I'm guessing that by now that you've already seen it (or at least read about it elsewhere) and I've just got my hands on it so I haven't analysed too much of it yet. Assuming it is a fake (like the Blood Angels) or potentially an early playtest copy (like the Grey Knights) there are a few things that are leaving me scratching my head like WS 2 v WS 1 not having 3+ to hit (a typo perhaps); BS vs Evasion; Rigid Saves and 5+ cover saves are showing up too because I thought that they'd give a 5+ for vehicles and 4+ for Infantry to promote (sales) the use of grunts in games.
Colour me sceptical about the Move/Assault/Shoot changes to the turn phase. I'll come back when I have more reading done.
I think its a fake to be honest, too much maths involved for it to appeal to little Timmy. I wouldn't mind if some (about 50%) of it were true though.
ReplyDeleteI agree. I've read it and it sounds far, far too complex for GW.
ReplyDeleteI'm as sceptical as you two lads but this is giving me pause for thought:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.frontlinegaming.org/2012/01/13/6th-ed-40k-rumors/
I do like some of the stuff but the main thing that's getting at me is the swap in the phases so that Assault comes before Shooting, which I believe to be too drastic a change to bring about.
Yeah it could be legit, I doubt it for the same reason - moving assault before shooting weakens shooty armies and strengthens pure assault armies but drastically weakens the armies that shoot then assault.
ReplyDeleteAs for the link, its all a bit "I know a guy, who knows a guy, who once shook hands with a guy, who knows a guy, who went to school with the guy that actually *saw* the roswell aliens"