I can't believe people are still discussing this hackjob hoax.
I can't believe people are still discussing this hackjob hoax.
40k Supplements, Add-Ons & Events:
[Dyer's Eve - 40k Zombie Apocalypse]
More Coming Soon
Originally Posted by A.T.
I like looking at new game systems and fresh mechanics. The fact that many of these ideas are awful doesn't make me any less happy with the few good mechanics in there.
Even if this game system is not made by gw what would make it any less of a game system?
Some of us on here also play games such as infinity. Also not made by gw but believed by a lot of people to be a much superior game!
On the other hand, this game system may just not be a hoax. Then would you call it a hack job? Would the system be any better or worse with that bit of knowledge? No, it would be the same game system and just as good/bad as you should already believe.
By looking at the system now you can look at it from an unbiased point of view, whilst having some fun playing a game at the same time.
Either way, I still enjoy 5th edition much as I enjoy infinity. But I also quite like this game from the few games I've played. Do I think it could be improved, yes of course. But people would say that about 5th edition 40k or any other game. Playing it is causing no harm to my 40k hobby, giving me something to challenge my brain and in a few months time we can all be happy or upset by the official 6th edition wether it is very close to this version or nothing like it at all.
Bullet point 3 comes in to play in a game cycle where you take turns activating units. It basicaly meant that if the activated unit is with in range of an opjective then you get the points for that unit only for that turn. There are multipule turns in a game cycle in this case and therefor multipule chances to count VPs.
Example:
P1
Troop next to Objective
Heavy Support next to Objective
Elite in the open
P2
Troop next to Objective
Fast Attack in the open
Elite in the open.
Begining Game Cycle
P1 activates Troop. He scores 3 VPs for objective but none for the Heavy Support objective.
P2 activates Fast Attack and assaults Heavy Support. Both units survive the assault phase. P2 dose not get any VPs for Troop objective.
P1 activates Elite and assaults Troop. Troop are beaten, break and are rundown. VPs for destroying Troop but no VPs for Troop or Heavy Support objectives.
P2 activates Elite moves and shoots Troop. Troop break and run of the board.No VPs for breaking Troop and none for Fast Attack objective.
P1 activates Heavy Support. He scores 1 VP for objective and is then whiped out in assault by Fast Attack, so P2 also gets VPs for destroying Heavy Support.
End of Game Cycle
I'll think of something appropriate soon enough to put here.
Right having heard lots of different responses to holding objectives I've re read the sections.
Having re read the terms game cycle and turn it is finally clear to me so thanks to anyone who helped
Point 3 basically clarifies if player 1 is holding an objective at the start of his turn he scores points for it. If player 2 is holding an objective (can be the same one) at the start of his turn he scores points for it. I forgot game cycle now means the turn of both players eg there are 6 game cycles which both players have 6 turns in. That clears that part up. The point is also there covering games with more than 2 players nicely.
Dwane, it may just be me reading you're example wrong but the units only score at the start of the players turn and a troop from each player could score points off the same objective. This part is clear.
The previous poster was also correct about checking objectives where paragraph 1 states the answer. So thanks for that. You can only hold each objective once so that is great!
I do fear that eldar in their current form are at a huge disadvantage now. Expensive units with tougness 3 4+ saves needing to stand out in the open enduring an opponents turn to score is going to be suicide. Opponents will place objectives out in the open meaning you won't get a cover save for most objectives either.
Last edited by Vegeta365; 17-02-2012 at 11:26.
Accusations of bias are difficult to prove and nearly impossible to disprove.
I believe this to be something other than a genuine draft of the 6e 40k rules.
Also, and as an unrelated point, I believe the game to be pretty awful compared to 40k 5e for a number of reasons. First, there are ideas in it that document that have existed in previous editions but were removed for good reason (it's as if good lessons learned were forgotten). Also, I think it makes a number of armies that are currently good even better, and that it makes already weak strategies weaker. Third, there are a number of mechanics in this set of rules that will lead to some lame outcomes such as outflankers getting another 6" onto the board, melee troops having no defense against enemies who Deep Strike nearby, and tanks being guaranteed LOS-blocking elements so long as your opponent doesn't have any AP1 weapons to use on them.
Last edited by itcamefromthedeep; 17-02-2012 at 17:12.
Seriously, people are still talking about this fake? I have to say I'm very shocked it hasn't been fully dismissed. Some cellar dweller who made this thing is having himself a Jabba-esque laugh, for sure.
The old ideas returning it is because this was written by an unoriginal nostalgic fellow without an eye to game design to speak of. Brought back what they liked, Merced what they didn't, and I'm sure if ou look hard enough you will even be able to figure out what armies the fellow plays because the rules will be suspiciously suited to them.
40k Supplements, Add-Ons & Events:
[Dyer's Eve - 40k Zombie Apocalypse]
More Coming Soon
Yes. People like you.
I agree.
The thing about that specifically, the callbacks to old stuff, is that WFB is chock full of them as well. If you'd told me two or three years ago that WFB8 would have all the old spell names from 4th edition and the return of seriously wacky, ancient stuff like zoats and fimir, I would have thought it was a fanboy hallucination. It's difficult to communicate just how bizarre this is, how much of a u-turn, if you don't follow WFB, but believe me, it's huge. All the "good old days" stuff is actually completely true to form for GW at the moment.
Not that this makes it any more likely there's anything genuine about this pdf thingy - but it certainly doesn't make it less likely either.
Idiots... nothing can live forever.
I thought weve had a confirmation this was a really early draft, with lots of it being scrapped later on, including the change in phases, evasion values etc?
A rumour confirming another rumour is still a rumour, isn't it?
Last edited by Bubble Ghost; 18-02-2012 at 22:21.
Idiots... nothing can live forever.
Now if this is a proven hoax, how come it's still being discussed? I find it wierd, Warseer wouldn't let it be discused, but now it's a hoax, it's still discused but it's not news or rumours.
I just don't understand the Warsser philosophy what is allowed in new/rumours section now.
Regardless of whether it is hoax or not people are interested in the rules themselves and are discussing them, hoax a side. Just because it is a hoax (or not) dose not make it not worth talking about. So still a valid topic, but I can agree that it may not be news and roumers worthy anymore.
I'll think of something appropriate soon enough to put here.
If Warseer denied People the opportunity to discuss this document, some people would use it as "evidence" of "evil totalitarian moderators."
Those who believe the leak, or are otherwise interested in discussing this leak can do so in this thread.
Those who don't believe it can easily avoid any and all exposure to it by not reading this thread.
There is no way to tell if this document is real until 6th comes out, making arguing about it pointless. Therefore any further posts that add nothing other than argumentatively questioning the veracity of this leak will be deleted without warning and may be considered trolling.
The Dude
The Warseer Inquisition
Last edited by The Dude; 19-02-2012 at 07:16.
What about constructively questioning it? I think that's actually quite an interesting aspect of this discussion, and a perfectly valid thing to want to talk about. What I'm getting here is, would you from now on consider my first post on this page, #809, to be "trolling", or is that still acceptable?
Idiots... nothing can live forever.
Logically and civily outlining what you do or don't think this leak is is well within the rules (although already discussed to death IMHO).
Coming into this thread and questioning why people are still talking about the "leak" is trolling.
Basically, just try to use some common sense
The Dude
The Warseer Inquisition
Umm nice catch. Actually it was pretty clear, as you said disembarking only disabled ''disemkarked moves'', not other disembarked type actions. Thanks for enlightening =).
So which armies played Alessio and which do play Ward/kelly? A game designer focusing on things he like and leaving aside rules hes not so keen on is something more obvious than water soaking.
Last edited by Miredorf; 20-02-2012 at 09:46.
Okay, people seem to have seriously misunderstood that comment. I wasn't talking about returning to old designs or using old minis.
For instance, before Kill Points were introduced it was to people's advantage to fill as many Force Organization Chart slots as possible, with oddities like lone Vypers that would hide all game until it was time for them to contest objectives and table quarters. That made armies look weird and "gamey" in their attempt to use as many slots as possible. The introduction of Kill Points fixed this problem because it found a way of punishing MSU. The author of this document seems to have forgotten what those 3e and 4e MSU armies looked like because he un-fixed the problem. That's not nostalgia, it's someone messing with what they don't understand.
In 4e the person who deployed first would always go first, which meant that you could deploy knowing that you would get the first turn. This meant that the player who would go first would deploy aggressively to make best use of their first turn, while the other player would deploy out of LOS as much as possible to avoid as much fire as he could. This made deployments look strange (and bad). When 5e came the "Seize the Initiative" mechanic was made so that players who deployed too aggressively might get punished for it, while players who looked to go second would deploy in such a way that they could take advantage of the first turn if they got it. This has led to far better-looking deployments in 5e. This document un-fixes the problem, as if the author had no idea that it ever existed. This isn't nostalgia here, and it isn't a callback to the old Shokk Attack Gun or Mole Mortar. You'll note that in 3e players would alternate deploying units and then roll off for first turn, which is a system that favors MSU armies with those hidden Vypers that can be used as "dead" deployment turns to allow you to see where your opponents important units deploy. Since 5e made an effort to discourage MSU this old method wouldn't work.
This document removes 5e mechanics that fixed problems without coming up with a replacement solution. The development team *knows* why these mechanics are there and *knows* which problems they fix. This document would bring us back to the bad old days. We've been down these roads before and we know why they're bad. I can say based on my experience that without a shadow of a doubt this document screws up on deployment and mission objectives.
We also know why this document's system for wound allocation doesn't work very well. We've tried it before and it sucked.
Regardless of what you think this may or may not say about authenticity, this document makes some demonstrably bad moves. I don't need to wait until it comes out to know that these are bad moves because I've played with them before.
Last edited by itcamefromthedeep; 22-02-2012 at 16:49.
Erm, you didn't...make that post, dude.
Anyhow, your points are well-taken, but I'm assuming that the original poster was talking about the more obvious throw-backs to 2nd Edition mechanics like Overwatch and to-hit modifiers. If we look at 8th Edition WHFB as a bellwether (and there's every reason to), bringing back the "old days" is very much in vogue for both models and rules.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
The Dude
||||||||||||||||| 
|#
Lexington