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.

As expected. Hopefully the change from pancake edition to 6th edition will eliminate the more overt balance issues (outflankers, reserves in general, units with 22" charges ignoring difficult terrain) while still constituting an interesting switchup from 5th-- 5+ cover, Patch Up, Directed Hits, and the tank/melta changes alone should go a long way towards resolving issues with the game.

Isnt the main issue with reserves centered soley around the 'free' 6 inches they recieve when coming on the board?

In that case, wouldnt you just change it so they must declare their move on the board just like disembarking from an access point? AKA, you measure from the edge of the board, and declare your movement type. So genestealers have a 16 inch charge range, not a 22 inch range.

As for terrain, I agree that charging into/through terrain should have more of a penalty than providing the defending unit an alpha strike. In general, I feel that in lieu of striking in close combat with an alpha strike, units should have the option to shoot via defensive fire against units that made a charge move into a unit that is alpha strikings while moving through terrain.

Just got a chance to play the leaked rules. vanilla marines vs. chaos. it was the most thought provoking game of 40k in a very long time. all : in all i REALLY like the direction these rules take the game. I only hope that gw will keep the essence of play that this leak has taken us.

BEASTSOFWAR wrote:

ph34r wrote:That BoW article has basically zero substance.

What additional detail were you looking for?

Well, you literally just posted a whole ton of things we already knew and/or suspected. In fact the only "concrete" detail you have is that the phases will not switch order.

Legit everything else just sounds like educated guesswork:
EV is out: Then you say in extremely vague words how things the EV did before would remain the case.
No Unit by Unit Activation: we knew this
Garg Creatures/Titans to remain not standard: we knew this
Who is writing this: You say nothing on this
Will you need an update to the codex: we already knew this

What I find most interesting about the Pancake edition is that, aside from general formatting issues (and I know from attempting to create my own game how difficult those are to fix in the early stages) it reads a whole lot like the Fantasy rulebooks- with deliberate language, specific exceptions, and terminology standing in for vague, mis-interpretable fluff rules.

Very happy to see the dropping of evasion, it was a stupid stat that did literally the exact same thing as a BS modifer except required a ridiculous chart and value comparison. Also, having vehicles be hit on 2's by most armies isn't something really that we needed.

Vaktathi wrote:Very happy to see the dropping of evasion, it was a stupid stat that did literally the exact same thing as a BS modifer except required a ridiculous chart and value comparison.

My assumption when I saw it was that it was meant as a bridge to 7th edition - that we'd be seeing it get phased in to the stat line. It makes perfect sense that they'd do it the way that they did if it was the intent to expand on it in future rules.

Posit wrote:

Vaktathi wrote:Very happy to see the dropping of evasion, it was a stupid stat that did literally the exact same thing as a BS modifer except required a ridiculous chart and value comparison.

My assumption when I saw it was that it was meant as a bridge to 7th edition - that we'd be seeing it get phased in to the stat line. It makes perfect sense that they'd do it the way that they did if it was the intent to expand on it in future rules.

Eh, that assumes that they're thinking that far ahead (which, as we've seen with 3rd/4th/5th edition, likely isn't the case) and it's still rather unnecessary as they describe exactly how to use it as a BS modifier in the rules text. It's not like BS modifiers are hard and introducing a stat that would need to be changed/removed again in the next edition seems rather silly.

It's not actually a stat. For the most part the EV modifiers function just like a direct BS modifier, and the chart is only really needed for special cases (like flyers)

Not even sure this is accurate but hopefully this will help people out http://www.beastsofwar.com/warhammer-40k/leaked40k-heretics-rulebook-real/

Big Mek Wurrzog wrote:Not even sure this is accurate but hopefully this will help people out http://www.beastsofwar.com/warhammer-40k/leaked40k-heretics-rulebook-real/

I refer you to AresX8's post with the link on the previous page, the further post by Kroothawk with the text from the article (also on the previous page), and multiple posts on this page discussing said article.

Dysartes wrote:

Big Mek Wurrzog wrote:Not even sure this is accurate but hopefully this will help people out http://www.beastsofwar.com/warhammer-40k/leaked40k-heretics-rulebook-real/

I refer you to AresX8's post with the link on the previous page, the further post by Kroothawk with the text from the article (also on the previous page), and multiple posts on this page discussing said article.

Come now, everyone knows you only ever read the 1st page and just post anything you like

Earthbeard wrote:

Dysartes wrote:

Big Mek Wurrzog wrote:Not even sure this is accurate but hopefully this will help people out http://www.beastsofwar.com/warhammer-40k/leaked40k-heretics-rulebook-real/

I refer you to AresX8's post with the link on the previous page, the further post by Kroothawk with the text from the article (also on the previous page), and multiple posts on this page discussing said article.

Come now, everyone knows you only ever read the 1st page and just post anything you like

yeah sorry mates, 100 pages? too long for me too keep up just posting what i could when i could.

Earthbeard wrote:Come now, everyone knows you only ever read the 1st page and just post anything you like

The whole 1st page???? Are you kidding

Fetterkey wrote:As expected. Hopefully the change from pancake edition to 6th edition will eliminate the more overt balance issues (outflankers, reserves in general, units with 22" charges ignoring difficult terrain) while still constituting an interesting switchup from 5th-- 5+ cover, Patch Up, Directed Hits, and the tank/melta changes alone should go a long way towards resolving issues with the game.

The reserve rules are some of the best pieces of pancake. It is just so much more tactical than it used to be.

So they removed the funnier and intelligent parts of the edition!!
FICK JA! Guess it's more friendly to their 8 years old
space marine fan base now.
And suits their twisted marketing devoted mind.

I'm kinda curious what the real rulebook will be, but until then I will resume my feth GW attitiute.

Keeping it Move > Shoot > Assault is good though.

Stops it crippling every list that relies on BOTH shooting and melee to survive.

Ovion wrote:Keeping it Move > Shoot > Assault is good though.

Stops it crippling every list that relies on BOTH shooting and melee to survive.

Time and a place? Getting to do both each turn could be argued as too much flexibility. Having to choose between them would present it's own tactics.

My Coven relies on softening units with shooting then tying them up with my frankly small assault squads. I wouldn't be able to fit my army into my transports otherwise.

My coven would be restricted to a Webway Portal list, Foot list, or having to dedicate 3-4 units where previously 1 would be sufficent.

There's lists of this type for most armies, and changing it to a turn format where you're either defined as Assaulting or Shooting and little in between is kinda bleh.

Fetterkey wrote:As expected. Hopefully the change from pancake edition to 6th edition will eliminate the more overt balance issues (the virtual loss of cover saves for infantry, invulnerable tanks, Defensive Fire, missile spam getting even better) while still constituting an interesting switchup from 5th-- no random movement, the way you cannot claim objectives inside transports, Patch Up, and the new reserve rules alone, should go a long way towards resolving issues with the game.

I agree.

Ovion wrote:My Coven relies on softening units with shooting then tying them up with my frankly small assault squads. I wouldn't be able to fit my army into my transports otherwise.

My coven would be restricted to a Webway Portal list, Foot list, or having to dedicate 3-4 units where previously 1 would be sufficent.

There's lists of this type for most armies, and changing it to a turn format where you're either defined as Assaulting or Shooting and little in between is kinda bleh.

My army also often relies on pre-assault softening (DeffWing), but it can make things rather straight-forward - drive forward, get out, dakka, charge.

Along with Engage letting me shoot at a different target if I finish off the unit I assaulted (usually quite common) I also have to choose between sitting back and flying at the enemy. Yes it will make my army more challenging, but I don't mind that.

Also, if you think you're unhappy with it; what about GKs?

Dont you think that it helps balance the game a bit? If a whole armies worth of units gets to Shoot and Assault, you have basically no chance to retaliate (minus assault attacks).

It seems to me the game becomes MORE balanced and tactical when you have to choose one or the other. You still get bonus shooting if you manage to tear through a unit. As it stands now, Dedicated assault units are uneffected by this change, as are Shoot only units. Its just the hybrids that are effected. And they could use some toning down.



GKs will be just fine. They take a few hits in the leak (Force Weapons, Assault/Shoot, Psychic Counter), but they gain more attacks in close combat, ability to counter more psychic powers, Relentless transported psycannons, Multi-targeting Psyflemen, ranged Incinerators, incinerators in CC. I think they would be ok.

The assault then shoot mechanic in the pancake edition just seems right. Most assaults are one sided anyway where your deathstar or hammer wipes away an asymmetrical inferior. Being able to follow it up with shooting was strong. I was terrified at the prospect of a large paladin unit wiping out two units a turn instead of one (charge - clearing something then psycannon/stormbolter dakka at something else). Other big cc units could do the same thing. It also gave a reason for certain choices, for instance I play necrons and would actually pay points for my wraiths to have pistols in order to plink off a shot or two after they massacre their initial targets.

By sticking it back into the 5th mechanic it switches it to favoring msu chargers who rely on a few extra shots to make up for their lesser ability. I guess its ok, just seems bland. I am hoping for a nice shake up this edition not just some wallpaper. At the very least the deployment rules are the best part of this edition, being able to charge after deepstrike makes the Daemons instantly a strong army, but not broken.

But if they keep Deep Strike+Assault, then they have to keep Defensive Fire (if only for this instance, Overwatch can go).

Regarding the KFF 'nerf', I'd say it was a buff if anything.
You only get cover saves for being behind cover (like a barricade) - area terrain does not automatically give you it unless you're being hit by an indirect weapon. This means getting cover saves is very difficult in general, meaning that the KFF, relative to what other armies have available is seriously potent.

I figured that the change to move-assault-shoot was so that all movement could be taken care of with a single move in the movement phase. Not being able to soften up with shooting before an assault is disconcerting, but it feels worth it to simplify movement and speed things up. I hope it stays. Horde assault armies having to make 3 moves a turn is tedious.

Temujin wrote:Horde assault armies having to make 3 moves a turn is tedious.

And provides plenty of scope of 'inaccuracies'.

Single movement phase would get rid of this and speed up the game measurably for large figure-count armies.

sorry I havent been able to read all 100+ pages, but what armies do you guys think stand to get better and worse?

Most of them will get better, worse, or stay about the same; the rest won't.

The one move per round will also make horde armies a little more reasonable in tournament settings.

Also I missed this, but why the name pancake edition? Because it is all exciting at first, but by the end we are sick of it?