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.

Warseer being so forum nazi made me come over here instead. Wintermute, especially, is going overboard on this. Basically, you're not allowed to talk about it at all! Hell, if it's fake, then who cares, talk away! How/why exactly are they banning topics about something not real? Isn't that half the threads in the game

Topic: Do you think Guilliman could beat up Marneus Calgar?!?

Obviosuly it's pure speculation... SHUT THE THREAD DOWN NOWWWWWWW!

It's just so... strange.

Talk about strange indeed. Play a game with these rules if you can manage -- they work. They work well. I anticipate having more fun and less min/max power-gaming with these rules. Full size squads are vastly superior to MSU units, I think.

Did Harry just confirm the leak???

Harry wrote:

Darnok wrote:
No. Instead, you should broaden your horizon, and finally learn something about 40K.

Well I have not played much at all since 2nd edition.
I lost interest with 3rd. (allthough I bought a special edition of 5th edition and gave it a go).
BUT
I must confess I am a little bit excited about 6th edition. it seems to have a bit more of the depth and detail that 2nd edition had ... so who knows?

BRING IT ON!

Perhaps not, either way, he mentions 6th should be more like 2nd, so hope still here if its fake?

tetrisphreak wrote:Full size squads are vastly superior to MSU units, I think.

I think that could depend on what kind of force you're running.
Assault armies may well want to run multiple units to make the most of Alpha Strike.

For example: Big ork boy mob takes the charge from <insert general unit of doom> and then the Burnas pile in with their I10 power weapons.

Dribble Joy wrote:

tetrisphreak wrote:Full size squads are vastly superior to MSU units, I think.

I think that could depend on what kind of force you're running.
Assault armies may well want to run multiple units to make the most of Alpha Strike.

For example: Big ork boy mob takes the charge from <insert general unit of doom> and then the Burnas pile in with their I10 power weapons.

It's been my limited play experience that MSU units won't survive 2 rounds of assault long enough for a counter-charge to occur, unless combat is a draw each time. A 5-man genestealer squad last night, for example, I managed to surround and wreck a venom in CC (Hitting on 4's vs moving vehicles is GREAT) and charge-by-chance the warriors that were inside. We resolved that combat (I lost one genestealer to dangerous terrain from the wreck) and it was a draw. In his turn i got assaulted by some wracks and since we were locked in CC he got the alpha strike vs me -- My stealers were toast. A larger squad could have A.) wiped out the warriors and not been locked in CC during the opponent's turn and B.) met the charge of wracks with enough force to win or draw combat.

Again, it's a LIMITED experience so far but I see the trend of taking full squads or nearly full squads with xenos armies, anyhow. Marines will probably still be okay MSU because of their 3+ armor.

Edit -- Consolidation moves (which is what a charge-by-chance is) ignore difficult/dangerous terrain tests. Might have made a difference, I'll have to remember that next time.

I cant get my head around Multi Targeting.

It has levels...so what does MT1 mean?

I get that MT2 means it can fire two weapons, can it split fire? as the same suggests?

Multi-targeting allows you to split fire if you spend 1 shooting action to do so.

It also means that you can be stationary and double your MT value

Most vehicles have MT-1, tanks get MT-2, and big tanks with the behemoth special rule or av14 get MT-3. Super heavies get MT-6+ number of structure points.

It costs 1 MT point to split fire
It costs 1 MT point to fire a regular weapon (vehicles are relentless so can fire heavy if they move)
It costs 2 MT to fire an ordnance weapon
It costs 4 MT to fire an ordnance Barrage weapon

When a vehicle suffers a weapon destroyed, No longer do you get to say "take off the big gun". Rather, their MT value is decreased by 1.

A vehicle with MT(0) can fire one weapon moving combat speed or stationary. A further Weapon Destroyed will completely prohibit the vehicle from firing.

TechMarines and other units with the 'repair' rule can bolster a vehicle by adding MT value to it, which can be helpful.

No weapon my fire more than once per shooting phase, regardless of the MT value.




A stationary Space Marine Predator with Twin-linked autocannons and 2 sponson-las cannons has MT(4) - normally 2, but was stationary so it doubled. The marine player then spends 1 MT point to split fire, and may use the other 3 remaining MT points to shoot each of the 3 weapons at any combination of 3 targets as long as they're in range. I.e. you can shoot 3 transports, each with one gun if you desire and have LOS.


Hopefully some of those points help you wrap your head round it.

Jaon wrote:I cant get my head around Multi Targeting.

It has levels...so what does MT1 mean?

I get that MT2 means it can fire two weapons, can it split fire? as the same suggests?

If you have an MT number and stay still you get to double it. So a walker (MT1) that stays still fire two weapons a tank (MT2) can fire 4 times. All of these have to be different weapons and some stuff- Ordinance barrages - take up multiple firings. I'm pretty sure you can target everything independently.

Thanks for the clarifications guys, I must have missed a chart somewhere.

Onto a completely different topic, I hope they change the rule "Enemy player gets to chose the squad leader who replaces the fall squad leader"

Isnt that a tad ridiculous? The enemy appointing the new squad leader of your Squad?

Jaon wrote:I cant get my head around Multi Targeting.

It has levels...so what does MT1 mean?

I get that MT2 means it can fire two weapons, can it split fire? as the same suggests?

MT(1) isn't a whole lot of use other than it means you get relentless.

Remaining stationary doubles your MT however, so you can make two shooting actions (or fire an Ordinance weapon).

Divide fire costs a shooting action, so most of the time with MT(1) it's not much use. If you stay still though, you can spend one action and fire at a different target from the rest of the unit you might be in (squadrons and MC units).

If you have MT(2) you can remain stationary (getting MT(4)) to either fire four weapons, an Ordinance Barrage weapon, two Ordinance weapons or spend one for divide fire and fire the remaining three at different targets.

For example:

A Predator has an autocannon and two heavy bolters and is a Tank so it has MT(2).

If it moves at Combat speed it may fire two of those. If it were in a squadron, it could spend one action to fire a single weapon at a different target.

If it stays stationary it gets MT(4). So it can spend one point to Divide Fire and fire it's three weapons at different targets.

Battle Wagons, Land Raiders and Leman Russes have front armour 14 and are therefore 'Behemoths' and come with MT(3).

Bold or Stupid wrote:

Jaon wrote:I cant get my head around Multi Targeting.

It has levels...so what does MT1 mean?

I get that MT2 means it can fire two weapons, can it split fire? as the same suggests?

If you have an MT number and stay still you get to double it. So a walker (MT1) that stays still fire two weapons a tank (MT2) can fire 4 times. All of these have to be different weapons and some stuff- Ordinance barrages - take up multiple firings. I'm pretty sure you can target everything independently.

This makes the TLLC/HB predator more valiable, as it can split fire while stll shooting. Manticores and such need to stand still to generate enough MT to fire their weapon.

It's quite a clever rule, I'm impressed.

Jaon wrote:Thanks for the clarifications guys, I must have missed a chart somewhere.

Onto a completely different topic, I hope they change the rule "Enemy player gets to chose the squad leader who replaces the fall squad leader"

Isnt that a tad ridiculous? The enemy appointing the new squad leader of your Squad?

You didn't miss a chart - they need to create one and put it in the document because that makes comprehending the situation totally easier. Fast multi-targeting units double their value even when going combat speed or cruising/run speed. Only when flat-out do they lose the ability to shoot.

Squad leaders -- Well unless they're a character, all they do is direct fire and help decide whether or not the unit can embark so the enemy picking them has not much effect. The way armor saves are done now as long as your character upgrade has the same save as the unit, you won't be obligated to pull him until he's the last failed save. Directed fire (most commonly found in sniper rifles) can hurt here.

A grunt who gets field promoted to squad leader (aka he's not an upgrade character) can't rally the squad if they break. However the game designers felt that it would be a little unfair if there was no other way to regroup so they made the rule that if you embark in a transport during the consolidation phase, your squad auto-rallies regardless of casualties. Transports have changed from mobile bunkers laying down suppressive fire to hold objectives into short-term transports that can come in handy late game if you need to rally.

A lot of artillery vehicles become quite fragile in comparison with other vehicles as they generally have to spend all their shooting actions to fire their main weapons. A single Weapon Damaged result and they can't fire.

Dribble Joy wrote:A lot of artillery vehicles become quite fragile in comparison with other vehicles as they generally have to spend all their shooting actions to fire their main weapons. A single Weapon Damaged result and they can't fire.

How is that different from now?

if this is true, then tau players~ under flyers p.127 it says automated drones. i also read in the book somewhere the mention of a baraccuda dropship

Dribble Joy wrote:A lot of artillery vehicles become quite fragile in comparison with other vehicles as they generally have to spend all their shooting actions to fire their main weapons. A single Weapon Damaged result and they can't fire.

Unless you take a tech priest of sorts? Which I like because its seems really fluffy

Dribble Joy wrote:A lot of artillery vehicles become quite fragile in comparison with other vehicles as they generally have to spend all their shooting actions to fire their main weapons. A single Weapon Damaged result and they can't fire.

If they can fire their weapon directly, they're actually more resilient. Currently 1 Weapon Destroyed result means they can't shot their cannon, end of period. Getting a single Damaged - Weapons result just means they can't fire their weapon as Ordnance Barrage anymore, but can still fire as Ordnance when stationary.

Redemption wrote:

Dribble Joy wrote:A lot of artillery vehicles become quite fragile in comparison with other vehicles as they generally have to spend all their shooting actions to fire their main weapons. A single Weapon Damaged result and they can't fire.

If they can fire their weapon directly, they're actually more resilient. Currently 1 Weapon Destroyed result means they can't shot their cannon, end of period. Getting a single Damaged - Weapons result just means they can't fire their weapon as Ordnance Barrage anymore, but can still fire as Ordnance when stationary.

I think (correct me if i'm wrong ) IG Artillery have a special rule prohibiting their guns from direct fire. However, open-topped no longer confers +1 to the damage chart. The vehicle game is getting tossed up a bit in both positive and negative.

Normally I get 1 weapon destroyed result and i'll take off the big gun. This ruleset basically ends up with the same result.

I really think GW has had some knowledge of putting this. Whether it being direct or indirect support. The only bases for this is that I think they do care for what all the players think and want to see how they will react to the rules. Not only that, but we as players will diligently dissect the rules and find issues of overpowering and under-powering that they may have not noticed there first couple times around. Granted they are smart but the mob is much smarted in this case because everyone will notice something that other may not. Also these forums are HUGE source of market research that is absolutely free to them.

I played WH40K way back in the mid 90's where there was over-watch, war gear cars, the Blood Thirster and Avatar had 10W and yes, you could play as squats. Since then I lost interest till I started reading the Horus Heresy books (which I absolutely love, yes pretty much all of them I love, go ahead you can judge). Now I have just been a sideline spectator till 6E rules come out and I can buy up and get back into gaming. I don’t know how much market share people liek me provide GW but these new rules will make me buy up and paint an army.

My last point is that in some of the books on WH40K, the authors give shout-outs to these forums. They not only want your feedback and constructive criticism, it has to make them smile that they have touched enough people to care. The mob is what is going to make 6E great. If GW wasn’t behind this leak at all, they better F-ing take notice. Because it is veteran players like you, newbs all around, and the reborn gamers that will be playing these for years to come. I can’t image they want to create a game and have us start these threads after it has come out.

Just my two cents.

Olando

So what MT would say, a ravager have? It'd ideally need at least 3 to match current rules.

Aerial Assault - Individual Special Rule

A model with this special rule has Multi-Targeting(3)


Add in the fact that they're fast that means unless they flat-out (24") they'll have MT(6) until they start taking damaged results.

You can move 16" and fire each of the dark lances at 3 separate targets.

Redemption wrote:If they can fire their weapon directly, they're actually more resilient. Currently 1 Weapon Destroyed result means they can't shot their cannon, end of period. Getting a single Damaged - Weapons result just means they can't fire their weapon as Ordnance Barrage anymore, but can still fire as Ordnance when stationary.

I've been through the rules but can't find anywhere in the PDF that says that Ord Barrage can be fired directly.

tetrisphreak wrote:How is that different from now?

It's no different than now, just compared with other vehicles in these rules, which have generally gained a lot with regards to firepower.

tetrisphreak wrote:I think (correct me if i'm wrong ) IG Artillery have a special rule prohibiting their guns from direct fire.

Only the Colossus, Griffon and Deathstrike Missile Launcher have that. The Basilisk, Manticore and artillery pieces from other codices such as the Whirlwind don't have that.

Dribble Joy wrote:I've been through the rules but can't find anywhere in the PDF that says that Ord Barrage can be fired directly.

Hmm, can't find it at first glance indeed. The current edition has it at least, and seems like an odd thing to remove. If I'll find it I'll let you know.

Dribble Joy wrote:

tetrisphreak wrote:How is that different from now?

It's no different than now, just compared with other vehicles in these rules, which have generally gained a lot with regards to firepower.

Point conceded - other types of vehicles have gained MT points so that they can take damage results and still fire at full effect. Ordnance barrage, however, has the benefit of being able to fire out of LOS. Park behind Dense terrain (awesome feature btw because sometimes TLOS makes the game way harder to play than it should) and you won't be subject to enemy firepower at all unless they have a similar weapon/outflanking.

Redemption wrote:Hmm, can't find it at first glance indeed. The current edition has it at least, and seems like an odd thing to remove. If I'll find it I'll let you know.

No worries. It's quite possible that it could make the final version anyway.

tetrisphreak wrote:Ordnance barrage, however, has the benefit of being able to fire out of LOS. Park behind Dense terrain (awesome feature btw because sometimes TLOS makes the game way harder to play than it should) and you won't be subject to enemy firepower at all unless they have a similar weapon/outflanking.

Oh of course.

What I'm liking most about these rules is that nothing seems to be 'useless'. Everything has it's use and you need to think about countering a huge variety of possibilities that the opponent could throw at you.

Walls wrote:Warseer being so forum nazi made me come over here instead. Wintermute, especially, is going overboard on this. Basically, you're not allowed to talk about it at all! Hell, if it's fake, then who cares, talk away! How/why exactly are they banning topics about something not real? Isn't that half the threads in the game.

They have a dedicated thread to the discussion of these rules now.

@ ShumaGorath, otakutaylor, & azazel the cat

Thanks for the replies! I know relentless extends Rapid Fire range to 18", but how has Rapid Fire itself gotten better (or is this what you meant, Shuma)? Also, just so I know I'm understanding this; a unit can fire out of a transport but this uses one of the transport's MT points, and embarked units can only shoot out to 18". If the transport is stationary or has only moved 6", then the embarked squad benefits from Relentless. Since embarked units shooting is dependent on the MT points of the transport, if the transport suffers enough weapon destroyed results the squad cannot shoot. Is this correct?

Ive got a question. Since GW is saying this isnt a leak of their new 6th ed RB. Whats to stop someone from rewriting this doc removing all reference to GW IP, renaming, weapons etc, and releasing it as an original set of rules? If the actual book isnt going to be released til july someone or a small group would have plenty of time to do this and publish it as a pdf on any of the sites where you can buy rpg and game books in pdf format. I know theyed have no codices to go along with it but still. What would GW be able to do since theyve already denied its leaked from them? Just thinking evil thoughts

Gus_Papas wrote:@ ShumaGorath, otakutaylor, & azazel the cat

Thanks for the replies! I know relentless extends Rapid Fire range to 18", but how has Rapid Fire itself gotten better (or is this what you meant, Shuma)?

Well I don't think anyone has it yet, but Rapid fire can have ranks now.

RF2 = 2 full, 3 12"
RF3 = 3 full, 4 12"

Wrath wrote:

Gus_Papas wrote:@ ShumaGorath, otakutaylor, & azazel the cat

Thanks for the replies! I know relentless extends Rapid Fire range to 18", but how has Rapid Fire itself gotten better (or is this what you meant, Shuma)?

Well I don't think anyone has it yet, but Rapid fire can have ranks now.

RF2 = 2 full, 3 12"
RF3 = 3 full, 4 12"

Also you can always fire one shot at full range with rapid fire, even if you move now. That's the biggest change, as non-relentless units can move-and-fire with rapid fire weapons. Relentless gains sustained fire at 18" instead of 12" and can fire heavy on the move.