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.

d-usa wrote:

Maelstrom808 wrote:

Sc077y wrote:Well, of this leaked codex I can only say this…<snip>

While this ruleset adds some new mechanics, most of the "new" special rules are just simplifying and consolidating rules that are already scattered around the dexes, in turn actually reducing a lot of the complexity and confusion of the game in that regard.

I think another reason why there are so many special rules in the main rulebook is the need to consolidate and update codexes. If they were able to print a new rulebook and all the codices at the same time I would expect that half of these special rules would end up being printed in the codex instead.

And to me that's an ass-backwards way of doing things, and has caused much of the mess they have today. You have three different versions of essentially the same rule in three different dexes, each one with a slightly different wording, or a different name, yet they all are supposed to do essentially the same thing. This causes a ton of confusion at best and rules-lawyering at worst. It's better to have one common rule in the main book that everyone can refer to.

Speaking of the -3 damage for superheavies...

When you roll a natural six and take off a structure point, is that all the hit does or does the normal damage effect on the table also apply?

If it was the last structure point, does the -3 still apply for the roll, or does the 6 stay a 6 and blow the tank up?

It's not making it more complicated. It's making it more complex.

And no. Those are not the same thing.

Sc077y wrote:Sorry, I don’t actually play DND, so i have no idea what version is out, but the point remains.

Then how could you possibly know what "a D&D 5th edition manual having sex with a used up copy of the second edition rule book with some fancy new jargon thrown around" even looks like?

Exactly.

Agamemnon2 wrote:

Sc077y wrote:Sorry, I don’t actually play DND, so i have no idea what version is out, but the point remains.

Then how could you possibly know what "a D&D 5th edition manual having sex with a used up copy of the second edition rule book with some fancy new jargon thrown around" even looks like?

Exactly.

Rule 34

d-usa wrote:I always love the "It cannot be real because it would take you 3 hours to look up special rules" argument.

I guess these are the people who read the 5th Edition rulebook in one sitting and then played every game without ever looking at a rule again...

I truly love the argument that more rules must mean a better game. After all, that worked out really well for games like 51st State and Race for the Galaxy.

I assure you, I have read the 5th edition rule book several times.

Do not confuse, I am not opposed to rules changes. I am concerned at first glance at what is being seen; if it is in fact real. Change for the sake of making something better is always welcome and a great thing, even if its a little more difficult to get the hang of at first. However, change for the sake of change in and of itself is inherently bad.

As to the above comments about how i wouldn't know what a D&D book looks like: While I do not play, i am no stranger to gaming and am familiar with the game mechanics, even if i don't play. the point i was attempting to make was that many RPG games use different action types to determine what can be done in a given amount of time, and the use of several different actions: free, compulsory, and so on, is what jumped into my mind. you are however correct, i was wrong in the edition of D&D that is currently available to gamers, this because of my lack of specific knowledge of the game. I should have used a term like "this sounds like a <insert generic RPG game here> book having sex...."

wow, this rules set looks fairly good and I think, if this comes true, I will be back playing WH40K.

lord_blackfang wrote:Speaking of the -3 damage for superheavies...

When you roll a natural six and take off a structure point, is that all the hit does or does the normal damage effect on the table also apply?

Kind of unclear, but I'd say lose the point plus the normal modified damage

If it was the last structure point, does the -3 still apply for the roll, or does the 6 stay a 6 and blow the tank up?

No assplode. It all happens at the same time

Lol scarabs take one wound to power fists now ... I happy.

/me quietly brushes the "irregardless" usage under the nearby carpet

On an thankfully unrelated note, it's cool to see Flashgits get a nice boost: having the Gitfinders grant the Targeter rule, allowing them to treat any targets as stationary. Orks are gonna suffer a tad more in close combat, since default CCW's are now AP6. Not that it saved many, but it was nice to save those one or two

It's also interesting to see that, from what I read, squadrons no longer count immobilized as destroyed... and can even try to negate suffered damage

SNIPERS=GOOD!

TEMPLATES=MUST HAVE!

Sc077y wrote:

d-usa wrote:I always love the "It cannot be real because it would take you 3 hours to look up special rules" argument.

I guess these are the people who read the 5th Edition rulebook in one sitting and then played every game without ever looking at a rule again...

I truly love the argument that more rules must mean a better game. After all, that worked out really well for games like 51st State and Race for the Galaxy.

I assure you, I have read the 5th edition rule book several times.

Do not confuse, I am not opposed to rules changes. I am concerned at first glance at what is being seen; if it is in fact real. Change for the sake of making something better is always welcome and a great thing, even if its a little more difficult to get the hang of at first. However, change for the sake of change in and of itself is inherently bad.

Wanna know the general theme here? A large community of generally cynical people are almost unanimously inf avour of these changes. That's rare.. like, the-Grinch's-heart-growing-three-sizes rare to make most of Dakka welcome these changes. So I'd say that this isn't change for the sake of change; I would say it's change for the sake of getting the old guard to rediscover their love for the game (and thus re-ignite the passion of some jaded customers)

Maelstrom808 wrote:

d-usa wrote:I think another reason why there are so many special rules in the main rulebook is the need to consolidate and update codexes. If they were able to print a new rulebook and all the codices at the same time I would expect that half of these special rules would end up being printed in the codex instead.

And to me that's an ass-backwards way of doing things, and has caused much of the mess they have today. You have three different versions of essentially the same rule in three different dexes, each one with a slightly different wording, or a different name, yet they all are supposed to do essentially the same thing. This causes a ton of confusion at best and rules-lawyering at worst. It's better to have one common rule in the main book that everyone can refer to.

Maybe something they will adress in the future. We will have to see how the Necron Dex and any other new Dexs work with the new rulebook when it comes out to see if there will be any improvements going forth.

Kharrak wrote:
It's also interesting to see that, from what I read, squadrons no longer count immobilized as destroyed... and can even try to negate suffered damage

Yes, squadrons get a 5+ save with a +1 bonus for each vehicle, but if they fail they all suffer the damage.

Also: The "Character" ability of Crypteks finally makes sense... also, since they can target their own fire, this makes Lanceteks possibly the best snipers in the game with 36" range, Str 8 AP 2 targeted shooting.

And apparently the Abyssal Staff works in CC now, too...

Fafnir wrote:[

d-usa wrote:
I think another reason why there are so many special rules in the main rulebook is the need to consolidate and update codexes.

And it turns the entire rulebook into a horrible mess in order to save GW the effort of updating some books that will likely (along with their rules in the rulebook) be replaced entirely within the same generation.

But if they dropped the 6th Edition Rulebook and announced "we are also updating every codex to fit the new rules so buy it now" everybody would be screaming that GW is only changing the rules to sell more books. It is a loose-loose situation at this point.

I got kinda confused when I saw the assault weapon section, because those S look like 5s from the copy I got

Maelstrom808 wrote:

Revarien wrote:

Clay Williams wrote:Am I reading this right ... Swarms are immune to instant death? Unless the weapon states that it causes instant death (2) ... Meaning that normal double toughness wounds do nothing to swarms anymore?!?

Sorry if this has been covered.

instant death totally goes off of how much strength over the model's toughness...so you can get instant death 2 off of a swarm with t3, with strength 7.... not to mention that swarms auto suffer instant death 2, to wounds from templates and blasts...


so you can still absolutely wreck swarms easily...though they are afforded SOME extra resistance.

No, EW(1) completely negates ID caused from high Str weapons. A weapon who's Str is 5 points higher than the target's toughness does not cause ID(2). It is ID(1) but removes 2 wounds in essence.

lord_blackfang wrote:

Revarien wrote:
instant death totally goes off of how much strength over the model's toughness...so you can get instant death 2 off of a swarm with t3, with strength 7....

I don't think that's how it works. The number after the rule has no bearing on how many wounds it causes, just on what level of Eternal Warrior it beats.

A S9 lascannon firing at a T3 swarm would technically cause 3 extra wounds, but this doesn't make it Instant Death (3), it's still Instant Death (1) and is ignored because the swarm has Eternal Warrior (1).


Templates and Blasts cause Instant Death (2) against a swarm, meaning they deal at least +1 wound regardless of S and T (possibly more if the S is high enough) and ignore Eternal Warrior (1).


(multi-ninja'd)

Miss-remembered the rule... just looked it up and you're right about part of it, but I don't think it is described too clearly... but it does say "instant death is sometimes called instant death 1" and that essentially the same lvl of EW negates the same lvl of ID... but one higher on either side negates the one lower completely (ID 2 completely negates EW 1 and doesn't make it ID 1...)... so a template is still inflicting 3 wounds on a swarm (1 initial wound + 2 additional from ID 2). ID1 = 2 wounds, ID 2 = 3, ID 3 = 4 wounds... ID 3 being inflicted at strength 6 or more over the model's toughness. It has a clear example of ID 3 happening to the unfortunate space marine captain.

lord_blackfang wrote:

Kharrak wrote:
It's also interesting to see that, from what I read, squadrons no longer count immobilized as destroyed... and can even try to negate suffered damage

Yes, squadrons get a 5+ save with a +1 bonus for each vehicle, but if they fail they all suffer the damage.

I think that's a better trade-off than "Immobilised = Destroyed".

d-usa wrote:

Maelstrom808 wrote:

d-usa wrote:I think another reason why there are so many special rules in the main rulebook is the need to consolidate and update codexes. If they were able to print a new rulebook and all the codices at the same time I would expect that half of these special rules would end up being printed in the codex instead.

And to me that's an ass-backwards way of doing things, and has caused much of the mess they have today. You have three different versions of essentially the same rule in three different dexes, each one with a slightly different wording, or a different name, yet they all are supposed to do essentially the same thing. This causes a ton of confusion at best and rules-lawyering at worst. It's better to have one common rule in the main book that everyone can refer to.

Maybe something they will adress in the future. We will have to see how the Necron Dex and any other new Dexs work with the new rulebook when it comes out to see if there will be any improvements going forth.

Trust me, the Necrons are waaaaaaaaay stronger if these rules are legit. Please note my previous entries about the Lanceteks and the Monolith.

lord_blackfang wrote:

Kharrak wrote:
It's also interesting to see that, from what I read, squadrons no longer count immobilized as destroyed... and can even try to negate suffered damage

Yes, squadrons get a 5+ save with a +1 bonus for each vehicle, but if they fail they all suffer the damage.

So a squadron of 3 IG tanks gets a 2+ save... that is a SCARY concept.

azazel the cat wrote:

lord_blackfang wrote:

Kharrak wrote:
It's also interesting to see that, from what I read, squadrons no longer count immobilized as destroyed... and can even try to negate suffered damage

Yes, squadrons get a 5+ save with a +1 bonus for each vehicle, but if they fail they all suffer the damage.

So a squadron of 3 IG tanks gets a 2+ save... that is a SCARY concept.

Scary until you realise that if they fail they ALL take the damage.

DarkStarSabre wrote:

azazel the cat wrote:

lord_blackfang wrote:

Kharrak wrote:
It's also interesting to see that, from what I read, squadrons no longer count immobilized as destroyed... and can even try to negate suffered damage

Yes, squadrons get a 5+ save with a +1 bonus for each vehicle, but if they fail they all suffer the damage.

So a squadron of 3 IG tanks gets a 2+ save... that is a SCARY concept.

Scary until you realise that if they fail they ALL take the damage.

Like I said ten pages ago: the new rules turn everything into glass cannons, because that way a 3500 point game takes 2 hours, and that means everyone buys more models

Revarien wrote:
Miss-remembered the rule... just looked it up and you're right about part of it, but I don't think it is described too clearly...

No, it's really not. Bad layout is bad.

but it does say "instant death is sometimes called instant death 1" and that essentially the same lvl of EW negates the same lvl of ID... but one higher on either side negates the one lower completely (ID 2 completely negates EW 1 and doesn't make it ID 1...)... so a template is still inflicting 3 wounds on a swarm (1 initial wound + 2 additional from ID 2). ID1 = 2 wounds, ID 2 = 3, ID 3 = 4 wounds... ID 3 being inflicted at strength 6 or more over the model's toughness. It has a clear example of ID 3 happening to the unfortunate space marine captain.

Again, the number in the brackets has no bearing on the number of wounds a model loses. Instant Death (2) does not cause more wounds than Instant Death (1).

azazel the cat wrote:

d-usa wrote:

Maelstrom808 wrote:

d-usa wrote:I think another reason why there are so many special rules in the main rulebook is the need to consolidate and update codexes. If they were able to print a new rulebook and all the codices at the same time I would expect that half of these special rules would end up being printed in the codex instead.

And to me that's an ass-backwards way of doing things, and has caused much of the mess they have today. You have three different versions of essentially the same rule in three different dexes, each one with a slightly different wording, or a different name, yet they all are supposed to do essentially the same thing. This causes a ton of confusion at best and rules-lawyering at worst. It's better to have one common rule in the main book that everyone can refer to.

Maybe something they will adress in the future. We will have to see how the Necron Dex and any other new Dexs work with the new rulebook when it comes out to see if there will be any improvements going forth.

Trust me, the Necrons are waaaaaaaaay stronger if these rules are legit. Please note my previous entries about the Lanceteks and the Monolith.

I was not really trying to talk about the performance of the Necron Codex under 6th Edition, but rather the whole "the same rule in every different Codex and the rulebook is worded differently and makes it confusing" aspect of things. If the Necron Codex and the new 6th Edition rulebook have minimal instances of contradicting each other we may have a good indication of what we can look forward to in the future.

As for 'is the booklet genuine', there is room for argument but :

- the introduction text references to a basic ruleset. I could perfectly understand (from a commercial point of view) a company giving basic rules in the starter box + 2 minimum sized armies, and then make you buy the hard cover version with the complete rules. Two sales, more money. And you can explain in 10 min the basics to a newbie popping up in a red store.
- Paging starts at p22. Everyone can see fluff articles and 'getting started' in the first pages.
- Date of creation of the doc, May 2011 (can be altered, ok). No presence of Necron, SoB and BT in the FAQ. Incidently Necron, SoB and BT had (or will have) a new dex (or wd dex) in the meantime, making FAQ reference impossible.
- Dodgy grammar, wordings, etc... If it's a draft play test version, then it's Day - 400 from release (may 2011 to july 2012). You are not paying re-readers until you have a final version. Actually, that's a part of what you're asking your play testers to do : Rule proofing, checking wordings etc...
- Messy summary. As a somewhat early stage version, the set up is not perfect and the organisation of the book is not final yet. You don't give test version to testers if not to test it : articles will be moved, some erased, some changed. An argument to the hoax theory is 'why did they put blank squares for pictures and fluff in a draft book ?' I believe as from a company point of view, knowing roughly how many picture, charts, fluff articles you will have to order to artists is important, as for the space it will take page-wise (big books are more expensive than thin).
So for me it's a geniune draft which means we can see the big picture, but don't know which part will be erased, and what will replace it. So hold your horses gentlemen

lord_blackfang wrote:

Revarien wrote:
Miss-remembered the rule... just looked it up and you're right about part of it, but I don't think it is described too clearly...

No, it's really not. Bad layout is bad.

but it does say "instant death is sometimes called instant death 1" and that essentially the same lvl of EW negates the same lvl of ID... but one higher on either side negates the one lower completely (ID 2 completely negates EW 1 and doesn't make it ID 1...)... so a template is still inflicting 3 wounds on a swarm (1 initial wound + 2 additional from ID 2). ID1 = 2 wounds, ID 2 = 3, ID 3 = 4 wounds... ID 3 being inflicted at strength 6 or more over the model's toughness. It has a clear example of ID 3 happening to the unfortunate space marine captain.

Again, the number in the brackets has no bearing on the number of wounds a model loses. Instant Death (2) does not cause more wounds than Instant Death (1).

The eternal warrior entry clearly states that Instant Death is sometimes referred to as 'Instant Death 1', The Instant death entry is describing what appears to be 3 different levels of instant death... That is why I think it's not clear, but imo, it seems intuitive to be referring to ID 1 - 3

*edit* but as this is certainly not a 'final copy'... (if legit)... I'm not sure that as it currently stands, if you take RAW vs Intended - RAW indicates one way (yours), but I think it is very clearly referring to ID 1-3 and their wound lvls...

benogham wrote:- the introduction text references to a basic ruleset. I could perfectly understand (from a commercial point of view) a company giving basic rules in the starter box + 2 minimum sized armies, and then make you buy the hard cover version with the complete rules.

Yes, this is my only complaint. I was very happy with not having to buy the big book in 5th.

Revarien wrote:Miss-remembered the rule... just looked it up and you're right about part of it, but I don't think it is described too clearly... but it does say "instant death is sometimes called instant death 1" and that essentially the same lvl of EW negates the same lvl of ID... but one higher on either side negates the one lower completely (ID 2 completely negates EW 1 and doesn't make it ID 1...)... so a template is still inflicting 3 wounds on a swarm (1 initial wound + 2 additional from ID 2). ID1 = 2 wounds, ID 2 = 3, ID 3 = 4 wounds... ID 3 being inflicted at strength 6 or more over the model's toughness. It has a clear example of ID 3 happening to the unfortunate space marine captain.

- ID wounds from having high str weapons is simply ID or ID1...it doesn't matter how many more wounds it causes. If a weapon's str is some much higher that it causes 3 extra wounds, it's still only considered ID1 for the purposes of it being negated by EW.

- ID2 and ID3 can only be obtained by a weapon or model specificly having the special rule Instant Death (2) or (3)

Maelstrom808 wrote:- ID2 and ID3 can only be obtained by a weapon or model specificly having the special rule Instant Death (2) or (3)

I didn't see that written or inferred anywhere in the entry, nor in the codex updates... that is why I believe the ID entry in the rules is incomplete.

Revarien wrote:

Maelstrom808 wrote:- ID2 and ID3 can only be obtained by a weapon or model specificly having the special rule Instant Death (2) or (3)

I didn't see that written or inferred anywhere in the entry, nor in the codex updates... that is why I believe the ID entry in the rules is incomplete.

You might be missing the bit on file page 61 (book page 82) top left?