ShumaGorath wrote:It seems realistic that it was a bluff and that he wouldn't do that. That's just personal observation of how this community by in large likes to act though. Sound and fury signifying nothing.

Exactly my point and the reason I compared it to the 'Move to Canada' thing. I'm not familiar with the 'Horse Ebooks' thing, but maybe I should have used that.

Andrew1975 wrote:
Because now there is a better product out that is free. If GW tried to release a more conservative upgrade of 5th instead of this, I don't see them selling many rule books. With this people have seen the future and the future looks good. They can't release a minor upgrade to 5th and label it 6th as this point. It would have to be as good or better than this leaked info.

Except Dakka is a miniscule part of the greater 40k community, and just a very vocal minority. The books would still sell. Your posts in this thread have ranged from inane conspiracy theories to random GW bashing with no clear goal in sight. Please stop.

I read through most of this ruleset and I'm happier and happier the more I read. Vehicles being able to target multiple enemy units, bikes being way harder to hit, defensive fire, I don't know where to begin with how awesome these rules are. I really welcome the level of complexity on display here, and I can tell after a few games I'll pick it right up.

pretre wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:It seems realistic that it was a bluff and that he wouldn't do that. That's just personal observation of how this community by in large likes to act though. Sound and fury signifying nothing.

Exactly my point and the reason I compared it to the 'Move to Canada' thing. I'm not familiar with the 'Horse Ebooks' thing, but maybe I should have used that.

http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/horseebooks

Either way, the conversation isn't even academic. It's largely speculative, conspiratorial, and hyperbolic. Put it to rest.

I am intrigued.

Surtur wrote:I hope this is an early testing or fake. These rules kick the crap outta my marines. Tank shocks causing critical hits (auto wound no armor) # of hits = how many models I touch, sweeping advance causing critical hits (goodbye combat tactics), rhino being useless in the face of flame templates with 80% of the top face being fire port, railguns + 1st turn deepstrike, nerfing the hell out of deepstrike with defensive fire ect

It seems that the rules presented here give a great advantage to the Tau and Tyranids. Railguns would be off the chart in terms of power. Warriors getting stealth buffs in how being assaulted gives you I 10 which lash whip would take away and the way ID is handled. There's also a lot of little weird things going on like the bolster weapon systems rule and the repair squadron rule that make techpriests and the like have a strong power curve for individual tanks and then suck for squads. The patch up rule is an interesting way to get around wound allocation, but feels odd. This is hardly a releasable version that we have our hands on. It's possible this is an experiment to see how much they could complicate the rules or this is a fake based on all of the rumors that have been buzzing around.

I dislike you because you are complaining about rules kicking the crap out of marines. All I can say is: About goddamn time. Marines are absurdly powerful and ridiculously prevalent so anything that takes them down a notch or two is fine in my book.

TheMind wrote:

Surtur wrote:I hope this is an early testing or fake. These rules kick the crap outta my marines. Tank shocks causing critical hits (auto wound no armor) # of hits = how many models I touch, sweeping advance causing critical hits (goodbye combat tactics), rhino being useless in the face of flame templates with 80% of the top face being fire port, railguns + 1st turn deepstrike, nerfing the hell out of deepstrike with defensive fire ect

It seems that the rules presented here give a great advantage to the Tau and Tyranids. Railguns would be off the chart in terms of power. Warriors getting stealth buffs in how being assaulted gives you I 10 which lash whip would take away and the way ID is handled. There's also a lot of little weird things going on like the bolster weapon systems rule and the repair squadron rule that make techpriests and the like have a strong power curve for individual tanks and then suck for squads. The patch up rule is an interesting way to get around wound allocation, but feels odd. This is hardly a releasable version that we have our hands on. It's possible this is an experiment to see how much they could complicate the rules or this is a fake based on all of the rumors that have been buzzing around.

I dislike you because you are complaining about rules kicking the crap out of marines. All I can say is: About goddamn time. Marines are absurdly powerful and ridiculously prevalent so anything that takes them down a notch or two is fine in my book.

Codex space marines is arguably the weakest codex in the game. It beats tau for win loss against everything except IG and GKs, but they're two of the three most prevalent tournament armies out there. Please calm down and gain some perspective. He didn't say gray knights or space wolves, he said "My marines".

Rams don't connect with smaller models, so infantry get out of the way instead of getting squashed. Trygons and other mcs take damage from a RAM but also inflict a pen on the tank that did it, and can charge by chance as well.. Balanced, I say!

pretre wrote:No, I'm saying you're not going to get a pick-up game with a fandex or be able to play it at a RTT/GT.

Is he only allowed to play in tournaments or something? I don't see why mentioning sanctioned events is relevant to what he was saying.

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying.

How can you possibly validate that evaluation without any evidence?

Marines will be fine. They'll get a new codex with the release of the edition, I'm sure. Hell, I'm excited about the rules and I play GK. Not concerned about any nerfing, and I'm actually quite eager to get in on some scatterless deep strike action.

pretre wrote:

Cruentus wrote:Because of these play as well as they read, and give a more tactical and strategic game, then i'll use these instead of yet another derivation of 3rd-5th edition 40k.

If these are fake, I'd take em, change the wording a bit, et voila, a new ruleset on the market.

That's kind of a big if right now (play as well as read). Example someone brought up on another forum, DE. Their vehicles are impossible to hit, don't have negatives from open-topped, move crazy distances, have an invulnerable save and everything in the army charges crazy distances out of those vehicles. Good luck dealing with that.

Except that you can still cause half a dozen shaken results to a raider/ravager and still end up blowing it up as a result of hull breaching...

Cadaver wrote:

Kroothawk wrote:

As I am done with GW forever. I love the miniatures, I like the new rules (been pretty enthusiastic about it), but I hate the company, that makes them. If you knew what I know you would feel the same. GW doesn’t care for their customers one bit. The whole corporal culture is cynical as hell. The managers despise the hobby and all immatures who play it. There is a huge rift in the management and most of the executives that actually play the game have left or are leaving the company right now.

I'm assuming this is a quote from Alessio? I hadn't seen that before. Out of curiosity, what was the context he provided this? Was it an editorial, or at a seminar of some sort?

This is the quote from the anonymous source of the June leak, see second link. And BoK calls it a fake? Really?

Flashman wrote:

Kroothawk wrote:Confirms that the main developer left when his rules weren't approved (Alessio I assume, therefore the non-native-English bits).

Didn't Priestly leave because he wasn't allowed to something radical with a game he pretty much invented?

His Master's Voice wrote:Bingo. I knew this was somewhat familiar. I could easily believe Priestley either wrote the thing or it's at least a derivative of his work.

No, it actually were his great plans for Warhammer Forge that got denied. He wanted to kill the Warhammer universe in about 4 books, succumbing to Chaos in the end (while a Halfling is Emperor). Was too radical for GW management and it became just one book, to be followed by a generic Monster book.

Flashman wrote:A couple of weeks ago on "What's New Today", they showed pics of what was purportedly Mark Wells' Orc army.

... that he freshly made for the pic, so they said. I am not cnvinced.

daedalus wrote:Marines will be fine. They'll get a new codex with the release of the edition, I'm sure. Hell, I'm excited about the rules and I play GK. Not concerned about any nerfing, and I'm actually quite eager to get in on some scatterless deep strike action.

My bitterness at how crappy the generic marine codex is grows every time I attend a tournament. 5th edition 40k is a very autoplay game. Most considerations comes in developing a list, once it's on the battlefield you generally stick to a pre ordained game plan and just go down the target priority list. I'm growing tired of being beaten by people who don't have to do anything other then push models foreward to win just because I'm at a several hundred point handicap in every battle.

That's part of why this new edition looks so great to me. There are actual decisions to be made. There are a series of risk/reward scenarios in every turn that simply didn't exist in fifth and it seemingly guts the auto win tendencies of KP denial armies or all reserve objective taker lists.

Kroothawk wrote:

Flashman wrote:A couple of weeks ago on "What's New Today", they showed pics of what was purportedly Mark Wells' Orc army.

... that he freshly made for the pic, so they said. I am not convinced.

Me neither TBH

...and Kroothawk again renews my faith that these rules are real and not the reject of a former GW employee.

I was getting doubts for a moment.

ShumaGorath wrote:

TheMind wrote:

Surtur wrote:I hope this is an early testing or fake. These rules kick the crap outta my marines. Tank shocks causing critical hits (auto wound no armor) # of hits = how many models I touch, sweeping advance causing critical hits (goodbye combat tactics), rhino being useless in the face of flame templates with 80% of the top face being fire port, railguns + 1st turn deepstrike, nerfing the hell out of deepstrike with defensive fire ect

It seems that the rules presented here give a great advantage to the Tau and Tyranids. Railguns would be off the chart in terms of power. Warriors getting stealth buffs in how being assaulted gives you I 10 which lash whip would take away and the way ID is handled. There's also a lot of little weird things going on like the bolster weapon systems rule and the repair squadron rule that make techpriests and the like have a strong power curve for individual tanks and then suck for squads. The patch up rule is an interesting way to get around wound allocation, but feels odd. This is hardly a releasable version that we have our hands on. It's possible this is an experiment to see how much they could complicate the rules or this is a fake based on all of the rumors that have been buzzing around.

I dislike you because you are complaining about rules kicking the crap out of marines. All I can say is: About goddamn time. Marines are absurdly powerful and ridiculously prevalent so anything that takes them down a notch or two is fine in my book.

Codex space marines is arguably the weakest codex in the game. It beats tau for win loss against everything except IG and GKs, but they're two of the three most prevalent tournament armies out there. Please calm down and gain some perspective. He didn't say gray knights or space wolves, he said "My marines".

This Ultramarine thanks you Shuma.

chaos0xomega wrote:

pretre wrote:

Cruentus wrote:Because of these play as well as they read, and give a more tactical and strategic game, then i'll use these instead of yet another derivation of 3rd-5th edition 40k.

If these are fake, I'd take em, change the wording a bit, et voila, a new ruleset on the market.

That's kind of a big if right now (play as well as read). Example someone brought up on another forum, DE. Their vehicles are impossible to hit, don't have negatives from open-topped, move crazy distances, have an invulnerable save and everything in the army charges crazy distances out of those vehicles. Good luck dealing with that.

Except that you can still cause half a dozen shaken results to a raider/ravager and still end up blowing it up as a result of hull breaching...

Splitting fire severely reduces the effectiveness of MSU builds. A hydra can engage three seperate vehicles at the same time for instance. DE transports got better, but the ranged game got a lot more lethal on the other side of the table as well.

ShumaGorath wrote:
My bitterness at how crappy the generic marine codex is grows every time I attend a tournament. 5th edition 40k is a very autoplay game. Most considerations comes in developing a list, once it's on the battlefield you generally stick to a pre ordained game plan and just go down the target priority list. I'm growing tired of being beaten by people who don't have to do anything other then push models foreward to win just because I'm at a several hundred point handicap in every battle.

That's part of why this new edition looks so great to me. There are actual decisions to be made. There are a series of risk/reward scenarios in every turn that simply didn't exist in fifth and it seemingly guts the auto win tendencies of KP denial armies or all reserve objective taker lists.

Shuma, you're my new favorite poster. Your insight on this leak has been head and shoulders better than just about anyone else's, and I share the same opinions on about 90% of this.

ShumaGorath wrote:
My bitterness at how crappy the generic marine codex is grows every time I attend a tournament. 5th edition 40k is a very autoplay game. Most considerations comes in developing a list, once it's on the battlefield you generally stick to a pre ordained game plan and just go down the target priority list. I'm growing tired of being beaten by people who don't have to do anything other then push models foreward to win just because I'm at a several hundred point handicap in every battle.

Well, I guess that's one of the disadvantages of getting the early update when the new edition drops; that you quickly become outpaced by every other codex that comes out afterwards. I can understand the bitterness. I've not won many games with my Relictors, but that's mostly because I disdain special characters. Technically speaking, the way I play them, I could switch out for the BA codex and have a much better chance of winning. I don't though, because they're my 'fun' army, along with 'nids.

This is actualy quite nice... i can't wait for 6th edd!

I think its legit.

Aim of the rules re-write was to remove a load of the randomness of the game. This does that in bucket loads. I understand an earlier playtested rule was vehicle hit-points (every vehicle got 3 hit points, you lost one for every penetrating hit) and hull breach looks like a much more refined version of that mechanic. So yeah, I'm going for legit.

daedalus wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:
My bitterness at how crappy the generic marine codex is grows every time I attend a tournament. 5th edition 40k is a very autoplay game. Most considerations comes in developing a list, once it's on the battlefield you generally stick to a pre ordained game plan and just go down the target priority list. I'm growing tired of being beaten by people who don't have to do anything other then push models foreward to win just because I'm at a several hundred point handicap in every battle.

Well, I guess that's one of the disadvantages of getting the early update when the new edition drops; that you quickly become outpaced by every other codex that comes out afterwards. I can understand the bitterness. I've not won many games with my Relictors, but that's mostly because I disdain special characters. Technically speaking, the way I play them, I could switch out for the BA codex and have a much better chance of winning. I don't though, because they're my 'fun' army, along with 'nids.

It goes beyond that. The marine codex is also the most internally inconsistent book that they've released in the edition. The number of truly useful units can be counted on one hand and the over-costed derivations of those units with comical upgrade pointing (35 point heavy flamers on legion of the damned!) composes most of it's pages. I play space sharks with the badaab war 2 special character. My army is actually model for model a fairly standard blood angels army (the SS special character lets you make assault oriented tac marines). Except I pay more for everything, nothing is fast, my furious charge has a drawback, and I don't have army wide FNP. The only reason I don't counts as is because the sharks have a character and a codex and I don't want to be "That guy".

At least in the theoretical new edition I can get back to outplaying people for victories, rather then exploiting cheesy maneuvers or just getting lucky. I know quite a few tau players who are at the same level of burn out.

skimmer are airborne so they can only get assaulted by other airborne units right?

Hurray Necron vehicles!!!!

Kroothawk wrote:

Cadaver wrote:

Kroothawk wrote:

As I am done with GW forever. I love the miniatures, I like the new rules (been pretty enthusiastic about it), but I hate the company, that makes them. If you knew what I know you would feel the same. GW doesn’t care for their customers one bit. The whole corporal culture is cynical as hell. The managers despise the hobby and all immatures who play it. There is a huge rift in the management and most of the executives that actually play the game have left or are leaving the company right now.

I'm assuming this is a quote from Alessio? I hadn't seen that before. Out of curiosity, what was the context he provided this? Was it an editorial, or at a seminar of some sort?

This is the quote from the anonymous source of the June leak, see second link. And BoK calls it a fake? Really?

Whoops, I confused my 40k rumors sites there. 3++ called it a fake. I only did a quick skim through the links to the old rumor posts and for some reason thought the source was 3++.


Hmmm, ok, the quote seemed a little suspect. Sounded more like the rant of a fervent anti-GW forum-goer than an actual employee. I was curious because I found it hard to believe Alessio, or any other former GW employee for that matter, would air their dirty laundry to some random person to disseminate across the internet.

Wasn't GW security recently being scrutinized in order to get the hobbit ip .....uh ow!

Zomjie wrote:skimmer are airborne so they can only get assaulted by other airborne units right?

Hurray Necron vehicles!!!!

No.

Only units with the "flyer" special movement have that quality. Fliers can only be assaulted by units with "airborne" or "jump".

Note that the ravager isn't being given aerial assault or gunship. So it is now pretty crap

daedalus wrote:Marines will be fine. They'll get a new codex with the release of the edition, I'm sure. Hell, I'm excited about the rules and I play GK. Not concerned about any nerfing, and I'm actually quite eager to get in on some scatterless deep strike action.

The deepstrike thing is really good news - I was hoping for an improvement to deep striking and we have it. Actually, talking of deep striking units, Interceptors look interesting now. Warp Quake is better with deep striking units landing within 12" receiving critical hits. I'm a little worried about where it says that units teleporting are barred from using 'stationary actions'. Exactly what things are stationary I don't know yet but since interceptors use teleporters to do their jump move, this would apply to them every turn. I hope it's nothing too important. But they can also ignore dangerous/difficult terrain when they land in it and they don't have to expend any movement to 'climb' levels of terrain. They also get to move 9" instead of 6". They look quite good from a tactical standpoint.

I'm still a bit dubious about the new Damage Results. It's still the -2 for Glancing Hits, but with an additional -1 if the target is a tank? Seems like transports are getting even more resiliant. Also, Weapon Destroyed results don't seem to actually destroy weapons, they just mess up the targeting systems a bit.

I was ultra-pumped until I read "True Line of Sight."

See you guys when 7th ed comes out!!

(half-sarcasm, half-not. srsly, TLOS sucks beyond all belief. why is it still here?!)

ColdSadHungry wrote:

daedalus wrote:Marines will be fine. They'll get a new codex with the release of the edition, I'm sure. Hell, I'm excited about the rules and I play GK. Not concerned about any nerfing, and I'm actually quite eager to get in on some scatterless deep strike action.

The deepstrike thing is really good news - I was hoping for an improvement to deep striking and we have it. Actually, talking of deep striking units, Interceptors look interesting now. Warp Quake is better with deep striking units landing within 12" receiving critical hits. I'm a little worried about where it says that units teleporting are barred from using 'stationary actions'. Exactly what things are stationary I don't know yet but since interceptors use teleporters to do their jump move, this would apply to them every turn. I hope it's nothing too important. But they can also ignore dangerous/difficult terrain when they land in it and they don't have to expend any movement to 'climb' levels of terrain. They also get to move 9" instead of 6". They look quite good from a tactical standpoint.

I wouldn't read too much into the 'stationary actions' bit. I think that just means mostly "no firing heavy weapons", which would apply in the same situations this edition.

Kurce wrote:I was ultra-pumped until I read "True Line of Sight."

See you guys when 7th ed comes out!!

(half-sarcasm, half-not. srsly, TLOS sucks beyond all belief. why is it still here?!)

Well it's "True line if sight light" There are things you can't see through (even if you physically can) like forests. So it is an improvement.

Valkyrie wrote:I'm still a bit dubious about the new Damage Results. It's still the -2 for Glancing Hits, but with an additional -1 if the target is a tank? Seems like transports are getting even more resiliant. Also, Weapon Destroyed results don't seem to actually destroy weapons, they just mess up the targeting systems a bit.

They're more resilient, but they're easier to hit. Tanks have an innate -1 to evasion just for being tanks.

Seems fair.

ColdSadHungry wrote:

daedalus wrote:Marines will be fine. They'll get a new codex with the release of the edition, I'm sure. Hell, I'm excited about the rules and I play GK. Not concerned about any nerfing, and I'm actually quite eager to get in on some scatterless deep strike action.

The deepstrike thing is really good news - I was hoping for an improvement to deep striking and we have it. Actually, talking of deep striking units, Interceptors look interesting now. Warp Quake is better with deep striking units landing within 12" receiving critical hits. I'm a little worried about where it says that units teleporting are barred from using 'stationary actions'. Exactly what things are stationary I don't know yet but since interceptors use teleporters to do their jump move, this would apply to them every turn. I hope it's nothing too important. But they can also ignore dangerous/difficult terrain when they land in it and they don't have to expend any movement to 'climb' levels of terrain. They also get to move 9" instead of 6". They look quite good from a tactical standpoint.

The big things for stationary are you can't move or assault at double your speed, and you can't use the Heavy firing option.


Overall, deepstriking got a pretty nice improvement imo. Sure you have to face defensive fire if you DS within 12" of the enemy unit, but if you land in the right place, it's not that big of a deal. I'll take that trade for being able to assault after deepstriking, not having to risk flat out losing the unit if I get a bad scatter, being able to deepstrike with no scatter if I land 18" away from an enemy unit, being able to time when my unit comes in, and being able to sync that with the arrival of other units for reserve...and that's just the normal version. The ambush and heroic deep strikes are even better.

And instead of being lucky and having only non-wrecking damage results, hull breaches will ensure you pop a transport quick enough, given enough fire.

ChocolateGork wrote:Note that the ravager isn't being given aerial assault or gunship. So it is now pretty crap

Ravager comes with Aerial Assault already.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Absolutionis wrote:

Valkyrie wrote:I'm still a bit dubious about the new Damage Results. It's still the -2 for Glancing Hits, but with an additional -1 if the target is a tank? Seems like transports are getting even more resiliant. Also, Weapon Destroyed results don't seem to actually destroy weapons, they just mess up the targeting systems a bit.

They're more resilient, but they're easier to hit. Tanks have an innate -1 to evasion just for being tanks.

Seems fair.

And on the weapons destroyed, the first result reduces the number of shooting actions you can take by one, the second shuts down all shooting for the rest of the game. So even if you have four weapons, it only takes 2 weapons destroyed results to knock them all out, but the trade off is, your main or most desireable weapon can still do it's thing until the second weapons destroyed result.

The more I read, the more I like.

Will be interesting to see what Ev stats are on a bunch of things if this is real

I think this whole thing is actually rather sad. People are so willing to believe this is real, it's like the entire capacity for rational thought has disappeared out of the window. Because of what? It can hardly be just because it was written on BoK, going on the track record of rumour validity (print everything, even if it's not your own).

I think instead it's because everyone wants to believe, that they are willing to completely ignore GW's track record, it's modus operandi, over the last 5 years or more. They want a system that will change so much in the game, open up so many opportunities. Sadly, if you take even a moment to look at previous releases you will see that this is very unlikely. Every release, without exception, has been an exercise in conservatism. We just see version +0.1, nothing that will fundamentally alter the way the game is played. Even really WFB ver. 8 was not such a radical departure, it just so happened that those changes (again, prioritised to sell more kits) just so happened to underwhelm the balance and nuances of the game, at least according to popular opinion.

Several games designers - going from Andy Chambers, Rick Priestly, Alessio Calvatore and no doubt more, have left the company after trying to introduce a fresh formula to a game system. Rick Priestly said in a recent interview that ever since GW became a publicly owned company, the sales department have called the shots in rule development, and the hands of the rules designers are tied. So we will see a fresh development of the rules that might tweak a thing or two, perhaps reverse the rules on LoS for a third time, but will stimulate a fresh round of boxset and book sales, and more interest in the game.

To do anything more would damage the sales of existing lines and recently produced codecies - and there is absolutely no chance that this would get the go ahead. The letters of resignations of all of those designers, surely some of the most well known and talented within the industry, are testament to that.

I don't look forward to yet another wave of depression when these rules get called out. Sorry if this post seems overly negative or condescending, as it's not meant to be.

PREFERRED ENEMY
Universal Damage special rule
Some warriors are able to predict the moves of
the enemies they are used to fight. They have
developed special techniques that enable them to
counter such enemies more effectively. Such
troops hit always on a roll of 3+ for Shooting and
Combat actions against their preferred enemy. If
they would hit on a 3+ anyway, they hit on a 2+
instead. This ability cannot be used against
vehicles. Vehicles don’t show emotions and are
unpredictable for this reason.
If a shooting unit with this ability targets a unit
that is not a preferred enemy, check if the unit
could have successfully targeted a preferred
enemy instead (i.e. it is in range, in line of sight
and is not out of distance for the Veiled special
rule, etc). If a model in the unit attacks a unit that
is not a preferred enemy, check if it could have
attacked a preferred enemy instead. If the model
or unit could have attacked or shot at a preferred
enemy (even if it could not damage it), the unit
loses this special rule for the rest of the game.

They all laughed at me for still using Destroyers in the new codex... the fools! Mwa-ha-ha-ha-haaaaaaaaa

puma713 wrote:Ha! FNP fails on a AP1, AP2 and AP3 weapons, and weapons that cause Instant Death.

Holding my Destroyers while rubbing my nipples now...

H.B.M.C. wrote:And Kill Points based on how many points a unit costs. Just like 2nd Ed.

This should've always been the case.

Cryage wrote:HOLY CRAP

Monoliths are super heavies (read the superheavies on page 96 of the .pdf, but is written "117" on the bottom right)

Heavy - Super-heavy vehicles with a single structure point are sometimes referred to as 'heavy'

-3 on the damage chart against the monolith (until you roll a natural 6 on the damage chart then that structure point is gone... then I believe its just treated as a tank which is still -1 on the damage chart)

So a roll of 5 will actually just be a 2, which the Monoliths can ignore on a roll of 4+

H.B.M.C. wrote:No mishap table for Deep Striking.

The Monoliths... they are rising again...

Overall, I want to desperately believe all of this. But I remain sceptical, as it is just too good to be true.

As a side note, I'm certain that the 2+ power armour bit is a misprint, if for no other reason than because that would render Terminator Armour pointless.

Pacific wrote:I think this whole thing is actually rather sad. People are so willing to believe this is real, it's like the entire capacity for rational thought has disappeared out of the window. Because of what? It can hardly be just because it was written on BoK, going on the track record of rumour validity (print everything, even if it's not your own).

I think instead it's because everyone wants to believe, that they are willing to completely ignore GW's track record, it's modus operandi, over the last 5 years or more. They want a system that will change so much in the game, open up so many opportunities. Sadly, if you take even a moment to look at the releases over the last 10 years, you will see that this is very unlikely. Every release, without exception, has been an exercise in conservatism. We just see version +0.1, nothing that will fundamentally alter the way the game is played. Even really WFB ver. 8 was not such a radical departure, it just so happened that those changes (again, prioritised to sell more kits) just so happened to underwhelm the balance and nuances of the game, at least according to popular opinion.

Several games designers - going from Andy Chambers, Rick Priestly, Alessio Calvatore and no doubt more, have left the company after trying to introduce a fresh formula to a game system. Rick Priestly said in a recent interview that ever since GW became a publicly owned company, the sales department have called the shots in rule development, and the hands of the rules designers are tied. So we will see a fresh development of the rules that might tweak a thing or two, perhaps reverse the rules on LoS for a third time, but will stimulate a fresh round of boxset and book sales, and more interest in the game.

To do anything more would damage the sales of existing lines and recently produced codecies - and there is absolutely no chance that this would get the go ahead. The letters of resignations of all of those designers, surely some of the most well known and talented within the industry, are testament to that.

I don't look forward to yet another wave of depression when these rules get called out. Sorry if this post seems overly negative or condescending, as it's not meant to be. I

We get it, it's probablly not real. Personally, it doesn't matter for me as most of my gaming is done within a closed group, and GW can shove it if 6th ed is just a tweaked 5th. Aside from it being real or not, I think the response that we've seen so far has indicated that GW's world would not crash and burn with such radical changes, if done properly.

Pacific wrote:People are so willing to believe this is real, it's like the entire capacity for rational thought has disappeared out of the window. Because of what? It can hardly be just because it was written on BoK, going on the track record of rumour validity (print everything, even if it's not your own).

Possibly because the most radical change those rules come up with is the swapping of Assault and Shooting phases. Everything else is just a natural evolution or clarification of existing rules. While giving pistols some functionality or adding Patch Up may seem "radical" it doesn't affect anything in the core rules of the game which is still about massive amounts of dice being rolled to determine who slaughters who. I read the rules and saw something perfectly familiar with the same 3rd edition concepts behind justs about every major rule.

We don't believe this because it's so different. It isn't. We (or at least I) think this might be real because it doesn't look or read as someone's spare time trolling attempt.

Additionally, I find the possibility that this is some sort of reject from a former developer rather minuscule.

azazel the cat wrote:

Cryage wrote:HOLY CRAP

Monoliths are super heavies (read the superheavies on page 96 of the .pdf, but is written "117" on the bottom right)

Heavy - Super-heavy vehicles with a single structure point are sometimes referred to as 'heavy'

-3 on the damage chart against the monolith (until you roll a natural 6 on the damage chart then that structure point is gone... then I believe its just treated as a tank which is still -1 on the damage chart)

So a roll of 5 will actually just be a 2, which the Monoliths can ignore on a roll of 4+

H.B.M.C. wrote:No mishap table for Deep Striking.

The Monoliths... they are rising again...

I'd be very leery of the Heavy thing for the moment. The way it's presented in the book is kind of out of sync the way all the other special rules and traits are presented. Not to mention that a 200 point super heavy would just be...evil

Cryage wrote:Will be interesting to see what Ev stats are on a bunch of things if this is real

There is no Evasion stat. It has a base value of 3 with modifiers (massive, movement, swarm).

Small tidbits:
All models within 3" (currently 2") of a friendly attacking model within a unit can attack.
Movement to regain coherency is free and before movement.

@Maelstrom808: I think that a massive change-up like this is EXACTLY the way to sell the most models. A small tweak or evolution is the way to make most established players happy, but in GW's opinion, those guys, because GW would rather hope to see people completely re-buy new armies, which is the sort of thing that a shake-up would facilitate.

Cynical, yes. But I really want to believe this leak is for real, because it gives four weaker armies some sharp new knives to play with.





Automatically Appended Next Post:

Maelstrom808 wrote:I'd be very leery of the Heavy thing for the moment. The way it's presented in the book is kind of out of sync the way all the other special rules and traits are presented. Not to mention that a 200 point super heavy would just be...evil

I am sceptical, however the asterisk in the Necron codex is what leaves the door open for me to believe this a little... the actual rule is "Heavy*", which I think does sync up with the bit in the 6th Ed. leak about "some Super-Heavies with a single structure point are referred to as Heavy"

scarletsquig wrote:

tongalad wrote:I just tried to download it but it's been deleted.

anyone know where it can be accessed?

Yes.

I should have been more specific - can anyone PM me a link?

I can't believe that this thread hasn't been closed down.

I feel so sorry for my Orks if this is true...

@ azazel Agreed in pretty much every way.

..and if we thought people bitched a lot about monoliths before, just wait till that super heavy version hits the table. I could probably surf home form the game on the tears of my opponents

Luke_Prowler wrote:I feel so sorry for my Orks if this is true...

The gimmick ork armies (all nob and/or BW death rolla spam) are gonna suffer, but I don't see that as a bad thing. Ork should be a horde army, and these rules seem to facilitate this fact.

Some things to consider:

1. All models within 3" (currently 2") of a friendly attacking model within a unit can attack.
2. Run moves are not random anymore
3. Turn phases: Move, Assault, Shoot, Consolidate (so all those shoota shots are not going to allow your opponent to take your assault away by removing key models)
4. boyz w/ choppa/slugga can ge five attacks each

180 orks rushing across the table at far greater speed and threat range then before are going to be scary...

Voodoo Boyz wrote:I can't believe that this thread hasn't been closed down.

Why? It's not official GW product. If GW came out and said "That IS the 6th edition rulebook" pretty sure it would get torn down, but it's all speculation right now.

Reading the ordnance rules...somewhat befuddling...Shooting Actions vs. Heavy Fire

So does my Manticore now need 2 turns to fire since its ordnance barrage (4 Heavy Fire actions, Tanks get 2 shooting actions per turn)?

tongalad wrote:I should have been more specific - can anyone PM me a link?

No problem. Here is a link to the first post of this thread:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/422519.page

Also, you might want to check out:

http://www.google.com

jb50c wrote:Reading the ordnance rules...somewhat befuddling...Shooting Actions vs. Heavy Fire

So does my Manticore now need 2 turns to fire since its ordnance barrage (4 Heavy Fire actions, Tanks get 2 shooting actions per turn)?

Tanks get Multi-targeting (2). With multi-targeting, if you remain stationary, you double your shooting actions, so that gives you four.

CT GAMER wrote:

Luke_Prowler wrote:I feel so sorry for my Orks if this is true...

The gimmick ork armies (all nob and/or BW death rolla spam) are gonna suffer, but I don't see that as a bad thing. Ork should be a horde army, and these rules seem to facilitate this fact.

Some things to consider:

1. All models within 3" (currently 2") of a friendly attacking model within a unit can attack.
2. Run moves are not random anymore
3. Turn phases: Move, Assault, Shoot, Consolidate (so all those shoota shots are not going to allow your opponent to take your assault away by removing key models)
4. boyz w/ choppa/slugga can ge five attacks each

180 orks rushing across the table at far greater speed and threat range then before are going to be scary...

Oh, I understand that Ork do benefit from the new rules, and I'm still going to play because I love the the greenskins and the setting, I just feel that the the rest of the armies benefit far greater from the same rules, don't lose quite as much, and even shooting armies benefit from the assault rules while they also got a boost for their shooting (like deepstriking GKs) to better cut the boyz down.

For those that keep bringing up Evasion - it's not that difficult..
Page 49 (70 in the doc) says that you can still do 7-BS, just modify it for the EV mods (-1 for massive, -1 stationary, +1 moving Jink, +1 swarm).

If adding 4 more potential modifiers is enough to make the game much longer I'd say there are other things you need to look at to speed up your games.

Luke_Prowler wrote:

CT GAMER wrote:

Luke_Prowler wrote:I feel so sorry for my Orks if this is true...

The gimmick ork armies (all nob and/or BW death rolla spam) are gonna suffer, but I don't see that as a bad thing. Ork should be a horde army, and these rules seem to facilitate this fact.

Some things to consider:

1. All models within 3" (currently 2") of a friendly attacking model within a unit can attack.
2. Run moves are not random anymore
3. Turn phases: Move, Assault, Shoot, Consolidate (so all those shoota shots are not going to allow your opponent to take your assault away by removing key models)
4. boyz w/ choppa/slugga can ge five attacks each

180 orks rushing across the table at far greater speed and threat range then before are going to be scary...

Oh, I understand that Ork do benefit from the new rules, and I'm still going to play because I love the the greenskins and the setting, I just feel that the the rest of the armies benefit far greater from the same rules, don't lose quite as much, and even shooting armies benefit from the assault rules while they also got a boost for their shooting (like deepstriking GKs) to better cut the boyz down.

At least you can take solace in the fact that orcs never truely lose, right?

And if you're a Behemoth you get MT(3), or 6 if stationary. Killkannon + 4 rokkits = 6.

I like the way the MT rules make vehicle firepower more maneoverable.

No disembarking at cruising speed will help tone down the mech aspect of the game.

Maelstrom808 wrote:At least you can take solace in the fact that orcs never truely lose, right?

Ah course! If we win, we win! If we lose deys all dead so it don't count, an' if we run away it just mean we'z coming back for anna go!

jb50c wrote:Reading the ordnance rules...somewhat befuddling...Shooting Actions vs. Heavy Fire

So does my Manticore now need 2 turns to fire since its ordnance barrage (4 Heavy Fire actions, Tanks get 2 shooting actions per turn)?

As I understand it, if you remain stationary you double your number of shooting actions (thus 4 heavy fire actions)

2 things about this terify me:

The first is the ability to get out of a vehicle...unload your non heavy weapons....then get back in. This means fish of fury for Tau will come back and Eldar will have some great options as well.
The second is the defensive firing. WTF were they thinking there?!?! I charge you but at no penalty you get to shoot the piss out of me and then still swing in CC?!?!? Harliquins...it was nice knowing ya. Only Marine armies will be able to survive the hail of fire. That being said I am now going to field 3 full units of fire dragons in a wave serpent...charge that beotch hehe. My DE however just lost almost any CC ability they had....so so sad.

Looking over the rules, there's a some good (wound allocation), some bad (entire vehicle squadrons being stunned just because you stunned one vehicle?), and a whole lot of unnecessary or pointless changed (BS vs EV, Kill Points still have the exact same issues they do now, they're more annoying to deal with, etc)

Overall, it looks like a lot of complexity added on top of an existing structure the fundamentally doesn't solve many of the issues the game has faced since 1998.

Here's what I'm taking away from this, at a glance:

The game is being sped-up quite a bit, and the game is becoming far more attuned to a series of glass cannons. And if both armies are playing glass cannons, then models fly off the table at a rapid pace. Which means that you need many more models in order to keep the game as large as it used to be. And that means more model sales.

If I were in charge, that's just how I would change the game so as to allow both players to play a 3500 point game in two or three hours, each losing handfuls of models at a time to templates and multiple shooting phases. I'd remove the tar-pits and the security of MSU mech lists, in favour of hundreds of models that all shoot often. Because that forces the players to own larger armies than they previously did, and it also separates them from Warmachine, which is a much smaller, skirmish-oriented game.

Fishboy wrote:2 things about this terify me:

The first is the ability to get out of a vehicle...unload your non heavy weapons....then get back in. This means fish of fury for Tau will come back and Eldar will have some great options as well.

You can't disembark from a vehicle that moved at cruising speed, plus the unit leader has to remain within 3" of an access point. This quite severely hampers your manoeuvrability.

The second is the defensive firing. WTF were they thinking there?!?! I charge you but at no penalty you get to shoot the piss out of me and then still swing in CC?!?!?

DF is only against DSing units. Only units with the Overwatch rule (exceedingly rare) get to DF at other times.

Well this is interesting.

The PDF is certainly creditable as a genuine 'early version' of 6th edition rules. Unfortunately there's not much else we know for definite. What we do know is:
.
- GW company policy is currently 'late disclosure'.
- The speed at which the early download sources were taken down implies that GW HQ did not intend this to be released to the public.
- Some folks are reacting positively to the contents of the PDF, some people are reacting negatively. This will happen whatever 6th is like!
- If this is genuine, it has probably changed quite a bit in the meantime.

also:

- WFB 8th Edition was quite a radical departure from 7th and (despite the impression that web-board warriors may give) it gave WFB a noticeable sales boost.

and:

- Anecdotally, when something does leak out onto the internet, only a small percentage of GW's customers hear about it.
- Of those, even fewer actually see it. This brings us to the people who have probably already made up their mind on whether they are going to buy it anyway!
- This is partially because only a small percentage of GW customers frequent forums like Dakka, BoLS, whineseer, etc

My personal opinion... I quite like it, I especially like the idea of super-heavies and flyers FINALLY being a part of the core rules. I hope that the final version of 6th is something along these lines. I can imagine some parts being dropped and/or toned down, and the rules in the PDF are definitely 3 or 4 rewrites away from being a polished, readable document. Overall positive.

Fishboy wrote:2 things about this terify me:

The first is the ability to get out of a vehicle...unload your non heavy weapons....then get back in. This means fish of fury for Tau will come back and Eldar will have some great options as well.
The second is the defensive firing. WTF were they thinking there?!?! I charge you but at no penalty you get to shoot the piss out of me and then still swing in CC?!?!? Harliquins...it was nice knowing ya. Only Marine armies will be able to survive the hail of fire. That being said I am now going to field 3 full units of fire dragons in a wave serpent...charge that beotch hehe. My DE however just lost almost any CC ability they had....so so sad.

On the first...meh. I think it gives both armies a bit of a leg up they need...and it's not like it's hard to seriously eff over transports and their contents in this version.

On the second, you have to have the Overwatch special rule to be able to use defensive fire against an assault. Go take a look through the codices and tell me how many units you find with this ability (not many).

Maelstrom808 wrote:

Fishboy wrote:2 things about this terify me:

The first is the ability to get out of a vehicle...unload your non heavy weapons....then get back in. This means fish of fury for Tau will come back and Eldar will have some great options as well.
The second is the defensive firing. WTF were they thinking there?!?! I charge you but at no penalty you get to shoot the piss out of me and then still swing in CC?!?!? Harliquins...it was nice knowing ya. Only Marine armies will be able to survive the hail of fire. That being said I am now going to field 3 full units of fire dragons in a wave serpent...charge that beotch hehe. My DE however just lost almost any CC ability they had....so so sad.

On the first...meh. I think it gives both armies a bit of a leg up they need...and it's not like it's hard to seriously eff over transports and their contents in this version.

On the second, you have to have the Overwatch special rule to be able to use defensive fire against an assault. Go take a look through the codices and tell me how many units you find with this ability (not many).

Actually if you look at page 77 of the leaked rulebook (p. 56 of the pdf), it explains that defensive fire can be used on the opponent's turn as long as certain conditions are met (they're pretty easy to fulfill).

creeping-deth87 wrote:Actually if you look at page 77 of the leaked rulebook (p. 56 of the pdf), it explains that defensive fire can be used on the opponent's turn as long as certain conditions are met (they're pretty easy to fulfill).

ACTIONS IN THE ENEMY TURN
Normally units only act in their own turn. In some
situations like suddenly appearing reinforcements
or a tank that tries to steamroll the warriors, a
squad is forced to react quickly. To represent this,
units can perform the following actions in an
enemy turn if and only if the rules explicitly allow
it.

You can only Defensive Fire when the rules specifically tell you to: against close DS units, and if you have Overwatch.

Just a question: I think I remember someone earlier in the thread say that units don't get cover from standing behind another unit. Is that true?

apparently I missed the overwatch thing....

Panic attack averted hehe. The way this thing is written is very disorganized and kinda all over the map. I dont expect this to be the final cut but boy I sure hope the reorganize the rules a little better. Otherwise you will need to reference 3 different pages to understand one rule hehe.

@maelstrom I think if the vehicle is fast they can get out and shoot but I guess once I read it about 10 times it will make more sense

Pacific wrote:I think this whole thing is actually rather sad. People are so willing to believe this is real, it's like the entire capacity for rational thought has disappeared out of the window. Because of what? It can hardly be just because it was written on BoK, going on the track record of rumour validity (print everything, even if it's not your own).

*SNIP*

I don't look forward to yet another wave of depression when these rules get called out. Sorry if this post seems overly negative or condescending, as it's not meant to be.

Oh God you sound like the HMBC guy. All he ever does is complain. Stop being a hater.

In all seriousness though, isn’t it nice to be optimistic and be actually looking forward to something? After all the Ward-nonsense, and the soul-crushing of Grey Knights, the arguing over whether the ‘Chaos’ Codex or Diet Caffeine Free Coke is more bland, over Finecost, over price rises, over embargoes and over all the other gak we put up with from GW last year – isn’t it nice to see a 20+ page thread of people going “This is awesome” and not just be talking about new model releases?

Will the final rules match these? Probably not. I’d say that they’d be streamlined a bit. Will there be a dramatic shift in what’s here to the final rules? Making the assumption that these rules are legit, then I’d say no, because changing horses mid-race with a new set of rules like this would be a bad decision (not that GW isn’t known for changing horses mid-race multiple times during the same race).

But for the brief time between now and when we see what the final rules actually are, let’s enjoy what has been the first generally positive rules related moment on Dakka in quite some time.

Vaktathi wrote:Looking over the rules, there's a some good (wound allocation), some bad (entire vehicle squadrons being stunned just because you stunned one vehicle?), and a whole lot of unnecessary or pointless changed (BS vs EV, Kill Points still have the exact same issues they do now, they're more annoying to deal with, etc)

Overall, it looks like a lot of complexity added on top of an existing structure the fundamentally doesn't solve many of the issues the game has faced since 1998.

So a 700 point palladin squad being worth 1 kill point is the same as the same squad being worth 14. Yes, that is exactly the same.

Well, defensive firing against close DS units seriously hurts my Deathmark hit squads...


EDIT: But I don't care, because my Monoliths & Destroyers are back to their murderous glory!

Luke_Prowler wrote:Just a question: I think I remember someone earlier in the thread say that units don't get cover from standing behind another unit. Is that true?

They can get a "look out sir" from the interveening unit. I think any save they make gets directed to the interveening unit though.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

Pacific wrote:I think this whole thing is actually rather sad. People are so willing to believe this is real, it's like the entire capacity for rational thought has disappeared out of the window. Because of what? It can hardly be just because it was written on BoK, going on the track record of rumour validity (print everything, even if it's not your own).

*SNIP*

I don't look forward to yet another wave of depression when these rules get called out. Sorry if this post seems overly negative or condescending, as it's not meant to be.

Oh God you sound like the HMBC guy. All he ever does is complain. Stop being a hater.

In all seriousness though, isn’t it nice to be optimistic and be actually looking forward to something? After all the Ward-nonsense, and the soul-crushing of Grey Knights, the arguing over whether the ‘Chaos’ Codex or Diet Caffeine Free Coke is more bland, over Finecost, over price rises, over embargoes and over all the other gak we put up with from GW last year – isn’t it nice to see a 20+ page thread of people going “This is awesome” and not just be talking about new model releases?

Will the final rules match these? Probably not. I’d say that they’d be streamlined a bit. Will there be a dramatic shift in what’s here to the final rules? Making the assumption that these rules are legit, then I’d say no, because changing horses mid-race with a new set of rules like this would be a bad decision (not that GW isn’t known for changing horses mid-race multiple times during the same race).

But for the brief time between now and when we see what the final rules actually are, let’s enjoy what has been the first generally positive rules related moment on Dakka in quite some time.

First time I've ever seen it here.

CT GAMER wrote:
3. Turn phases: Move, Assault, Shoot, Consolidate (so all those shoota shots are not going to allow your opponent to take your assault away by removing key models)

You bring up some good points but I'm only going to focus on this one because the way you state it makes it seem like a wolf in sheep's clothing imo. The reality of the scenario is that the shoota boyz will not be able to soften up the target with volley of shots right before they charge into assault anymore since shooting comes afterwards. Don't get me wrong, I'm not chicken little here. This is all conjecture as far as I'm concerned, but I don't see the move > assault > shoot > consolidate change as a plus for shoota boys at all.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

Pacific wrote:I think this whole thing is actually rather sad. People are so willing to believe this is real, it's like the entire capacity for rational thought has disappeared out of the window. Because of what? It can hardly be just because it was written on BoK, going on the track record of rumour validity (print everything, even if it's not your own).

*SNIP*

I don't look forward to yet another wave of depression when these rules get called out. Sorry if this post seems overly negative or condescending, as it's not meant to be.

Oh God you sound like the HMBC guy. All he ever does is complain. Stop being a hater.

In all seriousness though, isn’t it nice to be optimistic and be actually looking forward to something? After all the Ward-nonsense, and the soul-crushing of Grey Knights, the arguing over whether the ‘Chaos’ Codex or Diet Caffeine Free Coke is more bland, over Finecost, over price rises, over embargoes and over all the other gak we put up with from GW last year – isn’t it nice to see a 20+ page thread of people going “This is awesome” and not just be talking about new model releases?

Will the final rules match these? Probably not. I’d say that they’d be streamlined a bit. Will there be a dramatic shift in what’s here to the final rules? Making the assumption that these rules are legit, then I’d say no, because changing horses mid-race with a new set of rules like this would be a bad decision (not that GW isn’t known for changing horses mid-race multiple times during the same race).

But for the brief time between now and when we see what the final rules actually are, let’s enjoy what has been the first generally positive rules related moment on Dakka in quite some time.

Ding ding ding....we have a winner...

Luke_Prowler wrote:

Maelstrom808 wrote:At least you can take solace in the fact that orcs never truely lose, right?

Ah course! If we win, we win! If we lose deys all dead so it don't count, an' if we run away it just mean we'z coming back for anna go!

I think Ork players in general are a special class of nutters that live and die by the spirit of the waagh.

I'm not talking about the twinks who thought they could wrack up tourney prizes with rolla and nob wound allocation spam and who will abandon the army at first sign of their old tactics not working. I'm talking the true blue (or is that green) ork players that aren't codex hoppers who ride the bandwagon of whatever the "it" codex happens to be at any given time.

Long time ork players are long time ork players because something about orks as an army/model range is irriesistable.

Bring on the change to 40k, because to be honest it was getting kind of stale. Orks will find a way to soldier on like they always have...

Any save causes a 'Critical hit' to the intervening unit (auto wounds and no armour save), though if the intervening unit has a better armour save than the target it gets a 3+ inv. against these.
If a unit intervenes, you cannot use directed fire on the unit targeted.

By the way; Burnas + shooting a transport with templates =

azazel the cat wrote:

Maelstrom808 wrote:I'd be very leery of the Heavy thing for the moment. The way it's presented in the book is kind of out of sync the way all the other special rules and traits are presented. Not to mention that a 200 point super heavy would just be...evil

I am sceptical, however the asterisk in the Necron codex is what leaves the door open for me to believe this a little... the actual rule is "Heavy*", which I think does sync up with the bit in the 6th Ed. leak about "some Super-Heavies with a single structure point are referred to as Heavy"

I think this makes sense due to the fact that they couldn't flat out call the monolith a super heavy in the codex without revealing some of their future plans for 6th edition
so the monolith will again be the terrifying battle fortress its supposed to be

H.B.M.C. wrote: Making the assumption that these rules are legit, then I’d say no, because changing horses mid-race with a new set of rules like this would be a bad decision (not that GW isn’t known for changing horses mid-race multiple times during the same race).

I don't see this as changing horses mid-stream. GW has effectively been running the same game engine for 3 editions (3,4,5) with tweaks in between, but not significant changes.

So a major overhaul after about 12 years isn't out of the question, I would think.

I think the orks get a boost with all this, especially with their innate ability to be fearless. Tyranids too.

haendas wrote:

CT GAMER wrote:
3. Turn phases: Move, Assault, Shoot, Consolidate (so all those shoota shots are not going to allow your opponent to take your assault away by removing key models)

You bring up some good points but I'm only going to focus on this one because the way you bring state it makes it seem like a wolf in sheep's clothing imo. The reality of the scenario is that the shoota boyz will not be able to soften up the target with volley of shots before they charge into assault anymore since shooting comes afterwards. Don't get me wrong, I'm not chicken little here. This is all conjecture as far as I'm concerned, but I don't see the move > assault > shoot > consolidate change as a plus for shoota boys at all.

I don't know. I personally have encountered a lot of situations in which I really want to soften up a unit I plan to assault and assume I'll get average shooing/wounding rolls, etc. and then I roll like a shooting god or my opponent fails a few too many armour saves and as a result I canno longer assault and am left standing with my greenskin butt flappng in the breeze...

Now I am just gonna sssault with a green tide and kill you with my 100+ attack dice. And if you somehow hang on I'll assault you with a second unit at INT10...

The key is gonna be using ass-loads of orks and overrunning your enemy with multiple units, and that sounds very orky to me...

Fishboy wrote:I think the orks get a boost with all this, especially with their innate ability to be fearless. Tyranids too.

Tyranids are like an entirely new dex with this ruleset, or at least the dex we thought we were getting at first.

azazel the cat wrote:Well, defensive firing against close DS units seriously hurts my Deathmark hit squads...


EDIT: But I don't care, because my Monoliths & Destroyers are back to their murderous glory!

deepstrike your deathmarks at 18 inches with no scatter and fire into the enemy squad you marked with HfH, no defensive fire, you reap the rewards

Yup, counter charges are going to be big business and will help ease the pain of those deathstar units.

Dribble Joy wrote:Any save causes a 'Critical hit' to the intervening unit (auto wounds and no armour save), though if the intervening unit has a better armour save than the target it gets a 3+ inv. against these.
If a unit intervenes, you cannot use directed fire on the unit targeted.

By the way; Burnas + shooting a transport with templates =

Ah-ha! Finally, a use for Sword & Shield Lychguard!

Zomjie wrote:

azazel the cat wrote:Well, defensive firing against close DS units seriously hurts my Deathmark hit squads...


EDIT: But I don't care, because my Monoliths & Destroyers are back to their murderous glory!

deepstrike your deathmarks at 18 inches with no scatter and fire into the enemy squad you marked with HtH, no defensive fire, you reap the rewards

I can't use the AP 1 Abyssal Staff template at 18".

[quote=Maelstrom808

On the second, you have to have the Overwatch special rule to be able to use defensive fire against an assault. Go take a look through the codices and tell me how many units you find with this ability (not many).

/Hopes that the entire Tau codex has Overwatch as an army wide special rule...

I don't see this as changing horses mid-stream. GW has effectively been running the same game engine for 3 editions (3,4,5) with tweaks in between, but not significant changes.

So a major overhaul after about 12 years isn't out of the question, I would think.

Also, 25 year anniversary of 40k this year, would make sense to revamp things and start afresh given the timing.

All the changes are very interesting. It seems to me like the game will be slightly more deep. (Can't wait for new chaos codex either!)

Sounds to me like Thousand Sons have become considerably more powerful if cover is changing

Cruentus wrote:I don't see this as changing horses mid-stream. GW has effectively been running the same game engine for 3 editions (3,4,5) with tweaks in between, but not significant changes.

So a major overhaul after about 12 years isn't out of the question, I would think.

You missed what I was saying. I wasn’t saying that these rules represent GW changing horses mid-race. I was saying that if these rules are legit then the final rules looking drastically different to them would be changing horses mid-race. Unless something is incredibly broken (and by that I mean ‘does not function’ and not ‘is unbalanced’) you don’t do a fundamental shift in rules midway through development.

So if these are the real play-test rules, I think it unlikely that the final rules would look all that different. More refined perhaps, but not a retread of 4th/5th. If these rules are legit, and the final version does shift away from them and back to something more conventional (from a 5th Ed standpoint) I will be greatly surprised.

azazel the cat wrote:

Zomjie wrote:

azazel the cat wrote:Well, defensive firing against close DS units seriously hurts my Deathmark hit squads...


EDIT: But I don't care, because my Monoliths & Destroyers are back to their murderous glory!

deepstrike your deathmarks at 18 inches with no scatter and fire into the enemy squad you marked with HtH, no defensive fire, you reap the rewards

I can't use the AP 1 Abyssal Staff template at 18".

ah true, well we all gotta adapt our play styles when new rules come out, I for one will be investing in some destroyers and monoliths

CT GAMER wrote:Bring on the change to 40k, because to be honest it was getting kind of stale. Orks will find a way to soldier on like they always have...

The changes (if true) have me a bit excited about my Warbike army.

ShumaGorath wrote:

It goes beyond that. The Chaos marine codex is also the most internally inconsistent book that they've released in the edition. The number of truly useful units can be counted on one hand and the over-costed derivations of those units with comical upgrade pointing

Here i Fixed your typo for you, don't need to thank me ^^

Kurce wrote:(half-sarcasm, half-not. srsly, TLOS sucks beyond all belief. why is it still here?!)

It's still here for the same reason it's been there since 40K was first born... It's a more 'cinematic' way of playing the game. It's not as precise as some of the more abstract systems out there, but it gets players more involved. Or at least that's how GW have rationalised it in previous editions, and I somewhat agree with them. There's a certain cool factor to getting down and seeing what your minis can see, particularly when you're playing with decent minis on a decent table. It's like a little movie action shot.

I believe this is in fact a TRUE draft copy. This is made too well, too detailed.

It might say MAY on it, but if you create it on a computer that has an internal clock which is set to MAY then you could have made it yesterday. But we knew the rules for 6th were done a long time ago, so it makes sense that it was may.

The fact that this is TOO close to the rumors we already have heard
How it is written in GW format
The Eldar Starcannon is accurate to the rumors of Str 7 Ap2 2 shots...
We knew 6th was going to be a complete departure from 3-5th. Otherwise... why republish 5th???
Black Templars are the new dex.... confirmed by NOT being in the Codex Updates section along with Necrons
New Necron rules are posted through the rulebook
Rules are GW quality.
This is NOT dumbed down!!! Its harder to play!!!! YAY!!!!!!

Sorry, but you can remind me when the 6th Rulebook comes out... that I was right and this is too good to be **edit** fake!

I really like these rules. Let's hope it's the real deal.... Yay for the return of Monoliths!

haendas wrote:

CT GAMER wrote:
3. Turn phases: Move, Assault, Shoot, Consolidate (so all those shoota shots are not going to allow your opponent to take your assault away by removing key models)

You bring up some good points but I'm only going to focus on this one because the way you state it makes it seem like a wolf in sheep's clothing imo. The reality of the scenario is that the shoota boyz will not be able to soften up the target with volley of shots right before they charge into assault anymore since shooting comes afterwards. Don't get me wrong, I'm not chicken little here. This is all conjecture as far as I'm concerned, but I don't see the move > assault > shoot > consolidate change as a plus for shoota boys at all.

I'm thinking about how I always destroy a Rhino in CC, only to have the marines inside perforate my boyz on their next turn... wouldn't these supposed rules let 20 boyz with a PK nob destroy a rhino, then open up with 40ish shots on the juicy troops within?

Because that seems really great, but I worry I'm missing something.

Also, what makes warbikes so good in this ruleset? I'm so confused by this whole thing.

Epicwargamer wrote:I believe this is in fact a TRUE draft copy. This is made too well, too detailed.

This is a hobby where, quite often, people do write their own rules, be it codices or rulebooks.

The fact that it's close to the rumours doesn't mean it's real, it means the person faking it just read those rumours and ran with it making this.

This is also a hobby where some of the players base has entirely too much free time.

It's possible this is fake. if it is, 10/10 troll attempt. If it's not, it's a good look into the future of 40k. But there's no way to be sure this is actually a leak and not an elaborate hoax.

insaniak wrote:

Kurce wrote:(half-sarcasm, half-not. srsly, TLOS sucks beyond all belief. why is it still here?!)

It's still here for the same reason it's been there since 40K was first born... It's a more 'cinematic' way of playing the game. It's not as precise as some of the more abstract systems out there, but it gets players more involved. Or at least that's how GW have rationalised it in previous editions, and I somewhat agree with them. There's a certain cool factor to getting down and seeing what your minis can see, particularly when you're playing with decent minis on a decent table. It's like a little movie action shot.

But TLOS isn't really here to stay - you can draw LOS through any model with a base, as if it wasn't there, according to these rules.

I really hope this isn't real. If 6th edition is that complicated I will probably not play.

If these rules are fake, GW needs to fire their staff and hire this guy.

Pacific wrote:I think this whole thing is actually rather sad. People are so willing to believe this is real, it's like the entire capacity for rational thought has disappeared out of the window. Because of what? It can hardly be just because it was written on BoK, going on the track record of rumour validity (print everything, even if it's not your own).

I think instead it's because everyone wants to believe, that they are willing to completely ignore GW's track record, it's modus operandi, over the last 5 years or more. They want a system that will change so much in the game, open up so many opportunities. Sadly, if you take even a moment to look at previous releases you will see that this is very unlikely. Every release, without exception, has been an exercise in conservatism. We just see version +0.1, nothing that will fundamentally alter the way the game is played. Even really WFB ver. 8 was not such a radical departure, it just so happened that those changes (again, prioritised to sell more kits) just so happened to underwhelm the balance and nuances of the game, at least according to popular opinion.

Several games designers - going from Andy Chambers, Rick Priestly, Alessio Calvatore and no doubt more, have left the company after trying to introduce a fresh formula to a game system. Rick Priestly said in a recent interview that ever since GW became a publicly owned company, the sales department have called the shots in rule development, and the hands of the rules designers are tied. So we will see a fresh development of the rules that might tweak a thing or two, perhaps reverse the rules on LoS for a third time, but will stimulate a fresh round of boxset and book sales, and more interest in the game.

To do anything more would damage the sales of existing lines and recently produced codecies - and there is absolutely no chance that this would get the go ahead. The letters of resignations of all of those designers, surely some of the most well known and talented within the industry, are testament to that.

I don't look forward to yet another wave of depression when these rules get called out. Sorry if this post seems overly negative or condescending, as it's not meant to be.

See I would probably fully agree with you, if Warhammer 8th hadn't happened. When the pre release rumours started breaking, folks where laughing at the idea of random charges, Horde units and the like. Then 8th arrived, and lots of the pre release rumours made it, and has changed Warhammer fantasy vastly for the first time in years.

It might well be fake, but after 8th, I will not bat an eyelid if all of this is accurate.

faeslayer wrote:
I'm thinking about how I always destroy a Rhino in CC, only to have the marines inside perforate my boyz on their next turn... wouldn't these supposed rules let 20 boyz with a PK nob destroy a rhino, then open up with 40ish shots on the juicy troops within?

Because that seems really great, but I worry I'm missing something.

Also, what makes warbikes so good in this ruleset? I'm so confused by this whole thing.

Assuming you use the engage (1x Movement) as opposed to the charge (2x) it certainly seems that way.

haendas wrote:

CT GAMER wrote:
3. Turn phases: Move, Assault, Shoot, Consolidate (so all those shoota shots are not going to allow your opponent to take your assault away by removing key models)

You bring up some good points but I'm only going to focus on this one because the way you state it makes it seem like a wolf in sheep's clothing imo. The reality of the scenario is that the shoota boyz will not be able to soften up the target with volley of shots right before they charge into assault anymore since shooting comes afterwards. Don't get me wrong, I'm not chicken little here. This is all conjecture as far as I'm concerned, but I don't see the move > assault > shoot > consolidate change as a plus for shoota boys at all.

Assault Weapons count as a 2nd CC weapon in H2H. Shoota boys are amazing now as they are exactly the same as a normal boy in CC and have a gun they can shoot with as well all for the same point cost.

It’s kinda weird looking at the people who dislike these rules and then realising that almost all of them are people who have tended to fall into line right behind me whenever I go off on one of my ‘Chaos’ Codex rants.

I sense a schism in the faith... but stay the course brothers, and as we walk, we must make the pledge that we shall always march ahead. We cannot turn back.

Let us not wallow in this valley of rules despair, I say to you today, my brothers.

And so even though we face the difficulties of Matt Ward and Generic Daemons, I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the Warp.

I have a dream that one day Chaos players will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "Let the galaxy burn!" I have a dream that one day within the Eye of Terror, the former sons of the False Emperor and the minions of Chaos will be able to walk upon terra as conquerors.

I have a dream that one day even the Realm of Ultramar, a state sweltering with the heat of the much-hated loyalists, sweltering without the power that Chaos brings, will be transformed into an daemon saturated vortex of slaughter and Chaos.

I have a dream that our four Chaos Gods will one day exist in a Codex where they will be judged by the rules they provide and not by the generic-ness of their daemons.

I have a dream today!


(With apologies to Martin Luther King Jr.)

I honestly think the final version of the rules probably won’t be as bloated as the play test version we have now. This version probably has extra rules in order to make testing of subcomponents easier. Judging by how the GK playtest version compared with the final product, I’m going to guess the final version will probably remain largely the same with some of the excess fat trimmed/refined. Personally I think this play test version is already far superior to 5th and if 6th is largely similar to 5th, I’ll bet a lot of people will use the play test rules instead.


As a small niggle, since the rules state a lot of new ways to play out your turn, depending if you move, make a stationary action, heavy fire, multi targeting, engage etc. Hopefully a quick reference table of some sorts is compiled. As it stands now, one has to flip back and forth through several pages just to get a basic understanding of how a basic turn can be played out.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Vaktathi wrote:Looking over the rules, there's a some good (wound allocation), some bad (entire vehicle squadrons being stunned just because you stunned one vehicle?), and a whole lot of unnecessary or pointless changed (BS vs EV, Kill Points still have the exact same issues they do now, they're more annoying to deal with, etc)

Overall, it looks like a lot of complexity added on top of an existing structure the fundamentally doesn't solve many of the issues the game has faced since 1998.

So a 700 point palladin squad being worth 1 kill point is the same as the same squad being worth 14. Yes, that is exactly the same.

The actual number is irrelevant, victory with such a unit/army can still be attain by losing a greater proportion of your force and fighting power and defeating a much less relevant and less capable portion of the enemy force. For example, bare bones basic IG infantry squads can still be worth 2 KP's each, meaning 350pts of basic IG infantry can be worth as much as 700pts of Paladins.

lucasbuffalo wrote:If these rules are fake, GW needs to fire their staff and hire this guy.

If these rules are fake, I need to hire this guy before someone else does... me and him could make some truly epic game systems together lol

As for quick reference charts, etc. I believe that is referenced on the first page of the pdf

Noisy_Marine wrote:I really hope this isn't real. If 6th edition is that complicated I will probably not play.

It's not that complicated. It's just that every edition after 1st has been dumbed down to the point where the game lost most of it's tactical and strategic qualities in order for it to be played by 8 year olds. Granted I still thing some things are very clunky for simplicity sake. Take the new evasion rule, simple modifiers to BS would be much simpler, but then you would have to do math, something GW believes 8 year olds can't do.

chaos0xomega wrote:

jb50c wrote:Reading the ordnance rules...somewhat befuddling...Shooting Actions vs. Heavy Fire

So does my Manticore now need 2 turns to fire since its ordnance barrage (4 Heavy Fire actions, Tanks get 2 shooting actions per turn)?

As I understand it, if you remain stationary you double your number of shooting actions (thus 4 heavy fire actions)

But. . .

Leaked Text wrote:If its unit had remained
stationary, the firing model could even double
the number of Shooting actions. Models with the
Fast special rule can do this even if they have
cruised or charged. Note that the model still
cannot fire the same weapon twice.

Edit: Sorry, thought you were talking about firing, not the manticore, per se.

walledin wrote:Assault Weapons count as a 2nd CC weapon in H2H. Shoota boys are amazing now as they are exactly the same as a normal boy in CC and have a gun they can shoot with as well all for the same point cost.

Shoota boys cannot take advantage of that rule, as they don't have a primary weapon. They have to attack with the "Basic Attack", which doesn't allow additional CCWs.

I can't tell you if the rules are 'good' or 'bad' yet, but I am impressed by the increase in complexity. I would not have guessed a new edition would have gone that way.

What's with the title of the thread, has it been proven a fake?

The new rules allow us to expand the ways
the game is played - first and foremost the option
to give each unit its own turn instead of the usual
unified player turn.

If not does this statement mean 1 unit moves then opponent unit moves?

H.B.M.C. wrote:
And so even though we face the difficulties of Matt Ward and Generic Daemons, I still have a dream.

This is why I play the Daemons codex (also, I'm a glutton for punishment).

So...I was unable to get my copy (forwarded from a friend) to work...Any hope for us Tzeentchy guys?

spyguyyoda wrote:

H.B.M.C. wrote:
And so even though we face the difficulties of Matt Ward and Generic Daemons, I still have a dream.

This is why I play the Daemons codex (also, I'm a glutton for punishment).

The complaint about generic daemons stems from them being in the Chaos Space Marine book. Being able to play god specific daemons in the daemon book has absolutely no bearing on people not being able to use, say, Bloodletters in a Khornate Chaos marine force. Saying 'use the daemon book' isn't a solution in any sense of the word.

Do any of the GW writers draft in German? Or are any parts of the codex known to be written up in Germany?

This might seem like a weird question, but I just noticed that on page 110 (p89 of the pdf) lists the "rear armor" of the vehicle as "Heck Armour." Obviously the English use of "heck" makes no sense here as a replacement for "rear," but the German translation of "heck" is exactly "rear."

I can't really think of any reason this kind of "translation-typo" would appear in any official rulebook draft, unless parts of the document were made in German and then translated.

Just some food for thought. Since Germany is pretty well known (afaik) for it's large wargaming fanbase, this could mean that either:
a) this is an elaborate hoax manufactured by/alongside dedicated German gamers.
OR
b) GW had some/all of the document written up in German for playtesting purposes, and some subsequent edits were not translated.

Surprised there are people that think it's an obvious fake. It may be fake, but it's not an obvious one, and IMO it's almost certainly a real draft doc. I mean, a viable, interesting ruleset, codex updates, and little touches like mentions of "Games Workshop Hobby Centres"? Utterly brilliant hoax if it is one.

We may have confirmation soon if we get a new Tyranid kit next month that makes a creature called a Cerebore.

puma713 wrote:But TLOS isn't really here to stay - you can draw LOS through any model with a base, as if it wasn't there, according to these rules.

Exactly what does or does not block LOS has varied in each edition. Right now, friendly models in the same unit don't block LOS. Not so long ago, no friendly model blocked LOS. But the core of the mechanic, which is tracing actual LOS from the head of the firing model, has been there in each edition of the game to date.

Xca|iber wrote:Do any of the GW writers draft in German? Or are any parts of the codex known to be written up in Germany?

This might seem like a weird question, but I just noticed that on page 110 (p89 of the pdf) lists the "rear armor" of the vehicle as "Heck Armour." Obviously the English use of "heck" makes no sense here as a replacement for "rear," but the German translation of "heck" is exactly "rear."

I can't really think of any reason this kind of "translation-typo" would appear in any official rulebook draft, unless parts of the document were made in German and then translated.

Just some food for thought. Since Germany is pretty well known (afaik) for it's large wargaming fanbase, this could mean that either:
a) this is an elaborate hoax manufactured by/alongside dedicated German gamers.
OR
b) GW had some/all of the document written up in German for playtesting purposes, and some subsequent edits were not translated.

That would explain the seemingly odd and sometimes complex grammatical structures of sentences/paragraphs

I'm pretty excited to once again be able to use the term "make thier points back" and have it be a relative towards determining a unit's value.

i like what i've read and am happy to playtest this around the FLGS and see what we come up with.

i also think that this is a very sneaky way of getting free playtesting out of a gaming system. they get to see if these changes are solid enough to both keep a fanbase and/or grow business.

Yeah and it looks like they split the baby in this edition with the "dense" wood option.

One theory raised on BoLS (maybe here too, I didn't read all 25 pages of this thread) is that this document is the one that Alessio Cavatore authored and supervised until something happened that caused him to quit GW. GW telling him that his rule set needs a major (total) rewrite to be a re-tread of 5th edition could have been the event that caused him to quit.

If that's the case it means that the guy who wrote this is gone from GW and they presumably hired other designers to write something that's more in the company line.

The leaked document could be a colossal disaster for GW if it's never proven definitely that it's a hoax and what we end up getting is 40k edition 5.5 with changes limited to tweaks to the cover system, USR optimization, and various minor changes.

Well the full rumor was that the changes were too radical so some of it was toned down to be more familiar, I wouldn't describe this as 'too radical' but then again we're the massive player base that has been crying out for years for exactly this and have yet to have our wishes granted by the evil empire...

Brian P wrote:One theory raised on BoLS (maybe here too, I didn't read all 25 pages of this thread) is that this document is the one that Alessio Cavatore authored and supervised until something happened that caused him to quit GW.

The whole Squad Leader emphasis in this document sounds a lot like the Warpath stuff Alessio is doing at Mantic.

Vaktathi wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Vaktathi wrote:Looking over the rules, there's a some good (wound allocation), some bad (entire vehicle squadrons being stunned just because you stunned one vehicle?), and a whole lot of unnecessary or pointless changed (BS vs EV, Kill Points still have the exact same issues they do now, they're more annoying to deal with, etc)

Overall, it looks like a lot of complexity added on top of an existing structure the fundamentally doesn't solve many of the issues the game has faced since 1998.

So a 700 point palladin squad being worth 1 kill point is the same as the same squad being worth 14. Yes, that is exactly the same.

The actual number is irrelevant, victory with such a unit/army can still be attain by losing a greater proportion of your force and fighting power and defeating a much less relevant and less capable portion of the enemy force. For example, bare bones basic IG infantry squads can still be worth 2 KP's each, meaning 350pts of basic IG infantry can be worth as much as 700pts of Paladins.

So the kill points for IG are easier to take but equal in number via sixth as opposed to being worth 7-8 times as many kill points and easier to take in fifth. I totally agree with you, clearly these situations, despite being at face value absolutely different are functionally the same.

Nice to see positivity for a change!

My nids are very much looking forward to this!

These rules are Pure Win and unadulterated awesome sauce. So there is no way on earth I believe that Alessio Cavatore wrote them, that guy is the king of oversimplified dumbed down game design.

I also believe that Alessio is not responsible for writing the document. Alessio has never been proven to be able to write quality, in-depth, flavourful and flexible rules and instead tends to opt for over-simplified “cut and paste” games design. His work in 40k and Mantic are a testament to this.

There’s too much sub-rules and add-on components in the play-test document to be something written by Alessio (he’d probably have a heart attack lol).

Andrew1975 wrote:Take the new evasion rule, simple modifiers to BS would be much simpler, but then you would have to do math, something GW believes 8 year olds can't do.

You mean on page 49 (numbered page 70) where it says to just apply the EV modifiers to the 7-BS that we've been doing for years? That kind of math GW doesn't believe 8 year olds can't do?

MasterSlowPoke wrote:

walledin wrote:Assault Weapons count as a 2nd CC weapon in H2H. Shoota boys are amazing now as they are exactly the same as a normal boy in CC and have a gun they can shoot with as well all for the same point cost.

Shoota boys cannot take advantage of that rule, as they don't have a primary weapon. They have to attack with the "Basic Attack", which doesn't allow additional CCWs.

Good call. I forgot they exchanged both.

rigeld2 wrote:

Andrew1975 wrote:Take the new evasion rule, simple modifiers to BS would be much simpler, but then you would have to do math, something GW believes 8 year olds can't do.

You mean on page 49 (numbered page 70) where it says to just apply the EV modifiers to the 7-BS that we've been doing for years? That kind of math GW doesn't believe 8 year olds can't do?

I think it is a bit more than that. What I think Andrew is getting at, is instead of looking at my BS of 4 and knowing that I need a 3 to hit, I have to look at my opponent's model, rememeber that it has a Jink (+1), but it is a tank (-1) among other things, and I still have to roll a 3 to hit.

It's not the maths part, its the complicating of the equation the likes of which harken back to 2nd Ed. (armour save modifiers anyone?)

Wound Shenanigans look fairly clear now. Sadface for my Nobz :(

So does any one know when the new rule book will come out .

necron overlord wrote:So does any one know when the new rule book will come out .

All signs point to July...

puma713 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Andrew1975 wrote:Take the new evasion rule, simple modifiers to BS would be much simpler, but then you would have to do math, something GW believes 8 year olds can't do.

You mean on page 49 (numbered page 70) where it says to just apply the EV modifiers to the 7-BS that we've been doing for years? That kind of math GW doesn't believe 8 year olds can't do?

I think it is a bit more than that. What I think Andrew is getting at, is instead of looking at my BS of 4 and knowing that I need a 3 to hit, I have to look at my opponent's model, rememeber that it has a Jink (+1), but it is a tank (-1) among other things, and I still have to roll a 3 to hit.

It's not the maths part, its the complicating of the equation the likes of which harken back to 2nd Ed. (armour save modifiers anyone?)

This is exactly what I mean. Armour save modifiers made much more sense than the simplified(?) ap rules. The ap system is clunky compared to -1 or -2 to an armor save. But again then you have to do maths and GW does not believe that 8 year olds can do maths. I got used to repeated +1/-1 math from battletech, its really not so hard to keep track on the modifiers.

Thanks how do the new rules look I have not downloaded the rules so I do not know.

necron overlord wrote:Thanks how do the new rules look I have not downloaded the rules so I do not know.

Isn't that what the last 24 pages are about?

I know but reading them will take a bit and I just want a summary of it to know if its bad or good.

Andrew1975 wrote:

puma713 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Andrew1975 wrote:Take the new evasion rule, simple modifiers to BS would be much simpler, but then you would have to do math, something GW believes 8 year olds can't do.

You mean on page 49 (numbered page 70) where it says to just apply the EV modifiers to the 7-BS that we've been doing for years? That kind of math GW doesn't believe 8 year olds can't do?

I think it is a bit more than that. What I think Andrew is getting at, is instead of looking at my BS of 4 and knowing that I need a 3 to hit, I have to look at my opponent's model, rememeber that it has a Jink (+1), but it is a tank (-1) among other things, and I still have to roll a 3 to hit.

It's not the maths part, its the complicating of the equation the likes of which harken back to 2nd Ed. (armour save modifiers anyone?)

This is exactly what I mean. Armour save modifiers made much more sense than the simplified(?) ap rules. The ap system is clunky compared to -1 or -2 to an armor save. But again then you have to do maths and GW does not believe that 8 year olds can do maths. I got used to repeated +1/-1 math from battletech, its really not so hard to keep track on the modifiers.

Considering the drastic shift this represents, maybe the same person who influenced the change figured out 8 year olds know basic addition and subtraction?

I was 8 when I started 2nd edition. it was far more complicated than this, and I played it just fine.

necron overlord wrote:I know but reading them will take a bit and I just want a summary of it to know if its bad or good.

So basically every time someone new comes into this thread you want us to reinterate the last 25 pages of comments........Just read the thread! I mean you're asking for opinions on opinions on a spurious text....Just read the thread!

[Posted in this thread as well as the blogging one]:

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).

necron overlord wrote:I know but reading them will take a bit and I just want a summary of it to know if its bad or good.

It's good.

For anything more than that, you have 25 pages of thread, the actual PDF, a Blood of Kittens post breaking it all down, etc.

Please be a little self reliant here, there's no shortage of this information around.

necron overlord wrote:I know but reading them will take a bit and I just want a summary of it to know if its bad or good.

Nice, consolidated list here:

http://bloodofkittens.com/blog/2012/01/10/network-news-this-just-in-6th-ed-leak-can-it-be-true/

I'm trying to figure out if a flyer can Supersonic onto the table from reserves. If not it's going to be really vulnerable that first turn it is on the board. I don't see why it couldn't and maybe just not shoot turn one.

Drake118 wrote:I'm trying to figure out if a flyer can Supersonic onto the table from reserves. If not it's going to be really vulnerable that first turn it is on the board. I don't see why it couldn't and maybe just not shoot turn one.

Flyers, by these rules, have an Evasion of 6 at all times, that may not be modified. You'd need a BS of 6 to hit a flyer on a 4+.

Flyers are not a unit type according to the document. A skimmer becomes a flyer by performing a Supersonic Move.

Drake118 wrote:I'm trying to figure out if a flyer can Supersonic onto the table from reserves. If not it's going to be really vulnerable that first turn it is on the board. I don't see why it couldn't and maybe just not shoot turn one.

from what i gathered, you place the model on your board edge from reserves. anywhere within 6" of it. there is a small exception if your model doesn't fit in a 6" restraint, it can be placed 'hanging over'.

the other relative part is that can be used as normal during the turn. so you can do whatever you want with it, placing the model appears to be free "movement" for lack of a better transitional term.

Drake118 wrote:Flyers are not a unit type according to the document. A skimmer becomes a flyer by performing a Supersonic Move.

No, there is a whole flyers section dedicated just to them, its near the end but there are without a doubt flyers

So after looking at the rules if it is real I think this is a draft where they say let's put every idea we have into it and see what we end up wanting to take out. Overall I find the rules to be a bit meh. The novelty is interesting but I think it has too many variables in how units function if that makes sense.

Now I'm overall skeptical about these being the new rules. I think this is either an alternative draft or an elaborate fan fiction. These rules don't pass the 10 minute test. If you can't explain the basic mechanics of how to play in 10 minutes you can't effectively sell the game to new players in a store.

Pony_law wrote: you can't effectively sell the game to new players in a store.

GW hasn't worried about that since they increased the price of AoBR.

If you can't explain the basic mechanics of how to play in 10 minutes you can't effectively sell the game to 8 year olds in a GW store.

Fixed that for you.

Pony_law wrote:These rules don't pass the 10 minute test. If you can't explain the basic mechanics of how to play in 10 minutes you can't effectively sell the game to new players in a store.

*ahem*

Leaked PDF wrote:This section of the book explains the rules to fight Warhammer 40,000 battles in all
their dark glory. If you are reading this, you are probably either a veteran of a
hundred games or have already mastered the basic rules and are up for a new
challenge

See that? That's the very first paragraph on the first page of the leaked document. You don't need a 10 minute test for these, because the game has introductory rules ala BattleTech. This is a good thing.

I like how gw thinks were all idiots. They take away hit modifiers for a clunky ev stat, that then as the same dang hit modifiers. Ive played battletech so hit modifier is easy. Skimmer with jinks, your at +1 to hit. Massive, your at -1 to hit. Ect.

ObliviousBlueCaboose wrote:I like how gw thinks were all idiots. They take away hit modifiers for a clunky ev stat, that then as the same dang hit modifiers. Ive played battletech so hit modifier is easy. Skimmer with jinks, your at +1 to hit. Massive, your at -1 to hit. Ect.

Lets face it 40k is basically a nerds game (no offense, myself included), nerds tend to be good at math or at least capable. Stop dumbing down the game while at the same time making it more complex and clunky. We can all handle basic math...even the 8 year olds. I'm looking at you ap rules!

Andrew1975 wrote:Lets face it 40k is basically a nerds game (no offense, myself included), nerds tend to be good at math or at least capable. Stop dumbing down the game while at the same time making it more complex and clunky. We can all handle basic math...even the 8 year olds. I'm looking at you ap rules!

Yes, only nerds can do 1st grade level math.

Brother SRM wrote:

Andrew1975 wrote:Lets face it 40k is basically a nerds game (no offense, myself included), nerds tend to be good at math or at least capable. Stop dumbing down the game while at the same time making it more complex and clunky. We can all handle basic math...even the 8 year olds. I'm looking at you ap rules!

Yes, only nerds can do 1st grade level math.

No, but especially nerds. I've never understood why gw went away from +/- for these clunky rule sets. It's complexity for the sake of simplicity. It's like Screwing for virginity. It just doesn't make sense.

I rather have the shooting modifiers, you moved -1, behind cover, -1, so now you need a 6 to hit. Wait their stationary, +1, you need a 5.

Real or fake, good or bad, this or that, I'll add my two cents later on. It does have some good thoughts too it and some 'whys' but whatever.

Now after just reading this "edition" Im honestly left wondering about this unit targeter thing, one dude is the base of line of sight and blah blah. Am I left to believe that a horde of termigaunts in their limited/non-existant mental and tactical thinking would have one bug in a squad of 20 be the deciding factor in line of sight? That just doesnt seem all to hive mind to me.

Andrew1975 wrote:
No, but especially nerds. I've never understood why gw went away from +/- for these clunky rule sets. It's complexity for the sake of simplicity. It's like Screwing for virginity. It just doesn't make sense.

I wouldn't say especially nerds either. It's basic, basic, math. It's replacing one mechanic with another, rather than throwing around a tired metaphor. AP = your armor save means no save is easier to figure out on the fly.

Brother SRM wrote:

Andrew1975 wrote:
No, but especially nerds. I've never understood why gw went away from +/- for these clunky rule sets. It's complexity for the sake of simplicity. It's like Screwing for virginity. It just doesn't make sense.

I wouldn't say especially nerds either. It's basic, basic, math. It's replacing one mechanic with another, rather than throwing around a tired metaphor. AP = your armor save means no save is easier to figure out on the fly.

It replaced a basic +/- system that was easy, people were used to and made more sense. If a weapon has stronger ap it should have stronger ap against everyone thus modified your save. It should not be an all or none deal, which is what ap did.

They created cover saves, when cover was a simple +/- mechanic, adding a level of complexity that has confused and annoyed many people for many reasons just so people would not have to do math. All for the sake of simplicity.

There are many examples of this in 40K, the newest being the EV stat.

@Andrew: I'm not saying that the AP system isn't simple, but seriously, what's your beef with it?

Zomjie wrote:

Drake118 wrote:Flyers are not a unit type according to the document. A skimmer becomes a flyer by performing a Supersonic Move.

No, there is a whole flyers section dedicated just to them, its near the end but there are without a doubt flyers

I know there is a section in the book dedicated to flyers. If you reread it, you will notice that in that "Flyers" section it clearly says that there is no Flyers Unit Type and that units become Flyers by making Supersonic Moves. So a unit can Take on the Flyer Special Rule until the start of its next turn, in which case it can Supersonic again, keeping the rules for Flying.

There's nothing wrong with the evasion system. It's the same as what you're all saying.

It's the classic Roll 7-BS to hit with modifiers. Those modifiers are the intuitive -1 if it's unfavorable (target has jink or is a swarm) or +1 if favorable (target is large or is stationary).

You're only complaining about how things are explained. Considering these are playtest rules, things will be reworded.

I don't see what's clunky about it - it's a comparative stat like Weapon Skill.

I mean HTH combat uses WS, S, Int and A. Why can't shooting be something more than just BS?

Luke_Prowler wrote:@Andrew: I'm not saying that the AP system isn't simple, but seriously, what's your beef with it?

It is simple, it's too simple. But it also required a new rule when the old rule worked just fine if not better and was just as simple. That is the problem

I'm pretty sure I just explained that. I mean in a sense it was good for me I usually play armies with good armor, but I remember when a weapon didn't have to necesarrily be super powerful to cut my save down to a 5+ or a 6+. It was just more realistic and it didn't require an entirely new rule set.

My point is that in general, in an attempt to get rid of all +/- modifiers GW made the rules very clunky unnecessarily. It was basic math, not rocket science, hell it wasn't even algebra it was first grade math.

To compensate they have given us things like ++ saves, rerolls out the wazzo, cover saves.

They replaced the rules of grenades, with an initiative modifier in CC. There is a constant dumbing down of the game. I don't have a problem with some streamlining, but I don't want to play risk either (well sometimes, but not when I want to play 40K). I certainly didn't want to play epic scale with full size miniatures.

Now it looks like they are bringing some of the complexity back. Overwatch is back (somewhat), Split firing is back (somewhat) I like that. But I've already seen people saying that the game is too complex now. It isn't, it really isn't. It's clunky and unnecessarily so.

Absolutionis wrote:There's nothing wrong with the evasion system. It's the same as what you're all saying.

It's the classic Roll 7-BS to hit with modifiers. Those modifiers are the intuitive -1 if it's unfavorable (target has jink or is a swarm) or +1 if favorable (target is large or is stationary).

You're only complaining about how things are explained. Considering these are playtest rules, things will be reworded.

I don't even think they need that. The rules seem exceedingly clear as far as the movement & shooting modifiers go.



Now, at a glance I'm exceedingly happy about these new rules. And that makes me worried. So, if anyone is questioning the legitimacy of this document, I think it would be wise to cross-reference it with the Necron codex -which is written with 6th Ed. in mind- and see just how well it syncs beyond a first glance: what is overpowered, do any rules make current units broken, do some of the stranger rules make sense now, etc.

I'll start:
-The ability to deep strike Deathmarks in response to your opponent bringing units in from reserve now makes perfect sense with these new rules.
-Tthe ability to deep strike Flayed Ones within 6" of an enemy via Imotekh's special rule is not useless with these rules.
-The high point cost of Heavy/Destroyers makes more sense with the change to Preferred Enemy.
-The general uselessness of Lychguard is no longer quite the case when you look at how the "Look out, Sarge!" rule pertains to Sword & Shield Lychguard.
-The Monolith is no longer made of glass thanks to the -3 modifier on the damage table it receives as a single-structure-point super-heavy. In fact, with its Living metal, the Monolith can ignore everything except a natural six on the damage table, making it just as durable as ever (arguably more so now) and thus the high 200 point cost finally makes sense.

Can anyone think of anything that doesn't work properly in the Necron codex under these new rules?

rules look interesting for sure. dark eldar kind of get a touch better with the fast movment and evasion rules...

does this mean titans will make a more common showing in games?

Nevermind titans & gargantuan creatures ...Does this mean that Baneblades might show up in regular games? *cringe*



Also, I just noticed that "removed from play" & "removed as a casualty" now mean the same thing. So stuff like Lukas the Trickster's Last Laugh & the Necron Tesseract Labyrinth lose some power, however JotWW is no longer the go-to anti-necron shooting attack!

Andrew1975 wrote:It is simple, it's too simple. But it also required a new rule when the old rule worked just fine if not better and was just as simple. That is the problem

I'm pretty sure I just explained that. I mean in a sense it was good for me I usually play armies with good armor, but I remember when a weapon didn't have to necesarrily be super powerful to cut my save down to a 5+ or a 6+. It was just more realistic and it didn't require an entirely new rule set.

My point is that in general, in an attempt to get rid of all +/- modifiers GW made the rules very clunky unnecessarily. It was basic math, not rocket science, hell it wasn't even algebra it was first grade math.

To compensate they have given us things like ++ saves, rerolls out the wazzo, cover saves.

They replaced the rules of grenades, with an initiative modifier in CC. There is a constant dumbing down of the game. I don't have a problem with some streamlining, but I don't want to play risk either (well sometimes, but not when I want to play 40K). I certainly didn't want to play epic scale with full size miniatures.

Now it looks like they are bringing some of the complexity back. Overwatch is back (somewhat), Split firing is back (somewhat) I like that. But I've already seen people saying that the game is too complex now. It isn't, it really isn't. It's clunky and unnecessarily so.

First off, complexity does not automatically mean good. Second, modable saves works in Fantasy because most of the fighting is done in melee with a few ranged or monster units. Compare this to 40k, where access to high powered guns was far more common.. Invulerablity saves (unless you meant FNP) hasn't changed at all, and there are certainlly no "rerolls out the wazzo". Cover saves actually makes sense, because a to-hit modifier on top of the AP system would have made Terminators impossible to dislodge from cover.

And I can't believe you used the grenade example. You know what grenades were? Just another shooting attack. Grenades, as they are used now, actually has more connectivity and depth now than in 2nd edition.

So don't say the game is "dumbed down" just because you don't like it. You know what it really is? It's different.

azazel the cat wrote:
-The ability to deep strike Deathmarks in response to your opponent bringing units in from reserve now makes perfect sense with these new rules.

How, exactly? Does something give them defensive fire?

Anyone notice the WS table is different? There's 2+ and 6+ to hit now.

Long overdue blackfang IMO.

EDIT Never mind, I was wrong about this bit.


Hey, twin-linked is still the same. Shame.

What bit?

You've got me intrigued now!

lord_blackfang wrote:Anyone notice the WS table is different? There's 2+ and 6+ to hit now.

Also a good thing.

If they triple your WS, it's 6+ to hit.
If they double your WS, it's 5+ to hit.

If you double their WS, it's 2+ to hit.

It's easy to remember and rather gracefully done.

Is this the same GW we've known all this time, or have they been holding back this grandiose plan this whole time under the guide of incompetence?

At first glance I thought the BS and WS to hit tables are the same but they're not.

lord_blackfang wrote:Anyone notice the WS table is different? There's 2+ and 6+ to hit now.

Yup, seems like a pretty big boost to CC armies (who where complaining about their Orks again? ). Although for us Tau it doesnt really matter that much, we where guaranteed to be dead twice if assaulted, being dead three times over doesnt really make it any worse .

MoD_Legion wrote:

lord_blackfang wrote:Anyone notice the WS table is different? There's 2+ and 6+ to hit now.

Yup, seems like a pretty big boost to CC armies (who where complaining about their Orks again? ). Although for us Tau it doesnt really matter that much, we where guaranteed to be dead twice if assaulted, being dead three times over doesnt really make it any worse .

This doesn't affect Orkz at all. They'll very rarely go up against enemies where such a difference even matters. Tau get screwed, but when don't they in close combat? The only real change for Orkz is that Warbosses with Waaagh! Banners will hit WS3 models on a 2+. Hardly spectacular.

So don't say the game is "dumbed down" just because you don't like it. You know what it really is? It's different.

I say potato, you say potatoe.

Complex isn't always good, but simple and intuitive is usually better than simple and clunky.

Terminators got super powerful because of the ap system. There save is not modified until it breaks.

Yeah it means Marines hit Firewarriors on 2's, but really who cares - it's not like you were going to beat them in the first place. This just makes the inevitable a bit quicker.

The new weapon scatter rolls are also fairly elegant.

The scatter distance is double what you rolled on the 'to hit' roll, so in essence a high BS still reduces the possible scatter.

Evasion modifiers aside, BS4 can only scatter 2" or 4" because a roll of 3 or more is a hit, anyway. BS2 could scatter up to 8" if you rolled a 4 to hit.

The book doesn't say this, but personally I would suggest rolling the scatter die and to hit die together to speed things up.

Am I reading this right ... Swarms are immune to instant death? Unless the weapon states that it causes instant death (2) ... Meaning that normal double toughness wounds do nothing to swarms anymore?!?

Sorry if this has been covered.

Firstly, I was quite happy to see that the rules largely fit with the edition rumour pile that was sitting here on dakka (suspiciously ignored, considering how fleshed out it was). As such, I'd already had knowledge of about 80% of the basics we see here, so only a few, amazing shocks.

The variable BS is very interesting, and not actually that hard to use. Just use as normal, and add modifiers (Orks need 5+, -1 for A, -1 for B, +1 for C, etc). I'm just happy that my Orks will be hitting vehicles on 3+'s now. Tankbustas are happy

In general, it seems to make targets on the lower end of the evasion spectrum easier to hit for everyone, but everything on the higher end of the spectrum even harder to hit. Flat out fast skimmers make up for their lack of cover save with needing 6's to hit irregardless of modifiers.

Preferred enemy is INSANE, though, wow. Plus the fact that, if I read it correctly, blasts now only scatter if you miss your BS roll.

Lots of things frighten me initially, but I also see that digging in deeper alleviates most of those fears: My Orks still being able to attack once they get out of their trukks, for example.

KFF got sucker punched, 5+ for everything, even more painful after the relatively recent FAQ green lit the 4+ argument, though I can see why it would do it now. Actually, I'd like to see more fleshed out Codex Amendments in general, the ones supplied don't really seem that sufficient. Considering how easier it is going to be to hit vehicles, I'm a tad worried.

Directed Wounds are thankfully rare it seems (since the initial rumours did not imply that they were a limited ability), but still, as an Ork player, my Nobs are sweating bullets.

Kharrak wrote:irregardless

Irregardless is not a word.

Yes, to ID a swarm you need a weapon that specificly does ID(2) or ID (3).

Fafnir wrote:

Kharrak wrote:irregardless

Irregardless is not a word.

That's unpossible.

Clay Williams wrote:Am I reading this right ... Swarms are immune to instant death? Unless the weapon states that it causes instant death (2) ... Meaning that normal double toughness wounds do nothing to swarms anymore?!?

Sorry if this has been covered.

They're not immune, but they resist most ID effects. ID (2) and ID (3) can still hurt them badly.
As an aside we are all going to really need to get a newer set of acronyms for these abilities.

Fluffwise, it makes sense too. If a horde of rippers is heading towards me and I shoot a lascannon, I'm going to gigastomp that one individual ripper, but the swarm itself shouldn't all explode. You need blast weapons for that.

Fafnir wrote:

Kharrak wrote:irregardless

Irregardless is not a word.

Yes it is. Welcome to the evolution of language.

It may not be 'proper' or 'correct' in all uses, but it's still a word.

Kharrak wrote:Directed Wounds are thankfully rare it seems (since the initial rumours did not imply that they were a limited ability), but still, as an Ork player, my Nobs are sweating bullets.

Somewhat. Any unit with a character in it can get a limited form of directed hits:

Covering Fire
Model Type: Shooting, Disembarked

In the thick of battle it is hard to find the respite
to land a pinpoint shot. A shrewd leader
commands his squad to lay down a torrent of
covering fire to buy the time needed for the
heavy weapons to take aim.
One character in a unit can perform this action
when the unit shoots but before you roll to hit.
The character orders his squad to fire in a
coordinated fashion. Note that the character
cannot fire a weapon of its own, as Covering fire
uses up his one allowed Shooting action.
Roll to hit as normal for the whole unit, even with
weapons that cannot damage the target. If the
unit rolls at least three results of 6, the unit has
laid down enough covering fire to grant one
marksman a clear shot. You can choose one hit to
be a Directed Hit before you proceed with the
rolls to wound. This doesn’t have to be one of the
hits with a result of 6. The normal restrictions for
Directed Shots apply. You cannot score directed
hits if the unit fires through an intervening unit,
for example.

Blast, Template and Rail weapons
Every blast, rail and template weapon that hits at
least one model in the target unit counts as as if it
had rolled a 6 on its to hit dice for the purpose of
this rule. These weapons are good in laying down
covering fire but are rather indiscriminate when it
comes to causing actual damage. You cannot
choose a hit from any of these weapons to be a
directed (as usual).

Clay Williams wrote:Am I reading this right ... Swarms are immune to instant death? Unless the weapon states that it causes instant death (2) ... Meaning that normal double toughness wounds do nothing to swarms anymore?!?

Sorry if this has been covered.

instant death totally goes off of how much strength over the model's toughness...so you can get instant death 2 off of a swarm with t3, with strength 7.... not to mention that swarms auto suffer instant death 2, to wounds from templates and blasts...


so you can still absolutely wreck swarms easily...though they are afforded SOME extra resistance.

MasterSlowPoke wrote:

azazel the cat wrote:
-The ability to deep strike Deathmarks in response to your opponent bringing units in from reserve now makes perfect sense with these new rules.

How, exactly? Does something give them defensive fire?

Some missions will be you-move-I-move-you-assault-I-assault-you-shoot-I-shoot as per below:

Turn order
The order in which units fight during a game cycle
can vary quite drastically. In some missions a unit
takes its turn alone and units of both sides
alternate until all units have moved. In other
missions a part of the player’s units take their turn
together. The units may be grouped together
based on their position on the battlefield, their
effectiveness in their last turn or by the player’s
choice. If more than two players take part in the
game, the turn order becomes even more
important. However, the most standard way a
Warhammer 40,000 battle is fought is by two
players who each fight with all their units in a
single turn as described below.
Standard turn order
In the overwhelming number of games with two
players, the units act in standard turn order. In a
complete game cycle, both players get a turn,
during which they perform the actions of all their
units in the appropriate phases – the Movement,
Assault and Shooting and Consolidation phases to
be precise. Exactly what happens in each phase is
described later. Hence one game cycle will
normally comprise two turns.

Fafnir wrote:

Kharrak wrote:irregardless

Irregardless is not a word.

You are awesome. I'm not being sarcastic.

"irregardless, that's not even a real word. your affixing the negative prefix ir to regardless but as regardless is already a negative it's a logical absurdity"

* lol it's an american dad quote... calm down everyone

Fafnir wrote:

Kharrak wrote:irregardless

Irregardless is not a word.

Technically it is, but resent that fact, and feel that it shouldn't be. Please don't use that word.

Revarien wrote:

Clay Williams wrote:Am I reading this right ... Swarms are immune to instant death? Unless the weapon states that it causes instant death (2) ... Meaning that normal double toughness wounds do nothing to swarms anymore?!?

Sorry if this has been covered.

instant death totally goes off of how much strength over the model's toughness...so you can get instant death 2 off of a swarm with t3, with strength 7.... not to mention that swarms auto suffer instant death 2, to wounds from templates and blasts...


so you can still absolutely wreck swarms easily...though they are afforded SOME extra resistance.

No it doesn't. There are no rules that support this.
If a weapon's strength is double, triple, or a kabadrillion times the strength of a swarm, it still only deals 1 wound unless the weapon explicitly states it has Instant Death (2).

Strength over Double Toughness only determines how many extra wounds are dealt, not what layer of Eternal Warrior is circumvented.

Well, of this leaked codex I can only say this…
If it’s a real play test codex, then I am very concerned about the realm the game is headed too. Not that I think any of the new stats are good or bad, they are simply different, but simply because it seems to play a “real” game of Warhammer is going to take about 3 hours, most of which is spent looking up various special rules and determining if whether or not this action is free or if this one is compulsory.
This “rulebook” almost specifically reminds me of the 2nd edition rule book. There is a lot of writing in here that specifically mentions other units, like titans and other models, but doesn’t give a frame of reference. Additionally, I’m not sold this is a real rule book because there is no fluff, and the wording is, for lack of a better phrase, off.

I know that certainly doesn’t sound like legitimate reasons as to why I don’t think it’s real, but if this playtest book went as far as to include a special section for notes to older players, why didn’t it have the fluff or at least the cut outs for it. Typically, in the gaming industry, there are production levels to “test” books. If a test book is designed to provide rules only, it normally doesn’t have anything in the book like “notes to players” and goofy commentary about what a “proper fight” is or what a splendid idea playing more games are. They are typically included in the book as an editing/marketing tool to provide a specific frame of reference. When the marketing and editorial team is finally ready to add all of the fluff, like the letter from the CEO/Designer, or the notes to the players, its typically done at the same time when the rest of the book is being paginated. Typically these types of topical discussion don’t normally show up when the book is still in rules development stages. Also, if the marketing and design teams are looking at the document to add pictures and diagrams, the fluff would be added too, or at a minimum, a separate section and side note box would be added or space to be set aside for all of the little text boxes that we take for granted. Additionally, when speaking about evasion value, the author does speak about how this isn’t really a “new stat” and doesn’t change the complexity of the game, but then later, when in the shooting section, does seem to contradict himself a little with verbiage like “comparing your ballistic skill with the targets EV score”. Just seems off to me.

The last reason why I think this is a fandex, and not a codex or rule book is because this thing is, as previously mentioned, almost specifically taken from, and almost in the same order of, the old 2nd edition “Codex Imperialis”, “Rulebook”, and the old yellow covered “Wargear” book. Additionally, many mechanics that games workshop has repeatedly shot down, like multiple levels of psychology have now been mysteriously included, and Over-watch has been missing as a game element for 16+ years now because it had a tendency to stop or slow down the game, and make it unnecessarily complex. While I don’t put it past GW to change up the game, the thought of having [skill] then [skill+1] and finally [skill+2] rules seems pretty silly and unnecessarily complex, and given GW’s stance on simplifying the game, and making it quicker and bringing a stronger focus on tournament play, I cannot help but seriously doubt the legitimacy of this document.
My thoughts are simple, this thing reads like a D&D 5th edition manual having sex with a used up copy of the second edition rule book with some fancy new jargon thrown around.

If it is the new direction of the game, I will probably pay “simple” 40k and not bother with an unnecessarily drawn out gaming experience when it already takes long enough to play one game, let alone multiples. If it’s not, then I am none the worse off and we all get a laugh out of it.

What a constructive conversation with a complete disirregard* for the topic at hand.







*that was intentional.

Revarien wrote:

Clay Williams wrote:Am I reading this right ... Swarms are immune to instant death? Unless the weapon states that it causes instant death (2) ... Meaning that normal double toughness wounds do nothing to swarms anymore?!?

Sorry if this has been covered.

instant death totally goes off of how much strength over the model's toughness...so you can get instant death 2 off of a swarm with t3, with strength 7.... not to mention that swarms auto suffer instant death 2, to wounds from templates and blasts...


so you can still absolutely wreck swarms easily...though they are afforded SOME extra resistance.

No, EW(1) completely negates ID caused from high Str weapons. A weapon who's Str is 5 points higher than the target's toughness does not cause ID(2). It is ID(1) but removes 2 wounds in essence.

Revarien wrote:
instant death totally goes off of how much strength over the model's toughness...so you can get instant death 2 off of a swarm with t3, with strength 7....

I don't think that's how it works. The number after the rule has no bearing on how many wounds it causes, just on what level of Eternal Warrior it beats.

A S9 lascannon firing at a T3 swarm would technically cause 3 extra wounds, but this doesn't make it Instant Death (3), it's still Instant Death (1) and is ignored because the swarm has Eternal Warrior (1).


Templates and Blasts cause Instant Death (2) against a swarm, meaning they deal at least +1 wound regardless of S and T (possibly more if the S is high enough) and ignore Eternal Warrior (1).


(multi-ninja'd)

plus tau got a big boost with the new "rail weapon" rules. only thing im having trouble with though is the levels of special rules. hopefully those get explained more clearly. also, im assuming that multi targeting is the number of weapons a unit can fire?

also....in the codex rules, vects dias gains aireal assault! that makes his dias much more of a competetive option.... a 4th ravager with AV 13 and carrys 10 models? = NICE

Sc077y wrote:My thoughts are simple, this thing reads like a D&D 5th edition manual having sex with a used up copy of the second edition rule book with some fancy new jargon thrown around

D&D 5th Edition isn't even out yet...

...unless you have a leaked copy.


Irregardless*, the game has been made faster. There are much more things getting hit, there are many more saves being failed, and things are much less survivable. We got options, and that's a good thing.
Rather than spending an entire 3hr playing a game of 5th edition with no tactical thought required, this new edition promises 3hr for newbies or 2hr for experienced players... all the with added innovation of tactical choice.

Innovative that the player actually matters rather than just the army list now.

*I Intentionally used that word in order to annoy people who live in the past.

Sc077y wrote:Well, of this leaked codex I can only say this…<snip>

While this ruleset adds some new mechanics, most of the "new" special rules are just simplifying and consolidating rules that are already scattered around the dexes, in turn actually reducing a lot of the complexity and confusion of the game in that regard.

I always love the "It cannot be real because it would take you 3 hours to look up special rules" argument.

I guess these are the people who read the 5th Edition rulebook in one sitting and then played every game without ever looking at a rule again...

also.... just noticed this wound allocation games get messed up and nerfed big time. the "recover phase" requires wounded models to loose wounds to heal other wounded models at the end of the turn. so no more blobs of multi wound wound allocated units running around with 1 wound on each. the save dispersion and such still works though...so its not all bad?

If this rulebook is guilty of anything it's having the rules presented in a scattershot manner, with too many things that just say 'Refer to page XX' for these rules.

So in other words it's like every other current GW book.

Maelstrom808 wrote:

Sc077y wrote:Well, of this leaked codex I can only say this…<snip>

While this ruleset adds some new mechanics, most of the "new" special rules are just simplifying and consolidating rules that are already scattered around the dexes, in turn actually reducing a lot of the complexity and confusion of the game in that regard.

I think another reason why there are so many special rules in the main rulebook is the need to consolidate and update codexes. If they were able to print a new rulebook and all the codices at the same time I would expect that half of these special rules would end up being printed in the codex instead.

H.B.M.C. wrote:What a constructive conversation with a complete disirregard* for the topic at hand.







*that was intentional.

It's a pet peeve. And by "pet peeve," I mean "I will hunt you down to the ends of the earth and beat you to a bloody pulp with the keyboard that you are entirely unqualified to have in your possession if you use that 'word' again."

d-usa wrote:
I think another reason why there are so many special rules in the main rulebook is the need to consolidate and update codexes.

And it turns the entire rulebook into a horrible mess in order to save GW the effort of updating some books that will likely (along with their rules in the rulebook) be replaced entirely within the same generation.

H.B.M.C. wrote:If this rulebook is guilty of anything it's having the rules presented in a scattershot manner, with too many things that just say 'Refer to page XX' for these rules.

So in other words it's like every other current GW book.

If only GW acknowledged that computers existed and put out a hyperlinked pdf version...

DarthSpader wrote:plus tau got a big boost with the new "rail weapon" rules. only thing im having trouble with though is the levels of special rules. hopefully those get explained more clearly. also, im assuming that multi targeting is the number of weapons a unit can fire?

Multi-targeting is the number of shooting actions a model gets. Now you can use those actions to fire more than one weapon, or you can spend them to do other things, like fire at more than one target (if you can fire two weapons)

Holy get a load of this:

Monolith: Heavy, Tank

Heavy: a super-heavy classification with (1) structure point, meaning a -3 on the vehicle damage table until a natural 6 is rolled

Living Metal: 3+ roll to negate a Shaken result, 4+ roll to negate a Stunned result, meaning the Monolith has a 3+ or 4+ against everything except a natural 6 on the vehicle damage table

Damage Control: all super-heavies have a built-in 4+ repair of a stunned, shaken, weapon destroyed or immobilized result

Behemoth: tanks with a front armour of 14 always have this rule which confers multi-targeting (3)

Ordnance: To represent this, a model must perform two Heavy Fire actions to fire a single ordnance weapon. Well, the Monolith has Multi-targeting (3), but the Monolith always counts as stationary so the multi-targeting is doubled, meaning it can fire the Particle Whip and four other weapons every turn, even if it moved. Or it can use 1 of those 6 actions to divide fire, as below:

For example: A stationary tank with multitargeting
(2) can fire four weapons on a single
target or fire three weapons on different targets.

And since there is no more Deep Strike Mishap Table, my Monoliths are coming in right on top of your army. Good times had by all.

Absolutionis wrote:

Sc077y wrote:My thoughts are simple, this thing reads like a D&D 5th edition manual having sex with a used up copy of the second edition rule book with some fancy new jargon thrown around

D&D 5th Edition isn't even out yet...

...unless you have a leaked copy.


Irregardless*, the game has been made faster. There are much more things getting hit, there are many more saves being failed, and things are much less survivable. We got options, and that's a good thing.
Rather than spending an entire 3hr playing a game of 5th edition with no tactical thought required, this new edition promises 3hr for newbies or 2hr for experienced players... all the with added innovation of tactical choice.

Innovative that the player actually matters rather than just the army list now.

*I Intentionally used that word in order to annoy people who live in the past.

Sorry, I don’t actually play DND, so i have no idea what version is out, but the point remains.

I don’t think unnecessarily complicating a game adds tactical depth to a game, and maybe that’s what I don’t understand, or I am not delineating from this information. sure, over watch would be cool, and maybe the modified turn sequence would certainly spice things up, but one of the most in depth games I have every played is called war in the east, and it has little die rolling and almost no special rules. What makes it great is that it presents the players with the ability to make decisions based on probable outcome and chance, something Warhammer 40k has always done, although to a much smaller degree when compared to games like War in the East, Stalingrad, Neuroshima Hex, or even Axis and Allies.

Point is, I am not certain that new rules and levels of special abilities really help the game? Do you want to look up the instant death rules vs. someone with eternal warrior X2 now, when it could just be easy? If you do, that’s fine and it ultimately is your call, we all like different things, but for me, I don’t see where adding that makes the game anymore tactical, it just makes it take longer.

DarthSpader wrote:also....in the codex rules, vects dias gains aireal assault! that makes his dias much more of a competetive option.... a 4th ravager with AV 13 and carrys 10 models? = NICE

It's not really a competitive option per se, since you have to buy not only Vect and the ravager, but also the 9-man retinue into it. It's very much an eggbasket.

d-usa wrote:

Maelstrom808 wrote:

Sc077y wrote:Well, of this leaked codex I can only say this…<snip>

While this ruleset adds some new mechanics, most of the "new" special rules are just simplifying and consolidating rules that are already scattered around the dexes, in turn actually reducing a lot of the complexity and confusion of the game in that regard.

I think another reason why there are so many special rules in the main rulebook is the need to consolidate and update codexes. If they were able to print a new rulebook and all the codices at the same time I would expect that half of these special rules would end up being printed in the codex instead.

And to me that's an ass-backwards way of doing things, and has caused much of the mess they have today. You have three different versions of essentially the same rule in three different dexes, each one with a slightly different wording, or a different name, yet they all are supposed to do essentially the same thing. This causes a ton of confusion at best and rules-lawyering at worst. It's better to have one common rule in the main book that everyone can refer to.

Speaking of the -3 damage for superheavies...

When you roll a natural six and take off a structure point, is that all the hit does or does the normal damage effect on the table also apply?

If it was the last structure point, does the -3 still apply for the roll, or does the 6 stay a 6 and blow the tank up?

It's not making it more complicated. It's making it more complex.

And no. Those are not the same thing.

Sc077y wrote:Sorry, I don’t actually play DND, so i have no idea what version is out, but the point remains.

Then how could you possibly know what "a D&D 5th edition manual having sex with a used up copy of the second edition rule book with some fancy new jargon thrown around" even looks like?

Exactly.

Agamemnon2 wrote:

Sc077y wrote:Sorry, I don’t actually play DND, so i have no idea what version is out, but the point remains.

Then how could you possibly know what "a D&D 5th edition manual having sex with a used up copy of the second edition rule book with some fancy new jargon thrown around" even looks like?

Exactly.

Rule 34

d-usa wrote:I always love the "It cannot be real because it would take you 3 hours to look up special rules" argument.

I guess these are the people who read the 5th Edition rulebook in one sitting and then played every game without ever looking at a rule again...

I truly love the argument that more rules must mean a better game. After all, that worked out really well for games like 51st State and Race for the Galaxy.

I assure you, I have read the 5th edition rule book several times.

Do not confuse, I am not opposed to rules changes. I am concerned at first glance at what is being seen; if it is in fact real. Change for the sake of making something better is always welcome and a great thing, even if its a little more difficult to get the hang of at first. However, change for the sake of change in and of itself is inherently bad.

As to the above comments about how i wouldn't know what a D&D book looks like: While I do not play, i am no stranger to gaming and am familiar with the game mechanics, even if i don't play. the point i was attempting to make was that many RPG games use different action types to determine what can be done in a given amount of time, and the use of several different actions: free, compulsory, and so on, is what jumped into my mind. you are however correct, i was wrong in the edition of D&D that is currently available to gamers, this because of my lack of specific knowledge of the game. I should have used a term like "this sounds like a <insert generic RPG game here> book having sex...."

wow, this rules set looks fairly good and I think, if this comes true, I will be back playing WH40K.

lord_blackfang wrote:Speaking of the -3 damage for superheavies...

When you roll a natural six and take off a structure point, is that all the hit does or does the normal damage effect on the table also apply?

Kind of unclear, but I'd say lose the point plus the normal modified damage

If it was the last structure point, does the -3 still apply for the roll, or does the 6 stay a 6 and blow the tank up?

No assplode. It all happens at the same time

Lol scarabs take one wound to power fists now ... I happy.

/me quietly brushes the "irregardless" usage under the nearby carpet

On an thankfully unrelated note, it's cool to see Flashgits get a nice boost: having the Gitfinders grant the Targeter rule, allowing them to treat any targets as stationary. Orks are gonna suffer a tad more in close combat, since default CCW's are now AP6. Not that it saved many, but it was nice to save those one or two

It's also interesting to see that, from what I read, squadrons no longer count immobilized as destroyed... and can even try to negate suffered damage

SNIPERS=GOOD!

TEMPLATES=MUST HAVE!

Sc077y wrote:

d-usa wrote:I always love the "It cannot be real because it would take you 3 hours to look up special rules" argument.

I guess these are the people who read the 5th Edition rulebook in one sitting and then played every game without ever looking at a rule again...

I truly love the argument that more rules must mean a better game. After all, that worked out really well for games like 51st State and Race for the Galaxy.

I assure you, I have read the 5th edition rule book several times.

Do not confuse, I am not opposed to rules changes. I am concerned at first glance at what is being seen; if it is in fact real. Change for the sake of making something better is always welcome and a great thing, even if its a little more difficult to get the hang of at first. However, change for the sake of change in and of itself is inherently bad.

Wanna know the general theme here? A large community of generally cynical people are almost unanimously inf avour of these changes. That's rare.. like, the-Grinch's-heart-growing-three-sizes rare to make most of Dakka welcome these changes. So I'd say that this isn't change for the sake of change; I would say it's change for the sake of getting the old guard to rediscover their love for the game (and thus re-ignite the passion of some jaded customers)

Maelstrom808 wrote:

d-usa wrote:I think another reason why there are so many special rules in the main rulebook is the need to consolidate and update codexes. If they were able to print a new rulebook and all the codices at the same time I would expect that half of these special rules would end up being printed in the codex instead.

And to me that's an ass-backwards way of doing things, and has caused much of the mess they have today. You have three different versions of essentially the same rule in three different dexes, each one with a slightly different wording, or a different name, yet they all are supposed to do essentially the same thing. This causes a ton of confusion at best and rules-lawyering at worst. It's better to have one common rule in the main book that everyone can refer to.

Maybe something they will adress in the future. We will have to see how the Necron Dex and any other new Dexs work with the new rulebook when it comes out to see if there will be any improvements going forth.

Kharrak wrote:
It's also interesting to see that, from what I read, squadrons no longer count immobilized as destroyed... and can even try to negate suffered damage

Yes, squadrons get a 5+ save with a +1 bonus for each vehicle, but if they fail they all suffer the damage.

Also: The "Character" ability of Crypteks finally makes sense... also, since they can target their own fire, this makes Lanceteks possibly the best snipers in the game with 36" range, Str 8 AP 2 targeted shooting.

And apparently the Abyssal Staff works in CC now, too...

Fafnir wrote:[

d-usa wrote:
I think another reason why there are so many special rules in the main rulebook is the need to consolidate and update codexes.

And it turns the entire rulebook into a horrible mess in order to save GW the effort of updating some books that will likely (along with their rules in the rulebook) be replaced entirely within the same generation.

But if they dropped the 6th Edition Rulebook and announced "we are also updating every codex to fit the new rules so buy it now" everybody would be screaming that GW is only changing the rules to sell more books. It is a loose-loose situation at this point.

I got kinda confused when I saw the assault weapon section, because those S look like 5s from the copy I got

Maelstrom808 wrote:

Revarien wrote:

Clay Williams wrote:Am I reading this right ... Swarms are immune to instant death? Unless the weapon states that it causes instant death (2) ... Meaning that normal double toughness wounds do nothing to swarms anymore?!?

Sorry if this has been covered.

instant death totally goes off of how much strength over the model's toughness...so you can get instant death 2 off of a swarm with t3, with strength 7.... not to mention that swarms auto suffer instant death 2, to wounds from templates and blasts...


so you can still absolutely wreck swarms easily...though they are afforded SOME extra resistance.

No, EW(1) completely negates ID caused from high Str weapons. A weapon who's Str is 5 points higher than the target's toughness does not cause ID(2). It is ID(1) but removes 2 wounds in essence.

lord_blackfang wrote:

Revarien wrote:
instant death totally goes off of how much strength over the model's toughness...so you can get instant death 2 off of a swarm with t3, with strength 7....

I don't think that's how it works. The number after the rule has no bearing on how many wounds it causes, just on what level of Eternal Warrior it beats.

A S9 lascannon firing at a T3 swarm would technically cause 3 extra wounds, but this doesn't make it Instant Death (3), it's still Instant Death (1) and is ignored because the swarm has Eternal Warrior (1).


Templates and Blasts cause Instant Death (2) against a swarm, meaning they deal at least +1 wound regardless of S and T (possibly more if the S is high enough) and ignore Eternal Warrior (1).


(multi-ninja'd)

Miss-remembered the rule... just looked it up and you're right about part of it, but I don't think it is described too clearly... but it does say "instant death is sometimes called instant death 1" and that essentially the same lvl of EW negates the same lvl of ID... but one higher on either side negates the one lower completely (ID 2 completely negates EW 1 and doesn't make it ID 1...)... so a template is still inflicting 3 wounds on a swarm (1 initial wound + 2 additional from ID 2). ID1 = 2 wounds, ID 2 = 3, ID 3 = 4 wounds... ID 3 being inflicted at strength 6 or more over the model's toughness. It has a clear example of ID 3 happening to the unfortunate space marine captain.

lord_blackfang wrote:

Kharrak wrote:
It's also interesting to see that, from what I read, squadrons no longer count immobilized as destroyed... and can even try to negate suffered damage

Yes, squadrons get a 5+ save with a +1 bonus for each vehicle, but if they fail they all suffer the damage.

I think that's a better trade-off than "Immobilised = Destroyed".

d-usa wrote:

Maelstrom808 wrote:

d-usa wrote:I think another reason why there are so many special rules in the main rulebook is the need to consolidate and update codexes. If they were able to print a new rulebook and all the codices at the same time I would expect that half of these special rules would end up being printed in the codex instead.

And to me that's an ass-backwards way of doing things, and has caused much of the mess they have today. You have three different versions of essentially the same rule in three different dexes, each one with a slightly different wording, or a different name, yet they all are supposed to do essentially the same thing. This causes a ton of confusion at best and rules-lawyering at worst. It's better to have one common rule in the main book that everyone can refer to.

Maybe something they will adress in the future. We will have to see how the Necron Dex and any other new Dexs work with the new rulebook when it comes out to see if there will be any improvements going forth.

Trust me, the Necrons are waaaaaaaaay stronger if these rules are legit. Please note my previous entries about the Lanceteks and the Monolith.

lord_blackfang wrote:

Kharrak wrote:
It's also interesting to see that, from what I read, squadrons no longer count immobilized as destroyed... and can even try to negate suffered damage

Yes, squadrons get a 5+ save with a +1 bonus for each vehicle, but if they fail they all suffer the damage.

So a squadron of 3 IG tanks gets a 2+ save... that is a SCARY concept.

azazel the cat wrote:

lord_blackfang wrote:

Kharrak wrote:
It's also interesting to see that, from what I read, squadrons no longer count immobilized as destroyed... and can even try to negate suffered damage

Yes, squadrons get a 5+ save with a +1 bonus for each vehicle, but if they fail they all suffer the damage.

So a squadron of 3 IG tanks gets a 2+ save... that is a SCARY concept.

Scary until you realise that if they fail they ALL take the damage.

DarkStarSabre wrote:

azazel the cat wrote:

lord_blackfang wrote:

Kharrak wrote:
It's also interesting to see that, from what I read, squadrons no longer count immobilized as destroyed... and can even try to negate suffered damage

Yes, squadrons get a 5+ save with a +1 bonus for each vehicle, but if they fail they all suffer the damage.

So a squadron of 3 IG tanks gets a 2+ save... that is a SCARY concept.

Scary until you realise that if they fail they ALL take the damage.

Like I said ten pages ago: the new rules turn everything into glass cannons, because that way a 3500 point game takes 2 hours, and that means everyone buys more models

Revarien wrote:
Miss-remembered the rule... just looked it up and you're right about part of it, but I don't think it is described too clearly...

No, it's really not. Bad layout is bad.

but it does say "instant death is sometimes called instant death 1" and that essentially the same lvl of EW negates the same lvl of ID... but one higher on either side negates the one lower completely (ID 2 completely negates EW 1 and doesn't make it ID 1...)... so a template is still inflicting 3 wounds on a swarm (1 initial wound + 2 additional from ID 2). ID1 = 2 wounds, ID 2 = 3, ID 3 = 4 wounds... ID 3 being inflicted at strength 6 or more over the model's toughness. It has a clear example of ID 3 happening to the unfortunate space marine captain.

Again, the number in the brackets has no bearing on the number of wounds a model loses. Instant Death (2) does not cause more wounds than Instant Death (1).

azazel the cat wrote:

d-usa wrote:

Maelstrom808 wrote:

d-usa wrote:I think another reason why there are so many special rules in the main rulebook is the need to consolidate and update codexes. If they were able to print a new rulebook and all the codices at the same time I would expect that half of these special rules would end up being printed in the codex instead.

And to me that's an ass-backwards way of doing things, and has caused much of the mess they have today. You have three different versions of essentially the same rule in three different dexes, each one with a slightly different wording, or a different name, yet they all are supposed to do essentially the same thing. This causes a ton of confusion at best and rules-lawyering at worst. It's better to have one common rule in the main book that everyone can refer to.

Maybe something they will adress in the future. We will have to see how the Necron Dex and any other new Dexs work with the new rulebook when it comes out to see if there will be any improvements going forth.

Trust me, the Necrons are waaaaaaaaay stronger if these rules are legit. Please note my previous entries about the Lanceteks and the Monolith.

I was not really trying to talk about the performance of the Necron Codex under 6th Edition, but rather the whole "the same rule in every different Codex and the rulebook is worded differently and makes it confusing" aspect of things. If the Necron Codex and the new 6th Edition rulebook have minimal instances of contradicting each other we may have a good indication of what we can look forward to in the future.

As for 'is the booklet genuine', there is room for argument but :

- the introduction text references to a basic ruleset. I could perfectly understand (from a commercial point of view) a company giving basic rules in the starter box + 2 minimum sized armies, and then make you buy the hard cover version with the complete rules. Two sales, more money. And you can explain in 10 min the basics to a newbie popping up in a red store.
- Paging starts at p22. Everyone can see fluff articles and 'getting started' in the first pages.
- Date of creation of the doc, May 2011 (can be altered, ok). No presence of Necron, SoB and BT in the FAQ. Incidently Necron, SoB and BT had (or will have) a new dex (or wd dex) in the meantime, making FAQ reference impossible.
- Dodgy grammar, wordings, etc... If it's a draft play test version, then it's Day - 400 from release (may 2011 to july 2012). You are not paying re-readers until you have a final version. Actually, that's a part of what you're asking your play testers to do : Rule proofing, checking wordings etc...
- Messy summary. As a somewhat early stage version, the set up is not perfect and the organisation of the book is not final yet. You don't give test version to testers if not to test it : articles will be moved, some erased, some changed. An argument to the hoax theory is 'why did they put blank squares for pictures and fluff in a draft book ?' I believe as from a company point of view, knowing roughly how many picture, charts, fluff articles you will have to order to artists is important, as for the space it will take page-wise (big books are more expensive than thin).
So for me it's a geniune draft which means we can see the big picture, but don't know which part will be erased, and what will replace it. So hold your horses gentlemen

lord_blackfang wrote:

Revarien wrote:
Miss-remembered the rule... just looked it up and you're right about part of it, but I don't think it is described too clearly...

No, it's really not. Bad layout is bad.

but it does say "instant death is sometimes called instant death 1" and that essentially the same lvl of EW negates the same lvl of ID... but one higher on either side negates the one lower completely (ID 2 completely negates EW 1 and doesn't make it ID 1...)... so a template is still inflicting 3 wounds on a swarm (1 initial wound + 2 additional from ID 2). ID1 = 2 wounds, ID 2 = 3, ID 3 = 4 wounds... ID 3 being inflicted at strength 6 or more over the model's toughness. It has a clear example of ID 3 happening to the unfortunate space marine captain.

Again, the number in the brackets has no bearing on the number of wounds a model loses. Instant Death (2) does not cause more wounds than Instant Death (1).

The eternal warrior entry clearly states that Instant Death is sometimes referred to as 'Instant Death 1', The Instant death entry is describing what appears to be 3 different levels of instant death... That is why I think it's not clear, but imo, it seems intuitive to be referring to ID 1 - 3

*edit* but as this is certainly not a 'final copy'... (if legit)... I'm not sure that as it currently stands, if you take RAW vs Intended - RAW indicates one way (yours), but I think it is very clearly referring to ID 1-3 and their wound lvls...

benogham wrote:- the introduction text references to a basic ruleset. I could perfectly understand (from a commercial point of view) a company giving basic rules in the starter box + 2 minimum sized armies, and then make you buy the hard cover version with the complete rules.

Yes, this is my only complaint. I was very happy with not having to buy the big book in 5th.

Revarien wrote:Miss-remembered the rule... just looked it up and you're right about part of it, but I don't think it is described too clearly... but it does say "instant death is sometimes called instant death 1" and that essentially the same lvl of EW negates the same lvl of ID... but one higher on either side negates the one lower completely (ID 2 completely negates EW 1 and doesn't make it ID 1...)... so a template is still inflicting 3 wounds on a swarm (1 initial wound + 2 additional from ID 2). ID1 = 2 wounds, ID 2 = 3, ID 3 = 4 wounds... ID 3 being inflicted at strength 6 or more over the model's toughness. It has a clear example of ID 3 happening to the unfortunate space marine captain.

- ID wounds from having high str weapons is simply ID or ID1...it doesn't matter how many more wounds it causes. If a weapon's str is some much higher that it causes 3 extra wounds, it's still only considered ID1 for the purposes of it being negated by EW.

- ID2 and ID3 can only be obtained by a weapon or model specificly having the special rule Instant Death (2) or (3)

Maelstrom808 wrote:- ID2 and ID3 can only be obtained by a weapon or model specificly having the special rule Instant Death (2) or (3)

I didn't see that written or inferred anywhere in the entry, nor in the codex updates... that is why I believe the ID entry in the rules is incomplete.

Revarien wrote:

Maelstrom808 wrote:- ID2 and ID3 can only be obtained by a weapon or model specificly having the special rule Instant Death (2) or (3)

I didn't see that written or inferred anywhere in the entry, nor in the codex updates... that is why I believe the ID entry in the rules is incomplete.

You might be missing the bit on file page 61 (book page 82) top left?

lord_blackfang wrote:

Revarien wrote:

Maelstrom808 wrote:- ID2 and ID3 can only be obtained by a weapon or model specificly having the special rule Instant Death (2) or (3)

I didn't see that written or inferred anywhere in the entry, nor in the codex updates... that is why I believe the ID entry in the rules is incomplete.

You might be missing the bit on file page 61 (book page 82) top left?

Annnnd that clears it up. LOL... freaking out of control layout. Thanks! I can't believe they have 2 Instant death entries... *sigh*

I actually have to confess I like these rules. If this is legit I'll be happy.

What I'm not happy with is that it -does- indeed look like IG onwards were developed with this in mind, making it seem like they realised early on in 5th edition that something was 'wrong' (Probably wound allocation shenanigans and other things) and rather than trying to actively fix it decided to just milk it for their obligatory 4 years....

Hrmm.

It is in there. E.G Templates and Blasts have ID(2) against swarms. And the blast size is increased when hitting swarms. So every army will be taking flamers and blasts weapons instead of just melta now (because they got so much better from a variety of different rules and because anti-swarm is important with scarabs about)

lord_blackfang wrote:

benogham wrote:- the introduction text references to a basic ruleset. I could perfectly understand (from a commercial point of view) a company giving basic rules in the starter box + 2 minimum sized armies, and then make you buy the hard cover version with the complete rules.

Yes, this is my only complaint. I was very happy with not having to buy the big book in 5th.

At some point, wasn't one of the rumors that instead of having a 2 player starter box, there would be multiple "one army + quick rules" boxes?

Even though it would be smart (although I think it would have to be kept to warbands size boxes) I really don't see GW doing something like that. But it would be a nice setup for trying out the game with the quick start rules, then moving on to the big rulebook. Many other game systems already are using this setup and it would be a good way of getting new people into the game.

Pure speculation of course.

Revarien wrote:

Maelstrom808 wrote:- ID2 and ID3 can only be obtained by a weapon or model specificly having the special rule Instant Death (2) or (3)

I didn't see that written or inferred anywhere in the entry, nor in the codex updates... that is why I believe the ID entry in the rules is incomplete.

Entirely possible, given that these are probably playtest rules. However, if you look at the EW rule, it's broken into 2 sections. The first section:

A model with the special rule Eternal Warrior is
immune to the effects of the Instant Death rule.
Instead, it reduces its Wounds characteristic by
one as normal.

To me this reads as specificly addressing the earlier section explaining ID wounds from high str weapons. Esspecially when you look at the description of the next section:

Some weapons are so devastating - say, the
cannon of a titan - that they cause Instant Death
even against models with Eternal Warrior. To
represent this, there are three level of this special
rule.
• Eternal Warrior or Eternal Warrior (1) negates
only Instant Death (sometimes called Instant
Death (1) ).
• Eternal Warrior (2) negates Instant Death (1)
and Instant Death (2).
• Eternal Warrior (3) negates all levels of Instant
Death.

Which to me seems to be addressing ID when it comes up as a specific rule attached to a weapon or model.


Anyway, I don't want to get deep into a rules argument on a possibly fake ruleset, that even if it is real, may drasticly change before it ever hits shelves

EDIT:

You might be missing the bit on file page 61 (book page 82) top left?

Yeah, that too

Maelstrom808 wrote:

EDIT:

You might be missing the bit on file page 61 (book page 82) top left?

Yeah, that too

Ya probable was typing this while I got my post up at the top of the page already, but yeah... This. Lol... I hate not having an index... it'll be worth the price of the book alone

I hope these are true, formatting needs a lot of work obviously and I feel confident in saying that this seems like a midway done play test copy.

The whole Guard codex on argument seems to be getting more valid, that being said, having looked over most of these rules and the GK and Necron codex I have to say, those two were made VERY specifically with a 6th rule book next to the designer.

The return of Psykic mastery, moving out of turn, Monolith pricing ect really seem to put me over the top on the opinion that while the other codex were made with a general idea; those two at least were made on purpose with this in hand

Has anyone gone over the scoring system yet?

Looking at Seize Ground, I see that any unit can get victory points for holding an objective, but Scoring Units get triple points.

Vehicles that are Troops are Scoring units by default, unless they are Dedicated Transports.

Seize Ground has a special rule saying vehicles can't hold objectives, but it does leave the option of scoring tanks in other missions. Seize Ground also disqualifies embarked units from holding objectives!

H.B.M.C. wrote:

lord_blackfang wrote:

Kharrak wrote:
It's also interesting to see that, from what I read, squadrons no longer count immobilized as destroyed... and can even try to negate suffered damage

Yes, squadrons get a 5+ save with a +1 bonus for each vehicle, but if they fail they all suffer the damage.

I think that's a better trade-off th
an "Immobilised = Destroyed".

Others have suggested that a 3 vehicle squadron gets a 2+ save. I don't see this, surely it's a 3+ save?
Good luck everyone.

lord_blackfang wrote:Has anyone gone over the scoring system yet?

Looking at Seize Ground, I see that any unit can get victory points for holding an objective, but Scoring Units get triple points.

Vehicles that are Troops are Scoring units by default, unless they are Dedicated Transports.

Seize Ground has a special rule saying vehicles can't hold objectives, but it does leave the option of scoring tanks in other missions. Seize Ground also disqualifies embarked units from holding objectives!

IRREGARDLESS of this I would also like to point out this stratagem.

Call to duty 3 SP
Even the often privileged tank crews are ordered
to perform day to day duties like staying guard
or patrolling. Immediately after picking this
stratagem, the player can choose one vehicle for
every 1,000 points of army size to be able to
complete mission objectives as if it were not a
vehicle.

"complete Mission Objectives" also include controlling objectives? If so then IG can just park their artillery on an objective and wait it out.

Those strategems will not be a integral part of the game.

Tourney's will just have a roll.

ChocolateGork wrote:Those strategems will not be a integral part of the game.

Tourney's will just have a roll.

Can you justify your claim in anyway?

Dantalian wrote:
IRREGARDLESS

I warned you.

The lack of a limit on the amount of stratagems you are able to bet would lead to ridiculous situation with hundreds of strategy points being bet.

And because some of the stratagems affect terrain they would need players to affect the set up of the board and in a competitive setting they could be so easily abused.

EG lining the board with weathered bastinons

They would take too much time to resolve and are to easy to break.

And as such a tourney will have a few options

Modify them in a way as to reduce the possible amount (not a good solution because players can just bet the maximum)

Give the players stratagem points to spend with their army and then use the same stratagem for the rest of the tourney (would let stratagems be used but not a deciding factor of who goes first)

Cut them completely and make the players roll (K.I.S.S)

Irregardless of your warning, you did bring it on yourself...





Automatically Appended Next Post:

ChocolateGork wrote:Cut them completely and make the players roll (K.I.S.S)

There's no justifiable reason to cut them completely. Change how they are acquired? Sure - I think the 'bidding' method is clumsy and badly thought out - but to remove them completely because of one failing? You don't fix a sore finger by cutting your arm off, you attend to the finger.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot

I'm just gonna leave this here, as people seem to be forgetting that "no proof to the contrary doesn't mean something's true."

Ignoring all the possible reasons why it could be true...

Well now, this makes Chaos armies quite interesting.

Daemon Princes with Wings have:
M9
Monstrous
Airborne
Deep Strike
Massive
Multi-Targeting (2)
Relentless

So they need to be 50% obscured or more to gain a cover save (Massive) but also gain cover saves from any terrain they end their movement in or behind (Airborne). I can see that getting argued a ton. Shame a lot of their abilities are advantageous to shooting though.

Squadrons of Blight Drones are a bit of a liability - roll a 5 on the damage table and the whole squadron explodes! - although multi-targeting (1) makes them more resilient to Weapon Destroyed results (very slightly more resilient to the *first* weapon destroyed result)

It COULD be true, yes. However, until there is proof it IS true, it's very much a work of falsehood and fiction.

We're all aware it could be a hoax, but repeating it ad nauseam (see, I can use philosophy jargon too) doesn't add anything to the conversation.

lord_blackfang wrote:We're all aware it could be a hoax, but repeating it ad nauseam (see, I can use philosophy jargon too) doesn't add anything to the conversation.

irregardless of people being rude about grammar, leave philosophy alone, it never did you any harm, did it?

I'm intrigued by the stratagems. It's a question of how much you're willing to pay for first turn.

Also, I think something is missing from the ID rules:
The entry for ID only mentions weapons of a higher strength, but nothing about weapons that cause ID (D hits, blasts/templates against swarms, force weapons). Do they cause an extra wound or slay outright?

Dribble Joy wrote:I'm intrigued by the stratagems. It's a question of how much you're willing to pay for first turn.

Also, I think something is missing from the ID rules:
The entry for ID only mentions weapons of a higher strength, but nothing about weapons that cause ID (D hits, blasts/templates against swarms, force weapons). Do they cause an extra wound or slay outright?

Page 61 (book page 82) top left.