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.

Agent_Tremolo wrote:So, orks lose +1 WS from the Waaagh Banner (now an ordinary standard bearer),

Seriously, where do you people pull these ideas.

cygnnus wrote:

Unit1126PLL wrote:

agnosto wrote:

CT GAMER wrote: 1. Any tank with Armour 14 is a "beheamoth" and gets "multi-targeting".
2. close toped tanks confer a -1 on the damage roll table

Land raiders just got more badass

They needed something since each one of my broadsides will be hitting them 4 times a turn, each, with railguns.... yeah; let's just pause and thin about that for a minute. ahhh.

Actually the Multi-Targeting rule says you cannot use it to fire a weapon more than once- only fire additional weapons on the model.

I can't wait for the RAW uber alles crowd to get their hands on this one (assuming, of course it's a) legit and b) how the final rules read anyway).

"Note that the model still cannot fire the same weapon twice."

But it doesn't say I can't shoot the same weapon thrice (or 4 times, 5, etc...).

Valete,

JohnS

How do you fire three times without firing twice?

Anyone who tries to pull that isn't 'RAW uber alles'; they're an idiot.

benogham wrote:

I can premeasure my assault moves but not my shooting

You can measure after having declared your 'charge' action. It's not the same as measuring to see if you're in range and then declare the charge.

I can't seem to find this in the rules. Could you give me a page number, please?

p51 top right

benogham wrote:p51 top right

So as far as I can tell you can pre-measure it, fail and still shoot later...
But I guess in the long run you can't shoot AND assault in the same turn as far as I can see.

Dantalian wrote:But I guess in the long run you can't shoot AND assault in the same turn as far as I can see.

No, but you can assault and then shoot.

So read the squad leader section and am still none the wise what constitutes a squad leader for a squad that doesn't have one (Necrons, Tyranids, Eldar without Exarchs/Warlocks, Orks without Nobz etc etc)

Ok just had a quick read through, but damn Tau get a HUGE boost.
The new rapid fire allone would make them at least 50% more usefull...
The new deepstrike mechanics with are also nice.
Will have a closer look at those leaks later, but I really hope they are true for now.

(extended charging ranges give me a bit of a headache tho >< )

It's legit, no viruses. has some pretty neat stuff in there... although I don't really know what to make of it. What is the context of this? Is it an experimental copy for GW staff members?

Consolidation phase. What.

Lumbering special rule. What.

Level three mastery. what

Flashman wrote:So read the squad leader section and am still none the wise what constitutes a squad leader for a squad that doesn't have one (Necrons, Tyranids, Eldar without Exarchs/Warlocks, Orks without Nobz etc etc)

p. 106
Nominate one model of the unit to be the squad leader when you pick your forces. If the unit entry in the army list features more than one profile, you have to choose a model that is represented by the bottommost line, or if you do not field such a
model, the next higher line.

gorgon wrote:

Flashman wrote:So read the squad leader section and am still none the wise what constitutes a squad leader for a squad that doesn't have one (Necrons, Tyranids, Eldar without Exarchs/Warlocks, Orks without Nobz etc etc)

p. 106
Nominate one model of the unit to be the squad leader when you pick your forces. If the unit entry in the army list features more than one profile, you have to choose a model that is represented by the bottommost line, or if you do not field such a
model, the next higher line.

Hmm... ok. Not sure if I like this rule then. Can't really see a Necron Warrior or Termagant turning round and saying, "This way lads, follow me!"

Oh wow. I'm not sure I even care if this is the real McCoy, it's interesting either way.

pretre wrote:
Grenades can be used against MC but not Grenades with the Mine special rule. That seems pretty clear.

Fair enough, but that paragraph made it sound like any grenade type could be used.

Well, it sounds good...hard to believe GW would change things up so dramatically though.

One of the big problems with 5th ed is vehicles are too tough. With this ruleset it seems more in line but no totally fixed. Because tanks (a large percentage of all vehicles) are harder to damage but easier to hit they pretty much balance out except for the hull breach special rule which means they are slightly less surviable. However we may see less transports because combat tanks have gotten better with multi-targeting. Non tank vehicles remain pretty much the same but crap at shooting if they dont have aerial assault or gunship

I am writing these opinions without having looked at the FAQ's if someone could post a link to them then that would be great

With this rule set

SW are worse because fangs are worse, operating near the enemy is riskier because of better rapid fire and because they cant shoot then assault.

Grey knights i dont know much about but are maybe worse because of worse paladins and worse walkers

SM are better because of better outflanking bikes and better deep strike

DA are better because of better termies

BA are worse because of slightly worse FNP, worse assaulting , worse walkers and worse devs and maybe jump infantry with a slightly smaller charge range

BT are better because they are equally shooting and assaulting but footsloggers and termies are better now

Crons i dont know much about

Grey knights i dont know much about but are maybe worse because of worse paladins and worse walkers?

Tau are better becuase of better shooting phase placement, defensive fire, better rapid fire and better jump troops (Due to airborne units interaction with terrain and the better draw back special rules). Also twin-linked flame suits can hurt units and transports (Due to kickass flamer rules) buy hitting them from WAY back with a twin linked flamer)

Tyranids are better mostly because of better outflank and better instant death. And because the new running is more consistent so you can maintain a cohesive force.

Demons are better because of better MCs and maybe better deep strike

Eldar are better because of better shooting, fleet, squadrons are pretty good now (with the better open topped rules and the better squadron rules Vypers might actually be good). The fast skimmer tanks are both better and worse because Jink negates Massive but they dont have turbo-boosting so as gun platforms they are better but as transports they are worse

Dark eldar are better because they have better shooting in general though, and open-topped fast skimmer's without multiple weapons are REALLY GOOD! (because they have shadowfields jink makes up for the loss of turboosting) However ravagers are now crap (unless they have the aerial assault rule but for that they would probably need supersonic and I doubt they do but please correct me if i am wrong) so now DE players need to consider other HS options. ALSO because of more reliable reserves it means that webways may be useful now.

IG Mech is worse because of worse vehicles
IG Gunline is WAY BETTER
IG Aircav is same because of scout nerf (for them (only 12' is better for alot of other units)) but supersonic is cool.

Orks are worse because nobs are worse and currently they underperformed because of GK and DE

CSM remain pretty much the same because DP are better, their tanks are worse, plague marines are worse but power armour horde is now maybe playable.

I dont know much about the SOB

TANK TRANSPORTS got worse (Rhino's, Chimeras, Wave Serpents, Razorbacks) because of decreased survivability and no extra three inches when deploying from them. You have to move out of them and you can only do that if you move 6'

TANK GUN PLATFORMS got better (as long as you have multiple weapons) because of Multi Targeting

(Vanilla)VEHICLE GUN PLATFORMS got worse (Unless you have a single weapon)

(Vanilla)VEHICLE TRANSPORTS got slightly worse because of worse disembarkation

SKIMMER TANK TRANSPORTS got worse like normal tank transports

SKIMMER GUN PLATFORMS got worse (Unless you have a single weapon)

FAST SKIMMER GUN PLATFORMS got worse (Unless you have a single weapon)

FAST SKIMMER TANK GUN PLATFORMS got better (as long as you have multiple weapons)

FAST SKIMMER TRANSPORTS got worse because they lost turbo boost

FAST SKIMMER TANK TRANSPORTS got worse because they lost turbo boost

DARK ELDAR FAST SKIMMER TRANSPORTS got better because jink + Shadowfield makes up for loss of turbo boost and moving out of the transport is counteracted by getting double fleet move. So while an old assault range with fleet from an open-topped skimmer was 21'-27' inches and a current one is 24' the twenty 24' is reliable.

Sorry for the wall of text but that's my early take on codex power and vehicle power.

Also here
http://www.scribd.com/doc/77919458
http://www.scribd.com/doc/77919445

I'm just recasting what I've found

Did anyone else notice that in the "Codex Update" Tau are included, but Black Templars, Necrons, and Sisters are all absent?

I'm sure that it could be that BT and Sisters could have just been not added yet. Necrons may not need an update with their very recent codex, but it also stands to reason that BT may get a new codex before the release of 6th ed, thus negating the need for an update.

That also makes the point that (assuming this is all legit anyway), Tau will NOT be getting a new codex before the release of 6th Ed.

All the stupid random gak is gone. This game can finally start rewarding players with skill rather then with powergamed armies. Color me enthusiastic.

Tyranids just became a powerhouse as well, color me terrified.

GW always noted that Necrons are written with 6th Ed in mind (BT are on re-release list and I hope SoB too - because WD is crap

Skogkat wrote:Did anyone else notice that in the "Codex Update" Tau are included, but Black Templars, Necrons, and Sisters are all absent?

I'm sure that it could be that BT and Sisters could have just been not added yet. Necrons may not need an update with their very recent codex, but it also stands to reason that BT may get a new codex before the release of 6th ed, thus negating the need for an update.

That also makes the point that (assuming this is all legit anyway), Tau will NOT be getting a new codex before the release of 6th Ed.

That wouldn't make a lot of sense if this is a Playtest copy though, since they would need to playtest either the old rules or the new rules. I guess it is possible that there is a playtest copy of the unreleased BT with this somewhere, but that's unlikely.

The truth is out there....
Just got new meaning :-)

Necrons would still need a FAQ update to make it fully compatable with this version of the rules. Look at the dark eldar update and the supersonic and aerial assault rules. Necrons have the exact same rules, so they would update them to new versions. I think that if this is legit, at the time of this file, the missing dexes were in development still.

pretre wrote: I guess it is possible that there is a playtest copy of the unreleased BT with this somewhere, but that's unlikely.

Why would that be unlikely? If play testers have access to beta rulebook (obviously), they should by all accounts have access to beta codices with which to test the rules.

It could well be that whatever flash drive was lost or "stolen" simply didn't have those files on. Or they were formatted differently and not attached. I feel sorry for GW. If this is all legit somebody is probably going to lose their job.

His Master's Voice wrote:

pretre wrote: I guess it is possible that there is a playtest copy of the unreleased BT with this somewhere, but that's unlikely.

Why would that be unlikely? If play testers have access to beta rulebook (obviously), they should by all accounts have access to beta codices with which to test the rules.

Because if you had the BT codex as well as the new rulebook, why wouldn't you release it?

@Shumagorath: Not sure that I buy the 'different format' argument, but it is possible.

Even GW now won't be able to stop torrents

Hmm, trying to find a clarification, but can't see it atm. Has anyone spotted if flying infantry count as flying for evasion purposes?

pretre wrote:

His Master's Voice wrote:

pretre wrote: I guess it is possible that there is a playtest copy of the unreleased BT with this somewhere, but that's unlikely.

Why would that be unlikely? If play testers have access to beta rulebook (obviously), they should by all accounts have access to beta codices with which to test the rules.

Because if you had the BT codex as well as the new rulebook, why wouldn't you release it?

@Shumagorath: Not sure that I buy the 'different format' argument, but it is possible.

*shrugs* I was just listing some plausible possibilities. I'm sure the books will be released before the new edition. I'm expecting a much heavier codex release for 40k this year.

If this document is true to form, I will jump back into 40k with both feet. I haven't played since around June because I really don't care for the 5th Edition meta-game. When the drastic changes to WHFB were leaked before 8th Edition, I was filled with an impending sense of dread (which, for me at least, turned out to be entirely justified). Reading about these changes, I'm filled with more enthusiasm for 40k than I've had for a long time. Hopefully this leak proves to be genuine, because I miss miniatures gaming. If you'll excuse me, I need to go paint some Guardsmen.

Morathi's Darkest Sin wrote:Hmm, trying to find a clarification, but can't see it atm. Has anyone spotted if flying infantry count as flying for evasion purposes?

If you mean do they count as flyers to get the 6EV, no they don't.



On another subject, I did notice Tau did take a bit of a nerf. Currently if you want a battle suit to split fire from the rest of his unit, you only need a target lock. Witht this new ruleset, you need a multi-tracker and target lock.