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.

Looking over the rules, there's a some good (wound allocation), some bad (entire vehicle squadrons being stunned just because you stunned one vehicle?), and a whole lot of unnecessary or pointless changed (BS vs EV, Kill Points still have the exact same issues they do now, they're more annoying to deal with, etc)

Overall, it looks like a lot of complexity added on top of an existing structure the fundamentally doesn't solve many of the issues the game has faced since 1998.

Here's what I'm taking away from this, at a glance:

The game is being sped-up quite a bit, and the game is becoming far more attuned to a series of glass cannons. And if both armies are playing glass cannons, then models fly off the table at a rapid pace. Which means that you need many more models in order to keep the game as large as it used to be. And that means more model sales.

If I were in charge, that's just how I would change the game so as to allow both players to play a 3500 point game in two or three hours, each losing handfuls of models at a time to templates and multiple shooting phases. I'd remove the tar-pits and the security of MSU mech lists, in favour of hundreds of models that all shoot often. Because that forces the players to own larger armies than they previously did, and it also separates them from Warmachine, which is a much smaller, skirmish-oriented game.

Fishboy wrote:2 things about this terify me:

The first is the ability to get out of a vehicle...unload your non heavy weapons....then get back in. This means fish of fury for Tau will come back and Eldar will have some great options as well.

You can't disembark from a vehicle that moved at cruising speed, plus the unit leader has to remain within 3" of an access point. This quite severely hampers your manoeuvrability.

The second is the defensive firing. WTF were they thinking there?!?! I charge you but at no penalty you get to shoot the piss out of me and then still swing in CC?!?!?

DF is only against DSing units. Only units with the Overwatch rule (exceedingly rare) get to DF at other times.

Well this is interesting.

The PDF is certainly creditable as a genuine 'early version' of 6th edition rules. Unfortunately there's not much else we know for definite. What we do know is:
.
- GW company policy is currently 'late disclosure'.
- The speed at which the early download sources were taken down implies that GW HQ did not intend this to be released to the public.
- Some folks are reacting positively to the contents of the PDF, some people are reacting negatively. This will happen whatever 6th is like!
- If this is genuine, it has probably changed quite a bit in the meantime.

also:

- WFB 8th Edition was quite a radical departure from 7th and (despite the impression that web-board warriors may give) it gave WFB a noticeable sales boost.

and:

- Anecdotally, when something does leak out onto the internet, only a small percentage of GW's customers hear about it.
- Of those, even fewer actually see it. This brings us to the people who have probably already made up their mind on whether they are going to buy it anyway!
- This is partially because only a small percentage of GW customers frequent forums like Dakka, BoLS, whineseer, etc

My personal opinion... I quite like it, I especially like the idea of super-heavies and flyers FINALLY being a part of the core rules. I hope that the final version of 6th is something along these lines. I can imagine some parts being dropped and/or toned down, and the rules in the PDF are definitely 3 or 4 rewrites away from being a polished, readable document. Overall positive.

Fishboy wrote:2 things about this terify me:

The first is the ability to get out of a vehicle...unload your non heavy weapons....then get back in. This means fish of fury for Tau will come back and Eldar will have some great options as well.
The second is the defensive firing. WTF were they thinking there?!?! I charge you but at no penalty you get to shoot the piss out of me and then still swing in CC?!?!? Harliquins...it was nice knowing ya. Only Marine armies will be able to survive the hail of fire. That being said I am now going to field 3 full units of fire dragons in a wave serpent...charge that beotch hehe. My DE however just lost almost any CC ability they had....so so sad.

On the first...meh. I think it gives both armies a bit of a leg up they need...and it's not like it's hard to seriously eff over transports and their contents in this version.

On the second, you have to have the Overwatch special rule to be able to use defensive fire against an assault. Go take a look through the codices and tell me how many units you find with this ability (not many).

Maelstrom808 wrote:

Fishboy wrote:2 things about this terify me:

The first is the ability to get out of a vehicle...unload your non heavy weapons....then get back in. This means fish of fury for Tau will come back and Eldar will have some great options as well.
The second is the defensive firing. WTF were they thinking there?!?! I charge you but at no penalty you get to shoot the piss out of me and then still swing in CC?!?!? Harliquins...it was nice knowing ya. Only Marine armies will be able to survive the hail of fire. That being said I am now going to field 3 full units of fire dragons in a wave serpent...charge that beotch hehe. My DE however just lost almost any CC ability they had....so so sad.

On the first...meh. I think it gives both armies a bit of a leg up they need...and it's not like it's hard to seriously eff over transports and their contents in this version.

On the second, you have to have the Overwatch special rule to be able to use defensive fire against an assault. Go take a look through the codices and tell me how many units you find with this ability (not many).

Actually if you look at page 77 of the leaked rulebook (p. 56 of the pdf), it explains that defensive fire can be used on the opponent's turn as long as certain conditions are met (they're pretty easy to fulfill).

creeping-deth87 wrote:Actually if you look at page 77 of the leaked rulebook (p. 56 of the pdf), it explains that defensive fire can be used on the opponent's turn as long as certain conditions are met (they're pretty easy to fulfill).

ACTIONS IN THE ENEMY TURN
Normally units only act in their own turn. In some
situations like suddenly appearing reinforcements
or a tank that tries to steamroll the warriors, a
squad is forced to react quickly. To represent this,
units can perform the following actions in an
enemy turn if and only if the rules explicitly allow
it.

You can only Defensive Fire when the rules specifically tell you to: against close DS units, and if you have Overwatch.

Just a question: I think I remember someone earlier in the thread say that units don't get cover from standing behind another unit. Is that true?

apparently I missed the overwatch thing....

Panic attack averted hehe. The way this thing is written is very disorganized and kinda all over the map. I dont expect this to be the final cut but boy I sure hope the reorganize the rules a little better. Otherwise you will need to reference 3 different pages to understand one rule hehe.

@maelstrom I think if the vehicle is fast they can get out and shoot but I guess once I read it about 10 times it will make more sense

Pacific wrote:I think this whole thing is actually rather sad. People are so willing to believe this is real, it's like the entire capacity for rational thought has disappeared out of the window. Because of what? It can hardly be just because it was written on BoK, going on the track record of rumour validity (print everything, even if it's not your own).

*SNIP*

I don't look forward to yet another wave of depression when these rules get called out. Sorry if this post seems overly negative or condescending, as it's not meant to be.

Oh God you sound like the HMBC guy. All he ever does is complain. Stop being a hater.

In all seriousness though, isn’t it nice to be optimistic and be actually looking forward to something? After all the Ward-nonsense, and the soul-crushing of Grey Knights, the arguing over whether the ‘Chaos’ Codex or Diet Caffeine Free Coke is more bland, over Finecost, over price rises, over embargoes and over all the other gak we put up with from GW last year – isn’t it nice to see a 20+ page thread of people going “This is awesome” and not just be talking about new model releases?

Will the final rules match these? Probably not. I’d say that they’d be streamlined a bit. Will there be a dramatic shift in what’s here to the final rules? Making the assumption that these rules are legit, then I’d say no, because changing horses mid-race with a new set of rules like this would be a bad decision (not that GW isn’t known for changing horses mid-race multiple times during the same race).

But for the brief time between now and when we see what the final rules actually are, let’s enjoy what has been the first generally positive rules related moment on Dakka in quite some time.

Vaktathi wrote:Looking over the rules, there's a some good (wound allocation), some bad (entire vehicle squadrons being stunned just because you stunned one vehicle?), and a whole lot of unnecessary or pointless changed (BS vs EV, Kill Points still have the exact same issues they do now, they're more annoying to deal with, etc)

Overall, it looks like a lot of complexity added on top of an existing structure the fundamentally doesn't solve many of the issues the game has faced since 1998.

So a 700 point palladin squad being worth 1 kill point is the same as the same squad being worth 14. Yes, that is exactly the same.

Well, defensive firing against close DS units seriously hurts my Deathmark hit squads...


EDIT: But I don't care, because my Monoliths & Destroyers are back to their murderous glory!

Luke_Prowler wrote:Just a question: I think I remember someone earlier in the thread say that units don't get cover from standing behind another unit. Is that true?

They can get a "look out sir" from the interveening unit. I think any save they make gets directed to the interveening unit though.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

Pacific wrote:I think this whole thing is actually rather sad. People are so willing to believe this is real, it's like the entire capacity for rational thought has disappeared out of the window. Because of what? It can hardly be just because it was written on BoK, going on the track record of rumour validity (print everything, even if it's not your own).

*SNIP*

I don't look forward to yet another wave of depression when these rules get called out. Sorry if this post seems overly negative or condescending, as it's not meant to be.

Oh God you sound like the HMBC guy. All he ever does is complain. Stop being a hater.

In all seriousness though, isn’t it nice to be optimistic and be actually looking forward to something? After all the Ward-nonsense, and the soul-crushing of Grey Knights, the arguing over whether the ‘Chaos’ Codex or Diet Caffeine Free Coke is more bland, over Finecost, over price rises, over embargoes and over all the other gak we put up with from GW last year – isn’t it nice to see a 20+ page thread of people going “This is awesome” and not just be talking about new model releases?

Will the final rules match these? Probably not. I’d say that they’d be streamlined a bit. Will there be a dramatic shift in what’s here to the final rules? Making the assumption that these rules are legit, then I’d say no, because changing horses mid-race with a new set of rules like this would be a bad decision (not that GW isn’t known for changing horses mid-race multiple times during the same race).

But for the brief time between now and when we see what the final rules actually are, let’s enjoy what has been the first generally positive rules related moment on Dakka in quite some time.

First time I've ever seen it here.

CT GAMER wrote:
3. Turn phases: Move, Assault, Shoot, Consolidate (so all those shoota shots are not going to allow your opponent to take your assault away by removing key models)

You bring up some good points but I'm only going to focus on this one because the way you state it makes it seem like a wolf in sheep's clothing imo. The reality of the scenario is that the shoota boyz will not be able to soften up the target with volley of shots right before they charge into assault anymore since shooting comes afterwards. Don't get me wrong, I'm not chicken little here. This is all conjecture as far as I'm concerned, but I don't see the move > assault > shoot > consolidate change as a plus for shoota boys at all.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

Pacific wrote:I think this whole thing is actually rather sad. People are so willing to believe this is real, it's like the entire capacity for rational thought has disappeared out of the window. Because of what? It can hardly be just because it was written on BoK, going on the track record of rumour validity (print everything, even if it's not your own).

*SNIP*

I don't look forward to yet another wave of depression when these rules get called out. Sorry if this post seems overly negative or condescending, as it's not meant to be.

Oh God you sound like the HMBC guy. All he ever does is complain. Stop being a hater.

In all seriousness though, isn’t it nice to be optimistic and be actually looking forward to something? After all the Ward-nonsense, and the soul-crushing of Grey Knights, the arguing over whether the ‘Chaos’ Codex or Diet Caffeine Free Coke is more bland, over Finecost, over price rises, over embargoes and over all the other gak we put up with from GW last year – isn’t it nice to see a 20+ page thread of people going “This is awesome” and not just be talking about new model releases?

Will the final rules match these? Probably not. I’d say that they’d be streamlined a bit. Will there be a dramatic shift in what’s here to the final rules? Making the assumption that these rules are legit, then I’d say no, because changing horses mid-race with a new set of rules like this would be a bad decision (not that GW isn’t known for changing horses mid-race multiple times during the same race).

But for the brief time between now and when we see what the final rules actually are, let’s enjoy what has been the first generally positive rules related moment on Dakka in quite some time.

Ding ding ding....we have a winner...

Luke_Prowler wrote:

Maelstrom808 wrote:At least you can take solace in the fact that orcs never truely lose, right?

Ah course! If we win, we win! If we lose deys all dead so it don't count, an' if we run away it just mean we'z coming back for anna go!

I think Ork players in general are a special class of nutters that live and die by the spirit of the waagh.

I'm not talking about the twinks who thought they could wrack up tourney prizes with rolla and nob wound allocation spam and who will abandon the army at first sign of their old tactics not working. I'm talking the true blue (or is that green) ork players that aren't codex hoppers who ride the bandwagon of whatever the "it" codex happens to be at any given time.

Long time ork players are long time ork players because something about orks as an army/model range is irriesistable.

Bring on the change to 40k, because to be honest it was getting kind of stale. Orks will find a way to soldier on like they always have...

Any save causes a 'Critical hit' to the intervening unit (auto wounds and no armour save), though if the intervening unit has a better armour save than the target it gets a 3+ inv. against these.
If a unit intervenes, you cannot use directed fire on the unit targeted.

By the way; Burnas + shooting a transport with templates =

azazel the cat wrote:

Maelstrom808 wrote:I'd be very leery of the Heavy thing for the moment. The way it's presented in the book is kind of out of sync the way all the other special rules and traits are presented. Not to mention that a 200 point super heavy would just be...evil

I am sceptical, however the asterisk in the Necron codex is what leaves the door open for me to believe this a little... the actual rule is "Heavy*", which I think does sync up with the bit in the 6th Ed. leak about "some Super-Heavies with a single structure point are referred to as Heavy"

I think this makes sense due to the fact that they couldn't flat out call the monolith a super heavy in the codex without revealing some of their future plans for 6th edition
so the monolith will again be the terrifying battle fortress its supposed to be

H.B.M.C. wrote: Making the assumption that these rules are legit, then I’d say no, because changing horses mid-race with a new set of rules like this would be a bad decision (not that GW isn’t known for changing horses mid-race multiple times during the same race).

I don't see this as changing horses mid-stream. GW has effectively been running the same game engine for 3 editions (3,4,5) with tweaks in between, but not significant changes.

So a major overhaul after about 12 years isn't out of the question, I would think.

I think the orks get a boost with all this, especially with their innate ability to be fearless. Tyranids too.

haendas wrote:

CT GAMER wrote:
3. Turn phases: Move, Assault, Shoot, Consolidate (so all those shoota shots are not going to allow your opponent to take your assault away by removing key models)

You bring up some good points but I'm only going to focus on this one because the way you bring state it makes it seem like a wolf in sheep's clothing imo. The reality of the scenario is that the shoota boyz will not be able to soften up the target with volley of shots before they charge into assault anymore since shooting comes afterwards. Don't get me wrong, I'm not chicken little here. This is all conjecture as far as I'm concerned, but I don't see the move > assault > shoot > consolidate change as a plus for shoota boys at all.

I don't know. I personally have encountered a lot of situations in which I really want to soften up a unit I plan to assault and assume I'll get average shooing/wounding rolls, etc. and then I roll like a shooting god or my opponent fails a few too many armour saves and as a result I canno longer assault and am left standing with my greenskin butt flappng in the breeze...

Now I am just gonna sssault with a green tide and kill you with my 100+ attack dice. And if you somehow hang on I'll assault you with a second unit at INT10...

The key is gonna be using ass-loads of orks and overrunning your enemy with multiple units, and that sounds very orky to me...

Fishboy wrote:I think the orks get a boost with all this, especially with their innate ability to be fearless. Tyranids too.

Tyranids are like an entirely new dex with this ruleset, or at least the dex we thought we were getting at first.

azazel the cat wrote:Well, defensive firing against close DS units seriously hurts my Deathmark hit squads...


EDIT: But I don't care, because my Monoliths & Destroyers are back to their murderous glory!

deepstrike your deathmarks at 18 inches with no scatter and fire into the enemy squad you marked with HfH, no defensive fire, you reap the rewards

Yup, counter charges are going to be big business and will help ease the pain of those deathstar units.

Dribble Joy wrote:Any save causes a 'Critical hit' to the intervening unit (auto wounds and no armour save), though if the intervening unit has a better armour save than the target it gets a 3+ inv. against these.
If a unit intervenes, you cannot use directed fire on the unit targeted.

By the way; Burnas + shooting a transport with templates =

Ah-ha! Finally, a use for Sword & Shield Lychguard!

Zomjie wrote:

azazel the cat wrote:Well, defensive firing against close DS units seriously hurts my Deathmark hit squads...


EDIT: But I don't care, because my Monoliths & Destroyers are back to their murderous glory!

deepstrike your deathmarks at 18 inches with no scatter and fire into the enemy squad you marked with HtH, no defensive fire, you reap the rewards

I can't use the AP 1 Abyssal Staff template at 18".

[quote=Maelstrom808

On the second, you have to have the Overwatch special rule to be able to use defensive fire against an assault. Go take a look through the codices and tell me how many units you find with this ability (not many).

/Hopes that the entire Tau codex has Overwatch as an army wide special rule...

I don't see this as changing horses mid-stream. GW has effectively been running the same game engine for 3 editions (3,4,5) with tweaks in between, but not significant changes.

So a major overhaul after about 12 years isn't out of the question, I would think.

Also, 25 year anniversary of 40k this year, would make sense to revamp things and start afresh given the timing.

All the changes are very interesting. It seems to me like the game will be slightly more deep. (Can't wait for new chaos codex either!)

Sounds to me like Thousand Sons have become considerably more powerful if cover is changing

Cruentus wrote:I don't see this as changing horses mid-stream. GW has effectively been running the same game engine for 3 editions (3,4,5) with tweaks in between, but not significant changes.

So a major overhaul after about 12 years isn't out of the question, I would think.

You missed what I was saying. I wasn’t saying that these rules represent GW changing horses mid-race. I was saying that if these rules are legit then the final rules looking drastically different to them would be changing horses mid-race. Unless something is incredibly broken (and by that I mean ‘does not function’ and not ‘is unbalanced’) you don’t do a fundamental shift in rules midway through development.

So if these are the real play-test rules, I think it unlikely that the final rules would look all that different. More refined perhaps, but not a retread of 4th/5th. If these rules are legit, and the final version does shift away from them and back to something more conventional (from a 5th Ed standpoint) I will be greatly surprised.