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.

Billagio wrote:Am I one of the only people who actually dislikes these new rules (if they are true)?

No, but it seems you're in the minority. Which is really weird, considering it's potentially actually GW rules, which the majority tend to dislike.

-Loki- wrote:

Billagio wrote:Am I one of the only people who actually dislikes these new rules (if they are true)?

No, but it seems you're in the minority. Which is really weird, considering it's potentially actually GW rules, which the majority tend to dislike.

Okay, I don't know that any part of that sentence is true, unless you are only talking about the vocal folks. We have no data on whether the majority of GW's customers or even dakka's members like or dislike GW rules, although one might assume since they all came to hang out on a site called DakkaDakka, they might like them a little. Also, we don't know yet who likes or dislikes the new rules, although the anecdotal response from the folks who have responded to the threads has been positive.

pretre wrote:

Andrew1975 wrote:Oh that's great. You're rewarded for surviving nearly suicidal battles by being given the honor of a completely suicidal mission. You know if you let them live a little bit they might actually learn something. It's a terrible fluff cover for a terrible mechanic.

Andrew1975, meet 40k. 40k, meet Andrew1975. I know you guys might not be familiar, but I'm sure you'll become great friends.

Practically every book about Imperial Guard is about throwing bodies into the meat grinder. It is what they do. What part of dystopian future in space is not clicking? The Imperium would throw vets away like that because life is the cheapest thing they have.

In the Grimdark Future, the IG doesn't fight for the Emperor, they die for the Emperor.

Aren't units that are removed as casualties not always considered to have died?
Sometimes they're just too wounded to fight, turned tail and ran, or were separated under fire and lost.
I would venture to guess that even the suicide squads that assault a tank with a single meltagun might just scatter when they get shot at. True some of them die, but most get captured by the enemy, flee, or hide till the fights over.

Surviving war in 40k would make anyone a veteran, even if he did it hiding in the hole the tank that was just firing at him made in the side of a building till it rolled past.

Of course, the game is as stated earlier a simulation, so we can't know what exactally happened, so instead they default to the coolest possible thing happening, which is in almost every case the choice that involved death and/or explosion.

Also, I'm curious. the new rulebook doesn't state the rules for a laspistol in CC. I would guess that's because nothing that has a laspistol would use it over their basic CC since it lacks AP. Dunno if it was said already, but IG veterans with free shotguns and their CC weapon. Not a terrible cheap CC choice.

Agamemnon2 wrote:Oh yeah, that makes for a much better game, having our veteran squads roll on the Combat Excrement Table before our actions.

Well its makes as much sense as having them run into the belly of the beast. What used to stop this was overwatch which they have brought back albeit in a limited capacity. You never saw anybody do this when there was a chance they would get killed before completing their mission. So know you will see that they are suicidal.....unless of course there is a squad with overwatch, only then will they think first. I know, I know its just a game.

Just migrated over from Warseer as the mods haven't yet figured out how they want to deal with this topic yet and are removing all threads relating to it...

I agree that a denial from GW means nothing, particularly if we aren't given the specific nature of the denial. I was a solicitor for years - believe me there are dozens of ways to put something ambiguously so that it could mean any number of things.

If it's a legit early draft/play-test version, GW could say 'this isn't 6th edition' and later justify that statement by saying that it was just a draft and they didn't want customers misled as to the final content of the 6th ed rulebook. Even an absolute denial has to be taken with a pinch of salt.

And if it is fake, it will be interesting to see if the 'perpetrator' comes forward. This would be on a completely different level from the faked BA codex - several levels above in fact. I'm pretty sure I could write a decent codex with a bit of playtesting that would at least be as balanced as some of the recent GW efforts.

If fake, someone has taken the time to sit down and painstakingly put together a workable set of rules. Yes there are errors and inconsistencies but it it's a fake it's a pretty amazing effort. I very much doubt that the originator would have done this purely to have a laugh at our expense (because if that was the case, given the amount of time this will have taken to put together, the laugh would be on him).

Billagio wrote:Am I one of the only people who actually dislikes these new rules (if they are true)?

I think they're a travesty. There's no way I could get the people I play with to ever switch to these rules.

Andrew1975 wrote:

Agamemnon2 wrote:Oh yeah, that makes for a much better game, having our veteran squads roll on the Combat Excrement Table before our actions.

Well its makes as much sense as having them run into the belly of the beast. What used to stop this was overwatch which they have brought back albeit in a limited capacity. You never saw anybody do this when there was a chance they would get killed before completing their mission. So know you will see that they are suicidal.....unless of course there is a squad with overwatch, only then will they think first. I know, I know its just a game.

Yes, instead we had people locked in Overwatch gambits, where both sides hung back as long as possible, then either of the finally gave up, advanced, got shot up and something happened. But not before turning the game into an assortment of stalemates.

DarknessEternal wrote:I think they're a travesty. There's no way I could get the people I play with to ever switch to these rules.

Reasons being?

If fake, someone has taken the time to sit down and painstakingly put together a workable set of rules. Yes there are errors and inconsistencies but it it's a fake it's a pretty amazing effort. I very much doubt that the originator would have done this purely to have a laugh at our expense (because if that was the case, given the amount of time this will have taken to put together, the laugh would be on him).

I doubt you could make them work, this is one of the reasons GW went away from the more intuitive +/- modifiers to the more convoluted style you see here. I believe most of the mechanics are GW IP. So you would have to find new mechanics to make the game work. Even the basic lay out of the stat line is a GW IP.

Yes, instead we had people locked in Overwatch gambits, where both sides hung back as long as possible, then either of the finally gave up, advanced, got shot up and something happened. But not before turning the game into an assortment of stalemates.

Isn't that kinda how it is supposed to work when you have a healthy respect for your own life. I mean i know the future is grim but is everybody suicidal, it's not just guard that do this?

DarknessEternal wrote:

Billagio wrote:Am I one of the only people who actually dislikes these new rules (if they are true)?

I think they're a travesty. There's no way I could get the people I play with to ever switch to these rules.

You can all continue to play whatever editon fo 40K you want.

Or you could go play Warmachine or some other game.

Crisis averted...

Agamemnon2 wrote:

Andrew1975 wrote:

Agamemnon2 wrote:Oh yeah, that makes for a much better game, having our veteran squads roll on the Combat Excrement Table before our actions.

Well its makes as much sense as having them run into the belly of the beast. What used to stop this was overwatch which they have brought back albeit in a limited capacity. You never saw anybody do this when there was a chance they would get killed before completing their mission. So know you will see that they are suicidal.....unless of course there is a squad with overwatch, only then will they think first. I know, I know its just a game.

Yes, instead we had people locked in Overwatch gambits, where both sides hung back as long as possible, then either of the finally gave up, advanced, got shot up and something happened. But not before turning the game into an assortment of stalemates.

Yeah, it was like watching full lenght Sumo match.

Andrew1975 wrote:

If fake, someone has taken the time to sit down and painstakingly put together a workable set of rules. Yes there are errors and inconsistencies but it it's a fake it's a pretty amazing effort. I very much doubt that the originator would have done this purely to have a laugh at our expense (because if that was the case, given the amount of time this will have taken to put together, the laugh would be on him).

I doubt you could make them work, this is one of the reasons GW went away from the more intuitive +/- modifiers to the more convoluted style you see here. I believe most of the mechanics are GW IP. So you would have to find new mechanics to make the game work. Even the basic lay out of the stat line is a GW IP.

Game mechanics are not copyrightable. Their expression as rules text is, but the method of play of a game, fundamentally, is not.

DarknessEternal wrote:

Billagio wrote:Am I one of the only people who actually dislikes these new rules (if they are true)?

I think they're a travesty. There's no way I could get the people I play with to ever switch to these rules.

Just asking for clarification, do you consider them badly written/unbalanced? or a bad set of rules for 40k?

Would you play this if it was a different game, that was just remarkably similar to 40k? while the actual 40k we know and love is the same as it was before (or hopefully slightly fixed)

Not trying to be mean or anything. But what if GW, or even a competeing company, wrote up these rules as a means to play the game differently, yet using the same models? Like playing checkers with chess pieces or something.

What if we end up with warhammer 40k (move, shoot, assault), and warhammer 40k bloody battlefields (move, assault, shoot, consolidate)? Are they still bad rules?

Of course, you could certainly still think they're stupid. I may love being able to hop out of a tank, shoot and hop back in. But it does seem rather overpowered.

We all dealt with this when 5th edition was due. There was a PDF that looked like 5th edition running around. When 5th finally released the PDF was about 75% acurate.

The fact is the PDF was professionally formatted like this one sans pictures. It's probably an early write up that got thrown out due to changes in the rules.

CT GAMER wrote:

DarknessEternal wrote:

Billagio wrote:Am I one of the only people who actually dislikes these new rules (if they are true)?

I think they're a travesty. There's no way I could get the people I play with to ever switch to these rules.

You can all continue to play whatever editon fo 40K you want.

Or you could go play Warmachine or some other game.

Crisis averted...

Stop impinging on message board posters' inalienable right to nerd rage with such rational suggestions.

Billagio wrote:Am I one of the only people who actually dislikes these new rules (if they are true)?

I don't like the stratagems thing one bit. I'm not totally excited about the rules as a whole but I'm not disappointed by them - they look interesting and I wouldn't be upset if they turned out to be 6th edition. I'm pretty ambivalent about them to be honest.

I don't love or hate 5th ed either - I just enjoy playing 40K.

Agamemnon2 wrote:
Yes, instead we had people locked in Overwatch gambits, where both sides hung back as long as possible, then either of the finally gave up, advanced, got shot up and something happened. But not before turning the game into an assortment of stalemates.

umm no? We used indirect fire to break overwatch, Psy powers to bypass fire arcs<Gate the obvious one>, and vehicles to screen troop movement.

But the point is, it wasn't any "better" or any more "realistic". The melta-veterans were still there, just in different guises.

ColdSadHungry wrote:I don't love or hate 5th ed either - I just enjoy playing 40K.

Exactly.

Agamemnon2 wrote:But the point is, it wasn't any "better" or any more "realistic". The melta-veterans were still there, just in different guises.

Usually mine were dead from Virus Outbreak.

pretre wrote:

-Loki- wrote:

Billagio wrote:Am I one of the only people who actually dislikes these new rules (if they are true)?

No, but it seems you're in the minority. Which is really weird, considering it's potentially actually GW rules, which the majority tend to dislike.

Okay, I don't know that any part of that sentence is true, unless you are only talking about the vocal folks. We have no data on whether the majority of GW's customers or even dakka's members like or dislike GW rules, although one might assume since they all came to hang out on a site called DakkaDakka, they might like them a little. Also, we don't know yet who likes or dislikes the new rules, although the anecdotal response from the folks who have responded to the threads has been positive.

I think many of the folks on here are tournament players or at least regular/very experienced players so the added complexity and what seems to be a balancing of the armies/buffing of the xenos appeals to them. I'm neither very experienced nor a tournament player. I consider myself to be an amateur player (albeit an opinionated one at times ) and I have to say that they do look a lot more complex which is worrying in terms of game time. But I'd still happily play and learn.

The way they are laid out does appear a little confusing. Set out properly they are actually quite simple and much more explicit in their descriptions (baring the typos).

Dribble Joy wrote:The way they are laid out does appear a little confusing. Set out properly they are actually quite simple and much more explicit in their descriptions (baring the typos).

There are certain things in the PDF which make me think that it could be fake. Then again there are other factors which make me lean towards it being geniune. Clearly no one can say with any certainty whether it is real of not (it won't stop some from trying).

It's worthy of discussion discuss either way.

I wan't to go back to Rogue Trader rules!

Agamemnon2 wrote:But the point is, it wasn't any "better" or any more "realistic". The melta-veterans were still there, just in different guises.

Yes, but before they actually had to dodge shots to get to melta range. Now they will be fearless, unless of course the one unit with over-watch is by them.

As far as mechanics being copy-written. I think you are right about basic mechanics, such as rolling a die or turning a card. But after that I think if someone wanted to steal this (if this is in fact a copy that GW passed on) then that is were is ends. Beside basic IP stuff like the names, you could not use the profiles, you would have to replace the artillery and scatter dice, you could use any of the charts. This is again why I think GW went away from the simple intuitive +/- mechanics. These mechanics could be protected while +/- could not.

See Cyanide's Chaos league vs GW bloodbowl. That was a video game that was slightly inspired by the GW boardgame and had some similar names and abilities. GW came after them and eventually allowed them the use of the Bloodbowl IP after GW threatened to sue.

So if you were to take these and try to make a different game out of them it would take a lot of work to change it enough to make it legal. Even then you had better be ready for a long and expensive fight when GW comes knocking.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

krazynadechukr wrote:I wan't to go back to Rogue Trader rules!

Ew, no even I don't want that. Something closer to 2nd ed, but clearer,more streamlined and better defined would be fine. This is much better than the last few editions, but I still find it lacking in parts. It will still be fun mind you, I've enjoyed most of the editions. But lets be honest there is no perfect system for everybody.

Nightwatch wrote:It is not genuine, if that's what you're saying. Even Games Workshop would get their Heck Armour sorted out before releasing something like this.

It might be a draft. Various things point to this being the case, such as length, style, and conformity to rumours posted months ago by well known rumours posters.

It may also be a fake. Reasons that support this would be the cluttered and disorganized formatting, with very little method to the madness in terms of special rules, etc. Very much a stream-of-consciousness text, where the rules could be written as the author thought them up, and not really shuffled around very much afterwards.


Go ahead and pick!

You realise that in the main book they have a wave serpent as having front armour 3

ChocolateGork wrote:

Nightwatch wrote:It is not genuine, if that's what you're saying. Even Games Workshop would get their Heck Armour sorted out before releasing something like this.

It might be a draft. Various things point to this being the case, such as length, style, and conformity to rumours posted months ago by well known rumours posters.

It may also be a fake. Reasons that support this would be the cluttered and disorganized formatting, with very little method to the madness in terms of special rules, etc. Very much a stream-of-consciousness text, where the rules could be written as the author thought them up, and not really shuffled around very much afterwards.


Go ahead and pick!

You realise that in the main book they have a wave serpent as having front armour 3

Huh, must be going dyslexic. I read through that as armor 13, nasty type for eldar playtesters

ChocolateGork wrote:

Nightwatch wrote:It is not genuine, if that's what you're saying. Even Games Workshop would get their Heck Armour sorted out before releasing something like this.

It might be a draft. Various things point to this being the case, such as length, style, and conformity to rumours posted months ago by well known rumours posters.

It may also be a fake. Reasons that support this would be the cluttered and disorganized formatting, with very little method to the madness in terms of special rules, etc. Very much a stream-of-consciousness text, where the rules could be written as the author thought them up, and not really shuffled around very much afterwards.


Go ahead and pick!

You realise that in the main book they have a wave serpent as having front armour 3

I'm not entirely sure how that is relevant. Would you provide some clarification?

Darkseid wrote:

Agamemnon2 wrote:
Yes, instead we had people locked in Overwatch gambits, where both sides hung back as long as possible, then either of the finally gave up, advanced, got shot up and something happened. But not before turning the game into an assortment of stalemates.

Yeah, it was like watching full lenght Sumo match.

Hmm, given that only rarely Sumo match reaches 15 seconds, doesn't sound too bad!