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.

Tarkand wrote:

Joey wrote:
And 5+ cover saves are a must.

Out of curiosity... why?

It's a pretty huge blow to most Xeno army (And we all complain they are too many SM player out there, don't we?).

I know there's no guarantee it's a real leak or anything, but I'm pretty damn worried for my orks atm... with cover save at 5+, tanks being so much tougher and the new multipe template rules, I don't think the Green Tide will be very viable anymore... most orks vehicles also rely heavily on cover to survive.

The same can be said for Tyranids or really, any low save army... we live and die by cover. And having a blanket 16% survivability reduction across the board is pretty damn harsh.... on top of CC weapon now having ap6 (Not that big of a deal, it's more the fact that it's one more thing on top of everything else) and nobz getting castrated too...

Let's just say I'm pretty happy to still have my marines laying around somewhere...

Models that are completely out of sight of the firing unit's squad leader have a 4+ cover save for the purpose of determining the majority cover save of the unit

It's not all doom and gloom!

Joey wrote:A playtest leak that includes written statements directly to the consumer? "Your feedback is always welcome"
They also took the trouble to amend all existing codexes...despite the rules not being finished yet, so if the rules get changed some more they'd have to amend ALL the army books AGAIN.
This is wishful thinking, really. It's obviously a fake.

Bear in mind that if this is real, it's a playtest version, so the 'your feedback is always welcome' is addressing the playtester, not the consumer. I assume it would be removed in the final version. Likewise all of the typos and stuff are normal for a book of this size before the proofreading step (I write/edit fiction, as well as very long reports for work, and before the final check there's always tons of syntax and spelling issues/typos to catch. When I finished my PhD thesis it took me weeks to find all the typos and even after my viva there were still some left I hadn't spotted...)

AlmightyWalrus wrote:No, Grey Knights don't get the parry save. It's only on Power Weapons without additional rules, and Force Weapons aren't power weapons anymore, just AP2 CCWs with additional effects.


Also, as people seem to be silly: Assault weapons now count as additional CCWs on the turn you charge, so all Grey Knights with Storm Bolters get an additional attack on the charge. The Deep Strike changes are also a huge boost to Grey Knight Terminators, who can now Deep Strike without scattering as long as they're more than 18" away from an enemy. Since everything the Terminators have (bar the Incinerator, but come on) has 24" range, they can get to where they need to and do their job without worrying about scatter.

Thanks for the clarification... I did kinda think an army wide 4++ would be just a tad overpowered.

DarkHound wrote:All this sounds bad on paper. In practice, your infantry are basically 3" faster, your sweeping advances are far more effective, you are less susceptible to No Retreat. While your vehicles are more vulnerable, your Trucks are now able to move 21" a turn (with Red Paint Job). It really doesn't matter how good my guns are if your transports get where they need to before I kill them.

Plus, all your Fast Attack slots have become tremendously power.

The problem with Trukk was never their speed, but rather surviving the trip. They could already do 19'' with red paint job... I fail to get excited at gaining 10% more speed, but losing 16% survability... on an already fragile vehicle... filled with fragile boyz who will only get 5+ cover once they are forced to disembark.

I guess I'll have to reread some bits, as I don't see/understand what you mean by our fast attack slots being awesome now...?

Infatry will be faster and less random... but I don't know, again, does it makes up for such a huge drop in survivability and vehicles with more powerful shooting and so forth? I understand that a new edition will mean a lot of list change for everybody, but it seems a shame that one of the most iconic ork army style (Green Tide) might not make the transition.

I'm not burning my codex or anything, but yeah, this leak doesn't make me look forward to 6e.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Joey wrote:[

Models that are completely out of sight of the firing unit's squad leader have a 4+ cover save for the purpose of determining the majority cover save of the unit

It's not all doom and gloom!

You didn't really answer my 'Why' question. Aside from nerfing low armor army, what exactly does lowering cover bring to the table?

And when you consider that right now, the top army are ALL high armor armies (GK, BA, SW and IG thru their tanks) with the possible exception of 1 (DE)... Again, I just don't get why you say it's a must, when this rules help the armies that don't need help and hurt those who did.

As for the rule you posted... that's really not something that will come up often. Completely out of sight require some pretty specific table conditions.

Edit: Ignore, Derp.

I'm sure GK prlayers are happy to see most of their squads getting +1A under these rules.

Tarkand wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

Joey wrote:[

Models that are completely out of sight of the firing unit's squad leader have a 4+ cover save for the purpose of determining the majority cover save of the unit

It's not all doom and gloom!

You didn't really answer my 'Why' question. Aside from nerfing low armor army, what exactly does lowering cover bring to the table?

And when you consider that right now, the top army are ALL high armor armies (GK, BA, SW and IG thru their tanks) with the possible exception of 1 (DE)... Again, I just don't get why you say it's a must, when this rules help the armies that don't need help and hurt those who did.

As for the rule you posted... that's really not something that will come up often. Completely out of sight require some pretty specific table conditions.

Army-wide 4+ cover is just nonsense. I don't care if it "upsets the balance", and as an infantry guard player I know it'll probably nerf me somewhat. But 4+ cover is far too easy to get. So, 5+ balances it somewhat.

Darkseid wrote:I'm sure GK prlayers are happy to see most of their squads getting +1A under these rules.

except Halberds are 2 handed so they will have to pick between +1A and I6.

Joey wrote:

Tarkand wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

Joey wrote:[

Models that are completely out of sight of the firing unit's squad leader have a 4+ cover save for the purpose of determining the majority cover save of the unit

It's not all doom and gloom!

You didn't really answer my 'Why' question. Aside from nerfing low armor army, what exactly does lowering cover bring to the table?

And when you consider that right now, the top army are ALL high armor armies (GK, BA, SW and IG thru their tanks) with the possible exception of 1 (DE)... Again, I just don't get why you say it's a must, when this rules help the armies that don't need help and hurt those who did.

As for the rule you posted... that's really not something that will come up often. Completely out of sight require some pretty specific table conditions.

Army-wide 4+ cover is just nonsense. I don't care if it "upsets the balance", and as an infantry guard player I know it'll probably nerf me somewhat. But 4+ cover is far too easy to get. So, 5+ balances it somewhat.

So you just don't like the idea of 4+ cover? Never mind the fact that it's balanced or not (And it is)? Never mind the fact that most of the struggling army on the competitive scene live and die by cover save?

That's very disappointing, I was actually hopping for some intelligent discussion on the cover change.

Look, Tarkand, 4+ cover makes armor penetration irrelevant. Every small arm in the game might as well be AP--, and ordnance is dramatically hindered. It makes quality of firepower irrelevant, and that is hugely limiting from a game design standpoint. If the only quality is in quantity, then the game becomes almost deterministic. Grey Knights have the highest quantity now, it was Space Wolves before them, and IG before them.

The reason horde orks don't do well competitively is not because they aren't survivable enough. Hordes are slow and unfocused. They are forced to deploy in predictable patterns, thus easily flanked and overwhelmed. I can easily assault a mob such that reinforcements are unable to enter the combat, then destroy each mob one at a time. The changes won't make horde orks any worse.

Tarkand wrote:

Joey wrote:

Tarkand wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

Joey wrote:[

Models that are completely out of sight of the firing unit's squad leader have a 4+ cover save for the purpose of determining the majority cover save of the unit

It's not all doom and gloom!

You didn't really answer my 'Why' question. Aside from nerfing low armor army, what exactly does lowering cover bring to the table?

And when you consider that right now, the top army are ALL high armor armies (GK, BA, SW and IG thru their tanks) with the possible exception of 1 (DE)... Again, I just don't get why you say it's a must, when this rules help the armies that don't need help and hurt those who did.

As for the rule you posted... that's really not something that will come up often. Completely out of sight require some pretty specific table conditions.

Army-wide 4+ cover is just nonsense. I don't care if it "upsets the balance", and as an infantry guard player I know it'll probably nerf me somewhat. But 4+ cover is far too easy to get. So, 5+ balances it somewhat.

So you just don't like the idea of 4+ cover? Never mind the fact that it's balanced or not (And it is)? Never mind the fact that most of the struggling army on the competitive scene live and die by cover save?

That's very disappointing, I was actually hopping for some intelligent discussion on the cover change.

I'll happily allow my guardsmen die more easily if it means MEQ don't get a 4+ cover save from every fething pie plate I throw at them, on top of feel no pain.

Pask is going to be my hero in his LR's. BS4 much less scattering pie plates yes please! The bubble wrap can die as much as it needs to. Who knows, maybe I'll finally use "Send in the next wave" in an actual army for IG now. Cammo netting also will be an interesting add on again


On the flip side, isn't the sword also 2 handed for power armor GK? How about terminators, do halberds change there? I see them one handing the thing all the time

Incidentially the find option in acrobat has become my index of choice though I have printed a paper version for reading through in bathrooms

I don't get why there's so much hate about these new rules. I love everything I'm seeing; it looks like the game moves quickly, the rules are less ambiguous, and both assault and shooting have been improved. Even if this isn't a legit taste of what's to come in 6e, it's a really well designed set of rules that makes for some really interesting new game play options.

The clarification of FNP as a 'save' will also settle all those annoying rules disputes of FNP Vs. Whatever. The fixed movement rates are a huge boon, as is the classification of flyer with its well defined mechanics.

If it isn't a GW working ruleset, then whoever wrote this clearly put a lot of thought into it; and if it is, I look forward to seeing the final version.

The harsh responses about this pdf's possible lack of authenticity remind me of /r atheism on Reddit. "(Religion/this pdf) is fake and you are slowed for believing it" My response to both situations is the same as many on here: "Yes, it may be fake, but who does it hurt if we enjoy what we've found?"

I'm curious: in light of this PDF, how well does it mesh with the whitedwarf dex for Sisters? Does it actually make some measure of sense?

Joey wrote:

Tarkand wrote:

Joey wrote:

Tarkand wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

Joey wrote:[

Models that are completely out of sight of the firing unit's squad leader have a 4+ cover save for the purpose of determining the majority cover save of the unit

It's not all doom and gloom!

You didn't really answer my 'Why' question. Aside from nerfing low armor army, what exactly does lowering cover bring to the table?

And when you consider that right now, the top army are ALL high armor armies (GK, BA, SW and IG thru their tanks) with the possible exception of 1 (DE)... Again, I just don't get why you say it's a must, when this rules help the armies that don't need help and hurt those who did.

As for the rule you posted... that's really not something that will come up often. Completely out of sight require some pretty specific table conditions.

Army-wide 4+ cover is just nonsense. I don't care if it "upsets the balance", and as an infantry guard player I know it'll probably nerf me somewhat. But 4+ cover is far too easy to get. So, 5+ balances it somewhat.

So you just don't like the idea of 4+ cover? Never mind the fact that it's balanced or not (And it is)? Never mind the fact that most of the struggling army on the competitive scene live and die by cover save?

That's very disappointing, I was actually hopping for some intelligent discussion on the cover change.

I'll happily allow my guardsmen die more easily if it means MEQ don't get a 4+ cover save from every fething pie plate I throw at them, on top of feel no pain.

The most pie plates IG have are 8+ strength which ignores T4 feel no pain

ceku wrote:Im personally questioning the new phase order which is now moving, assault, shooting. Still can't get my head around how that will work.

This strike me a being beneficial to marines because it would mean that they could assault (and probably kill it if it's guard or tau) and then gun down another unit.

TechMarine1 wrote:

ceku wrote:Im personally questioning the new phase order which is now moving, assault, shooting. Still can't get my head around how that will work.

This strike me a being beneficial to marines because it would mean that they could assault (and probably kill it if it's guard or tau) and then gun down another unit.

And how is that going to work with assault weapons, which at one point they state will allow you to shoot before an assault. I know you can use them IN assault.... sort of.

Nagashek wrote:

TechMarine1 wrote:

ceku wrote:Im personally questioning the new phase order which is now moving, assault, shooting. Still can't get my head around how that will work.

This strike me a being beneficial to marines because it would mean that they could assault (and probably kill it if it's guard or tau) and then gun down another unit.

And how is that going to work with assault weapons, which at one point they state will allow you to shoot before an assault. I know you can use them IN assault.... sort of.

Shooting before the assault is what the extra attack represents if I am reading things correctly.

I think the confusion comes from their fluff description getting mixed up with the actual mechanics.

Gargantuan wrote:

Joey wrote:

Tarkand wrote:

Joey wrote:

Tarkand wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

Joey wrote:[

Models that are completely out of sight of the firing unit's squad leader have a 4+ cover save for the purpose of determining the majority cover save of the unit

It's not all doom and gloom!

You didn't really answer my 'Why' question. Aside from nerfing low armor army, what exactly does lowering cover bring to the table?

And when you consider that right now, the top army are ALL high armor armies (GK, BA, SW and IG thru their tanks) with the possible exception of 1 (DE)... Again, I just don't get why you say it's a must, when this rules help the armies that don't need help and hurt those who did.

As for the rule you posted... that's really not something that will come up often. Completely out of sight require some pretty specific table conditions.

Army-wide 4+ cover is just nonsense. I don't care if it "upsets the balance", and as an infantry guard player I know it'll probably nerf me somewhat. But 4+ cover is far too easy to get. So, 5+ balances it somewhat.

So you just don't like the idea of 4+ cover? Never mind the fact that it's balanced or not (And it is)? Never mind the fact that most of the struggling army on the competitive scene live and die by cover save?

That's very disappointing, I was actually hopping for some intelligent discussion on the cover change.

I'll happily allow my guardsmen die more easily if it means MEQ don't get a 4+ cover save from every fething pie plate I throw at them, on top of feel no pain.

The most pie plates IG have are 8+ strength which ignores T4 feel no pain

Plasma guns.
difference between 4+ and 5+ cover is an extra MEQ death per blast template.

Joey wrote:

Gargantuan wrote:

Joey wrote:

Tarkand wrote:

Joey wrote:

Tarkand wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

Joey wrote:[

Models that are completely out of sight of the firing unit's squad leader have a 4+ cover save for the purpose of determining the majority cover save of the unit

It's not all doom and gloom!

You didn't really answer my 'Why' question. Aside from nerfing low armor army, what exactly does lowering cover bring to the table?

And when you consider that right now, the top army are ALL high armor armies (GK, BA, SW and IG thru their tanks) with the possible exception of 1 (DE)... Again, I just don't get why you say it's a must, when this rules help the armies that don't need help and hurt those who did.

As for the rule you posted... that's really not something that will come up often. Completely out of sight require some pretty specific table conditions.

Army-wide 4+ cover is just nonsense. I don't care if it "upsets the balance", and as an infantry guard player I know it'll probably nerf me somewhat. But 4+ cover is far too easy to get. So, 5+ balances it somewhat.

So you just don't like the idea of 4+ cover? Never mind the fact that it's balanced or not (And it is)? Never mind the fact that most of the struggling army on the competitive scene live and die by cover save?

That's very disappointing, I was actually hopping for some intelligent discussion on the cover change.

I'll happily allow my guardsmen die more easily if it means MEQ don't get a 4+ cover save from every fething pie plate I throw at them, on top of feel no pain.

The most pie plates IG have are 8+ strength which ignores T4 feel no pain

Plasma guns.
difference between 4+ and 5+ cover is an extra MEQ death per blast template.

AP2 disallows FNP. I suspect you have been cheated.

No I'm just mashed and I forgot Plasma is AP 2.

The Crusader wrote:Really? Am I the only person who lives by Keep It Simple Stupid? the more complex something is, the more likely something will go wrong

On the contrary. What I think they're doing is adding many more standardised rules to the core rules set, and therefore reducing the need for each codex to have its own ambiguous little caveats and exceptions. Let's say a new codex comes out next year and I'm playing someone before having read their book. I'd be much happier knowing they can explain special rules in terms of "this unit has Shielded" or "this weapon is anti-aircraft" than needing to read out several paragraphs.

It's much easier to FAQ core rules than to find all the issues between all combinations of codexes. Standardising rules also cuts down on many of the inequalities (see the Tyranids FAQ and compare how their rules were treated compared to similar abilities for other races).

5th edition has bored me for a while due to the lack of variety and unrealistic limitations that rely on millions of army-specific special rules to work around. I think having a more varied core rules set to base on will do wonders for 40k in the future.

xttz wrote:

The Crusader wrote:Really? Am I the only person who lives by Keep It Simple Stupid? the more complex something is, the more likely something will go wrong

On the contrary. What I think they're doing is adding many more standardised rules to the core rules set, and therefore reducing the need for each codex to have its own ambiguous little caveats and exceptions. Let's say a new codex comes out next year and I'm playing someone before having read their book. I'd be much happier knowing they can explain special rules in terms of "this unit has Shielded" or "this weapon is anti-aircraft" than needing to read out several paragraphs....

...5th edition has bored me for a while due to the lack of variety and unrealistic limitations that rely on millions of army-specific special rules to work around. I think having a more varied core rules set to base on will do wonders for 40k in the future.

+1

Increasing the spectrum of abilities leads to more nuanced strategy and deeper game play, while also streamlining the actual process.

Nagashek wrote:

TechMarine1 wrote:

ceku wrote:Im personally questioning the new phase order which is now moving, assault, shooting. Still can't get my head around how that will work.

This strike me a being beneficial to marines because it would mean that they could assault (and probably kill it if it's guard or tau) and then gun down another unit.

And how is that going to work with assault weapons, which at one point they state will allow you to shoot before an assault. I know you can use them IN assault.... sort of.

I also find this the most disappointing factor, mostly because my army is centred around teleport and burn (Interceptors + Incinerators) This totally invalidates this tactic. I dont see any realistic reason why you cannot shoot who you are about to assault? And an extra attack doesnt mean squat when my incinerator is worth at least 12 extra power weapon attacks.... (usually get 6 kills with them on armys with a 4+ save or worse)

Jaon wrote:

Nagashek wrote:

TechMarine1 wrote:

ceku wrote:Im personally questioning the new phase order which is now moving, assault, shooting. Still can't get my head around how that will work.

This strike me a being beneficial to marines because it would mean that they could assault (and probably kill it if it's guard or tau) and then gun down another unit.

And how is that going to work with assault weapons, which at one point they state will allow you to shoot before an assault. I know you can use them IN assault.... sort of.

I also find this the most disappointing factor, mostly because my army is centred around teleport and burn (Interceptors + Incinerators) This totally invalidates this tactic. I dont see any realistic reason why you cannot shoot who you are about to assault? And an extra attack doesnt mean squat when my incinerator is worth at least 12 extra power weapon attacks.... (usually get 6 kills with them on armys with a 4+ save or worse)

Templates weapons can be used in close combat
in a turn the unit has assaulted. The damage is
resolved with the Strength and the AP of the
template weapon. Additional weapon rules are
ignored for this action and weapons without a
Strength characteristic cannot be used; they are
too delicate to be used in an assault.

Fire Sweep
Model Type: Combat, Strike
A model with a suitable weapon may execute a
fire sweep instead of its normal attacks if its unit
has assaulted this turn. The model makes D6
attacks regardless of its Attack value or any bonus
attacks. The attacks are made at the Initiative
value of the model and hit automatically. Roll
separately to determine how many attacks the
model makes if it assaults again in a later turn.
the restrictions of these conditions.

Yup, I find this incredibly amazing. It makes flamers an interesting option in CC. D6 auto-hitting Str5 AP4 hits is made of awsome in my book, even better would be 4D6 auto-hitting Str5 AP4 hits.

Yeah but when I would usually easily hit 6 off the bat...with the potential to hit one. I guess its better than nothing though, I shouldnt complain.

Patch Up on the other hand? Is it just me or does it say "YOU MUST MAKE A PATCHUP ACTION" if you have wounded models in your squad?

Does this mean that if I have 2 wounded paladin's in my paladin squad, I have to kill a hero of the chapter, worthy of being grandmaster, just to heal another one? Every turn!?

As far as I can tell you get +1 to you if you DON'T move.
Since rapid fire isn't affected by movement in these rules, does this mean we're all going to have to move our troops half an inch so we don't get blown up?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also just noticed you disembark in the "consolidation" phase, i..e you can't move, disembark, shoot, assault.
That's VERY handy.

Jaon wrote:Yeah but when I would usually easily hit 6 off the bat...with the potential to hit one. I guess its better than nothing though, I shouldnt complain.

Patch Up on the other hand? Is it just me or does it say "YOU MUST MAKE A PATCHUP ACTION" if you have wounded models in your squad?

Does this mean that if I have 2 wounded paladin's in my paladin squad, I have to kill a hero of the chapter, worthy of being grandmaster, just to heal another one? Every turn!?

Yep. But at least Paladins are naturally tough to kill. Nobz, on the other hand, really got the shaft.

Also, funny tidbit: Patch up happens in the consolidation phase, which is after Assault and Shooting. So you can still do some wound sillyness, and only lose effective after your turn is pretty much over

Looks like the rules for multiple scatter severely nerf Manticores. Basically each template that a firing unit has to be in contact with another template without overlapping, if you can't do that it's discarded.
Though it does make clumping up your troops more forgiving, I can't see anyone taking manticores with this rule.