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.

Wow, that is a lot of text. Changes the game entirely, I'm not sure I like all of these. Again who knows how valid they really are but a few thoughts of mine:

-Seems like there is infinitely more conditions to keep track of. Right now we have binary questions to remember: did it move, has it gone to ground, is it falling back, etc. Very black and white yes or no questions. These rumors propose all kinds of in betweens. I think that may really bog down games.

-Along those lines, having so many variable speeds requires you to be much more vigilant on your opponent IMO. It's very fluid to know almost every unit moves a multiple of 6" typically and makes it very easy to sit back and watch your opponent. Maybe this won't be a big deal, just a thought.

-It seems completely pointless to consider FNP a save and then say regular units can only use two if fnp is one of them. Why not just keep it as is now and say you can only use one save, and if you happen to have fnp it can be used additionally.

morgendonner wrote:Wow, that is a lot of text. Changes the game entirely, I'm not sure I like all of these. Again who knows how valid they really are but a few thoughts of mine:

-Seems like there is infinitely more conditions to keep track of. Right now we have binary questions to remember: did it move, has it gone to ground, is it falling back, etc. Very black and white yes or no questions. These rumors propose all kinds of in betweens. I think that may really bog down games.

-Along those lines, having so many variable speeds requires you to be much more vigilant on your opponent IMO. It's very fluid to know almost every unit moves a multiple of 6" typically and makes it very easy to sit back and watch your opponent. Maybe this won't be a big deal, just a thought.

-It seems completely pointless to consider FNP a save and then say regular units can only use two if fnp is one of them. Why not just keep it as is now and say you can only use one save, and if you happen to have fnp it can be used additionally.

Maybe the rules are changed where FnP is now considered a save?

Morathi's Darkest Sin wrote:Damn if thats in any way accurate, it's going to feel like a different game.

Seriously - that's what it sounds like: A Whole Different Game. Which gets me wondering how much to believe these rumors, but there's enough stuff that logically evolves from this edition, so maybe it really is true.

Yeah, that's kind of what I'm thinking, it all seems like a progression. And with the changes to WHFB in 8th edition, nothing is impossible.

wyomingfox wrote:

grizgrin wrote:Now THAT is a post. Seems a bit....long to be BS?

You remember that Fandex for Tyranids that hit the internets and got people to thinking it was the next 5th edition Nid codex...right? Not saying this is a fake, just saying that some people do have alot of free time on thier hands.

Point.

pretre wrote:Or the BA 'leakdex'.

Point.

Extinction Angel wrote:Wow, looks like 3rd edition and 5th edition got together and impregnated 2nd edition and are in a heated battle for custody of 6th ed.

Money, or money shot?

There are a few snippets in that give me pause...or at least make me wonder what edition the leaker is playing. So I dunno.

Heckuva hoax if it is one, though. I'd probably play that game, lol.

ghost21 wrote:

Dominic1905 wrote:hmm, these changes seem interesting...
Can you say if what was said in the BoK post is relatively accurate ghost?

some (i wont do rules n stats, im sorry ive been asked not too)

Kroothawk wrote:

ghost21 wrote:

Dominic1905 wrote:hmm, these changes seem interesting...
Can you say if what was said in the BoK post is relatively accurate ghost?

some (i wont do rules n stats, im sorry ive been asked not too)

Some..... meaning there are some fakes but how much.

This literally changes the game, every army list ever made is now down the drains because they can't be used.

I am officially intrigued by this new list of stuff.

Its perfectly plausible that GW would totally change the game and invalidate every book.. They did with 3rd ed and honestly it looks like (For the sake of argument) that they are keeping the same terminology that the current books use, so that probably means they wouldnt be invalidated

I welcome a ton of change, its been the same game basically for 14 years

Ok, now I'm certain that this is pure wishlisting. Too long, too specific and too collected. It's the result of someone sitting down and reworking the rules to suit their tastes. That's not a "leak," and it certainly isn't a leak for a product that's at least a year away from being released.

well depends who you believe, rumour was that 6th will be out before the next olympics...

Would be nice if it was easier to read, might be able to playtest a bit.

Even though these rumors probably aren't true, I was bored enough to translate the shooting To Hit table:

MasterSlowPoke wrote:Even though these rumors probably aren't true, I was bored enough to translate the shooting To Hit table:

Ballistic skill 1 has a 50% chance to hit the broad side of a barn.

That sounds like GW reasoning, for better or for worse.

Hmmm.... I dunno if I like what's going on here...

Holy crap that's a lot of text.

One reason it seems plausible to me is that there are some ideas that Alessio is implementing in Warpath in those rules, which is consistent with the other rumour about the lead designer leaving during the project.

66% to hit a barn, 50% to hit a stationary vehicle. Sounds reasonable.

So, you only need a 4+ as a marine to hit a flat out fast skimmer, and they don't get a flat out cover save anymore?

I wonder if the Stormraven could get any worse...

That would certainly make DoA armies a bit more interesting.

I am now somewhat less enthusiastic than I was after the first batch of rumours. But also somewhat more doubtful that they're true (and I was very doubtful to begin with)

Kirasu wrote:Its perfectly plausible that GW would totally change the game and invalidate every book.. They did with 3rd ed and honestly it looks like (For the sake of argument) that they are keeping the same terminology that the current books use, so that probably means they wouldnt be invalidated

I welcome a ton of change, its been the same game basically for 14 years

Exactly. Every other game has re-made itself over the years, except GW-tabletops. It's been three full editions. Time to move on GW. I applaud these new changes. The game has been horribly static and monogamous since third, at least from what I can tell. Second was a land of exciting rules, experimental armies, insanely complicated tank busting and interesting background. It was all new, and it was fun! That's what GW should try to achieve. IMHO, by the way.

If these rules are true (and in my mind they have the same truth to them as both the fake BA codex and GW moving to resin, so 50/50) then i expect the amount of terrain required to double.

daedalus-templarius wrote:So, you only need a 4+ as a marine to hit a flat out fast skimmer, and they don't get a flat out cover save anymore?

I wonder if the Stormraven could get any worse...

Nope, the Stormraven will certainly be a flyer, and thus it's been super buffed-- most units will only be able to hit on a 6!

Fetterkey wrote:

daedalus-templarius wrote:So, you only need a 4+ as a marine to hit a flat out fast skimmer, and they don't get a flat out cover save anymore?

I wonder if the Stormraven could get any worse...

Nope, the Stormraven will certainly be a flyer, and thus it's been super buffed-- most units will only be able to hit on a 6!

Yea, while I hope that is true, there are going to be some pretty serious FAQs going out timed with the release of 6th if this will be the case; because it will basically be reclassifying the vehicle, as it is currently a Fast Skimmer.

The new rules seem to confusing don't you think? I kinda like the old shoot and charge in stuff because that is the most realistic way of someone to actully fight a war, no one is just gonna charge into close combat before they tried everything to thin out their numbers.

Anyway these new rules really messup transports since what's the point of a rhino when you can already move 6 inch on foot.

Marthike wrote:Anyway these new rules really messup transports since what's the point of a rhino when you can already move 6 inch on foot.

Ummm. You know that it listed Surge and Flat out, right? x2 and x3 movement?

pretre wrote:

Marthike wrote:Anyway these new rules really messup transports since what's the point of a rhino when you can already move 6 inch on foot.

Ummm. You know that it listed Surge and Flat out, right? x2 and x3 movement?

Infantry will still out pace a non-fast vehicle since they get to fleet with a leadership test. Even better if you are infantry that move through cover, as it appears you can fleet into terrain (although depends on the definition of ignore terrain I guess).

Shooting already gets the short end of the stick in 5th ed if they go with this there will be very little reason to take anything other than assault units and the biggest guns so the reward for actually hitting is worth the loss of CQC potential.

I like pretty much all the rules changes I'm hearing, if handled well.

But, I still won't get into 40k despite liking the universe so much because everything else I'm reading and seeing about GW's lineup shows they're doing everything else wrong.