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.

Tapeworm711 wrote:No.

Combat move
Unit Type: Move

Ramming
Unit Type: Move, Support

It is not.

Damn. Wishful thinking.

I am at work and don't have a copy to reference. I guess we can always shoot out ... or use boarding ramps.

Wrekkin' Balls. Str 9, anyone?

Tapeworm711 wrote:

ColdSadHungry wrote:

Tapeworm711 wrote:Fire a Blast weapon like any other weapons.

A BS4 Marine needs a 3+ to hit. On a 3,4,5, or 6 the shot does not scatter.

If you rolled a 1 or a 2, you roll the scatter die. On a HIT the shot does not scatter.
Otherwise, on a 1 it deviates 2 inches and on a 2 it deviates 4 inches.


The most a blast weapon can ever scatter is 12". But that is a model that needs a 5+ to hit. But rolls a 6, and fails to roll a hit on the scatter die.

Gah! Maybe I'm stupid but on the most it could scatter example - if you needed a 5+ and you rolled a 6, would that not be a hit? If you needed a 6 to hit and rolled a 5, then you would scatter and wouldn't you scatter 5 x 2 = 10"? so surely the most you could scatter is 10"?

Yea sorry that was supposed to be "6+" to hit, And rolls a 5, resulting in 10" of scatter. Sorry for the confusion.

Ok, that's clear now. thanks for clarifying it for me.

Tapeworm711 wrote:Fire a Blast weapon like any other weapons.

A BS4 Marine needs a 3+ to hit. On a 3,4,5, or 6 the shot does not scatter.

If you rolled a 1 or a 2, you roll the scatter die. On a HIT the shot does not scatter.
Otherwise, on a 1 it deviates 2 inches and on a 2 it deviates 4 inches.

I think that's incorrect.

Blast Weapon (and Barrage Weapons targeting something in LOS):
1) roll to hit (BS vs EV).

2a) If you hit, the blast marker stays where you put it.

2b) If you miss, then the marker scatters 2x the number rolled, in the direction of the arrow on the scatter die (regardless of whether the scatter die comes up with a hit symbol or not; if it does, use the direction of the little arrow on the hit symbol).


However, Barrage weapons that target a point that is not in LOS of the firing model are different:
1) Roll to hit (BS vs EV)

2a) If you hit, roll the scatter die anyways:
2a) i) If the scatter die comes up with a hit symbol, then the hit is true - do not scatter the marker
2a) ii) If the scatter die comes up with an arrow, the marker is moved in that direction by twice the number rolled to-hit

2b) If you miss, then the marker scatters 2x the number rolled, in the direction of the arrow on the scatter die (regardless of whether the scatter die comes up with a hit symbol or not; if it does, use the direction of the little arrow on the hit symbol).

Nice observation by sturguard over at Warseers Quarantine thread for the "obvious leak":

sturguard wrote:Did anyone happen to notice that the leaked PDF and the FAQ made JoTWWs a psychic power that did not need to roll to hit and then today when GW produces a FAQ update, low and behold, JoTWW does not need a roll to hit? Seems kind of fishy. I wonder how many other subltle changes there were?

Seems like "the random fan who wrote this" was lucky again with guessing GW's future moves

To be fair, anyone could have predicted that. At the very worst, it would have been a 50:50 chance, and considering that it's a Marine book, it was more like a 85:14:1. (No Hitroll : Hitroll : Some completely unrelated buff)

Kroothawk wrote:Nice observation by sturguard over at Warseers Quarantine thread for the "obvious leak":

sturguard wrote:Did anyone happen to notice that the leaked PDF and the FAQ made JoTWWs a psychic power that did not need to roll to hit and then today when GW produces a FAQ update, low and behold, JoTWW does not need a roll to hit? Seems kind of fishy. I wonder how many other subltle changes there were?

Seems like "the random fan who wrote this" was lucky again with guessing GW's future moves

To be fair, the leak update also states that Lash is Auto-Hit.

And today, a FAQ states Lash requires a to-hit roll.

So neither is much evidence im afraid.

Has anyone noticed that implosion missiles become a little odd under these rules? They don't normally cause wounds, but inflict instant death on a failed W characteristic roll. Instant death in 6th only causes +1 wound. Seems kinda overcomplicated now, and at 30pts each, very pointless.

Leggy wrote:Has anyone noticed that implosion missiles become a little odd under these rules? They don't normally cause wounds, but inflict instant death on a failed W characteristic roll. Instant death in 6th only causes +1 wound. Seems kinda overcomplicated now, and at 30pts each, very pointless.

Yes. Quite Pointless

And holy crap i love your sig.

I remember writing that quote down when it saw it on the show.

when I first assemble my berzerkers like 10 years ago I gave them the plasma pistols, then realized they were a waste of points but I usually run 8 and a champ and leave the plasmas in the case. then about 2 weeks ago I finally decided to go ahead and cut off the plasmas and replace them with bolt pistols :( now I wanna put em back

Tapeworm711 wrote:

Kroothawk wrote:Nice observation by sturguard over at Warseers Quarantine thread for the "obvious leak":

sturguard wrote:Did anyone happen to notice that the leaked PDF and the FAQ made JoTWWs a psychic power that did not need to roll to hit and then today when GW produces a FAQ update, low and behold, JoTWW does not need a roll to hit? Seems kind of fishy. I wonder how many other subltle changes there were?

Seems like "the random fan who wrote this" was lucky again with guessing GW's future moves

To be fair, the leak update also states that Lash is Auto-Hit.

And today, a FAQ states Lash requires a to-hit roll.

So neither is much evidence im afraid.

Oooh, good point.

lapis wrote:when I first assemble my berzerkers like 10 years ago I gave them the plasma pistols, then realized they were a waste of points but I usually run 8 and a champ and leave the plasmas in the case. then about 2 weeks ago I finally decided to go ahead and cut off the plasmas and replace them with bolt pistols :( now I wanna put em back

Well they do only get a single attack with them.

ChocolateGork wrote:

lapis wrote:when I first assemble my berzerkers like 10 years ago I gave them the plasma pistols, then realized they were a waste of points but I usually run 8 and a champ and leave the plasmas in the case. then about 2 weeks ago I finally decided to go ahead and cut off the plasmas and replace them with bolt pistols :( now I wanna put em back

Well they do only get a single attack with them.

Single Str: 7 attack. That is high enough to ID T3 and lower or smack a tougher creature more easily. also if your opponent breaks really early you can blast them after your Assault.

That is what I think I like the best about these rules. There is a lot of give and take.

I've been really looking forward to pistols in CC. It's been something I was wishing for since before the WD codex was released.

They may only ever have a base of 1, but they can still be modified by having a pair of identical pistols and gain the +1 attack from charging.

Seraphim are a lot more destructive in CC now than they were before.
Essentially their number of attacks is unchanged, but they were S3 and had no AP.
Now they are S4 AP5, with inferno pistols and flamers on top of that.
Plus if they engage instead of charge, they can still fire those flamers and such after they hit and run and still manage to consolidate into (hopeful) safety.

It's almost made me wonder if anyone has seen a unit in a codex yet that also has twin pistols.
Because I'd love is the sisters get a CC focus troop choice who has two bolt pistols instead of a bolter and pistol.
But that's really wishful thinking.

I should shut up about the sisters, but this thin hope for change means it's that much likelier that they'll realize people want plastic sisters. Hehe.

Gah! I see they still have the same problem that's been around since 4th edition. They tell you that you get +1 attack in close combat for using two single-handed weapons and then they don't define what is a single-handed weapon! You'd think they would look at their current FAQs so they didn't make the same mistakes in the new edition.

So, can anyone clarify if a unit can make a Charge / Engage move after it has come in from reserves via Deep Strike? The sentence that talks about this uses a double negative and then another negative in the following sentence so it is kinda hard to read.

Also, the scatter rules for barrage type weapons are pretty awful. Most weapons will only ever scatter 2" to 4" at the most if I understand it correctly.

Kurce wrote:So, can anyone clarify if a unit can make a Charge / Engage move after it has come in from reserves via Deep Strike? The sentence that talks about this uses a double negative and then another negative in the following sentence so it is kinda hard to read.

After DS the only move actions you can use are; Turn, Combat move, and Engage.
Disembarking from a DSing vehicle <drop pod> you may only use Combat move.

Did a test run with a friend earlier. He had not read the rule so I explained to him as we went how things would be working, phases etc. SoB VS IG and the game lasted a little under 3 hours. Considering I was fresh to the rules and he had no clues, this was pretty decent. I could see them getting close to an hour and possibly less.

Notable things from my sisters point of view:

1. Being able to exit a transport, shoot and reembark in your consolidation phase is very powerful
2. Exorcist are almost unstoppable now if you do not dedicate a massive amount of fire power to stop them.
3. Celestine's threat bubble is immense. If she did not charge and breaks an enemy, being able to hit them with an heavy flamer hit if they did not get far enough is really nice.
4. Reserves (dominions) outflanking no later than turn 4 was also nice.

From the Imperial guard's point of view:

1. Banewolfs are nasty against transports. Devildogs with those new scatter rules are also really nice now.
2. Squads of veterans all armed with shotguns and flamers is a huge amount of attacks in melee.
3. Ogryns doing an Alpha Strike makes them a lot more viable to reinforce an ongoing assault.
4. Being able to hit my tanks on 2+ or 3+ made his day.


End result was that my opponent got really excited, even if he lost, as those rules open up a lot of options with units he would never have considered before (cavalry charging 21 inches is really nice for example). I like those rules and, while they may still be fake, I would consider using them permanently. I just wish I had as many unit choices available to me as he does

Anvildude wrote:
Also, Nobz are still one of the units that can do wound shenanigans pretty well- You can have a Nob with his basic 6+, one with 6+/5++, one with 4+, and one with 4+5++, meaning 4 wound groups. So you can still have 8 Nobz differentiated to the extent that there's only 2 in each wound group, which may actually benefit them slightly- and it simplifies list building, and allows you to have more concentrated firepower, since now there's nothing keeping you from giving them all Powerklaws, or Big Choppas, or Kombi-skorchas or whatnot.

I can't remember the name of the rule right now. But Wound shenanigans don't work because if more then 1 muti-wound models in a unit has taken a wound, One modle is restored to full wounds and the other is killed off.

So if you tried it wound allocation, end of turn guys are getting killed off anyway.

The rule you're thinking of is "Patch Up"

Armor Groups mean nothing when it comes to Patch Up in the Consolidation Phase. Only one model may be wounded at the end of this; you're going to have to play musical-wounds and kill things off.

The only exception to this are attached Independent Characters, but that's because they're a separate unit.

Absolutionis wrote:The rule you're thinking of is "Patch Up"

Armor Groups mean nothing when it comes to Patch Up in the Consolidation Phase. Only one model may be wounded at the end of this; you're going to have to play musical-wounds and kill things off.

The only exception to this are attached Independent Characters, but that's because they're a separate unit.

Thanks. Was drawing a blank on that one, and didn't have the PDF on hand.

Even if nothing else of this ever happens, I WOULD LOVE them to make the patch up -rule stick anyway. Multi-wound-shenigans is the most stupid mechanic in 40K in my mind (and yes my first army was orks and yes I used multiwounds but only on meganobs).

At this point, I think it's fake. Why? After my initial reaction, I sat down and thought about it. If the rules really were written this way, it would reverse a trend that I've been seeing. What were the big changes to 8th ed fantasy? Legalizing premeasure, random charge distances added in, etc.

The games have never been designed with the thought in mind that they should be built for effective, balanced, competetive play. In general, the rules have beenwritten with ease of use and randomness. A "beer and pretzl's" game as I was told once. Which is precisely what the new fantasy edition is. And what 40k has always been.

That's why these rules cannot possibly be real. If they are real, then this is very early and the final version will look nothing like this pdf. Noting the typos, white space, lack of pictures, etc. this type of thing looks early.

However, an early rulebook test wouldn't have the army edits done already. I just can't imagine GW doing that.

Also: first 5th ed 40k, then 8th ed fantasy, then war of the ring did away with terrain that completely blocked line of sight because of area terrain. I sincerely don't believe they would put such a rule back in...but why that is so is kind of a long and convoluted answer.

For some reason, I felt the beginning of the 6th ed (fake) rule book was written very much like a normal gw book, but around the halfway point it stopped reading like one.

I didn't really notice until I sat down and wondered if maybe what I was reading wasnt real.. I have no proof, just my gut feeling.

Oh lastly: GW's written a missions book, and there is NO WAY that there would be only 2 regular scenarios. No edition of 40k has had less than 3, and most have had more. Fantasy has 6.

Oh: usually links posted on dakka get shot down right away..but the front page has a working link on it in the first post. hmm....No one was banned, no one was threatened...as far as I know on Dakka for doing so. This is the first time I've seen the mods do this kind of behavior.

FAKE! My evidence may be circumstantial, but it seems like everything is acting really out of place. Also, in the past when things were shut down, it was usually in the form of a cease and desist letter, not random taking downs and what not. Like I said, I have no proof, but it just doesn't seem to add up.

So you are telling that someone did a prank or anyway worked on these rules just for fun ? It is absurd you know that don't you ? 129 pages of rules (written in a good way) seems a bit too hard to accept as fake.

Dorn's Heresy , being fan written is not even close to this pdf. It can't be fan work.

It can be. You know how I know? I was one of those people on Gamefaqs that wrote those huge massive guides telling people how to get better in a video game. Some of my work is still on there. Look at the work Kao Megura did before he passed on...we're talking docuemtns of text..TEXT that were 400k in size.

http://shoryuken.com/forum/index.php?threads/ibuki-player-guide-book.139593/

Yes, that ibuki guide is done by a fan. If this guy can do it, then some random person on the internet can make a fake sixth edition ruleset. Hell, I've made my own rulesets, I just didn't perpetrate them as a fake ruleset.

scuddman wrote:Oh: usually links posted on dakka get shot down right away..but the front page has a working link on it in the first post. hmm....No one was banned, no one was threatened...as far as I know on Dakka for doing so. This is the first time I've seen the mods do this kind of behavior.

I believe you have Dakka confused with one of those lesser boards...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

scuddman wrote:It can be. You know how I know? I was one of those people on Gamefaqs that wrote those huge massive guides telling people how to get better in a video game. Some of my work is still on there. Look at the work Kao Megura did before he passed on...we're talking docuemtns of text..TEXT that were 400k in size.

http://shoryuken.com/forum/index.php?threads/ibuki-player-guide-book.139593/

Yes, that ibuki guide is done by a fan. If this guy can do it, then some random person on the internet can make a fake sixth edition ruleset. Hell, I've made my own rulesets, I just didn't perpetrate them as a fake ruleset.

Writing a linear walkthrough is far easier than writing a self-referencial set of playable rules for 18 different variable armies. By your logic, Marcel Proust is the greatest writer in the history of the Western world, because he wrote the longest book. But I assure you, Proust is not the greatest author.

Reading In Search of Lost Time is a punishment.

<shrug> LIke I said, I don't have proof. I just have a gut feeling about it because it doesn't feel like everything adds up. The way the rules are written clash with what I know about GW...it's like the writer doesn't have the right attitude or GWness. It's kinda like how a foreigner stands out just walking around. You notice because the person seems strange, but you can't articulate why.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
"Writing a linear walkthrough is far easier than writing a self-referencial set of playable rules for 18 different variable armies. By your logic, Marcel Proust is the greatest writer in the history of the Western world, because he wrote the longest book. But I assure you, Proust is not the greatest author"

No, this is wrong. In our day, it was hardly linear. Fighting game engine mechanics were discovered through painstaking trial and error. That's why, if you look at Kao Megura's system faqs, many of them were written with revisions coming over the course of 2 years.

Well, a few things learned from a playtest of the PDF from ealier tonight:

- Swarms are far more resiliant than they are in the current edition. Even S10 blasts will only remove one base per actual wound.

- Supersonic units making gun runs are awesome, until you have to set them up for the second run. It can be very difficult finding a safe place on the table where they can place a target marker near an enemy unit in their front arc after a clear run. Definately requires some meticulous planning.

- When playing anihiliation, shooting a unit and having it break and run is BAD if you can't finish them before they reach the table edge. If they make it off the table, you get 0 points for the unit. You also have to be careful about this in assault, but you are much safer as if they run from assault, they aren't considered broken until after their move. Had a frantic moment of rule searching when a 7kp unit broke and ran directly off the board from a combat.

- Movement being confined to a single phase (in most cases), and the reduction of random movement makes for MUCH faster play.

- Mawlocs are awesome if there are no dedicated CC units around...Terror from the Derp, immune to Defensive Fire, can immediately assault.

No, this is wrong. In our day, it was hardly linear. Fighting game engine mechanics were discovered through painstaking trial and error. That's why, if you look at Kao Megura's system faqs, many of them were written with revisions coming over the course of 2 years.

However, you were still deriving your writing from a separate, already constructed source, in essence you were taking a complex game and making it simpler, through analysis. You weren't "creating" anything, not in the sense that people came away with something entirely new. This isn't meant to denigrate your or others' efforts, such a massive endeavour should be commended, however, the two instances are not really comparable.

scuddman wrote:At this point, I think it's fake. Why? After my initial reaction, I sat down and thought about it. If the rules really were written this way, it would reverse a trend that I've been seeing. What were the big changes to 8th ed fantasy? Legalizing premeasure, random charge distances added in, etc.

And a huge number of fantasy players ragequit thanks to that. Maybe GW noticed.