule as described in the Necron Codex is not the same as the "Heavy" rule in this document for example)
Anyway, as someone else pointed out, if this is legit, it will be taken down in a few hours...
Someone mentioned that the datemark on this pdf is Fall-2011. The Necron Heavy rule may have changed since then.
The pdf is really comprehensive and even includes Gauss and Tesla weapons. You'd imagine the faker would have at least noticed this discrepancy.
More likely that "Heavy" just got updated between this playtest ruleset and the Necrons official release.
The reference to "heavy" in this pdf is just a casual mention of a shorthand anyways. Nothing much would change if they just erased that entry and replaced it.
23399
Post by: thunderingjove
Any major changes to ko steroid creatures, bikes or
Jump infantry?
Can figure out the download. If any one would be so kind, please email me the document at thunderingjove@yahoo.com.
52846
Post by: DeathRex
quick question, i have yet to really get into the codex and rules and am currently building a CSM army.
would waiting for the new rule book and learning from scratch benefit me more than trying to pick up the older rules and transitioning over to the new?
i ask simply due to what i have read here that the new rules seem a tad bit more complicated in some ways and to be honest i am feeling a bit overwhelmed by the current rules as im trying to wrap my brain around it and understand/commit it to memory.
1478
Post by: warboss
megatrons2nd wrote:ObliviousBlueCaboose wrote:I use winrar. Its free. Google it.
I found a free trial, but not a free version. Anyway it helped, thank you.
Now off to reading I go.
7-zip works on it and is completely free.
Still no mention of FW IA books in the army building sections explicitly allowing them without any permission needed.
FORCE ORGANISATION
Once they have agreed a points limit, the players
will pick their forces using the Codex book of the
army they have chosen and collected.
RULESET
It is important to agree with your opponents
which rules are used in the game. For most games
the standard rules presented here are probably
your first choice.
1196
Post by: HarveyDent
i can see the turn sequence changing around a bit (or reverting to 2nd edition).
keeping a running tally of your score seems more fair than just a random game-ending cutoff point.
the new wound allocation rules might work better.
#1 horrible thing about these rules:
uhhh.... the idea of standing across the table from someone trying to remember all the different movement, assault and shooting actions is daunting. every action you take has a number of associated qualifiers that allow it to interact with a list of special rules. making lists of loaded keywords for people to remember is HORRIBLE game design. HORRIBLE.
so i got through about forty pages and decided to skim for a while. this rules set is 50% larger than the last one. ick.
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
No mishap table for Deep Striking.
Yet another hated rule of mine bites the dust.
EDIT: And you roll To Hit with Blast weapons, and scatter only if they miss, not just scatter everything. So yet another hated rule of mine bites the dust.
This is so good that... that it just can't be true!
26489
Post by: Revarien
thunderingjove wrote:Any major changes to ko steroid creatures, bikes or
Jump infantry?
Can figure out the download. If any one would be so kind, please email me the document at thunderingjove@yahoo.com.
Bikes, I saw, said they only get their +1 toughness vs shooting... so there is that.
7075
Post by: chaos0xomega
Absolutionis wrote:chaos0xomega wrote:I would say its fake, this is the same document that was posted about a year ago, just cleaned up and reworded to make it look more professional. Also,some of these rules are contradicted by the Necron release (the "Heavy" vehicle rule as described in the Necron Codex is not the same as the "Heavy" rule in this document for example)
Anyway, as someone else pointed out, if this is legit, it will be taken down in a few hours...
The pdf is really comprehensive and even includes Gauss and Tesla weapons.
.
Actually this may just be the proof that this is real (good catch)... Tesla weapons didn't exist until the new Necron book came out (in November?), I dont think the rumors of the tesla rule came about until well after May 2011...
would waiting for the new rule book and learning from scratch benefit me more than trying to pick up the older rules and transitioning over to the new?
You would have to assume that these rumors are accurate... but I would say that this is a big enough change that you would basically be learning a new game... I'd learn the basics of 5th just to familiarize myself and make the transition easier, but... you know dont get too focused on the details.
42179
Post by: ObliviousBlueCaboose
I liked the deep strike mishaps.
29784
Post by: timetowaste85
H.B.M.C. wrote:No mishap table for Deep Striking.
Yet another hated rule of mine bites the dust.
Are...are you starting to approve of something GW is doing HBMC? Methinks hell has frozen over. And I just looked out my window-it's dark out, but I'm pretty sure I saw a pig go past it (I'm in a second story apt).
You know, I'm surprised none of our current white knights have stepped in to tell us this is fake-I won't name names. Their silence on the matter may suggest the level of legality, if any of them are part of GW.
I have to say though, this is a LOT of new information to take in at 2am. Some stuff is looking nice, other things look like they're too much trouble. Then again, I hate reading pdf books, so that may be making it more difficult. I'm trying to decide if a bike army is worth playing-they're harder to hit, won't suffer to ID much, but lose their bonus when in CC-a lot of units are going to be rethought now. A new age is here!! (if this rumor is true )
52846
Post by: DeathRex
chaos0xomega wrote:Absolutionis wrote:chaos0xomega wrote:
would waiting for the new rule book and learning from scratch benefit me more than trying to pick up the older rules and transitioning over to the new?
You would have to assume that these rumors are accurate... but I would say that this is a big enough change that you would basically be learning a new game... I'd learn the basics of 5th just to familiarize myself and make the transition easier, but... you know dont get too focused on the details.
thanks, i think ill do that. 
32849
Post by: Mechanicum Jon
Having finished a first read through I have to say that I'm really hoping this is real. I'm already feeling a tremendous relief that none of my existing armies got nerfed or invalidated and am instead actually really excited about all the new possibilities this opens up! In particular the reserve rules seem to improve balance to the game by allowing everyone to avoid the 1st turn alpha strike without having to worry about coming on piecemeal. Compared with currently where only really resilient armies or ones with reserve manipulation can do so.
Or someone has pulled off an epic troll.
26241
Post by: Soo'Vah'Cha
Vehicle rules are nice and comprehensive, giving each type its own USR list is again elegant, if this is not legit, we need to find its author and fund him to make a rules set.
I have skimmed my fav and most convuluted rules and found this is addressing them nicely, almost feels like a return to RT days, with the narrative rules mode.
again hope its a sign of things to come.
and BTW melta bombs are now melta as a USR in this rule set.
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
timetowaste85 wrote:Are...are you starting to approve of something GW is doing HBMC?
Look at this then look back at the rules.
Points 1, 3, 4 and 5 are all dealt with/eliminated/changed for the better.
26489
Post by: Revarien
Jeez, I'm just drooling at the idea of charging in, while using 2 flamethrowers and bolt pistols in close combat... and spending only 10pts on a power weapon to ignore armor saves and getting a 5+ parry invul save from it... wow...
25300
Post by: Absolutionis
chaos0xomega wrote:Absolutionis wrote:chaos0xomega wrote:I would say its fake, this is the same document that was posted about a year ago, just cleaned up and reworded to make it look more professional. Also,some of these rules are contradicted by the Necron release (the "Heavy" vehicle rule as described in the Necron Codex is not the same as the "Heavy" rule in this document for example)
Anyway, as someone else pointed out, if this is legit, it will be taken down in a few hours...
The pdf is really comprehensive and even includes Gauss and Tesla weapons.
.
Actually this may just be the proof that this is real (good catch)... Tesla weapons didn't exist until the new Necron book came out (in November?), I dont think the rumors of the tesla rule came about until well after May 2011...
Well, anyone can set their computer time back.
If anything, it's evidence that we're either working with the real thing or the faker is really really thorough.
29784
Post by: timetowaste85
H.B.M.C. wrote:timetowaste85 wrote:Are...are you starting to approve of something GW is doing HBMC?
Look at this then look back at the rules.
Points 1, 3, 4 and 5 are all dealt with/eliminated/changed for the better.
You know I'm teasing you, right buddy?
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
Oh I know that, but I was giving a serious answer. I have several large problems with 5th Ed, and those reasons make me not play the game. This rule set eliminates four of those problems... and I haven't really read the LOS rules yet so maybe it eliminates the other one as well.
29784
Post by: timetowaste85
I skimmed line of sight, and this is the breakdown I gathered:
Wings, tails and weapons don't count, also parts that are not directly above the base don't count-you have to draw line of sight only to portions of the model that are directly above the model's base. Sounds like an improvement to me-doesn't penalize you for cool poses on your models that go outside of the base's area.
26241
Post by: Soo'Vah'Cha
4+ cover saves are much harder to comeby in this set (only fortified barricades give a base 4+ )
And another cherry picked rule is the jetpack gets a drawback rule, allowing a 2d6" move rather than the base 6", so it gives and takes.. I like this style of rule making.
Also Rapid fire weapons shoot to max range regardeless of moving and 2 times to 12", again good shooting phases are ahead.
and this is awesome as well.
Defensive Fire
Unit Type: Support, Shooting
In dire situations soldiers excel themselves and are
able to shoot in the enemy turn. Every model in a
unit that executes a Defensive Fire action can
perform a single Shooting action. They cannot use
the multi-targeting rule but gain the relentless
shooting special rule for the duration of this
action. Every model has to fire at the target unit
that triggered the response, even if the model is
normally allowed to fire at a different target than
the unit. These Shooting actions do not impair the
ability of a model to shoot in its own Shooting
phase (except if it uses one shot weapon, of
course). Resolve the action that triggered this
action completely before you interrupt the turn
to resolve the defensive fire.
The rules for Shooting actions apply with the
following exceptions:
• If the responding unit was assaulted by the
target unit and it was not locked in combat
previously, it can shoot at the target unit. If the
units lose contact, follow the rules for lost
contact outside of the Assault phase as normal.
• When a model fires a rail or blast weapon, check
if the target is in range (and not within
minimum range). You do not have to place a
blast marker, trace a line or roll the scatter dice.
Roll to hit as normal. If the weapon hits, it
causes a single wound. Likewise, template
weapons don't use the template to see how
many enemy models are hit. Check, if the target
unit is in range by placing the template
according to the normal rules. If at least one
enemy model is partially under the template,
the unit is in range and suffers D3 automatic
hits from the weapon.
• The target unit does not have to take Morale
checks for casualties, terror or pinning resulting
from the defensive fire.
26489
Post by: Revarien
timetowaste85 wrote:I skimmed line of sight, and this is the breakdown I gathered:
Wings, tails and weapons don't count, also parts that are not directly above the base don't count-you have to draw line of sight only to portions of the model that are directly above the model's base. Sounds like an improvement to me-doesn't penalize you for cool poses on your models that go outside of the base's area.
My St. Celestine, with her massive angelic wings from Reaper, just got a nicer and slimmer profile... <3 it.
14863
Post by: MasterSlowPoke
Absolutionis wrote:]Well, anyone can set their computer time back.
If anything, it's evidence that we're either working with the real thing or the faker is really really thorough.
If a Cerobore does come out soon, though, that'd be some pretty good evidence (or a REALLY lucky guess).
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
timetowaste85 wrote:I skimmed line of sight, and this is the breakdown I gathered:
Wings, tails and weapons don't count, also parts that are not directly above the base don't count-you have to draw line of sight only to portions of the model that are directly above the model's base. Sounds like an improvement to me-doesn't penalize you for cool poses on your models that go outside of the base's area.
You can still remove models within a unit that are both out or range and out of LOS but this is mitigated by the fact that the owning player chooses casualties and wounds are divvied up based on armour groups. So no more killing Mr. Apothecary who's out of range and LOS just because you got enough hits to hit everyone in the unit and I had to allocate a wound to him. If he's 3+ and everyone else is 3+ (and assuming he has no other forms of save), you roll for all of them at once. Let us both hope and pray that this doesn't start a trend in GW Codices of them giving all squad leaders (Vet Sergeants, Exarchs, Nobz, Aspiring Champs, Shas'ui's, etc.) integral 6+ Invul Saves, 'cause that would SUCK with these rules. EDIT: Interestingly you can sink wounds with these rules as well (as the example shows), but you could kinda do that with the 5th Ed rules, so I doubt it's that big a deal.
5269
Post by: lord_blackfang
H.B.M.C. wrote:This is so good that... that it just can't be true!
Yeah... I think if this is a hoax, I'll just ignore 6th edition and play this.
It could be a publicity stunt like the BA fake leak, but I really, really hope it's real.
I'm still reading and I'm impressed... although I have to say the rules are still presented rather poorly and stuff is all over the place, the content is good.
14863
Post by: MasterSlowPoke
Does a "Zeal Bolt Pistol" exist yet? It's on the weapon summary page, but I don't remember anything like that in the BT book.
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
lord_blackfang wrote:I'm still reading and I'm impressed... although I have to say the rules are still presented rather poorly and stuff is all over the place, the content is good.
So are the Codices they put out. As I said, it wouldn't be a GW book if you didn't have to flip to three sections to find out one rule.
29784
Post by: timetowaste85
H.B.M.C. wrote:timetowaste85 wrote:I skimmed line of sight, and this is the breakdown I gathered:
Wings, tails and weapons don't count, also parts that are not directly above the base don't count-you have to draw line of sight only to portions of the model that are directly above the model's base. Sounds like an improvement to me-doesn't penalize you for cool poses on your models that go outside of the base's area.
You can still remove models within a unit that are both out or range and out of LOS but this is mitigated by the fact that the owning player chooses casualties and wounds are divvied up based on armour groups. So no more killing Mr. Apothecary who's out of range and LOS just because you got enough hits to hit everyone in the unit and I had to allocate a wound to him. If he's 3+ and everyone else is 3+ (and assuming he has no other forms of save), you roll for all of them at once. Let us both hope and pray that this doesn't start a trend in GW Codices of them giving all squad leaders (Vet Sergeants, Exarchs, Nobz, Aspiring Champs, Shas'ui's, etc.) integral 6+ Invul Saves, 'cause that would SUCK with these rules. EDIT: Interestingly you can sink wounds with these rules as well (as the example shows), but you could kinda do that with the 5th Ed rules, so I doubt it's that big a deal.
They aren't integral, but power weapons give a 5+ invul save (parry). So...you have the option of giving your sergeants that. Also, Death Company got AMAZING with these new rules!! Rage isn't so bad. Time to get me a stormraven and some more DC for my offshoot of BAs....
1478
Post by: warboss
They do fix the loop hole for people technically "cheating" by mounting older metal termies on 40mm bases by now expressly allowing you to mount a classic model on the current sized base.
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
leaked PDF wrote:If you
want to unleash the full potential of Warhammer
40,000, head over to the Narrative games section
in this book. Narrative games use the standard
rules but push the boundaries to the extreme. The
arsenal of datasheets, stratagems, missions and
terrain features available in narrative games is
several times larger than that for standard play.
A narrative games section. There's a narrative game section? Does it come with a personalised 'We're sorry for 4th and 5th' letter addressed to me, because that's what I think of when I read 'narrative game section'?
26170
Post by: davethepak
Revarien wrote:pretre wrote:Also, no codex update for SoB. Seems strange.
We is sad pandas :(
Don't be sad...there is no update more than likely because they will be getting a new dex near the same time, thus no need for an update.
Similar treatment for BT I would guess.
7075
Post by: chaos0xomega
Absolutionis wrote:chaos0xomega wrote:Absolutionis wrote:chaos0xomega wrote:I would say its fake, this is the same document that was posted about a year ago, just cleaned up and reworded to make it look more professional. Also,some of these rules are contradicted by the Necron release (the "Heavy" vehicle rule as described in the Necron Codex is not the same as the "Heavy" rule in this document for example)
Anyway, as someone else pointed out, if this is legit, it will be taken down in a few hours...
The pdf is really comprehensive and even includes Gauss and Tesla weapons.
.
Actually this may just be the proof that this is real (good catch)... Tesla weapons didn't exist until the new Necron book came out (in November?), I dont think the rumors of the tesla rule came about until well after May 2011...
Well, anyone can set their computer time back.
If anything, it's evidence that we're either working with the real thing or the faker is really really thorough.
Considering how thorough our 'faker' was with the spelling and grammar errors, I would guess that setting system time back would be a bit too thorough a job...
... either that or thats what they WANTED me to think... O_O
23399
Post by: thunderingjove
Do fearless units suffer additional wounds from failed combats? I'm not seeing it in the rules.
Also, in the codex section, the Ork Waaagh! rule is changed to all Ork Infantry units (no Grots). Does that now include jump infantry per the Ork Codex before the FAQ?
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
The spelling errors aren't anything special. This book has only gone through basic formatting and layout. Proofreading would come after that.
26489
Post by: Revarien
H.B.M.C. wrote:The spelling errors aren't anything special. This book has only gone through basic formatting and layout. Proofreading would come after that.
WELLLL after... lol.
29784
Post by: timetowaste85
Looking at the FAQ for chaos, dreadnaughts don't suck anymore-roll a 1 and they fire twice at an enemy!! Also, I think Possessed become usable-now their vehicle can scout if they have one, or they can move 8 inches instead of 6 with fleet, or keep their host of other awesome abilities. Possessed are worth taking! Methinks this current chaos codex is getting a tad bit better for the moment
18032
Post by: jspyd3rx
Can't stop noticing what a huge boost nids get from this. Now I am going, ooohh. Harpy has an evasion of 6, lol.
5119
Post by: Teh_K42
Strategic points are an interesting mechanic. It seems like it will slow down the game dramatically as slow players poke through their options before the game has started. And there doesn't seem to be anything stopping from betting one trillion strategic points. In fact, apart from the disincentive of giving your opponent more points, the only limit to betting would be the highest number you know the name of.
... If you bet high enough, there could potentially be legal games where every missed dice could be re-rolled with Battle Fate.
32322
Post by: Fuegan
If this IS from GW, they're nailing the coffin on 40k, because anyone who plays this is going to quickly see how poorly written and 'balanced' it is. I'm not talking out of my arse, there are hideously terrible things wrong in this book.
For short, Assault before shooting, making hybrid units like terminators and the entire Eldar army, awful. Assault weapons for that same reason. Squadrons of vehicles which feel more random than 3rd edition Orks. Units costing random killpoints. 'Protect the Sarge' which would just make certain armies invulnerable.
So many other things. And clearly, since GW already wrote Necrons and GKs to be compatible to 6th, we aren't going to be seeing huge army revisions like this might suggest, so please don't pull that card out.
33821
Post by: MoD_Legion
Disruptions pods changed to +5 cover save in the codex errata 
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
timetowaste85 wrote:Looking at the FAQ for chaos, dreadnaughts don't suck anymore-roll a 1 and they fire twice at an enemy!! Also, I think Possessed become usable-now their vehicle can scout if they have one, or they can move 8 inches instead of 6 with fleet, or keep their host of other awesome abilities. Possessed are worth taking! Methinks this current chaos codex is getting a tad bit better for the moment
Even with all my optimism this will never be true.
Take everything you just said back right now. The current 'Chaos' Codex is an abomination. A bland vanilla abomination.
25300
Post by: Absolutionis
thunderingjove wrote:Do fearless units suffer additional wounds from failed combats? I'm not seeing it in the rules.
Yes. It's under "No Retreat!" still.
It's more punishing in that the 'fearless wounds' ignore armor.
However, you have the option of taking a leadership check (modified by how badly you lost) in order to negate the fearless wounds. The only penalty for failing this Ld Check is you take fearless wounds.
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
Teh_K42 wrote:Strategic points are an interesting mechanic. It seems like it will slow down the game dramatically as slow players poke through their options before the game has started. And there doesn't seem to be anything stopping from betting one trillion strategic points. In fact, apart from the disincentive of giving your opponent more points, the only limit to betting would be the highest number you know the name of.
... If you bet high enough, there could potentially be legal games where every missed dice could be re-rolled with Battle Fate.
Which is why I think the 'bidding' part is an necessary complication that adds nothing to the game. Basing SP on the size of the game would be a far better solution.
45278
Post by: Tronbot2600
Teh_K42 wrote:Strategic points are an interesting mechanic. It seems like it will slow down the game dramatically as slow players poke through their options before the game has started. And there doesn't seem to be anything stopping from betting one trillion strategic points. In fact, apart from the disincentive of giving your opponent more points, the only limit to betting would be the highest number you know the name of.
... If you bet high enough, there could potentially be legal games where every missed dice could be re-rolled with Battle Fate.
I honestly can't ever imagine any sane person bidding beyond 3...after that, abilities start to get too powerful and will even negate advantages of going first.
26489
Post by: Revarien
Pg 76 of the 'rulebook'.... patch up:
This rule is for those multiwound hit squads such as paladins and nobz... since you assign who is wounded in the armor group and can spread around wounds willy-nilly and give everyone 1 if you want... this fixes that and probably allows for longevity of those models...
47578
Post by: Herr Dexter
Well, as a Necron player I do hope we eventually get rule fixes as well.
Being 6th ed ready codex, doesn't mean it's all said and written.
It seems the Necron Codex changed or was in works when this was written as this leaked rulebook mentions Tesla Weapons, for some reason they have cost listed... All tesla weapons are free in codex. Also the Pistol list (that seems to have all pistols out there) is missing Necron Particle Caster.
2 thoughts:
I totally don't get the new Preferred Enemy rule... Unless it means that my Destroyers who hate everyone would hit on 2+, as with BS4 they would hit on 3+ anyway.
Was hoping for re-roll, but this will have to do.
Deep Strike - so Flayed Ones are safe to DS 18" away but can't assault as their assault range is 12". Damn.... Optionally I can DS them with scatter, closer than 18" and risk shooting retaliation from enemy. C'mon. I hope they will get fixed to use "Deep Strike (Ambush)" rule, as otherwise this unit is still useless as f*** :/
On the other hand DS Deathmarks... 18" flawless and than shoot up to 24". Assasination in progress
41664
Post by: ShatteredBlade
H.B.M.C. wrote:No mishap table for Deep Striking.
Yet another hated rule of mine bites the dust.
EDIT: And you roll To Hit with Blast weapons, and scatter only if they miss, not just scatter everything. So yet another hated rule of mine bites the dust.
This is so good that... that it just can't be true!
Far too useful, I really doubt this is legit.
25300
Post by: Absolutionis
Herr Dexter wrote:Tesla Weapons, for some reason they have cost listed... All tesla weapons are free in codex.
That's because the Strategem Fortifications use them.
Herr Dexter wrote:I totally don't get the new Preferred Enemy rule... Unless it means that my Destroyers who hate everyone would hit on 2+, as with BS4 they would hit on 3+ anyway.
Was hoping for re-roll, but this will have to do
Not necessarily. Read the whole bunch of text regarding "evasion".
Herr Dexter wrote:Deep Strike - so Flayed Ones are safe to DS 18" away but can't assault as their assault range is 12". Damn.... Optionally I can DS them with scatter, closer than 18" and risk shooting retaliation from enemy. C'mon. I hope they will get fixed to use "Deep Strike (Ambush)" rule, as otherwise this unit is still useless as f*** :
Necrons aren't in the "Codex Updates" thing. Just sit tight and see what happens.
37231
Post by: d-usa
Fuegan wrote:If this IS from GW, they're nailing the coffin on 40k, because anyone who plays this is going to quickly see how poorly written and 'balanced' it is. I'm not talking out of my arse, there are hideously terrible things wrong in this book. .
Did you actually read through the rules?
Fuegan wrote:For short, Assault before shooting, making hybrid units like terminators and the entire Eldar army, awful. .
Hybrid units can still be very useful, especially if they are the ones getting charged. Now instead of shooting then assaulting when charging, they shoot then assault when being charged. So they are still very usefull.
Fuegan wrote: Assault weapons for that same reason.
Instead of shooting before the charge, assault weapons now count as an extra ccw during the first turn, so that is a long way form being useless.
41664
Post by: ShatteredBlade
I actually thought how Tactical Terminators would be more useful if this is the new change, like perhaps Death Wing could stand a chance. Or, will I stare at them upon my shelf while sighing once more?
47578
Post by: Herr Dexter
Absolutionis wrote:Not necessarily. Read the whole bunch of text regarding "evasion".
I did. Was assuming general rolls against EV3.
Absolutionis wrote:Necrons aren't in the "Codex Updates" thing. Just sit tight and see what happens.
That's what I'm hoping for :]
4776
Post by: scuddman
Hmm, I get the feeling this "leak" was intentional...I have no proof, but it does seem rather convenient. Anyways, as with all new editions, the first thing I look at are the scenarios and the objectives. Why? Because those things are the most important things in deciding what strategy to run and how to build your army. Once again, how you calculate how you win is a big part of figuring out army design.
You guys remember 6 man las plas in 4th? That happened because a unit gave up half victory points when below half
That's why 6..not 5 man las plas.
In fifth edition, we had scoring units, objectives, and kill points. We also had an indirect final way called tabling the opponent.
So..this sixth edition playtest:
1. Killpoints. You roll randomly to determine what the killpoint structure is. It could be 1 killpoint every 40, one kill point every 50, or one kill point every 70.
A standard marine squad will run you about 175. Interesting enough, the common factor for 40+50 is 200, and 70's nearest common factor (but isn't actually) is 210.
At 200, a unit is worth 5 kill points, 4 kill points, or 3 kill points. The theory of using a common factor, is that in theory you are maxing out every point per killpoint regardless of what type of factor is rolled.
However, the system works rather inelegantly because the best common factor is a rather big number. 200 points is rather expensive for a msu unit. If you're doing msu, you wind up sneaking up indirectly on killpoints without meaning to.
Take, for instance, two units that are 100 points each.
It is worth 6, 4, and 4 respectively, depending on how you roll on the chart. It is worse in 2 of the 3 cases, but costs the same # of points as my 200 point example.
This happens because it is exceptionally difficullt to create an effective msu of 50 points or less. Most of the time at 51 or more the msu unit will be worth extra killpoints. This does mean that the cost difference between a 35 point rhino, a 40 point rhino, and a 55 point chimera is in fact significant.
The factors have also created a new, inadvertent side effect. A small unit easily yields kill points, but is worth only 1 or 2. A big unit is worth many more killpoints, but requires a complete kill for the opponent to cash in. This means that players using big units will find denial to be an effective strategy. The idea of sacrificing low killpoint units to preserve high killpoint units will be a new and common strategy...and is almost backwards from how the game is played today. (Who cares if 10 stormshield termies die? it's worth ONE killpoint, to now it's worth 6-10 killpoints)
2. Objectives>
You receive 1 point for each turn you hold an objective, and you receive extra at the end. This means you can mitigate last turn objective rush by holding all the objectives early. This system is more like the resource systems used in some wow battlegrounds like arathi basin.
The quick and most obvious change is that units with longevity, scoring or not, have more worth. The 2nd is that you want to be holding as many objectives as you can early. It has the side effect of giving an early advantage to the player who initiates successful touchdowns first, and is a strategy element that was clearly lacking in 5th. In 5th, i often didn't bother moving toward an objective until the start of the 4th turn.
This is a major change too: in games with scoring units, scoring units score 3vp per touchdown per turn, 6 at the end of the game, while nonscoring still are worth 1 and 2 respectively.
OH: Broken, stunned, and embarked units [b]cannot hold objectives[/b]. Vehicles cannot hold objectives.
You want to score? GTFO of your metal boxes. Embarking and disembarking will once again become an important part of 40k. No more sitting inside your land raider!
<cough cough> oh droppods, why are you so good again?
50213
Post by: Pumpkin
Teh_K42 wrote:Strategic points are an interesting mechanic. It seems like it will slow down the game dramatically as slow players poke through their options before the game has started. And there doesn't seem to be anything stopping from betting one trillion strategic points. In fact, apart from the disincentive of giving your opponent more points, the only limit to betting would be the highest number you know the name of.
... If you bet high enough, there could potentially be legal games where every missed dice could be re-rolled with Battle Fate.
I'm not really seeing the problem here. Unless I'm misreading, not giving your opponent a trillion strategic points is all the disincentive you'd need.
Both players bet points, the first one to bottle out keeps the points, while the "winner" gets to choose who starts first. Did I read that right? If so, I can't see why anyone would ever bet a ludicrous number of points. Let's take a look at what would happen if they did:-
P1: I bet a trillion SP!
P2: I concede. Now hurry up and choose who goes first so I can automatically win the match.
P1: Aw, shoot. I sure learned a lesson today.
That's how it would go...isn't it?
41664
Post by: ShatteredBlade
Pumpkin wrote:Teh_K42 wrote:Strategic points are an interesting mechanic. It seems like it will slow down the game dramatically as slow players poke through their options before the game has started. And there doesn't seem to be anything stopping from betting one trillion strategic points. In fact, apart from the disincentive of giving your opponent more points, the only limit to betting would be the highest number you know the name of.
... If you bet high enough, there could potentially be legal games where every missed dice could be re-rolled with Battle Fate.
I'm not really seeing the problem here. Unless I'm misreading, not giving your opponent a trillion strategic points is all the disincentive you'd need.
Both players bet points, the first one to bottle out keeps the points, while the "winner" gets to choose who starts first. Did I read that right? If so, I can't see why anyone would ever bet a ludicrous number of points. Let's take a look at what would happen if they did:-
P1: I bet a trillion SP!
P2: I concede. Now hurry up and choose who goes first so I can automatically win the match.
P1: Aw, shoot. I sure learned a lesson today.
That's how it would go...isn't it?
I'm thinking it'll go like this, " This is really annoying and complicated..lets just roll off!".
37231
Post by: d-usa
Looks like they might have adressed one of the arguments regarding meltabombs and "ignores melta" vehicles:
Melta weapons are lethal, short-ranged ‘heat
rays’. Melta weapons roll an extra D6 when
rolling to penetrate a vehicles’ Armour Value in
close combat or at half range or less. If the
weapon is more than half its maximum range
away, a single D6 is rolled as normal.
Further evidenced by the fact that melta bombs are now Strengh 8 and have the melta rule.
4776
Post by: scuddman
The bidding system comes from other games...like bridge...that find ways to mitigate first turn advantages with strategy. It's not a new idea, and sometthing similar was done in apocalypse.
I think it's a good change. Going first or going 2nd has a big impact depending on the army you face. Facing leafblower? You know he wants to go first. Objectives? You get extra vp's on the final turn and get the last move. It used to be whoever got lucky got the advantage...and the other player had to play through the disadvantage. The new system allows a fair way to mitigate this problem depending on how severe the problem is.
Honestly, if neither player cares, the bidding will end quickly. If it's a big deal....players are going to bid carefully. Unless you seriously want your opponent's leafblower to go first?
50213
Post by: Pumpkin
scuddman wrote:The bidding system comes from other games...like bridge...that find ways to mitigate first turn advantages with strategy. It's not a new idea, and sometthing similar was done in apocalypse.
I think it's a good change. Going first or going 2nd has a big impact depending on the army you face. Facing leafblower? You know he wants to go first. Objectives? You get extra vp's on the final turn and get the last move. It used to be whoever got lucky got the advantage...and the other player had to play through the disadvantage. The new system allows a fair way to mitigate this problem depending on how severe the problem is.
Honestly, if neither player cares, the bidding will end quickly. If it's a big deal....players are going to bid carefully. Unless you seriously want your opponent's leafblower to go first?
I totally agree. I'm looking forward to using this rule. It might take a while to get used to, but I doubt it'll end up being too much of a time sink. People already do plenty of pre-game "strat-prep". They're going to turn up for a game knowing which strategems are going to help them in various situations, so they shouldn't take too long to decide. Plus, this rule rewards the ability to make sound tactical reactions, which is always welcome.
44067
Post by: DarkStarSabre
d-usa wrote:Looks like they might have adressed one of the arguments regarding meltabombs and "ignores melta" vehicles:
Melta weapons are lethal, short-ranged ‘heat
rays’. Melta weapons roll an extra D6 when
rolling to penetrate a vehicles’ Armour Value in
close combat or at half range or less. If the
weapon is more than half its maximum range
away, a single D6 is rolled as normal.
Further evidenced by the fact that melta bombs are now Strengh 8 and have the melta rule.
If this is at all legitimate....
Then I am laughing. So hard. Right now.
As I said - legacy rules struggling to deal with a modern situation. If this sort of thing was becoming more 'common' then it would be addressed.
If this is at all legit (and tbh it looks very similar in structure and all to the 5th edition leak - which turned out to be quite legit) then I'm laughing. All the way to the bank.
26489
Post by: Revarien
Relentless makes heavy weapons and rapid fire weapons into secondary weapons in close combat! Loving it... could make for some really nasty terminators though >.>
37231
Post by: d-usa
Having preferred enemy apply to shooting does explain the whole Necron Destroyers having that rule...
9892
Post by: Flashman
I've not read it, but it all sounds like a major upheaval. As others have noted, I suspect much of this is work in progress stuff (assuming not fake )
10347
Post by: Fafnir
Kind of pissed about Ghazzy. S&P is just horrible for him since he can't run anymore, and the nerf to his Waaagh! just kills him. 225 points that are best left on the shelf now.
3330
Post by: Kirasu
Very unlikely it's fake but like the leaked GK book.. its an earlier version I imagine
I love being able to charge people who stumble out of transports
37231
Post by: d-usa
If I run my lovely Shrike Raven Guard list, and infiltrate him with a unit of Assault Marines the he would now have a base movement of 9, increased to an 11 with fleet, which would give the squad a 22 inch charge range turn 1
20983
Post by: Ratius
Lets cut to the chase peeps.
Based on this being legit what models are being pushed sales wise then and whats getting flushed down the toilet?
Any section on psychic powers/changes? (cant view from work).
41664
Post by: ShatteredBlade
I'm loving the EV rules, I really hope they keep that. Infantry out in the open are not completely screwed. While a static gun line has penalties.
37231
Post by: d-usa
Ratius wrote:Lets cut to the chase peeps.
Based on this being legit what models are being pushed sales wise then and whats getting flushed down the toilet?
Any section on psychic powers/changes? (cant view from work).
On first look I can't really think of any units really getting flushed at this time.
10347
Post by: Fafnir
d-usa wrote:Ratius wrote:Lets cut to the chase peeps.
Based on this being legit what models are being pushed sales wise then and whats getting flushed down the toilet?
Any section on psychic powers/changes? (cant view from work).
On first look I can't really think of any units really getting flushed at this time.
Nobz, Paladins. Especially Nobz.
Neither unit is worth its points without wound allocation.
2776
Post by: Reecius
http://www.frontlinegaming.org/2012/01/10/40k-6th-ed-rules-leaked/#comment-757
Rules summary
I really, really like the new rules! They look great on a first read through. I hope they are true.
37231
Post by: d-usa
The new infiltrate rule seems pretty weak.
Basically an automatic 1st turn deep strike. So no moving, assaulting, etc...
41664
Post by: ShatteredBlade
Jump troops movement reduced to 9 inches seems kind of painful..
3330
Post by: Kirasu
Yeah but run movement isnt +d6 anymore either so it balances out
24150
Post by: ChocolateGork
H.B.M.C. wrote:CT GAMER wrote:Stratagems are part of setting up a game. Many allow you to add terrain and fortifications, etc.
KP is variable now and based on unit cost now (Praise the emperor).
It's almost enough to make me care about 40K again (the game I mean, not the universe... never stopped caring about that).
I don't think the 'bidding' shenanigans is necessary - why not make the SP variable like the KP? A single D6 roll like 1-2: Gain 1 SP for every 1000 points in your army, 3-4: Gain 1 SP for every 500 points in your army, 5-6: Gain 1 SP for every 200 points in your army.
Well if it relates to setting up then it wont be used in tournaments and is entirely optional.
Like the terrain deployment craziness in Fantasy.
Could someone please email the pdf's it to me at saurus.warrior@gmail.com
It would be GREATLY APPRECIATED!
2676
Post by: Celtic Strike
These look great so far. I hope they're true.
38086
Post by: LakotaWolf
I think its game testing copy.......It's going to completely level the playing field
10347
Post by: Fafnir
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.
Vangaurd squads are now more useless than ever before. It's a shame too, since the Blood Angels book actually made them viable for once Back on the shelf.
Callidus Assassin is also a waste, since she'll also be shot to ribbons the moment she arrives in play.
Ditto for Marbo (he deserves it though).
42034
Post by: Scipio Africanus
puma713 wrote:J.Black wrote:The entire rulebook? in 1.1k? rly? safe?
It's a 1.1k .rar, which is compressed.
Okay, my sm codex is 58mb on my Ipad. That is a standard 144 page book.
The rb will be close to 150 mb by my reckoning. Are you suggesting that they have a 99% compression rate? Because the best you can get is usually less than 45%.
21664
Post by: poipo32
I've mirrored the thing on a couple of websites. It is now a Zip file to accommodate people with less computer knowledge and also features no password. http://www.mediafire.com/?20pdep59z55q5o1 http://www.megaupload.com/?d=SOIQAAD4 http://depositfiles.com/files/9c0p5kybh Have a good read. EDIT: If the files go down PM me I will re-upload them.
10347
Post by: Fafnir
Scipio Africanus wrote:puma713 wrote:J.Black wrote:The entire rulebook? in 1.1k? rly? safe?
It's a 1.1k .rar, which is compressed.
Okay, my sm codex is 58mb on my Ipad. That is a standard 144 page book.
The rb will be close to 150 mb by my reckoning. Are you suggesting that they have a 99% compression rate? Because the best you can get is usually less than 45%.
It's also worth noting that this leak is full text with no images. Most codex scans are entirely images. Images are massive compared to text.
3330
Post by: Kirasu
The size of your SM codex is fairly inaccurate. If you simply use optimize your PDF and decrease file size it will be A LOT smaller
For instance, *my* copy of the SM codex is around 3 meg for the same book
Its totally reasonable to have this be 1.1 meg
21664
Post by: poipo32
Scipio Africanus wrote:puma713 wrote:J.Black wrote:The entire rulebook? in 1.1k? rly? safe?
It's a 1.1k .rar, which is compressed.
Okay, my sm codex is 58mb on my Ipad. That is a standard 144 page book.
The rb will be close to 150 mb by my reckoning. Are you suggesting that they have a 99% compression rate? Because the best you can get is usually less than 45%.
My Ghostmaker eBook is 0.8 mb and features twice as many pages as your codex, it simply has no pictures.
10347
Post by: Fafnir
In conclusion, lrn2format
3330
Post by: Kirasu
Ive also mirrored the book on my own box account
http://www.box.com/s/hl875rnemr3l9fqvuboc
Enjoy, and while you're there check out my battle reports!
21664
Post by: poipo32
The internet doesn't forget and taking the original down was pointless.
37231
Post by: d-usa
I think the rate at which links stop working might be a good indication of how legitimate this thing is.
34906
Post by: Pacific
d-usa wrote:I think the rate at which links stop working might be a good indication of how legitimate this thing is.
Why, does GW have a direct line to Al Gore, just to be able to shut down sites willy nilly?
3330
Post by: Kirasu
Its okay I have the file in my lock box.. I imagine its already on torrent sites
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
The only thing I'd say I don't like so far is that all characters get Directed Attacks. That strikes me as a little too Herohammer-y.
5269
Post by: lord_blackfang
Fafnir wrote: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)
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
Heh.
Eldrad - Mastery Level 2.
Ahriman - Mastery Level 3.
|
|
