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.

N.I.B. wrote:

wuestenfux wrote:Well, I'm a bit disappointed now. The discussions here and at other boards let revive the leaked rule set.

The pancake edition everyone loved and wish was true?

I think you wrote everyone when you meant some people.

pretre wrote:

N.I.B. wrote:

wuestenfux wrote:Well, I'm a bit disappointed now. The discussions here and at other boards let revive the leaked rule set.

The pancake edition everyone loved and wish was true?

I think you wrote everyone when you meant some people.

I an completely serious when I say that nothing GW has ever done has been received more positively than pancake on the forums.

My overall perception based on dakka and warseer was that the pancake edition was highly touted as a fun gameplay experience. Some detractors didnt like it, but that will happen no matter what GW releases.

8 days to white dwarf....when will we see the spoilers and leaks from that issue?

tetrisphreak wrote:My overall perception based on dakka and warseer was that the pancake edition was highly touted as a fun gameplay experience. Some detractors didnt like it, but that will happen no matter what GW releases.

8 days to white dwarf....when will we see the spoilers and leaks from that issue?

Experience says Monday or Tuesday.

lord_blackfang wrote:I an completely serious when I say that nothing GW has ever done has been received more positively than pancake on the forums.

Completely subjective assessment. Just as many people said 'omg, I'll quit' as every other change that GW puts out. They can't win for losing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

tetrisphreak wrote:My overall perception based on dakka and warseer was that the pancake edition was highly touted as a fun gameplay experience. Some detractors didnt like it, but that will happen no matter what GW releases.

Yeah, I think it was more than just 'some'. It seemed like a lot of people liked it because it was new and interesting and a lot of folks didn't like it because it was too new and too drastic. Either way, we'll find out when we see the real 6th.

Kirasu wrote:

Players will have to spend a turn maneuvering and softening up assault targets before going in for the kill.

So.. makes assault even worse then if you have to spend an entire turn softening up people instead of just shooting and assaulting.

I really hope this isn't *more* biased towards shooting than 5th.

Glad somebody else noticed this. Makes both heavy shooting and counter charge even better in context, while assault weapons seem to loose steam. Additionally, no assaulting units after popping transports is really nice for things like IG plasma vets but horrible for melta jump squads. Kill the chimera and you get rapid fire plasma melted next turn. Don't, and you still get melted. And good luck if you are tyranids trying to shoot pop any transports before assaulting now! Random charge distance also punishes assault troops and is a pretty dumb idea. I could see adding a d3 to the move distance, but rolling like difficult terrain is stupid. Add in no consolidation into new combats, and CC troops are really going to struggle.

Praxiss wrote:I woudl think of it as the vehicle can roll in and clear the initially take the objective, but troosp woudl be needed to actualyl hodl it.

it's a feeble example (i've not been in the forces so have no real life experience)....ever played Battlefield 3 on conquest and tried to capture a control point in a tank or a jeep by yourself? No matter what you do there will always be one enemy guy hding who can only be flushed out by friendly troops to secure the objective.

There's three problems with this that I can see. The first is fear or that in a real combat situation doing such a thing would be paramount to suicide, not to mention that hiding near some sort of objective isn't really going to do diddly squat in real life since you're effectively taken out of action. Yes, a battle ready troop near an objective can potentially kill enemy soldiers once given opportunity but it's more likely a soldier like that will try to get away or simply surrender to the enemy forces. Typically soldiers aren't Rambo. The second problem is that in a table-top situation it's not the tank's inability to capture the point that is portrayed in Battlefield, but rather that the enemy soldier is contesting the objective. The third problem is that when I roll a tank onto an objective in Battlefield 3 it usually takes the opposing team 4-5 soldiers zerging the tank and that single soldiers lying in cover are easy to take care of. In Battlefield tanks on objectives capture points. Period and full stop. You need to get rid of the tank and then retake the point, but a point with an enemy tank on it is theirs and it's just a matter of time - except for the hotel(?) point on Karkand since tanks can't get to the capture area.

However, while Tanks are for all purposes the best thing ever at taking control of it's immediate area (and at this point I should distinguish between modern tanks and WWI and some WWII tanks which the Empire seem to build - you know those things that couldn't do anything at all when infantry got close and started climbing on it to pour gasoline into the crew compartment) there is a distinct game play element to consider. In real life there are a very large amount of concerns which makes outfitting every blighted individual with a tank practically impossible (fuel, space, preparedness, military-civilian interaction, extreme cost of production, speed of production, etc etc) which just can't be simulated in game - but for all that we can still purchase just about anything for our points. Regarding cost, points aren't money, they are force equalizers for the different forces. Money can be spent well and they can be spent poorly, but above all you can over-invest in a situation which is something you can't do with points.

lord_blackfang wrote:

pretre wrote:

N.I.B. wrote:

wuestenfux wrote:Well, I'm a bit disappointed now. The discussions here and at other boards let revive the leaked rule set.

The pancake edition everyone loved and wish was true?

I think you wrote everyone when you meant some people.

I an completely serious when I say that nothing GW has ever done has been received more positively than pancake on the forums.

Which makes it all the more likely that pancake was a hoax or a rogue GW rules designer's dream. Just sayin'.

Kurce wrote:Which makes it all the more likely that pancake was a hoax or a rogue GW rules designer's dream. Just sayin'.

Yawn.

One of the reasons that pancake was so popular was that it was an 'everything including the kitchen sink' book. It had so many rules and little fiddly bits that everyone was likely to find something they liked. I think that if we had to deal with pancake in real life, the honeymoon would wear off pretty quick.

I was looking forward to pancak giving Scarabs a 36" charge range (with no random distances)

pretre wrote:

Kurce wrote:Which makes it all the more likely that pancake was a hoax or a rogue GW rules designer's dream. Just sayin'.

Yawn.

One of the reasons that pancake was so popular was that it was an 'everything including the kitchen sink' book. It had so many rules and little fiddly bits that everyone was likely to find something they liked. I think that if we had to deal with pancake in real life, the honeymoon would wear off pretty quick.

I very much doubt it, the real problem with 40k ever since 3rd has been that the main rules have been too streamlined, aside from anything else this promotes the plethora of special rules and exceptions that have sprung up in codices. The leaked rules also weren't complex, probably less so than 5th is if the various codex derived special rules were properly FAQed.

The leaked 6th ed was one of, if not the, most popular things that I have ever seen on a forum dedicated to GW.

I really, really hope that its core survived and 6th is more than yet another rehash of 3rd.

pretre wrote:

Kurce wrote:Which makes it all the more likely that pancake was a hoax or a rogue GW rules designer's dream. Just sayin'.

Yawn.

One of the reasons that pancake was so popular was that it was an 'everything including the kitchen sink' book. It had so many rules and little fiddly bits that everyone was likely to find something they liked. I think that if we had to deal with pancake in real life, the honeymoon would wear off pretty quick.

I really don't want to get into what's better, as there was more than enough of that when it appeared, but having play tested it quite a bit, it was a much smoother and easier playing game than what we currently have in general. It did have issues, but it played exactly as a very early playtest after a brainstorming session of new ideas. With some refining it would be an excellent game. Taking it word for word as presented though...no, it would have crashed and burned.

Mahtamori wrote:

Praxiss wrote:I woudl think of it as the vehicle can roll in and clear the initially take the objective, but troosp woudl be needed to actualyl hodl it.

it's a feeble example (i've not been in the forces so have no real life experience)....ever played Battlefield 3 on conquest and tried to capture a control point in a tank or a jeep by yourself? No matter what you do there will always be one enemy guy hding who can only be flushed out by friendly troops to secure the objective.

There's three problems with this that I can see. The first is fear or that in a real combat situation doing such a thing would be paramount to suicide, not to mention that hiding near some sort of objective isn't really going to do diddly squat in real life since you're effectively taken out of action. Yes, a battle ready troop near an objective can potentially kill enemy soldiers once given opportunity but it's more likely a soldier like that will try to get away or simply surrender to the enemy forces. Typically soldiers aren't Rambo. The second problem is that in a table-top situation it's not the tank's inability to capture the point that is portrayed in Battlefield, but rather that the enemy soldier is contesting the objective. The third problem is that when I roll a tank onto an objective in Battlefield 3 it usually takes the opposing team 4-5 soldiers zerging the tank and that single soldiers lying in cover are easy to take care of. In Battlefield tanks on objectives capture points. Period and full stop. You need to get rid of the tank and then retake the point, but a point with an enemy tank on it is theirs and it's just a matter of time - except for the hotel(?) point on Karkand since tanks can't get to the capture area.

However, while Tanks are for all purposes the best thing ever at taking control of it's immediate area (and at this point I should distinguish between modern tanks and WWI and some WWII tanks which the Empire seem to build - you know those things that couldn't do anything at all when infantry got close and started climbing on it to pour gasoline into the crew compartment) there is a distinct game play element to consider. In real life there are a very large amount of concerns which makes outfitting every blighted individual with a tank practically impossible (fuel, space, preparedness, military-civilian interaction, extreme cost of production, speed of production, etc etc) which just can't be simulated in game - but for all that we can still purchase just about anything for our points. Regarding cost, points aren't money, they are force equalizers for the different forces. Money can be spent well and they can be spent poorly, but above all you can over-invest in a situation which is something you can't do with points.

A tank is great for helping gain ground...but as it obviated by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, they are not a panacea for all situations on the battlefield. Minimally trained insurgents have disabled even the seemingly invincible M1A2 Abrams MBT using unguided rockets that cost maybe a grand a pop. For all of their power on an open battlefield, you'd be very surprised at how much of a liability a tank is in a close-quarters environment. They're slow and their main weapon has to be trained towards the threat axis to be effective. When dealing with multi-axis threats, a tank can quickly become overwhelmed. This is why you almost never see tanks going unescorted by infantry in a MOUT (Military Operations in Urban Terrain) environment. Yes, they are kings of the battlefield, but not kings of the city. Anyways, to my point, by not having vehicles being able to capture objectives, it demonstrates the capability about as close as it can to real warfare. Objectives aren't always a piece of land to be held. As previously mentioned, it could be a beacon that needs to be reactivated or shut down, or a downed pilot that needs to be stabilized and evacuated. Vehicles can't do this, obviously, so that's a good reasoning to not have them take objectives. As for them not contesting in 6th...I see this as a bit of an issue, because just the presence of an armored vehicle in some form could prevent the objective from being interacted with. It just makes sense that any unit can contest an objective, because an enemy presence would most definitely slow down rendering first aid to a downed pilot, or trying to upload something to a transmitter. Now, having infantry inside a vehicle being able to hold an objective...that should definitely go...what good are they doing by just sitting in their armored box? You have to get out of the transport to interact with the objective...

Yeah, it puzzles me how people say this edition may be 'Infantryhammer' when now the basic fix of "nuke transport, assault contents in the same turn" apparently becomes impossible. If anything, transports make shooty troops get two free rounds of fire against CC, possibly 3 depending on how snap fire works!

On the other hand, the stratagem bid way of determining initiative is a thing of beauty. I hope it makes it into the real book.

Well then lets hope that Pancake was what some peopel claim it to be - an "official" playtest of 6th ed rules.

presumably they will have play tested it as well, come to a similar conclulsion and worked out the "tweaks".

wishful thinking perhaps?

pretre wrote:

Kurce wrote:Which makes it all the more likely that pancake was a hoax or a rogue GW rules designer's dream. Just sayin'.

Yawn.

One of the reasons that pancake was so popular was that it was an 'everything including the kitchen sink' book. It had so many rules and little fiddly bits that everyone was likely to find something they liked. I think that if we had to deal with pancake in real life, the honeymoon would wear off pretty quick.

Now is this spoken from someone who played pancake, or someone trying to play devils advocate?

I had tried the rules, more then tried and aside from learning the rules so you didn't have to reference it (which happens in each edition, especially when you started in 2nd) they actually were easy and there were less situations for arguments. Simplicity in itself can make a rules set easier to digest initially but leaves way too many holes for arguments later.

Sephyr wrote:Yeah, it puzzles me how people say this edition may be 'Infantryhammer' when now the basic fix of "nuke transport, assault contents in the same turn" apparently becomes impossible. If anything, transports make shooty troops get two free rounds of fire against CC, possibly 3 depending on how snap fire works!

On the other hand, the stratagem bid way of determining initiative is a thing of beauty. I hope it makes it into the real book.

Woudln't it just be reversed now? You will have to plan your assaults a bit better but - assault the transport (whcih will have WS1 at most unless it is a fast simmer = so shoudl eb easier to hit i think?), then once the unit is forced out, you can mass fire that unit with your AI guns.

OR (thinking from a necron perspective) Scarbs charge a moving rhino - fail to kill it but drop its AV by a few points. NOW that nearby warrior squad who coudl only glance it before have a chance to pen the armoru on it.

I just want it out already.... Could someone better explain what a limited or special edition would be?

Palindrome wrote:

pretre wrote:

Kurce wrote:Which makes it all the more likely that pancake was a hoax or a rogue GW rules designer's dream. Just sayin'.

Yawn.

One of the reasons that pancake was so popular was that it was an 'everything including the kitchen sink' book. It had so many rules and little fiddly bits that everyone was likely to find something they liked. I think that if we had to deal with pancake in real life, the honeymoon would wear off pretty quick.

I very much doubt it, the real problem with 40k ever since 3rd has been that the main rules have been too streamlined, aside from anything else this promotes the plethora of special rules and exceptions that have sprung up in codices. The leaked rules also weren't complex, probably less so than 5th is if the various codex derived special rules were properly FAQed.

The leaked 6th ed was one of, if not the, most popular things that I have ever seen on a forum dedicated to GW.

I really, really hope that its core survived and 6th is more than yet another rehash of 3rd.

Can't agree more, I find it humorous when people on the internet say it is too drastic a change. Seriously? It's obvious they weren't playing during the change from 2nd to 3rd lol. I remember the change at first and was stunned, no to hit chart? Cover is a save not a modifier? Armor isn't modified it's all or nothing? Combat!!! I am not saying I disliked the changes, most of them I love but it's humorous how some people can play for one or two editions and think they are in the know on whether or not a change is too drastic.

Red Corsair wrote:Now is this spoken from someone who played pancake, or someone trying to play devils advocate?

I had tried the rules, more then tried and aside from learning the rules so you didn't have to reference it (which happens in each edition, especially when you started in 2nd) they actually were easy and there were less situations for arguments. Simplicity in itself can make a rules set easier to digest initially but leaves way too many holes for arguments later.

I did not play pancake. I didn't wish to waste time on a game of unknown provenance. This, of course, means that I am less familiar with the actual 'game' than those who did play it.

I will have to take your word that it was simpler and easier to play than 5th edition, which is pretty darn easy to play. I find that rules arguments tend to happen on the internet far more than they happen in games.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lobukia wrote:I just want it out already.... Could someone better explain what a limited or special edition would be?

A limited or special edition is just that. A limited number of books will be released with some special feature on them... cooler binding, more art, special hardcover, whatever.

No one knows what those special features or limited numbers are, so it is all speculation.

pretre wrote:I find that rules arguments tend to happen on the internet far more than they happen in games.

To be fair, we have multiple forums for it here, and there is a conspicuous lack of a phase for it in the game.

pretre wrote:

Red Corsair wrote:Now is this spoken from someone who played pancake, or someone trying to play devils advocate?

I had tried the rules, more then tried and aside from learning the rules so you didn't have to reference it (which happens in each edition, especially when you started in 2nd) they actually were easy and there were less situations for arguments. Simplicity in itself can make a rules set easier to digest initially but leaves way too many holes for arguments later.

I did not play pancake. I didn't wish to waste time on a game of unknown provenance. This, of course, means that I am less familiar with the actual 'game' than those who did play it.

I will have to take your word that it was simpler and easier to play than 5th edition, which is pretty darn easy to play. I find that rules arguments tend to happen on the internet far more than they happen in games.

Don't get me wrong it had more content, I would agree that 5th was way quicker to learn initially. Pancake was simple to learn but to a bit more time to digest, which was still marginal if you have played table top games, but covered more area and was better written so less argument could be made over the wording or lack of context in a rule like most other editions.

pretre wrote:

Kurce wrote:Which makes it all the more likely that pancake was a hoax or a rogue GW rules designer's dream. Just sayin'.

Yawn.

One of the reasons that pancake was so popular was that it was an 'everything including the kitchen sink' book. It had so many rules and little fiddly bits that everyone was likely to find something they liked. I think that if we had to deal with pancake in real life, the honeymoon would wear off pretty quick.

You yawned my post.

Pancake was pretty good from the two games I played with it. Some things were a little awkward but it felt like an early play test version of a legit rules set. I did find some things that did not make sense and there were some rules left out of it for certain unit types. But, it still felt pretty good. Too good for somebody who works at GW in my opinion.

N.I.B. wrote:

wuestenfux wrote:Well, I'm a bit disappointed now. The discussions here and at other boards let revive the leaked rule set.

The pancake edition everyone loved and wish was true?

Nah, I would be cautious here. This is more or less an alternative rule set that drastically changes the dynamics of the game. If at the end, this set will be better, I guess not. It will be just different.

kirsanth wrote:

pretre wrote:I find that rules arguments tend to happen on the internet far more than they happen in games.

To be fair, we have multiple forums for it here, and there is a conspicuous lack of a phase for it in the game.

Okay, I lol'd at that. :clap:

If 6th does turn out to be a "rehash" you can always play the updated version of Pancake.. I had a game last night and it was the most fun I have had in years playing Warhammer.

primalexile wrote:If 6th does turn out to be a "rehash" you can always play the updated version of Pancake.. I had a game last night and it was the most fun I have had in years playing Warhammer.

Is there an updated version? Or did you mean that the community will update it if 6th proves unsatisfactory?

wuestenfux wrote:

N.I.B. wrote:

wuestenfux wrote:Well, I'm a bit disappointed now. The discussions here and at other boards let revive the leaked rule set.

The pancake edition everyone loved and wish was true?

Nah, I would be cautious here. This is more or less an alternative rule set that drastically changes the dynamics of the game. If at the end, this set will be better, I guess not. It will be just different.

Again short term memory eh? Remember 2nd where you declared an assault during the movement phase and doubled your charge distance? You literally did not get to shoot into a unit the same turn you made an assault, with any unit in your army! 3d brought the whole, move, shoot, assault which drastically shifted the game from shooting to assault for the past 3 editions in an outrageous shift. Now they have been slowly numbing down assaults and everyone who but a post 3rd edition assault army is crying. They have been slowly making shooting the main influence again since that initial shift in 3rd where you could move, shoot, assault and sweep into enemies, heck in 3rd you could even shoot a different target then the guys you were assaulting. That was so broken, I know because I had armies that took advantage of it!

Red Corsair wrote:

wuestenfux wrote:

N.I.B. wrote:

wuestenfux wrote:Well, I'm a bit disappointed now. The discussions here and at other boards let revive the leaked rule set.

The pancake edition everyone loved and wish was true?

Nah, I would be cautious here. This is more or less an alternative rule set that drastically changes the dynamics of the game. If at the end, this set will be better, I guess not. It will be just different.

Again short term memory eh? Remember 2nd where you declared an assault during the movement phase and doubled your charge distance? You literally did not get to shoot into a unit the same turn you made an assault, with any unit in your army! 3d brought the whole, move, shoot, assault which drastically shifted the game from shooting to assault for the past 3 editions in an outrageous shift. Now they have been slowly numbing down assaults and everyone who but a post 3rd edition assault army is crying. They have been slowly making shooting the main influence again since that initial shift in 3rd where you could move, shoot, assault and sweep into enemies, heck in 3rd you could even shoot a different target then the guys you were assaulting. That was so broken, I know because I had armies that took advantage of it!

Well, I remember very well the 3rd edition. It appears that we will see a major shift of the rule set similar to the shift from 2nd to 3rd ed.

lord_blackfang wrote:

primalexile wrote:If 6th does turn out to be a "rehash" you can always play the updated version of Pancake.. I had a game last night and it was the most fun I have had in years playing Warhammer.

Is there an updated version? Or did you mean that the community will update it if 6th proves unsatisfactory?

Community update project is already in effect see thread below:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/426187.page