WarSeer Official Discussion of the 'leaked' 6th Ed Rule Set

[Haravikk]

I think that full pre-measuring and random charges as per fantasy are pretty much a given. "Mysterious" terrain types like fantasy seems semi-likely, and terrain in general may follow fantasy's lead as well, with difficult terrain disappearing in favour of just having normal movement dangerous terrain, with some randomised types to further discourage players from just charging through alien forests etc.

I think that what's going to be more interesting are things like changes to vehicle rules to hopefully nerf the overly abused troop-transports. I'd love to see Overwatch make a return though, possibly alongside some shooting related penalty system, as while simple shooting is fine, it's a bit too simple right now.

Anyway, I think that 8th edition fantasy is a good place to look for the direction that 40k is going to take, I'd love to see universal war gear alongside an expanded universal rules section.

[Wrath]

@Haravikk: wrong forum, this is the one for the leaked PDF. The other 6E forum is the one you are looking for.

[Enigma6]

When i saw the 'Covering fire' rule, i was very much expecting it to read something along the lines of 'character forgoes shooting himself to direct one other model to fire on a different target to the rest of the unit' possibly with a leadership test (ability) to do this. Therefore the rest of the squad provides 'covering fire' for the missile launcher / melta guy to take out the tank. Long fangs could still be unique as there is no test required and multiple models can choose to split fire.

However i do quite like the rule in the book. Could do with a range limit, as sniping out a squad leader from across the board does seem unlikely with anything but a dedicated sniper rifle. With regards to sniping out specials being 'too easy' with these sniper rules, a fantasy-style 'Look out Sir!' rule to pass a directed hit onto another model might help some. Should be less powerful than the 2+ from fantasy though.

The character section could certainly do with a clarification that vehicles can never be characters (maybe MCs as well?), and some of the potential nastiness of character (especially monstrous creature) directed hits might be reduced if the list of weapons which cannot provide directed hits included weapons which fire more than 2 shots per turn, as these weapons surely fire too indiscriminately to pick out individuals.

I really like how this document could work after some minor tweaking but my main issue with the proposed rules is that I can't see how they will bring balance to the foot/mech issue. Transports still seem to provide a bit too much of a buff for not enough points. If units did not count as scoring while inside the transports that would help, and maybe make it possible to damage embarked units (with something other than templates), if the unit shoots out of a firing hatch. Especially if you had to allocate any wounds to the models which actually used the firing hatch. Give them a cover save as if in fortifications. Maybe a nice evasion value too.

That would reduce the desire to simply use transports as mobile bunkers for the whole game. They would be most useful as a safe method of transport (hence the name). When you actually reached your destination you would want to disembark to score on the objective for as many turns as possible, and your specials/heavies would be safer shooting from disembarked if they could be sniped when shooting out of a hatch. This might make open topped transports a bit too weak if the whole unit could be shot at while embarked.

[Trasvi]

I'm not sure if this has been discussed already in the thread (its 45 pages long and search doesn't work) but:
Dust Warfare = 40k 6th Edition?

I recently got the dust warfare book and I'm noticing a large amount of similarities between it and this pdf.
Parts that specifically stuck out to me:
Reactions to moving/shooting
Similar wordings and special rules in many cases
the points-spending system for choosing scenario
and it is written by Andy Chambers.

Could it be that the 6th Ed PDF is from when AC was still at GW, they didn't want to take it in his direction, so he took the half-formed rule set to Dust Warfare?

[Dwane Diblie]

At some point it was hinted at that they where based off of a draft written by someone that left the company years ago. I think there was mention of them being considered for 4th or (I beleave) 5th ed and that they where not clean enough to use so they went with another version of 3rd ed. Andy was mentioned and so was Rick. I personaly beleave it was Andy work and the reason for beleaving it was for 5th is that Andy was behind all the experamental rules for assault and vehicles we got in 3rd which where realy a global playtest for 4th and that they came after this point.

I have never heard of this Dust Warfare by the way. Will be looking it up shortly

[Fable]

At some point it was hinted at that they where based off of a draft written by someone that left the company years ago. I think there was mention of them being considered for 4th or (I beleave) 5th ed and that they where not clean enough to use so they went with another version of 3rd ed. Andy was mentioned and so was Rick. I personaly beleave it was Andy work and the reason for beleaving it was for 5th is that Andy was behind all the experamental rules for assault and vehicles we got in 3rd which where realy a global playtest for 4th and that they came after this point.

I have never heard of this Dust Warfare by the way. Will be looking it up shortly

The draft was supposedly by Allessio who left about a year ago, I think he is working on Kings of War now.

I recently got the dust warfare book and I'm noticing a large amount of similarities between it and this pdf.
Parts that specifically stuck out to me:
Reactions to moving/shooting
Similar wordings and special rules in many cases
the points-spending system for choosing scenario
and it is written by Andy Chambers.

Could it be that the 6th Ed PDF is from when AC was still at GW, they didn't want to take it in his direction, so he took the half-formed rule set to Dust Warfare?

Not quite. Andy's mark is still on the game as 3rd edition was pretty much his brainchild. 4th and 5th were increasingly minor alterations to his base ruleset. Any similarity of rule wording between Dust and the other rules probably directly stems from having a shared author.

[Rick Blaine]

The draft was supposedly by Allessio who left about a year ago, I think he is working on Kings of War now.

Ha ha... there's nothing in Allessio's portfolio that would even hint at the level of competence required to write "pancake edition."

[Ereshkigal]

Alessio btw. I chatted with him a long time ago (he's italian like me) about his vampire army list, because at the time i played fantasy... and he didn't even understand his own rules, sadly. And that's why they remade vampire codex in a hurry.

[Asher]

The draft was supposedly by Allessio who left about a year ago, I think he is working on Kings of War now.

There have been many claims about the origin of that document so far. I don't see this as anymore beliveable as the others.

Ha ha... there's nothing in Allessio's portfolio that would even hint at the level of competence required to write "pancake edition."

Yeah, sad but true!

[Commissar Merces]

When 6th ed comes out, def going to compare it to these rules.

[Ouroborus]

When exactly is 6th ed rumored to be released again? I hear it is supposed to be based more around infantry this time around?

[Cheexsta]

When exactly is 6th ed rumored to be released again? I hear it is supposed to be based more around infantry this time around?

Most commonly cited dates are the June 30, July 7 and July 14. Have a look in this thread for specifics.

[BurnBaby]

i just heard some rumors of new abilities for eldars and tau.... something weird on "empathy" for eldar or "charisma" on tau...

for eldar it seems to be that an empathy value gives you specific advantages on rescues. you are able to rethrow the missed rescues because of the deadly injured eldars are throwing in the way...

for tau, i don't get any rumours...

may you revert on this?

[BramGaunt]

i just heard some rumors of new abilities for eldars and tau.... something weird on "empathy" for eldar or "charisma" on tau...

for eldar it seems to be that an empathy value gives you specific advantages on rescues. you are able to rethrow the missed rescues because of the deadly injured eldars are throwing in the way...

for tau, i don't get any rumours...

may you revert on this?

Actually, yes. This rumour originated in a german forum I despise. The guy who started the thread made it VERY obvious he was trolling. If he signed up here he'd probably call himself "Trolly McThundertroll" or something like that. Don't pay any attention to it =)

[Commisar]

Hm, so with physic cards coming out it looks like physic powers are going to become a big part of the game.

If we are keeping the FOC, then 2 HQ with a strong desire to take at least one psyker is going to be limiting.

Also,

Sucks for Necrons, Sisters, Dark Eldar and Tau :/

Just cant see right now how all this fits together.

[ZeromuS]

Hm, so with physic cards coming out it looks like physic powers are going to become a big part of the game.

If we are keeping the FOC, then 2 HQ with a strong desire to take at least one psyker is going to be limiting.

Also,

Sucks for Necrons, Sisters, Dark Eldar and Tau :/

Just cant see right now how all this fits together.

I can only hope for a new codex as a Tau player. The more about the ruleset that seems to leak the more I feel I made a bad decision picking tau.

Assault gets better and psychic powers are good? Well, then ... :/

[shaso_iceborn]

I can only hope for a new codex as a Tau player. The more about the ruleset that seems to leak the more I feel I made a bad decision picking tau.

Assault gets better and psychic powers are good? Well, then ... :/

Don't get so discouraged, great stuff for Tau is right around the corner.

[Chapters Unwritten]

If anything I would say the Tau benefit quite a bit from what we've heard. The ability to fire rapid fire twice at 30" would be massive for them. Also, very fluffy, the Tau keeping a marked distance from the enemy, gracefully cutting them to ribbons with superior firepower.

Stand and Shoot is probably going to be pretty good to you guys, too. Plus random charge distances may mean you get charged less. Not to mention the idea that you can glance vehicles to death.

[Wrath]

If anything I would say the Tau benefit quite a bit from what we've heard. The ability to fire rapid fire twice at 30" would be massive for them.

Unfortunately ATM the rumor is 1 at max, 2 at 12" moving or stationary. Still a boost but nothing like double tap at max would of been.

[Valerian]

When 6th ed comes out, def going to compare it to these rules.

Me too. I was exceptionally impressed with "pancake edition" rules when they were first leaked, so I'm at least hopeful that they were an early playtest version and that 6th edition evolved from it. If it was all just someone's pet-project, then I'll be very dissapointed, and I question the GW designers' ability to do as well.

Valerian