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.

Swara wrote:Found it. Needs to be a fast vehicle then for it to move and everyone shoot.

Shooting from moving transports
If the transport is damaged or moves fast, this
affects also the shooting performance of any
embarked unit. If the transport cannot perform
Stationary actions or has lost its multi-targeting
rule (temporarily or permanently), each embarked
unit can only perform a single Shooting action.
For example, only a single model of an embarked
unit can fire a weapon if the transport is shaken
or has moved at combat speed (or in the case of a
fast transport, has moved at cruise speed). If the
transport cannot perform Shooting actions,
embarked units cannot perform Shooting actions
either - the passengers are shaken as well or the
fire points are destroyed.

...aaaaand the Ghost Ark just became the most overpriced transport in the game. Again.

mazik765 wrote:Can anyone explain to me what it means at the beginning? It says this is recommended for people with some knowledge of the 'basic rules'. This sounds like the language used in an expansion of sorts. Or does anyone else know why they'd say that?

Think of the 'basic' rules that came with the AoBR starter set. Sort of a dumbed-down version that's very easy to pick up and play as, say, a store demo for new and prospective players. Something to keep people from being overwhelmed at the beginning of their hobby/lifestyle choice.

azazel the cat wrote:

Swara wrote:Found it. Needs to be a fast vehicle then for it to move and everyone shoot.

Shooting from moving transports
If the transport is damaged or moves fast, this
affects also the shooting performance of any
embarked unit. If the transport cannot perform
Stationary actions or has lost its multi-targeting
rule (temporarily or permanently), each embarked
unit can only perform a single Shooting action.
For example, only a single model of an embarked
unit can fire a weapon if the transport is shaken
or has moved at combat speed (or in the case of a
fast transport, has moved at cruise speed). If the
transport cannot perform Shooting actions,
embarked units cannot perform Shooting actions
either - the passengers are shaken as well or the
fire points are destroyed.

...aaaaand the Ghost Ark just became the most overpriced transport in the game. Again.

And possibly the end of Mechvets.....

alarmingrick wrote:

azazel the cat wrote:

Swara wrote:Found it. Needs to be a fast vehicle then for it to move and everyone shoot.

Shooting from moving transports
If the transport is damaged or moves fast, this
affects also the shooting performance of any
embarked unit. If the transport cannot perform
Stationary actions or has lost its multi-targeting
rule (temporarily or permanently), each embarked
unit can only perform a single Shooting action.
For example, only a single model of an embarked
unit can fire a weapon if the transport is shaken
or has moved at combat speed (or in the case of a
fast transport, has moved at cruise speed). If the
transport cannot perform Shooting actions,
embarked units cannot perform Shooting actions
either - the passengers are shaken as well or the
fire points are destroyed.

...aaaaand the Ghost Ark just became the most overpriced transport in the game. Again.

And possibly the end of Mechvets.....

And there was much rejoicing

alarmingrick wrote:And possibly the end of Mechvets.....

If I am right in my thinking, mechvets might even get slightly stronger...
1. Move chimera combat speed (6")
2. Move veterans out the back of the chimera combat speed (6")
3. Receive orders, fire
4. Consolidate back into vehicle

ph34r wrote:

alarmingrick wrote:And possibly the end of Mechvets.....

If I am right in my thinking, mechvets might even get slightly stronger...
1. Move chimera combat speed (6")
2. Move veterans out the back of the chimera combat speed (6")
3. Receive orders, fire
4. Consolidate back into vehicle

And sit there next turn, with your ass pointing to everything on the field.

Ozeo wrote:

ph34r wrote:

alarmingrick wrote:And possibly the end of Mechvets.....

If I am right in my thinking, mechvets might even get slightly stronger...
1. Move chimera combat speed (6")
2. Move veterans out the back of the chimera combat speed (6")
3. Receive orders, fire
4. Consolidate back into vehicle

And sit there next turn, with your ass pointing to everything on the field.

Nobody said anything about turning the tank around. With conservative tank positioning, you have an effective 6+1+6+12" threat bubble with the melta, though measured from the front of the vehicle, 25" for normal 19" for 2d6. In 5e rules, you move 6", turn around, deploy 2+1", and shoot out 6-12" further. A total range of 6" movement, 3" deployment, 6-12" shooting puts you at 15-21" threat, though when you count the vehicle flipping around for another 6" for 21"-27", you come up 2" short with the 6e conservative move.

Not bad imo. If you really need that extra reach, you can still flip the vehicle for a 6e reach of 25" melta range I believe. Pretty scary... and you can always hop back into the transport after for relative safety.

infinite_array wrote:

elrabin wrote:

Trasvi wrote:The thing which is niggling me the most about this document's authenticity is the occasional lapses from the 'Queen's English'. Heck Armor (not Rear Armour), etc. Does anyone know if the people in the studio are mostly Brits or if there are some yanks in there as well?

I'm a "yank" and I've never heard of the term "heck armor." The leak seemed very consistent in use, but the term is foreign to me. And Google.

'Heck' is rear in German.

Also having been discussed earlier I'm this thread that heck is a typo and should be deck. When they work out the fire points further basically they talk Shiu the three front fire points, one on each side (which you count the back as a side) and one from the heck (deck or top of the bastion).

Due to spacing on the top I think it should be three from there and one everywhere else, but we'll see in the final draft. If this turns out to be a fake which I don't think it is, then I see a whole lot of people leaving the GW version of the rules at home and bringing their printouts with them in the future.

Why? Mechvets usually get out of the chimera in my experience.

ChocolateGork wrote:Why? Mechvets usually get out of the chimera in my experience.

So do mine, when it blows up. Driving around in our armored T-shirt, firing 5 weapons out of the top was fun while it lasted.

alarmingrick wrote:

ChocolateGork wrote:Why? Mechvets usually get out of the chimera in my experience.

So do mine, when it blows up. Driving around in our armored T-shirt, firing 5 weapons out of the top was fun while it lasted.

Agreed. I was all amped about drive-bys with 3 PGs, a PP, and a relentless LC, but the rules did not work out quite that way

Trasvi wrote:My guess is that the starter box(es?) will come with a very stripped down version of the rules: enough to let you play exactly what is in the box but not much more. Other games systems (ie, Warmahordes) do this already.

The thing which is niggling me the most about this document's authenticity is the occasional lapses from the 'Queen's English'. Heck Armor (not Rear Armour), etc. Does anyone know if the people in the studio are mostly Brits or if there are some yanks in there as well?

My suspicion is that parts of this might have been in German and translated before the PDF was made, and that before the main book is released they'll be rewritten properly. GW use German playtesters so it makes sense that if the rules were originally written in English, then translated to German for the playtesters, if an approved edit was made by the playtesters, it might get 'Engrished' when quickly translated back to english for the next draft. This seems like it might be the first draft sent to the graphic designer (judging by the detail on the pdf author/location) for the initial scoping of the layout - they sent a rough version of how they imagined the text would be set out, so that the graphic designer could start planning where text, boxes and pictures go. Whilst he does that, the writers will be rewriting the language for the final version.

That's just my impression, as a writer myself.

That would explain some of the wording issues that has plagued GW for some time.

Writing playtest rules, translating them into german, (worst case) getting feedback in german, translating feedback and then rewriting into english is......well, a recipe for disaster.

So Nobody in the thread (that i've seen) has mentioned this typo so far -- Jump and Flying infantry. In the unit summary table they have their move speeds listed as 8", yet in the written paragraph describing the units on the preceeding pages it lists their move as 9".

I believe the correct value is 9", and here is why - Currently a jump trooper can move 12" and assault 6" equalling an 18" range. With a 9" move, you get an 18" charge, so it is the same range (only now they can charge and ignore intervening terrain. excellent). If their move were only 8" they would only have a charge of 16", which is no faster than a fleet foot trooper.

How do others interpret this little bug? Again, we go by move of 9", 11" for fleet jump infantry.

azazel the cat wrote:

Swara wrote:Found it. Needs to be a fast vehicle then for it to move and everyone shoot.

Shooting from moving transports
If the transport is damaged or moves fast, this
affects also the shooting performance of any
embarked unit. If the transport cannot perform
Stationary actions or has lost its multi-targeting
rule (temporarily or permanently), each embarked
unit can only perform a single Shooting action.
For example, only a single model of an embarked
unit can fire a weapon if the transport is shaken
or has moved at combat speed (or in the case of a
fast transport, has moved at cruise speed). If the
transport cannot perform Shooting actions,
embarked units cannot perform Shooting actions
either - the passengers are shaken as well or the
fire points are destroyed.

...aaaaand the Ghost Ark just became the most overpriced transport in the game. Again.

It's still early though. I'm still hoping that they don't get worse then they are now : (.

Guy at my FLGS says that he read somewhere that the leaked documents originates from Scotland which disproves their authenticy due to the fact that GW supposedly does not do playtesting in Scotland. Anyone heard about this? I tried to Google it but I don't see it anywhere...

On the topic of disembarking from transports, shooting, then embarking back in the transport during the Consolidation phase:

I have a feeling that this will be changed. I bet they will add the restriction that you cannot embark in the same turn that you disembarked. This is based purely on the fact that I think it would be a little "cheesy" to allow players to do this.

EDIT:

On the Jump / Flying Infantry MV entry typo, I believe we used 9" because it syncs up with how far 5e Jump Infantry move. 5e: 12" Move + 6" Charge 6e: 9" Move or 18" Charge

It appears that they listed them correctly in their respective entries but they are listed wrong in the reference chart.

So one thing I can't stand about these rules are the stratagem points/rules. IMO these are not tactics these are random buffs to your units. When I first started playing any thingfrom GW it was whfb and the game at that time was all about what random special items you took. I switched to 40k because I thought this to be stupid, I don't want to play with toys with "magic" powers. I want to use standard movement and the war gear to out position my opponent wherei can beat him by shooting or assault, randomly giving a unit stubborn because of "magic" Stratagem points or being able to rerole a number of re-roles is again IMO stupid and takes away from .

Now I know people think this adds to the strategic depth of the game but actually it only adds to the randomness of it. Its analogous to using wild cards in poker, it seems fun but completely nerds the skill portion of it.

Well, stratagems are a balance for the first turn.

It won't matter in most games, but for exaple IG vs Tau,
in 5th ed this match was simply decided by who got the first turn.
Now you can use the stratagems to balance it out.

Stratagem points aren't random. They're a trade-off. You're weighing off how much you want access to stratagems vs how much you want to control who goes 1st. If you don't want your opponent to have the benefits, fold first. However be wary that often acting first is of FAR greater benefit than the bonus rules or rerolls you buy at 1sp, or even the night fight you get at 2

Wow..never expected that this topic would explode like this, read some of the stuff and at first i thought i was a wishlistgirl/fanboy baby but seeing it explode over the forums like this and reading some more i am trying to believe this is 6th edition?!!!?

I think I agree with Pony_law. I wish they could design the rules that would minimize random factors in the game and make the game as skill-intensive as possible. However, I think GW's model for their games is that this is just a fun, casual game not meant for tournament play. I think they have repeatedly reinforced this idea despite the fact that there appears to be a significant movement among tabletop gamers to move tabletop wargaming into a competitive environment.

Having said that, I feel that the Strategems are supposed to balance out the fact that one player gets the first turn and the other is just basically dicked with nothing they can do about it. Some armies can literally just blow away almost everything you got on the first turn and there isn't a whole lot you can do about it. I think the Strategems are supposed to offset that a little bit. I have not looked through all of the Strategems but I have heard that some of them are pretty bonkers. *shrug*

Judging from the single game I have played and the rules written, I believe 6th edition will contain at least some part of these new rules.

Slave wrote:Nobz wound shenanigans have been completely removed. Thanks for that.

Actually, there's still some benefit from wound allocation. Say you have a unit of 6 nobs with powerklaws, so you always strike last. Now you assault something, but because the enemy unit gets to strike first, you take 6 wounds. Without wound allocation, you would have to remove 3 nobs, and only 3 get to attack back. With wound allocation, you'd assign 1 wound to each and get to hit back with all 6 nobs, and then remove 3 nobs in the Patch Up phase.

Redemption wrote:

Slave wrote:Nobz wound shenanigans have been completely removed. Thanks for that.

Actually, there's still some benefit from wound allocation. Say you have a unit of 6 nobs with powerklaws, so you always strike last. Now you assault something, but because the enemy unit gets to strike first, you take 6 wounds. Without wound allocation, you would have to remove 3 nobs, and only 3 get to attack back. With wound allocation, you'd assign 1 wound to each and get to hit back with all 6 nobs, and then remove 3 nobs in the Patch Up phase.

And even better, if that combat happened in your opponents phase, patch up doesn't happen until the end of your turn, meaning the nobs get a whole other round to act (and likely take some more wounds in cc, which means often times you aren't losing all that much more combat effectiveness due to the change). Its a great change in my opinion, means all multi wound units benefit, not just the few with varied wargear options.

Does the new rules allow multiple wound models to take 1 wound per model during combat because of patch up?

Ex. 6 Wraiths (2 wounds each) take 6 wounds before attacking. Can I take 1 wound per each, then attack and loose 3 at the end of the turn?

Indeed. You can 'push them past their limits' for a period, before the consequences take hold.

This also means that nobs are much more capable of dealing with those deathstar units that rely on killing them off before they strike back.

Swara wrote:Does the new rules allow multiple wound models to take 1 wound per model during combat because of patch up?

Ex. 6 Wraiths (2 wounds each) take 6 wounds before attacking. Can I take 1 wound per each, then attack and loose 3 at the end of the turn?

That seems to be my interpretation. There are no written restrictions on how you allocate wounds within an "armour group" except that you must fully saturate the armour group before moving to another (so a unit of 6 Wraiths with a destroyer lord would have to allocate 12 wounds to the 6 Wraiths before allocating to the destroyer lord, or 3 on the lord first before allocating any to the wraiths). Other than that, it doesn't say you have to remove whole models (as this is covered in Patch Up).

So if you failed 6 saves within the armour group of the 6 Wraiths, you could put one wound on each, fight, then Patch Up in your consolidation phase.

At least that's how I read it.

Xca|iber wrote:

Swara wrote:Does the new rules allow multiple wound models to take 1 wound per model during combat because of patch up?

Ex. 6 Wraiths (2 wounds each) take 6 wounds before attacking. Can I take 1 wound per each, then attack and loose 3 at the end of the turn?

That seems to be my interpretation. There are no written restrictions on how you allocate wounds within an "armour group" except that you must fully saturate the armour group before moving to another (so a unit of 6 Wraiths with a destroyer lord would have to allocate 12 wounds to the 6 Wraiths before allocating to the destroyer lord, or 3 on the lord first before allocating any to the wraiths). Other than that, it doesn't say you have to remove whole models (as this is covered in Patch Up).

So if you failed 6 saves within the armour group of the 6 Wraiths, you could put one wound on each, fight, then Patch Up in your consolidation phase.

At least that's how I read it.

I was so not aware of this. I thought you still distribute wounds on a model basis with an armor group, not a wounds remaining within an armor group. It's a subtle difference that makes quite an impact in how wounds are allocated.

Zyllos wrote:

Xca|iber wrote:

Swara wrote:Does the new rules allow multiple wound models to take 1 wound per model during combat because of patch up?

Ex. 6 Wraiths (2 wounds each) take 6 wounds before attacking. Can I take 1 wound per each, then attack and loose 3 at the end of the turn?

That seems to be my interpretation. There are no written restrictions on how you allocate wounds within an "armour group" except that you must fully saturate the armour group before moving to another (so a unit of 6 Wraiths with a destroyer lord would have to allocate 12 wounds to the 6 Wraiths before allocating to the destroyer lord, or 3 on the lord first before allocating any to the wraiths). Other than that, it doesn't say you have to remove whole models (as this is covered in Patch Up).

So if you failed 6 saves within the armour group of the 6 Wraiths, you could put one wound on each, fight, then Patch Up in your consolidation phase.

At least that's how I read it.

I was so not aware of this. I thought you still distribute wounds on a model basis with an armor group, not a wounds remaining within an armor group. It's a subtle difference that makes quite an impact in how wounds are allocated.

Yeah, I thought the same thing, but I guess I was just assuming because that how it was for 5th. This makes wraiths a bit better, not overpowering, but better.

Look Out, Sergeant and Combat Drill are totally pointless.

There's never an advantage to swinging slower with Combat Drill.

Look Out Sergeant only punishes you. The column next to it already gives models a 5+ cover save if there's intervening units.

As a read "Patch Up" It doesn't seem to restrict the models to who's turn it is. It simply states "If a unit contains more than one wounded model,
it must carry out a Patch Up action."

Not "Your Models" or the currently player. I believe it happens to EVERYONES model, on EVERY consolidation phase.