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.

CajunMan wrote:Surrounded
If a single model of the unit is within 12” of an
enemy model that is not locked in combat at the
end of its own Movement phase, the whole unit is
destroyed.


Whoa. Bye Bye low leadership.

Sorry, what? If my lone Guardsmen survives behinfd a wall near a Terminator squad it could wipe them out? WHAT IS THIS?!

....and I'm pretty sure you can still use strike forces with demonic assault so you can pretty much guarantee everything will be on the board T2...or hold it in reserve till you think the best time to drop it would be.

Yeah, I read that and thought the same thing.

I hope that gets canned or changed to 6" because 12" is far too easy a requirement to meet for an opponent.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Maelstrom808 wrote:....and I'm pretty sure you can still use strike forces with demonic assault so you can pretty much guarantee everything will be on the board T2...or hold it in reserve till you think the best time to drop it would be.

Can they? I don't own their book yet but wouldn't the wording for how they pick their halves mess that up? I mean, they don't even know what half will actually be in reserve

The biggest reason I think the so - called Leaked rules wont be substantially what 6th Edition looks like is that it appears from this thread the rules are too far different from 5th Edition .

Its far too much of a gamble for a public company with shareholders to take such a risk with what is their biggest line . I cant see 6th Edition being what seems far more a departure than 8th Ed WHFB wasfrom 7th .

Regardless of whether this ' leaked 6th ed ' is an early playtesting draft I cant see the final release being so radically different from 5th Ed as this 'leak' suggests

BlapBlapBlap wrote:

CajunMan wrote:Surrounded
If a single model of the unit is within 12” of an
enemy model that is not locked in combat at the
end of its own Movement phase, the whole unit is
destroyed.


Whoa. Bye Bye low leadership.

Sorry, what? If my lone Guardsmen survives behinfd a wall near a Terminator squad it could wipe them out? WHAT IS THIS?!

It's okay. To make you feel better, just stop and think how awesome PCSs loaded up with flamers just became for counter assaulting...or how terriffying a blob squad loaded up with power weapons and flamers can be.

Dynamix wrote:The biggest reason I think the so - called Leaked rules wont be substantially what 6th Edition looks like is that it appears from this thread the rules are too far different from 5th Edition .

I bet that's what people said at the end of 2nd edition too.

It's a risk for GW but also an opportunity. The rules seem to do a favor to all armies, even underdogs such as deamons. The market for marines get's saturated eventually, if the new rules increase sales of prior underdogs, it's only good for GW.

Its different from 2nd to 3rd ed - more of a risk now

Noir Eternal wrote:

Maelstrom808 wrote:....and I'm pretty sure you can still use strike forces with demonic assault so you can pretty much guarantee everything will be on the board T2...or hold it in reserve till you think the best time to drop it would be.

Can they? I don't own their book yet but wouldn't the wording for how they pick their halves mess that up? I mean, they don't even know what half will actually be in reserve

It tells you all units start in reserve, so each half is in reserve at the very start, so they both can be given strike force. it ends up being redundant to the first group, but works great for the second.

Noir Eternal wrote:I know I may start that Slaanesh army I always wanted. Its only too bad that their Pavane happens after assaults now. Don't know what I would use it for

Push enemy units out of effective range to move/shoot at/assault you.

Much like the Hive Tyrant's power "paroxysm" it's gone from an offensive to a defensive power.

See Also: Lash of Submission.

Oh perfect, I wasn't sure since its been awhile since I read the rule.

The problem I see then is that turn 2 you need a 5+ to get your strike force, thus making a 2/3 chance that on turn 2 you get no reinforcements at all

Dynamix wrote:Its different from 2nd to 3rd ed - more of a risk now

I agree it's a risk; I disagree that it is a bigger one. The 2nd to 3rd transition invalidated all codices and delivered a sub-par product in return (atleast at first glance).

BlapBlapBlap wrote:

CajunMan wrote:Surrounded
If a single model of the unit is within 12” of an
enemy model that is not locked in combat at the
end of its own Movement phase, the whole unit is
destroyed.


Whoa. Bye Bye low leadership.

Sorry, what? If my lone Guardsmen survives behinfd a wall near a Terminator squad it could wipe them out? WHAT IS THIS?!

This rule only applies to BROKEN units at the end of their own MOVEMENT phase. No longer is a broken unit forced to fall back directly towards it's own table edge every movement phase. Rather it's a single fall back move at the time the unit becomes broken, Then they are limited in what actions they can perform subsequently (if i recall they may not assault, use psychic powers, or use support powers). They can still combat move, or run, in a position where they are far enough away from the enemy to Rally (and not necessarily towards the edge of the table).

A broken unit may also voluntarily leave the table edge to prevent the enemy from earning a Kill point off of them.

Well the way you put the BROKEN rule it doesn't sound AS bad but I will want to play some games to determine whether or not if I like it.

I do like the possiblity to deny kill points though and that sounds like it would be the balancing factor to the seemingly OP 12" insta-gib from enemy units

Dynamix wrote:Its different from 2nd to 3rd ed - more of a risk now

But, GW needs a risk right now. The blog by Reecius, if true, confirms one of the main reasons that I have been entertaining the possibility of this being true. If I have read the talk on their financial reports right (and it's ENTIRELY possible I have not), GW is not doing great. They aren't going under anytime soon, but every report for the last year or two seems to show them making profit, but the overall sales stay stagnant or decline. So it's a cycle of raise prices to cover lost volume, lose more customers, raise prices to cover lost volume, etc....which is not sustainable over the long term. GW needs to shake the game up, and I think they know it. After taking a couple hours to read through the PDF and getting to know it, it lays the groundwork for a much broader, more dynamic game, with a lot more options in how it's played. It's a ruleset that has more action in the games, and with more emphisis on larger squads and nudging those squads to not stay cooped up in a transport all game, makes for a more visually impressive game. All of which is overall better for getting new players into the game.

I have a question, since many people take the GW denial emmail very seriously:

1.) Does anyone with GW connections remember, if GW send a similar email when the correct 5th edition playtest rulebook leaked? I remember asking a redshirt in January about 5th edition in July, and he denied it, and 5th edition came in July. Knowing how GW works, I think he received an official document on how to react.
2.) Has there been an email concerning Space Hulk?

BTW the 6th edition rules may look very different, but have a similar feel when actually played. The document explicitely says this as well.

tetrisphreak wrote: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.

.

This is the line that causes me the most confusion. What then is the difference between MT(1) and MT(0)? MT(1) can fire 1 weapon moving combat speed or 2 weapons stationary? It just seems counter intuitive to me that you could be permitted to fire 1 weapon while moving combat speed, lose a charge of MT and still be able to fire 1 weapon whiel moving at combat speed.

I believe that the difference is

MT(1) Stationary doubles to MT(2)

MT(0) - Stationary still only fire 1 weapon

Noir Eternal wrote:Oh perfect, I wasn't sure since its been awhile since I read the rule.

The problem I see then is that turn 2 you need a 5+ to get your strike force, thus making a 2/3 chance that on turn 2 you get no reinforcements at all

You get to roll three dice for your strikeforce as long as you have at least three units in reserve, and if any of them pass then the whole thing comes in.

Maelstrom808 wrote:

Dynamix wrote:Its different from 2nd to 3rd ed - more of a risk now

But, GW needs a risk right now. The blog by Reecius, if true, confirms one of the main reasons that I have been entertaining the possibility of this being true. If I have read the talk on their financial reports right (and it's ENTIRELY possible I have not), GW is not doing great. They aren't going under anytime soon, but every report for the last year or two seems to show them making profit, but the overall sales stay stagnant or decline. So it's a cycle of raise prices to cover lost volume, lose more customers, raise prices to cover lost volume, etc....which is not sustainable over the long term. GW needs to shake the game up, and I think they know it. After taking a couple hours to read through the PDF and getting to know it, it lays the groundwork for a much broader, more dynamic game, with a lot more options in how it's played. It's a ruleset that has more action in the games, and with more emphisis on larger squads and nudging those squads to not stay cooped up in a transport all game, makes for a more visually impressive game. All of which is overall better for getting new players into the game.

Their profits surged 40%, so they may be quite happy atm, which may allow them some bravery, for what it counts.
http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2012/01/news-games-workshop-profits-surge-40.html

Kroothawk wrote:I have a question, since many people take the GW denial emmail very seriously:

1.) Does anyone with GW connections remember, if GW send a similar email when the correct 5th edition playtest rulebook leaked? I remember asking a redshirt in January about 5th edition in July, and he denied it, and 5th edition came in July. Knowing how GW works, I think he received an official document on how to react.
2.) Has there been an email concerning Space Hulk?

BTW the 6th edition rules may look very different, but have a similar feel when actually played. The document explicitely says this as well.

Can't answer (1), but I've seen several people comment that GW sent out a mail to counter a leak about Space Hulk Anniversary edition, saying it wasn't true.

Maelstrom808 wrote:You get to roll three dice for your strikeforce as long as you have at least three units in reserve, and if any of them pass then the whole thing comes in.

I'm sorry explain this to me in detail again please?

You get 1 D6 per strike force right? So if you put 3 units into a strike force then your only generating one D6, at least that what I thought

Noir Eternal wrote:I believe that the difference is

MT(1) Stationary doubles to MT(2)

MT(0) - Stationary still only fire 1 weapon

Correct.

Noir Eternal wrote:

Maelstrom808 wrote:You get to roll three dice for your strikeforce as long as you have at least three units in reserve, and if any of them pass then the whole thing comes in.

I'm sorry explain this to me in detail again please?

You get 1 D6 per strike force right? So if you put 3 units into a strike force then your only generating one D6, at least that what I thought

Actually you are right, I was thinking about a couple of reserve lists I have worked up that have the additional units outside the strike force.

The Comm LInk stratagem (1 point) gives you an additional reserve dice in your reserve pool - - When running an all reserve force that extra dice can come in mighty handy.

Now you could make a unit of 5 Plague Bearers for cheap and seperate them to generate an extra D6 so you would get two chances to bring in your strike force.

Which makes that tactic much more viable but still a bit risky

And then bring in the Bearers later for objectives

Kharrak wrote:Can't answer (1), but I've seen several people comment that GW sent out a mail to counter a leak about Space Hulk Anniversary edition, saying it wasn't true.

Damn, then I bought a fake Space Hulk

(BTW it was not exactly a leak, but Harry confirmed it 2.5 years before release, and noone doubts the pieman)

Noir Eternal wrote:Well the way you put the BROKEN rule it doesn't sound AS bad but I will want to play some games to determine whether or not if I like it.

I do like the possiblity to deny kill points though and that sounds like it would be the balancing factor to the seemingly OP 12" insta-gib from enemy units

Fall Back
Unit Type: Compulsory
A Fall Back move is a Consolidation. The unit adds
D6” to its normal Move value in inches for the Fall
Back move. Every model must end its movement
as near as the movement rules allow to its own
table edge.

Since fall back is in consolidation, then you can continue to run away in your movement phase to meet the 12" requirement. At the end of your movement phase you are destroyed if you are within 12" of the enemy. I think its more than enough chance to make the 12" requirement.

tetrisphreak wrote:The Comm LInk stratagem (1 point) gives you an additional reserve dice in your reserve pool - - When running an all reserve force that extra dice can come in mighty handy.

Good catch, wasn't thinking of using strategems for that.

Besides going 2nd for Daemons hardly makes a difference

Epicwargamer wrote:Fall Back
Unit Type: Compulsory
A Fall Back move is a Consolidation. The unit adds
D6” to its normal Move value in inches for the Fall
Back move. Every model must end its movement
as near as the movement rules allow to its own
table edge.

Since fall back is in consolidation, then you can continue to run away in your movement phase to meet the 12" requirement. At the end of your movement phase you are destroyed if you are within 12" of the enemy. I think its more than enough chance to make the 12" requirement.

Ok sounds good, I won't worry nearly as much about it then

Plus its only a single model.

Kharrak wrote:Their profits surged 40%, so they may be quite happy atm, which may allow them some bravery, for what it counts.
http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2012/01/news-games-workshop-profits-surge-40.html

Yeah, but much of that was not from sales, it was from royalties, and model sales is the core of their business.

Dribble Joy wrote:

ColdSadHungry wrote:The new wound allocation seems to be pretty painful for HQs since you have to 'saturate' an armour group before allocating wounds to another and a multi wound model counts for as many troops as the number of wounds he has. So, a 4 wound model needs to have 4 wounds allocated to him for example.

I didn't think this was right, but on re-reading the allocation rules, yes.

Interesting to see how this will play out, but it might make small uber units more dangerous to characters (which is a good thing).

His Master's Voice wrote:You saturate armor groups by assigning one wound to each model in the group. The number of wounds the model has on it's profile is irrelevant.

He picks one armour group and distributes
wounds to this group until the number of wounds
distributed to the group equals the number of
models in it. Models with multiple Wounds count
as a number of models that equals their
remaining Wounds for this purpose.

Important thing to note here is unless these hits are directed, you can still choose to completely ignore the character and place the successful wounds on other models. In the absence of directed hits the character is even safer than before. In current rules a 5 man strong squad with a 2 W character is dealt 10 wounds, the normal troopers take 8 saves and the character takes 2. If you fail three wounds and two of them happen to be the ones allocated to the character, tough luck he dies . With the new rules, you take 20 wounds on the armor grouping and if you fail three wounds, you chose which 3 models to remove. The only time they can force those wounds/saves onto the character or any specific model is using directed hits.