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.

Absolutionis wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:

Absolutionis wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:I would say its fake, this is the same document that was posted about a year ago, just cleaned up and reworded to make it look more professional. Also,some of these rules are contradicted by the Necron release (the "Heavy" vehicle rule as described in the Necron Codex is not the same as the "Heavy" rule in this document for example)

Anyway, as someone else pointed out, if this is legit, it will be taken down in a few hours...

The pdf is really comprehensive and even includes Gauss and Tesla weapons.
.

Actually this may just be the proof that this is real (good catch)... Tesla weapons didn't exist until the new Necron book came out (in November?), I dont think the rumors of the tesla rule came about until well after May 2011...

Well, anyone can set their computer time back.
If anything, it's evidence that we're either working with the real thing or the faker is really really thorough.

Considering how thorough our 'faker' was with the spelling and grammar errors, I would guess that setting system time back would be a bit too thorough a job...
... either that or thats what they WANTED me to think... O_O

Do fearless units suffer additional wounds from failed combats? I'm not seeing it in the rules.

Also, in the codex section, the Ork Waaagh! rule is changed to all Ork Infantry units (no Grots). Does that now include jump infantry per the Ork Codex before the FAQ?

The spelling errors aren't anything special. This book has only gone through basic formatting and layout. Proofreading would come after that.

H.B.M.C. wrote:The spelling errors aren't anything special. This book has only gone through basic formatting and layout. Proofreading would come after that.

WELLLL after... lol.

Looking at the FAQ for chaos, dreadnaughts don't suck anymore-roll a 1 and they fire twice at an enemy!! Also, I think Possessed become usable-now their vehicle can scout if they have one, or they can move 8 inches instead of 6 with fleet, or keep their host of other awesome abilities. Possessed are worth taking! Methinks this current chaos codex is getting a tad bit better for the moment

Can't stop noticing what a huge boost nids get from this. Now I am going, ooohh. Harpy has an evasion of 6, lol.

Strategic points are an interesting mechanic. It seems like it will slow down the game dramatically as slow players poke through their options before the game has started. And there doesn't seem to be anything stopping from betting one trillion strategic points. In fact, apart from the disincentive of giving your opponent more points, the only limit to betting would be the highest number you know the name of.

... If you bet high enough, there could potentially be legal games where every missed dice could be re-rolled with Battle Fate.

If this IS from GW, they're nailing the coffin on 40k, because anyone who plays this is going to quickly see how poorly written and 'balanced' it is. I'm not talking out of my arse, there are hideously terrible things wrong in this book.

For short, Assault before shooting, making hybrid units like terminators and the entire Eldar army, awful. Assault weapons for that same reason. Squadrons of vehicles which feel more random than 3rd edition Orks. Units costing random killpoints. 'Protect the Sarge' which would just make certain armies invulnerable.

So many other things. And clearly, since GW already wrote Necrons and GKs to be compatible to 6th, we aren't going to be seeing huge army revisions like this might suggest, so please don't pull that card out.

Disruptions pods changed to +5 cover save in the codex errata

timetowaste85 wrote:Looking at the FAQ for chaos, dreadnaughts don't suck anymore-roll a 1 and they fire twice at an enemy!! Also, I think Possessed become usable-now their vehicle can scout if they have one, or they can move 8 inches instead of 6 with fleet, or keep their host of other awesome abilities. Possessed are worth taking! Methinks this current chaos codex is getting a tad bit better for the moment

Even with all my optimism this will never be true.

Take everything you just said back right now. The current 'Chaos' Codex is an abomination. A bland vanilla abomination.

thunderingjove wrote:Do fearless units suffer additional wounds from failed combats? I'm not seeing it in the rules.

Yes. It's under "No Retreat!" still.
It's more punishing in that the 'fearless wounds' ignore armor.
However, you have the option of taking a leadership check (modified by how badly you lost) in order to negate the fearless wounds. The only penalty for failing this Ld Check is you take fearless wounds.

Teh_K42 wrote:Strategic points are an interesting mechanic. It seems like it will slow down the game dramatically as slow players poke through their options before the game has started. And there doesn't seem to be anything stopping from betting one trillion strategic points. In fact, apart from the disincentive of giving your opponent more points, the only limit to betting would be the highest number you know the name of.

... If you bet high enough, there could potentially be legal games where every missed dice could be re-rolled with Battle Fate.

Which is why I think the 'bidding' part is an necessary complication that adds nothing to the game. Basing SP on the size of the game would be a far better solution.

Teh_K42 wrote:Strategic points are an interesting mechanic. It seems like it will slow down the game dramatically as slow players poke through their options before the game has started. And there doesn't seem to be anything stopping from betting one trillion strategic points. In fact, apart from the disincentive of giving your opponent more points, the only limit to betting would be the highest number you know the name of.

... If you bet high enough, there could potentially be legal games where every missed dice could be re-rolled with Battle Fate.

I honestly can't ever imagine any sane person bidding beyond 3...after that, abilities start to get too powerful and will even negate advantages of going first.

Pg 76 of the 'rulebook'.... patch up:

This rule is for those multiwound hit squads such as paladins and nobz... since you assign who is wounded in the armor group and can spread around wounds willy-nilly and give everyone 1 if you want... this fixes that and probably allows for longevity of those models...

Well, as a Necron player I do hope we eventually get rule fixes as well.
Being 6th ed ready codex, doesn't mean it's all said and written.

It seems the Necron Codex changed or was in works when this was written as this leaked rulebook mentions Tesla Weapons, for some reason they have cost listed... All tesla weapons are free in codex. Also the Pistol list (that seems to have all pistols out there) is missing Necron Particle Caster.

2 thoughts:

I totally don't get the new Preferred Enemy rule... Unless it means that my Destroyers who hate everyone would hit on 2+, as with BS4 they would hit on 3+ anyway.
Was hoping for re-roll, but this will have to do.

Deep Strike - so Flayed Ones are safe to DS 18" away but can't assault as their assault range is 12". Damn.... Optionally I can DS them with scatter, closer than 18" and risk shooting retaliation from enemy. C'mon. I hope they will get fixed to use "Deep Strike (Ambush)" rule, as otherwise this unit is still useless as f*** :/

On the other hand DS Deathmarks... 18" flawless and than shoot up to 24". Assasination in progress

H.B.M.C. wrote:No mishap table for Deep Striking.

Yet another hated rule of mine bites the dust.

EDIT: And you roll To Hit with Blast weapons, and scatter only if they miss, not just scatter everything. So yet another hated rule of mine bites the dust.



This is so good that... that it just can't be true!

Far too useful, I really doubt this is legit.

Herr Dexter wrote:Tesla Weapons, for some reason they have cost listed... All tesla weapons are free in codex.

That's because the Strategem Fortifications use them.

Herr Dexter wrote:I totally don't get the new Preferred Enemy rule... Unless it means that my Destroyers who hate everyone would hit on 2+, as with BS4 they would hit on 3+ anyway.
Was hoping for re-roll, but this will have to do

Not necessarily. Read the whole bunch of text regarding "evasion".

Herr Dexter wrote:Deep Strike - so Flayed Ones are safe to DS 18" away but can't assault as their assault range is 12". Damn.... Optionally I can DS them with scatter, closer than 18" and risk shooting retaliation from enemy. C'mon. I hope they will get fixed to use "Deep Strike (Ambush)" rule, as otherwise this unit is still useless as f*** :

Necrons aren't in the "Codex Updates" thing. Just sit tight and see what happens.

Fuegan wrote:If this IS from GW, they're nailing the coffin on 40k, because anyone who plays this is going to quickly see how poorly written and 'balanced' it is. I'm not talking out of my arse, there are hideously terrible things wrong in this book. .

Did you actually read through the rules?

Fuegan wrote:For short, Assault before shooting, making hybrid units like terminators and the entire Eldar army, awful. .

Hybrid units can still be very useful, especially if they are the ones getting charged. Now instead of shooting then assaulting when charging, they shoot then assault when being charged. So they are still very usefull.

Fuegan wrote: Assault weapons for that same reason.

Instead of shooting before the charge, assault weapons now count as an extra ccw during the first turn, so that is a long way form being useless.

I actually thought how Tactical Terminators would be more useful if this is the new change, like perhaps Death Wing could stand a chance. Or, will I stare at them upon my shelf while sighing once more?

Absolutionis wrote:Not necessarily. Read the whole bunch of text regarding "evasion".

I did. Was assuming general rolls against EV3.

Absolutionis wrote:Necrons aren't in the "Codex Updates" thing. Just sit tight and see what happens.

That's what I'm hoping for :]

Hmm, I get the feeling this "leak" was intentional...I have no proof, but it does seem rather convenient. Anyways, as with all new editions, the first thing I look at are the scenarios and the objectives. Why? Because those things are the most important things in deciding what strategy to run and how to build your army. Once again, how you calculate how you win is a big part of figuring out army design.

You guys remember 6 man las plas in 4th? That happened because a unit gave up half victory points when below half
That's why 6..not 5 man las plas.

In fifth edition, we had scoring units, objectives, and kill points. We also had an indirect final way called tabling the opponent.

So..this sixth edition playtest:
1. Killpoints. You roll randomly to determine what the killpoint structure is. It could be 1 killpoint every 40, one kill point every 50, or one kill point every 70.
A standard marine squad will run you about 175. Interesting enough, the common factor for 40+50 is 200, and 70's nearest common factor (but isn't actually) is 210.
At 200, a unit is worth 5 kill points, 4 kill points, or 3 kill points. The theory of using a common factor, is that in theory you are maxing out every point per killpoint regardless of what type of factor is rolled.

However, the system works rather inelegantly because the best common factor is a rather big number. 200 points is rather expensive for a msu unit. If you're doing msu, you wind up sneaking up indirectly on killpoints without meaning to.

Take, for instance, two units that are 100 points each.
It is worth 6, 4, and 4 respectively, depending on how you roll on the chart. It is worse in 2 of the 3 cases, but costs the same # of points as my 200 point example.
This happens because it is exceptionally difficullt to create an effective msu of 50 points or less. Most of the time at 51 or more the msu unit will be worth extra killpoints. This does mean that the cost difference between a 35 point rhino, a 40 point rhino, and a 55 point chimera is in fact significant.

The factors have also created a new, inadvertent side effect. A small unit easily yields kill points, but is worth only 1 or 2. A big unit is worth many more killpoints, but requires a complete kill for the opponent to cash in. This means that players using big units will find denial to be an effective strategy. The idea of sacrificing low killpoint units to preserve high killpoint units will be a new and common strategy...and is almost backwards from how the game is played today. (Who cares if 10 stormshield termies die? it's worth ONE killpoint, to now it's worth 6-10 killpoints)

2. Objectives>
You receive 1 point for each turn you hold an objective, and you receive extra at the end. This means you can mitigate last turn objective rush by holding all the objectives early. This system is more like the resource systems used in some wow battlegrounds like arathi basin.
The quick and most obvious change is that units with longevity, scoring or not, have more worth. The 2nd is that you want to be holding as many objectives as you can early. It has the side effect of giving an early advantage to the player who initiates successful touchdowns first, and is a strategy element that was clearly lacking in 5th. In 5th, i often didn't bother moving toward an objective until the start of the 4th turn.
This is a major change too: in games with scoring units, scoring units score 3vp per touchdown per turn, 6 at the end of the game, while nonscoring still are worth 1 and 2 respectively.


OH: Broken, stunned, and embarked units [b]cannot hold objectives[/b]. Vehicles cannot hold objectives.
You want to score? GTFO of your metal boxes. Embarking and disembarking will once again become an important part of 40k. No more sitting inside your land raider!

<cough cough> oh droppods, why are you so good again?

Teh_K42 wrote:Strategic points are an interesting mechanic. It seems like it will slow down the game dramatically as slow players poke through their options before the game has started. And there doesn't seem to be anything stopping from betting one trillion strategic points. In fact, apart from the disincentive of giving your opponent more points, the only limit to betting would be the highest number you know the name of.

... If you bet high enough, there could potentially be legal games where every missed dice could be re-rolled with Battle Fate.

I'm not really seeing the problem here. Unless I'm misreading, not giving your opponent a trillion strategic points is all the disincentive you'd need.

Both players bet points, the first one to bottle out keeps the points, while the "winner" gets to choose who starts first. Did I read that right? If so, I can't see why anyone would ever bet a ludicrous number of points. Let's take a look at what would happen if they did:-

P1: I bet a trillion SP!
P2: I concede. Now hurry up and choose who goes first so I can automatically win the match.
P1: Aw, shoot. I sure learned a lesson today.

That's how it would go...isn't it?

Pumpkin wrote:

Teh_K42 wrote:Strategic points are an interesting mechanic. It seems like it will slow down the game dramatically as slow players poke through their options before the game has started. And there doesn't seem to be anything stopping from betting one trillion strategic points. In fact, apart from the disincentive of giving your opponent more points, the only limit to betting would be the highest number you know the name of.

... If you bet high enough, there could potentially be legal games where every missed dice could be re-rolled with Battle Fate.

I'm not really seeing the problem here. Unless I'm misreading, not giving your opponent a trillion strategic points is all the disincentive you'd need.

Both players bet points, the first one to bottle out keeps the points, while the "winner" gets to choose who starts first. Did I read that right? If so, I can't see why anyone would ever bet a ludicrous number of points. Let's take a look at what would happen if they did:-

P1: I bet a trillion SP!
P2: I concede. Now hurry up and choose who goes first so I can automatically win the match.
P1: Aw, shoot. I sure learned a lesson today.

That's how it would go...isn't it?

I'm thinking it'll go like this, " This is really annoying and complicated..lets just roll off!".

Looks like they might have adressed one of the arguments regarding meltabombs and "ignores melta" vehicles:

Melta weapons are lethal, short-ranged ‘heat
rays’. Melta weapons roll an extra D6 when
rolling to penetrate a vehicles’ Armour Value in
close combat or at half range or less. If the
weapon is more than half its maximum range
away, a single D6 is rolled as normal.

Further evidenced by the fact that melta bombs are now Strengh 8 and have the melta rule.

The bidding system comes from other games...like bridge...that find ways to mitigate first turn advantages with strategy. It's not a new idea, and sometthing similar was done in apocalypse.

I think it's a good change. Going first or going 2nd has a big impact depending on the army you face. Facing leafblower? You know he wants to go first. Objectives? You get extra vp's on the final turn and get the last move. It used to be whoever got lucky got the advantage...and the other player had to play through the disadvantage. The new system allows a fair way to mitigate this problem depending on how severe the problem is.

Honestly, if neither player cares, the bidding will end quickly. If it's a big deal....players are going to bid carefully. Unless you seriously want your opponent's leafblower to go first?

www.4shared.com/rar/DEqNdglr/warhammer_40k_6th_edition_rule.html
Didn't say anything, not my upload either

EDIT: typo

scuddman wrote:The bidding system comes from other games...like bridge...that find ways to mitigate first turn advantages with strategy. It's not a new idea, and sometthing similar was done in apocalypse.

I think it's a good change. Going first or going 2nd has a big impact depending on the army you face. Facing leafblower? You know he wants to go first. Objectives? You get extra vp's on the final turn and get the last move. It used to be whoever got lucky got the advantage...and the other player had to play through the disadvantage. The new system allows a fair way to mitigate this problem depending on how severe the problem is.

Honestly, if neither player cares, the bidding will end quickly. If it's a big deal....players are going to bid carefully. Unless you seriously want your opponent's leafblower to go first?

I totally agree. I'm looking forward to using this rule. It might take a while to get used to, but I doubt it'll end up being too much of a time sink. People already do plenty of pre-game "strat-prep". They're going to turn up for a game knowing which strategems are going to help them in various situations, so they shouldn't take too long to decide. Plus, this rule rewards the ability to make sound tactical reactions, which is always welcome.

d-usa wrote:Looks like they might have adressed one of the arguments regarding meltabombs and "ignores melta" vehicles:

Melta weapons are lethal, short-ranged ‘heat
rays’. Melta weapons roll an extra D6 when
rolling to penetrate a vehicles’ Armour Value in
close combat or at half range or less. If the
weapon is more than half its maximum range
away, a single D6 is rolled as normal.

Further evidenced by the fact that melta bombs are now Strengh 8 and have the melta rule.

If this is at all legitimate....

Then I am laughing. So hard. Right now.

As I said - legacy rules struggling to deal with a modern situation. If this sort of thing was becoming more 'common' then it would be addressed.

If this is at all legit (and tbh it looks very similar in structure and all to the 5th edition leak - which turned out to be quite legit) then I'm laughing. All the way to the bank.

Relentless makes heavy weapons and rapid fire weapons into secondary weapons in close combat! Loving it... could make for some really nasty terminators though >.>

Having preferred enemy apply to shooting does explain the whole Necron Destroyers having that rule...