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.

Maelstrom808 wrote:
- Overwatch units have permission to use it when an enemy unit moves within 12" of your unit, so yeah..Coteaz.

- You can give both sides Overwatch when a unit is within 3" of an objective by selecting the Fire at Will strategem

- You are given permission to use Defensive fire against a unit that deepstrikes within 12" of that unit. There are limitations to this as well.

- And there are one or two other special situations that I can't think of at the moment..neither particularly overpowering. The main thread on the PDF has a nice little argument and the exact situations you can use it spelled out on like pages 48-50 of the thread...somewhere in there.

Can units use Defensive Fire more than once in a turn? It seems a little overpowered if this is the case (a whole army potentially firing several times in a turn) but I can't find a rule that specifically prevents it.

A unit can only react to one deep striker.

So many of these rules improve the game.

Being able to charge after deepstrike, or charge out of a vheicle that moved combat speed. Banshees in Wave Serpants are viable.

Daemons got so much better.

I am really, really happy to see these changes. I hope they are legit, or close to what we end up with.

Reecius wrote:So many of these rules improve the game.

Being able to charge after deepstrike, or charge out of a vheicle that moved combat speed. Banshees in Wave Serpants are viable.

Daemons got so much better.

I am really, really happy to see these changes. I hope they are legit, or close to what we end up with.

What happened to the research on BoK saying it was false? Any inside insights into that situation?

xttz wrote:

Maelstrom808 wrote:
- Overwatch units have permission to use it when an enemy unit moves within 12" of your unit, so yeah..Coteaz.

- You can give both sides Overwatch when a unit is within 3" of an objective by selecting the Fire at Will strategem

- You are given permission to use Defensive fire against a unit that deepstrikes within 12" of that unit. There are limitations to this as well.

- And there are one or two other special situations that I can't think of at the moment..neither particularly overpowering. The main thread on the PDF has a nice little argument and the exact situations you can use it spelled out on like pages 48-50 of the thread...somewhere in there.

Can units use Defensive Fire more than once in a turn? It seems a little overpowered if this is the case (a whole army potentially firing several times in a turn) but I can't find a rule that specifically prevents it.

It seems DF can be used more than once from different triggers, but most of the time a single unit can only use DF once from a single trigger.

And whole armies getting the opportunity to use defensive fire is HIGHLY unlikely once you read and understand how it interacts within the rules.

tetrisphreak wrote:
Thanks for the inputs, I plan on doing a game or two tomorrow with these rules. You mentioned a cheat sheet, I've been taking notes on what I think will be pertinent issues in-game but generally, what do you think we should have listed for quick reference? Movement values, move/assault/shooting actions, etc?

Edit - one other thing - Would you say the game is equally as fun, less fun, or more fun than before in your (admittedly brief) trial run of these rules?

I would say with re: to the cheat sheet:
The overall turn sequence, and each of the different phase steps
The unit types, movement distances
The charts for shooting, close combat, wounding
Vehicle charts for damage

The rest of the time was spent looking up specific rules in the pages, then trying to find them again. I'd note the pages of the various phases, etc., since the answers to various questions were usually in the relevant section (i.e. movement, assault, shooting, wargear, etc.)

I would say the game was equally to more fun than the current game. While I got stomped, there was more to consider, and more decisions to make, particularly as the assault moves happen in movement, assault is fought, then shooting occurs. So do I assault, then shoot? Do I just shoot? Do I hope the assault clears so that I can then shoot up the enemy if they win, etc.

I played a MSU Blood Angel Mech (Las Razors/LR/Baal) with a big assault squad. I definitely needed more bodies. I couldn't rush out to contest objectives because his speed and his trygons would have been all over me. So I cornered, figuring I could shoot down the big stuff and then push out to grab objectives later. Bad idea. Between the tervi and the spawns (fortunately he dried up after one spawning), and his speed, he was wracking up vps every turn and I had none. By the time I had somewhat cleared things, I had 3 turns to push out to get to objectives. Unfortunately, I had no one left to do so. Oh, and while he had first turn, I could have taken a strategem which counts all my vehicles as moving on his first turn, which would make them less vulnerable to being shot stationary.

If we had it right, the LR was a beast with Multi-track (3) able to fire a ton. The Baal with Multi-track (1) was pretty terrible. One shot moving, 2 shots stationary (due to the doubling of Multi-track) meant I could never fire more than 2 weapon systems (I had the TLAC, HB sponsons, stormbolter). So it was bad at thinning the hordes. I'll have to check the rules further to see if I missed something.

MSUs were at a huge disadvantage in combat, especially if they took no retreat wounds, and my squads disappeared fast. Since these rules seem to favor shooting, I"ll have to look to enhance my firepower without sacrificing too much close combat. As the stealers hit my flank, I remembered thinking 'I need bolters'. As it was, two 5 man assault squads firing bolt pistols into 16 stealers was a waste (I should have charged instead).

The game was fun, and offer a lot of interesting tactical and strategic options.

@Shumagorath

I'm hearing both from the sources I typically get information from. I think this is real, at least a working draft of the GW rules. They have put out/leaked/lost information like this before, and then it turned out to be real, or nearly real before.

Time will tell, but my instincts say this came from GW.

I just browsed the multi targeting rule in that quick break down. AV 14 tanks get multi targeting six so they can shoot 6 times. Does that mean a leman russ can fire 6 battle cannon rounds and all of its secondary guns 6 times cos thats just total bs if so?

Truffle wrote:I just browsed the multi targeting rule in that quick break down. AV 14 tanks get multi targeting six so they can shoot 6 times. Does that mean a leman russ can fire 6 battle cannon rounds and all of its secondary guns 6 times cos thats just total bs if so?

Costs 2 shooting actions to fire an ordinance weapon. No weapon can be fired more then once.

Read harder.

If they hold still they have 6.

That means they can shoot 5 guns at 5 targets if they hold still, or 2 at 2 targets if they move.

Like Carnage said, each gun can only fire once and ordnance count as 2 shots.

Russes are awesome now though, the Plasmacutioner can move and fire 5 plasma shots as a single target or 3 at one and 1 at another.

I LOVE these rules so far, in a big way. We'll be making a video bat rep with the new rules, ASAP.

Hurry up on that BatRep I cant start trying out these new rules until next week due to needing to stay focused on running a Fantasy/Lord Of The Rings GT tommorow and I want to know more.

Yes, i myself had a game planned this weekend with the new rules. If i can recall i'll snap some photos and do a mini-rep in the battle reports section.

We'll get a video bat rep in with the new rules as soon as we can, just been crazy busy at the store.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
New Rumors we heard that you all might be interested in: http://www.frontlinegaming.org/2012/01/13/6th-ed-40k-rumors/

Hi guys,

Just dropping my 2cents worth.

While like the overall direction towards a mroe balanced game I find it hard to give s yea or nay until a more complete and thorough version is available. Could this be real???

Yes, but it. could be just as likely a fake.

Ether way, my interest is that this could be developed into a great ruleset if the author(s?) decide to finish it. This stands to be a win-win situation for 40Kyou players(Something we rarely see because gw is usually giving us lose-lose deals). What I'm getting at is that if this is real then it is a pretty good move by gw...If fake, then this summer we will have 2by new rulesets to play and compare...(win-win).


Now I mentioned that these rules need (Imho) finishing. Things like, Do consolidation move affect the EV if both inits started the turn in combat and one nreaks successfully?
How do the Tau wmulti-tracker and target-lock wargear options work with the # of shooting actions without cries of shennanigans by the opponent.
Are shooting actions to be saved up gor later use outside of the normal turn sequence? If so, where it say the weapon may only fire once, does that mean extra actions are wasted or is it only once per targeted unit??

Also a side note. IMO, the rail rules as currently writtenI could gmp the the Tau as much as they help. It means that those few very effective/expensive railgun equipped units will have to operate without an anti-assault screening units. Suicide rail units is not good for Tau.

Will add more later.


Later:Could be thata Eldar artillery rocks under these rules

Reecius wrote:@Shumagorath

I'm hearing both from the sources I typically get information from. I think this is real, at least a working draft of the GW rules. They have put out/leaked/lost information like this before, and then it turned out to be real, or nearly real before.

Time will tell, but my instincts say this came from GW.

My guy, who knows a guy, etc.

This is pretty much repeating the sequence of events (pdf, well formatted, no pics, example pages were orks, but this time it's CSM) before 5e was released. This isn't so much for Reece, as you other guys.

IIRC, the leak was about 90% on with the final release's rule-set.

I'm dizzy with the possibilities of playing *the models I own* of eldar and 'nids, and being competitive ! Assault out of a Wave Serpent? Suh-WEEET!

Hi all,

I just played 2 games with the new rules at my FLGS. A 750pts to learn the basics and then 2K pts to really try them out.

I was sceptical at first read, but after playing them THEY ROCK!! Even if this is not the actual leaked dex my game group had a serious discussion of using these instead of 5th or 6th if it is just a 5.5 edition.

Some things take some getting used to, like how the different assault moves work and how vehicles are damaged, but overall it was not hard to learn.

These rules also work well with existing units and seem to make for a balanced game. No unit steamrolled everything like usually happens and it was a very fun game tactically. The flow of the new turn sequence is great because moves are not split up. A shooting army can now actually "suppress" assaulters with the right weapons to keep out of combat. Assault armies are able to get into assault more reliably because the shooting does not let the opponent take away the close models as casualties before an assault move.

Just a small sample, but I hope these are not fake.

LOL these rules are way too complicated and take way to much thinking. Remember that GW targets 11yo so theres no way this is 6th ed. If anything 6th ed will be far more simplistic.

You could just use sticky tags with labels with your printed copy instead of cheat sheeting.

Will be trying these rules out in a few days against a shooty necron army and a mystery army. We are all excited to check it out and see how it works. Especialy the assault based CSM VS Shooty Necrons matchup. I will try to post a few messages during course of the game and during breaks and will try to compose a full report of the battle(s) on Sunday.

HiddenPower wrote:LOL these rules are way too complicated and take way to much thinking.

...and yet the playtesting that has happened seems to suggest otherwise.

Sorry if this has been posted already, but a pretty interesting video review of the rules in action on Beasts of War's website

http://www.beastsofwar.com/warhammer-40k/6th-edition-40k-play-video/

Reecius wrote:@Shumagorath

I'm hearing both from the sources I typically get information from. I think this is real, at least a working draft of the GW rules. They have put out/leaked/lost information like this before, and then it turned out to be real, or nearly real before.

Time will tell, but my instincts say this came from GW.

All I have to say about this is that if this is a hoax, and 6th edition is almost indistinguishable from 5th edition. I will have to really consider my time/money I put towards this hobby. Because as it stands now this leak seems like the best thing that 40k could do to improve itself, anything else would be extremely disappointing.

negajoule wrote:Hi all,

I just played 2 games with the new rules at my FLGS. A 750pts to learn the basics and then 2K pts to really try them out.

I was sceptical at first read, but after playing them THEY ROCK!! Even if this is not the actual leaked dex my game group had a serious discussion of using these instead of 5th or 6th if it is just a 5.5 edition.

It's this right here that will hurt GW a lot if this is a hoax. The fact that someone was able to put out a set of rules that they would rather play over the official material.

Pacific wrote:Sorry if this has been posted already, but a pretty interesting video review of the rules in action on Beasts of War's website

http://www.beastsofwar.com/warhammer-40k/6th-edition-40k-play-video/

Nice.

So while Whineseer buries its head in the sand, BoW is actually considering dropping 5th edition and only using the leak for their videos until 6th comes out.

Warseer is saying that this is a hoax as have several other sites.

This seems to be due to GW apparently saying that it is fake but I can easily see this as being damage control due to their contract with New Line Cinema (one of the stipulations of which is allegedly that they don't leak any information regarding the Hobbit). GW are also the type of company that likes to aggressively control its IP and web presence.

To me there is too much circumstantial evidence that points to this being real to easily brush it off as an elaborate hoax.; however the possibility exists that it is.

Is there any evidence within or without the document that suggest that it isn't real? Does anything not chime with previous rumours made by trusted rumour mongers? I have noticed that some of the spellings are consistently a little strange and some quick googleing revealed that it is a non English spelling, is that significant?

Basically I really like these rules and I would dearly like to believe that they are real. However if it is a hoax and 6the ed is merely 5th ed with the furniture rearranged (just like 4th ed was) I would be disappointed to say the least.

Palindrome wrote:Warseer is saying that this is a hoax as have several other sites.

This seems to be due to GW apparently saying that it is fake but I can easily see this as being damage control due to their contract with New Line Cinema (one of the stipulations of which is allegedly that they don't leak any information regarding the Hobbit). GW are also the type of company that likes to aggressively control its IP and web presence.

To me there is too much circumstantial evidence that points to this being real to easily brush it off as an elaborate hoax.; however the possibility exists that it is.

Is there any evidence within or without the document that suggest that it isn't real? Does anything not chime with previous rumours made by trusted rumour mongers? I have noticed that some of the spellings are consistently a little strange and some quick googleing revealed that it is a non English spelling, is that significant?

Basically I really like these rules and I would dearly like to believe that they are real. However if it is a hoax and 6the ed is merely 5th ed with the furniture rearranged (just like 4th ed was) I would be disappointed to say the least.

The reality is, unless GW turns heel and says that it's real (which won't happen), we really won't know one way or the other until printing leaks from 6th start to come out. Both sides of the argument have plenty of "evidence" and "insiders" to support their case, but we really just won't know for sure till shortly before 6th hits shelves. In the meantime, we can talk about the rules mostly from an academic standpoint, and in a "what if" scenario. Some of us are planning on using this within our groups anyway if 6th turns out to be a bust, so the discussion also helps in that regard.

If it is a fake there may well be a smoking gun hidden somewhere that proves that it is; I would rather that it is disproved now rather than in the summer.

Palindrome wrote:
Is there any evidence within or without the document that suggest that it isn't real? Does anything not chime with previous rumours made by trusted rumour mongers? I have noticed that some of the spellings are consistently a little strange and some quick googleing revealed that it is a non English spelling, is that significant?

The spelling thing is blown out of proportion, imho. In one paragraph about fortifications it reads Heck instead of Back. Heck usually means the back of a ship in german. Suddenly people went on how this doc was written in german first and merely translated into english. Conspirancy theory right here.
Btw. on a QWERTY keyboard the B is close to the H. So is this a unfortunate typo or a full fleged conspirancy at our hands? You tell me.

Overall I agree with Maelstorm808, there is no way to be sure until the book hits. There is evidence for both camps but the evidence is mostly conjure at best.

I was actually talking about bajonet (or however it is spelt in the document, it is certainly the same spelling each time I noticed it). That is apparently the Dutch spelling.

Meanwhile, some 4channer is sure this is a fake because it does not use British spellings. Go figure.

I have heard it suggested that this is a non English version that has been translated. Is this plausible, does GW produce non english language versions of its playtest lists?

Non UK standard spellings may be significant, it depends on who actually wrote these rules. By itself it that much though.