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.

Agamemnon2 wrote:Miniscule by comparison to this. If this were true, it would be the largest single change in any GW core game design since 1998, when 3E came out.

It doesn't seem that far out from the recent edition of fantasy which was regarded as a huge change. Fantasy also needed it a hell of a lot less then 40k does.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Agamemnon2 wrote:Which is why GW probably tried these rules and discarded them. A version transition where the entire metagame is thrown into chaos is not really int their best interests.

A large shift in the metagame sells a lot of models encouraging players to field builds that aren't the cookie cutter crap that fifth has developed into. Whether its in their long term interests is up for hyperbolic debate since none of you are clairvoyant, but in the short term edition changes almost always bring significant profits in tabletop gaming, card gaming, and PnP games.

Squidmanlol wrote:
It causes the player to define their army as "shooty" or "assaulty", for most armies it makes sense as they are already predefined (you don't see many shooty Nids or assaulty Tau).

Skuppers armies that are meant to be both, or rely on a combination, such as assaulty armies with shooty transports.

People keep talking about change being bad for GW. You guys need to realize that 5th edition is not actually a healthy metagame in the long run. The samey-same cookie cutter gameplay and parking lots are great in the short term, but once everyone has a bunch of tanks, the game slowly starts to lose people. Games like this make money on occasional upheaval at just the right interval.

I hate to keep making the connection to wizards, but every time wizards changes everything up, magic has another golden age.

Agamemnon2 wrote:

STUCARIUS wrote:Of course I did not think just an old rule like "Defensive Fire" could be misunderstood to start with but I am a self acknowledged idiot for thinking so.

It's not an "old rule" in 40k context. No version of the game has ever had anything like it.

I'm curious. How are, say, Wyches supposed to charge anything if every single assault results in them being cut down like wheat? That's right, they can't.

Its been around in fantasy for a while though. Its called "stand and shoot". Sort of like the new charging and marching rules were lifted directly from fantasy battle.

Agamemnon2 wrote:Miniscule by comparison to this. If this were true, it would be the largest single change in any GW core game design since 1998, when 3E came out.

One can quibble over what is or is not "minuscule", but the move to v8 definitely did change WHFB radically which cuts against the thesis that GW has done nothing other than take less and less design risks...

Valete,

JohnS

Squidmanlolz wrote:

Sephyr wrote:Regardless of this being legit or not, GW really should pay attention because a ton of rules and ideas are getting a crapton of playtesting/theorycrafting now. I imagine the actual books are likely heading to the printers now and it may be too late to change anything, but still....

I doubt anything's getting printed just yet, 6th edition is still a while away...

Things happen quite a while out. Video games don't get completed on May 4th then shipped to stores May 7th, there's a three to four month period where the code is copied, discs are produced, cases are manufactured, and games are shipped. I would suspect that the same applies for this book. The rulebook gets finalized this month, the master copy gets copied and sent to the printers, then shipped out to all GW warehouses, stores, and LFGS's. I think if the rulebooks aren't already at the printers, they soon will be.

Honestly I'd say, after reading all these pages that the best evidence for this NOT to be real is that everyone likes it. It is accounted by most to appear well written, thorough, cool, fun, balanced, make a ton of sense, and allow a great variance of play at all levels of the game, with even allowing out dated books to shine nicely.

This has not been a hallmark of GW games design since before I started at 3e 40k (except on the Fantasy side, who most people felt was written by a wholly different group of people).

I'm just hoping that the real deal (whatever that turns out to be) is as good or better than this. If this is a real copy, great job, GW. If it's fake, well, you guys have a hell of a thing to live up to.

jvry8c wrote:hopefully its fake. Some things are interesting (snipers being able to pick who is wounded) but overall it kills the game and breaks game standards that have existed in 40k since 2ed edition ex: order of the turn. also the B.S. vs evasion is kind of dumb as well.

Oh you mean the mech meta and the predominance of wound shenanigans on units of multiwound minis? The predominance of melta weapons and autocannons in armies that can take them? Don't even get me started on the other issues....

@STUCARIUS: dude, are you really not getting this or are you just trolling?

He must be, either that or he hasn't realized that 95% of the posters in this thread are telling him he is wrong for a reason...

Anyone else find people arguing rules from a leaked playtest document hilarious?

and sad... dont forget sad...

ON another note, it's nice to see my wish that terrain become part of your army choice (via a very strange mechanism but I can't have everything)

well, not exactly... you can augment terrain via your army choice... MAYBE, but terrain is still something done outside of your army list

Wow this is just wonderful. We finally have a great set of rules and people who must have reading comprehension that is maybe 1st grade level are going to screw this game up just like they have the last two editions before it even gets released. This is greatest condemnation of the quality of gamers I have ever seen.

I have been playing tabletop Wargames for 36 years. Defensive fire is an old and true rule. You people are completely and totally reading all of these rules like a Baptist preacher justifying his hatred of homosexuals.

Don't worry about me. I generally stay away from this idiocy and I will re-establish my nonaligned policy.

It was that just for maybe 72 hours I had actually hoped that rules written clearly and well could not be misunderstood even by the people who brought us the INAT. But I guess that was just a pipe dream.

Play the stupid game this way. it will be fun. NOT!!!

This is what is called a "Keystone Mechanic" if you take it away or misapply it, the way many here are, and the game will not play in anything that comes close to balanced.

I do not have to worry about being right ow wrong. Reality will soon prove me right as you folks try to actually play this game while incorrectly using an old rule like Defensive Fire which I am sure the guys at the Studio thought was so completely self descriptive that not even 40K gamers could screw it up.

SURPRISE!!!! Go ahead. PLay the game where all units do not get defensive fire using the new mechanics for Assault and its aftermath. It will not take you long to catch on.

Of course I did not think just an old rule like "Defensive Fire" could be misunderstood to start with but I am a self acknowledged idiot for thinking so.

There is no requirement that one game designer stick to another prior interpretation of a rule with the same name. Keep on trollin'! If it makes you feel any better, i arrived at the same conclusion you did when I read the rules the first time... until I got to page 140. Its okay, I understand that finishing a book is 2nd grade level reading, if you haven't made it that far we understand...

When is the last time that?
A: People planned against a competitive Tyranid list
B: Fielded a bug list that was not stealer or tervigon spam

Uhhh hi? Homagaunt and shrike spammer here... oh and I use carnifexes and ymgarl stealers and the only shooting attacks in my force come from fex bio-plasma and a unit of zoanthropes...

as for the arguments that this would alter the meta and thats bad for GW: guess again. Its very very good for GW. The mech meta is unsustainable (as is any meta really), after 5 years of 5th edition veteran gamers have basically already bought all transports they need... what product has GW not really moved off shelves in a while? Infantry. People are more or less running min-max lists again, except this time its the minimum number of infantry figs you can take to get a nice transport for the unit as opposed to special/heavy weapons. GW stands to make serious money from renewed infantry sales, especially from Guard players who will soon find it more advantageous to play powerblobbed footguard lists and nid players that will see new utility from their Hormagaunts. Hell, even necron armies will see increased infantry sales as people wake up and smell the roses and realize that large warrior units are pretty damned good.

Kevlar wrote:

Agamemnon2 wrote:

STUCARIUS wrote:Of course I did not think just an old rule like "Defensive Fire" could be misunderstood to start with but I am a self acknowledged idiot for thinking so.

It's not an "old rule" in 40k context. No version of the game has ever had anything like it.

I'm curious. How are, say, Wyches supposed to charge anything if every single assault results in them being cut down like wheat? That's right, they can't.

Its been around in fantasy for a while though. Its called "stand and shoot". Sort of like the new charging and marching rules were lifted directly from fantasy battle.

Except that not every single unit in fantasy has a shooting attack, and nearly every unit in fantasy is comprised of more than 10 models! Wyches (as a for instance) would be useless as hell. And if you think that it wouldn't be an issue for anyone else, tell me how Orks or Marines will feel after an attempted charge into Tau lines...

Why does everyone hate vehicles? Why do you want to play sci-fi games with infantry blocks? lol

In my opinion GW would be stupid to make vehicles gak and try to "push infantry sales" like what's being suggested here, simply because vehicle kits are big and expensive and everyone will want them. Your argument about "veterans" is also useless because it's been well-established that GW doesn't care about veterans, and new players don't have "all the transports they'll ever need".

I'm not sure I really get that either. Why would you want one to be "better" than the other anyway? Why do vehicles need to be nerfed to sell infantry? Make both of them worth taking and they'll both be worth buying. Right?

Maybe GW has been slowly preparing for this day? Maybe we are not all smarter then an entire division dedicated to making money...

Think about it, with every new release or redo, they take big infantry boxes and instead of giving you 20 infantry they give you 10 for the same price. Maybe this has been a long term goal of Gw, lets be honest here, GW may do dumb things in our eyes, but they know how to make money. No company sits here and says how can we make fast money, they plan for long term investments.

I don't think they roll into work and be like 'HEY LETS MAKE A NEW EDITION AND RELEASE IT NEXT MONTH!"

Sidstyler wrote:Why does everyone hate vehicles? Why do you want to play sci-fi games with infantry blocks? lol

Its not that we hate vehicles, its that we like infantry... you know, the models EVERY ARMY is required to have, but that rarely ever see the light of day because they are too busy hiding in metal bawkses? Yeah, those... 40k is world war 1/2 in space,not futuristic tank battles.

In my opinion GW would be stupid to make vehicles gak and try to "push infantry sales" like what's being suggested here, simply because vehicle kits are big and expensive and everyone will want them. Your argument about "veterans" is also useless because it's been well-established that GW doesn't care about veterans, and new players don't have "all the transports they'll ever need".

GW can make a lot more money selling infantry kits than it can selling transport models. An IG mechvets list is 6 boxes of infantry, 6 chimeras, a couple valks and maybe a leman russ... a footguard list is what 15 boxes of infantry squads minimum, plus another 5-6 boxes of heavy weapon squads for the same points value?

As for my argument about veterans being useless... its the exact reason why its valid. GW doesn't care about screwing us over, which is why they have no qualms with invalidating our existing forces and making us start anew. Really, the influx of new players isn't that big (and its actually driving the second hand market). The North Jersey gaming community has become quite 'nomadic' (due to the efforts of certain hobbyists) if you would care to use that term, and I and others frequent a variety of stores, about 6 in all. Across those 6 stores, I can count maybe 2 new players total in the past year, and neither one of them really stuck with the hobby (nor did they even come close to accumulating more than 1000 pts of stuff from what I can recall). Meanwhile in the past 6 months I alone have dropped about 300-400 dollars on GW product, and I know several other fellow hobbyists that have done the same if not more.

I'm not sure I really get that either. Why would you want one to be "better" than the other anyway? Why do vehicles need to be nerfed to sell infantry? Make both of them worth taking and they'll both be worth buying. Right?

Its not about making tanks worse, they are still going to be a powerhouse, its about making infantry the focus of the game as they should be, but the fact of the matter is the current meta is mech, everyone is maxing out on vehicles and min-maxing infantry to this end. These rules end that and make proper-sized infantry squads the norm again. Finally I won't get strange looks when I tell people I have a TEN man squad of Dire Avengers in that transport WITH AN EXARCH TO BOOT instead of the typical DAVU unit...

Sidstyler wrote:Why does everyone hate vehicles? Why do you want to play sci-fi games with infantry blocks? lol

In my opinion GW would be stupid to make vehicles gak and try to "push infantry sales" like what's being suggested here, simply because vehicle kits are big and expensive and everyone will want them. Your argument about "veterans" is also useless because it's been well-established that GW doesn't care about veterans, and new players don't have "all the transports they'll ever need".

I'm not sure I really get that either. Why would you want one to be "better" than the other anyway? Why do vehicles need to be nerfed to sell infantry? Make both of them worth taking and they'll both be worth buying. Right?

Actually, this is why I like these rules. Vehicles weren't nerfed hard. Their nerfing was very slight. To the point where I'm not even sure they were nerfed. But the ruleset, taken as a whole, now makes it just as viable to go with infantry as with mech spam now.

ShumaGorath wrote:A large shift in the metagame sells a lot of models encouraging players to field builds that aren't the cookie cutter crap that fifth has developed into. Whether its in their long term interests is up for hyperbolic debate since none of you are clairvoyant, but in the short term edition changes almost always bring significant profits in tabletop gaming, card gaming, and PnP games.

I'm clairvoyant.

...clairvoyant is a synonym for 'handsome', right?

Rented Tritium wrote:I hate to keep making the connection to wizards, but every time wizards changes everything up, magic has another golden age.

When did this happen, exactly? I stopped playing M:tG shortly after the Type II Academy decks fiasco.

Sidstyler wrote:I'm not sure I really get that either. Why would you want one to be "better" than the other anyway? Why do vehicles need to be nerfed to sell infantry? Make both of them worth taking and they'll both be worth buying. Right?

Because right now, vehicles are much better than infantry, so Nerfing the vehicles is levelling the playing field between the two. However, I don't really see any Nerfing happening; I actually just see vehicles taking on more specific roles as either tanks or transports rather than the end-all-be-all solutions they currently are. Additionally, I see infantry being given additional utility, and taking on more of a central role to be supported by mech, and not the other way around.

EDIT: Wow, Chaos0xomega ninja'd be big on this one.

chaos0xomega wrote:40k is world war 1/2 in space,not futuristic tank battles.

I think it's both of those things and then some, actually.

chaos0xomega wrote:Yeah, those... 40k is world war 1/2 in space,not futuristic tank battles.

Except GW makes over 50 different tank models. More if you include Forge World.

I don't hate vehicles, quite fond of them actually, but I hate the utter dependance on them that 5th edition has brought. I don't want vehicles nerfed into the ground, and I don't think this ruleset does that. I want a better balance between foot lists and mech lists, which I think I see in this PDF.

Two things I'm curious about, and don't know if either has been brought up though I've read the large majority of the posts. If you look on page 96 (75 of the PDF) on the left it shows an example of the two statlines for a plasma pistol, one as a shooting weapon and one as a combat weapon. On the left it lists it as Rending while the chart on the right does not. I'm assuming it is omitted from the chart on the right as the low AP weaponry like melta is also rending. Makes plasma pistols on sergeants very attractive, especially when paired with a fist. Gives the option to slam with the coarse fist, or swap to a S7 plasma pistol which isn't a power weapon, but at least rends if you really need to apply some directed hits.

Also I know that only generic one handed power weapons allow the parry invulnerable save, which makes me curious with regards to banshees. With Mirrorswords on an Exarch, would the extra attack given deprive her of the parry save?

All in all I'm thrilled with the new rules and I'm glad to see upgrades that people didn't hardly even think about come to the forefront again like extra armor, plain old power weapons, plasma pistols, the eavy armor on nobs and such to change their armor group. Really makes use of a lot of the wasted depth the game already contains.

"Combat" entries are what you use when you use the weapon in close combat.

Yes, you lose the parry bonus on Mirrorswords as they have an additional rule. Also they are not power weapons, they just ignore armor saves..makes a difference now.

Posit wrote:
Actually, this is why I like these rules. Vehicles weren't nerfed hard. Their nerfing was very slight. To the point where I'm not even sure they were nerfed. But the ruleset, taken as a whole, now makes it just as viable to go with infantry as with mech spam now.

This. Vehicles are actually immensely dangerous now: being able to fire several weapons at once, with firing ports that grant relentless to embarked units (turning rhinos carrying Blastmater noise marines into mini-vindicators!), letting you move 6' and then disembark troops that can still assault 6"...and that mob of orks/zerkers punching your rhino open might not like when it explodes and insta-kills 15%+ of their horde!

I am a bit concerned about some things being -way- to easy to hit now: monstrous creatures, large tanks...any non-flyer within 12". Shooting seems to be outpacing melee, and I'm not sure melee is being given enough tools to keep up.

One thing I haven't been able to clarify is the Alpha Strike rule. The file is quite poorly organized and I haven't had time to read it calmly. Also, if there is a way for a unit to break a transport in CC and still assault the passengers (Charge by chance, perhaps?)

Maelstrom808 wrote:"Combat" entries are what you use when you use the weapon in close combat.

I understand this, my point is the "Combat" entry on the left side of the page lists S7 AP 5 Combat, Pistol 1 RENDING,Get's Hot! under the example of Plasma Pistol. If you look on the right side of the page, in the chart of pistols it is listed as S7 AP 5 Combat, Pistol , Get's Hot. It can't both have and not have rending so one of the listings must be in error.

And while I agree with you about the Mirrorsword issue, it seems kind of silly.

Alpha Strike is something a unit can perform against an enemy unit already in combat.


Say I have unit A tied up with your unit A from a previous combat. I bring in my unit B into the assault with your unit A. Since your unit A was already in combat, my unit B can strike at initiative 10.

basically if you assault a unit that is already locked you may alpha strike at I 10 as long as the unit doesn't have an ability that allows it to ignore terrain effects. also a unit with at least half of its models in terrain (cover) that isnt locked from a previous turn can alpha strike as well.

AresX8 wrote:Alpha Strike is something a unit can perform against an enemy unit already in combat.


Say I have unit A tied up with your unit A from a previous combat. I bring in my unit B into the assault with your unit A. Since your unit A was already in combat, my unit B can strike at initiative 10.

I love this rule. Adds a truly sexy sting onto a counter attack, especially from something like Khorne Berserkers (in my case).

Angel_of_Rust wrote:
Also I know that only generic one handed power weapons allow the parry invulnerable save, which makes me curious with regards to banshees. With Mirrorswords on an Exarch, would the extra attack given deprive her of the parry save?

Im sure if that was the case it wont be long until Eldar get a new codex after 6th anyway and it will be fixed in there (If these really are real).

chaos0xomega wrote:
Its not about making tanks worse, they are still going to be a powerhouse, its about making infantry the focus of the game as they should be, but the fact of the matter is the current meta is mech, everyone is maxing out on vehicles and min-maxing infantry to this end. These rules end that and make proper-sized infantry squads the norm again. Finally I won't get strange looks when I tell people I have a TEN man squad of Dire Avengers in that transport WITH AN EXARCH TO BOOT instead of the typical DAVU unit...

Another thing to chew on, the Exarchs for Fire Dragons, Banshees, and Dire Avengers all have a better armor save than their average squad mates. Always seemed kind of useless in the past with majority armor. Very, very awesome for dodging directed hits in this leak though.

I think vehicles are actually more lethal. Read the rules for ram, if you take a squad of leman russes they all count as moving simultaneously so you can form up and run over a 30 man mob of orks and if they don't make 6" range to escape it's a free crit. Crazy good.

I like how Monoliths got a major buff. When you look at how powerful they are, then look back to see its point cost reduction, and the fact that stuff can assault out of the portal, and it can deep strike without scattering.... man are we gonna be seeing a lot more of them.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Agamemnon2 wrote:Miniscule by comparison to this. If this were true, it would be the largest single change in any GW core game design since 1998, when 3E came out.

It doesn't seem that far out from the recent edition of fantasy which was regarded as a huge change. Fantasy also needed it a hell of a lot less then 40k does.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Agamemnon2 wrote:Which is why GW probably tried these rules and discarded them. A version transition where the entire metagame is thrown into chaos is not really int their best interests.

A large shift in the metagame sells a lot of models encouraging players to field builds that aren't the cookie cutter crap that fifth has developed into. Whether its in their long term interests is up for hyperbolic debate since none of you are clairvoyant, but in the short term edition changes almost always bring significant profits in tabletop gaming, card gaming, and PnP games.

I just realized I was reading every single post of yours now, Shuma. I totally agree! Guess I gotta take you off ignore. lol Not sure if I've changed or you have but, gimme five!

It sounds like the game is getting a heck of a lot more detailed on how things would really happen if it were real. Im really starting to like the sound of some of this stuff, hope its real