22816
Post by: michelj
Enjoy 
http://bloodofkittens.com/network/members/rideroftheerk/activity/14616/
* first 6th edition codexes, but release before or with rulebook, small release with single or two waves: Black Templars (1 waves: 2x plactic, 2x Finecast), Tau (1 wave: 3x plastic boxes, 4x Finecast), Necrons (2 waves)
* first real 6th edition codex: Codex Chaos Legions, really big release in three waves, doesn’t invalidate Codex Chaos Space Marines which gets extensive White Dwarf update as Codex Renegade Space Marines
* two starter sets, each with rules, dices, movement markers, mission booklet, one with Dark Angels and fitting scenery, the other with Black Legion and Chaos scenery. You can combine both to play the campaign or use one set alone to play a selection of dumbed down scenarios against every other force, first starter set that comes with a model for a well established special character
* 6th edition is finished rulewise for some time now, the overall goal is to fix some of the long time problems of the game system. Expect a lot more fundamental improvements than last edition. The rules were even more ambitious at some stage of development, but didn’t get approved as they were too far away from the established rules. The main designer left company and his successors brought the rules back in line with the existing codexes. The rules are nonetheless a bigger step forward than from 4th to 5th. Changes are so big that the next edition relies partial on erratas to fix old codexes. Development relied heavily on feedback of veteran playtesters. You can see some results of this new approach by the way the FAQs were handled in the last months. All codexes since Codex Tyranids were written with the new rules in mind, especially the new mission and reserve structure.
* The main design goals are: one book to rule them all, heroic characters, visceral combat, streamlined mechanism, cleaned up presentation and strategy before chance
* strong narrative focus on Chaos, perspective shifting from the Empire to the struggle between free races and the Warp
* the biggest rule changes:
- similar ballistic to hit chart as wound chart: compare BS to target’s speed and unit type. BS 3 hits moving infantry on 4+, but lightning fast jetbikes on 6+ and stationary tank on 2+… HUGE
- victory points are back, but with another twist: you get two victory points if an unit holds an objective for an entire game turn, if a scoring unit holds one, you get three and one if you destroy a squad leader or vehicle
- before the game there is a bidding contest for the opportunity of the first turn, if you bid more strategic points you can go first, but the enemy can spent these points on stratagems as in Cities of Death: 22 generic stratagems – for example for one point you can decide on night fighting or place an automatic gun, for four you can shift your reserves, most expensive stratagems are at 12 points and are really drastic, every unspent point can be used once a game for a reroll
- new turn sequence: prepare-movement-assault-shooting-consolidate
new phase “consolidate” phase for random movements, jetpack movements, pursuits, morale checks/effects and resolving shooting reactions
assault before shooting – big units are real roadblocks!<<
Some more examples for the development doctrines
One rulebook for all:
- flyer rules are incorporated in the main rules
- narrative rule section that expands core rules: formations, super heavies, gaining experience
- modular rules, core rules can easily be expanded by narratives rules or another expansion set
Heroic characters:
- independent characters more powerful, armour save and invulnerable save at the same time
- squad leaders more important, no more 50% rallying threshold, unit can rally as long as squad leader lives
- independent characters can snipe
More visceral combat:
- standard cover only 5+ now, Feel No Pain (1) only on 5+
- slow slogging units very vulnerable
- some weapon types are specialized in taking out specific unit types and are incredible good at doing this (sniper vs. infantry without armour), but on the other hand ordnance vs flyer isn’t going to do much
streamlined:
- no more random movement at all
- 5 general types of psychic powers
- wound allocation like 4th edition on unit basis, but attacker can chose every 5th wound to go to a single model (sniper weapon every second wound)
- artillery is normal immobile vehicle squadron, crew has no other game purpose than to be a counter for rate of fire and attacks
clean up of combusted rules:
- there are tiers for most of the special rules. Instant Death (2) circumvents Eternal Warrior (1) for example. Feel No Pain (1) is 5+, Feel No Pain (2) is 4+ and Feel No Pain (3) is 3+. If no value is given, the special rule is tier 1.
- no more difference between leadership test and morale test
- terrain rules on a single page, true line of sight, non-vehicles models are ignored altogether, rules for special terrain like bunkers, ruins or deathworld mangroves in narrative rule section
less randomness, more strategic options:
- more elaborate reserve rules, can nominate turn of arrvial and has only small change to arrive earlier or later, or can intervene behind enemy lines, arrives randomly but can hinder enemy reserves, must be distributed evenly between turn two and three, later arrivals only randomly
-no more random game length
-no roll for first turn
-deep striking units more than 18” from enemy away don’t scatter, but landing in 6” is much more dangerous
- movement impairing effects from pinning weapons even if morale check is passed (if roll is above halved Ld), Fearless not immune to this, but only effected if rolled over full Ld
- more reactions to shooting than going to the ground depending on unit type and special rules. bikes can evade (3+ cover as same as before, but cannot assault or shoot next turn), jump troops can fly high, units with Stealth can attempt to vanish, …
-rideroftheerk
29878
Post by: Chowderhead
This sounds more like wishlisting than rules, IMHO.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
Call me hesitant, but "Codex Chaos Legions" and "Codex Renegade Marines" is something I keep talking about in wishlisting threads...
Hell, even the starter idea sounds like something I've posted up before.
I'd be okay with a Dark Angels starter set though.
320
Post by: Platuan4th
Chowderhead wrote:This sounds more like wishlisting than rules, IMHO.
Indeed. I really don't see GW going with a lot of this. Some, if true is either a huge change for change's sake or is a huge disappointment.
Not buying the rumors and would be very meh about the game if true.
32644
Post by: Mr Mystery
SHENANIGANS!
320
Post by: Platuan4th
Kanluwen wrote:I'd be okay with a Dark Angels starter set though.
I would too, but I also don't see GW doing PP style starters.
37798
Post by: alphaomega
And if most of that is true, going to make 40k an ugly game to play. :/
20867
Post by: Just Dave
I'm really not sure what to make of this, but I don't believe the bit about Chaos Legions and the starter sets at least. Along with rules just widely introduced (such as TLoS) being dropped.
As I said, I'm really not sure what to make of this.
Provides no release date/estimate...
4152
Post by: JHall
Wow, there is so much BS in this list I don't even know where to start. The clearest thing that would show that it is all BS is the whole change to the Hit Chart. They have used the same chart for all their games for 30 years. I don't see them changing a fundamental part of the game now.
As the above poster said- Shenanigans!
41939
Post by: Alfhedil
Codex Chaos Legions would be so awesome, and is what the Chaos Marine dex should be anyways. I mean Loyalists get multiple dexes, why can't the love spread to the fallen legions?
32644
Post by: Mr Mystery
Starter Set thing seems particularly off. Whole idea behind the current set(s) is that not just you, but a friend can play, with just a single set.
Yup, I'm happy to write this off for sure.
Also, Alfhedil, I believe (according to Gav Thorpe) that was the intention when he did the current book.
41201
Post by: Artemo
While I think some of these ideas are great (though I think some seem downright silly) I can see them taken as a whole slowing the game down. That would be a definite change in direction for GW. If making all these changes, why not re-introduce Overwatch? Given the nature of some of these alleged changes, overwatch wouldn't add any complexity or slow things down much more than attacker allocating 1 in 5 wounds or tallying VPs turn to turn. Assault before shooting is probably the most interesting alleged change (and actually not a bad one, potentially)
25300
Post by: Absolutionis
Assault before shooting would fundamentally change the game itself. My Tyranids wouldn't mind.
Streamlining is nice and all, but even the somewhat experienced players already memorized the to-hit and to-wound charts. The main problem of the I-Go-U-Go structure is one player rolling buckets of dice where the other watches. Putting assault mid-turn is one step there, but still doesn't fix the boredom problem.
I wished GW would implement the Battle Missions Scenario where the game structure was the same, but you swapped each players' shooting phases. It was like a simplified overwatch without any memory issues.
Player 1 move > Player 2 shoot > Player 1 assault
Player 2 move > Player 1 shoot > Player 2 assault
repeat
33868
Post by: winnertakesall
If half this stuff is true, I will go down to GW HQ, and begin on slapping some sense into every single one of them.
7463
Post by: Crablezworth
42808
Post by: Marthike
Assualt before shooting? thats a huge change. unless you declare who you wanna assualt before shooting.
26192
Post by: Claimh_Solais
Mr Mystery wrote:Starter Set thing seems particularly off. Whole idea behind the current set(s) is that not just you, but a friend can play, with just a single set.
Yup, I'm happy to write this off for sure.
Also, Alfhedil, I believe (according to Gav Thorpe) that was the intention when he did the current book.
Yeah and Now the firend nead to buy one box too 
but I hope its true , but why dark angels? (hope they mean blood angels 
20086
Post by: Andilus Greatsword
Not sure how much is true, but some aspects sound very intriguing.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
Claimh_Solais wrote:Mr Mystery wrote:Starter Set thing seems particularly off. Whole idea behind the current set(s) is that not just you, but a friend can play, with just a single set.
Yup, I'm happy to write this off for sure.
Also, Alfhedil, I believe (according to Gav Thorpe) that was the intention when he did the current book.
Yeah and Now the firend nead to buy one box too
but I hope its true , but why dark angels? (hope they mean blood angels )
Why not Dark Angels?
The book is generally considered a "failure" by the design staff and I know I consider it to be one. None of the real "defining features" that you see evident in Blood Angels/Space Wolves or even Black Templars are there. It also was an aborted attempt to start something new in terms of the design.
On another note, I swear if this marks the return of Scout-Sergeant Naaman I will be a stupidly happy camper.
5269
Post by: lord_blackfang
I like most of it, but it sounds way out of GW's comfort zone and contrary to their current design paradigm. These changes would likely get me back into the game but I' not buying the rumours at all.
17901
Post by: Vhalyar
Just like I said elsewhere, this isn't from Blood of Kittens - it's the equivalent of someone with zero post history starting a thread here and making wild claims. Saying it's from BoK is very disingenuous.
28444
Post by: DarknessEternal
Marthike wrote:Assualt before shooting? thats a huge change. unless you declare who you wanna assualt before shooting.
Like 2nd edition was.
However, these rumors seem like BS.
17349
Post by: SilverMK2
It's a good job I'm not a slug, or I would have exploded with all the salt being thrown around
735
Post by: JOHIRA
I like a lot of the ideas here, but even if they are how the final product turns out, it will be impossible to tell how they work all together. It could revolutionize the game, or it could ruin it.
But the biggest reason I'm skeptical is that these rules seem to be going in a different direction from the recent Fantasy rules changes.
Unfortunately, it's all a moot point for me. As long as their prices are unreasonable, I won't be buying GW product no matter how interesting their rules become.
17349
Post by: SilverMK2
JOHIRA wrote:As long as their prices are unreasonable, I won't be buying GW product no matter how interesting their rules become.
Pretty much my feelings exactly 
3933
Post by: Kingsley
Amazing. I don't actually believe it because these rumors are too good to be true, but if this is the case GW have really outdone themselves. Literally every change in this list sounds great.
4001
Post by: Compel
It's not the first mention I've heard of the new starter set being Dark Angels / Chaos.
I think there are quite possibly some grains of truth in this, more likely it's been through a few rounds of Chinese Whispers, that's all.
I wasn't thinking it was going to be a major change though. For example, one of the most notable changes I've heard was 'units disembarking from a destroyed transport are automatically pinned.'
Which seems a bit more likely than entirely changing the turn setup entirely...
36
Post by: Moopy
I don't believe most of this.
In any change of the rules, you will see some differences, but you're NOT going to see a massive "change it all around" in soooo many different areas. Last time that happened it was 3rd ed. and that made 40k shoot though the roof in popularity.
They're not going to radically change something that's working so well for them.
6646
Post by: Morathi's Darkest Sin
Why does this pic seem oddly appropriate if true.
Also, salt needed on this one.
22190
Post by: Theduke07
No Roll for first and no Random Game length would be too funny. The game would have to change completely because that simply doesn't work.
25727
Post by: Darkvoidof40k
Whatever happens, I like what these rumors are saying and to be honest, I can see them being reasonably true. It also combines a few other rumors, most notably that of the 6th ed starter set.
7680
Post by: oni
I call bull gak. All of that is so far fetched... That post and this thread need aborted immediately.
24019
Post by: Sieggfried
It all seems too complicated, it makes one wonder how long such a game would last...
25141
Post by: Chibi Bodge-Battle
6th edition 40k rumors from blood of kittens.
What!? Is some sort of divination being used ?
I seriously don't like this direction GW are taking.
For crying out loud the week before rule + the WD announcements are bad enough imho.
But this as a result? It is an abomination!
Just make a statement on the internet and spare the little cats' lives!
Don't care if they drastically reduce prices, it will not sit easy with my conscience!
Iwon't have anything to do with 40K.
40431
Post by: army310
I like some (like cover save down to a +5 ya!!)and the others sound odd to me, but its a rumor so I wait and see what will happen.
37700
Post by: Ascalam
If these changes were true i'd likely lose interest in the game.
320
Post by: Platuan4th
Ascalam wrote:If these changes were true i'd likely lose interest in the game.
Same. I want GW to write better/more clear rules, not more complicated rules. I have other game systems for that.
6672
Post by: itsonlyme
If these rumours are even half true I think this would be the first time since 2nd ed i was excited about buying a 40k rule set
28710
Post by: motorhead1945
The only really important thing convincing me is the ballistic skill change, I guess....
214
Post by: ThirdUltra
Yeah, some of the rule-mechanics described in that rumor seem to harken back to 2nd edition rules.
Such as assaults before shooting which was a 2nd edition rule.
But yeah, it seems there are some unneccessary rules thrown in that would complicate the system much more than usual and slow the game down, which I thought was soemthing that GW tried to avoid.
However, as someone has already mentioned, we will wait and see if any or all of these rumors come to light in 2012.
14178
Post by: odmiller
Yay, let's start the threats to quit now. It's never too early for threatening to quit.
I don't know how accurate the rumors are, but think about how drastic the changes in the new fantasy edition were. GW has proven they are not afraid to make drastic changes to the game systems. I, for one, welcome it.
6646
Post by: Morathi's Darkest Sin
Aye, plenty of folks where adamant the random charge thing wouldn't be in Fantasy when the rumour first came out.
Not suggesting this should add anything to these rumours, but Fantasy certainly just proved GW is still happy to make major changes to their systems.
31734
Post by: cheapbuster
I think the...nah it all BS
44688
Post by: TrollPie
These all sound like good ideas.
So GW obviously won't do it.
Please don't attach non wargaming pictures to Dakka. ta.
reds8n
5269
Post by: lord_blackfang
odmiller wrote:Yay, let's start the threats to quit now. It's never too early for threatening to quit.
k... I'll quit if these rumours aren't true!
42646
Post by: Korraz
Why are all these band-aid patches called rules reminding me of this?
These rumors look like the attempt to hammer as much from other systems (currently I'm counting 4) into the new edition as possible, which makes the horrible rules even more bloated. Will be interesting to watch how it turns out in reality.
41201
Post by: Artemo
Certainly GW are not afraid to make drastic changes. What they have consistently done, however, is moved away from adding complications to the basic play (they save the adding of complications for codices). Some of these alleged rules would require simple book-keeping or slow the pace of the game. That’s not hitherto been GW’s plan and would, for them, represent a retrograde step.
The best change (as someone said above) would indeed be to have the turn sequence be:
player 1 move, player 2 shoot, player 1 assault, player 2 move , player 1 shoot, player 2 assault.
What is allegedly proposed wouldn’t be as good as that whether the idea is greater involvement from both players (or rather less time spent before a player has to do something) or increased ‘strategy’.
The idea of bidding for first turn is excellent, as are some of the strategy options.
But the whole is somewhat unconvincing.
Eg - Why make shooting more complicated? Having variable to hit isn’t actually as simple as just giving faster movers a bonus to save.
26
Post by: carmachu
Korraz wrote:
These rumors look like the attempt to hammer as much from other systems (currently I'm counting 4) into the new edition as possible, which makes the horrible rules even more bloated. Will be interesting to watch how it turns out in reality.
Which systems and what exactly,for my curiosity.....
6672
Post by: itsonlyme
ThirdUltra wrote:Such as assaults before shooting which was a 2nd edition rule
That wasn't 2nd ed, psyhic phase was before shooting and then close combat, I imagine the idea of combat before shooting is so you can't shoot and assault a unit which would explain why grey knights have strength 5 stormbolters (may as well be standard  ), proper flying rules would certainly be interesting and I think would be followed by a new marine codex including storm ravens.
320
Post by: Platuan4th
carmachu wrote:Korraz wrote:
These rumors look like the attempt to hammer as much from other systems (currently I'm counting 4) into the new edition as possible, which makes the horrible rules even more bloated. Will be interesting to watch how it turns out in reality.
Which systems and what exactly,for my curiosity.....
Bidding for turns: AT-43
Differing starter sets: Privateer Press
One book for everything: Lord of the Rings
That's just without trying.
2764
Post by: AgeOfEgos
Assault before you shoot and you need 6's to hit anything fast?
If that's true (which I doubt)---guess it's going to be a good edition for DE.
I do hope they made vehicle destruction more interesting---with more degrees of affect---rather than the all/nothing it seems now.
32644
Post by: Mr Mystery
itsonlyme wrote:ThirdUltra wrote:Such as assaults before shooting which was a 2nd edition rule
That wasn't 2nd ed, psyhic phase was before shooting and then close combat, I imagine the idea of combat before shooting is so you can't shoot and assault a unit which would explain why grey knights have strength 5 stormbolters (may as well be standard ), proper flying rules would certainly be interesting and I think would be followed by a new marine codex including storm ravens.
Nope, Psychic Phase was last up, after all others. I remember because one knob I used to play with in Multiplayer games would always rush to 'PSYCHIC PHASE!', meaning his teammates often missed out on shooting.
4875
Post by: His Master's Voice
Platuan4th wrote:carmachu wrote:Korraz wrote:
These rumors look like the attempt to hammer as much from other systems (currently I'm counting 4) into the new edition as possible, which makes the horrible rules even more bloated. Will be interesting to watch how it turns out in reality.
Which systems and what exactly,for my curiosity.....
Bidding for turns: AT-43
Differing starter sets: Privateer Press
One book for everything: Lord of the Rings
That's just without trying.
And that's a problem? Good ideas should be adopted, not discarded because someone else used them before.
I personally wouldn't mind most of the changes, especially the BS rules.
33661
Post by: Mad4Minis
All sounds fairly interesting. If the clean-up of the rules is comprehensive enough I might actually start using my 40k minis to play 40k.
However, since the majority of GWs latest moves have been the distinct opposite of good, Ill call this a wait and see kinda deal.
320
Post by: Platuan4th
His Master's Voice wrote:
And that's a problem? Good ideas should be adopted, not discarded because someone else used them before.
If the bidding is anything like AT-43, yes, it's a problem. Some armies(I'm looking at you, Karmans) simply couldn't compete in the turn bid because they just didn't have the LP or stats to match other armies(like Red Blok and their horde army with relatively inexpensive Rank 5 Officers that gave 9 LP and could bid 7 of that). Karmans were lucky if they HAD 10 LPs(and could max bid 6 with the highest rank they could bring) a turn where as Red Blok tended to have 17+ standard(which meant they could bid max every turn and never be hurting for LP for orders).
6672
Post by: itsonlyme
Mr Mystery wrote:Nope, Psychic Phase was last up, after all others. I remember because one knob I used to play with in Multiplayer games would always rush to 'PSYCHIC PHASE!', meaning his teammates often missed out on shooting.
Actually rally was last up *pulls out his 2nd ed rule book* as I said shooting was before hand-to-hand combat, but you are correct it was after that
AgeOfEgos wrote:Assault before you shoot and you need 6's to hit anything fast?
If that's true (which I doubt)---guess it's going to be a good edition for DE.
I do hope they made vehicle destruction more interesting---with more degrees of affect---rather than the all/nothing it seems now.
well that was only BS3 so I assume BS 4 will be hitting on 5's and BS 5 will be hitting on 4's, will make twin-linked weapons a god send, it does however make sense, what will be interesting is if being a faster vehicle makes it harder for you to hit, one of the strange ones is jump pack troops flying high, that seems very fishy, would also be very strange with interceptors , I certainly think their is a element of true to the rumours (based on a comment on warseer) so its really just a case of trying to figure out how exaggerated it is.
5269
Post by: lord_blackfang
Platuan4th wrote:If the bidding is anything like AT-43
Have you read the rumours?
20650
Post by: Pyriel-
* the biggest rule changes:
- similar ballistic to hit chart as wound chart: compare BS to target’s speed and unit type. BS 3 hits moving infantry on 4+, but lightning fast jetbikes on 6+ and stationary tank on 2+… HUGE
Unbeatable Dark eldar anyone?
And those GK paladin apotecharies for 75 freaking points will become even more extinct then the falchions.
What a load of dung.
3934
Post by: grizgrin
I could see GW throwing in a rule to make vehicles that didnt move get hit on a 2+ or some such. Swing the game away from vehicles (where they have been maxing sales for a while now) toward infantry, just to boost sales.
4875
Post by: His Master's Voice
That's why I said "good" ideas. Bidding as a method of deciding who goes first is a good idea adopted by many games, mostly of the board variety and by the sound of these rumors, the new system isn't dependent on what you play (thus allowing for certain armies to always outbid other forces), but rather on bonuses for the losing bidder. The balancing of the bonuses is what will make or brake the system if it ever comes out.
320
Post by: Platuan4th
lord_blackfang wrote:Platuan4th wrote:If the bidding is anything like AT-43
Have you read the rumours?
Yes, I have. It says nothing about whether armies all have the same amount, only that the loser of the bid can buy things with the unused points. My point was that unless all armies have equal amounts, some armies will ALWAYS go first.
6672
Post by: itsonlyme
Pyriel- wrote:* the biggest rule changes:
- similar ballistic to hit chart as wound chart: compare BS to target’s speed and unit type. BS 3 hits moving infantry on 4+, but lightning fast jetbikes on 6+ and stationary tank on 2+… HUGE
Unbeatable Dark eldar anyone?
And those GK paladin apotecharies for 75 freaking points will become even more extinct then the falchions.
What a load of dung.
Well it did say that they will errata codex's so they may well errata things like that
31545
Post by: AlexHolker
Platuan4th wrote:One book for everything: Lord of the Rings
And in the darkness bind them?
320
Post by: Platuan4th
AlexHolker wrote:Platuan4th wrote:One book for everything: Lord of the Rings
And in the darkness bind them?
Generally, I find the binding is done by some sort of glue.
27823
Post by: Stanley Rubric
If these rumors turn out to be true then it marks the first time in a long time that I'd be excited about 40K again. GW needs to add some complexity to the game while at the same time cleaning up the rules. If they did both it would make 40K a really fresh and unique game.
People have been abandoning ship to other games for years and GW surely has noticed. With WM/H and Infinity, and now Mantic's WarPath and the rumors that PP want to get in on the sci-fi genre, it would be wise for 40K to inject some fresh, bold ideas into the game. It might just bring people back to the fold, at least out of curiosity.
13740
Post by: Valkyrie
Well I'm certainly looking forward to experiencing these changes, but is there any hint of a release date for this. Sorry if it's already been mentioned, can't be arsed to skim through the thread.
123
Post by: Alpharius
These rumors have the sound of 'spaghetti, meet wall'!
5810
Post by: MIKEtheMERCILESS
Sorry, but this all sounds far too awesome to be true :(
But if it is true... goddamn sounds like they're going in the right direction!
6838
Post by: 1hadhq
Platuan4th wrote:AlexHolker wrote:One book for everything: Lord of the Rings
And in the darkness bind them?
And free races vs chaos as theme....
LotR in space 
42123
Post by: redeyed
some of these rumours sound a little "out there"
but I like the sound of alot of them! would definately revive alot of my enthusiasm for 40k!
6772
Post by: Vaktathi
At the mention of a "designer who left the company", I can't help but think this is something of Andy Chamber's.
While I'm not hot on all of these changes, others sound pretty cool.
10349
Post by: Bat Manuel
Sounds like re-vamped AT-43. It was a pretty good system and if they meshed it well with 40k I think they could have a pretty good game 
27782
Post by: Mr.Church13
There is no possible way that this is true. Theese rules would be so confuddled and confusing they'd loose all hope of teaching new players. No, just no. If this much change happens I'll be more than happy to treat it like I do 4th edition D&D and just keep playing by 5ths rules forever and never acknoledge 6th's exsistence.
I don't know about the majority of people out there but all of those proposed changes are really really bad IMO. And there is no way anything but vanilla Space Marines would be first to come out if they were changing that much of the ruleset.
So I say this topic needs a massive pile of
13300
Post by: tastytaste
Hey I cannot vouch for these rumors, but there is some general ideas in here that are on the right track. 6th is still being play tested and is not done for one thing. So take it with a grain of salt, but at the sametime I am sure some of things the rumorer has said will go down.
Thanks, TastyTaste owner of Blood of Kittens
42646
Post by: Korraz
Infinity came to mind too.
See, the problem is that there might (indeed, there ARE) good ideas, but the system simply can't keep up with it any more. It wasn't built for this stuff. It's like clinging to DOS when you build new OS.
6772
Post by: Vaktathi
Mr.Church13 wrote:There is no possible way that this is true. Theese rules would be so confuddled and confusing they'd loose all hope of teaching new players.
Never seemed to be a problem for most other wargames out there. Methinks you need to take a look at other games and see how simple they can be with much deeper mechanics. Flames of War doesn't seem to have any problem with shooting hits ranging from 2+ to impossible depending on target and actions.
No, just no. If this much change happens I'll be more than happy to treat it like I do 4th edition D&D and just keep playing by 5ths rules forever and never acknoledge 6th's exsistence.
Oh...I see. One of those types.
18410
Post by: filbert
Vaktathi wrote:At the mention of a "designer who left the company", I can't help but think this is something of Andy Chamber's.
Andy left ages ago. I would have thought Alessio would be a more plausible candidate. Can't think of any other major developers who have left GW recently, (does Gav Thorpe count)?
6772
Post by: Vaktathi
filbert wrote:Vaktathi wrote:At the mention of a "designer who left the company", I can't help but think this is something of Andy Chamber's.
Andy left ages ago. I would have thought Alessio would be a more plausible candidate. Can't think of any other major developers who have left GW recently, (does Gav Thorpe count)?
Alessio always wanted things very simple and toned down, 5E and books like the CSM codex are his hallmarks. It's difficult to see this as his work. Likewise, Gav never really did much with the core rules and it doesn't feel like his style of rules design either.
27782
Post by: Mr.Church13
No, just no. If this much change happens I'll be more than happy to treat it like I do 4th edition D&D and just keep playing by 5ths rules forever and never acknoledge 6th's exsistence.
Oh...I see. One of those types.
Yup I'm one of those guys that says if you like 4th play it till your eyes bleed and have fun, but as for me and my group we liked what we had and didn't think it was broke.
6672
Post by: itsonlyme
filbert wrote:Vaktathi wrote:At the mention of a "designer who left the company", I can't help but think this is something of Andy Chamber's.
Andy left ages ago. I would have thought Alessio would be a more plausible candidate. Can't think of any other major developers who have left GW recently, (does Gav Thorpe count)?
might be the changes he wanted to do with 4th but was told are to extreme?
12369
Post by: Morehammer
Ghost21 on Warseer:
"starter set isnt black legion...... rest is kinda accurate"
This definitely adds a bit of gravity to the discussion!
11856
Post by: Arschbombe
I quite like a lot of these rumors. It's interesting that no matter what rumors get posted there is always a sizable group of doomseers predicting ruination. And people wonder why GW tries to stop the rumors.
9594
Post by: RiTides
I like the ideas, but who knows if there's any merit to them whatsoever...
99
Post by: insaniak
I'm a little disappointed that this is probably not true, to be honest... While there's a little bit of what seems like needless complication in there (tiered special abilities, for example) almost the entire list sounds like a huge improvement.
Love the idea of 'bidding' for first turn. Love the modified shooting chart. And if other stuff becoming more complex, I could definitely see them going back to a ' TLOS, but ignore infantry' style LOS setup to keep things rolling.
Ah well... we can dream.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Arschbombe wrote:I quite like a lot of these rumors. It's interesting that no matter what rumors get posted there is always a sizable group of doomseers predicting ruination. And people wonder why GW tries to stop the rumors.
If GW were more forthcoming themselves, there wouldn't be so many crazy rumours to stop...
44461
Post by: Ranting Fool
Mr.Church13 wrote: No, just no. If this much change happens I'll be more than happy to treat it like I do 4th edition D&D and just keep playing by 5ths rules forever and never acknoledge 6th's exsistence.
4th edition never happend.... never I tell you!
123
Post by: Alpharius
Bat Manuel wrote:Sounds like re-vamped AT-43.
Yikes!
I certainly hope 40K isn't heading in that direction!
735
Post by: JOHIRA
Platuan4th wrote:AlexHolker wrote:Platuan4th wrote:One book for everything: Lord of the Rings
And in the darkness bind them?
Generally, I find the binding is done by some sort of glue.
I've never had a problem mind, but to hear the quick wear and tear some people on dakka talk about I could believe GW's books were bound in the dark.
181
Post by: gorgon
Well, if true...there's definitely more 2nd edition flavor in there.
GW's said on the record that they now know that shakeups tend to generate more sales than slight revisions. So while I think 5th is in a pretty good place overall, I could definitely see this stuff coming to pass.
I'm keeping my fingers crossed that Tyranids get one heckuva errata, lol.
24598
Post by: Lunchmoney
The far fetched, though amazing, ballistic skill changes could finally bring infantry back into the game as mattering. So many people complain that they only every see parking lots, yet with those simple ballistic skill changes, you could actually start to see differing units on the table top. I would LOVE for the changes listed to go into effect, however, I am a hopeless cynic and I don't believe any of this feth.
6672
Post by: itsonlyme
I think the shooting fast moving vehicles things is subject to chinese whispers, I would think it would be logical that you suffer a - 2 to your BS while shooting stationary tanks increases it by 2.
24567
Post by: Kroothawk
Well, it fits earlier rumours on the starter set, Codex releases, Chaos and flyers. And if ghost21 says they are basically okay, this is a strong point.
17901
Post by: Vhalyar
Morehammer wrote:Ghost21 on Warseer:
"starter set isnt black legion...... rest is kinda accurate"
This definitely adds a bit of gravity to the discussion!
He also said that Sisters would absolutely, definitely, never get a White Dwarf codex.
1918
Post by: Scottywan82
Skeptical here too, but love the SOUND of these. Makes me want to write my own ruleset, almost. Really neat-sounding.
25303
Post by: Grey elder
EW bypassed seems lame.
12893
Post by: evilsponge
Ehh sounds like a lot of fan spank, though great if true
320
Post by: Platuan4th
Grey elder wrote:EW bypassed seems lame.
Agreed. EW was designed to fix many problems brought about by the growing preponderance of ID in the game.
Besides didn't they "fix" the EW "problem" by adding a number of remove from game abilities?
33248
Post by: SkaerKrow
Wow, I hope they send that wishlist to Santa. Don't know what it has to do with Sixth Edition, though.
20650
Post by: Pyriel-
The far fetched, though amazing, ballistic skill changes could finally bring infantry back into the game as mattering. So many people complain that they only every see parking lots
On the contrary, now we will see even more fast moving transports all over the place.
I´m SO fed up playing vehicle armies vs vehicle armies, foot infantry oriented games of previous editions were far more fun.
I am yet to see one single DE army that doesnt feature 12+ banana boats and I can count the non flying circus falcon eldar armies I have seen on one hand.
Its utterly lame.
41545
Post by: BeefCakeSoup
These sound spot on.
All of these are things that a bulk of the players have cried out for.
4+ cover is a joke, imperial narrative only is a joke, and so much more. Glad to see people are finally listening.
320
Post by: Platuan4th
Pyriel- wrote:
I am yet to see one single DE army that doesnt feature 12+ banana boats
To be fair, it's not like non-mounted DE were that common pre-5th.
7150
Post by: helgrenze
Yeah, right.... Assault before shooting? That makes zero sense. How is that going to work? Charge, assault, and then shoot the survivors?
Some of the other changes... Flying high was a 2nd ed rule for jump units.
ICs made a focus... again a 2nd throwback.... we gonna get various "field" saves back too?
The Bidding system sounds kinda like the "Stratagy rating" system from 2nd.... The Squat Ancestor Lord gave a strat bonus to get the first turn.
Movement speed..... Very 2nd ed.
Points for rerolls sounds like Blood Bowl.
This is sounding very much like more of a Throwback Edition.
26204
Post by: candy.man
I’m calling BS on this rumour. It seems more like a wish list than something GW would do (let’s face it, everything about this rumour is 100% unlike GW).
Now if this rumour does pan out, too little, too late IMO.
24567
Post by: Kroothawk
helgrenze wrote:This is sounding very much like more of a Throwback Edition.
Well, the management LOVES the 90s, see upcoming WD strategy
6772
Post by: Vaktathi
Grey elder wrote:EW bypassed seems lame.
I'm pretty ok with it. EW in the first place was an awful rule.
Pyriel wrote:
On the contrary, now we will see even more fast moving transports all over the place.
I´m SO fed up playing vehicle armies vs vehicle armies, foot infantry oriented games of previous editions were far more fun.
I am yet to see one single DE army that doesnt feature 12+ banana boats and I can count the non flying circus falcon eldar armies I have seen on one hand.
Its utterly lame.
I've never seen a DE army in any edition that wasn't entirely mechanized. The army was never designed to be footslogging. Likewise, Eldar haven't been an army designed around footsloggers since 2E. I'm not sure what the problem is here.
candy.man wrote:I’m calling BS on this rumour. It seems more like a wish list than something GW would do (let’s face it, everything about this rumour is 100% unlike GW).
Now if this rumour does pan out, too little, too late IMO.
I'm guessing at this point GW could show up at your door and hand you a years salary and your response would likely be the same.
37505
Post by: Nagashek
Vaktathi wrote:Oh...I see. One of those types.
Yay those types! Well, i say why not? People continue to play with Chaos Dwarves for Pete's sake, why not stick with previous editions of the rules? I know plenty of guys who love using the 3rd ed Chaos book in 5th ed, many of our group thinks it fits the rule set more fairly (except for IW, which no one plays anyway). And besides, 3.5 was a much better rule set. It actually WAS D+D, rather than a tabletop MMO.... thing.
6672
Post by: itsonlyme
helgrenze wrote:Yeah, right.... Assault before shooting? That makes zero sense. How is that going to work? Charge, assault, and then shoot the survivors?
Some of the other changes... Flying high was a 2nd ed rule for jump units.
ICs made a focus... again a 2nd throwback.... we gonna get various "field" saves back too?
The Bidding system sounds kinda like the "Stratagy rating" system from 2nd.... The Squat Ancestor Lord gave a strat bonus to get the first turn.
Movement speed..... Very 2nd ed.
Points for rerolls sounds like Blood Bowl.
This is sounding very much like more of a Throwback Edition.
I would imagine charging before assault means you can shoot in the shooting phase! Flying high was a rule for swooping hawks, not jump packs because jump packs are described as making short jumps! we know little to nothing about a IC focus so could be as simple as they can kill the powerfists in a unit so they aren't as easy to kill, I hardly think that is a throw back to 2nd ed, in 2nd ed a characater with high enough WS could take out out a whole units (Calgar was pretty damn rock!), not sure how the bidding system is anything like 2nd either, from what I gather you have the same amount of points, you can either use them to try and go first or use them for a advantage. In I don't you can compare it to thinks like virus bomb, remember this was totally random and you still had to roll for the first turn. I think your seeing a fish and calling it a whale.
22749
Post by: Lycaeus Wrex
oni wrote:I call bull gak. All of that is so far fetched... That post and this thread need aborted immediately.
This man speaks the truth.
L. Wrex
6772
Post by: Vaktathi
Nagashek wrote:Vaktathi wrote:Oh...I see. One of those types.
Yay those types! Well, i say why not? People continue to play with Chaos Dwarves for Pete's sake, why not stick with previous editions of the rules? I know plenty of guys who love using the 3rd ed Chaos book in 5th ed, many of our group thinks it fits the rule set more fairly (except for IW, which no one plays anyway). And besides, 3.5 was a much better rule set. It actually WAS D+D, rather than a tabletop MMO.... thing.
I'm not saying you can't or shouldn't play old rules, but the squakers that blindly stick to old rules and swear great fell oaths to never touch the new rules (despite never trying them out or having a clear picture of them) and decrying them simply because they're used to something else no matter how fun a new version can be (even if different), those types aren't really ever going to be satisfied with anything. It's one thing if something comes out and its a universal bomb (which likely won't be the case with 6E and wasn't the case with D&D4E), but it's another when a new edition comes out and it's decried/villified simply because it's *different* (e.g. D&D4E where you can't microcustomize everything about a character and every piece of gear as you could in 3.5E and break the game in 10 million different ways, but you *can* do something other than rolling a basic melee attack when playing a character that isn't already essentially character of medium level)
7150
Post by: helgrenze
itsonlyme wrote:helgrenze wrote:ICs made a focus... again a 2nd throwback.... we gonna get various "field" saves back too?
we know little to nothing about a IC focus so could be as simple as they can kill the powerfists in a unit so they aren't as easy to kill, I hardly think that is a throw back to 2nd ed, in 2nd ed a characater with high enough WS could take out out a whole units (Calgar was pretty damn rock!).
I think your seeing a fish and calling it a whale.
(from OP)Heroic characters:
- independent characters more powerful, armour save and invulnerable save at the same time
Hmm IC's made more powerful... Sounds like what you just posted.
17376
Post by: Zid
Platuan4th wrote:Chowderhead wrote:This sounds more like wishlisting than rules, IMHO.
Indeed. I really don't see GW going with a lot of this. Some, if true is either a huge change for change's sake or is a huge disappointment.
Not buying the rumors and would be very meh about the game if true.
Agreed for the most part
20665
Post by: Dais
Just because you don't believe a rumor doesn't make it any less of a rumor.
I have no doubt that every one of those points were proposed changes, but with 40k being what it is, I doubt they all made it into the final version.
If this massive rules change were true(assuming they end up worded well and leave no ambiguity), all it would take to get me interested in 40k again would be codex balance and viable smaller armies/game size.
8723
Post by: wyomingfox
Platuan4th wrote:Grey elder wrote:EW bypassed seems lame.
Agreed. EW was designed to fix many problems brought about by the growing preponderance of ID in the game.
Besides didn't they "fix" the EW "problem" by adding a number of remove from game abilities?
EW preponderance was extensive prior to the rediculous ammount of ID. Back when two codices effectively had it for the entire army. Of course the new nid codex completely lacks EW...and grenades...
6672
Post by: itsonlyme
helgrenze wrote:Hmm IC's made more powerful... Sounds like what you just posted.
I assume it referrers to the ability to snipe which would indeed make them more powerful as they could pick off thinks like powerfists, he also mentioned again being able to use invul and normal, I don't think this translates to go back to how it was in 2nd ed, I guess the idea say with marines is that can use something other than chaplains or librarians! what I gathered from ghosts post on warseer is this list has certainly been subject to chinese whispers
- 5 general types of psychic powers
This is something that interests me, will be interesting to see how large the list is and if any other changes of been made to how psyhic powers work
37505
Post by: Nagashek
Vaktathi wrote:Nagashek wrote:Vaktathi wrote:Oh...I see. One of those types.
Yay those types! Well, i say why not? People continue to play with Chaos Dwarves for Pete's sake, why not stick with previous editions of the rules? I know plenty of guys who love using the 3rd ed Chaos book in 5th ed, many of our group thinks it fits the rule set more fairly (except for IW, which no one plays anyway). And besides, 3.5 was a much better rule set. It actually WAS D+D, rather than a tabletop MMO.... thing.
I'm not saying you can't or shouldn't play old rules, but the squakers that blindly stick to old rules and swear great fell oaths to never touch the new rules (despite never trying them out or having a clear picture of them) and decrying them simply because they're used to something else no matter how fun a new version can be (even if different), those types aren't really ever going to be satisfied with anything. It's one thing if something comes out and its a universal bomb (which likely won't be the case with 6E and wasn't the case with D&D4E), but it's another when a new edition comes out and it's decried/villified simply because it's *different* (e.g. D&D4E where you can't microcustomize everything about a character and every piece of gear as you could in 3.5E and break the game in 10 million different ways, but you *can* do something other than rolling a basic melee attack when playing a character that isn't already essentially character of medium level)
When it comes to new editions I give them fair shakes (love 8th ed for Dwarves, it's fine for my DE, and HATE it for my VC) but will stay with what the community enjoys, or push for changes (or stop playing). I stopped playing Warmahordes due to the constant influx of new units (the reverse of GW's problem, proving to me that too much of a good thing isn't good) and haven't been lured back to 40k in 5th yet. With 6th on the horizon (only a few years after 5th and after a very anemic codex schedule) there's little reason for me to get into it now ( GK wasn't QUITE enough to get my interest, what with the $10 per model buy in cost...)
4th ed D+D did give you many options besides a melee attack for low level characters. Unfortunately, it gave you NO REASON TO EVER MAKE A MELEE ATTACK! Spell casters never ran out of magic, all players could spontaneously heal, everyone got magic items that progressed as they levelled... honestly, where is the thrill of crawling through dungeons? Where the risk? The fun of D+D was in the challenge and being well rewarded, or in a compelling storyline. I feel that that was lost in 4th ed.
Similarly i don't have a problem with new editions of 40k or fantasy, but when they change rules drasticly and unbalance the system, (magic in fantasy) or rewrite the fluff completely (as in, Marneus Calgar has been an Eldar corsair this entire time, but also the chosen of the Emperor,) then I get aggrivated. Adding to lore is wonderful. Changing it is to be avoided. Otherwise, we are playing in a different world with a different history, which is tantamount to playing a different game for those of us who find the fluff aspect intrinsic to the gaming experience.
All of this said, GW would likely make many people MUCH happier by releasing solid campaign rules. If you aren't going to balance your system around tournies, balancing around campaigns would make many people (my whole community, for instance) very happy.
27782
Post by: Mr.Church13
I'm not saying you can't or shouldn't play old rules, but the squakers that blindly stick to old rules and swear great fell oaths to never touch the new rules (despite never trying them out or having a clear picture of them) and decrying them simply because they're used to something else no matter how fun a new version can be (even if different), those types aren't really ever going to be satisfied with anything. It's one thing if something comes out and its a universal bomb (which likely won't be the case with 6E and wasn't the case with D&D4E), but it's another when a new edition comes out and it's decried/villified simply because it's *different* (e.g. D&D4E where you can't microcustomize everything about a character and every piece of gear as you could in 3.5E and break the game in 10 million different ways, but you *can* do something other than rolling a basic melee attack when playing a character that isn't already essentially character of medium level)
I have in fact tried D&D 4, and to me it plays like a table top MMO. Now I'm not saying that style of game is bad, good, or indifferent, all I'm saying is that to me and my group it just feels like there's more freedom in 3.5. That's "our" taste that's what we like. Same goes for what I'm seeing here. I love 40k and I like where the rules are right now, but I just think that changes on this scale would just overcomplicate things and make it far less enjoyable for myself.
Plus with GW's track record for writing clear, concise, easy to understand rules do you really feel confident with them changing that much.
36934
Post by: logg_frogg
Mr Mystery wrote:SHENANIGANS!
The restaurant you like?
7150
Post by: helgrenze
itsonlyme wrote:helgrenze wrote:Hmm IC's made more powerful... Sounds like what you just posted.
I assume it referrers to the ability to snipe which would indeed make them more powerful as they could pick off thinks like powerfists, he also mentioned again being able to use invul and normal, I don't think this translates to go back to how it was in 2nd ed, I guess the idea say with marines is that can use something other than chaplains or librarians! what I gathered from ghosts post on warseer is this list has certainly been subject to chinese whispers
- 5 general types of psychic powers
This is something that interests me, will be interesting to see how large the list is and if any other changes of been made to how psyhic powers work
The OP gives the sniping ability a seperate bullet point.... which I read as more powerful ICs that also get sniping.
And again this sounds like a throwback. Of course in 2nd Psychic powers were divided by race.....
•- 60 Psychic Power Cards
•- 8 each for Orks, Eldar, Librarian, Inquisitor, and Adeptus
•- 4 each for Slaanesh, Tzeentch, Nurgle, Squat, and Tyranid
34242
Post by: -Loki-
gorgon wrote:I'm keeping my fingers crossed that Tyranids get one heckuva errata, lol.
Why? Tyranids seem pretty well suited to those rules. Fleeting gaunts would be harder to hit, thus more survivable, and with the removal of random movement, more reliably fast. Trygon Tunnel and Pheromone trail would become easier to use, since you could designate units to come on after your Trygons and Lictors. Standard cover only being 5+ means that Tryanid shooting has a better chance to damage a vehicle.
6672
Post by: itsonlyme
helgrenze wrote:
The OP gives the sniping ability a seperate bullet point.... which I read as more powerful ICs that also get sniping.
And again this sounds like a throwback. Of course in 2nd Psychic powers were divided by race.....
I know he does, at no point does he indicate how other than being able to take armour and invul saves, so your really making a mountain out of a mole hill and that even assumes these rumors are all that accurate, honestly I think sniping and being able to use both standard and inul saves is all it is! I think its more than likely the rumors have been exaggerated! I don't see how a common pool of powers usable by all races is anything like 2nd ed (I also don't remember a lib lore, pretty sure they used adeptus, I seem to recall it was the gate and ragnar howling his army through it in the enemies turn), if they make it like a game within a game then you might have a point, actually reminds me of a chapter approved they did some time ago with generic powers all psykers could take, at worst its more like what warhammer have. Now I wonder if Grey Knight units will be able to use these generic powers, would be rather cool unless its like what we had with warhammer, the BRB lores being better than the army ones.
12313
Post by: Ouze
I don't buy it. Their trend has been towards simplifying, not adding more rules. Adding a whole new phase? Seems unlikely. Also, assaulting and then shooting just makes no logical sense.
"Sarge, they are rushing us - permission to open fire?"
"No, first we fight them with knives! Then, if we live... we can try shooting!"
29784
Post by: timetowaste85
Some of this does sound like wishlisting, but a lot of what it does sounds like the changes made to fantasy.
-a lot of changes requiring erratas? Yup, happened in fantasy
-psychic powers falling under categories? Happened in fantasy
-going back to older rules/more in line with previous editions/huge overhaul? Yup, 8th edition fantasy is more like 5th edition fantasy (except heroes)
-Different numbers needed to hit different types of units and characters within units? Yup, same with fantasy (only these apply as the "Look out sir" rules).
-Armor AND invul saves? Yup, fantasy has it-armor and ward though.
-changes to 'feel no pain'? Yup, fantasy had changes to regen-also, expect invul saves OR feel no pain, not both.
It does sound like they are semi-stream lining the systems together, probably to influence fantasy only players to join 40k and vice versus. And, I have to say, being an assaulty player, I'd have no problem with assaults before shooting. A lot sounds like wishlisting, but a lot sounds plausible. Liking the multiple chaos codexes too. And the only thing I don't like is a DA box set, but since I use DA robed bodies for my BT...sure, bring it on.
21462
Post by: Ehsteve
I'm not as jaded against these rumours as I usually am. I like the ideas presented, even the IW bypass, I mean it brings a new level of strategy into the game with more rock-paper-scissors rather than a one-list-beats-all affair ( SW parking lots, leafblower lists etc). Sounds like wishlisting on my part but I do want these rumours to come true. Only thing I'm looking for here is a ballpark release date.
itsonlyme wrote:if they make it like a game within a game then you might have a point
itsonlyme wrote:if they make it like a game within a game
itsonlyme wrote:game within a game
gameception...
6772
Post by: Vaktathi
Ouze wrote:I don't buy it. Their trend has been towards simplifying, not adding more rules. Adding a whole new phase? Seems unlikely. Also, assaulting and then shooting just makes no logical sense.
"Sarge, they are rushing us - permission to open fire?"
"No, first we fight them with knives! Then, if we live... we can try shooting!"
It's likely not like that at all, it's probably more along the lines of fantasy/2E 40k, where assault moves are carried out in the movement phase and reactions done then as well, then shooting is conducted. When the actual fighting takes place probably doesn't make a whole lot of difference, having it before shooting isn't too bad.
Remember, theoretically all this stuff is supposed to be happening at the same time, and is broken up for the sake of playability.
5046
Post by: Orock
Ouze wrote:I don't buy it. Their trend has been towards simplifying, not adding more rules. Adding a whole new phase? Seems unlikely. Also, assaulting and then shooting just makes no logical sense.
"Sarge, they are rushing us - permission to open fire?"
"No, first we fight them with knives! Then, if we live... we can try shooting!"
It makes perfect sense to me, as it is now an elite troop list with elite guns can wipe out half or more of what they are going to fight with shooting, especially hordes vs flamers, then charge in and get the extra attack, making charging THE important thing to do in 5th. This way you cant get double dip casualties. Guard will stand and shoot, then next round probably eat a charge. Orks will forgo shooting with their shootas, and you will see the return of slugga choppa goodness. And marine armies that mop up on both counts such as grey knights shooting str 5 stormbolters and then charging with silly power weapon goodness wiping out about anything will eat the nerf stick as its one or the other.
Its also a good way to make troops more important, and since there scraping the bottom of the stupid amount of vehicles sold recently barrell, now its time to change to stupid expensive troops that you get less of in a box now a days for more money. Gun lines and heavy infantry should make a comeback. Not hard as nails elite troops all rolling around in candy shell pillboxes you have to crack open first to do any real damage.
1523
Post by: Saldiven
JHall wrote:Wow, there is so much BS in this list I don't even know where to start. The clearest thing that would show that it is all BS is the whole change to the Hit Chart. They have used the same chart for all their games for 30 years. I don't see them changing a fundamental part of the game now.
As the above poster said- Shenanigans!
And Fantasy used Guess Range, no pre-measuring, fixed charge distances, chargers go first, woods/units block line of site, etc. ever since first edition in the early 1980's. I doubt anyone thought that 8th edition was going to abandon all of those.
29784
Post by: timetowaste85
Vaktathi wrote:At the mention of a "designer who left the company", I can't help but think this is something of Andy Chamber's.
While I'm not hot on all of these changes, others sound pretty cool.
This is actually about Alessio, who left for Mantic-he was the 5th edition rules designer (or one of them). Sorry if someone else mentioned later. Slowly working my way through the pages
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
I like many of these changes and I would applaud a third edition like rewrite of the core rules to be better, but this seems far more extreme then is reasonable and GW is not a brave company.
33248
Post by: SkaerKrow
I'm torn. On one hand, these rumors scream of an amateur wishlist, and I'm inclined to write them off as such. On the other hand, I had a similar feeling about the Warhammer Fantasy 8th Edition rumor leaks, and well, we saw how that turned out...
The current Warhammer 40k rules represent a damn fine tabletop gaming system that just needs a little bit of clean-up in order to work out some minor balance concerns. I hope they don't wreck that with a bunch of destructive changes.
2764
Post by: AgeOfEgos
Vaktathi wrote:
It's likely not like that at all, it's probably more along the lines of fantasy/2E 40k, where assault moves are carried out in the movement phase and reactions done then as well, then shooting is conducted. When the actual fighting takes place probably doesn't make a whole lot of difference, having it before shooting isn't too bad.
Remember, theoretically all this stuff is supposed to be happening at the same time, and is broken up for the sake of playability.
It's a big difference actually. Modern/meta 40k is mech---and assault before shooting makes it stronger. Right now, I can get my Terms/Jump Packs/whatever up next to a rhino---blow it up in the shooting phase, then assault whatever gets out.
If assault were to happen before shooting, you could not blow up---then assault the occupants.
3828
Post by: General Hobbs
But that is what happens in war...you shoot up the vehicle, pillbox, troops in a trench, then move in for assault/close up shooting. Even back in the olden days, you marched forward, fired, then fixed bayonets and charged...not the other way around.
If this were true, I'd like to see the mechanics of how everything works together, because as one poster put it...it nerfs marine armies who are neither the best at shooting nor the best at assault, but together the two makes marines work...And I don't see them nerfing marines.
44335
Post by: FalkorsRaiders
As a Necron player, I don't know how well the rules will work for the army. Gonna have to wait and see what 5th edition upgrades they'll get before I decide whether I like the rules or not. If Necrons don't get an upgrade until after 6th edition, and yes, I know that the rumors put the release around November this year, then the rule change won't hurt too much I guess...
35132
Post by: Smitty0305
They dont need more dexs, they need to update the current ones faster.
Pinning seems op. Changing the hit chart seems wrong.
How did you get this information?
214
Post by: ThirdUltra
itsonlyme wrote:ThirdUltra wrote:Such as assaults before shooting which was a 2nd edition rule
That wasn't 2nd ed, psyhic phase was before shooting and then close combat, I imagine the idea of combat before shooting is so you can't shoot and assault a unit which would explain why grey knights have strength 5 stormbolters (may as well be standard ), proper flying rules would certainly be interesting and I think would be followed by a new marine codex including storm ravens.
Absolutely incorrect.
In 2nd edition, you declared charges first (if you were in range, you charged/moved the models to contact), then it was movement, then shooting and psychic phase was last.
The psychic phase revolved around dueling with psychic power cards; force weapons could store these cards for bonuses in close-combat or for later use.
The powers such as Ultimate Force and Energy Drain were the cards to have in your hand during the psychic phase.
I still have the 2nd edition rulebooks from Dark Millenium.
Maybe you're mixing Warhammer Fantasy with 2nd edition...?
However, it still is a lean towards 2nd edition if assaults were the first phase and like you mentioned above, it may be an issue where you cannot shoot what you're about to assault first.
25300
Post by: Absolutionis
AgeofEgos wrote:If assault were to happen before shooting, you could not blow up---then assault the occupants.
It depends on your perspective. With these prospective rules, I could take my Trygon, assault your Rhino, explode it, then have all my Gaunts, nearby Spore Pods, and the Trygon itself shoot at the contents.
Assaulting vehicles via Chainfists and such will become more important.
This is all assuming transports will remain as they are right now.
General Hobbs wrote:
But that is what happens in war...you shoot up the vehicle, pillbox, troops in a trench, then move in for assault/close up shooting. Even back in the olden days, you marched forward, fired, then fixed bayonets and charged...not the other way around.
This is all true, but the enemy gets a chance to respond to your actions.
With this new supposed structure, you'll move, shoot, and wait for your opponent to reply. Your opponent will either stand ground and shoot back or abandon position. If they stand ground, you move and assault them next turn (and then consolidate into their trench).
44335
Post by: FalkorsRaiders
Absolutionis wrote:AgeofEgos wrote:If assault were to happen before shooting, you could not blow up---then assault the occupants.
It depends on your perspective. With these prospective rules, I could take my Trygon, assault your Rhino, explode it, then have all my Gaunts, nearby Spore Pods, and the Trygon itself shoot at the contents.
Assaulting vehicles via Chainfists and such will become more important.
This is all assuming transports will remain as they are right now.
So, GW is trying to implement rules that hurt Space Marines, but help Tyranids? These rules are just covered in heresy.
25300
Post by: Absolutionis
FalkorsRaiders wrote:Absolutionis wrote:AgeofEgos wrote:If assault were to happen before shooting, you could not blow up---then assault the occupants.
It depends on your perspective. With these prospective rules, I could take my Trygon, assault your Rhino, explode it, then have all my Gaunts, nearby Spore Pods, and the Trygon itself shoot at the contents.
Assaulting vehicles via Chainfists and such will become more important.
This is all assuming transports will remain as they are right now.
So, GW is trying to implement rules that hurt Space Marines, but help Tyranids? These rules are just covered in heresy.
Don't worry. By the time they release Codex: Iron Hands, all Space Marines will have Jump Pack Terminators with Iron Chainfists and Iron Dreadknights with Iron Deadknight Chainfists of Ironic Iron.
23512
Post by: bd1085
I tend to think "GW wouldn't do something this drastic..." then I remember it's GW...
2764
Post by: AgeOfEgos
Absolutionis wrote:AgeofEgos wrote:If assault were to happen before shooting, you could not blow up---then assault the occupants.
It depends on your perspective. With these prospective rules, I could take my Trygon, assault your Rhino, explode it, then have all my Gaunts, nearby Spore Pods, and the Trygon itself shoot at the contents.
Assaulting vehicles via Chainfists and such will become more important.
This is all assuming transports will remain as they are right now.
You must roll more 6s than I do. Usually, if I'm close enough to use a 6" moving unit in assault v. a transport---it's because the other guy really messed up or let it happen. Either way, I'm needing 6s provided it moved 7+ inches.
Regardless, I'll take getting shot by a Trygon over being locked in assault with it any day .
But I doubt there is any truth to it anyways...
29585
Post by: AvatarForm
Aaawww... and I was just getting used to 5th...
This sounds like they are moving back to 2nd
8907
Post by: cadbren
DA as the starter set marines? Why would they include a chapter specific set as the kicking off point for new players?
AOBR was touted as being Ultramarines of course with moulded on Ultramarine icons; that turned out to be a complete load and I call the same for this. They'll be generic marines so anyone can use them easily but still being different enough to encourage existing marine players to get them as unique minis.
Maybe they'll do something interesting like a plastic thunderfire cannon, who knows, but DA? Don't see it.
34906
Post by: Pacific
Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:6th edition 40k rumors from blood of kittens.
What!? Is some sort of divination being used ?
I seriously don't like this direction GW are taking.
For crying out loud the week before rule + the WD announcements are bad enough imho.
But this as a result? It is an abomination!
Just make a statement on the internet and spare the little cats' lives!
Haha good one
Tiered skills sounds a lot like the system that infinity uses.
The lead designer leaving because his rules were not approved? Exactly what happened with 4th Edition with Andy Chambers and as a result we have been playing a game that is essentially the same rule set (with minor tweaks) for more than 15 years. While I personally would enjoy a much needed kick up the bottom to those rules, personally I think it's against the character of the company to do so. I would use the word 'entrenched'.
37505
Post by: Nagashek
A more complex shooting table makes far less sense than simply introducing shooting modifiers like in fantasy.
181
Post by: gorgon
-Loki- wrote:gorgon wrote:I'm keeping my fingers crossed that Tyranids get one heckuva errata, lol.
Why? Tyranids seem pretty well suited to those rules. Fleeting gaunts would be harder to hit, thus more survivable, and with the removal of random movement, more reliably fast. Trygon Tunnel and Pheromone trail would become easier to use, since you could designate units to come on after your Trygons and Lictors. Standard cover only being 5+ means that Tryanid shooting has a better chance to damage a vehicle.
Well actually, a number of things sound good for my all-reserve builds. It's more about the admission that Tyranids weren't built with 6th in mind. So they'll probably suffer in other ways too. Just don't want to see them fall behind SW, DE, BA, etc.
Absolutionis wrote:AgeofEgos wrote:If assault were to happen before shooting, you could not blow up---then assault the occupants.
It depends on your perspective. With these prospective rules, I could take my Trygon, assault your Rhino, explode it, then have all my Gaunts, nearby Spore Pods, and the Trygon itself shoot at the contents.
Assaulting vehicles via Chainfists and such will become more important.
This is all assuming transports will remain as they are right now.
True, and if they become deathtraps again -- or at least passengers suffer more from having their ride destroyed -- all bets are off in a major way.
I know they're saying the rules are done -- and in fact they probably do have them well fleshed-out at this point -- but I still wouldn't be surprised if there are things in that list that don't make the final cut. Guess we'll see.
25200
Post by: Temujin
This all sounds awesome. If they stop the embargo and annual price hikes I might even be tempted back.
29784
Post by: timetowaste85
Nagashek wrote:A more complex shooting table makes far less sense than simply introducing shooting modifiers like in fantasy.
It sounds like that's what they're doing. If so, thank God. It's a welcome idea! Needing a fixed number, no matter how far away, how much the target moves, etc is a lazy, entry-level shooting system. I understand cover helps to alleviate this, but it doesn't seem to be working as is.
I had a random thought though: what if cover saves were taken after rolling to hit, but before rolling to wound? The models judge their distance with these new BS modifiers, fire, then any intervening cover catches some of the bullets and the bullets that make it on to the squad roll to wound as normal. It would make it so a 5+ cover wouldn't hurt armies like Nids at all (would be better than now) and they would still get their armor save. Thoughts? Maybe GW is working cover saves to be something like this. I would hope so, as it makes a good deal of sense.
13937
Post by: BrassScorpion
A more complex shooting table makes far less sense than simply introducing shooting modifiers like in fantasy.
For those yung 'uns who don't know about this, 40K had shooting modifiers years ago and GW did away with them starting with 3rd Edition (1998) to simplify the game and make it play faster, which it did. Games of thousands of points play hours faster now than they did with half as many points under 2nd Ed. rules. Now that people play with larger armies than ever compared to years ago it would make no sense to introduce something new or re-introduce something old to the game that would significantly slow it down. As another user with similar decades of experience said early on in this thread, "Wow, there is so much BS in this list I don't even know where to start." The only threads with more worthless info right now are the (closed) SoB thread with all the usual spam from a single user and the GK FAQ thread with the "flat-Earther" user spamming in every other post that he has incontrovertible proof that falchions give +2 attacks. LOL.
14863
Post by: MasterSlowPoke
timetowaste85 wrote:I had a random thought though: what if cover saves were taken after rolling to hit, but before rolling to wound? The models judge their distance with these new BS modifiers, fire, then any intervening cover catches some of the bullets and the bullets that make it on to the squad roll to wound as normal. It would make it so a 5+ cover wouldn't hurt armies like Nids at all (would be better than now) and they would still get their armor save. Thoughts? Maybe GW is working cover saves to be something like this. I would hope so, as it makes a good deal of sense.
It benefits marines and such the most, as they'll get both their armor and cover save, while lesser troops like boyz and guardsmen won't be getting an armor save most of the time anyway.
33495
Post by: infinite_array
Let's see - as to the validity of the rumors, BoK does a pretty good job of posting legitimate rumors. It may be a little early to really judge, but I'm not sprinkling too much salt.
I don't like the idea of shooting modifiers. Someone compared it to Flames of War, which is correct, but FoW does it better. You simply take the training of who you're shooting, and add +1 for each one of 4 criteria if they are met. With the 40k rumors, we'll have to check the BS of the shooter, then the unit type of the target, how fast they were moving, other modifiers, etc.
I'm also concerned about the size of the rulebook. If it includes flyer rules, modular rules, superheavy rules, generic psychic powers, and the other rules, then how large will it be? GW rulebooks are about 50/50 rules and fluff - can anyone imagine buying a $80-$100 rulebook?
13937
Post by: BrassScorpion
I'm also concerned about the size of the rulebook. If it includes flyer rules, modular rules, superheavy rules, generic psychic powers, and the other rules, then how large will it be? GW rulebooks are about 50/50 rules and fluff - can anyone imagine buying a $80-$100 rulebook?
I can imagine GW selling one at that price after the $74.25 US Fantasy rule book. That's the most plausible thing I've heard here yet.
25220
Post by: WarOne
BrassScorpion wrote:I'm also concerned about the size of the rulebook. If it includes flyer rules, modular rules, superheavy rules, generic psychic powers, and the other rules, then how large will it be? GW rulebooks are about 50/50 rules and fluff - can anyone imagine buying a $80-$100 rulebook?
I can imagine GW selling one at that price after the $74.25 US Fantasy rule book. That's the most plausible thing I've heard here yet.
If the book was the brass ring needed to get everything condensed down from several published editions down to one, I may consider it.
21002
Post by: megatrons2nd
At that price I could no longer afford to play.
13937
Post by: BrassScorpion
At that price I could no longer afford to play.
Huh? $57.75 every 4 years was feasible, but $74.25 every 4 years is not? That's a difference of roughly $18 per year as opposed to about $14 per year assuming a continuing 4-year revision cycle on the main rule book. $74.25 is a lot of money, but it's not like $57.75 now (or the $50 when it first was released) is exactly a bargain either. The difference over the life of the book is relatively small, so I'm once again mystified by comments of that type which I've heard in person as well as seen on forums in one form or another since the Fantasy rule book release last summer. And for those buying used books at bargain prices the list price should be irrelevant.
25220
Post by: WarOne
If the book gives us expanded rules, such as including material that is normally spread over several books and publications, it could be feasible to purchase.
It's like buying the Core DnD books as a Pathfinder book...you get what you pay for, and if you get it altogether, saves you some money in the long run.
21002
Post by: megatrons2nd
BrassScorpion wrote:At that price I could no longer afford to play.
Huh? $57.75 every 4 years was feasible, but $74.25 every 4 years is not? That's a difference of roughly $18 per year as opposed to about $14 per year assuming a continuing 4-year revision cycle on the main rule book. $74.25 is a lot of money, but it's not like $57.75 now (or the $50 when it first was released) is exactly a bargain either. The difference over the life of the book is relatively small, so I'm once again mystified by comments of that type which I've heard in person as well as seen on forums in one form or another since the Fantasy rule book release last summer.
I bought the core rulebook used for half the price 1 year after the initial release for 4th and bought the mini rulebook for 5th for $5. I buy my 3 army codecies "new" from discount retailers and have only added a unit or two to each army since third edition. There is an exception for the Dark Eldar though as I bought most of that new this year. It doesn't sound like there is going to be a mini rulebook in 6th. I don't know if Fantasy had it, if not the odds are even lower for it's existence. Automatically Appended Next Post: WarOne wrote:If the book gives us expanded rules, such as including material that is normally spread over several books and publications, it could be feasible to purchase.
It's like buying the Core DnD books as a Pathfinder book...you get what you pay for, and if you get it altogether, saves you some money in the long run.
I have never bought any expansion for 40K and only recently delved into Apocalypse.
36940
Post by: Anvildude
Pyriel- wrote:* the biggest rule changes:
- similar ballistic to hit chart as wound chart: compare BS to target’s speed and unit type. BS 3 hits moving infantry on 4+, but lightning fast jetbikes on 6+ and stationary tank on 2+… HUGE
Unbeatable Dark eldar anyone?
And those GK paladin apotecharies for 75 freaking points will become even more extinct then the falchions.
What a load of dung.
Invulnerable Dark Eldar? Excuse me, but do you not realize that that means you won't have your Dark Lances to pop tranports so you can get to the gooey center. You'll have to run up first, and either assault, or stand by in assault range for a turn, until the transports are popped.
It also means you'll more often be fighting full-strength Horde squads, without the shooting to whittle them down.
25220
Post by: WarOne
megatrons2nd wrote:
It's like buying the Core DnD books as a Pathfinder book...you get what you pay for, and if you get it altogether, saves you some money in the long run.
I have never bought any expansion for 40K and only recently delved into Apocalypse.
So I'll go back to saying this: If the Core Rulebook expanded what prior books had (enough and a bit more to justify a price increase using my example that the new Core Book would replace the Old One and maybe several expansions of the old game), would you then get it?
42508
Post by: Dahl Corp.
winnertakesall wrote:If half this stuff is true, I will go down to GW HQ, and begin on slapping some sense into every single one of them.
AHaHA I remember this! now I know where family guy get their references!
On topic now: tau? black templar? necrons? I WiSH I REALLY WISH Highly unlikely though...However I do think necrons need to come out of the crypt (pun intened?) Tau really do need a boost when was the last time our cyan skinned space communist had their spot in the limelight? Black Templar meh i wish for salamanders or white scars but yeah ok
23433
Post by: schadenfreude
Anvildude wrote:Pyriel- wrote:* the biggest rule changes:
- similar ballistic to hit chart as wound chart: compare BS to target’s speed and unit type. BS 3 hits moving infantry on 4+, but lightning fast jetbikes on 6+ and stationary tank on 2+… HUGE
Unbeatable Dark eldar anyone?
And those GK paladin apotecharies for 75 freaking points will become even more extinct then the falchions.
What a load of dung.
Invulnerable Dark Eldar? Excuse me, but do you not realize that that means you won't have your Dark Lances to pop tranports so you can get to the gooey center. You'll have to run up first, and either assault, or stand by in assault range for a turn, until the transports are popped.
It also means you'll more often be fighting full-strength Horde squads, without the shooting to whittle them down.
BS4 bolters would then nail fast jetbikes on a 5+ and flamers would still auto hit. Hydras would probably just laugh.
It sounds like they are adding modifiers that go up to +2/-2 to hit. A +1 to hit a moving transport because it's a vehicle would have a huge impact on the meta game.
27759
Post by: MDizzle
army310 wrote:I like some (like cover save down to a +5 ya!!)and the others sound odd to me, but its a rumor so I wait and see what will happen.
Yeah nice how would nids ever win a game if this rule was to be enacted it's BS.
10093
Post by: Sidstyler
Tau better damn well be one of the first new books because I don't see how there could possibly be any point in playing them if shooting takes place after assault, especially considering that most armies now can guarantee a turn 2 assault as it is, or in rare cases turn fething one. Playing Tau in 6th would basically consist of putting the models on the table, then putting them all right back in the case after the game starts, lol...
I guess Tau was always a bit of a design failure anyway. Shooty armies in the 41st millennium? To hell with that, the only point in having tanks and guns in 40k is to use them to run over/beat your enemy over the head with!
1084
Post by: Agamemnon2
I'm going to eschew any wailing and gnashing of teeth for two important reasons.
1) The book is over one year away.
2) All of these rumors are lies. Deliberate, calculated and completely untrue. If, in 2012 a new edition of 40k comes out that's actually in any way reminiscent of the stuff being peddled in this thread, beyond the level of coincidence, I will send, at my own expense, a...
*rummages in the bitz box*
... an armless Terminator Librarian to the first person who holds me to my promise.
10093
Post by: Sidstyler
YOU'RE ON, BUDDY!
I know what you mean though, I'm not putting too much stock in it myself. Sounds like the changes are too radical for GW, who have seemingly been content to keep reselling basically the same ruleset for about a decade now with only minor tweaks to change things up. And all the changes they've made to Fantasy have seemingly been unpopular so I don't see them being in the mood.
At the same time though, if they expect me to be out $80 for a new rulebook then I damn well better be getting something more than " 40k 3.8, the same old game we've been selling since 1998 but with small tweaks that coincidentally result in you having to buy an additional $400 worth of models to keep playing!"
38789
Post by: Deathly Angel
I'd like to see some chaos starter set scenery and a legion codex but seems a bit too much like wishlisting. I don't believe that cover and FNP will be reduced to 5+ as this will invalidate the whole idea for how the new Dark Eldar codex plays (cover and FNP protect an otherwise vulnerable army).
18509
Post by: endtransmission
Deathly Angel wrote:I'd like to see some chaos starter set scenery and a legion codex but seems a bit too much like wishlisting. I don't believe that cover and FNP will be reduced to 5+ as this will invalidate the whole idea for how the new Dark Eldar codex plays (cover and FNP protect an otherwise vulnerable army).
On the other hand, if the BS chart changes come into effect as well, DE players don't need the improved saves as they should be harder to hit as you should be moving quickly. To be honest, that sounds much more suitable to the whole theme of the army rather than skulking in cover and relying upon FNP.
29610
Post by: fox-light713
Really the only bit I don't like about the rumor is the change to the turn phases. Otherwise I'm just on the wall for the others and just seams a rather drastic change to what GW has been trying to do to make the game more streamelined and faster to play. These changes will only make game last longer.
Otherwise I'm adding a mountain of salt with these rumors.
24150
Post by: ChocolateGork
how would you choose first turn?
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
Credit must be given to GW when credit is due:
The improvements they have made to their their 'starter boxes' over the years have become, in my opinion, the standard upon which all other starter boxes from other companies should be judged. Complete sides, a narrative that focuses the box' contents, detailed and useful plastic miniatures, and even the few unique pieces that aren't available elsewhere. They are (or, rather, were) affordable boxed sets that made for an excellent entry point for new gamers, a great starting point for new armies, and were even worth it for veteran players when it came to bulking up existing forces.
So let's take that wonderful idea that has been developed so well through two editions of Fantasy and two editions of 40K and totally fething ruin it by making two different boxes with only one army in each, essentially putting up yet another barrier for entry into the game (and that's not accounting for how much these damned things are probably going to cost).
Run by fething monkeys...
42002
Post by: Kharrak
Blarg. I hope the new rules (if they have any correlation to these rumours) don't further encourage heavy reliance on transports, or general vehicle overuse.
The perceived increased danger to foot-slogging troops makes me sad :(
Of course, concepts such as these (accurate or not) are presented in a vacuum, so hopefully there are additional rule changes to circumvent that problem.
5256
Post by: NAVARRO
I find hard to believe in so many changes... one thing I bet that will happen in the next edition is that the armies will grow in size.
Since this looks more like wishlist the only wish I will cast is - all codexes will be updated to the new edition in one year... PP did it
24567
Post by: Kroothawk
infinite_array wrote:Let's see - as to the validity of the rumors, BoK does a pretty good job of posting legitimate rumors.
It was posted ON BoK, not BY BoK. that's a difference. But ghost21 and the BoK owner said that much of it makes sense.
ChocolateGork wrote:how would you choose first turn?
It is a non-random bidding contest, the loser getting points for stratagems like in CoD.
39868
Post by: iproxtaco
slow slogging units very vulnerable
What the hell? They better give slow slogging units a massive boost then.
30305
Post by: Laughing Man
Looks like you'll be buying even MORE transports! Hooray!
42002
Post by: Kharrak
Orite, and the other thing that concerns me, outside of my footslogging orks being in peril... is the presented ability for my opponent to assign damage directly to my nobs for every 5 wounds. 10 wounds into a boyz mob, and the nob dies D:
Combine that with the suggestion that IC's will be able to snipe as well?
Obviously, I hope the rulebook, if it does include these rules, has other rules to offset such events, or at very least provide new rules in FAQs for each race.
Because being able to snipe Powerklaws with general ranged fire, or allowing IC's to spoke out my Nob before he can have a swing... terrifies me...
I'm also worried, since the Ork Codex is near the last in the Codex-Revamp conveyer belt, just ahead of Chaos Daemons... so I'm a bit concerned that it may suffer from old-edition blues. Of course, Codex's aren't "revived" in the same order they were previously, but I would think that Chaos, Eldar, and Dark Angels would appear beforehand regardless.
Of course, I am letting a certain few rules scare me off the whole lot. There ARE things that look interesting, and things that even excite me.
9892
Post by: Flashman
If anybody wants me, I'll be in the "this is utter bs" corner.
2050
Post by: Anung Un Rama
I only read about the Chaos Legions-part and dismissed it as rumor. It just sounds too good to be true.
59
Post by: Banesword
Im liking the sound of almost all of these rumors.
They sound like they're based on acutal feedback, for good and bad.
42223
Post by: htj
Well, isn't this interesting. I'm undecided myself, I have no experience of BoK's trustworthiness, or this new ghost21 fellow, so I'll wait for the Warseer pie-man to speak. We shall see.
A thought though: those who say that these rules will never be due to difference between them and the current rule-set, I don't see that they're any further from 5th as 3rd was from 2nd.
36012
Post by: Jone96
Wow! Grate stuff! I hope that those rumours are true because it makes this game more interesting and tactical to play. Two different starter sets sounds little bad because newcomers have to by both and you cant play with one of those two.
39868
Post by: iproxtaco
It's better if the Starter set is an actual starter set, as in, you get a moderate sized army, with a rule-book, codex (lol, unlikely but hey) and all the equipment you need. The current one is great don't get me wrong, but it isn't a true starter set.
27903
Post by: Leo_the_Rat
Wouldn't it make more sense just to use the battleforce boxes as the starters? Or maybe they are being referred to as the starter box set.
39868
Post by: iproxtaco
Maybe what's inside them with some additions. For example, Dark Eldar, take away the Reavers, add in an Archon, some terrain, a min-rule book, a mini-codex, some Dice, templates etc.
41268
Post by: Deepeyes
Leo_the_Rat wrote:Wouldn't it make more sense just to use the battleforce boxes as the starters? Or maybe they are being referred to as the starter box set.
Unfortunately a lot of the battleforces don't make a good starting army. They are usually missing a HQ choice of some sort.
31643
Post by: GoDz BuZzSaW
cheapbuster wrote:I think the...nah it all BS
QFT
6987
Post by: Chimera_Calvin
mmm, Mantic announces a new sci-fi game, PP announces a new sci-fi game...
then a wish-list for 6th ed 40k appears?
Maybe GW do know the internet exists after all and want to get people talking about them instead of the competition...
[/cynicism]
39868
Post by: iproxtaco
Oh if only that were true. GW has no idea how much more money they could make with a clever business strategy, and not their current hamfisted attempt to impress their share-holders.
36276
Post by: Zweischneid
Chimera_Calvin wrote:mmm, Mantic announces a new sci-fi game, PP announces a new sci-fi game...
then a wish-list for 6th ed 40k appears?
Maybe GW do know the internet exists after all and want to get people talking about them instead of the competition...
[/cynicism]
Well, whoever else is out there certainly knows that the 25th anniversary of 40K is coming. Cynical people might even think others launch new sci-fi games in the near future not least to leech of all the nerd-ragers, discontents and refusing-to-update-people that any change in a game as big 40K inevitably will produce.. cause.. hey.. you can never please everyone.
39868
Post by: iproxtaco
Is it? Maybe GW will be reborn like a majestic grimdark butterfly! Complete with specialist games!
20699
Post by: RetributionAngel
---->Blood of Kittins is a TROLL!!!!
he wrights contradictin stuff
every week its a diffrent codex comming next
he just speculates about rules and releases and calls it rumors......becaus he makes money of klicks
here is why this can´t be true...
if they would put anything but the patent Ultras in the starter box it would be bad for sales... also marines vs evil marines is just boaring from a appealing to new cutomers faktor.
Also why would they dramaticlly change the game if sales are good?
I can tell you some rumors too... oneday (very soon ) there will be a 6th ED and after that a 7th ED and the rules will be a lil diffrent every time. And also every single codex will be rereleased with diffrent rules wich are ofc better. The order will most likelly be starting with the oldest and/or most populare codexes. New kits wil come out with super rules and the older units wil be nerfed a bit so you eiter have to buy more or they become useless so you have to buy diffrent stuff.
This trend will go on till 2025
Then GW will close down becaus the prices will have trippeled till then makeing a 10 SM cost 100,-€.
And no one wil be abe to afford a standart 10k army of toysoldier anymore :(
3330
Post by: Kirasu
No more talking from you please :(
6672
Post by: itsonlyme
ThirdUltra wrote:In 2nd edition, you declared charges first (if you were in range, you charged/moved the models to contact), then it was movement, then shooting and psychic phase was last.
The psychic phase revolved around dueling with psychic power cards; force weapons could store these cards for bonuses in close-combat or for later use.
The powers such as Ultimate Force and Energy Drain were the cards to have in your hand during the psychic phase.
I still have the 2nd edition rulebooks from Dark Millenium.
Maybe you're mixing Warhammer Fantasy with 2nd edition...?
However, it still is a lean towards 2nd edition if assaults were the first phase and like you mentioned above, it may be an issue where you cannot shoot what you're about to assault first.
Did you bother to read past the post you quoted? If you look a few posts afterwards you will see I corrected it, Rally phase was last, not Psychic I to have all my 2nd ed books (even some rogue trader ones), I am fully aware of how the psychic phase worked, it was a game within a game, it was actually very similar to how magic was done in 4th and 5th ed, only difference was I lost D6 thousand sons when someone played eneregy drain (back when they weapon options), as far as I remember their was one dueling card (I forget the name), power cards could be used for bonus strength I believe, was someting like +3 strength.
H.B.M.C. wrote:So let's take that wonderful idea that has been developed so well through two editions of Fantasy and two editions of 40K and totally fething ruin it by making two different boxes with only one army in each, essentially putting up yet another barrier for entry into the game (and that's not accounting for how much these damned things are probably going to cost).
Run by fething monkeys...
I actually think its a good idea, no more do you have to buy a crap load of models you don't want, you can just go buy a starter set with only models you want to use, bloody brillant idea, I would actually be tempted by a chaos one (I believe one of the rumour mongers on warseer said black legion is bull), I don't know if I agree that it puts up a barrier, the whole idea is you go to GW for everything you need (including a game) so buy doing this they give a single person everything he needs to start and then he can just take it into GW, play some people and hopefully meet like minded people. Still the price tag combined with whats in the box will help me decide if its a total rip off, if its just the marine part of AOBR but with a £50 price tag then I think I might join you (and its kinda what I expect), its its say £40 and with more models for the chosen army (maybe a legal army!) then I think most people will see it as a reasonable entry to the hobby (just a shame about the rest of it :( )
36276
Post by: Zweischneid
RetributionAngel wrote:
also marines vs evil marines is just boaring from a appealing to new cutomers faktor.
Says who? Ever-whining Xenos-players? Background aide, 3+ is a fairly good "standard" for the game. Stuff like Eldar, Orks or Nids aint exactly "new cutomers" friendly, because you quickly (and quite boringly) remove buckets of minis from the table before getting to "play" with them properly. Especially if you are new. Also, Marines are cool.
RetributionAngel wrote:
Also why would they dramaticlly change the game if sales are good?
GW sales are declining, even though rising margins keep the profit. Also, 2012 is the 25th anniversary of 40k!!!!!
3330
Post by: Kirasu
H.B.M.C. wrote:
So let's take that wonderful idea that has been developed so well through two editions of Fantasy and two editions of 40K and totally fething ruin it by making two different boxes with only one army in each, essentially putting up yet another barrier for entry into the game (and that's not accounting for how much these damned things are probably going to cost).
Run by fething monkeys...
While I agree in theory I disagree based upon GW's practices with WFB. They may as well have released 2 different starter sets and that would have been very helpful imo due to their awful decision making. Skaven got an AMAZING starter set with almost everything being useful or usable where as Highelves got crushed with diminishing returns by including garbage like ellyrian reavers and the dumb griffon
If GW actually would sit down and consider what they're putting into starter sets then I agree that there needs to be only 1 but wFB was so lopsided in usefulness
36276
Post by: Zweischneid
Kirasu wrote:While I agree in theory I disagree based upon GW's practices with WFB. They may as well have released 2 different starter sets and that would have been very helpful imo due to their awful decision making. Skaven got an AMAZING starter set with almost everything being useful or usable where as Highelves got crushed with diminishing returns by including garbage like ellyrian reavers and the dumb griffon
If GW actually would sit down and consider what they're putting into starter sets then I agree that there needs to be only 1 but wFB was so lopsided in usefulness
Is it? I freely admit to not having the slightest clue about Fantasy. But looking at the box, the High Elf contents certainly look tempting. Horsies, a flying monster, a bit of infantry. Lots of sexy, unique and different stuff to start playing around with. By contrast, the Skaven contents looks like... well... alot of rats. Yawhn.
27823
Post by: Stanley Rubric
BrassScorpion wrote:For those yung 'uns who don't know about this, 40K had shooting modifiers years ago and GW did away with them starting with 3rd Edition (1998) to simplify the game and make it play faster, which it did. Games of thousands of points play hours faster now than they did with half as many points under 2nd Ed. rules. Now that people play with larger armies than ever compared to years ago it would make no sense to introduce something new or re-introduce something old to the game that would significantly slow it down.
It wasn't the shooting modifiers that slowed down 2nd Ed. It was the close combat phase that took for-fething-ever, and the Psychic phase. Without a psychic phase, and with close combat as it stands now, 40K would still be a fast paced game even with shooting modifiers.
39868
Post by: iproxtaco
The problem with IoB is that it has too many exclusive models. As stupid as that may sound, it doesn't exactly promote the main-line boxes all that well.
18698
Post by: kronk
My bs detector is at DefCon 5.
39868
Post by: iproxtaco
kronk wrote:My bs detector is at DefCon 5.
So really, really, low then? As in, not even registering on the detector?
18698
Post by: kronk
This stuff broke my BS detector.
1464
Post by: Breotan
kronk wrote:This stuff broke my BS detector.
How about a nice game of chess?
12893
Post by: evilsponge
I find it pretty funny how people get so worked up over rumors that the rumor mongers themselves have confirmed with the cavet that book is still being tested. I guess people really fear big changes
3330
Post by: Kirasu
The sad part is I actually really like these fake rumors :( just like how I really liked the totally fake BA book with the techmarine ogryns!
27872
Post by: Samus_aran115
A shift to highlight chaos? As much as I'd like that, I don't think I'd like that. Sounds fantastic otherwise. I will eagerly await further information.
5269
Post by: lord_blackfang
Kirasu wrote:The sad part is I actually really like these fake rumors :( just like how I really liked the totally fake BA book with the techmarine ogryns!
Same here... and all the grognards in my town who ragequit years ago say they would come back if these rumours were true.
36276
Post by: Zweischneid
27872
Post by: Samus_aran115
I should probably explain
As a chaos player, I would absolutely love an update, and a focus in the general 'plot' of 40k. However, I probably wouldn't like every kid on the block picking up chaos! If chaos becomes the new "grey knights", then I probably wouldn't want to play them anymore, you know?
29784
Post by: timetowaste85
Agamemnon2 wrote:I'm going to eschew any wailing and gnashing of teeth for two important reasons.
1) The book is over one year away.
2) All of these rumors are lies. Deliberate, calculated and completely untrue. If, in 2012 a new edition of 40k comes out that's actually in any way reminiscent of the stuff being peddled in this thread, beyond the level of coincidence, I will send, at my own expense, a...
*rummages in the bitz box*
... an armless Terminator Librarian to the first person who holds me to my promise.
Why do you think these are lies? Ghost21, whom most consider to be fairly reputable, is backing them up. And the changes aren't THAT crazy, just more streamlined with fantasy. And fantasy got a pretty good sized overhaul from 7th to 8th, making huge changes to the game, making VERY strong armies in 7th kind of weak in 8th ( VC and Daemons) and making weak armies strong in 8th (Empire, Chaos Warrior infantry). Let's face it, GW is not above shaking things up and these sound a lot like the changes that were made to fantasy. It's as equally possible that you're looking at the real deal as it is that they are fake.
4670
Post by: Wehrkind
This seems like a really drastic shift, but it would be interesting to me if 40k started to pick up some more of the detail and variety of some of the other good sci-fi skirmish games, not to mention the plethora of historic rule sets out there. These rumors seem like a bit too much of a reboot for them, but hey, if they do make some big changes, good on them. I might come back for that after having a fling with Warmahordes and possibly Infinity for a bit.
28189
Post by: Priesmal
Breotan wrote:kronk wrote:This stuff broke my BS detector.
How about a nice game of chess?
I hear there is a new edition of Chess coming along too.
*Pawns will no longer be the compulsory troops choice.
*Kings will have acces to a wider array of wargear.
*The King's range is increased.
*White will no longer go first. Instead there will be a bidding system implemented using strategy points. Leftover points can be used to rearrange your army's deplyment.
*Knights now have outflanking; they can wrap around the left and right board edges.
*Bishops generate faith points.
181
Post by: gorgon
I have questions about the validity of these too.
However, two starter sets is a very "GW" idea. Because you know they'll do everything they can to make them both attractive and try to get people buying *both* where they would have bought one. If this isn't true, I expect GW to steal the idea immediately, lol.
A lot of little things also seem to come together once you think them through. ICs getting better/more prominent does jibe with the increased points costs ICs have seen. I'm going to assume that the departed designer in question is Priestley. And LotR guys correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't his LotR system more "strategy before chance"?
As an old fart, a lot of this sounds like it's the game that 2nd ed should have eventually evolved into. Could very well all be a hoax. But if so it's a pretty decent one, at least.
5642
Post by: covenant84
A shift to highlight Chaos?... can see a bit of truth in that.. after all doesn't 5th ed book (and an article around 5th's release in WD) talk about things changing in the future? That was my intiial thought anyway, reading further on I'm rather sceptical. It sounds like a different game pretty much by the end of that 'rumour'. If it is true that will complicate things no end and I for one will stay playing 5th.
Scary thing is, wouldn't put a lot of that past GW! (Except the BS change - that's just silly!)
32785
Post by: RaptorsTalon
I don't know if this has been mentioned, but:
What is the ETA on 6th edition?
4001
Post by: Compel
It could always be something like, the Chaos side being a bunch of Chaos Cultists / Heretics with some daemons.
There's always the potential for Cypher fun too.
One change I did hear about to transports, was units are automatically pinned exiting a destroyed transport. Oh, and obviously, premeasuring.
I do think the changes are going to be somewhere in the middle between what's posted and the game as now.
Eg, lets say, instead of
- similar ballistic to hit chart as wound chart: compare BS to target’s speed and unit type. BS 3 hits moving infantry on 4+, but lightning fast jetbikes on 6+ and stationary tank on 2+… HUGE
It'll be, Vehicles and Monsters +1 to hit. Fast units / jetbikes, -2. Which, sounds like something which could be misinterpreted into the above.
I mean, really, Battlefleet Gothic is fun and all, but who'd want to go through something like that chart with every single unit in a typical 40k game.
I take it the 5 general types of psychic powers more refers to classing things as. 'Unit buff,' 'Unit debuff,' 'Psychic Shooting Attack' and the like, some people in the thread were assuming there'd only be 5 powers in the game....
6429
Post by: dadieau
Lions and tigers and bears, oh my!
3330
Post by: Kirasu
I take it the 5 general types of psychic powers more refers to classing things as. 'Unit buff,' 'Unit debuff,' 'Psychic Shooting Attack' and the like, some people in the thread were assuming there'd only be 5 powers in the game....
You mean Magic Missile, direct damage, hex, augment and magical vortex? Thats 5! I wonder where they came from?!
207
Post by: Balance
covenant84 wrote:A shift to highlight Chaos?... can see a bit of truth in that.. after all doesn't 5th ed book (and an article around 5th's release in WD) talk about things changing in the future? That was my intiial thought anyway, reading further on I'm rather sceptical. It sounds like a different game pretty much by the end of that 'rumour'. If it is true that will complicate things no end and I for one will stay playing 5th.
The rumor in question is:
* strong narrative focus on Chaos, perspective shifting from the Empire to the struggle between free races and the Warp
[/quote[
The way I interpreted it was the idea that the game will be focused more on 'Good vs. Evil' as opposed to 'Imperium vs. Everyone' with Chaos as the primary evil. So don't expect nearly as much Space marine vs. Tau, etc. The main thing is what this would do with the other 'evil' factions like Orks and Necrons and such.... At best they'll still be around, jsut not as much of a focus. Orks could be considered to be very chaotic even if not part of big-C Chaos, I guess...
I'd just guess that any fights between 'good' forces will be considered akin to a 'blue on blue' battle and avoided in background.
34899
Post by: Eumerin
Color me skeptical.
However, assuming that these rumors are true, they have the Assault phase before the Shooting phase.
So where does that leave Assault weapons, which currently have the ability to shoot and assault in the same turn?
14126
Post by: morgendonner
Eumerin wrote:However, assuming that these rumors are true, they have the Assault phase before the Shooting phase.
So where does that leave Assault weapons, which currently have the ability to shoot and assault in the same turn?
Well if it is true, the mechanic for ranged weapon types could just as easily operate that you can't fire a rapid fire or heavy weapon and then assault the following turn.
6005
Post by: Death By Monkeys
The big question I see is: Will they advance the storyline?
44528
Post by: buckero0
let's just hope they don't ruin 40k like they did with fantasy. the models keep getting better (despite the price increases) but if the game is no fun to play more than once, why buy buckets of models? I already have tons of models.
32644
Post by: Mr Mystery
Nope. It's not so much a storyline, as a background. Can't muck about it with too much.
6646
Post by: Morathi's Darkest Sin
Looking at the rumours again, I'm not certain that if it was to be proved accurate, I'd be that distraught over these changes.
I can see quite a few positives in all when I think about it. Of course its hard to make any real judgement when its just as likely they are fake, than true.
14126
Post by: morgendonner
Yea no question a lot of the changes seem like good ideas.
I'm a big fan of normal cover becoming only a 5+. Likewise I'd love to see the return of a Chaos Legions book. Those types of things seem likely.
All in all though, it's too far out to take this with anything but salt and for use as some interesting conversation pieces.
15094
Post by: pixelpusher
Will this focus on chaos mean that my Ultramarines will be considered cool again? That's all I wanna know.
42749
Post by: Hytanthas
Quote: "strong narrative focus on Chaos, perspective shifting from the Empire to the struggle between free races and the Warp"
Sounds like fantasy not 40K. A lot of the rule updates also sound like WFB rules. This is rubbish IMO
181
Post by: gorgon
Regarding the narrative focus, every time there's been pre-edition rumors of background shifts, the end result has been only incremental changes. I wouldn't expect anything dramatic in 6th.
The squad leader stuff is interesting. If this stuff is true, it probably makes sense to start stocking up on snipers.
Even though I don't play them, I like the idea that Legions will be the first big release. That is, if only because I've been saying CSMs have to be a tentpole release for the new edition. Sure would be nice to see the Renegades WD revision pick up some LatD-type units. I'm just saying...
31501
Post by: ThatMG
I hope this is a Troll
33868
Post by: winnertakesall
Any of this happens, I will eat gorgon. You have my word.
42808
Post by: Marthike
if this happens my army will be completely useless, which is a big change so It will not happen. LOL
214
Post by: ThirdUltra
itsonlyme wrote:
Did you bother to read past the post you quoted? If you look a few posts afterwards you will see I corrected it, Rally phase was last, not Psychic I to have all my 2nd ed books (even some rogue trader ones), I am fully aware of how the psychic phase worked, it was a game within a game, it was actually very similar to how magic was done in 4th and 5th ed, only difference was I lost D6 thousand sons when someone played eneregy drain (back when they weapon options), as far as I remember their was one dueling card (I forget the name), power cards could be used for bonus strength I believe, was someting like +3 strength.
I apologize for not seeing your post afterwards as when I responded to your intial post it took me to the end of the thread, and then i just picked up from there.
I believe the card was Mind War which allowed you to duel an opposing psycher. The Eldar power Executioner allowed you to duel in close-combat, which was kind of similar but on a physical level, but you were in a astral-state that if you lost nothing happened.
My point originally, was that assaults before shooting was or seems like a 2nd edition mechanic, where that was the norm.
I know there were other phases in-between, but I was focusing on the order between assaults and shooting phases.
Again, I apologize for the misunderstanding...
7150
Post by: helgrenze
The movement based shooting modifiers bring up the question... Will troops now (read AGAIN) have a Move stat?
11988
Post by: Dracos
I'm pretty skeptical about this rumor. It's likely more of a list of things that were considered than things that made it into the final version.
I'm taking this with a huge grain of salt.
99
Post by: insaniak
RetributionAngel wrote:here is why this can´t be true...
if they would put anything but the patent Ultras in the starter box it would be bad for sales...
It didn't seem to do any harm to 3rd edition. Or 2nd edition.
also marines vs evil marines is just boaring from a appealing to new cutomers faktor.
Given that Marines are the biggest draw-card the game has, I would think the exact opposite would be true.
Marines are only boring to the veterans, who are used to seeing Marine armies everywhere.
Also why would they dramaticlly change the game if sales are good?
Are they?
And can they not be better?
It's worth noting that when 5th edition was released, there was still not a lot of serious competition for GW. That's rapidly changing. If these rumours are based in any sort of actual reality, maybe it's a sign that they've finally noticed that there are other companies out there making games, and that they need to lift their game if they want to stay on top of the heap?
Probably not, but a guy can dream, right?
34899
Post by: Eumerin
morgendonner wrote:Eumerin wrote:However, assuming that these rumors are true, they have the Assault phase before the Shooting phase.
So where does that leave Assault weapons, which currently have the ability to shoot and assault in the same turn?
Well if it is true, the mechanic for ranged weapon types could just as easily operate that you can't fire a rapid fire or heavy weapon and then assault the following turn.
That would require you to track the actions of a team from a previous turn. GW tends to avoid that sort of mechanic as too cumbersome and/or requiring too much book-keeping.
8723
Post by: wyomingfox
insaniak wrote:Probably not, but a guy can dream, right?
Two of us can at least.
16879
Post by: daedalus-templarius
Interesting to say the least, look forward to hearing more details.
36940
Post by: Anvildude
Zweischneid wrote:
GW sales are declining, even though rising margins keep the profit. Also, 2012 is the 25th anniversary of 40k!!!!!
Okay, hold up a second.
2012. As in, End of the World 2012. Is a major Anniversary of 40k?
Oh god, it's Tinyhammer. That's how the world's going to end. In 2012, all the miniatures in the world are going to come alive. That's not so bad for things like PP's line, or most miniatures model lines, since they're generally just regular people in extreme situations. But one of, if not the biggest minis line out there is 40K, and it's filled with the most fethed up gak you've ever seen, things that would be dangerous no matter how small they are.
The people of Games Workshop have desperately been trying to decrease sales through bad marketing, lack of support, and terrible rules upheavals, while at the same time trying to promote, of any of the races, the ones that are at least human, without getting sacked and replaced by the shareholders.
GW is trying to save the world. Whoa.
108
Post by: Orinoco
itsonlyme wrote:If these rumours are even half true I think this would be the first time since 2nd ed i was excited about buying a 40k rule set
aye.
26
Post by: carmachu
I can see the narative moving form imperium to chaos focus, good vs evil. Horus Heresy novel line, if its shown them anything, is that G vs E sells. They've sold quite a few books with the old legions telling that story....
42646
Post by: Korraz
Well, they will finally have disposed of most things that made 40k's fluff interesting then.
32907
Post by: Nvs
Still hope they come up with a set of rules that better compete with PP's systems. Smaller points values, smaller armies, etc. Then just roll the apoc and normal 40k rules together (which is the next step with the super heavy rules rumored etc).
They're going to have a tough time competing in a market with systems that provide reasonably comparable models, stronger tournament level rules, and less financial commitment to play (not on a unit by unit basis because they're pretty even, but on an army by army basis.)
Hell, at this point they may as well take FW's molds, make finecast/plastic upgrade kits, and come up with a horus heresy set of rules and upgrade kits to convert their normal line to heresy era armors. Probably would be a hit.
15717
Post by: Backfire
Nvs wrote:Still hope they come up with a set of rules that better compete with PP's systems. Smaller points values, smaller armies, etc. Then just roll the apoc and normal 40k rules together (which is the next step with the super heavy rules rumored etc).
They're going to have a tough time competing in a market with systems that provide reasonably comparable models, stronger tournament level rules, and less financial commitment to play (not on a unit by unit basis because they're pretty even, but on an army by army basis.)
I really don't think so. Visuality is GW's strong suite and many players simply want games which have large armies and lots of impressive looking vehicles and monsters. Heck, even many WM players want that, this is why PP made Unbound. Automatically Appended Next Post: morgendonner wrote:Yea no question a lot of the changes seem like good ideas.
I'm a big fan of normal cover becoming only a 5+.
Lots of people say that, but how it would affect army balance? 5th ed armies are made with 5th ed cover in mind.
23711
Post by: Zatsuku
Backfire wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:
morgendonner wrote:Yea no question a lot of the changes seem like good ideas.
I'm a big fan of normal cover becoming only a 5+.
Lots of people say that, but how it would affect army balance? 5th ed armies are made with 5th ed cover in mind.
However, if these rumours are true than each army will be getting a big errata document to make them better fit in 6th edition. Basically we don't have enough info to say much for any of the rumours to be good or bad.
23451
Post by: Sheck2
The rumors are true...
...IF they allow an additional 10% price rise
The rumors are false...
...IF they do not allow a price rise
5153
Post by: Wildstorm
Wow, I'd like to see some of this stuff... but certainly not all of it.
Keeping up with who moved how fast last turn... yeah, good luck with that.
6672
Post by: itsonlyme
ThirdUltra wrote:itsonlyme wrote:
Did you bother to read past the post you quoted? If you look a few posts afterwards you will see I corrected it, Rally phase was last, not Psychic I to have all my 2nd ed books (even some rogue trader ones), I am fully aware of how the psychic phase worked, it was a game within a game, it was actually very similar to how magic was done in 4th and 5th ed, only difference was I lost D6 thousand sons when someone played eneregy drain (back when they weapon options), as far as I remember their was one dueling card (I forget the name), power cards could be used for bonus strength I believe, was someting like +3 strength.
I apologize for not seeing your post afterwards as when I responded to your intial post it took me to the end of the thread, and then i just picked up from there.
I believe the card was Mind War which allowed you to duel an opposing psycher. The Eldar power Executioner allowed you to duel in close-combat, which was kind of similar but on a physical level, but you were in a astral-state that if you lost nothing happened.
My point originally, was that assaults before shooting was or seems like a 2nd edition mechanic, where that was the norm.
I know there were other phases in-between, but I was focusing on the order between assaults and shooting phases.
Again, I apologize for the misunderstanding...
Its cool mate, I wrote that message after a conversation with the ex so you felt the full force and my anger, sorry buddy
26204
Post by: candy.man
carmachu wrote:I can see the narative moving form imperium to chaos focus, good vs evil. Horus Heresy novel line, if its shown them anything, is that G vs E sells. They've sold quite a few books with the old legions telling that story....
This has got me thinking. Perhaps GW is moving away from the “Knights in spaaaaace” fluff to a more classic setup of “desperate struggles in a grim dark future”?
214
Post by: ThirdUltra
itsonlyme wrote:ThirdUltra wrote:itsonlyme wrote:
Did you bother to read past the post you quoted? If you look a few posts afterwards you will see I corrected it, Rally phase was last, not Psychic I to have all my 2nd ed books (even some rogue trader ones), I am fully aware of how the psychic phase worked, it was a game within a game, it was actually very similar to how magic was done in 4th and 5th ed, only difference was I lost D6 thousand sons when someone played eneregy drain (back when they weapon options), as far as I remember their was one dueling card (I forget the name), power cards could be used for bonus strength I believe, was someting like +3 strength.
I apologize for not seeing your post afterwards as when I responded to your intial post it took me to the end of the thread, and then i just picked up from there.
I believe the card was Mind War which allowed you to duel an opposing psycher. The Eldar power Executioner allowed you to duel in close-combat, which was kind of similar but on a physical level, but you were in a astral-state that if you lost nothing happened.
My point originally, was that assaults before shooting was or seems like a 2nd edition mechanic, where that was the norm.
I know there were other phases in-between, but I was focusing on the order between assaults and shooting phases.
Again, I apologize for the misunderstanding...
Its call mate, I write that message after a conversation with the ex so you felt the full force and my anger, sorry buddy
No problem; I can totally understand where you're comming from on that though....
Cheers!
33910
Post by: Ajroo
Dunno how true this all is? but when will the new edition be?
8815
Post by: Archonate
candy.man wrote:This has got me thinking. Perhaps GW is moving away from the “Knights in spaaaaace” fluff to a more classic setup of “desperate struggles in a grim dark future”?
This is what needs to happen if GW has the balls to milk the 40k universe for all it's worth... Unfortunately, GW isn't particularly renowned for its ball-having.
17072
Post by: crazypsyko666
And the turn system keeps getting more screwed up. Really? In the far far future, I understand that armor is better and life is cheaper, but everything is CC now? This is awful. Make shooting more versatile, keep CC the same. If most of this is true, then I quit.
44335
Post by: FalkorsRaiders
crazypsyko666 wrote:And the turn system keeps getting more screwed up. Really? In the far far future, I understand that armor is better and life is cheaper, but everything is CC now? This is awful. Make shooting more versatile, keep CC the same. If most of this is true, then I quit.
From what I can tell, the reason GW would change the assault phase to before the shooting phase is to somewhat nerf c.c. As of now, you shoot up whatever, then assault whatever. What this new system does it makes one decide to either shoot at a squad or assault it, not both.
It's in ways a nerf, not in the sense of making assault any less powerful on its own, but not allowing the systematic cut down of everything before the assault occurs. I've seen many move units in range to assault a vehicle, such as a rhino, shoot it, causing it to explode, then assaulting what comes out. With this new set of rules, you see a squad get in assaulting range of the vehicle, and have to choose to assault it and shoot what comes out, or shoot the vehicles and wait to be assaulted.
For armies like Space Marines, this looks to be a bad change, since it messes with why the army works so well. On the other hand, this helps armies who get decimated quicker in 5th edition, because now they aren't having one squad be shot up and assaulted all at once.
Until the summer of 2012, when 6th edition is rumored to come out, we can't be 100% certain that these are the new rules. I think it be best to wait and see how the next few codexes come out, such as Necrons, and see how they fare. If they seem lacking in 5th edition standards, expect a big change from 6th edition. If not, expect most of these rumor to end up false. Time will tell.
29610
Post by: fox-light713
FalkorsRaiders wrote:crazypsyko666 wrote:And the turn system keeps getting more screwed up. Really? In the far far future, I understand that armor is better and life is cheaper, but everything is CC now? This is awful. Make shooting more versatile, keep CC the same. If most of this is true, then I quit.
From what I can tell, the reason GW would change the assault phase to before the shooting phase is to somewhat nerf c.c. As of now, you shoot up whatever, then assault whatever. What this new system does it makes one decide to either shoot at a squad or assault it, not both.
It's in ways a nerf, not in the sense of making assault any less powerful on its own, but not allowing the systematic cut down of everything before the assault occurs. I've seen many move units in range to assault a vehicle, such as a rhino, shoot it, causing it to explode, then assaulting what comes out. With this new set of rules, you see a squad get in assaulting range of the vehicle, and have to choose to assault it and shoot what comes out, or shoot the vehicles and wait to be assaulted.
For armies like Space Marines, this looks to be a bad change, since it messes with why the army works so well. On the other hand, this helps armies who get decimated quicker in 5th edition, because now they aren't having one squad be shot up and assaulted all at once.
Until the summer of 2012, when 6th edition is rumored to come out, we can't be 100% certain that these are the new rules. I think it be best to wait and see how the next few codexes come out, such as Necrons, and see how they fare. If they seem lacking in 5th edition standards, expect a big change from 6th edition. If not, expect most of these rumor to end up false. Time will tell.
Ouze wrote:
"Sarge, they are rushing us - permission to open fire?"
"No, first we fight them with knives! Then, if we live... we can try shooting!"
6515
Post by: Starfarer
Backfire wrote:Nvs wrote:Still hope they come up with a set of rules that better compete with PP's systems. Smaller points values, smaller armies, etc. Then just roll the apoc and normal 40k rules together (which is the next step with the super heavy rules rumored etc).
They're going to have a tough time competing in a market with systems that provide reasonably comparable models, stronger tournament level rules, and less financial commitment to play (not on a unit by unit basis because they're pretty even, but on an army by army basis.)
I really don't think so. Visuality is GW's strong suite and many players simply want games which have large armies and lots of impressive looking vehicles and monsters. Heck, even many WM players want that, this is why PP made Unbound.
The two don't have to be mutually exclusive. There's no reason 40k can't offer a Kill Team reboot for 6th, or at least ensure balance or alternate options/ FOCs/whatever, at lower point levels to create more fitting forces for small scale games. Doing that doesn't mean that the core 40k rules have to follow suit, there can be different options at different point levels, just as there are from regular 40k to Apocalypse. So essentially, the FOC chart could shift slightly at different point levels. Over a certain point level and Troops choice minimums go up, but Flyers or Superheavies become available as well.
Individual starter sets would reinforce this. You buy a small scale force that's playable right out of the box, then you can scale up from there. Smaller cost of entry, but still the same potential to scale up to Apocalypse size games for those who want to. I think it's the best possible change GW could make, which is why I don't see it happening in reality, unfortunately.
2776
Post by: Reecius
It always amuses me when people get mad at having rumors to read. Why the negative attitudes from some? They're Rumors. They're fun to read and think about. Time will tell what actually happens.
I feel that a lot of these changes sound positive. Removing randomness is a good think, IMO and shaking up the status quo helps keeps the game interesting over the long haul. I look forward to seeing how things pan out and hope a lot of this is accurate.
34242
Post by: -Loki-
Reecius wrote:It always amuses me when people get mad at having rumors to read. Why the negative attitudes from some? They're Rumors. They're fun to read and think about. Time will tell what actually happens.
But it will affect people W/L records!
25774
Post by: Pael
If the OP is true I will eat my shorts on you tube(a cake made to look like my shorts). I will eat my words though, it would take a lot to pull some people back to warhammer and a release like this would do the trick for me. Yet some how it is really hard to believe.
37325
Post by: Adam LongWalker
This goes against GW's new policy of squelching rumors. BoK's seems to have mixed reputation concerning news.
And really the 6th Ed codex is probably +15 months away from being sent to the masses. I'll have take what has been posted as a grain of salt until much much later.
Like the 3rd quarter of 2012.
42470
Post by: SickSix
Some of the proposed changes are awful. Having to keep up with how far every unit moved and then figure out how far they can shoot? The turns take long enough as it is!
Some of the rumored changes are nice, but others are just terribad. So, I'd like some salt, with my salt.
21002
Post by: megatrons2nd
Maybe the phases will be integrated. Like I move, you move, I declare assaults, you declare assaults, and so on. Or maybe the shooting phase will now allow both players to shoot in the shooting phase, like the assault phase is now.
9217
Post by: KingCracker
Am I the only person that thinks most of what BOK says is total BS? It seems like he just dumps a metric crap ton of ideas that range from possible all the way up to yea friggin right. Then the ones he pegs or gets close enough to, claims its why he is right and the others are shrugged off as bad intel or early writtings. Personally, I think the majority of that list sounds like terrible ideas.
If it is true, then 6th edition can kiss my ass
21002
Post by: megatrons2nd
KingCracker wrote:Am I the only person that thinks most of what BOK says is total BS? It seems like he just dumps a metric crap ton of ideas that range from possible all the way up to yea friggin right. Then the ones he pegs or gets close enough to, claims its why he is right and the others are shrugged off as bad intel or early writtings. Personally, I think the majority of that list sounds like terrible ideas.
If it is true, then 6th edition can kiss my ass
I'm fairly certain he himself did not post these, but it was posted by someone else on his sight.
3806
Post by: Grot 6
The list of roumored changes in question is looking seriously like they fired all of the games designers and the bean counters have stepped up to the plate and took over most every function, not including painting and models designing.
When I see some of them, the only thing missing there is that both sides set up, go into overwatch, and then sit there the whole game, waiting each other out.
It's not out of line to say that they took steps backwards there.
(Next part of the rumor is that EACH of the side sets are going to be up over the $120.00 a piece mark, and that templates will be gold plated with turd encrusted jewels.)
I don't mind saying this is a bad bad rumor. Blood of Kittens needs to be hornswaggled.
Anyone ever get the feeling they've been cheated?  
7075
Post by: chaos0xomega
Ouze wrote:I don't buy it. Their trend has been towards simplifying, not adding more rules. Adding a whole new phase? Seems unlikely. Also, assaulting and then shooting just makes no logical sense.
"Sarge, they are rushing us - permission to open fire?"
"No, first we fight them with knives! Then, if we live... we can try shooting!"
Fantasy bucked the trend of simplification IMO, as has their last few codex and army book releases which have been anything but simplifications...
As for assault then shoot, it actually makes sense to me, I don't know if it makes more sense, but it makes sense. To me, its more representative of the fact that if you're in such close proximity to the enemy, you're not going to line up and trade volleys with them, you're going to rush in, beat them down, and if they break and flee you'll gun em down with ranged ability. It also has the added bonus of actually toning down assault units a bit. They won't be able to thin you out with guns before beating you senseless in cc. Close combat focused armies are going to have to think things through a bit more in regards to when and what they want to assault.
But that is what happens in war...you shoot up the vehicle, pillbox, troops in a trench, then move in for assault/close up shooting. Even back in the olden days, you marched forward, fired, then fixed bayonets and charged...not the other way around.
The olden days and the newen days are very different. Starting in WW1, this trend sort of reversed. German Sturmstruppen would infiltrate forward into enemy trenches and assault the position (remember, assault does not fully equate to hand to hand combat, just close in combat, guns can be used just as much as a chainsword), then disengage using guns to suppress the enemy, or to gun down any fleeing opponents. This has largely been the commonly used tactic ever since. Think about it, if you're close enough to engage in CQB with the enemy, you're not going to sit there and trade gunfire and give the enemy the chance to charge in on you, you're going to get in close first, assault the position, and then use firearms to disengage or mop up the survivors. You know those videos that are floating around of Marines or Soldiers breaching a building by kicking the door in or shaped charges to blow a hole in a wall? Thats an assault.
So, GW is trying to implement rules that hurt Space Marines, but help Tyranids? These rules are just covered in heresy.
You mean GW is actually going to balance the most (currently) overpowered and (currently) underpowered factions? :SHOCK:
I don't like the idea of shooting modifiers. Someone compared it to Flames of War, which is correct, but FoW does it better. You simply take the training of who you're shooting, and add +1 for each one of 4 criteria if they are met. With the 40k rumors, we'll have to check the BS of the shooter, then the unit type of the target, how fast they were moving, other modifiers, etc.
When I first read the rumor (before I got to the bit that covered the if you moved x inches you need a y to hit part), I got excited because I thought it would be something along the lines of you compare the units initiative to the units bs and figure it out from there. Its not hard figure something like that out in your head (assuming it used a chart similar to the to hit or to wound chart,which is rather easily memorized if you are smart enough to realize the pattern).
Anyway, if even half of this stuff is somewhat accurate, I'll be fairly ecstatic.
37325
Post by: Adam LongWalker
megatrons2nd wrote:KingCracker wrote:Am I the only person that thinks most of what BOK says is total BS? It seems like he just dumps a metric crap ton of ideas that range from possible all the way up to yea friggin right. Then the ones he pegs or gets close enough to, claims its why he is right and the others are shrugged off as bad intel or early writtings. Personally, I think the majority of that list sounds like terrible ideas.
If it is true, then 6th edition can kiss my ass
I'm fairly certain he himself did not post these, but it was posted by someone else on his sight.
Again I am being civil on my comments concerning BoK, however if this site has a dubious past for stating dubious reports, regardless of whom wrote the article, the only conclusions to me are this is a simple stunt to gain readership on to that site.
3806
Post by: Grot 6
Adam LongWalker wrote:megatrons2nd wrote:KingCracker wrote:Am I the only person that thinks most of what BOK says is total BS? It seems like he just dumps a metric crap ton of ideas that range from possible all the way up to yea friggin right. Then the ones he pegs or gets close enough to, claims its why he is right and the others are shrugged off as bad intel or early writtings. Personally, I think the majority of that list sounds like terrible ideas.
If it is true, then 6th edition can kiss my ass
I'm fairly certain he himself did not post these, but it was posted by someone else on his sight.
Again I am being civil on my comments concerning BoK, however if this site has a dubious past for stating dubious reports, regardless of whom wrote the article, the only conclusions to me are this is a simple stunt to gain readership on to that site.
+1to that sentiment. Good call !
8815
Post by: Archonate
chaos0xomega wrote:So, GW is trying to implement rules that hurt Space Marines, but help Tyranids? These rules are just covered in heresy.
You mean GW is actually going to balance the most (currently) overpowered and (currently) underpowered factions? :SHOCK:
I've been trying to wrap my mind around why anybody would dislike these new rules... Then I realized these rules balance out SMs quite fairly, and SM players just feel entitled to superiority.
34899
Post by: Eumerin
chaos0xomega wrote:As for assault then shoot, it actually makes sense to me, I don't know if it makes more sense, but it makes sense. To me, its more representative of the fact that if you're in such close proximity to the enemy, you're not going to line up and trade volleys with them, you're going to rush in, beat them down, and if they break and flee you'll gun em down with ranged ability. It also has the added bonus of actually toning down assault units a bit. They won't be able to thin you out with guns before beating you senseless in cc. Close combat focused armies are going to have to think things through a bit more in regards to when and what they want to assault.
The olden days and the newen days are very different. Starting in WW1, this trend sort of reversed. German Sturmstruppen would infiltrate forward into enemy trenches and assault the position (remember, assault does not fully equate to hand to hand combat, just close in combat, guns can be used just as much as a chainsword), then disengage using guns to suppress the enemy, or to gun down any fleeing opponents. This has largely been the commonly used tactic ever since. Think about it, if you're close enough to engage in CQB with the enemy, you're not going to sit there and trade gunfire and give the enemy the chance to charge in on you, you're going to get in close first, assault the position, and then use firearms to disengage or mop up the survivors. You know those videos that are floating around of Marines or Soldiers breaching a building by kicking the door in or shaped charges to blow a hole in a wall? Thats an assault.
Actually, what you typically do is suppress the target first with fire (usually a second squad that's nearby and in position to shoot at the target). Then you hit them with your assault squad. And the assault squad might be armed with weapons like shotguns which provide powerful blasts and can be used on the move, but tend to have a very short range - i.e. what the game more or less defines as "assault weapons". That's not to say that it always works that way. But when you have an aware enemy, that's the accepted tactic.
Flames of War captures it perfectly. You pound the enemy during your shooting phase in order to pin them, usually using either another nearby platoon or artillery. If you don't pin the defenders, then their defensive fire (which of course is absent from 40K) will shoot up your assaulting platoon and quite possibly drive them back to their starting position.
Or to put it in 40K CWE terms... Your Dark Reapers blast the enemy space marines right before your Howling Banshees charge them.
31285
Post by: Chrysis
In what way do these rumours help Tyranids?
Tyranids have 0 IC's with Invulnerables. Moving Assault before Shooting means you can't shoot metal boxes (which you don't have, but all your enemies do) open to eat the contents, and if an assault ends in your enemies turn your troops aren't safe from being shot anymore. Across the board drops in cover saves make it more difficult to approach in one piece.
About the only benefit I can see is the BS modifiers, assuming that running is enough to get you protection. Of course the Monstrous Creatures probably get the same modifier as a vehicle, so they get even easier to kill before they can achieve anything.
44335
Post by: FalkorsRaiders
chaos0xomega wrote:
So, GW is trying to implement rules that hurt Space Marines, but help Tyranids? These rules are just covered in heresy.
You mean GW is actually going to balance the most (currently) overpowered and (currently) underpowered factions? :SHOCK:
Yep. exactly what I meant/was surprised at.
41664
Post by: ShatteredBlade
Lunchmoney wrote:The far fetched, though amazing, ballistic skill changes could finally bring infantry back into the game as mattering. So many people complain that they only every see parking lots, yet with those simple ballistic skill changes, you could actually start to see differing units on the table top. I would LOVE for the changes listed to go into effect, however, I am a hopeless cynic and I don't believe any of this feth.
This about sums up my position.
42646
Post by: Korraz
Or they could finally stop having two completely different rules sets, bring vehicles and infantry in line and don't have to balance Fish and Plutonium with more and more rules additions.
This will keep going forever. Parking Lot - Pedestrian Area - Parking Lot - Pedestrian Area - Parking Lot - Pedestrian Area -....
40452
Post by: Cypher's Sword
only read the first line, I don't feel like buying another rulebook, give me at least two more years on this one, I mean come on it's $60 frakin' bucks to begin with.
99
Post by: insaniak
Cypher's Sword wrote:only read the first line, I don't feel like buying another rulebook, give me at least two more years on this one, I mean come on it's $60 frakin' bucks to begin with.
That's nothing that says you have to switch to the new edition straight away.
5269
Post by: lord_blackfang
Or just don't buy the full size book. I'm doing just fine with the mini rulebook from the starter and that one is practically free if you consider the value of the models in the box.
29833
Post by: The Dwarf Wolf
I Liked it. Seens like a big jump. If that come true it would seens like D&D 3.5 to 4.0
Rules that actually focus on tactica, and less in chance!!!! Man give me that!!!!
Funny, the thing i less liked was the BS change, all the rest is amazing. More control over my tactical options.
Nowaday, warhammer is pretty much: Make it right on the list, hope for luck, and dont be a dumb-ass.
Changes like that would bring changes in the game style, and add some extra fun. Chance must be there and ifluence the game, it could not be the game.
Obviously, i have seen this before, and old player will say "no you are changing to much!!!", but i loved everything in there...
Anyway, that looks like a wishlist, and i will take lots of salt...
But bring some hope... Maybe GW could do something good this days...
26
Post by: carmachu
The Dwarf Wolf wrote:I Liked it. Seens like a big jump. If that come true it would seens like D&D 3.5 to 4.0
And do you recall what happened when they did that/ The fan base split, a new game came about called pathfinder and alot of hard feelings.....
32748
Post by: Havok210
I must say that I am hesitant to believe these rumors as well. Many of the ideas in the original post seem to have been stolen from other games. I was an avid player of AT-43 and while it was a good game, the rules really slowed the pace. Bidding was very one sided with certain armies, the "you move, then I move" heavily favored lower point armies as I would be out of turns and the other player would get to move like 3 or 4 things while I watched.
I started playing 40k because it was fast paced and the rules, albeit not perfect, were simple enough that I enjoyed playing. Just my $0.02.
1478
Post by: warboss
Eh, I don't have any strong opinions off the bat. 4th and 5th editions were incremental changes to the 3rd edition ruleset and relatively easy to evaluate. If these changes are true, they're big enough that I'd have to play a few games in order to give an opinion about them.
181
Post by: gorgon
chaos0xomega wrote:As for assault then shoot, it actually makes sense to me, I don't know if it makes more sense, but it makes sense. To me, its more representative of the fact that if you're in such close proximity to the enemy, you're not going to line up and trade volleys with them, you're going to rush in, beat them down, and if they break and flee you'll gun em down with ranged ability. It also has the added bonus of actually toning down assault units a bit. They won't be able to thin you out with guns before beating you senseless in cc. Close combat focused armies are going to have to think things through a bit more in regards to when and what they want to assault.
As others have said, I think it's less about realism and more about just creating a shooting vs. assaulting tactical decision. Obviously, that would have a variety of repercussions. However, we went through entire editions with things working that way and many good games were had.
Chrysis wrote:Tyranids have 0 IC's with Invulnerables. Moving Assault before Shooting means you can't shoot metal boxes (which you don't have, but all your enemies do) open to eat the contents, and if an assault ends in your enemies turn your troops aren't safe from being shot anymore.
I've never had a lot of luck pulling that off consistently just because you have to have the vehicle semi-surrounded to prevent your opponent from placing the occupants in a spot where assaulters can't reach them. On the other hand, I think I'd have a lot more success charging and popping transports with Trygons, then unloading a wall of worms on them from Termagants with Devourers. I like that idea a lot, actually.
Kinda funny that we might have to wait 14-15 months to find out if there's any truth to these.
123
Post by: Alpharius
Archonate wrote:chaos0xomega wrote:So, GW is trying to implement rules that hurt Space Marines, but help Tyranids? These rules are just covered in heresy.
You mean GW is actually going to balance the most (currently) overpowered and (currently) underpowered factions? :SHOCK:
I've been trying to wrap my mind around why anybody would dislike these new rules... Then I realized these rules balance out SMs quite fairly, and SM players just feel entitled to superiority.
Whoa - settle down guys!
Try not to tar every Space Marine player with the same brush too.
And really, the SM Codex is the most overpowered?
I'm sure you mean the Space Wolf Codex, and possibly the Blood Angel Codex, but not the Space Marine Codex, right?
16879
Post by: daedalus-templarius
I actually want to check out 2nd edition now, just to see what it used to be like. I didn't even really start playing till 4th.
13937
Post by: BrassScorpion
daedalus-templarius wrote:I actually want to check out 2nd edition now, just to see what it used to be like. I didn't even really start playing till 4th.
It was fun, but played much slower than now. Reading those rules out of curiosity will be amusing, but you'd never want to play a 3000 point game now using your current Codex and those 2nd Ed. rules, not unless you'd like the game to take twice as long as you are used to.
21395
Post by: lixulana
or it is just a big conspiracy to make the 40k players take up fantasy and the fantasy players to move to 40k.
33248
Post by: SkaerKrow
BrassScorpion wrote:daedalus-templarius wrote:I actually want to check out 2nd edition now, just to see what it used to be like. I didn't even really start playing till 4th.
It was fun, but played much slower than now. Reading those rules out of curiosity will be amusing, but you'd never want to play a 3000 point game now using those rules, not unless you'd like the game to take twice as long as you are used to.
To be fair, 3,000 points in Second Edition was a Chief Librarian, a Captain, four Marine Squads, two Tanks and a Dreadnaught.
16879
Post by: daedalus-templarius
Yea I found the Dark Millennium expansion, no core rules yet though.
123
Post by: Alpharius
daedalus-templarius wrote:Yea I found the Dark Millennium expansion, no core rules yet though.
I started with 2nd, so I know I have a biased view of it, but man, those were good times!
181
Post by: gorgon
Alpharius wrote:daedalus-templarius wrote:Yea I found the Dark Millennium expansion, no core rules yet though.
I started with 2nd, so I know I have a biased view of it, but man, those were good times!
That's something hard to impress upon people. Yes, 2nd ed had many problems. Yes, it was patched to death with FAQs and WD articles. Yes, it was slower than 3rd and its descendants. Yes, games could degrade into overwatch battles.
But the game was fun, and had its appeals and strengths. Personally, I've enjoyed seeing GW recently go back and revisit some 2nd ed material both in the main rules and in codices. It's an overdue admission that there were appealing aspects that were worth preserving instead of being discarded. Like I said, the system was far from perfect, and yet the game's popularity grew a lot in those days. So there were some things they were doing right. And note that gunline battles (albeit sans overwatch) and rules clunkiness haven't ceased to exist in recent editions.
Again, no idea if these are true. But if it's a hoax it's at least an entertaining and good one.
7075
Post by: chaos0xomega
Eumerin wrote:chaos0xomega wrote:As for assault then shoot, it actually makes sense to me, I don't know if it makes more sense, but it makes sense. To me, its more representative of the fact that if you're in such close proximity to the enemy, you're not going to line up and trade volleys with them, you're going to rush in, beat them down, and if they break and flee you'll gun em down with ranged ability. It also has the added bonus of actually toning down assault units a bit. They won't be able to thin you out with guns before beating you senseless in cc. Close combat focused armies are going to have to think things through a bit more in regards to when and what they want to assault.
The olden days and the newen days are very different. Starting in WW1, this trend sort of reversed. German Sturmstruppen would infiltrate forward into enemy trenches and assault the position (remember, assault does not fully equate to hand to hand combat, just close in combat, guns can be used just as much as a chainsword), then disengage using guns to suppress the enemy, or to gun down any fleeing opponents. This has largely been the commonly used tactic ever since. Think about it, if you're close enough to engage in CQB with the enemy, you're not going to sit there and trade gunfire and give the enemy the chance to charge in on you, you're going to get in close first, assault the position, and then use firearms to disengage or mop up the survivors. You know those videos that are floating around of Marines or Soldiers breaching a building by kicking the door in or shaped charges to blow a hole in a wall? Thats an assault.
Actually, what you typically do is suppress the target first with fire (usually a second squad that's nearby and in position to shoot at the target). Then you hit them with your assault squad. And the assault squad might be armed with weapons like shotguns which provide powerful blasts and can be used on the move, but tend to have a very short range - i.e. what the game more or less defines as "assault weapons". That's not to say that it always works that way. But when you have an aware enemy, that's the accepted tactic.
Flames of War captures it perfectly. You pound the enemy during your shooting phase in order to pin them, usually using either another nearby platoon or artillery. If you don't pin the defenders, then their defensive fire (which of course is absent from 40K) will shoot up your assaulting platoon and quite possibly drive them back to their starting position.
Or to put it in 40K CWE terms... Your Dark Reapers blast the enemy space marines right before your Howling Banshees charge them.
Yeah, thats true.... but thats what the previous turn is for
Now that you mention pinning, I would like to see that rule have some impact on a units ability to fight a cc. It makes no sense to me that a unit that was effectively hugging the dirt, etc. would stand up and fight with no ill effect if it were charged.
Alpharius wrote:Archonate wrote:chaos0xomega wrote:So, GW is trying to implement rules that hurt Space Marines, but help Tyranids? These rules are just covered in heresy.
You mean GW is actually going to balance the most (currently) overpowered and (currently) underpowered factions? :SHOCK:
I've been trying to wrap my mind around why anybody would dislike these new rules... Then I realized these rules balance out SMs quite fairly, and SM players just feel entitled to superiority.
Whoa - settle down guys!
Try not to tar every Space Marine player with the same brush too.
And really, the SM Codex is the most overpowered?
I'm sure you mean the Space Wolf Codex, and possibly the Blood Angel Codex, but not the Space Marine Codex, right?
I ment Marines in general, including SW, BA, BT, DA, and GK. They are all one army to me, regardless of the fact that they have 20 different codecies...
42223
Post by: htj
So you think the Vanilla Marine codex is OP?
33248
Post by: SkaerKrow
chaos0xomega wrote:
I ment Marines in general, including SW, BA, BT, DA, and GK. They are all one army to me, regardless of the fact that they have 20 different codecies...
Sweeping generalizations like that don't work. Vanilla Marines =/= Blood Angels =/= Space Wolves =/= Black Templar =/= Dark Angels. Heck, it could be argued that Astartes Codexes show up in Bottom, Mid and High Tier right now. The stat line may be the same, but the wrinkles imposed by the actual Codex books makes them all quite different in how they play and how they're built.
31260
Post by: Biophysical
I don't understand the complaint against "keeping track" of movement. We do that already with vehicles and bikes for the purposes of turbo-boosting, skimmers moving fast, and close-combat to-hit rolls. It shouldn't be hard to add infantry into that mix, as they only one movement type (two if you count staying still). If the rumors have any shred of truth to them, it looks like the modifiers are something like this:
- BS 3 = 4+ to-hit
-Tanks ( MCs, perhaps) are 1 point easier
-Stationary units (vehicles only, perhaps) are 1 point easier
-Fast movers (>6" are 1 point harder
-Really fast movers (>12" are 1 point harder still.
This seems pretty simple to keep track of, honestly.
34899
Post by: Eumerin
chaos0xomega wrote:
Yeah, thats true.... but thats what the previous turn is for
Now that you mention pinning, I would like to see that rule have some impact on a units ability to fight a cc. It makes no sense to me that a unit that was effectively hugging the dirt, etc. would stand up and fight with no ill effect if it were charged.
That gives them a chance to unpin before you can charge them.
Now admittedly, about half the armies in the game pretty much ignore pinning (or, as I used to joke regarding my Dark Elves, the fact that my Dark Elves had a higher than normal Leadership stat meant that my army actually had to take leadership tests instead of outright ignoring them...). And pinning doesn't do much to close combat anyway.
33248
Post by: SkaerKrow
Biophysical wrote:I don't understand the complaint against "keeping track" of movement. We do that already with vehicles and bikes for the purposes of turbo-boosting, skimmers moving fast, and close-combat to-hit rolls. It shouldn't be hard to add infantry into that mix, as they only one movement type (two if you count staying still). If the rumors have any shred of truth to them, it looks like the modifiers are something like this:
- BS 3 = 4+ to-hit
-Tanks ( MCs, perhaps) are 1 point easier
-Stationary units (vehicles only, perhaps) are 1 point easier
-Fast movers (>6" are 1 point harder
-Really fast movers (>12" are 1 point harder still.
This seems pretty simple to keep track of, honestly.
In a world where everyone hits tanks that didn't move on a 2+, I see either the vehicle damage/armor penetration rules changing quite a bit or...nope, they would have to change.
181
Post by: gorgon
Or the players can adjust by not running low AV vehicles in gunlines.
Not saying other rules adjustments couldn't happen, just that the intent there is fairly clear.
31260
Post by: Biophysical
SkaerKrow wrote:Biophysical wrote:I don't understand the complaint against "keeping track" of movement. We do that already with vehicles and bikes for the purposes of turbo-boosting, skimmers moving fast, and close-combat to-hit rolls. It shouldn't be hard to add infantry into that mix, as they only one movement type (two if you count staying still). If the rumors have any shred of truth to them, it looks like the modifiers are something like this:
- BS 3 = 4+ to-hit
-Tanks ( MCs, perhaps) are 1 point easier
-Stationary units (vehicles only, perhaps) are 1 point easier
-Fast movers (>6" are 1 point harder
-Really fast movers (>12" are 1 point harder still.
This seems pretty simple to keep track of, honestly.
In a world where everyone hits tanks that didn't move on a 2+, I see either the vehicle damage/armor penetration rules changing quite a bit or...nope, they would have to change.
I'm not sure I agree. We've all seen the math on just how bad lascannons are against vehicles, but I'll review
BS3 lascannon vs. Armor 11 (5th Edition): 3/6 hits, 4/6 penetrates, 1/3 destroys = 0.11 (1/9) destroyed results/shot
BS3 lascannon vs. Armor 11 (4th Edition): 3/6 hits, 4/6 penetrates, 1/2 destroys + 1/6 glances, 1/6 destroys = ~.168 destroyed results/shot
BS3 lascannon vs Armor 11 (rumors, stationary vehicle, 5th ed damage table): 5/6 hits, 4/6 penetrates, 1/3 destroys = ~0.185 destroyed results/shot
It's not tremendously worse than 4th edition, and if the vehicles move, its even less impressive. I wouldn't call it game-breaking. In fact, I'd say it's just about right. Moving vehicles are only slightly more vulnerable than they currently are (assuming no change in damage table), and I think most would say they probably should be. The movement restriction means stationary fire tanks (which are the hardest to get to with meltas) are the hardest hit, which is also probably a good thing.
22190
Post by: Theduke07
If they don't change how vehicles move and shot. Lot of gak is getting shelved, Predators, because they won't be worth it. They're already written off once they hit the table but this will just kill them.
35094
Post by: Ouroborus
Cypher's Sword wrote:only read the first line, I don't feel like buying another rulebook, give me at least two more years on this one, I mean come on it's $60 frakin' bucks to begin with.
$60.00 is pretty cheap for a hardcover, probably full colored book that you'll be using for years on end.
|
|
