6th Ed Content Rumours

[DrLove42]

OK so a roundabout way of posting rumours but....

Bell of Lost Souls page on Facebook just posted this;


All the birds are starting to chirp regarding 40k 6th.

-Expect to see many of the features of the WFB 8th Edition Magic phase coming to 40k. Psychers will function VERY differently than they do now.

No source, no anything just that. I don't even know who actually runs the BOLS facebook page. Is it BigRed or one of the others?

ANyway..this rumour ^^

I f***ing hate. It sounds awful. Current powers work fine, I don't want pools for casting and dispelling. Games being lost cos you rolled badly on your for your pool. I'm guessing a "miscast" would become a Perils test. And then this is just going to shaft non-physic races like DE, Tau .... even Orks and Nids. Re-writting every codex to give them new physic defences. And then rewritten to rebalence every bit of physic wargear...particularly the Eldar and Nids stuff.

Of all the things to carry across from Fantasy....why this?

Update - From BoLS front page


Many of the general concepts from magic from Warhammer Fantasy are coming to Warhammer 40,000.
-There will be "lore equivalents"
-Psychic powers will be generated randomly by psykers (like fantasy)
-Entirely new rules for constructing army lists (~Look at Fantasy for hints)
-The FOC may be history

The news on physic powers get worse, maybe not getting pools, but randomly generated powers? From lore trees? Do the Eldar share the same physic powers as the Orks and Deamons now? This is bull***t.

The FoC i soculd maybe got on baord with. But not this. This smacks of someone who played a few too many games of storm of magic and decided "you know what 40k needs? Less tactics and more random crap messing everything up!"

Update 2! From Faeit 212


Via Grant
Hey mates,
All the stuff in this link is 100% the real deal. ( Ive posted it below)

As far as 6th ed...
I will also add that vehicles use "hull points" in 6th. If a vehicle has 3 hull points it will die after 3 shaken results, but it can still explode after 1 shot as normal.

All cc weapons have AP values in 6th similar to what was in the fake 6th ed rule book leak.
There are going to be no different levels of Eternal Warrior either.

Cheers,
Grant

[gannam]

I actually find the magic system in fantasy to be better than the current 40K mess that exists. The current system is broken. Imagine what would happen if tyranid players finally had access to counter psychics by shadow of the warp giving you a bigger pool of dice to cancel out pcycher attacks.

Sorry for spelling. doing this from a phone.

[UltramarineFan]

I don't know whether this would be good or bad basically because I have no idea what that's supposed to mean. I think magic in 8th is perfectly fine and fun but don't really get how something that has a whole phase to itself in fantasy is going to be transposed to 40k (assuming they don't bring back the psychic phase)

[DadExtraordinaire]

The psyker rules will be different in that there will be different levels (1, 2, 3 etc) dictating how many powers per game tunr can be used or nullify......more to come....

[Surendil]

IF what was said in bok about a 6th edition VERY different from the 5th one was true, maybe (and just maybe) all the codexes will become obsolete, like WF going from 5th to 6th (IIRC)...

This could be an opportunity to reset the balance problem, but also could piss off a lot of people.

[Chuck777]

IF what was said in bok about a 6th edition VERY different from the 5th one was true, maybe (and just maybe) all the codexes will become obsolete, like WF going from 5th to 6th (IIRC)...

This could be an opportunity to reset the balance problem, but also could piss off a lot of people.

If they were going to do that, then they would have just given Necrons a ragdex rather than a whole codex. I can't imagine buying a codex last fall, only for it to be deemed illegal come summer of the next year.

[ElectricPaladin]

My two cents? I really like the magic system in Fantasy. I think it builds a sense that as the two armies are striving on the battlefield, the two (or more!) wizards are waging an unseen magical battle all around them. I like how it requires the off-player's attention and engagement (much like Infinity...). I like how it makes even failure into an epic challenge. It's part of what drew me to Fantasy and to my army (Lizardmen), and I don't think it will hurt to have some of that in 40k. That said, it might hurt my interest in my beloved, abused Tau, unless they give us some psychic alien allies or alter the fluff so that we are actually resistent to psychic powers (a la Fantasy's Dwarves), rather than just uninteresting to daemons.

Also... look, I don't like change any more than anyone else. And I've just come to the game - I've just gotten used to the rules as they are - so it's plenty frustrating to me. But, it's gotta happen. Rules change. Editions roll on. That's life. I'm pretty resigned to it, and eager to see what the new edition has to offer.

[Surendil]

If they were going to do that, then they would have just given Necrons a ragdex rather than a whole codex. I can't imagine buying a codex last fall, only for it to be deemed illegal come summer of the next year.

IIRC they did the trick back then with vampire counts, giving them an army book in 1999 and replacing it with a ravening hordes list about half a year later.

Sadly, GW doesn't caracterize too much for showing a lot of respect for its clients.

[Bushido]

How about reserving judgement until we actually SEE the rules.

About all you could say now is "could be good, could be bad."

Besides, it's not like they're going to bring movement trays in to 40k.

[Emerald Rose Widow]

Besides, it's not like they're going to bring movement trays in to 40k.

lol, dont jinx it -giggles-

[DrLove42]

Taken from the BoLs front page (and added to the first post)


Many of the general concepts from magic from Warhammer Fantasy are coming to Warhammer 40,000.
-There will be "lore equivalents"
-Psychic powers will be generated randomly by psykers (like fantasy)
-Entirely new rules for constructing army lists (~Look at Fantasy for hints)
-The FOC may be history

FoC changes I could (maybe) get behind. Its have to see.

As for randomly generated, lore based physic powers....seriously. Fu*k you GW if that is true. So you're going to re-write the whole system which currently works fine AND have to re-write (and in a lot of cases, repoint) whole codexes to fit that in.
Take GK for example. Their entries are written with power included in their statline. And now they have to be randomly generated? The whole book would need to be recosted!
Eldar are shagged, cos if they don't get the powers they need (thats fortune FYI) they die horribly.
Nids...might benefit...maybe
Orks are already a little random in their powers, but that suits the unit and the army. And at least you can take all the powers, and it doesn't change what you do with the unit
Marines + BA. Reworking. Librarians get to choose powers. So that needs changing

[Mr. Furious]

Not much sense in worrying about it until we see the new rules.

Something to keep in mind: Remember when the internet blew up with Dark Angels talk and now that has almost been completely forgotten in the wave of new CSM rumors? Next week we'll be back to Black Templars and Tau or maybe they'll throw Squats back into the mix. The fact of the matter is, until GW tells us or shows us, there is absolutely no reason to take any of this information as gospel truth.

This is a lot of hype and misdirection IMHO. GW can't or won't leak information so they dribble out tidbits of misinformation with a little bit of truth mixed in to keep everyone guessing and to keep everyone talking about GW and what they are up to. Its marketing and hype building and we get suckered right into it.

Its fun to speculate but worrying about it is silly because the book is done and probably already printed or being printed as we speak. We'll see it when we see it and deal with the changes the way we always do.

[Aetaosrau]

I'm a bit of an old school player and have been in and out of the hobby since rogue trader, and random powers selected at the start of a game also having a dispel and generating phycic powers phase is not new, also that army specific generated powers were included from 2nd edition AND were randomly selected. This does not mean specific powers given to specific units would be abolished just made as an ability there trained to do.

This being said I cannot see any of this happening as the hobby has always tried to stream line games not bog them down and going back to old ideas

just a thought.

[Father]

Random psychic powers is seriously retarded, and percentage-based army creation simply does not work in 40k. I dearly hope that Bigred is misinformed, cause otherwise, 6th ed is going to suck on at least those two fronts.

Also, hardback cover books = me not buying every new book that comes out anymore. I'll just buy the ones that are required for the tournament and... "acquire" the rest through other, digitally-focused, means.

[eldargal]

I really have to agree. WFB magic is great, and I could see a lot of the mechanics transferring well. But not random powers. That would be absolutely terrible, and it really doesn't make sense. 40k has always let you pick your powers, that is why you pay for them. In WFB powers are free but random.

I'm not sure % based selection would work, but I don't think FOC is the best way either so I'm keeping an open mind on that one.

[Father]

Whenever I think of percentages in 40k, all that keeps flashing in my head is Coteaz backed up by 20 squads of 3-meltawarriors riding in psybolt razorbacks in a 2k game. I shudder and die a little inside everytime that happens.

[eldargal]

That would be a problem with any SC/character that changes a units troop type, unless GW stipulates that for army composition the original restrictions apply. Which copying direct from 8th ed would be 3 units up to 3000pts.

Actually what do people think of this:

HQ: Up to 25%. No limit to choices
Elite: Up to 35%. No more than 2 duplicate choices (same as current FOC)
Troops: Minimum 25%. No more than 6 duplicate choices (same as FOC)
Fast Attack: Up to 50%. No more than 3 duplicate choices
Heavy Support: Up to 50%. No more than 3 duplicate choices.

Pure speculation but it sor of combines both systems.

[Wildeybeast]

I like it. Similar to how Warhammer works in terms of percentages but with restrictions on repeat choices. Warhmmer did try the FOC for a while, but I never really thought it worked particularly well, I prefer percentages

[Father]

Would still be broken, just a different kind of broken. Quite a few books have excellent HS choices for example. Being able to take say, 3 missile devastators squads and 3 autolas preds(and a rifledread, for good measure) in a BA army seems more than a little unbalanced to me.

[Kawauso]

I don't like the sound of random psychic powers (seriously, all the books right now have powers you choose/pay for which very much affects army lists...re-working that for no benefit and at the cost of injecting more randomness to the game sounds horrible).

Also I'm not sure how the %-based thing sounds, as I have about 6-7 full armies that are all build around options I can take from the FoC...

That being said, I'm not going to worry about any of this until 6th actually drops. I have a reasonable amount of confidence in GW as far as them 'ruining' the game is concerned - I know they don't want to harm their business model as much as I don't want my armies to get screwed. :)

[eldargal]

True but most armies have good Heavy Support Choices. Dark Eldar could take 3 ravagers and 3 void ravens/razorwings at 1500pts for example. Eldar could take three fire prisms and three falcons (not at 1500p though, stupid overcosted old codex) and I'm sure most other armies have a couple of viable HS choices. Peraps not Tyranids or Tau but Tau at least will be getting a new book soon.

Would still be broken, just a different kind of broken. Quite a few books have excellent HS choices for example. Being able to take say, 3 missile devastators squads and 3 autolas preds(and a rifledread, for good measure) in a BA army seems more than a little unbalanced to me.

[Wildeybeast]

Also, any radical changes would almost certainly be accompanied by a Ravening Hordes style 'get you by' book until all codexes are brought UTD.

[juliusb]

Also I'm not sure how the %-based thing sounds, as I have about 6-7 full armies that are all build around options I can take from the FoC...

That's exactly the point from GW's perspective; it's smart to encourage customers to buy more units for their existing armies without having to release a codex. If you can drive sales of existing model lines with a rulebook change, it's like free revenue.

I mean, fundamentally, there's no big difference between FOC and a % system; players will exploit either one. The difference is that those exploits will be shifted to different models and therefore drive sales.

I mean, you can pretty much predict what will be awesome in a new codex based on what GW wants to sell; keep an eye on Chaos Possessed and the Land Speeder Storm. Both kits didn't perform as well as GW hoped (from what I hear) so it's a good bet that both will get a big boost with the next release of their respective codecies.

It's good to look at these rumors while asking yourself whether or not the changes will drive model sales.

[Kawauso]

It's good to look at these rumors while asking yourself whether or not the changes will drive model sales.

Yes and no...I mean, I see where you're coming from with that, and to an extent I agree.

But it's not that simple, especially if you look at the last couple books, for example.

None of the existing Necron units got worse, really. People still don't like Flayed Ones, but that's not new, and the Monolith is something people decry as being nerfed, but it seems more like a case of its rules not really -doing- anything for the Necron army any more. The new/improved choices elsewhere help the army accomplish its goals better than the old crutch did.

And with GK, well...power armour and terminator armour dudemans with psycannons or halberds are still great. Yeah, GK players might want some options other than halberds on a lot of their units now, but the old standby didn't really change when they got a codex update.



Would definitely love to see the Land Speeder Storm get some attention, though - maybe just make it a dedicated transport, really. As it exists it's already a pretty fun model and it doesn't need a whole lot of change (though I have no idea how you could make it competitive, since 5-man scout squads...well, aren't).

[Wildcard]

Imperial Guard Heavy Supports (50% from 3k list)

1500 / 3000
2x 3 Hydra
1x 2x Hydra (or Griffon for indirect fire)
2x 3 Leman Russ BT

Thats alot of S7 TL shots, as well as S8 AP3 Ordnance Large Blasts :)

Also, i do like the idea of FoC persentages.

Finally you could take 2-3 baneblades or 9 upgraded leman russes on the field :)

Only thing that would bring the system crashing down would be the fumbled numbers on the maximum similar choices available.

Different codexes rely on different slots

20% from 3k is 600

GK can get either:
- 3x Grandmasters with some upgrades
- 6x Brotherhood champions (if not limited to 2-3 similar choices), giving practically every squad re-rolls to hit on charge + threatening any single IC or MC that would dare to come into CC with them.
- Crowe + Coteaz + still 350pts to use on really important HQ units
IG can get:
- 4x company command squad with 4x meltagun and chimera (BS4)

... And the list goes on

[DrLove42]

I can see heavy being 35% not 50%.

Also you can only spend a certain % on transports :P

New stuff! From Faeit 212


Via Grant
Hey mates,
All the stuff in this link is 100% the real deal. ( Ive posted it below)

As far as 6th ed...
I will also add that vehicles use "hull points" in 6th. If a vehicle has 3 hull points it will die after 3 shaken results, but it can still explode after 1 shot as normal.

All cc weapons have AP values in 6th similar to what was in the fake 6th ed rule book leak.
There are going to be no different levels of Eternal Warrior either.

Cheers,
Grant


The ability to "shake" a tank to death is going to kill vehicles. Eldar holofields suddenly become ridiculously crap, and just delay the result. (im detecting a theme in the rumours towards making Eldar terrible

Frankly this sounds pretty rubbish.

A lot of the "official" responses to the leaked book were that it was "too complex". But a lot of the new rumours are getting crazy complex

[eldargal]

Not to mention that if hand weapons start getting AP then 5-6+ saves will be increasingly useless, especially 6+. I too am getting rather worried about these rumours. I will reserve judgement until we actuall have the rules and whatnot but if the changs nerf Eldar/DE as much as it seems to be indicating there won't be much point me playing.

[DrLove42]

Hmmm GW does seem to be screwing up what should have been a very simple thing.

All 6th had to do was tidy up the rules, sort cover out a little bit and one or 2 lttle things. Instead they're screwing it hard. The "leaked" version was brilliant, everything I wanted. All these rumours....seem to be making me think I don't want 6th.

The CC AP thing...i'd imagine its like Fists (no CC weapon) are AP-. CCW and pistols are AP6 (unless its like an AP2 melta/blast pistol). Some special things are even lower. But things like Orks...a 6+ save....whats the point. 99% of guns ignore it, CCW would now ignore it....

[Father]

True but most armies have good Heavy Support Choices. Dark Eldar could take 3 ravagers and 3 void ravens/razorwings at 1500pts for example. Eldar could take three fire prisms and three falcons (not at 1500p though, stupid overcosted old codex) and I'm sure most other armies have a couple of viable HS choices. Peraps not Tyranids or Tau but Tau at least will be getting a new book soon.

And therein lies the problem: good books just get better, bad books not only fail to benefit, but have to fight against tougher lists on top of that.

[flekkzo]

Not to mention that if hand weapons start getting AP then 5-6+ saves will be increasingly useless, especially 6+. I too am getting rather worried about these rumours. I will reserve judgement until we actuall have the rules and whatnot but if the changs nerf Eldar/DE as much as it seems to be indicating there won't be much point me playing.

It's the all or nothing system that screws the whole thing up. I like it better in Fantasy where the saves gets worse the higher strength you have. So translated into 40k imagine if AP 5 made all armor saves -2, making power armor 5+. All of a sudden AP 6 would be actually better than AP -. AP 4 would be real good instead of bleh against PA.

Bet that would improve the game a lot.

[Surendil]

The ability to "shake" a tank to death is going to kill vehicles. Eldar holofields suddenly become ridiculously crap, and just delay the result. (im detecting a theme in the rumours towards making Eldar terrible

Frankly this sounds pretty rubbish.

A lot of the "official" responses to the leaked book were that it was "too complex". But a lot of the new rumours are getting crazy complex

It keeps me pointing towards a whole 'the old codex don't work anymore' edition change. Too many changes to simply faq/try to equilibrate the codexes with the new ruleset.

[Defenestratus]

Not to mention that if hand weapons start getting AP then 5-6+ saves will be increasingly useless, especially 6+. I too am getting rather worried about these rumours. I will reserve judgement until we actuall have the rules and whatnot but if the changs nerf Eldar/DE as much as it seems to be indicating there won't be much point me playing.

****. Thats twice in a night I've agreed with you.

I got to stop drinking all this effing rum.

[daboarder]

My group has already stated that is 6th is bunk, and these grant rumours indicate it is. Then we will be playing the pirate edition almost exclusively, that being said I can see that lasting about a year before 40k goes the way of fantasy and eventually ends up an underground game like necro or mordheim.

edit: 2 things of note,

1:Grant is saying that TDG has no idea about chaos rules, that would be interesting since he seems pretty solid.

2:Its possible that the random refores to the return of Minor psychic powers, ie: roll on a minor chart a number of times equal to your mastery PLUS your "chosen" powers.

[TheCastigator]

Sorry about being late to the party. I honestly don't think that an FOC switch would change things that much. If you look at the cost of a full tactical squad with a rhino, or the various costs of basic troops with their transports. I agree about the psychic power nonsense. I wonder if their will be a power pool to limit the number of powers you can use a turn. That would seem to be a balancing move of sorts without forcing you to take powers you don't want.

[Bushido]

I actually have a copy of 6th edition right now.

These are the following changes:

1) Psyker powers are random.
2) Psychic hoods and similar items all count as "dispell scrolls".
3) All weapons are meaningless in the face of Psyker abilities.
4) All transports now randomly spawn minis as per the Tervigon. So basically your Rhino can now make infinite space marines, but you need the models to represent them. This makes the game more fair.
5) There's a new dice rolling mechanic at the start of the game, both players roll off and add the number of new minis bought within 6 weeks to their total, the one who wins the roll-off actually wins the game. The rest is just for show.
6) Tau are never coming out again, period.
7) All codex stuff is obsolete and owning a 6th ed codex gives you a +40,000 (*wink*) on your beginning of game roll-off.
8) The dedication of the book reads "To all you suckers who ever have or ever will pay money for our games, this book is intended to offend you in specific so that you'll stop playing. We also want your friends to stop playing, this entire book is designed to keep you from playing. That's why we published it. Also we're going to come in to your house at night while you're out and wreck up the place."
9) If this book sits on a shelf with other previous editions of 40k or other non-GW wargames it will actually come to life and destroy them while you sleep.

There I've spilled all of the beans, now GW is going to have me killed, let the rage flow.

[DrBored]

Y'all are being super pessimistic. As always.

Let's take a step back and remember a few things...

1. We don't have all the information. Therefore, every single sentence or statement of information we 'do have' should be considered 'Out of Context'. Without all of the information (most of the rulebook) everything is speculation and we're all just getting our panties in a bunch.

2. For every new Codex and new Edition, there's rage and depression. I remember when 5th came out, and people realized how ridiculously powerful rhinos were all of a sudden, and how vehicles would reign supreme. I remember people claiming 5th was broken beyond repair..

Guess what though... We're still playing the game.

The same is going to happen with 6th edition. A lot of people are going to rage against it, but like a shot at the doctor, you just have to close your eyes and accept it and you'll find the pain of transition won't be that painful at all.

The rumors do suggest that we'll be playing a very different game, that we're going to be looking at very different armies and different strategies entering the field, but that's the fun of it!

Let's face it, we can't just sit in one edition forever where IG, SW, and GK reign supreme. Change must happen if we're going to shake things up from the current status quo.

Remember how there was this outcry that 5th was broken and that it was too vehicle-centric? Wouldn't pulling away from that make those people happy?

Also, remember how GK have all those ridiculous stacking buffs that they can do in order to make their squads way too powerful? Wouldn't shaking that system up a little nerf them and make those upgrades make just a teeny bit more sense?

Every edition has a group of people that say they're going to quit the game if the rules are crap. They say that, they whine and moan, and then they see all their friends having a blast as they retool their armies and take them to the field, discovering the new way to play to be just as fun as the old way, and then they cave and join in! I've never heard of anyone quit an edition. Most people into the hobby have spent too much money and time and effort into their armies to just give up on them on a whim. Those people that do, well that's fine, but that's being hard-headed and stubborn. It's a game! A shake-up is a good thing for a game that runs as long as this!

Also remember that Chaos, Eldar, and Tau are the oldest Codices right now (barring DA and BT of course) which means that, in all honesty, you shouldn't have to worry about their outdated rules and points costs for very long. Let's face it, both Chaos and Eldar are extremely popular and both have a lot of players just waiting to dust off the models. They'll update those Codices. Tau are pretty popular too, believe it or not. Yes they're not the *most* popular, but what can you expect from an army that hasn't been updated in so long? They're not dead enough to go the way of the squats, let's put it that way, so quit your bit**ing about it.

So, to recap...

1. Chaos, Tau, and Eldar will be updated and we shouldn't have to wait super long for any of those three, so quit whining about how new rules would make their rules crap.

2. Any speculation on any rumored 6th ed rules should be considered 'out of context' since we don't have the full picture.

3. If you just close your eyes and take your shot, I have a feeling that most of you will find 6th edition to be as fun or broken as 5th was, and as 4th was, and as 3rd was... so get over yourselves and play the game and have fun!

[Kawauso]

Um...yeah, what DrBored said, really.

[Father]

@DrBored:

Change is not a problem. BAD change IS. With the disaster that was 8th ed Fantasy, and what we are hearing now... well I think being a bit apprehensive is normal.

[DrLove42]

Think "apprehensive" describes my mood towards 6th ed now, wheras previously it was "hopeful".

Doing some qiuck and flawed maths....a vehicle with 3 "hull points" or whatever they're called...

1 Penetrating hit - 33% chance of destroying a vehicle
3 glancing hits - 28% chance of wrecking it
3 glancing hits from an AP - weapon - 57% chance of wrecking it.
3 Penetrating hits from an AP- weapon - 29% of wrecking

Assuming nothing changes on the vehicle table. Eldar warp spiders suddenly become really good against vehicles :P.

And Necrons suddenly become even more retardedly amazing

[eldargal]

8th is the best thing to happen to WFB in fifteen years, especially coming after the abomination that was 7th. 7th nearly killed WFB, there was a reason GW had to revamp it so thoroughly. 40k isn't in such dire straits so there is little reason to think the changes would be as immense as we are seeing, and as you say, some of them seem to be quite bad changes.

However while I dislike the rumours, I also thnk they are probably nonsense so it is hard to get too worked up.

[TSINI]

I'm more exited for a complete game overhaul because the one thing 40k has been missing durin 5th is real character. With everything streamlining and less choice, im looking forward to a time when the battlefield becomes an integral part of the game, not just an extra save. Why in this futuristic sci-fi universe does every battle take place in verdant meadows, the streets of vogon, or on a dusty desert outpost? i want a rule system that inspires me to play games of mighty heroes battling in alien worlds, where the unexpected may shift the game balance, and the most ingenious commanders will win through adversity.

Players should be rewarded for having varied and wild forces, not photocopied meltagun toting hexagons.



But just to lay my cards on the table, 6th won't be that drastic. As a rule of a thumb, if it seems like a leap from the last couple of codecies, then its unlikely to be in 6th.

Mechanics might change, but they wont be replaced/removed.

For example, AP might reduce armour, and have an effect in cc, but it won't be replaced by an alternate system. I don't see cc weapons gaining strange and personalised AP values, but pistols using their existing values, I can believe. Maybe ccws will gain a sweeping AP value, but not individual to each weapon type.

[DrLove42]

I'd like to see the scenarios from 8th carried across. We went from 4th with lots of missions, to 5th with 3.

Is it cynical to think GW might do "lore" charts for magic just so they can sell more of the "limited" physic power card decks for each army?

[Kawauso]

I'm more exited for a complete game overhaul because the one thing 40k has been missing durin 5th is real character. With everything streamlining and less choice, im looking forward to a time when the battlefield becomes an integral part of the game, not just an extra save.

I'm sorry, are you looking at the same 5th Edition codices that I have in front of me?

[DrBored]

I'm more exited for a complete game overhaul because the one thing 40k has been missing durin 5th is real character. With everything streamlining and less choice, im looking forward to a time when the battlefield becomes an integral part of the game, not just an extra save. Why in this futuristic sci-fi universe does every battle take place in verdant meadows, the streets of vogon, or on a dusty desert outpost? i want a rule system that inspires me to play games of mighty heroes battling in alien worlds, where the unexpected may shift the game balance, and the most ingenious commanders will win through adversity.

Players should be rewarded for having varied and wild forces, not photocopied meltagun toting hexagons.


The two statements here seem to contradict. You want less choice but more varied forces? I want more options, more choices, more army builds within each Codex! So far, GW has been delivering on just that. Each Codex that has come out has had a great upgrade in choice, especially Grey Knights and Necron lately. I hope that continues.

If your battles are all taking place on boring boards... then you should make new boards and terrain to play on.

[miteyheroes]

The two statements here seem to contradict. You want less choice but more varied forces? I want more options, more choices, more army builds within each Codex! So far, GW has been delivering on just that. Each Codex that has come out has had a great upgrade in choice, especially Grey Knights and Necron lately. I hope that continues.

If your battles are all taking place on boring boards... then you should make new boards and terrain to play on.

I think he's complaining about streamlining & lack of choice, saying that's a bad bit of 5th, hoping that the game instead becomes more varied?

[HsojVvad]

So what is it? Is 8th edition Fantasy better or worse than 7th? Funny I keep reading alot of people say 8th improved so much that it's a good thing. Funny how some are crying it's the worst ever.

What about 40K? I clearly remeber how alot of people said they would NEVER EVER play 5th edition and will stick to 4th. Funny I see everyone playing 5th edition and not reading any threads or posts about anyone playing 4th edition. Same thing will be for 6th edition.

Why not just wait and see what rumours are true, what rumours are false and when the new rules finaly come out actually play them for 2 months to make desicons.

[Bushido]

Why not just wait and see what rumours are true, what rumours are false and when the new rules finaly come out actually play them for 2 months to make desicons.

I second this motion.

[Playa]

Edition wars on the internet? SHOCK!
Why speculate in rumor threads? I am confus!

Second.

Stay classy, you two.

[DarkLink]

I find it especially sad when people already dismiss 6th ed and have decided to play with the leaked document, despite the fact that they have no idea what 6th ed will actually contain and that the leaked rules, while overall pretty awesome, have tons and tons of gaps because it wasn't a finished ruleset.


Why in this futuristic sci-fi universe does every battle take place in verdant meadows, the streets of vogon, or on a dusty desert outpost?

Because terrain is expensive and tough to build?

[Father]

I'll still play 6th even if it ends up being massively retarded. I will just chafe at the stupidity. I have such a large force that I can conceivably field whatever mix of infantry and tanks will be appropriate for the new edition.

What does have me worried is if too much randomness seeps in, it might just put me off the game entirely. Losing a game on a single unfortunate die roll really sucks - see Fantasy.

[Daemonette666]

Originally Posted by DrLove42 View Post
The ability to "shake" a tank to death is going to kill vehicles. Eldar holofields suddenly become ridiculously crap, and just delay the result.



This would make it worth while to pay the 20 points to possess a Rhino Transport. That way you could only destroy it by A wrecked result caused by a good dice roll with a glancing AP1 weapon or a penetrating hit. That is unless the current system where a vehicle can be destroyed when it is immobilised and has no more weapons to destroy, and you roll a 3 or 4.

[thefremen]

I have a hard time believing hull points are legit. It's a bit of a stretch to say that GW suddenly decided they no longer want to sell Land Raiders or Necron kits (anything av13/14 really just becomes worthless, rhinos don't become worse since you already are expecting them to move 12 or 24 then blow up).

I could, however, see hull points replacing the current system for stacking 3s and 4s.

[mullinstron]

It would make extra armour pretty badass if you ignored stunned messing with your hull points then.

[ElectricPaladin]

Come on - vehicles becoming more fragile is going to make them completely useless? That's definitely grognard talk. Even if you could whittle a vehicle down to death with three stunning hits, vehicles are still mobile and still give protection to the troops inside. I don't think this rule will make Land Raiders, or any other super heavy vehicle, completely useless.

[DrLove42]

It would make extra armour pretty badass if you ignored stunned messing with your hull points then.

It makes possessed vehicles even more evil...

[Wildcard]

Or then the

Vehicle type (Heavy, tank, etc..)

will make the exception to the "3 stun -> wreck" rule

I mean, if monolith is currently the only one, i bet there are other similarly "heavy"- type vehicles coming, giving atleast some forces equal measure of protection to the vechiles that are designed to take the punishment and still carry on..

Note that the "heavy" rule was just an example, it could be altogether different rule that would grant immunity to such behavior..

[Kawauso]

Didn't the rumour about the stunning-to-death thing specify that heavier vehicles than Rhinos would have more Hull Points?

If Hull Points are true, it's hard to say how bad they'd really be without knowing, say, how many Hull Points a Land Raider would have.

Or whether Hull Points have to be tracked over multiple turns or all in one turn.

I'm not ready to cry wolf yet, at least.

[Bushido]

I find the "hull points" thing unlikely since it really heavily changes the way vehicles work, and adds a level of what seems to me like unecissary complexity and bookkeeping to the game.



Is it cynical to think GW might do "lore" charts for magic just so they can sell more of the "limited" physic power card decks for each army?

They could already do that with the existing psyker powers. Also I'd say 1 in 4 fantasy players actually goes out of their way to buy the power card deck for their army since it's all their in their book anyway. Plus the cards have never been integral to their business model, unlike say Privateer Press.

[DarkLink]

While cards are integral to PP's business model, you get those cards for free when you buy the unit, nor do you have to buy their codex equivalent to play. All you need are the core rules and the models. It's actually really nice.


I have a hard time believing hull points are legit. It's a bit of a stretch to say that GW suddenly decided they no longer want to sell Land Raiders or Necron kits (anything av13/14 really just becomes worthless, rhinos don't become worse since you already are expecting them to move 12 or 24 then blow up).

Quite the opposite, Land Raiders just became much, much better transports than Rhinos.

Remember, different vehicle have different hull values. Rhinos get 3, maybe Land Raiders get 5-6. And since now cummulative damage results matters bigtime, not getting damaged in the first place

And the idea that you expect rhinos to die turn 1 is absolutely not true, at least not amongst competitive players. It's not a big deal if a mere Rhino dies, but if all a Rhino got you was an extra 6" of movement one turn then they wouldn't be so common. Things like Fortitude would be useless if Rhinos just blew up left and right. In reality, Fortitude is extremely useful. Shaking/Stunning Razorbacks and Chimeras for most of the game is standard practice.

It's precisely this reason that makes hull points such a good idea. Currently, you can spam so many vehicles that are tough to kill that it's messing with the game. Make those vehicles more fragile by making shaken and stunned results actually matter, and all of a sudden Razorspam and parking lot lists get a big nerf, and that's good for the game.

If this is true, then there's no more reason to automatically take a transport for every single one of your units like there currently is. Foot lists become much more viable, and you can be more flexible with your weapon loads because you won't have to deal with 10 light vehicles before you can even touch any infantry.

[DrBored]

Didn't the rumour about the stunning-to-death thing specify that heavier vehicles than Rhinos would have more Hull Points?

If Hull Points are true, it's hard to say how bad they'd really be without knowing, say, how many Hull Points a Land Raider would have.

Or whether Hull Points have to be tracked over multiple turns or all in one turn.

I'm not ready to cry wolf yet, at least.

I agree with this. I have a feeling that the hull points will be more or less related to front armor value, giving thicker vehicles like Land Raiders more while leaving Rhinos and DE Raiders less.

It's also possible that hull points might be able to be recovered via a new system of Repair rolls.

Keep in mind, that all of these little tidbits are very much out of context. We don't know the rest of the rules that would affect it. To simply insert hull points into 5th would be an interesting 'fix' to vehicle spam, but that's not what they're doing. They're remaking a lot of different parts of the game. It's possible that the combination of hull points and the change in AP values, and potentially even a new 'glance/pen' chart might make vehicles more balanced than ever.

[helvexis]

this is the problem i have if a rhino is destroyed by 3 shaken/stunned what about a raider or venom ... or even scout sentinals and war walkers which are considerably less armored how many hull points would they have? I play dark eldar and having my transports killed by a glance is already a common experience so i cant say i like the idea of it being even easier to glance me to death ...

[DrBored]

this is the problem i have if a rhino is destroyed by 3 shaken/stunned what about a raider or venom ... or even scout sentinals and war walkers which are considerably less armored how many hull points would they have? I play dark eldar and having my transports killed by a glance is already a common experience so i cant say i like the idea of it being even easier to glance me to death ...

The unfortunate thing is that in the current game of 5th edition, vehicles reign supreme. That's not necessarily a good thing, since it actually limits the amount of army builds that are competitive. Nerf vehicles a bit, and suddenly you can invest those points on more troops or elites instead of on more vehicles. It makes things like the Talos or Cronos more viable, and diversifies your army.

All in all, I'm even willing to nerf my Raiders and Rhinos if it means fewer mech'd up armies to worry about. Especially razorspam and IG leafblower, and anything that gives me more chances to down a Stormraven is something I'll jump on.

[Father]

@DrBored: the reality is that if the missions still call for mobile forces to seize objectives, people will still have to mech up unless they have other mobility options (jump BA, bike SM). I can see some reduction of mech where firesupport is concerned, but I will be surprised if a significant reduction in transports occurs.

[TheCastigator]

It makes things like the Talos or Cronos more viable, and diversifies your army.

Speaking of, I hope they fix monstrous creatures, as they have become a total afterthought in 5th edition. Almost universally overcosted, and made irreverent by the sheer number of anti tank weapons. I don't think they need a huge fix, aside form a point reduction, perhaps always allowing them to have an armor save regardless of AP. I would like to see nids back in a big way, not to mention, the Talos, wraithlord, avatar, etc.

[Bushido]

The unfortunate thing is that in the current game of 5th edition, vehicles reign supreme.

Uh, I'm going to go ahead and disagree there. There are plenty of viable armies that aren't completely or at all built around vehicles. Especially Rhinos for that matter.

I mean Chimera are great, but Rhinos are practically rolling kill points at every tournament I've played between now and this time last year.

[Kawauso]

MCs being a little more resilient would be nice - I don't think always getting an armour save is the answer, though. Imagine having no way of getting through a Dreadknight's 2+...not fun.

I think some sort of minor invul. save granted by MC status might not be bad, perhaps. A universal 5++, maybe?

Something to make them a bit tougher, though. They have more vulnerabilities than vehicles with none of the advantages - they can't move as fast (generally), are just as hard to hide and they're nowhere near as durable.

[MajorWesJanson]

The unfortunate thing is that in the current game of 5th edition, vehicles reign supreme. That's not necessarily a good thing, since it actually limits the amount of army builds that are competitive. Nerf vehicles a bit, and suddenly you can invest those points on more troops or elites instead of on more vehicles. It makes things like the Talos or Cronos more viable, and diversifies your army.

The problem people seem to have isnot vehicles, but Mech Infantry. Why puinish tanks when a mere glancing hit can mean they are useless for an entire turn? It would be fairly easy to rebalance vehicles as follows:

Modify the damage table-
0 or less no result.
1 Shaken
2 Stunned
3 Weapon destroyed or d6 automatic wounds to passengers, saves allowed, shooters choice. If no passengers aboard or weapons left, becomes immobilized
4. Immobilized. If already immobilized, becomes wrecked
5. Wrecked, passengers disembark and make pinning test
6 Explodes. D6 automatic wounds to passengers, saves allowed, pinning test.

Allow vehicles to split fire, at least with defensive weapons.
Shooting from fireports in a moving or open vehicle no longer limited by speed, but -1 BSfor each 6 inches travelled.
Psychic powers and defenses which do not cause wounds or models to be removed from play may affect passengers inside vehicles.
Passengers inside vehicles automatically count as passing leadership tests.

[Emerald Rose Widow]

MCs being a little more resilient would be nice - I don't think always getting an armour save is the answer, though. Imagine having no way of getting through a Dreadknight's 2+...not fun.

I think some sort of minor invul. save granted by MC status might not be bad, perhaps. A universal 5++, maybe?

Something to make them a bit tougher, though. They have the same more vulnerabilities than vehicles with none of the advantages - they can't move as fast (generally), are just as hard to hide and they're nowhere near as durable.

I have thought the same thing, just a minor invuln, especially with the commonality of force weapons in the modern meta. Just being able to make a good use of my MC's again would be nice, hehe.

[DrLove42]

I agree vis a vis MC.

Its always bugged me....a Wraithlord one of the most prized and revered treasures of an Eldar craftworld has no type of shielding. And being T8, pretty much everything that can reliably hurt it, ignores its 3+ save.

As for vehicle damage tables, I hope they don't go back to having 2 seperate. Having 1 makes things SO much easier

For fire points I liked the "leaked" of only ebing able to fire 6-12" out of a fire position.

My biggest bugbear is Chimeras. The fluff even says they can fire 2 out of the top, and then 6 guys shooting from the lasguns built into the hull. And yet somehow you can shoot as many melta guns out as you want

[Wildcard]

About the hullpoints:

I was thinking that at what logic was rhino going to have 3. I mean, is it just aggreed among the dev team that "Okay lads, 3 for rhino it is", or do they have generated a pattern which to follow (i mean, there are alot of vehicles in 40k.

Then first i came to this conclusion:

-1 hullpoint per armor value above 10: Rhino having 11/11/10 would be giving it one from the front and two from the sides.
-It also would make sense (although not sure how balanced) that a 14/14/14 landraider would have total of 12 hullpoints making it truly a way more durable..

But then i realised that what about 10/10/10 open toppeds? they would be blown out of the table by any glancing / penetrating shot.

Also, something like giving +1 hullpoint for unit types like "Tank" or "Heavy" or whatever wouldn't help in those cases, since most of the time 10/10/10's are the lightest vehicles anyway.

Then i thought it again and came to this conclusion:
- Same as above: 1 point for each facing above 10
- If no facing is above 10, then vehicle has 1 hullpoint (hard to justify 2, unless "tank" would give additional 1, because chimera has 12/10/10 giving it only 2 points, and ill be damned if ork trukks can take the same amount of punishment than chimeras :) )

Your thoughts?

[DrLove42]

So what you think is a lascannon hit on a raider would kill it.

Hits. 1 to glance, 2-6 Pens

Glances
1-3 - Hull damge (you only gave it 1!)
4 - The best result - only a Weapon destroyed
5 - Immobilsed
6 Wrecked

Pens
1 -Hull POint
2 Weapon
3 Imoobilised
4-6 Wrecked/Explodes

Bad system frankly....DE vehicles are weak yes...but not that flimsy! Not for about 70 points!

Personally I jsut dislike the whole idea. (not yours, hull points). Yes it makes a certain amount of sense that a vehicle can only be penetrated so many times before it explodes but....not on shaken or glancing results? What do the pilots just think "this is too scary! Press the self destruct button!"

[isotope99]

My preferences for vehicles would be no codex changes but some tweaks to the main rules to nerf vehicles a little:

Damage:
Promote multiple shaken/stunned results to weapon destroyed/immobilised/wrecked but have them wear off as normal. This would nerf fortitude slightly and make it easier to destroy vehicles with glancing hits, but still needing lots of focused fire to do it (e.g. 5 shaken results in a turn to wreck a Rhino)

Template/blast weapons get full strength for penetration but extra -2 on damage table if not under hole to discourage parking lots.

Glancing hit instead of immobilised for moving through terrain and failing test.

Defensive fire:
Bring back S5 defensive fire (mainly heavy bolters) and allow a separate target for defensive weapons (or two targets if equipped with all defensive weapons)

Fire points:
Non-defensive fire point weapons at half range

Combat:
MCs hit vehicles more easily (e.g. +1 to hit or treat as going at a speed slower than they actually are) to reflect their size.
Allow D6 consolidation after destroying vehicles, including into combat with transport contents.

Tank shock:
Dangerous terrain test for any models needed to be moved by tank shock (risk of being crushed), but only max one leadership test per turn for tank shocked units.

Scoring:
Troops have to disembark to claim objectives, contest as normal.

[DrBored]

I think the big thing to make this system fair would be to make sure that the minimum number of hull points is 3. Rhinos, Chimeras, Raiders, Venoms, Vypers, Land Speeders... all the small to medium-sized vehicles would have those 3 hull points, regardless of armor value. Now, there may be other rules for skimmers, tanks, fast vehicles, etc that will make them more/less survivable, but let's start with 3 hull points.

The next problem is that you can't have that same system for the big beastly vehicles like Land Raiders and Monoliths, and then there are the medium vehicles like Stormravens, Predators, etc...

I foresee things ranging from Razorbacks to Stormravens and Leman Russ tanks having 4 or 5 hull points, with Land Raiders and Monoliths having a max of 6. More than that and they're too beastly and immovable, especially with special rules that ignore shaken/stunned results.

Granted, all this 'Hull Point' stuff is for glancing shots. Previously, glances stunlocked vehicles. One glance would take your vehicle out of the game for a turn, which is what most people wanted to do anyway. Any more than that and you're just wasting shots when there are other things to stunlock.

For other anti-vehicle weapons, getting that pen is what really matters. Complaining about hull points making your vehicles weaker is... not really a valid argument. A good player will stunlock your vehicle again and again before it's destroyed by anti-vehicle fire or an assault anyway. This just makes it so that most of those stunlocked vehicles will be gone by turn 4, and most tournament games that I've been to rarely get past turn 3. I think that what we need to worry about is what the glance/pen chart(s) are going to look like, and less about hull points.

Yes, you can be glanced to death more realistically now. Woop-de-doo. Not threatened by this at all.

[HsojVvad]

I'll still play 6th even if it ends up being massively retarded..

I know you probably didn't mean it, but I find it offensive and hurtfull. I have a disabled daughter and we try not to use that word. It is hurtfull and deaming. Everyone is one wack in the head away from becoming the same, so trying to ask please watch out how you use that word.

[MarneusCalgar]

I don´t understand so many doubts about 6th Ed that I am reading here...

People, seriously... GW always ask you to create your own rules and play with their miniatures in the way you want!!

I would like to test the Edition, sure it will be great!

[Father]

I know you probably didn't mean it, but I find it offensive and hurtfull. I have a disabled daughter and we try not to use that word. It is hurtfull and deaming. Everyone is one wack in the head away from becoming the same, so trying to ask please watch out how you use that word.

Apologies. I did indeed not intend to offend in such a way.

[DrBored]

I know you probably didn't mean it, but I find it offensive and hurtfull. I have a disabled daughter and we try not to use that word. It is hurtfull and deaming. Everyone is one wack in the head away from becoming the same, so trying to ask please watch out how you use that word.

I'm sorry... but this *IS* the Internet here.

Y'know how there's technically three meanings of the word 'gay'? There's happy, there's dumb, and there's homosexual. Not every instance of the word means all three things at once every time. Not every instance of the word 'retarded' is directed at you and your daughter.

Similarly, the word 'retarded' also has the following definition: Automotive, Machinery; an adjustment made in the setting of the distributor of an internal-combustion engine so that the spark for ignition in each cylinder is generated later in the cycle.

Obviously, the writer of the post you took offense to was using this definition of 'retarded': to make slow; delay the development or progress of (an action, process, etc.); hinder or impede.

In that way, I fully agree. Even if 6th edition ends up being a hinderance to progress in the gaming community, I will probably still play it.

Cheers.

[Kawauso]

I'm sorry... but this *IS* the Internet here.

Y'know how there's technically three meanings of the word 'gay'? There's happy, there's dumb, and there's homosexual. Not every instance of the word means all three things at once every time. Not every instance of the word 'retarded' is directed at you and your daughter.


Um, yeah, I was gonna leave this one alone, but no, sorry. You're wrong.

The whole point of using a word such as 'gay' in a disparaging fashion is that it is an expression of homophobia or bigotry. Otherwise why does it mean 'dumb'? It doesn't mean 'dumb' because you're calling someone happy. It means 'dumb' because you're implying they're homosexual, and homosexuality is bad/wrong, therefore they or their opinion are bad/wrong. People sure as hell weren't calling anyone 'gay' in a pejorative manner before it was used to mean 'homosexual'.

Much the same with calling something 'retarded'. Though that word has negative connotations outside of reference to mental faculties, the justification there is still flimsy.

Also, being on the internet doesn't give anyone an excuse to speak like a ****. It just gives an illusory sense of actions being free from consequence. And while you should expect people to act less civil on the internet (because they do), it doesn't mean that you have to put up with it. Just because you should anticipate a higher risk of being mugged if you have to walk home through a bad part of town doesn't mean you should just accept it if it happens to you. That's getting close to a 'blame the victim' mentality.

/end rant

So that I'm not completely off-topic here...
I think everyone agrees vehicles need some sort of fix in 6th - obviously transports need to be a little less cut-and-dry awesome and overall vehicles might need to be just a -little- easier to kill.
Hull Points seem a pretty interesting way to tackle the situation. Though of course as has been said...still difficult to evaluate in a vacuum.

...Really look forward to the damn edition change already, if for no reason other than to be able to pour over -all- the rules, in their entire, completed state.

[Father]

I've said this many times, but the problem is not transports per se - it's the fact that you don't ever have to leave them ever while still remaining fairly combat-effective (rhinos/chimeras especially). To nerf vehicles is to deal with the symptom, not the disease. What is needed is for the rules to make it necessary to disembark to fight and win effectively. My proposal for this would be twofold:
1) Objective-based scenarios modified so that you gain "points" for each turn a scoring unit is sitting on an uncontested objective, starting on T2. You can only score if you are not embarked in a vehicle.
2) No firing from the top hatch if the vehicle moved. It's not realistic anyways - trying to aim when you are standing up in a moving tank going through uneven terrain is an exercise in futility.

What this accomplishes is to maintain the current focus on mobile armies (good thing - 4th ed static gunlines sucked), but transports actually act like transports instead of mobile bunkers. As a knockon effect, this helps assault based armies like Daemons and Tyranids who currently suffer considerably due their limited ability to pop moving tanks.

[Kawauso]

All good points.

Transports should make their cargo more mobile. It keeps the game's pace nice and quick and is makes more sense...it's more easy to 'grok'.

Transports need to ferry troops and provide cover/fire support, but the units within need to have an incentive to disembark and get things done on their own.

[Bushido]

2) No firing from the top hatch if the vehicle moved. It's not realistic anyways - trying to aim when you are standing up in a moving tank going through uneven terrain is an exercise in futility.

Uh, speak for yourself. I am a combat veteran, I had to fire my weapon from the passenger window of a moving humvee many times. It's much easier than it sounds. It's actually harder to fire the mounted weapons believe it or not.

[Father]

Uh, speak for yourself. I am a combat veteran, I had to fire my weapon from the passenger window of a moving humvee many times. It's much easier than it sounds. It's actually harder to fire the mounted weapons believe it or not.

Was the humvee on a road or going cross-country? How far away was your target? How fast were you going? Did you manage to hit the target? I don't doubt that one can fire from a window/hatch; the question is: can it be done with any kind of effectiveness? Also, shooting from a seated position is a lot easier than when standing up, especially if the vehicle doesn't travel on a level surface - keep that in mind.

[DrBored]

I've said this many times, but the problem is not transports per se - it's the fact that you don't ever have to leave them ever while still remaining fairly combat-effective (rhinos/chimeras especially). To nerf vehicles is to deal with the symptom, not the disease. What is needed is for the rules to make it necessary to disembark to fight and win effectively. My proposal for this would be twofold:
1) Objective-based scenarios modified so that you gain "points" for each turn a scoring unit is sitting on an uncontested objective, starting on T2. You can only score if you are not embarked in a vehicle.
2) No firing from the top hatch if the vehicle moved. It's not realistic anyways - trying to aim when you are standing up in a moving tank going through uneven terrain is an exercise in futility.

What this accomplishes is to maintain the current focus on mobile armies (good thing - 4th ed static gunlines sucked), but transports actually act like transports instead of mobile bunkers. As a knockon effect, this helps assault based armies like Daemons and Tyranids who currently suffer considerably due their limited ability to pop moving tanks.

I've played scenarios where you get points for objectives per turn. They're not fun. If you're playing a squishy army (like Dark Eldar for example) You'll be shot off of every objective you try to hold by armies that are able to sit on objectives with nice 3+ saves. That sort of scenario never favors the squishier army, and immediately gives the advantage to stationary gunline armies, whereas mobile armies suffer because they have to stop and get out of their vehicle every turn if they want to score points. Frustrating and not fun.

The other suggestion you have is... well, let's put it this way, no matter what vehicle you're in, you can only fire from the top hatch if the vehicle moved 6" or less. That's pretty realistic. If anyone is moving farther or faster than that and firing from the vehicle, they're cheating. :P Also, most vehicles only have one or two firing points. It's already an incentive to get out to fire the full squad's armament. The trouble is that the vehicles typically provide much more protection, and special weapons are the only ones you typically want to fire anyway.

Making the transports squishier or more prone to hurting the squad inside will have people using the transports for cover more than to stay inside them all game.

[Father]

I've played scenarios where you get points for objectives per turn. They're not fun. If you're playing a squishy army (like Dark Eldar for example) You'll be shot off of every objective you try to hold by armies that are able to sit on objectives with nice 3+ saves. That sort of scenario never favors the squishier army, and immediately gives the advantage to stationary gunline armies, whereas mobile armies suffer because they have to stop and get out of their vehicle every turn if they want to score points. Frustrating and not fun.

Hmm that's a point I admit I had not considered. How about making it so that open-topped vehicles still allows you to score?


The other suggestion you have is... well, let's put it this way, no matter what vehicle you're in, you can only fire from the top hatch if the vehicle moved 6" or less. That's pretty realistic. If anyone is moving farther or faster than that and firing from the vehicle, they're cheating. :P Also, most vehicles only have one or two firing points. It's already an incentive to get out to fire the full squad's armament. The trouble is that the vehicles typically provide much more protection, and special weapons are the only ones you typically want to fire anyway.

Well you precisely illustrated the problem: when all you really want to fire is the squad's special weapon, you have no incentive to get out. Removing the ability to fire from the top hatch if the vehicle moved would remedy that.


Making the transports squishier or more prone to hurting the squad inside will have people using the transports for cover more than to stay inside them all game.

Actually it will make it so that people just don't use transports instead. We saw this in 4th ed; does anyone really want to go back to that?

[Emerald Rose Widow]

Hmm that's a point I admit I had not considered. How about making it so that open-topped vehicles still allows you to score??

The only issue there is it creates the reverse problem, that the armies without open topped vehicles are at a disadvantage because they are slowed down even farther by needing to disembark to score where skimmers and open topped vehicles dont. This one is a tough one to answer though.

Balance is a pain in the tush

[DrBored]

What I'm most interested to see is how these rules actually affect list building. Will people really forego transports in favor of footslogging across the board? Will the 'nerf' to vehicles not really be that effective and leave people meched up into 6th edition? Or will, somehow, there be a happy balance?

I foresee that some armies will become forced to go it on foot while others will have superior vehicles simply by some nature that they have (like the tank suffix).

In other words, I'm afraid that the only good vehicles will be Space Marine (or equivalent) vehicles, making the Imperium the top dog all throughout 6th edition. :)

[Emerald Rose Widow]

In other words, I'm afraid that the only good vehicles will be Space Marine (or equivalent) vehicles, making the Imperium the top dog all throughout 6th edition. :)

This is unusual?

[Wolfshade]

The one thing that I am interested in and hasn't had much comment on, is if/how they are going to move the universe forwards, 5th had a huge leap from the imperium being in a steady holding state to being teetering on the edge of decline, what will become of the Astronomicon in 6th?

[musical-fool]

The one thing that I am interested in and hasn't had much comment on, is if/how they are going to move the universe forwards, 5th had a huge leap from the imperium being in a steady holding state to being teetering on the edge of decline, what will become of the Astronomicon in 6th?

If I remember correctly, this came up in either a Games day or another sort of open day at GW.
One of the main designers stated that chaos was going to be the big cheese for the next edition and that the Imperium was going to be trying to hold onto what once had been and becoming derelict.

Sorry it is so vague but this is something I remembered, hopefully it will jog some (better) memories with someone else ^^

[Defenestratus]

This is unusual?

Everyone is assuming that the imperium will get tanks with tons of these "hull points" while other races will be left out in the cold.

I suspect races like Eldar, DE, and Tau will have their own toys to put on their tanks to make them more resilient. I've suspected for a while that the holofields upgrade will function a lot more like the titan holofields which would give Eldar vehicles some kind of save against hits.

I think everyone presuming that the Imperium is going to reign supreme in the new edition is jumping the gun a bit. We have very little, very out of context information that by itself doesn't add up to much to form a truly informed opinion on.

[Kawauso]

Everyone is assuming that the imperium will get tanks with tons of these "hull points" while other races will be left out in the cold.

I suspect races like Eldar, DE, and Tau will have their own toys to put on their tanks to make them more resilient. I've suspected for a while that the holofields upgrade will function a lot more like the titan holofields which would give Eldar vehicles some kind of save against hits.

I think everyone presuming that the Imperium is going to reign supreme in the new edition is jumping the gun a bit. We have very little, very out of context information that by itself doesn't add up to much to form a truly informed opinion on.

Yeah, I mean, even with things the way they are now, Eldar, Tau, Dark Eldar and Necrons all have vehicles that are irritatingly resilient in some way or another.

Eldar have Holo/Energy Fields
Tau have Disruption Pods and good AV
Dark Eldar Have Flickerfields and Night Shields (these are the least resilient, but man are they -fast-)
Necrons have Quantum Shielding and Living Metal

It's not like the vehicles any of these races possess are helpless by comparison to the Imperium...and Eldar/Tau are the only ones really in need of updates right now. I think DE/Necrons will survive the transition to 6th just fine more likely than not.

[DarkLink]

Was the humvee on a road or going cross-country? How far away was your target? How fast were you going? Did you manage to hit the target? I don't doubt that one can fire from a window/hatch; the question is: can it be done with any kind of effectiveness? Also, shooting from a seated position is a lot easier than when standing up, especially if the vehicle doesn't travel on a level surface - keep that in mind.

Why are you trying to lecture a combat veteran on something he did in real life?

[DrLove42]

Problem there is with the Eldar....their Holofields...you have to take the lowest dice.

So unlike say the 4+ 5 + save of Tau or DE...Eldar will always take a damage result. And having to always pick the lowest dice of 2...particularly against multiples glances will add up those Hull Points pretty quick

[Defenestratus]

Problem there is with the Eldar....their Holofields...you have to take the lowest dice.

So unlike say the 4+ 5 + save of Tau or DE...Eldar will always take a damage result. And having to always pick the lowest dice of 2...particularly against multiples glances will add up those Hull Points pretty quick

Which is why I'm pretty sure holofields will be different in any new book that comes out if these rumors about hull points are true.

[HsojVvad]

Apologies. I did indeed not intend to offend in such a way.

:) Apologies accepted.

[Bushido]

Was the humvee on a road or going cross-country?

You don't usually get to pick where you get ambushed so does the answer "all over the place" make sense?


How far away was your target?

Anywhere from well within, to well outside the typical scaled-up engagement envelope for small arms in 40k.


How fast were you going?

As fast as we could without flipping our humvee or being dangerous to other friendly vehicles and personnel around us. But scaled up I'd say typically much faster than the vehicles in 40k are travelling.


Did you manage to hit the target?

On the range; yes, in the field . . . Well our "targets" there weren't plastic models, they had hopes and dreams and families, so I'm not going to comment on weather or not I was able to "hit" them for the purposes of this discussion.


I don't doubt that one can fire from a window/hatch; the question is: can it be done with any kind of effectiveness? Also, shooting from a seated position is a lot easier than when standing up, especially if the vehicle doesn't travel on a level surface - keep that in mind.

Here is our friend FPS Russia illustrating that it is not particularly difficult to hit a target from a bouncing truck:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_UU4zYC1GgI

[Father]

@Bushido: fair enough, mate.

Though from a game balance standpoint, it might still not be a bad idea to remove the ability to move and shoot from the top hatch, even if it's not "realistic".

[Father]

The only issue there is it creates the reverse problem, that the armies without open topped vehicles are at a disadvantage because they are slowed down even farther by needing to disembark to score where skimmers and open topped vehicles dont. This one is a tough one to answer though.

Balance is a pain in the tush

Ya, for true.

[DrLove42]

BOLS favebook page is reporting that the Fantasy random terrain effects are ruloured to also be in 6th.

Not sure how i feel about that. Most the fantasy effects are msgic based, and i dont see how theyl carry across to 40k without being technology and that would seem to a bit wierd

[isotope99]

Probably based on cities of death narrative, example:

1-2 booby trapped ruin (dangerous terrain)
3-4 unstable ruin (difficult terrain)
5-6 Fortified ruin (+1 cover save)

[DrLove42]

Just in case anyone missed it in a different thread....new rumours about Hull Points for Grant (taken from Faiet 212)


Rhino's have 3 hull points, Landraiders and the defiler have 4. Any damage chart result other than wrecked or explodes will take 1 hull point away.

HQ's can now challenge each other just like in fantasy. This must be accepted by opponent or is played normal. HQ that wins, wins the assault for his unit

Both of these sound rubbish. Winning combat because of an IC even if youre unit is massacred? An unit of 30 orks plus a warboss could charge a unit. Even if every ork dies but doesn't kill anything in response, you still win as long as the Warboss does? WHAT?

And the hull points....getting 1 more hull point on a land raider than a rhino. Seriously. what the hell. And a hull point for every damage result. Gives all vehicles a very finite life span. Pysflmen become even worse...cos those 4 shots, if they hit and pen, you don't even need to roll to damage, cos you know you have enough hull points done.

Other rumours include assaulting off deepstrikes...cos Wards GK and DA deathwing needed more help. And also consolidate into combat. Thats one rule i really didn't want back

Can also "snap fire" assaulting units...at BS1. So Orks are as accurate at someone charging you as disciplened marines.

[Chuck777]

Hull points sound good if they adjust the Vehicle Damage tables to make stunned and shaken results more rare.

I don't like the idea of my Hove Tyrant squashing my opponent's SMurf Captain and thus winning assault. Getting a bonus maybe not not outright winning. Why would Marines loose if their Captain died? It would give them cause to stick it out and kill the hell out of the Tyrant. Also, that rule could be super brutal if there is a massive multi-assault.

Assaulting out of Deepstrike helps GK needlessly but it really makes Deathwing and Daemons highly playable. I wouldn't mind if they made the rule that if you deepstrike near a beacon, then you can immediately assault, if not then you have to wait a turn.

Snap Fire implies as last minute shot "gangsta" style. No one is accurate when they fire like that. ;)

[Wildcard]

HQ's can now challenge each other just like in fantasy. This must be accepted by opponent or is played normal. HQ that wins, wins the assault for his unit

How i understand this is that one player declares challenge. If oppoenent accepts, then only the ICs fight, and result of that fight is the end result (although i dont know if winning is through wounds inflicted or only after K.O)

If the oppoenent declines the challenge, then the forces strike as normal, kinda like we now know combat is happening (with a possible twist of 6th.)


Rhino's have 3 hull points, Landraiders and the defiler have 4. Any damage chart result other than wrecked or explodes will take 1 hull point away

Yeah, i agree that LRs +1 hp over rhino is overly ridiculous. Even tho the armor values are really different, the LR (and other big tanks) just became really less effective.
Although using squadrons now actually would make tanks more resilient. Take 3xLeman Russ squadron for example: thats 12 points total (giving LR is considered worth 4 hp). Thats 9x results allocated before you start losing tanks due the hp dropping to zero.


Other rumours include assaulting off deepstrikes
This i like, alot. Its never stated in the fluff that units are so f*ckn confused after using teleport or dropping from the sky that they have no idea how to charge the enemy.. Also, centuries of hopping in a way or another would probably have made you used to such a state to negate most of the ill-effects..


And also consolidate into combat.
No-no-no-no-no.. Please no :(
Why not give assault infantry 12" consolidation as well to go with it, and say goodbye to every shooting army..
Was it in 3rd (or even 4th). where i heard BA Death Company with jump packs wipe half of the enemy units off the table on one charge because you could consolidate onto the melee.. Not that kind of stuff again, ever.


Can also "snap fire" assaulting units...at BS1
I would prefer LD check and use your own BS, or no shooting at all..

Would make a lot of sense since there are gunline armies (IG) for example that are prepared for the coming of the enemy and to shoot till they hit the line. Also Marines discipline, Chaos marines lust for battle, and whole lot of other armies that would find suitable "fluff-response" to be able to justify that..

[ozybonza]

Yeah, i agree that LRs +1 hp over rhino is overly ridiculous. Even tho the armor values are really different, the LR (and other big tanks) just became really less effective.
Although using squadrons now actually would make tanks more resilient. Take 3xLeman Russ squadron for example: thats 12 points total (giving LR is considered worth 4 hp). Thats 9x results allocated before you start losing tanks due the hp dropping to zero.


That is of course assuming that it would work like wound allocation does now. No matter the veracity of these rumours, I'd bet my bottom dollar that wound allocation will change in 6th (and with it, vehicle hit/damage result allocation).

[Emerald Rose Widow]

That is of course assuming that it would work like wound allocation does now. No matter the veracity of these rumours, I'd bet my bottom dollar that wound allocation will change in 6th (and with it, vehicle hit/damage result allocation).

I have to agree with this statement, wound allocation has been a major beef of many for a while, so I have a feeling it will change. Could be wrong, but that is the vibe I am getting.

[DrLove42]

Not assaulting off deepstrike isn't all because of fluff, its for fairness in the rules.

Put it this way. Assuming theres no change in deepstriking rules, the top armies next year are going to be all Khorne Deamons, with as many bloodthirsters and demon princes and juggernaughts as they can fit.

Snap fire won't help. Take my biggest unit in my DE army. 20 guys, 2 Cannons. Thats 48 shots in the snap range (assuming you actualy get to fire all your shots and its not limited to one each). Give the enemy a 3+ save (bloodthirster)...i get 48 shots. Hit 8 times. Wound 4 times. Get 1 sucesful wound. 1 Wound. He then proceeds to kill everything and bounce into the next unit, who won't be able to shoot as much. How is snap fire supposed to "balence" deepstrike assaults and consolidate into combat?

Will a tank be able to make snap shots?

[the jeske]

how does snap fire work with blast weapons and flamers. am i shoting my plasma cannons from oblits when the dudes are starting to charge or when they are btb[so am melting myself too]. how does one charge a NDK with an ap 3 flamer , you need a teq unit to surive .

[eldargal]

I HATE the idea of challenged in 40k. It is ridiculous. 40k is supposed to be a simulation of fast paced 'modern' warfare, not slow medieval style WFB warfare. Even then challenges are a bit silly but you can get way with it because regiments would allow challenged to be issues. They do not belong in a sci-fi warfare game, they just don't.

I also hate the idea of stand and shoot in 40k. Again it works in 40k because of the limitations of the missile weapons of the time. GK units, for example, are bad enough without letting them get in a round of shooting in at a measly -1BS (which is what some people think is meant, rather than BS1 which itself is stupid). Consolidating into combat could help balance this slightly, assuming you ever get into combat against elite shooty armies. Also as the jeskebrings up, how does it effect template weapons? Give every SM unit a flamer/heavy flamer and you completely remove the downside for the ability and against T3 armies you will do a lot of damage.

I don't really like the idea of consolidating into combat either, if only for balance reasons, Chain combat was one of the things that broke 7th ed WFB. Deathstar units would go from unit to unit and just obliterate them.

Consolidating from deep strikes is also terrible and ridiculously OP for armies that can do. At least those with power armour that won't be torn apart by shooting.

These rumorus are just getting worse, I can only hope that if they are true (which I still doubt) they are so out of context as to be meaningless. At this point the logic behind the rumours seems to be 'Yeah, 6th ed is going to be totally like 8th ed WFB despite what we are saying would make it more like 7th ed WFB which was a disaster that forced us to make 8th ed!'

[SaganGree]

Not assaulting off deepstrike isn't all because of fluff, its for fairness in the rules.

Put it this way. Assuming theres no change in deepstriking rules, the top armies next year are going to be all Khorne Deamons, with as many bloodthirsters and demon princes and juggernaughts as they can fit.

Snap fire won't help. Take my biggest unit in my DE army. 20 guys, 2 Cannons. Thats 48 shots in the snap range (assuming you actualy get to fire all your shots and its not limited to one each). Give the enemy a 3+ save (bloodthirster)...i get 48 shots. Hit 8 times. Wound 4 times. Get 1 sucesful wound. 1 Wound. He then proceeds to kill everything and bounce into the next unit, who won't be able to shoot as much. How is snap fire supposed to "balence" deepstrike assaults and consolidate into combat?

Will a tank be able to make snap shots?

One thing you are forgetting is that snap fire is a charge reaction, hence a "free" shot whereas before you would get nothing... as for DS daemons remember that Overwatch will be returning as well so that unit of 20 Blootletters is going to get a face full of bolter fire first from multiple units should they be in range.

And on a side note... snap firing template weapons... yeah... go ahead and DS right next to me.

[DarkLink]

And also to be fair, deepstriking generally sucks. Buffing it in some way is a good thing.

[Kawauso]

And also to be fair, deepstriking generally sucks. Buffing it in some way is a good thing.

I kind of agree.

I DS a lot more than I used to, and it can be pretty fun, but its not the most reliable thing around (outside of a Blood Angel army, that is).

And with regard to the knee-jerk reaction a lot of people are having to assaults off the Deep Strike: remember Vanguard Veterans can do that right now with Heroic Intervention.

[DrLove42]

Vanguard can DS into combat true...think a unit of Orks can with the right IC

BUt its not 100% safe (chances of losses on the move) and that unit can't murder its first unit then plow straight into a 2nd without giving a chance to be shot at

I think deepstriking can use some improvement yes. But being able to dive straight into combat isn't it

[Kawauso]

Vanguard can DS into combat true...think a unit of Orks can with the right IC

BUt its not 100% safe (chances of losses on the move) and that unit can't murder its first unit then plow straight into a 2nd without giving a chance to be shot at

I think deepstriking can use some improvement yes. But being able to dive straight into combat isn't it

How do these rumours give any impression that it would be 100% safe in 6th?

If random charge distances are put in, also, just because you DS beside an enemy unit doesn't mean you'll get that assault off, for sure - and that's assuming you don't scatter the wrong way or mishap.

And true, right now consolidation into new combat isn't allowed, but if the 'snap fire' rule or something similar to it turns out to be true, than each time you pile into a new combat you're doing so with a faceful of defensive fire before you close the gap.

[Kevlarshark]

Consolidating into another assault was no where near as broken as many people seem to remember. All you had to do was think carefully about how you position your troops.

It has been in every version of 40k except 5th.

When you could sweeping advance into a second unit (4th ed) the assaulting unit could still be shot at in their opponents turn...

I suspect the 'snap fire' may be a similar system.

[DarkLink]

Yeah, spread your units out even slightly and hey, they can't consolidate into new assaults because they're too far away to reach. Rocket science;).


And, btw, planetstrike already allows you to assault after deepstrike in a lot of cases, and it certainly didn't unbalance the game. It just made game that much bloodier, that much more quickly. Planetstrike was awesome, I would love it if they included some of the less silly stuff from planetstrike in 6th ed.

[DrLove42]

Threadomancy with the new stuff i've got from Faeit 212


From Beasts of War
"Charger Actions" Stand and Shoot
The unit getting charged if equipped with pistols, and probably assault weapons and rapid fire weapons (but not heavies) will get the chance to fire at opposing units as they charge into close combat.

The Ballistic skill for these will be at BS1. Flamers will rock for this kind of shooting.

That's all they said


via Darnok
It seems there are some 40K releases scheduled for June, including the new rulebook, templates, dice and either markers or cards for psychic powers. Cheers to the birdy!

June is for flyers, and the last week of June will see the pre-orders for 40K 6th.

I knew GW would only do random physic powers just so they could release more of those magic cards. Not that that will stop me buying any...

As for "Stand and shoot". I hope theres some armys that get benefits to it (like Tau can fire at normal BS or something but get no CC attacks), but it means Flamer units (like Ok burna boyz) are virtually unassaultable by anything without terminator armour, and things with little to no armour....Nids, Wyches, small ork hordes are screwed

[Lancel]

As for "Stand and shoot". I hope theres some armys that get benefits to it (like Tau can fire at normal BS or something but get no CC attacks), but it means Flamer units (like Ok burna boyz) are virtually unassaultable by anything without terminator armour, and things with little to no armour....Nids, Wyches, small ork hordes are screwed

Incidentally, that would be an enormous buff for Sisters of Battle if so. I mean we'll have to see how it plays, but given the availability of Flamers and Heavy Flamers to a SoB army that could become borderline ludicrousness. Sure would justify ever taking a 4x Heavy Flamer Retributor Squad though that's for sure.

[Kevlarshark]

Incidentally, that would be an enormous buff for Sisters of Battle if so. I mean we'll have to see how it plays, but given the availability of Flamers and Heavy Flamers to a SoB army that could become borderline ludicrousness. Sure would justify ever taking a 4x Heavy Flamer Retributor Squad though that's for sure.

There must be more of a disadvantage to the shooting (other than BS1) (I suspect you wont be able to retaliate in CC as effectively) Other wise a unit with high "I" (GK with halbards) would shoot you, then hit you (as your unit charged in) so Orks would get the snot kicked outta them every-time they charged.

If this is possibly combined with the "alpha strike" rule (from the leaked thingie) it could be interesting and make cheap sacrificial units very useful...It could Ironically be of great benefit to Nids... Send in a few 'gaunts to get shot up and tie up the shooing unit, then charge em with 'stealers and shred things up.

[robrodgers46]

Incidentally, that would be an enormous buff for Sisters of Battle if so. I mean we'll have to see how it plays, but given the availability of Flamers and Heavy Flamers to a SoB army that could become borderline ludicrousness. Sure would justify ever taking a 4x Heavy Flamer Retributor Squad though that's for sure.

Wow, IG Vets with 3 flamers, IG PCS with 4 flamers. Suddenly including a flamer with every IG box becomes a genius move.

r

[DarkLink]

The question is, how many hits does the flamer cause? If you're shooting at a target 6" away, you're only hitting a couple of models if the assaulting player is smart. Even a unit with 4 flamers is only causing maybe 10 str 4 hits, before rolling to wound and save. Not bad, but not exactly horribly overpowered. And for that matter, how do assault moves work now? That would influence how the assaulting player places his models. If it works like it does now, you only need one model within 6" and keep everyone else far enough out of flamer range, but you can still get everyone into assault thanks to pile in moves.

[MajorWesJanson]

Wow, IG Vets with 3 flamers, IG PCS with 4 flamers. Suddenly including a flamer with every IG box becomes a genius move.

r

If it takes away from melta and plasma guns in vet squads, good: all of the sudden melta spam is cut back. I already run my vets as 2 melta/1 flamer to deal with a better variety of threats.

Who is really scary is say burna boyz.

[Defenestratus]

If its anything like the leaked ruleset then it will be D3 hits per flamer.

[Uncle Nutsy]

Now i have another reason to field my two twinlinked flamer crisis suits.

[DrLove42]

Something I noticed in the rules for the new aircraft....

The Ork Burna - Bomba says "any model at least partially under the marker takes one hit, resolved from the weapon profile"

This is wierd, cos in 5th even slightly under you take a hit. So why would the rules need to include this? And does it mean its wounds are on those specific models?

[Kawauso]

Something I noticed in the rules for the new aircraft....

The Ork Burna - Bomba says "any model at least partially under the marker takes one hit, resolved from the weapon profile"

This is wierd, cos in 5th even slightly under you take a hit. So why would the rules need to include this? And does it mean its wounds are on those specific models?

I thought there was something odd about that wording but I couldn't put my finger on it...good job! That would be interesting if template hits were WYSIWYG.

[Macerio]

I thought there was something odd about that wording but I couldn't put my finger on it...good job! That would be interesting if template hits were WYSIWYG.

Hmmm... it'd potentially address some of the shenanigans you can play with wound allocations at the moment if you had some means to target high-profile figures hiding out with a bunch of redshirts. And, at least for many templates that aren't flamers, it'd still be subject to the scatter die, so it's not like they'd be too terribly broken.

However, at this point were at "inference off of an inference (off of at least an admittedly solid rule)" so I'm going to hedge my bets that that's not the case. More likely, it looks like they might be edging back towards the 50% base rule for templates, which would make me and my two Thunderfire Cannons sad. :(

[DrLove42]

, which would make me and my two Thunderfire Cannons sad. :(

My 2 Warp Hunters agree :(

I like partials counting....don't take it back

[MajorWesJanson]

And, at least for many templates that aren't flamers, it'd still be subject to the scatter die, so it's not like they'd be too terribly broken.


Flamers have to cover as many models as possible as well, so that limits sniping with template weapons.
I'm really liking the possibility of blasts and templates hitting models and not units.

[Macerio]

Flamers have to cover as many models as possible as well, so that limits sniping with template weapons.
I'm really liking the possibility of blasts and templates hitting models and not units.

Ah right. Good call.

[Lucian Kain]

OverWatch and snapfire is 2 rounds of shooting in one go in your opponents turn at the cost of one target opportunity in the previous round?, if anyone thinks DeepStrike-to-Assault to consolidate is overpowered think again.Its balanced and bloody.
Space out you units correctly.

Edited for insomniac retard factor

[DarkLink]

SnapFire is a term to describe instinctive shooting,a double tap at close range,barly useing your weapons sights to react quicky when split seconds are the difference between life and death

You realize a double tap refers specifically to a technique that relies on careful, controlled aiming to put multiple shots into the same target, rather than wildy spraying bullets and hoping to hit something;).

[Lightcavalier]

You realize a double tap refers specifically to a technique that relies on careful, controlled aiming to put multiple shots into the same target, rather than wildy spraying bullets and hoping to hit something;).

Your two statements are not mutually exclusive. Snap shooting is controlled fire, but at ranges so short that most sight systems are ineffective. Your not "spraying bullets" your firing the weapon quickly with two rounds at a target less than 25 feet away.

[Lucian Kain]

Edit:No need for me to be a Troll.It just annoys me when people say things that aren't entirely correct.Double tap is good technique in close...snap shooting is instinctive shooting, I'm a dick for aplying real life to a game.Its funny because someone did the same thing befor and set me off because they were talking out thier ***.

Edit:It is more controlled than I may have conveyed and when I think about it its more about being confident you've definitely stopped the man.In a panic'd situation its not as slow and deliberate as it is on the range though.

[DarkLink]

No worries, I'm just making fun;).

[Xenith]

Besides, it's not like they're going to bring movement trays in to 40k.

Did you see wha tthey did to skirmishers from 7th - 8th ed fantasy?:rolleyes:

[DrLove42]

Over at Faeit 212 they've been posting a lot fo BoW rumours about 6th ed. Today this one caught my eye


via Beasts of War
*All Close Combat Weapons will have an AP value
* Power Weapons AP3
* Power Fists AP2
* Chainfists AP1

Right....so it means Terminators are virtually unkillable by most armies in CC. Howling Banshees? Nope. Incubi? Nope.

[Denied]

Over at Faeit 212 they've been posting a lot fo BoW rumours about 6th ed. Today this one caught my eye



Right....so it means Terminators are virtually unkillable by most armies in CC. Howling Banshees? Nope. Incubi? Nope.

I think this is a case of we are looking at it from a 5th ed mind set for how armor will work. I may be wrong on this but combining this with another rumor on the internet of how the game follows fantasy more. If I am not mistaken (I don't play fantasy so I may be) the way their armor works is for every point of strength above strength X (Lets say 4) you reduce your opponents armor by 1 so if we take that assumption and we add in AP to weapons also adding in another potentially false rumor which was power weapons do things like add +2 to Str then your power weapons effectively are AP1 against most models. So maybe they are not unkillable.

I am being highly speculative as I am piecing rumors to other rumors to try and make something that sounds logical to me, but it sounds like it could have merit in that regards.

[Kawauso]

Over at Faeit 212 they've been posting a lot fo BoW rumours about 6th ed. Today this one caught my eye



Right....so it means Terminators are virtually unkillable by most armies in CC. Howling Banshees? Nope. Incubi? Nope.

Correction: Terminators with Storm Shields are unkillable.

Just think about it: even a unit full of power weapons like, say, a GK squad, doing nothing to that 2+ save, except with their hidden hammers, which still have a 3++ to contend with. Yikes.

I hope there's more to this rumour than meets the eye.

Also, if this holds true with some earlier rumours like, say, chainswords getting AP6 in CC, this will make a lot of Ork Boyz and Hormagaunts very, very sad unless there's more to it that we don't understand yet...6+ saves don't really need to be made worse...you already count on your models to fail them.

[DrLove42]

Well some AP level in CC makes sense. A knife will be worse than a chainsword. And a 6+ armour....why would an Orks effectively T shirt stop a chain sword? Fluff wise it makes sense. Rules wise, a lot will have to change. Maybe.

Making an Assault more devestating, makes the stand and shoot seem less extreme

I really want this rule book, but not for the same reason i wanted it before the rumours started

[Kawauso]

I agree that some AP level in CC makes sense.

And I'm not ready to call any shenanigans without a rulebook, of course. That and I'm pretty confident that 6th edition's rules will be fine - only requiring some getting used to.

Still not sure if terminators need to be any scarier though, hehe.

[oftenwrong]

AAAaahhh, not good for the bloodletters or crushers.

[DrLove42]

Looking through the comments on the front page of BoLs people are WAY over reacting to this.

Yes it means terminators are harder to kil in combat. But it doesn't make power weapons pointless. Only 5% of targets have a 2+ armour save, they still slice through marine armour happy as larry

[oftenwrong]

Yeah and like someone else said, we don’t know what else is going to change. :p

[Kawauso]

One thing that I think AP on CC weapons will be good for - and the use of pistols in CC, if that rumour also holds true - is that it will make a lot of options start to actually matter.

I like the idea of chainswords actually doing -something-, personally.

And, hey, if both of those rumours are true, imagine an SM sergeant with a chainsword and plasma pistol. The option of ignoring saves on horde units like gaunts or being able to one-shot a chaos terminator point-blank in CC does sound pretty neat.

It's gonna be rough waiting for these rules to actually drop, though. I want to pour over the new book. :)

EDIT:
Hmm, I wonder though what will happen with regard to previously making no distinction between something like a 'chainsword' and a 'close combat weapon'.
With IG, for example, even though the sergeant in a box of Cadians has a chainsword, the rules entry count it as a 'close combat weapon', no different from the knives and bayonets wielded by the men in his unit.

[DrBored]

Hmm, I wonder though what will happen with regard to previously making no distinction between something like a 'chainsword' and a 'close combat weapon'.
With IG, for example, even though the sergeant in a box of Cadians has a chainsword, the rules entry count it as a 'close combat weapon', no different from the knives and bayonets wielded by the men in his unit.

This is a wonderful point. Even in Chaos Marine and Space Marine entries, they're listed as having a Close Combat Weapon, not a Chainsword specifically. Either we'll see them get more specific in the new CSM Codex, or anything that doesn't have an energy field or special rules won't matter, or will have the same AP value across the board (my guess is -).

Remember though, Strength plays a part in all of this, so just because something doesn't have an AP value doesn't make it useless. I really think the generic CCW getting any AP value would make playing things like Orks and Nids prohibitive in the extreme.

[the jeske]

Just think about it: even a unit full of power weapons like, say, a GK squad, doing nothing to that 2+ save, except with their hidden hammers, which still have a 3++ to contend with. Yikes.
all FC are ap 2 . all MC hit with ap 1 . So charging termis in to GK , is not a good idea.

interesting enough does anyone know what a natural attack is because those are ap 4 ?

[meltedwing]

Personally, I would rather they just switched over to the fantasy armor system completely and just gave power weapons/claws/chain fists/hammers and whatnot a bonus.

Most of those already would get a bonus because of the high strength, and then being a power weapon should just give them "armor piercing" (which negates one more point of armor).

So a GK strike squad guy would reduce the targets armor by 1 (for strength 4), another 1 for having a power weapon, and possibly another 1 for hammerhand or other strength increases. This would mean that a terminator would still have a 5+ armor save. Regular power armor marines would be at 6+ and Tau fire warriors would not get an armor save.

This would make power weapons less of a game breaking issue and would go a long way to balance the system in general. If you did this with ranged weapons as well, it would mean that all those strength 4 shots from bolters would be saved by marines on a 4+ instead of a 3+.

Obviously a lot of weapons would have to be adjusted and a lot of armor would need to be adjusted as well, but I think that system makes a LOT more sense.

[OdinStormfist]

This would make power weapons less of a game breaking issue and would go a long way to balance the system in general. If you did this with ranged weapons as well, it would mean that all those strength 4 shots from bolters would be saved by marines on a 4+ instead of a 3+.

Obviously a lot of weapons would have to be adjusted and a lot of armor would need to be adjusted as well, but I think that system makes a LOT more sense.

I agree this makes better sense and they did this in 2nd edition, in 3rd they went to either you get it or don't in order to speed up the game. Each type of CCW had a different value change on an armor save. Also invuln. saves in 2nd were an extra save after armor, a last chance save. 2nd edition did need some speed increases and this was by far the major change.

[Father]

Again, as with almost all of the rumoured changes, I am left wondering: why was this needed?

[DarkLink]

Because 6th ed is not 5.1 ed. When you rewrite significant portions of the rules, stuff changes a lot, and we won't see the whole picture until the book actually comes out.

[daboarder]

I just hope basic CCW's are AP- otherwise there is no point to armour on alot of horde units.

[Father]

Because 6th ed is not 5.1 ed. When you rewrite significant portions of the rules, stuff changes a lot, and we won't see the whole picture until the book actually comes out.

This comes back to my question: why was this needed? There was nothing so inherently wrong with 5th that it couldn't be fixed without going all Tabula Rasa on the rules.

[MajorWesJanson]

I like these changes. Not for the change itself, but for the way to add variety to units. Insteadof now, where Chainfists are basically redundant on top of power fists, power weapons just ignore armor, and power fists are double strength and ignore armor. Now with Ap values, they can add in more unique options.

Special power weapons could be AP2 or AP1. A powerfist option could be made AP3 and cheaper for certain units to give more access to higher strength attacks (like say Ork big choppas or maybe Tau crisis suits). Rending could be changed from an ignores armor mod to make the weapon AP one better, allowing options for power weapons and power fists to have rending, again allowing more unit options.

The more diverse weapon options may seem confusing, but just make a reference chart for them. Ranged weapons have Range, Strength, AP, rate of fire, and weapon type, plus special rules. CC weapons could have strength rating (X for characters strength, X+2 for relic blades, 2X for power fists) AP value, Initative mods (X for characters initative, 1 for power fists and chainfists, X+2 for halberds, ect) and then any special rules like reroll wounds, rending, extra attacks on wound rolls of a 6, instant death, extra wounds per hit, ect.

CC attacks getting AP values may also carry over to grenades- Melta bombs could be AP1, krak grenades AP3, ect.

Some of these changes could also help Nids a little as well. MC weapons especially could be made more diverse. Scything Talons could be AP3, Boneswords and Rending claws AP2, and Crusing claws AP1.

This may also affect rules like FNP. Instead of the clunky "useless against attacks that always ignore armor saves" FNP would be a lot simpler to say "cannot be taken against AP1, AP2, wounds that cause instant death, or remove the model from the game"

I hope this change goes through, as it is both simple, easy to follow, and adds design space without excessive complexity.

[triplare]

This may also affect rules like FNP. Instead of the clunky "useless against attacks that always ignore armor saves" FNP would be a lot simpler to say "cannot be taken against AP1, AP2, wounds that cause instant death, or remove the model from the game"

I also think using AP for assault weapons could be a good thing and not overly complicated. Regarding FNP, the first thing that occurred to me when I saw that power weapons are rumored to be AP3 is "Ah, just like in the 'leaked/pancake' rules for FNP". I thought it was curious that in those rules FNP didn't affect AP1/AP2 wounds (just like today) but it also didn't affect AP3 wounds either. Not that this rumor in any way validates that PDF, but it did seem like a couple of 'puzzle pieces' fit together and got me to pondering.

[dawnofthedead]

I think 5th edition was pretty darn good. It needed some improvement but not a total revamp. If all these 6th edition rules are true the game doesn't sound like it will play as fast or be stream lined anymore. Sounds like a mess to me. Will have to wait and see.

[DarkLink]

This comes back to my question: why was this needed? There was nothing so inherently wrong with 5th that it couldn't be fixed without going all Tabula Rasa on the rules.

I'll clarify.

We don't actually know what the rules will be. We don't know if they've just tweaked 5th ed, we don't know if they've completely rewritten it, we don't know if they've just tweaked Fantasy to work for 40k. So before you ask 'why was this needed', you might want to wait to find out what 'this' is first.

[Wolfshade]

I quite like this idea, it was last seen in 2nd ed. Though some of them through current ruleset eyes are abit redundant, Power Weapons currently ignore armour saves so them being AP3 is a little redundant since their special rule is already better than that. Though really we will have to see how this fits into the whole ruleset as DL says.

[the jeske]

This comes back to my question: why was this needed? There was nothing so inherently wrong with 5th that it couldn't be fixed without going all Tabula Rasa on the rules.
the change to rules nerfs stuff. this means people have to buy new stuff and kills of the secondery market , so it is a double bonus for GW. they change rules because in 4th you didnt buy mass tanks[unless you played circus] other then 2 rhinos for sniping and everything with AC . they nerf rending , buff transports and melta and you suddenly have to buy melta units , for example . rhino rush in 3ed made you buy mass rhinos ? 4th nerfed them in to the ground . your BA army was las/plas minimax +mass DC with chaplains ? the WD dex and the 5th dex make you use RAS , razors ,anything that is not a las plas minimax and DC .


drastic change to rules rises sells.

[andrewm9]

All I know is that this would hurt some armies signifacntly in close combat. For instance, Sisters of Battle for whom close combat is already weak would suffer greatly under this rule as most units cannot take anything better than a single power sword aside from the Death Cult Assassins and Crusaders in the Battle Conclave.

[L192837465]

All I know is that this would hurt some armies signifacntly in close combat. For instance, Sisters of Battle for whom close combat is already weak would suffer greatly under this rule as most units cannot take anything better than a single power sword aside from the Death Cult Assassins and Crusaders in the Battle Conclave.

Wait, you mean an army has a drawback!? WHAT TYPE OF SORCERY ARE YOU COMMITTING, GW!? No army should have ANY weaknesses! NONE I SAY!

[Kawauso]

All I know is that this would hurt some armies signifacntly in close combat. For instance, Sisters of Battle for whom close combat is already weak would suffer greatly under this rule as most units cannot take anything better than a single power sword aside from the Death Cult Assassins and Crusaders in the Battle Conclave.

Except, you know, Repentia are an entire unit of chainfists.

[Father]

I'll clarify.

We don't actually know what the rules will be. We don't know if they've just tweaked 5th ed, we don't know if they've completely rewritten it, we don't know if they've just tweaked Fantasy to work for 40k. So before you ask 'why was this needed', you might want to wait to find out what 'this' is first.

Well we DO know (or at least, the rumours lead us to believe) that there are some pretty massive changes coming. Whether they are part of an even greater rewrite or just "tweaks" to 5th is a moot point.


the change to rules nerfs stuff. this means people have to buy new stuff and kills of the secondery market , so it is a double bonus for GW. they change rules because in 4th you didnt buy mass tanks[unless you played circus] other then 2 rhinos for sniping and everything with AC . they nerf rending , buff transports and melta and you suddenly have to buy melta units , for example . rhino rush in 3ed made you buy mass rhinos ? 4th nerfed them in to the ground . your BA army was las/plas minimax +mass DC with chaplains ? the WD dex and the 5th dex make you use RAS , razors ,anything that is not a las plas minimax and DC .


drastic change to rules rises sells.

Right, but I don't see how these changes, aside from the buying buildings rumour, will influence that. And that one didn't need massive changes to be implemented.

[Lucian Kain]

The sisters won't have much of a problem as weak close combatants if Flamers in the "charge reaction shoot" faze are used normally.Eviserators...

I'm guessing the importance of bubble wrapping your armour will become paramount against Deep Striking units who can charge on arrival.I wonder if defensive weapons on Armour will be able to Snapfire/charge reaction shoot makeing them truly defensive weapons?

As for the AP value complicating the game I dought it,in time it would become as common place as knowing the stats for a meltagun.I can't see how they're looking to balance giveing all CC weapons an AP,I dought they will.A knife or fist won't have AP but everything else yea why not.

I've never played competitively,I love the 40K universe(the Grim Dark version anyway) so the cinematics and things makeing sense like for instance being able to shoot first at the guy who brought a knife to a gunfight,I love it or actually shooting a guy with a Plasma pistol instead of throwing it at him in close combat.

I hope fleet of foot adds a bonus to consolidation distance or that predominantly CC orientated armies get one to emphasise thier hoard numbers and momentum.(providing it becomes possible to consolidate into combat again)In the least it adds something else to think about haveing to spread a defending force out and become more piece meal to a Refused Flank assault but negate consolidation or Castle Up and concentrate fire but risk getting mobbed.
If it makes you think a bit harder about strategy and slightly less Rock,Paper, Scissors...I would personally rather see blood baths then decisive victories.

I wonder what effect barriers and barricades could have if purchasable.

[Kawauso]

I imagine if the purchasing building thing goes through it will work one of two ways:
New entries in codices/errata/a White Dwarf update

or

Generic Bastion
AV 14 all around
1 mounted weapon on each facing (heavy bolter or equivalent)
Open-topped, or some sort of shenanigan where all models on the top level can fire, etc.

Would work with the already-released bastion kit. Heck it could work with the Fortress of Redemption with just a few tweaks, too.

[Lucian Kain]

Now they'll have to release army specific bastions, interesting.

[DrLove42]

I can see it being one generic. Fantasy has the "folding fortress" and thats in the rule book and the same for all armies

[Kawauso]

Yeah, I don't really know Fantasy, but something like that sounds about right.

Gives them the opportunity to release some xeno bastions (fingers crossed...though there's a dearth of non-human WFB terrain, isn't there? :( ) that can be used to that effect by their respective armies.

[Mr Mystery]

From White Dwarf, a tenuous link!

Picture of Orky fighter being pursued by two Nightscythes. Which it describes as having 'popped up'.

For those who have been playing for yonks, skimmers used to be able to perform Pop Up attacks. Hide behind terrain, declare pop up attack. You essentially ignore the terrain you're behind in terms of LoS, and then blast away, before dropping back down. In 2nd Ed, and Epic, units on Overwatch, or First Fire could take a pot shot at the emerging target.

Could be fun to bring it back!

[Tynskel]

I like the idea of purchasing buildings.

Most boards do not have enough terrain as it is, so buying a building (let alone a bunker!) can make a difference for your army.

[Tynskel]

From White Dwarf, a tenuous link!

Picture of Orky fighter being pursued by two Nightscythes. Which it describes as having 'popped up'.

For those who have been playing for yonks, skimmers used to be able to perform Pop Up attacks. Hide behind terrain, declare pop up attack. You essentially ignore the terrain you're behind in terms of LoS, and then blast away, before dropping back down. In 2nd Ed, and Epic, units on Overwatch, or First Fire could take a pot shot at the emerging target.

Could be fun to bring it back!

I remember pop up book attacks!

[Mr Mystery]

On the subject of potential overwatch...

Main reason it was too potent in 2nd Edition, was that you just declared it, and shot at whatever you wanted as targets presented themselves.

Natural counter to this, and bringing in a bit of tactical subtlety would be to make Overwatch either declared against a specified unit, or ideally, a specified piece of terrain.

Units are likely the better option, as it gives you a set target. Main idea is to prevent a particularly well placed heavy weapons squad from having too much control over the battlefield. It's fine for one unit to influence the actions of another, but to have one unit control a vast swathe? That's too much man. It's position is benefit enough, without it being able to freely target units scuttling from cover to cover. To do so lessens the tactical importance of cunning use of cover, and movement overall.

So, what of those armies with access to LOTS of heavy weapons, like Guard? How do you prevent them gunlining the game into absolute boredom? Easy. Link the rule to an item of wargear, and restrict it's availability. I can see Devastators, Havocs et all having access via their Squad Leader or Sarge. But Guardsmen? Vox upgrade for the Platoon Command, that allows one support squad to set overwatch.

[MajorWesJanson]

Or limit overwatch to shooting at a single unit in the opponents move phase rather than in your shooting phase.

[Mr Mystery]

Do you mean as in only a single unit in the enemy army can be targetted by your Overwatching unit, or only one unit in your army can set overwatch? Bit confused by your post!

[Tynskel]

considering we do not have the rules in front of us...

[MajorWesJanson]

Do you mean as in only a single unit in the enemy army can be targetted by your Overwatching unit, or only one unit in your army can set overwatch? Bit confused by your post!

I'm just speculating, but i meant to say that a unit on overwatch can trade the ability to shoot during their shooting phase for the ability to shoot during the opponent's movement phase. Just like a normal shooting phase, but during the opponent's turn instead.

Just speculation.

[Mr Mystery]

Certainly the way it used to work. You had to have remained stationary, and gave up your shooting to set overwatch.

From there, you could blast away at any one enemy unit during their own movement phase. This was useful, but quickly became too powerful, as a single unit ended up dominating a massive swathe of the battlefield. Hence my suggestion to force any given unit to declare overwatch against a specific enemy unit. Keeps the vantage point important, and reduces the overall impact of a single shooty unit.

Has to be a restrictive ability!

[andrewm9]

Wait, you mean an army has a drawback!? WHAT TYPE OF SORCERY ARE YOU COMMITTING, GW!? No army should have ANY weaknesses! NONE I SAY!

My point is that their shooting isn't that strong and to take any close combat edge they may have is a bad thing. What it boils down to is that assault terminators and stuff like them will crush Sisters badly. The army has precisely 1 model with a 2+ save in it. Unless their short range shooting gets a big buff or they get to react to assaults with shooting they are finished in any competetive sense. Of course I don't expect GW to care or even notice how the army actually works in actual game play. The codex writers certainly didn't.

[L192837465]

My point is that their shooting isn't that strong and to take any close combat edge they may have is a bad thing. What it boils down to is that assault terminators and stuff like them will crush Sisters badly. The army has precisely 1 model with a 2+ save in it. Unless their short range shooting gets a big buff or they get to react to assaults with shooting they are finished in any competetive sense. Of course I don't expect GW to care or even notice how the army actually works in actual game play. The codex writers certainly didn't.

Sisters have access to nearly ALL the AP 1 and 2 shooting weapons. Your organ-mobiles are VERY good against terminators, and you can make your heavy bolters rending.

Learn to deal with issues, not complain about how you can't.

[the jeske]

if he takes the bolters[which do what 1 rend on avarge when shoting?] then he doesnt have exos , they are in the same slots. the problem with sisters right now is that all of their units need to get very close to the enemy to work , but they neither have the abilty [as in cost/rules/fire power] to deal with good meq armies while at the same time meq armies roll over them in hth . specialy as sob, unlike meq, no longer are ignoring Ld as a stat.

now if sob could play counter or had more ranged support then yeah , they would be more viable.

[Ignis]

I'll be a little sad as an Eldar player if my psykers become random. I wonder if that means there is going to be a power dice mechanic. It adds a dynamic to the game I suppose that could easily represent the chaotic nature of tapping into the warp. I'll just have to learn to not over commit and blow up my casters. I do tend to feel like random psychic powers will hamper the synergy of armies, while the idea of different lores is cool.

[DrLove42]

As an Eldar player the idea of random powers and casting pools of dice worry be immensly

I don't play Fantasy because I dislike the way magic works in it.If that comes to 40K, my 15,000 points of Eldar are screwed cos they need powers to survive, and i won't be using them....

[Tzeentch's Dark Agent]

Same for Ahazra Redth, though I suppose you can't really alter Mirage (the main power that I'd use)

[Anggul]

As an Eldar player the idea of random powers and casting pools of dice worry be immensly

I don't play Fantasy because I dislike the way magic works in it.If that comes to 40K, my 15,000 points of Eldar are screwed cos they need powers to survive, and i won't be using them....

I think the Eldar will still keep their own codex 'lore'. The Eldar wouldn't be using all of the same practiced arts as the Imperium, I think we'll get to keep Guide, Doom etc.

[Wolfshade]

I think the current thinking is that it would be like the winds of magic, so eldar would have their own lore, but the choice of what spells was available to the farseer would be randomised.
A little like the 2nd ed mechanic where you drew cards for your powers

[helvexis]

which for the way eldar are now would be a horribly bad thing ...

[Wolfshade]

Though with only rumour mongering we are only able to see how these tid-bits fit into a 5th ed situation, in the whole 6th ed it might work really well

[Tzeentch's Dark Agent]

You realise that we only have like 30 days to wait? I am okay with this.

[andrewm9]

You realise that we only have like 30 days to wait? I am okay with this.

I just hope 6th edition is the panacea for Sisters as the army doesn't work to well under the current rules set. It works, but its frankly sub-par compared to most 5th edition armies. I'm just not sure how the rules will elevate them to a more competitive edge without buffing other armies similarly.

[Tzeentch's Dark Agent]

I wish that they'd just effin' get plastic figures! I would make a Sisters army if they were plastic.
Roll on Codex: Sisters of Battle.

I get the distinct feeling that they may get 'Squat'ed.

[andrewm9]

I wish that they'd just effin' get plastic figures! I would make a Sisters army if they were plastic.
Roll on Codex: Sisters of Battle.

I get the distinct feeling that they may get 'Squat'ed.

I highly doubt that, but GW will continue foisting those ancient metal figures on us which have been around since 2nd edition. Seriously though the lack of plstic figures is probbaly one of the largest impediments to the sales of Sisters of Battle at this point. No one wants to drop 800+ dollars on building a 1500 point army.

[Tzeentch's Dark Agent]

Exactly, even if I do really want an army of PMS-ing Nuns. >_<

[Defenestratus]

I'm surprised that we haven't seen any more "leaks" or "rumors" this "close" to launch yet.

This far out from 5e we had the whole book on the internets and people were playing games with it.

[eldargal]

Plentiful Melta Spam?:p We know they are working on plastic SoB in some capacity but had trouble with the drapery on the arms, we will see plastic SoB eventually.

Exactly, even if I do really want an army of PMS-ing Nuns. >_<

From the hints I've been getting all the leaks we get these days are allowed to happen by GW in some capacity. I doubt we will see a full leaked copy unless they want us to. Which they probably don't.

[Mr Mystery]

You realise that we only have like 30 days to wait? I am okay with this.

Allegedly.

[Kawauso]

Allegedly.

The 5th rulebook is no longer on the shelves. I doubt that would be the case with a new edition any farther than a month off.

[Tzeentch's Dark Agent]

Plentiful Melta Spam?:p We know they are working on plastic SoB in some capacity but had trouble with the drapery on the arms, we will see plastic SoB eventually.
From the hints I've been getting all the leaks we get these days are allowed to happen by GW in some capacity. I doubt we will see a full leaked copy unless they want us to. Which they probably don't.

I've had it pretty much confirmed by staff in 3 shops that it's coming.

And yes, MANY meltas. I also just appreciate females.

[Wolfshade]

Plentiful Melta Spam?:p We know they are working on plastic SoB in some capacity but had trouble with the drapery on the arms, we will see plastic SoB eventually.
I've now got imagry of SoB with doilies underneath them...

[Tzeentch's Dark Agent]

I've now got imagry of SoB with doilies underneath them...

Storm Wardens wear tartan, WHAT UP. :D

[Wolfshade]

Wargear: Sporan 5pts / model
As the Storm Wardens charge into close combat they raise their kilts to reveal an unknown horror stunning their enemies, members of the Inquistion have so far been unable to observe what it is.
On the turn that they Assault Storm Wardens equipped with Sporans gain +2 Initative

[Tzeentch's Dark Agent]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Nice.

[DrLove42]

Been seeing a lot of unsubstantiated rumours on changes...like FNP only being a 5+ now (well that'll just screw every DE player back into not using the army)

Jump Infantry are I10 when they assault? (So continues the stealing unique Xenos abilities and giving them to marines- in this case Banshees)

Not % based

Rapid Fire Weapons at full distance, even if you moved

Vehicles are WS0 if stationary, and WS1 if they moved (wooo...hitting flat out vehicles on a 3+)

ID changed to being extra wounds per wound, not just killed...

Oh and Physic powers being "cast" like they are in Fantasy. I don't play Fantasy cos i dislike the way magic works. if that rolls into 40k...i'm going to start looking for a new system to play for the next 5 years until a new rule book..

These are coming from here btw http://www.imperiusdominatus.com/2012/06/news-40k-6th-massive-rumour-roundup.html

Well....6th edition sounds like an absolute marine butt ****ing pile of wank so far....turns out FW can do a Horus Heresy Series cos everyone will be playing marines vs marines anyway and so they don't need to worry about messing with the xenos people anymore

[DarkLink]

Pretty sure it's supposed to be WS10, not WS1.

[eldargal]

I wouldn't get too worried, the really reliable rumourmongers aren't talking about rules much and from past experience 75% of new edition rules turn out to be fake.

[Mr Mystery]

Indeed. 8th Ed Fantasy had a great many suprises up it's sleeves.

Some rumours were accurate (percentages) but 'step up' was either highly confused, or way out, and if memory serves, Horde and Steadfast weren't mentioned at all until the rules came out.

[Lockark]

Pretty sure it's supposed to be WS10, not WS1.


Aw.... I dislike seeing Rhinos Drive threw hoards of Orks/nids to bunch them up into groups for blasts and laugh as you can only hit them on 6's. That and even if you killed the rhino but some stroke of luck they just laugh are your other Rapid Fired or Assaulted the next turn to try and mop the unit up.

Tanks and especially transports should really want to avoid getting into CC with formations of infantry, not just shrug their shoulder like they do now.
=/

WS1 would of realy made people think twice about just blindly tank shocking their rhinos full of dudes into people.

Atleast WS10 still means I now at least hit on 5's instead of 6's. It's not as big a nerf as I would of liked to see, but at least it's some kind of nerf.

Thow on the flip side that also means that drive up 6", thank shocking you into a group and hitting you with a flamer just got alot better thow... Since Now I only hit you back on 5's instead of 6's.

Not a prospect I enjoy to much.
=/

Note: I'm a Ork and CSM player. So I play on both sides of the "Tank shock guys into groups for blasts and flamers." Even when playing as CSM I feel that ability is to "safe" for what you can do with it...

[Father]

Apparently, it IS WS1, not WS10. So says the author of the rumour.

[DarkLink]

I've never heard this particular guy's name before, and while there's a lot of similarities there's also a lot of little conflicts between all these new sources.

Assume the stuff that gets repeated is ballpark, such as vehicles having WS values now, but I would ignore any and all references to specific stats until you get the actual book in hand. There are too many conflicts, too many chances for typos, and too much human error to get hung up over something too specific.




Besides, only hitting vehicles on a 6 makes sense. Have you ever tried to punch a car as it drove by? And besides, currently WS10 would make orks hit on a 5+, not a 6. People tend to severely underestimate how much such a little change can take effect. The only difference between 4th and 5th ed cover was TLOS, buffing to a 4+, and vehicles getting cover saves, but because there were some other changes such as a tougher vehicle damage chart and cheaper vehicles, suddenly those "minor" tweaks made cover and vehicles too potent.

[Bigred]

Latest from Warseer: (Whitehat and Darnok)


Random Charges are 2D6 pick the highest (unless going through Difficult Terrain where its 3D6 and you drop the highest.) Move through cover I believe adds an extra D6

Vehicles are WS0 if stationary, and WS1 if they move, no matter how far they go.

Vehicles go the same distance in the movement phase (I believe 6" and fire everything regardless if fast or not) but in the shooting phase can make an extra move (apparently some kept forgetting what vehicles moved to fast to fire...

Vehicles cannot contest (unsure if scoring units in transports can

6 Missions and 3 deployment types (2 of the deployments are the same as current, Spearhead & Pitched Battle.)

Troops are the only ones that can score (including of course 'scoring units')

5+ Cover save for most things (ruins are 4+).

Allies rules are in, but its meant to be for team games (ie separate force org chart, distrusted ally rules similar to Fantasy)

Percentages are *not* in

Wound Allocation is closest to furthest.

Dueling is similar to challenges in fantasy but contrary to earlier rumors, they don't replace Combat res, just add to sides. A IC can challenge another IC in the same combat even if not in base to base. If the defending IC refuses, he simply cannot attack that turn, if he does he counts as being in b2b and no one else can hurt him apart from the attacking IC. I'm guessing this is to offset the Wound Allocation rules

Preferred Enemy is including shooting and you may reroll wound rolls of a 1 (either shooting or combat)

Rapid Fire weapons may now can shoot at long range while moving. restriction on assaulting after rapid firing remains.

Jump Infantry get a free strike at I10 when they charge into combat

Psychic Power Decks using a dice system similar to Fantasy.

Flyers are in.

FNP drops to 5+ Save.


AP are on ccw but he says power weapons are ap 2, not 3.
When you charge it's double your move, infantry move 6, bikes 8 cav 7 etc.
It's move assault then shooting now!
Fnp is 5+. Master crafted ccw give you a 5+ invuln save
When you shoot you roll to hit depending on the speed of your target. Fast vehicles you always need a 6.
A unit can't claim a object while inside a vehicle.
There's new kinds of instance death. If your say strengh 8 vs a space marine captain toughness 4
you only do 2 wounds! Strengh (9?) or more would do 3 wounds & kill him.
In kill point missions you get kill points based on what the units points cost, so for example a
landraider would be worth 5 kill points & a unit of marines 3pts.

[Dalleron]

Assuming all that is true, which I won't until I'm holding the book in my hand, all i can say is...

"This ain't your daddy's 40K"

[Kawauso]

Jump Infantry get a free strike at I10 when they charge into combat

Hellooo Triarch Praetorians.
Also whipcoils would be a lot less appealing for Wraiths this way.

[aznthecapn]

Random Charges are 2D6 pick the highest

When you charge it's double your move, infantry move 6, bikes 8 cav 7 etc.

This seems conflicting. Are "random charges" something separate from a normal assault move?

[Kawauso]

I like the notion of rapid fire still getting the 1 shot at full range after moving.

However...

What the hell would that do to Relentless?
I mean, in the Necron codex...what would the purpose of the Phaeron upgrade be? No heavy weapons on infantry to benefit from it in that instance.

[aznthecapn]

My guess is that relentless is retooled to do something else or scrapped.

[Kawauso]

I'd imagine if this were true it's retooled - can't see them putting an upgrade in the last codex before the new edition that does nothing other than grant a rule that's about to be scrapped.

Maybe it would be an extra shot for Rapid Fire weapons?
Would make gauss blaster Immortals with a Phaeron actually pretty potent.

[eldargal]

Great, so the one thing that made Dark Eldar even vaguely survivable has been nerfed. Tremendous.

FNP drops to 5+ Save.

[Tzeentch's Dark Agent]

Great, so the one thing that made Dark Eldar even vaguely survivable has been nerfed. Tremendous.

But look on the good side, Blood Angels have been nerfed! :D

[eldargal]

True but they needed it, DE did not need a nerf to their survivability as they are already one ofthe most, if not the most, fragile army in the game. With CCW having AP and cover saves being dropped to 5+ DE basically have no saves against anything in ccw and a 5+ against shooting in cover. Wyches being the exception with their dodge save.

Orks/nids are in a similar boat, most of them won't have saves in cc now but Orks at least have T4 and are really cheap. Nids are even cheaper and lets face it they were terrible before so this is nothing new for them.

[Tzeentch's Dark Agent]

Yeah, that is a shame to be fair.
We all said there'd be stuff that we wouldn't like. Maybe there'll be another rule that buffs them a different way so that we don't mind?

[aznthecapn]

I can see DE getting something to maybe buff their FNP. Resurrection Protocols is basically FNP and a Res Orb boosts that to 4+. DE getting some kind of cheap wargear to buff it to 4+ isn't outside the realm of possibility.

[Tzeentch's Dark Agent]

But it is unfortunately not in their codex already, so I doubt it.
I think skimmers may be slightly buffed with rulings.

[eldargal]

That is extremely unlikely, the only vague possibility I could see is that there is a DE errata in the book which renamed pain token FNP to something else and keeps it 4+. I really doubt it though.

I can see DE getting something to maybe buff their FNP. Resurrection Protocols is basically FNP and a Res Orb boosts that to 4+. DE getting some kind of cheap wargear to buff it to 4+ isn't outside the realm of possibility.

Jump infantry striking at I10 is also extremely irritating, they certainly needed a buff but taking yet another unique Eldar ability and giving it to everybody? Not good.

I'm not making a judgement 'til I see the book, and I'm not getting too worried as I still think most of the rumours will be bollocks. But if they aren't what we will see is most xenos armies taking a big hit. It is true that msot of them need new books anyway, but how do you compensate for the fact that 5-6+ saves are now virtually useless? They were already poor against most shooting, but they could at least save some lives in combat.

[Tzeentch's Dark Agent]

Initiative 10! HOLYMOLYJESUSCHRISTGODSBEPRAISED.
That means that Triarch Praetorians are good now!
And Destroyers are useful!
And Vanguard (as always) are bent.

I'm in the same boat, I'm not accepting any rumour until I have the book in my hands.

[Diagnosis Ninja]

To be fair though, Eldargal, it's not like they had Pain Tokens in 2nd edition... They're still more survivable than they used to be.

As for the rumours, I can see a few things which were there in January, like different movement speeds, variable hits, and all that.

Also liking Wound allocation.

EDIT: Am I the only one who read "Jump Infantry @ I10" as Minotaur style impact hits? Would certainly be viable, given the weight of some of the units.

[eldargal]

Also more expensive with half the dark lances ar a higher price than they used to have, for warriors and lacking the old, more powerful wych weapons for wyches. They are balanced now, extremely well balanced in fact. They will not be so under 6th, they will be a considerably less effective army.

As an example, sometimes I would use DE warriors to hold an objective. Being in cover meant they had decent saves against shooting and with a high damage output by the time most assault troops charged them they were severely depleted and I could rely on the 5+ save to keep some of them alive. Now however whatever wounds are done in combat will all be casualties and as most cover has gone from 4+ to 5+ they will also be suffering more wounds from shooting on average.

[DrLove42]

Look at the humble Wrack. He may as well not have an armour save. His 4+ FNP is virtually the only save je gets. If that moves from 4 to 5 he becomes overcosted.

Imagine a marine scout going from 4 to 5. Or a necron warrior. Or an Eldar aspect warrior. You expect them to be cheaper. If they got worse for the same price youd be annoyed.

If FNP drops nearly everything in the DE book is too expensive.

Also hpw has a cppy of this book not leaked yet? This far in advance we had 5th ed and 8th ed leaked already

[Tzeentch's Dark Agent]

EDIT: Am I the only one who read "Jump Infantry @ I10" as Minotaur style impact hits? Would certainly be viable, given the weight of some of the units.

What if you play Minotaurs Space Marines? YO DAWG.


Or a necron warrior

They already did get nerfed. :p

[Diagnosis Ninja]

But you can't just go from "Balanced" to "underwhelming" in one swoop purely because of one point off a FNP save. I know that whenever I use them FNP barely seems to work, but I think that's just my rubbish dice :P

You never know, they might take with one hand and give with another. From the looks of things, everything is getting a little bit faster (movement speed, foot Deldar with rifles) , we have two good flyers to abuse Supersonic with the new flyer rules, and IC's gain their own kind of protection with Challenges.

[eldargal]

Edit: Just to clarify: I am not getting worried about 6th, until I have the BRB in my hands I'm not making judgements and based on past experience most of these rumours will turn out fake. All I am doing is discussing how the rumoured changes would (negatively) impact on some armies.

It isn't just because of FNP, it is also the reduction in cover save effectivenes and the now complete pointlessness of 5-6+ armour. The fact is Dark Eldar pay for that 5+ save and pay for the ability to gain pain tokens, it is factored into their entire army list. With a significant reduction in the effectivness of FNP most Dark Eldar units will be overpriced.

Movement speed being faster may help somewhat, but not really for kabalites as they will be in vehicles anyway most of the time. Or trying to stay in cover. Increased speed for them is highly situational and there are plenty of other armies who will gain the benefits of it. DE also aren't the only race with supersonic anymore.

But you can't just go from "Balanced" to "underwhelming" in one swoop purely because of one point off a FNP save. I know that whenever I use them FNP barely seems to work, but I think that's just my rubbish dice :P

You never know, they might take with one hand and give with another. From the looks of things, everything is getting a little bit faster (movement speed, foot Deldar with rifles) , we have two good flyers to abuse Supersonic with the new flyer rules, and IC's gain their own kind of protection with Challenges.

Remember also that most of these changes don't hurt Marines anywhre near as much, that is why it is so unfair. BA FNP is nerfed also, who cares they have T4 3+ safe. Cover goes from 4+ to 5+ who cares they have a 3+ save. CCW get AP5, who cares they have a 3+ save. Dark Eldar, though, are screwed and to some extent so are Orks and Tyranids.

Regardless, it is BAD. It was already bad enough that 5-6+ saves were useless against most shooting attacks, but now there will be no point at all having that armour in the game. Only 3-4+ saves are worth anything. So fragile armies just got more fragile, tough armies are unaffected. It is just BAD.

[Diagnosis Ninja]

Yeah, I can see both sides of it. Guessing I'm just being a bit more optimistic than usual haha. Guess I'm just looking at cover as "back to normal", seen as 4+ for regular cover was always crazy by my count.

If only they would change up AP and strength modifiers. Would make power armour a lot less dominant by my count. Would have loved AP to have been a save modifier "so a Meltagun was instead AP 6, giving -6 to a save) and cover instead became an armour save modifier, so that the two worked against each other, and would mean that a 5+ save would be a lot more useful.

Also: really hoping that it isn't a simple "this knife breaks armour just as well as a Chainsword". If they're introducing AP to close combat, they need to distinguish between different types of weapon as well. Make CCW AP6, and introduce Chainswords/ fancy eldar knives as AP5 weapons, and add them as an option to unit entries.

One can dream...

[DrLove42]

One thing for sure - no ones going to be paying 75points to give a unit of Paladins a 5+ FNP...

I gotta say, Fritz has posted an article about GK in these rumours...and hes come to the conclusion they'll be even better...

These "rumours" smack of Matt Wards marine loving tendancies. Xenos suck, power armour wins

Also - the rumours say 4+ save for folks in ruins. So building and some area terrain are still a 4+

[Tzeentch's Dark Agent]

Oh Mat..... Why are you such an army troll?

[Wildcard]

I gotta say, Fritz has posted an article about GK in these rumours...and hes come to the conclusion they'll be even better...

hmm, Where can one find this article?

And about the rumors.. I have yet to decide if i do like em or not :)

But the points about FNP: 130pts for a model to give paladins fnp (and lose 1x str5 stormbolter) has up to the point been questionable upgrade at best, now becoming complete joke.
Same for IG command squad: fnp for 30points, now being 5+ isn't truly worth paying.. (lucky both of those fnp's are optional)

[DrLove42]

hmm, Where can one find this article?

And about the rumors.. I have yet to decide if i do like em or not :)

But the points about FNP: 130pts for a model to give paladins fnp (and lose 1x str5 stormbolter) has up to the point been questionable upgrade at best, now becoming complete joke.
Same for IG command squad: fnp for 30points, now being 5+ isn't truly worth paying.. (lucky both of those fnp's are optional)

http://saimhann.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/grey-knights-even-more-overpowered-in.html

Its an interesting read. Disagree with alot of Fritz's articles but hes got some points

[Wildcard]

Thanks, i'll give it a read

[woodenronin]

It looks bad for IG too. Marines smoke guard in cc. No saves.Wtf?

[Defenestratus]

Great, so the one thing that made Dark Eldar even vaguely survivable has been nerfed. Tremendous.

Look on the bright side EG, our fast vehicles look like they require 6's to get hit (by shooting I hope)

Those flimsy pieces of flying cardboard that you load your evil elves in just got much better IMO.

[DrLove42]

Yep...and depend on if theres anything else added. If hitting on 6's is the new "obscured" from flatout then the 5pt for Tau disruption pods become infintiy winning.

My only problem is (under current rumours and missing info) that any unit has the same chance of punching a rhino that smoved an inch, or a raider thats moved 24+

[Defenestratus]

Yep...and depend on if theres anything else added. If hitting on 6's is the new "obscured" from flatout then the 5pt for Tau disruption pods become infintiy winning.

My only problem is (under current rumours and missing info) that any unit has the same chance of punching a rhino that smoved an inch, or a raider thats moved 24+

Yes - I think that its unfortunate that vehicles are so easy to hit under these rumored rules in CC.

Hopefully its offset by the removal of always hitting on the rear armor.

[DrLove42]

Maybe. I know in the "leaked" rule book that Open Topped no longer carried a penalty on the damage table, that'd be quite nice.

The thing is it just makes DE much more of an Alpha strike list. It HAS to be a "go big or go home". As it stands if you think of its as a missile, 6th ed makes the delivery system more reliable, but if the warhead doesn't cripple immediatly it won't survive

[eldargal]

Hm, if our raiders need 6s to hit while moving slow enough to let the units in them shoot that would be considerable compensation for the fact 90% of the army basically has no no save.

Look on the bright side EG, our fast vehicles look like they require 6's to get hit (by shooting I hope)

Those flimsy pieces of flying cardboard that you load your evil elves in just got much better IMO.

[Levitas]

The thing is it just makes DE much more of an Alpha strike list. It HAS to be a "go big or go home". As it stands if you think of its as a missile, 6th ed makes the delivery system more reliable, but if the warhead doesn't cripple immediatly it won't survive

I'm seeing this too. Also want to know if we can use our poisoned pistols in close combat.

The drop to 5+ FNP does make us indeed feel it.

Anyone know what fleet does now??

[fuzzyguy]

Besides, only hitting vehicles on a 6 makes sense. Have you ever tried to punch a car as it drove by?

Yes, and I scored a penetrating hit. I only got a stunned result though. The fist was a bit sore for a few days afterwards.

[DarkLink]

But the points about FNP: 130pts for a model to give paladins fnp (and lose 1x str5 stormbolter) has up to the point been questionable upgrade at best, now becoming complete joke.

FNP has never had anything to do with what makes Paladins so good. It doesn't really matter that it will be irrelevant in 6th, because it's pretty much irrelevant now.

We don't have a complete enough picture to see which armies get the most buffs/nerfs, though. What we know about psychic powers, for example, is too vague to tell if it will set GKs apart from most other armies, or if it instead gives other armies the ability to compete psychically with GKs.

[oftenwrong]

Yes, and I scored a penetrating hit. I only got a stunned result though. The fist was a bit sore for a few days afterwards.

At least that 18’ tall winged red murder daemon that hides in my closet, will have a better than 40% changes to open a speeding rhino. Maybe GW wants to sell bloodthirster boxes rather than razorback kits this edition…:p

[Levitas]

I thought the idea of an evasion stat vs BS was a good one. I'm sure it will make sense when we see the whole picture. But we do need a difference in how vehicles are hit and how that takes into consideration the WS/BS of the attacker.

A grot shooting at fast moving flyer and a vindicare sniping a stationary landraider should be vastly different. Hope 6th shows us that it is.

[Kawauso]

At least that 18’ tall winged red murder daemon that hides in my closet, will have a better than 40% changes to open a speeding rhino. Maybe GW wants to sell bloodthirster boxes rather than razorback kits this edition…:p

I know I'd like to see a winged Hive Tyrant with scything talons have a good shot at catching and killing flyers/fast skimmers...though really it's the 'catching' part that's hardest.

[DrLove42]

5th ed - melta and transport spam
6th ed - blast templates (dont need 6's to hit those vehicles), monstrous creatures (my 5 wraithlord army is a go) and fast transports

As for clmment about how hard it is to punch a car, a rhino is bigger than a transit van, and moving at6" is walking speed. A massive van sized object moving 3mph isnt hard to hit. A motorbike loving 100mph however....

[Uberbeast]

I'm willing to give nearly all the new rumors a try, even the ones that will certainly not benefit the types of lists I currently play. I think that's part of the point of a new edition is to shake everything up and stop people leaning on the same stuff.

A couple issues I have though: It sounds like infantry is doing to die a lot faster thanks to a decrease in many cover saves from 4+ to 5+, and the possible inclusion of AP in close combat, while vehicles are going to be a bit toughter to kill, especially fast ones. I don't know if this is going to solve the mech problems.

Also, I can't believe random charges will be in the 6th edition. There was so much backlash about random charges in 8th edition fantasy, and like it or hate it, I can't understand why they would choose to do the same thing with 40k. I really don't want to see random charges brought into 40k, even though I think the system wouldn't be hit as hard as 8th edition WFB was by its inclusion.

[Wildcard]

The things i truly hope to see in the next set of released rumours are following things confirmed:

a) Assault weapons grant additional +1 attack on the charge (as a second ccw)
b) Vehicles being able to fire all their weapons at differents targets
c) Boosts for MCs

For the rest i am all open minded for :)

[DrLove42]

As a side note, my GW managers just come back from a trip to GW Central. So they probably know alllll about it now.