Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

frgsinwntr wrote:

Real admission that this is a fake, elaborate anti-troll from /tg/ or GW coverup? DUN DUN DUN!

Yea cause a group would totally write a fwd to veteran players if it was for their own group only!

Hence the 'elaborate anti-troll from /tg/ or 'GW coverup?' part.

Painnen wrote:I think vehicles got a boost in the sense that all their occupants can now assault out of them depending on speed of course.

i also think that 'weopon destroyed' going away was big too. no longer can you just knock off the deathray, battlecannon, phelm, etc.

Yeah, but now it takes much fewer weapons destroyed results to glance something to death. It only takes two weapons destroyed results to completely knockout a vehicle's shooting, regardless of if it has 2 weapons or 20.

lord_blackfang wrote:I would say Transports are a bit less appealing and shooty vehicles a bit more.

Overall they are a bit tougher to damage initially but more vulnerable to stacking minor damage results.

Yeah, I'd agree with that...and it's a lot easier for bad things to happen to a transport's contents now.

In addition to the other problems pointed out by the "it's our house rules" claim; if this is just some gaming group's house rules why does the document start on p22?

I'm not 100% sold on these being real but I don't believe the /tg/ post for a second.

streamdragon wrote:

lord_blackfang wrote:

streamdragon wrote:I think you're misunderstanding ID(2). It doesn't innately cause any extra wounds, the strength of the weapon still has to exceed the toughness of the swarm by 4 or more to cause the extra wounds.

No, any weapon with "Instant Death" as a special rule causes at least +1 wound regardless of S and T.

I stand corrected then. They do indeed cause 2 wounds; just like they do now. Still, the killing power of template weapons hasn't gained anything in regards to swarms. They did before, they do now. If anything, swarms are still better as now S8 blast weapons are required to remove an entire base, whereas before S6 was enough to insta-kill.

Actually you can't get any extra wounds from high str as EW1 makes them immune to that form of ID.

And yes, swarms in general are much more resiliant.

Where is this /tg/ post ? I wanna laugh too...

Maelstrom808 wrote:

streamdragon wrote:

lord_blackfang wrote:

streamdragon wrote:I think you're misunderstanding ID(2). It doesn't innately cause any extra wounds, the strength of the weapon still has to exceed the toughness of the swarm by 4 or more to cause the extra wounds.

No, any weapon with "Instant Death" as a special rule causes at least +1 wound regardless of S and T.

I stand corrected then. They do indeed cause 2 wounds; just like they do now. Still, the killing power of template weapons hasn't gained anything in regards to swarms. They did before, they do now. If anything, swarms are still better as now S8 blast weapons are required to remove an entire base, whereas before S6 was enough to insta-kill.

Actually you can't get any extra wounds from high str as EW1 makes them immune to that form of ID.

And yes, swarms in general are much more resiliant.

Unless said weapon has ID(2) or greater as a special rule, of course.

Maelstrom808 wrote:

streamdragon wrote:

lord_blackfang wrote:

streamdragon wrote:I think you're misunderstanding ID(2). It doesn't innately cause any extra wounds, the strength of the weapon still has to exceed the toughness of the swarm by 4 or more to cause the extra wounds.

No, any weapon with "Instant Death" as a special rule causes at least +1 wound regardless of S and T.

I stand corrected then. They do indeed cause 2 wounds; just like they do now. Still, the killing power of template weapons hasn't gained anything in regards to swarms. They did before, they do now. If anything, swarms are still better as now S8 blast weapons are required to remove an entire base, whereas before S6 was enough to insta-kill.

Actually you can't get any extra wounds from high str as EW1 makes them immune to that form of ID.

And yes, swarms in general are much more resiliant.

Blast weapons gain ID(2) when used against swarms, which would bypass EW(1). The rules for ID(x) state that the weapons will always inflict an extra wound, unless their S is sufficiently high enough to cause 2 or more extra wounds. Hence I would think a S8 weapon against a T3 swarm would cause 3 wounds total per hit.

streamdragon wrote: Hence I would think a S8 weapon against a T3 swarm would cause 3 wounds total per hit.

Agreed.



Edited for clarity!

streamdragon wrote:

Maelstrom808 wrote:

streamdragon wrote:

lord_blackfang wrote:

streamdragon wrote:I think you're misunderstanding ID(2). It doesn't innately cause any extra wounds, the strength of the weapon still has to exceed the toughness of the swarm by 4 or more to cause the extra wounds.

No, any weapon with "Instant Death" as a special rule causes at least +1 wound regardless of S and T.

I stand corrected then. They do indeed cause 2 wounds; just like they do now. Still, the killing power of template weapons hasn't gained anything in regards to swarms. They did before, they do now. If anything, swarms are still better as now S8 blast weapons are required to remove an entire base, whereas before S6 was enough to insta-kill.

Actually you can't get any extra wounds from high str as EW1 makes them immune to that form of ID.

And yes, swarms in general are much more resiliant.

Blast weapons gain ID(2) when used against swarms, which would bypass EW(1). The rules for ID(x) state that the weapons will always inflict an extra wound, unless their S is sufficiently high enough to cause 2 or more extra wounds. Hence I would think a S8 weapon against a T3 swarm would cause 3 wounds total per hit.

ID2 doesn't negate EW1 it just adds an extra wound. the unit is still immune to Standard ID

Oh my apologies it does in fact say that it negates lower levels. so yea stay the hell away from str 7 blasts.

JoeyFox wrote:

Rented Tritium wrote:

haendas wrote:

JoeyFox wrote:This just got posted on /tg/

I believe this claim even less than I believe that these rules could be the real deal.

Yeah, "my friend just whipped this up" doesn't result in a document like this, regardless of if you think it's real or not.

I took Pre-press. I wrote documents all the time for it... I'll admit it would take a week or two of hard work to make this document as cohesive as it is from scratch, but if the rules pre-exist on paper / in constant use by a group? It isn't a stretch at all. I'm still not sure, everything on /tg/ is with "entire cup of salt' levels of caution.... but still interesting.

I can say in almost absolute surety that this project has absolutely nothing to do with /tg/. I peruse 4chan daily, and /tg/ along with /v/ is more or less my "home base" when it comes to boards. A project of this magnitude requires a team and a fair amount of work between them, and this being an unfinished product is reflected in the placeholders for various data and imagery. Any results of this would have taken a large thread of conversation, debate, and general questioning from those interested. I'm not exactly awake 24/7, nor am I at the computer all day every day, but the board's slow and the possibility of such a mega-thread being made, commented upon and worked on, and then deleted without me ever seeing it or any thread bringing it up again is frankly pretty small.

And given the fact that I had never heard about it prior to a day or two ago, and judging by the fact that /tg/ positively exploded with massive threads of discussion on the subject when the subject did come up...the product has never been seen on 4chan, or the widest majority of the internet being that /tg/ is a fairly popular stomping ground for tabletop gamers in general. Given it's a document from May of 2011, it would have been posted ad nauseum on the board by now, and discussion of it would be old hat. And again given that the document was made more than half a year ago, the possibility of it being some material used for trolling 8 months down the line sounds fairly preposterous. Thus I either have to conclude that it's an effort by a group to put together an official-looking homebrew for completely personal use who happen to never show huge products to the internet for discussion, or an earlier working form of another edition made by Games Workshop employees, even if only to test out some new ideas.

As for the time it took to come out, I am guessing that with later editions came more difficulty to track copies and laxer security in general as newer working models came out. Whoever released it, disgruntled employee or not, probably felt they were not going to be caught. There is also the possibility that it's an intentional leak, but given that it's an old document you would figure they would not throw out eight months of work to get commentary on what must be an incredibly aged model.

streamdragon wrote:
Blast weapons gain ID(2) when used against swarms, which would bypass EW(1). The rules for ID(x) state that the weapons will always inflict an extra wound, unless their S is sufficiently high enough to cause 2 or more extra wounds. Hence I would think a S8 weapon against a T3 swarm would cause 3 wounds total per hit.

This is correct.

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Maelstrom808 wrote:

streamdragon wrote:

lord_blackfang wrote:

streamdragon wrote:I think you're misunderstanding ID(2). It doesn't innately cause any extra wounds, the strength of the weapon still has to exceed the toughness of the swarm by 4 or more to cause the extra wounds.

No, any weapon with "Instant Death" as a special rule causes at least +1 wound regardless of S and T.

I stand corrected then. They do indeed cause 2 wounds; just like they do now. Still, the killing power of template weapons hasn't gained anything in regards to swarms. They did before, they do now. If anything, swarms are still better as now S8 blast weapons are required to remove an entire base, whereas before S6 was enough to insta-kill.

Actually you can't get any extra wounds from high str as EW1 makes them immune to that form of ID.

And yes, swarms in general are much more resiliant.

Unless said weapon has ID(2) or greater as a special rule, of course.

Ah, I think I see what you are getting at. Correct me if I'm mistaken, but you are saying that the ID(2) would negate EW(1) completely, thus allowing the ID from high str or ID(S) to take effect. If that's the case, let's take a look.

1 wound from S1-S5 blast (current rules) = 2 wounds
1 wound from S6-S10 blast (current rules) = 6 wounds
1 wound from S1-S7 blast (new rules) = 2 wounds (ID2 so 1+1)
1 wound from S8 blast (new rules) = 3 wounds (ID(S) comes into play so 1+2)
1 wound from S9 blast (new rules) = 4 wounds (now you have 3 extra wounds from ID(S) so 1+3)
1 wound from S10 blast (new rules) = 5 wounds (4 extra wounds from ID(S) so 1+4)


Edited for failed reading comprehension on my part

But template weapons S4 and above are very effective and now hit ALOT

lord_blackfang wrote:Actually, AV14 tanks get MT3!

I'm off to design a Battlewagon around having 3/6 Fire actions...

Yes, hence the 6 action example for a Russ bringing the insane dakka.

As for wagons, me too; I'm thinking super kannon plus four big shootas? Or maybe four rokkits?

Here's an interesting question: New Lifta-wagon rules has it hit on a 4+; would this be affected by Stationary, Massive, Swarm and Jink?

Also: Weathered Bastion with dark lances zzap guns!

Gram wrote:

I never said /tg/ made 6th edition.

I was taking salt with the "lol flgs rules!" post.

As for writing rules and/or existance on /tg/ for myself, I'm aware of their pain in the ass levels. Librarian Watt Mard here, Obstinate Marine codex and all that fun stuff. :3 MOVE EVER ONWARDS BROTHER. Etc. (Seriously want to model a small army of them some day. Contemptor with jetpack included.

Anyways, some of the statements made in reaction to my quote from /tg/ somewhat reinforces my opinion that this is a real document (6th)

ChocolateGork wrote:But template weapons S4 and above are very effective and now hit ALOT

EDIT: Bigger templates are going to be the only difference at low str.

streamdragon wrote:
Blast weapons gain ID(2) when used against swarms, which would bypass EW(1). The rules for ID(x) state that the weapons will always inflict an extra wound, unless their S is sufficiently high enough to cause 2 or more extra wounds. Hence I would think a S8 weapon against a T3 swarm would cause 3 wounds total per hit.

I disagree, it should be :
Hence I would think a S8 BLAST weapon against a T3 swarm would cause 3 wounds total per hit.

If the weapon is a simple missile launcher, the eternal warrior (1) rule that swarm has negates ID from the hit. Standard loss of only 1 wound.

If the hit is a blast (for example a LRBT shot), the vulnerability of the swarm to explosions gives ID (2) to the shot. Then it nullifies EW (1) so that the swarm suffers (Str:8) - (T:3) -4 = 2 additional wounds.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Maelstrom808 wrote:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Maelstrom808 wrote:

streamdragon wrote:

lord_blackfang wrote:

streamdragon wrote:I think you're misunderstanding ID(2). It doesn't innately cause any extra wounds, the strength of the weapon still has to exceed the toughness of the swarm by 4 or more to cause the extra wounds.

No, any weapon with "Instant Death" as a special rule causes at least +1 wound regardless of S and T.

I stand corrected then. They do indeed cause 2 wounds; just like they do now. Still, the killing power of template weapons hasn't gained anything in regards to swarms. They did before, they do now. If anything, swarms are still better as now S8 blast weapons are required to remove an entire base, whereas before S6 was enough to insta-kill.

Actually you can't get any extra wounds from high str as EW1 makes them immune to that form of ID.

And yes, swarms in general are much more resiliant.

Unless said weapon has ID(2) or greater as a special rule, of course.

Ah, I think I see what you are getting at. Correct me if I'm mistaken, but you are saying that the ID(2) would negate EW(1) completely, thus allowing the ID from high str or ID(S) to take effect. If that's the case, let's take a look.

1 wound from S6-S10 blast (current rules) = 6 wounds
1 wound from S6 blast (new rules) = 3 wounds (ID2 so 1+2) NO !
1 wound from S7 blast (new rules) = 3 wounds (ID2 and ID(S) comes into play but for now I'm assuming no stacking so 1+2)
1 wound from S8 blast (new rules) = 3 wounds (same)
1 wound from S9 blast (new rules) = 4 wounds (now you have 3 extra wounds from ID(S) so it takes over so 1+3)
1 wound from S10 blast (new rules) = 5 wounds (4 extra wounds from ID(S) so 1+4)

Now if they stack, it'd be

S6 = 3
S7 = 4
S8 = 5
S9 = 6
S10 = 7

So you'd still need at least a S9 blast/template before you equaled what the current S6 blast/template does. Although if the 10" blast marker thing is somehow correct...you most likelyy endup with a lot more original wounds so...ouch.

You are getting it wrong here. Instant death (2) does not mean 2 additional wounds. Number (2) only purpose is to be compared to Eternal Warrior number, to see which one nullifies the other.

So for T:3 swarms, all template hits from the lowest strenght, up to 7 trigger a simple instant death, that causes only ONE additional wound. To wipe out the swarm from the table a Str 8 blast is required.

Thank you for the moment of clarity I knew there was something I was missing after I posted. I need more coffee...

So when feilding swarms, really the only thing that scares me about the new rules is bigger templates/markers.

so the big questions is how to build an army if percents or the standard force org chart.

Maelstrom808 wrote:1 wound from S6 blast (new rules) = 3 wounds (ID2 so 1+2)

I believe a S6 blast hit against a T3 swarm would get you two wounds. One natural and one from ID(2) negating EW(1).

Ah, already clarified. Carry on as you were...

STUCARIUS wrote:There is very little doubt among any of my fellow developers that this is real. I think there may be a few more changes before release, maybe May/June, but this is a final stage development document folks. This is not the work of a "lone gunman". That makes no sense at all.

If there was any doubt concerning it being real GW put all that to bed by the amount of money they are spending having their legal council track down and send take down notices. That is not cheap but it is what they have to do if they do not want a case of their not defending a claimed IP to exist. That could cause the loss of IP. Were this no a true document, even a fake one that referenced their IP, they would not be required to defend it under law. The only reason for that is one of copyright. That means the language used in the document is virtually identical to what will be the final copyrighted publication.

I would agree. I thought that there might be the possibility that this is a well-executed viral marketing campaign for a new scifi rules system but it's just dripping with GW IP. 'Oops, we are going to remove all GW IP before publication; they were included for internal review so that playtesters would have a better grasp of how the rules worked.' ain't gonna cut it, from what I understand. Even if GW didn't write this they're going to own it, if that makes any sense (and based on my understanding of IP law).

Acardia wrote:so the big questions is how to build an army if percents or the standard force org chart.

Standard force org is used for creating an army.

I think (I hope) it's a fake tbh. Games workshop are pretty off the wall with some things but the day I see them give Mephiston and Ahriman a psychic level of 3 but Eldrad Ulthran only a 2?

Aside from that and reading the rules half the codex updates are extremely unthoughtful and missing many details. Half of the Eternal Warriors havn't had their level clarified for example. GD's in the CSM codex count as being in defensive fire... erm... with what exactly? Hopes and dreams they'll not get killed by the arsenal now hitting on a 2+?

CMS's being the standard example in the main rule book? Are they current example? It's been a while since I read the rule book but I don't ever remember the loyalist marines not being the basic examples... anything else would seem un-GW.

Shooting AFTER assault? How is that justified? Does one generally shoot something as it's charging towards you with murder in it's eyes or after it's killed a few of you enough to notice...

EDIT: MC's being hit on a 2+? Seems a bit overkill.... They're tough but my god they're not THAT tough. Half of them don't reach the other line as it is..

CCW's with an AP value? I actually don't mind this idea.. but it still seems very unGW.

It's fantastically built but ultimately I just think it's a creative fanboy with too much time on their hands. I'll believe it if I see it this summer.

Happy to see a healthy discussion on this. One of the most exciting things to hit 40k in years.

I just came over from whineseer where the anal retentiveness from the mod staff is off the charts.

I'm not happy to see titan rules in the standard book, but knowing how GW likes to sell expensive minis I'm not surprised.

So the choice is:
* Hoax by a genius with too much time on their hands.
* Suggested, but ultimately unused, ruleset.
* THE REAL THING.

no. 3 plox

Regarding Apoc. stuff: Could it be that given this is most likely a play test version, they added them so Apoc. could be tested at the same time to see how the rules blend with the standard ones and they may/may not actually see the main rule book but a future Apoc. (re)release?

ohh please let trhis be true my titan needs to be ordered soon

Gram wrote:A project of this magnitude requires a team and a fair amount of work between them, and this being an unfinished product is reflected in the placeholders for various data and imagery.

I've produced no fewer than three projects like this single-handedly. One of them makes this look like it's scribbled in the margins of a notebook.

There's no requirement this be some kind of huge, elaborate, team-based effort. "Production values" is no indicator of fake or real.

DarknessEternal wrote:

Gram wrote:A project of this magnitude requires a team and a fair amount of work between them, and this being an unfinished product is reflected in the placeholders for various data and imagery.

I've produced no fewer than three projects like this single-handedly. One of them makes this look like it's scribbled in the margins of a notebook.

There's no requirement this be some kind of huge, elaborate, team-based effort.

I often times like to sculpt full sized human figures out of bronze myself. The stuff in museums is pretty standard faire.

Semper wrote:I think it's a fake tbh. Games workshop are pretty off the wall with some things but the day I see them give Mephiston and Ahriman a psychic level of 3 but Eldrad Ulthran only a 2?

Ummm... that's already true with regards to Ahriman and Eldrad.