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.

lord_blackfang wrote:

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?

Annnnd that clears it up. LOL... freaking out of control layout. Thanks! I can't believe they have 2 Instant death entries... *sigh*

I actually have to confess I like these rules. If this is legit I'll be happy.

What I'm not happy with is that it -does- indeed look like IG onwards were developed with this in mind, making it seem like they realised early on in 5th edition that something was 'wrong' (Probably wound allocation shenanigans and other things) and rather than trying to actively fix it decided to just milk it for their obligatory 4 years....

Hrmm.

It is in there. E.G Templates and Blasts have ID(2) against swarms. And the blast size is increased when hitting swarms. So every army will be taking flamers and blasts weapons instead of just melta now (because they got so much better from a variety of different rules and because anti-swarm is important with scarabs about)

lord_blackfang wrote:

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.

At some point, wasn't one of the rumors that instead of having a 2 player starter box, there would be multiple "one army + quick rules" boxes?

Even though it would be smart (although I think it would have to be kept to warbands size boxes) I really don't see GW doing something like that. But it would be a nice setup for trying out the game with the quick start rules, then moving on to the big rulebook. Many other game systems already are using this setup and it would be a good way of getting new people into the game.

Pure speculation of course.

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.

Entirely possible, given that these are probably playtest rules. However, if you look at the EW rule, it's broken into 2 sections. The first section:

A model with the special rule Eternal Warrior is
immune to the effects of the Instant Death rule.
Instead, it reduces its Wounds characteristic by
one as normal.

To me this reads as specificly addressing the earlier section explaining ID wounds from high str weapons. Esspecially when you look at the description of the next section:

Some weapons are so devastating - say, the
cannon of a titan - that they cause Instant Death
even against models with Eternal Warrior. To
represent this, there are three level of this special
rule.
• Eternal Warrior or Eternal Warrior (1) negates
only Instant Death (sometimes called Instant
Death (1) ).
• Eternal Warrior (2) negates Instant Death (1)
and Instant Death (2).
• Eternal Warrior (3) negates all levels of Instant
Death.

Which to me seems to be addressing ID when it comes up as a specific rule attached to a weapon or model.


Anyway, I don't want to get deep into a rules argument on a possibly fake ruleset, that even if it is real, may drasticly change before it ever hits shelves

EDIT:

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

Yeah, that too

Maelstrom808 wrote:

EDIT:

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

Yeah, that too

Ya probable was typing this while I got my post up at the top of the page already, but yeah... This. Lol... I hate not having an index... it'll be worth the price of the book alone

I hope these are true, formatting needs a lot of work obviously and I feel confident in saying that this seems like a midway done play test copy.

The whole Guard codex on argument seems to be getting more valid, that being said, having looked over most of these rules and the GK and Necron codex I have to say, those two were made VERY specifically with a 6th rule book next to the designer.

The return of Psykic mastery, moving out of turn, Monolith pricing ect really seem to put me over the top on the opinion that while the other codex were made with a general idea; those two at least were made on purpose with this in hand

Has anyone gone over the scoring system yet?

Looking at Seize Ground, I see that any unit can get victory points for holding an objective, but Scoring Units get triple points.

Vehicles that are Troops are Scoring units by default, unless they are Dedicated Transports.

Seize Ground has a special rule saying vehicles can't hold objectives, but it does leave the option of scoring tanks in other missions. Seize Ground also disqualifies embarked units from holding objectives!

H.B.M.C. 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.

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

Others have suggested that a 3 vehicle squadron gets a 2+ save. I don't see this, surely it's a 3+ save?
Good luck everyone.

lord_blackfang wrote:Has anyone gone over the scoring system yet?

Looking at Seize Ground, I see that any unit can get victory points for holding an objective, but Scoring Units get triple points.

Vehicles that are Troops are Scoring units by default, unless they are Dedicated Transports.

Seize Ground has a special rule saying vehicles can't hold objectives, but it does leave the option of scoring tanks in other missions. Seize Ground also disqualifies embarked units from holding objectives!

IRREGARDLESS of this I would also like to point out this stratagem.

Call to duty 3 SP
Even the often privileged tank crews are ordered
to perform day to day duties like staying guard
or patrolling. Immediately after picking this
stratagem, the player can choose one vehicle for
every 1,000 points of army size to be able to
complete mission objectives as if it were not a
vehicle.

"complete Mission Objectives" also include controlling objectives? If so then IG can just park their artillery on an objective and wait it out.

Those strategems will not be a integral part of the game.

Tourney's will just have a roll.

ChocolateGork wrote:Those strategems will not be a integral part of the game.

Tourney's will just have a roll.

Can you justify your claim in anyway?

Dantalian wrote:
IRREGARDLESS

I warned you.

The lack of a limit on the amount of stratagems you are able to bet would lead to ridiculous situation with hundreds of strategy points being bet.

And because some of the stratagems affect terrain they would need players to affect the set up of the board and in a competitive setting they could be so easily abused.

EG lining the board with weathered bastinons

They would take too much time to resolve and are to easy to break.

And as such a tourney will have a few options

Modify them in a way as to reduce the possible amount (not a good solution because players can just bet the maximum)

Give the players stratagem points to spend with their army and then use the same stratagem for the rest of the tourney (would let stratagems be used but not a deciding factor of who goes first)

Cut them completely and make the players roll (K.I.S.S)

Irregardless of your warning, you did bring it on yourself...





Automatically Appended Next Post:

ChocolateGork wrote:Cut them completely and make the players roll (K.I.S.S)

There's no justifiable reason to cut them completely. Change how they are acquired? Sure - I think the 'bidding' method is clumsy and badly thought out - but to remove them completely because of one failing? You don't fix a sore finger by cutting your arm off, you attend to the finger.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot

I'm just gonna leave this here, as people seem to be forgetting that "no proof to the contrary doesn't mean something's true."

Ignoring all the possible reasons why it could be true...

Well now, this makes Chaos armies quite interesting.

Daemon Princes with Wings have:
M9
Monstrous
Airborne
Deep Strike
Massive
Multi-Targeting (2)
Relentless

So they need to be 50% obscured or more to gain a cover save (Massive) but also gain cover saves from any terrain they end their movement in or behind (Airborne). I can see that getting argued a ton. Shame a lot of their abilities are advantageous to shooting though.

Squadrons of Blight Drones are a bit of a liability - roll a 5 on the damage table and the whole squadron explodes! - although multi-targeting (1) makes them more resilient to Weapon Destroyed results (very slightly more resilient to the *first* weapon destroyed result)

It COULD be true, yes. However, until there is proof it IS true, it's very much a work of falsehood and fiction.

We're all aware it could be a hoax, but repeating it ad nauseam (see, I can use philosophy jargon too) doesn't add anything to the conversation.

lord_blackfang wrote:We're all aware it could be a hoax, but repeating it ad nauseam (see, I can use philosophy jargon too) doesn't add anything to the conversation.

irregardless of people being rude about grammar, leave philosophy alone, it never did you any harm, did it?

I'm intrigued by the stratagems. It's a question of how much you're willing to pay for first turn.

Also, I think something is missing from the ID rules:
The entry for ID only mentions weapons of a higher strength, but nothing about weapons that cause ID (D hits, blasts/templates against swarms, force weapons). Do they cause an extra wound or slay outright?

Dribble Joy wrote:I'm intrigued by the stratagems. It's a question of how much you're willing to pay for first turn.

Also, I think something is missing from the ID rules:
The entry for ID only mentions weapons of a higher strength, but nothing about weapons that cause ID (D hits, blasts/templates against swarms, force weapons). Do they cause an extra wound or slay outright?

Page 61 (book page 82) top left.

Huzzah! So at least it takes two hits from a 50 point libby to kill Gazzy.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

ChocolateGork wrote:Cut them completely and make the players roll (K.I.S.S)

There's no justifiable reason to cut them completely. Change how they are acquired? Sure - I think the 'bidding' method is clumsy and badly thought out - but to remove them completely because of one failing? You don't fix a sore finger by cutting your arm off, you attend to the finger.

Well other than TOs making their own stratagems and giving each player access to one OR a certain amount of points for each player to spend before the tournament starts to spend on the home-brew stratagems.
One of the other solutions would be give each player 2 points or more than 2 and restrict the higher levels. Because some of those stratagems are ridiculously powerful.

More random fun facts.

Bikes and Jetbikes have Fast and MT1 and an 8" base move.

This means they can each fire 1 weapon after a 16" Run/Cruise, so that's 4" more range than before and no downside except to Attack Bikes, which can't fire both weapons. If moving 8" or less, a bike can fire two weapons, or give up 1 shot to split fire. So an Attack Bike can give up its bolter shot to target the multi-melta at something else, same for meltagun bikers, etc.

However loosing the 3++ turbo boost and the +1 toughness in close in painful.

Cerebrium wrote:It COULD be true, yes. However, until there is proof it IS true, it's very much a work of falsehood and fiction.

Wait, but that's nothing like Russell's Teapot.

Russell's teapot illustrates that you can't disprove a negative. There is no means to disproving the existence of a teapot too small for us to detect. It's not just about a lack of proof to the contrary, but a lack of proof on both sides.

However, these rules are very much real. We've all downloaded them and had a look. We can start to make hypotheses about the origin of the rules, and look for evidence within the rules to back us up (Do these rules match what I've previously heard GW has planned for 40k? Is the formatting and indexing at the level of a professional company or a team of fans? Are the errors within the codex within GW normal bounds? How old are these rules? How do these rules fit into where codices have been going?..etc). There may not be much to say that it's from GW, but it's not a case of both sides having nothing to work with.

And as an aside, you can't open up the news and rumours board and the get annoyed because it has rumours in it.

ChocolateGork wrote:However loosing the 3++ turbo boost and the +1 toughness in close in painful.

You're also at -1 to hit with shooting if you move, which is always. Against BS4 that's a 25% reduction in incoming firepower, even better against lower BS, and you get it for free without giving up your own shooting.



Broken:

Broken units can't do much other than move and shoot (and can't multi-target) but they can move in any direction and at whatever speed you want. However, ending within 12" of an unengaged enemy destroys them.

Units can regroup in the consolidation phase if there is a character in the unit. A sergeant is enough, but a basic grunt acting as unit leader is not. This works regardless of unit size. Units regroup automatically if they board a friendly transport.

Oh, I know I can't get angry at rumours. However, people aren't treating these AS rumours. People are treating this as absolute gospel that couldn't possibly be a massive troll.

Again: Until someone can, without a shadow of a doubt, PROVE these are real, there's a rather huge chance that they're an elaborate hoax.