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.

Thought I'd start a poll as I'm interested to guage what folks on Dakka think. Have tried to give a good selection of options, feel free to add anything else below if you have a point to make.

Havent read it but from the tidbits I've picked up it sounds interesting, assuming its real and I have no issues with the rules becoming "more complicated" or a "step back" to 2nd ed like others have been saying.

Hence option #2 for me.

First option.

Yeah. Really.

Well, I voted for: Yes, its 40K, would get this regardless.

I would take out the 'No, it's fake' option, since the poll is predicated on the idea that it is true and it will just dilute your responses.

edit: Would it be easier to just have a yes, I like it, no I don't like it, I am undecided poll? I'm afraid with this many choices it may not work out as well.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

wuestenfux wrote:Well, I voted for: Yes, its 40K, would get this regardless.

This is a good point as well. The only 'I'll play it no matter what, even if I don't like it choice' is a Yes. There should be a 'No, but I will play 40k anyways' if you're going to do it this way.

Ah, good point, will see if I can add it in.

Not sure what to think but it doesn;t seem to bee too far off the mark

I'd also remove "it's fake" as an option, because it kind of breaks the poll a little. It's possible to like or dislike it while still thinking it's fake.

Better?

This looks like an excellent step forward for all of the armies. I've already been thinking of ridiculous strategies for the Necrons with their new book. I hope that a large majority of these new rules (which according to history, it will) are true.

I don't care what the rules are. I'll play regardless. I'm not one to complain about the rules.

See the fake stuff just throws off the poll because what if I don't like it, think it is real, but will still play 40k.

I think simpler is better. How many people like it, how many people don't.

No sir, I don't like it.

I'll give it a fair shake, but I can see myself quitting playing the game if it's true.

I've already quit buying, so that's the next logical step, right?

And before anyone asks(cause Lorek already has during DD2's discussion of the PDF), I've already sold off what I'm planning to, regardless of if I quit or not.

Meh, I'm not to thrilled that it seems the 'next edition' is dedicated to eradicating gunlines and sitting in cover. Deep Striking looks ridiculously easy now also. And the whole 'Strike Force' option is stupid.

The reason for the number of options, was I was interested in gauging folks like H.B.M.C who would return to the game if this was accurate. Or those who although worried about some of the changes, liked the overall direction.

I sorta see how the three options would be cleaner, but you can get the same result by adding the yes, maybe and no options together.

Also the reason for stating it as if accurate, was because it seemed a pointless poll to have, is it fake or not.
Obviously it still has a strong possibility of being fake, but there has been much positive and interested discussion over the past few days, and I am interested to see how that translates among those of us here on Dakka.

I sit entirely on the fence regarding the fake or true issue, and feel we'll find out the truth only about when 6th hits the shelves.

I think the document itself is VERY poorly done in terms of layout, and this lends to people who give it a cursory look over the sense that it's more complicated than it actually is. Once you tear into it, it makes a lot of sense, and gives you much more tactical control of the game.

One of my biggest complaints about previous editions was reserves. In the real world, reserves are used to provide a decisive force in the battle at a critical moment. Currently it's more of a "Hey, why don't you guys just show up when you feel like it, then stand around doing nothing for a bit." The new rules allow reserves to be used as they are supposed to be used.

It may be a better ruleset, but it wouldn't get me back into the game.

Of course, my own opinion is that this isn't 6th ed, but merely a set of houserules that the internet decided to take and run with.

One of the things that has been the most interesting about this whole leak business is how many people hang out and dakka, talk about 40k all the time and yet say they don't play.

Seems weird to me, but I guess it is a modeling hobby as well, so that shouldn't be too shocking.

I've had a brief flick through the PDF,
It looks interesting.
Some things are good, I particularly like the better definition of "Hull"
Switching the shooting phase and assault phases around will make for an interesting game.
I'm not quitting over this, even if it is true.

I think it's fake.

I don't like it if it's real.

I probably won't quit 40k if it is real, but I expect to play more Fantasy and WM.

I could never convince people to play with such convoluted rules.

Keep in mind this (if it turns out to be true) is a play test rule book, the rules as they are presented are just here to play with, the finished product should be more polished.

Sounds interesting but If it's true and I don't like it i'll go back to 5th since I only regularly play with 1 friend.

KplKeegan wrote:Meh, I'm not to thrilled that it seems the 'next edition' is dedicated to eradicating gunlines and sitting in cover. Deep Striking looks ridiculously easy now also. And the whole 'Strike Force' option is stupid.

Gunlines aren't viable in this edition. Currently infantry are too slow and have little option once the enemy closes in on them, besides feeding sacrificial units and waiting to shoot them. Charge by Chance, Covering Fire, Defensive Fire, new grenade rules, and Alpha Strike all give tremendous tactical options to gunlines. Infantry are also faster, making objective capture much easier. Bonuses to the Repair rule mean Techpriests would become viable, further increasing tactical possibilities.

I have no idea why you think Deepstriking is easier. Deepstriking within 18" is exactly the same as before, and Deepstriking within 12" lets the enemy fire at you for free. That virtually removes suicide meltas from the game, which I'm fine with because the concept was stupid aesthetically anyway.

What Strike Forces and the new Deepstrike rules do is provide more control over your reserves, which makes the game more tactically rewarding. I need my daemons to reinforce my Plague Marines, so I'd only use 1 reserve die on turn 2, giving me a 66% chance of them not coming in. However, once my Plague Marines are in range on turn 3, I can throw three dice at the reserve roll, giving me closer to a 90% chance they will come in. Of course, bringing the daemons down in front of my opponent will give him a free round of shooting at them, so I'll need to make sure they're occupied. If my Plague Marines absorb a charge, those Lesser Daemons get to pull an Alpha Strike, adding leaps and bounds to their potency.

The poll looks fine to me.

Maelstrom808 wrote:I think the document itself is VERY poorly done in terms of layout, and this lends to people who give it a cursory look over the sense that it's more complicated than it actually is. Once you tear into it, it makes a lot of sense, and gives you much more tactical control of the game.

Organization could be better, but I don't think it's as bad as some people are saying. The "see page ***" that people are complaining about really can't be avoided - I've done professional work similar to this before and one of the cardinal rules is never, ever duplicate text. If a rule is referred to in more than one place, you have to use the "see page ***" thing. That said, I think it'd be better to just collect all the possible actions and special rules in one place, rather than dividing them up by phase & type and scattering them around the book.

On the poll: these rules are much better. If you read the whole thing and not just some random part of it, it all works together well. It fixes pretty much all of my balance complaints with 5th edition, and makes things more tactically interesting to boot.

Posit wrote:

Maelstrom808 wrote:I think the document itself is VERY poorly done in terms of layout, and this lends to people who give it a cursory look over the sense that it's more complicated than it actually is. Once you tear into it, it makes a lot of sense, and gives you much more tactical control of the game.

Organization could be better, but I don't think it's as bad as some people are saying. The "see page ***" that people are complaining about really can't be avoided - I've done professional work similar to this before and one of the cardinal rules is never, ever duplicate text. If a rule is referred to in more than one place, you have to use the "see page ***" thing. That said, I think it'd be better to just collect all the possible actions and special rules in one place, rather than dividing them up by phase & type and scattering them around the book.

On the poll: these rules are much better. If you read the whole thing and not just some random part of it, it all works together well. It fixes pretty much all of my balance complaints with 5th edition, and makes things more tactically interesting to boot.

Having the special rules and actions consolidated into place, and given some logical organization would help immensely.

Yeah. That PDF is currently optimized for front-to-back reading, but that's not the common use scenario. It should be optimized for random access. People are never going to read it cover-to-cover more than once, often not even that, and the rest of the time they're going to use as a reference, wanting to turn to just the relevant section and skipping everything else. But then, GW has never seemed to really understand this.

I have not played this game since 2005 because it became a boring simplistic mess. I would be like HBMC and jump back in just because of the level of tactility and fun it's been missing for 7 years.

I was bored of 5th edition and skipped 4th edition, already I am more excited about playing than I have been in years