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.

Yeah, outflanking is really scary now.

But outflanking is -1 to reserve rolls. So they (GW) know its powerful.

I would like to focus on mechanized troops viability and usefulness in V6. How you would see it in this new version ?

Here are some of my thoughts and observations :
V5 is a huge step forward favouring embarked troops, nearly any-time, anywhere from V4. Part of this fact is due to almost immunity to incoming fire, and very limited inconvenience if the transport get destroyed.
In V5, a wrecked transport only inconvenience is the pinning test. Fearless units suffer nothing.
Disembarked troops may be placed as you wish in a zone within 2inches + base diameter of any exit points, pretty nice guarantee for troopers.

How much this safety is about to change in V6 ? Maybe we can expect a swing of the pendulum from GW .


In this playtest V6 an exploded transport produces roughly two critical wounds on average on a unit of 10/11/12 embarked troops. Very few units have invulnerable saves, so that is two kills, but on to positive side, you are not likely to lose special weapons. You can allocate them on normal dudes. Now, if their taxi is exploded or wrecked, the troop is automatically shaken (fearless does not comes into play here).
Meaning :

• It cannot perform Support actions.
• It cannot conduct Run/Cruise, Charge, Ramming
and Flat out moves.
• Models in a shaken unit cannot use the multitargeting
rule. Hence they can only perform a
single Shooting action per turn.

So they can engage enemies, or move 6 inches and shoot, but assault units will experience difficulties in their task.
I will now examine what is supposed to happen if the transport gets destroyed without explosion, is it as safe as before ?
The unit always have to make an emergency disembarkation following these guidelines (p.124) :

Place one model in contact with an unblocked
access point (or where it had been some seconds
ago) and place the rest of the squad following the
rules for deep strike in critical range (page 140).
The unit doesn’t scatter. If the transport was a
vehicle, models can be placed on the wreck. The
unit should be in a tight, circular formation after
an emergency disembarkation from a wrecked
vehicle.

One model juste in front of the exit, an hexagon of six models in base contact with him, the rest further in a second circle.
This would look like this for a unit of 10 veteran guardsmen getting out of their wrecked Chimera :



But for a 10 SM unit bailing out of their destroyed rhino, it would just look the same, you only get the choice of which one of three exits is used.
Following the ' grape shaped layout ' from rules of deep-strike, you have to place at least two models of the first circle above the wreck. Guess it will be a bit tricky during the course of a battle ! Be careful with your miniatures !
What happens next ? Well let's follow the rules referred in p.140 as said in previous paragraph, noteworthy :
Models that are placed using this method and landing in rough terrain must take a dangerous terrain test.

And obviously, you are in presence of rough terrain in this case. Seems those two models standing on top of chimera's hull have to pass the test !
Just two ?
Well, now we should have a look at the rules of area terrain (p.42) :

If the base, body or hull of a model touches the
footprint of a terrain feature or any component
of the terrain feature itself, the model is said to
be ‘within’ terrain. It does not matter if the unit is
in front, inside or behind the feature as long as it
is in contact with the terrain.

Grumble... so that's 3 more models (the reference one of deep-strike, plus two neighbours are in direct contact with the wreck), for a total of 5 who have to pass this test !

More to come !


Do wrecks rules have changed by the way ? Well let's check this in p.115 :

Wrecks
Unless stated otherwise, a wrecked vehicle should
be marked with some cotton wool smoke and
flames and left on the table. It continues to block
line of sight as if it were intact but counts as both
difficult and dangerous terrain, and provides a
Cover Save of 5+.

Aaaargh !
On their following turn, if you want to move this poor unit out of fuming transport , it's another dangerous test, roll the dice ! And you will certainly do so for tactical reasons, or due to extreme vulnerability of the unit if they stand still like this !
Finally, you will roll quite as much as if the transport was exploded right away, meaning 10 or a few less ! So, if you had a bad luck previously and lost a few models, you would obviously have assigned the critical hits to those within the wreck, in order to roll less dice on the second dangerous terrain test.

On top of that, in either case, during opponent shooting phase, your troops being in grape layout are a juicy target for missile launchers, plasma cannons etc...
Weapons which are much more precise in this edition.

Fielding 10-strong squads in those rolling boxes will become significantly more dangerous. Two critical hits + shaken status are not something to be neglected.

Ravajaxe wrote:

Spoiler:

I would like to focus on mechanized troops viability and usefulness in V6. How you would see it in this new version ?

Here are some of my thoughts and observations :
V5 is a huge step forward favouring embarked troops, nearly any-time, anywhere from V4. Part of this fact is due to almost immunity to incoming fire, and very limited inconvenience if the transport get destroyed.
In V5, a wrecked transport only inconvenience is the pinning test. Fearless units suffer nothing.
Disembarked troops may be placed as you wish in a zone within 2" + base diameter of any exit points, pretty nice guarantee for troopers.

How much this safety is about to change in V6 ? Maybe we can expect a swing of the pendulum from GW .


In this playtest V6 an exploded transport produces roughly two critical wounds on average on a unit of 10/11/12 embarked troops. Very few units have invulnerable saves, so that is two kills, but on to positive side, you are not likely to lose special weapons. You can allocate them on normal dudes. Now, if their taxi is exploded or wrecked, the troop is automatically shaken (fearless does not comes into play here).
Meaning :

• It cannot perform Support actions.
• It cannot conduct Run/Cruise, Charge, Ramming
and Flat out moves.
• Models in a shaken unit cannot use the multitargeting
rule. Hence they can only perform a
single Shooting action per turn.
So they can engage enemies, or move 6" and shoot, but assault units will experience difficulties in their task.
I will now examine what is supposed to happen if the transport gets destroyed without explosion, is it as safe as before ?
The unit always have to make an emergency disembarkation following these guidelines (p.124) :

Place one model in contact with an unblocked
access point (or where it had been some seconds
ago) and place the rest of the squad following the
rules for deep strike in critical range (page 140).
The unit doesn’t scatter. If the transport was a
vehicle, models can be placed on the wreck. The
unit should be in a tight, circular formation after
an emergency disembarkation from a wrecked
vehicle.

This would look like this for a unit of 10 veteran guardsmen getting out of their wrecked Chimera :



But for a 10 SM unit bailing out of their destroyed rhino, it would just look the same, you only get the choice of which one of three exits is used.
Following the " grape shaped layout " from rules of deep-strike, you have to place at least two models of the first circle above the wreck. Guess it will be a bit tricky during the course of a battle ! Be careful with your miniatures !
What happens next ? Well let's follow the rules referred in p.140 as said in previous paragraph, noteworthy :
Models that are placed using this method and landing in rough terrain must take a dangerous terrain test.

And obviously, you are in presence of rough terrain in this case. Seems those two models standing on top of chimera's hull have to pass the test !
Just two ?
Well, now we should have a look at the rules of area terrain (p.42) :


If the base, body or hull of a model touches the
footprint of a terrain feature or any component
of the terrain feature itself, the model is said to
be ‘within’ terrain. It does not matter if the unit is
in front, inside or behind the feature as long as it
is in contact with the terrain.

Grumble... so that's 3 more models (the reference one of deep-strike, plus two neighbours are in direct contact with the wreck), for a total of 5 who have to pass this test !

More to come !

Do wrecks rules have changed by the way ? Well let's check this in p.115 :

Wrecks
Unless stated otherwise, a wrecked vehicle should
be marked with some cotton wool smoke and
flames and left on the table. It continues to block
line of sight as if it were intact but counts as both
difficult and dangerous terrain, and provides a
Cover Save of 5+.

Aaaargh !
On their following turn, if you want to move this poor unit out of fuming transport , it's another dangerous test, roll the dice ! And you will certainly do so for tactical reasons, or due to extreme vulnerability of the unit if they stand still like this !
Finally, you will roll quite as much as if the transport was exploded right away, meaning 10 or a few less ! Meaning if you had a bad luck previously and lost a few models, you would obviously have assigned the critical hits to those within the wreck, in order to roll less dice on the second dangerous terrain test.

On top of that, in either case, during opponent shooting phase, your troops being in grape layout are a juicy target for missile launchers, plasma cannons etc...
Weapons which are much more precise in this edition.

Fielding 10-strong squads in those rolling boxes will become significantly more dangerous. Two critical hits + shaken status are not something to be neglected

.

Wow. you put alot of work into that. Nicely done.
But you missed the biggest problem:
If you move it, you can fire 1 weapon out of a fire point.
Bye-bye IG mechvets.....

But you can instead

Move Chimera 6"

Engage 6"

Throw 10 melta bombs (Better than the meltagun's if the vehicle has moved normal speed)

Blow up vehicle (Probably)

Shoot and Demo-charge the nicely clumped previous occupants.

Or just move 6 and then get out 6 and shoot

Walkers. Do they not fight with front armor anymore? There's nothing that says that walkers fight with front armor in CC.

ChocolateGork wrote:But you can instead

Move Chimera 6"

Engage 6"

Throw 10 melta bombs (Better than the meltagun's if the vehicle has moved normal speed)

Guardsmen are WS3, so they hit a moving vehicle on 6s. Though you're probably right.

Blow up vehicle (Probably)

Shoot and Demo-charge the nicely clumped previous occupants.

Or just move 6 and then get out 6 and shoot

Remember that if you block their access points then they are subject to Trapped and you get to DF (or CbC) them as they pile out . Then you can shoot something else too .

Dribble Joy wrote:

ChocolateGork wrote:But you can instead

Move Chimera 6"

Engage 6"

Throw 10 melta bombs (Better than the meltagun's if the vehicle has moved normal speed)

Guardsmen are WS3, so they hit a moving vehicle on 6s. Though you're probably right.

Blow up vehicle (Probably)

Shoot and Demo-charge the nicely clumped previous occupants.

Or just move 6 and then get out 6 and shoot

Remember that if you block their access points then they are subject to Trapped and you get to DF (or CbC) them as they pile out . Then you can shoot something else too .

WS 1 with the melta bomb, actually. Fighting against intractable opponents apparently makes you WS 1. Still, a 6 if it moved, auto if it didn't or is immobile/stunned.

The down side is that you can't shoot a vehicle to stun it and then follow up with melta bomb attacks. I think that this, combined with hulk giving vets effective 2+ to hit with their melta guns, so you are hitting with 15/6 meltas, instead of 10/6 meltas in close combat.

If you can manage to drive-by a stunned or immobile vehicle though... hop out, 10 melta hits, shoot the guys that stumble out, get back in your chimera.

ph34r wrote:WS 1 with the melta bomb, actually. Fighting against intractable opponents apparently makes you WS 1. Still, a 6 if it moved, auto if it didn't or is immobile/stunned.

With grenades, yes. Normal attacks use your WS.

All vehicles are fought on the actual facing you are engaging now, as far as I can tell.

junk wrote:All vehicles are fought on the actual facing you are engaging now, as far as I can tell.

Still rear armour (see PDF page 112, last sentence). Apparently even true for walkers, although this might be an oversight.

I don't spend much time on Warseer. They know claim they were right all this time that this is a fake. So where is their proof? I haven't seen any "Proof" yet that this is a fake.

I've noticed that the super-heavy rules don't mention anything about Stunned/Shaken results affecting just one weapon. So all you have to do to neutralise the whole thing is glance it.

Shaken reduces MT by 1, so as Super Heavies are MT(7+), thats not a problem. Stunned is another issue though.

UltraPrime wrote:Shaken reduces MT by 1,

Shaken units cannot use the MT rules, PDF p18.

Super-Heavy vehicles have a -3 on the damage table that is cumulative with a glance's -2. -5 on the damage chart means a glancing hit can only 'shake' a super heavy. Currently the only super heavy in the regular 40K game is the Necron Monolith that ignores shaken on a 2+ roll.

So no, you can't just 'glance' a superheavy and expect it to be non-functional.

A shaken Baneblade will be able to fire a lascannon, or a twin-linked heavy bolter. Oh no.
It looses MT so it can't sit still to fire it's main gun either.

It can try to do a Damage Control, p118, roll but it is kind of chancy.

Ravajaxe wrote:

But for a 10 SM unit bailing out of their destroyed rhino, it would just look the same, you only get the choice of which one of three exits is used.
Following the ' grape shaped layout ' from rules of deep-strike, you have to place at least two models of the first circle above the wreck. Guess it will be a bit tricky during the course of a battle ! Be careful with your miniatures !
What happens next ? Well let's follow the rules referred in p.140 as said in previous paragraph, noteworthy :
Models that are placed using this method and landing in rough terrain must take a dangerous terrain test.

Got a feeling Blue Table Painting's idea of wreaked vheclie templets might just catch on?
http://www.bluetablepainting.com/view_category.php?catID=39

regardless of if this is real or not, I haven't seen the community this amped up in a while. I stopped playing the game after the grey knights codex fiasco, and see no reason to ever play another 5th edition game.

I am really digging these new rules rumors, but if they don't turn out to be true, I could really see some folks ignoring the 6th edition rule set to play these alternative rules.

gannam wrote:regardless of if this is real or not, I haven't seen the community this amped up in a while. I stopped playing the game after the grey knights codex fiasco, and see no reason to ever play another 5th edition game.

I am really digging these new rules rumors, but if they don't turn out to be true, I could really see some folks ignoring the 6th edition rule set to play these alternative rules.

I agree, I am trying to get my club to play these rules. Sadly I think "if it's not GW" they will not play it.

Davor wrote:I don't spend much time on Warseer. They know claim they were right all this time that this is a fake. So where is their proof? I haven't seen any "Proof" yet that this is a fake.

Imho, if that was a fake, the person who made it would undercover her self long time ago (obviously if you put so much work into such grate game mechanic, and everybody love it!, you would want to became a "famous" to gaming society, would you?)

Other reason is that these rules are very consistent, not many mistakes in terms game-flow-logic, also Necron's codex makes more sense now, Monolith and its Heavy rule, Night scythes lots of points and only AV11???, yes, but in 6th is going to be an Flyer with AV6.
C'tan and his ignoring of difficult terrain + possibility of giving him defensive and offensive grenades (why would you give him this in 5th???)
and finally canopek spyders - MC with going to ground rule!

Haven't read much of this thread but figured I'd add this.
I emailed GW today asking permission to post the document on a website so that everyone could download it, asked if I'd get in trouble if I did so.
Figured if they said I'd get in trouble then this thing is the real deal, if not I guess it's a fake.

This is the reply I got:

Thanks for the email, this rule set is an unofficial rule book and is no way the next edition of Warhammer 40,000, but rather a fan made parody. Our Legal team is already aware of this and is currently looking into the source, as it may confuse players when we do release a 6th edition of Warhammer 40,000.

As things stand the current 5th Edition rulebook applies until we release 6th edition, we recommend ignoring this fan made parody.

We hope this helps.
Regards

How much this safety is about to change in V6 ? Maybe we can expect a swing of the pendulum from GW .

Hopefully toward the middle. The effect on transported units if their vehicle was destroyed was a joke in 5ed. It was however too much in 4ed, primarily the rediculous rules that forced you to disembark on any pen and the entanglment rukes. Somehere between the two would be great imo.

--I think the shaken rules is a nice compromise. This is really a nice change overall in these rules -- a middle ground between being unable to act at all and having limited actions was needed for a long time.
--They shored up the rules as far as affect and how long it lasts. 5ed makes no sense now in that regard, "yeah I emergency disembark -- but the effect only lasts this turn, so I shoot/assault your dudes" dumb.
--The removal of auto destroying units that cannot disembark is a good change, make em work more for it.
--The increase in dangerous terrain tests as noted is quite a few and is maybe a bit excessive. I think removing the test when they are placed would balance it.
--Note also that for tanks you should be getting destroyed less often, even with being hit more readily. That -1 on the damage chart is huge! So while the results are more detrimental, it seems to balance out to me.

If you move it, you can fire 1 weapon out of a fire point.
Bye-bye IG mechvets...

RTFM. You can disembark and embark on the same turn. Threat range is improved if you want to stay in your tank.

Lockark wrote:Got a feeling Blue Table Painting's idea of wreaked vheclie templets might just catch on?
http://www.bluetablepainting.com/view_category.php?catID=39

Actually those templates become irrelevant with the new rules. 5ed asks you to place a crater the size of the vehicle -- hence why BTP and others have created these markers. That is removed in this pdf 6ed, nothing is placed if the vehicle blows up. If its wrecked, you have to leave the vehicle itself (to block los, etc).

MadCowCrazy wrote:Haven't read much of this thread but figured I'd add this.
I emailed GW today asking permission to post the document on a website so that everyone could download it, asked if I'd get in trouble if I did so.
Figured if they said I'd get in trouble then this thing is the real deal, if not I guess it's a fake.

This is the reply I got:

Thanks for the email, this rule set is an unofficial rule book and is no way the next edition of Warhammer 40,000, but rather a fan made parody. Our Legal team is already aware of this and is currently looking into the source, as it may confuse players when we do release a 6th edition of Warhammer 40,000.

As things stand the current 5th Edition rulebook applies until we release 6th edition, we recommend ignoring this fan made parody.

We hope this helps.
Regards

"Move along, nothing to see here..."

Also, they never actually told you that you can or cannot post it.

MadCowCrazy wrote:Haven't read much of this thread but figured I'd add this.
I emailed GW today asking permission to post the document on a website so that everyone could download it, asked if I'd get in trouble if I did so.
Figured if they said I'd get in trouble then this thing is the real deal, if not I guess it's a fake.

This is the reply I got:

Thanks for the email, this rule set is an unofficial rule book and is no way the next edition of Warhammer 40,000, but rather a fan made parody. Our Legal team is already aware of this and is currently looking into the source, as it may confuse players when we do release a 6th edition of Warhammer 40,000.

As things stand the current 5th Edition rulebook applies until we release 6th edition, we recommend ignoring this fan made parody.

We hope this helps.
Regards

GW still isn't a reliable source on this either, they have outright lied to the community too much to be trusted on the matter. Especially since, if it were an actual leak, they would be served well by denying it.

When a company screws up their best tactic is usually to evade and lie until they can fix it up out of the public eye.

If GW hadn't have lied to us about previous releases and the veracity of the info we had gleaned on them prior to release then we may have had some goodwill on this. But they have a bad track record at this point and just can't be trusted as a verifiable source.

The fact that they didn't actually answer your question (they never actually said yes or no) and slipped in that their lawyers are still looking in to it is par for the course. Unfortunately this doesn't tell us much, only that GW are acting slippery. The wording of the e-mail just doesn't give much away but the language is obviously diversionary.

You could take it at face value, they said it was a parody made by fans after all. But GW have been known to lie and the rest of the language of the e-mail gives me pause. If it is a parody then why does GW care? They haven't hunted anyone else down for making fakes or even fan dexes. But to still have their lawyers hunting the source after two weeks seems a bit suspect.

In the end we still don't have anything conclusive I'm afraid. Until an actual hoaxer steps forward or until 6th is released we just wont know.

This is not a fake. However, this is a earlier version of the rule book, might even been a very early one because alot of the rules will not be in the real 6th ed rulebook

MadCowCrazy wrote:Haven't read much of this thread but figured I'd add this.
I emailed GW today asking permission to post the document on a website so that everyone could download it, asked if I'd get in trouble if I did so.
Figured if they said I'd get in trouble then this thing is the real deal, if not I guess it's a fake.

This is the reply I got:

Thanks for the email, this rule set is an unofficial rule book and is no way the next edition of Warhammer 40,000, but rather a fan made parody. Our Legal team is already aware of this and is currently looking into the source, as it may confuse players when we do release a 6th edition of Warhammer 40,000.

As things stand the current 5th Edition rulebook applies until we release 6th edition, we recommend ignoring this fan made parody.

We hope this helps.
Regards

Isn't it funny that big part of the community considers this "parody" a set of rules much more compelling than 5th ed?

MadCowCrazy wrote:Haven't read much of this thread but figured I'd add this.
I emailed GW today asking permission to post the document on a website so that everyone could download it, asked if I'd get in trouble if I did so.
Figured if they said I'd get in trouble then this thing is the real deal, if not I guess it's a fake.

This is the reply I got:

Thanks for the email, this rule set is an unofficial rule book and is no way the next edition of Warhammer 40,000, but rather a fan made parody. Our Legal team is already aware of this and is currently looking into the source, as it may confuse players when we do release a 6th edition of Warhammer 40,000.

As things stand the current 5th Edition rulebook applies until we release 6th edition, we recommend ignoring this fan made parody.

We hope this helps.
Regards

gg warhammer. You were fun until Mat Ward came along and now the best thing that's ever happened to 40k ends up being fake. Back to PC games.

azazel the cat wrote:"Move along, nothing to see here..."

Also, they never actually told you that you can or cannot post it.

If GW claims not to own it, then they have no authority over who can publish it. They can't give an answer.