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.

Dribble Joy wrote:Trukks would be able to go 21" Flat Out.

'ere we go, 'ere we go, 'ere we go... =D

Does anyone know the exact wording of the GW denial that this is 6th Edition ?

I would be interested in the wording they use as if its a flat out denial that this was anything at all to do with them , a playtesting draft etc , and it turned out to be a basis for the 6th edition after all , then their credibility would be down the tubes and they could rightly be called lying scumbags .

They already did the same for Space Hulk, and I think 5th edition from what folks are saying in here.

Its why folks have continued to consider these rules as likely, as they don't trust anything GW says when it comes to denied responsibility.

Dribble Joy wrote:

Mahtamori wrote:Dribble Joy, I didn't notice the changes to Melta. Will be an interesting read once I get home. Especially since I happen to play a race that typically fields entire squads with them

Tanks get -1 on the damage table. AP1 nullifies this.

Aside from that AP1 has no affect on other vehicles.

Hm...

Open topped = No -1 damage chart bonus for tanks
AP1 = No -1 damage chart bonus for tanks

So they do not stack? Oh hello there my sexy open topped deffrollawagon. It seems like you won't be getting +2 to the damage chart anymore.

Dynamix wrote:Does anyone know the exact wording of the GW denial that this is 6th Edition ?

I would be interested in the wording they use as if its a flat out denial that this was anything at all to do with them , a playtesting draft etc , and it turned out to be a basis for the 6th edition after all , then their credibility would be down the tubes and they could rightly be called lying scumbags .

If it's a playtest version then it's 'not' the 6th Ed. rules, and therefore any denial is technically correct.

terranarc wrote:Hm...

Open topped = No -1 damage chart bonus for tanks
AP1 = No -1 damage chart bonus for tanks

So they do not stack? Oh hello there my sexy open topped deffrollawagon. It seems like you won't be getting +2 to the damage chart anymore.

Yup. AP1 weapons kill battlewagons on 5+, not 3+.

ph34r wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:Either way, two out of the three armies shown utilize vulkan (who himself is singnificantly undercosted given that he's an incredible force multiplier in the meta and within that codex). I don't want to use vulkan. I have a charcharadons army, if I'm going to powergame it a bit for better success I'd be better off building an identical blood angels list and using the savings in cheaper dev squads and upgrades to throw in some priests to give universal FNP (having more deep-strike accurate and scoring assault troops that end up being cheaper than in C:SM is a nice bonus).

Why do you whine and whine when clearly all you need to do is swap books? Why try to play space sharks in a codex that does not support the correct play style? And then why complain so loudly about how the sky is falling? Insane. Switch books, try a couple games.

I have switched and played a few test games. I would probably switch fully but I don't want to be the guy powergaming an out of codex army for better tournament performance. I don't like that guy. It would be easier for me at this stage if they had not come out with a Charcharadons chapter master in the Badaab War 2 books that is specifically for codex marines. I'm sort of caught between a rock and a hard place. I made that purchase and styled my army specifically for a the chapter, but I can't use that purchase or the specific weird trappings of the army out of codex. It just so happens that the codex is kinda lame. I complain about the sky falling specifically because I don't feel like being auto KO'd against my friends tyranid swarm army in sixth. It's almost impossible to beat without a mechanized msu list as is, the new edition takes fast assault armies and puts them over the top in my view.

If this is really just a fan's house rules, said fan should contact me, with a view to getting them published as generic future wargames rules (no specific-universe IP involved; use any models you like).

I don't believe I will have to put my money where my mouth is, though.

Hmm, correct me if I'm wrong here, but these new rules look like they might really hurt low save, low toughness asault units. I'm thinking in particular of Wyches. As far as I can tell, there is no way to get them into combat without them receiving defensive fire. That's a lot of shots potentially coming in before they strike, with no cover save to boot. Now, I don't pretend to have a perfect knowledge of these rules as I'm just working around them, but here's how this seems to me.

Unit of 10 Wyches assaults 10 un-upgraded Guardsmen. In they come, and here comes the Defensive Fire. 20 shots, hitting on 4s+s, 10 hits, 5 wounds, good chance of no saves. That's reduced the effectiveness of the squad by 50% on the charge, not even taking into account firing in other rounds. The Wyches attacks have dropped from 30 to 15. I can't help but feel this is going to be very damaging to the squishier of the assault units.

HTJ Defensive fire is not Triggered by assault.

junk wrote:HTJ Defensive fire is not Triggered by assault.

Then what is it triggered by? This sentence in the rules for Defensive Fire gives me pause.

If the responding unit was assaulted by the
target unit and it was not locked in combat
previously, it can shoot at the target unit.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
You know what, it looks like the unit would need the Overwatch special rule to do that. I suppose it remains to be seen who will get Overwatch.

ShumaGorath wrote:
I have switched and played a few test games. I would probably switch fully but I don't want to be the guy powergaming an out of codex army for better tournament performance. I don't like that guy. It would be easier for me at this stage if they had not come out with a Charcharadons chapter master in the Badaab War 2 books that is specifically for codex marines. I'm sort of caught between a rock and a hard place. I made that purchase and styled my army specifically for a the chapter, but I can't use that purchase or the specific weird trappings of the army out of codex. It just so happens that the codex is kinda lame. I complain about the sky falling specifically because I don't feel like being auto KO'd against my friends tyranid swarm army in sixth. It's almost impossible to beat without a mechanized msu list as is, the new edition takes fast assault armies and puts them over the top in my view.

We all have to adjust to new rulesets when they arrive. Fast assault armies are intimidating, but you do have countermeasures available. More importantly, Your VSM picked up a few neat assault tricks yourself. Like Assaulting out of Gate of Infinity. Heroic Deep Striking vanguard squads (still overpriced IMO, but not bad). Scout moves are much better. Entangling weapons. More accurate blast markers, more deadly templates, more effective tank shocks. It's definitely an uphill battle, citing the restrictions you're applying for thematic reasons to your own army; but that's going to happen. Other armies will be completely unimpressed by tyranid swarm lists.

Re: Overwatch, if it's just available through spending 2SP that would not be so bad as it looks.

Well, we shall see I suppose.

htj wrote:

junk wrote:HTJ Defensive fire is not Triggered by assault.

Then what is it triggered by? This sentence in the rules for Defensive Fire gives me pause.

If the responding unit was assaulted by the
target unit and it was not locked in combat
previously, it can shoot at the target unit.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
You know what, it looks like the unit would need the Overwatch special rule to do that. I suppose it remains to be seen who will get Overwatch.

Correct, it's deceptively written, but that section that you're quoting is actually listed under 'exceptions' to events that trigger defensive fire actions, and serves to clarify that you can 'still' perform defensive fire actions if you are assaulted.

To reassure you, it's meant as a clarification for defenders having the "overwatch" special rule.


Anyway, V6 will put more emphasis on units having good saves rather than not, because of weaker cover saves and less ubiquitous mechanization.
I wonder if carapace armour for IG veterans would become a viable upgrade ? Absolutely love those freaking cool Kasrkin models.

Well, that's a relief, I must say. That was starting to look like an end for viable assaults for a moment there, but in fact it's just a rather interesting rule. Phew!

4+ armour certainly seems a lot more worthwhile to me, with the worldwide cover save dropping as it is.

DarknessEternal wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote: Huh. Yeah, bikes aren't lookin' too hot though the standoff eldar troop bikes with their shurikan canons are lookinga bit better by most counts

No, they still look like expensive poo.

I like them...

I think 6th ed will take a bit more getting used to than the transition from 4th to 5th ed. Alas, here I was just having finished getting 1500 points of Dark Angels ready for gaming.

htj wrote:Well, that's a relief, I must say. That was starting to look like an end for viable assaults for a moment there, but in fact it's just a rather interesting rule. Phew!

4+ armour certainly seems a lot more worthwhile to me, with the worldwide cover save dropping as it is.

Indeed. Still not sure if carapace is worth it, what with 6e being defcon: everybody dies, even for marines.

ph34r wrote:

htj wrote:Well, that's a relief, I must say. That was starting to look like an end for viable assaults for a moment there, but in fact it's just a rather interesting rule. Phew!

4+ armour certainly seems a lot more worthwhile to me, with the worldwide cover save dropping as it is.

Indeed. Still not sure if carapace is worth it, what with 6e being defcon: everybody dies, even for marines.

True enough. It's too early to say really; or at least I feel that way. I'm loathe to start making decisions on play before knowing whether these rules are complete and genuine.

junk wrote:We all have to adjust to new rulesets when they arrive. Fast assault armies are intimidating, but you do have countermeasures available. More importantly, Your VSM picked up a few neat assault tricks yourself. Like Assaulting out of Gate of Infinity. Heroic Deep Striking vanguard squads (still overpriced IMO, but not bad). Scout moves are much better. Entangling weapons. More accurate blast markers, more deadly templates, more effective tank shocks. It's definitely an uphill battle, citing the restrictions you're applying for thematic reasons to your own army; but that's going to happen. Other armies will be completely unimpressed by tyranid swarm lists.

For sure. My army-- without substantial changes of any kind-- can now reliably charge with 10 Assault Terminators on turn 1. Way I see it, that's going to give almost any opponent pause.

Depends on what Stratagems they take. At least one prevents a turn 1 charge by infiltrators. There seems like a lot of internal balance in these rules. In that way it feels like 8th edition WFB. Lots of things seem powerful, but counters exist to hose down armies that go too far.

so.. according to the new rules (unless I missed something which is completely possible), units disembark in movement phase and embark during consolidation phase. would this mean that a squad could jump out and then back into the transport in the same turn assuming the squad made no other movement action?

Dribble Joy wrote:
If it's a playtest version then it's 'not' the 6th Ed. rules, and therefore any denial is technically correct.

Thats why I enquired as to the exact wording - if it was a simple " These are not the 6th edition rules " then agreed , they could get away with denial .

If its a " These rules are not playtesting or draft 6th Ed rules and have nothing to do with GW " then while I can understand wanting to keep a lid on things , it would still be lying .

Starless Night wrote:so.. according to the new rules (unless I missed something which is completely possible), units disembark in movement phase and embark during consolidation phase. would this mean that a squad could jump out and then back into the transport in the same turn assuming the squad made no other movement action?

Yes.

Ian Sturrock wrote:If this is really just a fan's house rules, said fan should contact me, with a view to getting them published as generic future wargames rules (no specific-universe IP involved; use any models you like).

I don't believe I will have to put my money where my mouth is, though.

And this is why I don't think its a fan-ruleset.

If it was, then we would see someone stepping forward to claim credit.

And get whacked with GW Lawyers ?

Considering how good these rules are, I'd be willing to invest in that venture.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dynamix wrote:And get whacked with GW Lawyers ?

By exchanging some terms with a home-brewed proprietary lexicon changing the document into a unique IP, combined with any public denial of GW that these rules are somehow owned by them, would make for a relatively unassailable position.

junk wrote:Considering how good these rules are, I'd be willing to invest in that venture.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dynamix wrote:And get whacked with GW Lawyers ?

By exchanging some terms with a home-brewed proprietary lexicon changing the document into a unique IP, combined with any public denial of GW that these rules are somehow owned by them, would make for a relatively unassailable position.

How I would laugh !

Edit :However isnt this a good reason for them being fake ? wouldnt GW risk these rules being stolen by a denial ?

Dribble Joy wrote:
They also now cannot be killed by glancing hits.

I assume you mean 1 shot, because I believe you can still Hull Breach a glanced vehicle to death.

Actually, the lines in Defensive Fire regarding assaulting units clarifies what happens if a unit is allowed to Defensive Fire on an assaulting unit manages to kill off all models that would reach them.
We're still in the dark if Overwatch will be the only way to get Defensive Fire as a reaction to being assaulted, there may still be upcoming codexes with special rules that allow models to Defensive Fire, so the rules take this into account and explain "if the models that had enough assault distance to reach the Defensive Firing are killed, no assault happens."

I just played a game of 6th edition, 1850 points, Orks versus Tau. Tau won seize ground 52 to 8. Brutal slaughter, board was completely devoid of Orks by the end of turn 5. Luckily, my Tau list transforms very well for those sorts of opponents in 6th edition, clearly his Ork list did not.