6th Ed Content Rumours

[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!