Beasts of war has started posting short videos on their site regarding rumors of 40K 6th edition. These are supposedly based on 'sources' they know and since they've been right in the past I figured these are worth a look. NOTE: Warren has said multiple times that 'smart money' goes on July 7 for the release date of 6th edition. If that is true then we should really get some good rumors sometime mid-June.

The first video is on how wound allocation will work:

http://www.beastsofwar.com/warhammer-40k/wound-allocation-works-6th-edition-40k/

It looks like if this is true casualties fall from the front ranks instead of anywhere the owning player chooses. For an edition rumored to be the 'rise of xenos' that really hurts orks & nids. I'm interested to see if any of the movement rules from pancake edition make it into the rules -- being able to guaranteed run 12" for orks will mitigate losing front models as the mob crosses the table.

Thoughts welcomed.

Edit - Links to more videos from beasts of war:

Challenges in 40k?

http://www.beastsofwar.com/warhammer-40k/fantasy-style-challenges-warhammer-40k-close-combat/

A la' fantasy warhammer - Independent Characters, HQ's, and maybe even sergeants can issue/accept Close Combat challenges, regardless of their placement in the combat. Could lead to bonuses to combat resolution for the winning side of a challenge, and penalties for 'bowing out'.

Charge Reactions - Snap Fire?

http://www.beastsofwar.com/warhammer-40k/rumor-stand-shoot-40k-6th-edition/

Basically units that get charged have a final shooting action right before CC begins, at BS 1. They're not sure if heavies are allowed to fire but speculate that assault and rapid fire weapons will be able to shoot freely. Might make those genestealers think twice about running into a squad of shoota boyz or guardsmen.

Randomly Chosen Psyker Powers?

http://www.beastsofwar.com/warhammer-40k/rumor-randomly-chosen-psychic-powers-40k-6th-ed/

So the guys aren't sure how this one will work but apparently psykers will have a table to roll on for random powers before the game starts, again like fantasy. Since codices have varying numbers of psychic powers this would require a GW-wide FAQ to implement, or a table of 'generic' powers to choose from in the BRB while maintaining codex powers as 'signature spells'.

Starter Box contents?

http://www.beastsofwar.com/warhammer-40k/rumor-40k-6th-edition-starter-box/

They've heard that Deathwing (Dark Angels with Belial as an HQ and terminators) vs Chaos Space Marines (with a new dread sculpt) will be in the starter box. Darrell wants it for the little rulebook. Fall release.

No More Random Game length?

http://www.beastsofwar.com/warhammer-40k/rumor-40k-6th-ed-killing-random-game-lengths/

Warren and Darrell discuss the changes in the game if random game length goes the way of the dodo. Warren also once again confirms that the Pancake edition was in fact a GW production that was an early playtest for 6th. He further speculates that the random mission generator in the back of the document will hopefully make it into the final 6th rulebook, because of the flexibility it provided (i agree with this statement).

6th Edition Rumor Roundup

http://www.beastsofwar.com/turn-8/turn-8-fond-farewell-40k-5th-edition/

Alright so this isn't really worth watching unless you love to hear the brogue in the voices of BoW crew. At about the 1:15:00 mark or thereabouts they begin going over a plethora of 6th edition rumors that have been bandied about on the internet, then take 'votes' via the chatroom and twitter as to whether they're 'thumbs up' or 'thumbs down' (it is a recording of a live broadcast). What makes it not worth watching is the fact that they're not discussing any sources they have like in the above videos, but rather taking opinions from the internet which as we all know isn't a valid way to predict the future. They interview Rick Priestly in the last 20-25 minutes of the video, discussing Warhammer 40K's inception leading up to the way the game is now.

One new rumor that Warren brings up and i'll leave it here because i haven't heard it before - Flamers can potentially set ruins and woods on fire if they shoot into them (obviously based on a dice roll, knowing GW it'd be a 4+ roll). This would make the terrain dangerous, and potentially cause hits to any units hiding inside. Not sure if it was something he heard from a good source or just speculation so put some salt on that one.
Edit - Warren also mentioned a GW manager's conference on June 10-11. Could be to hand out the new BRB and after which the 'net would flood with 'confirmations' of rumors and such. Salt again.

Bring your own bunkers to the fight? Also, let's watch the world burn.

http://www.beastsofwar.com/warhammer-40k/rumor-40k-6th-ed-paying-points-terrain/

In this video Warren and Darrell banter about the idea that players will be able to pay points in-game for terrain and accompanying rules. Warren suggests a dropship type deployment for some terrain, while others being deployed with the rest of the army. It would definitely spur sales of terrain kits, if players knew they could bring their AV14 Bastion with them to the fight. I don't see this happening as they describe it for the sole reason that no terrain kits are codex specific. It wouldn't make sense for a Tyranid or Tau army to have an imperial bastion or skyshield, in operational condition, under their control.

The second blurb of a rumor in this video concerns terrain and flamers. A flamer (supposedly) will be able to target a terrain piece, or men in terrain, and on an additional dice roll (probably dependent on the flamer's strength) the woods/ruin etc would catch up in flame, causing additional damage to any units residing inside. It's a neat idea, and I give this one more credulity than the pay-for-terrain rumor.

Pre-Measuring in 6th Edition

http://www.beastsofwar.com/warhammer-40k/rumor-premeasuring-ranges-40k-6th-ed/

Prettymuch like the title says. Premeasuring is in, the guys discuss applications and suppose it might speed up games by preventing arguments over millimeter differences in movement and people 'fudging' their moves to get into combat earlier. Paired with the rumor that random charge distance makes it in the book too, I could see this one happening.

Close Combat weapons finally getting an AP value?

http://www.beastsofwar.com/warhammer-40k/rumor-close-combat-weapons-ap-40k-6th-ed/

Alright so Warren and Darrell say that something from Pancake edition is slated for release in 6th - Close combat weapons of differing types will get AP values, just like shooting weapons. Examples listed were Power Swords will have AP 3, Power fists will have AP 2, and Chain fists will be AP 1. Warren (as been his wont lately) argued that it would add complexity and more charts to remember, but Darrell seemed pretty sure thanks to his 'reliable source' and said that it would be no different than remembering bolters are AP 5 and Lascannons are ap 2, etc.

tetrisphreak wrote:
It looks like if this is true casualties fall from the front ranks instead of anywhere the owning player chooses..

Great, time to put all the expendables in the front

Watching the vid.. and i have a question to ask.

Does this only apply to wounds taken from shooting? or both shooting and assulting?

If it's only shooting then it would make ALOT more sense and it would make positioning much more important (ie, protecting HQ's and special weapons by placing them at the mid or rear)

If it's both then assaulting would be pretty wrecked for some assault based armies. Orks especially, for the fact that you'll lose almost all your front models.. and the models behind wouldn't be able to strike back.

Either way.. this would make tau more interesting to play... considering the amount of units they have that can jump around and flank or infiltrate (stealth suits!!)

For all the rumors of 6th ed 40K becoming more like Fantasy 8th edition, this makes no sense at all.

I hope it doesn't .

8th Ed Fantasy sucks.

I like 40K more or less as it is now. The whole point is that the systems are NOT the same, after all..

The only thing that sucks with current fantasy, is it's bring a lvl 4 caster or GTFO (hence why I play DE). I really hope they don't make it so it's psyker or go home also.

greenbay924 wrote:The only thing that sucks with current fantasy, is it's bring a lvl 4 caster or GTFO (hence why I play DE). I really hope they don't make it so it's psyker or go home also.

I hope not either... Some armies can't even field pysker at all! (Necrons, Tau)

Given that I play Orks (not the best Psykers), BT (nuff said), Daemons (with GK around forget it..) and DE (um.... none there either...), yeah..



I tried to get back into WHFB when 8th hit, but it turned me off like a switch. I used to love WHFB, but that was a few editions back.

I like it, much more tactical placement as well as adding a few risks. Also being able to keep your guys safe is pretty cool as well, have to fire a lot of shots to get through. Also they specifically said shooting no less than 3 times.

I really like it and hope this will be kept when 6th ed comes out.

I don't know what this rumor means in terms of the whole game, as i said before the entire way units move could change dramatically....rapid fire weaponry could change...psykers will probably have more options, etc.

Do I think that this means that bring a level 4 caster or GTFO? Not really, because most psykers are mastery level 1, and anything that gives mastery level 2 or above is an expensive upgrade or a special character (also expensive). What i do think is that if we can piece together previous rumors from faeit 212 and blood of kittens, psykers are going to have "lores" to choose powers from. I think codex powers specific to certain armies will remain as legal choices, but having lores to choose from in lieu of the codex specific powers will only grant more customization and variety into the game.

Back OT - If i know that the closest members of a squad will be the ones that need to take the saves, that will in fact make me think more about placement of models in units when playing. I don't think it'll break the game but it will make it require more forethought in that sense.

Most codexes don't have Mastery Levels

They might after a rewrite, but right now i think only the GK have mastery level rules ?

Ascalam wrote:Most codexes don't have Mastery Levels

They might after a rewrite, but right now i think only the GK have mastery level rules ?

Only GK have it written in, but it's pretty easy to figure out based on the number of powers a psyker can use a turn.

Back to shields in front of your good troops then, normal marine screens for my devastators.

a SLIGHTLY more psychic 6th Ed would be nice....

Crappy hand drawn sketches of the rulebook or it didn't happen!

This is idiotic and argument inducing. It'll never happen.

Stupid BoW.

Beat me to it warboss!




But yeah, ranks in 40K? What ranks?

If this does indeed happen, I see a big problem of the case where there's more wounds dealt than models closest to the source of the shooting.

"Most codexes don't have Mastery Levels
They might after a rewrite, but right now i think only the GK have mastery level rules?"
I think thats because GKs were the 1st Dex written with 6th Ed in mind.

As for this specific rule...thats going to be tough on Orks. Getting the nob close enough to the front rank that he gets into combat, but not so close that he gets shot up before the charge (or loosing enough orks up front that the charge fails).
Congo-line grots hold 2 or 3 objectives for the win? Not any more. Shoot the closest one right off the objective.
Melta-Vets jump out of the Chimera, get one shot at a vehicle, then get killed since they usually have to be in the front rank to get the range.
Poor flamer guy MUST be in front to shoot...and gets popped first for his trouble...which is much more realistic considering the fate of the guys about to be toasted and who they will be shooting at.
Jump troops can get real snarky...jumping to the side or even to the rear in order to line up shots on 'hidden' ICs and PW/PF Sgts. This rule could also create situations where you may want your Drop-pod Sternguard to come in turn 2 (or even later) to take advantage of angle of shot into units.
And the error of placement where your non-eternal IC just happens to be the closest guy to the Las-Cannon...certainly makes it much more worthwhile taking that single shot Insta-death into a unit rather than a random shot at some already immobilized/stunned transport.

AresX8 wrote:If this does indeed happen, I see a big problem of the case where there's more wounds dealt than models closest to the source of the shooting.

not saying I believe this rumors, but I disagree with your concern. all that would have to happen is once the first ranks all dead, the owning player gets to choose who dies in the next rank.

Maybe there'll be a hint in WD next week,. i mean theres gotta be SOME kind of confirmation this month right? Maybe on the back page? GW surely arent THAT stupid...

morgendonner wrote:

AresX8 wrote:If this does indeed happen, I see a big problem of the case where there's more wounds dealt than models closest to the source of the shooting.

not saying I believe this rumors, but I disagree with your concern. all that would have to happen is once the first ranks all dead, the owning player gets to choose who dies in the next rank.

IIRC, we don't know for sure if the wounds dealt can only be located to the models closest to the source of the shooting. This means that the second rank cannot have wounds allocated to it, but instead the first rank will have to double or more up on the allocated wounds.

DiabolicAl wrote:Maybe there'll be a hint in WD next week,. i mean theres gotta be SOME kind of confirmation this month right? Maybe on the back page? GW surely arent THAT stupid...

A hint in WD about wound allocation in 6th, or a hint about 6th altogether? If the former, that's oddly specific. The latter, well, we can hope. Considering the WD this month will be for June and 6th is allegedly dropping in July, it would be good to at least allude to it.

Also, for those who think this is based on ranks in the unit: Watch the video. It's just done based on models closest to the unit. So here's a simple ASCII diagram. My squad are the o's, and the O is a sergeant. Baddies are x's.
ooo
oOo

xxx
If the x's shoot and I take three wounds, I would have to allocate them to the front o, O, and o. If they shot from behind and did three wounds, I would take them on the ooo in the back. It's not ranks, it's just closest models to the enemy unit.

I'm pretty sure they used "rank" with a rather loose meaning, I think what they meant was you have to allocate to closest model first and work your way back, so if more wounds were dealt than the unit has models, it would just wrap back around and start from the beginning.


Or...the "ranks" term could hint at a new way units have to be situated...like 8th skirmisher rules! (that would...be very very bad).

As for orks, it basically kills the army if this is applied to combat as well. "Screw you and your PK nob!"

There's something about this rule I just don't believe. It will make bikes/speeders pretty dang OP, being able to zip to an angle to take a shot at that one model that's scary in the unit. Then again, if they want to sell fliers, what better way than create a rule that gives them a distinct advantage against infantry?

Yeah, i probably shoudl have been clearer. I meant both really. Maybe something about 6th Ed in general but with a hint about what way they are taking it. (wishful thinking i know - you know it's going to be 'New Edition of Warhammer 40,000 in 2 weeks, place your preorders now!!)

you know the difference between GW marketing team and a field of cowpats?

Nothing

greenbay924 wrote:
There's something about this rule I just don't believe. It will make bikes/speeders pretty dang OP, being able to zip to an angle to take a shot at that one model that's scary in the unit. Then again, if they want to sell fliers, what better way than create a rule that gives them a distinct advantage against infantry?

While it does encourage maneuverability, surely you can just put that important model at the center of the unit?

That might be the whole point though. This might be a round about way of getting rid of wound allocation. All wounds and all failed saves are taken on the closest model and work your way back. No more trying to game the system where Mr. Melta Gun takes all of the AP 2 shots, or Nobs and Paladins playing ring around the rosie. On the other hand, you won't be able to 'accidentally' lose your missile launcher guy when a Venom wound wraps your 5 man squad.

Either way though, when you start talking about 'complex' units (multiple toughnesses and armor saves) this whole thing falls apart into a complicated mess that I'm sure no one would be happy with. So thats why I'm skeptical.

morgendonner wrote:

Ascalam wrote:Most codexes don't have Mastery Levels

They might after a rewrite, but right now i think only the GK have mastery level rules ?

Only GK have it written in, but it's pretty easy to figure out based on the number of powers a psyker can use a turn.

Which would make Old Zogwort, the most powerful Psyker the orks have ever seen, Mastery Level 1?

He turned an entire Guard company into squigs in one go (granted he probably didn't intend to...).

It would also make Fateweaver and the rest of the Lords of Change mastery level 0, despite being categorically stated as being the greatest sorcerors in the multiverse They aren't Psykers..

Tigurius is ML 1, even though he's powerful enough to access the Hive Mind, suppsedly?

I didn't like this approach in fantasy much either, when i played FB. You'd end up having Teclis and Nagash rocking 5's and everyone else out in the cold.

If they were going to change the system to make everyone use Mastery Levels they'd either have to retcon/FAQ the older codexes or rerelease them pretty soon after 6th hit.

Of course it could be that only the GK codex will wind up using the mastery level stuff, also GW aren't too good at keeping to one style or design philosophy for long enough for all the codexes to be updated.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
As to the wound allocation by closest model approach, i think it might be interesting, but it will really shake up the current shenanigans until people figure out new ones.


** edit- lousy spelling**

Brother SRM wrote:

greenbay924 wrote:
There's something about this rule I just don't believe. It will make bikes/speeders pretty dang OP, being able to zip to an angle to take a shot at that one model that's scary in the unit. Then again, if they want to sell fliers, what better way than create a rule that gives them a distinct advantage against infantry?

While it does encourage maneuverability, surely you can just put that important model at the center of the unit?

Think of a 5 man terminator squad, there's no place you can put your character where it wouldn't get hit with the 2nd/3rd shot on the unit. Sure, a large unit of boyz would be fine, but I'm more concerned with something like a nob squad, usually 7-10 strong, with 3 PK (usual kit out, at least for me). It will now be much easier to remove those klawz before combat (if I'm pulled out of my wagon, that is), making the unit pretty much useless.

I still think there's something off about it, like something was lost in translation. That said, it's hard to judge this in a vacuum, would need to know what other changes are being made to actually gauge if this is game breaking, or just a quality of life (simpler wound allocation) change. The one positive thing about it, is wound allocation is NOT in either player's control, outside of the movement phase part. When it comes to actually shooting and wounding, it will be pretty straight forward how it will play out.

greenbay924 wrote:I'm pretty sure they used "rank" with a rather loose meaning, I think what they meant was you have to allocate to closest model first and work your way back, so if more wounds were dealt than the unit has models, it would just wrap back around and start from the beginning.


Or...the "ranks" term could hint at a new way units have to be situated...like 8th skirmisher rules! (that would...be very very bad).

As for orks, it basically kills the army if this is applied to combat as well. "Screw you and your PK nob!"

There's something about this rule I just don't believe. It will make bikes/speeders pretty dang OP, being able to zip to an angle to take a shot at that one model that's scary in the unit. Then again, if they want to sell fliers, what better way than create a rule that gives them a distinct advantage against infantry?

If this is true my Razorwings are going to be happy campers...

I may have to try the rule out as a houserule..

Hugely cinematic? Really? Really???

As I am working at the moment I can't look at the video but based on what has been said I can see this system having a number of advantages.

First, it will encourage people to think more about deployment and movement, rather than wound allocation shenanigans at the army list stage.

Second, as squads get smaller it becomes more likely that you will not be able to keep squad leaders/special weapons safe with the 'meat shield'. Not only is this more realistic it will also encourage bigger squads (which given that I can see kill points going out of this edition some mechanism to stop or slow MSU spam is required).

Third, it will stop conga lines. Enough said

Fourth, it should encourage jump infantry to be played in the way that the fluff would suggest (disrupting key parts of an opponents plans by attacking from an unexpected direction or forcing them to alter their plan to defend accordingly) rather than as happens now them simply being faster versions of normal infantry.

Finally, if there is a general increase in speed (which would favour assault armies) this will provide a counter-balance by allowing gunline armies to maintain distance with good target selection.

I thought the idea was that if your melta marine got killed, the bolter marine would still be there to pick it up and use the better weapon. Which is why you get to pick where you want the wounds.

Or maybe they've worked out a way to sell 40K players movement trays.

mmm i like this but this is what i want to know lets say i have a formation of tac marines like so

Y Y Y Y Y
X X X X X


they are then hit from the front by gun fire from some other squad lets call them Z like so


Y Y Y Y Y
X X X X X


^^^^^^^^^

Z Z Z Z Z


lets then say that Squad z inflicts 6 wounds, would i have to treating it so the Y guys behind X are not effected by that 6th wound, i mean a guy can get shot two times before hitting the ground

If true, Guard command squads will be even more vulnerable to shooting. A five-man unit simply cannot protect a fragile character from more that one direction. Beyond that, I won't even try to guess what effects it would have on the metagame. Chaotic, I should imagine.

In terms of purely visual aspects, having every sergeant, specialist or character be forced to hide in the rear ranks of their units will look rather sad to my eyes.

Its a problem with small units....until they offer buildings to put them in.

*the all new command squad and bunker set. Buy NOW*


Still the idea to mow down the front 'rank' is not bad.

Agamemnon2 wrote: A five-man unit simply cannot protect a fragile character from more that one direction. Beyond that, I won't even try to guess what effects it would have on the metagame. Chaotic, I should imagine.

Which is what I love most about it.

I love the idea that it would make deployment and movement on foot more realistic, cinematic and fit closer with the narrative. What I don't like about it is it's just another reason not to footslog. It also does absolutely nothing about mechanized MSU spam, as razorspam and and especially venom spam are designed to keep units from ever being directly shot at.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cDGlN6mluGA

Can you imagine one bump of the knuckle accidentally knocking a special character out of range? What a bad rule.

edit: I love BoW answer to this problem: "well uhhh plenty of those arguments happen now hurp"

This sounds really bad. Measuring each time to figure out which models are closer? And where do I measure from? This sounds way too much of a hassle to be a real rule. This is the opposite of pancake edition: hugely clunky, the opposite of "more like 8th edition", and the opposite of "good idea"

ph34r wrote:This sounds really bad. Measuring each time to figure out which models are closer? And where do I measure from? This sounds way too much of a hassle to be a real rule.

Honestly, most of the time you should be able to easily eyeball it. After rolling to hit and wound their shouldn't be all that many wounds to worry about. It should generally be a no-brainer to tell to tell which models are closest to yours, and if someone wants to contest a quick swipe of the tape is all that's required.

Sounds like nonesense as this will benefit msu mech the most, multiple fire angles to snipe out characters/weapons and be able to push horde assault units back out of assault range. If this is true it shows GW are sticking to there Grey Knight guns and not making an attempt to rebalance the game. Plus this mechanic plus premeasureing would vastly increase the length of time in the movement phase as all you it's try to "shell" up or maneuver to exact positions to snipe.

I like this this, mostly because Tau just got a massive boost to their JSJ in crisis suits. Hell, even squadrons of Gun Drones would be useful. Pinning TL pulse carbines from any angle you want.

This sounds much better than the horrible 5th ed rules.

I think 5th ed is very playable. It's only some codices that skew it for me. Same as 7th ed fantasy, it was only Daemons that pooped in that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I think 5th ed is very playable. It's only some codices that skew it for me. Same as 7th ed fantasy, it was only Daemons that pooped in that.

This is excellent - personally anything that emphasizes general over codex, makes me happy, very happy indeed.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

ph34r wrote:This sounds really bad. Measuring each time to figure out which models are closer? And where do I measure from? This sounds way too much of a hassle to be a real rule. This is the opposite of pancake edition: hugely clunky, the opposite of "more like 8th edition", and the opposite of "good idea"

Actually, personally, I already have to measure each time I shoot already, don't I?

And the times I don't ...its obvious...which I think this will be as well.

Its is easy to be negative and hate change....

Yeah, Horde assault armies were totally breaking the game. I'm glad this new mechanism will make it harder for them to get into combat.

No wait - that other thing. Dang it.

davethepak wrote:This is excellent - personally anything that emphasizes general over codex, makes me happy, very happy indeed.

.

I'll give it until the second codex release until some characters/units start to override it.

Besides those that already do, like Shield Drones, Bodyguards and the like.

Not sure what to think really about this as it's a simpler system than now but it's a little too simple so people who aren't 8 will think about how to take advantage of it but then again it's always been that way. I still be able to abuse it from both angles as you just need to know how to place your models in correct ways, but my biggest worth is powers like lash, and the deamon version both of which would allow you to make characters or special weapon carrier be at the front thus killing them off easily or have I miss understood the system?

sonsoftaurus wrote:

davethepak wrote:This is excellent - personally anything that emphasizes general over codex, makes me happy, very happy indeed.

.

I'll give it until the second codex release until some characters/units start to override it.

Besides those that already do, like Shield Drones, Bodyguards and the like.

Personally, I am ok with the "overrides" of bodyguards etc...thats what they are there for - specialized models with specialized costs.
This is much better than the current state of affairs.

Again, anything that makes the player more important than the codex (it is today overall - but some matchups are still bad) is good.

However, a lot of this is pure speculation until we get actual specific rules in the context of the whole game.

If this rule is true, say goodbye to the WA shenanigans of Nobs and Paladins.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And again if true, Tau just got a bit better.

rigeld2 wrote:Yeah, Horde assault armies were totally breaking the game. I'm glad this new mechanism will make it harder for them to get into combat.

No wait - that other thing. Dang it.

You're looking at one rumored change in a vacuum. Perhaps this change was meant to handle wound allocation shenanigans, while other changes were meant to handle shooty (or mech-based) armies having an advantage.

As presented, this rule change is an absolutely terrible idea.

First of all, it doesn't address the biggest problems with wound allocation currently, which are: multi-wound allocation shenanigans & the ability to dump all the 'special' attacks onto a limited number of models if you end up getting too many wounds inflicted on a unit. Now, this rumor is isolated, so we could also see fixes to these issues as well, but it is important to note that this change as presented is just a random change to wound allocation instead of actually fixing anything.

So why is this a terrible change? Because 40K is a squad based game with individual models within the unit adding variety. That means the actual placement of the SQAUD on the table should be what matters, *not* the individual models within the unit. The more things you add back in that start making people worry about where exactly specific models need to be moved to increase their survivability the more time players need to take considering and fiddling with the exact placement of where they move each model.

That's why 2nd edition sucked because you had to worry about the firing arcs of EVERY model in the unit, and canny players would turn model arcs to ensure they could fire at the enemy units they weren't supposed to be able to fire at.

3rd & 4th were better, but you still had range and LOS sniping going on (where casualties had to be taken within range and LOS of weapons) which meant that you still had to worry about the placement of your models when you moved them and this absolutely adds a TON of time into the game over the course of the game.

The whole premise of casualty removal as it stands in 5th edition was that if you put the melta guy in the front rank and he gets gunned down when you pull the model of the back it isn't representing the model in the back getting shot, but rather the melta gun guy is going down and the guy in the back is running forward to pick up the weapon. Its only if the actual Melta model is killed does it represent that the weapon itself took some damage and got knocked out of action.


So yeah, this 'fix' does nothing except make players take more time thinking about and moving each model in every unit. Then the process of measuring range to see which models are closest will take more time as well. I'm sure if they do something like this they would make it pretty easy to figure out (you measure from the absolute closest enemy model in the firing unit and then all the 'closest' models in the target unit are determined from that point), but even so, its an extra step that you didn't need to do before.

And then from that point, its still basically the same process we have now (as presented in that video), so it looks like you'd still be rolling for each 'group' of individually armed models...this system would make it a LITTLE harder to clump 'specialty' wounds all onto the models you want (as I assume you'd have to wrap extra wounds back around to the front models in the unit again), but you'd still totally be able to do it.



So in short: This rule fixes no problems and adds a bunch of time to the game and takes the focus away from where it should be (squad tactics) and puts it improperly back onto model tactics. If you want to deal with model tactics, then you should be playing a skirmish game, not 40K.

Therefore I hate this rumor and I hope it is all bullocks or that it is so incomplete that we're missing something else that makes it much better.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Puscifer wrote:If this rule is true, say goodbye to the WA shenanigans of Nobs and Paladins.

The rule as presented has absolutely no real effect on multi-wound model shenanigans. Yes you're forced where to place the wounds, but they'd still be spread out exactly as they are now. And all you'd have to do is move the wounded guys to the back of the unit and you're fine.

The change that needs to happen to fix this issue is something similar to the leaked PDF, where excess wounds are always consolidated at the end of the phase, removing models and the extra wounds until there is only one wounded model left in the unit at the end of every phase.

Given that this is from the guys who a few videos down seriously try to make a case that you can flame yourself, I'll call their grasp of how to read rules tenuous at best. Even if something like this is coming, I doubt their explanation of it.

H.B.M.C. wrote:Or maybe they've worked out a way to sell 40K players movement trays.

Hey, my horde IG uses them already so I guess they're ahead of the game for once!

If anything these wound changes (if real) will unfortunately add time to the game as people will spend even more time trying to position the squad members within each unit. While that's theoretically nice and all, in reality it means that games will take longer. With points values going down per fig with most codicies and tourny values going up (along with average pickup game sizes), this just means that the average game will take significantly longer. I'm hoping for some streamlined rules for the large combat game that 40k is slowly becoming.

I love this change, but my concern is like people have said, characters up front. Leaders would be at the front but I am sure not all would easily die just because they were in the front. I hope there is an added rule which lets you allocate 1 wound every 3 or something to any model in the unit of your choosing. So this could represent the bullets/lasers going past a character and hitting someone in the back row.

UNCLEBADTOUCH wrote:Sounds like nonesense as this will benefit msu mech the most, multiple fire angles to snipe out characters/weapons and be able to push horde assault units back out of assault range. .

Agreed.

Yay for Mech Guard still being extremely viable (based on this one rule mind you)

yakface wrote:
That's why 2nd edition sucked because you had to worry about the firing arcs of EVERY model in the unit, and canny players would turn model arcs to ensure they could fire at the enemy units they weren't supposed to be able to fire at.

I don't see an issue there. I like nuances such as this when they are build into the core rules. Its much better than just running a big blob where positioning matters little.

The issue of 2nd ed 'sucking' is also rather contentious

The current Wound allocation system is fundamentally broken and while this rumour alone doesn't mean that it is totally fixed it is an improvement. Hopefully there is more to it.

As H.B.M.C. already noted - 'ranks' and 40K?

No thanks!

Really, I am a fan of BoW, but they really need to stop this non-rumor rumor crap.

This rumour is absolutely ridiculous. After the flyer "reveal" by BoW, I don't trust them about anything. As usual, I'll just wait and see what happens.

I agree, these rumours sound just ridiculous. I feel like I'm reading some 40K version of Weekly World News....

This rule can make outflanking shooty units very viable and potent. However this rule as rumored would be a nightmare to play in a tourny setting. I can already hear all the arguments about which model is closer, what the actual reference point is for who is closer, and who got bumped forward by accident or terrain.

This will make the game horrible in my opinion

Yakface -

From what I got from that video, was that the closest models have to take the wounds no matter what. I think that this might have overridden the WA shenanigans IMO. But... Salt and Speculation.

I think this is quite funny though...

4th ed and 5th ed boned Tau quite badly upon release. Now this may have fixed Tau for a bit. I just tested the rules using a Battlesuit Unit with Shield Drones.

Overall verdict is they are quite powerful when used with these rules. JSJ behind the unit, shooting their specials while a Firewarrior Team blasts them from the front is quite badass. It's made Tau shooting quite nasty.

But again... Salt and Speculation.

I expect that this is only the first in a series of speculative videos from the BoW crew. I enjoy their banter and the fact that they're spoon feeding at least some details about 6th when GW is being so tight-lipped about it all. 4 years ago by this time black boxes would have been on their way to gaming stores with the shiney new 5th ed rulebooks. These days we get nothing but a white dwarf 7 days before the stuff releases. So, speculative or not, at least it's a discussion point.

I've read through (and taken notes on) the entire pancake document more times than was probably rational... The rules presented in that pdf were well written, fluid, and aside from some typos and a few "huh?" moments, would have made a GREAT 6th edition. Then beasts of war even did a video talking about it and how much they liked it...only to recant about a week later and say that their 'source' confirmed that it was a playtest but wouldn't see the printers. It's irrational but seeing these rumors about wound allocation, psyker love, and basically WH Fantasy w/ guns rumors I begin to wonder...

What if the debunking of the pancake edition is simply obfuscation? Why would the GW team scrap a good ruleset that was HUGELY accepted by the internet community in favor of just modifying their 8th ed fantasy book to include plasma guns and bolters, etc? Sure, the pancake could use tweaks (keep the turn order the same, for example) but overall working off that set of rules would make more sense than starting fresh and giving us Warhammer FantasyK. I'm at a loss, but I will be watching the Beasts of War site now to see what else they have to throw at us regarding 6th.

As to their flyer rumors, it's the 17th now so the White Dwarf for june is just 9 days away from street date...which means that leaked pictures should start showing up as early as this weekend, if past trends hold true. Let's see if they were accurate about the storm talon, fighta-bomma, and night/doom scythe kits.

Puscifer wrote:
From what I got from that video, was that the closest models have to take the wounds no matter what. I think that this might have overridden the WA shenanigans IMO. But... Salt and Speculation.

Taking this with 5th ed rules, this still woundn't prevent a player from putting 2 HighS/LowAP wounds on the same model, which is the only problem with Wound Allocation in 5th.

elrabin wrote:

Puscifer wrote:
From what I got from that video, was that the closest models have to take the wounds no matter what. I think that this might have overridden the WA shenanigans IMO. But... Salt and Speculation.

Taking this with 5th ed rules, this still woundn't prevent a player from putting 2 HighS/LowAP wounds on the same model, which is the only problem with Wound Allocation in 5th.

Going by pancake as a reference - what if the # of wounds possessed by models had to be filled before moving to the next models, with instant death wounds counting as a full model's worth? Then those 2 lascannon shots would gimp 2 nobz boom-pow. Without knowing the full scope of the rumored rule and the rest of the rules that go along with it it's hard to judge if this will fix WAS or not.

tetrisphreak wrote:

elrabin wrote:

Puscifer wrote:
From what I got from that video, was that the closest models have to take the wounds no matter what. I think that this might have overridden the WA shenanigans IMO. But... Salt and Speculation.

Taking this with 5th ed rules, this still woundn't prevent a player from putting 2 HighS/LowAP wounds on the same model, which is the only problem with Wound Allocation in 5th.

Going by pancake as a reference - what if the # of wounds possessed by models had to be filled before moving to the next models, with instant death wounds counting as a full model's worth? Then those 2 lascannon shots would gimp 2 nobz boom-pow. Without knowing the full scope of the rumored rule and the rest of the rules that go along with it it's hard to judge if this will fix WAS or not.

I would expect a simple solution that keeps a similar feel to the current version -- you assign wounds one weapon type at a time. Even if you start wrapping wounds, this would prevent you from stacking ID wounds on one model.

elrabin wrote:

tetrisphreak wrote:

elrabin wrote:

Puscifer wrote:
From what I got from that video, was that the closest models have to take the wounds no matter what. I think that this might have overridden the WA shenanigans IMO. But... Salt and Speculation.

Taking this with 5th ed rules, this still woundn't prevent a player from putting 2 HighS/LowAP wounds on the same model, which is the only problem with Wound Allocation in 5th.

Going by pancake as a reference - what if the # of wounds possessed by models had to be filled before moving to the next models, with instant death wounds counting as a full model's worth? Then those 2 lascannon shots would gimp 2 nobz boom-pow. Without knowing the full scope of the rumored rule and the rest of the rules that go along with it it's hard to judge if this will fix WAS or not.

I would expect a simple solution that keeps a similar feel to the current version -- you assign wounds one weapon type at a time. Even if you start wrapping wounds, this would prevent you from stacking ID wounds on one model.

I agree - allocating wounds based on weapons strength/AP goes a lot further to make the game more balanced than allocating by wargear on the targeted models. If 2 of my plasma shots cause wounds to space marines, I expect 2 space marines to die, not just the 1 guy with a meltagun because the bolter wounds wrapped around the unit.

Chimera_Calvin wrote:Finally, if there is a general increase in speed (which would favour assault armies) this will provide a counter-balance by allowing gunline armies to maintain distance with good target selection.

Which was a bit of a problem in pancake edition. In my test games, I was swamping my opponent with ease (using Tyranids). So could I see this happening, along with the Snap Fire rumor? Sure. It'll certainly mess with some things, but players will adjust.

I'm personally keeping my mind open even to the crazier rumors that crop up, just because I think all signs point to some significant changes to our game in a couple months. And I'm looking forward to it. Fifth edition was a good edition, but it's gotten stale IMO.

tetrisphreak wrote:What if the debunking of the pancake edition is simply obfuscation? Why would the GW team scrap a good ruleset that was HUGELY accepted by the internet community in favor of just modifying their 8th ed fantasy book to include plasma guns and bolters, etc? Sure, the pancake could use tweaks (keep the turn order the same, for example) but overall working off that set of rules would make more sense than starting fresh and giving us Warhammer FantasyK.

I loved the pancake edition as well, although I've kinda accepted that it's not what we're going to get. If I had to lay money on something, I'd guess that there are some things from pancake that could make it into 6th, and that there are some concepts that could cross over in spirit even if the rules approach is different (Defensive fire => Snap Fire?).

But I also think they likely had 6th edition set in stone before the pancake edition was released, so the response from the community was largely irrelevant.

Added this salt-clogged rumor to the rumor monger thread. Just sounds like a weird mechanic.

How does BoW rate on the Rumor Monger accuracy scale?

Alpharius wrote:How does BoW rate on the Rumor Monger accuracy scale?

Comic relief?
Well, they sometimes leak pics early.

No one has asked this yet so far as I can read, but what will this do to blast weapons? If a devil dog is hitting a DS assault squad and hits 6 wounds, do just the 3 models closest take the 6 wounds and the rest of the squad goes unmolested?

Any opinions?

Lysenis wrote:No one has asked this yet so far as I can read, but what will this do to blast weapons? If a devil dog is hitting a DS assault squad and hits 6 wounds, do just the 3 models closest take the 6 wounds and the rest of the squad goes unmolested?

Any opinions?

In my opinion, wound allocation will not work anything like BoW has described at all.

No thanks, I already played 3rd and 4th ed range sniping, rather not backslide.

Watched the video, it may be more cinematic or realistic... but it's much less heroic and epic having your leaders cowering behind ranks of cannon fodder. I hope the rules as a whole complement each other much better than all the individual pieces we are seeing. Looks like a mess so far.

tetrisphreak wrote:
What if the debunking of the pancake edition is simply obfuscation? Why would the GW team scrap a good ruleset that was HUGELY accepted by the internet community in favor of just modifying their 8th ed fantasy book to include plasma guns and bolters, etc? Sure, the pancake could use tweaks (keep the turn order the same, for example) but overall working off that set of rules would make more sense than starting fresh and giving us Warhammer FantasyK. I'm at a loss, but I will be watching the Beasts of War site now to see what else they have to throw at us regarding 6th.

My thoughts exactly, the way they debunked pancake was always a bit fishy, It pretty much overnight shutdown most of the momentum and hype of pancake which is exactly what GW would have wanted.

Kroothawk wrote:

Alpharius wrote:How does BoW rate on the Rumor Monger accuracy scale?

Comic relief?
Well, they sometimes leak pics early.

Beasts of War -
Flyers
Ork fighter PENDING
Storm hawk PENDING
2 Necron flyersPENDING

Leaked 6th Ed is Real
It was an 'all in' playtest, evasion out, turns and apoc not changed PENDING

Wound Allocation
Wound Allocation is closest models to shooting unit first. PENDING


We don't have a lot of historical data submitted, so most of it is recent. They are really hanging their hat on the whole 6th edition thing though. I think they will get credit for the flyers. I should probably add the leaked necron pics for them though.

All I have to say is this:

I think this makes a lot of sense, I always found it strange that I could kill 8 Orks in an advancing mod of boys and the front line remains exactly where it is. Those front 8 should be dead hopefully forcing the unit further back.

The way it's played now, technically the units gets a free move as they get to re-coup the front row of guys and not lose any ground.

No idea how to take this, my gut is saying just to sit back and wait, however we are now getting very close to when we should expect to see 6th on the horizon.

As someone has already noted in this thread and something I have said myself several times in recent months, will GW actually release 6th with only the week or so notice they have been using the past year.

Crazy in my mind if they do, but I'm waiting with interest. I'm just eager to see where we are going rules wise for the next four years with this edition.

http://www.beastsofwar.com/warhammer-40k/fantasy-style-challenges-warhammer-40k-close-combat/

Another rumour vid has been put up, Warhammer fantasy style challenges.

This is so silly. 6th edition will not be Warhammer Fantasy 40,000.

40k and Fantasy are designed to be nothing alike. If they were to be similar, GW has failed.

It's actually rather ironic that Darrel, the guy who has a very problematic interpretation of preexisting Codecies and Rulebooks, is extrapolating rumors from what he hears about 6thEd.

The challenge rumor seems even more stupid from a flavor standpoint. The Tyranid Codex even has a hilarious scene of a 'challenge' presented against it by an Avatar... and the Tyrant subsequently responds to the 'challenge' by ordering four Carnifexes to eat the Avatar.

This "challenging" rule complicates matters even further. Can Bjorn challenge? Can Sanguinary Priests? Can Runt'erds? A unit of four ICs?

Again, this is complicated, has little impact, and any impact it may have would be rules-explotation by unfun players. Opposite of pancake-edition rules. Opposite of fun.

Morathi's Darkest Sin wrote:No idea how to take this, my gut is saying just to sit back and wait, however we are now getting very close to when we should expect to see 6th on the horizon.

As someone has already noted in this thread and something I have said myself several times in recent months, will GW actually release 6th with only the week or so notice they have been using the past year.

This would be terrible, what about all of us who need ample time to set funds aside and preorder what will most likely be a $70+ book? (based off fantasy 8th). Not to mention if they do collector's edition. I really, really hate GW's release philosophy of "let's do no advertising, no promotions, no nothing! That'll sell models!" If I knew what armies were on the horizon, or rules changes, I could plan finances accordingly, as it stands it's more like "dang, those new necrons are nice, too bad I need to eat this week or I would have totally ordered some."

Alpharius wrote:

Lysenis wrote:No one has asked this yet so far as I can read, but what will this do to blast weapons? If a devil dog is hitting a DS assault squad and hits 6 wounds, do just the 3 models closest take the 6 wounds and the rest of the squad goes unmolested?

Any opinions?

In my opinion, wound allocation will not work anything like BoW has described at all.

Agreed

Actually, I'm also willing to believe challenges are possible. Not sure the BoW guys have a good grasp of the details...I suspect there are some limiting factors in there. But sure, the general idea is plausible enough.

Regarding making 40K more like WFB...can you imagine a GW executive deciding that they'd get more cross-pollenation between their core games if they made their rules more alike instead of continuing to make them more dissimilar? I can. I don't know that I'd agree, but I can believe someone in the organization might have ideas like that.

pretre wrote:We don't have a lot of historical data submitted, so most of it is recent. They are really hanging their hat on the whole 6th edition thing though

I agree. We will know soon enough...

tetrisphreak wrote: I'm at a loss, but I will be watching the Beasts of War site now to see what else they have to throw at us regarding 6th.

And this is exactly what BoW is counting on. Sensationalize or outright make up info and reap the link bait revenue. These sites used to have to worry about their reputation on rumor related things, and now it's just become a contest to see who can stir up the gaming population the most. Doesn't matter that people may think it's bogus if they still click the link.

At least Pretre is compiling a list for all the rumormongers, so hopefully these shenanigans won't be so quickly forgotten when the next big release is on the horizon.

greenbay924 wrote:

Morathi's Darkest Sin wrote:No idea how to take this, my gut is saying just to sit back and wait, however we are now getting very close to when we should expect to see 6th on the horizon.

As someone has already noted in this thread and something I have said myself several times in recent months, will GW actually release 6th with only the week or so notice they have been using the past year.

This would be terrible, what about all of us who need ample time to set funds aside and preorder what will most likely be a $70+ book? (based off fantasy 8th). Not to mention if they do collector's edition. I really, really hate GW's release philosophy of "let's do no advertising, no promotions, no nothing! That'll sell models!" If I knew what armies were on the horizon, or rules changes, I could plan finances accordingly, as it stands it's more like "dang, those new necrons are nice, too bad I need to eat this week or I would have totally ordered some."

Aye, pretty much why I've been raising it. I cannot quite believe GW would be daft enough to spring such a large release out of the blue. For individual armies, codexes and like maybe thats just about fine, but a whole edition change, nah, surely not. Also taking into account collectors/limited editions etc it really seems crazy to me that they may do this.

I am wondering though, We'll know with the next White Dwarf, because at the very least the White Dwarf before 8th Fantasy came out advertised it, and I think preorders for the limited bits came online the week after the June White Dwarf came out.

Cadaver wrote:At least Pretre is compiling a list for all the rumormongers, so hopefully these shenanigans won't be so quickly forgotten when the next big release is on the horizon.

Muahahahahahahahaha

And then I will have my REVENGE!

Morathi's Darkest Sin wrote:

greenbay924 wrote:

Morathi's Darkest Sin wrote:No idea how to take this, my gut is saying just to sit back and wait, however we are now getting very close to when we should expect to see 6th on the horizon.

As someone has already noted in this thread and something I have said myself several times in recent months, will GW actually release 6th with only the week or so notice they have been using the past year.

This would be terrible, what about all of us who need ample time to set funds aside and preorder what will most likely be a $70+ book? (based off fantasy 8th). Not to mention if they do collector's edition. I really, really hate GW's release philosophy of "let's do no advertising, no promotions, no nothing! That'll sell models!" If I knew what armies were on the horizon, or rules changes, I could plan finances accordingly, as it stands it's more like "dang, those new necrons are nice, too bad I need to eat this week or I would have totally ordered some."

Aye, pretty much why I've been raising it. I cannot quite believe GW would be daft enough to spring such a large release out of the blue. For individual armies, codexes and like maybe thats just about fine, but a whole edition change, nah, surely not. Also taking into account collectors/limited editions etc it really seems crazy to me that they may do this.

I am wondering though, We'll know with the next White Dwarf, because at the very least the White Dwarf before 8th Fantasy came out advertised it, and I think preorders for the limited bits came online the week after the June White Dwarf came out.

Lightbulb moment- beasts has alluded to getting a look at June white dwarf (without actually saying it) and put "smart money" on July 7 as 6th Ed release day. Could this mean there is an actual announcement in June's WD? I guess we will find out in 9 days....

pretre wrote:

Cadaver wrote:At least Pretre is compiling a list for all the rumormongers, so hopefully these shenanigans won't be so quickly forgotten when the next big release is on the horizon.

Muahahahahahahahaha

And then I will have my REVENGE!

Really? PLEASE tell me you are seriously doing this, and doing some good research, and trying to get the MODs to sticky this at the top of News & Rumors. I think it is a fantastic idea, as long as everyone keeps it rational and sober, and not an occasion for finger-pointing or name-calling or general trolling or flaming.

Please MODs! Let this kind of past history/reliability database be made and stickied!

-C6

IMO, I think GW has finally figured out how to handle leaks and rumors... Flood the community with false information and we'll have no idea what to believe... I have no clue what's real anymore. Up is down, Obama is republican... WTF is going on?

I'm waiting to see something concrete.

catharsix wrote:Really? PLEASE tell me you are seriously doing this, and doing some good research, and trying to get the MODs to sticky this at the top of News & Rumors. I think it is a fantastic idea, as long as everyone keeps it rational and sober, and not an occasion for finger-pointing or name-calling or general trolling or flaming.

Please MODs! Let this kind of past history/reliability database be made and stickied!

-C6

It's under Discussions: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/448304.page

Is it time for the next TURTLE SOUP crusade?

*UPDATE EDIT*
Never mind, there's no chat room

reps0l wrote:

catharsix wrote:Really? PLEASE tell me you are seriously doing this, and doing some good research, and trying to get the MODs to sticky this at the top of News & Rumors. I think it is a fantastic idea, as long as everyone keeps it rational and sober, and not an occasion for finger-pointing or name-calling or general trolling or flaming.

Please MODs! Let this kind of past history/reliability database be made and stickied!

-C6

It's under Discussions: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/448304.page

Thanks! I went over there to put in a post of support.

-C6

catharsix wrote:
Thanks! I went over there to put in a post of support.

-C6

Yeah, I tried to get it kept in N&R, but it was almost immediately moved. Maybe if it takes off a bit more, we can get a sticky in N&R.

Thanks for the support though, C6!

And Mods, feel free to move it back and sticky it. I'll be good, I promise.

Glasses dude looks really uncomfortable on camera. It really shows when he makes the mistake of not taking the wound on his Sargent. It's the only model in the terminator unit without a powerfist. That's just bad play.

:edit: These people do not belong on camera. It's like a pile of Ben Stillers being smug.

That video was rage inducing in terms of how they dithered and danced around the topic. I shouldn't have to listen to your rumour video for four minutes before you start explaining the actual rumour!

As regards the rule, it sounds daft. Surely the whole point is that my opponent shoots at my unit over the course of its move, and thus losing 3 models from the back 'row' reflects the squad closing ranks as it advances under fire? Maybe it is because I'm an Ork player, and I love flamers on my marines, but it really doesn't please me all that much. It sounds like a great way to make the rules become over-literal in terms of firing at stuff.

Its ineresting that BoW is still so poular, I stopped watching their videos months ago.

Challenges sounds fun, especially for me that has Orks, Chaos Marines and Space Wolves.

Can't stand BoW. Can't stand their approach to "reporting".
It reminds me of much that I dislike about gamers, and gaming when I watch them.
I'd prefer to ignore them all together, which I have been doing a fairly good job of till right now.
However, I haven't watched the video, so I still consider myself pure as the driven snow.
XD

Unlike with the casualty removal rumor, challenges, if written well could definitely improve the game because they are indeed more cinematic, which is typically a good thing and they can actually speed up gameplay by not making it important exactly where your IC is located in combat, which I thought was quite a bit silly given the fairly abstract nature of combat casualty removal. I also like that it sounds like you can refuse a challenge as a way to potentially save your IC from being stomped on, presumably at the cost of that IC not fighting that round (which is a fair trade-off) and gives you a little protection for your non-powerhouse ICs.

Of course the real big questions about such a rule would be exactly what models are allowed to challenge or be challenged (just ICs or what about upgrade characters too?), how many challenges can be issued and which player gets to challenge first (or issue the one and only challenge if only one is allowed per combat).

All of those questions will surely be answered by the rulebook, or failing that the FAQ, or failing that a judgement by INAT.

I could see this slowing down battles a tiny bit but make it so much more cinematic as the guys in the front get gunned down first. It also kinda makes sense that the sarge would be in the back.
I'm perfectly fine with putting my nob in the middle-rear so that by the time I charge, it looks like the nob's stepping up to the plate to wreck face.

If this pans out, then nobody in their right mind will be accepting Necron challenges, because every Lord/Overlord will be carrying Mindshackle Scarabs.
:/

Chowderhead wrote:This is so silly. 6th edition will not be Warhammer Fantasy 40,000.

40k and Fantasy are designed to be nothing alike. If they were to be similar, GW has failed.

Fantasy and 40k have lots in common. In 2nd ed you could technically play a 40k army against a Fantasy army without too much trouble, although they wouldn't be balanced for each other whatsoever. If 40k and Fantasy were meant to be nothing alike, they wouldn't share so many of the same archetypes or have Warhammer in the name.

I actually like the challenging rumor. I think it's very cool, and very, very 40k.

matphat wrote:Can't stand BoW. Can't stand their approach to "reporting".
It reminds me of much that I dislike about gamers, and gaming when I watch them.
I'd prefer to ignore them all together, which I have been doing a fairly good job of till right now.
However, I haven't watched the video, so I still consider myself pure as the driven snow.
XD

If you hate gamers and gaming why do you comment at all? All you are is a gamer if you play. Please put things constructive and not flaming, it just makes you look like a fool as well as any work you ever post.

On topic: BoW style is their own, they are hitting hard on a newsreporting fashion that is decent. I will say that once again they don't seem to get flack from GW so I would say that they are in cahoots with them. My opinion and is not backed by any hard evidence.

That said, making the game more realistic makes me happy, no more "my priest is going to sit in the back hiding" or "my IC will charge the weakest member so that it will live!" It becomes what I will somewhat enjoy and that is thd ability to build fluff!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The fact thaf yakface himself commented says enough and I do strongly agree with him. (one of the few times I do)

Lepuke wrote:

tetrisphreak wrote:
What if the debunking of the pancake edition is simply obfuscation? Why would the GW team scrap a good ruleset that was HUGELY accepted by the internet community in favor of just modifying their 8th ed fantasy book to include plasma guns and bolters, etc? Sure, the pancake could use tweaks (keep the turn order the same, for example) but overall working off that set of rules would make more sense than starting fresh and giving us Warhammer FantasyK. I'm at a loss, but I will be watching the Beasts of War site now to see what else they have to throw at us regarding 6th.

My thoughts exactly, the way they debunked pancake was always a bit fishy, It pretty much overnight shutdown most of the momentum and hype of pancake which is exactly what GW would have wanted.

+1 to that. I think we will see a lot of pancake in the new rulebook (crosses fingers).

skoffs wrote:If this pans out, then nobody in their right mind will be accepting Necron challenges, because every Lord/Overlord will be carrying Mindshackle Scarabs.
:/

Aye, and this is just about the reason why I would seriously doubt the challenges bit. (But I'll still hope... )

I really don't understand how people think this will "slow the game down". Wound allocation is the slowest system they've ever developed for handling mixed equipment and it's easily the most exploitable. Almost anything would be an improvement on both fronts. I always hated the idea of taking wounds from the back. If it's assumed that the guys in back just push forward to replace the losses than why don't they just get two more inches of movement in the first place?

It's illogical to think that it somehow "makes sense".

I don't feel its more realistic at all. You have to consider you have to hit. That means bullets are flying by the front ranks of models. Then you have to wound those models that you hit. Just because you might hit the front rank doesn't mean that you wound the front rank. The same could be said for the bullets that get by the front rank. You could have hit them and wounded them. But now the front row dies? That does not make sense.

I honestly am very concerned with 6th edition. I have not heard alot of anything that I like about it. This whole 40k fantasy match up is just plan dumb. If I wanted to play fantasy I would play fantasy. I have tried fantasy and I must say I don't like it. From 6th to 8th I just can't get into it.

I honestly hope this is all fake.

I don't feel its more realistic at all. You have to consider you have to hit. That means bullets are flying by the front ranks of models. Then you have to wound those models that you hit. Just because you might hit the front rank doesn't mean that you wound the front rank. The same could be said for the bullets that get by the front rank. You could have hit them and wounded them. But now the front row dies? That does not make sense.

As opposed to one guy taking three melta gun hits while everyone else takes a few meaningless bolter rounds? Or the guy in the far back taking kennedys magic bullet to the head while the special weapon and power fist dudes are effectively immune to death until they get lonely?

It's the most realistic system they've developed so far.

Oh I don't think that what they have is the best, its needs improvement. I am just not so sure this is the right thing to do. It really doesn't make sense to me. But nothing that has come down the rumor mill has.

Challenges....really!?

I can see a Tau Ethereal challenging a Demon Prince. Yeah right! Or that Tau Ethereal actually accepting that challenge. Its a waste of space in a rulebook. I don't see many people actually accepting it. When you can do that allready by moving your HQ into base with said HQ.

But I am just going to wait and see what the deal is.

balsak_da_mighty wrote:Oh I don't think that what they have is the best, its needs improvement. I am just not so sure this is the right thing to do. It really doesn't make sense to me. But nothing that has come down the rumor mill has.

Challenges....really!?

I can see a Tau Ethereal challenging a Demon Prince. Yeah right! Or that Tau Ethereal actually accepting that challenge. Its a waste of space in a rulebook. I don't see many people actually accepting it. When you can do that allready by moving your HQ into base with said HQ.

But I am just going to wait and see what the deal is.

You mean you've never wanted your Space Marine captain to duel your opponent's Autarch? Your Warboss to duel their Chaos Lord? That stuff is awesome. Big clashes of heroes is one of 40k's biggest enduring images. This would give you a bit more of an option, as you can call out their HQ or vice versa, regardless of where they are in the unit. Characters aren't always exactly where you want them you know. Besides, I'm sure you can move your character into base contact and have it work just like it does already. That is, of course, if any of this is true which is still up in the air.

Actually no. This isn't hero hammer even though it has seemed like that the past couple of years. I play Orks I use Meks. So no I don't want them in CC. My HQ's are there because I have to have them. Nothing more then that. Meks are better for there KFF then they would ever be in CC.

I honestly think it would always be one sided, just like fantasy is. I have never seen a good match up with fantasy when this is done. Its always a Unit leader to an uber Lord unit. Its a waste of time and effort for the weaker side.

Now whether their will be a negative I am not sure. But I can tell you it does not make me happy about it for sure.

Anyone notice that ghazgull is supposed to have 7 attacks? That implies... there is an auto counter charge? Or is this supposed to be an error cause it'd be a pretty huge change.

Charge orks with CSM terminator squad. Suddenly MANZ get 4 powerfist attacks each. What?

They aren't too good at the rules.

They mention Forceweaponing Ghaz down too, which he is immune to

Ghaz has 5 Attacks if he's being charged, and 7 if he's charging.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Meganobz have 3 PK attacks, 4 if charging.

I think they may have gotten lost as to who was charging who

Yeah this idea is terrible since it pretty much allows the enemy to snipe any model IC or otherwise simply with good positioning. The only bright side is that IG storm troopers can be used as suicide assassination squads now by deepstriking with some plasma guns and a pistol and popping an expensive IC from behind his troop shield.

Ever since BoW sold out to Wayland Games and let all the money get to their heads I've noticed a huge lack of quality, some of their older stuff was pretty good though

Ascalam wrote:They aren't too good at the rules.

They mention Forceweaponing Ghaz down too, which he is immune to

Ghaz has 5 Attacks if he's being charged, and 7 if he's charging.

Meganobz have 3 PK attacks, 4 if charging.

I think they may have gotten lost as to who was charging who

Yeah I figured as much. Well now we know why he never fields any nobz but MANZ lulz. Dude thinks they always have 4 attacks.

I must say, I almost expect the next video to be about cover and how they're now ranged To-Hit modifiers instead of a save.

davethepak wrote:This is excellent - personally anything that emphasizes general over codex, makes me happy, very happy indeed.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

ph34r wrote:This sounds really bad. Measuring each time to figure out which models are closer? And where do I measure from? This sounds way too much of a hassle to be a real rule. This is the opposite of pancake edition: hugely clunky, the opposite of "more like 8th edition", and the opposite of "good idea"

Actually, personally, I already have to measure each time I shoot already, don't I?

And the times I don't ...its obvious...which I think this will be as well.

Its is easy to be negative and hate change....

Try telling someone to eyeball it when you are trying to do model removal from their 20 man las/plas blob to your 20 man las/plas blob. Where do you measure to and from? Things are gonna get heated when it's the difference between the models that actually matter (special weapons, sergeants) dying, and basic goons dying.

deejaybainbridge wrote:http://www.beastsofwar.com/warhammer-40k/fantasy-style-challenges-warhammer-40k-close-combat/

Another rumour vid has been put up, Warhammer fantasy style challenges.

Can sombody sum up what they're actually saying in the 2nd vid? I can't get on BoW at work

Gorechild wrote:Can sombody sum up what they're actually saying in the 2nd vid? I can't get on BoW at work

Warhammer fantasy style challenges for IC's and unique characters.

Gorechild wrote:

deejaybainbridge wrote:http://www.beastsofwar.com/warhammer-40k/fantasy-style-challenges-warhammer-40k-close-combat/

Another rumour vid has been put up, Warhammer fantasy style challenges.

Can sombody sum up what they're actually saying in the 2nd vid? I can't get on BoW at work

Its a really, really rough rumor without any info on any of the questions they even ask each other in the video.

Basically, a character in combat can challenge another character in combat to fight one-on-one and the other character can apparently potentially refuse and move to the back of the combat (presumably not to fight that round) or it sounds like you might be able to have lesser characters accept the challenge instead.

No word on which side gets to issue challenges first, how many challenges can be made, exactly which models can challenge or accept challenges, exactly what happens when you refuse a challenge and whether or not a challenge prevents the combatants from being attacked by other models in the combat.

Its basically just saying that there will be some sort of challenge system similar to what they have in fantasy.

Wow, thats going to f--- meltaguns on foot.

In 2nd ed. you fired each weapon individually and the nearest model had to save each time a wound was rolled. the nearest model always took each shot until it was dead. There wasn't any allocation at all.

This is close to that and will be pointlessly tedious. The fact that it will be multiple models firing upon mutiple models will screw this to hell. Think determining cover but for each individual model.

No, this will not happen.

Chimera_Calvin wrote:* Second, as squads get smaller it becomes more likely that you will not be able to keep squad leaders/special weapons safe with the 'meat shield'.

* Third, it will stop conga lines. Enough said

This really punishes MSU armies -- which is not such a bad thing given the inherent advantage MSU has. If you have 8 bullet catchers in a squad, you can keep moving more to the front as you advance.

It hurts ork conga-lines, as the PK in the front will pretty much die instantly now. While this hurt foot orks, it makes the army look better on the table. Personally I think conga-lined orks look dumb.

Bike armies, depending on their speed, can still conga-line. This is due to the greater movement, allowing you to take a few losses in the front and still get your weapons to where you need them to be. Bikes will also get another advantage by being able to move to the flank of a unit to open fire.

Aah right, thanks Yak

I'm not that familiar with the Fantasy rules, but it sounds fairly reasonable to me. Any change that introduces more decision making is positive imo. Too much hinges on luck and list writing/googling at the moment, if the players had to make important choices on the fly, I think it would make the game much more varied and interesting.

Obviously this change alone wouldn't change much, but it's a step in the right direction.

This way of allocating wounds would also dovetail nicely with the "directed wounds" that appeared in Pancake ed.

In fact, a unit of SM Scouts with SR suddenly becomes a sound investement if, in 6th, they can bypass the normal (ie these) rules for casualty removal and simply concentrate fire on removing the PK nob, Cryptek or whatever...

SlaveToDorkness wrote:In 2nd ed. you fired each weapon individually and the nearest model had to save each time a wound was rolled. the nearest model always took each shot until it was dead. There wasn't any allocation at all.

You were playing it wrong.

There's that word again. Cinematic. I don't think it means what he thinks it means.

I don't like any rules that allow you to target and specifically remove equipment from troops. In this game you do not take 10 tactical marines because of their deadly bolters. A squads effectiveness is measured by what it can do, and in a game normalized by T4 3+ saves, standard infantry weapons are useless

If you start picking out klawz, fists, melts guns etc, you make really boring games, because you've quickly removed the threat a squad generates. It makes people even less likely to take troops.

I don't trust half of what I read or see and the other half seems to be rubbish. Having said that GW seems to be moving towards a 'cinematic' approach to the game. While I admit trying to figure out who is closest, next closest etc is time consuming and subject to interpretation I can see GW insisting that the closest models are removed first. And I'm specifically thinking of Rourkes Drift here where the Impi kept leaping over the fallen troops to get to the British.

All this change would do is force the players to change their tactics. I keep hearing people say that 40K is more tactical than fantasy, so why do players insist on just pushing blobs forward not caring about where the individual components are. Character/special weapon/support weapon sniping has existed in all the editions I can remember.

If these prove to be true we'll adapt and overcome just as players have alway done.

Cheers

Andrew

Goresaw wrote:I don't like any rules that allow you to target and specifically remove equipment from troops. In this game you do not take 10 tactical marines because of their deadly bolters. A squads effectiveness is measured by what it can do, and in a game normalized by T4 3+ saves, standard infantry weapons are useless

If you start picking out klawz, fists, melts guns etc, you make really boring games, because you've quickly removed the threat a squad generates. It makes people even less likely to take troops.

My Necrons would happily embrace such a change...given that we can't give our troops equipment anyway - huarhuar. We'd be forced to take Ghost Arks then, though, to keep our Krypteks safe.

My questrion is what if there is a model such as an IC with multipe wounds, how many wounds gets allocatied to him? Does he take say 3 wounds if he has 3 wounds? It does say that the model closest takes the wounds. What about nobs squads. Do the first 3 nobs take the first 6 wounds? this is really a bad idea IMHO.

balsak_da_mighty wrote:My questrion is what if there is a model such as an IC with multipe wounds, how many wounds gets allocatied to him? Does he take say 3 wounds if he has 3 wounds? It does say that the model closest takes the wounds. What about nobs squads. Do the first 3 nobs take the first 6 wounds? this is really a bad idea IMHO.

Don't think too hard about it right now, since it is most likely just hot air. Worry about it if and when it becomes reality.

This is ture. I am not worrying to much about it, just a thought I had.

Absolutionis wrote:The Tyranid Codex even has a hilarious scene of a 'challenge' presented against it by an Avatar... and the Tyrant subsequently responds to the 'challenge' by ordering four Carnifexes to eat the Avatar.

So long as I can actually do this, challenges are ok in my book.

Now we have Charge reactions! here is the URL http://www.beastsofwar.com/warhammer-40k/rumor-stand-shoot-40k-6th-edition/

They give you the example of Space Smurfs taking pot shots at Chaos who are charging them. They get these pot shots at BS1 which if this is true Bezerkers are going to be even weaker (even if you need 6's some will die, and if you combine the allocation at closest certain IC's are going to get blasted. . . sort of)

Thanks for the recap. I really don't want to give them the clicks.

The only thing that they dont know is what types of weapons can take the charge reaction shots.

I think that Assault weapons, rapid fire, and pistols tbh. I only think this because it fits the whole "cinematic" theme

Although I'm still disbelieving most of their stuff, it would suck to be an ork against a unit with one or more flamers.

Awesome - another punch in the face for horde assault armies.

I'm trying to think of what could happen that would make this worth it. The only thing I can think of would be assaulting from Deep Strike - and that just doesn't seem like it's something GW would do.

I dont know I kinda hope it is like sweep attacks, how for every 6 you can allocate one hit. It seems like a better way to do it. Everything else the target player gets to allocate, maybe based on armor save groups.

I think all of these rumors are GREAT! This sounds so much more fun and realistic. I hate it for the uber competitive players but for my beer drinkin' game group... sounds awesome!!! If the Flyers rumor turns out to be true then I will go ahead and say that these rumors will be too. Maybe these guys have an insider that is giving them information to promote the new ed. and new models!

We're counting down for the white dwarf that will confirm these flyer rumors. I miss black boxes...

Just read the Stand and Shoot rumour on BOW. Which is a bit of a boost for my Tau; but frankly is just going to hurt low t low armour save units like Wyches and Genestealers; units which rely on taking as few casualties as possible to be effective and the former will really suffer. Even at BS1 rapidfiring units could kill more than enough of these units whilst probably not killing a negligible number of marines.

Can we stop looking at these bogus rumors and giving the fools that respect the community as much as they do more ad revenue?

juraigamer wrote:Can we stop looking at these bogus rumors and giving the fools that respect the community as much as they do more ad revenue?

Ok, so if you know for a fact these are bogus rumours, you must be ITK, so please enlighten us....

No?

Ok.

The fact is that their info since the Necron models last year has, so far, been accurate. Several things they mention correlate with other rumours or things that were seen in Pancake.

Also factor in that they are blatantly trying to establish themselves as a legitimate site, and not just a fan site, and that to run false info would be seriously damaging to their credibility, therefore they are probably pretty sure of their facts.

But most importantly, for those that seem to be getting upset/worried/taking it personally, these are tiny fractions of what may be a substantially changed ruleset, and until viewed in context with all other changes, cannot be discussed with any degree of certainty as to what it will/will not nerf.

I'm really excited for a new edition, and look forward to new stuff and all the changes and challenges it will bring.

balsak_da_mighty wrote:Oh I don't think that what they have is the best, its needs improvement. I am just not so sure this is the right thing to do. It really doesn't make sense to me. But nothing that has come down the rumor mill has.

Challenges....really!?

I can see a Tau Ethereal challenging a Demon Prince. Yeah right! Or that Tau Ethereal actually accepting that challenge. Its a waste of space in a rulebook. I don't see many people actually accepting it. When you can do that allready by moving your HQ into base with said HQ.

But I am just going to wait and see what the deal is.

Are you kidding? I totally hope the demon prince challenges my Tau, that way I can deny it and get out of combat!!!
Now, IC's HAVE to try and fight....my swarmlord can challenge someone out of range, or my crisis can hide....this is awesome.

I am sorry some people don't like change...

azreal13 wrote:But most importantly, for those that seem to be getting upset/worried/taking it personally, these are tiny fractions of what may be a substantially changed ruleset, and until viewed in context with all other changes, cannot be discussed with any degree of certainty as to what it will/will not nerf.

Don't get me wrong. I'm excited about a new edition. I like change.

The two changes so far (shooting wounds allocated by rank and snap fire) severely damage horde assault armies (like Tyranids).
I'm trying to think of any other change that could be made to bring them at least back up to where they were - and the only one I can think of is assaulting out of deep strike... which just doesn't seem likely to me.

juraigamer wrote:Can we stop looking at these bogus rumors and giving the fools that respect the community as much as they do more ad revenue?

Do you have more solid information? These are RUMORS, if its true you look like an idiot if they are not then they do. Let it lie and dont look stupid.

On a better note.After thinking about it, I would agree that if it is for each 6 (or for each hit if your BS1) and you get to allocate the wounds then it would be fething amazing!

rigeld2 wrote:

azreal13 wrote:But most importantly, for those that seem to be getting upset/worried/taking it personally, these are tiny fractions of what may be a substantially changed ruleset, and until viewed in context with all other changes, cannot be discussed with any degree of certainty as to what it will/will not nerf.

Don't get me wrong. I'm excited about a new edition. I like change.

The two changes so far (shooting wounds allocated by rank and snap fire) severely damage horde assault armies (like Tyranids).
I'm trying to think of any other change that could be made to bring them at least back up to where they were - and the only one I can think of is assaulting out of deep strike... which just doesn't seem likely to me.

Movement rules being similar to pancake makes it even - Genestealers running 16" in the movement phase, trygons the same, Raveners with a 21" charge threat range are all 3x faster on foot than now. Any changes in those capacities will more than make up for having meaningful shooting.

Also snap fire won't pwn Genestealers and orks. Roll 20 dice (10 rapid fires) pick out sixes and then roll again for 4+. If lucky you'll kill 1 or 2 orks/Genestealers, and not even a whole Ravener. As said before -- we need to know all the rules before judging the tiddles.

I don't see snap firing making a massive impact, at BS 1 a full squad of marines will only land 3 hits or so on average. Against a big boy mob or gaunt brood, not likely to affect the outcome. Templates may hurt more, but I would expect hits to be resolved before models are moved, so, as now, their effect can be mitigated by sensible model placement.

Challenges could become very interesting. Imagine that my one wound booster IC (haemy, sang priest etc..) challenges Abaddon. By sacrificing my character, I limit Abaddon to one wound caused in the combat, hopefully leaving the rest of the squad to win and eliminate the opposing unit. Of course, there may be some 'overkill' clause that counts wounds caused instead of wounds taken, but that would be less interesting imho.

Hmm. Sounds like the usual GW mantra. What is good in the previous edition will be nerfed. What was bad will be awesome.

Already came to conclusion months ago that 6th ED will be Fantasy influenced. Already been beefing up my troop choices (as well as certain vehicles and other types of models) in all of my 13 different armies just because. My concern is that with what I am perceiving is an increase model count per army and an increase army point lists being played.

Which in turn will slow down the game regardless of the current rumors being played out.

GW sells models. What is the best way to sell models to their best product line? Change the codex and make it happen. Thank god that I never sold any of my armies. I do not have to make a serious investment in keeping up with the 6thED changes.

But I will feel sorry for those people who will try to get into the hobby in the near future.

gorgon wrote:

SlaveToDorkness wrote:In 2nd ed. you fired each weapon individually and the nearest model had to save each time a wound was rolled. the nearest model always took each shot until it was dead. There wasn't any allocation at all.

You were playing it wrong.

Nope. You only rolled shots together if the models were similarly armed and you took casualties from the nearest mode first. So that closest model had to fail a save before shooting moved to the next model. You could roll to hit and wound if the weapons and targets were the same but saves still came off of the nearest model.

To me these new Wound Allocation rules feel more clunky then the ones we already have.

Sure it works when your guys are standing a neat little ranks, but we're playing 40k.... I and most people I know usely deploy our guys is more haphazard blobs! Sure you can just "eye ball it" dureing friednly games. But in tournaments I know for a fact I'm going to have to measure each model individually to adoivd argument....
=/

I consider the current 5th ed wound allocation rules better then that garbage....

I actully liked the wound allocation rules from Pancake edition..... They were quick, and gave a pretty cool boost to massed small arms fire. If their was any truth to pancake edition that was the one I hopped for the most.

I still can't believe it. People are still complaining saying this sucks without knowing how anything else works?

How about if assault is before shooting? What if the speeds are increased? So many things we don't know. You can't apply the rumours to 5th edition rules.

All I know is 5th edition is really getting boring to play and I only played a few games. Same thing over and over again. Last turn vehicle rush, almost everyone hiding and cowering in vehicles.

Also how stupid it is you hit someone that is in range, but someone out of range dies that can't be hit? I think hitting what is in front or maybe what is in RANGE is a good idea. Remeber, don't like the rule, change it. If you can't change it, then ADAPT.

I just can't believe people are complaining still about plastic toy soldiers without even trying the rules. Why does everyone have to MATHAMMER before even trying them?

Challenges work well in fantasy-I wish we had challenges in 40k sooner. I'm a bit leery of removing models from the front, as special weapons like meltas can be picked up by a model behind it, just as a musician and standard bearer can be killed and somebody behind them can wave a flag or smack a drum (keeping the special model in the unit). Champions/sergeants are different, as they are more experienced fighters, have more attacks, better skill, and access to better gear that takes more training. Fantasy has ways of killing off champions, but they also get "look out sir"-something that should move to 40k as well, then these rules will be okay-a 'regular' will take the hit instead. These rules do really turn the game into a movement based, strategy game, not just how well you can use a net-list. In fact, if these rules come to pass, net-lists should all but disappear, as each player will decide if his army wins, based on how he arranges his units and how he picks his targets. I'm leery on some things, but I think I'm mostly in the positive on these rumors. Hope most of them pan out. Get rid of your melta guns for flamers. My Soul Grinders are happy to rejoin the table. Hehehe...

I think hitting what is in front or maybe what is in RANGE is a good idea.

That's how it worked in 4ed and it was not such a good idea. You had people doing range and LOS sniping, such that what they wanted dead was the only model affected due to carefully staying just in range and blocking of LOS with their rhinos and whatnot. It was dumb and gamey. While the current rules leave a lot to be desired, I much prefer 5ed in that regard. I am a bit worried that those shenanigans will make their return (even more so if true LOS is in), but I have a wait and see attitude.

However I agree its much too early for gnashing of teeth. The rules need context.

I remember when 5ed rumors dropped and people whined that transports were terrible under the rumors, cause of run and tanks being hit on rear armor. All the while missing the significance of the ability to take a cover save and the huge change to the damage chart.

Granted there are things that just sound silly regardless of context. Challenges just don't sit well with me no matter how the mechanics work out. I like to imagine combat as quick and decisive bloody things with no time for something like:
"Hey chap, I challenge yee to a scrape."
"Verily, skalliwag I shall smite thee. WAAGGH."
I dunno. I get why fantasy has challenges, it makes sense in the context of the game world AND the mechanics (ranks and whatnot). 40k doesn't have the constraints of WHFB. If I want my Ghaz to get at Marneus in a CC, he can pretty much cut a bloody swath to him or die trying. That's how it should be imo. Letting him just warp over to him is a bit much imo. But I have a wait and see attitude still.

Lockark wrote:To me these new Wound Allocation rules feel more clunky then the ones we already have.

Who knows how it actually works though, it could be a simple variation on the easy 4th edition system with the added caveat of "for each failed save remove the closest model to the attacking unit, rechecking distance as necessary as models are removed" or something similar. Personally this sort of rule will give a small bit of increased value to rapid fire guns vs melee hordes as you can effectively reduce the potential assaulter movement by whittling away their lead elements, something hitherto impossible in 40k, but I would say very 'realistic/cinematic'.

I'll also observe that this is exactly how casualties were removed in EPIC: Armageddon so it's not new ground for GW in general (more recently then 40k 2nd for sure).

Jack

So from the complaining I have been seeing on the interent, people don't want to think about placing their minis anywhere? Is that is why they don't want the front line being removed? So people don't want to think about, do I keep my Melta safe and losse a bit of distant or have him in the front to get a bit extra distance but maybe get shot at then?

So someone in the back can pick up the melta gun so it's ok for a model to have an extra 2" or even say 24" move? How is this fun? Can someone explain to me how this is fun?

Davor wrote:So from the complaining I have been seeing on the interent, people don't want to think about placing their minis anywhere? Is that is why they don't want the front line being removed? So people don't want to think about, do I keep my Melta safe and losse a bit of distant or have him in the front to get a bit extra distance but maybe get shot at then?

No, but thanks for the accusation.

20 strong unit of hormagaunts, spread out for max coherency (because of blasts). It's not hard to drop a bunch of wounds on them. If you nuke the front rank they now have 3 inches to make up next turn (2 for the coherency, 1 for the base).

That's a bit more concerning than "I don't want to think about placing my minis anywhere".

That's my concern. If they massively increase speed, sure... fine. I don't expect that though.

Huh, the 7 attack ghazgull was not an error. Looks like counter-charge charge reaction is there. OOooooo yeahhhhhhh

If you hate gamers and gaming why do you comment at all? All you are is a gamer if you play. Please put things constructive and not flaming, it just makes you look like a fool as well as any work you ever post.

No, you misconstrued my comment. I'm simply stating that CERTAIN parts of the gaming sub-culture are not desirable to me. And that BoW greatly reminds me of those certain parts. For the most part, I love gamers, (As I am one) but the BoW guys more often remind me of the gamers I DON'T like.
Also, I'll comment all I want, you do the same.
You don't like what I have to say? Don't read it.

matphat wrote:

If you hate gamers and gaming why do you comment at all? All you are is a gamer if you play. Please put things constructive and not flaming, it just makes you look like a fool as well as any work you ever post.

No, you misconstrued my comment. I'm simply stating that CERTAIN parts of the gaming sub-culture are not desirable to me. And that BoW greatly reminds me of those certain parts. For the most part, I love gamers, (As I am one) but the BoW guys more often remind me of the gamers I DON'T like.
Also, I'll comment all I want, you do the same.
You don't like what I have to say? Don't read it.

That's a new thread worthy if mods will allow it. The classification of gamer subculture and subtypes. Your elitism is satisfactory.

Also, BS1 when reaction shooting + assault weapons probably able to stand & shoot = charging into a shoota squad just went from amazing to very VERY costly. Charging tankbustas is now suicidal.

SlaveToDorkness wrote:

gorgon wrote:

SlaveToDorkness wrote:In 2nd ed. you fired each weapon individually and the nearest model had to save each time a wound was rolled. the nearest model always took each shot until it was dead. There wasn't any allocation at all.

You were playing it wrong.

Nope. You only rolled shots together if the models were similarly armed and you took casualties from the nearest mode first. So that closest model had to fail a save before shooting moved to the next model. You could roll to hit and wound if the weapons and targets were the same but saves still came off of the nearest model.

A common misconception, but still incorrect. And far OT.

These rules just sound awful, they just give more reasons for armies to fulfill stereotypes. My Guard sometimes charge the enemy, not often, but sometimes it is useful, with these "cinematic" charge rules I will have no reason to charge, ever, no matter what, even against Tau. If the enemy charges I can shoot them with loads of special weapons and possibly heavy weapons, if I charge than not only will I likely lose combat, but before that combat begins I will get shot to bits. Honestly this seems terrible for army diversity, it will ruin several unique builds.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:

Davor wrote:So from the complaining I have been seeing on the interent, people don't want to think about placing their minis anywhere? Is that is why they don't want the front line being removed? So people don't want to think about, do I keep my Melta safe and losse a bit of distant or have him in the front to get a bit extra distance but maybe get shot at then?

No, but thanks for the accusation.

20 strong unit of hormagaunts, spread out for max coherency (because of blasts). It's not hard to drop a bunch of wounds on them. If you nuke the front rank they now have 3 inches to make up next turn (2 for the coherency, 1 for the base).

That's a bit more concerning than "I don't want to think about placing my minis anywhere".

That's my concern. If they massively increase speed, sure... fine. I don't expect that though.

There is also the potential to shoot a unit out of coherency, which will seriously muck things up.

Buttons wrote:There is also the potential to shoot a unit out of coherency, which will seriously muck things up.

I'd count that as a feature not a bug, as it discourages stringing out units in odd lines and the like when close to the enemy.

I.e. a unit formed into a skirmish line makes contact and takes fire and is quite reasonably forced to contract to effectively engage, as would happen in a small unit engagement in practice.

Jack

5th edition has been geared towards strong assault elements winning games. Disagree if you will but first consider this -- An army in 5th edition has but 1 shooting phase each game turn, but 2 Assault phases. In addition winning an assault can and often does result in a complete rout of the enemy unit (sweeping advance). Given GW's trend of nerfing the awesome and awesome'ing the nerfed, going towards strong shooting elements having more chances to damage the enemy would fit that trend perfectly.

I'm not saying I agree with or even like the proposed changes to 6th edition with these 'leaks' but i can sadly see some of them happening. I just hope the surrounding rules don't make the game further unplayable for some under used armies.

Also to cross-reference another thread for those keeping track of Beasts of War's accuracy record, Hastings has confirmed (via KrootHawk) in the 'flyers' thread that indeed we are getting 3 flyer kits in June - SM, Ork, and Necrons. Chalk one up to BoW rumor mongering (probably).

I'll update the first post with links to all the BoW videos in case people don't want to read the whole thread for links.

terranarc wrote:

matphat wrote:

If you hate gamers and gaming why do you comment at all? All you are is a gamer if you play. Please put things constructive and not flaming, it just makes you look like a fool as well as any work you ever post.

No, you misconstrued my comment. I'm simply stating that CERTAIN parts of the gaming sub-culture are not desirable to me. And that BoW greatly reminds me of those certain parts. For the most part, I love gamers, (As I am one) but the BoW guys more often remind me of the gamers I DON'T like.
Also, I'll comment all I want, you do the same.
You don't like what I have to say? Don't read it.

That's a new thread worthy if mods will allow it. The classification of gamer subculture and subtypes. Your elitism is satisfactory.

Also, BS1 when reaction shooting + assault weapons probably able to stand & shoot = charging into a shoota squad just went from amazing to very VERY costly. Charging tankbustas is now suicidal.

I approve this message.

Yes charging certain units would be the death of some strong units. on the other hand charging a Grey Knight squad with psycannon is very costly. . .

Challenged would add an interesting aspect to the game.

It would help power weapons, and hurt power fists. It would also make gk even better.

Shifting. Wound allocation to closest model would add more strategy to the game.

schadenfreude wrote:Challenged would add an interesting aspect to the game.

It would help power weapons, and hurt power fists. It would also make gk even better.

Shifting. Wound allocation to closest model would add more strategy to the game.

While we're speculating let's consider the possibility that power fists might not work the same way as they do now...

I guess my individual opinion isn't worth much on the question. I mean, even if some of those suggestions are clearly ridiculous, it's still possible that they will make it in the rulebook. For what it's worth ;

A) Challenges ; that's hateful, not because it doesn't belong, just because, as presented, it'll be abused until the end. Someone already mentioned the mindshackles scarabs.

B) Allocations : well it's the title that's misleading, this is just direct fire ranged damage allocations. And at that it's perfect. But if that tries to cover cc, or even AoE damage allocations, well, its horrible. But I don't think it is.

C) Stand and Shoot : If it's well done, YES. Also, YES to integrating counter charge reactions to the entire set.

Two different systems but directed hits exists in warmachine/hordes. Another thing to consider - but in that game system if the team leader or sergeant gets killed another model gets 'field promoted' and replaced with the sergeant model.

Perhaps we'll get field promotions for sergeants as well as special/heavy weapons (to simulate models in the squad being trained in their compatriots' weaponry).

Again all speculation at this point.

Jackmojo wrote:

Buttons wrote:There is also the potential to shoot a unit out of coherency, which will seriously muck things up.

I'd count that as a feature not a bug, as it discourages stringing out units in odd lines and the like when close to the enemy.

I.e. a unit formed into a skirmish line makes contact and takes fire and is quite reasonably forced to contract to effectively engage, as would happen in a small unit engagement in practice.

Jack

Except it makes foot slogging armies even worse. Now if you string out your unit to protect against blasts you can be shot out of coherency, if you get close to keep from getting shot out of coherency you will fall to blast templates. Also, judging by what is already has been claimed regarding shooting it wouldn't surprise me if they claimed that the models under a template have to be the ones to take the wounds making taking units out of coherency easier.

Buttons wrote:

Jackmojo wrote:

Buttons wrote:There is also the potential to shoot a unit out of coherency, which will seriously muck things up.

I'd count that as a feature not a bug, as it discourages stringing out units in odd lines and the like when close to the enemy.

I.e. a unit formed into a skirmish line makes contact and takes fire and is quite reasonably forced to contract to effectively engage, as would happen in a small unit engagement in practice.

Jack

Except it makes foot slogging armies even worse. Now if you string out your unit to protect against blasts you can be shot out of coherency, if you get close to keep from getting shot out of coherency you will fall to blast templates. Also, judging by what is already has been claimed regarding shooting it wouldn't surprise me if they claimed that the models under a template have to be the ones to take the wounds making taking units out of coherency easier.

Simple, allow a 'reform' move after the player's shooting turn, it'll reduce the occurrence of incoherency.

Also ; we don't know what are the coherency rules in 6th ed. So there's that.

rigeld2 wrote:

Davor wrote:So from the complaining I have been seeing on the interent, people don't want to think about placing their minis anywhere? Is that is why they don't want the front line being removed? So people don't want to think about, do I keep my Melta safe and losse a bit of distant or have him in the front to get a bit extra distance but maybe get shot at then?

No, but thanks for the accusation.

20 strong unit of hormagaunts, spread out for max coherency (because of blasts). It's not hard to drop a bunch of wounds on them. If you nuke the front rank they now have 3 inches to make up next turn (2 for the coherency, 1 for the base).

That's a bit more concerning than "I don't want to think about placing my minis anywhere".

That's my concern. If they massively increase speed, sure... fine. I don't expect that though.

I'm not seeing an issue with that scenario you present, which is known in some circles as a "tradeoff", or "choice". Your unit is resilient against blast weapons, or it's better placed for an assault, that sounds like exactly the sort of on-the-board tactics which have been missing from 40K. Frankly, I'm bored of Listhammer, and I'm bored of all the tablestop tactics being gamey; a version of 40K where unit placement and maneuver are more than an afterthought sounds brilliant to me - having to actually think about potential enemy flanking attacks, how to deploy units based on your enemy's army composition, being able to use ranged firepower to actually affect how your enemy is playing, and having to use the battlefield to set up successful assaults sounds much better than list tailoring, then having one army charge across the table full-tilt while the other shoots as many guns as possible at one unit after the other in turn.

Now, don't take any of that as a comment on the veracity of these rumours, just about the only part of BoW that doesn't make me cringe is the French(?) chappie who does thier painting videos, but if true, I'm liking it.

davethepak wrote:

balsak_da_mighty wrote:Oh I don't think that what they have is the best, its needs improvement. I am just not so sure this is the right thing to do. It really doesn't make sense to me. But nothing that has come down the rumor mill has.

Challenges....really!?

I can see a Tau Ethereal challenging a Demon Prince. Yeah right! Or that Tau Ethereal actually accepting that challenge. Its a waste of space in a rulebook. I don't see many people actually accepting it. When you can do that allready by moving your HQ into base with said HQ.

But I am just going to wait and see what the deal is.

Are you kidding? I totally hope the demon prince challenges my Tau, that way I can deny it and get out of combat!!!
Now, IC's HAVE to try and fight....my swarmlord can challenge someone out of range, or my crisis can hide....this is awesome.

I am sorry some people don't like change...

I don't like change that makes no sense. This is not hero hammer, It is warhammer.

Ok so your ethereal leaves the combat, now the prince just kills the squad. Which makes my point valid, its a waste of time to even challange. Yes I will agree that there are times where a challenge can be interesting or epic. Most of the time I see it as a exercise in futility. But we also don't know the full rules. You say the swarmlord cna challenge something out of its range. Do you know it can have that option? I didn't read or hear anything about that. But as I said I am going to wait and see what the deal is. But thanks for your comment.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Davor wrote:I still can't believe it. People are still complaining saying this sucks without knowing how anything else works?

Ok but think of the opposite. People are excited about it with out knowing all the rules as well. It can go both ways. Right now its all opinions and no one can say either way unitl it comes out.

I still really fail to see why Tyranids care for anything like a "challenge". The codex itself has a Hive Tyrant betraying a challenge and The Swarmlord faking a challenge to get Marneus Calgar.

tetrisphreak 5th edition has been geared towards strong assault elements winning games. Disagree if you will but first consider this -- An army in 5th edition has but 1 shooting phase each game turn, but 2 Assault phases. In addition winning an assault can and often does result in a complete rout of the enemy unit (sweeping advance).

I don't know about you but 3rd and 4th edition was like this too. There were assaults in both players turns just like there are now. ALso sweeping advances. In fact it was nastier back then you had negatives to LD that you don't have anymore. Outnumbered, below half, plus models you lost. I don't see this as being a valid statement.

And so if assault is so hardcore then why is it that shooty armies like SW long fangs, razorspam, and Guard dominate 5th?

Yodhrin wrote:I'm not seeing an issue with that scenario you present, which is known in some circles as a "tradeoff", or "choice". Your unit is resilient against blast weapons, or it's better placed for an assault, that sounds like exactly the sort of on-the-board tactics which have been missing from 40K.

You can't be serious with that sentence.
Oh, you are? Really?

Even crunching the hormies up so that I'll get slaughtered by the first frag missle that comes my way (cause the game is totally lacking in those) I'll lose an inch for every rank you kill.
That's massive right now. And I don't see them adding that much speed to make up for it. The only "choice" is to not take the unit... which is essentially where they're at now anyway, but I was hoping 6th would change that. Ah well.

Frankly, I'm bored of Listhammer, and I'm bored of all the tablestop tactics being gamey; a version of 40K where unit placement and maneuver are more than an afterthought sounds brilliant to me - having to actually think about potential enemy flanking attacks, how to deploy units based on your enemy's army composition, being able to use ranged firepower to actually affect how your enemy is playing, and having to use the battlefield to set up successful assaults sounds much better than list tailoring, then having one army charge across the table full-tilt while the other shoots as many guns as possible at one unit after the other in turn.

If that's how my games went I'd be bored too. Thankfully they don't.

I like the sound of challenges. I've not watched the BoW vid, but as they were presented in other rumours, it adds a nice addition:
- If challenged, you can accept and the 2 characters duke it out - whoever wins wins the combat for their unit.
- If challenged, you can refuse and just fight normally.

To me, this means that someone like Tau or IG will still lose the combat either way, but otherwise it could speed up combats and add a nice cinematic feel.
Although, I'm not keen on the idea of it becoming even more Herohammer...

Regarding the 3rd video (Charge reactions / "Stand & Shoot"):
...
holy poop, flame templates are about to become vicious.
(and suddenly, we understand why Deathmarks can deep strike in enemy turns... also, my delicious Death&Despair squads are about to become exquisite).

Aaaaahhh. Smart for pointing out the death marks....

Sounds like GW doesn't want to sell assaulty horde armies anymore.

balsak_da_mighty wrote:

tetrisphreak 5th edition has been geared towards strong assault elements winning games. Disagree if you will but first consider this -- An army in 5th edition has but 1 shooting phase each game turn, but 2 Assault phases. In addition winning an assault can and often does result in a complete rout of the enemy unit (sweeping advance).

I don't know about you but 3rd and 4th edition was like this too. There were assaults in both players turns just like there are now. ALso sweeping advances. In fact it was nastier back then you had negatives to LD that you don't have anymore. Outnumbered, below half, plus models you lost. I don't see this as being a valid statement.

5th has toned down the assault in one very important aspect: no consolidation into nearby units. In 3rd once you won a combat, you would consolidate d6 inches. If that took you into another unit, hurray! More combat! (This was the reason that the Tau Etherial was so useful: you could determine when exactly to leave a combat as losing everyone on the opponant's turn WASN'T always the best course of action. You needed your turn to get the heck away from that figh before it boiled over into the rest of your lines.) In 4th, you got a d6 consolidation if you wiped the unit out, a 3" consolidation if you "merely" chased them down or failed to catch them. This lead to those who played gunlines to space units to try and work with the odds of avoiding that consolidation into nearby units. Now, you consolidate d6 every time, but can't hit a new unit. This is really the largest shift (IMO) towards shooting armies and away from the Assault dominated meta that mid-3rd was (late third was obviously the Iron Warriors all the time every time) and still carried significant strength well into 4th with Demon Bomb armies and the like. (Not to mention that brief time when the Tyranids had a frighteningly powerful book. Oh well!) Trust me, my current DE list would LOVE to be able to consolidate into fresh units. I might actually have Incubi survive to get two assaults. ("Wait, they just got Furious Charge? S5 power weapons on the charge? Oh hell no." *dakkadakkadakkadakka*)

Being able to consolidate into another combat was amazing. You could island hop from one assault to another. This seems to be much more of a defensive upgrade so people getting charged do more than just drop their pants, bend over and pray for the best. If we could have this AND consolidate into other combats, it'd be a sweet combo.

I honestly have not missed consolidating into other squads. It really hasn 't hindered the assault armies that much. You just have to plan and use tactics better.

The assault based armies that were once there really don't need to do that in my opinion. Orks can be more shooty now so don't need to assault as much. Nids are all big things now so thats not an issue. Dark eldar I can see getting hurt a bit, but they have so many units on the table its really a dmaned if you do dmaned if you don't situation. Marines are Marines not that they assault to much. I just don't see that it really has hurt anyone. In fact it really never made sense to me that you could do that in the first place. Glad its gone and hope it doesn't come back.

I'm not sure if challenging an opponent is ever all that useful, really. Two ICs with their retinues clashing together isn't that common of an occurrence, and even then it might be more to my advantage to reduce the amount of models in the combat by as much as I can, as opposed to risking a CC character's specialist-weapon attacks being lost hitting an invulnerable save or something. I don't see the rumor itself as incredible, but I'm unimpressed by its implications.

terranarc wrote:Being able to consolidate into another combat was amazing. You could island hop from one assault to another. This seems to be much more of a defensive upgrade so people getting charged do more than just drop their pants, bend over and pray for the best. If we could have this AND consolidate into other combats, it'd be a sweet combo.

As someone who played assault armies in 4th edition, I can say I don't miss this one iota. Consolidating into other combats was a horrible game mechanic since any army that was built on shooting would invariably be screwed the moment an enemy unit got near their lines. One squad of Khorne Berserkers charging a squad of Guardsmen on one end of the table shouldn't see them halfway across an empty table by the next turn.

Brother SRM wrote:

terranarc wrote:Being able to consolidate into another combat was amazing. You could island hop from one assault to another. This seems to be much more of a defensive upgrade so people getting charged do more than just drop their pants, bend over and pray for the best. If we could have this AND consolidate into other combats, it'd be a sweet combo.

As someone who played assault armies in 4th edition, I can say I don't miss this one iota. Consolidating into other combats was a horrible game mechanic since any army that was built on shooting would invariably be screwed the moment an enemy unit got near their lines. One squad of Khorne Berserkers charging a squad of Guardsmen on one end of the table shouldn't see them halfway across an empty table by the next turn.

I know right? And it was freaking glorious. No, sitting there out in the open dumbfounded after finishing off an enemy. Once you were in your enemy's face and in close combat, you were permanently there until you tabled the opponent or you died.
My problem with not being able to continue combat right after killing off an enemy squad is that if you win combat on your turn's assault phase, you're screwed. If you win assault on your opponent's phase, you'll just get into another combat.
Imo, its more sensical for ranged oriented armies to provide some kind of counter charge instead of going all ranged units and playing it PC RTS style. You've got ogryns, use them. But no, players would MUCH rather spend 200-400 points on more tanks, HWTs and other ranged units.
My view is, if you're going to take nothing but ranged units and then get rolled in close combat, I don't see much of a problem with that. Likewise, if an army of Khorne bezerkers loose a shootout with tau firewarriors and crisis suits, then oh well.

skoffs wrote:Regarding the 3rd video (Charge reactions / "Stand & Shoot"):
...
holy poop, flame templates are about to become vicious.

You guys need to quit looking at these rumors in isolation.

If stand and shoot is real, then flames will become a big advantage. But I would assume that you will still have to place the template without touching your own troops. So for templates to be effective, they will have to be in the front line.

And where do all your shooting casualties come from if these rumors are true?

The main complaint I had about consolidation being removed was that due to IgoYougo turns, it encouraged you to 'clip' assaults during your turn--in attempt to make sure combat was stalled until you could free up on their turn, then assault another unit. Even if I played a shooting army, I think I would rather consolidation be present and everyone go all in. Really, you just need to space your units a turn earlier--and this will likely do away with the human screen from assault/get rapid fired again tactic we see now...

AgeOfEgos wrote:The main complaint I had about consolidation being removed was that due to IgoYougo turns, it encouraged you to 'clip' assaults during your turn--in attempt to make sure combat was stalled until you could free up on their turn, then assault another unit. Even if I played a shooting army, I think I would rather consolidation be present and everyone go all in. Really, you just need to space your units a turn earlier--and this will likely do away with the human screen from assault/get rapid fired again tactic we see now...

So your complaint about the change was that the new rules actually required tactics and planning? I guess the no-brainer consolidate into another squad was easier.

balsak_da_mighty wrote:Nids are all big things now so thats not an issue.

Um. What?

terranarc wrote:
I know right? And it was freaking glorious. No, sitting there out in the open dumbfounded after finishing off an enemy. Once you were in your enemy's face and in close combat, you were permanently there until you tabled the opponent or you died.
My problem with not being able to continue combat right after killing off an enemy squad is that if you win combat on your turn's assault phase, you're screwed. If you win assault on your opponent's phase, you'll just get into another combat.
Imo, its more sensical for ranged oriented armies to provide some kind of counter charge instead of going all ranged units and playing it PC RTS style. You've got ogryns, use them. But no, players would MUCH rather spend 200-400 points on more tanks, HWTs and other ranged units.
My view is, if you're going to take nothing but ranged units and then get rolled in close combat, I don't see much of a problem with that. Likewise, if an army of Khorne bezerkers loose a shootout with tau firewarriors and crisis suits, then oh well.

It was terrible. 5th edition 40k treats close combat armies really well, and they certainly don't need the help. With the low cost and high speed of transports, the biggest hurdle for assault armies has been clambered over. They can get there reasonably intact and once there they can completely destroy anything in their way regardless. I do agree that the timing of winning assaults is wonky - it doesn't make much sense for a victory in your opponent's turn to be more beneficial than in your own. However, I'll take my Berserkers occasionally standing out in the open dumbfounded over them completely rolling my opponent's army. Considering there's even very viable multicharges in the rules, consolidating into other units is just taking things too far in the direction of assault armies. Going the route of "you didn't take Ogryns" isn't really fair since close combat is a designed weakness in many of the armies. IG, Tau, and often Marines and Necrons want to stay as far out of assault as possible. I'm saying this as someone who plays Chaos Marines with Khorne Berserkers, Orks, Marines that favor assaulting, and soon to be powerblob IG - consolidating into other units is terrible. The game's over the moment a decent assault unit hits the other army's lines.

Brother SRM wrote:

terranarc wrote:
I know right? And it was freaking glorious. No, sitting there out in the open dumbfounded after finishing off an enemy. Once you were in your enemy's face and in close combat, you were permanently there until you tabled the opponent or you died.
My problem with not being able to continue combat right after killing off an enemy squad is that if you win combat on your turn's assault phase, you're screwed. If you win assault on your opponent's phase, you'll just get into another combat.
Imo, its more sensical for ranged oriented armies to provide some kind of counter charge instead of going all ranged units and playing it PC RTS style. You've got ogryns, use them. But no, players would MUCH rather spend 200-400 points on more tanks, HWTs and other ranged units.
My view is, if you're going to take nothing but ranged units and then get rolled in close combat, I don't see much of a problem with that. Likewise, if an army of Khorne bezerkers loose a shootout with tau firewarriors and crisis suits, then oh well.

It was terrible. 5th edition 40k treats close combat armies really well, and they certainly don't need the help. With the low cost and high speed of transports, the biggest hurdle for assault armies has been clambered over. They can get there reasonably intact and once there they can completely destroy anything in their way regardless. I do agree that the timing of winning assaults is wonky - it doesn't make much sense for a victory in your opponent's turn to be more beneficial than in your own. However, I'll take my Berserkers occasionally standing out in the open dumbfounded over them completely rolling my opponent's army. Considering there's even very viable multicharges in the rules, consolidating into other units is just taking things too far in the direction of assault armies. Going the route of "you didn't take Ogryns" isn't really fair since close combat is a designed weakness in many of the armies. IG, Tau, and often Marines and Necrons want to stay as far out of assault as possible. I'm saying this as someone who plays Chaos Marines with Khorne Berserkers, Orks, Marines that favor assaulting, and soon to be powerblob IG - consolidating into other units is terrible. The game's over the moment a decent assault unit hits the other army's lines.

Well, this rumor is essentially in a vacuum right now. I'll be more interested in seeing how snapfire, transport rules, model removal and wound allocation changes before judging consolidation as a strong return.

Regarding the loss of sweeping advance, I do like how the armies that have to cross the table alive before they even start doing any damage get told to "use tactics better" by the gunline players who just sit there and don't even know how to handle one unit in their lines unless they're allowed to blast it with their entire army for a turn.

Now the gunlines are allegedly getting a free shot as a charge reaction and probably a whole extra free turn of shooting if the casualties really get removed from the front.

Unless GW decided they don't want to sell any horde armies at all anymore, I would expect not only sweeping advance to return, but also increased charge range (say... Move+2d6"... just a crazy thought)

Beasts of war didn't explain, confirm, or deny some very important details of WHFB challenges.

#1 Other characters or unit champions can accept in the place of the IC called out. So if Ghas charges into CSM and challenges a sorcerer then the sorcerer, Abbadon, or a unit champion (aspiring champion in the case of CSM) can accept the challenge in the place of a sorcerer, or the player can decline and then the sorcerer has to hide in the back ranks.

#2 Overkill generates combat resolution in a challenge. So if Ghas dumps 5 powerfist wounds into a 1 wound CSM aspiring champion during a challenge that's +5 combat resolution.

#3 Unit champs can issue and accept challenges, but can not be sent to the back ranks. So a space marine sergeant can ignore ghas without penalty if ghas calls him out, or could challenge ghas who would accept and generate a lot of combat resolution through overkill, but it would keep a several other marines alive.

At least that's how the system would work if it went by 8th edition WHFB rules.

rigeld2 wrote:

Davor wrote:So from the complaining I have been seeing on the interent, people don't want to think about placing their minis anywhere? Is that is why they don't want the front line being removed? So people don't want to think about, do I keep my Melta safe and losse a bit of distant or have him in the front to get a bit extra distance but maybe get shot at then?

No, but thanks for the accusation.

20 strong unit of hormagaunts, spread out for max coherency (because of blasts). It's not hard to drop a bunch of wounds on them. If you nuke the front rank they now have 3 inches to make up next turn (2 for the coherency, 1 for the base).

That's a bit more concerning than "I don't want to think about placing my minis anywhere".

That's my concern. If they massively increase speed, sure... fine. I don't expect that though.

I play nids as well. I thougnt that as well. If we dont get the speed increase, tnen yes that would be a major problem.
I wasnt attacking you. thanks for your explanaion.

Brother SRM wrote:It was terrible. 5th edition 40k treats close combat armies really well, and they certainly don't need the help. With the low cost and high speed of transports, the biggest hurdle for assault armies has been clambered over. They can get there reasonably intact and once there they can completely destroy anything in their way regardless. I do agree that the timing of winning assaults is wonky - it doesn't make much sense for a victory in your opponent's turn to be more beneficial than in your own. However, I'll take my Berserkers occasionally standing out in the open dumbfounded over them completely rolling my opponent's army. Considering there's even very viable multicharges in the rules, consolidating into other units is just taking things too far in the direction of assault armies. Going the route of "you didn't take Ogryns" isn't really fair since close combat is a designed weakness in many of the armies. IG, Tau, and often Marines and Necrons want to stay as far out of assault as possible. I'm saying this as someone who plays Chaos Marines with Khorne Berserkers, Orks, Marines that favor assaulting, and soon to be powerblob IG - consolidating into other units is terrible. The game's over the moment a decent assault unit hits the other army's lines.

5th edition craps all over assault armies with a combination of true line of sight making it difficult to close on the enemy without getting blown to pieces, transports being extremely cheap and plentiful which denies good assault targets and shooting armies being so commonplace. Combat armies absolutely need help, this is completely wrong.

The only time Imperial Guard armies got rolled by a single assault unit in 4th was when the Guard player didn't move his units in a way that prevented a consolidate into close combat. I played a highly aggressive Blood Angels army in 4th and the only time I was ever able to sweep through a Guard player's army was when he was too bad to understand that standing 6.1" away from the ongoing close combat would give him another chance to shoot at me. The good Guard players knew to send forward sacrificial units, pull back threatened ones, block with Chimeras and other tactical plays. 5th edition has removed that from being necessary since you can just sit in your Chimera and laugh while an assault squad has to A) get close enough to fire a meltagun at the transport B) Actually destroy the transport and then C) Be in charge range of the unit that was inside the Chimera. This is extremely rare because smart players know to place the unit piling out of the destroyed transport out of charge range if at all possible, leaving the close combat unit high and dry to be blown apart.

Katie Drake wrote:5th edition craps all over assault armies with a combination of true line of sight making it difficult to close on the enemy without getting blown to pieces, transports being extremely cheap and plentiful which denies good assault targets and shooting armies being so commonplace. Combat armies absolutely need help, this is completely wrong.

You must be playing a different game than the rest of us. How does the ability to shoot on average 0-5 models (usually 2) out of a squad of 5-16 end up being the better choice for a shooty army? If anything, cheap transports add to the firepower of armies NOT by transporting but by providing a mobile heavy weapon platform immune to small weapons fire. Cheap and plentiful transports (along with a generous damage table) help assault based armies survive the trek into the enemy's front ranks... and that's a much greater benefit relatively speaking.

warboss wrote:

Katie Drake wrote:5th edition craps all over assault armies with a combination of true line of sight making it difficult to close on the enemy without getting blown to pieces, transports being extremely cheap and plentiful which denies good assault targets and shooting armies being so commonplace. Combat armies absolutely need help, this is completely wrong.

You must be playing a different game than the rest of us. How does the ability to shoot on average 0-5 models (usually 2) out of a squad of 5-16 end up being the better choice for a shooty army? If anything, cheap transports add to the firepower of armies NOT by transporting but by providing a mobile heavy weapon platform immune to small weapons fire. Cheap and plentiful transports (along with a generous damage table) help assault based armies survive the trek into the enemy's front ranks... and that's a much greater benefit relatively speaking.

But in the end your still shooting and not assaulting? Which is the main point Katie Drake was making.

warboss wrote:

Katie Drake wrote:5th edition craps all over assault armies with a combination of true line of sight making it difficult to close on the enemy without getting blown to pieces, transports being extremely cheap and plentiful which denies good assault targets and shooting armies being so commonplace. Combat armies absolutely need help, this is completely wrong.

You must be playing a different game than the rest of us. How does the ability to shoot on average 0-5 models (usually 2) out of a squad of 5-16 end up being the better choice for a shooty army? If anything, cheap transports add to the firepower of armies NOT by transporting but by providing a mobile heavy weapon platform immune to small weapons fire. Cheap and plentiful transports (along with a generous damage table) help assault based armies survive the trek into the enemy's front ranks... and that's a much greater benefit relatively speaking.

I'm actually not completely sure what you're getting at with the second sentence. Do you mean that it's bad for shooty units to be in transports because then the entire unit can't fire at the same time? I'm a bit confused.

Transports don't just add firepower to the army so much as they make units not have to worry about being shot by small arms or getting assaulted. Part of what makes transports so good in this edition is the relative immunity that a transported unit gets as long as it stays embarked.

Transports help assault armies get across the table a bit yes, but there's still a two turn period where the assault units are moving instead of assaulting. Vehicles being hard(ish) to hurt doesn't matter as much considering that simply stunning the transport is enough to delay the assault unit for an entire turn unless they want to walk the rest of the way toward the enemy. There's a reason many of the top armies in this edition are mobile, transport-heavy shooting armies - because the current rules massively favor them.

Brother SRM wrote:

terranarc wrote:
I know right? And it was freaking glorious. No, sitting there out in the open dumbfounded after finishing off an enemy. Once you were in your enemy's face and in close combat, you were permanently there until you tabled the opponent or you died.
My problem with not being able to continue combat right after killing off an enemy squad is that if you win combat on your turn's assault phase, you're screwed. If you win assault on your opponent's phase, you'll just get into another combat.
Imo, its more sensical for ranged oriented armies to provide some kind of counter charge instead of going all ranged units and playing it PC RTS style. You've got ogryns, use them. But no, players would MUCH rather spend 200-400 points on more tanks, HWTs and other ranged units.
My view is, if you're going to take nothing but ranged units and then get rolled in close combat, I don't see much of a problem with that. Likewise, if an army of Khorne bezerkers loose a shootout with tau firewarriors and crisis suits, then oh well.

It was terrible. 5th edition 40k treats close combat armies really well, and they certainly don't need the help. With the low cost and high speed of transports, the biggest hurdle for assault armies has been clambered over. They can get there reasonably intact and once there they can completely destroy anything in their way regardless. I do agree that the timing of winning assaults is wonky - it doesn't make much sense for a victory in your opponent's turn to be more beneficial than in your own. However, I'll take my Berserkers occasionally standing out in the open dumbfounded over them completely rolling my opponent's army. Considering there's even very viable multicharges in the rules, consolidating into other units is just taking things too far in the direction of assault armies. Going the route of "you didn't take Ogryns" isn't really fair since close combat is a designed weakness in many of the armies. IG, Tau, and often Marines and Necrons want to stay as far out of assault as possible. I'm saying this as someone who plays Chaos Marines with Khorne Berserkers, Orks, Marines that favor assaulting, and soon to be powerblob IG - consolidating into other units is terrible. The game's over the moment a decent assault unit hits the other army's lines.

Oh that's funny, me too We play similar armies sir.
I do see your point though, I forgot about the multiassault rule. You'd end up being able to drag everyone into close combat. And with cheap transports, I guess I can see how someone can take 60 khorne berserkers in rhinos and just zerg rush with elite CC troops. This, I do not mind however since everyone at my local store plays space wolves with 15 longfangs or IG with stupid amount of tanks bubble wrapped by dollarstore IG blobs. So for the sake of furthering my own biased needs, I would support close combat consolidation.
Also, aside from tau, there really aren't many armies with a hole in CC. Even the necrons can field some nasty CC units now while other armies like DE don't give a two hoots since they're bloody fast anyway.
As far as armies that literally have a hole in CC like tau goes, a little OT but that feels like a design flaw. Most 40k armies are very well rounded and granted that some are better at X than Y, no one except for tau cannot x and I would expect this to be fixed next codex tbh.

For Drake's point, imo there's a huge imbalance between jump-pack-marine cost and rhino cost but less visible for blood angles. I would say this has more to do with unit cost in a way. It's most visible for chaos raptors (and I'd count those silly eldar swooping hawks in but they're not exclusively CC rush oriented like most jump jet units) where you simply get too little bang for buck. If they don't put in combat consolidation, but have all these crazy charge reactions, it'll just nerf them more.

d-usa wrote:

skoffs wrote:Regarding the 3rd video (Charge reactions / "Stand & Shoot"):
...
holy poop, flame templates are about to become vicious.

You guys need to quit looking at these rumors in isolation.
If stand and shoot is real, then flames will become a big advantage. But I would assume that you will still have to place the template without touching your own troops. So for templates to be effective, they will have to be in the front line.
And where do all your shooting casualties come from if these rumors are true?

This may be true but what they didn't say was WHEN your weapons fire and how far you can charge (with BoK's random charge distance rumor). If stand and shoot is done before the models get into base contact, then I can't see flamers being in range most of the time. Also, since shooting casualties are taken from the first row, you gotta wonder if you can stop a charge just by killing the guys in range for the charge. Also, you would HAVE to put them in the first row or carefully positioned in the 2nd unless they make a rule where your flamer template can touch your own guys.

Necrosis wrote:
But in the end your still shooting and not assaulting? Which is the main point Katie Drake was making.

Why on earth would I assault with a purpose built shooty army? Transports don't automatically change the inherent purpose of an army build. Her point is that assault based forces are at a disadvantage currently (with transports contributing to that imbalance) and I vehemently disagree with that notion.

Brother SRM wrote:It was terrible. 5th edition 40k treats meched up close combat armies really well, and they certainly don't need the help.

Fixed that for you.

Katie Drake wrote:I'm actually not completely sure what you're getting at with the second sentence. Do you mean that it's bad for shooty units to be in transports because then the entire unit can't fire at the same time? I'm a bit confused.

In general, yes, you do get more utility from a shooting unit when you keep them out of the transport as a general rule. Why would you keep your unit of Long Fangs in their razorback or your Dark Reapers in their Wave Serpent as a standard goto tactic? You've just turned an expensive unit due to weapon and ability upgrades into the cheapest unit in your respective army for a turn as you're not doing anything with them. Do transport benefit shooty armies? Sure. Do they benefit assault based ones more? I certainly think so. Assault doesn't need a boost IMO compared to what it currently does. The 3rd edition days of consolidating into another assault with custom daemon princes and other units was one of the things that killed 40k in my old area for a few years. If they bring that crappy rule back, they'd better significantly buff shooting as well as it'll need it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

terranarc wrote:For Drake's point, imo there's a huge imbalance between jump-pack-marine cost and rhino cost but less visible for blood angles. I would say this has more to do with unit cost in a way. It's most visible for chaos raptors (and I'd count those silly eldar swooping hawks in but they're not exclusively CC rush oriented like most jump jet units) where you simply get too little bang for buck. If they don't put in combat consolidation, but have all these crazy charge reactions, it'll just nerf them more.

So what you're saying is that units designed in 4th edition have suffered somewhat compared with their decreased-cost brethren in newer codicies put out in 5th edition and will even moreso in the radically different 6th edition rules proposed here? That's not a rules problem but simply an issue of an outdated codex no longer in tune with the last half dozen offerings; the solution is to update both codicies as they're built/costed for a ruleset 2 editions out of date.

warboss wrote:

Katie Drake wrote:I'm actually not completely sure what you're getting at with the second sentence. Do you mean that it's bad for shooty units to be in transports because then the entire unit can't fire at the same time? I'm a bit confused.

In general, yes, you do get more utility from a shooting unit when you keep them out of the transport as a general rule. Why would you keep your unit of Long Fangs in their razorback or your Dark Reapers in their Wave Serpent as a standard goto tactic? You've just turned an expensive unit due to weapon and ability upgrades into the cheapest unit in your respective army for a turn as you're not doing anything with them. Do transport benefit shooty armies? Sure. Do they benefit assault based ones more? I certainly think so. Assault doesn't need a boost IMO compared to what it currently does. The 3rd edition days of consolidating into another assault with custom daemon princes and other units was one of the things that killed 40k in my old area for a few years. If they bring that crappy rule back, they'd better significantly buff shooting as well as it'll need it.

Okay, obviously units that specialize in firing multiple, long-ranged, expensive guns aren't going to want to get into a transport that has limited fire points, I'd say that it's pretty much common sense to not put Devastators into a Rhino. What about Tactical Squads? Guard Infantry squads? Grey Hunters, Dark Eldar Warriors, the sorts of units that are the meat of an army? They all go in transports which protects them a ton from everything, both shooting and assault. There's no way that a Rhino helps an Assault Squad as much as it helps a Tactical Squad, it's about protection. When you're driving into the enemy's face with a Rhino-borne assault unit, it almost inevitably dies because smart players know to stun, immobilize or destroy it to prevent the assault unit from hitting home. Assault needs help in a big way, because the difficulty of actually reaching assault isn't worth the payoff right now. They need to bring back consolidating into combat to make going through the hell of reaching close combat worthwhile. I already talked about how smart players can stop a single unit from tearing through their entire army in a previous post.

warboss wrote:

Necrosis wrote:
But in the end your still shooting and not assaulting? Which is the main point Katie Drake was making.

Why on earth would I assault with a purpose built shooty army? Transports don't automatically change the inherent purpose of an army build. Her point is that assault based forces are at a disadvantage currently (with transports contributing to that imbalance) and I vehemently disagree with that notion.

Okay, I see your point. Which I disagree with. Transports help shooting armies more then assault armies. When a unit exits a vehicle it cannot assault unless it is open top (in which case its easy to kill the vehicle) or be is a lot of points (land raiders or stormravens). Also a shooting unit can fire all its weapons by simply getting out of the vehicle (or if the vechile is open top) or can choose to fire its special weapons instead. To sum it up:
Shooting Unit inside a transport: can fire weapons
Assault unit inside a transport: does nothing
Shooting unit gets out of a trasnport: can fire weapons
Assault unit gets out of a trasnport: does nothing (unless its open topped or has a special rule).
Also if something happens to the vechile (stun, immobilized, wreck...etc) shooting armies can just get out and still do their job while the assault armies have to go across the table.

Jackmojo wrote:

Lockark wrote:To me these new Wound Allocation rules feel more clunky then the ones we already have.

Who knows how it actually works though, it could be a simple variation on the easy 4th edition system with the added caveat of "for each failed save remove the closest model to the attacking unit, rechecking distance as necessary as models are removed" or something similar. Personally this sort of rule will give a small bit of increased value to rapid fire guns vs melee hordes as you can effectively reduce the potential assaulter movement by whittling away their lead elements, something hitherto impossible in 40k, but I would say very 'realistic/cinematic'.

I'll also observe that this is exactly how casualties were removed in EPIC: Armageddon so it's not new ground for GW in general (more recently then 40k 2nd for sure).

Jack

The thing is. That's not how they described it. According to that vid, I understood that wounds are allocated in order of what models are closest, then armour saves are taken.
=/

As for being more Cinematic/Realistic?

Yes. It's VERY cinematic to how have the Nob's, Warboss, ect in my ork squads leading from the back instead of leading from the front like a proper Ork. Or my glory hungry chaos lord now haveing a wall of power armour bouncers in front of him to literally catch bullets.

Realistic and Cinematic do not go hand in hand. I'm sorry. Cinematic is my heros rushing foreword leading a charge, well the chumps behind him catch the bullets. Why doesn't he get shot? Because they are just that bad ass! Now shut up and enjoy the game! Realistic is them being the 1st ones to catch the bullets... I'm sorry but I'm not playing 40k because I want some sort of simulation of actual combat. I play it because the rules are based on action movie logic, and that's FUN.

A 2nd reason I dislike this proposed change is that 5th ed already super favours shooting over assaulting, and to me these changes feels like a move to shut out assault orientated armies even more.

Note: I'm not saying this will make or break 6th ed. 6th ed could still have alot of positive changes. Just for me this would be a negative change...
=/

warboss wrote:

terranarc wrote:For Drake's point, imo there's a huge imbalance between jump-pack-marine cost and rhino cost but less visible for blood angles. I would say this has more to do with unit cost in a way. It's most visible for chaos raptors (and I'd count those silly eldar swooping hawks in but they're not exclusively CC rush oriented like most jump jet units) where you simply get too little bang for buck. If they don't put in combat consolidation, but have all these crazy charge reactions, it'll just nerf them more.

So what you're saying is that units designed in 4th edition have suffered somewhat compared with their decreased-cost brethren in newer codicies put out in 5th edition and will even moreso in the radically different 6th edition rules proposed here? That's not a rules problem but simply an issue of an outdated codex no longer in tune with the last half dozen offerings; the solution is to update both codicies as they're built/costed for a ruleset 2 editions out of date.

CSM was 5th yo. And it goes for SM's generic assault marines and vanguard as well. Jumpjet units in general has been nerfed since.
Now as far as whether it'll suffer more in 6th, that's still up in the air. As premeasuring is in, it'll be a lot easier to deep strike safely. I know for sure I'll put my guys at least 9-11" away from the enemy when they DS.
I would expect to see DSing shooty units to become much more effective since now people may put their upgraded models in the rear. Safer DS + rear shots on infantry being worth something is going to be interesting.

But seriously, why do people who build shooty armies expect to be able to completely table the opponent or else something's wrong?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Necrosis wrote:

warboss wrote:

Necrosis wrote:
But in the end your still shooting and not assaulting? Which is the main point Katie Drake was making.

Why on earth would I assault with a purpose built shooty army? Transports don't automatically change the inherent purpose of an army build. Her point is that assault based forces are at a disadvantage currently (with transports contributing to that imbalance) and I vehemently disagree with that notion.

Okay, I see your point. Which I disagree with. Transports help shooting armies more then assault armies. When a unit exits a vehicle it cannot assault unless it is open top (in which case its easy to kill the vehicle) or be is a lot of points (land raiders or stormravens). Also a shooting unit can fire all its weapons by simply getting out of the vehicle (or if the vechile is open top) or can choose to fire its special weapons instead. To sum it up:
Shooting Unit inside a transport: can fire weapons
Assault unit inside a transport: does nothing
Shooting unit gets out of a trasnport: can fire weapons
Assault unit gets out of a trasnport: does nothing (unless its open topped or has a special rule).
Also if something happens to the vechile (stun, immobilized, wreck...etc) shooting armies can just get out and still do their job while the assault armies have to go across the table.

Yes but consider what happens when you have a squad of khorne bezerkers or footslogging assault unit without transport. At the very least, the dirt cheap rhino offers protection from battle cannons and the like on turn one and often a quick 12" boost or 2 the first 2 turns. If you were to foot slot that, it'd take 3-4 turns and in a game where there's only 6 turns, that's pretty big.
I've never actually seen people use transports to relocate shooty units bar the vet chimera thing. Maybe once with some fire warriors but they loose their shooting for that turn and possibly the next.

CSMs were 4th Ed. They weren't even the last 4th Ed codex. Yo.

gorgon wrote:CSMs were 4th Ed. They weren't even the last 4th Ed codex. Yo.

Is true, they were released before the 5th ed rulebook but weren't designed with 4th in mind.

yay for vendettas now the ultra character sniper :( I mean I've play guard since third ed and been in the game since 2nd God I hate this rumor if it's true it will make mech Guard even better

Necrosis wrote:Okay, I see your point. Which I disagree with. Transports help shooting armies more then assault armies. When a unit exits a vehicle it cannot assault unless it is open top (in which case its easy to kill the vehicle) or be is a lot of points (land raiders or stormravens)

Or they exit prior to its moving which happens roughly every second turn when I play or play against assault armies.

Necrosis wrote:
Also a shooting unit can fire all its weapons by simply getting out of the vehicle (or if the vechile is open top) or can choose to fire its special weapons instead.

And assaulty units can exit the vehicle prior to its moving and move/fleet/assault till their hearts are content.

Necrosis wrote:
To sum it up:

Unfortunately in a frequently incorrect or overly simplified way that ignores the details that make or break the game.

Necrosis wrote:
Shooting Unit inside a transport: can fire weapons

Only out of open topped vehicles which make up the minority of vehicles. As for the other close topped ones, the majority of vehicles have zero fire points, the most common one has 2, and a single one has 5. Your blanket statement ignores the significant limitations on shooting from transports that every army with them except Dark Eldar and Orks have.

Necrosis wrote:
Assault unit inside a transport: does nothing

Except that they generally get out prior to moving every second turn and get their additional 6-18" of move/fleet/charge. On the turn that they are doing "nothing", they're moving directly towards the enemy at almost twice the speed they would be doing so in most cases on foot as well as having the option of shooting if the vehicle and movement allows... Blanket statement is wrong.

Necrosis wrote:
Shooting unit gets out of a trasnport: can fire weapons

If they get out, they count as moving meaning that heavy weapons are not available and their max range with rapid fire is 12". For a shooty squad, they strictly limits their choices of targets as well as the effect they'll have. Again, blanket statement is accuarate as it assumes all weapons have an assault profile.

Necrosis wrote:
Assault unit gets out of a trasnport: does nothing (unless its open topped or has a special rule).

Unless they exit prior to it moving and get their 6-18" of move/fleet/charge (and even some shooting if they're close enough). Even if it moved, they can disembark and shoot/run. Certainly not nothing in either case.

Either way, we won't know the true balance of assault vs ranged combat until the rules in their entirety are released. This drip feeding of somewhat dubious rumors isn't really helping much.

SlaveToDorkness wrote:This is idiotic and argument inducing. It'll never happen.

Stupid BoW.

Some of these rumors sounds like the Necron Superlith. I wont quit because of the money I put into the game, but I definitely wont throw a penny into anything but tournaments anymore.

Just saw the charge fire video. All I have to say is 1 bs? What sense does that make? Do the assaulted units completely lose their fudge? "oh crap, those guys we saw were charging at us are actually going assault us! I have no idea what to do!"

Cinematic? Yes. Realistic in any way? No, especially for armies or units that are highly trained soldiers.

McNinja wrote:Just saw the charge fire video. All I have to say is 1 bs? What sense does that make? Do the assaulted units completely lose their fudge? "oh crap, those guys we saw were charging at us are actually going assault us! I have no idea what to do!"

Cinematic? Yes. Realistic in any way? No, especially for armies or units that are highly trained soldiers.

In fantasy they get a -1 to their BS if they are being charged. Perhaps BoW got some misinformation and -1 BS is the accurate thing, not 1BS when charged. Would make a lot more sense. Guard would be shooting at BS2, SM at BS3, etc, etc. Good God, that's wrong-I just had a horrible thought on how Tau could change with this bonus-being able to STORE marker lights into your opponents turn-oops, you charge, I saved my marker lights, now I rapid fire at your charging unit at my normal BS having used a marker light. Uh oh...People wanted better Tau? I think I foresee them being very nasty in the near future...

Just gonna butt in on the argument regarding assaulty units, but if 6th is going to be more "cinematic" (read: realistic) than assaulting off of consolidation is the exact opposite of what they would want since it is effectively like your guys teleporting from unit to unit (they are moving faster than jetbikes or Eldar transports if they attack enough units). My best guess on how they could balance something like this is to let you "spare" enemy models that you should have killed in combat to allow you to drag out the combat, the bad part of course being that if you aren't careful you can get your unit killed.

Also TTW that would sure as hell be a nifty way to give Tau a much needed boost that is for sure.

Buttons wrote:
Also TTW that would sure as hell be a nifty way to give Tau a much needed boost that is for sure.

Thanks-I don't have any rumor knowledge, just applying a bit of Fantasy info with some common sense and a showing of how GW has adjusted armies in the past. I think if charge reactions happen though, marker lights WILL likely be savable until the opponent's turn. In continuation with my psychic abilities, I see a lot of people starting/revamping a Tau army.

McNinja wrote:Just saw the charge fire video. All I have to say is 1 bs? What sense does that make? Do the assaulted units completely lose their fudge? "oh crap, those guys we saw were charging at us are actually going assault us! I have no idea what to do!"

Cinematic? Yes. Realistic in any way? No, especially for armies or units that are highly trained soldiers.

Agreed. I'm not liking the idea of a flat BS for everyone using that rule; if anything, it should be at a penalty to your normal BS instead. Conscripts straight out of the IG boot camp shouldn't snap fire with the same efficacy as 200+ year old marines.

warboss wrote:

McNinja wrote:Just saw the charge fire video. All I have to say is 1 bs? What sense does that make? Do the assaulted units completely lose their fudge? "oh crap, those guys we saw were charging at us are actually going assault us! I have no idea what to do!"

Cinematic? Yes. Realistic in any way? No, especially for armies or units that are highly trained soldiers.

Agreed. I'm not liking the idea of a flat BS for everyone using that rule; if anything, it should be at a penalty to your normal BS instead. Conscripts straight out of the IG boot camp shouldn't snap fire with the same efficacy as 200+ year old marines.

Ork shoota boys would also be snap firing as well as marines...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Buttons wrote:Just gonna butt in on the argument regarding assaulty units, but if 6th is going to be more "cinematic" (read: realistic) than assaulting off of consolidation is the exact opposite of what they would want since it is effectively like your guys teleporting from unit to unit (they are moving faster than jetbikes or Eldar transports if they attack enough units). My best guess on how they could balance something like this is to let you "spare" enemy models that you should have killed in combat to allow you to drag out the combat, the bad part of course being that if you aren't careful you can get your unit killed.

Also TTW that would sure as hell be a nifty way to give Tau a much needed boost that is for sure.

Sure, but then reintroduce shooting into melee. The game needs more grimdark.

I have to say, I hate watching the BOW videos. Watching those guys fidget and stutter makes me cringe. Is there like a transcript of these things floating around so I can read what they say without having to watch them?

warboss wrote:

McNinja wrote:Just saw the charge fire video. All I have to say is 1 bs? What sense does that make? Do the assaulted units completely lose their fudge? "oh crap, those guys we saw were charging at us are actually going assault us! I have no idea what to do!"

Cinematic? Yes. Realistic in any way? No, especially for armies or units that are highly trained soldiers.

Agreed. I'm not liking the idea of a flat BS for everyone using that rule; if anything, it should be at a penalty to your normal BS instead. Conscripts straight out of the IG boot camp shouldn't snap fire with the same efficacy as 200+ year old marines.

very true. However, one of my main... Concerns with how BS works now is that it's simply a flat number, with almost no modifiers anywhere. Two problems with BS:

- against immobile targets, and especially if you haven't moved at all in the last movement phase, your BS should increase against those units/models. I spent three turns trying to blow up a fortification, but kept missing. Against a building. I literally could not hit the boradside of a barn.

-close range shots are far, far easier to make in real life. I've missed shots at 6" with Dark Lances.honestly, that shouldn't happen. With any weapon. I think if you're within a certain distance from the target unit, like 6" away from them, your BS should increase by 1.

Now snap firing. You're in a battle. You are staring at people/monsters running all over the field. If you're a heavy weapons team you've done nothing but watch the field for hours. Then, all of a sudden, you get charged, from in front of you, and you, what, drop your gun? "Oh no, we got charged, I guess I forgot how to properly fire my weapon." How you fire at anything other than your normal bs is beyond me.

I have always been in favor of dropping cover saves and turning them into to-hit modifiers.

Why should a Space Marine in Power Armour have the same protection on the battlefield and inside a bunker? Cover makes you harder to hit, it doesn't do anything once you are hit and wounded.

Get rid of cover saves, and make them to-hit modifiers instead!

As far as ranges, some weapons are harder to fire at close ranges. I like Infinities system of having an optimum range where weapons are at maximum efficiency., but I would not expect GW to follow that example.

d-usa wrote:I have always been in favor of dropping cover saves and turning them into to-hit modifiers.

Why should a Space Marine in Power Armour have the same protection on the battlefield and inside a bunker? Cover makes you harder to hit, it doesn't do anything once you are hit and wounded.

Get rid of cover saves, and make them to-hit modifiers instead!

Heavy Gear does something like that with its unified single roll to hit/damage. When I was introducing some 40k players to the idea (which I like), they didn't like the number of modifiers they had to take into account and instead preferred to have 3 sets of rules for three different rolls instead. YMMV.

warboss wrote:

d-usa wrote:I have always been in favor of dropping cover saves and turning them into to-hit modifiers.

Why should a Space Marine in Power Armour have the same protection on the battlefield and inside a bunker? Cover makes you harder to hit, it doesn't do anything once you are hit and wounded.

Get rid of cover saves, and make them to-hit modifiers instead!

Heavy Gear does something like that with its unified single roll to hit/damage. When I was introducing some 40k players to the idea (which I like), they didn't like the number of modifiers they had to take into account and instead preferred to have 3 sets of rules for three different rolls instead. YMMV.

The main problem is that it makes armoured armies extremely OP, which they would remain until they got a massive price boost. Look at it this way.

Lets say you fire 50 lasguns at a squad of marines (3+ save) in standard (4+) cover at rapid fire range.
You fire 100 shots
50 hit
about 17 wound
about 6 saves are failed

Now lets say standard cover gives a -1 BS save instead of a 4+ save that must be taken
100 shots are fired
33 shots hit (guard fires at BS 2)
11 wounds
4 saves fail

Now lets look at the reverse in both situations with 10 space marines with bolters (ignoring the bolt pistol like I did the laspistol for simplicity) at rapid fire range
Fire 20 shots
13 hit
9 wounds
4.5 saves fail

With the modifer the results are
20 shots
10 hits
7 wounds
no saves

So this gives marines a massive boost and weakens foot slogging armies yet more. Honestly if something like this happened the only reason to ever leave a transport is if you get a 4+ save or greater, or you are fighting enemies with an AP- standard weapon.

The way cover works now doesn't make sense. If the cover save fails, why would their armor not then take a hit? That goes for invuln saves as well, with the exception on the wych dodge invuln saves.

Cover right now is the opponent rolling for your chance to miss, though if they fail you automatically bypass their armor (which is great). Marines don't use cover saves half of the time anyway, and if they happen to be in a fortification, then they can use the cover save against ap 3 or lower weapons.

Katie Drake wrote:
...
Assault needs help in a big way, because the difficulty of actually reaching assault isn't worth the payoff right now. They need to bring back consolidating into combat to make going through the hell of reaching close combat worthwhile. I already talked about how smart players can stop a single unit from tearing through their entire army in a previous post.

In my opinion as a player who plays BOTH shooty/assault and hyrbid armies, I find this does not match my perceptions or experiences at all.

In fact, I would say with all due respect that this in no way matching any experiences of anyone I have ever discussed tactics/armies/editions with, ever.
Either at tournaments or even "beer and pretzels" games, blogs, battle reports or even read about.

In fact, this is so far off my experiences, that either your situation I would find to be amazingly singular, or you are making this up for the intention of humor or being sarcastic.

I apologize if you are indeed serious, but as an outside observer to this thread I would say that I have seen no indicators to support your observations.






Automatically Appended Next Post:

McNinja wrote:The way cover works now doesn't make sense. If the cover save fails, why would their armor not then take a hit? That goes for invuln saves as well, with the exception on the wych dodge invuln saves.

Cover right now is the opponent rolling for your chance to miss, though if they fail you automatically bypass their armor (which is great). Marines don't use cover saves half of the time anyway, and if they happen to be in a fortification, then they can use the cover save against ap 3 or lower weapons.

The cover makes sense as you ONLY take it in the case where it has been determined that your armor WOULD have failed, and otherwise your model WOULD be wounded otherwise.

Thats the reason marines don't take cover, because most weapons would not already defeat their armor (i.e. the armor save is better).

Or to word it exactly as you have stated it;
If the cover save fails, why would their armor not then take a hit?
Because you are taking the cover save because it has ALREADY been determined that the armor would NOT take the hit (i.e. the AP is better than the armor).

Get rid of AP values

d-usa wrote:Get rid of AP values

So, in other words, a guy wearing a flak jacket should be able to save against a shot of material that would give you an instant third degree burn (plasma)?

What edition did AP values start, and what did we do before them?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
To-save modifiers, that was it!

Get rid of the stupid AP values, and bring them back.

Why should Power Armor be just as effective against a las-pistol as it is against a Bolter?

Get rid of cover-saves and bring back to-hit modifiers.
Get rid of AP values and bring back save modifiers.

McNinja wrote:The way cover works now doesn't make sense. If the cover save fails, why would their armor not then take a hit? That goes for invuln saves as well, with the exception on the wych dodge invuln saves.

Cover right now is the opponent rolling for your chance to miss, though if they fail you automatically bypass their armor (which is great). Marines don't use cover saves half of the time anyway, and if they happen to be in a fortification, then they can use the cover save against ap 3 or lower weapons.

Because as I mentioned it would break the game. It would take about 100 guardsmen to drop a single terminator with a storm shield in cover if he got three saves.
100 shots
50 hits
17 wounds
9 cover saves failed
3 invul saves failed
0-1 armour saves failed

Never mind, it would take on average more than 100 lasguns firing to drop a terminator if he got all his saves. In order to balance it termies would need to cost about 130 points since it would take about 25 guardsmen 4 turns of shooting to kill him. Hell even executioners would be useless despite their redundancy since terminators would get so many saves.

Maybe they will bring back modifiers in 7th, but it would need to be a complete overhaul with massive codex updates in order to keep the modifier rules from crippling balance.

Edit: Also, people need to remember that the game is an abstraction, many things are simplified or dumbed down in order to speed up the game and maintain balace. Try playing a Guard vs. Dark Angels Deathwing game with all those new modifiers in place of the conventional single save and see what happens. Hint: Guard will get slaughtered since they will only ever get 1 save/modifier unless they bring overpriced carapace armour.

Or instead of raising costs of Terminators, lower the cost of Guardsmen. It would demonstrate a far more literal disparity in survivability between MEQ and GEQ and a more realistic vision of how things would play out, abstraction or not. They would still die to massed fire, which the Guard have in spades, and would have far more of if their point cost was lowered.

Lockark wrote:

The thing is. That's not how they described it. According to that vid, I understood that wounds are allocated in order of what models are closest, then armour saves are taken.
=/

Eh, I'm basically assuming a simpler system would be what we'll actually see, the way its described is a bit too clunky for me to give much credence too (or possibly they simply don't understand the new rules very well yet)

Lockark wrote:
As for being more Cinematic/Realistic?

Realistic and Cinematic do not go hand in hand. I'm sorry. Cinematic is my heros rushing foreword leading a charge, well the chumps behind him catch the bullets. Why doesn't he get shot? Because they are just that bad ass! Now shut up and enjoy the game! Realistic is them being the 1st ones to catch the bullets... I'm sorry but I'm not playing 40k because I want some sort of simulation of actual combat. I play it because the rules are based on action movie logic, and that's FUN.

Part of the reason I put that in quotes is that many folks seem to conflate or confuse the two and heroes with machine guns attempting to hold back the charging alien horde is well grounded in sci fi and wartime cinema As to it being more cinematic for your nob to be up front that's true, but he does need those red shirts to die around him to help make him look good

Additionally perhaps Characters will get back some variation of 'Look out sir! ARRGH!' or similar. Just would remain to be seen if squad upgrade characters would rate that special protection, since they're not really the big damn heroes in 40k.

Jack

Nalathani wrote:I have to say, I hate watching the BOW videos. Watching those guys fidget and stutter makes me cringe. Is there like a transcript of these things floating around so I can read what they say without having to watch them?

No. Why? Because a transcript isn't cinematic.

I like it. ICs should be immune,since they should be leading from the front anyway, but everything else it would work. Just leave your meltaguns a couple of inches behind the front guys.As others have said, being able to remove models from the back essentially gives assault armies free movement, sometimes 3 or 4 inches worth. It's stupid.
It's also the complete opposite of Fantasy rules. People winging about 40k becoming more like Fantasy have probably never played Fantasy, or 40k.
Oh and duels sound wicked, especially if a charector who turns down a duel loses his special ability. This would mean a priest would always accept a duel (since to refuse would mean his squad lost the re-roll to hit), whereas a pysker might not. It balances gameplay with epicnness.

http://www.beastsofwar.com/warhammer-40k/rumor-randomly-chosen-psychic-powers-40k-6th-ed/

And another one has been added.

I give it 2 minutes before people start whinging about 40k becomming more like Fantasy.

Any summary for those of us websensed?

Random psyker powers.

First post edited to contain the link. thanks for the heads-up on that one, deejay.

I'm totally up for random psychic powers as long as there's enough to keep it interesting.
Could be something like if there's five psychic powers and on a D6 roll of 1-5 you take the power rolled but on a 6 you can pick one. I suspect there'll be 6 for each race though.
Could do what they do with the warhammer magic lores though. Each lore has one signature spell that the player can substitute one of his random rolls for. That'd work pretty well.

I didn't watch the whole video (i'm at work currently), but this almost seems as if they'd need to re-write every codex's psychic powers into a d6 rollable chart, adding extra, new powers where necessary, in the BRB.

tetrisphreak wrote:I didn't watch the whole video (i'm at work currently), but this almost seems as if they'd need to re-write every codex's psychic powers into a d6 rollable chart, adding extra, new powers where necessary, in the BRB.

Yep, they do hint at that, Wolves have 7, Blood angels have 9 are the example they have used. So yes random roll of a D6 currently would not work and some revision would be needed.
They also hinted at that being annoying for the player to have FAQ's floating about everywhere.

deejaybainbridge wrote:

tetrisphreak wrote:I didn't watch the whole video (i'm at work currently), but this almost seems as if they'd need to re-write every codex's psychic powers into a d6 rollable chart, adding extra, new powers where necessary, in the BRB.

Yep, they do hint at that, Wolves have 7, Blood angels have 9 are the example they have used. So yes random roll of a D6 currently would not work and some revision would be needed.
They also hinted at that being annoying for the player to have FAQ's floating about everywhere.

That's almost no different from now - Just about every codex has a multi-page internet FAQ that players have to keep with them. This FAQ would be no different in terms of aggravation. In the scheme of things carrying around a few sheets of extra paper is nothing compared to the (hopefully) 300+ page hardcover BRB.

tetrisphreak wrote:

deejaybainbridge wrote:

tetrisphreak wrote:I didn't watch the whole video (i'm at work currently), but this almost seems as if they'd need to re-write every codex's psychic powers into a d6 rollable chart, adding extra, new powers where necessary, in the BRB.

Yep, they do hint at that, Wolves have 7, Blood angels have 9 are the example they have used. So yes random roll of a D6 currently would not work and some revision would be needed.
They also hinted at that being annoying for the player to have FAQ's floating about everywhere.

That's almost no different from now - Just about every codex has a multi-page internet FAQ that players have to keep with them. This FAQ would be no different in terms of aggravation. In the scheme of things carrying around a few sheets of extra paper is nothing compared to the (hopefully) 300+ page hardcover BRB.

True, but most FAQ's are just clarification, this would result in a chart required for constant reference. I pencil in the FAQ changes to the codex. But an entire table become a bit more of a hassel. Unless of course they are all in the new rule book.

Also expecting the book to be more like fantasy, pushing 500+ pages. Nice and lightweight for carrying around with you.

Ever since there were first hints of this rumour I've not been able to figure out how it will work for some xenos armies where theres several different types of psykers. Might it result in Doom-casting Warlocks? Zoanthropes casting Catalyst? And what about Warp 'Ead's, who's powers are already randomized?

I'm not saying its a bad idea, but I just don't see how it will work in every situation. For Librarians I can see it working well though.

deejaybainbridge wrote:True, but most FAQ's are just clarification, this would result in a chart required for constant reference. I pencil in the FAQ changes to the codex. But an entire table become a bit more of a hassel. Unless of course they are all in the new rule book.

Oh? I was playing this Black Templar guy a few weeks ago and he was totally awed that I simply believed that his guys work the same as all other marines now, whenever he declared that he would take a storm shield save, fire a cyclone missile launcher or the like, he was already reaching for his copy of the FAQ.

This many changes to the basic ruleset would almost require a minidex like was put into the back of 3rd Edition.

Joey wrote:I give it 2 minutes before people start whinging about 40k becomming more like Fantasy.

Nah. For most of us BoW has become a "two nerds one hobby" meme. Their stuff is beyond white knighting and well into brown-nosing territory. I'm beginning to wonder if they haven't struck some sort of deal to have their videos used at GW training seminars. At last that would explain why he keeps using the word "cinematic" over and over and over.

I wouldn't be surprised if it was that in the back of the 6th ed rulebook or entirely new FAQs for all armies.

Jidmah wrote:

deejaybainbridge wrote:True, but most FAQ's are just clarification, this would result in a chart required for constant reference. I pencil in the FAQ changes to the codex. But an entire table become a bit more of a hassel. Unless of course they are all in the new rule book.

Oh? I was playing this Black Templar guy a few weeks ago and he was totally awed that I simply believed that his guys work the same as all other marines now, whenever he declared that he would take a storm shield save, fire a cyclone missile launcher or the like, he was already reaching for his copy of the FAQ.

That poor guy, he must have been shellshocked if he really had to reach for it each time.

Ever since there were first hints of this rumour I've not been able to figure out how it will work for some xenos armies where theres several different types of psykers. Might it result in Doom-casting Warlocks? Zoanthropes casting Catalyst? And what about Warp 'Ead's, who's powers are already randomized?

So warpheads will be double rolling? Sweet, I might get to roll, roll again, and than reroll with the upgrade! I'd have a better chance !

The fact that Weird Boyz have all their powers at hand means that they may very well be the best psyker in the game if this is true

Be a nice change, because right now they bite

Of course one in six of their powers is highly detrimental to their health...

Joey wrote:I like it. ICs should be immune,since they should be leading from the front anyway, but everything else it would work. Just leave your meltaguns a couple of inches behind the front guys.As others have said, being able to remove models from the back essentially gives assault armies free movement, sometimes 3 or 4 inches worth. It's stupid.
It's also the complete opposite of Fantasy rules. People winging about 40k becoming more like Fantasy have probably never played Fantasy, or 40k.
Oh and duels sound wicked, especially if a charector who turns down a duel loses his special ability. This would mean a priest would always accept a duel (since to refuse would mean his squad lost the re-roll to hit), whereas a pysker might not. It balances gameplay with epicnness.

How is removing models from the back "free movement"? If anything, being forced to remove models from the front would be reduced movement, not the other way 'round.

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Joey wrote:I like it. ICs should be immune,since they should be leading from the front anyway, but everything else it would work. Just leave your meltaguns a couple of inches behind the front guys.As others have said, being able to remove models from the back essentially gives assault armies free movement, sometimes 3 or 4 inches worth. It's stupid.
It's also the complete opposite of Fantasy rules. People winging about 40k becoming more like Fantasy have probably never played Fantasy, or 40k.
Oh and duels sound wicked, especially if a charector who turns down a duel loses his special ability. This would mean a priest would always accept a duel (since to refuse would mean his squad lost the re-roll to hit), whereas a pysker might not. It balances gameplay with epicnness.

How is removing models from the back "free movement"? If anything, being forced to remove models from the front would be reduced movement, not the other way 'round.

Because the one at the front has died, but the ones at the back got to move up a couple of inches for free.
Protip - if someone's dead, they're no longer where they were. So if his friend is where he was, that's free movement.

Joey wrote:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Joey wrote:I like it. ICs should be immune,since they should be leading from the front anyway, but everything else it would work. Just leave your meltaguns a couple of inches behind the front guys.As others have said, being able to remove models from the back essentially gives assault armies free movement, sometimes 3 or 4 inches worth. It's stupid.
It's also the complete opposite of Fantasy rules. People winging about 40k becoming more like Fantasy have probably never played Fantasy, or 40k.
Oh and duels sound wicked, especially if a charector who turns down a duel loses his special ability. This would mean a priest would always accept a duel (since to refuse would mean his squad lost the re-roll to hit), whereas a pysker might not. It balances gameplay with epicnness.

How is removing models from the back "free movement"? If anything, being forced to remove models from the front would be reduced movement, not the other way 'round.

Because the one at the front has died, but the ones at the back got to move up a couple of inches for free.
Protip - if someone's dead, they're no longer where they were. So if his friend is where he was, that's free movement.

Or, you know, the bullets hit the guy at the back. Shocking, I know.

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Joey wrote:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Joey wrote:I like it. ICs should be immune,since they should be leading from the front anyway, but everything else it would work. Just leave your meltaguns a couple of inches behind the front guys.As others have said, being able to remove models from the back essentially gives assault armies free movement, sometimes 3 or 4 inches worth. It's stupid.
It's also the complete opposite of Fantasy rules. People winging about 40k becoming more like Fantasy have probably never played Fantasy, or 40k.
Oh and duels sound wicked, especially if a charector who turns down a duel loses his special ability. This would mean a priest would always accept a duel (since to refuse would mean his squad lost the re-roll to hit), whereas a pysker might not. It balances gameplay with epicnness.

How is removing models from the back "free movement"? If anything, being forced to remove models from the front would be reduced movement, not the other way 'round.

Because the one at the front has died, but the ones at the back got to move up a couple of inches for free.
Protip - if someone's dead, they're no longer where they were. So if his friend is where he was, that's free movement.

Or, you know, the bullets hit the guy at the back. Shocking, I know.

Also literally impossible.

Joey wrote:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Joey wrote:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Joey wrote:I like it. ICs should be immune,since they should be leading from the front anyway, but everything else it would work. Just leave your meltaguns a couple of inches behind the front guys.As others have said, being able to remove models from the back essentially gives assault armies free movement, sometimes 3 or 4 inches worth. It's stupid.
It's also the complete opposite of Fantasy rules. People winging about 40k becoming more like Fantasy have probably never played Fantasy, or 40k.
Oh and duels sound wicked, especially if a charector who turns down a duel loses his special ability. This would mean a priest would always accept a duel (since to refuse would mean his squad lost the re-roll to hit), whereas a pysker might not. It balances gameplay with epicnness.

How is removing models from the back "free movement"? If anything, being forced to remove models from the front would be reduced movement, not the other way 'round.

Because the one at the front has died, but the ones at the back got to move up a couple of inches for free.
Protip - if someone's dead, they're no longer where they were. So if his friend is where he was, that's free movement.

Or, you know, the bullets hit the guy at the back. Shocking, I know.

Also literally impossible.

I think the idea is the front guy dies and then someone runs forward to pick up his gun, rather than bullets hitting the guy in the back, because sometimes thats impossible.

Edit: and sometimes the guy in the front has a melta, which means he is one of the last ones to die. Because internet rules say so

Joey wrote:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Joey wrote:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Joey wrote:I like it. ICs should be immune,since they should be leading from the front anyway, but everything else it would work. Just leave your meltaguns a couple of inches behind the front guys.As others have said, being able to remove models from the back essentially gives assault armies free movement, sometimes 3 or 4 inches worth. It's stupid.
It's also the complete opposite of Fantasy rules. People winging about 40k becoming more like Fantasy have probably never played Fantasy, or 40k.
Oh and duels sound wicked, especially if a charector who turns down a duel loses his special ability. This would mean a priest would always accept a duel (since to refuse would mean his squad lost the re-roll to hit), whereas a pysker might not. It balances gameplay with epicnness.

How is removing models from the back "free movement"? If anything, being forced to remove models from the front would be reduced movement, not the other way 'round.

Because the one at the front has died, but the ones at the back got to move up a couple of inches for free.
Protip - if someone's dead, they're no longer where they were. So if his friend is where he was, that's free movement.

Or, you know, the bullets hit the guy at the back. Shocking, I know.

Also literally impossible.

Far from impossible, but I see your point. The rules work that way though, so it's not "free movement" per se.

Remember guys, there will be no FAQs for 6th edition. FAQs are "softrules" don't really count. If anything it will be ERATA "hard rules" that do matter.

Yes I know people call them FAQs, but really they will be Errata

Those videos were annoying....

Davor wrote:Remember guys, there will be no FAQs for 6th edition. FAQs are "softrules" don't really count. If anything it will be ERATA "hard rules" that do matter.

Yes I know people call them FAQs, but really they will be Errata

So youre saying offical rulings GW post are not actual rulings?

Defeatmyarmy wrote:

Davor wrote:Remember guys, there will be no FAQs for 6th edition. FAQs are "softrules" don't really count. If anything it will be ERATA "hard rules" that do matter.

Yes I know people call them FAQs, but really they will be Errata

So youre saying offical rulings GW post are not actual rulings?

That's what GW says as well. The FAQs are not rule changes, but rather the house rules of the GW studio.



That said, everyone uses them anyway.

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Defeatmyarmy wrote:

Davor wrote:Remember guys, there will be no FAQs for 6th edition. FAQs are "softrules" don't really count. If anything it will be ERATA "hard rules" that do matter.
Yes I know people call them FAQs, but really they will be Errata

So youre saying offical rulings GW post are not actual rulings?

That's what GW says as well. The FAQs are not rule changes, but rather the house rules of the GW studio.

In GW FAQ's, even the FAQ portion change rules all the time. Basically they only call it 'Errata' when they actually want change wording of the codex/brb, but if they just change the rules it is 'FAQ'.

AlmightyWalrus wrote:That said, everyone uses them anyway.

Yeah, because GW can't write clear rules and there are huge amounts of stuff you can't make RAW based calls on that are on the FAQs.
Choices are to either:
1) Adopt your house rules on how to handle huge amount of stuff, argue about such house rules with every new guy you play against as they interpreted the rules differently
2) Use GW FAQs