Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Ging3rDw4rf wrote:
I really hope they don't change the rules too much I've only just got to gross with the basics !

The last time they changed it so much that the game was basically "new" was 2nd to 3rd and even then there was a lot of carry over in things like phases being the same. Even with these rumors I don't see the game changing too much from how it currently works, just enough to get people needing to rethink how they build their army mostly.

They cut the Psychic phase altogether, they moved charging from something you declared at the start of the movement phase to it's own movement in the Assault phase.

The only carry over with any of the real core rules was the to wound mechanic, even the to hit rolls for shooting changed and the mechanics for HTH changed altogether.

Take it from someone who got so totally disillusioned with the changes from 2nd to 3rd that he quit for over a decade, very little remained untouched.

Hindsight has taught me that they were mostly changes for the better though, despite all the controversy over the quality of the rules these days, and I can still find things I think 2nd did better (cover = reduced shooting accuracy instead of an extra save for instance) but most of the issues I had with 3rd I now acknowledge were down to me as a player, and not the game.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Bull0 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Even with these rumors I don't see the game changing too much from how it currently works, just enough to get people needing to rethink how they build their army mostly.

They've sold enough Flyers now... perhaps 7th is the Dreadnought Edition

Flying Dreadnoughts!

Nah, that was 5th

Blood Angels express delivery Dreadnought service,

Psychic or non-psychic, sir?

 Ascalam wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Bull0 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Even with these rumors I don't see the game changing too much from how it currently works, just enough to get people needing to rethink how they build their army mostly.

They've sold enough Flyers now... perhaps 7th is the Dreadnought Edition

Flying Dreadnoughts!

Nah, that was 5th

Blood Angels express delivery Dreadnought service,

Psychic or non-psychic, sir?

My bet is on superheavy jump-tanks.

My bet is that they quit Titan skirmish rules and go to full formation Titan battles

 Kosake wrote:
You know what I think would make sense?

Allowing a defending unit to either put up a shooting defense, without Initiative test or prepare for CC. So your guardsmen can either try to shoot that wave of orks but have no melee attacks when some actually manage to break through or they ignore snapfire, instead mounting their bayonets or whatever and fighting in CC. Not sure how sensible this would be in most cases, but it would be a tactical option...

You already had a chance to put up your shooting defense in your previous shooting phase...

I am in favour of removing overwatch all together, especially considering there is virtually no way to get into assault without weathering atleast one shooting phase.

Overwatch IMO is the one big good change they made in this edition but I think they made it too cookie cutter. It should be a flat -2 to your BS so that most armies (like marines and orks) don't overwatch at the same skill.

 warboss wrote:
Overwatch IMO is the one big good change they made in this edition but I think they made it too cookie cutter. It should be a flat -2 to your BS so that most armies (like marines and orks) don't overwatch at the same skill.

-3 is excellent, its a snap reaction...hitting on 6s makes sense for most everyone out there...only the best most well trained should hit on 5s or better. It would be yet another reason to outflank a tyranid prime with some warriors too.

I also like -3 for snap shots...because the Avatar should still hit a flier on a 2+, rerolling for a 5+. And my Grandmaster would hit fliers 50% of the time. For individual models and super elite units...I think it's fair enough.
Watch out for the return of the Vindicare.

But it all depends on how all of the rules mesh together.

I'd assume most trained infantry and even raw recruits would hit someone running into combat with them more than 1/3rd of the time. Assaulting ranged units in any conflict of the history of everything has always been pretty risky, and almost suicidal if they are prepared.

Requiring to pass an initiative test AND THEN hit on a 6 (for all bar BS5+ characters) means the odds of being hit during an assault are almost non-existant.

I'd be all for something that makes assaulting much more risky, like giving the defenders +1BS if they didn't move in their last turn, or giving them the choice of a good defensive shot (normal BS) or preparing for the assault (say +1WS on the first round).

The whole +1 attack bonus for charging is a bit silly in 40K as well, the only shock attacking unit's that make any significant impact on charging were cavalry and chariots, and even then they weren't that great against prepared enemies.

Of course, the cynic in me says that easy assaults make things better for marines, so that's how it'll go.

Marines have always been lackluster in assault.

For the purposes of a game I much prefer the hit on 6s.

As for the way that rumor is listed.

I understood it as full BS for overwatch if initiative is passed, otherwise, BS-3 overwatch.

 ductvader wrote:

 warboss wrote:
Overwatch IMO is the one big good change they made in this edition but I think they made it too cookie cutter. It should be a flat -2 to your BS so that most armies (like marines and orks) don't overwatch at the same skill.

-3 is excellent, its a snap reaction...hitting on 6s makes sense for most everyone out there...only the best most well trained should hit on 5s or better. It would be yet another reason to outflank a tyranid prime with some warriors too.

I also like -3 for snap shots...because the Avatar should still hit a flier on a 2+, rerolling for a 5+. And my Grandmaster would hit fliers 50% of the time. For individual models and super elite units...I think it's fair enough.
Watch out for the return of the Vindicare.

But it all depends on how all of the rules mesh together.

-3 puts the majority of armies out of overwatch possibility except marines and eldar. I believe that armies that are poor marksmen shouldn't get it (which is why -2 takes it away from orks and IG conscripts), still leaves average marksmen like firewarriors with a chance, and gives above average marksmen a more dependable chance. I actually think that overwatch at full BS instead of any close combat attacks should be the rule instead of both attacks and shooting but that is just me and probably better left for another thread.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ductvader wrote:
Marines have always been lackluster in assault.

They're not lackluster. Just try charging 5 marines into 10 or 20 guardsmen and see what happens. They're above average in the whole universe if you count all loyalists as a single army but they're just average overall if you count each flavor separately.

 warboss wrote:

 ductvader wrote:

 warboss wrote:
Overwatch IMO is the one big good change they made in this edition but I think they made it too cookie cutter. It should be a flat -2 to your BS so that most armies (like marines and orks) don't overwatch at the same skill.

-3 is excellent, its a snap reaction...hitting on 6s makes sense for most everyone out there...only the best most well trained should hit on 5s or better. It would be yet another reason to outflank a tyranid prime with some warriors too.

I also like -3 for snap shots...because the Avatar should still hit a flier on a 2+, rerolling for a 5+. And my Grandmaster would hit fliers 50% of the time. For individual models and super elite units...I think it's fair enough.
Watch out for the return of the Vindicare.

But it all depends on how all of the rules mesh together.

-3 puts the majority of armies out of overwatch possibility except marines and eldar. I believe that armies that are poor marksmen shouldn't get it (which is why -2 takes it away from orks and IG conscripts), still leaves average marksmen like firewarriors with a chance, and gives above average marksmen a more dependable chance. I actually think that overwatch at full BS instead of any close combat attacks should be the rule instead of both attacks and shooting but that is just me and probably better left for another thread.

BS1 would be the lowest possible.

Biggest change they could make is to move away from d6 to d10 or higher. I can't see them doing that but it would transform the game as it allows for a much great range of ability for different races/units.

Unless the unit being charged has some sort of buff or twin linked I find it quite hard to kill more than a couple of the charging units. Personally I'd be happy if they just dealt with the unreasonable buffs.

I am hoping for a minimum of this.

7th Edition = 6th Edition - Battle Brothers

 ductvader wrote:
Marines have always been lackluster in assault.

For the purposes of a game I much prefer the hit on 6s.

As for the way that rumor is listed.

I understood it as full BS for overwatch if initiative is passed, otherwise, BS-3 overwatch.

IF this is the case, allowing the unit to still shoot in the following shooting phase is totally moronic if the charge fails or the assaulting unit is wiped out by the fire or the combat.

endlesswaltz123 wrote:

 ductvader wrote:
Marines have always been lackluster in assault.

For the purposes of a game I much prefer the hit on 6s.

As for the way that rumor is listed.

I understood it as full BS for overwatch if initiative is passed, otherwise, BS-3 overwatch.

IF this is the case, allowing the unit to still shoot in the following shooting phase is totally moronic if the charge fails or the assaulting unit is wiped out by the fire or the combat.

Indeed, Eldar would be godly-er.

 Kosake wrote:

 Ascalam wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Bull0 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Even with these rumors I don't see the game changing too much from how it currently works, just enough to get people needing to rethink how they build their army mostly.

They've sold enough Flyers now... perhaps 7th is the Dreadnought Edition

Flying Dreadnoughts!

Nah, that was 5th

Blood Angels express delivery Dreadnought service,

Psychic or non-psychic, sir?

My bet is on superheavy jump-tanks.

Eldars been doing super heavy grav tanks long enough.
No, i think new and fresh would be a dreadnought with dual grav cannons riding a burning motorcycle made to look like a cathedral of skulls. 6th saw some new love for the bike lists, so why not let the dreadnought in on the fun.

We'll have a biker marine on a bike INSIDE a bigger bike. Centurions + Bike = profit...

 Shandara wrote:
We'll have a biker marine on a bike INSIDE a bigger bike. Centurions + Bike = profit...

Excuse me?



The bikers will be inside the wheels of the bigger biker, driving it to go faster.



Get your facts straight newb.

Dont' be ridiculous. It'll be a bike inside a trike. Fans of squats will then finally be satisfied in GW's eyes after 25 years.

 ductvader wrote:
I am hoping for a minimum of this.

7th Edition = 6th Edition - Battle Brothers

That would be awesome!

For overwatch I would just make it so you could only do it if your being assaulted from 180 degrees to your front. It would make the moving phase more tactical and mean jump infantry can surprise units as they should.

 warboss wrote:
Dont' be ridiculous. It'll be a bike inside a trike. Fans of squats will then finally be satisfied in GW's eyes after 25 years.

Combination terrain & warmachine!

Limited to 3 worldwide, made from finest plaster of Paris.

£500

Can we try not to get the thread closed for OT banter?

 pretre wrote:
Can we try not to get the thread closed for OT banter?

Sorry

 pretre wrote:
Can we try not to get the thread closed for OT banter?

All right guys, all this talk about being off topic is getting us off topic.

 Alpharius wrote:

 ductvader wrote:
I am hoping for a minimum of this.

7th Edition = 6th Edition - Battle Brothers

That would be awesome!

Not in combination with the other rumoured changes to Allies. Either a 25% of army points limit OR the removal of Battle Brothers, both would defeat the whole bloody point of the mechanic as far as I'm concerned.

 Yodhrin wrote:

 Alpharius wrote:

 ductvader wrote:
I am hoping for a minimum of this.

7th Edition = 6th Edition - Battle Brothers

That would be awesome!

Not in combination with the other rumoured changes to Allies. Either a 25% of army points limit OR the removal of Battle Brothers, both would defeat the whole bloody point of the mechanic as far as I'm concerned.

It would still sell models.

So, let's say that the 25% rumor is correct.

(You MUST take at least 25% of your army in Troops. You may take UP TO 25% in each category of HQ, Elite, Fast Attack, and.or Heavy Support)

Would dedicated transports count as troops? SHOULD they?

Where do Fortification and Lords of War come from? Do we get a 25% for them as well and call it a day?

How should it come together?

 ductvader wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:

 Alpharius wrote:

 ductvader wrote:
I am hoping for a minimum of this.

7th Edition = 6th Edition - Battle Brothers

That would be awesome!

Not in combination with the other rumoured changes to Allies. Either a 25% of army points limit OR the removal of Battle Brothers, both would defeat the whole bloody point of the mechanic as far as I'm concerned.

It would still sell models.

Hence my use of the phrase "as far as I'm concerned", because shockingly, my priorities are not the same as GW's.