Therion wrote:

Necron armies all the way.

Don't forget that in the rumoured rule set the living metal is light years ahead of fortitude in terms of defensive ability. Living metal gives a saving throw against all of those shaken and stunned results that would soon kill you because they stack into more dangerous results. Fortitude just cancels the effects of shaken and stunned at the start of the GK's own turn -- Only the GK vehicles will never get to use it because they're dead.

I think almost all of the rumoured rule changes specifically improve the Necrons, and they were already very good. Bonuses for jump infantry assault troops, FNP nerf to be in line with RP, glances being much more dangerous to vehicles (I'm not talking about Gauss Flayers but Tesla Destructors -- Who cares if AP- is -1 to damage chart if all you need is a few glances and the target is auto-destroyed since you covered all the results), fast vehicles being harder to hit (and being harder to hit is better than just having more armor now plus Tesla Destructors are mostly twin-linked so you'll see more 6's yourself), moving chargers being before the shooting phase (Scarabs and Wraiths don't have any shooting weapons that they don't get to shoot), vehicles being easier to hit in close combat directly buffs Scarabs, preferred enemy now working for Destroyers and Destroyer Lords, etc. Those flat out skimmer vehicles being hit with 6's with shooting weapons is absolutely hilarious for CCB Overlords who can move flat out all game and inflict the sweep attacks every turn.

Rarely if ever has a new rule set so much buffed an existing army. It only proves that when Ward designed Codex: Necrons he had the new edition rulebook in his hands already.

Mathieu Raymond wrote:That psyker in the new teaser... could they be linking W40K to Prometheus?

Before anyone flames me: this was a joke.

Therion wrote:
Indeed. Warhammer games have always been about humanity's eternal struggle against Chaos. I think the people who claim 40K isn't mostly about Space Marines are new to the game, or simply delusional.

Red Corsair wrote:

WAAAAAAAAAAARD!.....we need to pay Shatner to get that in a clip. Now that I have justified Pretre's sig I am glad that someone else picked up on this. I will be happy to see the meta of necron armies shift from plebeian maintenance bots back to phalanxes of warriors though. Honestly they used to function this way, warriors glancing vehicles to death was pretty much their thing, remember when they had gaus disruptors for CC? lol.

Therion wrote:

Necron armies all the way.

Don't forget that in the rumoured rule set the living metal is light years ahead of fortitude in terms of defensive ability. Living metal gives a saving throw against all of those shaken and stunned results that would soon kill you because they stack into more dangerous results. Fortitude just cancels the effects of shaken and stunned at the start of the GK's own turn -- Only the GK vehicles will never get to use it because they're dead.

I think almost all of the rumoured rule changes specifically improve the Necrons, and they were already very good. Bonuses for jump infantry assault troops, FNP nerf to be in line with RP, glances being much more dangerous to vehicles (I'm not talking about Gauss Flayers but Tesla Destructors -- Who cares if AP- is -1 to damage chart if all you need is a few glances and the target is auto-destroyed since you covered all the results), fast vehicles being harder to hit (and being harder to hit is better than just having more armor now plus Tesla Destructors are mostly twin-linked so you'll see more 6's yourself), moving chargers being before the shooting phase (Scarabs and Wraiths don't have any shooting weapons that they don't get to shoot), vehicles being easier to hit in close combat directly buffs Scarabs, preferred enemy now working for Destroyers and Destroyer Lords, etc. Those flat out skimmer vehicles being hit with 6's with shooting weapons is absolutely hilarious for CCB Overlords who can move flat out all game and inflict the sweep attacks every turn.

Rarely if ever has a new rule set so much buffed an existing army. It only proves that when Ward designed Codex: Necrons he had the new edition rulebook in his hands already.

labmouse42 wrote:

Sidstyler wrote:Honestly I wouldn't have as much of a problem with the background revolving mostly around the Marines, as long as the game rules were balanced so every race was viable to play. What most people have a problem with are Marines being the poster boys, and having the best rules, and often being the cheapest army to collect/play (even with $75 land raiders or $82 storm ravens).

Saying all marine armies have the best rules is simply incorrect. BT and C:SM are at the bottom of the power curve right now. [i]IG, DE, and Necrons all have codex's that are easily better than those 2.

davethepak wrote:

labmouse42 wrote:

Sidstyler wrote:Honestly I wouldn't have as much of a problem with the background revolving mostly around the Marines, as long as the game rules were balanced so every race was viable to play. What most people have a problem with are Marines being the poster boys, and having the best rules, and often being the cheapest army to collect/play (even with $75 land raiders or $82 storm ravens).

Saying all marine armies have the best rules is simply incorrect. BT and C:SM are at the bottom of the power curve right now. [i]IG, DE, and Necrons all have codex's that are easily better than those 2.

Exquese me? My tau beg to differ greatly with the assertion that Codex space marines are at the bottom of the power curve.

I have to agree 100% that its ok that the game focuses on the Human Heros...its because we are humans ...if this was a tau game, the tau would be the A#1 spot. I could care less about fluff focus, I just want the rules balanced ...

I am hoping some of the "rumored" changes do make it in - as a few of them might just give my beloved xenos a bit of a needed boost.

ShumaGorath wrote:

davethepak wrote:

labmouse42 wrote:

Sidstyler wrote:Honestly I wouldn't have as much of a problem with the background revolving mostly around the Marines, as long as the game rules were balanced so every race was viable to play. What most people have a problem with are Marines being the poster boys, and having the best rules, and often being the cheapest army to collect/play (even with $75 land raiders or $82 storm ravens).

Saying all marine armies have the best rules is simply incorrect. BT and C:SM are at the bottom of the power curve right now. IG, DE, and Necrons all have codex's that are easily better than those 2.

Exquese me? My tau beg to differ greatly with the assertion that Codex space marines are at the bottom of the power curve.

I have to agree 100% that its ok that the game focuses on the Human Heros...its because we are humans ...if this was a tau game, the tau would be the A#1 spot. I could care less about fluff focus, I just want the rules balanced ...

I am hoping some of the "rumored" changes do make it in - as a few of them might just give my beloved xenos a bit of a needed boost.

I argue in the opposite direction, C:SM is pretty well bottom tier. Not tau bad, but definitely bottom rung. Black templars however have some pretty tier one builds with tank hunting missile spam since they get cyclones and typhoons cheap and can double up in 5 man term squads with tank hunter. With sixth the army is going to become pretty amazing considering 100% of it's shooting will be improved with preferred enemy[u].

davethepak wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

davethepak wrote:

labmouse42 wrote:

Sidstyler wrote:Honestly I wouldn't have as much of a problem with the background revolving mostly around the Marines, as long as the game rules were balanced so every race was viable to play. What most people have a problem with are Marines being the poster boys, and having the best rules, and often being the cheapest army to collect/play (even with $75 land raiders or $82 storm ravens).

Saying all marine armies have the best rules is simply incorrect. BT and C:SM are at the bottom of the power curve right now. IG, DE, and Necrons all have codex's that are easily better than those 2.

Exquese me? My tau beg to differ greatly with the assertion that Codex space marines are at the bottom of the power curve.

I have to agree 100% that its ok that the game focuses on the Human Heros...its because we are humans ...if this was a tau game, the tau would be the A#1 spot. I could care less about fluff focus, I just want the rules balanced ...

I am hoping some of the "rumored" changes do make it in - as a few of them might just give my beloved xenos a bit of a needed boost.

I argue in the opposite direction, C:SM is pretty well bottom tier. Not tau bad, but definitely bottom rung. Black templars however have some pretty tier one builds with tank hunting missile spam since they get cyclones and typhoons cheap and can double up in 5 man term squads with tank hunter. With sixth the army is going to become pretty amazing considering 100% of it's shooting will be improved with preferred enemy[u].

I really hate to break this to you, but a really close look at the vow on page 25 says...."[i]IN CLOSE COMBAT..." for preferred enemy. Yeah, sad day. :( My other BT buddies were fairly upset at this too...

Morathi's Darkest Sin wrote:Well with my planned Dark Angels army being dropped, I was wondering what I was going to do with the two sniper Scout units I'd already picked up.

Looks like my Guard will have Astartes watching over them if this allies confirmation is accurate.

H.B.M.C. wrote:Chaos can take Daemons again!

Therion wrote:

H.B.M.C. wrote:Chaos can take Daemons again!

It's so Games Workshop-like games design if you think about it. No need to balance anything anymore if everyone can take everything. Well not everyone of course. Chaos gets one ally, Necrons and Eldar and Dark Eldar and Tau and Nids and Orks get zip and the Imperium allies with half the armies in the game. Now that I think of it maybe they're consolidating all the Imperium books to 'Codex Imperium' this way.

Allies are the easiest way to destroy an entire game system. Compared to this none of the random this random that or crazy psychic powers seem bad. Once allies are in, people are truly then just playing with their toy soldiers instead of playing an actual game that makes any sense whatsoever.

Before someone says there's probably some restrictions to allies -- It's irrelevant, unless the restriction is 'with your opponent's consent'. Even if you have to take a HQ and 2 troops from each book (which I doubt) it'll create a whole new tier 1 of armies. In case you were wondering they're all Imperium combinations.

H.B.M.C. wrote:I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you Therion – allies are a tremendous way to destroy any notion of balance – but looking at 40K’s most recent history with allies, the Daemonhunters and Witch Hunter Codices, I don’t recall either of them breaking the game?

H.B.M.C. wrote:I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you Therion – allies are a tremendous way to destroy any notion of balance – but looking at 40K’s most recent history with allies, the Daemonhunters and Witch Hunter Codices, I don’t recall either of them breaking the game?

Therion wrote:

H.B.M.C. wrote:Chaos can take Daemons again!

It's so Games Workshop-like games design if you think about it. No need to balance anything anymore if everyone can take everything. Well not everyone of course. Chaos gets one ally, Necrons and Eldar and Dark Eldar and Tau and Nids and Orks get zip and the Imperium allies with half the armies in the game. Now that I think of it maybe they're consolidating all the Imperium books to 'Codex Imperium' this way.

Allies are the easiest way to destroy an entire game system. Compared to this none of the random this random that or crazy psychic powers seem bad. Once allies are in, people are truly then just playing with their toy soldiers instead of playing an actual game that makes any sense whatsoever.

Before someone says there's probably some restrictions to allies -- It's irrelevant, unless the restriction is 'with your opponent's consent'. Even if you have to take a HQ and 2 troops from each book (which I doubt) it'll create a whole new tier 1 of armies. In case you were wondering they're all Imperium combinations, GK+IG being one of the most overpowered ones from dual armies. It's crazy because whenever an army has one 'broken good' unit the situation might still be manageable unless that unit can be spammed for more than 3 slots. Allies allow players to pick the broken units from multiple army books and put them together and then even the last resemblance of balance disappears.

Uh are you forgetting that Necrons can team up with Blood Angels? And if we go by rumours the Tau will ally up with Ultra Marines

Therion wrote:

H.B.M.C. wrote:I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you Therion – allies are a tremendous way to destroy any notion of balance – but looking at 40K’s most recent history with allies, the Daemonhunters and Witch Hunter Codices, I don’t recall either of them breaking the game?

I do recall those books being completely idiotic. Taking allies from either book was disallowed from basically every European tournament for the entire duration of those books, because all it did was allow perfectly competitive armies like IG to take a psychic hood and some other nonsense that they didn't need and weren't designed to need. The fact just was that those books didn't have much other useful stuff to grab. I'm pretty sure you understand the notion that armies have some weaker force organisation slots and are supposed to have some inherent weaknessess. Vendettas are the best fast attack choice in the entire game for example, and allowing armies that have garbage fast attack to use them just breaks the balance. Same goes for stuff like Purifiers which are the single most undercosted infantry unit in the game. Why should Grey Knights suddenly have access to Vendettas?

The sad thing is that I'm sure there's hundreds of players out there who would honestly use these rules just to make funny or fluffy armies, but allowing this garbage would be a killing blow to the tournament scene. That's why it'll never be allowed in any form of course even if the rulebook has it, but that won't stop me from being pissed off about the fact that GW forces active players to house rule the game just so that it's even remotely playable.

Codex choices that are weak and underutilized are such due to bad codex design, not because of intentionally "weak" assets giving an army "flavor".

davethepak wrote:

labmouse42 wrote: BT and C:SM are at the bottom of the power curve right now. [i]IG, DE, and Necrons all have codex's that are easily better than those 2.

Exquese me? My tau beg to differ greatly with the assertion that Codex space marines are at the bottom of the power curve.

ShumaGorath wrote:That is disappointing though as someone who doesn't play templars it's also somewhat of a relief.

H.B.M.C. wrote:@Shummy:

Admittedly no, but then again I was the guy with an Inquisitorial army, not the other way around, and any time I did out-of-phase shooting it was my Kyoto-Pattern Inquisitorial Fire Team (1 Psycannon, 2 Heavy Bolters, 1 Plasma Cannon + 1 Re-Roll) that did the shooting.

There was the Liber Heresius. That was fairly easy to abuse.

ForgeMarine wrote:I havent sorted thru all of the post yet, however last I read there were going to be magic cards similiar to Fantasy. Any thoughts to how this will impact characters such as Mephiston? Any Thoughts? Thanks

Davor wrote:They already have psychic cards you can download. At least for Tyranids. So this is really nothing new except that they are charging us for it now.

sennacherib wrote:
As far as the play for fun/WAAC/tournament player argument that occupied the prior page, i have to say that you can play however you want. Just make sure your opponent is on the same page as you. Playing a fluffy army against a honed tourni list is no fun at all. And in answer to someones post about how no one enters a match with the hopes of loosing. Not true. There are less experienced players at my local club that i have seriously dumbed my army down when i faced them. I started off with the intent that they would have the best chance of winning possible. They still usually lost because they made some wonky decisions or one or two critical rolls didnt go their way. But what was most important to me was that they had fun and that i did too. i always meter my list so that it balances well with the level/style of play that i expect my foe to bring. that is all.

Carnage43 wrote:

ForgeMarine wrote:I havent sorted thru all of the post yet, however last I read there were going to be magic cards similiar to Fantasy. Any thoughts to how this will impact characters such as Mephiston? Any Thoughts? Thanks

The "card" portion is largely irrelevant, they are basically printed off versions of what you will find in the rule book from what I understand. From what I've seen/heard there will be 35 spells spread across 5 schools. I imagine the schools will be sorted into various categories,

Battle field control (+to reserve rolls, negative to enemy's, increased cover saves, "the Gate", Lash of slaanesh..etc)
Personal buffs (Sanguine sword, Unleashed rage, quickening, wings of sanguinius, hammer-hand, might of heroes, leech life...etc)
Army buffs (Fortune, Catalyst, sanctuary, shrouding, force dome/shield, something to grant FC)
Offensive (Blood boil, avenger, warp rift, jaws of the world wolf, doombolt, smite, vortex of doom, lightning, eldrich storm)
Debuffs (Fear of the darkness, Doom, Paroxym)

Of course they could play the old race spell schools; Eldar, Space Marines, Orks, Tyranids and "Misc" or imperial guard. Hell, the spells could be entirely new, and in addition or instead of current spells.

morgendonner wrote:White Dwarf leaks should hit in a day or two ...

- Hull Points are in, it is stated that Ghost Arks, Land Raiders, and Defilers each have 4 Hull Points apiece. Necrons have the ability to strip hull points for each roll of a 6 to penetrate/glance vehicles, making rapid-firing gauss weaponry very powerful at removing armour.

- Speaking of rapid fire, you can indeed move and fire once up to the full range of the weapon (it is explicitly stated that Fire Warriors can fire their weapons up to 30" away), no confirmation on the 3x fire for Relentless at half range though.

- Assault moves are indeed 2d6", but added together. Units equipped with jump packs can re-roll the dice to see how far they charge.

- The Rage USR gives you +2 attacks on the charge

- All flying monstrous creatures have the ability to fly 24", doing something called a "Vector Strike", which is a certain amount of automatic hits to a unit they fly over, at the base strength of the creature.

- Monstrous creatures' attacks are explicitly AP 2

- Every army must select a "Warlord" or single general to lead the army, this leader gets an ability. They can choose between three different types of abilities, "Personal", "Inspirational" or "Strategic". They then roll on one of those charts to see what ability it is. The two examples given were a Grand Master giving all friendlies within 12" his Ld of 10 (Inspirational), and a Chaos Lord being a scoring unit (Personal, the ability itself was called "Immovable Object")

- Flyers are a specific type of unit, and it is somewhat unclear as to the rules for shooting at them. Either all units require a 6 to hit them (unless they have a special rule called Skyfire), or this is still the case but only if those flyers move flat-out. Monstrous creatures with the ability to Fly also get this "6-to-hit" rule.

- You have the ability to buy different terrain (it even has its own slot on the new FOC), e.g, you can buy a Bastion with a Quad-Gun (which has the aforementioned Skyfire USR). There seem to be quite a few options for what terrain you can buy, but naturally most of them are typically represented by terrain kits GW sells.

- Now we're on the topic of the FOC, the rules for allies weren't laid out specifically, but it is heavily implied that its not the same as in WHFB. They refer to allied units as "Detachments", and there is an example of a player with a Chaos Space Marine force having some detachments of Chaos Daemons in his army. Basically, I was given the impression that it is far more common (and frequent) for a detachment from another 40k army to join a larger one, than it is for a Fantasy army to have Allies. Think more along the lines of the Storm of Magic rules for using TK, VC, or Daemons.

- Here's a biggie: Units -can- go on Overwatch, giving them the ability to fire upon an enemy unit which charges them, but at BS 1. Eldar (and any other army with access to the Clairvoyance psychic power set) can use a psychic power to give a unit the ability to fire at their usual BS.

- Monstrous Creatures have access to a special "Smash" attack, allowing them to halve their attacks, but double their strength. It mentions that this gives them the ability to destroy tanks more easily.

- It's somewhat hinted that AP will have some kind of affect against vehicles. This is because part of the Munitorum dice set includes vehicle damage dice. It specifies that some of the dice are "AP 1, AP 2, and AP 3 Damage dice", or something to that effect.

- 4 Disciplines of Psychic powers, basically what we were thinking in terms of Clairvoyance, Biomancy, etc etc. There's a chart near the back of the WD detailing which (if any) psychic disciplines a particular army gains access to. It's interesting to see that a large amount of armies don't have access to any at all.

Spartan089 wrote:Well there goes my meq army which I didn't even finish, 12 rhino's down the drain... apparently even a guardsman's flashlight can take down a tank.

Crazyterran wrote:

Spartan089 wrote:Well there goes my meq army which I didn't even finish, 12 rhino's down the drain... apparently even a guardsman's flashlight can take down a tank.

Necrons having the ability to take away Hull Points immediately means that Guardsmen w/ Lasguns can take down Armor.

Clearly an appropriate reaction!

Crazyterran wrote:I'm interested in seeing what Hullpoints do, and the new Vehicle Damage chart(s) to see the change.

One army being stronger against vehicles isn't making me all of a sudden want to throw all of my vehicles out of my army. We need more information first.

Marrak wrote:
On another note, the idea of allies worries me only due to the way that the restrictions were from 2nd. Meaning the Nids are left high and dry. Now, the thing is in 2nd edition, Tyranids didn't need allies as their book was strong, in some ways ridiculously so. Obviously in 5th that is by no means the case, and we struggle with a handicap against many armies right out the gate.

I'm curious to see how 6th will handle this, and what future it'll hold for my Hive Fleet.

And not only that, Imperial Players and Eldar are the only ones with effective Psychic Defense. We get Hoods, Eldars get Runes of Eldarstuff.

Easy way to make gauss not as overpowered, and I think that is how they will do it.

Therion wrote:Also what's the basis for the hull point allowance if Ghost Arks and Land Raiders have an equal amount, considering that one is dirt cheap in comparison? Ward just looks at a model and thinks "yeah this looks tough I'll give it five Ward points"...

labmouse42 wrote: Automatically Appended Next Post:

ShumaGorath wrote:That is disappointing though as someone who doesn't play templars it's also somewhat of a relief.

Sadly, if I remember correctly SW chaplins give a flat out preferred enemy vs. one type of your choice.

Stick one in with your double PG GH squad and your rerolling missed 'to hits'. I wonder how 'HOT' that would get?

Dantalian wrote:I like the idea of the Commanders getting a special ability. This sounds like a nice idea of introducing something useful for every codices army all at once. Though Just like random psychic powers, I'm not a fan of this being random as well. With one roll it could determine if your HQ is now more or less useless than your opponents HQ? Of course that will depend on what the abilities per tree are, they all might be really useful.

Darkseid wrote:

morgendonner wrote:White Dwarf leaks should hit in a day or two ...

- The Rage USR gives you +2 attacks on the charge

spaceelf wrote:
I always thought that the Nids could ally with the Squats.

BrookM wrote:Makes me wonder how many the good Old Russ will get and, what they'll slap onto the Baneblade.

Some of these new rumors are intriguing... the flying MC vector strike, combined with always needing a 6 to hit, would actually pull the harpy out of "why the heck is this guy hanging around" and put him into "yeah I could see using him."

spectreoneone wrote: I'm honestly more frustrated at GW's silly marketing strategy...

What else in those two books were previews?

Therion wrote:

Some of these new rumors are intriguing... the flying MC vector strike, combined with always needing a 6 to hit, would actually pull the harpy out of "why the heck is this guy hanging around" and put him into "yeah I could see using him."

You think? You realise that requiring 6's to hit makes it impractically hard to kill with shooting weapons. It takes 29 BS4 missile launcher shots to do 4 wounds on a monster flying fast with no cover save. It will do sweeping attacks all game and never move less than 24" per turn, always ending the move somewhere safe from assault and hopefully with cover saves or entirely hidden from sight. Necron CCBs already do this and when they're only hit on 6's they'll be a ridiculous pain in the ass. I could easily see it being smart for Tyranids to cram in as many flying monsters as they can and just win games by doing vector strikes all day long.

Therion wrote:

What else in those two books were previews?

That they are imbalanced.

DarthDiggler wrote:

Therion wrote:

Some of these new rumors are intriguing... the flying MC vector strike, combined with always needing a 6 to hit, would actually pull the harpy out of "why the heck is this guy hanging around" and put him into "yeah I could see using him."

You think? You realise that requiring 6's to hit makes it impractically hard to kill with shooting weapons. It takes 29 BS4 missile launcher shots to do 4 wounds on a monster flying fast with no cover save. It will do sweeping attacks all game and never move less than 24" per turn, always ending the move somewhere safe from assault and hopefully with cover saves or entirely hidden from sight. Necron CCBs already do this and when they're only hit on 6's they'll be a ridiculous pain in the ass. I could easily see it being smart for Tyranids to cram in as many flying monsters as they can and just win games by doing vector strikes all day long.

Flyers needing a 6 to hit them will be offset by "AA" guns which use their BS to hit instead of the 6 like other weapons. With the new fortification rules, everyone will have access to them and then other books will have their own. Hydras are an example of an AA gun which hits flyers on its own BS. If they make any dread with twin weapons an AA gun then Mr.Harpie meet Mr Psyrifleman dread.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Therion wrote:

What else in those two books were previews?

That they are imbalanced.

Hardly. Ever see a Bloodthirster zoom around at 24" with sweep attacks and them jump into combat with the weak part of your army? You will now. He has a 2+ save vs all GK CC weapons. Good luck stopping him.

Flyers needing a 6 to hit them will be offset by "AA" guns which use their BS to hit instead of the 6 like other weapons.

Hardly. Ever see a Bloodthirster zoom around at 24" with sweep attacks and them jump into combat with the weak part of your army? You will now. He has a 2+ save vs all GK CC weapons. Good luck stopping him.

Green is Best! wrote:

spectreoneone wrote: I'm honestly more frustrated at GW's silly marketing strategy...

There was one?

Therion wrote:

Flyers needing a 6 to hit them will be offset by "AA" guns which use their BS to hit instead of the 6 like other weapons.

First of all, only one vehicle in the entire game has an AA gun, so your point is entirely moot. Are you really saying that the way everyone should react to this rule is spend 200 points from their 1500 point army to buy a building with one AA autocannon on top and that would somehow solve all the problems and be helpful to the tournament scene? Are we playing team fortress here? Secondly, why do you imagine something as ridiculous as Psyriflemen would get AA guns? Because everything in GK army is already overpowered so why stop there? But hey, you could always just take an allied detachment of 9 Hydras from the IG codex, right? Now what about the other 8 armies that can't ally with Imperial Guard or any Imperial army for that matter? Let's make Tesla Destructors AA guns because they shoot so much lightning, right? We could also make Venom Cannons AA guns, and Bright & Dark Lances if they're mounted on tanks. Everything with a targeting lock could also count as an AA gun. Now remind me what was the point of the 6's to hit rule again?
.

DarthDiggler wrote:

Therion wrote:

Flyers needing a 6 to hit them will be offset by "AA" guns which use their BS to hit instead of the 6 like other weapons.

First of all, only one vehicle in the entire game has an AA gun, so your point is entirely moot. Are you really saying that the way everyone should react to this rule is spend 200 points from their 1500 point army to buy a building with one AA autocannon on top and that would somehow solve all the problems and be helpful to the tournament scene? Are we playing team fortress here? Secondly, why do you imagine something as ridiculous as Psyriflemen would get AA guns? Because everything in GK army is already overpowered so why stop there? But hey, you could always just take an allied detachment of 9 Hydras from the IG codex, right? Now what about the other 8 armies that can't ally with Imperial Guard or any Imperial army for that matter? Let's make Tesla Destructors AA guns because they shoot so much lightning, right? We could also make Venom Cannons AA guns, and Bright & Dark Lances if they're mounted on tanks. Everything with a targeting lock could also count as an AA gun. Now remind me what was the point of the 6's to hit rule again?
.

All marine lists can take a dread with two twin linked auto cannons. Those might very well be AA mounts. Harpies get no saves from those guns. Why might dreads with double weapons be AA? Because they are in Forgeworld and the to hit of 6 with flyers came from Forgeworld also. Many of these new rules seem to have their birth in the Forgeworld rules. It would be wise to look to there. All flyers can hit other flyers with their BS in FW. That might be another missing piece of the puzzle. Since all other books have flyers themselves, GW has given every army the ability to deal with with flyers without taking 9 Hydras.

Requiem wrote:

Therion wrote:Also what's the basis for the hull point allowance if Ghost Arks and Land Raiders have an equal amount, considering that one is dirt cheap in comparison? Ward just looks at a model and thinks "yeah this looks tough I'll give it five Ward points"...

This is just really hard to believe... an equal amount of hull points for ghost arks and land raiders would be insane

Testify wrote:Terminators and guardsmen have the same amount of wounds. Madness.

Testify wrote:

Requiem wrote:

Therion wrote:Also what's the basis for the hull point allowance if Ghost Arks and Land Raiders have an equal amount, considering that one is dirt cheap in comparison? Ward just looks at a model and thinks "yeah this looks tough I'll give it five Ward points"...

This is just really hard to believe... an equal amount of hull points for ghost arks and land raiders would be insane

Terminators and guardsmen have the same amount of wounds. Madness.

DarthDiggler wrote:
All marine lists can take a dread with two twin linked auto cannons. Those might very well be AA mounts. Harpies get no saves from those guns. Why might dreads with double weapons be AA? Because they are in Forgeworld and the to hit of 6 with flyers came from Forgeworld also. Many of these new rules seem to have their birth in the Forgeworld rules. It would be wise to look to there. All flyers can hit other flyers with their BS in FW. That might be another missing piece of the puzzle. Since all other books have flyers themselves, GW has given every army the ability to deal with with flyers without taking 9 Hydras.

d-usa wrote:Saying a rule is bad without knowing what any of the other rules are or what codex updates are going to include is also really clever.

His Master's Voice wrote:

Testify wrote:Terminators and guardsmen have the same amount of wounds. Madness.

It would be madness to give a guardsman a 2+ save without jacking the cost up.

Therion wrote:

d-usa wrote:Saying a rule is bad without knowing what any of the other rules are or what codex updates are going to include is also really clever.

What types of codex updates or additional rules do you think there might be that somehow make a Land Raider and a Ghost Ark having the same amount of hull points logical or in fact a good rule? You have to have some insight considering you're making sarcastic jokes about the rule being nothing to be concerned about. Illuminate us.

lord_blackfang wrote:You have no clue how many weapons will be errata'd to be AA mounts, so stop freaking out. You'll also be able to buy AA turrets in your Fortification slots. How many do you really need to take out a few AV10-11 vehicles that are too tall to hide from anything ever?

Therion wrote:

d-usa wrote:Saying a rule is bad without knowing what any of the other rules are or what codex updates are going to include is also really clever.

What types of codex updates or additional rules do you think there might be that somehow make a Land Raider and a Ghost Ark having the same amount of hull points logical or in fact a good rule? You have to have some insight considering you're making sarcastic jokes about the rule being nothing to be concerned about. Illuminate us.

They're still different Armour Values, still just as difficult to penetrate.

His Master's Voice wrote:

Testify wrote:Terminators and guardsmen have the same amount of wounds. Madness.

It would be madness to give a guardsman a 2+ save without jacking the cost up.

Therion wrote:

They're still different Armour Values, still just as difficult to penetrate.

You mean still as easy to penetrate. T4 to T6 doesn't matter when you're being shot with S8 weapons and higher. Likewise, AV14 isn't really helpful when everyone is toting meltaguns, gauss weapons and lances. A high number of hull points or wounds for a vehicle that pays a ton of points for its survivability would be a good way to offset the fact that AV14 is overpriced. GW doesn't agree.

d-usa wrote:

I am looking at rumored rules that nobody knows exactly how true they are, how they apply to the rest of the rulebooks, and without knowing what the codex updates are going to bring to the table.

Basically, everytime there is a leak about a singular rule it always gets analyzed based on how it performs in the current ruleset even though it has nothing to do with the current ruleset and we have no clue what it will be like without having all the rules in our hands.

]

BoW Andy wrote:But what about the biggest rumor… the changes to Psychic Powers?

Well it’s been hinted at, that Psychic Powers are now going to be divided into 6 disciplines (Biomancy, Divination, Pyromancy, Telekinesis & Telepathy) and each Pskyer in the 40K universe will have access to a limited number of them, lending credence to the rumour that 40K psychic powers are going the way of Fantasy Battle magic.

Of course the changes to psychic powers should be detailed in the rulebook, but the smart money says you will probably be able to buy a deck of Psychic Power Cards (just like in Fantasy Battle!)… so you can all look forward to the demise of some of those powerful psychic based lists

Testify wrote:

Therion wrote:

They're still different Armour Values, still just as difficult to penetrate.

You mean still as easy to penetrate. T4 to T6 doesn't matter when you're being shot with S8 weapons and higher. Likewise, AV14 isn't really helpful when everyone is toting meltaguns, gauss weapons and lances. A high number of hull points or wounds for a vehicle that pays a ton of points for its survivability would be a good way to offset the fact that AV14 is overpriced. GW doesn't agree.

I've literally never heard a complaint about too many lance/gauss weapons before in the game. You've decided that it is so prevailant that GW's failure to address it is worthy of doomsaying. How bizarre.
Regarding meltaguns, protip - stay more than 6" away.

Therion wrote:

Testify wrote:

Therion wrote:

They're still different Armour Values, still just as difficult to penetrate.

You mean still as easy to penetrate. T4 to T6 doesn't matter when you're being shot with S8 weapons and higher. Likewise, AV14 isn't really helpful when everyone is toting meltaguns, gauss weapons and lances. A high number of hull points or wounds for a vehicle that pays a ton of points for its survivability would be a good way to offset the fact that AV14 is overpriced. GW doesn't agree.

I've literally never heard a complaint about too many lance/gauss weapons before in the game. You've decided that it is so prevailant that GW's failure to address it is worthy of doomsaying. How bizarre.
Regarding meltaguns, protip - stay more than 6" away.

Protip, play in a couple of competitive tournaments with your AV14 boxes. Stay away from forums untill you've been enlightened.

Actually you're probably right. There's so much anti-vehicle stuff, that's why mech armies are so unpopular

I keep remembering stuff, damn brain doesn't work straight wi'out caffeine.

Anyway, Land Speeders have the special rule "Jink", which gives them a 5+ save all the time, this changes to 4+ if they go flat out. (I'm reasonably sure all fast skimmers get this, I'm not sure whether it's a USR or just a quality Fast Skimmers get)

Also, (and I can't believe I forgot this one) models are taken from the front when they're shot. Or, to put it another way, when a unit gets shot at, models from the part of the unit closest to the firer are removed first.

..hmm.... guess I just saved myself some points with regards to flicker fields anyway perhaps ?

reds8n wrote: Let's stay calm please people.

Thanks.


Another snippet from Mr. Darnok's source over on 'seer..

I keep remembering stuff, damn brain doesn't work straight wi'out caffeine.

Anyway, Land Speeders have the special rule "Jink", which gives them a 5+ save all the time, this changes to 4+ if they go flat out. (I'm reasonably sure all fast skimmers get this, I'm not sure whether it's a USR or just a quality Fast Skimmers get)

Also, (and I can't believe I forgot this one) models are taken from the front when they're shot. Or, to put it another way, when a unit gets shot at, models from the part of the unit closest to the firer are removed first.

..hmm.... guess I just saved myself some points with regards to flicker fields anyway perhaps ?

Therion wrote:

..hmm.... guess I just saved myself some points with regards to flicker fields anyway perhaps ?

Yes you did but it can still be seen as a nerf to Venoms. It's an interesting rule but after seeing that I'm really interested in seeing what the slower vehicles get for special rules, considering the fast ones are seemingly getting all sorts of buffs. A Catacomb Command Barge that moves flat out is hit with 6's and gets a 4+ save against hits that glance or penetrate?

Alpharius wrote:The whole 'from the front' thing is going to make things really annoying.

And needlessly complex and precise from a game which claims to be neither...

Alpharius wrote:You do remember the whole 'range sniping' thing?

Alpharius wrote:The whole 'from the front' thing is going to make things really annoying.

And needlessly complex and precise from a game which claims to be neither...

It also fixes the frankly broken wound allocation rules of 5th.

lord_blackfang wrote:

Alpharius wrote:You do remember the whole 'range sniping' thing?

I remember it being much faster than the current system

Therion wrote: A Catacomb Command Barge that moves flat out is hit with 6's and gets a 4+ save against hits that glance or penetrate?

Alpharius wrote:It is going to make the 'movement phase' needlessly complicated as people try to arrange their squads for maximum benefit and minimum damage, and then the shooting phase will suffer from a similar slowdown for similar reasons.

You do remember the whole 'range sniping' thing?

Palindrome wrote:

Alpharius wrote:It is going to make the 'movement phase' needlessly complicated as people try to arrange their squads for maximum benefit and minimum damage, and then the shooting phase will suffer from a similar slowdown for similar reasons.

You do remember the whole 'range sniping' thing?

Again i am not seeing the issue, provided that the rules themselves are well worded and properly thought out. I doubt that friendly squads will go back to blocking LOS so all that is left for players to do, if they so wished, was to try and estimate units that will be in range in the opponents shooting phase, which is most cases will be difficult to do especially with more random movement.

reds8n wrote: I guess the casualty removal system is going to make it a bit more awkward with regards to placing melta guns and the like perhaps ?

I know we haven't got the full "story" yet, but this seems somewhat at odds IMO with Gw's other idea of squads being led, normally from the front, by "characters" (vet sergs, exarchs etc etc ). Possibly makes ork nobz in squads a bit more vulnerable too perhaps ?

We'll see I guess. I'd rather they left things more or less as they are and just reintroduced something along the lines of the old "torrent of fire" rule.

SlaveToDorkness wrote:When you're shooting at a unit and the powerfist Sgt. is 1/32" closer than the Goob With Bolter then it will get ugly. Very.

- Assault moves are indeed 2d6", but added together. Units equipped with jump packs can re-roll the dice to see how far they charge.

- Every army must select a "Warlord" or single general to lead the army, this leader gets an ability. They can choose between three different types of abilities, "Personal", "Inspirational" or "Strategic". They then roll on one of those charts to see what ability it is. The two examples given were a Grand Master giving all friendlies within 12" his Ld of 10 (Inspirational), and a Chaos Lord being a scoring unit (Personal, the ability itself was called "Immovable Object")

Alpharius wrote:

SlaveToDorkness wrote:When you're shooting at a unit and the powerfist Sgt. is 1/32" closer than the Goob With Bolter then it will get ugly. Very.

Another good point, and exactly what I was talking about.

Unless, you know, GW has thought of this and figured something out to help with it?

Alpharius wrote:

SlaveToDorkness wrote:When you're shooting at a unit and the powerfist Sgt. is 1/32" closer than the Goob With Bolter then it will get ugly. Very.

Another good point, and exactly what I was talking about.

Unless, you know, GW has thought of this and figured something out to help with it?

BrookM wrote:Specialists die and other mooks pick up the goods?

Alpharius wrote:As Therion mentioned elsewhere, GW thinks random = fun, so I expect lots more random this time around!

tetrisphreak wrote:

Alpharius wrote:

SlaveToDorkness wrote:When you're shooting at a unit and the powerfist Sgt. is 1/32" closer than the Goob With Bolter then it will get ugly. Very.

Another good point, and exactly what I was talking about.

Unless, you know, GW has thought of this and figured something out to help with it?

BrookM wrote:Specialists die and other mooks pick up the goods?

Something along those lines, like the 'field promotion' rule in Warmachine/Hordes.

Another way to make it less of an argument is to stipulate in the casualty removal that "Models that are within 1" of the closest model(s) can be allocated wounds". That would keep the theme and idea while making measurements quick and less contested. It's too late for input on it now, the rules are written, printed, and soon to be shipped. Let's all grit our teeth in anticipation while we wait to game the system.

EDIT -

Alpharius wrote:As Therion mentioned elsewhere, GW thinks random = fun, so I expect lots more random this time around!

Palindrome wrote:

Alpharius wrote:As Therion mentioned elsewhere, GW thinks random = fun, so I expect lots more random this time around!

Given that the entire system is based upon dice rolls everyone who enjoys 40k must also like randomness. I don't understand why people have such a hatred of randomness, providing that it sin't all pervasive and doesn't detract from the game itself then I think that it is a good thing.

Therion wrote:

It also fixes the frankly broken wound allocation rules of 5th.

I think most people, even ones that were using wound allocation to their advantage, would welcome any rule change that removes that old system. Frankly it's annoying that you're being an idiot if you don't buy small upgrades that you don't even want to diversify your squad.

Naturally the wound allocation can be fixed in many ways, not just by removing closest models in their entirety first. I don't have fond memories from the sniping era.

Palindrome wrote:

Alpharius wrote:As Therion mentioned elsewhere, GW thinks random = fun, so I expect lots more random this time around!

Given that the entire system is based upon dice rolls everyone who enjoys 40k must also like randomness. I don't understand why people have such a hatred of randomness, providing that it sin't all pervasive and doesn't detract from the game itself then I think that it is a good thing.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Palindrome wrote:

Alpharius wrote:As Therion mentioned elsewhere, GW thinks random = fun, so I expect lots more random this time around!

Given that the entire system is based upon dice rolls everyone who enjoys 40k must also like randomness. I don't understand why people have such a hatred of randomness, providing that it sin't all pervasive and doesn't detract from the game itself then I think that it is a good thing.

It's creeping into pervasive and detracting. It was already there with some things (reserves), but when crucial bits of army planning or in game tactics are at the mercy of dice instead of human decision making (warlord strategies, assaults) it detracts strongly. I play 40k to play a game, not watch the dice feth one player into losing.

Palindrome wrote:

Alpharius wrote:As Therion mentioned elsewhere, GW thinks random = fun, so I expect lots more random this time around!

Given that the entire system is based upon dice rolls everyone who enjoys 40k must also like randomness. I don't understand why people have such a hatred of randomness, providing that it sin't all pervasive and doesn't detract from the game itself then I think that it is a good thing.

KingCracker wrote:

This I agree with. The 5th edition wound allocation is honestly part of the reason I stopped bringing Nobz so much. It was fething annoying and REALLY bogged down the flow of the game. To save myself and my opponents time, I just stopped taking them.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Palindrome wrote:

Alpharius wrote:As Therion mentioned elsewhere, GW thinks random = fun, so I expect lots more random this time around!

Given that the entire system is based upon dice rolls everyone who enjoys 40k must also like randomness. I don't understand why people have such a hatred of randomness, providing that it sin't all pervasive and doesn't detract from the game itself then I think that it is a good thing.

It's creeping into pervasive and detracting. It was already there with some things (reserves), but when crucial bits of army planning or in game tactics are at the mercy of dice instead of human decision making (warlord strategies, assaults) it detracts strongly. I play 40k to play a game, not watch the dice feth one player into losing.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume you've never served in the military.

spectreoneone wrote:I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume you've never served in the military.

Alpharius wrote:The whole 'from the front' thing is going to make things really annoying.

And needlessly complex and precise from a game which claims to be neither...

English Assassin wrote:

spectreoneone wrote:I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume you've never served in the military.

I'm going to go out on a limb and assume you've never commanded an army...

Dantalian wrote:

Alpharius wrote:The whole 'from the front' thing is going to make things really annoying.

And needlessly complex and precise from a game which claims to be neither...

I honestly don't see how grabbing models from the front is any harder than grabbing models from the back. It would really be hard not to see which models are closest.

ShumaGorath wrote:

I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume you've never served in the military.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that that's irrelevant and stupid. I'm playing a game. I want meaningful input within that game. If I don't have it I'm not going to play it. I'm not here to watch a gakky "simulation" of space samurai kicking eachother, I'm here to make decisions and attempt to outplay someone within a defined set of rules. When bs gets in the way I start playing a different game. I'm not here to respect the random chaos of everyday life, if I wanted to do that i'd just go play roulette all day.

spectreoneone wrote:...random assault distances represent the fact that a charge is a moving mass of bodies, "controlled chaos," so to speak (not to mention that not every soldier has exactly the same endurance, nor is every piece of terrain the same, thusly making a charge a gamble. A quick look back in history shows the serious gamble a "bayonet charge" really is). So, I say bring on the randomness...it makes a commander have to adapt and overcome the challenges of trying to control a battle.

ShumaGorath wrote:

I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume you've never served in the military.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that that's irrelevant and stupid. I'm playing a game. I want meaningful input within that game. If I don't have it I'm not going to play it. I'm not here to watch a gakky "simulation" of space samurai kicking eachother, I'm here to make decisions and attempt to outplay someone within a defined set of rules. When bs gets in the way I start playing a different game. I'm not here to respect the random chaos of everyday life, if I wanted to do that i'd just go play roulette all day.

Well, considering that 40k is a tabletop WARgame, you're doing exactly what I stated in my post. Sure, we're in an unrealistic, OTT, environment, but in the end it all boils down to one thing: it's a battle that is part of an ongoing war. War is frought with chaos and randomness, which is why it makes a good game, because no two games will ever be the same.

You seem to fail to understand that concept.

There is meaningful input in a battle/wargame, but it only lasts so long in a dynamic warfare environment, and it is mostly reactionary. If you really have that much of a problem with the chaos and randomness of war, then perhaps you really should stop playing the game.

All of that aside, as I stated, perhaps in another thread, all of these rules are completely out of context without the whole BRB, and we're speculating, getting angry, etc. over nothing until we see how the rules work in synergy.

Cyrax wrote:

spectreoneone wrote:...random assault distances represent the fact that a charge is a moving mass of bodies, "controlled chaos," so to speak (not to mention that not every soldier has exactly the same endurance, nor is every piece of terrain the same, thusly making a charge a gamble. A quick look back in history shows the serious gamble a "bayonet charge" really is). So, I say bring on the randomness...it makes a commander have to adapt and overcome the challenges of trying to control a battle.

If a squad of space marines (genetically enhanced super soldiers) fail to charge in open terrain because you roll snake eyes, it eliminates the excuses of endurance and terrain. So unless they fail in a slapstick fashion what makes them fail.

spectreoneone wrote:

Cyrax wrote:

spectreoneone wrote:...random assault distances represent the fact that a charge is a moving mass of bodies, "controlled chaos," so to speak (not to mention that not every soldier has exactly the same endurance, nor is every piece of terrain the same, thusly making a charge a gamble. A quick look back in history shows the serious gamble a "bayonet charge" really is). So, I say bring on the randomness...it makes a commander have to adapt and overcome the challenges of trying to control a battle.

If a squad of space marines (genetically enhanced super soldiers) fail to charge in open terrain because you roll snake eyes, it eliminates the excuses of endurance and terrain. So unless they fail in a slapstick fashion what makes them fail.

Doesn't necessarily have to be in "slapstick" fashion. We all forget that, although the game is represented in a turn based format, if we were to play these battles out cinematically, many of these actions would take place simultaneously. Have you ever tried to charge through a hail of gunfire. Perhaps your courage takes over, and you charge right through, or perhaps you're forced to dodge evasively as your running up. There are so many different ways this could realistically happen, even to the Space Marines. Just because they're genetically enhanced super soldiers does not mean they're infallible.

Dantalian wrote:I would love to have the randomness taken out of the game! Every time I shoot a railgun at a tank I know it will blow up! No need to roll since the result should already be given in the rule book. Sure glad my codex also said I go first instead of rolling a d6 for it at the beginning of the game.

ShumaGorath wrote:



This game seems like it might be more your style.

spectreoneone wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume you've never served in the military.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that that's irrelevant and stupid. I'm playing a game. I want meaningful input within that game. If I don't have it I'm not going to play it. I'm not here to watch a gakky "simulation" of space samurai kicking eachother, I'm here to make decisions and attempt to outplay someone within a defined set of rules. When bs gets in the way I start playing a different game. I'm not here to respect the random chaos of everyday life, if I wanted to do that i'd just go play roulette all day.

Well, considering that 40k is a tabletop WARgame, you're doing exactly what I stated in my post. Sure, we're in an unrealistic, OTT, environment, but in the end it all boils down to one thing: it's a battle that is part of an ongoing war. War is frought with chaos and randomness, which is why it makes a good game, because no two games will ever be the same. You seem to fail to understand that concept. There is meaningful input in a battle/wargame, but it only lasts so long in a dynamic warfare environment, and it is mostly reactionary. If you really have that much of a problem with the chaos and randomness of war, then perhaps you really should stop playing the game.

All of that aside, as I stated, perhaps in another thread, all of these rules are completely out of context without the whole BRB, and we're speculating, getting angry, etc. over nothing until we see how the rules work in synergy.

Dantalian wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:



This game seems like it might be more your style.

Someone rolled a 1 on their sarcasm detection today.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Dantalian wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:



This game seems like it might be more your style.

Someone rolled a 1 on their sarcasm detection today.

If you were being sarcastic that implies that you're pro randomize everything which means the gif was accurate.

ShumaGorath wrote:War also makes a gakky game, that's why wargames tend to have stringent rules that reduce the randomness of it and distill it down to a relateable and enjoyable format.

You seem to fail to understand that this is a game first and a war second. If the game is gakky and unfun because it's lolrandom and everything is decided by the flip of a coin then it's not a good game.

I might. There is at least 3 major competitors with significantly better wargames on the market. I like GWs fluff and models, but if the game is gakky then it's gakky and you'll have to have fun playing alone.

True, but if you don't want to actually discuss the ramifications of the rumors then what are you doing here?

Dantalian wrote:

You will argue with anyone on anything for the sake of arguing. I will be the bigger man here and advise you to please move it on to your own thread and keep things on track here. I'm sure the MODs would be very happy if you did.

Danny Internets wrote:

Dantalian wrote:

You will argue with anyone on anything for the sake of arguing. I will be the bigger man here and advise you to please move it on to your own thread and keep things on track here. I'm sure the MODs would be very happy if you did.

The bigger man typically doesn't need to puff out his chest and announce that he is, in fact, the bigger man...

Mathieu Raymond wrote:Has anyone ever played Stargrunt2? In most missions, you'd get dummy counters to represent ECM on the battlefield, but both you and your opponent would get to "scan" the opposing deployment and remove a few counters of your choice. Which meant that, if you're just not lucky, you show up with a lot less models, of a far lower quality, than your opponent.

I admit, the fact that the entire game had no point cost for models, squads or vehicles made it hard to grasp the exact situation as well. Pinning was also ubiquitous, so it bogged down to a static game very often too.

I'm not sure I want that much randomness in my game.

And as a side note, I know this is the interwebz and all, but could we, I don't know, keep it a tad more respectful, maybe?

H.B.M.C. wrote:'Cept he's not really arguing over rumours. He's arguing about how random =/= more fun.

BladeWalker wrote:I'm all for full randomness, crazy allies combos, and "rule of cool" game changes. I like soft score tournaments and getting a nice swerve on when I play too. The very vocal and very competitive players will always be there, but I believe in reality they are far outnumbered by the beer/pretzel gamers and kids just having fun. I kind of secretly hope it makes pure competition tournaments all but impossible, then it will be easier to find the fun events to attend...

Dantalian wrote:Which all spawned from everyone putting their input in on randomness being part of the game as a rumor.

BladeWalker wrote:I'm all for full randomness, crazy allies combos, and "rule of cool" game changes. I like soft score tournaments and getting a nice swerve on when I play too. The very vocal and very competitive players will always be there, but I believe in reality they are far outnumbered by the beer/pretzel gamers and kids just having fun. I kind of secretly hope it makes pure competition tournaments all but impossible, then it will be easier to find the fun events to attend...

spectreoneone wrote:

I definitely agree with you, though, on the amount B&P gamers vs. tourney gamers, and a lot of these new rules cater to that (B&P) crowd, I believe. However, I don't think that tournaments will be on the decline. It's always up to the TO to set the format for the tournament, and they can always set house rules as they see fit. Win-win IMHO.

Edit: for clarity

spectreoneone wrote:...random assault distances represent the fact that a charge is a moving mass of bodies, "controlled chaos," so to speak (not to mention that not every soldier has exactly the same endurance, nor is every piece of terrain the same, thusly making a charge a gamble. A quick look back in history shows the serious gamble a "bayonet charge" really is). So, I say bring on the randomness...it makes a commander have to adapt and overcome the challenges of trying to control a battle.

H.B.M.C. wrote:It is a fallacy to assume that "B&P" gamers must have opposite wants and needs to 'tournament gamers'. Balanced clear rules benefit everyone. What about that is so hard to understand?

But anyway, RE: Allies, correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't the WFB rulebook have a main section for the rules and then another sort of 'optional' rule section with loads of fun add-ons and whatnot. I could see the Allies being in that section, rather than part of the standard core game.

Dantalian wrote:

H.B.M.C. wrote:'Cept he's not really arguing over rumours. He's arguing about how random =/= more fun.

Which all spawned from everyone putting their input in on randomness being part of the game as a rumor.

Now if everyone wants to direct their attention to BOWs new 40k post about the 6th edition book, I think you might find it rather amusing.

http://www.beastsofwar.com/warhammer-40k/40k-6th-released-june30/

spectreoneone wrote:For a B&P player (and, I'm generalizing here), a fun game is more important than winning said game. For a tourney player (again, generalization), winning is more important than fun.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Dantalian wrote:

H.B.M.C. wrote:'Cept he's not really arguing over rumours. He's arguing about how random =/= more fun.

Which all spawned from everyone putting their input in on randomness being part of the game as a rumor.

Now if everyone wants to direct their attention to BOWs new 40k post about the 6th edition book, I think you might find it rather amusing.

http://www.beastsofwar.com/warhammer-40k/40k-6th-released-june30/

I don't think I've ever seen a group of people manage to be more smug and offputting in everything they put out than BOW. That just took like 12 paragraphs to say the exact same thing I've seen in six bullets elsewhere.

spectreoneone wrote:For a tourney player (again, generalization), winning is more important than fun.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

spectreoneone wrote:For a tourney player (again, generalization), winning is more important than fun.

What??? Did you really just type that?

spectreoneone wrote:

H.B.M.C. wrote:It is a fallacy to assume that "B&P" gamers must have opposite wants and needs to 'tournament gamers'. Balanced clear rules benefit everyone. What about that is so hard to understand?

But anyway, RE: Allies, correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't the WFB rulebook have a main section for the rules and then another sort of 'optional' rule section with loads of fun add-ons and whatnot. I could see the Allies being in that section, rather than part of the standard core game.

I don't necessarily think they have different "needs," but I think that, for the most part at least, they have different "wants." For a B&P player (and, I'm generalizing here), a fun game is more important than winning said game. For a tourney player (again, generalization), winning is more important than fun. Wants (i.e. their reason for playing) are different, but their needs (a playable, and yes, balanced game) are the same.

For allies, don't play WFB, but technically, all rules are optional within your gaming group. If your group doesn't like the allies rule, or any rule for that matter, you can make house rules for that (the 5th ed. 40k BRB even states that somewhere, if I remember correctly). As gamers, we just have to think outside of the box.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

spectreoneone wrote:For a tourney player (again, generalization), winning is more important than fun.

What??? Did you really just type that?

spectreoneone wrote:

H.B.M.C. wrote:

spectreoneone wrote:For a tourney player (again, generalization), winning is more important than fun.

What??? Did you really just type that?

You're reading too far into my generalization. I'm not saying that a tournament player does not want to have fun by any means. I'm saying that getting that "W" in a tournament is more important than having a grand old time doing it. Competitive tournament play in ANY game is stressful, and many folks who play games competitively are in it for the thrill of winning, not necessarily for the fun of the game itself.

I realize that not all tournament players are like that (that's why I put the generalization caveat on my statement). I also realize that not all B&P players are laid back guys that aren't competitive. I was just illustrating my point using the opposite ends of the spectrum.

Manchu wrote:In other words, tournament players are having fun at tournaments.

Dantalian wrote:I honestly hate the idea of psychic powers being random like fantasy. I play Tau (and Dwarfs) and have no psychers, but the idea of someone getting screwed out of their list with a lot of bad rolls does not settle well with me. But in the long run this will be a strength of the Tau I guess, since Tau never have had to rely on psychic benefits before we don't have that random factor to effect us.

Random traits on your commander also sounds really cool. I like the idea of their being universal set of traits a commander can have to influence the game. But then GW decided to make this a dice roll too like psychic powers which is very blah to me. Depending on the list of what is available as a trait, this could swing very hard to one persons favor or not depending on your roll.

Also think of HQs like Eldrad who would have to roll for both these things. Suddenly one person on the field is holding a lot more power and has become a greater target in which his elimination may strongly weaken the enemy players game. Of course this could also make him really strong if the trait buffed psychic powers.

spectreoneone wrote:
As for the commander traits...I think that if there are like three options, a d3 determining the style my commander has isn't so bad. Enough randomness to keep games interesting, but nothing excessive.

Dantalian wrote:

spectreoneone wrote:
As for the commander traits...I think that if there are like three options, a d3 determining the style my commander has isn't so bad. Enough randomness to keep games interesting, but nothing excessive.

From what I understand there are three categories in which you choose one beforehand, and then roll for your trait from that categories pool at the start of the game.
The choice of which type of abilities you want if chosen by you, but the dice determines what ability you get. I'm assuming that all these commander trait trees will have either three or six traits a piece.

spectreoneone wrote:

Dantalian wrote:

spectreoneone wrote:
As for the commander traits...I think that if there are like three options, a d3 determining the style my commander has isn't so bad. Enough randomness to keep games interesting, but nothing excessive.

From what I understand there are three categories in which you choose one beforehand, and then roll for your trait from that categories pool at the start of the game.
The choice of which type of abilities you want if chosen by you, but the dice determines what ability you get. I'm assuming that all these commander trait trees will have either three or six traits a piece.

That still sounds pretty good, but I would hope they went with three rollable traits per category. With 9 total commander traits, you would get a nice variance within the game. Personally, I would like it to go one step further, and roll a d3 for the category. I think it would cut down on a lot of list tailoring/netlisting shenanigans. I'm still unsure. I'd like to see what exactly they will be implementing in this area, and how it will affect the overall game.

spectreoneone wrote:
That still sounds pretty good, but I would hope they went with three rollable traits per category. With 9 total commander traits, you would get a nice variance within the game. Personally, I would like it to go one step further, and roll a d3 for the category. I think it would cut down on a lot of list tailoring/netlisting shenanigans. I'm still unsure. I'd like to see what exactly they will be implementing in this area, and how it will affect the overall game.

darrkespur wrote:I can just imagine a space marine librarian sitting in his inner sanctum, concentrating on his learning. Books of arcane knowledge are stacked up on the table and he has been practicing the rites to the Null Zone spell for months. All of a sudden, the warp strikes at him and grants him the ability to see round corners. The librarian sighs, packs up his books and proceeds to his drop pod, hoping that next time the Emperor might reward his hard work with something a bit more appropriate to the matter in hand...

darrkespur wrote:I can just imagine a space marine librarian sitting in his inner sanctum, concentrating on his learning. Books of arcane knowledge are stacked up on the table and he has been practicing the rites to the Null Zone spell for months. All of a sudden, the warp strikes at him and grants him the ability to see round corners. The librarian sighs, packs up his books and proceeds to his drop pod, hoping that next time the Emperor might reward his hard work with something a bit more appropriate to the matter in hand...

spectreoneone wrote:

darrkespur wrote:I can just imagine a space marine librarian sitting in his inner sanctum, concentrating on his learning. Books of arcane knowledge are stacked up on the table and he has been practicing the rites to the Null Zone spell for months. All of a sudden, the warp strikes at him and grants him the ability to see round corners. The librarian sighs, packs up his books and proceeds to his drop pod, hoping that next time the Emperor might reward his hard work with something a bit more appropriate to the matter in hand...

I like it!

In all seriousness, I see it in terms of accessing those powers in battle, not really learning it. If we view it in terms of magic, I see the randomness as if the caster misspoke part of an incantation, or they didn't do the proper motion, etc., as if they were put under combat stress. Back to 40k, though, there is a lot we're not seeing here. Perhaps the introduced randomness is due to some sort of surge in the warp that has unleashed even more powerful psyker potential, but with the penalty of being highly unstable. I see it as a way GW can justify massive psyker power creep. I personally like it, though. It makes using a powerful psyker a gamble that has potentially huge payoff, or possibly huge detriment. Sounds fun to me!

spectreoneone wrote:

darrkespur wrote:I can just imagine a space marine librarian sitting in his inner sanctum, concentrating on his learning. Books of arcane knowledge are stacked up on the table and he has been practicing the rites to the Null Zone spell for months. All of a sudden, the warp strikes at him and grants him the ability to see round corners. The librarian sighs, packs up his books and proceeds to his drop pod, hoping that next time the Emperor might reward his hard work with something a bit more appropriate to the matter in hand...

I like it!

In all seriousness, I see it in terms of accessing those powers in battle, not really learning it. If we view it in terms of magic, I see the randomness as if the caster misspoke part of an incantation, or they didn't do the proper motion, etc., as if they were put under combat stress. Back to 40k, though, there is a lot we're not seeing here. Perhaps the introduced randomness is due to some sort of surge in the warp that has unleashed even more powerful psyker potential, but with the penalty of being highly unstable. I see it as a way GW can justify massive psyker power creep. I personally like it, though. It makes using a powerful psyker a gamble that has potentially huge payoff, or possibly huge detriment. Sounds fun to me!

ShumaGorath wrote:

spectreoneone wrote:

darrkespur wrote:I can just imagine a space marine librarian sitting in his inner sanctum, concentrating on his learning. Books of arcane knowledge are stacked up on the table and he has been practicing the rites to the Null Zone spell for months. All of a sudden, the warp strikes at him and grants him the ability to see round corners. The librarian sighs, packs up his books and proceeds to his drop pod, hoping that next time the Emperor might reward his hard work with something a bit more appropriate to the matter in hand...

I like it!

In all seriousness, I see it in terms of accessing those powers in battle, not really learning it. If we view it in terms of magic, I see the randomness as if the caster misspoke part of an incantation, or they didn't do the proper motion, etc., as if they were put under combat stress. Back to 40k, though, there is a lot we're not seeing here. Perhaps the introduced randomness is due to some sort of surge in the warp that has unleashed even more powerful psyker potential, but with the penalty of being highly unstable. I see it as a way GW can justify massive psyker power creep. I personally like it, though. It makes using a powerful psyker a gamble that has potentially huge payoff, or possibly huge detriment. Sounds fun to me!

Thats not how psychic or sorcerous abilities work in the fluff. The tides of the warp effect how powerful a psychic is on any given day, but they don't really change what said psyker knows how to do. If the psyker can't use his normal powers it's because he can't use any at all and it's a very rare scenario.

Faeit 212 wrote: Rules listed in the White Dwarf are leaking out for our 6th edition. There are some great ones here, including how allies are going to work... (not just for team play). Monstrous Creatures, Longer Assault Moves, Hull points, Warlords, Vehicle Damage, and more are below... check them out.

Oh yea, the leaked photo cover is correct too.

Please remember that until these are in our hands, they are still considered rumors, at least mostly rumors at this point.

via Birdy /Darnok
changes reported as per new WD:
The leaked photo of the cover is correct, that is the new cover of the normal hardback rulebook. The collectors edition looks *******' sweet though, with amazing artwork and brass doodads, etc etc. The skull measuring tape is pretty cool too, and the munitorum dice come in a lasgun charge pack case, and are also pretty nicely designed. The special edition templates follow the Fantasy example of being somewhat visually-related to the game, except instead of faux-gold framing, they're faux-steel framed, with coruscating arcs of blue psychic fire spoking out from the middle of each (or the narrow end of the flame template)

- Hull Points are in, it is stated that Ghost Arks, Land Raiders, and Defilers each have 4 Hull Points apiece. Necrons have the ability to strip hull points for each roll of a 6 to penetrate/glance vehicles, making rapid-firing gauss weaponry very powerful at removing armour.

- Speaking of rapid fire, you can indeed move and fire once up to the full range of the weapon (it is explicitly stated that Fire Warriors can fire their weapons up to 30" away), no confirmation on the 3x fire for Relentless at half range though.

- Assault moves are indeed 2d6", but added together. Units equipped with jump packs can re-roll the dice to see how far they charge.

- The Rage USR gives you +2 attacks on the charge

- All flying monstrous creatures have the ability to fly 24", doing something called a "Vector Strike", which is a certain amount of automatic hits to a unit they fly over, at the base strength of the creature.

- Monstrous creatures' attacks are explicitly AP 2

- Every army must select a "Warlord" or single general to lead the army, this leader gets an ability. They can choose between three different types of abilities, "Personal", "Inspirational" or "Strategic". They then roll on one of those charts to see what ability it is. The two examples given were a Grand Master giving all friendlies within 12" his Ld of 10 (Inspirational), and a Chaos Lord being a scoring unit (Personal, the ability itself was called "Immovable Object")

- Flyers are a specific type of unit, and it is somewhat unclear as to the rules for shooting at them. Either all units require a 6 to hit them (unless they have a special rule called Skyfire), or this is still the case but only if those flyers move flat-out. Monstrous creatures with the ability to Fly also get this "6-to-hit" rule.

- You have the ability to buy different terrain (it even has its own slot on the new FOC), e.g, you can buy a Bastion with a Quad-Gun (which has the aforementioned Skyfire USR). There seem to be quite a few options for what terrain you can buy, but naturally most of them are typically represented by terrain kits GW sells.

- Now we're on the topic of the FOC, the rules for allies weren't laid out specifically, but it is heavily implied that its not the same as in WHFB. They refer to allied units as "Detachments", and there is an example of a player with a Chaos Space Marine force having some detachments of Chaos Daemons in his army. Basically, I was given the impression that it is far more common (and frequent) for a detachment from another 40k army to join a larger one, than it is for a Fantasy army to have Allies. Think more along the lines of the Storm of Magic rules for using TK, VC, or Daemons.

- Here's a biggie: Units -can- go on Overwatch, giving them the ability to fire upon an enemy unit which charges them, but at BS 1. Eldar (and any other army with access to the Clairvoyance psychic power set) can use a psychic power to give a unit the ability to fire at their usual BS.

- Monstrous Creatures have access to a special "Smash" attack, allowing them to halve their attacks, but double their strength. It mentions that this gives them the ability to destroy tanks more easily.

- It's somewhat hinted that AP will have some kind of affect against vehicles. This is because part of the Munitorum dice set includes vehicle damage dice. It specifies that some of the dice are "AP 1, AP 2, and AP 3 Damage dice", or something to that effect.

- 4 Disciplines of Psychic powers, basically what we were thinking in terms of Clairvoyance, Biomancy, etc etc. There's a chart near the back of the WD detailing which (if any) psychic disciplines a particular army gains access to. It's interesting to see that a large amount of armies don't have access to any at all.

- Land Speeders have the special rule "Jink", which gives them a 5+ save all the time, this changes to 4+ if they go flat out. (I'm reasonably sure all fast skimmers get this, I'm not sure whether it's a USR or just a quality Fast Skimmers get)

-Also,models are taken from the front when they're shot. Or, to put it another way, when a unit gets shot at, models from the part of the unit closest to the firer are removed first.

Ozymandias wrote:I want this book to come out like tomorrow. Not because I'm excited to play 6th Ed, but only so the flood of contradictory rumors stops!

Highlights from the link

allies chart is in for sure, a matrix
you need 1 HQ 2 Troop of your own army, then you can ally, need 1 HQ 1 Troop of that army, then may take other slots
can special characters be brought as allies
didn't see any limit on (taking special characters as allies)

it's still move shoot assault

"snapshop" = stand and shoot for an assaulted unit, BS1, no template or blast
snapshot is also for HWs that have moved
you can fire a krak missile as a snapshot; heavy bolter that moves = 3 shots at BS1

psychic powers are IN ADDITION to your codex powers; so you don't lose any of the powers in a current codex

premeasure all the time

random charges 2d6 for foot, 3d6 drop lowest for jump pack troops

jump pack troops get "hammer of wrath" = impact hits, 1 A @ I 10, normwal weapon normal attack (for jump packs, not sure about wings, maybe)

6 missions, and 3 deployment zones, primary and 3 secondary objectives
vps for objectives
"first blood" = 2nd objective
worth 1 vp
no more dawn of war, no more spearhead
one is like triangles
cleanse 2?

power weapon is AP2

there is a hull point systemm, damage chart changed
1-2 shaked 3 = stuned 4 = weapon destroyed 5 = wrecked 6 = kablam
didnt seen an immobile on the chart

terrain is a part of the FoC, "fortifcation FOC slot"
1 per game
aegis defense line 50pts
cover is 5+

rapid fire is half range not 12"
rapid fire isnt limited by movement

- Hull Points are in, it is stated that Ghost Arks, Land Raiders, and Defilers each have 4 Hull Points apiece. Necrons have the ability to strip hull points for each roll of a 6 to penetrate/glance vehicles, making rapid-firing gauss weaponry very powerful at removing armour.

So gauss can now auto-glance AND strip hull points (which i'm assumign work the same as Structure points for super-heavies)? interesting....

- Assault moves are indeed 2d6", but added together. Units equipped with jump packs can re-roll the dice to see how far they charge.

just Jump Packs or all Jump Infantry?

- All flying monstrous creatures have the ability to fly 24", doing something called a "Vector Strike", which is a certain amount of automatic hits to a unit they fly over, at the base strength of the creature.

EEP! 'Nid Winged Hive Hyrant / Winged Deamon prince!!


- Flyers are a specific type of unit, and it is somewhat unclear as to the rules for shooting at them. Either all units require a 6 to hit them (unless they have a special rule called Skyfire), or this is still the case but only if those flyers move flat-out. Monstrous creatures with the ability to Fly also get this "6-to-hit" rule.

See above!


- Monstrous Creatures have access to a special "Smash" attack, allowing them to halve their attacks, but double their strength. It mentions that this gives them the ability to destroy tanks more easily.

thus implying that they no longer get 2D6 vs armour?.....


- Land Speeders have the special rule "Jink", which gives them a 5+ save all the time, this changes to 4+ if they go flat out. (I'm reasonably sure all fast skimmers get this, I'm not sure whether it's a USR or just a quality Fast Skimmers get)

if this hits all Fast Skimmers then the CCB just got even nicer

-Also,models are taken from the front when they're shot. Or, to put it another way, when a unit gets shot at, models from the part of the unit closest to the firer are removed first.

YAY! I really like this one.