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.

Yeah and it looks like they split the baby in this edition with the "dense" wood option.

One theory raised on BoLS (maybe here too, I didn't read all 25 pages of this thread) is that this document is the one that Alessio Cavatore authored and supervised until something happened that caused him to quit GW. GW telling him that his rule set needs a major (total) rewrite to be a re-tread of 5th edition could have been the event that caused him to quit.

If that's the case it means that the guy who wrote this is gone from GW and they presumably hired other designers to write something that's more in the company line.

The leaked document could be a colossal disaster for GW if it's never proven definitely that it's a hoax and what we end up getting is 40k edition 5.5 with changes limited to tweaks to the cover system, USR optimization, and various minor changes.

Well the full rumor was that the changes were too radical so some of it was toned down to be more familiar, I wouldn't describe this as 'too radical' but then again we're the massive player base that has been crying out for years for exactly this and have yet to have our wishes granted by the evil empire...

Brian P wrote:One theory raised on BoLS (maybe here too, I didn't read all 25 pages of this thread) is that this document is the one that Alessio Cavatore authored and supervised until something happened that caused him to quit GW.

The whole Squad Leader emphasis in this document sounds a lot like the Warpath stuff Alessio is doing at Mantic.

Vaktathi wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

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.

The actual number is irrelevant, victory with such a unit/army can still be attain by losing a greater proportion of your force and fighting power and defeating a much less relevant and less capable portion of the enemy force. For example, bare bones basic IG infantry squads can still be worth 2 KP's each, meaning 350pts of basic IG infantry can be worth as much as 700pts of Paladins.

So the kill points for IG are easier to take but equal in number via sixth as opposed to being worth 7-8 times as many kill points and easier to take in fifth. I totally agree with you, clearly these situations, despite being at face value absolutely different are functionally the same.

Nice to see positivity for a change!

My nids are very much looking forward to this!

These rules are Pure Win and unadulterated awesome sauce. So there is no way on earth I believe that Alessio Cavatore wrote them, that guy is the king of oversimplified dumbed down game design.

I also believe that Alessio is not responsible for writing the document. Alessio has never been proven to be able to write quality, in-depth, flavourful and flexible rules and instead tends to opt for over-simplified “cut and paste” games design. His work in 40k and Mantic are a testament to this.

There’s too much sub-rules and add-on components in the play-test document to be something written by Alessio (he’d probably have a heart attack lol).

Andrew1975 wrote:Take the new evasion rule, simple modifiers to BS would be much simpler, but then you would have to do math, something GW believes 8 year olds can't do.

You mean on page 49 (numbered page 70) where it says to just apply the EV modifiers to the 7-BS that we've been doing for years? That kind of math GW doesn't believe 8 year olds can't do?

MasterSlowPoke wrote:

walledin wrote:Assault Weapons count as a 2nd CC weapon in H2H. Shoota boys are amazing now as they are exactly the same as a normal boy in CC and have a gun they can shoot with as well all for the same point cost.

Shoota boys cannot take advantage of that rule, as they don't have a primary weapon. They have to attack with the "Basic Attack", which doesn't allow additional CCWs.

Good call. I forgot they exchanged both.

rigeld2 wrote:

Andrew1975 wrote:Take the new evasion rule, simple modifiers to BS would be much simpler, but then you would have to do math, something GW believes 8 year olds can't do.

You mean on page 49 (numbered page 70) where it says to just apply the EV modifiers to the 7-BS that we've been doing for years? That kind of math GW doesn't believe 8 year olds can't do?

I think it is a bit more than that. What I think Andrew is getting at, is instead of looking at my BS of 4 and knowing that I need a 3 to hit, I have to look at my opponent's model, rememeber that it has a Jink (+1), but it is a tank (-1) among other things, and I still have to roll a 3 to hit.

It's not the maths part, its the complicating of the equation the likes of which harken back to 2nd Ed. (armour save modifiers anyone?)

Wound Shenanigans look fairly clear now. Sadface for my Nobz :(

So does any one know when the new rule book will come out .

necron overlord wrote:So does any one know when the new rule book will come out .

All signs point to July...

puma713 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Andrew1975 wrote:Take the new evasion rule, simple modifiers to BS would be much simpler, but then you would have to do math, something GW believes 8 year olds can't do.

You mean on page 49 (numbered page 70) where it says to just apply the EV modifiers to the 7-BS that we've been doing for years? That kind of math GW doesn't believe 8 year olds can't do?

I think it is a bit more than that. What I think Andrew is getting at, is instead of looking at my BS of 4 and knowing that I need a 3 to hit, I have to look at my opponent's model, rememeber that it has a Jink (+1), but it is a tank (-1) among other things, and I still have to roll a 3 to hit.

It's not the maths part, its the complicating of the equation the likes of which harken back to 2nd Ed. (armour save modifiers anyone?)

This is exactly what I mean. Armour save modifiers made much more sense than the simplified(?) ap rules. The ap system is clunky compared to -1 or -2 to an armor save. But again then you have to do maths and GW does not believe that 8 year olds can do maths. I got used to repeated +1/-1 math from battletech, its really not so hard to keep track on the modifiers.

Thanks how do the new rules look I have not downloaded the rules so I do not know.

necron overlord wrote:Thanks how do the new rules look I have not downloaded the rules so I do not know.

Isn't that what the last 24 pages are about?

I know but reading them will take a bit and I just want a summary of it to know if its bad or good.

Andrew1975 wrote:

puma713 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Andrew1975 wrote:Take the new evasion rule, simple modifiers to BS would be much simpler, but then you would have to do math, something GW believes 8 year olds can't do.

You mean on page 49 (numbered page 70) where it says to just apply the EV modifiers to the 7-BS that we've been doing for years? That kind of math GW doesn't believe 8 year olds can't do?

I think it is a bit more than that. What I think Andrew is getting at, is instead of looking at my BS of 4 and knowing that I need a 3 to hit, I have to look at my opponent's model, rememeber that it has a Jink (+1), but it is a tank (-1) among other things, and I still have to roll a 3 to hit.

It's not the maths part, its the complicating of the equation the likes of which harken back to 2nd Ed. (armour save modifiers anyone?)

This is exactly what I mean. Armour save modifiers made much more sense than the simplified(?) ap rules. The ap system is clunky compared to -1 or -2 to an armor save. But again then you have to do maths and GW does not believe that 8 year olds can do maths. I got used to repeated +1/-1 math from battletech, its really not so hard to keep track on the modifiers.

Considering the drastic shift this represents, maybe the same person who influenced the change figured out 8 year olds know basic addition and subtraction?

I was 8 when I started 2nd edition. it was far more complicated than this, and I played it just fine.

necron overlord wrote:I know but reading them will take a bit and I just want a summary of it to know if its bad or good.

So basically every time someone new comes into this thread you want us to reinterate the last 25 pages of comments........Just read the thread! I mean you're asking for opinions on opinions on a spurious text....Just read the thread!

[Posted in this thread as well as the blogging one]:

The file info says that this file:

-Was created on May 17th, 2011 (rulebook) and May 20, 2011 (codex updates);
-Is version 1.4 of the document (whatever that's worth);
-And was created with Acrobat Distiller 9 for Mac.

Not a lot of info, but at least it tell us a possible timeframe for when the author published it (to, say a GW review group).

Dating it back that far would also be unlikely for anything but a very thorough fake (not that a 120-page opus wouldn't count as a very thorough fake).

necron overlord wrote:I know but reading them will take a bit and I just want a summary of it to know if its bad or good.

It's good.

For anything more than that, you have 25 pages of thread, the actual PDF, a Blood of Kittens post breaking it all down, etc.

Please be a little self reliant here, there's no shortage of this information around.

necron overlord wrote:I know but reading them will take a bit and I just want a summary of it to know if its bad or good.

Nice, consolidated list here:

http://bloodofkittens.com/blog/2012/01/10/network-news-this-just-in-6th-ed-leak-can-it-be-true/

I'm trying to figure out if a flyer can Supersonic onto the table from reserves. If not it's going to be really vulnerable that first turn it is on the board. I don't see why it couldn't and maybe just not shoot turn one.

Drake118 wrote:I'm trying to figure out if a flyer can Supersonic onto the table from reserves. If not it's going to be really vulnerable that first turn it is on the board. I don't see why it couldn't and maybe just not shoot turn one.

Flyers, by these rules, have an Evasion of 6 at all times, that may not be modified. You'd need a BS of 6 to hit a flyer on a 4+.

Flyers are not a unit type according to the document. A skimmer becomes a flyer by performing a Supersonic Move.

Drake118 wrote:I'm trying to figure out if a flyer can Supersonic onto the table from reserves. If not it's going to be really vulnerable that first turn it is on the board. I don't see why it couldn't and maybe just not shoot turn one.

from what i gathered, you place the model on your board edge from reserves. anywhere within 6" of it. there is a small exception if your model doesn't fit in a 6" restraint, it can be placed 'hanging over'.

the other relative part is that can be used as normal during the turn. so you can do whatever you want with it, placing the model appears to be free "movement" for lack of a better transitional term.

Drake118 wrote:Flyers are not a unit type according to the document. A skimmer becomes a flyer by performing a Supersonic Move.

No, there is a whole flyers section dedicated just to them, its near the end but there are without a doubt flyers

So after looking at the rules if it is real I think this is a draft where they say let's put every idea we have into it and see what we end up wanting to take out. Overall I find the rules to be a bit meh. The novelty is interesting but I think it has too many variables in how units function if that makes sense.

Now I'm overall skeptical about these being the new rules. I think this is either an alternative draft or an elaborate fan fiction. These rules don't pass the 10 minute test. If you can't explain the basic mechanics of how to play in 10 minutes you can't effectively sell the game to new players in a store.

Pony_law wrote: you can't effectively sell the game to new players in a store.

GW hasn't worried about that since they increased the price of AoBR.