6th ed ork changes?

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.

**ZebioLizard2**

Also looking at the new ID rules, it seems to have gotten a pretty big nerfing, especially as power weapons, lightning claws, etc no longer cause ID.

Uhh... Curious thoughts there, those didn't cause ID before, unless you were double strength.

**zilegil**

ZebioLizard2 wrote:
Also looking at the new ID rules, it seems to have gotten a pretty big nerfing, especially as power weapons, lightning claws, etc no longer cause ID.

Uhh... Curious thoughts there, those didn't cause ID before, unless you were double strength.

True.

**Leigen_Zero**

I can honestly say I though power weapons caused instant death, although I may be getting confused now

Ah I see what you mean on the cover save front, the 'default' cover save for most units in cover is now 5+ (rather than 4+), makes more sense now.

**Lepuke**

Embarked units cannot perform Support, Combat
and Disembarked actions.

Repair
Type: Shooting, Support

Mek's and Big Mek's can no longer repair the vehicle they are embarked in by the looks of it?

**labmouse42**

Remember all, this 'rulebook' has not been confirmed by GW. While its fun to speculate about how these rules would impact the game of 40k, it is purely an intellectual exercise.

I do not suggest selling or buying model based upon this rulebook, as it's possible that its an elaborate hoax.

**ZebioLizard2**

labmouse42 wrote:Remember all, this 'rulebook' has not been confirmed by GW. While its fun to speculate about how these rules would impact the game of 40k, it is purely an intellectual exercise.

I do not suggest selling or buying model based upon this rulebook, as it's possible that its an elaborate hoax.

Pretty much, even the 5th edition leak was about 70% correct. But we're not to certain here.

**Kharrak**

Ooookay, Lootas are hurtin'. Getting hit on 2+ is seeing them getting wiped out before getting much of a chance.

In my three playtests using this rulebook, against Tau, Dark Eldar, and Space Marines, my army has just completely disintegrated before it could have any effect. Need to adapt! Need to find some Rocky stairs to run up...

**Luke_Prowler**

Well, Lootas his +4 on tanks and +3 on stationary tanks, and they out range most of the stuff that would hit them on +2. Yah just got to be kunnin'

**eYe_aM_SaSsY**

I spent a lot of time finishing up my Nob Bikers (really just converted and painted them for kicks, loved the models and the paint scheme) and I know that the wound allocation thing has nerfed them a lot.

Does anyone have an idea what would be the best way to employ them? Being an IG player I really don't know... T_T

**Kharrak**

Luke_Prowler wrote:Well, Lootas his +4 on tanks and +3 on stationary tanks, and they out range most of the stuff that would hit them on +2. Yah just got to be kunnin'

My experience has been a tad biased, since the DE player had the venoms moving 16" and firing the 12 poison shots, and the Tau player was... well... tau. Hopefully They prove themselves capable with a more varied match up

**beigeknight**

labmouse42 wrote:Remember all, this 'rulebook' has not been confirmed by GW. While its fun to speculate about how these rules would impact the game of 40k, it is purely an intellectual exercise.

I do not suggest selling or buying model based upon this rulebook, as it's possible that its an elaborate hoax.

For real, I keep seeing posts in almost all the forums of people already playing these "leaked rules" when there is absolutely no evidence of these being actual 6th edition rules. All these people are memorizing stuff that is in all likelyhood false. I think everyone needs to stop assuming this is the future. Furthermore, 6th edition is probably +6 months away. I know I'll be playing some games before then, so I'm not planning on changing any aspect of the way I play.

Until GW says that the "leaked rules" are legit, I'm going to assume that one or more people wasted a whole lot of time writing up rules the way they think they should be and duping a bunch of rubes into believing it.

**wormark**

Even if they are real, it's commonly understood that they are quite old and undoubtedly playtested to a much different state. I also think that 5th ed has been too successful for them to make such large changes.

Having disclaimed that, I'm not a big fan of the new rules. It seems even harder to bring down vehicles now. I can see an even stronger move towards power armor based armies and fast vehicles.

How do we take down a Stormraven gunship or a Land Raider?

**Kharrak**

wormark wrote:Even if they are real, it's commonly understood that they are quite old and undoubtedly playtested to a much different state. I also think that 5th ed has been too successful for them to make such large changes.

Having disclaimed that, I'm not a big fan of the new rules. It seems even harder to bring down vehicles now. I can see an even stronger move towards power armor based armies and fast vehicles.

How do we take down a Stormraven gunship or a Land Raider?

On the contrary, it's easier. Stationary vehicles get hit on BS+1, and tanks get hit on BS+1, so stationary tanks get hit on BS+2. Tanks themselves are a bit tougher, but in general the ability to glance and at least prevent vehicles from firing has much improved. Not to mention blast templates always hitting with full strength.

Fliers are fast, having an EV of 6, but if they get hit, they are likely going down. Note, weapons with the AA special rule will be hitting fliers on default BS. Remember that Fliers are immediately destroyed on any result from Stunned and up. That's basically a pen roll of 2+.

In general, vehicles do have less use - vehicle's can't capture points, nor can troops inside transports. One will have to disembark, and there be dragons.

How to take down landraiders? Same way as usual, I guess. Hit it with deffrolla. In the end, if you keep it from moving and shooting, it's an advantage, especially considering the "basic" game type is kill points AND objective points.

**Jidmah**

Kharrak wrote:Also note that Kan walls themselves will no longer provide cover saves to units behind them.

Intervening models no longer provide cover saves. Well, they can if you declare them as cover, but then they will take a critical hit for every saved wound.

Combine that with Kans being easier to hit, and 5+ save, Kan Wall will likely lose it's purpouse completely.

Also, about the Burna Wagon, I see what you're saying. Pity that, but I do look forward to being forced to see what else I can field.

And a note on squadrons being able to negate damage - it's a very tricky scenario, since I've playtested with it. On one hand, with a full squadron, you get a 3+ to negate it, but if you fail it, all the members of the squadron take that damage. Having an entire squadron suffer wepaon damage (-1 multitargeting) or being immobilized is hilarious, but frustrating. Then again, a single immobilized squadron member anchors the whole unit anyway, so it's a arguable risk to take.

Also, also, check out the repair rules! A Big Mek can permanently INCREASE the multitargeting of a vehicle!

Model with bases no longer provide a cover save. This means basically any vehicle and some of the larger walkers, like sould grinders still provide cover. KingCracker's Buggy Wall might become the next super secret tech.
Also keep in mind that neither buggies, nor trukks are tanks and thus not massive. Not being massive means they can use cover from terrain just like any infantry model.

As for why to play these rules? Because they are awesome and fun to play.

**zilegil**

eYe_aM_SaSsY wrote:I spent a lot of time finishing up my Nob Bikers (really just converted and painted them for kicks, loved the models and the paint scheme) and I know that the wound allocation thing has nerfed them a lot.

Does anyone have an idea what would be the best way to employ them? Being an IG player I really don't know... T_T

Bikers are going to be insanely hard to hit when moving at full pace. Also they have T5 and a cover save to save their necks. All this combined mening at full speed they are going to be practically impossible to wound.

Not quite so much need of painboy as they have covers and he can get sniped, also FNP is slightly nerfed.

**Lepuke**

beigeknight wrote:
labmouse42 wrote:Remember all, this 'rulebook' has not been confirmed by GW. While its fun to speculate about how these rules would impact the game of 40k, it is purely an intellectual exercise.

I do not suggest selling or buying model based upon this rulebook, as it's possible that its an elaborate hoax.

For real, I keep seeing posts in almost all the forums of people already playing these "leaked rules" when there is absolutely no evidence of these being actual 6th edition rules. All these people are memorizing stuff that is in all likelyhood false. I think everyone needs to stop assuming this is the future. Furthermore, 6th edition is probably +6 months away. I know I'll be playing some games before then, so I'm not planning on changing any aspect of the way I play.

Until GW says that the "leaked rules" are legit, I'm going to assume that one or more people wasted a whole lot of time writing up rules the way they think they should be and duping a bunch of rubes into believing it.

I hear people sometimes play games for "fun", ever heard of that?

**ZebioLizard2**

Lepuke wrote:
beigeknight wrote:
labmouse42 wrote:Remember all, this 'rulebook' has not been confirmed by GW. While its fun to speculate about how these rules would impact the game of 40k, it is purely an intellectual exercise.

I do not suggest selling or buying model based upon this rulebook, as it's possible that its an elaborate hoax.

For real, I keep seeing posts in almost all the forums of people already playing these "leaked rules" when there is absolutely no evidence of these being actual 6th edition rules. All these people are memorizing stuff that is in all likelyhood false. I think everyone needs to stop assuming this is the future. Furthermore, 6th edition is probably +6 months away. I know I'll be playing some games before then, so I'm not planning on changing any aspect of the way I play.

Until GW says that the "leaked rules" are legit, I'm going to assume that one or more people wasted a whole lot of time writing up rules the way they think they should be and duping a bunch of rubes into believing it.

I hear people sometimes play games for "fun", ever heard of that?

I do it because I enjoy the new version, if its fake I can go back to my brooding cynicism about the recently nerfed chaos army, my lackluster tau shooting, and the broken Tyranid army.

It's not to not have so much cynicism as it was before. So if 6.0 is really 5.5...Well, I can enjoy these rules as house rules.

**Big Mek Wurrzog**

This should become relevant to your tactics. http://www.beastsofwar.com/warhammer-40k/leaked40k-heretics-rulebook-real/