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.

"If at least one engaged model in an assaulting unit is equipped with assault grenades the assaulted unit does not get the increased initiative from Alpha Strike. "

Can someone please explain this to me I am under the assumption what they mean to say is " yadah yadah yadah in the assaultedunit is equipped with assault grenades, the assaulting unit does not get the alpha strike bonus"

As it stands now, having assault grenades .... negates your own Alpha Strike bonus..

EDIT: oh now I get it, this is talking about units in cover, what about when Squad A assaults Squad B who is already in combat with Squad C? If Squad B has assault grenades, does squad A lose their bonus!?

I don't like going back to the whole 2nd ed. modifier for everything set up.
Whats next, Wargear cards?

ColdSadHungry wrote:Actually, talking of that BoW video, what do people think of the stratagems bidding process? I kind of agree with the guy on the left in that I'd rather just bid nothing and then bail out. I'd basically keep it to me going second and to hell with the stratagems no matter how good they may be because I don't want to concede any to my opponent. And with deep striking now looking so good with strike forces, why not go second?

Remember that, as things look now, your units count as stationary as the game starts - so the player going first is getting a massive boost to their shooting power. Going second is going to hurt - thus stratagems are an important balance.

alarmingrick wrote:I don't like going back to the whole 2nd ed. modifier for everything set up.
Whats next, Wargear cards?

To a degree, the Armoury sections which have been removed from almost all the Codexes were the replacement for Wargear cards.

Modifiers for everything allow for sliding scales, rather than an all-or-nothing approach. Let's take shooting as an example - regardless of your training, you're likely to find it easier to shoot at something the size of a Land Raider or Monolith than you are a single solitary Grot. As it stands in 5th edition, the size (and speed) of the target is ignored when determining how easy it is for you to shoot them, which isn't very realistic (and I acknowledge the futility of using realism in a 40k discussion). Under the proposed rules, it is easier to shoot a stationary Land Raider than it is a mobile Grot - which feels closer to how the situation would actually occur, at least in my opinion.

Equally, the same applies to armour penetration (which they have unfortunately not changed in this document) - as it stands, a Grot poking you with a stick is as likely to penetrate a suit of Terminator armour as a Battlecannon shell to the face...

Gus_Papas wrote:I haven't gone through these rules as thoroughly as I would've liked due to schoolwork, so it has left me with a few questions. I'm not sure if I'm understanding this properly, but does a transported unit gain/maintain the Relentless USR as long as the transport hasn't moved more than 6"? Does this mean that an IG Heavy Weapons team for example can shoot out of a Chimera's top hatch even if the Chimera has moved? While embarked troops can no longer hold objectives, it seems like they can advance towards said objectives while laying down more fire (albeit moving at a slower pace). It definitely seems like a good tradeoff, but again, if someone could shed some insight on the matter it'd be great.

Also, since AP3 now ignores FNP, are Thousand Sons more useful now? It seems like this in conjunction with most cover being 5+ now means they are a bit less of a niche unit in general and more useful against Blood Angels or other Chaos lists specifically (Plague Marines immediately come to mind) and. Anyone willing to discuss?

I think that Thousand Sons are looking great with these new rules. Being able to negate FNP is a bonus, but the big difference is the nerf to the ubiquitous cover save that made them kinda crappy. Were I to start a CSM army, Thousand Sons is the way I'd go. (mostly 'cause they look the coolest and aren't the crappiest anymore)

Jaon wrote:"If at least one engaged model in an assaulting unit is equipped with assault grenades the assaulted unit does not get the increased initiative from Alpha Strike. "

Can someone please explain this to me I am under the assumption what they mean to say is " yadah yadah yadah in the assaultedunit is equipped with assault grenades, the assaulting unit does not get the alpha strike bonus"

As it stands now, having assault grenades .... negates your own Alpha Strike bonus..

EDIT: oh now I get it, this is talking about units in cover, what about when Squad A assaults Squad B who is already in combat with Squad C? If Squad B has assault grenades, does squad A lose their bonus!?

My Necron Immortals are in cover, and your Blood Angels assault me. Normally, my guys would strike at I10 because you are assaulting into cover, but because you have those assault grenades, that bonus is negated and instead our units assault at their regular Initiative. It's exactly the same dynamic as the current system, except the Alpha strike means the defenders assault at I10 instead of the attackers assault at I1. Now, if your Blood Angels are already tied up in CC with Tom's Tau Firewarriors, (it's a team game) then my Necron Immortals can assault your Blood Angels at I10, and you cannot use your defensive grenades because you are already tied up in CC.

Does that make more sense?

alarmingrick wrote:I don't like going back to the whole 2nd ed. modifier for everything set up.
Whats next, Wargear cards?

I would love to see wargear cards, considering most of the Necron wargear has no physical model to attach onto the figure, and a lot of it is intangible to begin with. As to the modifiers: I like this system. The to-hit modifiers for example is the only way to incorporate the idea of speed into the game. Otherwise, as I've said before, the mechanics just boil down to who holds the bigger stick. It creates a new element to unit design and army composition.

alarmingrick wrote:I don't like going back to the whole 2nd ed. modifier for everything set up.
Whats next, Wargear cards?

Morale tests modified by casualties in close combat.
Damage results modified by weapon and vehicle type.
Movement speed (sorta) modified by terrain.
Armour Penetration rolls modified by USR and special rules.
Pinning tests modified by weapon type.
To Hit rolls in close combat modified by opponents WS.
To Hit rolls in close combat modified by vehicle speed-


A modifier to BS according to vehicle speed/size just completes the set, It doesn't show a radical departure in design philosophy.


...

Steelmage99 wrote:

alarmingrick wrote:I don't like going back to the whole 2nd ed. modifier for everything set up.
Whats next, Wargear cards?

Morale tests modified by casualties in close combat.
Damage results modified by weapon and vehicle type.
Movement speed (sorta) modified by terrain.
Armour Penetration rolls modified by USR and special rules.
Pinning tests modified by weapon type.
To Hit rolls in close combat modified by opponents WS.
To Hit rolls in close combat modified by vehicle speed-


A modifier to BS according to vehicle speed/size just completes the set, It doesn't show a radical departure in design philosophy.


...

Never said it was a radical departure in design. Just bitching because it's more modifiers. Is it not okay that i don't really want more?

Sure it is.

I am simply trying to present another view on that particular sentiment.

Now, if your Blood Angels are already tied up in CC with Tom's Tau Firewarriors, (it's a team game) then my Necron Immortals can assault your Blood Angels at I10, and you cannot use your defensive grenades because you are already tied up in CC.

There is a bit of a mixed up here.

When a unit assaults a unit allready engaged in CC, this assaulting unit gets the Alpha strike.
But if the unit who you are assaulting have Genades, you can't have the Alpha strike.

Frag Nades negates the Alpha strike, be it when assaulting or assaulted.

Defensif nades are those who negates your +1 A for assault, those one , yes if the unit is allready locked in CC, they can't use them.

But Frag Nades(Assault grenades) always negates the Alpha strike.

His Master's Voice wrote:The rule, as I read it, is a guarantee of at least 1 ID wound, not an extra wound on top of the ones you inflict based on strength/toughness difference.

On closer reading, you're correct. I saw it as each of the two 'sections' of ID causing additional wounds in the their own right separately, but then I noticed -

If a model suffers an unsaved wound from an
attack with this trait, it loses one additional Wound,
unless its Strength is high enough to cause the
loss of more than two Wounds anyway.

So hitting a Captain with a Str 8 ID weapon still only causes 2 wounds.

This all means that Gazzy can't be one-shotted since he's T5 with four wounds (str 10 = +2 wounds).

Where do you get that assault nades negate alpha strike for attacking units?
As I read it they only effect the attacked unit.
(at least in the nade entry)

Slayer le boucher wrote:

Now, if your Blood Angels are already tied up in CC with Tom's Tau Firewarriors, (it's a team game) then my Necron Immortals can assault your Blood Angels at I10, and you cannot use your defensive grenades because you are already tied up in CC.

There is a bit of a mixed up here.

When a unit assaults a unit allready engaged in CC, this assaulting unit gets the Alpha strike.
But if the unit who you are assaulting have Genades, you can't have the Alpha strike.

Frag Nades negates the Alpha strike, be it when assaulting or assaulted.

Defensif nades are those who negates your +1 A for assault, those one , yes if the unit is allready locked in CC, they can't use them.

But Frag Nades(Assault grenades) always negates the Alpha strike.

Please note the part where it says that you cannot use the grenades if you are already tied up in CC.

Edit: Ignore me, wrong thing.

azazel the cat wrote:

Slayer le boucher wrote:

Now, if your Blood Angels are already tied up in CC with Tom's Tau Firewarriors, (it's a team game) then my Necron Immortals can assault your Blood Angels at I10, and you cannot use your defensive grenades because you are already tied up in CC.

There is a bit of a mixed up here.

When a unit assaults a unit allready engaged in CC, this assaulting unit gets the Alpha strike.
But if the unit who you are assaulting have Genades, you can't have the Alpha strike.

Frag Nades negates the Alpha strike, be it when assaulting or assaulted.

Defensif nades are those who negates your +1 A for assault, those one , yes if the unit is allready locked in CC, they can't use them.

But Frag Nades(Assault grenades) always negates the Alpha strike.

Please note the part where it says that you cannot use the grenades if you are already tied up in CC.

Indeed...,my bad

Slayer le boucher wrote:

azazel the cat wrote:

Slayer le boucher wrote:

Now, if your Blood Angels are already tied up in CC with Tom's Tau Firewarriors, (it's a team game) then my Necron Immortals can assault your Blood Angels at I10, and you cannot use your defensive grenades because you are already tied up in CC.

There is a bit of a mixed up here.

When a unit assaults a unit allready engaged in CC, this assaulting unit gets the Alpha strike.
But if the unit who you are assaulting have Genades, you can't have the Alpha strike.

Frag Nades negates the Alpha strike, be it when assaulting or assaulted.

Defensif nades are those who negates your +1 A for assault, those one , yes if the unit is allready locked in CC, they can't use them.

But Frag Nades(Assault grenades) always negates the Alpha strike.

Please note the part where it says that you cannot use the grenades if you are already tied up in CC.

Indeed...,my bad

Heh, otherwise the rule would just read: "nobody gets to Alpha Strike against Space Marines. Ever."

EDIT: ...mind you, I could kinda see GW doing that.

azazel the cat wrote:

Slayer le boucher wrote:

azazel the cat wrote:

Slayer le boucher wrote:

Now, if your Blood Angels are already tied up in CC with Tom's Tau Firewarriors, (it's a team game) then my Necron Immortals can assault your Blood Angels at I10, and you cannot use your defensive grenades because you are already tied up in CC.

There is a bit of a mixed up here.

When a unit assaults a unit allready engaged in CC, this assaulting unit gets the Alpha strike.
But if the unit who you are assaulting have Genades, you can't have the Alpha strike.

Frag Nades negates the Alpha strike, be it when assaulting or assaulted.

Defensif nades are those who negates your +1 A for assault, those one , yes if the unit is allready locked in CC, they can't use them.

But Frag Nades(Assault grenades) always negates the Alpha strike.

Please note the part where it says that you cannot use the grenades if you are already tied up in CC.

Indeed...,my bad

Heh, otherwise the rule would just read: "nobody gets to Alpha Strike against Space Marines. Ever."

EDIT: ...mind you, I could kinda see GW doing that.

So what if you assault with two units against one in cover at the same But only one has grenades, let's say some space marines are in cover and I assault them with both my lictor and genestealers what happens?

oldone wrote:So what if you assault with two units against one in cover at the same But only one has grenades, let's say some space marines are in cover and I assault them with both my lictor and genestealers what happens?

If at least one engaged model in an assaulting
unit is equipped with assault grenades, the
assaulted unit does not get the increased
Initiative from an alpha strike.

Now, though this mentions models in a unit, it also simply states that if you are assaulted by a unit with frags, you cannot perform an Aplha Strike action.
Unless otherwise mentioned, it wouldn't matter that another unit without frags has assaulted you, the one with them prevents you from performing that action.

Though it is a bit ambiguous.

Took me a while to make it through all 64 pages of this thread.

I still think that this is indeed an early playtest version of the 6th edition rulebook, and the proposed evidence against it (IF it is even provided) doesn't convince me at the least. GW deliberately lied about 5th edition and Space Hulk, when everybody already knew they lied, so taking that GW denial email as proof is countered by experience.

For future reference I will copy these official Warseer statements just in case, this leak is indeed real and the Warseer mods are deliberately making false statements:

http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=329908

Wintermute wrote:Its now becoming widely known that the 'leaked' 6th Ed Rules pdf is a hoax.
We at Warseer were reluctant to discuss it because we very quickly recognised it for what it truly was.
Now its been identified for what it is we now are happy for it to be discussed on WarSeer, but only in this thread.
As usual any and all off-topic comments will be removed without warning.

Wintermute

http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=329875

As most, if not all of you, are now aware the GW are (rumoured) to be releasing the Sixth Edition of Warhammer 40,000 this year. The purpose of this thread is to have one point of reference on WarSeer for rumours relating to the new release.

Please note this thread is for the discussion of genuine 'rumours' and not for the discussion of the validity of 'leaked' ruleset which apparently is a hoax.

Any, and, all off-topic posts and spam will be deleted without notice.

The Dude
The WarSeer Inquistion

BTW both aggressively fought the posting of any rumours on Tervigons, Tyrannofexes and all other new non-Trygon monstrous creatures in the Tyranid Codex. All Tyranid rumour threads were banned completely on Warseer when people kept on posting Phil Kelly's early confirmation on new monstrous units "dwarfing the Carnifex".

Kroothawk wrote:Took me a while to make it through all 64 pages of this thread.

I still think that this is indeed an early playtest version of the 6th edition rulebook, and the proposed evidence against it (IF it is even provided) doesn't convince me at the least. GW deliberately lied about 5th edition and Space Hulk, when everybody already knew they lied, so taking that GW denial email as proof is countered by experience.

For future reference I will copy these official Warseer statements just in case, this leak is indeed real and the Warseer mods are deliberately making false statements:

http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=329908

Wintermute wrote:Its now becoming widely known that the 'leaked' 6th Ed Rules pdf is a hoax.
We at Warseer were reluctant to discuss it because we very quickly recognised it for what it truly was.
Now its been identified for what it is we now are happy for it to be discussed on WarSeer, but only in this thread.
As usual any and all off-topic comments will be removed without warning.

Wintermute

http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=329875

As most, if not all of you, are now aware the GW are (rumoured) to be releasing the Sixth Edition of Warhammer 40,000 this year. The purpose of this thread is to have one point of reference on WarSeer for rumours relating to the new release.

Please note this thread is for the discussion of genuine 'rumours' and not for the discussion of the validity of 'leaked' ruleset which apparently is a hoax.

Any, and, all off-topic posts and spam will be deleted without notice.

The Dude
The WarSeer Inquistion

BTW both aggressively fought the posting of any rumours on Tervigons, Tyrannofexes and all other new non-Trygon monstrous creatures in the Tyranid Codex. All Tyranid rumour threads were banned completely on Warseer when people kept on posting Phil Kelly's early confirmation on new monstrous units "dwarfing the Carnifex".

Yeah, the last thing they said to me when I uploaded Beasts Of War's review of the ruleset was "Warseer is more afraid of GW lawyers than your average forum" then BLAM thread closed.

People's capacity to believe that a creature in the distance that looks very much like a lion is actually a giraffe when told by someone else that it is a giraffe never fails to amaze me.

The case for this being an actual GW document, though not necessarily 'the' 6th Ed. rules is much, much stronger than the case that they are a hoax.

Kroothawk wrote:BTW both aggressively fought the posting of any rumours on Tervigons, Tyrannofexes and all other new non-Trygon monstrous creatures in the Tyranid Codex. All Tyranid rumour threads were banned completely on Warseer when people kept on posting Phil Kelly's early confirmation on new monstrous units "dwarfing the Carnifex".

Warseer got done by GW hardcore in the past, they don't want to be anywhere near this.

Dribble Joy wrote:Warseer got done by GW hardcore in the past, they don't want to be anywhere near this.

Then they should close the news&rumour forum alltogether instead of, as I assume, aggressively spreading false information.
They don't have to behave like Russian state TV dealing with critical information on Putin.

Kroothawk wrote:

Dribble Joy wrote:Warseer got done by GW hardcore in the past, they don't want to be anywhere near this.

Then they should close the news&rumour forum alltogether instead of, as I assume, aggressively spreading false information.
They don't have to behave like Russian state TV dealing with critical information on Putin.

What they do makes it look like a cover-up,which only makes the information popup more and more as White Knights try to show people "the truth"

Dribble Joy wrote:

oldone wrote:So what if you assault with two units against one in cover at the same But only one has grenades, let's say some space marines are in cover and I assault them with both my lictor and genestealers what happens?

If at least one engaged model in an assaulting
unit is equipped with assault grenades, the
assaulted unit does not get the increased
Initiative from an alpha strike.

Now, though this mentions models in a unit, it also simply states that if you are assaulted by a unit with frags, you cannot perform an Aplha Strike action.
Unless otherwise mentioned, it wouldn't matter that another unit without frags has assaulted you, the one with them prevents you from performing that action.

Though it is a bit ambiguous.

Thank you for answering my question

Hey I haven't heard any mention of this anywhere but what is the case with muti-assault now?

oldone wrote:Hey I haven't heard any mention of this anywhere but what is the case with muti-assault now?

Pretty much as it is now. First model moved must be against the target unit, all others can be moved into other units while following the rules for moving assaulting models (finish move in coherency, reach BtB where possible).

p 31 of the PDF.

Something I saw before but forgot to mention:

You must bring the first model you move
into contact with the enemy unit.

So it doesn't necessary have to be the closest.

If this is not
possible, the model is not moved and the unit
may perform a different Move action that is not
an Assault move or remain stationary.

So if you fail an assault, it's not the end of that unit's turn .

Maybe,just Maybe GW was sick of all the leaks.
So they leak a document they know is fake to a few suspected departments.
One bogus one to the sculptors another to the painters and so on.
Then they see which BS rumor comes out and now they have really closed in on the leak.

Dribble Joy wrote:

oldone wrote:Hey I haven't heard any mention of this anywhere but what is the case with muti-assault now?

Pretty much as it is now. First model moved must be against the target unit, all others can be moved into other units while following the rules for moving assaulting models (finish move in coherency, reach BtB where possible).

p 31 of the PDF.

Something I saw before but forgot to mention:

You must bring the first model you move
into contact with the enemy unit.

So it doesn't necessary have to be the closest.

If this is not
possible, the model is not moved and the unit
may perform a different Move action that is not
an Assault move or remain stationary.

So if you fail an assault, it's not the end of that unit's turn .

Thank you again , I actually will get my first look tonight hense all the questions.

Eisenhorn wrote:Maybe,just Maybe GW was sick of all the leaks.
So they leak a document they know is fake to a few suspected departments.
One bogus one to the sculptors another to the painters and so on.
Then they see which BS rumor comes out and now they have really closed in on the leak.

Most companies already do this, but not with bogus rumors. You include a few key and recognizable spelling errors in the different copies you give different people of the regular rules. That way you keep doing your actual job and are not wasting time writing fake material just for this and you can tell by which misspelling shows up which end of the operation leaked it.

alarmingrick wrote:I don't like going back to the whole 2nd ed. modifier for everything set up.
Whats next, Wargear cards?

We can only hope.

Eisenhorn wrote:Maybe,just Maybe GW was sick of all the leaks.
So they leak a document they know is fake to a few suspected departments.
One bogus one to the sculptors another to the painters and so on.
Then they see which BS rumor comes out and now they have really closed in on the leak.

But if they done this just to catch the leaks, and don't use these rules,
I will, Is there an IP on a rules set which "isn't" theirs?
Really don't see this as being to catch leaks more over this is to see what the player base will think but then again this is GW when did it ever care?