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.

pretre wrote:

Andrew1975 wrote:With the release of these rules GW may have to actually go back to the drawing board and or use these rules.

Why would they do anything of the sort? Why not just ignore it and go with what they have? Not like GW is known for caving from internet pressure for this kind of thing.

Exactly. Companies would only usually go back to the drawing board if the leak might affect the sale of the leak item. In this case I don't see that being a factor. So far (and surprising for Dakka) the response seems to be fairly positive. Even if this was an unintentional leak I think GW would be happy with what they have, I can't see any company getting upset at this. As it's been said since when have .pdf rules stopped us from buying the real deal?

Zyllos wrote:The Patch Up part, why even include that if you could consolidate it into making it where you have to remove whole models of similar armor saves?

It's functionally different. With patch-up, they can finish the combat they're in.

Also, it shuts the door on any sort of unusual combo shenanigans potentially allowing it again.

pretre wrote:

Andrew1975 wrote:With the release of these rules GW may have to actually go back to the drawing board and or use these rules.

Why would they do anything of the sort? Why not just ignore it and go with what they have? Not like GW is known for caving from internet pressure for this kind of thing.

Because now there is a better product out that is free. If GW tried to release a more conservative upgrade of 5th instead of this, I don't see them selling many rule books. With this people have seen the future and the future looks good. They can't release a minor upgrade to 5th and label it 6th as this point. It would have to be as good or better than this leaked info.

Zyllos wrote:The Patch Up part, why even include that if you could consolidate it into making it where you have to remove whole models of similar armor saves?

It allows you wound allocation over the course of the turn but not between turns. (i.e. get shot and assaulted, still being able to swing no matter what and then pulling guys at the end).

The Patch Up part does not resolve untill the end of TURN, not combat, so this leaves you with more models longer to do stuff with.

[edit] seriously, I refreshed before posting, it showed nothing, I type a reply in 5 seconds and theres a 40 second older post there :( [/edit]

Andrew1975 wrote:

pretre wrote:

Andrew1975 wrote:With the release of these rules GW may have to actually go back to the drawing board and or use these rules.

Why would they do anything of the sort? Why not just ignore it and go with what they have? Not like GW is known for caving from internet pressure for this kind of thing.

Because now there is a better product out that is free. If GW tried to release a more conservative upgrade of 5th instead of this, I don't see them selling many rule books. With this people have seen the future and the future looks good. They can't release a minor upgrade to 5th and label it 6th as this point. It would have to be as good or better than this leaked info.

Yeah, If this ends up being a rejected early version and the new one is more conservative, I can tell you that I would personally play my pick-up games with the "alessi 6th" rules rather than the real ones until such a time as codexes start breaking them.

Kroothawk wrote:Might be interesting to check if the source on BoK got most things right mid of June 2011. I'd say: Impressive!
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/377248.page
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/370/377248.page

Confirms that the main developer left when his rules weren't approved (Alessio I assume, therefore the non-native-English bits).

Didn't Priestly leave because he wasn't allowed to something radical with a game he pretty much invented?

Kroothawk wrote:
BTW, if the rules content is true, maybe also this part of the leak at that time

As I am done with GW forever. I love the miniatures, I like the new rules (been pretty enthusiastic about it), but I hate the company, that makes them. If you knew what I know you would feel the same. GW doesn’t care for their customers one bit. The whole corporal culture is cynical as hell. The managers despise the hobby and all immatures who play it. There is a huge rift in the management and most of the executives that actually play the game have left or are leaving the company right now.

A couple of weeks ago on "What's New Today", they showed pics of what was purportedly Mark Wells' Orc army.

pretre wrote:

Cruentus wrote:Because of these play as well as they read, and give a more tactical and strategic game, then i'll use these instead of yet another derivation of 3rd-5th edition 40k.

If these are fake, I'd take em, change the wording a bit, et voila, a new ruleset on the market.

That's kind of a big if right now (play as well as read). Example someone brought up on another forum, DE. Their vehicles are impossible to hit, don't have negatives from open-topped, move crazy distances, have an invulnerable save and everything in the army charges crazy distances out of those vehicles. Good luck dealing with that.

Also, I think you fundamentally misunderstand how GW works if you think they would change their entire strategy 6 months from a release for something that was leaked on the internet based on customer interest.

Oh, I know GW wouldn't change their schedule based on the apparent goodwill generated by a ruleset that was cautiously liked by the internet.

You mean unlike the current crop of really fast, long charge distance, pretty mich ignore blown transport DE with 5+ saves and wargear to reduce shooting ranges? Defensive fire alone by the target of the charge will do a lot of damage to DE units. I don't think it'll be that easy.

But again, thats just based on reading. I'm supposed to play 40k tomorrow, so maybe we'll try this instead.

Yeah all that Shooting stuff and upgrade that gets Shooting weapons...,not sure that my WE will like it....

It will be a pain in the ass to be a HtH army...

The new wound allocation thing allows you to still do it the old way during combat to take advantage of the extra models if you could indeed ignore having to remove whole models. However, it does also state that armour groups that have multi wound models need to be considered as having a number of models equal to their number of wounds. You have to allocate wounds to each model which would mean allocating two wounds to a 2 wound model. Of course, both, one or neither of these could be saved.

I've not considered all of the possibilities yet but I'm sure hoping that this doesn't mean it's possible to win a combat with, let's say, 8 x 2 wound models left and have to go down to 7 during the patch up. It probably won't work out that way but who knows - someone will work it all out.

The patch up thing is done in the consolidation phase, too so during actual combat you don't have to worry about it. Whether it's better done this way, I don't know but it's certainly killed off things like Draigo wing.

Rented Tritium wrote:Yeah, If this ends up being a rejected early version and the new one is more conservative, I can tell you that I would personally play my pick-up games with the "alessi 6th" rules rather than the real ones until such a time as codexes start breaking them.

Ahh the ol' "I'll move to Canada if..."

Good times.

Flashman wrote:Didn't Priestly leave because he wasn't allowed to something radical with a game he pretty much invented?

Bingo. I knew this was somewhat familiar. I could easily believe Priestley either wrote the thing or it's at least a derivative of his work.

Cruentus wrote:You mean unlike the current crop of really fast, long charge distance, pretty mich ignore blown transport DE with 5+ saves and wargear to reduce shooting ranges?

Right, but now worse because it is really hard to even blow up their transports.

Wasn't that Warhammer Forge, and a request to do multiple books to do with the Chaos ranges?

pretre wrote:

Rented Tritium wrote:Yeah, If this ends up being a rejected early version and the new one is more conservative, I can tell you that I would personally play my pick-up games with the "alessi 6th" rules rather than the real ones until such a time as codexes start breaking them.

Ahh the ol' "I'll move to Canada if..."

Good times.

playing with an alternate rules-set is not "moving to canada".

Quitting the game is moving to canada.

Zyllos wrote:The Patch Up part, why even include that if you could consolidate it into making it where you have to remove whole models of similar armor saves?

ColdSadHungry wrote:The new wound allocation thing allows you to still do it the old way during combat to take advantage of the extra models if you could indeed ignore having to remove whole models. However, it does also state that armour groups that have multi wound models need to be considered as having a number of models equal to their number of wounds. You have to allocate wounds to each model which would mean allocating two wounds to a 2 wound model. Of course, both, one or neither of these could be saved.

I've not considered all of the possibilities yet but I'm sure hoping that this doesn't mean it's possible to win a combat with, let's say, 8 x 2 wound models left and have to go down to 7 during the patch up. It probably won't work out that way but who knows - someone will work it all out.

The patch up thing is done in the consolidation phase, too so during actual combat you don't have to worry about it. Whether it's better done this way, I don't know but it's certainly killed off things like Draigo wing.

Slightly important to note that if the opponent is able to act and say... defensive fire a squad of paladins that just teleported onto the field, they have a slight advantage of being able to possible still be as effective come shooting time due to the wound consolidation happening at the end of the turn (due to patch up).

Ah, ok. Thanks for the info.

pretre wrote:That's kind of a big if right now (play as well as read). Example someone brought up on another forum, DE. Their vehicles are impossible to hit, don't have negatives from open-topped, move crazy distances, have an invulnerable save and everything in the army charges crazy distances out of those vehicles. Good luck dealing with that.
...

Well, open-topped does have a few disadvantages. One, template weapons not only hits the vehicle (Heavy Flamers can still Pin DE Raiders) but does d3 hits to the unit inside. Second, they do not gain the -1 to Vehicle Damage Roll for being a Tank (this will include the 3 Dark Lance DE vehicle). And Three, the Hull Breach rule makes low AV targets, or DE vehicles, extremely vulnerable to multiple hits, if they can hit (unless you keep rolling ones all day).

Rented Tritium wrote:playing with an alternate rules-set is not "moving to canada".

Quitting the game is moving to canada.

If you're playing with an alternate rule-set, you're not playing the game, now are you. So one could say that, since you no longer play the game, you quit.

So yeah, 6 months from now when all the folks who loudly proclaimed they would switch to this system if GW releases something else sheepishly go about playing their 6th Ed games as GW released them, my 'Moving to Canada' will be particularly appropriate just like the folks who never did get around to becoming expatriates.

pretre wrote:

Rented Tritium wrote:playing with an alternate rules-set is not "moving to canada".

Quitting the game is moving to canada.

If you're playing with an alternate rule-set, you're not playing the game, now are you. So one could say that, since you no longer play the game, you quit.

So yeah, 6 months from now when all the folks who loudly proclaimed they would switch to this system if GW releases something else sheepishly go about playing their 6th Ed games as GW released them, my 'Moving to Canada' will be particularly appropriate just like the folks who never did get around to becoming expatriates.

You are aware that there are threads on this very forum devoted to alternate codexes and rule sets that people are actually playing with.

You are aware that house rules exist currently which change basic components of the game.

Are those people not playing the game anymore?

Also, seriously, you are comparing playing with a different version of the main rulebook in a game about toy soldiers to picking up and moving one's self and all possessions to a different country. The difference in difficulty alone makes that a ridiculous comparison.

Yes, I am aware that people play old versions of the game and use fandexes, etc so on. They are largely in the minority when you look at the whole gaming populace. As a fandex player, it is unlikely that I can just walk into a store on a saturday or go to a RTT or a GT and play a game with my dex. The same will be true if I am a 2nd ed player or something similar. Anyways...

Rented Tritium wrote:Also, seriously, you are comparing playing with a different version of the main rulebook in a game about toy soldiers to picking up and moving one's self and all possessions to a different country. The difference in difficulty alone makes that a ridiculous comparison.

I'm comparing people who talk big about walking away from something and don't to people who talked big about walking away from something and didn't (folks who said they would move to Canada if X got elected). It's a silly shorthand for people who are all talk and no action. Apparently, that did not come across. Hopefully it has now.

pretre wrote:Yes, I am aware that people play old versions of the game and use fandexes, etc so on. They are largely in the minority when you look at the whole gaming populace. As a fandex player, it is unlikely that I can just walk into a store on a saturday or go to a RTT or a GT and play a game with my dex. The same will be true if I am a 2nd ed player or something similar. Anyways...

Rented Tritium wrote:Also, seriously, you are comparing playing with a different version of the main rulebook in a game about toy soldiers to picking up and moving one's self and all possessions to a different country. The difference in difficulty alone makes that a ridiculous comparison.

I'm comparing people who talk big about walking away from something and don't to people who talked big about walking away from something and didn't (folks who said they would move to Canada if X got elected). It's a silly shorthand for people who are all talk and no action. Apparently, that did not come across. Hopefully it has now.

Oh, so it was just a personal attack, then. Gotcha.

BOOSH! Get 'em!

Rented Tritium wrote:Oh, so it was just a personal attack, then. Gotcha.

Or a lack of sense of humor... Either way though.

Dakka, I said to stop posting stuff like that. I mean it!

enough with the hair brained conspiracy theories already

pretre wrote:Yes, I am aware that people play old versions of the game and use fandexes, etc so on. They are largely in the minority when you look at the whole gaming populace. As a fandex player, it is unlikely that I can just walk into a store on a saturday or go to a RTT or a GT and play a game with my dex. The same will be true if I am a 2nd ed player or something similar. Anyways...

Why? Does your FLGS say that you're not allowed to play with fandexes with friends or something?

That's not very friendly of them, man.

I'm comparing people who talk big about walking away from something and don't to people who talked big about walking away from something and didn't (folks who said they would move to Canada if X got elected). It's a silly shorthand for people who are all talk and no action. Apparently, that did not come across. Hopefully it has now.

Are you saying, then, that he won't use these rules if the real ones turn out to be different and not to his liking?

Gram wrote:Why? Does your FLGS say that you're not allowed to play with fandexes with friends or something?

That's not very friendly of them, man.

No, I'm saying you're not going to get a pick-up game with a fandex or be able to play it at a RTT/GT.

Are you saying, then, that he won't use these rules if the real ones turn out to be different and not to his liking?

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying.

This is like that time people got mad at Horse E-books.

Are you saying, then, that he won't use these rules if the real ones turn out to be different and not to his liking?

It seems realistic that it was a bluff and that he wouldn't do that. That's just personal observation of how this community by in large likes to act though. Sound and fury signifying nothing.

ChocolateGork wrote:

Mantle wrote:If this whole BS versus evasion thing is real then Dark Eldar are going to be the most broken and overpowered army ever, and all my raiders will be useless because I wont have to be scared of my unit getting shot at anymore.
Although I havent downloaded and read it so this is going on what I have gathered from this thread.

Why? Base evasion for EVERYTHING is 3. Units with the massive rule get -1, stationary units get -1, moving units with jink get +1, swarms get +1, units that have moved supersonic (So units that have the flyer rules for the turn) always have 6

ahh see, I'd have known that if I downloaded it , that makes things seem a lot better actually!
I was expecting there to be a set evasion for certain units or armies etc.

Anyone else notice that the Assault phase comes before shooting now?

Not sure if this makes it better than it was before.

Oh and now poison uses your base str if it's better than your opponent's toughness AND lets you re-roll to-wound.