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.

Allies: Take them or leave them, Makes sense either way. It does give me more leeway to mess with people. I've always randomly rotated the army(1 of 3) I use anyway so now I can add even more options to the rotation.

It makes sense that vehicles die easier than now. Necrons and Space Wolves just seem to break it, just using the rumors. There may yet be some other factors to contend with, like maybe a single unit can only cause 1 Hull point of damage regardless of how many glances hit it. I didn't see any rules on how the Hull points worked, and how damage wass tracked on vehicles now.

d-usa wrote:

Byte wrote:

xttz wrote:So is the rulebook actually available in stores for people to read? I got the impression it was but thought we'd have more of the missing pieces by now.

Negative, all the points in this thread are based on rumors and speculative information. Funny that there's already RAW debates.

RAR (Rules as Rumored) just doesn't have the same flair.

I like that, RAR!

Byte wrote:

xttz wrote:So is the rulebook actually available in stores for people to read? I got the impression it was but thought we'd have more of the missing pieces by now.

Negative, all the points in this thread are based on rumors and speculative information. Funny that there's already RAW debates.

I think that its funnier that at least 50% of the post in this thread are using 5th ed rules to prove that 6th is broken.

Palindrome wrote:

Byte wrote:

xttz wrote:So is the rulebook actually available in stores for people to read? I got the impression it was but thought we'd have more of the missing pieces by now.

Negative, all the points in this thread are based on rumors and speculative information. Funny that there's already RAW debates.

I think that its funnier that at least 50% of the post in this thread are using 5th ed rules to prove that 6th is broken.

Bingo +1

Palindrome wrote:

Byte wrote:

xttz wrote:So is the rulebook actually available in stores for people to read? I got the impression it was but thought we'd have more of the missing pieces by now.

Negative, all the points in this thread are based on rumors and speculative information. Funny that there's already RAW debates.

I think that its funnier that at least 50% of the post in this thread are using 5th ed rules to prove that 6th is broken.

I was thinking the same thing. It will be different, everyone will play different. Change is good.

Byte wrote:

xttz wrote:So is the rulebook actually available in stores for people to read? I got the impression it was but thought we'd have more of the missing pieces by now.

Negative, all the points in this thread are based on rumors and speculative information. Funny that there's already RAW debates.

How inaccurate are you expecting these rumours and speculative information to be?

Just Dave wrote:How inaccurate are you expecting these rumours and speculative information to be?

Doesn't matter how accurate they are when they're 98% (random number) incomplete. You can't judge a system based on a few choice snippets. For all we know, Tanks have a 2+ invulnerable save and Hull Points regenerate every turn. Probably not, but I think it illustrates my point.

So between premeasuring and range/Los sniping, overwatch, snap fire, easier vehicle kills, rapid fire improvement, etc. shooting got better overall.

Assaults are now random movement, subject to defensive fire, lose distance when shot (pulling from the front means that ground needs to be made up), losing attacks on a multi-assault...

Are there any good assault rumors? The flying MC rules are interesting but I don't see them making Nids more viable when you also include all the other rules changes.

Oh, and all the people who said "Nids will be fine with overwatch, snap fire, and removing from the front - you're looking at the rules with a 5th Ed mindset!" tell me that again with a straight face. Sure, vehicles die easier. That's about the only good thing I'm seeing.

lord_blackfang wrote:

Just Dave wrote:How inaccurate are you expecting these rumours and speculative information to be?

Doesn't matter how accurate they are when they're 98% (random number) incomplete. You can't judge a system based on a few choice snippets. For all we know, Tanks have a 2+ invulnerable save and Hull Points regenerate every turn. Probably not, but I think it illustrates my point.

@Just Dave. This+1. I don't know what we(I) don't know. None of us do at this point.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

BladeWalker wrote:

Palindrome wrote:

Byte wrote:

xttz wrote:So is the rulebook actually available in stores for people to read? I got the impression it was but thought we'd have more of the missing pieces by now.

Negative, all the points in this thread are based on rumors and speculative information. Funny that there's already RAW debates.

I think that its funnier that at least 50% of the post in this thread are using 5th ed rules to prove that 6th is broken.

I was thinking the same thing. It will be different, everyone will play different. Change is good.

Agreed! 5th was stale and predictable. I knew what army list would be just by knowing the army I was facing in tourneys AND friendly games. I game at stores exclusively, no dark basement with well known friends in my 40K world.

lord_blackfang wrote:

Just Dave wrote:How inaccurate are you expecting these rumours and speculative information to be?

Doesn't matter how accurate they are when they're 98% (random number) incomplete. You can't judge a system based on a few choice snippets. For all we know, Tanks have a 2+ invulnerable save and Hull Points regenerate every turn. Probably not, but I think it illustrates my point.

I disagree. While obviously we don't know everything, I'd say it's closer to 98% complete than incomplete,with many things being carried over from previous editions anyway.
Short of hull points regenerating every turn - which there's been no suggestion of - I'd say it's safe to assume that vehicles are more fragile.
Unless we find out something radically new - again, unlikely - then it's probably safe to assume assault armies are suffering as well; between the 'nerf' to multi-assaults, defensive/snap fire, casualties being taken from the front and random charge distance.

I'm not advocating rules arguments or lawyering, doomsday cries or that we already know everything, but I'd say it's pretty safe to assume we know the majority of the changes taking place or at least their general nature.

HAZZER wrote:

JB wrote:

HAZZER wrote:I'll reapate the question I asked a few pages ago becuase I've not no resonce;

Dice and tape mesure limted edtion? I was told in GW they wasen't going to be? HELP!!!!!!!!!!

Why are you worried? Just order them when they are finally available. You haven't missed them yet.

Thanks, do you know how long the delay is going to be?

No. Kroothawk is keeping the latest information on release dates on Page 1 of this thread. Please read that information. You will see the original scheduled release dates as well as the note from GW's Facebook page which mentioned the delay.

Kroot is doing a lot of work on that page to keep it up to date. It's well worth a visit.

Just Dave wrote:I'm not advocating rules arguments or lawyering, doomsday cries or that we already know everything, but I'd say it's pretty safe to assume we know the majority of the changes taking place or at least their general nature.

No, this outlook is typical for the forums but it's wrong. It's like assuming a unit has been dropped from a Codex because the rumors don't mention it.

We have no info what any of the vehicle subtypes do, for instance (except a little bit on Flyers). We have partial rules for what, 3 old USRs? And no clue about the Codex-specific errata.

Got a question regarding preordering. I've never preordered something from GW before, so should I expect my copy of the Gamers' Edition on release day or the Monday after? I had to get it shipped to my house because my closest GW is 90 mins away and I'm probably working on the Saturday. :(

Palindrome wrote:

Byte wrote:

xttz wrote:So is the rulebook actually available in stores for people to read? I got the impression it was but thought we'd have more of the missing pieces by now.

Negative, all the points in this thread are based on rumors and speculative information. Funny that there's already RAW debates.

I think that its funnier that at least 50% of the post in this thread are using 5th ed rules to prove that 6th is broken.

To be Fair you can tell Necrons and GKs were creating reguarding the 6E rules adding in Mastery Levels, Heavy Vehicle type and the like.

Griever wrote:[
Orks allying with fething everybody is especially slowed. Orks don't fething ally with anybody.

OK, this is the part I just had to comment on. It's specifically part of the long-standing, well-established, uncontradicted background that Blood Axe clan orks trade with, and fight for, Imperial forces on occasion. It's also part of the long-standing, well-established, uncontradicted background that Von Straab allied with the orks on Armageddon to protect his cowardly hide (even to the point of having an orkish bodyguard contingent).

Orks specifically do ally with at least some people.

Either you are unaware of long-standing GW background, in which case you shouldn't be harping on it, or you don't care what the background is, and are just complaining because you don't like the Allies rules.


I'm not pretending that I think the Allies rules are perfect, and some of them appear to be inconsistent or totally irrational (BT & Sisters can't get along?). Of course, they will be abused by some/many players. I can't think of any coherent way to argue against that.

On the other hand, a LOT of the alliances make sense if you think of them like this:

On the board, you have two groups of models. The models that come out of your points allowance, that do stuff on your turn, and the models that do stuff on the opponent's turn and do stuff then. If it's not one of them, it's one of yours. It's either 'your army', or your 'allies'.

Thinking of it in terms of the game universe, if you and some orks are fighting, and a massive amount of Tyranids show up, neither you, nor the orks, can win if the tyranids aren't defeated. You and the orks are allies against the tyranids.




Games Workshop isn't going to rewrite their rules set (especially not when releasing a new edition with new rules already) to cover 3+ sided battles that break the IGO-UGO model of their game. They just aren't going to do that. Thus, if you want three different armies on the battlefield, two of them have to be on the same side. That's all "Allies" means to me.

If you want to play a game with three or more sides, then you're welcome to do so as a house game, but I don't think you can expect support for it in the basic rulebook support from GW.

I'm not defending their specific alliance rules. I haven't really read those rules, other than the limited amount posted in their previews. I'm just acknowledging that there are three real options for allowing someone (yourself, or another player) to field a third army on the tabletop:

You can't. There are only two sides.
You can. Make up your own rules to do it.
Fine, but they fight on one of the two pre-existing sides.

The fourth isn't something GW is doing right now:

OK. Here's rules for 3+ way battles that depart substantially from the alternating turn ruleset that we have flogged for 25 years. We rewrote everything so it makes sense with more than two sides.

Re: the glances removing a hull point.

Is that confirmed, I see on the page 1 snippets several references to gauss removing a hull point, but nothing about glances generally doing that.

H.B.M.C. wrote:In those two first examples they're not "allies" insaniak. They're just fighting at the same time. It's not even a 'the enemy of my enemy' situation either.

Don't be so intentionally ignorant of the reasons some of us dislike this. We once had a huge mega-game where Eldar and Chaos fought side by side because the Eldar wanted the Chaos Lord to free his hand from the Wailing Doom he had become bonded to (so their plan was to let him succeed and then attack him). It didn't make them 'allies'.

I think H.B.M.C. may have articulated part of the problem. It's the word 'allies'. To anyone else but GW, this connotes, I don't know, 'allegiance", or 'alliance'. GW decided to slap that label on something else: "fighting at the same time".

Your GW-sanctioned allies aren't really 'allies'. They fight at the same time. Your allies go on your turn, and calculate victory conditions based on your side. That's really all.


Again, I'm not defending their alliance matrix. I can't see how, possibly, BT and Sisters aren't allies. Some of the others make no sense to me, either.

However, the concept isn't inherently bad. It's the way to allow three armies in a two-sided game system.

It will probably lead to a lot of broken builds and problematic game questions, but as a concept, it's solid. Poorly named, but solid.

How many points for Forge World Terrain?

Yep, that's the whole idea of them now. That's their only effect. If you don't believe several people have access to the actual rulebooks (EG, the Hive Mind quote), then you'll know that from White Dwarf.

Because I'm too lazy to read 62 pages to see if this has been answered..............

What do you now need to play the game?
Rulebook - Check
Templates - Check
Psycic Cards ????
New types of Dice????

You only need psychic cards if you plan on taking the new psychic powers and you have a terrible memory if you do. Otherwise, not needed.

The new dice seem really important though annoyingly. With the random special objectives and needing to take account of loads of new things with vehicles, I don't know if normal dice standing in, or modelled objectives will be too helpful on their own.

Da Butcha wrote:

H.B.M.C. wrote:In those two first examples they're not "allies" insaniak. They're just fighting at the same time. It's not even a 'the enemy of my enemy' situation either.

Don't be so intentionally ignorant of the reasons some of us dislike this. We once had a huge mega-game where Eldar and Chaos fought side by side because the Eldar wanted the Chaos Lord to free his hand from the Wailing Doom he had become bonded to (so their plan was to let him succeed and then attack him). It didn't make them 'allies'.

I think H.B.M.C. may have articulated part of the problem. It's the word 'allies'. To anyone else but GW, this connotes, I don't know, 'allegiance", or 'alliance'. GW decided to slap that label on something else: "fighting at the same time".

Your GW-sanctioned allies aren't really 'allies'. They fight at the same time. Your allies go on your turn, and calculate victory conditions based on your side. That's really all.


Again, I'm not defending their alliance matrix. I can't see how, possibly, BT and Sisters aren't allies. Some of the others make no sense to me, either.

However, the concept isn't inherently bad. It's the way to allow three armies in a two-sided game system.

It will probably lead to a lot of broken builds and problematic game questions, but as a concept, it's solid. Poorly named, but solid.

Which is why those types of alliances are not named "allies" but rather "allies of convenience". Seriously, it's even in the teaser. In this case, it's us players fething up the terminology, not GW.

TheSecretSquig wrote:Because I'm too lazy to read 62 pages to see if this has been answered..............

What do you now need to play the game?
Rulebook - Check
Templates - Check
Psycic Cards ????
New types of Dice????

You just need the rulebook and templates.

The psychic cards are a gameplay aid, allowing you to reference the psychic powers at a glance rather than having to dig through the book.

I don't think there are new types of dice, the set included in the Gamer's Edition is just there alongside of the dice holders to--again--serve as gameplay aids for if you don't have objective markers, etc.

The new dice where in the White Dwarf, but they've been delayed, GW will let us know when they are available again.. or somesuch.

edit - looking at them though, they just seem to be markers and dice with icons instead of numbers from various tables, much like with the old Vehicle dice from the 5th launch, so I doubt they are required, just a nice extra for those who want them.

Therion wrote:

If they can't capture then i think air-cav got a lot worse.

One has to be crazy to keep troops inside flyers in the first place. Every model takes a S10 hit with no saves of any kind allowed if they're inside a flyer (in fly mode) when it dies. Well, every other troop than Necrons that is, because if a Night Scythe pops the embarked guys come in from the reserve.

The preview video from GW (link on page 1 of this thread) shows the paragraph for "Crash and Burn" where the passengers of a zooming flying transport take the S10 hit if the flier is wrecked or explodes. However, it is not quite certain that "no saves..." are allowed. The visible wording shows "no armour...saves". It remains unclear whether invulnerable saves and/or FNP is allowed. The current 5th Edition wording for FNP would not allow it in this case since FNP doesn't work when a wound is caused by something that doesn't allow an armour save, but we don't know yet what the wording will be for 6th Edition FNP.

Any word on my personal bugbear, namely, if there are a gak load of Gretchin bogging down my Dred, can I gleefully flame the fethers?! I mean, it cant hurt his adamantium hide, so why not eh?

Or a bunch of puny eldar are hacking up my Marines, why the hell cant I brass them up anyway, safe in the knowledge that their blessed power armour will protect them?!

Being totally banned from ever shooting into combat has never made any sense to me.

If I'm reading the rumours right, FNP won't work for instant death, which for nearly all units that can be in a vehicle, str 10 would be?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

mattyrm wrote:Any word on my personal bugbear, namely, if there are a gak load of Gretchin bogging down my Dred, can I gleefully flame the fethers?! I mean, it cant hurt his adamantium hide, so why not eh?

I was hoping some kind of thunderstomp ability would make it in, and rumours last week seemed to indicate this might be the case, not seen any mention of it via those getting glances at the book though. I really hope so, its one of my annoyances as well.

Sidstyler wrote:

Palindrome wrote:

Kal-El wrote:bye bye cookie cutter lists! This change is being looked at so negitive. With the ally rules being added to the mix we won't see "just another GK army, or just another SW army etc." This adds a lot of flavor to the list building.

There will still be 'cookie cutter' lists, they may be more varied than now but there will still be the problem of identical 'internet' lists. The only thing that will have a good chance at preventing them is for GW to suddenly realise that all their armies need to be internally and externally balanced and not just thrown together with little real playtesting.

This. "Cookie cutter" lists are GW's fault, not the players. GW are the ones designing the codices so that there are obvious duds and no-brainer choices for every army. If everything was balanced and had a reason to be used there wouldn't be that problem.

Does the GW gremlin sneak into your house and change your army builder lists? Does Matt Ward show up with a gun and say "Take this unit, copy it three times OR ELSE". No? Then it is 100% you making a choice on what unit you are going to take. You can try to blame GW all you want but the fact of the matter is you are still making a choice to take these units. Every single person that brings a cookie cutter chose to bring it. I have had a lot of fun games where people have made those "duds" work quite well. We got a guy here that can make pyrovores work in our local meta. Not everyone here has 400 bucks lying around to spend on just vehicles so we dont do the tournament lists. Now you can argue that it doesn't work for the tournament crowd. That is fine and perfectly acceptable, but the question goes back to, the goal of the company is x. What the public wants is Y. If they dont overlap there is going to be a conflict of interest. I plan to do a lot of tournaments in the near future and I am really excited about what it will offer. Even allies, people will break the system regardless of what rules are available so that is a moot point.

I am still failing to see how assault armys are broken? Although this is speculation I am guessing that you can assault out of a transport that has moved again. So the vehicle moves 6, you get out from the hatch 6(hey you can move a full 6 after the vehicle moves) total is 12. Almost the same as before you now have a 2d6 assault range which 58% of the time will make it so you could assault someone further than you could before. Not to mention fleet giving you a re-roll.

You can pre measure everything so you know the exact number you need and can mitigate your risks. It looks like run is now 2d6 instead of 1d6. Jump infantry now get a free additional attack as well. Monstrous creatures got better, FNP IMO is better because it is much harder to negate.

puree wrote:Re: the glances removing a hull point.

Is that confirmed, I see on the page 1 snippets several references to gauss removing a hull point, but nothing about glances generally doing that.

I wouldn't say that it is confirmed. Kroothawk used this reference on Page 1 of this thread:

Added 24th June, from ZAlpha from fastdicerolling. com
http://www.fastdicerolling.com/forum/topic/305-6th-edition-information-thread-with-rules-on-page-3/page__st__40__p__4502_ :

He made it a spoiler so you wouldn't have read it unless you clicked the spoiler button.

rigeld2 wrote:So between premeasuring and range/Los sniping, overwatch, snap fire, easier vehicle kills, rapid fire improvement, etc. shooting got better overall.

Assaults are now random movement, subject to defensive fire, lose distance when shot (pulling from the front means that ground needs to be made up), losing attacks on a multi-assault...

Are there any good assault rumors? The flying MC rules are interesting but I don't see them making Nids more viable when you also include all the other rules changes.

Oh, and all the people who said "Nids will be fine with overwatch, snap fire, and removing from the front - you're looking at the rules with a 5th Ed mindset!" tell me that again with a straight face. Sure, vehicles die easier. That's about the only good thing I'm seeing.

There's not been much good news for assaulters so far, but there are certain rules that have not been extensively touched on in any rumours that could make a big difference.

- rumoured Fear rule on Daemons (so possibly some Tyranids too, if it's actually in the game)
- assaulting into difficult terrain (both the distance and the Initiative penalties will be key here)
- the future of the No Retreat rule
- all units being able to run and then still charge (would be sweet for 'fexes)
- consolidating into combat