26733
Post by: Wi1ikers
Check out these websites for live ongoing blogs of the new rulebook. Definitely some crazy stuff.
http://www.frontlinegaming.org/2012/01/10/40k-6th-ed-rules-leaked/
http://bloodofkittens.com/
42179
Post by: ObliviousBlueCaboose
How can you have live blogging? Do you set up a webcam to watch type? Lol. Jk. Ill check it out
28383
Post by: Mahtamori
Fast and fleet seem to patch a lot of the CW Eldar CC units and it seems Veil of Tears has been made a USR. Draw Back USR does sound a bit weird of a name, though.
26733
Post by: Wi1ikers
ObliviousBlueCaboose wrote:How can you have live blogging? Do you set up a webcam to watch type? Lol. Jk. Ill check it out
\
Reece is actually updating the blog post every couple of minutes. Dont miss out on any 6 Ed information.
2776
Post by: Reecius
I got through most of the rules, and I really like them!
I will dig into the FAQs tomorrow, I am worn out.
34906
Post by: Pacific
Anyone know the source on this one? We were already surprised by some loser who made a fake Nid and BA codex previously, and this seems like a perfect time to introduce another one (i.e. close enough to release that it is plausible).
Everything got deadlier. That means bigger games
This bit at least sounds like it is plausible..
3330
Post by: Kirasu
If this is also a fake rulebook.. GW should hire the guy since he can design an ENTIRE book (Not just write but design the book) all by himself
34906
Post by: Pacific
Yes but remember someone did that for both the Nid and BA codex. The key is to make some changes, just enough to make it plausible, but put the odd thing in to provoke frenzied forum discussion (like has happened - look at the other topic, already p11 at the time of writing). Personally, I think the changes are far too radical for it to be true.
It's basically the forum equivalent of dropping a stink-bomb in a crowded shopping mall, the guy (or guys) is probably sat now cigar in hand and feet up on the table, crying with laughter.
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
Yes, I can imagine them now:
"Haha! Lookit boys! We spent a month or so putting together this rule set that on first glance appears to work quite well and then released it on an unsuspecting public. And they all love what we wrote. Ha! The joke sure is on them!"
30305
Post by: Laughing Man
I'm actually half tempted to print it off and try running a game of it this Thursday at my LGS. Wonder if I'd have any takers...
34906
Post by: Pacific
The problem is Blood of Kittens believes absolutely every rumour that comes along. We will probably eventually hear a story of him swallowing poison on a ranch in Alabama, the guy must be a cult leader's dream.
24567
Post by: Kroothawk
Here the current status:
Frontline Gaming Blog wrote:HIGHLIGHTS SO FAR
This is a new statline that works with BS to determine if hit a unit
Evasion (EV)
The Evasion Value indicates how hard it is to hit
the model. The smaller and faster, the better the
Evasion Value of a warrior. This characteristic is
not part of the model’s profile as it depends on
the speed of the model. A moving Tau Fire
Warrior has an Evasion of 3, a stationary Land
Raider tank only an Evasion of 1. This
characteristic is described on page 70.
Cover Save are now 5+ looks like for many things
Wound allocation: Back to 4th ed we go! All wounds are distributed by armor type, multi-wound models count for as many models as they have remaining wounds. Sarge and his special weapon buddies are last to die.
Running in the movement phase….most of us do this already!
Instant Death, this is awesome! Instant death is totally changed, if your toughness is exceeded by 4 points of strength you take 2 wounds. By 5, 3 wounds, etc. Tyranids, rejoice!
If you double your opponent’s WS, you hit on 2′s in combat! If their WS is double yours, you hit on a 5, triple, you hit on a 6!
Rigid saves: sounds like FnP, but is ignored by AP 1,2,3 or instant death attacks. FnP is a 4+ rigid save
Removed from play now just means removed as a casualty. Necrons get a break from JotWW!
Preferred enemy: Shooting and HtH! But like 4th ed, always hit on a 3+, if normally hitting on a 3+, now hits on a 2+. If you choose to shoot at a unit that you have PE against, but don’t, you lost the rule for the rest of the game! Now Destroyers with preferred enemy: Everything! makes sense!
Tiers of Eternal Warrior, still reading it, but if you have EW 1, you ignore ID 1, etc. level 3 ignores all ID
If a unit can be singled out by an attack (JotWW) it becomes it’s own unit. Shielded (USR) ignores that rule.
Falling back is now your movement + D6″
some units can cause Terror which triggers a morale check
Shaken applies to all units now, like pinning for infantry and shaken as now for vehicles
Broken units automatically fail their morale if they lose a combat.
Broken units automatically fail their morale if they lose a combat.
Tactical Retreat: If a unit falls off the board, they are removed from play but does not count as destroyed. You can choose to leave the game and not give up a KP or VPs.
Immobilized counts for all unit types. Immobile units EV value (evasion) is decreased, usually +1 to hit them.
Tiered fearlessness: can be pinned or shaken. Nice! Fearless units are subject to rules but are better against them. Level 3 fearless ignores everything, though. Stubborn the same. Cold Blooded new rule allows you to choose to pass or fail. ATSKNF largely remains the same.
Critical hits: this is a blanket rule that automatically wounds and ignores all saves but invulnerable, vehicles take a penetrating hit. Triggered by certain attacks and difficult terrain roles, which now are on a 6, not a 1.
new Dense terrain type: can’t see through it at all. If a unit is in it, you ignore this unit for shooting.
Cover saves now 5+ for all but fortified ruins.
Skilled Rider now IGNORES difficult terrain checks.
Airborne rule: units with this rule ignore difficult and dangerous terrain, but still gain a cover save form it.
Move through cover: run/cruise through difficult terrain.
Turn phases: Move, Assault, Shoot, Consolidate
BIG! In order to control a mission objective, you must have it for an ENTIRE turn.
Turns are defined, things that occur :at the beginning of the turn” are clearly defined.
Cruise and Combat speed are for all units now, cruising or running for infantry, is a straight double movement, no more random roll.
You cannot shoot before charging anymore. A Charge is a double move.
Engage action: charge normal movement distance (not double), but can shoot in the following shooting phase
Flat Out: triple movement
Fleet adds 2″ to your movement value!
Fast rule: shoot twice if stationary, shoot normally after moving or charging
Rage: can’t remain stationary, must take -1 morale check to not charge enemy unit within 12″
Alpha Strike: charging into terrain makes defenders I10, charging already engaged unit makes attacker I10
In HTH, if a template deviates onto combat, each unit under it only takes 1 hit. Can’t target into HtH.
BIG RULE: No Retreat is now a critical hit for every wound you lost combat by (ignores armor) but you can pass a morale check with a -1 for every wound you lost combat by. Wow, that levels the playing field, a LOT!
Sweeping advance: if you lose combat and fail a morale, you roll 5+ and break out of combat or are destroyed. If your In is higher than the pursuing unit’s In, you break off on a 4+
3″ consolidation
Hit and Run now only 3″, but can now shoot in the following shooting phase
Hulk rule: can not attack in HtH
Intractable rule: cannot be bound in HtH
All models with a base (infantry, walkers, MCs) do NOT block LOS. They grant a 5+ cover unless the squad leader of the firing unit can not see the target unit, in which case the save is a 4+
Look out sarge: a unit can force a cover save to a unit behind it, even if normally the target unit would not get a save, but the intervening unit takes a critical wound for every save that is passed
Evasion: 3 base for all units. Massive: Tanks, MCs, GCs, bastions, walkers, super-heavies -1 Ev. Stationary -1. Jink +1, Swarm +1, Flyer always a 6, point blank (squad leader is within 12″) EV always 3
Divide fire: if you have the divide fire rule, you can give up a shot to shoot all remaining weapons at different targets! A vehicle that holds still can do some serious work, but is easier to hit. Applies to Tanks, Battle Suits, jetbikes, walkers and aircraft
Multi-Targeting: if you have this rule, you can double your shots if you hold still!! Wowzers. If you have multi-targeting(3) you can shoot three times. If you hold still, you shoot 6 times!
Night Vision now lets you reroll your check unless their stealth is higher than their Night Vision.
Overwatch! If an enemy unit ends its move within 12″ of a unit with this ability, they can perform a defensive shooting action at them out of sequence
Relentless: can fire as if they held still, rapid fire to 18″ as opposed to 24″
Tiered stealth: +1. 2. 3 etc.
Swarms: eternal warrior (1), +1 evade, vulnerable to blasts
veiled: tiered level 1, 2d6x3 to spot, level 2 2d6x2, level 3 2d6x1.5 to spot.
Draw Back rule: performed in the consolidation phase, 2d6″ move after shooting: eldar jetbikes
In the consolidation phase (after shooting) you can join or leave a unit, embark in a vehicle(!), move or regroup.
You can oly regroup if you are not within 12″ of an enemy unit, but if you embark into a vehicle, you automatically regroup.
Patch up: bye bye wound allocation tricks! If you have more than one multi-wound model with a wound, take a wound from one and give it to another until only one model remains with less than full wounds! Peace out, Draigowing!
Defensive fire: you can shoot a unit that comes within 12″ out of sequence with this rule. Nice! shoot units as they assault you.
Charge by CHance: sounds like over-watch but for assault. If a unit appears within 6″ of the unit with this rule, it can assault that unit. Sounds like shooting a transport, blowing up it up, then assaulting the unit inside.
Rapid Fire: tiered rapid fire, if within 12″ you get one extra shot. rapid fire (2) gives 3 shots at 12″, 2 at 18″
assault weapons count as a secondary close combat weapon in HtH
Ordnance weapons take 2 fire actions to fire, ordnance barrage take 4 fire actions
“bomb” type weapons are fired in the movement phase
grenades can be used as weapons against massive type models (MCs!) or vehicles but WS is 1
Directed Hits: attacker chooses what models take the wounds. Stopped by shielding units, or the shielded rule.
Grenade launchers halve the WS of the defending unit when attacking them with grenades
ID causes an additional wound even if the str value of the attack isn’t high enough to normally cause ID. Eternal warrior block ID if the tier is higher.
master crafted rerolls a miss, multiple master crafted weapons of the same type in the same unit reroll one miss per model with the rule (speeds things up a lot)
coarse weapon: only another coarse weapon may grant an additional attack and can’t be directed.
Blast weapons. Wow! Hit with BS as normal, if you miss, scatter the number x 2 (always scatters). So if you hit on a 4, you can only ever scatter 4″ max!
Template weapons: can shoot out 3″ from the firing model unless otherwise greater, if it hits the firing point of a vehicle or bastion, D3 models inside are hit! Can be fired in the turn you assault, hitting D6 times on the target unit at the weapons str and ap.
blast weapons hit as described above. Any model partially under the template gets hit at full strength (even vehicles). If the blast hits a vehicle, full strength to armor in firer’s facing. If not on vehicle, full strength to armor facing the center of the blast but -3 on the damage table.
Multiple blasts: fire one weapon as “lead.” Resolve where it lands, all secondary shots must touch the preceding template and hit as many enemy models as possible, moving towards the enemy unit if the shot missed. Wow. Faster, and much deadlier.
Rail Weapons: awesome! Target a model within range, even if not in LOS. Roll to hit as with a blast weapon. After final point is determined, draw a line between point and firing unit. All units under the line take as many hits as models under the line. Holy crap, this can rape tanks! A Hammerhead could theoretically hit as many tanks as are in a straight line and in range! Models out of LOS get a 4+. Multiple rail weapons resolve simultaneously, indirect rail weapons only grant a cover save if the unit is in area terrain.
Barrage: roll to hit as with blast weapon. If target is out of LOS you hit with BS, roll the scatter, on a “Hit” you hit. On an arrow you scatter double the die roll. On a BS miss, you scatter as normal.
Bombing is a free action done in the movement phase
AA weapons always hit target as if it were evade 3
Entangling weapons cause target to be in difficult and dangerous
pinning weapons cause cumulative morale checks to be pinned. -1 for each unsaved wound.
Snipers are finally legit! All sniper weapons are pinning, rending, directed hits! Wow, they can choose who they can hit! Finally.
Targeter: shooting unit makes target count as stationary for EV purposes.
Twin-linked template weapons increase their range to 6″. Wow, twin flamers now shoot farther instead of rerolling to wound.
Rapid fire weapons fire like assault weapons now, meaning they can always fire once out to max range, and an additional shot if within 12″. Nice!
Force weapons cause ID(2) so they don’t own monstrous creatures anymore. Thank goodness.
Power weapons now have the parry rule, which grants a 5++ in HtH! Awesome! A reason to take them.
Monstrous creatures now hit with a weapon that is 2xS, ap 2
All CCWs are ap6, which means Orks and Gaunts and such get no save from most HtH attacks.
whitcblades are str7, and can be “chanelled” activated with a ld test, to allow the wielder to reroll any failed invul saves.
Melta bombs finally have the melta rule and ap!
Psychic Hood: roll a D6 if within 24″, add mastery level, blocker needs to beat defender to stop power. Can’t be used inside a transport.
Unit Types:
Infantry: 6″ move, 12″ run or charge
Beasts or Calvary: move 7″, charge 21″, run 14″
Jump Infantry: move 9″, charge or run 18″, deep strike
Flying Infantry: airborne, move 9″, run or charge 18″, deep strike
Jet Pack: move 6″, airborne, draw back, deep strike, 12″ charge or run
Bikes: move 8″, charge or run 16″, fast, multi-targeting (1), jink, +1 toughness against shooting attacks only, more resistant to ID
Jetbikes: move like bikes, plus airborne, and draw back for Eldar
MC’s: massive, monstrous, multi-targeting (2), relentless
Gargantuan Creatures: 9″ move, fearless (3) and a host of other rules
Ground Vehicle: any vehicle not specified is a ground vehicle, move 6″, fearless (2), hulk, intractable, multi-targeting(1), relentless
Skimmer: move 8″, same rules as ground vehicle but also airborne
Fast Skimmer: same as skimmer but also: jink, fast
walkers: vehicle, fearless (2), massive, multi-targeting(1), relentless
artillery: same as above but also crew, crew members are markers that represent firing models. take one away every time the vehicle suffers an unsaved glancing or penetrating hit.
Fortifications: same as above bu also hulk and immobile
Characters
special rule: covering fire: Character forgoes shooting to allow unit to have one directed shot if the unit rolls at least 3, 6′s to hit.
Characters allow their unit to regroup in the consolidation phase. No mention to minimum unit sizes.
Characters have directed hit rule in HtH and shooting!
Characters can either be a squad leader or an IC.
Squad leaders are really important. They determine characteristic tests, facing for shooting at vehicles, seeing if the enemy unit is in cover, point blank range, etc.
If squad leader dies, another model takes his/her place.
IC’s can not join vehicles or MCs/GCs unless they are of the same unit type.
Psykers
Psykers can perform one “power” type action per level of mastery. Mastery goes from one to 6. Humans rarely exceed 3, Eldar or Daemons rarely exceed 5.
All psykers level 1 unless specified otherwise. 1 power per level, can’t be duplicate power unless otherwise specified.
Perils on 2 or 12, critical hit. No mention of rerolling successful invul saves.
Psyker squads are cleared up. One model counts as using the power.
Any psyker can attempt to stop a power, works on a 5+ so long as the defender is not in a vehicle and within 24″
Vehicles
No vehicles can go up levels in a building anymore, even walkers.
Terrain checks for every piece of terrain moved through.
Hitting a Vehicle in HtH is different. If vehicle moves, they are WS10, if they hold still, WS0.
“Tank” type vehicles get -1 to the damage table. Leman Russ, hoooo!
Super heavies: -3 on the damage table.
weapon destroyed is -1 to multi-targeting. Reduced to 0 can only fire one weapon. reuced to -1, can’t shoot.
Immobilized 2 times = dead.
Explodes is now d6″ radius. All units in range, or that were embarked roll a d6 for as many models as were hit. On a 6, the unit takes a critical hit. Exploded vehicles leave no debris behind.
wrecks are a 5+, difficult, dangerous
hull breach: for every additional stunned or immobilized result in the same phase, the damage is 1 higher. Ouch.
skimmers that are immobilized hit the ground off their base, and models underneath move out of the way.
Sqaudrons: any stunned, shaken, immobilized result ignored on a 5+ with +1 for each vehicle in the squadron. If test is failed, each vehicle in the squadron suffers the result.
smoke=5+ cover
dangerous terrain=roll d6, on a 6, vehicle suffers penetrating hit. only invul save to stop
repair rules got WAY better: on a 5+, repairing model removes a shaken, stunned, immobile or weapon destroyed result. Or, can boost the vehicle with the same role to add a level of multi-targeting! Techmairnes and Techpriests just got waaaaay cooler. For squadrons, only works if he passes the roll for every vehicle in the squadron.
Super Heavy and Titan rules in the book.
Tanks are not what they were. Lots of old tank vehicles are no longer tanks. Tanks are -1 to evade, but -1 on the damage table, too. AV14 tanks get multi-targeting(3)
units in a transport are now relentless!
buuuuut, may only target units within 18″
If an enemy unit is within 2″ or an exit point, the unit inside the transport can not get out.
disembarking is the same as now.
Embarking is huge now. If the squad leader is within 3″ of an entry point of a transport, the entire unit can embark. This occurs in the consolidation phase and nullifies any other conditions. Such as being broken. It also means the unit can avoid being wiped out if broken.
Emergency disembarkation means the unit is stunned after the vehicle is destroyed.
If all exits are blocked, the blocking units can perform a defensive fire or charge by chance move. Ouch.
Transports that enter play via deep strike, can only have embarked units make a combat move after
Flyers can no longer be assaulted! Only by jump or aerial units.
Supersonic allows them to fly across the table like Apoc flier rules. Minimum 12″ movement.
always hit on a 6
Lots of rules for fighters, rapid insertion, gunship which modify their shooting characteristics.
Fortifications
Rules for buildings, basically immobile vehicles with av12-14 and some crazy rules.
comm station: can shoot beyond 18″ for embarked units
segmented: dangerous terrain to models that deepstrike or supersonic within 24″
Missions
3 basic missions.
6 turns, no more random game length
First turn is determined by a cool system. You secretly bid stratagem points. If you bet higher, you go first unless the other guy outbids you. You keep bidding until one of you gives up. The winner goes first, the lower gets the extra stratagem points. If the loser rolls a 6, he gets 25% of the points he bet (rounding up). That is what seizing the initiative now is. You can’t take the first turn unexpectedly.
All missions use “victory points” although this is different than it was.
Annihilation is in most missions: Kill Points for how many points a unit costs: roll a D6 before the game starts 1-2 every 40pts is 1 VP. 3-4 every 50pts a unit is worth is 1 VP. 5-6 every 70pts a unit is worth gives a VP. Randomly screws MSU or KP denial. Nice.
For multi=player, the player that destroyed the last model of the unit gets the points.
Objectives are placed like Seize Ground now, 3 for a 1K game, 5 for a 1-2K game, 7 for a 2K-3K game.
To hold an objective, you must be within 3″ of it, outside of a transport, at the beginning of the turn, before reserve rolls, starting turn 2.
A unit can only hold one objective at a time. Vehciels can’t hold objectives. Scoring units get 3 VPs per turn, and 6 at game’s end!
Reserves
Wow, this is awesome! For every unit held in reserve, you get a “pool” of dice. You can take up to 3 and use it to roll for any unit or strikeforce in reserve. You can choose not to roll for any units.
If you roll the right number (same as now) they come one. A strikeforce can be any combination of units, but get a -1 to reserves. Units come in automatically turn 4.
This is way better than what we have now. So much more tactical.
Units that come in from reserve appear within 6″ of your board edge and may act normally, meaning they can shoot if they held still. Nice!
Deep Strike
If deepstriking out of 18″ of enemy models and not in impassible terrain or a transport, no scatter is made and the unit can only shoot.
If within 18″, the unit scatters as normal and if it lands on impassible terrain or other units, it reduces the scatter by as many inches as it needs to miss the object and becomes stunned. If the first model lands OK, but the rest can’t be placed, they are lost.
If you land within 12″ of enemy units, they may perform a defensive fire action.
units in a transport can remain embarked after deep striking!
If you have a beacon, icon or similar, units coming in within 6″ of it never scatter and don’t count as being in critical range.
“Ambush” deep strike: don’t scatter if within critical range.
“Heroic” deep strike means the landing unit can’t shoot, but also can’t be shot.
Outflanking
You choose what short table edge you appear on, and within 6″ of it. Nice! Reserve rolls for outflankers are made at -1.
Scouts
12″ consolidation move after deployment for ALL units. No more turbo boosting scout moves. Allows Outflank
Missions
The main mission is Dawn of War, but different meaning. It is Seize ground and annihilation rules as described above. Reminds me of the Bay Area Open mission!
Meant for 2 players, 1K to 3K points.
Eye of the storm is the second mission: 3-5 players, same mission, alternate turn activation, alternate deployment. 1k to 1.5K per player
random game length
Massive attack
3K points or more
2 players
alternate turn structure with players activating portions of their army in turn. So, you use a part of your army, your opponent uses a part of theirs, etc until all units have gone and then the turn recycles.
same mission objectives.
Stratagems
These are bought during the first turn bid and are pretty awesome. They range from rerolling a single die per turn, to giving units twin linked, tank hunters, etc. Really cool mechanic, IMO, and one that adds a lot to the game.
That’s it for now, we’ll dig into the unit FAQ’s tomorrow. I am exhausted.
8049
Post by: ArbitorIan
As well as the customary GW spelling mistakes, there are also a hell of a lot of grammatical and language-based errors in the pdf.
I think whoever wrote this doesn't speak English as a first language. There are too many odd word pairings.
Do we know who is meant to be writing 6ed? Does this infer that it's and more fake, or authentic?
5269
Post by: lord_blackfang
Laughing Man wrote:I'm actually half tempted to print it off and try running a game of it this Thursday at my LGS. Wonder if I'd have any takers...
I will play this this week. I can even skip the printing part since I have a tablet.
39827
Post by: scarletsquig
Once again, BoK does a straight copy and paste of stuff posted on frontline gamer...
3330
Post by: Kirasu
The typos are probably because this isn't a final copy by any means.. From the look of it the basic book is finished but the layout is far from finished as is editing
411
Post by: whitedragon
scarletsquig wrote:Once again, BoK does a straight copy and paste of stuff posted on frontline gamer...
Tastytaste and Reecius are friends so it's not really that surprising.
34906
Post by: Pacific
whitedragon wrote:scarletsquig wrote:Once again, BoK does a straight copy and paste of stuff posted on frontline gamer...
Tastytaste and Reecius are friends so it's not really that surprising.
Did you read the post on Frontline Gamer? 
http://thefrontlinegamer.blogspot.com/2012/01/blogging-etiquette-or-warhammer-40k.html#more
16689
Post by: notprop
Well if only half of the things that Frontline Gamer have summarised in their blog make in, then it seems like 40k is getting that little bit more detailed and varied.
The EV characteristic seems like the opposite of what has gone before in previous editions, so I'm not sure about that: could over complicate and slow the game.
That said all in all this has made me pretty excited about a new edition.
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
Why the hell can't the Hulk attack in hand to hand combat? Thats all he does.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
If half these rules are true tyranids just got gangbusters. Also everything just got a lot more lethal, I'd expect games to end with tabling much more often.
2776
Post by: Reecius
Tasteu taste and I were going over the pdf together and updating our blogs at the same time. He got tired thougb, and left before I did.
This looks totally legit. It is WAY too big to be a fake. 130pgs of rules, plus FAQs for every rule book. Can't say for sure, but this is far too complex for a hoax from anyone but a nut job.
Are they final rules? Who knows.
Frankie and I will do a podcast today about this to go ovsr it some more.
I really like the rules though, imo, a much better game here and I already liked 5th.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grey knights got reined in, bugs got WAY better, crons got better amd worse. Things like biker armies got way better.
So much to cover! We'll dig into it.
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
Link to the podcast?
28444
Post by: DarknessEternal
These rules require a new codex for every army, including the ones that just came out.
This doesn't seem plausible.
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
DarknessEternal wrote:These rules require a new codex for every army, including the ones that just came out.
This doesn't seem plausible.
Theres a FAQ for almost every codex that leaked as well.
33541
Post by: Rented Tritium
Pacific wrote:Yes but remember someone did that for both the Nid and BA codex. The key is to make some changes, just enough to make it plausible, but put the odd thing in to provoke frenzied forum discussion (like has happened - look at the other topic, already p11 at the time of writing). Personally, I think the changes are far too radical for it to be true.
It's basically the forum equivalent of dropping a stink-bomb in a crowded shopping mall, the guy (or guys) is probably sat now cigar in hand and feet up on the table, crying with laughter.
Have you read this thing? It's not like that. It's not 90% the same with some interesting bits in there. This is a ground-up rewrite of the rules that appear functional.
I mean, if it's a hoax, the punchline is going to be "we wrote a rulebook better than 5th edition, ha ha"
1303
Post by: Relic_OMO
Reecius wrote:Tasteu taste and I were going over the pdf together and updating our blogs at the same time. He got tired thougb, and left before I did.
This looks totally legit. It is WAY too big to be a fake. 130pgs of rules, plus FAQs for every rule book. Can't say for sure, but this is far too complex for a hoax from anyone but a nut job.
Are they final rules? Who knows.
It doesn't have to be a hoax, per se. It might just be someone's very detailed wish list. Frankly, gamers have nothing but time. To be honest, I've seen people pour a lot more time into their own fan codices than it would take to write this up. The size of it doesn't convince me of its legitimacy. Furthermore, so many of these changes are completely out of character with everything GW has ever done from a game design standpoint. It's possibly legit, but I very much doubt it. If it is, it's a rewrite of the game even greater than the conversion from 2nd to 3rd ed.
33541
Post by: Rented Tritium
Relic_OMO wrote:Reecius wrote:Tasteu taste and I were going over the pdf together and updating our blogs at the same time. He got tired thougb, and left before I did.
This looks totally legit. It is WAY too big to be a fake. 130pgs of rules, plus FAQs for every rule book. Can't say for sure, but this is far too complex for a hoax from anyone but a nut job.
Are they final rules? Who knows.
It doesn't have to be a hoax, per se. It might just be someone's very detailed wish list. Frankly, gamers have nothing but time. To be honest, I've seen people pour a lot more time into their own fan codices than it would take to write this up. The size of it doesn't convince me of its legitimacy. Furthermore, so many of these changes are completely out of character with everything GW has ever done from a game design standpoint. It's possibly legit, but I very much doubt it. If it is, it's a rewrite of the game even greater than the conversion from 2nd to 3rd ed.
In my experience, people who have the time to write something this big to the detail this is written to are not the same people who have good rules ideas. Crazy people with horrible wishlists write 120 page books. People with good ideas don't tend to do that.
This isn't just big, it's big and remarkably well designed.
I don't know if the author works for GW, but they are certainly a professional game designer, whoever they are.
4566
Post by: catharsix
Link look like it's already gone, as of 11:42 Central time US...
20774
Post by: pretre
Check mediafire or scribd, it is still out there.
27952
Post by: Swara
I hope this is not a hoax... hell if it is our group might still play with these rules : P
411
Post by: whitedragon
Frontline Gamer Blog =/= Frontline Gaming, Reecius' Game Store in California.
Reecius' Blog: http://www.frontlinegaming.org/blog/
26733
Post by: Wi1ikers
whitedragon wrote:
Frontline Gamer Blog =/= Frontline Gaming, Reecius' Game Store in California.
Our game store in California 
2776
Post by: Reecius
Yeah, the store is Frankie, Will's, and mine, not just mine =)
Frankie and I are working on the podcast now.
43588
Post by: Anpu-adom
There was a rumor way back (like, last may) that while every codex since Tyranids was written with 6th in mind, even those newer ones would need FAQ.
Oh, and there was a rumor that the person directly responsible for 6th's re-write has since left the company. There was also a rumor about that time that states the the original design for 6th was more radical that the uppers at GW were comfortable with (hence, why the designer left the company).
I think that points to Alessio Cavatore as the original author. This might be a leak of his original work (and explain why it doesn't seem like the work of a Native engish speaker).
34456
Post by: ColdSadHungry
I don't know what to make of this.
Assault weapons give +1 to attacks. And power weapons now give a 5+ invul save. So Purifiers are now 3 attacks and have invulnerable saves? The new version of Cleansing flame doesn't appear to allow you to snipe particular models, plus it only hits models you are 'engaged' with but overall, for 24 points you can have a 3 attack, I6, 5+ invul save warrior who can boost his strength to 5 or use cleansing flame? I know it's only a small part of all the changes but that's only 24 points?
Edit - halberds are 2 handed weapons - never realised that! Ignore me.
But, what about nemesis force swords? They must be close combat weapons - therefore you'd get an extra attack for that and the storm bolter. And then we're back to the falchions +1 or +2 attacks debate. Bah, it wouldn't be so annoying if we knew for sure that this was the real deal.
32388
Post by: Dok
The 5+ save is for power weapons with no special abilities. All nemesis force weapons have special abilities.
34456
Post by: ColdSadHungry
Would it not still get the save? After all, it's a Force weapon that has the effects of a power weapon, not a power weapon with additional rules. It's not clear cut imo but i see what you're saying - a RAW vs RAI argument possibly?
35046
Post by: Perkustin
Anpu-adom wrote:There was a rumor way back (like, last may) that while every codex since Tyranids was written with 6th in mind, even those newer ones would need FAQ.
Oh, and there was a rumor that the person directly responsible for 6th's re-write has since left the company. There was also a rumor about that time that states the the original design for 6th was more radical that the uppers at GW were comfortable with (hence, why the designer left the company).
I think that points to Alessio Cavatore as the original author. This might be a leak of his original work (and explain why it doesn't seem like the work of a Native engish speaker).
I am taking this on as my opinion. Though if it is real, initially i like it. Though tbh i am a bit overwhelmed as i am not a huge gamer but i like the fact it is a radical departure. The one thing i do like is the whfb assault/move retrofit. I was always a far better whfb (6th edition  ) player than i was a 40k player.
39575
Post by: Darkseid
ColdSadHungry wrote:Would it not still get the save? After all, it's a Force weapon that has the effects of a power weapon, not a power weapon with additional rules. It's not clear cut imo but i see what you're saying - a RAW vs RAI argument possibly?
Not if RAW says only Power Weapons get this rule. Force Weapons are a separate entity with own special rules.
It's a great thing for Sanguinary Guard though; makes them more surivivable (all else being equal).
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
Darkseid wrote:ColdSadHungry wrote:Would it not still get the save? After all, it's a Force weapon that has the effects of a power weapon, not a power weapon with additional rules. It's not clear cut imo but i see what you're saying - a RAW vs RAI argument possibly?
Not if RAW says only Power Weapons get this rule. Force Weapons are a separate entity with own special rules. It's a great thing for Sanguinary Guard though; makes them more surivivable (all else being equal).
It effectively puts space marine honor guard into terminator armor as well. It won't make them good but it makes them marginally better. Death cult assassins get a 5++ now too!
34456
Post by: ColdSadHungry
OK, I'm aware of the irony here but did the GK's get a little nerf?
As Dok pointed out above, the NFW all GK have may not get the invul saves. You'd lose a +1 attack from having a sword and storm bolter going to a halberd and storm bolter. Cleansing flame isn't quite as good. Daemonbane is now ignored completely. This would affect all MSU in transports but the explodes result now causes critical hits so you could quite easily lose a whole squad and purifier spam relies on transports. Draigowing is history...
The codex FAQs can't be complete but this looks pretty bad for GKs so far. Obviously more reading needed and I'm aware that it may not even be real. All GK having 5+ invul saves would be a little good I suppose.
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
GKs got a huge nerf. Everything that they relied on (aside from pure cost effectiveness) changed. They can't KP deny very well any more, the unkillable blob is a lot more killable, they can't instant death everything, and they can't reliably shoot then assault in the same turn. My assumption is that this edition pretty much totally destroys the previous meta, though other then the nids bumping up a few spots on the ladder I can't say how.
19370
Post by: daedalus
ShumaGorath wrote:
It effectively puts space marine honor guard into terminator armor as well. It won't make them good but it makes them marginally better. Death cult assassins get a 5++ now too!
I thought the DCA save was already invulnerable.
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
daedalus wrote:ShumaGorath wrote:
It effectively puts space marine honor guard into terminator armor as well. It won't make them good but it makes them marginally better. Death cult assassins get a 5++ now too!
I thought the DCA save was already invulnerable.
Is it? It doesn't matter, nothing ever hits them back anyway. 
20086
Post by: Andilus Greatsword
Interesting to see that they've ruled that JotWW doesn't require a roll to hit. Obviously this isn't "official" until this stuff gets released by GW tho, but I take it as a vindication.
47462
Post by: rigeld2
They've also combined Removed from play as a casualty and plain Removed from play... and any other way you'd lose a model.
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
I like some of the ideas, however this smacks of "early" ruleset about it - even with the FAQs. I wonder if the "typo" (p12 of pdf) of a space marines armour save being 2+ is a true typo, or a deliberate change to spot leaks from play testers.
15115
Post by: Brother SRM
nosferatu1001 wrote:I like some of the ideas, however this smacks of "early" ruleset about it - even with the FAQs. I wonder if the "typo" (p12 of pdf) of a space marines armour save being 2+ is a true typo, or a deliberate change to spot leaks from play testers.
it's a typo. If it was at all serious it would have said the same in the Marine update, GK update, BA update, etc. It also is completely ridiculous and makes no sense. It's a typo, pure and simple.
19370
Post by: daedalus
Brother SRM wrote:nosferatu1001 wrote:I like some of the ideas, however this smacks of "early" ruleset about it - even with the FAQs. I wonder if the "typo" (p12 of pdf) of a space marines armour save being 2+ is a true typo, or a deliberate change to spot leaks from play testers.
it's a typo. If it was at all serious it would have said the same in the Marine update, GK update, BA update, etc. It also is completely ridiculous and makes no sense. It's a typo, pure and simple.
I think he's saying that it is a typo, but intentionally inserted in there. Kind of like how atlas companies insert fake streets into their maps to catch copyright infringers.
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
daedalus wrote:Brother SRM wrote:nosferatu1001 wrote:I like some of the ideas, however this smacks of "early" ruleset about it - even with the FAQs. I wonder if the "typo" (p12 of pdf) of a space marines armour save being 2+ is a true typo, or a deliberate change to spot leaks from play testers.
it's a typo. If it was at all serious it would have said the same in the Marine update, GK update, BA update, etc. It also is completely ridiculous and makes no sense. It's a typo, pure and simple.
I think he's saying that it is a typo, but intentionally inserted in there. Kind of like how atlas companies insert fake streets into their maps to catch copyright infringers.
Or GW just has a history of poor editing in their books and a playtest document isn't there to have it's editing scrutinized. The sisters white dwarf got released with half a dozen major typos.
47528
Post by: ceku
Only first the first few rules and i love the new updates! Its starting to make sense why some of new codexes are written how they are. BA are going to be hit pretty hard with the new rigid save thing though.
27014
Post by: Disarray
ColdSadHungry wrote:I don't know what to make of this.
Assault weapons give +1 to attacks. And power weapons now give a 5+ invul save. So Purifiers are now 3 attacks and have invulnerable saves? The new version of Cleansing flame doesn't appear to allow you to snipe particular models, plus it only hits models you are 'engaged' with but overall, for 24 points you can have a 3 attack, I6, 5+ invul save warrior who can boost his strength to 5 or use cleansing flame? I know it's only a small part of all the changes but that's only 24 points?
Wait.. so Slugga boyz would get 5 attacks on the charge ? lol...
16689
Post by: notprop
So is this to be considered a boon to the tournament crowd?
Obviously would depend on the final edit, but it would seem so from the little I have read.
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
Disarray wrote:ColdSadHungry wrote:I don't know what to make of this.
Assault weapons give +1 to attacks. And power weapons now give a 5+ invul save. So Purifiers are now 3 attacks and have invulnerable saves? The new version of Cleansing flame doesn't appear to allow you to snipe particular models, plus it only hits models you are 'engaged' with but overall, for 24 points you can have a 3 attack, I6, 5+ invul save warrior who can boost his strength to 5 or use cleansing flame? I know it's only a small part of all the changes but that's only 24 points?
Wait.. so Slugga boyz would get 5 attacks on the charge ? lol...
Why would they have more attacks? The pistol shot?
34906
Post by: Pacific
Ah ok thanks for clearing that up!
39575
Post by: Darkseid
ceku wrote:BA are going to be hit pretty hard with the new rigid save thing though.
How so? Sure it is ignored by AP3 now, but the most prevalent AP3 weapons are missle launchers which ignore FNP anyway (due to ID). So far Sternguard get the most benefit out of this new rule when facing Plaguemarines / Blood Angels.
In the summary in this thread, the rigid save rule doesn't mention power weapons ignoring the save. I'm sure this is just an actidental omission; as a Blood Angel player, I wouldn't mind it being real though. 
1635
Post by: Savnock
The Depositfiles link still works.
19370
Post by: daedalus
Darkseid wrote:ceku wrote:BA are going to be hit pretty hard with the new rigid save thing though.
How so? Sure it is ignored by AP3 now, but the most prevalent AP3 weapons are missle launchers which ignore FNP anyway (due to ID). So far Sternguard get the most benefit out of this new rule when facing Plaguemarines / Blood Angels.
In the summary in this thread, the rigid save rule doesn't mention power weapons ignoring the save. I'm sure this is just an actidental omission; as a Blood Angel player, I wouldn't mind it being real though.
Weapons that are said to 'ignore armor' (power weapons) count as being AP2
6772
Post by: Vaktathi
Assuming these *ARE* real, there's some cool stuff, some bad stuff, and a whole lot of pointless and/or needless differentiation.
I'm perusing the rules now, but the KP rules still seem just as stilted and imbalanced as they are now, they just made made it a bit more random and difficult to figure out, it's still basically a hamfisted inaccurate result mechanic, only significantly more convoluted and open to gaminess (e.g. designing unit compositions around the various multiples to ensure minimum possible KP counts). The multi-targeting rule also looks pointlessly overcomplicated as is the whole BS vs EV value thing. Wound allocation however is noticeably better.
1635
Post by: Savnock
Kirasu wrote:If this is also a fake rulebook.. GW should hire the guy since he can design an ENTIRE book (Not just write but design the book) all by himself
If it is a fake, it might not be malicious, it might be a labor of love. Someone might be using this as a forum to get GW to consider a decent set of rules that they didn't originate. It would be both a hell of a stunt and a hilarious way to advertise your own skills to GW (Who would probably be very amused by it).
And either way, we gamers win. If this isn't real and the real 6th sucks, I'm playing with these rules (modded as my gaming group sees fit). Hell, a lot of people might do so. It could make a fandex actually have clout.
39575
Post by: Darkseid
daedalus wrote:
Weapons that are said to 'ignore armor' (power weapons) count as being AP2
Ah my bad! Thanks for clearing that up.
20086
Post by: Andilus Greatsword
Savnock wrote:Kirasu wrote:If this is also a fake rulebook.. GW should hire the guy since he can design an ENTIRE book (Not just write but design the book) all by himself
If it is a fake, it might not be malicious, it might be a labor of love. Someone might be using this as a forum to get GW to consider a decent set of rules that they didn't originate. It would be both a hell of a stunt and a hilarious way to advertise your own skills to GW (Who would probably be very amused by it).
And either way, we gamers win. If this isn't real and the real 6th sucks, I'm playing with these rules (modded as my gaming group sees fit). Hell, a lot of people might do so. It could make a fandex actually have clout.
Well it's possible that someone wrote it because they were unsatisfied with 5th Ed rules and decided to make a custom rulebook for their gaming group. I'd say that this is either that or a legit leak.
2776
Post by: Reecius
No way this is fake, it would take months at least to write this and format it. That would be the work of a crazy person, it's just too big. We're talking 170+ pages of formatted, coherent work. I'm not buying that.
This is legit, either a draft or the final version, IMO.
3704
Post by: BDJV
Reecius wrote:No way this is fake, it would take months at least to write this and format it. That would be the work of a crazy person, it's just too big. We're talking 170+ pages of formatted, coherent work. I'm not buying that.
This is legit, either a draft or the final version, IMO.
I concur, this is legit in some form, as someone who has written rules mods (Killzone) and multiple fandexs the formatting alone would take way to long to make this a worthwhile endeavor to fake.
6772
Post by: Vaktathi
While I'm inclined to see it as genuine, never underestimate the ability of one rabid 'sperging fan with an internet connection and a ton of time to spare.
37325
Post by: Adam LongWalker
I'm more inclined of being cynical about the leaked aspect. Regardless, this is generating interest and the buzz for 6th ED.
Basic "FREE" advertising at one of the largest (if not largest) sites for 40k gaming. Looks fishy to me.
And of course, this has spread like wildfire across the interwebs.
GW loves free advertising don't they? they don't have to spend a damn thing.
6772
Post by: Vaktathi
Indeed, it does look fishy, hence why only "inclined" at this point, with a healthy dose of skepticism, if only because I *could* see GW pushing out a giant mess of a core rulebook that's nothing but special rules like this.
32388
Post by: Dok
ShumaGorath wrote:GKs got a huge nerf. Everything that they relied on (aside from pure cost effectiveness) changed. They can't KP deny very well any more, the unkillable blob is a lot more killable, they can't instant death everything, and they can't reliably shoot then assault in the same turn. My assumption is that this edition pretty much totally destroys the previous meta, though other then the nids bumping up a few spots on the ladder I can't say how.
I don't think that's necessarily true. With the "Engage move" you can still perform a shooting attack after assaulting if you wipe the squad you assaulted. I think this will just encourage people to take bigger units of GK.
Draigowing will still be very difficult to deal with as paladins are hard as heck to kill regardless. They may be more vulnerable to small arms fire, but this will just encourage people to take the apothecary.
They still cause instant death, it's just not as good against models with more than 2 wounds.
The meta will definitely change, as it should imo, but I think for the better.
The guys that got the most help were eldar/dark eldar. I wrote up a quick thing talking about how this helps the eldar http://www.3forint.com/2012/01/6th-edition-eldar-codex-update.html. But the removal of the +1 to damage for open topped is huge.
14152
Post by: CT GAMER
Adam LongWalker wrote:I'm more inclined of being cynical about the leaked aspect. Regardless, this is generating interest and the buzz for 6th ED.
Basic "FREE" advertising at one of the largest (if not largest) sites for 40k gaming. Looks fishy to me.
And of course, this has spread like wildfire across the interwebs.
GW loves free advertising don't they? they don't have to spend a damn thing.
It is a win win tactic as proved by Privateer Press when they did open playtesting. You get immediate and massive amounts of feedback on rules items you may be deciding on keeping/modifying/using PRIOR to release.
Of course being GW they cant admit they want the same feedback prior to release so they "leak" it and say nothing. They get the benefit of not having to admit what they are doing, getting valuable feedback before final draft is made, and if it was universally panned they could declare it a fake and never admit to anything.
Genius.
4183
Post by: Davor
Who cares if this is fake. This might be a good set of rules, and might be better than what GW puts out.
So fake or not, it could be fun to play. Automatically Appended Next Post: Andilus Greatsword wrote:Interesting to see that they've ruled that JotWW doesn't require a roll to hit. Obviously this isn't "official" until this stuff gets released by GW tho, but I take it as a vindication.
I thought they would clarify the Tyranid Spirit Leech rule. It still says non vehicles and doesn't say what happens when units in vehicles get effected or not. Did I miss something with my quick glance?
1635
Post by: Savnock
Okay, posting this here because of the quality (high) and quantity (low) of posts so far in this thread:
The file info says that this file:
-Was created on May 17th, 2011 (rulebook) and May 20, 2011 (codex updates);
-Is version 1.4 of the document (whatever that's worth);
-And was created with Acrobat Distiller 9 for Mac.
Not a lot of info, but at least it tell us a possible timeframe for when the author published it (to, say a GW review group).
Dating it back that far would also be unlikely for anything but a very thorough fake (not that a 120-page opus wouldn't count as a very thorough fake).
16689
Post by: notprop
If it was a fan made piece the fact is I'm pretty sure the fan would have been pumping it out all over the shop of the last year (assume those dates are correct). Someone would recognise it I'm sure?
That doesn't preclude a hoax but makes a fan based thing less likely IMO.
I would err in the side of a GW publicity release of very early drafts. I have thought that GW have been doing this sort of thing for a while, with Necrons for example.
15094
Post by: pixelpusher
Savnock wrote:Okay, posting this here because of the quality (high) and quantity (low) of posts so far in this thread:
The file info says that this file:
-Was created on May 17th, 2011 (rulebook) and May 20, 2011 (codex updates);
-Is version 1.4 of the document (whatever that's worth);
-And was created with Acrobat Distiller 9 for Mac.
Not a lot of info, but at least it tell us a possible timeframe for when the author published it (to, say a GW review group).
Dating it back that far would also be unlikely for anything but a very thorough fake (not that a 120-page opus wouldn't count as a very thorough fake).
It's [the bold part] just what version it's backwards compatible with. In this case PDF readers that support 1.4 and upwards (Acrobat 5+). So it has nothing to do with the actual document (could be revision 1.9.2 for all we know).
Using Distiller for actual PDF-creation shows that there's at least someone who knows what they're doing that has created this PDF.
25580
Post by: Maelstrom808
Vaktathi wrote:Indeed, it does look fishy, hence why only "inclined" at this point, with a healthy dose of skepticism, if only because I *could* see GW pushing out a giant mess of a core rulebook that's nothing but special rules like this.
The thing is, who ever wrote this is consolidating special rules more than anything. If you totalled up the special rules currently in the dexes, it would crush this document and they are a mess. Many of them do essentially the same thing, but may have slightly different wording, or a different name. It's one of the biggest hurdles I've had in getting new people involved in the game. This document takes them and consolidates them again so they all share the same name, and the same wording. I'd guesstimate 70% of the "new" rules in this document are simply things that are already in the dexes but rewritten so they are again unified.
Also other rules are a just a simpler way of applying rules to units in new dexes and making sure they rules don't get warped or changed. Things like Hulk and Intractable fall under this catagory. Rather than explain that vehicles can't fight back in CC - except for walkers,and they can't be locked in CC - except for walkers, you simple have a universal special rule that has these qualities and apply it to the unit types you want to have it. It also can give you more flexibility in unit design in the future.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Couple of things on the Podcast:
◦Fast rule: shoot twice if stationary, shoot normally after moving or charging
Technically, you don't shoot twice, it gives you a second shooting action which can be used to fire a second weapon, or split fire, etc, but you can't shoot the same weapon twice.
◦Multi-Targeting: if you have this rule, you can double your shots if you hold still!! Wowzers. If you have multi-targeting(3) you can shoot three times. If you hold still, you shoot 6 times
See above
33586
Post by: Cerebrium
ShumaGorath wrote:GKs got a huge nerf. Everything that they relied on (aside from pure cost effectiveness) changed. They can't KP deny very well any more, the unkillable blob is a lot more killable, they can't instant death everything, and they can't reliably shoot then assault in the same turn. My assumption is that this edition pretty much totally destroys the previous meta, though other then the nids bumping up a few spots on the ladder I can't say how.
Actually, GK Terminators suddenly became much better. Think about it. Deep strike no longer scatters if you DS 18" or more away. All GKT ranged weaponry is 24" range. You can drop and bring EVERY GUN TO BEAR turn 1, safely.
They've gone from either DSing into a safe spot out of reach of the enemy to being able to bring the fight to the enemy.
514
Post by: Orlanth
This could be, or could become policy. Leak the proposed ruleset, lurk on the forums and then edit.
Its a bit too open minded for GW to have leaked it deliberately, but even they might see the advantage in now shutting up and seeing what is posted on Warseer and Dakka, Especially Dakka, they know our rep for rule analysis.
28238
Post by: Warboss Gubbinz
This is a proper leak, look at the meta data for the PDF and compare it to the meta data on any recent PDF you can get off of GW's website. Its made by the same version down to the byte.
Is it a dirty rough copy? yes, but is it a legit draft copy? definitely
34906
Post by: Pacific
Yes but that's not taking account of the fact that it could be an earlier draft of a proposed set of rules that has been rejected.
20086
Post by: Andilus Greatsword
Hmm well if this is legit, and was written way back in May, then there has obviously been refinements since then. I'll be curious to see when it hits how much lines up.
44067
Post by: DarkStarSabre
ShumaGorath wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:
If half these rules are true tyranids just got gangbusters. Also everything just got a lot more lethal, I'd expect games to end with tabling much more often.
See my grin? My cheshire cat grin? If these rules are half true a lot of the codexes start making more sense and looking more balance as a whole.
Also, didja notice?
Meltabombs are melta weapons.
It's like someone stopped taking RAW literally and realised that fluff matters.
35710
Post by: Talarn Blackshard
Well I will remain on the fence until I see a finished product ... but this could be fun ...
1523
Post by: Saldiven
Has anyone seen from the "FAQs" how the new Instant Death rules interact with weapons that currently cause ID regardless of toughness? (Such as Force Weapons, Husk Blades, the Swarmlord, etc.)
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
Saldiven wrote:Has anyone seen from the "FAQs" how the new Instant Death rules interact with weapons that currently cause ID regardless of toughness? (Such as Force Weapons, Husk Blades, the Swarmlord, etc.)
Weapons that cause ID but don't do so through strength cause two wounds. I think force weapons have an additional added bit, but I can't look at it now.
39575
Post by: Darkseid
Saldiven wrote:Has anyone seen from the "FAQs" how the new Instant Death rules interact with weapons that currently cause ID regardless of toughness? (Such as Force Weapons, Husk Blades, the Swarmlord, etc.)
Force Weapons get ID(2) which makes the able to instantly kill anything not protected by EW(2) or EW(3). I'm not sure though which units will recieve which level of EW; it might be possible that Forceweapons will work against deamons now.
25208
Post by: AlmightyWalrus
ShumaGorath wrote:Saldiven wrote:Has anyone seen from the "FAQs" how the new Instant Death rules interact with weapons that currently cause ID regardless of toughness? (Such as Force Weapons, Husk Blades, the Swarmlord, etc.)
Weapons that cause ID but don't do so through strength cause two wounds. I think force weapons have an additional added bit, but I can't look at it now.
They cause ID(2), so they'll ignore EW(1) as well as dealing additional wounds.
1523
Post by: Saldiven
AlmightyWalrus wrote:ShumaGorath wrote:Saldiven wrote:Has anyone seen from the "FAQs" how the new Instant Death rules interact with weapons that currently cause ID regardless of toughness? (Such as Force Weapons, Husk Blades, the Swarmlord, etc.)
Weapons that cause ID but don't do so through strength cause two wounds. I think force weapons have an additional added bit, but I can't look at it now.
They cause ID(2), so they'll ignore EW(1) as well as dealing additional wounds.
Thanks. I sure hope this edition doesn't make my Huskblade/Soultrap useless. The S3 is a liabiility, but not much of one if you only have to get one wound through. If you suddenly have to get two or three through to kill your opponent, it wouldn't be worth the points.
6251
Post by: NecronLord3
Is there a password for the FAQ portion? It was locke for me.
25580
Post by: Maelstrom808
AlmightyWalrus wrote:ShumaGorath wrote:Saldiven wrote:Has anyone seen from the "FAQs" how the new Instant Death rules interact with weapons that currently cause ID regardless of toughness? (Such as Force Weapons, Husk Blades, the Swarmlord, etc.)
Weapons that cause ID but don't do so through strength cause two wounds. I think force weapons have an additional added bit, but I can't look at it now.
They cause ID(2), so they'll ignore EW(1) as well as dealing additional wounds.
No, unless an Instant Death weapon is specified as ID(2) (like the channel ability of force weapons), it will only be ID(1) as default.
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
Maelstrom808 wrote:AlmightyWalrus wrote:ShumaGorath wrote:Saldiven wrote:Has anyone seen from the "FAQs" how the new Instant Death rules interact with weapons that currently cause ID regardless of toughness? (Such as Force Weapons, Husk Blades, the Swarmlord, etc.)
Weapons that cause ID but don't do so through strength cause two wounds. I think force weapons have an additional added bit, but I can't look at it now.
They cause ID(2), so they'll ignore EW(1) as well as dealing additional wounds.
No, unless an Instant Death weapon is specified as ID(2) (like the channel ability of force weapons), it will only be ID(1) as default.
Isn't that what he said?
39309
Post by: Jidmah
nosferatu1001 wrote:I like some of the ideas, however this smacks of "early" ruleset about it - even with the FAQs. I wonder if the "typo" (p12 of pdf) of a space marines armour save being 2+ is a true typo, or a deliberate change to spot leaks from play testers.
Agree, there are some other "mistakes" which seem like deliberate mistakes, like the "heck" fire spots on bastions, the 10" blast labled "when targeting swarms" and many more.
39575
Post by: Darkseid
GW is quite infamous for the lack of proofreading; difficult to say if they are deliberate.
25580
Post by: Maelstrom808
ShumaGorath wrote:Maelstrom808 wrote:AlmightyWalrus wrote:ShumaGorath wrote:Saldiven wrote:Has anyone seen from the "FAQs" how the new Instant Death rules interact with weapons that currently cause ID regardless of toughness? (Such as Force Weapons, Husk Blades, the Swarmlord, etc.)
Weapons that cause ID but don't do so through strength cause two wounds. I think force weapons have an additional added bit, but I can't look at it now.
They cause ID(2), so they'll ignore EW(1) as well as dealing additional wounds.
No, unless an Instant Death weapon is specified as ID(2) (like the channel ability of force weapons), it will only be ID(1) as default.
Isn't that what he said?
What he said reads to me that he is saying all weapons with ID inheirently have ID(2), which is not the case. They inheirently have ID(1) unless specified otherwise.
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
Maelstrom808 wrote:ShumaGorath wrote:Maelstrom808 wrote:AlmightyWalrus wrote:ShumaGorath wrote:Saldiven wrote:Has anyone seen from the "FAQs" how the new Instant Death rules interact with weapons that currently cause ID regardless of toughness? (Such as Force Weapons, Husk Blades, the Swarmlord, etc.)
Weapons that cause ID but don't do so through strength cause two wounds. I think force weapons have an additional added bit, but I can't look at it now.
They cause ID(2), so they'll ignore EW(1) as well as dealing additional wounds.
No, unless an Instant Death weapon is specified as ID(2) (like the channel ability of force weapons), it will only be ID(1) as default.
Isn't that what he said?
What he said reads to me that he is saying all weapons with ID inheirently have ID(2), which is not the case. They inheirently have ID(1) unless specified otherwise.
I said I didn't know what force weapons did. He was responding to that part.
50692
Post by: Wrath
Jidmah wrote:nosferatu1001 wrote:I like some of the ideas, however this smacks of "early" ruleset about it - even with the FAQs. I wonder if the "typo" (p12 of pdf) of a space marines armour save being 2+ is a true typo, or a deliberate change to spot leaks from play testers.
Agree, there are some other "mistakes" which seem like deliberate mistakes, like the "heck" fire spots on bastions, the 10" blast labled "when targeting swarms" and many more.
dunno I think Heck was a true mistake. <heck=deck> The Blast mistake, however, is just to obvious. It should read Apoc Blast.
44067
Post by: DarkStarSabre
Darkseid wrote:GW is quite infamous for the lack of proofreading; difficult to say if they are deliberate.
Prime example being 'Fabius Bike' in the CSM codex.
25580
Post by: Maelstrom808
ShumaGorath wrote:Maelstrom808 wrote:ShumaGorath wrote:Maelstrom808 wrote:AlmightyWalrus wrote:ShumaGorath wrote:Saldiven wrote:Has anyone seen from the "FAQs" how the new Instant Death rules interact with weapons that currently cause ID regardless of toughness? (Such as Force Weapons, Husk Blades, the Swarmlord, etc.)
Weapons that cause ID but don't do so through strength cause two wounds. I think force weapons have an additional added bit, but I can't look at it now.
They cause ID(2), so they'll ignore EW(1) as well as dealing additional wounds.
No, unless an Instant Death weapon is specified as ID(2) (like the channel ability of force weapons), it will only be ID(1) as default.
Isn't that what he said?
What he said reads to me that he is saying all weapons with ID inheirently have ID(2), which is not the case. They inheirently have ID(1) unless specified otherwise.
I said I didn't know what force weapons did. He was responding to that part.
I took it as a reference to the original post, my bad.
12470
Post by: Grimgob
I see that Tyranids get a boost vs. GK force weapons but as I see it they (big bugs) still only have to get hit three times (a large squad with hailberds and hammerhand could do that easy) with no possible saves. a little better but not great.
13192
Post by: Ian Sturrock
Bear in mind that large squad can use either hammerhand or force weapons (one psychic power per turn). I think that with Shadows in the Warp available, big bugs are not doing so badly against GKs any more.
32388
Post by: Dok
My favorite misprint so far is in the Dark Eldar secxtion
The Klaivex marks his chosen toe with an imperious
gesture...
"Toe, it has been a long time coming... But you must finally perish. You are my chosen enemy and you will fall this day!!" - Klaivex
20086
Post by: Andilus Greatsword
Ian Sturrock wrote:Bear in mind that large squad can use either hammerhand or force weapons (one psychic power per turn). I think that with Shadows in the Warp available, big bugs are not doing so badly against GKs any more.
Especially since Warriors may become viable again. Even if they're on the table, that gives the Nids a huge boost in Synapse coverage.
21851
Post by: comrade_nikolai
Savnock wrote: -Was created on May 17th, 2011 (rulebook) and May 20, 2011 (codex updates);
Did anyone notice the reference to the catacomb command barge in the EV value section? I'm not sure what to make of that in relation to the above.
I very much suspect the creation date here.
Why aren't necrons and black templars mentioned in the codex updates? necrons are brand new, but BT are perhaps next? If GW are about to release BT, maybe they ommited this to keep their 1 week window schedule?
there are some obvious mistakes in some of the updates, such as Eldrad being mastery level 2, tau railguns not having the "rail" quality, missing any eternal warrior/ ID stats, missing multitargeting values, missing possible necron/ DE fighter statuses etc.
I think that whilst the rules themselves look very good and very reasonable, the codex updates shouldn't be taken seriously. They look much more like an FAQ that hasn't been given enough time, I wouldn't buy it as the real codex update.
181
Post by: gorgon
Ian Sturrock wrote:Bear in mind that large squad can use either hammerhand or force weapons (one psychic power per turn). I think that with Shadows in the Warp available, big bugs are not doing so badly against GKs any more.
Psychic Counter comes into play here too. Including against force weapon channeling.
39575
Post by: Darkseid
Savnock wrote:
there are some obvious mistakes in some of the updates, such as Eldrad being mastery level 2, tau railguns not having the "rail" quality, missing any eternal warrior/ID stats, missing multitargeting values, missing possible necron/DE fighter statuses etc.
By current rules, eldrad has mastery level 2 (+ 1 for his staff). The descritpion of rail gun explicitly mentones Tau weapon of such name being rail weapons.
51259
Post by: KplKeegan
If I heard correctly, does 6th edition really frown on gunlines? With the Evasion Chart and anything standing still gets hit on a +2? But the Rapid Fire Weapons changes sound nice though, which might give those weapon types more clout instead of special weapons.
A good thing is that regular infantry are more potent.
A potentially bad thing is Infantry using Heavy Weapons. Heavy Weapon Teams, Devastators, etc. might have a really hard time.
20086
Post by: Andilus Greatsword
KplKeegan wrote:If I heard correctly, does 6th edition really frown on gunlines? With the Evasion Chart and anything standing still gets hit on a +2? But the Rapid Fire Weapons changes sound nice though, which might give those weapon types more clout instead of special weapons.
A good thing is that regular infantry are more potent.
A potentially bad thing is Infantry using Heavy Weapons. Heavy Weapon Teams, Devastators, etc. might have a really hard time.
Maybe they're trying to nerf Long Fangs?
1523
Post by: Saldiven
I think it's interesting that embarked troops get the "Relentless" USR while embarked. This brings back the 3rd and 4th ed "drive-by" ability of units like DE warriors in Raiders. That's something I've dramatically missed during the current edition.
25208
Post by: AlmightyWalrus
Codex Update wrote:Use this update in combination with the published Codex FAQs
and your Rulebook version.
In other words, they might update the FAQs as well.
14863
Post by: MasterSlowPoke
comrade_nikolai wrote:Did anyone notice the reference to the catacomb command barge in the EV value section? I'm not sure what to make of that in relation to the above.
I very much suspect the creation date here.
Why aren't necrons and black templars mentioned in the codex updates? necrons are brand new, but BT are perhaps next? If GW are about to release BT, maybe they ommited this to keep their 1 week window schedule?
there are some obvious mistakes in some of the updates, such as Eldrad being mastery level 2, tau railguns not having the "rail" quality, missing any eternal warrior/ID stats, missing multitargeting values, missing possible necron/DE fighter statuses etc.
I think that whilst the rules themselves look very good and very reasonable, the codex updates shouldn't be taken seriously. They look much more like an FAQ that hasn't been given enough time, I wouldn't buy it as the real codex update.
The actual 6th edition team would have had knowledge of the new Necron stuff long before the codex release. It's not like the necron stuff was concieved, sculpted, and cast in October.
The reason for them not having erratas is due to the book not necessarily being finalized in May. (Or that the playtesters didn't have access to beta codexes too)
2776
Post by: Reecius
I am so juiced for these new rules! I sincerely hope they are true, I think the game will improve by a lot.
4183
Post by: Davor
So lets say this is legit for a minute. It was said that Tyranids and onwards codicies was made with 6th edition in mind.
So that being said starting with Tyranids how was the Tyranid codex made for these rules? What about Necrons since they were not even mentioned in the updated FAQ.
51259
Post by: KplKeegan
Reecius wrote:I am so juiced for these new rules! I sincerely hope they are true, I think the game will improve by a lot.
Meh. I'm not that estatic. The whole Evasion thing seems a bit silly to me, and the whole 'Strike Group' option could be omitted, really...
39575
Post by: Darkseid
Davor wrote: What about Necrons since they were not even mentioned in the updated FAQ.
Since is a brand new dex and doesn't need a FAQ? It's not like the other FAQs hold much new infomation, either.
36477
Post by: Painnen
Davor wrote:So lets say this is legit for a minute. It was said that Tyranids and onwards codicies was made with 6th edition in mind.
So that being said starting with Tyranids how was the Tyranid codex made for these rules? What about Necrons since they were not even mentioned in the updated FAQ.
here are just a few that i can think of.
1) Shadows of the Warp + the new +5 psychic power negation ability = very very nice psychic protection.
2) Warriors/Shrikes/Ravagers/Lictors are playable as Instant Death(1) attacks of STR8 won't instant gib them anymore = wider range of sellable models/options to players.
3) The lowly Pyrovore squad can actually be called playable with the D6 "flame" ability they get in CC = a stretch but might sell a model or two.
4) Infiltrators can launch Turn 1 attacks, outlfankers pick whichever small table edge they want to come in = coupled with +2" movement from fleet and you have some serious buffing to reserve lists.
5) Assault weopons give you a +1 attack the turn you charge, as long as you have another primary HtH weopon. Rending claws, Scything Talons, and Boneswords coupled with Devourers, Deathspitters, Impaler Cannons, Psychic Power Shooting attacks, Venom Cannons, etc just got yet another swing at ya.
6) Troops inside of Transports cannot claim objectives. This cannot be overlooked because as your opponent has to calculate when it's a good time to hop out of their cozy rides and start gaining VPs, you are doing it from the get-go as we don't have the vehicles to hide in.
all in all, i think the Leaked Dex has alot of good stuff tucked in it for every codex, not just Nids.
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
Painnen wrote:Davor wrote:So lets say this is legit for a minute. It was said that Tyranids and onwards codicies was made with 6th edition in mind.
So that being said starting with Tyranids how was the Tyranid codex made for these rules? What about Necrons since they were not even mentioned in the updated FAQ.
here are just a few that i can think of.
1) Shadows of the Warp + the new +5 psychic power negation ability = very very nice psychic protection.
2) Warriors/Shrikes/Ravagers/Lictors are playable as Instant Death(1) attacks of STR8 won't instant gib them anymore = wider range of sellable models/options to players.
3) The lowly Pyrovore squad can actually be called playable with the D6 "flame" ability they get in CC = a stretch but might sell a model or two.
4) Infiltrators can launch Turn 1 attacks, outlfankers pick whichever small table edge they want to come in = coupled with +2" movement from fleet and you have some serious buffing to reserve lists.
5) Assault weopons give you a +1 attack the turn you charge, as long as you have another primary HtH weopon. Rending claws, Scything Talons, and Boneswords coupled with Devourers, Deathspitters, Impaler Cannons, Psychic Power Shooting attacks, Venom Cannons, etc just got yet another swing at ya.
6) Troops inside of Transports cannot claim objectives. This cannot be overlooked because as your opponent has to calculate when it's a good time to hop out of their cozy rides and start gaining VPs, you are doing it from the get-go as we don't have the vehicles to hide in.
all in all, i think the Leaked Dex has alot of good stuff tucked in it for every codex, not just Nids.
As a generic marine player I don't feel particularly catered too, but as a veteran player I do feel like I'm not going to be in nearly as many auto loss scenarios.
24153
Post by: tetrisphreak
Painnen wrote:Davor wrote:So lets say this is legit for a minute. It was said that Tyranids and onwards codicies was made with 6th edition in mind.
So that being said starting with Tyranids how was the Tyranid codex made for these rules? What about Necrons since they were not even mentioned in the updated FAQ.
here are just a few that i can think of.
1) Shadows of the Warp + the new +5 psychic power negation ability = very very nice psychic protection.
2) Warriors/Shrikes/Ravagers/Lictors are playable as Instant Death(1) attacks of STR8 won't instant gib them anymore = wider range of sellable models/options to players.
3) The lowly Pyrovore squad can actually be called playable with the D6 "flame" ability they get in CC = a stretch but might sell a model or two.
4) Infiltrators can launch Turn 1 attacks, outlfankers pick whichever small table edge they want to come in = coupled with +2" movement from fleet and you have some serious buffing to reserve lists.
5) Assault weopons give you a +1 attack the turn you charge, as long as you have another primary HtH weopon. Rending claws, Scything Talons, and Boneswords coupled with Devourers, Deathspitters, Impaler Cannons, Psychic Power Shooting attacks, Venom Cannons, etc just got yet another swing at ya.
6) Troops inside of Transports cannot claim objectives. This cannot be overlooked because as your opponent has to calculate when it's a good time to hop out of their cozy rides and start gaining VPs, you are doing it from the get-go as we don't have the vehicles to hide in.
all in all, i think the Leaked Dex has alot of good stuff tucked in it for every codex, not just Nids.
Actually in the Tyranid codex update document it states that tyranids only attack with 'basic strikes' or 'monstrous CCWs' in close combat (depending on what unit is doing the attacking). So even though every weapon in our codex is an assault type weapon, it won't be granting any extra CC attacks.
Here's a note that you may have overlooked -- Monstrous Creatures have multi-targeting (2). A brood of carnifexes remaining stationary can multiple fire at multiple units with all of their twin-linked devourer arms. 2 or more carnifexes in a unit can give up shooting 1 set of devourers to shoot the others at split targets if they move, etc. Adds even more tactical flexibility vs moving and shooting in the game. I approve!
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
tetrisphreak wrote:Painnen wrote:Davor wrote:So lets say this is legit for a minute. It was said that Tyranids and onwards codicies was made with 6th edition in mind.
So that being said starting with Tyranids how was the Tyranid codex made for these rules? What about Necrons since they were not even mentioned in the updated FAQ.
here are just a few that i can think of. 1) Shadows of the Warp + the new +5 psychic power negation ability = very very nice psychic protection. 2) Warriors/Shrikes/Ravagers/Lictors are playable as Instant Death(1) attacks of STR8 won't instant gib them anymore = wider range of sellable models/options to players. 3) The lowly Pyrovore squad can actually be called playable with the D6 "flame" ability they get in CC = a stretch but might sell a model or two. 4) Infiltrators can launch Turn 1 attacks, outlfankers pick whichever small table edge they want to come in = coupled with +2" movement from fleet and you have some serious buffing to reserve lists. 5) Assault weopons give you a +1 attack the turn you charge, as long as you have another primary HtH weopon. Rending claws, Scything Talons, and Boneswords coupled with Devourers, Deathspitters, Impaler Cannons, Psychic Power Shooting attacks, Venom Cannons, etc just got yet another swing at ya. 6) Troops inside of Transports cannot claim objectives. This cannot be overlooked because as your opponent has to calculate when it's a good time to hop out of their cozy rides and start gaining VPs, you are doing it from the get-go as we don't have the vehicles to hide in. all in all, i think the Leaked Dex has alot of good stuff tucked in it for every codex, not just Nids.
Actually in the Tyranid codex update document it states that tyranids only attack with 'basic strikes' or 'monstrous CCWs' in close combat (depending on what unit is doing the attacking). So even though every weapon in our codex is an assault type weapon, it won't be granting any extra CC attacks. Here's a note that you may have overlooked -- Monstrous Creatures have multi-targeting (2). A brood of carnifexes remaining stationary can multiple fire at multiple units with all of their twin-linked devourer arms. 2 or more carnifexes in a unit can give up shooting 1 set of devourers to shoot the others at split targets if they move, etc. Adds even more tactical flexibility vs moving and shooting in the game. I approve!
It also lets you take heavier weaponry without sacrificing usefullness. The return of viable mixed weaponry is going to be huge in this edition if it's real. It'll be nice to have multi purpose units that have a point in the game.
4736
Post by: airmang
Painnen wrote:
3) The lowly Pyrovore squad can actually be called playable with the D6 "flame" ability they get in CC = a stretch but might sell a model or two. .
It's even better as its d6 auto hitting armor ignoring attacks each. All the while moving 12" a turn(unless you want to flame something...)
46113
Post by: Rakear
Thats incorrect about the pyrovore. Fire sweep specifically says that it does d6 wounds with the templates str and ap values, ignoring any other benefits.
So the pyrovore will get D6 wounds with its flame template, and then 1+1 attacks with its teeth that ignore armor.
It's flamer will not benefit from its ignore armor ability for close combat.
4736
Post by: airmang
Take a look at the nid FAQ. It says they ignore armor with their normal attacks and the firesweep attacks.
25247
Post by: N.I.B.
tetrisphreak wrote:Painnen wrote:Davor wrote:So lets say this is legit for a minute. It was said that Tyranids and onwards codicies was made with 6th edition in mind.
So that being said starting with Tyranids how was the Tyranid codex made for these rules? What about Necrons since they were not even mentioned in the updated FAQ.
here are just a few that i can think of.
1) Shadows of the Warp + the new +5 psychic power negation ability = very very nice psychic protection.
2) Warriors/Shrikes/Ravagers/Lictors are playable as Instant Death(1) attacks of STR8 won't instant gib them anymore = wider range of sellable models/options to players.
3) The lowly Pyrovore squad can actually be called playable with the D6 "flame" ability they get in CC = a stretch but might sell a model or two.
4) Infiltrators can launch Turn 1 attacks, outlfankers pick whichever small table edge they want to come in = coupled with +2" movement from fleet and you have some serious buffing to reserve lists.
5) Assault weopons give you a +1 attack the turn you charge, as long as you have another primary HtH weopon. Rending claws, Scything Talons, and Boneswords coupled with Devourers, Deathspitters, Impaler Cannons, Psychic Power Shooting attacks, Venom Cannons, etc just got yet another swing at ya.
6) Troops inside of Transports cannot claim objectives. This cannot be overlooked because as your opponent has to calculate when it's a good time to hop out of their cozy rides and start gaining VPs, you are doing it from the get-go as we don't have the vehicles to hide in.
all in all, i think the Leaked Dex has alot of good stuff tucked in it for every codex, not just Nids.
Actually in the Tyranid codex update document it states that tyranids only attack with 'basic strikes' or 'monstrous CCWs' in close combat (depending on what unit is doing the attacking). So even though every weapon in our codex is an assault type weapon, it won't be granting any extra CC attacks.
Here's a note that you may have overlooked -- Monstrous Creatures have multi-targeting (2). A brood of carnifexes remaining stationary can multiple fire at multiple units with all of their twin-linked devourer arms. 2 or more carnifexes in a unit can give up shooting 1 set of devourers to shoot the others at split targets if they move, etc. Adds even more tactical flexibility vs moving and shooting in the game. I approve!
Multi-targeting =/= Divide Fire. As I understand it (could be wrong of course) for a single MC it just means that it gain an exception so it can fire two weapons (on the same target), just like today. Since it cannot carry anymore than two weapons, the only thing they gain is a Tyrant not moving would also allow him to cast one psychic shooting power on top of his two Devourers (unless he will be able to use two psychic powers per turn).
Someone said Infiltrate lets you charge first turn, but I don't see how. As it counts as Deepstrike the infiltrated unit is only able to do a Combat Move and Engage (in other words they can charge 6-8"). Infiltrate is nerfed by this, looks like it didn't really fit into the rule set. The only thing it gains is that the unit cannot be targeted if your opponent goes first, as it's not on the table. No reason at all to use if you go first, as for example Genestealers will move 2" further after a normal deployment and run move.
Outflank however, looks really good. As I read it, correct me if I'm wrong, you place the unit 6" from a short table edge and THEN get your normal move. Which for Genestealers would give them a 22" assault range from the short table edge that they chose, as opposed to the maximum of 18" today (and more like 15" on average).
I've been reading about Entry Point, and I can't get my head around it:
Trygon
"Page 50 - Subterranean Assault
If, when a Trygon (or Trygon Prime) deploys via Deep
Strike mark the position under the creature's base with
a suitable marker. This is an entry point. If a unit is
deployed at this entry point, it may not move on the
same turn it arrives, but may shoot as normal."
Entry Point
"Any unit arriving from reserves can be placed in
6” of a friendly entry point using the normal
rules. Image the entry point as an extension of
the table edge. Even units that were intended to
use a deployment special rule can be placed at an
entry point instead."
Would I be correct assuming that you can outflank from an entry point? And deepstrike? What if the unit deepstriking next to the entry point is within Critical Range, does it scatter?
Looks like they removed the wording that limited the Trygon hole to only work the turn AFTER it arrived, which is a good thing as it was completely useless.
39309
Post by: Jidmah
If you remain stationary, you can fire twice as many weapons as your multi-target value says. You can chose to shoot one less shot in order to target any number of units. So a stationary MC would even be able to shoot three targets, as long as it has three different weapons..
26404
Post by: cmac
What happens with the 1 on the conbat drugs roll. 3d6 fleet, doh. FAQ'd?
181
Post by: gorgon
Well, last night I played a game with these rules vs forum member Cruentus...my Tyranids vs his BA. This is actually the second time we've attempted this...a few months back we faked a game with the incomplete rumored rules. Obviously this time we had a complete (and somewhat different) ruleset. But interestingly, the game played very similarly.
Some general, stream-of-consciousness observations:
1) Still feels like 40K. Our game moved extremely slowly due to rules lookups (and the sometimes confusing organization of the doc), but I'm confident things would move quickly once we get the system down better. Really, many things are the same as now, they've just been codified better. Once we get the new terminology down I think things will be fairly intuitive.
Oh, and I think a simple cheat sheet would go a *long* way to keeping things moving at a good pace. I highly recommend this for anyone attempting a game.
2) My earlier observation still stands...the increased footspeed is really the most startling thing about the new edition. And it's why Tyranids will be tough in any mission with Seize Ground. Especially with Tervigons in the army, Tyranids can quickly flood objectives with Troops and rack up big leads in points. (This is what happened in both of our games.)
3) Outflank is much better now. You just pick the short edge you want and place within 6" of the edge. You can really pressure your opponent's flank this way, especially if the unit is fast like Genestealers (up to 16" of movement). The one downside is the -1 to reserve rolls, but Tyranids also have ways of countering that if they want (Hive Commander, Lictors, etc.).
4) Shooting certainly got some boosts...meltaguns hitting on a 2+ make for some sad Trygons. :( And really, the EV rule is very simple and takes about 2 additional seconds. I like it a lot.
5) However, CC is very deadly, between fearless units taking critical hits in combat res and non-fearless units only escaping sweeping advances on a 4+ or 5+. The author of this document clearly wants models removed in large bunches and quickly. That smells like GW to me.
6) Tanks are pretty darn tough. I had trouble wrecking Razorbacks in CC with Genestealers. And the new weapon damage result on the chart is a good boost to main battle tanks. It'll be easier keeping the main gun firing under these rules.
I'll probably have more to say later.
24153
Post by: tetrisphreak
gorgon wrote:Well, last night I played a game with these rules vs forum member Cruentus...my Tyranids vs his BA. This is actually the second time we've attempted this...a few months back we faked a game with the incomplete rumored rules. Obviously this time we had a complete (and somewhat different) ruleset. But interestingly, the game played very similarly.
Some general, stream-of-consciousness observations:
1) Still feels like 40K. Our game moved extremely slowly due to rules lookups (and the sometimes confusing organization of the doc), but I'm confident things would move quickly once we get the system down better. Really, many things are the same as now, they've just been codified better. Once we get the new terminology down I think things will be fairly intuitive.
Oh, and I think a simple cheat sheet would go a *long* way to keeping things moving at a good pace. I highly recommend this for anyone attempting a game.
2) My earlier observation still stands...the increased footspeed is really the most startling thing about the new edition. And it's why Tyranids will be tough in any mission with Seize Ground. Especially with Tervigons in the army, Tyranids can quickly flood objectives with Troops and rack up big leads in points. (This is what happened in both of our games.)
3) Outflank is much better now. You just pick the short edge you want and place within 6" of the edge. You can really pressure your opponent's flank this way, especially if the unit is fast like Genestealers (up to 16" of movement). The one downside is the -1 to reserve rolls, but Tyranids also have ways of countering that if they want (Hive Commander, Lictors, etc.).
4) Shooting certainly got some boosts...meltaguns hitting on a 2+ make for some sad Trygons. :( And really, the EV rule is very simple and takes about 2 additional seconds. I like it a lot.
5) However, CC is very deadly, between fearless units taking critical hits in combat res and non-fearless units only escaping sweeping advances on a 4+ or 5+. The author of this document clearly wants models removed in large bunches and quickly. That smells like GW to me.
6) Tanks are pretty darn tough. I had trouble wrecking Razorbacks in CC with Genestealers. And the new weapon damage result on the chart is a good boost to main battle tanks. It'll be easier keeping the main gun firing under these rules.
I'll probably have more to say later.
Thanks for the inputs, I plan on doing a game or two tomorrow with these rules. You mentioned a cheat sheet, I've been taking notes on what I think will be pertinent issues in-game but generally, what do you think we should have listed for quick reference? Movement values, move/assault/shooting actions, etc? How did you deal with contesting? I haven't scoured the Seize Ground section of the rules yet (i will shortly) but is there anything in there about an objective contested (unlikely with the shooting and CC being so deadly, but possible) during the scoring phase of the turn? Edit - one other thing - Would you say the game is equally as fun, less fun, or more fun than before in your (admittedly brief) trial run of these rules?
23793
Post by: Acardia
N.I.B. wrote:tetrisphreak wrote:Painnen wrote:Davor wrote:So lets say this is legit for a minute. It was said that Tyranids and onwards codicies was made with 6th edition in mind.
So that being said starting with Tyranids how was the Tyranid codex made for these rules? What about Necrons since they were not even mentioned in the updated FAQ.
here are just a few that i can think of.
1) Shadows of the Warp + the new +5 psychic power negation ability = very very nice psychic protection.
2) Warriors/Shrikes/Ravagers/Lictors are playable as Instant Death(1) attacks of STR8 won't instant gib them anymore = wider range of sellable models/options to players.
3) The lowly Pyrovore squad can actually be called playable with the D6 "flame" ability they get in CC = a stretch but might sell a model or two.
4) Infiltrators can launch Turn 1 attacks, outlfankers pick whichever small table edge they want to come in = coupled with +2" movement from fleet and you have some serious buffing to reserve lists.
5) Assault weopons give you a +1 attack the turn you charge, as long as you have another primary HtH weopon. Rending claws, Scything Talons, and Boneswords coupled with Devourers, Deathspitters, Impaler Cannons, Psychic Power Shooting attacks, Venom Cannons, etc just got yet another swing at ya.
6) Troops inside of Transports cannot claim objectives. This cannot be overlooked because as your opponent has to calculate when it's a good time to hop out of their cozy rides and start gaining VPs, you are doing it from the get-go as we don't have the vehicles to hide in.
all in all, i think the Leaked Dex has alot of good stuff tucked in it for every codex, not just Nids.
Actually in the Tyranid codex update document it states that tyranids only attack with 'basic strikes' or 'monstrous CCWs' in close combat (depending on what unit is doing the attacking). So even though every weapon in our codex is an assault type weapon, it won't be granting any extra CC attacks.
Here's a note that you may have overlooked -- Monstrous Creatures have multi-targeting (2). A brood of carnifexes remaining stationary can multiple fire at multiple units with all of their twin-linked devourer arms. 2 or more carnifexes in a unit can give up shooting 1 set of devourers to shoot the others at split targets if they move, etc. Adds even more tactical flexibility vs moving and shooting in the game. I approve!
Multi-targeting =/= Divide Fire. As I understand it (could be wrong of course) for a single MC it just means that it gain an exception so it can fire two weapons (on the same target), just like today. Since it cannot carry anymore than two weapons, the only thing they gain is a Tyrant not moving would also allow him to cast one psychic shooting power on top of his two Devourers (unless he will be able to use two psychic powers per turn).
Someone said Infiltrate lets you charge first turn, but I don't see how. As it counts as Deepstrike the infiltrated unit is only able to do a Combat Move and Engage (in other words they can charge 6-8"). Infiltrate is nerfed by this, looks like it didn't really fit into the rule set. The only thing it gains is that the unit cannot be targeted if your opponent goes first, as it's not on the table. No reason at all to use if you go first, as for example Genestealers will move 2" further after a normal deployment and run move.
Outflank however, looks really good. As I read it, correct me if I'm wrong, you place the unit 6" from a short table edge and THEN get your normal move. Which for Genestealers would give them a 22" assault range from the short table edge that they chose, as opposed to the maximum of 18" today (and more like 15" on average).
I've been reading about Entry Point, and I can't get my head around it:
Trygon
"Page 50 - Subterranean Assault
If, when a Trygon (or Trygon Prime) deploys via Deep
Strike mark the position under the creature's base with
a suitable marker. This is an entry point. If a unit is
deployed at this entry point, it may not move on the
same turn it arrives, but may shoot as normal."
Entry Point
"Any unit arriving from reserves can be placed in
6” of a friendly entry point using the normal
rules. Image the entry point as an extension of
the table edge. Even units that were intended to
use a deployment special rule can be placed at an
entry point instead."
Would I be correct assuming that you can outflank from an entry point? And deepstrike? What if the unit deepstriking next to the entry point is within Critical Range, does it scatter?
Looks like they removed the wording that limited the Trygon hole to only work the turn AFTER it arrived, which is a good thing as it was completely useless.
Carnifex can have bio plasma so 3. Heck if you count the Hive Tyrants psychic ones he has 5.
43588
Post by: Anpu-adom
I just realized something and it makes me giddy...
With the new system of bidding for the first go, what a strategic choice my opponent has to make if I use the Stormlord or another character that steals initiative on more than a 6+?
Does he bid low, hoping that I overbid and he gets a bunch of rerolls, knowing that I may just end up going first anyway?
24153
Post by: tetrisphreak
Anpu-adom wrote:I just realized something and it makes me giddy...
With the new system of bidding for the first go, what a strategic choice my opponent has to make if I use the Stormlord or another character that steals initiative on more than a 6+?
Does he bid low, hoping that I overbid and he gets a bunch of rerolls, knowing that I may just end up going first anyway?
Except you wouldn't get choice of first turn (the winner of the bidding war can choose to go second, don't forget).
You would however get 25% of the S. Points that the loser received on a 4+, making a high bid something less of an issue because you'll also get stratagems to help out your army.
Vect from DE can do this same thing as well.
181
Post by: gorgon
tetrisphreak wrote: Thanks for the inputs, I plan on doing a game or two tomorrow with these rules. You mentioned a cheat sheet, I've been taking notes on what I think will be pertinent issues in-game but generally, what do you think we should have listed for quick reference? Movement values, move/assault/shooting actions, etc?
How did you deal with contesting? I haven't scoured the Seize Ground section of the rules yet (i will shortly) but is there anything in there about an objective contested (unlikely with the shooting and CC being so deadly, but possible) during the scoring phase of the turn?
Edit - one other thing - Would you say the game is equally as fun, less fun, or more fun than before in your (admittedly brief) trial run of these rules?
Regarding the cheat sheet, I'll work on that today and then post page numbers of what I think would have been handy for us.
Here's an interesting point re: contesting. The rules only say you have to be within 3" to claim the points (which are claimed only by you at the beginning of the Movement phase in your own turn). There's nothing we could find that says enemy units within 3" prevent this from happening. Note that if both players had units in range at the end of the game, for instance, they'd both score their points, creating kind of a "draw" situation. Obviously though during the middle parts of the game this won't work out that way.
We had at least as much fun as with 5th, and maybe more. I think with more practice with the system and less time with our noses in the rulebook, it'd be a slam dunk for being more fun. Cruentus had some bad luck during the game, but was still very positive afterward. Keep in mind we both go back to 2nd edition, so I think it's possible we're biased toward a little more complexity and fun, flavorful rules. Still, I think it's a pretty tight system and more intuitive in some ways. Big stuff is now easier to hit. That seems like an obvious and simple statement, but during the game it's just kind of refreshing somehow.
Here's a minor nugget that not everyone may have noticed. In CC, when the defenders react, the rules say you just move everything into base contact where possible. There's no 6" limitation...you just move it all in. Oh, and no move through cover for MCs now. I found this out after deploying my Trygons behind some difficult terrain. Oops.
24153
Post by: tetrisphreak
Yeah, i picked out the loss of automatic MTC with MC's in my read through. Still, I'll take it since they're not slowed down when they do a charge, they only can't run/cruise through terrain.
I looked over the Seize Ground section right after i posted and i noticed a paragraph that shed some light on contesting:
"A mission objective can be claimed several times during a game cycle if several units that act in different turns are close by."
That means I can score, and you can score, on one objective, if we're both duking it out in a CC that won't end. Tarpitting can effectively be a tactic, especially if you're tarpitting an elite dreadnought (non-scoring) with a tactical squad (scoring).
The more I read the more i'm into these...which means GW will probably curb-stomp my expectations when they release something different in 6 months.
4736
Post by: airmang
gorgon wrote:
Here's a minor nugget that not everyone may have noticed. In CC, when the defenders react, the rules say you just move everything into base contact where possible. There's no 6" limitation...you just move it all in.
It's in the Pile In rules section. Defenders React is just the heading of the section.
181
Post by: gorgon
Aha! I think what threw us was that the summary on 56 didn't reference Pile-In under Defenders React (although note that it does under Break Up). So we assumed the Pile-In stuff on 57 referred to only the post-combat move and didn't read that opening paragraph closely.
26519
Post by: xttz
N.I.B. wrote:
I've been reading about Entry Point, and I can't get my head around it:
Trygon
"Page 50 - Subterranean Assault
....
Looks like they removed the wording that limited the Trygon hole to only work the turn AFTER it arrived, which is a good thing as it was completely useless.
If I understand this correctly, it means 'nid players can:
1) Allocate 3 reserve dice to a Lictor/Deathlearper in turn 2 and bring it on right next to an enemy.
2) Charge it into combat with someone suitably weak and prevent the Lictor getting shot at for a turn (using flesh hooks as 5th ed assault grenades)
3) Deep-strike a Trygon Prime wtihin 6" of the Lictor on Turn 3 without scatter. Use multi-targeting (2) to fire its twelve shots twice or Engage another target within 6" of the Trygon.
4) Bring Carnifex with frag spines and double ScyTals through the Trygon tunnel on turn 3 also. Charge something within 6" or Ram something within 12".
25580
Post by: Maelstrom808
xttz wrote:N.I.B. wrote:
I've been reading about Entry Point, and I can't get my head around it:
Trygon
"Page 50 - Subterranean Assault
....
Looks like they removed the wording that limited the Trygon hole to only work the turn AFTER it arrived, which is a good thing as it was completely useless.
If I understand this correctly, it means 'nid players can:
1) Allocate 3 reserve dice to a Lictor/Deathlearper in turn 2 and bring it on right next to an enemy.
2) Charge it into combat with someone suitably weak and prevent the Lictor getting shot at for a turn (using flesh hooks as 5th ed assault grenades)
3) Deep-strike a Trygon Prime wtihin 6" of the Lictor on Turn 3 without scatter. Use multi-targeting (2) to fire its twelve shots twice or Engage another target within 6" of the Trygon.
4) Bring Carnifex with frag spines and double ScyTals through the Trygon tunnel on turn 3 also. Charge something within 6" or Ram something within 12".
Only thing is you have to wait one turn after the fex arrives to assault or ram. Tunnel update specificly disallows moving the turn you show up. Would be pretty smexy with a trio of Dakka fexes though. As a side note, I also like how the +1 to reserves from pheremone trail does not require the lictor to be on the board anymore.
24150
Post by: ChocolateGork
Maelstrom808 wrote:xttz wrote:N.I.B. wrote:
I've been reading about Entry Point, and I can't get my head around it:
Trygon
"Page 50 - Subterranean Assault
....
Looks like they removed the wording that limited the Trygon hole to only work the turn AFTER it arrived, which is a good thing as it was completely useless.
If I understand this correctly, it means 'nid players can:
1) Allocate 3 reserve dice to a Lictor/Deathlearper in turn 2 and bring it on right next to an enemy.
2) Charge it into combat with someone suitably weak and prevent the Lictor getting shot at for a turn (using flesh hooks as 5th ed assault grenades)
3) Deep-strike a Trygon Prime wtihin 6" of the Lictor on Turn 3 without scatter. Use multi-targeting (2) to fire its twelve shots twice or Engage another target within 6" of the Trygon.
4) Bring Carnifex with frag spines and double ScyTals through the Trygon tunnel on turn 3 also. Charge something within 6" or Ram something within 12".
Only thing is you have to wait one turn after the fex arrives to assault or ram. Tunnel update specificly disallows moving the turn you show up. Would be pretty smexy with a trio of Dakka fexes though. As a side note, I also like how the +1 to reserves from pheremone trail does not require the lictor to be on the board anymore.
HOLY CRABS! Lictors are GOOD!
Well A lictor is good.
25580
Post by: Maelstrom808
Not scary good since they can still be DF'd into the ground when they show up, but between giving +1 to reserves from the get-go, being ID'd not as big of a threat anymore, and being able to assault the turn you arrive from deep-striking, they would no longer be "LOL, yeah right" units.
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
ChocolateGork wrote:Maelstrom808 wrote:xttz wrote:N.I.B. wrote:
I've been reading about Entry Point, and I can't get my head around it:
Trygon
"Page 50 - Subterranean Assault
....
Looks like they removed the wording that limited the Trygon hole to only work the turn AFTER it arrived, which is a good thing as it was completely useless.
If I understand this correctly, it means 'nid players can: 1) Allocate 3 reserve dice to a Lictor/Deathlearper in turn 2 and bring it on right next to an enemy. 2) Charge it into combat with someone suitably weak and prevent the Lictor getting shot at for a turn (using flesh hooks as 5th ed assault grenades) 3) Deep-strike a Trygon Prime wtihin 6" of the Lictor on Turn 3 without scatter. Use multi-targeting (2) to fire its twelve shots twice or Engage another target within 6" of the Trygon. 4) Bring Carnifex with frag spines and double ScyTals through the Trygon tunnel on turn 3 also. Charge something within 6" or Ram something within 12".
Only thing is you have to wait one turn after the fex arrives to assault or ram. Tunnel update specificly disallows moving the turn you show up. Would be pretty smexy with a trio of Dakka fexes though. As a side note, I also like how the +1 to reserves from pheremone trail does not require the lictor to be on the board anymore.
HOLY CRABS! Lictors are GOOD! Well A lictor is good.
The doom of malanti also causes twice as many wounds as before and can't have all 10 of its own taken at once. This is in a game where we're going to see far fewer armies sitting inside of transports. Getting assaulted before the second shooting round could hurt, but having that many wounds with the new ID system is going to be ridiculous. I suspect the doom of malanti just became one of the most overpowered models in the game. Sorry celestine, you just couldn't keep up with that level of cheese.
53531
Post by: Juicifer
xttz wrote:
If I understand this correctly, it means 'nid players can:
3) Deep-strike a Trygon Prime wtihin 6" of the Lictor on Turn 3 without scatter. Use multi-targeting (2) to fire its twelve shots twice or Engage another target within 6" of the Trygon.
Doesn't it say right there in Multi-targeting that a model still cannot fire the same weapon twice?
25580
Post by: Maelstrom808
ShumaGorath wrote:
The doom of malanti also causes twice as many wounds as before and can't have all 10 of its own taken at once. This is in a game where we're going to see far fewer armies sitting inside of transports. Getting assaulted before the second shooting round could hurt, but having that many wounds with the new ID system is going to be ridiculous. I suspect the doom of malanti just became one of the most overpowered models in the game. Sorry celestine, you just couldn't keep up with that level of cheese.
It will be pretty rediculous, especially if Spirit Leech doesn't get changed to be a psychic power. Automatically Appended Next Post: Juicifer wrote:xttz wrote:
If I understand this correctly, it means 'nid players can:
3) Deep-strike a Trygon Prime wtihin 6" of the Lictor on Turn 3 without scatter. Use multi-targeting (2) to fire its twelve shots twice or Engage another target within 6" of the Trygon.
Doesn't it say right there in Multi-targeting that a model still cannot fire the same weapon twice?
Yes that is true.
53173
Post by: Fralethepalewhale
After reading a few of these "new" rules I find myself more and more confused. Maybe that's because I'm a new gamer but I just find it very confusing and hard to grasp. Why make it more complicated? I mean maybe it has to do with the fact that I've only played 5th ED.
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
Fralethepalewhale wrote:After reading a few of these "new" rules I find myself more and more confused. Maybe that's because I'm a new gamer but I just find it very confusing and hard to grasp. Why make it more complicated? I mean maybe it has to do with the fact that I've only played 5th ED.
Fifth edition is an intensely simple but very complex game. There is a lot of bs and nagging rules because the system isn't consolidated or written very well. Theres not a tremendous amount that you can actually do in a game of 40k, currently. In a lot of ways it plays itself for you while you eat popcorn. This new system seems more complicated, but it's just explicit about what happens and where. There are far fewer assumptions that the player has to make and the player is actually given legitimate options during play. It doesn't look like it'll play very slowly though by comparison; once learned.
26519
Post by: xttz
Maelstrom808 wrote:Not scary good since they can still be DF'd into the ground when they show up, but between giving +1 to reserves from the get-go, being ID'd not as big of a threat anymore, and being able to assault the turn you arrive from deep-striking, they would no longer be "LOL, yeah right" units.
I don't quite understand which units can use Defensive Fire. The codex updates only give Coteaz the Overwatch rule, so does that mean no one else can use DF until we start seeing more 6th ed codexes released?
ShumaGorath wrote:
The doom of malanti also causes twice as many wounds as before and can't have all 10 of its own taken at once. This is in a game where we're going to see far fewer armies sitting inside of transports. Getting assaulted before the second shooting round could hurt, but having that many wounds with the new ID system is going to be ridiculous. I suspect the doom of malanti just became one of the most overpowered models in the game. Sorry celestine, you just couldn't keep up with that level of cheese.
Keep in mind that the 'doubled wounds' thing is because it lost the ability to leech wounds in an opponents turn. I suspect this is a result of the new rules for three or more players in a game.
Also thanks to the way shooting and assault have been swapped around its much easier to assault the Doom without being in Leech range first. Doing a ton of wounds in melee isn't too hard, esepcially if he hasn't had time to charge up yet.
I'd also like to amend my earlier plan:
1) Allocate 3 reserve dice to a Deathleaper in turn 2 and bring it on right next to an enemy.
2) Charge it into combat with someone suitably weak and prevent the it getting shot at for a turn. Failing that, rely on the +2 to cover saves and Veiled(3) to reduce incoming fire.
3) Deep-strike a Trygon Prime wtihin 6" of the DL on Turn 3 without scatter.
4) Bring through any of the following:
Dakkafex brood with bio-plasma and devourers to hit things at point-blank range (EV 3 or lower).
Warrior brood with deathspitters and boneswords
T-fex or pyrovores to flush out troops in cover
Tervigons
Hive Tyrant or Swarmlord (to give PE to someone who can shoot)
Some very accurate Zoanthropes (hitting most vehicles within 12" on a 2+).
Hell if you dropped 2 Trygons like that you could even bring in Venomthropes to cover everything nearby. Tyranid all-reserve armies just became very flexible indeed.
Automatically Appended Next Post: ShumaGorath wrote:Fralethepalewhale wrote:After reading a few of these "new" rules I find myself more and more confused. Maybe that's because I'm a new gamer but I just find it very confusing and hard to grasp. Why make it more complicated? I mean maybe it has to do with the fact that I've only played 5th ED.
Fifth edition is an intensely simple but very complex game. There is a lot of bs and nagging rules because the system isn't consolidated or written very well. Theres not a tremendous amount that you can actually do in a game of 40k, currently. In a lot of ways it plays itself for you while you eat popcorn. This new system seems more complicated, but it's just explicit about what happens and where. There are far fewer assumptions that the player has to make and the player is actually given legitimate options during play. It doesn't look like it'll play very slowly though by comparison; once learned.
They seem to be doing a good job of putting as many special rules as possible into the main rules set, rather than having each codex do its own thing. This is great as it helps people understand exactly what an opponent can do when they haven't played against that army before. It also reduces the scope for rules arguements in future, with every new codex using established ones.
181
Post by: gorgon
xttz wrote: Hell if you dropped 2 Trygons like that you could even bring in Venomthropes to cover everything nearby. Tyranid all-reserve armies just became very flexible indeed.
I ran reserve Tyranid armies all last year and decided that Venomthropes could be golden if only I could control reserves in terms of timing and accuracy. These rules make that possible, so I will definitely be trying them out.
25580
Post by: Maelstrom808
xttz wrote:Maelstrom808 wrote:Not scary good since they can still be DF'd into the ground when they show up, but between giving +1 to reserves from the get-go, being ID'd not as big of a threat anymore, and being able to assault the turn you arrive from deep-striking, they would no longer be "LOL, yeah right" units.
I don't quite understand which units can use Defensive Fire. The codex updates only give Coteaz the Overwatch rule, so does that mean no one else can use DF until we start seeing more 6th ed codexes released?
- Overwatch units have permission to use it when an enemy unit moves within 12" of your unit, so yeah..Coteaz.
- You can give both sides Overwatch when a unit is within 3" of an objective by selecting the Fire at Will strategem
- You are given permission to use Defensive fire against a unit that deepstrikes within 12" of that unit. There are limitations to this as well.
- And there are one or two other special situations that I can't think of at the moment..neither particularly overpowering. The main thread on the PDF has a nice little argument and the exact situations you can use it spelled out on like pages 48-50 of the thread...somewhere in there.
39575
Post by: Darkseid
I suspect the doom of malanti just became one of the most overpowered models in the game.
Well, to use the leech ability it has do DS withhin 6" of the enemy. Defensive Fire can hurt it badly before it uses the power, especially if the player tries to leech multiple units at once.
25580
Post by: Maelstrom808
Except that spore pods deny defensive fire against the pod. And unlike the 5th ed FAQ, no where does it say that troops disembarking from a transport that arrived via deep strike also count as deep striking. So currently a spore pod will give Doom, or anything else that steps out of one immunity from defensive fire.
25247
Post by: N.I.B.
Darkseid wrote:Well, to use the leech ability it has do DS withhin 6" of the enemy. Defensive Fire can hurt it badly before it uses the power, especially if the player tries to leech multiple units at once.
The Mycetic Spore (the transport it uses) is not subject to Defensive Fire. Were that leaves the unit inside is anyones guess.
I'm not completely sure of the new disembark rule, but it seems now that there is no such thing - you disembark and move in one and the same action, meaning you can't get those 2" extra you get today, meaning you're right about the Doom's thread range when it deepstrikes, it can't be more than 6" from the spore.
39575
Post by: Darkseid
Maelstrom808 wrote:Except that spore pods deny defensive fire against the pod. And unlike the 5th ed FAQ, no where does it say that troops disembarking from a transport that arrived via deep strike also count as deep striking. So currently a spore pod will give Doom, or anything else that steps out of one immunity from defensive fire.
N.I.B. wrote:The Mycetic Spore (the transport it uses) is not subject to Defensive Fire. Were that leaves the unit inside is anyones guess.
I see. Thanks for clearing that up. This sounds very powerful, not only for the Doom but all poding units. Maybe I'll get some more large drop pods form FW if this rules hit the shelf, as the prospect of multiple Furiosos poding into the enemy lines at turn 1 pleases me greatly.
25580
Post by: Maelstrom808
Well, I'd wait and see what happens with 6th...and the FAQ that will follow it. It's fuzzy enough that it could swing either way if it gets clarified.
There is another indirect way around it. A unit can only use DF against one deepstriking unit in a turn. Depending on what else you drop in with the Doom, you can force some hard choices for them on what to spend that DF on.
34456
Post by: ColdSadHungry
KplKeegan wrote:If I heard correctly, does 6th edition really frown on gunlines? With the Evasion Chart and anything standing still gets hit on a +2? But the Rapid Fire Weapons changes sound nice though, which might give those weapon types more clout instead of special weapons.
A good thing is that regular infantry are more potent.
A potentially bad thing is Infantry using Heavy Weapons. Heavy Weapon Teams, Devastators, etc. might have a really hard time.
I'd think that these types of units are the prime candidates for receiving the Overwatch rule. Because I don't think that the leaked FAQs are any where near complete.
26519
Post by: xttz
Maelstrom808 wrote:
- Overwatch units have permission to use it when an enemy unit moves within 12" of your unit, so yeah..Coteaz.
- You can give both sides Overwatch when a unit is within 3" of an objective by selecting the Fire at Will strategem
- You are given permission to use Defensive fire against a unit that deepstrikes within 12" of that unit. There are limitations to this as well.
- And there are one or two other special situations that I can't think of at the moment..neither particularly overpowering. The main thread on the PDF has a nice little argument and the exact situations you can use it spelled out on like pages 48-50 of the thread...somewhere in there.
Can units use Defensive Fire more than once in a turn? It seems a little overpowered if this is the case (a whole army potentially firing several times in a turn) but I can't find a rule that specifically prevents it.
14863
Post by: MasterSlowPoke
A unit can only react to one deep striker.
2776
Post by: Reecius
So many of these rules improve the game.
Being able to charge after deepstrike, or charge out of a vheicle that moved combat speed. Banshees in Wave Serpants are viable.
Daemons got so much better.
I am really, really happy to see these changes. I hope they are legit, or close to what we end up with.
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
Reecius wrote:So many of these rules improve the game.
Being able to charge after deepstrike, or charge out of a vheicle that moved combat speed. Banshees in Wave Serpants are viable.
Daemons got so much better.
I am really, really happy to see these changes. I hope they are legit, or close to what we end up with.
What happened to the research on BoK saying it was false? Any inside insights into that situation?
25580
Post by: Maelstrom808
xttz wrote:Maelstrom808 wrote:
- Overwatch units have permission to use it when an enemy unit moves within 12" of your unit, so yeah..Coteaz.
- You can give both sides Overwatch when a unit is within 3" of an objective by selecting the Fire at Will strategem
- You are given permission to use Defensive fire against a unit that deepstrikes within 12" of that unit. There are limitations to this as well.
- And there are one or two other special situations that I can't think of at the moment..neither particularly overpowering. The main thread on the PDF has a nice little argument and the exact situations you can use it spelled out on like pages 48-50 of the thread...somewhere in there.
Can units use Defensive Fire more than once in a turn? It seems a little overpowered if this is the case (a whole army potentially firing several times in a turn) but I can't find a rule that specifically prevents it.
It seems DF can be used more than once from different triggers, but most of the time a single unit can only use DF once from a single trigger.
And whole armies getting the opportunity to use defensive fire is HIGHLY unlikely once you read and understand how it interacts within the rules.
827
Post by: Cruentus
tetrisphreak wrote:
Thanks for the inputs, I plan on doing a game or two tomorrow with these rules. You mentioned a cheat sheet, I've been taking notes on what I think will be pertinent issues in-game but generally, what do you think we should have listed for quick reference? Movement values, move/assault/shooting actions, etc?
Edit - one other thing - Would you say the game is equally as fun, less fun, or more fun than before in your (admittedly brief) trial run of these rules?
I would say with re: to the cheat sheet:
The overall turn sequence, and each of the different phase steps
The unit types, movement distances
The charts for shooting, close combat, wounding
Vehicle charts for damage
The rest of the time was spent looking up specific rules in the pages, then trying to find them again. I'd note the pages of the various phases, etc., since the answers to various questions were usually in the relevant section (i.e. movement, assault, shooting, wargear, etc.)
I would say the game was equally to more fun than the current game. While I got stomped, there was more to consider, and more decisions to make, particularly as the assault moves happen in movement, assault is fought, then shooting occurs. So do I assault, then shoot? Do I just shoot? Do I hope the assault clears so that I can then shoot up the enemy if they win, etc.
I played a MSU Blood Angel Mech (Las Razors/ LR/Baal) with a big assault squad. I definitely needed more bodies. I couldn't rush out to contest objectives because his speed and his trygons would have been all over me. So I cornered, figuring I could shoot down the big stuff and then push out to grab objectives later. Bad idea. Between the tervi and the spawns (fortunately he dried up after one spawning), and his speed, he was wracking up vps every turn and I had none. By the time I had somewhat cleared things, I had 3 turns to push out to get to objectives. Unfortunately, I had no one left to do so. Oh, and while he had first turn, I could have taken a strategem which counts all my vehicles as moving on his first turn, which would make them less vulnerable to being shot stationary.
If we had it right, the LR was a beast with Multi-track (3) able to fire a ton. The Baal with Multi-track (1) was pretty terrible. One shot moving, 2 shots stationary (due to the doubling of Multi-track) meant I could never fire more than 2 weapon systems (I had the TLAC, HB sponsons, stormbolter). So it was bad at thinning the hordes. I'll have to check the rules further to see if I missed something.
MSUs were at a huge disadvantage in combat, especially if they took no retreat wounds, and my squads disappeared fast. Since these rules seem to favor shooting, I"ll have to look to enhance my firepower without sacrificing too much close combat. As the stealers hit my flank, I remembered thinking 'I need bolters'. As it was, two 5 man assault squads firing bolt pistols into 16 stealers was a waste (I should have charged instead).
The game was fun, and offer a lot of interesting tactical and strategic options.
2776
Post by: Reecius
@Shumagorath
I'm hearing both from the sources I typically get information from. I think this is real, at least a working draft of the GW rules. They have put out/leaked/lost information like this before, and then it turned out to be real, or nearly real before.
Time will tell, but my instincts say this came from GW.
26179
Post by: Truffle
I just browsed the multi targeting rule in that quick break down. AV 14 tanks get multi targeting six so they can shoot 6 times. Does that mean a leman russ can fire 6 battle cannon rounds and all of its secondary guns 6 times cos thats just total bs if so?
30143
Post by: Carnage43
Truffle wrote:I just browsed the multi targeting rule in that quick break down. AV 14 tanks get multi targeting six so they can shoot 6 times. Does that mean a leman russ can fire 6 battle cannon rounds and all of its secondary guns 6 times cos thats just total bs if so?
Costs 2 shooting actions to fire an ordinance weapon. No weapon can be fired more then once.
Read harder.
2776
Post by: Reecius
If they hold still they have 6.
That means they can shoot 5 guns at 5 targets if they hold still, or 2 at 2 targets if they move.
Like Carnage said, each gun can only fire once and ordnance count as 2 shots.
Russes are awesome now though, the Plasmacutioner can move and fire 5 plasma shots as a single target or 3 at one and 1 at another.
I LOVE these rules so far, in a big way. We'll be making a video bat rep with the new rules, ASAP.
4295
Post by: vhwolf
Hurry up on that BatRep I cant start trying out these new rules until next week due to needing to stay focused on running a Fantasy/Lord Of The Rings GT tommorow and I want to know more.
24153
Post by: tetrisphreak
Yes, i myself had a game planned this weekend with the new rules. If i can recall i'll snap some photos and do a mini-rep in the battle reports section.
2776
Post by: Reecius
We'll get a video bat rep in with the new rules as soon as we can, just been crazy busy at the store. Automatically Appended Next Post: New Rumors we heard that you all might be interested in: http://www.frontlinegaming.org/2012/01/13/6th-ed-40k-rumors/
10279
Post by: focusedfire
Hi guys,
Just dropping my 2cents worth.
While like the overall direction towards a mroe balanced game I find it hard to give s yea or nay until a more complete and thorough version is available. Could this be real???
Yes, but it. could be just as likely a fake.
Ether way, my interest is that this could be developed into a great ruleset if the author(s?) decide to finish it. This stands to be a win-win situation for 40Kyou players(Something we rarely see because gw is usually giving us lose-lose deals). What I'm getting at is that if this is real then it is a pretty good move by gw...If fake, then this summer we will have 2by new rulesets to play and compare...(win-win).
Now I mentioned that these rules need (Imho) finishing. Things like, Do consolidation move affect the EV if both inits started the turn in combat and one nreaks successfully?
How do the Tau wmulti-tracker and target-lock wargear options work with the # of shooting actions without cries of shennanigans by the opponent.
Are shooting actions to be saved up gor later use outside of the normal turn sequence? If so, where it say the weapon may only fire once, does that mean extra actions are wasted or is it only once per targeted unit??
Also a side note. IMO, the rail rules as currently writtenI could gmp the the Tau as much as they help. It means that those few very effective/expensive railgun equipped units will have to operate without an anti-assault screening units. Suicide rail units is not good for Tau.
Will add more later.
Later:Could be thata Eldar artillery rocks under these rules
11564
Post by: Brothererekose
Reecius wrote:@Shumagorath
I'm hearing both from the sources I typically get information from. I think this is real, at least a working draft of the GW rules. They have put out/leaked/lost information like this before, and then it turned out to be real, or nearly real before.
Time will tell, but my instincts say this came from GW.
My guy, who knows a guy, etc.
This is pretty much repeating the sequence of events (pdf, well formatted, no pics, example pages were orks, but this time it's CSM) before 5e was released. This isn't so much for Reece, as you other guys.
IIRC, the leak was about 90% on with the final release's rule-set.
I'm dizzy with the possibilities of playing *the models I own* of eldar and 'nids, and being competitive ! Assault out of a Wave Serpent? Suh-WEEET!
42254
Post by: negajoule
Hi all,
I just played 2 games with the new rules at my FLGS. A 750pts to learn the basics and then 2K pts to really try them out.
I was sceptical at first read, but after playing them THEY ROCK!! Even if this is not the actual leaked dex my game group had a serious discussion of using these instead of 5th or 6th if it is just a 5.5 edition.
Some things take some getting used to, like how the different assault moves work and how vehicles are damaged, but overall it was not hard to learn.
These rules also work well with existing units and seem to make for a balanced game. No unit steamrolled everything like usually happens and it was a very fun game tactically. The flow of the new turn sequence is great because moves are not split up. A shooting army can now actually "suppress" assaulters with the right weapons to keep out of combat. Assault armies are able to get into assault more reliably because the shooting does not let the opponent take away the close models as casualties before an assault move.
Just a small sample, but I hope these are not fake.
19554
Post by: HiddenPower
LOL these rules are way too complicated and take way to much thinking. Remember that GW targets 11yo so theres no way this is 6th ed. If anything 6th ed will be far more simplistic.
26404
Post by: cmac
You could just use sticky tags with labels with your printed copy instead of cheat sheeting.
24519
Post by: TheNewMexicanGeneral
Will be trying these rules out in a few days against a shooty necron army and a mystery army. We are all excited to check it out and see how it works. Especialy the assault based CSM VS Shooty Necrons matchup. I will try to post a few messages during course of the game and during breaks and will try to compose a full report of the battle(s) on Sunday.
25580
Post by: Maelstrom808
HiddenPower wrote:LOL these rules are way too complicated and take way to much thinking.
...and yet the playtesting that has happened seems to suggest otherwise.
34906
Post by: Pacific
Sorry if this has been posted already, but a pretty interesting video review of the rules in action on Beasts of War's website
http://www.beastsofwar.com/warhammer-40k/6th-edition-40k-play-video/
52704
Post by: Dantalian
Reecius wrote:@Shumagorath
I'm hearing both from the sources I typically get information from. I think this is real, at least a working draft of the GW rules. They have put out/leaked/lost information like this before, and then it turned out to be real, or nearly real before.
Time will tell, but my instincts say this came from GW.
All I have to say about this is that if this is a hoax, and 6th edition is almost indistinguishable from 5th edition. I will have to really consider my time/money I put towards this hobby. Because as it stands now this leak seems like the best thing that 40k could do to improve itself, anything else would be extremely disappointing.
negajoule wrote:Hi all,
I just played 2 games with the new rules at my FLGS. A 750pts to learn the basics and then 2K pts to really try them out.
I was sceptical at first read, but after playing them THEY ROCK!! Even if this is not the actual leaked dex my game group had a serious discussion of using these instead of 5th or 6th if it is just a 5.5 edition.
It's this right here that will hurt GW a lot if this is a hoax. The fact that someone was able to put out a set of rules that they would rather play over the official material.
5269
Post by: lord_blackfang
Nice.
So while Whineseer buries its head in the sand, BoW is actually considering dropping 5th edition and only using the leak for their videos until 6th comes out.
53595
Post by: Palindrome
Warseer is saying that this is a hoax as have several other sites.
This seems to be due to GW apparently saying that it is fake but I can easily see this as being damage control due to their contract with New Line Cinema (one of the stipulations of which is allegedly that they don't leak any information regarding the Hobbit). GW are also the type of company that likes to aggressively control its IP and web presence.
To me there is too much circumstantial evidence that points to this being real to easily brush it off as an elaborate hoax.; however the possibility exists that it is.
Is there any evidence within or without the document that suggest that it isn't real? Does anything not chime with previous rumours made by trusted rumour mongers? I have noticed that some of the spellings are consistently a little strange and some quick googleing revealed that it is a non English spelling, is that significant?
Basically I really like these rules and I would dearly like to believe that they are real. However if it is a hoax and 6the ed is merely 5th ed with the furniture rearranged (just like 4th ed was) I would be disappointed to say the least.
25580
Post by: Maelstrom808
Palindrome wrote:Warseer is saying that this is a hoax as have several other sites.
This seems to be due to GW apparently saying that it is fake but I can easily see this as being damage control due to their contract with New Line Cinema (one of the stipulations of which is allegedly that they don't leak any information regarding the Hobbit). GW are also the type of company that likes to aggressively control its IP and web presence.
To me there is too much circumstantial evidence that points to this being real to easily brush it off as an elaborate hoax.; however the possibility exists that it is.
Is there any evidence within or without the document that suggest that it isn't real? Does anything not chime with previous rumours made by trusted rumour mongers? I have noticed that some of the spellings are consistently a little strange and some quick googleing revealed that it is a non English spelling, is that significant?
Basically I really like these rules and I would dearly like to believe that they are real. However if it is a hoax and 6the ed is merely 5th ed with the furniture rearranged (just like 4th ed was) I would be disappointed to say the least.
The reality is, unless GW turns heel and says that it's real (which won't happen), we really won't know one way or the other until printing leaks from 6th start to come out. Both sides of the argument have plenty of "evidence" and "insiders" to support their case, but we really just won't know for sure till shortly before 6th hits shelves. In the meantime, we can talk about the rules mostly from an academic standpoint, and in a "what if" scenario. Some of us are planning on using this within our groups anyway if 6th turns out to be a bust, so the discussion also helps in that regard.
53595
Post by: Palindrome
If it is a fake there may well be a smoking gun hidden somewhere that proves that it is; I would rather that it is disproved now rather than in the summer.
39575
Post by: Darkseid
Palindrome wrote:
Is there any evidence within or without the document that suggest that it isn't real? Does anything not chime with previous rumours made by trusted rumour mongers? I have noticed that some of the spellings are consistently a little strange and some quick googleing revealed that it is a non English spelling, is that significant?
The spelling thing is blown out of proportion, imho. In one paragraph about fortifications it reads Heck instead of Back. Heck usually means the back of a ship in german. Suddenly people went on how this doc was written in german first and merely translated into english. Conspirancy theory right here.
Btw. on a QWERTY keyboard the B is close to the H. So is this a unfortunate typo or a full fleged conspirancy at our hands? You tell me.
Overall I agree with Maelstorm808, there is no way to be sure until the book hits. There is evidence for both camps but the evidence is mostly conjure at best.
53595
Post by: Palindrome
I was actually talking about bajonet (or however it is spelt in the document, it is certainly the same spelling each time I noticed it). That is apparently the Dutch spelling.
1084
Post by: Agamemnon2
Meanwhile, some 4channer is sure this is a fake because it does not use British spellings. Go figure.
53595
Post by: Palindrome
I have heard it suggested that this is a non English version that has been translated. Is this plausible, does GW produce non english language versions of its playtest lists?
Non UK standard spellings may be significant, it depends on who actually wrote these rules. By itself it that much though.
1084
Post by: Agamemnon2
Palindrome wrote:I have heard it suggested that this is a non English version that has been translated. Is this plausible, does GW produce non english language versions of its playtest lists?
I don't see why they would, and I'd expect to see some other translation artifacts in the text, in that case.
5269
Post by: lord_blackfang
It has armour and colour, that's good enough for me (but not for Firefox's spellchecker)
39575
Post by: Darkseid
A book of this size is certaily a collaborative effort leading to a mix and mach of different ways of spelling. It raises some suspicion but it doesnt kill it, not by a long shot.
26404
Post by: cmac
Isn't this a draft complied by a non-native english speaking game designer who presented this to the board and left the company after a disagreement with the management about the content?
Hence, some of the ideas may be incorporated and others not.
Please, no rules arguments over rules not in place yet. Heh.
34906
Post by: Pacific
lord_blackfang wrote:
Nice.
So while Whineseer buries its head in the sand, BoW is actually considering dropping 5th edition and only using the leak for their videos until 6th comes out.
As far as I know, only Warseer is completely prohibiting it's discussion. BoLS forum and even B&C are allowing discussion about it.
Personally, I think it's a questionable tactic. Yes, an email may have gone out from HQ saying that the leak is a fake, but then they would say that, even if it wasn't. It also excludes the fact that not only might it be similar to the final release of 6th edition, but it's a damned interesting discussion in it's own right, and it also let's the internet community do what it does best - hypothesise about everything!
So the question remains - is this just a massive amount of pompousness by Warseer, or some direct involvement from GW in asking them to remove threads? I would bet on the former, and I hope they get punished badly in the traffic stakes for it.
2764
Post by: AgeOfEgos
Palindrome wrote:Warseer is saying that this is a hoax as have several other sites.
This seems to be due to GW apparently saying that it is fake but I can easily see this as being damage control due to their contract with New Line Cinema (one of the stipulations of which is allegedly that they don't leak any information regarding the Hobbit). GW are also the type of company that likes to aggressively control its IP and web presence.
To me there is too much circumstantial evidence that points to this being real to easily brush it off as an elaborate hoax.; however the possibility exists that it is.
Is there any evidence within or without the document that suggest that it isn't real? Does anything not chime with previous rumours made by trusted rumour mongers? I have noticed that some of the spellings are consistently a little strange and some quick googleing revealed that it is a non English spelling, is that significant?
Basically I really like these rules and I would dearly like to believe that they are real. However if it is a hoax and 6the ed is merely 5th ed with the furniture rearranged (just like 4th ed was) I would be disappointed to say the least.
There are both styles of spelling in the document. For example, I find more instances of 'centre' than 'center'--and there is no rhyme or reason to the appearance. The Queen's English "centre" appears in new rules---as well as the Americanized "center". This is consistent across other variables "immobolize, immobilise", etc. I don't think this really gives credence to if it is real or a hoax--it simply indicates that more than one person worked on the document and it wasn't edited yet.
We discussed this in the DCM forum (the land of honey, milk and beer)--and my thoughts were;
For someone to hoax it, someone had to;
Intentionally start on a page other than 1.
Immediately update the ruleset with GK information (meta data reads 5, GK released less than a month before)
Have inside knowledge of the new Necron codex (Or, retroactively update the rulebook with the correct rulings directly after the Necron codex--change the date time for each individual codex update and rulebook to edit Metadata for the PDF--then reupload the documents directly)
Copy GW style
Organize and write the document with the proper columns
Reference within the document appropriately
Have a pretty intimate knowledge of most every codex
Know the rumors that were currently floating around about 6th and knowingly insert them into the document
Keep this copy and release it months later (Or someone just sat on this information for that many months before it hitting the net?)
Insert place holder photos like the 5th leak
As Red stated, it's possible--but not very plausible. So that leaves 3 choices;
1. It's a very early draft of the rules-- GW's statement is 'technically' correct in that it is not 6th edition's rules. Maybe written by a former designer.
2. It's a hoax--and someone went to an inordinate amount of time/effort to not only make the rules good--but to fake metadata, update as new codices came out and then not take credit for any of it.
3. It was a fan dex--which refers to other fan dex writings--and would take an inordinate amount of time/effort--yet they do not step forward to take credit about (and no one within the community knows the group that painstakingly wrote it)
While anything is possible, I'm inclined to believe it was an early draft.
5269
Post by: lord_blackfang
Pacific wrote:So the question remains - is this just a massive amount of pompousness by Warseer, or some direct involvement from GW in asking them to remove threads? I would bet on the former, and I hope they get punished badly in the traffic stakes for it.
Warseer's mods love their power, this just gives them an excuse. I once got a strike for typing "Are we reading the same file, Charax?" when they decided that we shouldn't mention some leaked codex scan, I forget which one. What I do remember is that a few days later a mod posted a huge codex review based on the scan.
39575
Post by: Darkseid
lord_blackfang wrote:Pacific wrote:So the question remains - is this just a massive amount of pompousness by Warseer, or some direct involvement from GW in asking them to remove threads? I would bet on the former, and I hope they get punished badly in the traffic stakes for it.
Warseer's mods love their power, this just gives them an excuse. I once got a strike for typing "Are we reading the same file, Charax?" when they decided that we shouldn't mention some leaked codex scan, I forget which one. What I do remember is that a few days later a mod posted a huge codex review based on the scan.
When you are 40+ and your wife spends more time with the gardener, the milkman and the plumber than with you, you got to went somewhere. 
34906
Post by: Pacific
Actually my bad, Warseer does have a sticky thread discussing 6th edition.
Re. the topic of the thread, what I find amusing is that as quickly as BoK jumped on the 'wow new edition rules, 100%!' rumour, it has now switched to 'wow no new edition, 100% fake!'
Even if it is 'fake', there are many unanswered question (as Age of Egos wrote above):
Are we seeing something that has been produced by the shaking, sweat-soaked hands of a lunatic trapped in his mother's basement? Is this an early draft for the actual rules release, and so perhaps 95% accurate? Is it a draft that was made by a designer at GW (either on their orders, or just a private project) but then subsequently rejected? And if so, who was responsible for leaking it and why? Was it an elaborate hoax just to try and catch a 'leak' in the studio prior to GW focusing on the Hobbit and requirements from New Line that will supposedly mean an even tighter control of information?
Technically, GW could have said it is a 'fake' because it is only 90% accurate. That is indeed correct, but it still doesn't exclude the fact that the rules we have seen might well be largely accurate. It's also a damned interesting discussion in it's own right.
53595
Post by: Palindrome
AgeOfEgos wrote:[
There are both styles of spelling in the document. For example, I find more instances of 'centre' than 'center'--and there is no rhyme or reason to the appearance. The Queen's English "centre" appears in new rules---as well as the Americanized "center". This is consistent across other variables "immobolize, immobilise", etc. I don't think this really gives credence to if it is real or a hoax--it simply indicates that more than one person worked on the document and it wasn't edited yet.
The Bajonet spelling worries me a little I have to say although I have found instances of the correct english spelling. Bajonet appears to be the dutch/slovakian spelling and it occurs at least twice, enough to suggest that it is the result of more than an errant key press. UK/US spelling isn't that much of an issue as they are quite interchangeable in practise, especially if more than one person wrote this.
As far as I know, only Warseer is completely prohibiting it's discussion.
WIntermute, in his usual lovable style, has set up a dedicated thread on 6th ed prefaced by saying that this leak is a fake based upon the GW email (and the Warseer mods knew it all along, obviously).
2764
Post by: AgeOfEgos
Palindrome wrote:
The Bajonet spelling worries me a little I have to say although I have found instances of the correct english spelling. Bajonet appears to be the dutch/slovakian spelling and it occurs at least twice, enough to suggest that it is the result of more than an errant key press. UK/US spelling isn't that much of an issue as they are quite interchangeable in practise, especially if more than one person wrote this.
That is a good catch--as the one correct spelling of 'bayonet' is a copy/paste paragraph from 5th Ed. rules--and the incorrect instances are in paragraphs not found in 5th's rules.
53595
Post by: Palindrome
It could be nothing more than someone not being able to spell of course
4183
Post by: Davor
What I don't understand is, if it's a fake, how come they are taken down then? I am sure when the fake BA codex came out, it was never taken down, it was there for all to download.
So why all the hoopla to take it off the net if it's a fake?
53595
Post by: Palindrome
Because if it is real GW will send in the lawyers. The problem is that GW would have to acknowledge this as belonging to them first. I suspect that people have simply become so used to GW flexing its legal muscle that they are scared to test them. Once it is released (if it ever is) GW is certain to take an active interest so on the whole people are playing it safe.
It is also possible that this is real and forums/websites have already been warned off but if this is the case how come BoW didn't mention this?
4139
Post by: wuestenfux
Davor wrote:What I don't understand is, if it's a fake, how come they are taken down then? I am sure when the fake BA codex came out, it was never taken down, it was there for all to download.
So why all the hoopla to take it off the net if it's a fake?
The point is that its GW's intellectual property no matter if the text is a hoax or not.
38809
Post by: michaelcycle
I like some rule changes, EXTREMELY hate others like the new transport rules not being able to shoot more than one weapon out of fire points if you move. A rule change like this makes melta vet lists worthless and also makes ghost arks a dumb choice for necrons. The 18" max range is ok but nerfs de.
It seems silly to nerf guard and de to put them on an equal playing field with marines shooting a single melta out of their rhinos. Guard and de dont get that nice 3+ thats why they get tin cans and paper planes.
53595
Post by: Palindrome
michaelcycle wrote: EXTREMELY hate others like the new transport rules not being able to shoot more than one weapon out of fire points if you move..
While think that this is an EXTREMELY good rule, In fact I would prefer it if firepoints were simply removed from the game.
20901
Post by: Luke_Prowler
michaelcycle wrote:I like some rule changes, EXTREMELY hate others like the new transport rules not being able to shoot more than one weapon out of fire points if you move. A rule change like this makes melta vet lists worthless and also makes ghost arks a dumb choice for necrons. The 18" max range is ok but nerfs de.
Actually I think you only shoot one weapon out of a fire point if the vehicle is stunned or if you lose MT, which is one more than you could fire in 5th.
33495
Post by: infinite_array
wuestenfux wrote:Davor wrote:What I don't understand is, if it's a fake, how come they are taken down then? I am sure when the fake BA codex came out, it was never taken down, it was there for all to download.
So why all the hoopla to take it off the net if it's a fake?
The point is that its GW's intellectual property no matter if the text is a hoax or not.
Interestingly enough, it may not be. You can't copyright game mechanics.
38809
Post by: michaelcycle
From how i read it if you move at all you can shoot only 1?
53595
Post by: Palindrome
infinite_array wrote:wuestenfux wrote:Davor wrote:What I don't understand is, if it's a fake, how come they are taken down then? I am sure when the fake BA codex came out, it was never taken down, it was there for all to download.
So why all the hoopla to take it off the net if it's a fake?
The point is that its GW's intellectual property no matter if the text is a hoax or not.
Interestingly enough, it may not be. You can't copyright game mechanics.
References are made to GW trademarks so....
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
Unless open topped, in which case you can fire everything out of the vehicle. And are relentless.
38809
Post by: michaelcycle
So it is only a nerf bat to the guard. Awesome so necrons, dark eldar, and orks all get to shoot when they move and the ig get to shoot how power armored space marines did in 5th. Now rhino marines are as potent as flak armor vets in a chimera. Time to shelf another army i put a good grand into atleast. Ugh such a waste of good forgeworld models.
53595
Post by: Palindrome
I think you mean that t is time to rethink cheesy 'hide in my transports' tactics?
53623
Post by: Ronin_eX
AgeOfEgos wrote:There are both styles of spelling in the document. For example, I find more instances of 'centre' than 'center'--and there is no rhyme or reason to the appearance. The Queen's English "centre" appears in new rules---as well as the Americanized "center". This is consistent across other variables "immobolize, immobilise", etc. I don't think this really gives credence to if it is real or a hoax--it simply indicates that more than one person worked on the document and it wasn't edited yet.
Another potential explanation for the mixed spellings is a pretty simple one. With all the time we spend on the Internet interacting with others spellings can often get muddled if we aren't careful. As a Canadian I was taught to spell British English. So I spell it Armour, Honour and Colour. Those are words that I use often enough that I don't have to think twice. Meanwhile due to various Spell Checks not being set to non-American English by default I often find myself doing center instead of centre, maneuver instead of manoeuvre or any number of other ways.
I've done up a few games in the past of lesser size than this and by the end of it they end up looking very disjointed because I've worked on different computers or the software was being uppity (some times the spell check isn't switched on when opening a file up so you don't notice when you spell things differently).
All this tells me is that this document hasn't seen an Editor or Proof Reader yet which makes sense when it looks like it was the living rules document that has recently been sent in for rudimentary layout.
I figure most of the devs at GW will have similar troubles if they spend any amount of time on the Internet and since they haven't been actively proof reading the document yet it wont be caught until it is sent off for that kind of work.
So like most other "definitive" pieces of proof this one is open to a lot of interpretation one way or the other. All I know is that if this is not a hoax then it is, by far, the earliest state we have ever seen a leaked document in. Even the 5th Edition leak and Grey Knight leak, despite having some changes, we very late in the development cycle. Both of them seemed to be done layout and were probably just getting their final editing and proofing passes before getting compiled and sent to the printers. Meanwhile, this thing looks like it was only just starting to get the bits of polish we would expect from a professional product. So if it is real it is very interesting to see a document this early. Too bad we probably wont even know for sure even after the rules are released unless they don't change too much (which I doubt).
Either way this thing is a keeper because these rules are dynamite compared to the last decade of design we've seen from GW. Some proofreading and a few editing passes plus some art assets and this thing would make an excellent alternative to 40k if 6th-proper is more of the same from the devs at GW. Just the fact that everything in it is getting standardized and explained and delineated is awesome and I hope it is real just so I can give the guys at GW kudos for finally taking a look at design [b]and[/i] presentation in their rules. This seems much more tightly engineered and more well thought out than 3rd, 4th and 5th combined. This is honestly what 3rd should have been, it keeps ideas that worked from 2nd while still streamlining things and making play quicker. And all without sacrificing minute to minute choices.
Hell the rules have finally made the Assault Phase interesting after all this time. Between engaging, charging, planning alpha strikes and all the rest of it you now have some actual choices to make when you go to assault. The new turn order is also great and it is a nice compromise between 2nd Edition and 3rd Edition. I may have to dust off my Dark Angels and give these a go.
44067
Post by: DarkStarSabre
HiddenPower wrote:LOL these rules are way too complicated and take way to much thinking. Remember that GW targets 11yo so theres no way this is 6th ed. If anything 6th ed will be far more simplistic.
Compare 8th edition Warhammer to 7th edition Warhammer.
Then compare 6th edition Warhammer to 5th edition Warhammer.
Complicated is not an issue. They've been known to add rules, remove them, overhaul and then revisit them on a regular basis between editions. A lot of these rules seem to be a nod toward 2nd edition rules, which, considering a lot of the codices seem to have a 2nd edition feel makes some degree of sense.
And they only 'look' complicated. In truth they're quite simple once you get the hang of them. It's just the fact that we're used to 5th edition that makes us go 'woah, different'.
38809
Post by: michaelcycle
It isn't really cheesy its a mechanized company. No other army gets it as bad as ig. Actually now tac marine in rhino spam is better you get relentless multi meltas 9" melta range is way better than 6". Ill just end up rumning 9 demolishers with las cannons and 6-9 vendettas and 2 ccs with master of ordinance.
25081
Post by: Lysenis
This could be 99.9% correct and GW would call it a fake, and yet they would be right. Regardless of what it actually is I think we should be able to discuss this.
The internet is the internet let those people wishlist, fake things, and masterbate that want to. Above all else let us have our grain of salt!
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
michaelcycle wrote:So it is only a nerf bat to the guard. Awesome so necrons, dark eldar, and orks all get to shoot when they move and the ig get to shoot how power armored space marines did in 5th. Now rhino marines are as potent as flak armor vets in a chimera. Time to shelf another army i put a good grand into atleast. Ugh such a waste of good forgeworld models.
Yeah, I feel really bad that your squad that is a third the cost of mine no longer has five times the firepower. I'm tearing up. Can you see these tears? They are crocodile tears, this is delicious to me.  Automatically Appended Next Post: michaelcycle wrote:It isn't really cheesy its a mechanized company. No other army gets it as bad as ig. Actually now tac marine in rhino spam is better you get relentless multi meltas 9" melta range is way better than 6". Ill just end up rumning 9 demolishers with las cannons and 6-9 vendettas and 2 ccs with master of ordinance.
Oh my, you don' get to automatically win games based on the fact that you underpayed for everything in your cheesy chimera spam melta vet army. That's teeerrrrribbbbllllle. Codex marine player here. I pay 250 for a fist, meltagun, and a missile launcher in a rhino. What does a melta vet squad in chimera cost again?
11
Post by: ph34r
ShumaGorath wrote:Oh my, you don' get to automatically win games based on the fact that you underpayed for everything in your cheesy chimera spam melta vet army. That's teeerrrrribbbbllllle.
Bad player complaining about IG?
ShumaGorath wrote:Codex marine player here. I pay 250 for a fist, meltagun, and a missile launcher in a rhino. What does a melta vet squad in chimera cost again?
Confirmed.
Seriously though. The amount of exaggeration you are employing to make IG seem unrealistically OP is staggering. Marines are just as powerful if not more than IG, you just have to try a little harder than the awful 250 point full rhino build.
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
ph34r wrote:ShumaGorath wrote:Oh my, you don' get to automatically win games based on the fact that you underpayed for everything in your cheesy chimera spam melta vet army. That's teeerrrrribbbbllllle.
Bad player complaining about IG? ShumaGorath wrote:Codex marine player here. I pay 250 for a fist, meltagun, and a missile launcher in a rhino. What does a melta vet squad in chimera cost again?
Confirmed.
Yes, clearly the observation of cost inequality in the codexes of 40k makes me a bad player. Clearly Codex Marines and IG are equal. One of them has definitely not placed in major tournaments an order of magnitude more often then the other while being well regarded as full of undercosted and overpowered units. Clearly I am a terrible player, melta vets aren't undercosted and tactical squads are totally viable. Those crocodile tears are still flowing. Seriously though. The amount of exaggeration you are employing to make IG seem unrealistically OP is staggering. Marines are just as powerful if not more than IG, you just have to try a little harder than the awful 250 point full rhino build.
Sorry, I didn't say codex space wolf marines, or blood marines. I didn't even say Gray marines. So hey, if you have some sort of staggering superbuild for tac marines do share. Does it involve vulkan? It probably involves either vulkan, black templars, or a fan codex. That or you're just trolling me.
11
Post by: ph34r
ShumaGorath wrote:Yes, clearly the observation of cost inequality in the codexes of 40k makes me a bad player. Clearly Codex Marines and IG are equal. One of them has definitely not placed in major tournaments an order of magnitude more often then the other while being well regarded as full of undercosted and overpowered units.
Clearly I am a terrible player, melta vets aren't undercosted and tactical squads are totally viable. Those crocodile tears are still flowing.
Vanilla marines don't win by stuffing rhinos full of tacticals and pretending they are SW, BA, of mech vets. Vanilla marines win by playing to their strengths: vulkan/hammernators/librarians, biker armies, and shooting based mech.
ShumaGorath wrote:Sorry, I didn't say codex space wolf marines, or blood marines. I didn't even say Gray marines. So hey, if you have some sort of staggering superbuild for tac marines do share. Does it involve vulkan? It probably involves either vulkan, black templars, or a fan codex. That or you're just trolling me.
The staggering superbuild for tac marines is don't rely on your tac marines being the best troops in the game.
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
Vanilla marines don't win by stuffing rhinos full of tacticals and pretending they are SW, BA, of mech vets. Vanilla marines win by playing to their strengths: vulkan/hammernators/librarians, biker armies, and shooting based mech.
But they still have to because objectives often times exist in places that aren't your own table corner. Thats probably why they don't often win those games. As for their strengths, the vulkan/hammer build with melta spam is about it and even it doesn't really cut it these days since it's pretty weak to non meched GK builds. Librarians in the codex marine book are awful when compared to every other form of librarian, and their shooting mech builds are bad when compared to identical builds in every other marine codex outside of dark angels because it is the same thing but more expensive The staggering superbuild for tac marines is don't rely on your tac marines being the best troops in the game.
Yawn. The only real trick in codex space marines is that of being identical but more expensive then four other codexes in the game. Vulkan almost catches the army up, but until troops and long range firepower aren't needed in an army then it won't be enough. Fortunately sixth edition seems like it might just do that.
24153
Post by: tetrisphreak
So i was looking over the rules for Transport Vehicles and cross-referencing the Open-topped rules. There's nothing that lifts the 1 model per squad shooting restriction from an open-topped vehicle, if it moves. If it remains stationary all units may fire, just like now. Otherwise, you're just getting one shot out if you move.
Has anybody found a statement that refutes this that I overlooked? I think Necrons and DE are in the same boat (pun intended) as Space Marines and Guard if their rides scoot around the table. 6th edition seems to want to dissuade people from hiding in METAL BOXES all day, and I wholeheartedly approve.
11
Post by: ph34r
ShumaGorath wrote:But they still have to because objectives often times exist in places that aren't your own table corner. Thats probably why they don't often win those games. As for their strengths, the vulkan/hammer build with melta spam is about it and even it doesn't really cut it these days since it's pretty weak to non meched GK builds. Librarians in the codex marine book are awful when compared to every other form of librarian, and their shooting mech builds are bad when compared to identical builds in every other marine codex outside of dark angels because it is the same thing but more expensive
Getting objectives on the other side of the table is hard for all shooting based armies.
Librarians? Null zone.
ShumaGorath wrote:Yawn. The only real trick in codex space marines is that of being identical but more expensive then four other codexes in the game. Vulkan almost catches the army up, but until troops and long range firepower aren't needed in an army then it won't be enough. Fortunately sixth edition seems like it might just do that.
That's just like, your self-defeatist opinion, man.
I look forward to fighting 6e marines with my DE and neo- IG.
36477
Post by: Painnen
I think that 5th was basically IG's, Space Wolves, and to an early extent, Orc's time to shine. Much in the same way that Nidzilla and Eldar enjoyed 4th, they were alot more meh in 5th.
Expect the same for IG, Longfang spam, and recently popular Draigowing/alot less recently Nob biker spam. It's a seemingly natural cycle for codex' to fall off the power radar between editions. Meltavets are a prime example.
43588
Post by: Anpu-adom
Palindrome wrote:GW apparently saying that it is fake but I can easily see this as being damage control due to their contract with New Line Cinema (one of the stipulations of which is allegedly that they don't leak any information regarding the Hobbit). GW are also the type of company that likes to aggressively control its IP and web presence.
I don't buy the New Line Cinema connection. In order to time things for a November 2012 release with the first half of the movie, designers will have been working on models long before now. That means that they've had production photos for months already (filming ends in March).
I think your second point is spot on... GW does aggressively control it's IP (to the point of not letting retailers use images of their product online!) What benefit do they gain from acknowledging that it's a leak (even an early version)? Automatically Appended Next Post: Painnen wrote:I think that 5th was basically IG's, Space Wolves, and to an early extent, Orc's time to shine. Much in the same way that Nidzilla and Eldar enjoyed 4th, they were alot more meh in 5th.
Expect the same for IG, Longfang spam, and recently popular Draigowing/alot less recently Nob biker spam. It's a seemingly natural cycle for codex' to fall off the power radar between editions. Meltavets are a prime example.
In general, I think that we'll be playing 6th edition for a lot longer than we played 5th. This leaked document shows a real focus on creating many, many different ways to play the game. So many, that I don't think it'll be possible to get bored! No special book needed for Apoc, CoD, or Planetstrike. I think that 'Chapter Approved' will come back in the form of Forgeworld. It's almost like GW has decided "we want to focus on models, so we'll produce a ruleset that we don't need to keep tweaking!"
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
Getting objectives on the other side of the table is hard for all shooting based armies.
It's not hard for the guard, it's not hard for space wolves, it's not hard for dark angels, it's not hard for necrons, it's not hard for dark eldar, it's not hard for regular eldar. Who is it hard for? Tau? is that a joke? Librarians? Null zone.
Null zone is only realistically viable as a psychic power in support of th/ ss termies. It aids them in making the best out of their limited high power attacks. It's also why you see the librarian piled in with vulkan which further enhances their ability to deal damage. Thats the monobuild. It's also boring and I don't play salamanaders. Null zone is almost useless in most other scenarios as generic marines don't bring the level of ap1-2 to that makes it functional or worthwhile outside of combat and they don't possess any other worthwhile CC units in the codex. A SM librarian is significantly less useful then a BA or GK libby (in fact it's straight up more expensive then the GK libby while worse) and it's significantly worse then a rune priest or the special character variations of those. The thing about this game is that other codexes exist, and when a librarian is bad compared to alternatives in other books then it is bad period. Is it required? Yeah, against the current meta. But then space marines do exceptionally poorly in current tournament meta and do generally poorly outside of it as they can't deal with hordes very well. That's just like, your self-defeatist opinion, man.
And it's one that reality backs up pretty well. I attend tournaments actively. I've placed second quite a few times (and first a few), but it's rare for me to be able to muscle into high standing. Being mathematically unable to beat IG mech parking lots or draigowing is pretty damning, even my local FLGS has plenty of those. I look forward to fighting 6e marines with my DE and neo-IG.
Me too. I'll enjoy having a version of 40k which isn't decided after armies are deployed but before the first turn is taken.
20901
Post by: Luke_Prowler
You know, I don't care my Orks got nerfed. It's just nice to see Imperial players complain for once.
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
Luke_Prowler wrote:You know, I don't care my Orks got nerfed. It's just nice to see Imperial players complain for once.
I don't understand how orks got nerfed in this edition. It keeps getting brought up, but I don't see how. They're faster, they hit from farther away, they hit harder. The core troops seems to have gotten purely better.
14863
Post by: MasterSlowPoke
Quick question on bikes. They have fast and multi-targeting (1). The rules for multi-targeting say that you may double the shooting actions when a fast unit moves at stationary, combat, or crusing speed, correct? So a unit of 4 SM bikers, with a 1 Meltagun and an Attack Bike with a Multimelta, could do either:
Move up to 16", shoot 5 TL Bolters and the Melta weapons at a single target
Move up to 16", use Divide Fire and shoot 3 TL Bolters at one target, and the Melta weapons at a second
edit: wait, bikes are no longer Relentless. So the Multimelta can only be fired when moving Combat speed (up to 8"), correct?
24153
Post by: tetrisphreak
MasterSlowPoke wrote:Quick question on bikes. They have fast and multi-targeting (1). The rules for multi-targeting say that you may double the shooting actions when a fast unit moves at stationary, combat, or crusing speed, correct? So a unit of 4 SM bikers, with a 1 Meltagun and an Attack Bike with a Multimelta, could do either:
Move up to 16", shoot 5 TL Bolters and the Melta weapons at a single target
Move up to 16", use Divide Fire and shoot 3 TL Bolters at one target, and the Melta weapons at a second
edit: wait, bikes are no longer Relentless. So the Multimelta can only be fired when moving Combat speed (up to 8"), correct?
Well the way I read it Fast alone allows the unit to basically 'pretend' it went one speed slower when moving. We were trying to figure out why the DE venom, for instance, couldn't fire both splinter cannons on the move (as it could in 5th) unless it went combat speed. Now it makes more sense - the Multi-Targeting(x) rule specifically states that Multi-target units that are fast may double their shooting actions whether they were stationary, combat speed, or even cruise speed. Which means a DE Venom can move 16", one model inside may fire, and the 2 splinter cannons on the vehicle can shoot. They've gained 4" of maneuverability...damn. Slowpoke, as to your scenario - the unit must only sacrifice 1 shooting action to split fire amongst multiple targets. A bike squad so described Could shoot 4 TL Bolters and 1 Multi Melta at up to 5 targets, or 5 bolters and the MM all at a single target. Edit -- Yes you're right, no relentless anymore so they need to go 8" and count as stationary (thanks to fast) to fire the MM. But otherwise they can lay down quite a few bolters on the move.
20901
Post by: Luke_Prowler
Actually they're slower in some cases (since you can't run in cover so you must move 6) hit the same distance (a charge is 12'') and in some cases weaker (slugga boys get nothing new besides the 6 ap CCW and shooting with the pistol, which is most cases is no help, while shoota boys are weaker because they can no longer soften a unit up with shooting on the same turn and don't get an extra attack because they don't have a CCW)
24153
Post by: tetrisphreak
Luke_Prowler wrote:Actually they're slower in some cases (since you can't run in cover so you must move 6) hit the same distance (a charge is 12'') and in some cases weaker (slugga boys get nothing new besides the 6 ap CCW and shooting with the pistol, which is most cases is no help, while shoota boys are weaker because they can no longer soften a unit up with shooting on the same turn and don't get an extra attack because they don't have a CCW)
Simply standing in area terrain no longer confers a generic cover save - Running is a better option in this ruleset and hiding *behind* terrain will help you survive longer. Also while you cannot run/cruise through area terrain (unless you have the Move Through Cover special rule) you can still charge through terrain as long as you contact the enemy with the movement given. If the charge is failed, you may do a different move action that does not have the 'assault' type, so you could then do a run or combat around/into terrain to wait the oncoming enemy.
Seriously this edition is way more strategic than 5th ever was. It's just going to take time for people to wrap their minds around it which is perfectly okay..especially considering these are at BEST playtest rules. I do believe they're real though so i'm prepping myself for the next edition now.
14863
Post by: MasterSlowPoke
Well, there's a meltagun one one of the regular bikers too. He can fire both his guns (the meltagun and TL bolters) even when moving up to 16" now, correct - unless they divide fire, in which case he can only fire one. If this is the case, it looks like Wazdakka may actually fire his KMB for once.
Is the question about Relentless right? If that's true, Attack Bikes take a bit of a hit - I could see Heavy Bolters coming back into the vogue.
Another question. Bikes and Jump infantry no longer suffer any additional penalties for moving through Difficult Terrain, right? No Dangerous Terrain tests?
24153
Post by: tetrisphreak
MasterSlowPoke wrote:
Another question. Bikes and Jump infantry no longer suffer any additional penalties for moving through Difficult Terrain, right? No Dangerous Terrain tests?
Can't end a run/cruise in area terrain, or go through it in the case of bikes. However just ending in the terrain with a combat/engage/charge has no dangerous test associated.
I believe GW wants us to start assigning dangerous terrain on the battlefield, in addtion to wrecked vehicles. Exploded vehicles no longer become craters, as well. With the overall change to cover saves that bit saves the players a lot of hassle in getting around the battlefield.
20901
Post by: Luke_Prowler
tetrisphreak wrote:Luke_Prowler wrote:Actually they're slower in some cases (since you can't run in cover so you must move 6) hit the same distance (a charge is 12'') and in some cases weaker (slugga boys get nothing new besides the 6 ap CCW and shooting with the pistol, which is most cases is no help, while shoota boys are weaker because they can no longer soften a unit up with shooting on the same turn and don't get an extra attack because they don't have a CCW)
Simply standing in area terrain no longer confers a generic cover save - Running is a better option in this ruleset and hiding *behind* terrain will help you survive longer. Also while you cannot run/cruise through area terrain (unless you have the Move Through Cover special rule) you can still charge through terrain as long as you contact the enemy with the movement given. If the charge is failed, you may do a different move action that does not have the 'assault' type, so you could then do a run or combat around/into terrain to wait the oncoming enemy.
Seriously this edition is way more strategic than 5th ever was. It's just going to take time for people to wrap their minds around it which is perfectly okay..especially considering these are at BEST playtest rules. I do believe they're real though so i'm prepping myself for the next edition now.
And I do understand all that, I have read the thing. I'm just saying from a mechnaical stand point, Orks didn't get quite as much as some other armies did, not enough to off set what they lost.
On the other hand, I forsee warbiker armies becoming very powerful, with nob bikers coming back for anna go
14863
Post by: MasterSlowPoke
tetrisphreak wrote:I believe GW wants us to start assigning dangerous terrain on the battlefield, in addtion to wrecked vehicles. Exploded vehicles no longer become craters, as well. With the overall change to cover saves that bit saves the players a lot of hassle in getting around the battlefield.
That sounds right, looking at the terrain chart on page 46, Razor Wire in particular. This is actually the biggest reason why I would think this is a fake document, however - GW has been pretty consistent in ruling Razor/Barbed wire as difficult only, not dangerous. It's not like barbed wire typically takes anyone out of commision outside of very edge cases. Obviously that's not an attitude shared by most players, and I could see them changing that up if they want more Dangerous terrain on the table.
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
MasterSlowPoke wrote:tetrisphreak wrote:I believe GW wants us to start assigning dangerous terrain on the battlefield, in addtion to wrecked vehicles. Exploded vehicles no longer become craters, as well. With the overall change to cover saves that bit saves the players a lot of hassle in getting around the battlefield.
That sounds right, looking at the terrain chart on page 46, Razor Wire in particular. This is actually the biggest reason why I would think this is a fake document, however - GW has been pretty consistent in ruling Razor/Barbed wire as difficult only, not dangerous. It's not like barbed wire typically takes anyone out of commision outside of very edge cases. Obviously that's not an attitude shared by most players, and I could see them changing that up if they want more Dangerous terrain on the table.
It took a lot of people out of commission in ww1 and 2. It was far from pleasant and the time it took to remove a squadmate from it was about the same amount of time it took a machine gun emplacement to kill everyone involved.
14863
Post by: MasterSlowPoke
I always read that it was more of a slowing mechanism over a damage causing mechanism, but I could be wrong.
10279
Post by: focusedfire
For those of you that were worrying, the relentless usr states that bikes ARE relentless(as well as jet-packs and MC's).
14863
Post by: MasterSlowPoke
focusedfire wrote:For those of you that were worrying, the relentless usr states that bikes ARE relentless(as well as jet-packs and MC's).
Hooray for alpha quality rules, I guess. As is, I'd still say bikes are not relentless, as missing the special rule on both the unit type page and unit type chart is more authoritative than the flavor text in a rule. If we had some way of knowing which was the case first that'd be nice, though.
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
MasterSlowPoke wrote:I always read that it was more of a slowing mechanism over a damage causing mechanism, but I could be wrong.
It's a stopping mechanism. It forces ground infantry to either move around it or utilize engineers to remove it. Going through it will usually entangle a soldier and can cause them extreme injury if they thrash around like an idiot. During the time it took to remove it a defended position could easily set up to kill the infantry attempting to do so so it was usually only attempted while under cover or after the battle lines had moved away. It's not something soldiers would just jump over or step carefully around unless it was set up improperly. In game terms you could generally assume that any model that "died" to barbed/razor wire are just lying there tangled up in it. It's hard to imagine that happening to a space marine or a genestealer, but then again if it didn't work on the enemy they wouldn't set it up so just imagine its some sort of mono filament laser-wire or something.
5269
Post by: lord_blackfang
tetrisphreak wrote:So i was looking over the rules for Transport Vehicles and cross-referencing the Open-topped rules. There's nothing that lifts the 1 model per squad shooting restriction from an open-topped vehicle, if it moves. If it remains stationary all units may fire, just like now. Otherwise, you're just getting one shot out if you move.
Has anybody found a statement that refutes this that I overlooked? I think Necrons and DE are in the same boat (pun intended) as Space Marines and Guard if their rides scoot around the table. 6th edition seems to want to dissuade people from hiding in METAL BOXES all day, and I wholeheartedly approve.
This is correct. If a vehicle moves fast enough that it can't double it's own shots, the unit inside only gets a single shot, even with open-topped.
53595
Post by: Palindrome
Anpu-adom wrote:
I don't buy the New Line Cinema connection. In order to time things for a November 2012 release with the first half of the movie, designers will have been working on models long before now. That means that they've had production photos for months already (filming ends in March).
A lot of this depends on what the contract with New Line Cinema contains. There could be serious consequences for GW if they leak information about the Hobbit even a day before the film is released and as such they would want to appear leak proof. This could just be internet wisdom of course.
45261
Post by: Thornoo1
Are we up to the rules discussion yet? Let’s open with Deep Strike. If you perform a critical distance DS (within 18" of an enemy unit) then you get to perform an Engage move after everyone has defensive fired. Also disembarking from vehicles allows units to also to do an Engage move.
So pretty much DS assaults are the go then?
Just read the Marine Codex update which specifically stops Drop Pod assault but what about other stuff like Terminators or Tyranid borrowing creatures.
That's a no to Tyranid mycetic spore DS assaults
Further more:
If you DS within 6" of an enemy unit does that allow a Charge by Chance by the enemy unit?
34906
Post by: Pacific
An interesting post from BoLS about the validity of the document
Now that is a lot of insider information there, such as exactly what software and versions of it GW internally uses. The problem is that the metadata embedded in the leaked files doesn't support any of those assertions. Also the version numbers listed make no sense compared to current versions of Acrobat, Indesign, Pagemaker, or QuarkExpress (the professional layout software packages for document creation).
Another poster said that the "Robert Smithe" listed is a layout employee in Lenton. Finally, the original file download links that appeared all over the place have been taken down over the last 24 hours.
GW has never lifted a finger whatsoever in the past when hoaxes appeared online (such as the fake Blood Angel codex).
Something very fishy is going on.
This lends credence to what Age of Egos said earlier in the post, that this may well be a semi-official job made at some point by an employee of GW (although we don't know if it has official sanction).
Perhaps a non design-studio staff member writes these rules, GW says " lol, no", he replies with "Damn your lack of sensitivity" and releases them onto the internet?
Although the removal of links makes you think that there is more to this document than that - Admittedly the fake BA codex was more obviously a fake with its 'Bat Riders' (although again it was apparently based on an earlier draft, and the writer argued for it's validity right until the actual book was released).
Interesting stuff, I'm keen to see how things develop. Certainly I could see this re-invigorating my interest in 40k, 5th edition is creaking like my Grandpa's 90 year-old knee joints at the moment.
45261
Post by: Thornoo1
Supersonic: Can this move start whilst you are on board at non supersonic or is this a move that requires you to be off board, complete your attack vector and then leave the table in another turn. Secondarily in para 3 under the supersonic rule it talks about not being able to leave the table a 2nd time, is this in 1 movement phase or for the whole game?
Is supersonic always on when you start with it?
24153
Post by: tetrisphreak
lord_blackfang wrote:tetrisphreak wrote:So i was looking over the rules for Transport Vehicles and cross-referencing the Open-topped rules. There's nothing that lifts the 1 model per squad shooting restriction from an open-topped vehicle, if it moves. If it remains stationary all units may fire, just like now. Otherwise, you're just getting one shot out if you move.
Has anybody found a statement that refutes this that I overlooked? I think Necrons and DE are in the same boat (pun intended) as Space Marines and Guard if their rides scoot around the table. 6th edition seems to want to dissuade people from hiding in METAL BOXES all day, and I wholeheartedly approve.
This is correct. If a vehicle moves fast enough that it can't double it's own shots, the unit inside only gets a single shot, even with open-topped.
Edit -- Just had another look at the transport rules. Under the heading "shooting with embarked units" it says that if the transport cannot perform STATIONARY actions then the unit inside only gets 1 fire action. A fast transport can go it's regular speed (8" for skimmers/fast skimmers) and all the models allowed to fire (via fire points or open-topped) may shoot, still at 18". Being open-topped doesn't limit the range restriction on firing from inside a transport. I find that kind of strange and It may be one of the final changes we see in the real document. Disembarking/Embarking in the consolidation phase - Are there any movement speed restrictions on embarking or disembarking as an action during the Consolidation phase. A vehicle that moves faster than combat speed, regardless of whether or not it has the fast rule, disallows units from making any move actions from within during the movement phase. What are the consolidation phase restrictions? (I'm about to go read them myself but as I was typing the question arose in my mind so i thought i'd ask it). Edit 2 -- Just looked at consolidation phase, and somehow last night in our play-test of the system i completely misread it. There's no "disembark" part of the consolidation phase. You can only embark. Edit 3 -- No speed restrictions on embarking within an empty transport, as long as it's done in the proper phase of the Game Cycle.
44067
Post by: DarkStarSabre
ShumaGorath wrote:
Codex marine player here. I pay 250 for a fist, meltagun, and a missile launcher in a rhino. What does a melta vet squad in chimera cost again?
Really? Take your Codex back. You got your points values wrong
And if you want to go down that route...
Chaos Marine player here. I pay even more for the same squad and don't get combat tactics or ATSKNF. In fact, to get anything similar I have to pay even more points.
So, stop that. Right now.
4183
Post by: Davor
Palindrome wrote:infinite_array wrote:wuestenfux wrote:Davor wrote:What I don't understand is, if it's a fake, how come they are taken down then? I am sure when the fake BA codex came out, it was never taken down, it was there for all to download.
So why all the hoopla to take it off the net if it's a fake?
The point is that its GW's intellectual property no matter if the text is a hoax or not.
Interestingly enough, it may not be. You can't copyright game mechanics.
References are made to GW trademarks so....
Then that would mean EVERY SINGLE home made codex or rules would have to be taken down off the net. When you let something slide, it's hard to prove to the courts you are protecting your IP. Again if the GW let the fake BA go, why not the other rule set? How come I see Tyraind Home made codicies and Dark Angels home made codicies all over the net? No GW is not protectiong it's IP if this is fake.
If it's fake then it was the person who put it on the first place to take it down so it would look like GW did this. GW doesn't pick and choose who uses the IP without permission. So it's either fake and the origianl person took it down, or It's real and GW took it down. Automatically Appended Next Post: I am curious what page is the FOC on? Is it still the same FOC or did they go to % system? Please show me a page number so I can go it.
Thanks.
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
DarkStarSabre wrote:ShumaGorath wrote:
Codex marine player here. I pay 250 for a fist, meltagun, and a missile launcher in a rhino. What does a melta vet squad in chimera cost again?
Really? Take your Codex back. You got your points values wrong And if you want to go down that route... Chaos Marine player here. I pay even more for the same squad and don't get combat tactics or ATSKNF. In fact, to get anything similar I have to pay even more points. So, stop that. Right now.
10 marines - 170 pfist - 25 missile - 0 melta - 5 Combi melta - 10 rhino w/ dozer blade - 40 -250 Nope. 250. You're right in that you pay slightly more, though you get higher leadership, the ability to take only five and still be useful, dual short ranged weapons if you want (instead of an illogical and bad long/short mix), and twice as many close combat attacks so I would say its a wash. Chaos marines are significantly better at actually taking objectives since they can be purpose built for it and perform much better in close combat, but they don't do long range quite as efficiently (though a 170 point missile is pretty awful). Either way you have numerous much better troop choices that make it so that you aren't forced into taking your most basic troop, an option that I don't have. Melta vets are more efficient than anything you can field as well, so I don't get the outrage.
26404
Post by: cmac
Hmm, not sure if you can list points.
24153
Post by: tetrisphreak
Yeah specific upgrade points costs is a no-no. All you can do is post a unit's total cost, if you post points at all.
3075
Post by: Tebrey
ShumaGorath wrote:
10 marines - 170
pfist - 25
missile - 0
melta - 5
Combi melta - 10
rhino w/ dozer blade - 40
-250
Nope. 250. You're right in that you pay slightly more, though you get higher leadership, the ability to take only five and still be useful, dual short ranged weapons if you want (instead of an illogical and bad long/short mix), and twice as many close combat attacks so I would say its a wash. Chaos marines are significantly better at actually taking objectives since they can be purpose built for it and perform much better in close combat, but they don't do long range quite as efficiently (though a 170 point missile is pretty awful). Either way you have numerous much better troop choices that make it so that you aren't forced into taking your most basic troop, an option that I don't have.
Melta vets are more efficient than anything you can field as well, so I don't get the outrage.
Melta vets? 170 pts for 10 guys with guard stats with three melta and a chimera. Our power fist isn't as good. We don't have a 3+ save. We don't have ATSKNF. We die in hand to hand with everything except Tau. Not feeling your pain, sorry.
2969
Post by: neiltj1
Tebrey wrote:ShumaGorath wrote:
10 marines - 170
pfist - 25
missile - 0
melta - 5
Combi melta - 10
rhino w/ dozer blade - 40
-250
Nope. 250. You're right in that you pay slightly more, though you get higher leadership, the ability to take only five and still be useful, dual short ranged weapons if you want (instead of an illogical and bad long/short mix), and twice as many close combat attacks so I would say its a wash. Chaos marines are significantly better at actually taking objectives since they can be purpose built for it and perform much better in close combat, but they don't do long range quite as efficiently (though a 170 point missile is pretty awful). Either way you have numerous much better troop choices that make it so that you aren't forced into taking your most basic troop, an option that I don't have.
Melta vets are more efficient than anything you can field as well, so I don't get the outrage.
Melta vets? 170 pts for 10 guys with guard stats with three melta and a chimera. Our power fist isn't as good. We don't have a 3+ save. We don't have ATSKNF. We die in hand to hand with everything except Tau. Not feeling your pain, sorry.
Then why do my opponents groan when I throw down my melta vets?? Because they are awesome. I dont want them to have 3+ armor cause if you assault them I want them to die so I can shoot you in my next turn. 3 bs 4 meltas is kinda dumb on a troop choice. Most other armies need to use another slot to get that kinda destruction.
38809
Post by: michaelcycle
Poor orks i feel your pain. Getting your nob sniped on a fat squad of boys ruins orks.
53595
Post by: Palindrome
Davor wrote:
Then that would mean EVERY SINGLE home made codex or rules would have to be taken down off the net. When you let something slide, it's hard to prove to the courts you are protecting your IP. Again if the GW let the fake BA go, why not the other rule set? How come I see Tyraind Home made codicies and Dark Angels home made codicies all over the net? No GW is not protectiong it's IP if this is fake.
If it's fake then it was the person who put it on the first place to take it down so it would look like GW did this. GW doesn't pick and choose who uses the IP without permission. So it's either fake and the origianl person took it down, or It's real and GW took it down.
My point is that there are some of GW's IP in this document and as GW likes to throw its weight around people will get nervous about hosting such a high profile leak and they may remove it of their own accord.
Links are apparently rapidly disappearing though which suggests GW's direct involvement but I have yet to hear of anyone saying that they had had direct contact with GW over this.
3933
Post by: Kingsley
ShumaGorath wrote:Null zone is only realistically viable as a psychic power in support of th/ss termies. It aids them in making the best out of their limited high power attacks. It's also why you see the librarian piled in with vulkan which further enhances their ability to deal damage. Thats the monobuild. It's also boring and I don't play salamanaders. Null zone is almost useless in most other scenarios as generic marines don't bring the level of ap1-2 to that makes it functional or worthwhile outside of combat and they don't possess any other worthwhile CC units in the codex.
You are saying these things as if there is some rule that prevents generic Marines from taking lots of AP 1/2. What rule is that? Last time I checked, las/ plas Razorbacks are still legal (and substantially buffed for vanilla SM under these rules). Every Tactical squad can have three AP 1/2 weapons per ten guys. Sternguard, Bikes, Command Squads, Devastators, etc. can all take more than that. It's possible that some element of your army composition makes Null Zone weak, but for lots of armies it can be a real powerhouse.
ShumaGorath wrote:A SM librarian is significantly less useful then a BA or GK libby (in fact it's straight up more expensive then the GK libby while worse) and it's significantly worse then a rune priest or the special character variations of those.
Last time I checked, an SM Librarian was 100 points base and a GK Librarian was 150 points base. The GK Librarian certainly has access to some strong powers, but so does the SM one. I think the GK Librarian probably is better-- but then again it costs 50% more points! As for BA, I've always felt that my SM Librarian powers were superior to BA or SW ones. Null Zone and Gate of Infinity are both game-changers.
ShumaGorath wrote:Being mathematically unable to beat IG mech parking lots or draigowing is pretty damning, even my local FLGS has plenty of those.
Can you explain this? It doesn't match my experience. I've won several games with my vanilla SM vs. mech IG before, despite this being "mathematically impossible"-- in fact I think my win rate against that Codex is rather favorable as a whole. In fact, I'm overall more scared of non-mechanized IG than I am of mechanized IG. I've yet to play against a true Draigowing army, but I certainly think that my Codex has the right counters available. I suspect it would be a fun match.
23400
Post by: Ma55ter_fett
No BT FAQ... does this mean that the new BT codex will launch at the same time as 6th?
38809
Post by: michaelcycle
Yeah i have a challenging time with just about every army with my mech guard. Its never an instant win. Thats why the transport nerf sucks because now I'm really going to have a hard time. Tac marines can easily kill a chimera with krak grenades on the charge especially if its backed by a fist. Chimeras just make sure my boys make it somewhere to get atleast a shot off. 3+ is not to be underestimated. When you pop the tin can my troops will lose to shooting and assault. Marines stand a chance.
24153
Post by: tetrisphreak
michaelcycle wrote:Yeah i have a challenging time with just about every army with my mech guard. Its never an instant win. Thats why the transport nerf sucks because now I'm really going to have a hard time. Tac marines can easily kill a chimera with krak grenades on the charge especially if its backed by a fist. Chimeras just make sure my boys make it somewhere to get atleast a shot off. 3+ is not to be underestimated. When you pop the tin can my troops will lose to shooting and assault. Marines stand a chance.
And now with charge by chance if the marines do wreck the chimera in close combat, and block the access points, they can immediately engage the meltavets. Or alternatively defensive fire and rapid-fire bolters at them. The upside is that if the chimera moves tactical marines need a 5+ to hit in close combat.
4183
Post by: Davor
Ma55ter_fett wrote:No BT FAQ... does this mean that the new BT codex will launch at the same time as 6th?
Very well it does since the BT is suppose to be the next 40K release. Why would they need a FAQ update. Necrons didn't get one either. Another reason why this can be real. If it's fake how would the faker know not to include BT and Necrons in the codex? If fake this is one smart cookie not an idiot/looser like alot of people on the internet are saying.
Oh well, if this is fake, I will be using this ruleset in my games. I am so sick and tired of the "vehicle rush" and the ALL MIGHTY SPACE MARINES hiding and cowering in vehicles when their fluff says they should be out in the thick of things in battle.
Just imagine if the Ultramarine move was based on the way people played. 85% of the movie would be the SM in the vehicle while the battle is raging on outside.
28864
Post by: Shovan
Blast weapons. Wow! Hit with BS as normal, if you miss, scatter the number x 2 (always scatters). So if you hit on a 4, you can only ever scatter 4″ max!
This makes me weep. Fire Prism blasts hurt enough as it is.
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
You are saying these things as if there is some rule that prevents generic Marines from taking lots of AP 1/2. What rule is that? Last time I checked, las/plas Razorbacks are still legal (and substantially buffed for vanilla SM under these rules). Every Tactical squad can have three AP 1/2 weapons per ten guys. Sternguard, Bikes, Command Squads, Devastators, etc. can all take more than that. It's possible that some element of your army composition makes Null Zone weak, but for lots of armies it can be a real powerhouse.
It's not synergistic or cost effective. It's range is too short to be used well with most of the vehicle weapon platforms in the SM codex. Tac squads can realistically throw out 2 ap2 weapons in a turn once per game. If you're in range of a double tap plasma or melta shot you've likely moved there which precludes firing the heavy. Once you've done that your combi is done and you'll probably be either dead or in close combat in the next turn. If your're sitting back with a heavy then you're wasting a significant number of points on one heavy weapon. It can be used to effect, but the costing issues with SM dev squads and laser preds makes it difficult to bring a meaningful volume of ranged ap2. Cover saves make null zone significantly less useful outside of combat in fifth as well. Null zone got good because it was the key to beating the other players squad of th/ ss terms. As meta shifted away from invuln reliant death stars the utility started to vanish. It's next to useless against palladins (outside of the vulkan/libby/ th/ ss monobuild), and the entirety of the IG and space wolf armies. It's got utility against DE transports and killing daemons at least. Last time I checked, an SM Librarian was 100 points base and a GK Librarian was 150 points base. The GK Librarian certainly has access to some strong powers, but so does the SM one. I think the GK Librarian probably is better-- but then again it costs 50% more points! As for BA, I've always felt that my SM Librarian powers were superior to BA or SW ones. Null Zone and Gate of Infinity are both game-changers.
The GK librarian is base more expensive because it comes with upgrades included in cost. To equip a codex librarian in the same way is ~20 points more expensive. The codex librarian also doesn't have the aegis or hammerhand. Can you explain this? It doesn't match my experience. I've won several games with my vanilla SM vs. mech IG before, despite this being "mathematically impossible"-- in fact I think my win rate against that Codex is rather favorable as a whole.
Maybe the local meta is particularly cruel. My friend Erik who is the primary IG competition has a mech list that has made it to the top couple of tables in round 2 of ard boyz the last few years. 2 demolishers, a plastmatank, hydras, stracken, vendettas, and lots of chimera melta vets at 1850. It's not a standard leaf blower, but I don't believe he has lost a single game against codex marines since the debut of the IG codex. He's played quite a few of them. In fact, I'm overall more scared of non-mechanized IG than I am of mechanized IG. I've yet to play against a true Draigowing army, but I certainly think that my Codex has the right counters available. I suspect it would be a fun match.
You could well have the counters, though given that it takes ~36 bolter shots to wound one palladin and 3 plasma canon wounds to do the same i'd venture a guess that you might not have fun doing so. It's a very frustrating army to play against. I've managed to beat draigowing before, but it requires that my opponent make mistakes in target priority and deployment. It's too easy for them to simply walk towards me and hold down the trigger. Null zone + th/ ss can do a lot of damage to a paladin squad, but it's almost the only cost effective counter in the book (drop podding melta or plasma sterns can do well, but it's risky). Most GK players should recognize that and they can decimate assault terms at range in one round of shooting.
270
Post by: winterman
Melta vets get better, RTFM.
--Hits tanks and MCs on 2's with their melta.
--Can only fire one melta if chimera moves at combat speed? Combat move out of the hatch, keep the squad leader within 3" of the hatch. Shoot your melta (keeping in mind you will hit tanks and MCs on 2's). Then get back in your tank at consolidation. Your threat range is increased vs the current move 6" and fire if intending to stay embarked.
--Yes you lose the 12" move, disembark and fire. Everyone not in fast transport lost that threat range. But its not as bad since you get a 6" move after the vehicle moves 6". Still less but not all that bad. And unlike current you can get back in your transport if you like.
--Your disembarked squad gets into trouble, like broken, etc. If the squad leader is within 3" of the hatch of a chimera they can hop in and auto regroup.
--Doesn't it suck that you mech IG guys have all these orders you never use cause you want to stay in your tanks? Guess what, disembark, get your orders, get back in if you want. Pretty sweet if you ask me.
24153
Post by: tetrisphreak
winterman wrote:Melta vets get better, RTFM.
--Hits tanks and MCs on 2's with their melta.
--Can only fire one melta if chimera moves at combat speed? Combat move out of the hatch, keep the squad leader within 3" of the hatch. Shoot your melta (keeping in mind you will hit tanks and MCs on 2's). Then get back in your tank at consolidation. Your threat range is increased vs the current move 6" and fire if intending to stay embarked.
--Yes you lose the 12" move, disembark and fire. Everyone not in fast transport lost that threat range. But its not as bad since you get a 6" move after the vehicle moves 6". Still less but not all that bad. And unlike current you can get back in your transport if you like.
--Your disembarked squad gets into trouble, like broken, etc. If the squad leader is within 3" of the hatch of a chimera they can hop in and auto regroup.
--Doesn't it suck that you mech IG guys have all these orders you never use cause you want to stay in your tanks? Guess what, disembark, get your orders, get back in if you want. Pretty sweet if you ask me.
Jumping out, firing, and jumping back in a transport is a very strong tactic. I think it's mitigated by the fact that embarked units cannot score objectives, so there's a balancing act involved.
38809
Post by: michaelcycle
winterman wrote:Melta vets get better, RTFM.
--Hits tanks and MCs on 2's with their melta.
--Can only fire one melta if chimera moves at combat speed? Combat move out of the hatch, keep the squad leader within 3" of the hatch. Shoot your melta (keeping in mind you will hit tanks and MCs on 2's). Then get back in your tank at consolidation. Your threat range is increased vs the current move 6" and fire if intending to stay embarked.
--Yes you lose the 12" move, disembark and fire. Everyone not in fast transport lost that threat range. But its not as bad since you get a 6" move after the vehicle moves 6". Still less but not all that bad. And unlike current you can get back in your transport if you like.
--Your disembarked squad gets into trouble, like broken, etc. If the squad leader is within 3" of the hatch of a chimera they can hop in and auto regroup.
--Doesn't it suck that you mech IG guys have all these orders you never use cause you want to stay in your tanks? Guess what, disembark, get your orders, get back in if you want. Pretty sweet if you ask me.
That is pretty brutal i didnt catch that embark disembark deal.
270
Post by: winterman
tetrisphreak wrote:
Jumping out, firing, and jumping back in a transport is a very strong tactic. I think it's mitigated by the fact that embarked units cannot score objectives, so there's a balancing act involved.
This is very true. I think as a unit mech vet is improved. Compared to the boosts other units got -- perhaps the field is evened out a bit (I am still trying to parse how these rules affects various units in the game, its pretty interesting). As an army, mech vet based armies (aka leaf blower or similar) are probably weakened or has to change its overall strategy and tactics a bit. Decisions to either camp objectives or remove enemies and stay safe in chimeras, etc. But if there's an army with the firepower to remove units trying to rack up objective based VPs, its Mech IG. I can see things like the colossus being much more useful (and effective) with the new emphasis on staying out of transports.
44067
Post by: DarkStarSabre
ShumaGorath wrote:DarkStarSabre wrote:ShumaGorath wrote:
Codex marine player here. I pay 250 for a fist, meltagun, and a missile launcher in a rhino. What does a melta vet squad in chimera cost again?
Really? Take your Codex back. You got your points values wrong
And if you want to go down that route...
Chaos Marine player here. I pay even more for the same squad and don't get combat tactics or ATSKNF. In fact, to get anything similar I have to pay even more points.
So, stop that. Right now.
10 marines - 170
pfist - 25
missile - 0
melta - 5
Combi melta - 10
rhino w/ dozer blade - 40
-250
Nope. 250. You're right in that you pay slightly more, though you get higher leadership, the ability to take only five and still be useful, dual short ranged weapons if you want (instead of an illogical and bad long/short mix), and twice as many close combat attacks so I would say its a wash. Chaos marines are significantly better at actually taking objectives since they can be purpose built for it and perform much better in close combat, but they don't do long range quite as efficiently (though a 170 point missile is pretty awful). Either way you have numerous much better troop choices that make it so that you aren't forced into taking your most basic troop, an option that I don't have.
Melta vets are more efficient than anything you can field as well, so I don't get the outrage.
Your initial statement did not mention a combi-melta or a dozer blade for your Rhino. So going on base values, you are actually paying less. You're moving goalposts so do stop that.
And as mentioned, you're not being forced to take Tactical squads exclusively either. Considering you can put a Captain on a bike and get bikes there. Whereas the CSM codex is pretty much pigeonholed into one or two optimal builds with everything else being significantly underpar compared to everything else. If I'm not fielding a World Eaters or Death Guard army then why must all my troops be Berserkers or Plague Marines in order to be remotely competitive? You also forgot to mention that you can get a variety of heavy weapons for your tactical squad for free.
I'm seriously pondering your issues with IG. I understand your point that C: SM seems to just be generic, overcosted C: SW or C: BA....but in the same respect a lot of CSM players considered C: CSM to be the same compared to C: SM.....they took away all our options and a few months later you rolled out with a whole crapton of the options they removed. Admittedly it's because they switched away from one design ethic to another but still....it's a bit much.
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
DarkStarSabre wrote:ShumaGorath wrote:DarkStarSabre wrote:ShumaGorath wrote:
Codex marine player here. I pay 250 for a fist, meltagun, and a missile launcher in a rhino. What does a melta vet squad in chimera cost again?
Really? Take your Codex back. You got your points values wrong
And if you want to go down that route...
Chaos Marine player here. I pay even more for the same squad and don't get combat tactics or ATSKNF. In fact, to get anything similar I have to pay even more points.
So, stop that. Right now.
10 marines - 170
pfist - 25
missile - 0
melta - 5
Combi melta - 10
rhino w/ dozer blade - 40
-250
Nope. 250. You're right in that you pay slightly more, though you get higher leadership, the ability to take only five and still be useful, dual short ranged weapons if you want (instead of an illogical and bad long/short mix), and twice as many close combat attacks so I would say its a wash. Chaos marines are significantly better at actually taking objectives since they can be purpose built for it and perform much better in close combat, but they don't do long range quite as efficiently (though a 170 point missile is pretty awful). Either way you have numerous much better troop choices that make it so that you aren't forced into taking your most basic troop, an option that I don't have.
Melta vets are more efficient than anything you can field as well, so I don't get the outrage.
Your initial statement did not mention a combi-melta or a dozer blade for your Rhino. So going on base values, you are actually paying less. You're moving goalposts so do stop that.
And as mentioned, you're not being forced to take Tactical squads exclusively either. Considering you can put a Captain on a bike and get bikes there. Whereas the CSM codex is pretty much pigeonholed into one or two optimal builds with everything else being significantly underpar compared to everything else. If I'm not fielding a World Eaters or Death Guard army then why must all my troops be Berserkers or Plague Marines in order to be remotely competitive? You also forgot to mention that you can get a variety of heavy weapons for your tactical squad for free.
I'm seriously pondering your issues with IG. I understand your point that C: SM seems to just be generic, overcosted C: SW or C: BA....but in the same respect a lot of CSM players considered C: CSM to be the same compared to C: SM.....they took away all our options and a few months later you rolled out with a whole crapton of the options they removed. Admittedly it's because they switched away from one design ethic to another but still....it's a bit much.
We're well past that argument now You wanted four pages ago. Also, you can't possibly argue that codex marines have more troop options then chaos marines. Chaos has almost twice as many choices and they're universally better.
3933
Post by: Kingsley
ShumaGorath wrote:It's not synergistic or cost effective.
Personally I think that 35 points for a lascannon and twin-linked plasma gun on a transport that I want to take anyway is very synergistic and cost-effective.
ShumaGorath wrote:Tac squads can realistically throw out 2 ap2 weapons in a turn once per game. If you're in range of a double tap plasma or melta shot you've likely moved there which precludes firing the heavy. Once you've done that your combi is done and you'll probably be either dead or in close combat in the next turn. If your're sitting back with a heavy then you're wasting a significant number of points on one heavy weapon.
That's why I use Combat Squads. With Combat Squads, my half-squad in the back can fire a heavy weapon, while my half-squad in the front can fire a special and combi when necessary. The squad in the back is only "wasting" four guys, and since they're likely sitting on an objective or in position to move up and claim one it's not much of a "waste!"
ShumaGorath wrote:The costing issues with SM dev squads and laser preds makes it difficult to bring a meaningful volume of ranged ap2. Cover saves make null zone significantly less useful outside of combat in fifth as well.
Auto/las preds seem quite fairly costed to me, and while dev squads aren't so hot there's plenty of other firepower sources in the SM book.
ShumaGorath wrote:Null zone got good because it was the key to beating the other players squad of th/ss terms. As meta shifted away from invuln reliant death stars the utility started to vanish. It's next to useless against palladins (outside of the vulkan/libby/th/ss monobuild), and the entirety of the IG and space wolf armies. It's got utility against DE transports and killing daemons at least.
Sure, a lot of IG builds don't care too much, but the same item isn't good against everything and there are extra powers to use. Meltaguns are next to useless via horde orks, but that doesn't make them bad. As for SW, I find Null Zone highly effective at neutralizing Thunderwolf Cavalry, Lone Wolves, etc. There are a lot of armies against which Null Zone isn't great, but when you need it it's a godsend.
ShumaGorath wrote:The GK librarian is base more expensive because it comes with upgrades included in cost. To equip a codex librarian in the same way is ~20 points more expensive. The codex librarian also doesn't have the aegis or hammerhand.
Why would you want those things, though? Different units, different Codices, different roles-- and having to take upgrades is certainly worse than choosing whether or not to take upgrades. I'm more a fan of the 100 point basic Librarian, with no fancy tricks except his powers. The GK one pays a lot of points for things that are dubiously valuable-- or, in the case of Terminator armor, probably a disadvantage!
ShumaGorath wrote:My friend Erik who is the primary IG competition has a mech list that has made it to the top couple of tables in round 2 of ard boyz the last few years. 2 demolishers, a plastmatank, hydras, stracken, vendettas, and lots of chimera melta vets at 1850. It's not a standard leaf blower, but I don't believe he has lost a single game against codex marines since the debut of the IG codex. He's played quite a few of them.
Personally, I find there are lots of units in C: SM that are good at punishing really shooty armies, especially ones that use vehicle squadrons. Scout Bikers immediately spring to mind.
ShumaGorath wrote:You could well have the counters, though given that it takes ~36 bolter shots to wound one palladin and 3 plasma canon wounds to do the same i'd venture a guess that you might not have fun doing so. It's a very frustrating army to play against. I've managed to beat draigowing before, but it requires that my opponent make mistakes in target priority and deployment. It's too easy for them to simply walk towards me and hold down the trigger. Null zone + th/ss can do a lot of damage to a paladin squad, but it's almost the only cost effective counter in the book (drop podding melta or plasma sterns can do well, but it's risky). Most GK players should recognize that and they can decimate assault terms at range in one round of shooting.
Why would I shoot bolters at Paladins at all, at least prior to 6e hitting? It's all about the instant death there, and that's another case where Null Zone can really shine. I'm also not sure how GK players can "decimate" assault terms at range. If they're in Land Raiders, the GK army will likely have very few solutions to AV14-- if not, you should have enough Termies to weather a volley or two and maintain lethality. That said, Paladins are tough too, so much of your own shooting will have to head their way as well prior to the big fight. Of course, all of this assumes you don't just tank shock them into irrelevance. I don't think Draigowing is a bad army, but I think it's sort of "Nob Bikers 2.0--" an inherently gimmicky army that relies on opponents being unprepared for it.
181
Post by: gorgon
Anpu-adom wrote: It's almost like GW has decided "we want to focus on models, so we'll produce a ruleset that we don't need to keep tweaking!"
Seems very reasonable that GW simply decided that the time their designers put into new codicies generates more moolah than the time they put into new rulebooks.
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
Personally I think that 35 points for a lascannon and twin-linked plasma gun on a transport that I want to take anyway is very synergistic and cost-effective.
And it requires that your libby be within range of the target, which is inherently dangerous as that's within the primary threat range of virtually every army. Sticking him in a LR with assault terms is nice, but it's expensive and innefective against armies with the volume to deal with death stars. That's why I use Combat Squads. With Combat Squads, my half-squad in the back can fire a heavy weapon, while my half-squad in the front can fire a special and combi when necessary.
I tend to lose my troop choices fairly quickly when I split tacs up and try to get aggressive. The tacs have a low volume of damage output for their cost. It's not something that's really debateable if you compared them to virtually any other troop choice out there. They're supposed to be resilient, but when everything is packing power weapons or has cover their save doesn't do a lot by comparison. Auto/las preds seem quite fairly costed to me, and while dev squads aren't so hot there's plenty of other firepower sources in the SM book.
An autolas pred costs about the same as a vendetta and more then long fangs. It's a bad deal in the current power level of the game. Sure, a lot of IG builds don't care too much, but the same item isn't good against everything and there are extra powers to use. Meltaguns are next to useless via horde orks, but that doesn't make them bad. As for SW, I find Null Zone highly effective at neutralizing Thunderwolf Cavalry, Lone Wolves, etc. There are a lot of armies against which Null Zone isn't great, but when you need it it's a godsend.
The same could be send for any specialty item. In my experience 4+ cover makes null zone somewhat worthless outside of combat, and if you have him in combat he's with th/ ss, if he's with th/ ss you're probably running vulkan. It's that one space marine build that's still vaguely viable. I don't play that for the same reason I don't play blood angels. It's not my army. I understand that I'm kind of gimping myself a bit, I've been considering doing counts as BAs since its very close to my current build anyway (space sharks!) but I don't want to be "that guy". Why would you want those things, though? Different units, different Codices, different roles-- and having to take upgrades is certainly worse than choosing whether or not to take upgrades.
Generally to keep the libby from getting killed by volume fire or by an enemy squad with initiative higher then 1. 2 wound ICs with 3+ are a very inviting target in combat. I understand going barebones though, I've often considered a 150 point hood and nullzone/teleporter. Personally, I find there are lots of units in C:SM that are good at punishing really shooty armies, especially ones that use vehicle squadrons. Scout Bikers immediately spring to mind.
I've wanted to get a squad of scout bikes together. $150 for a squad hurts though, and I don't see their utility against mech spam. My typical tactic is 10 sterns in a drop pod combat squadding with combi meltas. I can vaporize two squadrons at once, but at this point the trick is old hat and dawn of war/ GKs can screw it pretty hard. Why would I shoot bolters at Paladins at all, at least prior to 6e hitting? It's all about the instant death there, and that's another case where Null Zone can really shine.
They're going to have a 3+ cover save. Null zone doesn't do anything outside of combat and making them reroll 5+ isn't super great in it. Watch out for pshych grenades. I'm also not sure how GK players can "decimate" assault terms at range. If they're in Land Raiders, the GK army will likely have very few solutions to AV14-- if not, you should have enough Termies to weather a volley or two and maintain lethality.
If you have one LR they can deal with it just fine. Psycanons can put it down with volume rending fire, and unless you're stacking LRs they have clear target priority. It's not impossible to get in there, but it won't be free. That said, Paladins are tough too, so much of your own shooting will have to head their way as well prior to the big fight. Of course, all of this assumes you don't just tank shock them into irrelevance. I don't think Draigowing is a bad army, but I think it's sort of "Nob Bikers 2.0--" an inherently gimmicky army that relies on opponents being unprepared for it.
Play it before judging. They'll have six KPs at 1850 and good luck taking objectives from them. Space marines can win, but their basic troops are bad units for cost, and fifth edition requires troops that can take objectives. There are few ways for a marine army to late game contest either, so there are very few alternatives to simply shooting an enemy off of an objective. It's an uphill battle because the codex is (for the most part) overcosted. There is some gold in there, but it's what you and others have mentioned. Vulkan, th/ ss, null zone, and sternguard. Thats not a complete army though, and the troops slot is a major inherent weakness that is very hard to overcome when your opponents are skilled or their army is powerful.
55607
Post by: ryanroberts
I've not bothered reading through all of this thread but I was talking to a disgruntled employee of GW yesterday- they receive their copies of the new rule book in about 2 weeks, which places 6th Ed release about end of July.
All codexes from Blood Angels onwards have been written for 6th Ed.
Most likely first purely 6th Ed codex is Tau.
Most likely to be Dark Eldar and Space Marine starter box.
I did not tell you any of this!
PS. If I can, I'll try and get a copy of the rule book off of him/her.
|
|
