6th ed rumors

[DarkLink]

I found this on Heresy Online, source (http://bloodofkittens.com/network/members/rideroftheerk/activity/14616/)


as told in privacy but can’t vouch for the accuracy. Corrected some spelling errors from icq conversation:
>>I am really pissed! The recent shift in GW’s marketing strategy is only the beginning. The goal is to completely control every bit of information that is going out and make every advance sneak peek look like an accidental leak. Think of Apple and you know what they are trying to achieve. They simultaneously try to keep the internet crowd happy with some leaked bits here and there and the store crowded focused on the next release. Prepare for more of these infamous “you see one eighth of the miniature and should stand in awe” pictures.

The restructured White Dwarf will be the only place for “official” news. The days when Games Days were a good source for exciting news are gone. No more seminars. Independent shop owners will get the info at the same time as the public. From autumn on product codes will be chiffres and retailers have to order bulk packages for new releases without knowing what is in it if they want to get the releases on the first day. If they want to buy the boxes individually they have to wait two weeks until GW releases the chiffres. Mail Orders won’t arrive on the day of release, they will be SENT on the day of release. So no more accidental early arrivals. If you want to buy a product on the day of release you have to go to a GW store or one of the shops that have bought the release package. There is no chance to get the products via an online store on time. The retail embargo for the southern hemisphere were initially planned for every single country, so no more exports from UK to continental Europa, but GW’s law division stopped this as it would have violated EU laws. So now they will introduce two boxes for every release with exactly the same content but different boxes. One is for the retail in a single country and comes at the standard wholesale price. The other box has all the necessary taxation and regulatory clearances for export. These boxes are virtually the same but GW is charging an extra fee for them. Online shops can choose to stop exports or accept a serious blow to their profit margins.

We, the gamers, are sitting on the receiving end of this dishonest policy once more. We are treated like children and that is exactly the goal of these changes. So here are some of their plans, as long as the info is available, to spoil some of their surprises:

* first 6th edition codexes, but release before or with rulebook, small release with single or two waves: Black Templars (1 waves: 2x plactic, 2x Finecast), Tau (1 wave: 3x plastic boxes, 4x Finecast), Necrons (2 waves)

* first real 6th edition codex: Codex Chaos Legions, really big release in three waves, doesn’t invalidate Codex Chaos Space Marines which gets extensive White Dwarf update as Codex Renegade Space Marines

* two starter sets, each with rules, dices, movement markers, mission booklet, one with Dark Angels and fitting scenery, the other with Black Legion and Chaos scenery. You can combine both to play the campaign or use one set alone to play a selection of dumbed down scenarios against every other force, first starter set that comes with a model for a well established special character

* 6th edition is finished rulewise for some time now, the overall goal is to fix some of the long time problems of the game system. Expect a lot more fundamental improvements than last edition. The rules were even more ambitious at some stage of development, but didn’t get approved as they were too far away from the established rules. The main designer left company and his successors brought the rules back in line with the existing codexes. The rules are nonetheless a bigger step forward than from 4th to 5th. Changes are so big that the next edition relies partial on erratas to fix old codexes. Development relied heavily on feedback of veteran playtesters. You can see some results of this new approach by the way the FAQs were handled in the last months. All codexes since Codex Tyranids were written with the new rules in mind, especially the new mission and reserve structure.

* The main design goals are: one book to rule them all, heroic characters, visceral combat, streamlined mechanism, cleaned up presentation and strategy before chance

* strong narrative focus on Chaos, perspective shifting from the Empire to the struggle between free races and the Warp

* the biggest rule changes:
- similar ballistic to hit chart as wound chart: compare BS to target’s speed and unit type. BS 3 hits moving infantry on 4+, but lightning fast jetbikes on 6+ and stationary tank on 2+… HUGE
- victory points are back, but with another twist: you get two victory points if an unit holds an objective for an entire game turn, if a scoring unit holds one, you get three and one if you destroy a squad leader or vehicle
- before the game there is a bidding contest for the opportunity of the first turn, if you bid more strategic points you can go first, but the enemy can spent these points on stratagems as in Cities of Death: 22 generic stratagems – for example for one point you can decide on night fighting or place an automatic gun, for four you can shift your reserves, most expensive stratagems are at 12 points and are really drastic, every unspent point can be used once a game for a reroll
- new turn sequence: prepare-movement-assault-shooting-consolidate
new phase “consolidate” phase for random movements, jetpack movements, pursuits, morale checks/effects and resolving shooting reactions
assault before shooting – big units are real roadblocks!<<

*
Avatar Image
rideroftheerk · 1 day, 2 hours ago

Some more examples for the development doctrines
One rulebook for all:
- flyer rules are incorporated in the main rules
- narrative rule section that expands core rules: formations, super heavies, gaining experience
- modular rules, core rules can easily be expanded by narratives rules or another expansion set

Heroic characters:
- independent characters more powerful, armour save and invulnerable save at the same time
- squad leaders more important, no more 50% rallying threshold, unit can rally as long as squad leader lives
- independent characters can snipe

More visceral combat:
- standard cover only 5+ now, Feel No Pain (1) only on 5+
- slow slogging units very vulnerable
- some weapon types are specialized in taking out specific unit types and are incredible good at doing this (sniper vs. infantry without armour), but on the other hand ordnance vs flyer isn’t going to do much

streamlined:
- no more random movement at all
- 5 general types of psychic powers
- wound allocation like 4th edition on unit basis, but attacker can chose every 5th wound to go to a single model (sniper weapon every second wound)
- artillery is normal immobile vehicle squadron, crew has no other game purpose than to be a counter for rate of fire and attacks

clean up of combusted rules:
- there are tiers for most of the special rules. Instant Death (2) circumvents Eternal Warrior (1) for example. Feel No Pain (1) is 5+, Feel No Pain (2) is 4+ and Feel No Pain (3) is 3+. If no value is given, the special rule is tier 1.
- no more difference between leadership test and morale test
- terrain rules on a single page, true line of sight, non-vehicles models are ignored altogether, rules for special terrain like bunkers, ruins or deathworld mangroves in narrative rule section

less randomness, more strategic options:
- more elaborate reserve rules, can nominate turn of arrvial and has only small change to arrive earlier or later, or can intervene behind enemy lines, arrives randomly but can hinder enemy reserves, must be distributed evenly between turn two and three, later arrivals only randomly
-no more random game length
-no roll for first turn
-deep striking units more than 18” from enemy away don’t scatter, but landing in 6” is much more dangerous
- movement impairing effects from pinning weapons even if morale check is passed (if roll is above halved Ld), Fearless not immune to this, but only effected if rolled over full Ld
- more reactions to shooting than going to the ground depending on unit type and special rules. bikes can evade (3+ cover as same as before, but cannot assault or shoot next turn), jump troops can fly high, units with Stealth can attempt to vanish, …


I'm hesitant about a few of the details, like the bidding process for first turn and the more complex BS "to hit" chart, as both could easily get way too complicated to work well. But so long as those are simple enough, they're fine, and I like a lot of the other stuff.


Edit: And I love the removal of random stuff. No random movement, no random game length, less random reserves, all of that is awesome. Anything that takes control away from the player and makes them rely on a single dice roll takes away from the skill of the game. Getting completely screwed over because the game ended turn 5 sucks.

[BrokenWing]

I really don't like the BS chart rumor and hope it's not true. Aside from over complicating things really fast, it's going to cause a sudden explosion in all jetbike armies.

The rest I rather like...except the bidding for first turn. It seems like people won't really want to bid to go first, because not doing so is alot better than doing so.

[musical-fool]

I'm not liking what I'm reading, I hope to the Emperor Himself that this is far from accurate!

[Wildeybeast]

I'm taking all of this with a massive pinch of salt. GW is tightening up leaks yet we have detailed info on rule changes for 6th editon? Tyranids weren't released that long after the current rulebook, yet they already knew what the next rule set would be to enable them to make Tyranids compatible with it? Doesn't sound right to me.

[Kawauso]

What BrokenWing said.

'Cept I really like the idea of 'bidding' for first turn. That, combined with the stratagems, will add a whole new layer of strategy into the game, I think.

One other thing I'm apprehensive about is the Deep Strike thing - my Blood Angels love DS'ing within 6" of units...and now that's going to be more dangerous for them than it already is? :( I hope not...

The other thing that raises my eyebrow is Assault before Shooting - makes assault weapons a lot less appealing for armies that can hold their own in close combat...not sure I like the idea of being unable to use shotguns or storm bolters before charging into the fray.

[Kawauso]

I'm taking all of this with a massive pinch of salt. GW is tightening up leaks yet we have detailed info on rule changes for 6th editon? Tyranids weren't released that long after the current rulebook, yet they already knew what the next rule set would be to enable them to make Tyranids compatible with it? Doesn't sound right to me.

All codices -since- Tyranids were written with 6th in mind, the rumour says.

I find it hard to believe that includes Tyranids, if random movement is going to be gone - where does that leave Hormagaunts? (they better get a FAQ/errata with any new rule set to set things right...)

[SotonShades]

I do like the idea of heroic characters being a little more survivable and, well, heroic! Very big fan of cover being reduced to a 5+ save as well, and squad leaders being more than just an extra attack or point of leadership. Not such a big fan of a lot of the rest of it.

Added complexity slows the game down, creates more confusion as players get things a little bit wrong. In a competitive environment, that will only lead to bad things and arguments. I'm a little confused about the change in turn sequence. It makes it a bit more like fantasy. Fantasy doesn't really having shooting like 40k does and I personnally like the difference. I don't want 40k to just be a sci-fi version of fantasy.

I don't think I'm just trying to go against change for the sake of going against change. I really enjoyed the change from 3rd to 4th, and again to 5th, but those changes excited me when I heard the rumours. These just seem to dissappoint me. Still, early days yet. The truth will out eventually.

[The_Farseer]

I really don't like the BS chart rumor and hope it's not true. Aside from over complicating things really fast, it's going to cause a sudden explosion in all jetbike armies.

I actually hope this is true, since I play with a Saim Hann army, it'll be nice to have the fluff actually fitting the rules for once

Generally, I hope this does become what 6th edition essentially is as it sounds like it will make the game better, I just hope its released sooner rather than later...

[fuzzbuket]

i do like the idea of those starter kits very much! and the saves rule is nice!, also with the new cover it means the end of cover loving guard :P


im not soo keen on the consolidate phase ( my jetbikes and battlesuits like that and arnt going to share it :L)

does sound good though!

-fuzz

[isotope99]

The restructured White Dwarf will be the only place for “official” news.
Fine, if we get some proper previews at the back. Not interested if its going to stay as a piece of art and some cryptic boxout.
The days when Games Days were a good source for exciting news are gone. No more seminars.
Hooray, one less reason to go.:rolleyes:
Independent shop owners will get the info at the same time as the public etc...
Fairly transparent attempt at driving people into official stores. Odds of success 10%Mail Orders won’t arrive on the day of release, they will be SENT on the day of release. So no more accidental early arrivals. If you want to buy a product on the day of release you have to go to a GW store or one of the shops that have bought the release package.
One less reason to order things from the official GW site. If they think I'm going to make a special launch day trip to the store, keep dreaming.

* first 6th edition codexes, but release before or with rulebook, small release with single or two waves: Black Templars (1 waves: 2x plactic, 2x Finecast), Tau (1 wave: 3x plastic boxes, 4x Finecast), Necrons (2 waves)
BT and Tau only make sense if they also have new codices and they're running out of time to squeeze in three (plus sisters)
* first real 6th edition codex: Codex Chaos Legions, really big release in three waves, doesn’t invalidate Codex Chaos Space Marines which gets extensive White Dwarf update as Codex Renegade Space Marines
This I like the sound of, but don't expect many to stick with the old defunct codex unless it gets a serious WD buff.
* two starter sets, each with rules, dices, movement markers, mission booklet, one with Dark Angels and fitting scenery, the other with Black Legion and Chaos scenery. You can combine both to play the campaign or use one set alone to play a selection of dumbed down scenarios against every other force, first starter set that comes with a model for a well established special character
Not sure if I buy dark angels if the next SM codex is BT, unless this an attempt to retire the Dark Angels codex as a separate book. I like the idea of including a bit of scenery.
* the biggest rule changes:
- similar ballistic to hit chart as wound chart: compare BS to target’s speed and unit type. BS 3 hits moving infantry on 4+, but lightning fast jetbikes on 6+ and stationary tank on 2+… HUGE
Might work, but its going to be a devil keeping track of what moved how far in the previous turn (simplified my a$$).Presumably jetbike cover saves would be lost to balance this out.
- victory points are back, but with another twist: you get two victory points if an unit holds an objective for an entire game turn, if a scoring unit holds one, you get three and one if you destroy a squad leader or vehicle
Again, going to be a pain to keep track of and hugely penalises armies such as daemons.
- before the game there is a bidding contest for the opportunity of the first turn, if you bid more strategic points you can go first, but the enemy can spent these points on stratagems as in Cities of Death: 22 generic stratagems – for example for one point you can decide on night fighting or place an automatic gun, for four you can shift your reserves, most expensive stratagems are at 12 points and are really drastic, every unspent point can be used once a game for a reroll
Interesting idea but I can see this being dropped by lots of players for simplicity or just bidding zero and planning for second turn. I like the idea of a store of rerolls though (that monolith just became even more unkillable). I wonder if seizing the initiative will remain (Vect cries a river) and if you can reroll it with one of teh stratagem points (Vect throws a party).
- new turn sequence: prepare-movement-assault-shooting-consolidate
new phase “consolidate” phase for random movements, jetpack movements, pursuits, morale checks/effects and resolving shooting reactions
assault before shooting – big units are real roadblocks!<<
Consolidate phase sounds sensible, assault before shooting is another huge change for some armies.
Heroic characters:
- independent characters more powerful, armour save and invulnerable save at the same time
- squad leaders more important, no more 50% rallying threshold, unit can rally as long as squad leader lives
- independent characters can snipe
I like the loss of the rallying limit but armour AND invulnerable, really?:eek:

More visceral combat:
- standard cover only 5+ now, Feel No Pain (1) only on 5+
- slow slogging units very vulnerable
- some weapon types are specialized in taking out specific unit types and are incredible good at doing this (sniper vs. infantry without armour), but on the other hand ordnance vs flyer isn’t going to do much
Less cover makes sense. weapon types matrix just adds more unnecessary complexity.
streamlined:
- no more random movement at all
- 5 general types of psychic powers
- wound allocation like 4th edition on unit basis, but attacker can chose every 5th wound to go to a single model (sniper weapon every second wound)
- artillery is normal immobile vehicle squadron, crew has no other game purpose than to be a counter for rate of fire and attacks
Running and fleet bites the dust, or will it be a predictable 3"?
Won't miss loss of crew, but actual artillery (i.e. not tanks) is very rare.
Wound allocation has gotten ridiculous in 5th but some units are going to be very expensive without it. Another nail in the Nob biker coffin.
clean up of combusted rules:
- there are tiers for most of the special rules. Instant Death (2) circumvents Eternal Warrior (1) for example. Feel No Pain (1) is 5+, Feel No Pain (2) is 4+ and Feel No Pain (3) is 3+. If no value is given, the special rule is tier 1.
- no more difference between leadership test and morale test
- terrain rules on a single page, true line of sight, non-vehicles models are ignored altogether, rules for special terrain like bunkers, ruins or deathworld mangroves in narrative rule section
Eeesh, yet more to keep track of.
less randomness, more strategic options:
- more elaborate reserve rules, can nominate turn of arrvial and has only small change to arrive earlier or later, or can intervene behind enemy lines, arrives randomly but can hinder enemy reserves, must be distributed evenly between turn two and three, later arrivals only randomly
-no more random game length
-no roll for first turn
Less randomness is good. I don't like that the end of game roll is 50 times more important than virtually any other cast of the dice
-deep striking units more than 18” from enemy away don’t scatter, but landing in 6” is much more dangerous
- movement impairing effects from pinning weapons even if morale check is passed (if roll is above halved Ld), Fearless not immune to this, but only effected if rolled over full Ld
Good to see pinning making a come back
- more reactions to shooting than going to the ground depending on unit type and special rules. bikes can evade (3+ cover as same as before, but cannot assault or shoot next turn), jump troops can fly high, units with Stealth can attempt to vanish, …
Sounds OK but a 3+ cover save and 6 to hit for jetbikes seems a bit much.

Overall sounds OK-ish.

I don't know what GW think they are going to achieve with their new market other than annoying their customers.

The new rules sound mostly plausible, although some seem to place too much emphasis on keeping track of things. A game where you have to keep writing things down or placing counters to remind you what each unit did in their turn is not 'streamlined'.

[Billyjoeray]

seems really drastic. I hope some of it isn't true because I think it might make things way too complicated. These rumors make it seem like they are streamlining some things but adding much more complexity and stuff to remember to a bunch of other things. I really hope they don't standardize or simplify the rule set too much more, although, on the other hand I hope that they don't make it so complicated that a game takes a billion hours to play. It also seems like they are punishing foot armies a little more with these rumors. I think I'm going to get my salt ready, but i am intrigued by some of this stuff.

[Denzark]

Since 2ed - 3ed GW hasn't made such radical changes. I think with their target audience getting ostensibly younger it would be surprising if they went for overly complex.

As such most of this sounds like tosh.

Especially the codex Chaos Legions. Sounds like rubbish to me as it would be too good to be true.

[lattd]

For streamlining rules why are half these rumours more complicated?

[Xas]

i love basically every bit but sadly they make too much sense for GW.

Squad leaders beeing more important would however explain one thing I never got with the DE codex (which is basically flawless except that one thing): improving the armor save for squad leaders from 5+ to 4+ for a hughe 10 points (its not like you were going to allocate any wounds on an expensive model just for that little gain in survival chance).


I like the stratagems and bidding for first turn. I was actually in the process of writing such a system for our apocalypse games to remove the dice roll/ time bidding thingy which both fit hughe games very badly.

Any form of bidding in games allows a hughe improvement in actual strategy. If the matchup sees first turn as not that important it can still be a hughe boon to get first turn by "just" spending that 1 point more than your oponent while bluffing a "go for the troath" tactic could easily net you big advantages cause your oponent spent many points on first turn.


assoult before shooting could easily mean a combination of all types of movement into the movement phase (which would equal lesser time spent moving. assoult based armies with fleet nowadays can happen to measure&move one model up to 4 times with move, fleet, assoult and massacre move).

depending on how it is written the move, assoult, shoot could also allow competent allrouners to kill up to two units per turn (mostly targetting MSU now). it would also mean a shift to make close combat a fair way of dealing with transports (basically allowing melee units to kill the transport and then your whole army to shoot the passgeners just like now you can kill it with a meltagun and then shoot them dead).

I could also see it as a great improvement to the tyranid codex in general. by just switching assoult and shooting the humble screamer killer carnifex suddenly turns into the close range killing machine it is supposed to be (open transport with 5 rerolling attacks and then blast the insides with your short range plasmacannon <3 ).


I'd also love seeing an all out errata for all the books like with fantasy. even if it didnt fix some issues it allowed for an allmost hasslefree transfer of the old books.

[Xanadu]

*Drives to a Factory in Maldon*

Some good some bad things here, some I really like, others I don't.


*Empties Skip of NaCl*

[DarkLink]

Incidentally, one of the rumor dudes on warseer had this to say:


starter set isnt black legion...... rest is kinda accurate



I also appreciate that the posters here haven't been all 'dur-du-dur, this sounds like wishlisting, dur-du-dur", like on just about every other forum. Mods should just delete any post containing the word wishlisting.



I think with their target audience getting ostensibly younger it would be surprising if they went for overly complex.

I never bought the young target audience thing. I could count the number of 40k players younger than about 14 that I've ever met on one hand. And almost all of those were kids being raised to play 40k by a parent who also played.

On the other hand, I've met dozens of older players who will drop their paycheck on the new army that just came out.

[Lancel]

I think one of the most fundamental changes suggested here is moving the assault phase to before the shooting phase. Very strange. This seriously reduces the strength of assault weapons, it would be interesting to know if routing the opponent means the squad can shoot after assaulting.

I'm taking salt with this though, just because it's so early, even though BoK has been right so far on the Sisters.

[Dalleron]

This sounds like the guys in charge of 8th ed WHFB were put in charge of the next ed of 40k, in that the changes are significant. If the changes turn out to be true.
This may have been playtest notes that probably shouldn't have seen the light of day.

[BrokenWing]

Assuming this is true...I'd hold your breath on complaining about Assault Weapons. Somehow I doubt they'd make all those changes but leave assault weapons the same.

[Kawauso]

Is anyone else excited by the implications of a Codex: Chaos Legions?

I would looove to have a fluffy, functional Thousand Sons army...

[Galadren]

- new turn sequence: prepare-movement-assault-shooting-consolidate
new phase “consolidate” phase for random movements, jetpack movements, pursuits, morale checks/effects and resolving shooting reactions
assault before shooting – big units are real roadblocks!<<

I don't like that, really. What I don't like is the assault before shooting. I know "realistic" isn't a term we like to use a lot with this game given that it isn't, but I think shooting then assault reflects a unit firing their weapons as they close with the enemy before charging. Personal opinion, though.

Taking these rumors with this much salt.

http://stevetilford.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/SaltMine.jpg

[slxiii]

Complete horse****. When's the last time you had rumours for books that are still a year out?

[Kawauso]

Complete horse****. When's the last time you had rumours for books that are still a year out?

A rule book for the game itself will take much more work, by more people, over a much longer period of time than a single codex.

[Dalleron]

I like how the Chaos Legions codex wouldn't "invalidate" the current codex. But really, who'd use the current one if a Legion one came out tomorrow?

[Kawauso]

I don't like that, really. What I don't like is the assault before shooting. I know "realistic" isn't a term we like to use a lot with this game given that it isn't, but I think shooting then assault reflects a unit firing their weapons as they close with the enemy before charging. Personal opinion, though.


I'm wary of a change like this, too.
But I don't imagine they would want to invalidate the already-minor shooting ability of units like Assault Marines (i.e. you're never going to buy flamers, etc. if you can't use them before an assault), so I imagine assault/pistol weapons would likely have some way of mattering in the assault phase, anyway, if these rumours are true.

Perhaps an out-of-sequence firing rule for such weapons, or some other way that they can impact on an assault.

[DarkLink]

Fearless ICs had better extend fearless to their unit in 6th.

[Galadren]

Fearless ICs had better extend fearless to their unit in 6th.

I agree with that completely. I think IC's should extend special rules to their squads in general as it would reflect their superior leadership and ability to pass on their expertise to the troops they lead.

[slxiii]

A rule book for the game itself will take much more work, by more people, over a much longer period of time than a single codex.

Which is one of many reasons why this is BS. You think the book is finished right now? If it was, very few people would have this kind of info.

[C.of.N.finity]

I don't think pistols will be considered CCW's anymore, but I think you will be allowed to shoot your assualt weapons while in combat. Gives a new meaning to 'assualt' weapons, and would level out the attack lost for pistols. Storm bolters and the like...could be interesting.

[Kawauso]

Which is one of many reasons why this is BS. You think the book is finished right now? If it was, very few people would have this kind of info.

The lengthy development cycle leaves more time for rumours to be leaked, and in greater quantity.
And as I said before, -more- people would be working on a rulebook as opposed to a codex - which means more people would have that kind of info, not less.

Barring adjustments from playtesting (which would be largely minor), yes, the book would be finished by about now if it's intended to come out next year, I would think.
The framework for 6th would have to be nailed down by now, by and large. Anything else would be risking feature creep. It takes a long time to iron out the kinks in a design, and that's what the time between now and a supposed next-year release would be for - playtesting and removing minor errors that crop up. This time would -not- be used for making any major changes to the rules/design.

I'm taking these rumours with a grain of salt like everyone else, of course - but there's too much detailed information here, all presented too reasonably, for me to discount them as false very easily. I'd say they're more true than false, and probably pretty close to what we might see in the next rulebook (barring elaboration on the details, of course).

[flekkzo]

Is anyone else excited by the implications of a Codex: Chaos Legions?

I would looove to have a fluffy, functional Thousand Sons army...

Chaos being given the same space as the empire would be awesome. With the last third given to xenos. Chaos Legions have tons of flavor that the rules don't reflect after all.

[slxiii]

The lengthy development cycle leaves more time for rumours to be leaked, and in greater quantity.
And as I said before, -more- people would be working on a rulebook as opposed to a codex - which means more people would have that kind of info, not less.

Barring adjustments from playtesting (which would be largely minor), yes, the book would be finished by about now if it's intended to come out next year, I would think.
The framework for 6th would have to be nailed down by now, by and large. Anything else would be risking feature creep. It takes a long time to iron out the kinks in a design, and that's what the time between now and a supposed next-year release would be for - playtesting and removing minor errors that crop up. This time would -not- be used for making any major changes to the rules/design.

I'm taking these rumours with a grain of salt like everyone else, of course - but there's too much detailed information here, all presented too reasonably, for me to discount them as false very easily. I'd say they're more true than false, and probably pretty close to what we might see in the next rulebook (barring elaboration on the details, of course).

Never trust rumours unless you trust the person telling the rumours. Anybody can make up random crap or post obvious, generalized statements to seem believable.

Here's what I heard:
Assault phase is getting major tune up, big move to streamlining game mechanics
Lots of changes to vehicle mechanics, focus on making vehicles less of an obvious choice
Cover going to become more standardized and less protective
Psychic powers more prevalent, Perils of the Warp chart
Many special rules getting reworked, no more Fearless wounds

Obviously I just spent half a minute thinking of the most obvious changes. I made all this stuff up, and it's vague enough that you'd believe it.

[Lockark]

The lengthy development cycle leaves more time for rumours to be leaked, and in greater quantity.
And as I said before, -more- people would be working on a rulebook as opposed to a codex - which means more people would have that kind of info, not less.

Barring adjustments from playtesting (which would be largely minor), yes, the book would be finished by about now if it's intended to come out next year, I would think.
The framework for 6th would have to be nailed down by now, by and large. Anything else would be risking feature creep. It takes a long time to iron out the kinks in a design, and that's what the time between now and a supposed next-year release would be for - playtesting and removing minor errors that crop up. This time would -not- be used for making any major changes to the rules/design.

I'm taking these rumours with a grain of salt like everyone else, of course - but there's too much detailed information here, all presented too reasonably, for me to discount them as false very easily. I'd say they're more true than false, and probably pretty close to what we might see in the next rulebook (barring elaboration on the details, of course).


I kinda have similar views to yours in this regard. We are at the point were 6th ed is effectively finished, and it being massively play tested, proof read, and tweaked for it's final release. Slowly we should start hereing more.


Their are changes here that do make alot of sence. One of the main problems in 40k is the fact rules are not always consistently written from book to book.

The best example of this currently is Insta-Death Vs. Eternal Warrior Vs. Remove from play. By making different "ranks" for Eternal Warrior and Insta-death, they will be able to write the rules more straight foreword, and rules writers will be able to write their rules more consistently with out relying on things like "remove from play" rules.

It's these streamlining and clarifying rules are the ones that I look foreword to, and I expect.


But their are other things here that force me to stop and pause, and scratch my head. Codex Legions and Renegades? (Wish listing much?) Different to hit charts based on what you are shooting at?!?!?!?! Biding points to go 1st? (Why would you ever not want to go 2nd and get stratagems to spend?) Don't even get me started on the new turn phases....


I'm taking alot of salt with this one, until I start hearing similar rumors from other more reliable sources.Their is still plenty of time until 6th ed comes out before we get a more clear pitcher on how this is all going to work, and what the final game will look like.

[Lancel]

In addendum, I will confess that it's not unfeasible for this to be true. At least the opener makes sense that this pissed off too many people and now they're blatantly defying it. Hey, maybe the next thing we'll see is the entire 6th Edition codex posted on WikiLeaks. :P

[Lockark]

Ghost21's reaction to this is kinda interesting.

http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=307825&page=3

He seems to suggest basically well not 100% accurate, their is some truth to this. Hopefully the stranger and more complex mechanics turn out to be incorrect.

=/

[abadon58]

Like the different to hit for moving units, always seemed unfair that a unit needs 3+ to shoot a static unit or a jetbike screaming flat out across the board. Like most of this as 5th is too dumbed down for kiddies

[DarkLink]

'Needlessly complex' is just as bad as 'dumbed down'. We'll have to wait and see if the new rules fall into either category.

[Rinion]

I hope most of that is false, they ruined Fantasy for me with 8th edition, and i don't think i like any of those changes.

40k is nice, simple, and easy as it is. Sure, there's one or two tweaks that would improve things, but nothing this stupidly complex and broad.

[yrdetraxe]

I really like what I'm reading. I would really appreciate a bit more complexity in the rules.
There is much potential for a much better 40k in these rumors.

I Just hope that GW doesn't f*ck it up. :D

[DrLove42]

A lot of this sounds like absolute bol**cks to me.

For a lot of this the FAQ and updates on all the codexes that would be needed would be huge.

You find that the people who think the 4+ cover save should be reduced are marine players. Players who play with most xenos races don't want them reduced. So seeing as its GW and everything is done to hepl the poster boys I wouldn't be suprised if the cover save got reduced to a 6+ but only if you pass an Initiative test...

As for the rumours...the BS chart makes sense for "realism" its too complex to remember. The bidding for turn 1 is stupid

Glad theres no mention of pre-measuring though

[HsojVvad]

You find that the people who think the 4+ cover save should be reduced are marine players. Players who play with most xenos races don't want them reduced. So seeing as its GW and everything is done to hepl the poster boys I wouldn't be suprised if the cover save got reduced to a 6+ but only if you pass an Initiative test...


Doesn't it always come down to what the Space Marine players complain the most? Just look at what happened to the DA. Funny how people say DA complain the most but it was the Space Marine players who whined and cried the most so what happened to DA, Chaos SM and Eldar that is when GW changed their design philosphy a 180 to make the SM happier. Now they have free grenades and free (old Fleet) now.

Yeah I can see why the cover saves are 5+ now so the SM players have the "easier button" even easier now.

This should be no surprise at all. :eek:

[Lord Azaghul]

Doesn't it always come down to what the Space Marine players complain the most? Just look at what happened to the DA. Funny how people say DA complain the most but it was the Space Marine players who whined and cried the most so what happened to DA, Chaos SM and Eldar that is when GW changed their design philosphy a 180 to make the SM happier. Now they have free grenades and free (old Fleet) now.

Yeah I can see why the cover saves are 5+ now so the SM players have the "easier button" even easier now.

This should be no surprise at all. :eek:

Not to sound like a troll, but SM ('nilla) do suck, they are very limited in effective options, and easily have an overprice point matrix, and effectly: a 4th ed rule book -

So I believe for 1 second that everything 'nid on word was written for 6th? No way!

As a guard player first and formost, I have no problem with the reduction of cover saves, but that with a 5th ed mind set...well see if people don't start clamoring for better cover if we have new 'to hit' modifiers.

[Defenestratus]

As both a SM player and an Eldar player, the 4+ cover save is just fine.

People that complain about them typically run shooty-heavy lists with little to no effective assault elements.

[AngelsofDeath]

The way I see it over 50% of 40K players use Space Marines. So as I can see how it may seem that GW may tailor things to Space Marine players or that Space Marine players may cry the most, they do in fact make up the majority of the population.

As far as 4+ save....If it wasnt for the Leaf Blower and all these other exploit type armies being played using 20 missile launchers or 15 meltas, the 4+ would not be an issue. If people had a spirited army list fielded from their codex and not some over the top over gunned list your opponent would not have to hide in cover. Then you would not get so frustrated that your over the top gun list didnt kill anything cause of the 4+ save. Or should I stand there in the open and make a persons ego grow (ego Ego EGO!!!) as I get pummeled by some list they pulled off the internet from douschebagacon?

Play the game and have fun people.

[Lockark]

The way I see it over 50% of 40K players use Space Marines. So as I can see how it may seem that GW may tailor things to Space Marine players or that Space Marine players may cry the most, they do in fact make up the majority of the population.

As far as 4+ save....If it wasnt for the Leaf Blower and all these other exploit type armies being played using 20 missile launchers or 15 meltas, the 4+ would not be an issue. If people had a spirited army list fielded from their codex and not some over the top over gunned list your opponent would not have to hide in cover. Then you would not get so frustrated that your over the top gun list didnt kill anything cause of the 4+ save. Or should I stand there in the open and make a persons ego grow (ego Ego EGO!!!) as I get pummeled by some list they pulled off the internet from douschebagacon?

Play the game and have fun people.

That sounded more like a rant then anything insightful about cover saves. "exploitative" lists have always been around, it's not hard to figure out what you need to do to exploit a list many times. I pointed out how good missile and razorback spam was to my gaming group when SM 1st came out. They only realized I was right when it was posted on the internet.

If Leaf Blower and missile spam is kicking your ***, then your not playing with LoS blocking terrain. This edition work best when played on a board with plenty of buildings that give cover and block LoS.

But all the same, I dough a core book change will see leafblower and misslespam go away. The lists will just change to accommodate the new meta game as they always do. Also Leafblower isn't that good anyway. Drop-pod melta kinda ruins their day.

[DarkLink]

If people had a spirited army list fielded from their codex and not some over the top over gunned list your opponent would not have to hide in cover. Then you would not get so frustrated that your over the top gun list didnt kill anything cause of the 4+ save. Or should I stand there in the open and make a persons ego grow (ego Ego EGO!!!) as I get pummeled by some list they pulled off the internet from douschebagacon?

There's so much bull@#$^ in this statement it's not even funny. At least you didn't use WAAC in there anywhere.

[C.of.N.finity]

Now I'm not a usual rumor monger but I heard this from a friend that got it off a reliable site:


Here's what I heard:
Assault phase is getting major tune up, big move to streamlining game mechanics
Lots of changes to vehicle mechanics, focus on making vehicles less of an obvious choice
Cover going to become more standardized and less protective
Psychic powers more prevalent, Perils of the Warp chart
Many special rules getting reworked, no more Fearless wounds


Take it with a pinch of salt as I hear the original poster likes to make things up, but otherwise this is all true! Your welcome ^_^


(yes, this is a joke post)

[AngelsofDeath]

There's so much bull@#$^ in this statement it's not even funny. At least you didn't use WAAC in there anywhere.

I guess I shouldnt step into your world, sorry. I stand corrected.

I was commenting on a prev post and I should have referenced that......pfff

[slxiii]

Now I'm not a usual rumor monger but I heard this from a friend that got it off a reliable site:



Take it with a pinch of salt as I hear the original poster likes to make things up, but otherwise this is all true! Your welcome ^_^


(yes, this is a joke post)

:D

[Occam]

I'm calling rubbish on most of this with possible exception of the flying stuff. This just seems completely at odds with the "simplify, simplify" mindset as of late.

[Bikeninja]

I agree, there does not seem to be anything simple about the changes mentioned. While I understand many of the elements are completely unknown it still seems to be on the difficult side of things. It may be simplier but GW does not have a reputation for great rules writing. Get ready for some more rules lawyering in the extreme.

[DrLove42]

The physcis power stamdarisation works in fantasy (for the magic) but would be horrific in 40K. When Rune Priests start casting Doom and Farseers can use JotWW I think its time to quit...

[rev]

Now I'm not a usual rumor monger but I heard this from a friend that got it off a reliable site:



Take it with a pinch of salt as I hear the original poster likes to make things up, but otherwise this is all true! Your welcome ^_^


(yes, this is a joke post)




lol love this humour, made me chuckle :)

[Anggul]

I'm absolutely loving the looks of this.

There's only one thing I'm not liking the sound of, and that's the weakening of cover and making foot-sloggers even worse. Cover is a massive deal in combat, and I think lessening that is an absolutely terrible idea. The only way I can see this being okay is if going to ground makes you pretty much invulnerable to enemy fire which isn't specifically designed to kill guys in cover. If you get down behind cover, there isn't a 50% chance that the enemy will hit you, it will be next to impossible for them to hit you without the right weaponry, e.g. grenade launchers, flamers, that sort of thing. A squad of guys which has taken position in terrain would be a hell of a lot harder to damage than a box driving at you through the open.

Transports should make you faster and able to cross the open more safely. What they should not be is utterly necessary for a unit to do anything. Squads running through terrain and squads in transports crossing open spaces should have their own place, transports should not just be superior.

Also, it just massively favours MEQ.

[DrLove42]

Cover doesn't need fixing. What needs fixing is peoples understanding of it. I've seen people play barbed wire and low bushes as 4+ saves. They're not! There is a whole section of the rules explainign different covers give different saves!

Its not as complex as 4th Ed was with size class cover, but it doens't say everything is a 4+

Maybe the "sacrificial meat shield" of 4+ cover save needs to be changed...maybe say the ones that are "saved" hit the squad in fron thats conferring the cover save?

[Xas]

if we are doing the cover discussion I'd like to add the following line of thought:

why does cover work as a saving trow?

why does a piece of concrete or a treetrunk protect you from 2/3 of the bullets but the 3rd (or 10th depending on how you roll) suddenly gets trough?



If we are looking at E5 it works cause the game is designed to be simple and fast (bar wound allocation) but if you go more complex I think cover should be a to hit modifier that makes stationary guys in hard cover as hard to hit as moving guys in light cover (say moving and light cover both giving -1 and hard cover -2).

going to ground then would be the thing granting you some kind of save. either by a charackteristics test (initiative seams logical) or a plain x+ (prolly depending on type of cover) but importantly: each model only has to make one of those rolls once a turn to sucessfully jump into cover and preventing all damage from cover-allowing wounds (those failing would have to use their normal saves).


this would make armor saves under 3+ more important as you'd not miraculously not use it cause you are in cover and by doing that make AP weapons more important (which easily would counteract the boost to 3+ and 2+). While this would make shooting appear more deadly it would mean that close combat/special weapons would be more important to clear objectives since saturation of fire wouldnt be the be-all-end-all of getting guys outa cover if they go to ground.

[HsojVvad]

This just seems completely at odds with the "simplify, simplify" mindset as of late.

Who says GW has to "simplify"? I am getting sick and tired of "simplify" "streamline" "making it easier for the common gamer" in video games it's getting tiresome to have this in table games as well.

I for one would love to have more complexity in games. So maybe GW is trying to do something different after "streamlining" 40K for 3 edtions they are trying something different now. AFter all if the game is too streamlined how are you going to keep all those ADD kids that GW has brought in? Maybe they finally realize that their customer base they brought it is no longer sustaining GW in the long run and they are tyring to bring back the people who will sustain GW in the long run now and not short term anymore.

[DrLove42]

if we are doing the cover discussion I'd like to add the following line of thought:

why does cover work as a saving trow?

why does a piece of concrete or a treetrunk protect you from 2/3 of the bullets but the 3rd (or 10th depending on how you roll) suddenly gets trough?



The thing is "cover" is a pretty broad area of "saves". It mostly encompasses stuff getting the way of the bullets yes.

But is also cover targets being hard to hit, because they're hidden, or too small.
In the case of Ork Nob bikers it covers being hard to see because of all the smoke
In Jetbikes its because you are moving too fast.

The idea of taking one cover "save" and therefore automatically passing the rest is ridiculous. I could cuase 40 wounds on 1 guy alone, and just cos he passes one save hes not damaged by the rest? That would be some gamebreaking its unreal.

As for Initiative tests for dodging bullets, that'd be great for the Eldar's of the world with Initiatives rarely below 4, and commonly higher, but for Orks and other things they'd just be screwed

[Defenestratus]

I personally feel that all these 6th ed rumors are rubbish.

Its not coming out until the end of 2012 at the earliest.

[eldargal]

Well it hs a longer development cycle so early leaks could be occurring. But I do have my doubts about these. GW tend to be very conservative with th BRB, with good reason. If they mess up a codex its upsetting for those players but hardly the end of the world. If they mess up a BRB, its a disaster, people could just stop playing and buying completely.


I do worry aboutthe psychic powers thing, if five general types means 'damage buff, defense buff, direct damage, debuff, heal/repair' with each codex having its own version of each, then no problem. If it means Eldar, Imperium, Ork, Chaos, whatever, then that is fine. But if Librarians/Sorcerors/whatever are casting the same spells as my Farseer and vice versa, then that is offensive to me. If I wanted a game where all the races were just variations on a theme and did the same things in much the same way I wouldn't be playing 40k.

[Melissia]

Lol, sniper rifles are still going to be useless.

[isotope99]

They do generally work hard to make sure that the rules continue to work with all or nearly all the books (I think Tomb Kings was a bit of a stop-gap in fantasy but was then second in the queue for a new book) and this is not an easy task, despite how much we enjoy raging at GW.

My guess is that these rumours (assuming that they aren't completely fabricated) are a whole menu of things that they looked at doing, some might make it, others will be discarded as too fundamental.

On the psychic powers point, my guess is that they would be looking at classifying the powers along the lines that eldargal said (shooting attack, combat attack, buff, curse, movement) so they can iron out some of the issues about who the target of a psychic power is. The magic colleges have always been around in fantasy (at least as long as I can remember) so didn't invalidate the books.

Timing will be interesting, I can't recall a release that wasn't a summer release so July/September 2012 does seem most likely.

[Anggul]

if we are doing the cover discussion I'd like to add the following line of thought:

why does cover work as a saving trow?

why does a piece of concrete or a treetrunk protect you from 2/3 of the bullets but the 3rd (or 10th depending on how you roll) suddenly gets trough?



If we are looking at E5 it works cause the game is designed to be simple and fast (bar wound allocation) but if you go more complex I think cover should be a to hit modifier that makes stationary guys in hard cover as hard to hit as moving guys in light cover (say moving and light cover both giving -1 and hard cover -2).

going to ground then would be the thing granting you some kind of save. either by a charackteristics test (initiative seams logical) or a plain x+ (prolly depending on type of cover) but importantly: each model only has to make one of those rolls once a turn to sucessfully jump into cover and preventing all damage from cover-allowing wounds (those failing would have to use their normal saves).


this would make armor saves under 3+ more important as you'd not miraculously not use it cause you are in cover and by doing that make AP weapons more important (which easily would counteract the boost to 3+ and 2+). While this would make shooting appear more deadly it would mean that close combat/special weapons would be more important to clear objectives since saturation of fire wouldnt be the be-all-end-all of getting guys outa cover if they go to ground.

Yup, this is why Fantasy shooting is superior. Cover should make 'to hit' modifiers, not saves!

[Defenestratus]

Lol, sniper rifles are still going to be useless.

C'tan, wraithlords and big bugs beg to differ with you on that.

[Rissan4ever]

I sincerely hope that cover saves won't all be reduced to 5+. Cover is the only thing that keeps my little Guardsmen alive. Losing a third of that would suck tremendously.

I'm still a fan of variable cover saves depending on the type of cover. If, say, woods and hedges were 5+, but stone/concrete walls an ruins were 4+, that would be OK.

[Havik110]

I really don't like the BS chart rumor and hope it's not true. Aside from over complicating things really fast, it's going to cause a sudden explosion in all jetbike armies.

The rest I rather like...except the bidding for first turn. It seems like people won't really want to bid to go first, because not doing so is alot better than doing so.

bAh, this makes a raider army as viable as a rhino army.

raider moves 24 and guard and tau have a harder time hitting it, cry me a river...This makes the game much more realistic. In the end it would be much easier to hit a rhino than it would be a raider moving flat out. it would be much harder to hit a bike going at high speed than a unit of infantry running straight at you.
I sincerely hope that cover saves won't all be reduced to 5+. Cover is the only thing that keeps my little Guardsmen alive. Losing a third of that would suck tremendously.

I'm still a fan of variable cover saves depending on the type of cover. If, say, woods and hedges were 5+, but stone/concrete walls an ruins were 4+, that would be OK.

The cover mechanic in 5th is broken. You will learn to play the game again, just as we did when 3rd turned to 4th and 4th turned to 5th. fear not, your army is still the best or 2nd best in the game, maybe not in 6th but you have a full year at least not to have to worry about it...

and finally, as I know GW is a wise company, maybe they could put their experimental rules online as privateer did and let us test them so that we can give them feedback on what broken. I know that they say their games is not meant for competitive play but in the end it wouldnt be nice for the rules to work out of the box? maybe then we could also tell them rules that need to be fixed in the army books to bring them into line? I am sure GW sees the value of the thousands of people that would give feedback just as privateer press did...

[Melissia]

C'tan, wraithlords and big bugs beg to differ with you on that.

You mean some of the least used models in the game?

[Melissia]

and finally, as I know GW is a wise company*bursts into raucous laughter*

[wittdooley]

Apparently you missed the dripping sarcasm loaded into that statement.

BTW... No one cares what Privateer did. This is a thread about 40k 6th Ed.

[Hive Mind]

FWIW, the stuff in the OP about exports and EU law is total rubbish. The suggested 'fix' to contravention of EU law is still a contravention of EU law.

[GrenAcid]

The thing is "cover" is a pretty broad area of "saves". It mostly encompasses stuff getting the way of the bullets yes.

But is also cover targets being hard to hit, because they're hidden, or too small.
In the case of Ork Nob bikers it covers being hard to see because of all the smoke
In Jetbikes its because you are moving too fast.

The idea of taking one cover "save" and therefore automatically passing the rest is ridiculous. I could cuase 40 wounds on 1 guy alone, and just cos he passes one save hes not damaged by the rest? That would be some gamebreaking its unreal.

As for Initiative tests for dodging bullets, that'd be great for the Eldar's of the world with Initiatives rarely below 4, and commonly higher, but for Orks and other things they'd just be screwed

I agree thats stupid.
But rest of Xas post is intresting....sound idea.

I dont like "dumbed down" 5Ed soo any change for me is good. Thing Im concerned most is how they handle assault guns if they rly change turn sequence.

[Defenestratus]

You mean some of the least used models in the game?

It must suck to play games against players who use nothing but the netdeck lists.

[wittdooley]

It must suck to play games against players who use nothing but the netdeck lists.

Touche'.

Man, there's nothing quite as fun as a horde IG army....

[dwez]

2 Starter sets? Not one box with 2 armies As much as a Dark Angel set appeals to me but how are they going to judge which will be the more popular? These situations, like when iMacs came in many colours guarantee there'll be plenty of Sage green left on the shelf when Ruby Red and Indigo are flying out the door.

Of course splitting the box means they can charge the same price for half the content. So much for those web stories about the GW guys buying two boxes and splitting the opposing figures between them for twice the fun...

[Scammeleon]

I'm quite worried... A lot of these new rules look like they'll start to overcomplicate matters. I'm not sure I like getting rid of the randomness aspect though... I for one always liked that extra challenge of having to prepare around not knowing whether one player could snatch victory at the last second!
The "consolidate" phase sounds like a handy addition to make things a bit smoother. It's about time flyers were brought in properly.

And I'm very very pleased about the new BS rules, though I was hoping for distance to be factored in (why oh why does a marine have a 50/50 chance of hitting something when it's a foot away and a 50/50 chance when it's 48 yards away) it always bothered me how evasiveness had no part in 40k... But maybe that's just because I'm an embittered Eldar/Dark Eldar/Nid player. It always seemed evasiveness was covered under "cover saves" which is a different thing entirely. I can't help but feel this is going to make DE a LOT less fragile.

[Melissia]

It must suck to play games against players who use nothing but the netdeck lists.What, you mean because people don't take very specific units their lists are "netdeck"?

How snobby.

Shove it.

[Gir]

What, you mean because people don't take very specific units their lists are "netdeck"?

How snobby.

Shove it.

"Big Tyranid Bugs" is hardly specific.

[DrBored]

What, you mean because people don't take very specific units their lists are "netdeck"?

How snobby.

Shove it.

When your list mirrors a netdeck, you're netdecking. When your list doesn't mirror a netdeck, you're not netdecking. It's not about being snobby, it's about being right.

But anyway, back on topic.

I do think a lot of this is going to fall through. Bidding for first turn, the BS chart... all that's going to fall through, and I think victory points are going to take a back seat, a thing you can include or not depending on the casualness of the game. The more you have to keep track of, the more opportunities there are for people to break the game, cheat, and otherwise be a complete bag.

[Melissia]

When your list mirrors a netdeck, you're netdecking. When your list doesn't mirror a netdeck, you're not netdecking. It's not about being snobby, it's about being right.Except it's not right, it's just stupid. The dude insinuated that people who didn't use c'tan or wraithlords were all "netdeck" lists which is incredibly douchey.

[HsojVvad]

What is "netdecking"? I never herd of this before.

[Melissia]

It's some stupid word for army lists that are created with the help of advice from people online.

[DarkLink]

When your list mirrors a netdeck, you're netdecking. When your list doesn't mirror a netdeck, you're not netdecking. It's not about being snobby, it's about being right.


No. If you write your own list, then you're using your own list. Just because someone comes along and is like "dur-du-dur, your list looks suspiciously familiar" doesn't mean you're "netlisting".

[Defenestratus]

What, you mean because people don't take very specific units their lists are "netdeck"?

How snobby.

Shove it.

Oh Melissia,

Believe me - I am the last person on this forum that you want to get in a verbal sparring match with.

The fact of the matter is that the only people who are so "snobbish" as to assume that NOBODY takes the aforementioned units because of their purported uselessness is someone who has a rather myopic view of the state of the hobby in general.

Dare I say that your espoused opinion reflects player with a confined set of opponents who are obviously concerned with taking the most effective units - and not units that they "just like".

Its amazing how these supposedly worthless units are suddenly not only fun to play with but ... *gasp* effective, when you aren't playing against the latest flavor of the month internet list (or what is considered a netdeck list).

So your insistence that these units are never used is, on the face of it, false in every facet of the context in which you placed it.

Thats how we "shove it" around here m'lady. If you want to get off the porch with me - then bring it. I will make you sorry that you ever crawled out of that hole that was apparently neither dark nor deep enough to confine you.

[Melissia]

Believe me - I am the last person on this forum that you want to get in a verbal sparring match with.I don't give a damn what you think you are.


The fact of the matter is that the only people who are so "snobbish" as to assume that NOBODY takes the aforementioned unitsAn assertion you pulled out of your *** and not out of my posts.
because of their purported uselessnessAn assertion you pulled out of your *** and not out of my posts.
Dare I say that your espoused opinion reflects player with a confined set of opponents who are obviously concerned with taking the most effective units - and not units that they "just like".An assertion you pulled out of your *** and not out of my posts.
Its amazing how these supposedly worthless unitsAn assertion you pulled out of your *** and not out of my posts.


Shove 'em all back up there. I said they were "some of the least taken units". Nothing more. I didn't say they were uncompetitive, I didn't say I didn't like them, I didn't say I never saw them, I didn't say I never faced them, I didn't say they were never used. You said that, and then claimed that I did because you are a liar or because you misread-- either way, you're wrong, and you should stop.

You like the models, good for you. You use them, good for you. I don't care. But don't pull assertions out thin air and then attribute them to me.

[L192837465]

LOL Is it sad I really am only interested in threads that Melissa posts in because she's hilarious?

I say go at it you two. I'll be here with Jelly Bellies and popcorn.


\nom nom nom

[Defenestratus]

Ohh fantastic!


Quote bombs followed by nonsense replies.

First of all, my assertions are the complete truth. I particularly like that you accused me of making assertions that I pulled out of my (something, I don't know what, I wouldn't want to assert something that you didn't intend).

Lets review and indulge in some critical thought, rather than visceral mindless retaliation.

You stated originally in post #61 that:

Lol, sniper rifles are still going to be useless.

To which I replied that they are useful now against specific units such as C'tan, Wraithlords and Big bugs to which you replied in post #67:

You mean some of the least used models in the game?

To which I simply said "If you play against nothing but netdecked lists then I suppose that would be the case" (I paraphrase because I find it very unbecoming to quote myself)

To which you told me that I was a "snob" and to "shove it."

I think that its important to realize where we started here.


1st non-think canned response: An assertion you pulled out of your *** and not out of my posts.

I didn't pull it out of your posts. I simply stated my opinion. Its snobbish to assume that these units are some of the "least used" models in the game when the only empirical data you could possibly have to support that would be the collated lists from competitive events. Your ancedotal evaluation of the usage rate of certain models is no better than mine, and I see those units all the time.


2nd non-think canned response: An assertion you pulled out of your *** and not out of my posts.

Sure I did. You said Sniper rifles were "useless" because the only units that they're effective against are hardly ever taken. Perhaps the units themselves aren't useless but there certainly is a reason why you think these units are hardly ever used. Certainly it can't be because there are too many sniper rifles on the table - can it?


3rd non-think canned response: An assertion you pulled out of your *** and not out of my posts.

Ok you got me here! I don't know what kind of groups you play in. I don't know anything about you other than you're a very annoying, overly self-assured forum troll whose sense of righteous indignation has her convinced that the entire internet is a bunch of knickle dragging primates compared to her vast intellect. Sorry, there I go on assumptions again - or is it an observation.... hrmph.


Shove 'em all back up there.

I'm sure glad that we've achieved such a stupendously mature level of debate here. No wonder everyone just ignores you.


I said they were "some of the least taken units". Nothing more.

When coupled to your comment about sniper rifles, any rational, critically thinking human being can connect the dots. You've said a lot more - how about your comment somewhere about why nobody takes 9 pentient engines? If I recall, it was "because they suck" was your reply.


You said that, and then claimed that I did because you are a liar or because you misread-- either way, you're wrong, and you should stop.

I did say all those things. And I was correct (the fact that they were assertions and opinionsdoesn't mean that they aren't correct) and no, I wont stop - nor will I bow to what I'm sure you think is a venomous tongue (or fingers or whatever).


You like the models, good for you. You use them, good for you. I don't care.

...
An assertion you pulled out of your *** and not out of my posts.

[Defenestratus]

Before you reply with another one of your vitriolic tantrums Melissia, let me forewarn you that my reply might not be forthcoming until later this evening. Sadly I must go procure more funds through my labor with which I can pay my ISP to make more supposed assertions on the internet.

[Lockark]

Dare I say that your espoused opinion reflects player with a confined set of opponents who are obviously concerned with taking the most effective units - and not units that they "just like".

Its amazing how these supposedly worthless units are suddenly not only fun to play with but ... *gasp* effective, when you aren't playing against the latest flavor of the month internet list (or what is considered a netdeck list).


Erm... So what your saying is a less effective units are usefulls when your opponent also handicaps himself? That isn't a very good argument in all honesty and is very subjective....
=/

Not to mention thier is nothing wrong with a gameing group that enjoys playing at a more competitive level. Every gaming group is different. I don't want to make assumptions, but I just assumed Melissa plays with more competitive groups and in more tourney settings. As opposed to your self, who I get the impresstion you are a more "beer and pretzel type" of player.



The truth is in most tournes? Yes. Most MC's are pretty bloody useless. (Note: Most is not the same is all. Their are always exceptions and surprises.) But now that all MC's only have a +3Sv at best, and the name of many people's game is missle launchers? Yah. MC's die prety quickly in general. I personal play offten in such a setting, and the only time I ever see a MC is when playing ageist CSM. (Usely because their the most coast effective HQ in the book sadly.)

And even then thows to have been slowly disappearing. As many CSM players just started playing count-as their army as space wolfes or start collecting other armies until a new CSM book comes out.


But all the same. With missile launchers dirt cheap or even free in most current SM books, their is very little reason to take snipers in said army. (Missles will do that same thing plus more for less points.)

Even with guard their is very little reason to fit them in your list when you already have so much cheap heavy weaponry.


Melissia's argument for why snipers and MC's are irrelevant in most competive settings currently is not unfounded.


In the end of the day, different strokes for different folks yeah know? A Bear and Pretzels looking down on competitive players is just as snobbish as competitive players looking down on the bear and pretzel gamers in all honesty. This is a two way street.

=/

[GrenAcid]

Most of the time I skip Melissa post cuz they put no usefull things to conversation on this forum....but now its actualy funny to read, ehh.....I bow my head to Defenestratus for will to reply for her trol post.


Erm... So what your saying is a less effective units are usefulls when your opponent also handicaps himself? That isn't a very good argument in all honesty and is very subjective....
=/

So you saying fun list are handicaps...yeah thats ok....for someone who play competitive only.
But I still dont get why you cant play competitive with fun list...Its some kind of rule?? Having fun list make you play to lose?....nah...

I welcome changes but dont hope for nothing, cuz as we all know: "Hope is the first step on the road of disappointment".

[Melissia]

First of all, my assertions are the complete truth.
[and the rest of the pathetic tripe]Oh shutup already.



C'tan, wraithlords and big bugs beg to differ with you on that.You mean some of the least used models in the game?That is the post you responded to.

The only thing I said was quite specific: those three units are some of the least used models in the game. All other assertions about those units were made by you. Get to shoving it. Nobody likes people who make things up and then say other people said them.

[Lancel]

Personally I find it ironic that he's trying to lecture a Sisters player on netdecks and unused models. She plays an entire army of seldom used units.

Liking units is sometimes about more than just using them. Sometimes people would rather not use them because they like them so much. Very disheartening when your favorite unit gets mowed down in droves. Besides, saying that a unit is suddenly effective when it isn't fighting a netdeck list can imply a lot of things, the best of which is only being good in certain situations which apparently netdeck lists prohibit from getting into. The other being exactly what Lockark said.

Also I don't know why everyone always tries to play the "ignore" card on Melissia. I mean no one ever does. I rather like Melissia's posts, and her blog that she forgot about. I'm just waiting for her to have enough of the disingenuous assertions and click the left mouse button. Or maybe she already did.

And this topic just led me to pick an avatar pic, so kudos for the inspiration.

[Melissia]

and her blog that she forgot about.To be fair, that IS the name of the blog. "A blog I probably won't update"

[Morgan Darkstar]

Personally I find it ironic that he's trying to lecture a Sisters player on netdecks and unused models. She plays an entire army of seldom used units.

Liking units is sometimes about more than just using them. Sometimes people would rather not use them because they like them so much. Very disheartening when your favorite unit gets mowed down in droves. Besides, saying that a unit is suddenly effective when it isn't fighting a netdeck list can imply a lot of things, the best of which is only being good in certain situations which apparently netdeck lists prohibit from getting into. The other being exactly what Lockark said.

Also I don't know why everyone always tries to play the "ignore" card on Melissia. I mean no one ever does. I rather like Melissia's posts, and her blog that she forgot about. I'm just waiting for her to have enough of the disingenuous assertions and click the left mouse button. Or maybe she already did.

And this topic just led me to pick an avatar pic, so kudos for the inspiration.

Ok that avatar looks familiar, where did it come from? would probably make a good SM Chapter icon too. :p

[Lancel]

To be fair, that IS the name of the blog. "A blog I probably won't update"

True, it is. No one has any room to complain.


Ok that avatar looks familiar, where did it come from? would probably make a good SM Chapter icon too. :p

It probably would, but it's probably going on the sleeves of my Celestian Squad in some variation to help distinguish them from basic Sisters. Paragon symbol from Mass Effect 2.

[Morgan Darkstar]

Paragon symbol from Mass Effect 2.

Ah thats it I knew i had seen it somewhere, not played ME2 for a while. May go back to it before ME3 comes out.

[Lancel]

Ah thats it I knew i had seen it somewhere, not played ME2 for a while. May go back to it before ME3 comes out.

I'm marathoning all three when ME3 comes out.

[Verdius]

so.... as a guard player these changes mean this for me...

1: Everything must now be in vehicles
2: All vehicles should have extra armor
3: this is about to get very boring

god i hope this is a bunch of crap

[Lockark]

So you saying fun list are handicaps...yeah thats ok....for someone who play competitive only.
But I still dont get why you cant play competitive with fun list...Its some kind of rule?? Having fun list make you play to lose?....nah...


Fun is subjective.

I find it fun to create the best and most competitive lists I can.

Some people say a fun list is using what ever units they like.

Different strokes for diffrent folks and all that.

[pgmason]

those three units are some of the least used models in the game.

Really? I regularly see Trygons, Tervigons, Carinfexes and Wraithlords on the table. C'tan not so much, but largely because there's not many necron players in my group. One of them always uses a C'tan though.

[Sister Rosette Soulknyt]

Agreed i hanve't seen a single necron player in a few years around where i am, depressing actually. Me, i'm the only SoB player actually too. Though i don't know what else more GW could do in 6th ed.

[HsojVvad]

Really? I regularly see Trygons, Tervigons, Carinfexes and Wraithlords on the table. C'tan not so much, but largely because there's not many necron players in my group. One of them always uses a C'tan though.

And I always see Space Marines hiding in Vehicles and not coming out so they don't get shot. So what is the point?

People are not allowed to use Trygons, Tervigons, Carnifexes and Wraithlords now? No more C'tan either?

How about the SM stop hiding and cowering in Vehicles? So much for the MIGHTY Space Marines.

[Defenestratus]

Oh shutup already.

No. Your arguments are weak and you rely upon some of the most typical intellectually vapid bullying techniques ever used.




That is the post you responded to.


Which was a response to one of my comments. Its called a discussion - do you like to take comments out of context?



The only thing I said was quite specific: those three units are some of the least used models in the game. All other assertions about those units were made by you.


No you said that "sniper rifles suck -> my post about about units that they are effective against -> your snarky comment about the least used models in the game." Am I really making a huge cognitive leap here? No.


Get to shoving it. Nobody likes people who make things up and then say other people said them.

Thanks for your recommendations. Do you have ANYTHING substantive to say? I doubt it. Internet bullies rarely do.

[Melissia]

My arguments aren't weak, you're just being an idiot and claiming I said something that I never said. Go away child.

No matter how much you lie, I never said the units weren't competitive or that noone took them. Stop being stupid.

[Lancel]

And I always see Space Marines hiding in Vehicles and not coming out so they don't get shot. So what is the point?

People are not allowed to use Trygons, Tervigons, Carnifexes and Wraithlords now? No more C'tan either?

How about the SM stop hiding and cowering in Vehicles? So much for the MIGHTY Space Marines.

Did someone order a METAL BAWXES reference?

[Defenestratus]

My arguments aren't weak, you're just being an idiot and claiming I said something that I never said. Go away child.

No matter how much you lie, I never said the units weren't competitive or that noone took them. Stop being stupid.

Where in my evaluation of your statements do you claim I lie?

"sniper rifles suck -> my post about about units that they are effective against -> your snarky comment about the least used models in the game."

Where?

You should be a politician - excellent ability to deny what you have previously stated, bully opponents away from an argument on which you stand on unstable foundations, and lack of any kind of critical thought - all with the all so cliche "you lie!!!" defense.

Stop trying to obfuscate and avoid. If you are so self-assured that I need to "go away child" then tell me exactly where in my explanation that I have gone awry.

You can't because I am correct. I framed the debate and you have nothing to say beyond attacking me and calling me names. Yet you have the gall to call ME a child.

[Lockark]

So hey! How about thows rumors of thier being three new armies being added to the game. Ghost21 at warseer has hinted that along with Codex Chaos Legions, we are also going to get Codex Hurd and Codex Ad Mec.

I personally find all of this very interesting prospects! Especially as a fan of Chaos, and as someone who enjoys the Dark Mechanics.

[Lancel]

So Adeptus Mechanicus and maybe something like the Lost and the Damned. What the heck is Hurd though?

[Michael_maggs]

So hey! How about thows rumors of thier being three new armies being added to the game. Ghost21 at warseer has hinted that along with Codex Chaos Legions, we are also going to get Codex Hurd and Codex Ad Mec.

I personally find all of this very interesting prospects! Especially as a fan of Chaos, and as someone who enjoys the Dark Mechanics.

as a chaos player i would rather an all in one book with just one legion specific unit for each (eg noise marines emperors children, techmarine iron warriors ect.)
maybe having the ability to upgrade a lord to a legion that unlocks the legion specific unit like deathwing army, maybe even include renegade cultists/PDF

shame this probably wont happen as i think it would distill and blend the best parts of the two previous codexes (simple entries but lots of them for variety) i would personally prefer a Codex: traitors and renegades anyday

[Melissia]

Oh great, Defenestratus is still ranting on. It's getting boring fast. Shutup already, nothing good will come of continuing to try to drag this topic off topic.
So Adeptus Mechanicus and maybe something like the Lost and the Damned. What the heck is Hurd though?

Hrud, he means.

http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/mediawiki/images/3/3b/Hrud.jpg

Crouched, diminutive creatures with ratlike tails, hiding under ragged robes and hoods. They have a distortion field which makes them hard to spot even in a well lit room, makes it hard for the eye to focus on them, their limbs have bone structures similar to a particularly flexible spine allowing them insane mobility, they sweat poison, and their bodies quickly putrefy and liquefy upon death. They also have an entropic field that ages things near them-- defenders of one planet having aged fifty years in the span of several months of fighting Hrud. Their technology is deeply tied to the warp, and they use fusils which fire warp-based plasma as their primary weapon.

Basically a sort of grimdark space skaven.

[The_Farseer]

How about we get back to some rumors now? ;) this is taken from BoK take with salt, lots of salt.


persuaded my source to give me more (some would say: everything there is ), the following is copy and pasted from hour long icq sessions, so there might be some missing bits, but most of the time, nothing has changed. we all know what unit coherency is, these are not actual rule texts but answers for my questions about the rules
I tried to arrange all fragments in proper order and corrected grammar, but most kudos go to my friend for being helpful while being annoyed of GW

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
As I am done with GW forever. I love the miniatures, I like the new rules (been pretty enthusiastic about it), but I hate the company, that makes them. If you knew what I know you would feel the same. GW doesn’t care for their customers one bit. The whole corporal culture is cynical as hell. The managers despise the hobby and all immatures who play it. There is a huge rift in the management and most of the executives that actually play the game have left or are leaving the company right now.

Layout
Pretty crisp and clean
on odd pages there is the normal rule text with examples, on even pages there are the usual diagrams and charts, and small boxes with definitions
Lots of rules that were formerly explained within the text, are now only summarized in the text, the full rules are given in these boxes, you can read the rules text very fast without much detail, there are some boxes that have a name of a rule, but are empty otherwise. I guess that there should be page references to later pages, for example in the terrain rules, there is Torrent of Fire mentioned, the rule is explained much later (in a box), there is an empty box in the terrain section that reads Torrent of Fire however
So you have both: clear rules veterans and easy reading for first-timers
But it seems that there is not much space left for pictures, though

Fundamentals:
characteristic tests as normal,
if unit must make test, it is made by squad leader
vehicles fail every test automatically if they don’t have the value
test on ld is made with single D6 on halved value, vehicles pass these tests automatically
Majority characteristic: characteristic-value with most wounds in unit, if draw, use the higher

Keep track on:
wounds
movement distance
morale condition
everything else can be forgotten between actions

Saves:
4 kind of changes: armour save, cover save, invulnerable save, Feel no Pain
no model can ever make more than two saves or one re-rollable save
normal models can only make one roll or one re-rollable roll
Situation where two rolls are eligible:
- one of the saves is FnP
- model is character
- model is bracing

Feel no Pain (1-3): save on 5+,4+,3+, only negated by AP 1, 2 and wounds that don’t allow armour saves, the only save that every model and not only ICs may take in addition to another save

Actions
The rules make really clear what an unit can do and what not. There is an own chapter for the basic concepts. Every special rule has only to state: can do x, y, z and it is perfectly clear that the unit can still a, b and c
Actions:
- movement: movement in movement phase, sometimes only special types of movement are allowed: advance, surge, flat out, fleet; charge and disembark have to be rules out explicitly
- consolidate moves: every other move, has to be mentioned explicitly
- psychic powers
- shooting
- Reactions
- residual actions: any other action, for example popping smoke
unit is immobile: abbreviation for cannot move, react, make consolidation moves

Reactions
models can react every time the conditions are met

- Going to Ground:
who: non-vehicles, non-monstrous creatures
when: unit is being shot at, before rolls are made
instant effect: -
lasting effect: Suppressed, if not already Suppressed

- Brace:
who: tanks, walkers, monstrous creatures
when: being shot at, before rolls are made
instant effect: one weapon destroyed ignored, two saves for MC like IC
lasting effect: Suppressed, if not already Suppressed

- Flying High:
who: jet pack infantry, jump infantry, jetbikes
when: being shot at
instant effect: count as being flyer for shooting, opposing player can make 6” consolidation move with the unit
lasting effect: Suppressed, if not already Suppressed

- Evade:
who: skimmer, fast non-tanks, jetbikes, bikes, jet pack infantry, jump infantry
when: unit is being rammed or tank shocked and nearly fails morale check
instant effect: on 3+ can make 6” consolidation move, ignores ram if out of the way
lasting effect: -

- Return Fire:
who: (disembarked) units with Overwatch
when: unit is shot at the first time in the phase
instant effect: unit can fire rapid fire and assault weapons with a single shot at attacking unit, range 12”, resolved simultaneously, opposing unit is fearless (2) and stubborn for this purpose
lasting effect: -

- Charge by chance:
who: non-vehicles, walkers
when: Trapped, tank shock
instant effect: charge by chance
lasting effect: -

Terrain:
there are two different things: to be in cover, to be in terrain
every piece of terrain has a footprint, if an unit is this area or touches it, it is in terrain, being in terrain is important for movement and assaults
to decide if a model is in cover, you use true line of sight, cover is usually used for shooting, though some weapons use terrain

terrain is open, impassable, or has any number of the following attributes:
- difficult terrain: unit can only advance through it, if a single model moves through
- dangerous terrain:
units that move through dangerous terrain must make a test
non-vehicles make dangerous terrain test for every model that has actually moved through it at the end of the phase
vehicles must designate a point where they enter the terrain before the movement, than make the test, if vehicle is stunned, immobilized or destroyed, move it to designated point in a straight line
for every failed test, the unit gets a hit
non-vehicles: failed on 1: auto wound on unit, allocated together as Torrent of Fire
vehicles: roll depends on movement distance: advanced = failed on 1, surged = failed on 1-3, flat out = failed automatically, vehicle gets S8 hit against side armour
walker only ever fail on 1
non-vehicle units make only a single dangerous terrain test a turn, vehicles every time they enter a different dangerous terrain
- leveled: must spend movement for vertical advancement, non-walker vehicles and bikes can’t move vertical in leveled terrain

difficult and dangerous terrains are always ignored if the movement isn’t taking place in the own movement phase

Preparation and consolidation phase
These phases are collecting basin for all kinds of action that takes place before the movement or at the end of the turn. The player which turn it is may choose the order of these actions freely.

preparation phase: psychic powers, placing reserves, rallying, joining/ leaving, claiming mission markers

consolidation phase: rallying, consolidation moves, jet pack moves, joining/ leaving, embarking, killing multi-wounded units

consolidation move: moves outside the movement phase (jet pack movement, embarking, joining/leaving, falling back, moves after combat, tank shock evasion …) and moves that are described as consolidation moves are consolidation moves
cannot end in contact with enemy, ignores terrain even if performed in own movement phase, all units are relentless for this movement, can move even if fired heavy weapon, can fire heavy weapon afterwards, doesn’t affect unit speed for being shot at if not stated otherwise

Abandon: If there is more than one model with less than its initial wounds in an unit in the consolidation phase, the owning player must remove all but one as casualty ( ID(3) ). Independent characters are ignored.

movement phase:
Units can stay stationary or move in different speeds. They can advance and use their normal movement or they can surge and double their movement distance. Some units can go flat out or fleet and triple their movement.

Advance: normal movement: every action allowed
Surge: double movement: close combat, consolidate moves, psychic powers, reactions, residual action allowed
Flat out: movement: triple movement: only reactions allowed, use own columns on to hit chart
Fleet movement: triple movement, can charge, count as moving against shooting, cannot forced surge

If the unit goes through difficult terrain it can only advance. No unit can ever go flat out or fleet through terrain.

Forced surge: Units can surge through terrain if they are allowed to go flat out outside terrain this turn. Tanks cannot force surge (except during a ram).
If the unit fails an I-test, terrain is treated as dangerous terrain.
During a charge, every unit can try to surge through. If the I-test is failed, the unit still can only advance. units, that have passed their I-test for the fleet movement, automatically pass this I-test.
Can’t surge if there is another reason for the restriction to advance movement than terrain.

Unit types:
infantry: 6”
beasts/cavalry: 8”, fleet (1)
jump infantry: 8”, ignore terrain*
jet pack infantry: 6”, ignore terrain*, 6” move in consolidation phase
jetbikes: 10”, ignore terrain*, flat out
(eldar jetbike: jetbike with Fleet (2) )
bikes: 8”, flat out, cannot force surge
vehicles: 6”
fast vehicles: 6”, flat out
fast skimmer: 8”, flat out
walker: 6”, treat terrain like infantry

* as long as they don’t start or end in terrain

Fleet (1): infantry, beasts, monstrous creature, jump infantry, jet pack infantry: I-test, if successful, can perform fleet movement, can always advance during disembarkation;
bikes and jetbikes: I-test successful: can make 6” move in consolidation phase
Fleet (2)/Bounding Leap: as Fleet (1), no I-Test required

Random movement: roll a D6: 1-2 unit moves as infantry, 3-4 unit moves as jump infantry but cannot ignore terrain, 5-6 unit moves as beast

Charging:
no model may enter 1” of enemy models unless it charges,
the only difference between a charge and a normal movement is: models may enter 1” of enemy models.
all other movement restrictions apply, unit must stay in coherency, are subject to terrain
charging units can make a forced surge
an unit can charge more than one unit, but must stay in coherency, cannot move closer than 1” to enemy units that are not charged
The units in contact are now locked. If any model moved through terrain, the defending unit can claim to be in terrain in the assault phase, in the assault phase, both unit pile in before trading blows

Charge by chance:
sometimes units are forced to perform a charge in another phase than the movement phase, the charge by chance is a pile in move, as if the charging and defending unit were locked but have lost contact, the defending unit can make a pile in move afterwards (even if it is his phase, the defending player piles in last).
the combat is fought in the next assault phase and no side counts as attacker or being in terrain, no side can use grenades, no further pile in moves occur before the fighting

Movement distance is important for shooting, only the attempted movement in the movement phase counts (other movements do not count, consolidate moves don’t count, even a vehicle that has movement 1” can claim having moved flat out),
can be ‘overridden’ by three events outside movement phase:
fighting in close combat : stationary
become immobile: stationary
falling back: moving

Wounding:
To wound chart:
wound everything at least on 6+

Wound Allocation (cc and shooting):
hit as normal, wound against majority

mark dice that represent special weapons and attacks or roll separately
1. decide whether to use Torrent of Fire or not
2. target’s player allocate wounds to models, beginning with one chosen armour group, if every model in this group has a wound, start with another armour group and so on, if every model in the unit has a wound, start over
—> multiple wounds: count for allocation as as many models as wounds remain
3. pick an unresolved armour group, determine which wounds are directed
4. directed wounds: roll saves for directed wounds, shooting player removes casualties
5. roll all remaining saves of this armour group, owning player removes casualties
6. goto 3

Directed wounds:
there are directed wounds in close combat and long-range combat, casualties from directed wounds are removed by owning player of the attacking unit
Wounds cannot be directed if targeted unit has Shielded USR, Torrent of Fire is used, vehicle diverts its fire or non-vehicle, non-MC unit is in fire corridor
Number of directed wounds: After allocating wounds to an armour group, it is determined if the how many and which wounds are directed as following:
- every attack from an IC in close combat is a directed wound,
- of the remaining wounds, every second wound, beginning with the first, from a Sniper weapon is directed.
- Of the remaining wounds on-sniper wounds, every fifth wound is directed, owning player of the shooting unit decides which wounds are directed

Torrent of Fire/Blows: if torrent of fire is used, the targeted unit is a single armour group, the owning player can choose one model, the whole unit has the same combination of armour saves
During a Torrent of Fire, no wound is directed

Armour group: number of model that share the same combination of saves, for example: 3+ armour save, Feel no Pain (1), no invulnerable save, 6+ cover save that is re-rollable on 1

Shooting:

for determining if a particular model in the unit can shoot, check range and line of sight from this model

cover saves:
fire corridor is measured from squad leader, to the two outermost models in the target unit, if 50% or more models are invisible or partial invisible due to cover or vehicles or monstrous creatures, the unit is in cover,
non-vehicles/MC are invisible for determining cover saves, but if such an unit is in fire corridor, wounds cannot be directed
if unit is covered mostly by fortifications or models are completely invisible: 4+ save
if unit is covered mostly by vegetation: 6+ save
if unit is covered mostly by vehicles or anything else: 5+ save

To Hit chart:
it is the same chart as the wound chart, but with seven columns from 0 till 6
(evasion value in brackets, abbreviates for small chart)

rows:
buildings (0)
stationary vehicles, MC, bikes (1)
stationary infantry, jet pack infantry, jump infantry, beasts // moving vehicles, monstrous creatures (2)
short distance // moving infantry, jet pack infantry (3)
moving bikes, jump infantry, beasts // swarms // flat out vehicles (4)
flat out bikes (5)
flyers, beacons (some narrative missions use beacons) (6)

columns:
BS 1-10

every column is: …. 6+ 6+ 6+ 5+ 4+ 3+ 2+ 2+ 2+ …. but is shifted up or down
I give you the BS value for every column that hits on 3+: 1 // 2 // 3 // 4 // 5 // 6 // 7

if distance from squad leader to target is less than 12”, unit can always change column to short distance column
if a model moves like a different unit type, the initial unit type is still used for the chart

Assault weapon: bonus attack for second close combat weapon if unit has charged

Pistols: model can use it as additional close combat weapon or use its Strength in close combat but gains no bonus for another ccw, if pistol is AP 1,2 or 3, attacks are Rending (2)

Blast (Small) and Blast (Large):
scatter as before
don’t use line of sight for determining cover saves, if majority of unit is in terrain, models get cover saves
marker has infinite height, only in leveled terrain it is two-dimensional
multiple Barrage is used every time when there comes more than one blast marker of the same type from a single shooting unit

Template: if there is a range given in a template weapon’s profile you can place the small end anywhere in this distance

Sniper (1): always wounds on 3+, Pinning, every second wound from a Sniper weapon beginning with the first is a directed wound
Sniper (2): always wounds on 3+, Rending (1), Pinning, every second wound from a Sniper weapon beginning with the first is a directed wound

Pinning: must make a pinning morale check

Tracer: treat every target as stationary

Anti Air: treat targeted flyer as flat out vehicle

Rending (1-3): 6,5+,4+ on to wound roll wound automatically and are AP2 or count as power weapon, D3 extra armour penetration

Poison/Dissolving (X+): as before, for shooting and close combat

Lance (1-3): treat AV as 13,12,11, no modifiers on damage chart ever

Instant Death(1): caused by double strength and other effects, models without Eternal Warrior (1-3) loose all wounds
Instant Death(2): models without Eternal Warrior (2-3) loose all wounds
Instant Death(3): also called removed from play, models without Eternal Warrior (3) loose all wounds

Eternal Warrior(1-3): Immune to Instant Death of same or lower level

Assault Phase:

Engaged model: a model that is in base to base contact with enemy model is called engaged, a model that is in contact with friendly engaged model is also called engaged, so if you have a long queue of models that are all in base to base contact and the first is in contact with enemy, alls are engaged

Pile In Move: consolidation move, 6”, priorities:
- must move as man models as possible in base contact with locked enemy unit
- as many models as possible must end the move engaged with model of unit it is locked in close combat with,
- rest of the model must move as near as possible to engaged models
if it is not possible to bring a single model into contact, the distance is increased with 3” until one model is engaged
At the end of the pile in move, every struggling, still unengaged IC is placed in contact with engaged model of enemy’s choosing.

Pile in after charge:
charging units make Pile In move, than the defending unit makes a Pile in Move

Attacking
Every engaged model can attack. If it is engaged with more than one unit, it can decide freely.
WS majority is used
IC are unit of their own in close combat

Initiative order:
Always strike first/last: unit strikes before I1 or after I10, is not affected by I modifiers, if unit always strikes first and last, it strikes in normal I order

charging unit in terrain: strikes at I1

Power fist: strikes always last

Feint: models can attack in a lower initiative phase if they want

Grenades: unchanged

Resolving combat
unchanged, but no more -1 for under half strength

No retreat:
Fearless units (or units that stay in combat even if they fail their morale check) make normal morale checks after loosing a combat, if failed, can decide nonetheless to stay in close combat, but every model in base to base contact may make a single attack against unit, if a model is in base to base contact with several Fearless units that failed their test, it can make one attack against each unit

Sweeping Advance: normal, unmodified I of squad leader is used

Pile in after combat: all locked units make Pile In moves, order is chosen by the player who’s turn it is, units that are no longer locked and not falling back, make a 3” consolidation move, the unit counts as being stationary

Special rules
distinction between special rules and universal special rules
Some USR and other special or weapon rules have more than one level. If no level is given, the rule is treated as level 1. Only exception: Lance and Fearless are level 2 by default
USR are always conferred to or from joined IC, other special rules not
deployment rules and rules in codices are temporarily lost if not every model in the unit has it, if it is not explicitly stated otherwise

all USR:
Preferred Enemy: as before
Tank Hunter: as before, but it only works against tanks
Counter Attack: as before, negates Furious Charge
Veiled(1): if unit targets veiled unit, must roll 3D6 x 3” over distance or forfeit shooting
Veiled (2-3): 2D6” x 2
Acute Senses/Night Vision(1-3): reroll Veiled roll of equal or lower level
Furious Charge: as before
Hit & Run: as before
Overwatch: can react with returning fire
Move through cover (1): I-Test to ignore terrain
Move through cover (2): ignores terrain
Sworn Brothers/Mindless Slaves: if squad leader is killed, every other model in unit can assume leadership
Rage: must always at least advance and use full distance towards enemy (for example raged infantry must at least move 6”, if decide to surge, must move 12”), if shaken or embarked, ignores the rule
Shielded: as long as one model with this rule remains in target unit, wounds cannot be directed wounds
Slow and purposeful: Relentless; can only surge, if S-test is passed, if unit moves through terrain, it cannot force a surge, units with SaP and Fleet and/or Flat out have Relentless and Random movement instead, negates Preferred Enemy
Shock Troop: always rolls a single D6” under 18” in a deep strike, a hit is a hit
Skilled Rider/Driver/Ranger (1): reroll dangerous terrain tests
Skilled Rider/Driver/Ranger (2): ignore dangerous terrain tests
Stealth (1): +1 on cover save, must take Vanish reaction if unit takes a shooting reaction
Stealth (2-3): +1,+2 on cover save; 6+,5+ in the open, must take Vanish reaction if unit takes a shooting reaction

no USR:
Relentless: always count as stationary for firing weapons
Swarms: use the moving beasts (4) column in the chart regardless of movement or unit type, Blast and Template Weapons cause Instant Death (2) against swarms

Vehicles:

damage chart:
only negative modifiers: -2 glancing, -1 any hit except AP1 and AP – against tanks, -2 AP – against tanks (AP 1 flat +1 gone), -3 hit by blast marker but hole not over vehicle and vehicle is not open-topped (no more halved S for blast markers)

chart unchanged, but if vehicle blows up (6+ on chart), embarked troops and models in D6” get S3 AP – hit, if vehicle blows up embarked troops are Suppressed, if the vehicle is only wrecked they are fine

if a flat out moving vehicle is immobilised (4) or wrecked (5) it blows up (6+) instead and embarked units are Pinned instead of Suppressed.

close combat basically the same:
no close combat resolution against non-walkers, but units can decide to break off and make a 3” consolidation move
hit stationary vehicle automatically, advancing vehicle on 4+, at any other speed and skimmers on 6+

Shooting: stationary: fire all weapons, advance: fire one, surge: no weapon
fast as before: advance and fire all, surge and fire one
every weapon can target different unit, when doing so, cannot cause directed wounds, even with Sniper weapons

Transport:
Fire point: can fire if vehicle has advanced or surged, but only 12” regardless of weapon type, embarked troops are relentless
Embarking: 4” move in consolidation phase in contact towards access point, if squad leader reaches access point, unit is embarked. If not, no move is performed
Disembarking: 4” in movement phase from any access point or base in case of flyers, consolidation move, counts as having moved the same distance category as vehicle, i.e. stationary, advance, surge; no charge
cannot disembark if going flat out or if unit cannot move as fast as vehicle, i.e. cannot disembark at surge speed into cover, as you can only advance in cover
if vehicle was stationary, unit can move normally from access point instead of disembarkation move, can charge
fleeting units can advance from access point instead of making disembarkation move if vehicle advanced or surged

Trapped: if an enemy model is in base to base contact with access point of closed vehicle, access point cannot be used. If every access point is blocked, the unit cannot disembark. If the unit is forced to disembark because the vehicle is destroyed, the unit is placed on the wreck or in the crater. If the unit is forced to disembark for another reason it is destroyed. The units that were in base to base contact with the access points must make a charge by chance on the embarked unit immediately if it can react
Flyers in skimmer or flyer mode and open-topped vehicles are not subject to this rule. If embarked units have to disembark place them as near as possible to the vehicle (wreck) or base

Multiple embarked units: must use different access points, if Trapped, choose access points, respective unit must charge

Skimmer: no more cover save for flat out movement

Squadron: must target the same unit,
if consists of at least two vehicles, one is squadron commander
commander: as long as commanding vehicles exists, every immobile result in squadron on vehicle with weapons left is weapon destroyed instead
rest unchanged, old allocation rules

Lumbering: can only surge if roll of 4+ on D6, if moved not faster than advance: can fire every turret mounted weapons in addition to normally allowed weapons

open topped:
has no further effect than that units can disembark and fire everywhere, no charge advantage, no damage modifier

Tanks
cannot force a surge, even if they are flat out, but can ram
AP 1 and AP – only useful against tanks

Non-tanks:
only non-tanks can force surge through terrain outside of ram
fails I-test automatically, so gets a S8 on 4+

Ramming:
now every tank shock is a ram, a ram is a straight movement with max speed (flat out or surge), if tank cannot go faster than advance, cannot ram
tank can force surge through terrain, but still can’t go flat out through it
only one turn before the movement is possible

three things can happen: tank shock through unit, passing interfering terrain, ramming attack against vehicle or building or impassable terrain

no disembarking or shooting from embarked unit or vehicle is possible after ramming

terrain:
S8 against side on 4+ as normal
Skimmer can choose to fly over terrain or go through. If go over, no tank shock or ram on units in terrain.

Tank shock:
an unit under the vehicle’s path must make a morale check
if it fails, the unit evades headless and is falling back
If check is nearly failed, unit is rolled over
If check passed but not nearly failed, can decide if nothing happens nothing happens as tanks passes by or unit is rolled over
Rolled over: unit can attempt to stop vehicle (like death or glory)
shaken units can’t try to stop
if the tanks presses on, the unit gets D3 S5 hits with Rending (2)

Ram against vehicle/building:
both vehicles deal an automatic hit to the opposing vehicle
the hit is resolved against the side in contact
to calculate the S, take the AV in contact (if it is a tank, always take the front AV) and subtract a modifier
-6 if ramming vehicle has surged
-4 if ramming vehicle moved flat out
impassable terrain and buildings have AV 14 for this purpose and can’t be damaged

Ram against walker
walker can try to stop tank as if rolled over, if vehicle isn’t stopped, impact is resolved as ram, walker cannot charge by chance

if tank would end movement on unit:
may make a 6” special move in any direction but they must try to make place for the tank, if they would be still under the vehicle they may make another 3” move and another and another, until they are 1” away from the tank and in coherency, moves are treated like consolidation moves, but can performed in every situation even if unit is immobile or can’t perform any other action
the evading unit can perform a charge by chance on the vehicle, if it can react, afterwards

comes to halt, if it: touches vehicle, building, impassable terrain, 1” before an unit in close combat or is stunned, destroyed or immobilized, movement distance is reached

Artillery: vehicle, squadron, immobile, AV 10 /10 /10, BS as crew,
no commander
can place one crew counter per artillery, some can have additional crew members
can remove counter to ignore a single crew shaken or stunned result
can fight in cc like a walker, with WS, S, I as the crew, the number of attacks is the number of crew counters plus the number of artillery devices
enemy attacks are resolved solely against the artillery

Flyers:
- can decide every round in the preparation phase: count as fast skimmer or flyer, can decide upon arrival from reserves

flyer mode:
- If flyer is in reserve, it is placed in harry reserve every time, even if it can’t outflank
- Flyers from reserve are place in the the preparation phase on any table edge
- unlike other vehicles, flyers cannot turn as they like
- ignore all terrain, even impassable
- up to 18” movement, no surge, no flat out, one turn anywhere during the movement up to 90 degrees
- must move 12” in straight line in preparation phase, can turn up to 45 degree at the end of the movement,
- must move 12” in straight line in consolidation phase, can turn up to 45 degree at the end of the movement, if reaches table edge or can’t be placed at the end of the turn, flyer is put back in harry reserve, cannot change into skimmer mode
- Flyers can always fire every weapon at a single target, all weapons have AA rule
- no (dis-)embarking, except special drops if unit has Aerial Drop special rule
- if immobilized (4) or wrecked (5), place Blast (Large) marker in random direction in 3D6”, causes S5 (against side armour), place crater
- Embarked troops are destroyed if flyer in flyer mode is wrecked or destroyed. If immobilized, unit is placed in crater, get S5 hit each, Suppressed
- flyers have their own column in the to hit chart, Blast weapons don’t use their marker, use BS to hit, if marker targets another unit and touches flyer, hit is ignored
- barrage and ordnance weapons can fire direct, but must re-roll hits, even if twin-linked, weapons that hit automatically can’t hit flyers, that includes shooting, rift and shock wave psychic powers that hit automatically
- close combat: in contact with base, attacks hit on 6, any other unit than jump infantry, jetpack infantry and jetbikes must re-roll hits
- cannot be rammed, base is treated like unit in close combat

Aerial Drop: flyer with this special rule can disembak units even if in flyer mode, in any phase embarked jump infantry and jet pack infantry can be placed via deep strike on a point, the flyer has moved over in this phase

IC: can roll two saves at the same time,
All wounds from an IC in close combat are directed. count as separate unit in assault phase for dealing damage
joining: 3” move in preparation or consolidation phase, assumes automatically squad leadership
combat: if IC is part of an unit that is in close combat, but isn’t in base to base contact, it is moved into it by the shortest distance

Squad Leader:
You must nominate one model of every unit to be the squad leader, if the unit entry doesn’t make clear which model it is in the first place.

Banner/Icon/Trophy: if squad leader is killed, standard- or icon bearer automatically becomes new squad leader.
If one or more independent characters have joined the unit, one of them automatically becomes new squad leader. If the IC is killed, the normal leader takes over.

Squad leaders can take two saves, all wounds from squad leader in close combat are directed
only applies for initial squad leader.

If the unit must take a characteristic test, use the profile of the Squad leader.
used for all kinds of things

Every time when something is measured from the squad leader, or he has to make a test for the unit, but the unit has no leader anymore, the opposing player can choose one model for this purpose

psychic powers:

Psychic test: morale check to use power, if morale check is failed, no more powers this turn from this psyker

perils: unchanged

power levels: number of psychic powers per player’s turn
power types:
- shooting power: count as firing a weapon, line of sight, BS roll or scatter if blast, fire point needed
- rift power: count as firing a weapon, true line of sight, no BS roll or scatter, only disembarked, targets suffer described effect, wounds from rift powers cause ID (2)
- modifying power: preparation phase, no line of sight or BS roll, no fire point needed, distance from hull, can only target own models inside transport; if target splits during the turn, the psyker’s player can decide on which part the power remains
- aura: preparation phase, psyker and joined unit are effected, if psyker leaves unit, power stays only with psyker, no BS roll, no fire point needed, transport unaffected, sustained power
- shock wave: count as firing a weapon, no line of sight, no BS roll needed, radius from base edge, must be disembarked, units in transports are unaffected

block: psyker in normal condition in 24” of other psyker can attempt to block psychic power, on 5+ blocked, on 1 perils of warp attack (unchanged), if equipped with similar wargear, psyker can decide which to use, only one block attempt per power

passive powers: no need for psychic test, not subject to block, don’t work if unit ‘can’t perform any action’
resonating powers: can stack
sustained powers: if psyker is shaken or engaged in close combat, power is blocked
rampant power: if psyker uses a rampant power, cannot use another power this turn, even with power level 2 or more

force weapon: as before, ID(2)
witchblades: as before, besides: force weapon with ID(1)

Unit conditions:
Morale checks: roll with 2D6 against squad leaders Ld as normal, but result of a failed or passed roll varies from situation to situation i.e. psychic test, pinning test, casualties, and are given for every situation. there is no more: “make a normal morale check”
In some situations a morale check can not only be failed or passed, but also be nearly failed. Nearly failed is if rolled higher than halved LD (rounding up) but below or equal to Ld, modifiers are applied before halving, but there are no more modifiers outside close combat

five usual situations: lost close combat, heavy casualties, pinning, psychic test, rallying
checks due to other fleeing unit is gone

Heavy casualties: made in consolidation phase, 25% casualties or more in a shooting phase: if failed: fall back

Pinning:
if morale check fails, unit is Pinned, if nearly fails, unit is Suppressed

Lost close combat:
unchanged, difference in combat resolution as modifier

- Suppressed:
non-vehicle and non-MCs units cannot move flat out, fleet, force a surge, shoot, use psychic powers, react, if they fail a T-test, they cannot surge and charge
vehicles and MC: can still react and fire a single weapon, cannot ram, (vehicles fail their T-test automatically), vehicles can only voluntarily become suppressed, embarked units in a suppressed vehicle cannot shoot from within
infantry, beasts, unit with swarm get Stealth (1) or level of stealth one up up to 3
if charged: looses suppressed status immediately
if forced to make another morale check: morale check, if nearly failed or failed, unit is Pinned instead of Suppressed
- Pinned: cannot move, shoot, make consolidate moves, use psychic powers, react
infantry, beasts, unit with swarm get Stealth (1) or level of stealth one up up to 3
if charged: looses Pinned status immediately but cannot use defensive grenades and Counter Charge USR and gains no bonus from terrain
if forced to make another morale check: morale check, if nearly failed or failed, unit is Falling Back instead of being pinned
- Falling Back:
in moment of breaking unit immediately makes consolidation move towards own table edge with surge distance, count as having surged for purposes of shooting
can act in subsequent turn as normal, but must attempt to move and simultaneously end their movement not closer to any enemy unit. If they cannot move in the movement phase because of this they are removed from play. Therefore they cannot stay stationary voluntarily or charge an enemy.
They can perform consolidation moves, but cannot end nearer to any enemy unit. Unit cannot react.
if charged: if charging model reaches the unit, unit is destroyed and charge is unsuccessful
if forced to make another morale check: unit is destroyed, does not apply for rallying
if reaches voluntarily or during their initial move the table edge: are removed from play but don’t count as destroyed
- Shaken: abbreviation for Suppressed, Pinned, Falling Back
- Immobile: abbreviation for cannot move, cannot react, cannot make consolidation moves

Rallying: suppressed and pinned units automatically recover in the consolidation phase of their next player’s turn
A falling back unit with squad leader can make a morale check in the preparation phase if there is no enemy unit in 6”. If successful the unit can act normally. If failed, the unit is not destroyed. A falling back unit can embark into a vehicle an rallies immediately. The 3” movement can be towards enemies as long as it end inside the vehicle.

Fearless (1): if any morale check for rallying, casualties, tank shock or in close combat fails, the unit can decide to pass it anyway, Fearless units treat Pinned as Suppressed, treat Falling back as normal condition
Fearless (2): as Fearless (1) but can decide to pass Pinning tests, too

Stubborn: always use the unmodified Ld for morale tests in close combat, Stubborn and Fearless (1-2) units must always choose to pass a morale check

Misc:
swarm = model with swarm rule
there is no special rule for allocating wounds against units with multiple wounds

Mission rules:
3 old types of placement, only one type of mission

Sequence:
place terrain -> decide type of placement -> place mission markers -> decide first turn -> choose stratagems -> put units in reserve ->deploy remaining units -> deploy infiltrating units -> make scout moves

First turn:
roll-off, looser bids a number of strategy points, opponent can raise or bail out, both player can raise the stake until someone bails out. Winner can decide to go first or last
Player that goes first can decide table edge and has to deploy first
The looser can spent the strategy points on stratagems

Placing mission markers: 1 marker is placed as near as possible to the middle of the table, 4 markers are placed in turn, starting with the player that goes first. marker has to be more than 12” away from table edges and other markers
marker use a 60mm base and are impassable terrain, the center marker is flat and doesn’t block line of sight, the players can use every shape they want for the markers they place, as long as it doesn’t overlap the base significantly

Night Fighting: all units Veiled (1)

Scout: 12” move before the game after infiltrators are placed, outflank

Infiltrator: can be placed anywhere outside 18” of enemy models, count as veiled (2) as long as they make no voluntary action

Outflank: nominate side, on 3+ comes from there, on 1-2 from other side

Deep Strike: mishab table as before, place squad leader,
if in 6” of enemy: 3D6” scatter, use arrow on hit symbol, if in 12”: 2D6” hit is hit, in 18”: 1D6”, outside 18”: no scatter
may only advance on turn of arrival, even with fleet or flat out, count always as (advance) moving, charge allowed

Reserves: unit(s), their transport and joined IC count as one unit for all reserve related purposes, but the unit has to start inside the transport and IC has to be in the unit, units can use special deployment options of the vehicle but not vice versa,
1. nominate any number of outflanking units to harry, place them near the table, facing the enemy’s table edge
2. flank guard: nominate half (rounding down) of the remaining units to arrive in turn 2, place them near the table, facing the small table edge
3. rear guard: the rest arrives in turn 3, place them near the table, facing the own table edge
In the preparation phase
when you put an unit in reserve you have to decide upon a deployment method

In preparation phase:
flank guard: from turn 2 on: arrives on 2+
rear guard: arrives in turn 2 on 1, and from turn 3 on on 2+
harrying units arrive on 4+ from turn 2 on
all remaining reserves are arriving on turn 6

for every harrying unit that is in reserve in the enemy’s preparation phase, you can make the enemy reroll one reserve roll

units from reserves are placed in the preparation phase in base to base contact with table edge (if not deep striking), if there is not enough space, placed back in reserves

Victory Points
both armies can collect victory points throughout the game, there are two ways: claim a kill, claim a mission marker at the end of the game turn:

Claim Kill:
every destroyed tank (not vehicle), walker, monstrous creature or independent character is a kill. Every squad leader that is killed is a kill (not counting standards, etc.)
Every kills gives one victory point

Claim Marker:
You check in your own preparation phase if you hold or control a marker. Opponent checks in his preparation phase.

You control a marker, if there is one of your scoring units in 3” of the marker and no enemy scoring unit. If you control a marker you get 3 victory points.
You hold a marker, if you don’t control it, there is one of your non-scoring non-vehicle units in 3” and no enemy unit. If you hold a marker you get 2 victory points.

You start in the preparation phase of the second going player in the second game turn. The player that goes first checks a last time at the end of the game as there is no preparation phase in turn 7.

Vehicles and shaken units are completely ignored. Embarked units only count if transport is open-topped.

Game length:
6 turns

Stratagems:

1 can place automatic turret
immobile BS 3 10/10/10
is equipped with twin-linked weapon
can choose one weapon, that an infantry model from FOC Troop can be equipped with

1 the first or last game turn is night fighting

1 can re-roll one outflanking roll and one deep striking scatter roll per turn

1 can block every psychic power on 6+ even if no psyker in 24”, psykers block on 4+

1 steal the initiative: if going second, roll at the start of the game a D6, on 6 you go first

1 own units use Ld 10 for pinning morale checks

2 one unit for every full 1500 points can get one of the following USR: Tank Hunter, Shielded, Fearless (1), Preferred Enemy, Relentless

2 decide during deployment if rear or flank guard: roll a single reserve roll for all units in chosen guard

2 Mine Field: makes one piece of terrain for every full 750 points dangerous

2 units of both forces that are holding or controlling mission marker have Overwatch USR

3 can make one non-vehicle unit upon deployment scoring

3 enemy deep striking units must subtract 6” from distance to enemy to see how they scatter

2 all weapons of one unit for every full 750 points have the Anti Air and Tracer rule

4 you can switch units from rear guard to flank guard until you roll the first reserve roll,
every unit can decide upon arrival which deployment method it uses: deep strike, normal reserve or outflank,
one unit for every full 1500 points per turn can change its deployment method to one it cannot normally be deployed with

4 All own units count as having surged or moved flat out before the game.

4 all own units are equipped with offensive grenades

6 all enemy units count as being in terrain in their first turn

6 all own units count as Veiled (2) in turn one

6 enemy rear guard and flank guard units roll like harrying units for their arrival

12 Pitch black: Night fighting with Veil (2) during the whole game

12 own units: weapons fired in 6” range count as twin-linked

12 enemy must re-roll successful cover saves

every stratagem can only be taken one time,
for every unspent point, once per game one roll may be re-roll, this cannot be the steal the iniative roll

Narratives rules:
- optional rules: apocalyptic weapons, super heavy vehicles (not much changed, but rules for damaged super heavies for small games), formations
- new deployment types, mostly taken from mission expansion
- new victory conditions
- rules for games with predetermined strategy points for both players
- three sets of additional stratagems: fortifications, deployment options, reinforced buildings
- special terrain: ruins, streets, hell rivers, deathworld mangroves, warp gate, sand pit, orbital landing platform, habitat block
- highly modular: you can mix deployment rule, victory condition, optional rules, available stratagem sets, number of strategy points to spent and special terrain: voila, you have your own mission

[BrokenWing]

Honestly I didn't even read the rumor part this time. All the hate pasted at the top suggests to me alot of this could just be made up crap.

[The_Farseer]

Honestly I didn't even read the rumor part this time. All the hate pasted at the top suggests to me alot of this could just be made up crap.

Actually, I've read through it, and most of it seems plausible.

[DrLove42]

Can someone summarise all the important stuff in that? Not sure i have the patience....

[Lancel]

I don't have the time to read it all right now but *cough* That is either the most elaborate attempt to make a rumor ever, or it literally is all of 6th Edition. Or some variant. I mean that's a lot of text.

[BrokenWing]

Do you really think we'd have *all* of 6th edition now? I find that difficult to believe.

[Lancel]

Do you really think we'd have *all* of 6th edition now? I find that difficult to believe.

Well, we are missing the fluff.

[BrokenWing]

That doesn't count.

I read through about half of it before I got bored and wandered off. Some of the rules sound like they are taken directly out of AT-43, especially all the stuff about measuring to and from squad leaders.

[DrLove42]

OK...i've kinda read it

And I f***ing hate it

This isn't even funny. It sounds horrible to play. Games are gonna take twice as long, your going to need whole books of tables next to you when you play. Horrific data tables, extra layers of uneccessaryness

The fliers sound uneccessarily complicated. With this "variable" rolls to hit, shooting is going to be significant;y more complex, its going to make certain armies horrific to face (lets just give Nob Bikers an even bigger boost). Its...just argh!

I hope to god its not true. Cos if it is this is going to put more people off the game than the price rises did...

The only beneifts in that ENTIRE list of horsesh*t that sounds good is blast templates not being half strength on vehciles if not under the whole, and open topped not being a penalty (good for DE players).

However the idea that a weapon that isn't AP1 always having a -1 is horrific. Its just going to put meltaspam even stronger, especially as it easier for them to hit the tank now.

Every army is going to need 5-10 pages of updates to match these rules. Whole armies are suddenly going to become even stronger or get f**ked hard

[BrokenWing]

Actually I think all it is from what I read is an amalgamation of 5th edition/ 2nd edition/ At-43 (there's alot of it in there, more than you want to know) and Forge World.

[The_Farseer]

http://i.imgur.com/9vRil.png

That's a mock up table I found of what the 'to hit' table would look like if the rumors were true.

EDIT: Due to the people over a warseer having a panic attack at the fact that I put the table from their over here (I did say I found it!) all the credit goes to MasterSlowPoke, I didn't think people would get so bothered about putting a table on another forum, if I had taken credit, fair enough, but...

[BrokenWing]

Ugh...

[DarkLink]

Honestly I didn't even read the rumor part this time. All the hate pasted at the top suggests to me alot of this could just be made up crap.

Whether or not people are whining has absolutely no bearing on the veracity of these rumors.

[GrenAcid]

I read it trough....and I could live with that. BUT whole vehicle section is joke...bad joke...if not....Ill have too buy IG..ehhh.

[Melissia]

That table is incredibly lulzworthy. Nevermind the idea people toss around of cover effecting to-hit rolls...

[Lockark]

Hrud, she means.


Fixed that for you, but that's besides the point. =P

Right now I'm reading the latest batch of rumores from Blood of kittens and these ones sound alot more clear, logical them some of the 1st stuff. Still reading it all over. Also if the table ends up looking something like what was posted I would not be to upset. For example my Ork Lootahs just became Hilariously broken.

Even if half this stuff came true I would be happy.
o.o

[Lancel]

Hrud, he means.

Crouched, diminutive creatures with ratlike tails, hiding under ragged robes and hoods. They have a distortion field which makes them hard to spot even in a well lit room, makes it hard for the eye to focus on them, their limbs have bone structures similar to a particularly flexible spine allowing them insane mobility, they sweat poison, and their bodies quickly putrefy and liquefy upon death. They also have an entropic field that ages things near them-- defenders of one planet having aged fifty years in the span of several months of fighting Hrud. Their technology is deeply tied to the warp, and they use fusils which fire warp-based plasma as their primary weapon.

Basically a sort of grimdark space skaven.

I missed that earlier, but thanks for the explanation, that's rather disturbingly creepy. I wonder why I haven't heard of them before.

[Lockark]

huh. Some of these changes are prety drastic, but to me many of them seem like logical progression of the game mechanics.

But I can't help but feel like we're missing here. With Squad leaders becoming so important, and a special rule were any modle in a squad can act as the leader?

But then make snipping characters so easy? I have to scratch my head.

The part about shooting pistols in CC is pretty awesome. S7 Rending attacks are a nice alternative to power weapons in all honesty.

[Xas]

whoever said that this would give a boost to nobbikers prolly missed a tiny part:

you remove all but one (1) model with less than its maximum wounds left from the game at the end of turn (ignoring ICs) so wound allocation is death with that rumor-rules.

[DrLove42]

Hang on...so if i have 5 individual Nob bikers...all tooled for wound alloc...

And all of them get wounded...at the end of the turn 4 of them are removed?

That is just retarded! Theres no point taking multiple wound models anymore!

[Melissia]

Or the rumors are probably just stupid BoK vomit.

[Chronowraith]

Or the rumors are probably just stupid BoK vomit.
Most likely.

I'd take anything that starts off with "As I am done with GW forever." with a rather large grain of salt... i.e. the size of a meteor.

[Denzark]

I hope this is bollocks...

[darklament]

Honestly I think it's totally BS. Seriously. Someone who plays Flames of War decided to make up 40k rules that ran more like that game. I would be surprised if any of this is true.

[Black Dragon]

This is someone's unalatiral wet dream. I don't belive this for a second. BOK is getting desperate.

[gwensdad]

Looks like some valid rumors mixed with (for lack of a better term) fan-wank.

A few parts make sense, but then get extended to almost every other rule. Game length is increased at least 25% (probably more) and a good deal of that is just in the setup phase.

The number of new rules seems very much against the recent history of GW of making things "simple".

[- 7eAL -]

whoever said that this would give a boost to nobbikers prolly missed a tiny part:

you remove all but one (1) model with less than its maximum wounds left from the game at the end of turn (ignoring ICs) so wound allocation is death with that rumor-rules.

Hang on...so if i have 5 individual Nob bikers...all tooled for wound alloc...

And all of them get wounded...at the end of the turn 4 of them are removed?

That is just retarded! Theres no point taking multiple wound models anymore!
Fools.

You can no longer allocate separate wounds to multiple wound models, so you cannot have multiple wound models that are running around at less-than-full health, yet able to do full damage.

The new rules ignore wound allocation tooling, because all wounds are rolled as save groups, not wargear groups. As long as your models have the same saves, they are considered one group for the purposes of wound allocation.
If your model has different wargear but the same saves, it is part of the group.
If your model is a squad leader that has the same saves, it is part of the group.
If your model is an independent character in shooting but has the same saves, it is part of the group.
If your model is a character that has an invulnerable save that the rest of the squad does not, then it is not part of the group.

We can probably assume that you still remove whole models from the same save group.
If your models have different wargear but the same saves, you remove whole models.
If your model is a squad leader that has the same saves, you remove whole models.
If your model is an independent character in shooting but has the same saves, you remove the whole model.

This means that you can no longer tool multiple wound models to abuse wound allocation.


Goodbye, Paladins. Goodbye, Nob Bikers. Thank you for your cooperation, Carnifexi.

[gwensdad]

OK, I had this thought as a way to see if this might be true:
Maybe the point of comparison should be to compare WFB7 is to WFB8 as 40K5 is (will be to) 40K6?

Make any sense?

[Ataraxean]

I'm not sure I believe a lot of whats in here. A lot of it is twisty, and at a glance moves game balance in all kinds of weird directions. On a personal level I'm repulsed by the idea of adding strategems and the biding system into the rule book. I've hated them in every supplement GW has put out because they've done a horrible horrible job of balancing them every time.

That being said, tts interesting taking a look at some of the ups and downs that are buried in this. For example, the vehicle rules (relating to survivability).

Cover saves for vehicles are down to a 5+ from a 4+ (assuming you're screening with less important vehicles). Penalty to survivability. No shock there

Based on the To Hit chart, BS 4 will always hit vehicles moving at combat speed on a 2+. BS 3 will do it on a 3+. So vehicles will be taking significantly greater number of hits going forward. Another penalty to survivability (except flat out DE vehicles who are in high cotton). Okay.

But them we look at the vehicle damage table. Based on the vehicle damage modifiers as I'm reading them, there's a -1 for being not AP1, and a minus 2 for being a glancing hit. So non-melta glances are at a net penalty of -3 (thats a lot of just cant shoot next turn). Non-melta pens have only a 1/6 chance of destroying on a pen. That's halves the chance of a vehicle getting krumped by a non-melta weapon right there. Boatloads of extra survivability. Bonus points again if you were running DE (no more open-topped penalty).

My gut check without running the math is that vehicles are actually more survivable. Special winners being Dark Eldar, and to a certain extent, anything AV 14 that can shrug off more of that shooting. Not sure that's the right direction there. My Leman Russ Squadrons won't complain but I'm not sure its right.

Also, I forsee a special hammering coming out for infantry based heavy weapons. Stationairy infantry take a beating on that to hit chart. And with crap all for cover saves too. If this is accurate anyway. My feeling. Not so much.

[Lockark]

My gut check without running the math is that vehicles are actually more survivable. Special winners being Dark Eldar, and to a certain extent, anything AV 14 that can shrug off more of that shooting. Not sure that's the right direction there. My Leman Russ Squadrons won't complain but I'm not sure its right.

Also, I forsee a special hammering coming out for infantry based heavy weapons. Stationairy infantry take a beating on that to hit chart. And with crap all for cover saves too. If this is accurate anyway. My feeling. Not so much.


You also forgot about embarked units only being able to shoot 12", but also become relentless. Agien a huge bone to Dark Eldar Gun Boats.

But at the same time Floot Sloggers are faster then ever, and the ability to consolidate 3" after CC with a non-WS vehicle is a HUGE boost to assault based armies like nids and Orks.

[HsojVvad]

While the rumours may be bogus, what is wrong with having a bit of complexity into the game? Come on, Battletech for example has lots of charts, and complex rules and is lots of fun. Why can't we have a bit more complexity in 40K?

To me the rumours if false looks very plausible. Now if they are bunk, and fake, just curious as to what is real by accident then? Only time will tell.

[Xas]

Hang on...so if i have 5 individual Nob bikers...all tooled for wound alloc...

And all of them get wounded...at the end of the turn 4 of them are removed?

That is just retarded! Theres no point taking multiple wound models anymore!

as you are allocating wounds after rolling all saves yes you could be as reatarded as that and have 4 nobbikers killed by 5 failed saving trows.

or you could remove two of them as casualties and have one lose one wound just as any non-complex unit would do under 5th edition.

it isnt an issue for multi wound models but only for wound allocation shenanigans.

[Xas]

You also forgot about embarked units only being able to shoot 12", but also become relentless. Agien a huge bone to Dark Eldar Gun Boats.



how's that a boost to DE gun boats? or do you mean "just not as bad for DE as for the rest"?

i dont see the 2 more shots my splinter cannon gets (useing the heavy6 over the assoult 4 mode after mofing my vehicle into range) as any way of compensation the 24" loss of range of said cannon :(

[Ataraxean]

You also forgot about embarked units only being able to shoot 12", but also become relentless. Agien a huge bone to Dark Eldar Gun Boats.

Ifyou mean 'boon' instead of bone then yeah, nightshields would LOVE that 12 inch rule. But its a minor boost. I noticed it, but since I was looking at vehicle survivability, it didn't seem relevant. There's a lot in that rumor dump. Hard to comment on it all.

But from an IG standpoint I never felt particularly good about firing autocannons/lascannons from the hatch of a Chimera anyway. The realism end of that bugged me.

And 12 inches still lets melta and plasma do their thing, whcih was most of what I had spitting out of there anyway.

[harveydent]

i used to do game company testing, and what this looks like is a massive conglomeration of possible changes, new ideas, and tweaks to the current system. it all looks very 'preliminary.'

there are things that seem like they would make good additions to the game.

there are things that come off as being pretty drastically different than what we have now.

i don't think anyone at GW is bad enough of a game designer/developer that they would include such a wide morass of junk in a single rules set.

i'm pretty sure these are all mechanics that were to be tested for the new edition, the best of which (and the ones being the most intuitive) might make it through the gauntlet.

[MoonFever]

I don't know...I've read through these rumors and though I agree that a lot of these fly in the face of the path GW seemed to be taking with 40K since 2nd edition, they have piqued my interest. After first review, I can't say which ones sound more bonkers than the others, because there are a lot of rules that seem to impact other areas, and need to be taken in altogether.

But honestly, think about this: GW to continue to make money has to get new people into the hobby, or bring back old players, or pique existing players to buiy more stuff. There is only so far you can go with existing armies...I think that is one of the worries with Warmachine/Hordes...how much more can they realistically add without collapsing into a heap of brokenness? If they dynamically change the rules, it could benefit them twofold: Older players that have left since 2nd ed, or since they started playing other games, give 40K another chance. New players see a more dynamic game system. All a game has to do is get more players back than they lose...just look at M:tG....

Honestly, any change that eliminates the potential for leafblower armies is good in my book...

[LordDave]

I'm not an expert on 40k and this is my first post here, but this is how it looks to me:

>Fundamentals:
>characteristic tests as normal,
>if unit must make test, it is made by squad leader
>...
>Majority characteristic: characteristic-value with most wounds in unit, if draw, use the higher

This is dumb. Ld test made by the guy with the most wounds, not the highest Ld?

>instant effect: count as being flyer for shooting, opposing player can make 6” consolidation move with the unit

This breaks a fundamental of 40k. Opposing player never needs to touch your models. The last thing I want is
someones cheezit fingers on my freshly painted artwork.

>who: (disembarked) units with Overwatch

GW is not going to bring back overwatch.

>jetbikes: 10”, ignore terrain*, flat out

if infantry move 6, jetbikes will move 12" ...duh.

>Every time when something is measured from the squad leader, or he has to make a test for the unit,
>but the unit has no leader anymore, the opposing player can choose one model for this purpose

pointless and dumb?

overall if 6th is going to have an increase in complexity, it won't be this mixed up bunch of old rules come back.
and will still be much more streamlined than all this jumble of rules.

[Ataraxean]

Honestly, any change that eliminates the potential for leafblower armies is good in my book...

As long as the changes don't take the game to far in that direction. A rules set that marginalizes shooting based armies in favor of assault armies would be just as bad as the opposite (which does not describe 5th Ed BTW).

The game could use a bit of tweaking away from mech, but not a complete overreaction. Mech Guard is a rough matchup right now depending on list design, but not an unbeatable one. I've got a buddy who made the Hard Boyz finals with mech guard last year who, like me, has been in the game rolling Guard as his main army since 2nd ed.

I've seen his 2,500 list drawn/beaten by foot Orks and 'Nids, and I've personally tabled him with Wolves. There's a fine balance between shooting and assault (with much of that in the terrain setup/rules). As long as they don't break it too far in either direction things should be fine.

[CPK]

After reading the top part, im quite confused. it he hated the company and had already left it, why would he even bother to get the 6th edition rule rumors. and who would he persuade, to give him that much "rule changes?" anyways, im taking those things with extreme amounts of salt. how did "streamlined" 5th edition become so that confusing.

either the guy is pissed off that he got fired from GW for trying to do something his way, or he's jealous that someone else took the job he wanted.

[Ataraxean]

>Fundamentals:
>characteristic tests as normal,
>if unit must make test, it is made by squad leader
>...
>Majority characteristic: characteristic-value with most wounds in unit, if draw, use the higher

This is dumb. Ld test made by the guy with the most wounds, not the highest Ld?


What it means is that if you have to take for example a toughness test and the unit has 4 one-wound models with T-3 and a single three-wound model with T-5, you use T-3 for the test, as you have 4 wounds of toughness 3 models and versus three wounds of toughness 5 models. Its pretty reasonable honestly, though a tiny bit more work than the current system.

Shouldn't apply for leadership checks as those should be made at squad leader's leadership. Otherwise whats the point.

[Denzark]

Fools.

You can no longer allocate separate wounds to multiple wound models, so you cannot have multiple wound models that are running around at less-than-full health, yet able to do full damage.

The new rules ignore wound allocation tooling, because all wounds are rolled as save groups, not wargear groups. As long as your models have the same saves, they are considered one group for the purposes of wound allocation.
If your model has different wargear but the same saves, it is part of the group.
If your model is a squad leader that has the same saves, it is part of the group.
If your model is an independent character in shooting but has the same saves, it is part of the group.
If your model is a character that has an invulnerable save that the rest of the squad does not, then it is not part of the group.

We can probably assume that you still remove whole models from the same save group.
If your models have different wargear but the same saves, you remove whole models.
If your model is a squad leader that has the same saves, you remove whole models.
If your model is an independent character in shooting but has the same saves, you remove the whole model.

This means that you can no longer tool multiple wound models to abuse wound allocation.


Goodbye, Paladins. Goodbye, Nob Bikers. Thank you for your cooperation, Carnifexi.

Hang on fella. Have you come on first post and written off 2 other posters as fools?

IF I have read you right, why don't you take your 'clever' name and jog on back to warseer...

[Lockark]

Hang on fella. Have you come on first post and written off 2 other posters as fools?


And what the **** dose Post count as to do with anything? Well rude of him to call them fools, he did clarify how the rumors were explaining how the new wound allocation works for thows having a hard time wrapping their heads around it.

[LordDave]

The funny thing is about these rumors is that they could all be directly from GW as a test to see how players would react to a variety of rules changes.

They guy says in the same sentence almost that GW has completely lock down on rumors, and suggests GW may 'allow slip' rumors on purpose, then he goes on to say 'ok, here are some rumors'.

I could just see the writers feverishly going over internet posts checking all the comments and criticisms of possible rules changes to make sure they're not overlooking some huge flaw in their actual new changes.

[MoonFever]

But of course the most common reaction is knee jerk nerd rage....

I like a lot of the concepts, but without trying some of them out on the table, I can't really say how good or bad some of them are...the changes are that dynamic...which isn't necessarily a bad thing...I could see these changes, or similar strains getting numerous local gamers who have given up on 40K for one reason or anotherto give it another go...myself included...

[Wolf Lord Zig]

Welcome Back 2nd. edition with some of the changes from 3rd---5th.

[Lerra]

Taken individually, I like most of these ideas. If you put them all together, it seems like it would complicated and slow down the game too much. It seems like they are making an effort to tighten up the rules system, though, which is nice.

I really like the reserve system, with flank guard, rear guard, harrying units, etc. The emphasis on squad leaders is flavorful and fun. You would need some pretty in-depth codex errata to make this playable with the current crop of codices, though.

[Azrell]

Check out unit types in the CGK.... notice anything different? ;)

[Denzark]

And what the **** dose Post count as to do with anything? Well rude of him to call them fools, he did clarify how the rumors were explaining how the new wound allocation works for thows having a hard time wrapping their heads around it.

Socially it is far worse to chuck out insults on first meeting people than it is once you know them and think they may appreciate your humour.

[Lockark]

Socially it is far worse to chuck out insults on first meeting people than it is once you know them and think they may appreciate your humour.

When ever I see people start talking about post counts, all I see if the proverbial E-Penis being measured. Post count dose not give you merit, and him calling people fools is no more wrong or right then someone with more posts saying saying the same thing.

=/



But back on topic. Many of these rules seem to make Dark Eldar and Nids alot stronger then they currently are, and and tone back some of the sillyness of the Space Wolf and Grey Knight books.

I also want to point out the change to the Rage USR in this. You no longer need to move towards the closest enemy unit. You just always need to move towards a enemy unit. With then the changes to fleet being you can move three times your movement and assault? Yah. Death company are AWSOME.

If these are a hoax, it's a very well put together one.

[Kovnik Obama]

all I see if the proverbial E-Penis being measured.

(Lxd+(W/G)/(<axaxt)

or

((LxG)/<as)/(M/W) ?

[HsojVvad]

The funny thing is about these rumors is that they could all be directly from GW as a test to see how players would react to a variety of rules changes.

They guy says in the same sentence almost that GW has completely lock down on rumors, and suggests GW may 'allow slip' rumors on purpose, then he goes on to say 'ok, here are some rumors'.

I could just see the writers feverishly going over internet posts checking all the comments and criticisms of possible rules changes to make sure they're not overlooking some huge flaw in their actual new changes.

Why do I have the feeling this is how Games Workshop "tests" their codicies and rules now?

They even admited themselves they only have a very small select group of people who play test upcoming codicies and rules, so now that GW has a stranglehold on everything, I am sure it is them who releases the "rumors" to gauge how people will react to them without proper playing.

Well maybe it's not the case, but sure does explain alot on why there is so much confusion with GW written work. :D

[HsojVvad]

But back on topic. Many of these rules seem to make Dark Eldar and Nids alot stronger then they currently are, and and tone back some of the sillyness of the Space Wolf and Grey Knight books.

How would this make the Tyranids better? I am not much of a player, so as a Nid player, how can I expect the Nids to be better?


If these are a hoax, it's a very well put together one.

I agree, it is a well put together one. Thing is I don't get is abit of the terminology just doesn't match what GW have said in 3rd to 5th edtion. Have some of the terminology used, was it in 2nd edtion per chance?

[Xas]

How would this make the Tyranids better? I am not much of a player, so as a Nid player, how can I expect the Nids to be better?


I can tell you the icebergs I have found hidden within it:

allowing assoult after deesprike + very punishing scatter = fair
allowing assoult after deepstrike for a melee monster that has a spezial rule to be immune to allmost all incidents and can even get assoult grenades trough a cheap stratagem = brutal (Trygon)

allowing for every 5th wound to be assigned by the offensive player (his pick) + basically killing wound allocation shenanigans = rending is very powerfull (just pick the rends to allocate and kill those important searges/people with a worse invul). a good heavy venom cannon (small s9 blast) has an acceptable chance to snipe a charackter from a unit (do 5 wounds, force the HQ to take one save and risk beeing blasted)

shooting after assoult: killing transports with melee units suddenly is very deadly to the squads within (kill it with say a carnifex and then use your bioplasm plasmacannon onto the squad which is tightly packed together and/or shoot them up with some devourers).

brutal pinning (you have to save on your halfed value or you cannot shoot!) + army wide fearless + one of the best pinning weapons in the game (biowhores/spores) = very effective supression fire

infiltrators beeing subject to harder nightfight unless they move + genestealers = suddenly very hard to shift death swarm ~18" away from your guys)

some of the stratagems + nids = totall pwnage (nightfight for the WHOLE game, assoult grenades for ALL units, one usr for some squads).

runestaff-esque blocking for every psyker (with a cheap stratagem also on 4+) + zoantropes, broodlords and tyrants = suddenly tyranids and eldar are the hardest to hurt with psychic powers due to the shadow AND blocking.


earning victory points over the course of the game (and a force many objectives a shooty army cannot sit on all of them) also means that with as many fast/infiltrating units as nids you can easily gain map dominance early and "sit it out" if you controll say 2/3 objectives.

forcing troops out of their boxes to score also increases your long range anti-personal firepower's influence further (really looking at allmost a full set of 9 biovores here)

[GrenAcid]

@up
Its too beautiful to be true.
But hey, if nid players start againg running big bugs im more than happy, my poison guns are ready.


BTW, if gw will put so many new thing in 6ed....they better have faq ready for each army....cuz ther will be flames running free if they not clear things fast.

[DarkLink]

shooting after assoult: killing transports with melee units suddenly is very deadly to the squads within (kill it with say a carnifex and then use your bioplasm plasmacannon onto the squad which is tightly packed together and/or shoot them up with some devourers).

I believe somewhere in there it says that if you kill a transport, you consolidate into combat with the guys inside, which may prevent shooting. Sucks to be in the transport either way, though.



brutal pinning (you have to save on your halfed value or you cannot shoot!) + army wide fearless + one of the best pinning weapons in the game (biowhores/spores) = very effective supression fire

Grey Knights will suck at this. Horribly. GKs have poor leadership, and no fearless anymore. Since you only have a handful of units, failing a single leadership test can severely hurt your army, unlike normal Marines or other low leadership armies like Guard.



earning victory points over the course of the game (and a force many objectives a shooty army cannot sit on all of them) also means that with as many fast/infiltrating units as nids you can easily gain map dominance early and "sit it out" if you controll say 2/3 objectives.

Grey Knights will be awesome at this. I've seen some tournament missions where this sort of scoring unfairly advantages certain armies over others, though, so we'll have to see how this works out.

[TheRaven]

Soooooo is it just me or are they making Chimeras HARDER to kill? If you read the damage table you get -1 against tanks if your not AP1. So that means, even if I penetrate one of bloody things I now only have a 1/6 chance of taking it out instead of a 1/3 chance. So for a small potential increase to hit, we get a massive decrease to the chance of destroying it. That's the one rule that kind of made me go "WTF" since the thing most people complain about now is the cheap transport spam.... Unless I am missing something.

ALso I don't get the assault before shooting thing. Is it just me or do a ton of weapons become "WTF" options. I'm thinking mostly of pure CC units that can take an added assault weapon as an upgrade. Mostly template weapons like Liquifier guns. Those options seem to be completely useless now and makes me wonder if there aren't more rules we'll be seeing to fill in some holes.

The more I think about it, liquifier guns would become a wasted entry really. They already have 2 weapons and if they can't shoot on the way in when would they ever get used............ IDK...........

Other than that I like alot of the changes. Quite nice.

[MoonFever]

but since movement effects your ability to hit, it means you stun the chimera one turn, and then almost autohit it the next turn...

Plus even though the chimera might be harder to pop with one shot, you can't park models inside and shoot from across the table, since all range from using firepoints is lowered to 12"...so even though the models inside get relentless, they have to get close to be useful...


Sit still, and get autohit...can't shoot farther than 12" inside the transport...being stunned hurts more since then not only do you not get to fire or move, you are hit on a 2+ by everyone then next turn from shooting...

[Elimrawne]

If the current staff running GW had a brain in their head they would reinstate the Outriders and send them into stores and get real feedback. This so called group of play testers they have are more than likely all Brits (not picking on them) but they are too freak'n nice when they play. If GW wants to test rules and future codicies then come over here to the US and let us rip through the experimental stuff. God knows we can churn out some cheese in a matter of minutes.

As for these rumors I can't see how these rules are supposed to streamline the over all game. I played 2nd ED, combine it with Dark Mellinium and holy crap it was half a day to get through a game. GW is bringing back stuff from 2nd ED and trying to revamp the rules with a so called new twist in their minds. I have to agree with alot of folks. Some of the stuff is OK or cool while at the same time they might as well have FAQ city out there on day 1 or all new codicies. As it stands there it way too much crap to track. If any of you played 2nd ED you'll understand.

[Lockark]

How would this make the Tyranids better? I am not much of a player, so as a Nid player, how can I expect the Nids to be better?


Well, I saw a few things. So I'm just going to bullet point them. As a nid player here are a few things I saw that your army should be able to realy take advantage of in general.

-Blast weapons now hit veciles with full strenth at all times.

-The new BS to hit chart means it's easy for nids to hit tanks.
-Skirmishers no longer get a cover save for going flatout.

-After assault a non weapon skill vecile you always get a 3" consolidate move regardless if you destroyed it or not.
-The new Movement and Fleet rules means Nids get in CC faster then ever.

-Beasts have a base move of 8" instead of 6"

-Mind Slave seems to suggest it's a USR nids will be given threw erreta.

-The new "Braceing" rules that help make MC's more survivable, since you can give them two saves.

-"Charge by chance" is going to help out greatly for killing transports in CC. It means when assaulting transports if the unit jumping out end up with-in 1" of you, you are now locked in CC with said unit. (This is huge, since it means no more killing transports in CC, only to be rapid fired/charged/ect by the enemy next turn. You can be locked in CC were you do best. It is now viable to kill transports in CC, you are not forced to have to kill them in the shooting to get at the guys inside.)

-Veclies are more likely to wreak then explode, so your guys will not die horrible if you do CC tanks to death. A plus for when doing the above.

-Nid players can spend 4 Stratagem points to give all their units assault grenades.

[hammer]

If this is 6th edition, then i'm not play in tournaments any more. Me and my friends will stick with 5th and hope that 7th isn't to far away. Honestly I think this will kill the game. I don't want to spend an hour trying to figure out which chart to use and what modifiers are in place and who gets a cover save. basically i say screw 6th if this is they way things are going.

[Lockark]

The guy who posted all of the 6th ed rumoers so far had some more information.


- models that have charged already locked unit have I 10 this turn
- Assume leadership: Standard bearers, etc. that assume leadership count as squad leader in all respects (two saves, directed wounds), any other model that assumes leadership only in regard of performing unit actions
- if you deploy in 24” distance from enemy you cannot shoot with 24” weapon or assault with 24” movement
- models must always consolidate out of 1” of vehicle after attacking it, if locked in combat with another unit, vehicles are ignored for pile in moves after combat, must use this pile in move to bring 1” between unit an vehicle, artillery and walkers are obviously exceptions
- swarms have Eternal Warrior (1)
- Seize the initiative: same name, but completely different rule: stratagem, 1 str. point, after the deployment of both force, but before placing infiltrators, roll a D6, on 5+, enemy must place infiltrators in contact with his own table edge, no scout moves allowed
- whole unit or squadron must make the same reaction
- Pistols: got confused by what I though were two contradicting short statements; units with pistols can attack with pistol’s S, AP1,2,3 pistols confer Rending (2) (Rending on 5+), Gets Hot! wounds count against combat resolution,
on charge: can make full attacks
in any other turn: can make single attack, does not get bonus of second ccw, etc.
- if both player agree, the charge movement and pile in move before combat can be made as one move with combined movement distance after the first model was engaged to fasten things up
- Characters: shooting wounds are directed, too
- Advanced rules: evasion value (normal rules: always use short distance), all reactions, Torrent of Fire, Directed wounds, damage chart modifiers for AP, flyer mode, ramming, Stratagems: bidding stays intact but only re-rolls can be taken, unique units, measuring*
* normal rules: can measure anytime you want, advanced: movement: measure full movement distance you want to go, i.e. 6” for a advancing, can’t measure 12” surge distance, anything else: measure distance to target
you play either all advanced rules or none at all
- Hit & Run: still random: 3D6” consolidation move
- Morale checks for casualties: only in enemy’s shooting phase
- witchblade can now cause ID after psychic test like force weapons
- there is a small box for rare movement situations: if infantry unit moves as jump infantry (or any other unit type has movement rules of another unit type), it uses the jump infantry movement rules, but for shooting and close combat it counts as original unit type, so it is still easy to hit, if an unit moves flat out and there is no column in the to hit chart, take the moving column, exotic movements count as ‘moving’ even if faster than flat out move, deep striking units count as ‘moving’ , if units that are immobile arrives from reserves but not via deep strike, they are placed in contact with table edge normally and remain there for the rest of the game, we shall assume the the bunker has decloaked or something similar, units disembarking from deep striking vehicles use the disembarking rules for charging, so no charge unless fleet rule
- Master-crafted: re-roll one to hit roll, if several models attack with master-crafted weapons of the same type, roll the dice together, then re-roll as many dice as there are master-crafted weapons
- if you shoot through interfering models, you cannot snipe

running out out steam because I don’t get the errata info and I have reached even the tiny details of the rules
but I have one big thing left:
- monstrous creatures: 2D6 versus vehicles, ignore armour, move as infantry unless stated otherwise, are ignored for Abandon as ICs, IGNORE TERRAIN WHEN CHARGING


http://bloodofkittens.com/network/groups/grey-knight-rumors/


The thing about thier being advanced and not advanced 40k is kinda odd. O.o Like. REALY odd. The part about Normal, Advance, and Narrative has made me go from optimistic/interested, to uneasy. Pre-measuring in "normal" also has me concerned. Well I like 5th ed, some times it can feel like your playing it on auto-piolet. I was excite by some of the rumors that steam-lined the rules, but also the ones the sounded like they would atop the auto-pilot feeling.

Pre-Measuring is very meh for me.

[PlasticRat]

I'm really hoping this stuff isn't a hoax.

If you're complaining that a couple of tables make it too complex, you really should go and play snakes and ladders.

Having a 'normal' and 'advanced' game is the only way forward for 40k. Half the players want something with all the strategy of snakes and ladders and the complexity of rock, paper, scissors. The other half want something where you have to think a bit and actually get to make meaningful decisions in the game.

You can't keep both camps happy, so have two different rulesets for them. This is about the only intelligent thing I can think of GW doing in recent memory. In fact... it's just too smart for them, thus unfortunately probably a hoax.

Pre-measuring is great. It takes the game from being gimmicky and luck based toward actually having meaningful strategy. It's no longer about "guess which unit I'm in range to charge" and rather "which unit is more tactically advantageous to charge." Yes, strategy people, it's not a dirty word.

The only thing I really wish they'd change is to add some meaning to positioning in melee combat. There is no strategy during melee currently. It still runs on autopilot. Using something like Epic's assault rules where positioning actually means something would be good. The forced pile-in move basically negates any form of control or tactics on the player's part.

Although right now, any improvement is good. For those of us with even half a brain, the game is currently a tedious dice-fest that runs entirely on autopilot with almost no meaningful decisions for the player during the game.

[Lancel]

Is that really a rule about using pistols with the pistol's stats in close combat instead of the users? If true it would probably be the end of weapons like Laspistols and Bolt Pistols on ICs though, they'll all have Plasma Pistols. Except Sisters who would probably all have Inferno Pistols, which would be the best close combat pistols ever if this is true.

[GrenAcid]

Having a 'normal' and 'advanced' game is the only way forward for 40k. Half the players want something with all the strategy of snakes and ladders and the complexity of rock, paper, scissors. The other half want something where you have to think a bit and actually get to make meaningful decisions in the game.

You can't keep both camps happy, so have two different rulesets for them. This is about the only intelligent thing I can think of GW doing in recent memory. In fact... it's just too smart for them, thus unfortunately probably a hoax.

Fully agree.


The only thing I really wish they'd change is to add some meaning to positioning in melee combat.
Mate please no..I dont want to play chees....I wanc CC to be wild, bloody and quick.

[DrLove42]

Is that really a rule about using pistols with the pistol's stats in close combat instead of the users? If true it would probably be the end of weapons like Laspistols and Bolt Pistols on ICs though, they'll all have Plasma Pistols. Except Sisters who would probably all have Inferno Pistols, which would be the best close combat pistols ever if this is true.

If this is the case of types of pistols playing a role in CC either DE are all going to be lethal, or it wont work for them, and they will all be in uproar.

frankly one of the big things I DON'T like about these rumours is the seeming lack of wound allocation. With wounds being allocated after saves, we go back to 4th ed where there is no chance of killing that power fist, or missile launcher till last. But if they can be sniped out of the unit (like IC can apparantly) then there will be no point taking them as they'll be the first to die, just making vehicles stronger, in addition to all the other rules that seem to work vehciles way

Some of the other stuff is coming round on me more I think about it, but I don't like this strategem point and asset thing. The idea of having to buy the ability to steal the Init doens't sound nice. A lot of the abilites dont seem balenced.

I'm still in the camp of hoping this is false. I happen to rathe rlike 5th ed. I think it works really well

[Lockark]

Pre-measuring is great. It takes the game from being gimmicky and luck based toward actually having meaningful strategy. It's no longer about "guess which unit I'm in range to charge" and rather "which unit is more tactically advantageous to charge." Yes, strategy people, it's not a dirty word.


They do that by taking away all random movement. If I know exactly how far away everything is, but then I ALSO know exactly how far I move every turn? Then for me the game just feels like I'm playing it on auto-pioliet. I have no tough calls to make any more. I just have to logically move up units. Their is no longer that element of being on the edge of your seat because of a hard decision.

I'm just playing the motions of my army at that point.

I only tolerate it in 8th ed Fantasy because pre-measuring and random charge distance balance each other out.

I'm also pointing out they only said it's in normal. In Advance rules measureing works almost exactly the way it dose now.
(Can only measure up to a unit's max movement, and when shooting weapons you can only measure to the target unit.)


If this is the case of types of pistols playing a role in CC either DE are all going to be lethal, or it wont work for them, and they will all be in uproar.

frankly one of the big things I DON'T like about these rumours is the seeming lack of wound allocation. With wounds being allocated after saves, we go back to 4th ed where there is no chance of killing that power fist, or missile launcher till last. But if they can be sniped out of the unit (like IC can apparantly) then there will be no point taking them as they'll be the first to die, just making vehicles stronger, in addition to all the other rules that seem to work vehciles way

Some of the other stuff is coming round on me more I think about it, but I don't like this strategem point and asset thing. The idea of having to buy the ability to steal the Init doens't sound nice. A lot of the abilites dont seem balenced.

I'm still in the camp of hoping this is false. I happen to rathe rlike 5th ed. I think it works really well

You didn't read the new wound allocation correctly. You applie wounds to armour save groups like in 4th. BUT the big difference is that for every 5th unsaved wound, the enemy player gets to allocate it.

For Sniper Rifles, it's every 2nd wound.

So for example. If I was to cause 5 Plasma cannon wounds on your tac squad. you choose the 1st four guys taken off, but I get to choose for the 5th guy is. But if I caused 4 unsaved bolt gun wounds, and 1 unsaved plasma you get to allocate all the wounds your self. (The thing being that it needs to be 5 unsaved wounds from the same weapon type.)


For Orks, since we can upgrade the squad's Nob to have evy' Armour and leave the rest with tshirt saves, This will be our saving grace. Thow that also means that the Rokkits and bigshootahs are going to be gone pretty quickly.

Space marines in general will not have to worry about it too much due to thier 3+ sv. It's hard to cause 5 unsaved wounds on a tac squad only with basic small arms fire.


You will also notice their is a special rule relating to this called "shielded". If one model in the squad has this USR, the whole squad get's it. If this rule is in play on the squad, the controlling player gets to allocate all wounds delt to the squad.


This is at least how I have pieaced together how the new wound allocation will work. Hope this clears up the rumored new rules for wound allocation. Well I liked the current allocation rules, these one are alot easier to learn and teach people. o.o

[eldargal]

I'm hearing some strong indications from 'my sources' (:rolleyes:) that these are legitimate, but they aren't the full story. And ghost21 on Warseer says much the same thing, there will be a lot of optional rules, a semi-seperate competitive list, oh and a chaos legions codex.

[Lockark]

I'm hearing some strong indications from 'my sources' (:rolleyes:) that these are legitimate, but they aren't the full story. And ghost21 on Warseer says much the same thing, there will be a lot of optional rules, a semi-seperate competitive list, oh and a chaos legions codex.

SSSSQQQQQQQQUUUUUUUEEEEEEEEEEEEE!

It's so hard for me not to get giddy every time I read that. I'm usely one to warn to never get excited over rumors, but I'm having a hard time taking my own advice.
@w@

[GrenAcid]

@up
Everytime I see that my mind is racing: "do we get traitors?/mutants?/all nasty stuff chaos should have??" and then is my other thought "Damn...I dont have money for 3 armies!!!"

@Eldargal
"a semi-seperate competitive list" wtf??

[Kawauso]

I'm hearing some strong indications from 'my sources' (:rolleyes:) that these are legitimate, but they aren't the full story. And ghost21 on Warseer says much the same thing, there will be a lot of optional rules, a semi-seperate competitive list, oh and a chaos legions codex.

God, YES.

I knew there was a reason I was sitting on heaps of conversion bitz for Thousand Sons.

[deadshane]

Why do people fear change?

This is like the 6th time I've heard..."These rumours suck! I'm going to quit! They're ruining the game!"

Shut up and play!:D

[N.I.B.]

but I have one big thing left:
- monstrous creatures: 2D6 versus vehicles, ignore armour, move as infantry unless stated otherwise, are ignored for Abandon as ICs, IGNORE TERRAIN WHEN CHARGING
Big thing? What's the difference from now? MC's already have most of that stuff.
MC's already have move through cover, so they roll 3d6 for charging through terrain - pretty likely to bring up a 5 or 6.

[LordGrise]

This whole thing seems like such a huge change it essentially becomes a whole new game. Last time I saw this was the switch from AD+D 3.5 to D+D 4.0 - same name (just about) entirely new ruleset - and it applied much focused negative pressure to highly enlarged verdant members.

Everything I've seen about this suggests a hard shift towards melee combat - not good news for my beloved (and only) army of Tau.

Perforce I'm with the wait and see crowd. I hope to God this is completely false. - either that or I hope O'Shovah finally got his order of pistols and bayonets... and Kroot...

[Asymmetrical Xeno]

I'm hearing some strong indications from 'my sources' (:rolleyes:) that these are legitimate, but they aren't the full story. And ghost21 on Warseer says much the same thing, there will be a lot of optional rules, a semi-seperate competitive list, oh and a chaos legions codex.


Dont forget the most exciting rumour Ghost21 gave us of all them : Hrud and Umbra

An awesome and actually original xenos race - and likely one that will get moaned about like all the newer races before it which makes it double awesome.

[GrenAcid]

@Asymmetrical Xeno
Yeah!!....levitating orb of darkness is such a cool and fun race to play....I cant wait to....well you cant do much if you a ball. And what about codex/special rules?? balls as troops....and really BIG balls as Mc`s??:o:o:o

[HsojVvad]

I can tell you the icebergs I have found hidden within it:

allowing assoult after deesprike + very punishing scatter = fair
allowing assoult after deepstrike for a melee monster that has a spezial rule to be immune to allmost all incidents and can even get assoult grenades trough a cheap stratagem = brutal (Trygon)

allowing for every 5th wound to be assigned by the offensive player (his pick) + basically killing wound allocation shenanigans = rending is very powerfull (just pick the rends to allocate and kill those important searges/people with a worse invul). a good heavy venom cannon (small s9 blast) has an acceptable chance to snipe a charackter from a unit (do 5 wounds, force the HQ to take one save and risk beeing blasted)

shooting after assoult: killing transports with melee units suddenly is very deadly to the squads within (kill it with say a carnifex and then use your bioplasm plasmacannon onto the squad which is tightly packed together and/or shoot them up with some devourers).

brutal pinning (you have to save on your halfed value or you cannot shoot!) + army wide fearless + one of the best pinning weapons in the game (biowhores/spores) = very effective supression fire

infiltrators beeing subject to harder nightfight unless they move + genestealers = suddenly very hard to shift death swarm ~18" away from your guys)

some of the stratagems + nids = totall pwnage (nightfight for the WHOLE game, assoult grenades for ALL units, one usr for some squads).

runestaff-esque blocking for every psyker (with a cheap stratagem also on 4+) + zoantropes, broodlords and tyrants = suddenly tyranids and eldar are the hardest to hurt with psychic powers due to the shadow AND blocking.


earning victory points over the course of the game (and a force many objectives a shooty army cannot sit on all of them) also means that with as many fast/infiltrating units as nids you can easily gain map dominance early and "sit it out" if you controll say 2/3 objectives.

forcing troops out of their boxes to score also increases your long range anti-personal firepower's influence further (really looking at allmost a full set of 9 biovores here)


Well, I saw a few things. So I'm just going to bullet point them. As a nid player here are a few things I saw that your army should be able to realy take advantage of in general.

-Blast weapons now hit veciles with full strenth at all times.

-The new BS to hit chart means it's easy for nids to hit tanks.
-Skirmishers no longer get a cover save for going flatout.

-After assault a non weapon skill vecile you always get a 3" consolidate move regardless if you destroyed it or not.
-The new Movement and Fleet rules means Nids get in CC faster then ever.

-Beasts have a base move of 8" instead of 6"

-Mind Slave seems to suggest it's a USR nids will be given threw erreta.

-The new "Braceing" rules that help make MC's more survivable, since you can give them two saves.

-"Charge by chance" is going to help out greatly for killing transports in CC. It means when assaulting transports if the unit jumping out end up with-in 1" of you, you are now locked in CC with said unit. (This is huge, since it means no more killing transports in CC, only to be rapid fired/charged/ect by the enemy next turn. You can be locked in CC were you do best. It is now viable to kill transports in CC, you are not forced to have to kill them in the shooting to get at the guys inside.)

-Veclies are more likely to wreak then explode, so your guys will not die horrible if you do CC tanks to death. A plus for when doing the above.

-Nid players can spend 4 Stratagem points to give all their units assault grenades.

Thanks guys I didn't know that. I guess once I finally get use to the rules of 5th editon, I will have to forget them and start playing 6th. :P

For the comments of people saying the rules suck they will stick to 4th edtion, funny, I clearly remember people saying rules of 5th edtion sucked (rumours at the time) and they will stick to 4th. So it is perfectly fine if you stick to 5th, it will not be bothering us who want to and looking forward to these rumours if true. :)

[DarkLink]

Facing mechguard? Buy nightfight for the whole game:)

[Lockark]

Thanks guys I didn't know that. I guess once I finally get use to the rules of 5th editon, I will have to forget them and start playing 6th. :P

For the comments of people saying the rules suck they will stick to 4th edtion, funny, I clearly remember people saying rules of 5th edtion sucked (rumours at the time) and they will stick to 4th. So it is perfectly fine if you stick to 5th, it will not be bothering us who want to and looking forward to these rumours if true. :)

Xas made a mistake about wound allocation. Most IC's have both a Armour Save and a Invul Save. (Plus the new ability to take two saves.) This means that they are considered a separate armour save grouping for wound allocation.

(Unless said IC has no Inv of any kind, and the same armour saves as the rest of the squad.)

From how I understood the rules the idea is the opponent gets to choose the model that gets removed for every 5th unsaved wound. Controlling player still allocates the wounds before saves by Armour groupings as he chooses.


I could be incorrect, but this is how I have been reading it.

[Asymmetrical Xeno]

@Asymmetrical Xeno
Yeah!!....levitating orb of darkness is such a cool and fun race to play....I cant wait to....well you cant do much if you a ball. And what about codex/special rules?? balls as troops....and really BIG balls as Mc`s??:o:o:o

You know I read comments like yours nearly every other day, and they always have that same patronising tone to them too. Look, just cos you can't think of unit ideas doesnt mean others can - especially the designers - and why this constant need to be so patronising in the first place? couldnt you of just said "what kind of units could they have as I can't personally think of any myself?" instead ?

Here's a list for you I came up with on the top of my head. Then again I expect you'll just reply with another patronising comment anyway, so im not sure why I even bother sometimes - but here goes.


HQ :
Remnant of Qah - Special Character. Take him to make Shadowsmiths troops and thus make viable pure Umbra Armies (if one wants). A larger chunk of Qah that did not become an Umbra, but can only be awakened with them. Very much like the Eldar's Avatar equivilent except a one-off character. Looks like a deformed oceanic crab with pincer-like nodes along the circumference of the body. Various vents show small egg-like growths which act as sensors.


Troops :
Umbra ShadowSmiths - Well, these are exactly like the ones you see in the artwork. The basic, generic troops. The basic orbs with all the tentacles/mouths ect.

Elites :
Nightmare Gollums - A little like Daemons in that they are a reflection of peoples innermost fears. Very much like the ghosts in MR James type books - ghostly symbols of terror. Could be used as terror and infiltration type units. Have a semi-humanoid look - except have slithering slug-like bodies split into two, and sharp talons extruding form their hands, they have heads but no faces. One of the Umbra's shadow-consruct types.

Entropic-Field Orb - Ok, imagine a sphere that has been sliced apart at the top and bottom, and the different slices hang out at the sides. Inside of it, they'd be an overgrown pulsating mass of flesh with various organic Funnels and Tubes which extrude outwards from the sides - these would give off a kind of gas or fog which causes mass-aging effect. A weapon used more to slow-down and weaken the opposition rather than actually physically harm them.

Fast Attack :
Shadow Swarms - Imagine these like the equivilent of scarabs or rippers. Tiny warp constructs amassed into a swarm - I'd imagine these more like Lamreys, worms or snakes but with a more Giger-ish look and feel.

Star-Vampires - Remember the Shadow-ships from babylon5? Imagine something like that, but more solid-looking and with organic "socket"-like cockpits with a few Umbra orbs sat inside by useage of arterial linkages. A fast-attack shadow-construct Flyer.

Shade-Ghouls - Black shadowy faceless entities which have gained a small degree of sentience allowing them to roam free from their Umbra creators. More MR James influence, with a bit of X-files thrown in. They could have shadowy swords, guns and such, but still have a very alien and "Wrong" look to them. As a potential fluff-piece - they could be linked to the Dark Eldar Mandrakes. (Afterall mandrakes are half-shadow, so maybe these could be the other lifeform they are hybridised, leading to a more humanoid shadow lifeform).

Heavy Support :
Avatar Of Qah - A hivemind of sorts. Lots of Umbra, mainly smaller ones - linked to a large "power Core" of warp energy through blackened organic trunks. The smaller ones are able to use their collective intelligence to concentrate power from the core to shoot hive wave warp-energy blasts at the enemy. Perhaps an HQ or Heavy Support. The Core would resemble a large "Alien egg" type construct, with veins and vestigal arteries covering it and forming non-euclidean patterns. There would be several large spike-type forations around the sides in a symmetrical order which feed into the central-core.

Transport :
Wraith-Wall - A litteral wall of shadowy energies, inspired by various creatures from chinese mythology. Lots of mouth-like holes on one side - enough for say ten Umbra. Yes, it's the equivilent of a transport vehicle. But could be armed with a similar entropic-field type weapons as well. Perhaps larger funnels/tubes to show more powerful equivilent. More Giger-esque in visuals with the wall made of biomechanical type textures.

There, thats about 9 unit ideas in total, and only a few of them are true "Umbra", the rest being shadow-constructs they have created. It seems completely doable as a kind of niche-army within a more mainstream Hrud list.

Flame away I guess :rolleyes:

[RogueGarou]

Looking over these rumors, and the comments, there are some odd things. First, things were mentioned as being polished for grammar but I don't recall seeing the whole conversation. There could be bits and pieces which might be interpreted differently if you see the question and the unpolished response.

Second, with all of the complaining going around about how 40k needs to be changed and modified by the internet crowd because "Game Y" does this and "Game X" does that, would you not expect a company that at least peeks into the player world to begin making changes to their game?

Third, Jervis is one of the older hands at the company. Since he took over a lot of older items have been rolling back into the game. I would not be too surprised to see overwatch and multiple saves come back into the game, as well as some other items from 2E.

Fourth, the source for the rumors is very unhappy with being a part of the company but either has somehow gotten hold of a set of documents or has something to do with either game design or book design or something to see a book. As quickly as something can be created in Adobe and then printed on a laser printer, perhaps what he has seen is a mockup rulebook for playtesting.

Fifth, who knows if the contacts are not the same person in the company? I can create an on-line account and post all manner of things and create another account and post the information to someone else. If there is something you do not like, cool. If there is, cool. No reason to get all kinds of mad about it until the game rolls out and you see what the game and your armies are going to finally look like. Then make a choice.

Sixth, I have been playing since 2E. When 3E came out, I was not at all happy with the game. It was much more bland than the version it replaced. I played two or three games of 3E to test it out and still did not care for it or the new slim Codex books. I stopped playing until 4E came out and made some changes to the game. If 6E turns out to be not so much fun, then I won't play it. I will still have my models and will continue to play whatever the rest of the group that comes to my house wants to play. When things get moved around with new rules or a new edition, then we'll play that. But after investing nearly 20 years into the hobby, it is about having a good time with friends. I am over the idea of playing the game just to win. As long as it is fun to play. If my Guard army gets into hand to hand across the line, they are toast. If my World Eaters get shot to bits, they are toast. As long as the new game has something that is fun for each army, the game will be fun. If it isn't as much fun, then we will break out the Battletech armies that I have been playing for even longer than 40k and bust heads or we will break out the Necromunda rules or Bloodbowl or whatever.

Seventh, how much does being unhappy with a ruleset really do anything today? For all of the complaining about it here or on Warseer or any number of other web sites really make a change? Back when I started playing there were several fan-produced magazines that included alternative rules for Battletech and some other games. And some of those things that became popular enough were integrated into the main game ruleset. They also influenced the game designers. Try doing something rather than just sitting around typing "Oh noes, my favorite model with twelve arms and ten plasma pistols is hosed nowzzz!" on some site. Decipher's old Star Wars card game is still in play with an active player community ten years after it went out of production. Fix things rather than complain to anyone within earshot about how things should be anyway rather than how they are. It obviously does work with GW. Epic, Space Hulk, Necromunda, rules in White Dwarf, ForgeWorld, flyers, various game expansions, new models... there are plenty of examples of them doing things that fans have asked for and they have tried them but they will only try them if they can make some money from them. If they do not make a change, then you can make the changes yourself to affect the group you are gaming with and that may affect other people. Look at tournament groups who come up with their own rules for tourneys. Some of them become popular and influence other groups, some are not so influential. Instead of complaining that you don't like something, do what you can to change things.

Speaking of changing things, Han shot first. Not second. Not at the same time. First. BEFORE Greedo even thought about drawing down, Han cut him down. Adding those lines here do as much good as insulting people here on the forums or complaining about something GW may or may not do in the coming year. Anyway, have fun with the games. Later, folks.

[Denzark]

AX you always make me twitch in the direction of my flamer...

[Asymmetrical Xeno]

AX you always make me twitch in the direction of my flamer...

Would you have it any other way ? ;)

[GrenAcid]

@AX
Well....Im impresed, but still dont see them as race to play.

Im gona hold my thumbs for kroot mercs;)

[Denzark]

Would you have it any other way ? ;)

I just wish I was sure you hadn't implanted something like the eel from Ceti Alpha 5 in my head...

[Asymmetrical Xeno]

@AX
Well....Im impresed, but still dont see them as race to play.

Im gona hold my thumbs for kroot mercs;)

well, folk like myself would play them :D

if you mean in the context of them having a WHOLE codex and range? then id agree, but my thoughts are more in the context of them being part of a Hrud codex which I'd assume would be the focus anyway. I still think they'd work fine as a sub-faction you have to take a special character to play though - Like for example how Corteaz allows Inquisition, Belial allows DeathWing or that one fella allows Hellions ect - one of the more niche sub-armies within a codex instead.And going by current trends - each codex seems to allow 3-5 different "themed" armies - so I don't see a problem in Umbra being one of those, it would get all the lovecraft fanboys like me spending bucketloads of cash on GW - and while we are smaller in number, we are pretty hardcore, which may make it feasable.

I think an all-kroot army should be playable too - so I agree on that point. Theres plenty out there that love Kroot, and of course they had a list in the past too - I don't think they should go the special-character route however, but instead have a generic HQ (like Haemonculous) that allows Kroot armies (Master Shaper maybe?).

[DrLove42]

I think an all-kroot army should be playable too - so I agree on that point. Theres plenty out there that love Kroot, and of course they had a list in the past too - I don't think they should go the special-character route however, but instead have a generic HQ (like Haemonculous) that allows Kroot armies (Master Shaper maybe?).

A kroot army would be very nice, and obviuosly has existed in the past.

However remember...there currently is no codex yet you can build a full army different to the main one...

GK come close with henchmen armies, but still need GK heavy support

DE come close with Hemonculi cults, but still rely on Kabalite Transports, Fast Attack and long range AT

Can I also say...Goatboys comments on the front page...I actually agree with him for once!?

[HsojVvad]

Speaking of changing things, Han shot first. Not second. Not at the same time. First. BEFORE Greedo even thought about drawing down, Han cut him down. Adding those lines here do as much good as insulting people here on the forums or complaining about something GW may or may not do in the coming year. Anyway, have fun with the games. Later, folks.

Did I miss something? How does Han shooting first have anything to do with this? :eek:

[Lockark]

Big thing? What's the difference from now? MC's already have most of that stuff.
MC's already have move through cover, so they roll 3d6 for charging through terrain - pretty likely to bring up a 5 or 6.

You need to read that in combination with the other rules he posted.

Thier is no longer any random movement in the game. You have a base movement and you can move x1, x2, or x3 your movement. (Doing so means thier are certine actions the unit can't take after doing so.

If you have fleet you can do that x3 movement and assault after.

For the Trygon you can move 18" and assault. O____O

You can also assault off deep strikes now, so combined with it's safe scatter rules it's pretty epic.

[Denied]

So reading over the new 6th ed rumors and found something interesting to me.

Transport:
Fire point: can fire if vehicle has advanced or surged, but only 12” regardless of weapon type, embarked troops are relentless


Relentless: always count as stationary for firing weapons

So what I am reading here is if you have a heavy weapon and are loaded into a Rhino then you can move 12" in the Rhino and fire said heavy weapon....

I am a Grey Knights player so for me this means 8 psycannon shots and extreme mobility or Chimera with Jokero loaded up and they can move 12" and shoot with Lascannons .... this is painful sounding .... I love it:-P

[DAPHEEL]

Overwatch Baby, Yeah!

[Kawauso]

So reading over the new 6th ed rumors and found something interesting to me.




So what I am reading here is if you have a heavy weapon and are loaded into a Rhino then you can move 12" in the Rhino and fire said heavy weapon....

I am a Grey Knights player so for me this means 8 psycannon shots and extreme mobility or Chimera with Jokero loaded up and they can move 12" and shoot with Lascannons .... this is painful sounding .... I love it:-P

You can do that, sure, but the lascannons will only be able to shoot 12" themselves, remember.

[GrenAcid]

You can do that, sure, but the lascannons will only be able to shoot 12" themselves, remember.

Pwn by 4 splintercannons on truborns.....24 poison shoots in 24"(for 165 in venom[with aditional 12 shoots of his own]) .....oww yeah!

[Lancel]

Did I miss something? How does Han shooting first have anything to do with this? :eek:

Referencing changes and how they suck, since were on the subject of change in 6th. We can still appreciate Star Wars though, even though Han DID shoot first.


You need to read that in combination with the other rules he posted.

Thier is no longer any random movement in the game. You have a base movement and you can move x1, x2, or x3 your movement. (Doing so means thier are certine actions the unit can't take after doing so.

If you have fleet you can do that x3 movement and assault after.

For the Trygon you can move 18" and assault. O____O

You can also assault off deep strikes now, so combined with it's safe scatter rules it's pretty epic.

Geeze, that would be pretty epic for an assault army. Shooting armies wouldn't be able to do jack against 18" move and assault. 24" Rapid Fire weapons will never even get a shot off, except maybe with Overwatch, or if the enemy moved into 24" so next turn they can assault to get off a few shots.

[Lerra]

Keep in mind that there is no 6" assault move in these rumors, so that 18" move is basically the same as what we have now for beasts and cavalry (6" move plus 12" assault) or jump packs (12" move plus 6" assault). For fleeting infantry, it's a change from a 6" + d6" +6" threat range to a straight 18", except you can't fleet-assault through cover. If anything, it will slow those assault units down because it's pretty easy to hide behind cover.

[Denied]

You can do that, sure, but the lascannons will only be able to shoot 12" themselves, remember.

hmm I may have missed that where did it say that?

[Lockark]

Referencing changes and how they suck, since were on the subject of change in 6th. We can still appreciate Star Wars though, even though Han DID shoot first.



Geeze, that would be pretty epic for an assault army. Shooting armies wouldn't be able to do jack against 18" move and assault. 24" Rapid Fire weapons will never even get a shot off, except maybe with Overwatch, or if the enemy moved into 24" so next turn they can assault to get off a few shots.

Remember. You can't assault after a 18" move unless you have fleet remember.

Also remember according to the same rumors Calvary/Bikes/Jump infantry/ect all have a base move of 8" now.

[Lockark]

Referencing changes and how they suck, since were on the subject of change in 6th. We can still appreciate Star Wars though, even though Han DID shoot first.



Geeze, that would be pretty epic for an assault army. Shooting armies wouldn't be able to do jack against 18" move and assault. 24" Rapid Fire weapons will never even get a shot off, except maybe with Overwatch, or if the enemy moved into 24" so next turn they can assault to get off a few shots.

Remember. You can't assault after a 18" move unless you have fleet remember.

Also remember according to the same rumors Calvary/Bikes/Jump infantry/ect all have a base move of 8" now.


Keep in mind that there is no 6" assault move in these rumors, so that 18" move is basically the same as what we have now for beasts and cavalry (6" move plus 12" assault) or jump packs (12" move plus 6" assault). For fleeting infantry, it's a change from a 6" + d6" +6" threat range to a straight 18", except you can't fleet-assault through cover. If anything, it will slow those assault units down because it's pretty easy to hide behind cover.

In all honesty I still think food based assault armies are in general going to be faster in general despite that. With no more random movement in terriean and random movement for run? I know I will be looking foreword to it for orks.

[Cadian 9th]

These rumors look good, I like them. Anything that moves it to a more tactical game (tactical basically in this context means " more opportunities to be tactical ") is a good move in my opinion, a nod to GWs more dedicated players, not the new kids who buy their space marines and drop out in 6 months, tops.

I like how my IG all infantry looks slightly more playable. I like the strategem for getting overwatch on an objective; say, combined squad or veterans? Returning fire is great since it lets you do a double payload JUST in case you failed to wipe them out.

Can a Flyer contest an objective? I'm loving already how my Valks can simply hover high up and rain death from the skies like the bosses they are.

But yeah. Impressed with the move to more complexity, just hoping it doesn't get too time consuming; perhaps I'll alter my army composition if certain units slow down play.

[DrLove42]

Chances are a flier cannot contest and objective, nor can a transport plane carrying troops hold it. However if you put it inot Hover mode, in current 40k apoc rules it becomes a skimmer, not a flier, and therefore can contest/hold, but is easier to hit

Also I ond't like this "no fleet assault into terrain" thing. Hope its either not true, or is cancelled by the effects of grenades

[Kawauso]

hmm I may have missed that where did it say that?

It was right in the rule you quoted. :)

"Transport:
Fire point: can fire if vehicle has advanced or surged, but only 12” regardless of weapon type, embarked troops are relentless "

[Cadian 9th]

Chances are a flier cannot contest and objective, nor can a transport plane carrying troops hold it. However if you put it inot Hover mode, in current 40k apoc rules it becomes a skimmer, not a flier, and therefore can contest/hold, but is easier to hit

Also I ond't like this "no fleet assault into terrain" thing. Hope its either not true, or is cancelled by the effects of grenades

I see; I suppose you mean " normal to hit compared to the harder to hit when in flyer mode " rather than " They're easier to hit than other tanks/skimmers that couldn't go into flyer mode ".

Either way, I think the prievous expansions such as Apocalypse were probably a good way for them to guage wether people liked certain rules. IIRC, apocalyptic strategems had the same scale of effect for the game size as the rumored strategems; I.e. re-rolls on some rolls, scouting ability, etc. In fact, there was a 5+ cover save for veichles in Apocalypse.

[DrLove42]

Problem there is the strategems in Apoc are not even close to being balenced. To the point most gaming groups have re-written or banned some of them

An asset like Flank March is not equivilent to the 5+ cover save on turn 1

[Porty1119]

This could be the misstep that kills the game and causes everybody to go back to playing 5th...epic OOPS! :o:eek:

[celldwellwer]

I would like to see more solid statements before going off half cocked. I would also like o release all the codex's before going to a new edition see eldar tao and necrons are still running on very old codex. or if they are not going to do that maybe they need to think about reducing the number of faction in the game so they can get all the codex out with in an edition.

[Lockark]

I would like to see more solid statements before going off half cocked. I would also like o release all the codex's before going to a new edition see eldar tao and necrons are still running on very old codex. or if they are not going to do that maybe they need to think about reducing the number of faction in the game so they can get all the codex out with in an edition.

You will notice in GW's design cycle codexs released in one edition but with the next core edition coming out, are more or less written with the next edition in mind.

According to these rumoers Tyrnids, Blood Angles, Dark Eldar, and Grey Knights were all written with 6th ed in mind. (Witch if you read threw the rumors some of the stranger choices in thows books make alot more scene.)

[warpcrafter]

You will notice in GW's design cycle codexs released in one edition but with the next core edition coming out, are more or less written with the next edition in mind.

According to these rumoers Tyrnids, Blood Angles, Dark Eldar, and Grey Knights were all written with 6th ed in mind. (Witch if you read threw the rumors some of the stranger choices in thows books make alot more scene.)

Perhaps, but that still leaves lots of codexes that haven't even gotten a 5th edition treatment yet. I wish that they would do something to get the whole game at the same edition at once, then keep it at that edition until they are ready to release the next one, and THEN update the codexes.

[Lockark]

Perhaps, but that still leaves lots of codexes that haven't even gotten a 5th edition treatment yet. I wish that they would do something to get the whole game at the same edition at once, then keep it at that edition until they are ready to release the next one, and THEN update the codexes.

Well excludeing Flavors of Loyalist mariens you have: Necrons(3rd), Tau(4th), CSM(4.5), and C.W. Eldar(4.5).

I don't realy consider that "alot".

[DrLove42]

Well excludeing Flavors of Loyalist mariens you have: Necrons(3rd), Tau(4th), CSM(4.5), and C.W. Eldar(4.5).

I don't realy consider that "alot".

And Sisters...just cos they get done later this month doesn't mean they're out yet...or happy with a WD release

I would consider that a lot cos that over a years releases thanks to GW's release timescales. And like they'd go a whole year without doing a marine spin off or 2....

[Lockark]

And Sisters...just cos they get done later this month doesn't mean they're out yet...or happy with a WD release

I would consider that a lot cos that over a years releases thanks to GW's release timescales. And like they'd go a whole year without doing a marine spin off or 2....

A white dwarf update is still a update, and it still means thier getting a update before 6th ed comes out. I also don't see how sisters "don't count" since they are not getting their update until next mouth. Thier still confirmed as getting a update before 6th comes out, not matter how you want to slice it.

If the fans are "happy" about it dosen't matter, case in point the Current CSM codex.

Also at this point in devlopement I would rather they not bother updating my codex untill after 6th ed, or be given the "Ork treatment". (Witch was a true 5th ed codex, released in 4th in preperation for 5th.)

[Grenadier]

I hope the Black Templars get an updated codex before 6th edition. Or at least shortly thereafter. I've shelved my army indefinitely. It irks me that they have but 3 special characters and Helbrecht's stats aren't even comparable to a Space Marine chapter master's stats.

[Melissia]

A white dwarf update is still a updateBy that reasoning, every army is updated because the PDF FAQs all got updated too.

No. It's not a real codex, so I don't give a ****.

[erwos]

I hope the Black Templars get an updated codex before 6th edition. Or at least shortly thereafter. I've shelved my army indefinitely. It irks me that they have but 3 special characters and Helbrecht's stats aren't even comparable to a Space Marine chapter master's stats.
My mech IG army got smashed by a BT army a few months ago. Dude took tons of terminators with cyclone launchers and put tank hunters on them. Ouch. Your codex definitely has a power build or two.

[Lockark]

By that reasoning, every army is updated because the PDF FAQs all got updated too.

No. It's not a real codex, so I don't give a ****.

Last I checked a FAQ update dose not change point coasts, specail rules, wargear options, and generaly rewrite the whole book.

Oh wait. That's what a update is, and guess what? This is a White Dwarf Codex, as in this is a new unit/rules listing that invalidates and replaces the existing one. Just because it's in a White Dwarf doesn't mean it's any less of a update.

You can think it's not a very good update, and so be it. You think most things aren't very good and have used choice words in the pass to describe it before. It's not that big a surprise.



But to say the white dwarf Codex isn't a update is just silly. The White Dwarf Codex will be changing just as much as any new codex dose. Probly will just not be realy ADDING anything that new to the army list.

[eldargal]

And there is always the possibility that GW will buck its historical trends and release a good WD codex.

[HsojVvad]

I hope the Black Templars get an updated codex before 6th edition. Or at least shortly thereafter. I've shelved my army indefinitely. It irks me that they have but 3 special characters and Helbrecht's stats aren't even comparable to a Space Marine chapter master's stats.

I am not trying to sound mean, but if you want stats that are comparable to a Space Marine, then play Ultra Marines then.

There is a reason why we have different SM codicies. So they are different. Just because they are different and it's a negative to you, we really shouldn't be complaining other wise, we might just as well have SW, BA, DA, and BT all in one Ultramarine codex.

Also don't forget, that the BT will be the poster boys for the upcoming MMO so maybe GW is trying to tie everything for BT together at that time. Would make sense if they did.

[Lockark]

And there is always the possibility that GW will buck its historical trends and release a good WD codex.

In all honesty the Blood Angles WD was not that bad. Their is a were I play who has been playing Blood Angles since 3rd ed, and the 4th ed WD codex is his favorite Codex to date. Specifically the Death Company from what book was his favorite incarnation, and liked how the army in general played.

(And that is comparing it to the old 3rd and current 5th ed books.)

Many Blood Angles fans on the internet hated that book.

What is "good" is in the eye of the beholder sometimes.
;)

[Galadren]

My mech IG army got smashed by a BT army a few months ago. Dude took tons of terminators with cyclone launchers and put tank hunters on them. Ouch. Your codex definitely has a power build or two.

If I wanted to play a shooting army I wouldn't play an assault army. :|

[Melissia]

And there is always the possibility that GW will buck its historical trends and release a good WD codex.There's also a chance that I could start a CSM army, too. Both are very, very small chances.

And no, this is not a promise to do so if you turn out correct :P

[adamkula]

I'm taking all of this with a massive pinch of salt. GW is tightening up leaks yet we have detailed info on rule changes for 6th editon? Tyranids weren't released that long after the current rulebook, yet they already knew what the next rule set would be to enable them to make Tyranids compatible with it? Doesn't sound right to me.

yeah im going to take it with a pinch of salt .... i personally think the last update to tyranids nerfed them

[grimsmite]

I notice many players prefer to squeeze as much randomness out of the game as possible. Can someone explain why many players prefer a God like power over their troops when in any human endevour leaders have the Devils own job in getting their followers to do anything!

Similarly why is ther a general consensus that random game length is a bad thing? Each player knows the game could end so should make plans to take this into account.

I do not want a game that is predictable if I can process the mathes fast enough. Ironically, the more randomness in a game the more chance that it will cancel itself out.

It's way too soon to worry about 6th ed. just yet, but it concerns me when it is suggested that 'veteran' players have been involved based on the recent FAQ's - most of which have not answered key questions and have been adequate at best.

Grim

[DarkLink]

Random game length is stupid. You can talk about planning contingencies and stuff all you like, but it doesn't change the fact that the end of the game comes down to a random dice roll rather than player skill. I've been screwed over too many times in games that I would and should have won that I don't buy the "oh, you should just plan ahead better" crap.

[Lockark]

Random game length is stupid. You can talk about planning contingencies and stuff all you like, but it doesn't change the fact that the end of the game comes down to a random dice roll rather than player skill. I've been screwed over too many times in games that I would and should have won that I don't buy the "oh, you should just plan ahead better" crap.

In my experience if the game has been realy close, it's the random game lenght that end up decideing who wins. It dosen't bother me to much since I like a close game, but it dose kinda suck.
=/

[GrenAcid]

Randomness is a good thing....if you dont like it there are chess for you, no randomnes at all, straight rules no diffrent range, every thing is same.
Id won cuz of random lenght, and I lost cuz of it, no big deal.....losers gona moan about it, men(women included:P) simply dont care.

[Lockark]

Randomness is a good thing....if you dont like it there are chess for you, no randomnes at all, straight rules no diffrent range, every thing is same.
Id won cuz of random lenght, and I lost cuz of it, no big deal.....losers gona moan about it, men(women included:P) simply dont care.

What I meant with my post more was. The only time random game length isn't a factor is when I completely crush my opponent, or I was completely crushed.

Random Turn length doesn't bother me, since if the game was close enought that it was the deciding factor, I usely enjoy it despite winning or losing. I never feel "cheated" out of a win by it, but I still acknowledge that it's a mechanic that I will not miss if they got rid of. (The reasons have already been said clearly from others, so I will not repeat my self.)

[DarkLink]

Some randomness can be a good thing. Not in this case. We already have tons and tons of randomness every single turn when we use dice for just about everything.

Or should we start employing randomness in objective as well? Every turn roll a dice. On a 4+, your scoring unit claims that objective, but on a 1-3 it tripped and fell and you don't get the objective. And for each killpoint you earn, roll a dice. On a 1-2 it doesn't count.

In case you can't interpret internet voice, that was sarcasm.

[Morgan Darkstar]

Or should we start employing randomness in objective as well? Every turn roll a dice. On a 4+, your scoring unit claims that objective, but on a 1-3 it tripped and fell and you don't get the objective. And for each killpoint you earn, roll a dice. On a 1-2 it doesn't count.

What a great idea! :p

[ArmyC]

Has the 6th ed rumor mill phizzed out?

Has anyone heard anything else?

[Gir]

Random game length is stupid. You can talk about planning contingencies and stuff all you like, but it doesn't change the fact that the end of the game comes down to a random dice roll rather than player skill. I've been screwed over too many times in games that I would and should have won that I don't buy the "oh, you should just plan ahead better" crap.

You can not buy it as much as you want, but it's clearly the issue.

[HsojVvad]

Has the 6th ed rumor mill phizzed out?

Has anyone heard anything else?

Amazingly the rumours have fizzled as soon as they appeared. Then again, with the tight rumour leaks now, it would make sense only one or two people might have some rumours and that is all that would be able to be said, so that could be why so few rumours are out there right now.

[Kawauso]

What else would there be to leak, exactly?

Barring minor changes, assuming the rumours are correct, we can basically combine the rumoured changes with the 5th edition rulebook and we would -have- the 6th edition rulebook.

There's...not a lot else to say at that point, is there?

[Uncle Nutsy]

as others have said, a set game length would be much better. why? it would add a fair bit of tactical flavour to the game. There's been so many times where i've set up a killbox to finish off the last remaining threat in order to make a run for the objective for a win. Then the dice is rolled and all of a sudden game over and I lost.

But, with a set length, I can actually play a much different game than I do already. If it takes six turns for the game to end, I can position a strike team somewhere near an objective, let the opponent sieze it, kill off the squad that's holding it and then run in to claim.

[DarkLink]

You can not buy it as much as you want, but it's clearly the issue.

Not when my opponent keeps units in reserves that come in bottom of turn 5 to contest or deny killpoints and I never get a chance to do anything to them. True story. Opponent had maybe 11 boyz and 4 deffkoptas left, and I had basically my entire 2000pt army minus a couple Dreadnoughts he'd killed. Guess who won?

I don't buy the 'plan for the game to end' crap, because you can't 'plan' for randomness. Sometimes you have to over-extend yourself in order to contest objectives, so either you are screwed if the game goes on or you decide the gamble isn't worth it and lose.

Guessing whether or not the dice will turn up as a 1 or a 2 on turn 5 is not a skill, and don't try and claim it is. You can sometimes mitigate the chances of losing as a result of a single dice roll, but sometimes you just don't get luck enough and you're forced into a position where you can either play for another turn and hope it goes on, or play as if the game ends. Guess wrong and you lose. That's not skill, that's crap.

[Gir]

Not when my opponent keeps units in reserves that come in bottom of turn 5 to contest or deny killpoints and I never get a chance to do anything to them. True story. Opponent had maybe 11 boyz and 4 deffkoptas left, and I had basically my entire 2000pt army minus a couple Dreadnoughts he'd killed. Guess who won?

That is an issue with Killpoints, which is why I always play with victory points.

[Lockark]

I like kill points....
=<

[Dalleron]

I think the kill point idea is a good one. I think that it wasn't well thought out. How can a squad of ork boys 25-ish strong be effetively the same as a 10 man marine squad. Had they made it something along the lines of 2 for a full squad and 1 for at least half, it may have worked out better. Less math than VP, probably a lot quicker to count.

[Lockark]

I think the kill point idea is a good one. I think that it wasn't well thought out. How can a squad of ork boys 25-ish strong be effetively the same as a 10 man marine squad. Had they made it something along the lines of 2 for a full squad and 1 for at least half, it may have worked out better. Less math than VP, probably a lot quicker to count.

If you were to change it, Then it should be something along the lines of what some tournaments do. HQ's, Elites, Heavy, ect worth more points, well troops and dedicated transports are only 1.

*Shrugs*

Maby not that exactly, but you get the idea.

Basic you should just be able to glance at the table, then glance at your list and have the numbers dureing and after the game in front of you.

As opposed to pulling out a pencil/paper/calculator at the end of the game... I hate how in WHFB it's hard to tell who won or loss a game. (Made worse by all the bonuses and such that also add into it.) I've lost so many games were I killed more models/units. But after the math it turns out I lost.
=/

It pisses me off because I don't even know if I'm winning or losing until after the dust settles. I like being able to know how far ahead or behind I am of the other guy, and being able to change my tactics accordingly on the fly.

[Dalleron]

I think any way you adjust Kill points would be better than the way is stands now. Some units, for whatever special rules they have, can just be too much work for a single KP. My thoughts are only after a brief second or so contemplating the KP idea. Which is probably the same amount of time the designers spent on the same idea.

[Wildeybeast]

I think the kill point idea is a good one. I think that it wasn't well thought out. How can a squad of ork boys 25-ish strong be effetively the same as a 10 man marine squad. Had they made it something along the lines of 2 for a full squad and 1 for at least half, it may have worked out better. Less math than VP, probably a lot quicker to count.

Kill points are the stupidest thing GW have ever done. I hate them with a passion that i cannot vocalise. There was absolutely nothing whatsoever wrong with the VP system. The only argument for KP is, as you suggest, less maths to simplify the game. But given that players have demonstrated a basic understanding of maths in drawing up their army list, and they already have said list to hand at the end of the game, there is nothing in any way difficult about it. It is also stupidly unfair. How can I possibly beat my Chaos marine friend with my Tyranid army when he has 5-6 units and I'm rolling up with at least double that, most of which are there to serve the sole purpose of dying for little points cost. How can my chaff unit of ripper swarms possibly have the same victory value as his unit of 10 Terminators? Stupid, stupid, stupid. If they make only one change in 6th ed, I pray it is that they treat us like adults and bring VP's back.

[Dalleron]

I never said KP was a fool proof concept. In fact I think there's plenty about it that could be better. The basic idea is good. You hate with all your being by the sounds of it so I don't think anyone could sway you on that. It does fit what GW was trying to accomplish with 5th ed. by all accounts.

Maybe it will completely different come next summer. Who knows. None of us.

[Wildeybeast]

I never said KP was a fool proof concept. In fact I think there's plenty about it that could be better. The basic idea is good. You hate with all your being by the sounds of it so I don't think anyone could sway you on that.

You're right on that one :D As you say, we will have to wait and see. I'm still sceptical that 6th ed will arrive next summer, given the amount of amries yet to update and the whole epic fail of the summer of flyers rumour mill.

[Lockark]

Kill points are the stupidest thing GW have ever done. I hate them with a passion that i cannot vocalise. There was absolutely nothing whatsoever wrong with the VP system. The only argument for KP is, as you suggest, less maths to simplify the game.

Erm...


I
Basic you should just be able to glance at the table, then glance at your list and have the numbers dureing and after the game in front of you.

As opposed to pulling out a pencil/paper/calculator at the end of the game... I hate how in WHFB it's hard to tell who won or loss a game. (Made worse by all the bonuses and such that also add into it.) I've lost so many games were I killed more models/units. But after the math it turns out I lost.
=/

It pisses me off because I don't even know if I'm winning or losing until after the dust settles. I like being able to know how far ahead or behind I am of the other guy, and being able to change my tactics accordingly on the fly.


"Oh hey. please excuse me. I want to take 10 min out of the game to calculate if I'm winning or losing right now..."

That's the appeal of kill points.