Whitehat wrote: Reroll hits in CC & Shooting AND Rerolls 1 to wound.
I've checked, Black Templars vow, accept any challenge only gives Preferred Enemy in combat (damn)
The Pancake rule set is mainly wrong, but there is a lot of stuff that made it into the final product.
Expect FW to put out a book of there flyers but with added 6th Ed goodness.
From Darnok on Warseer AP are on ccw but he says power weapons are ap 2, not 3. When you charge it's double your move, infantry move 6, bikes 8 cav 7 etc. It's move assault then shooting now! Fnp is 5+. Master crafted ccw give you a 5+ invuln save When you shoot you roll to hit depending on the speed of your target. Fast vehicles you always need a 6. A unit can't claim a object while inside a vehicle. There's new kinds of instance death. If your say strengh 8 vs a space marine captain toughness 4 you only do 2 wounds! Strengh (9?) or more would do 3 wounds & kill him. In kill point missions you get kill points based on what the units points cost, so for example a landraider would be worth 5 kill points & a unit of marines 3pts.
Whitehat wrote:I mistyped re: the cover saves. Ruins are 4+, the vast majority of stuff is 5+
I did not mistype WS1 for moving vehicles, they are not WS10 if they moved - flyers might be different; not sure.
Preferred Enemy change of reroll 1's to wound is in addition to current rules for Preferred Enemy
Flyers are noted in the BRB changing some of the existing vehicles (Summary sheet in the back)
Eldar Flyer, Void Raven and Tau I believe are in the same wave.
tetrisphreak wrote:More pancake style rumors are cropping up. These are from war seer.
Originally Posted by Darnok These come from a birdy, but I'd advise on heavy NaCl-usage... AP are on ccw but he says power weapons are ap 2, not 3. When you charge it's double your move, infantry move 6, bikes 8 cav 7 etc. It's move assault then shooting now! Fnp is 5+. Master crafted ccw give you a 5+ invuln save When you shoot you roll to hit depending on the speed of your target. Fast vehicles you always need a 6. A unit can't claim a object while inside a vehicle. There's new kinds of instance death. If your say strengh 8 vs a space marine captain toughness 4 you only do 2 wounds! Strengh (9?) or more would do 3 wounds & kill him. In kill point missions you get kill points based on what the units points cost, so for example a landraider would be worth 5 kill points & a unit of marines 3pts.
I'm going to reiterate that the Pancake playtest is closer to our final document than GW would admit.
tuebor wrote:Darnok just posted these on Warseer:
Warhammer 40,000: Rulebook, £45 wrote:There is no time for peace. No respite. No forgiveness.
There is only WAR.
In the nightmare future of the 41st Millennium, Mankind teeters upon the brink of destruction. The galaxy-spanning Imperium of Man is beset on all sides by ravening aliens and threatened from within by Warp-spawned entities and heretical plots. Only the strength of the immortal Emperor of Terra stands between humanity and its annihilation, and in his name, countless warriors and agents do battle against the encroaching darkness. Foremost amongst them stand the Space Marines, the ultimate protectors of Mankind.
Across airless moons, within the depths of dark, twisted hive worlds and even in the immaterial realm of Warp space, battles rage that will shape the future of the galaxy forever. It is a universe that you can enter today, if you dare. But remember that this is a dark and terrible era, and there is no peace amongst the stars...
The Warhammer 40,000 Rulebook is your essential guide to playing atmospheric battles in the 41st Millennium. It helps you field majestic armies of Citadel miniatures across the war-ravaged battlefields of the far-future, in the ultimate contest of strategy and skill.
With 440 full-colour pages, this hardback Rulebook is packed with rich background and contains all the rules for fighting pulse-pounding tabletop battles. The Rulebook includes exciting features such as dynamic close-combat, flyers, psychic devastation and interactive scenery. As well as jaw-dropping artwork, contained within is a history of the 41st Millennium and a richly detailed guide to the races and weapons of the far-future. It also features a comprehensive hobby section to set you on the path to choosing, collecting and building your own Warhammer 40,000 army of Citadel miniatures.
Warhammer 40,000: Psychic Powers, £8 wrote:One of the many exciting features of Warhammer 40,000 is Psychic devastation, where Psykers wreak havoc on the battlefield. Psychic Powers is the complete set of Psychic cards, which be used in conjunction with Psychic Disciplines. They make a great accessory to your tabletop games.
This set contains 35 large-format cards and come stored in a plastic fan-opening case, which bears the Aquila. There are 7 cards for each Psychic Discipline, each of which is represented by distinct artwork. There is also an instruction leaflet that classifies which powers can be used by the main Psykers in the Warhammer 40,000 universe.
Darnok wrote:There are also "Munitorum Templates" (£12, designed with a metal effect look), "Munitorum Tape Measure" (£10, looking like a Servoskull) and "Munitorum Dice" (£10, while stocks last).
On advance order on 23th, available from 30th of June.
Whitehat wrote:More Info (unsure if others have mentioned it however)
Plastic Plaguebearers & Nurglings, Finecast Blue Scribes in August (amongst what Im presuming is that metal daemons will be released with Finecast Versions.) Finecast will replace all metal models in the next year (unsure if that means specialist)
6th ed - a few morsels Random Charges are 2D6 pick the highest (unless going through Difficult Terrain where its 3D6 and you drop the highest.) Move through cover I believe adds an extra D6
Vehicles are WS0 if stationary, and WS1 if they move, no matter how far they go.
Vehicles go the same distance in the movement phase (I believe 6" and fire everything regardless if fast or not) but in the shooting phase can make an extra move (apparently some kept forgetting what vehicles moved to fast to fire...
Vehicles cannot contest (unsure if scoring units in transports can
6 Missions and 3 deployment types (2 of the deployments are the same as current, Spearhead & Pitched Battle.)
Troops are the only ones that can score (including of course 'scoring units')
5+ Cover save for most things including ruins.
Allies rules are in, but its meant to be for team games (ie separate force org chart, distrusted ally rules similar to Fantasy)
Percentages are *not* in
Wound Allocation is closest to furthest.
Dueling is similar to challenges in fantasy but contrary to earlier rumors, they don't replace Combat res, just add to sides. A IC can challenge another IC in the same combat even if not in base to base. If the defending IC refuses, he simply cannot attack that turn, if he does he counts as being in b2b and no one else can hurt him apart from the attacking IC. I'm guessing this is to offset the Wound Allocation rules
Preferred Enemy is including shooting and you may reroll wound rolls of a 1 (either shooting or combat)
Rapid Fire weapons may now can shoot at long range while moving. restriction on assaulting after rapid firing remains.
Jump Infantry get a free strike at I10 when they charge into combat
Psychic Power Decks using a dice system similar to Fantasy.
Flyers are in.
FNP drops to 5+ Save.
I'm calling it now - Infantryhammer
Kroothawk wrote:More extensive overview by stickmonkey (maybe you should edit the thread title to "Release schedule rumours"):
Rumored Daemon wave: Plague bearers (5x box) Plastic. Priced as pink horrors Furies (5x box) plastic. Priced as de scourges Blue scribes (finecast) Herald of nurgle (finecast) Maybe a little surprise here too... Plastic GDs are done, rumored to have pieces to build named GD as variants ( though not expected til 2013)
Rumored flyer wave: De bomber Eldar fighter Tau fighter (go look at relevant thread for details)
Rumored box set contents: Marines Chaos ( go look at relevant thread for details)
Rumored next Codex: Chaos Space Marines ( go look at relevant thread for details)
Rumored July release: 6th Ed hard back 6th Ed special edition Limited templates, game aids, and what not for 6th edition... ( go look at relevant thread for details)
(...) (On Deffcoptas) They are a little bulkier, but not that much bigger. A few pilot options, and some (I think 2) grot hangers on. And some other flavor bits. Like all ork kits you can go to town with making it unique. It's 1 full sprue per Kotpa. To do 3 per box would mean the rhino size box.
Apparently, Whitehat thought that the rumor accuracy thread needed rumors in it. I added him to the list with a lot of pendings. Most of them seem pretty safe, but still interesting.
Here's what I posted for him:
Massive Confirmation Spree I tried to organize his 'confirmations'. I underlined the ones that appear to be new rumors and not just confirmations
Releases October WOC Release is Delayed PENDING October will not see a WOC Release PENDING Dark Angels will not be in May/June TRUE Eldar will not appear in Oct/Nov PENDING Tau, is not the first codex in 2013 PENDING The "DA not updated anytime soon because GW doesn't want to invest in armies no one plays" is not true PENDING No Eldar before 6th TRUE No Tau / BT right after CSMPENDING Chaos Legions will not be the codex PENDING CSM will appear late in the year PENDING CSM get one of newest dexes in 6th PENDING August is Daemons wave (plastic troops, last two boxes) PENDING DA Early next year PENDING Apart from CSM, no more codexes/Armybooks this year PENDING
6th Ed 6th Edition will not be in July/August PENDING June 30 is 6th Ed PENDING CCW get AP in 6th Ed PENDING Premeasuring in! PENDING Wound Allocation is closest models to shooting unit first. PENDING 40k will have challenges similar to fantasy PENDING Hardcover book PENDING Starter Box will not feature Dark Angels vs. Eldar PENDING No EW Levels PENDING Hull Points PENDING
Other Eldar flyer spotted PENDING
For context, I think he is listing things from the Rumor Accuracy thread with his own rumor/confirmation/etc right after them. Here's quotes of the original posts:
Whitehat wrote:October WOC Release PENDING
Delayed
CCW get AP in 6th Ed PENDING
Yes
Premeasuring in! PENDING
Yes
Wound Allocation is closest models to shooting unit first. PENDING
Yes
40k will have challenges like in fantasy PENDING
Similar
Hardcover book PENDING
Yes
Eldar flyer spotted PENDING
Yes
Dark Angels (May/June) PENDING
No
6th Edition (July/August) PENDING
No
-Starter Box featuring Dark Angels vs. Eldar PENDING
No
Eldar (Oct/Nov Xenos slot) PENDING
No
October WOC Release PENDING
No
No EW Levels PENDING Correct
Hull Points PENDING
Yes
Chaos Legions mid Year PENDING
Late, CSM, not Legions
Tau, first codex in 2013 PENDING
No
DA not updated anytime soon because GW doesn't want to invest in armies no one plays PENDING
No
Eldar before 6th PENDING
No
CSM get one of newest dexes in 6th PENDING
Yes
Tau / BT right after CSM PENDING
No
No TOS in 2012 PENDING
No to the Negative
pretre wrote:@Whitehat: Where are you getting your confirmations?
Whitehat wrote:Confirmations are confidential
June 30 is 6th Ed August is Daemons wave (plastic troops, last two boxes) DA Early next year Apart from CSM, no more codexes/Armybooks this year
Daemons in August is kinda out of left field, although I can certainly see a need to make all the basic Daemons in plastic kits. Isn't it only the Plaguebearers right now that don't have a plastic set?
Here's my guesses (completely not in the know, just common sense+gut+hunches+voodoo mind powers)
Releases
Dark Angels will not be in May/June PENDING
Almost certainly true. July at earliest is my guess. 1st post-6th Ed. Rulebook Codex/Release wave?
Eldar will not appear in Oct/Nov PENDING
Think this is probably right. DA (Aug), then 6th Ed. Starter set w/models (Sept.), CSM (Oct. or Nov., depending on if the do some WHFB release), then... BT? (1st 2013 Codex), then Tau after that (March 2013?)
Tau, is not the first codex in 2013 PENDING
The "DA not updated anytime soon because GW doesn't want to invest in armies no one plays" is not true PENDING -
No Eldar before 6th PENDING
No Tau / BT right after CSM PENDING
Chaos Legions will not be the codex PENDING
For the 5 above, I'm predicting yeah - See above.
CSM will appear late in the year PENDING
CSM get one of newest dexes in 6th PENDING
As per above again, these 2 sound solid.
August is Daemons wave (plastic troops, last two boxes) PENDING
Big surprise if true, but probably need to round out plastic troops, etc.
DA Early next year PENDING
This seems like it isn't true. I think DA should be within this year. I haven't seen or heard anything that would indicate it won't be.
Apart from CSM, no more codexes/Armybooks this year PENDING
Surprise to me, though maybe I've seen infor to this effect already? (I'm scatterbrained ) What would the reason for NO CODICES at all for half a year?
6th Ed
6th Edition will not be in July/August PENDING
June 30 is 6th Ed PENDING
CCW get AP in 6th Ed PENDING
Premeasuring in! PENDING
Wound Allocation is closest models to shooting unit first. PENDING
40k will have challenges similar to fantasy PENDING
Hardcover book PENDING
Starter Box will not feature Dark Angels vs. Eldar PENDING
No EW Levels PENDING
Hull Points PENDING
All sounds pretty much in line with multiple rumor sources, and not totally crazy.
I want to know if ALLIES will be in. I'm of two minds on this:
1). Seems like, rules/meta-game-wise, this could be breaking. You can plug the weakness of your army with a unit (or units?) from another which perfectly fill that role your army can't. Every army need a weakness. Or, put another way, every army needs limitations. This could change that.
2). I would love to see it because then it gives me an excuse to paint up a full squad of Army X that is not my Army, but I really like Unit Y, but can't justify spending $$$ on them if I can't play with them. This makes that expenditure (of $$$, time, effort, paiting, etc. worth it. Would be a smart business move on GW's part if you ask me.
Yeah, my opinion of this new guy is that he went the 'party line' on rumor mongers for most of them and made safe bets. Pretty much the only 'new info' was the daemons thing.
How much was "confirmed" BEFORE Blood of Kittens and BoW came out with their official leaks? You can't say, GUYS I HAS A RUMOR! NO ELDAR BEFORE 6TH EDITION, a month before 6th's release, and expect any credibility.
6th Ed 6th Edition will not be in July/August PENDING June 30 is 6th Ed PENDING CCW get AP in 6th Ed PENDING Premeasuring in! PENDING Wound Allocation is closest models to shooting unit first. PENDING 40k will have challenges similar to fantasy PENDING Hardcover book PENDING Starter Box will not feature Dark Angels vs. Eldar PENDING No EW Levels PENDING Hull Points PENDING
So most of this is what has been stated by Beasts of War in the recent video series.
Confusing when you state 6th will not be in July but maybe the day before (30th June). It will fall under a July release (WD Issue) if both those rumours are true.
I do however like the sound of Hull points.
Releases October WOC Release is Delayed PENDING October will not see a WOC Release PENDING Dark Angels will not be in May/June [b]PENDING [/b][i]
Eldar will not appear in Oct/Nov PENDING Tau, is not the first codex in 2013 PENDING The "DA not updated anytime soon because GW doesn't want to invest in armies no one plays" is not true PENDING No Eldar before 6th PENDING No Tau / BT right after CSMPENDING Chaos Legions will not be the codex PENDING CSM will appear late in the year PENDING CSM get one of newest dexes in 6th PENDING August is Daemons wave (plastic troops, last two boxes) PENDING DA Early next year PENDING Apart from CSM, no more codexes/Armybooks this year PENDING
Only one Dex for the rest of the year is interesting. Hoped for two at least.
Also Dark Angels will not be in May/June is a bit obvious given it's the 7th June.
Maybe Fiends or Beasts of Nurgle. Interesting either way seeing as didn't we have a Daemon wave last August? I remember as the release was on my birthday.
would love a chaos legions 'dex and a chaos renegedes (with huron and lots of new guys).
as for daemons; fiends of slaanesh, beasts of nurgle, furies (hopefully rescult), plastic heralds would be cool with options for chariot and stuff. also flesh hounds plaguebearers, flamers, screamers and fincast masque and epidemius, as well as whichever greater deamons aren't finecast.
there is also the lack of a few character models such as; skarbrand, ku'gath, the blue scribes (all of which have seemingly fallen off the face of the earth)
terranarc wrote:How much was "confirmed" BEFORE Blood of Kittens and BoW came out with their official leaks? You can't say, GUYS I HAS A RUMOR! NO ELDAR BEFORE 6TH EDITION, a month before 6th's release, and expect any credibility.
Yep, that's part of my beef with this new guy. He picked the obvious stuff and jumped in on that. Heck he picked the TOS rumor when it was announced recently.
deejaybainbridge wrote:So most of this is what has been stated by Beasts of War in the recent video series.
Confusing when you state 6th will not be in July but maybe the day before (30th June). It will fall under a July release (WD Issue) if both those rumours are true.
I do however like the sound of Hull points.
Only one Dex for the rest of the year is interesting. Hoped for two at least.
Also Dark Angels will not be in May/June is a bit obvious given it's the 7th June.
Same as above. Low hanging fruit.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melissia wrote:Ah, damn . Sisters not even mentioned at all.
Figures.
Ahahahahaha. Oh, you were serious. Yeah, I wouldn't expect anything from sisters until about 2016 or so at the earliest. That's probably overly generous.
And for those who say 'but plastic sisters rumors'... Plastic sisters rumors have been going around for almost as long as I've been playing this game.
Melissia wrote:Ah, damn . Sisters not even mentioned at all.
Figures.
Ahahahahaha. Oh, you were serious. Yeah, I wouldn't expect anything from sisters until about 2016 or so at the earliest. That's probably overly generous.
And for those who say 'but plastic sisters rumors'... Plastic sisters rumors have been going around for almost as long as I've been playing this game.
You sure they've only been going around that long? Wouldn't be surprised if they'd been going on for longer. Even so, a Sisters release is such a pie in the sky idea (it shouldn't be, but welp) that I won't pretend to act disappointed when I don't hear about it for another three years.
Brother SRM wrote:You sure they've only been going around that long? Wouldn't be surprised if they'd been going on for longer. Even so, a Sisters release is such a pie in the sky idea (it shouldn't be, but welp) that I won't pretend to act disappointed when I don't hear about it for another three years.
Well, I started around the beginning of 3rd, end of 2nd, so that's a pretty long time. The Sisters minis were relatively new back then, so I can't imagine plastic was that old a rumor when I first heard it.
pretre wrote:Ahahahahaha. Oh, you were serious. Yeah, I wouldn't expect anything from sisters until about 2016 or so at the earliest. That's probably overly generous.
And for those who say 'but plastic sisters rumors'... Plastic sisters rumors have been going around for almost as long as I've been playing this game.
I was serious in saying I didn't really expect any rumors (thus the "Figures." at the end of my post), yes.
biccat wrote:Warriors of Chaos in October? WoC is strong but they're certainly not overpowered.
Well, the rumor said that WOC were October but are delayed to a later date now.
But does that mean that WoC is delayed in favor of another army book, or simply that WHFB is pushed off another few months?
That's what I'm wondering. For a moment I got my hopes up that GW wised up and they pushed up another army's release. Then I realised that was silly, and it was more likely that they wanted to take that slot and push out another 40k release for 6th ed rather than have the first army book come out 8 mos after the edition starts (like WHFB 8e.) Then I realised that THAT was silly, and it was more likely that GW needed the slot to push out "Corpse Ball!" its one shot board game where various factions play basketball by hurling a squig through a hoop: before it eats them. But none of the Fantasy or 40k factions can be teams. It's premade teams with members of several races like Slaan, High Elves, and Emperor's Children characters on one side, and the Harlem Globetrotters on the other.
Sorry to broaden up the topic again, but here some quotes:
Harry wrote:Not sure.
Don't really understand the post.
What are all the 'pendings' about?
I have said all along CSM will be the first codex of 6th edition.
I will now put my head on the block and say I think Dark Angels will be the second. (despite the fact that I have not heard a thing about models for them).
I have thought for a while that Tau would be first Codex of 2013.
I guess that depends a bit on when CSM / Dark Angels appear....
It is either CSM and DA this year and Tau first next year OR CSM this year and DA and Tau first two, early next year. (IMO)
That is just about as far as I will stick my neck out at the moment.
(... and I have already said there are some Deamons coming and some more flyers).
Anyone else who knows different and wants to say plainly what they think is coming should feel free to step up to the mike.
Nothing difficult about prognostication ..... anyone can do it.
Getting it somewhere near right is the tricky bit.
starchild wrote:I've heard that 2013 will feature a "Summer of Monstrous Creatures" showcasing the plastic multipart Greater Daemons in addition to a multipart plastic Eldar Avatar. Each kit is supposed to be the some of the best work GW has ever done, absolutely loaded with options so no two need be alike. I'm not sure if all five kits will come out together or if they will space them out like they're doing with the aircraft.
Harry wrote:Oh dear lordy Nooooooooo.
Here we go again.
stickmonkey wrote:Looks like a mini wave for ork players is otw. Looks like this will slot in sometime in spring 2013 by my estimate...
Wave contents:
Ork buggy/half track Dakka/skorcha/rokket plastic (1x box) priced like Necron spyders
Deffcopters all options plastic (1x box) priced like Necron spyders
Meganobs all options plastic (5x box) priced like terminators
Flashgits upgrade finecast (3x clamshell) priced like boneswords
Cybork upgrade finecast (3x clamshell) priced like boneswords
More extensive overview by stickmonkey (maybe you should edit the thread title to "Release schedule rumours"):
Rumored Daemon wave:
Plague bearers (5x box) Plastic. Priced as pink horrors
Furies (5x box) plastic. Priced as de scourges
Blue scribes (finecast)
Herald of nurgle (finecast)
Maybe a little surprise here too...
Plastic GDs are done, rumored to have pieces to build named GD as variants ( though not expected til 2013)
Rumored flyer wave:
De bomber
Eldar fighter
Tau fighter
(go look at relevant thread for details)
Rumored box set contents:
Marines
Chaos
( go look at relevant thread for details)
Rumored next Codex:
Chaos Space Marines
( go look at relevant thread for details)
Rumored July release:
6th Ed hard back
6th Ed special edition
Limited templates, game aids, and what not for 6th edition...
( go look at relevant thread for details)
(...)
(On Deffcoptas) They are a little bulkier, but not that much bigger. A few pilot options, and some (I think 2) grot hangers on. And some other flavor bits. Like all ork kits you can go to town with making it unique. It's 1 full sprue per Kotpa. To do 3 per box would mean the rhino size box.
Harry wrote:
I have thought for a while that Tau would be first Codex of 2013.
I guess that depends a bit on when CSM / Dark Angels appear....
It is either CSM and DA this year and Tau first next year OR CSM this year and DA and Tau first two, early next year. (IMO)
Seems that the IG Hydra, Colossus, Medusa, and Griffon have dropped off the radar. Sad to see on the one hand but on the other hand my conversions haven't gone to waste.
Plagues will be the same price as horrors, but for half the amount?
Im guessing either the numbers are wrong, or its finecast instead of plastic.
Granted its a popular unit and they can make a fortune on them, but it seems odd even for GW.
Melissia wrote:Ah, damn . Sisters not even mentioned at all.
Figures.
Sisters already got what they have deserved.
Well, now you did it. Would you prefer to be buried in a casket, at sea, or cremated? This is assuming we can find enough left of you after Mel 'thanks' you for your insight.
Kroothawk wrote:Plague bearers (5x box) Plastic. Priced as pink horrors
Say what now? 5 models for the price of 10? The other three Daemonic troops boxes have 10 models. Why would PB's be 5 per box?
The only feasible explanation I could think of is if they were made bigger with better stats...
It would suck if they did this from a wallet standpoint, but plaguebearers are the most used basic daemons. At a price decrease from their current cost, in plastic, and they can't look worse than current PBs, people will still buy them in droves at a cost of 5 for $29. Sigh. Continue making PBs from BLs that look just like the book, here I come...
If the plaguebearers are finecast then it makes sense (as much as anything with finecast pricing makes sense anyway).. They seriously just need to bite the bullet and resculpt them tho
Kroothawk wrote:Plague bearers (5x box) Plastic. Priced as pink horrors
Say what now? 5 models for the price of 10? The other three Daemonic troops boxes have 10 models. Why would PB's be 5 per box?
The only feasible explanation I could think of is if they were made bigger with better stats...
Hopefully, although that would make Nurgle a dominant choice for armies, not that it isn't already. Of course, the other option is a lot more Daemonic, we end up with the other boxes being pulled back to five in a box as well. *shudder*
That would be the negative side of me talking mind. The slightly larger look might be cool, even if the stats don't change, just to represent the higher toughness they have over the other Demons.
I'll admit though, I'll be a might bit disapointed if it does turn out to be five of the old Plaguebearer scaled models, so in effect double the cost of the other lesser Daemons.
edit - Kirasu's idea seems much more likely. Finecast Plaguebearers would stink as bad as Finecast Wracks mind, make them plastic already dang it.
<Copied from other thread - I posted too hastily!>
Psyker power decks - Solves the d6 problem for 'random powers' if each army has it's psychic powers on cards. Also makes more $$ for GW since they have to sell the cards to each player.
The fantasy system - I'm guessing these rumors are saying that each psychic power will have a target number, rather than a flat LD10 check, to cast. Jaws of the Wolf Wolf for example might require a 9+ while Fury of the Wolf Spirits would be cast on 4+....<---speculation to give examples.
Vehicles WS1 if they move - Great, now we can actually deal with tanks and fast skimmers in CC. I'm going to assume that flyers will have some sort of exception to this rule - they'll be harder to hit so GW can sell more of them.
Preferred enemy changes - Destroyers and Destroyer Lords will be amazing if these are true.
Random Charges - I wonder if this means 2d6, pick the highest and add to your regular 6" charge? Because if not, then CC assaults look to be harder to achieve, not easier.
So many things to speculate on, this is great. Hopefully whitehat is spot-on and these are things that are being discussed at the GW managers' meeting....I'm amped waiting for more.
Those rumors seem to point to movement still being broken up over 3 phases. Which would make me a sad panda, because that was one of the single best things about the pancake edition. Guess we'll find out soon.
gorgon wrote:Those rumors seem to point to movement still being broken up over 3 phases. Which would make me a sad panda, because that was one of the single best things about the pancake edition. Guess we'll find out soon.
Yes, I agree that movement all-at-once was a great speed-up of the game in general. I'm still hoping to see something akin to allowing run moves to simply double your speed, like when units march in WHFB.
I really hope they redo Daemonettes to look like the old metal ones. Apply what they learned with the dark eldar sculpts.
Greater Daemons kits like the plastic hive tyrant would be great. I hope the Keeper of Secrets is closer to the forgeworld one, essentially a giant daemonette rather than the bull creature.
If they did both of these I might actually consider getting a Slanneshi daemon army. Plus changing the Deep Strike rules to be less of a crutch is essential.
A Tau gunship/transport would be really cool. I would love to do a black-hawk down style Tau army.
I'm not sure I'd call it Infantryhammer if vehicles cannot contest and are more easy hit - cover saves nerfed and 3-4" charges (the average of two dice) put a bit of dent in that.
gorgon wrote:Those rumors seem to point to movement still being broken up over 3 phases. Which would make me a sad panda, because that was one of the single best things about the pancake edition. Guess we'll find out soon.
Yes, I agree that movement all-at-once was a great speed-up of the game in general. I'm still hoping to see something akin to allowing run moves to simply double your speed, like when units march in WHFB.
I'm hoping too. There has to be more to it than a straight-up 2d6-pick-highest assault move, because that'll mean failed charges galore and slower overall infantry speed. I can't imagine they'd go that route, but then I would never have thought all-the-time random charges would come into 40K in any form. Like it or hate it in WFB, the reasons they did it in that system don't necessarily apply to 40K.
The rumors here are snippets, the more i think on it, it has to be 2d6, pick the highest, and add a number for a charge. (infantry get 6" + D6, maybe jump infantry get 9" + D6, Cavalry get 12" + D6") Otherwise as stated the board will be covered with failed charges, especially with casualty removal pulling models from the front ranks!
I like all these rumors since I have infantry heavy armies in my CSM and Daemons, jump infantry army in my Red Hunters, and a supersonic insertion army with my GK. Excited to try some army builds that I have not been able to field in a long time and explore how the new rules will effect them.
Maybe the PB box costs what it does because it has PB's and Nurglings in it? That would be awesome.
Charge distances better be base movement + higher of 2d6.. Seems really absurd to fail charges if you're 2" away in the open! As if 5th wasnt already really skewed towards shooting based armies.
Alpharius wrote: I'd be OK with different move values for things, but random charge distance do not equal fun!
Fun is what the studio says it is.
pretre wrote: To be fair, most of Whitehat's rumors look to be rehashed pancake. We'll see if they are worth anything.
Honestly, I'd estimate that only a 1/3 or so are pancake or heavily pancake-influenced. We're clearly missing tons of important info, so it will certainly be interesting to see how things sort out.
The wording on the charge thing doesn't really make sense.
Roll 2d6 take the highest. In terrain its 3d6 ignore the highest. 3d6 ignoring the highest ends up with you really just having a 2d6 again.
I would then make the jump in thought that regular charges are 6"+(2d6 take the highest) so an average of 10". Then in terrain it's 3d6" ignore the highest, for an average of 7".
Curious what this means for beasts/cavalry. Scarabs moving even faster than they do now sounds.. ridiculously good .
morgendonner wrote:I would then make the jump in thought that regular charges are 6"+(2d6 take the highest) so an average of 10". Then in terrain it's 3d6" ignore the highest, for an average of 7".
That was my conclusion as well.
(but note that 3d6 drop lowest is less than 7" on average)
Infantryhammer? More like Suckitnonpowerarmorhammer.
Reduced cover saves is seriously bad news for almost every xeno player. The changes seem to make shooting far more dangerous (to xenos, of course) and make hand to hand less useful. The game is already horribly shooty, this is just going to make it worse. Games will go faster though, because every turn about 20% more orks, eldar, tyranids, etc.... will be dying every shooting phase.
And I know this is only snippets, but based upon these:
Battlewagon orks are getting kicked in the balls. Moving only 6 inches in a battlewagons that are only getting +5 now? No thanks. I also feel sorry for non-Blood Angel landraider lists. (unless its all can move 6 and fire everything, move 12 and fire nothing, fast get an extra move).
While mentioning fast vehicles, fast vehicles will allow for all sorts of trickery, as any current Star Engines Eldar player will tell you. Block LoS during your opponents turn, move your vehicles aside for shooting, then scoot them back into blocking LoS in their extra move. Blood angels are going to have a field day.
On a hilarious note, I foresee kamakazi tau etherals being the new thing for this edition. PLEASE kill my Etheral so I can get prefered enemy on my entire army!
Alpharius wrote:Random charge distances are beyond goofy...
I'm hoping that is not happening in 40K!
I'd be OK with different move values for things, but random charge distance do not equal fun!
Half of 40k charges are already random...ever assaulted through terrain?
I think you're exaggerating the percentages there, but, well, this is the Internet!
I always exaggerate (see what I did there?). Nevertheless, people seem to forget that there are random charges in 40k. While it may not be half the time, it is pretty frequent. If I explode a transport, the unit inside is standing in terrain. Long Fangs/Devs tend to stand in terrain, as do a lot of troops that are holding objectives. I may be biased though, because we tend to play the NOVA tournament terrain setup pretty frequently, where the objectives are always in terrain.
Goresaw wrote:Infantryhammer? More like Suckitnonpowerarmorhammer.
Reduced cover saves is seriously bad news for almost every xeno player. The changes seem to make shooting far more dangerous (to xenos, of course) and make hand to hand less useful. The game is already horribly shooty, this is just going to make it worse. Games will go faster though, because every turn about 20% more orks, eldar, tyranids, etc.... will be dying every shooting phase.
It may not all be doom and gloom. 4+ cover works both ways as 5th dramatically reduced the effectiveness of anti-MEQ firepower across the board. Beyond mech reasons, all the cover eliminated the use of plasma and other low AP weaponry; Destroyers for necrons come to mind. Reduced cover could really help pop the ever present marines much better. Can anyone say the reign of Leman Russ Battlecannons?
Goresaw wrote:Infantryhammer? More like Suckitnonpowerarmorhammer.
Reduced cover saves is seriously bad news for almost every xeno player. The changes seem to make shooting far more dangerous (to xenos, of course) and make hand to hand less useful. The game is already horribly shooty, this is just going to make it worse. Games will go faster though, because every turn about 20% more orks, eldar, tyranids, etc.... will be dying every shooting phase.
It may not all be doom and gloom. 4+ cover works both ways as 5th dramatically reduced the effectiveness of anti-MEQ firepower across the board. Beyond mech reasons, all the cover eliminated the use of plasma and other low AP weaponry; Destroyers for necrons come to mind. Reduced cover could really help pop the ever present marines much better. Can anyone say the reign of Leman Russ Battlecannons?
To this, I agree.
Xenos players (counting myself, I currently play both Tau and Necrons, and Tyranids were my first love) have gotten so used to the ubiquitous 4+ cover save that they rely on it as an every-game tactic. Thus leading to lists that spam MSU in the same way that marines can (DE Venoms ring a bell?) in the knowledge that should their pithy tank eat the dust, they've got a 4+ save to rely on (regardless of the unit's actual save). Dancing from tree to tree like squirrels in springtime, they use their small units to bound across the table inflicting pain where ever they go. Space marines currently stand tall in abandoned ruins and craters, clearly in view, yet having resounding resilience to armor-shredding AP2 plasma and lascannon weaponry.
This is not right! I pay extra points for that plasma gun, and it sometimes (often?) kills the guy wielding it...but it can't slay a space marine or termagant because they have their boots next to a tree stump??
I, for one, welcome our new (old) 5+ cover save overlords, and ask that open craters confer only a 6+ to top that! Let the battlefield run red with the blood of power armor and xenos alike!
Next month's White Dwarf is going to be another hot selling issue.
It's going to have some new stuff about 40k. your auto ships will be shipping out next week if your signed up for them.
However if not you may want to bring them in.
I recommend you find out how many 40k collectors you have so that when the new 6th edition rulebook becomes available you know how many you need for your customer base.
We don't want to under sell these new rules.. As we know that everybody that plays 40k will need them.
Take pre orders for the book, not sure what the prices will be but I'm pretty sure that it's going to be listed in the Wdwarf.
This is an exciting time of the year for us in releasing this new thing.
Also check out the web site there is a movie skit on there talking about the WDwarf July.
Loredragon2 wrote:Next month's White Dwarf is going to be another hot selling issue.
It's going to have some new stuff about 40k. your auto ships will be shipping out next week if your signed up for them.
However if not you may want to bring them in.
I recommend you find out how many 40k collectors you have so that when the new 6th edition rulebook becomes available you know how many you need for your customer base.
We don't want to under sell these new rules.. As we know that everybody that plays 40k will need them.
Take pre orders for the book, not sure what the prices will be but I'm pretty sure that it's going to be listed in the Wdwarf.
This is an exciting time of the year for us in releasing this new thing.
Also check out the web site there is a movie skit on there talking about the WDwarf July.
So, would this be a good time to set up a tent in front of my FLGS so I can start getting in on all the 40K 6th edition goodness right away? Because I'm considering it, and I don't even own a tent.
lord_blackfang wrote:We had 5+ cover in 4th and liked it fine that way!
That's not really true. Better cover was one of the most widely-desired improvements, because it was perceived to foster more footslogger lists and the presence of non-power armoured infantry. Whether it did or didn't achieve that is debatable, since you seem to hear the same request even now.
'Jump Infantry get a free strike at I10 when they charge into combat'
Uh, what? I haven't come across this rumour before. Does this mean an extra attack before their normal attacks? Or do they just get I10 on the charge for their normal attacks? As much as I'd love to equip my Interceptors with Falchions to take advantage of this rule, I really hope that this is one rumour that doesn't prove to be true. All it would do is seriously boost marine armies, many of which can get FC on top of their already good enough I4 (not to mention GK halberds). It would do nothing really to help anything else - I still wouldn't charge warp spiders into combat unless I really had to for example.
Random Charges are 2D6 pick the highest (unless going through Difficult Terrain where its 3D6 and you drop the highest.) Move through cover I believe adds an extra D6
This is a game changer. The whole assault dynamic of 40K will be abandoned in favor of shooting. I hope there's more to this. If not, this rule is very ill conceived and poorly thought out.
Vehicles go the same distance in the movement phase (I believe 6" and fire everything regardless if fast or not) but in the shooting phase can make an extra move (apparently some kept forgetting what vehicles moved to fast to fire...
Interesting, but what happens with assault transports that want to move 12" in the movement phase? This rule seems very implausible.
Wound Allocation is closest to furthest.
Interesting and while the idea is very cinematic the in game practice will be anything but. I no longer see sergeants and/or other hero's running headlong into battle, but rather a cautious approach with plenty of meat shields. Depending on how other rules intertwine, such as IC needing to be in base contact to fight in an assault, will make this mechanic harder to deal with.
Dueling is similar to challenges in fantasy but contrary to earlier rumors, they don't replace Combat res, just add to sides. A IC can challenge another IC in the same combat even if not in base to base. If the defending IC refuses, he simply cannot attack that turn, if he does he counts as being in b2b and no one else can hurt him apart from the attacking IC. I'm guessing this is to offset the Wound Allocation rules
This is just fething stupid.
Psychic Power Decks using a dice system similar to Fantasy.
I call bs on this one. It invalidates EVERY codex in print.
ColdSadHungry wrote:'Jump Infantry get a free strike at I10 when they charge into combat'
Uh, what? I haven't come across this rumour before. Does this mean an extra attack before their normal attacks? Or do they just get I10 on the charge for their normal attacks? As much as I'd love to equip my Interceptors with Falchions to take advantage of this rule, I really hope that this is one rumour that doesn't prove to be true. All it would do is seriously boost marine armies, many of which can get FC on top of their already good enough I4 (not to mention GK halberds). It would do nothing really to help anything else - I still wouldn't charge warp spiders into combat unless I really had to for example.
Strange logic. FC I5 Marines already strike first on the charge most of the time so I10 would not change that. On the other hand units like Wraiths that have a puny initiative values would benefit greatly from such a rule in any form. What the rule would do is make jump infantry slightly better than it's been as an assault unit compared to foot infantry with transports. I don't think it's a bad idea as the trend for years and years has been that whenever you have to choose between a transport and jump packs you choose the transport. GW wants to sell more Marines with jump packs. We know everyone already have a couple Rhinos and a dozen Razorbacks.
Wound Allocation is closest to furthest.
I don't like this rule as it essentially means the return of sniping. Players will look for their opponents to place their models carelessly and then taking advantage of it with fast moving shooty units by making the target of choice the closest target. A character you want dead is on one edge of a unit, so you circle the unit and unload to the unit to make sure the desired model dies. Remember in 4th edition when only those models could die that you could see, and players made 'tunnels' from their own vehicles and whatnot so that a lascannon only saw one target in the enemy unit, for example a hero or a special weapon guy? I remember a lot of really nasty games at tournaments. Point being, I don't see the reason for adding a rule like this again. There was nothing wrong with wound allocation in 5th aside from the multi-wound model unit shenanigans.
Psychic Power Decks using a dice system similar to Fantasy.
I agree with the poster above that this is pretty out there. It's not as easy to add in magic to 40K as it's into FB. Only one army in FB doesn't use magic and they're really special and have their own benefits to compensate. In 40K however atleast Necrons, Dark Eldar, Tau and Black Templars are completely void of psykers (and sometimes psychic defence). What would be the point of a massive overhaul of a phase that only some armies in 40K have access to?
Well, if those rumors are true, my Canoptek army just got a bit better, but my Tyranids are still screwed. i was hoping for % based army design, as it would solve alot of problems with the Tyranid army IMO. Ah well, shall wait and see. Excited to hear about the new figs however
Psychic Power Decks using a dice system similar to Fantasy.
I call bs on this one. It invalidates EVERY codex in print.
Actually it wouldn't - It would require every player intending to use a psyker to buy an additional deck of cards in order to use them in-game.
Not sure how psykers who purchase their powers, like daemons and eldar, would get around this rule, perhaps it'll be FAQ'ed to let them get 2 powers for free, since they'll be somewhat random.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Therion wrote:
Wound Allocation is closest to furthest.
I don't like this rule as it essentially means the return of sniping. Players will look for their opponents to place their models carelessly and then taking advantage of it with fast moving shooty units by making the target of choice the closest target. A character you want dead is on one edge of a unit, so you circle the unit and unload to the unit to make sure the desired model dies. Remember in 4th edition when only those models could die that you could see, and players made 'tunnels' from their own vehicles and whatnot so that a lascannon only saw one target in the enemy unit, for example a hero or a special weapon guy? I remember a lot of really nasty games at tournaments. Point being, I don't see the reason for adding a rule like this again. There was nothing wrong with wound allocation in 5th aside from the multi-wound model unit shenanigans.
Another unanswered question is with closest-to-furthest wound allocation, do multi-wound models get extra wounds allocated before moving to further back ranks? What about weapons that cause instant-death? Unless those two issues are resolved properly 6th will still be rife with multi-wound shenanigans.
I liked the pancake editions wound wrap up phase, where you had to move all the wounds around so that you only had at most 1 wounded model in a unit(other than IC) So sure you would wound shenanigans for the turn but at the end of the turn the models would still die
ColdSadHungry wrote:'Jump Infantry get a free strike at I10 when they charge into combat'
Uh, what? I haven't come across this rumour before. Does this mean an extra attack before their normal attacks? Or do they just get I10 on the charge for their normal attacks? As much as I'd love to equip my Interceptors with Falchions to take advantage of this rule, I really hope that this is one rumour that doesn't prove to be true. All it would do is seriously boost marine armies, many of which can get FC on top of their already good enough I4 (not to mention GK halberds). It would do nothing really to help anything else - I still wouldn't charge warp spiders into combat unless I really had to for example.
Strange logic. FC I5 Marines already strike first on the charge most of the time so I10 would not change that. On the other hand units like Wraiths that have a puny initiative values would benefit greatly from such a rule in any form. What the rule would do is make jump infantry slightly better than it's been as an assault unit compared to foot infantry with transports. I don't think it's a bad idea as the trend for years and years has been that whenever you have to choose between a transport and jump packs you choose the transport. GW wants to sell more Marines with jump packs. We know everyone already have a couple Rhinos and a dozen Razorbacks.
Wound Allocation is closest to furthest.
I don't like this rule as it essentially means the return of sniping. Players will look for their opponents to place their models carelessly and then taking advantage of it with fast moving shooty units by making the target of choice the closest target. A character you want dead is on one edge of a unit, so you circle the unit and unload to the unit to make sure the desired model dies. Remember in 4th edition when only those models could die that you could see, and players made 'tunnels' from their own vehicles and whatnot so that a lascannon only saw one target in the enemy unit, for example a hero or a special weapon guy? I remember a lot of really nasty games at tournaments. Point being, I don't see the reason for adding a rule like this again. There was nothing wrong with wound allocation in 5th aside from the multi-wound model unit shenanigans.
Psychic Power Decks using a dice system similar to Fantasy.
I agree with the poster above that this is pretty out there. It's not as easy to add in magic to 40K as it's into FB. Only one army in FB doesn't use magic and they're really special and have their own benefits to compensate. In 40K however atleast Necrons, Dark Eldar, Tau and Black Templars are completely void of psykers (and sometimes psychic defence). What would be the point to a massive overhaul of a phase that only some armies in 40K have access to?
What I meant was that most SM are already at least pretty good at assault. Giving every single jump packer I10 attacks on the charge means that every single SM army has this in their arsenal should they choose it (BA could be insane). Other armies just wouldn't benefit overall from it due to lower WS or S or whatever and how many jump pack units do you see outside of SM armies? One or two and Jet Packs aren't the same thing.
ColdSadHungry wrote:
What I meant was that most SM are already at least pretty good at assault. Giving every single jump packer I10 attacks on the charge means that every single SM army has this in their arsenal should they choose it (BA could be insane). Other armies just wouldn't benefit overall from it due to lower WS or S or whatever and how many jump pack units do you see outside of SM armies? One or two and Jet Packs aren't the same thing.
The rumor, if true, evokes a "Death from Above" vignette in my head for any combatant using a jump pack to maneuver.
Let's look at what we have to compare to - WHFB. In Fantasy, chariots do what's called "impact hits" when they charge. By my understanding this is a similar game event, a large fast contraption and/or fighter is causing damage simply by their arrival to the fracas, then continuing to fight using whatever close combat weapons are available to it.
In that vein, I could see Jump Pack equipped infantry getting D6 S5 AP - hits, at I10, on the turn they charge to simulate the force of their arrival (which further means that in the rules JP infantry no longer 'cover the last few yards of the assault on foot' as they do now - these charge attacks will come from further away than now). If the D6 system isn't where GW is going with this, then it'll probably be 1 hit per jump packer that is charging. After the 'impact hits' resolve (see what i did there? Game cross-referencing is already in full effect.) then combat will resolve normally from there. Potentially a unit of 6-10 jump pack Blood Angels could annihilate a 4 man blasterborn unit without even swinging their chainswords, going by the very little we know about this mechanic. GW must really hate DE lately, a lot of these rumors nerf that codex.
If the 2D6 charge is on top of the normal 6in move, surely CC armies just got a boost, with a potential 18" assault in a single turn, (24" for Jump Packers.) Even on the average 2D6 roll they can go 13" in a turn, and on the worst thats still 8"
Thats was the thing in 8th Fantasy, everyone intially bemoaned the random charge ranges, then realised as long as you roll average, you are going further than before.
edit - Oh wait, reading fail, its pick the higest, yeah, that sucks. Had it given a potential increased range it would have been good, this way is terrible, you are more likely to be going less than 12" every turn you charge.
2nd edit - If it as suggested below, 6" move, then 6" Charge + Roll 2D6 and pick the highest, then I'll return to my, damn this is awesome for CC armies position, and my Orks will be all chuckling darkly.
lord_blackfang wrote:We had 5+ cover in 4th and liked it fine that way!
More importantly, we had LOS blocking area terrain and a rule that you could only kill as many models as you can see. Not getting shot at all is always preferable to getting a cover save.
HiveFleet wrote:Well, if those rumors are true, my Canoptek army just got a bit better, but my Tyranids are still screwed. i was hoping for % based army design, as it would solve alot of problems with the Tyranid army IMO. Ah well, shall wait and see. Excited to hear about the new figs however
The jump infantry rule is interesting for 'nids. Imagine bonesword shrikes or 30 gargoyles dropping on someone with that initiative bonus. Guess it all depends how cover affects it too though.
The WS thing for vehicles is fantastic for nids, MC's needing 4+/6+ to hit moving vehicles was always dumb. The Preferred Enemy change to shooting would also be interesting *cough* devilguants *cough* tyrannofex *cough*. Pity about FNP though.
Charges are probably 6+(2d6 highest) so no need to panic just yet.
Does anyone have any explanation why? Are the tabletops getting bigger? Is the idea that jump infantry or cavalry charges on turn one if they roll lucky for their charge distance and that slow monsters like Tomb Spyders and Carnifexes charge on turn two? In this form this rule would also have massive metagame ramifications. 9 Tomb Spyders (27 T6 wounds with 3+ AS) for 450 points is quite an incredible bargain if they're charging on turn two (6 move, D6 run, 6 move, 6+2D6 pick lowest assault for max 30 inches in just two turns for the slowest model in the game). People are saying infantryhammer but it definately wouldn't be shooty infantryhammer because shooty units only have a turn to shoot, if that, before they're getting swamped by multi-charges. What about infiltrators? Let's go back to the 60 infiltrating Stealers that's perfectly viable in 1.85K even now. They infiltrate to 18", move 6", fleet D6", assault 6"+2D6" while picking lowest? Say wut?
ColdSadHungry wrote: Other armies just wouldn't benefit overall from it due to lower WS or S or whatever and how many jump pack units do you see outside of SM armies? One or two and Jet Packs aren't the same thing.
Scourges, Hellions, Warp Spiders, Swooping Hawks, Shrike Swarms, Sky Slasher swarms, gargoyles, and vespids. And While Jet Packs may not move like other jump infantry they are still the jump infantry unit type.
tetrisphreak wrote: GW must really hate DE lately, a lot of these rumors nerf that codex.
The awesomeness of this statement cannot be denied.
Can we at least wait to decide who GW hates this week until we see a book?
Oh wait, lemme tip it the other way. A guy I know told me that all DE players get free beer at every tournament they go to just for showing up.
That was just an observation based on the admittedly small window of insight I currently have. Trust me, I'm not even a DE player but i can see how parts of rules negatively affect armies such as theirs. when the big picture arrives, hopefully sooner rather than later, then I will criticize legitimately. At this point, it's all speculation.
oni wrote:
This is a game changer. The whole assault dynamic of 40K will be abandoned in favor of shooting. I hope there's more to this. If not, this rule is very ill conceived and poorly thought out.
As someone else mentioned it will probably be a set value + the best of 2D6. Meaning that charges could go from 6" flat to a variable 7-12".
Therion wrote:
Charges are probably 6+(2d6 highest) so no need to panic just yet.
Does anyone have any explanation why? Are the tabletops getting bigger? Is the idea that jump infantry or cavalry charges on turn one if they roll lucky for their charge distance and that slow monsters like Tomb Spyders and Carnifexes charge on turn two? In this form this rule would also have massive metagame ramifications. People are saying infantryhammer but it definately wouldn't be shooty infantryhammer because shooty units only have a turn to shoot, if that, before they're getting swamped by multi-charges. What about infiltrators? Let's go back to the 60 infiltrating Stealers that's perfectly viable in 1.85K even now. They infiltrate to 18", move 6", fleet D6", assault 6"+2D6" while picking lowest? Say wut?
Aren't charge reactions in the game now? So you will get to shoot at them 1-2 times while they travel towards you, and then again when they charge. You might even be able to declare a fallback reaction, then regroup and shoot them again (note: I have not heard this presented as a rumour anywhere, I'm just extrapolating from the way charge reactions work in WFB, an the fact that 40K has had a voluntary fallback option in the past).
Anyone else noticed that several GW communications have started calling people "collectors" - almost like part of the GW hobby is collecting miniatures rather than buying miniatures for your army(ies) that you use and not buying the useless unit ones.
Aren't charge reactions in the game now? So you will get to shoot at them 1-2 times while they travel towards you, and then again when they charge. You might even be able to declare a fallback reaction, then regroup and shoot them again (note: I have not heard this presented as a rumour anywhere, I'm just extrapolating from the way charge reactions work in WFB, an the fact that 40K has had a voluntary fallback option in the past).
First of all if they get the first turn you get zero turns to fire against the fastest units or infiltrating units, and if the slower units just get the first turn you get one shooting phase in addition to the rumoured snap fire. The snap fire was rumoured to be BS2 so it's far from a real shooting phase or even a stand and shoot reaction from FB.
The voluntary fallback rule that 40K had in the past was never a charge reaction like you seem to suggest. It was an experimental rule for those assaults where a couple of Marines with bolters were fighting with a monster they couldn't do any damage to, meaning they were locked in the combat forever despite not being able to do anything.
ColdSadHungry wrote: Other armies just wouldn't benefit overall from it due to lower WS or S or whatever and how many jump pack units do you see outside of SM armies? One or two and Jet Packs aren't the same thing.
Scourges, Hellions, Warp Spiders, Swooping Hawks, Shrike Swarms, Sky Slasher swarms, gargoyles, and vespids. And While Jet Packs may not move like other jump infantry they are still the jump infantry unit type.
Yeah, but how many of those units do you actually want in CC? Even with the I10 attacks? Certainly not the Eldar ones or the Vespids. Hellions already get I6 anyway but both Hellions and Scourges are just S3, T3 like Craftworld Eldar - simply not good enough to be in CC. Don't know much about the Nids. Marines on the other hand, the ones with Jump Packs are already assault marines, they'll just be even better than they are now and would be able to completely ignore something that may be a bit of help against them such as having I5 or I6. Sanguinary Guard will just be plain crazy. I'm not saying that other armies won't benefit from this but that marines will benefit more because it will boost their already assault orientated units.
fullheadofhair wrote:Anyone else noticed that several GW communications have started calling people "collectors" - almost like part of the GW hobby is collecting miniatures rather than buying miniatures for your army(ies) that you use and not buying the useless unit ones.
mmmh, interesting turn of phrase.
Well, you collect your army don't you? Some people don't play and just collect, build, and paint models. We all collect them to a certain degree.
Charges are probably 6+(2d6 highest) so no need to panic just yet.
Does anyone have any explanation why? Are the tabletops getting bigger? Is the idea that jump infantry or cavalry charges on turn one if they roll lucky for their charge distance and that slow monsters like Tomb Spyders and Carnifexes charge on turn two? In this form this rule would also have massive metagame ramifications. 9 Tomb Spyders (27 T6 wounds with 3+ AS) for 450 points is quite an incredible bargain if they're charging on turn two (6 move, D6 run, 6 move, 6+2D6 pick lowest assault for max 30 inches in just two turns for the slowest model in the game). People are saying infantryhammer but it definately wouldn't be shooty infantryhammer because shooty units only have a turn to shoot, if that, before they're getting swamped by multi-charges. What about infiltrators? Let's go back to the 60 infiltrating Stealers that's perfectly viable in 1.85K even now. They infiltrate to 18", move 6", fleet D6", assault 6"+2D6" while picking lowest? Say wut?
I guess you must have missed the first line of my post. Weird.
Goresaw wrote:Infantryhammer? More like Suckitnonpowerarmorhammer.
Reduced cover saves is seriously bad news for almost every xeno player. The changes seem to make shooting far more dangerous (to xenos, of course) and make hand to hand less useful. The game is already horribly shooty, this is just going to make it worse. Games will go faster though, because every turn about 20% more orks, eldar, tyranids, etc.... will be dying every shooting phase.
As a Tau player that still takes his army to local tournies I have to say that I welcome the return of reasonable coversaves. This combined with the return of tactical positioning for ranged combat makes me a very happy camper.
Therion wrote:
ColdSadHungry wrote:Wound Allocation is closest to furthest.
I don't like this rule as it essentially means the return of sniping. Players will look for their opponents to place their models carelessly and then taking advantage of it with fast moving shooty units by making the target of choice the closest target. A character you want dead is on one edge of a unit, so you circle the unit and unload to the unit to make sure the desired model dies. Remember in 4th edition when only those models could die that you could see, and players made 'tunnels' from their own vehicles and whatnot so that a lascannon only saw one target in the enemy unit, for example a hero or a special weapon guy? I remember a lot of really nasty games at tournaments. Point being, I don't see the reason for adding a rule like this again. There was nothing wrong with wound allocation in 5th aside from the multi-wound model unit shenanigans.
I love this rule in that it brings back tactical play. When 4th ed ended our gaming group was still vigorously playing it, I can't say the same for 5th. Yes, overall the rules were better written in 5th but KP and wound allocation ruined what otherwise would have been a great ruleset.
(Oh Lord, Please let KP be gone and return our VP system that we were happy with.)
Therion wrote:
Psychic Power Decks using a dice system similar to Fantasy.
I agree with the poster above that this is pretty out there. It's not as easy to add in magic to 40K as it's into FB. Only one army in FB doesn't use magic and they're really special and have their own benefits to compensate. In 40K however atleast Necrons, Dark Eldar, Tau and Black Templars are completely void of psykers (and sometimes psychic defence). What would be the point of a massive overhaul of a phase that only some armies in 40K have access to?
I agree with you in that this is (IMO) a completely unnecessary change to the game. But hey, this makes it like Warmahordes, Right?
HiveFleet wrote:Well, if those rumors are true, my Canoptek army just got a bit better, but my Tyranids are still screwed. i was hoping for % based army design, as it would solve alot of problems with the Tyranid army IMO. Ah well, shall wait and see. Excited to hear about the new figs however
The jump infantry rule is interesting for 'nids. Imagine bonesword shrikes or 30 gargoyles dropping on someone with that initiative bonus.
Gargoyles already strike first in most situations against units outside cover, as they have I4 or I5. So? They are a decent unit, nothing more, and a single I10 attack on the charge won't make much of a difference.
xttz wrote:The WS thing for vehicles is fantastic for nids, MC's needing 4+/6+ to hit moving vehicles was always dumb. The Preferred Enemy change to shooting would also be interesting *cough* devilguants *cough* tyrannofex *cough*. Pity about FNP though.
The WS 1 is a typo. Moving vehicles are WS 10, apparently. If we're to beleive an anonymous Faeit poster. Wouldn't surprise me, makes more sense than WS1.
And the PE changes could be read as the only thing it will do now, is allow reroll 1's to wound. I do hope it is in addition to the current rerolls to hit.
If we go to random charge distances I will be sorely disappointed. I doubt it'll throw me from the game but I may sit that edition out. I just have an irrational dislike of that particular way of doing things.
Goresaw wrote:
Battlewagon orks are getting kicked in the balls. Moving only 6 inches in a battlewagons that are only getting +5 now? No thanks. I also feel sorry for non-Blood Angel landraider lists. (unless its all can move 6 and fire everything, move 12 and fire nothing, fast get an extra move).
Based on the rumors you can still move more than 6, but the additional movement occurs in the shooting phase. So for a non-fast vehicle you would move 6" in movement phase, then in the shooting phase you have either the choice of a) shooting a weapon b) moving another 6".
While it's an extra step, I think it adds pretty interesting mechanic, because you could have a squad of Long Fangs, then after they fires have a vehicle move 6" in front of them to block LOS in your opponents turn.
Shooting taking out the targets closest to the shooter first is a great idea. One of the things I dont like about 5th is the idea of people picking which get killed and which dont. Every other game Ive ever played was closest first, as it tends to be in real life.
Get rid of the wound allocation junk, and go back to units having a M stat, instead of the...everything moves 6", except 50% of the units in the game that have a special rule to make them faster or slower. Both of those would probably go a long way to getting be into playing 40k again.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
wyomingfox wrote:
davethepak wrote:Actually, FNP needed a nerf, it was being handed out like candy (well, if not like candy, like invul saves for marines).
Well, they have been handing out several special abilities like candy in this edition:
FNP (BA, DE, and to a lesser extent GK, Orcs, and Nids -- Necrons traded WBB for a modified FNP)
Instant Death (GK and to a lesser extent Nids and SW)
Poison (DE and Nids)
Rending (GK, SW, Deamons -- Nids always had rending)
That is another one of my big complaints about 5th, especially the rules that could be solved with just a simple stat change. It can be explained in the fluff/description of the unit and not with some special rule.
Sarge wrote:If we go to random charge distances I will be sorely disappointed. I doubt it'll throw me from the game but I may sit that edition out. I just have an irrational dislike of that particular way of doing things.
Since premeasuring seems to be going away as well, random charge range adds back in that element of uncertainty.
starchild wrote:addition to a multipart plastic Eldar Avatar. Each kit is supposed to be the some of the best work GW has ever done, absolutely loaded with options so no two need be alike.
An Avatar kit with options sounds interesting as it implies there would be wargear options in the codex to go along with them.
I have a sinking feeling that Matt Ward had a hand in the rules. If so, say goodbye to any resemblance of the 40k we know and love and prepare for what I would predict to be the worst 40k rules set ever written. :(
oni wrote:I have a sinking feeling that Matt Ward had a hand in the rules. If so, say goodbye to any resemblance of the 40k we know and love and prepare for what I would predict to be the worst 40k rules set ever written. :(
Wow. Made it to page five before we Draigo'd. Congrats on your restraint in waiting this long!
oni wrote:I have a sinking feeling that Matt Ward had a hand in the rules. If so, say goodbye to any resemblance of the 40k we know and love and prepare for what I would predict to be the worst 40k rules set ever written. :(
I think 40K needs a total reset, so I embrace the change if for nothing other then a good change of pace.
The joy of figuring out a new game/rules set is euphoric. Being able to do that with the 40K setting/models is even more tantalizing.
If this change rakles the current tourney set or causes TFGs to rage-quit then I see those as bonuses...
oni wrote:I have a sinking feeling that Matt Ward had a hand in the rules. If so, say goodbye to any resemblance of the 40k we know and love and prepare for what I would predict to be the worst 40k rules set ever written. :(
I think 40K needs a total reset, so I embrace the change if for nothing other then a good change of pace.
.
Have to disagree.
WFB didn't need it, got it, and now it kinda sucks.
CT GAMER wrote:I think 40K needs a total reset, so I embrace the change if for nothing other then a good change of pace.
... If this change rakles the current tourney set or causes TFGs to rage-quit then I see those as bonuses...
I couldn't disagree more. If Warhammer 40,000 needed anything it was a few refinements and better list-balancing, not change for its own sake.
Oh, and those are some classy weasel words... naturally everybody who disagrees with you is a TFG.
CT GAMER wrote:I think 40K needs a total reset, so I embrace the change if for nothing other then a good change of pace.
... If this change rakles the current tourney set or causes TFGs to rage-quit then I see those as bonuses...
I couldn't disagree more. If Warhammer 40,000 needed anything it was a few refinements and better list-balancing, not change for its own sake.
Oh, and those are some classy weasel words... naturally everybody who disagrees with you is a TFG.
So a few refinements can be done in an Errata/FAQ, not paying about $100 for "tweaks". Sorry now that is what, $200 in rules for just "tweaks" from 3rd edition? So if we get tweaks that means we paid $300 for edition 3.9
Vehicles cannot contest (unsure if scoring units in transports can)
I think that this change is universally for the best; I see it as a first step toward fixing one of the principle causes of many people's disdain for the current meta.
5+ Cover save for most things including ruins
Hallelujah, amen! My number one complaint with 5th is(was?) the ubiquitous 4+ cover save.
Wound Allocation is closest to furthest.
I'm neutral here. I do like the change a little, just because I think it adds a new element to the tabletop-tactical side of the game, as opposed to the list-creation side.
Dueling is similar to challenges in fantasy but contrary to earlier rumors, they don't replace Combat res, just add to sides. A IC can challenge another IC in the same combat even if not in base to base. If the defending IC refuses, he simply cannot attack that turn, if he does he counts as being in b2b and no one else can hurt him apart from the attacking IC. I'm guessing this is to offset the Wound Allocation rules
Well, Mindshackle Scarabs just became broken. Possibly GK win grenades if any ICs are able to take them (I don't play GK so I dunno).
Preferred Enemy is including shooting and you may reroll wound rolls of a 1 (either shooting or combat)
Christ, I hope so. My Destroyers desperately need something to justify their price tag right now. However, this does make Heavy Destroyers disgustingly good.
Jump Infantry get a free strike at I10 when they charge into combat
Triarch Praetorians just got a little bit more interesting...
Psychic Power Decks using a dice system similar to Fantasy
I have no frame of reference here. Is this a Nerf?
FNP drops to 5+ Save
Good. FNP is one of the most annoying mechanics in 5th Ed and it slows the game down so much. Every little bit that's chipped away makes me happy.
Aren't charge reactions in the game now? So you will get to shoot at them 1-2 times while they travel towards you, and then again when they charge. You might even be able to declare a fallback reaction, then regroup and shoot them again (note: I have not heard this presented as a rumour anywhere, I'm just extrapolating from the way charge reactions work in WFB, an the fact that 40K has had a voluntary fallback option in the past).
First of all if they get the first turn you get zero turns to fire against the fastest units or infiltrating units, and if the slower units just get the first turn you get one shooting phase in addition to the rumoured snap fire. The snap fire was rumoured to be BS2 so it's far from a real shooting phase or even a stand and shoot reaction from FB.
The voluntary fallback rule that 40K had in the past was never a charge reaction like you seem to suggest. It was an experimental rule for those assaults where a couple of Marines with bolters were fighting with a monster they couldn't do any damage to, meaning they were locked in the combat forever despite not being able to do anything.
In WFB a stand-and-shoot is completed at -1 to hit, and can only be used if the charge starts from a certain distance away, so there are comparable penalties to BS2. Shooting in 40K is many times more powerful than it is in WFB, and units are generally smaller and can absorb fewer casualties before they become crippled, so it makes sense that a snap-fire would be harder to achieve than a S-a-S
I didn't mean to suggest that voluntary fallback was a charge reaction, only that 40K has already flirted with the option of voluntarily putting a unit into rout in order to gain a tactical benefit, and that that combined with the existing & functional flee reaction in WFB would make it a no-brainer for inclusion in 40K.
azazel the cat wrote:
Psychic Power Decks using a dice system similar to Fantasy
I have no frame of reference here. Is this a Nerf?
Hard to say without a lot more info.
On one hand it will probably mean that all armies (or at least all psychic armies) can draw on useful generic powers, rather than Armies A, B and C getting awesome codex powers while Armies X, Y, and Z get crappy ones.
It might also introduce an element of random selection, where you roll for your powers and can't always depend on getting the ideal one.
It could also mean the introduction of an analogue to WFB's "dispelling" which would effectively mean an across-the-board improvement of psychic defense for all armies, rather than the scattershot way psychic defense is currently parceled out.
CT GAMER wrote:I think 40K needs a total reset, so I embrace the change if for nothing other then a good change of pace.
... If this change rakles the current tourney set or causes TFGs to rage-quit then I see those as bonuses...
I couldn't disagree more. If Warhammer 40,000 needed anything it was a few refinements and better list-balancing, not change for its own sake.
Oh, and those are some classy weasel words... naturally everybody who disagrees with you is a TFG.
So a few refinements can be done in an Errata/FAQ, not paying about $100 for "tweaks". Sorry now that is what, $200 in rules for just "tweaks" from 3rd edition? So if we get tweaks that means we paid $300 for edition 3.9
Whereas predominantly unnecessary and unwanted changes justify the price of a new rulebook, of course...
As much hate has Matt Ward gets, I have to admit, Necrons is a REALLY good codex. Its a great mix of 'omg thats broken' and 'holy $&(@# I'm about to get stomped by certain builds'. Its enough power to make the player feel like he has a good army, and enough weaknesses that make opponents enjoy playing the game.
As long as they reign him in, he can make a good book.
oni wrote:I have a sinking feeling that Matt Ward had a hand in the rules. If so, say goodbye to any resemblance of the 40k we know and love and prepare for what I would predict to be the worst 40k rules set ever written. :(
Everyone probably had a hand in it. Just because Mat Ward had a part in it doesn't mean it will be THE WORST THING EVAR. Anyway, I'll stop writing before I say something rude.
PS: Wait til the ruleset comes out before going Chicken Little on it.
ColdSadHungry wrote:Yeah, but how many of those units do you actually want in CC? Even with the I10 attacks? Certainly not the Eldar ones or the Vespids. Hellions already get I6 anyway but both Hellions and Scourges are just S3, T3 like Craftworld Eldar - simply not good enough to be in CC. Don't know much about the Nids. Marines on the other hand, the ones with Jump Packs are already assault marines, they'll just be even better than they are now and would be able to completely ignore something that may be a bit of help against them such as having I5 or I6. Sanguinary Guard will just be plain crazy. I'm not saying that other armies won't benefit from this but that marines will benefit more because it will boost their already assault orientated units.
Necron Wraiths. S6 rending, JI, ignores terrain. Honestly, with the exception of DoABA, I don't see many MEQ armies really gaining a huge benefit here. However, a DoA build is kinda scary now.
Altruizine wrote:It might also introduce an element of random selection, where you roll for your powers and can't always depend on getting the ideal one.
That sounds fantastic. I like the idea of a SW player not being able to suddenly have 2x Rune Priests firing JotWW at my Necrons.
Whats with all the Matt Ward better not write the rules? I think he did a great job in LotR rules, balanced, fun and well written.
I think he would do a great job with 6th. After all maybe that is what we need. A great shake up for EVERYONE not just Space Marines as alot of people like to say.
So with all the rumours coming out, how come we don't have who has written the Book?
That sounds fantastic. I like the idea of a SW player not being able to suddenly have 2x Rune Priests firing JotWW at my Necrons.
So they will change their meta and possibly overrun you with Terminators. I personally believe that SM's and IG are going to get scary with this new rule set coming up.
And people are forgetting about being able to purchase terrain for your army. Why did you think Terrain went up so high in price
as well as other important models needed for a competitive list for 6th ED?
Well I did say was was buying up models and certain vehicle models in one of my previous posts.
Some of us will be giggling for joy while others will groan from the nerfing of those certain models that were so good in 5th ED.
But I will say this. If you are one of those people that kept your old armies and did not sell them off just to get the newest and uberist army available, then you are going to be fine. I believe that you are not going to have to spend too much money for upgrading your army.
Davor wrote:Whats with all the Matt Ward better not write the rules?
Have you been living under a rock since Warhammer Daemons in 7th Ed?
That was an army book which lost a lot of power in the transition to 8ed, the only people still having issues with that are still playing 7ed or are very good at holding grudges. I must agree that the War of the Rings ruleset was very well written and balanced. His codecies in 40k have significant issues in terms of fluff, no argument there, however writing a new edition ruleset should produce something interesting and hopefully to the same standard as War of the Ring.
That is if he is writing the new edition of 40k at all
Dueling is similar to challenges in fantasy but contrary to earlier rumors, they don't replace Combat res, just add to sides. A IC can challenge another IC in the same combat even if not in base to base. If the defending IC refuses, he simply cannot attack that turn, if he does he counts as being in b2b and no one else can hurt him apart from the attacking IC. I'm guessing this is to offset the Wound Allocation rules
Well, Mindshackle Scarabs just became broken. Possibly GK win grenades if any ICs are able to take them (I don't play GK so I dunno).
Well, this is annoying. The only way to deal with MSS in 5th was careful positioning. If this duel thing is legit you had better be able to accept challenges with sergeants or something or IC heavy hitters are rendered basically worthless in the face of MSS.
I love the idea of wound allocation from the front row. Now people will actually have to think when they just charge out into the open instead of just pushing the models up. People who don't like this for the idea that models may get sniped are honestly complaining about having to think while playing the game. I for one welcome this increase to the tactical aspect of the game, as a Tau player it's mighty fun right now watching melee armies DURR HURR across the board with not a care in the world.
Random Charges are pretty cool, and I would hope snap shot is reactionary and failed charges will still have to move just like WHFB. This would seriously hamper assaults a little, but a the same time actually make it a gamble. And if I am to understand this correctly it's 6+2D6 (Highest of two)? What are people complaining about? Doesn't that mean at the lowest their charge range can be is still longer than it is now?
I'm glad vehicles cannot contest, this has easily been like the most ridiculous thing in 5th is that last turn flatout movement/Tankshock onto an objective. Tankshocks will obviously still work if they mange to run the squad off, but at least even a failed one wont continue to screw you over.
5+ cover change I have no problems with. 5+ cover save is what I have been wanting back since 5th came out. I want to be able to actually shoot crappy Guards and Orks and not have them laugh at half the bullets. What's the point of having good firepower and good AP when everyone is getting a 4+ cover? On a negative note this is a huge buff to SM codices obviously by widening that gap in survivability between them and xeno races. This will allow SM codices to kill most Xenos more effectively while at the same time not decreasing their own survivability (unless AP3 or better weapon of course). Luckily Tau sit around at a 4+ armor already lol.
ALLIES ARE NOT IN LIKE OLD EDITIONS! YES! I was going to hate the hell out of this change. Last thing I wanted to see is Grey Knights, or any other race for that matter, rolling around with three Broadsides suits. Allies honestly removes a lot of the uniqueness of codices in my opinion.
I'm perfectly fine with perentages not being in. While it is a nice way to balance FOCs, it will really make list making annoying as piss. I play Dwarfs WHFB and I hate the percentages simply for their inability to easily make an army on the spot.
Jump Infantry get a I10 strike! YES MY VESPIDS WILL CONTINUE TO BE OF NO USE TO ME! This rule does not bother me, in fact I like the idea of it a lot. It would be common sense if you picture a squad of people in jet packs making a dynamic entry into their enemy.
FNP 5+ is the most beautiful thing I have seen in all these rumors. FNP is practically given out like candy now, and I'm sick and tired of my already tragically low change to kill being cut in half again. Then again, my rage for special rules like this probably stems from Tau's absolute lack of containing any of 5th editions pet special rules.
Rapid Fire Weapons fire at max even while moving... never mind, this is now the most beautiful thing I have ever seen. This opens up the kiting ability of FW a lot for Tau and other armies like them. But at the same time it really makes the 'relentless' rule of Crisis Suits null, and now everyone can pull off this magic.
Dueling seems pretty fun and cinematic to me. Another thing I can't see ruining 40k since it really helped balance issues with ubers in WHFB.
Card decks for psykers a stupid idea and completely unrealistic? Back in the days of yore 40k already had these decks and I thought they were awesome.
Now the only thing I can hope for is that the rumored Tau Flyer is true, and doesn't suck. I would love to have something new in my army since Tau players have seen almost no changes in their models since their release in 2001 (besides the new ugly Stealthsuits).
oni wrote:I have a sinking feeling that Matt Ward had a hand in the rules. If so, say goodbye to any resemblance of the 40k we know and love and prepare for what I would predict to be the worst 40k rules set ever written. :(
I think 40K needs a total reset, so I embrace the change if for nothing other then a good change of pace.
.
Have to disagree.
WFB didn't need it, got it, and now it kinda sucks.
And I have to disagree with you, Alphy: I left 7th edition during the broken-ness of Daemons and VC (granted, those were the fault of the books, not the core rules) and had no interest in continuing, but when 8th hit I jumped back in and LOVE my Orcs and Goblins again, and my Chaos Warriors as well. I think 8th is an amazing semi-return to the parts of 5th that were good, and none of the new books coming out are overpowered above the rest. I think it's great and hope 6th edition 40k is on par with 8th fantasy. Some spells are overpowered, but it doesn't ruin the game. I think 8th is the strongest fantasy has been in years/ever (I started in 5th, this is the best since then, IMO). I hope 6th is similar and we should have challenges-they're a great part of fantasy, and they'll add a pleasant addition to the game.
CT GAMER wrote:I think 40K needs a total reset, so I embrace the change if for nothing other then a good change of pace.
... If this change rakles the current tourney set or causes TFGs to rage-quit then I see those as bonuses...
I couldn't disagree more. If Warhammer 40,000 needed anything it was a few refinements and better list-balancing, not change for its own sake.
Oh, and those are some classy weasel words... naturally everybody who disagrees with you is a TFG.
Not what I said at all, but feel free to be offended if it pleases you...
I can't believe no one has mentioned storm boys in the jump infantry change! This is not only going to make stormboys more useful but passably one of the better units in the game.
focusedfire wrote:But hey, this makes it like Warmahordes, Right?
40K used cards before WM was even written.
Yes, I remember the strategy cards and why they went away. My statement was ment to be sarcastic, if you look close you will se that I even used an orkmoticon.
The hassle of keeping psychic power cards, the randomness that this system will represent and the extra time that it will add to the game are big downers IMO.
There are reasons that every game of fantasy I've ever seen played was like watching paint dry and I'm not really wanting those things in 40k. 2 hour games of 40k are ok, 31/2 to 5 hour games...not so much.
The hassle of keeping psychic power cards, the randomness that this system will represent and the extra time that it will add to the game are big downers IMO.
2nd edition felt like an rpg. II miss it tbh.
I also enjoyed the variety and randomness. I look forward to a return of some of the old feel...
Some of those rumors seem off to me. Like having an extra move in the shooting phase instead of shooting? than how would, for example, POTMS work for Space Marine Land Raiders?
Random Charges are interesting. Would they be done in the Movement phase? If so, it's fine by me. If not, it's more of the CC Hammer we've had.
The Vehicle bit, with giving them WS, seems weird too. Unless they are removing the current system of hitting vehicles in close combat, which means, if they are stationary, they are automatically hit (like now) or, no matter how far they move, they are hit on a 3+. Seems a tad easy to hit a vehicle that's moving at full speed, for example. And the reasoning that people 'forget' how fast vehicles move and if they are able to fire is silly, to me. >.>
Vehicles being unable to contest is fine, I suppose. Prevents last minute fast skimmers/empty transports from forcing a draw.
Troops being the only scorers is the same as before.
Cover being 5+ is A+ in my book.
The new Wound Allocation system seems interesting. I'd prefer it going back to the Toughness system, to speed things up again, but I suppose this could work, too. Might balance out the CC-Hammer a bit.
Dueling seems like a good way to stop a Warboss w/ Claw from wrecking an entire squad in one turn.
Don't like Preferred Enemy possibly getting even stronger. I mean, it's great that Grey Knights can kill Daemons even better, or anyone else with Preferred Enemy can trounce someone else even easier, but...
I like the proposed Rapid Fire change, but I may be a bit biased.
Jump Infantry getting one attack at I10 each for free if they charge? Might make Vanilla Assault Marines useful again... interesting.
Depends how they change psychic powers depends on how viable a deck system is? I mean, Fantasy, for the most part, has everyone sharing one book and picking their lore and rolling to determine what they get. In 40k, every army has Psychic Powers that are unique to them. So sure, it could be cool to get a bajillion cards that are not so useful to me because I don't play the other armies, and only getting the 9 I want as a Vanilla Marine.
And if it goes on the roll to determine what you get type system, that'd be even poopier. Null Zone against Horde Orks? Machine Curse against Tyranids? Force Dome on a Terminator/Storm Shield Librarian? Boo.
Though, rolling to get the power off, and if you get double 6s and such and suffering for it, that'd be kind of cool. Adding a Psychic phase to 40k might not be that bad.
FNP being nerfed would make my cold little heart warm up.
Yay, Supersonic and such being in my main rule book! Yay!
Anyways, a lot of things have taken a small bit of credibility hit, now that we found out that 40k is coming out in June, and not July/August. *shrug*
The hassle of keeping psychic power cards, the randomness that this system will represent and the extra time that it will add to the game are big downers IMO.
2nd edition felt like an rpg. II miss it tbh.
I also enjoyed the variety and randomness. I look forward to a return of some of the old feel...
If I want to play a rpg then there are pathfinder, white wolf, rifts, shadowrun, ect., ect........
As to randomness....It can be ok when done like the orks. Not so much when it slows the game down and is implemented in a way that has no comedic relief. Without the silliness of the ork style you just end up gambling how the whole game is gonna go on a dice roll that happens before the game really starts. But hey, that just my opinion and fortunately the only psychic army I own are my Eldar. My Tau, DE and Orks are safe by their natures.
WHFB doesnt need cards; its based on lores in a book; they do release cards when an army comes out but thats only so you dont have to continually refer back to the book.
As for Psychic phase in 40K, previously they had decks for all races; even squats (they had runes instead but had the same game effect.) Im guessing Necrons will be able to do techno magic, Tau maybe technological marvels that just look like magic which relys unknown to the Tau on warp eddies, etc
With Psychic powers already in books; maybe these decks are in addition to? Im hoping so; might mean Eldrad gets better
I imagine each race would keep their own psychic powers, and that they'd use the cards for those, and the others (if you got a deck full of them) would be for reference, etc.
I guess a Psychic phase wouldn't work since not all races have Psykers. I was just thinking 'out loud'.
oni wrote:I have a sinking feeling that Matt Ward had a hand in the rules. If so, say goodbye to any resemblance of the 40k we know and love and prepare for what I would predict to be the worst 40k rules set ever written. :(
I think 40K needs a total reset, so I embrace the change if for nothing other then a good change of pace. .
Have to disagree.
WFB didn't need it, got it, and now it kinda sucks.
And I have to disagree with you, Alphy: I left 7th edition during the broken-ness of Daemons and VC (granted, those were the fault of the books, not the core rules) and had no interest in continuing, but when 8th hit I jumped back in and LOVE my Orcs and Goblins again, and my Chaos Warriors as well. I think 8th is an amazing semi-return to the parts of 5th that were good, and none of the new books coming out are overpowered above the rest. I think it's great and hope 6th edition 40k is on par with 8th fantasy. Some spells are overpowered, but it doesn't ruin the game. I think 8th is the strongest fantasy has been in years/ever (I started in 5th, this is the best since then, IMO). I hope 6th is similar and we should have challenges-they're a great part of fantasy, and they'll add a pleasant addition to the game.
*ducks as rocks are thrown*
Most of the tournament matches I've been in consisted of people either rolling their dice for 15 minutes, trying to blast people off with warmachines or the ever-famous "Who gets Gateway / Dwellers / Purple Sun / etc." through the fastest. And truth be told: dwarfen corner fortress is boring to play with and boring to play against. Matches usually end after the maximum amount of turns as the defending player just hides behind terrain and hopes not to lose a unit or too many points to get a draw.
8th is a mess balance-wise as magic is ridicolously overpowered and the most gamebreaking element in the entire game. Which is really sad as the game *could* be very tactical with the exact maneuvers, difficult terrain to take into consideration, etc. Ye know, like in 7th.
Has anyone ever noticed that the Night Scythe carries the Aerial Assault rule, which allows the vehicle to move at cruising speed and still fire all of its weapons? But the Night Scythe already has the Fast special rule. And the Night Scythe only has one weapon to begin with.
Anyone care to speculate on how this may affect changes to what the Fast USR means in 6th Ed.?
I expect it will be on the Apple e-book system, I forget it's name. I doubt however they're going to port it to any other e reader simply because they seem to like the idea of an apple only partnership.
azazel the cat wrote:Has anyone ever noticed that the Night Scythe carries the Aerial Assault rule, which allows the vehicle to move at cruising speed and still fire all of its weapons?
But the Night Scythe already has the Fast special rule.
And the Night Scythe only has one weapon to begin with.
Anyone care to speculate on how this may affect changes to what the Fast USR means in 6th Ed.?
Fairly certain they have a tesla destructor as well.
Platuan4th wrote:
40K used cards before WM was even written.
Aw yeah baby.
Time to go old school.
That picture makes me want to weep for what was lost...
CT GAMER wrote:
oni wrote:I have a sinking feeling that Matt Ward had a hand in the rules. If so, say goodbye to any resemblance of the 40k we know and love and prepare for what I would predict to be the worst 40k rules set ever written. :(
I think 40K needs a total reset, so I embrace the change if for nothing other then a good change of pace.
The joy of figuring out a new game/rules set is euphoric. Being able to do that with the 40K setting/models is even more tantalizing.
If this change rakles the current tourney set or causes TFGs to rage-quit then I see those as bonuses...
...and since we can't go back, I embrace the unknown potential the future holds. And a great reduction in the TFG/WAAC population. Maybe they can go play Infinity or Malifaux or one of the other many games that I am never going to play.
Crazyterran wrote:The Vehicle bit, with giving them WS, seems weird too. Unless they are removing the current system of hitting vehicles in close combat, which means, if they are stationary, they are automatically hit (like now) or, no matter how far they move, they are hit on a 3+. Seems a tad easy to hit a vehicle that's moving at full speed, for example. And the reasoning that people 'forget' how fast vehicles move and if they are able to fire is silly, to me
WS10 seems more likely than WS1. I'm also hoping the to hit in CC chart adds in 2+ and 6 as values, which would make very high and very low WS values have more meaning. If that happens, a moving vehicle at WS10 would require 6s to hit for anything less than say WS7.
All vehicles being able to move 6" and fire everything will make them far more mobile. If it is 6" during the move phase, then there seems to be three options for vehicles. Not move and shoot everything, move up to 6" more and shoot one weapon (all weapons if fast), or Flat out and move 18" more (for skimmers)
Both those abilities would help make up for the increased vulnerability that Hull points seem to bring to vehicles.
Dueling is similar to challenges in fantasy but contrary to earlier rumors, they don't replace Combat res, just add to sides. A IC can challenge another IC in the same combat even if not in base to base. If the defending IC refuses, he simply cannot attack that turn, if he does he counts as being in b2b and no one else can hurt him apart from the attacking IC. I'm guessing this is to offset the Wound Allocation rules
Well, Mindshackle Scarabs just became broken. Possibly GK win grenades if any ICs are able to take them (I don't play GK so I dunno).
Well, this is annoying. The only way to deal with MSS in 5th was careful positioning. If this duel thing is legit you had better be able to accept challenges with sergeants or something or IC heavy hitters are rendered basically worthless in the face of MSS.
Well, the rumour is worded so that the IC counts as being in BTB with the challenger. It doesn't mean the challenger only counts as being in BTB with the IC. So if you place your own IC in such a way that an assaulting Overlord can't reach it, the Overlord will be in BTB with atleast one other model than the challenged IC of yours, meaning there's a great chance that some other model gets randomised for the target of MSS.
Honestly, every bit of extra randomness in the system will increase the reliance on player skill and boost overall balance by reducing the impact of list building and occassionally off-key rules and power (e.g. JoTWW).
Everyone who's in the game to mettle their skills on the table (rather than their ability to cherry-pick lists with the best/most point-efficient offers of a Codex) should rejoice at every extra bit of randomness they put in to decrease the impact of "the list" and increase the impact of a player's skill to work with everything and anything that may be thrown his way.
azazel the cat wrote:Has anyone ever noticed that the Night Scythe carries the Aerial Assault rule, which allows the vehicle to move at cruising speed and still fire all of its weapons?
But the Night Scythe already has the Fast special rule.
And the Night Scythe only has one weapon to begin with.
Anyone care to speculate on how this may affect changes to what the Fast USR means in 6th Ed.?
Fairly certain they have a tesla destructor as well.
Speculating here, based on these badly speficied and highly unreliable and completely unconfirmed rumours:
Tanks move 6" and then either fire all their weapons in the shooting phase or move an additional 6".
Tanks that are fast move 6" and fire all their weapons in the shooting phase , or move 12" and fire one weapon in the shooting phase, or move 12" and an additional 6" in the shooting phase.
Tanks that are fast and skimmers operate in the exact same way except benefit from skimmer special rules and instead of shooting at all get an extra 12" movement in the shooting phase instead of 6", and even more if they have the supersonic special rule. Aerial assault allows the vehicle to move 12" and instead of shooting one weapon firing all the weapons.
As far as the Night Scythe is concerned (1 weapon), the Aerial Assault rule might be the special rule that GW will use for specifying which model is a 'flyer' and which one is just a skimmer. Flyers were rumoured to be harder to hit with shooting etc.
But I just heard some rather....disturbing rumours about the fluff for 6th Ed.
I wonder which one of the circulating jokes you've heard. Have the Ultramarines left the Imperium? Is the Emperor REALLY dead? Is Cypher the new Emperor? Are Marines and Tau the new best buddies? You can rest assured there's no major background changes.
oni wrote:I have a sinking feeling that Matt Ward had a hand in the rules. If so, say goodbye to any resemblance of the 40k we know and love and prepare for what I would predict to be the worst 40k rules set ever written. :(
Well my battle wagon orks are sad now =( but i am liking the jump infantry rule as my flyrant will hit at I10 as wings make it counts as moving as if jump infantry =D come to think of it harpy, deamon princess and blood thisters got a bit better with these rules and if MC can duel (all rumours seems to want to rule these guys put when four armies have HQ's that are MC) and can fly do you think the impact hit will work then?
rapid firer changes seem cool, means people might actaully move in this addition =P
the changes to psychic powers seems interesting and will probably work if done right, just have to hope that my tyranids like zoans or tervigons get their powers as "bound" or something so they don't become more useless / guant factory repectfully.
and you know that there have been no major fluff changes because.... You read the most recent set of rules GW produced. I.e. the necron codex? I for one think some changes sound good.
5+ COVER = perfect
random charge range may make the game a little more fun by making charges a bit of a gamble
not so sure but the way that i read the vehicle shooting rules, it sounds like tanks got a big boost being able to move 6" and fire everything. That sounds amazing.
challenges sounds weak. I hope that they dont go there.
the remove the closest model sounds like a lot of arguing about who is closest and the like. probably slowing the game down as a result.
random psychic abilities. Sounds good to me. psychers are way to powerful as is.
the rest of it i am impartial on except that i think anything that motivates TFG list building minmaxers into getting out of the hobby is a good thing.
sennacherib wrote:the rest of it i am impartial on except that i think anything that motivates TFG list building minmaxers into getting out of the hobby is a good thing.
You are entitled to your opinion. Your opinion however, is pretty damn silly, to put it mildly.
azazel the cat wrote:Has anyone ever noticed that the Night Scythe carries the Aerial Assault rule, which allows the vehicle to move at cruising speed and still fire all of its weapons?
But the Night Scythe already has the Fast special rule.
And the Night Scythe only has one weapon to begin with.
Anyone care to speculate on how this may affect changes to what the Fast USR means in 6th Ed.?
I think it's quite possible that instead of there being an actual "flyer" unit type in 6th that instead they will make backhanded use of rules that several flyer units already have in their unit entries. The example I've used before is that it would be very easy for instance to state in the core rules that while fast skimmers that move flat out get a 4+ cover save, fast skimmers with the "supersonic" rule instead get a 3+ cover save.
Of course it could simply be for a sense of cohesion since the Nigthscythe and Doomscythe are the same vehicles just with different weapon loadouts while superflous because of only having 1 weapon in the case of the NS it is just given it for this cohesiveness.
Crazyterran wrote:The Vehicle bit, with giving them WS, seems weird too. Unless they are removing the current system of hitting vehicles in close combat, which means, if they are stationary, they are automatically hit (like now) or, no matter how far they move, they are hit on a 3+. Seems a tad easy to hit a vehicle that's moving at full speed, for example. And the reasoning that people 'forget' how fast vehicles move and if they are able to fire is silly, to me
WS10 seems more likely than WS1. I'm also hoping the to hit in CC chart adds in 2+ and 6 as values, which would make very high and very low WS values have more meaning. If that happens, a moving vehicle at WS10 would require 6s to hit for anything less than say WS7.
All vehicles being able to move 6" and fire everything will make them far more mobile. If it is 6" during the move phase, then there seems to be three options for vehicles. Not move and shoot everything, move up to 6" more and shoot one weapon (all weapons if fast), or Flat out and move 18" more (for skimmers)
Both those abilities would help make up for the increased vulnerability that Hull points seem to bring to vehicles.
Honestly, I'm fine with the way the vehicle hit chart is now. Though, I suppose if it makes it WS10, that'd be fine. Even if they don't change it to 2+ / 6+.
Though, the ability to only move 6" and shoot is going to hurt my Landspeeders just a tad. :(
And how will Hull points work? I figured they where going to be the same as how they work for Baneblades, or whatever, and all vehicles will suffer hull point damage if it gets what is now a 'wrecked' or 'exploded' result. Guess it depends on how many hull points there are.
Really right now we don't know much about the rules, by the looks of things the tweaked a lot of areas( see charges) and drastically change overs(see psychic powers) but what i want to know is whether if charging through terrian will reduce your I or increase your foes I or if it will do something completely differently like a dangerous terrian check and thats it as this would make genestealers #1 at assault again as the should be .
azazel the cat wrote:Has anyone ever noticed that the Night Scythe carries the Aerial Assault rule, which allows the vehicle to move at cruising speed and still fire all of its weapons?
But the Night Scythe already has the Fast special rule.
And the Night Scythe only has one weapon to begin with.
Anyone care to speculate on how this may affect changes to what the Fast USR means in 6th Ed.?
I think it's quite possible that instead of there being an actual "flyer" unit type in 6th that instead they will make backhanded use of rules that several flyer units already have in their unit entries. The example I've used before is that it would be very easy for instance to state in the core rules that while fast skimmers that move flat out get a 4+ cover save, fast skimmers with the "supersonic" rule instead get a 3+ cover save.
Of course it could simply be for a sense of cohesion since the Nigthscythe and Doomscythe are the same vehicles just with different weapon loadouts while superflous because of only having 1 weapon in the case of the NS it is just given it for this cohesiveness.
The flyer rules in the "pancake" edition used the supersonic rule to allow the unit to change its type to flyer for a turn where it could basically spot an attack vector then leave the table to fly back on along this vector doing a bombing/strafing run.
Warhammer 40,000: Rulebook, £45 wrote:There is no time for peace. No respite. No forgiveness.
There is only WAR.
In the nightmare future of the 41st Millennium, Mankind teeters upon the brink of destruction. The galaxy-spanning Imperium of Man is beset on all sides by ravening aliens and threatened from within by Warp-spawned entities and heretical plots. Only the strength of the immortal Emperor of Terra stands between humanity and its annihilation, and in his name, countless warriors and agents do battle against the encroaching darkness. Foremost amongst them stand the Space Marines, the ultimate protectors of Mankind.
Across airless moons, within the depths of dark, twisted hive worlds and even in the immaterial realm of Warp space, battles rage that will shape the future of the galaxy forever.
It is a universe that you can enter today, if you dare. But remember that this is a dark and terrible era, and there is no peace amongst the stars...
The Warhammer 40,000 Rulebook is your essential guide to playing atmospheric battles in the 41st Millennium. It helps you field majestic armies of Citadel miniatures across the war-ravaged battlefields of the far-future, in the ultimate contest of strategy and skill.
With 440 full-colour pages, this hardback Rulebook is packed with rich background and contains all the rules for fighting pulse-pounding tabletop battles. The Rulebook includes exciting features such as dynamic close-combat, flyers, psychic devastation and interactive scenery. As well as jaw-dropping artwork, contained within is a history of the 41st Millennium and a richly detailed guide to the races and weapons of the far-future. It also features a comprehensive hobby section to set you on the path to choosing, collecting and building your own Warhammer 40,000 army of Citadel miniatures.
Warhammer 40,000: Psychic Powers, £8 wrote:One of the many exciting features of Warhammer 40,000 is Psychic devastation, where Psykers wreak havoc on the battlefield. Psychic Powers is the complete set of Psychic cards, which be used in conjunction with Psychic Disciplines. They make a great accessory to your tabletop games.
This set contains 35 large-format cards and come stored in a plastic fan-opening case, which bears the Aquila. There are 7 cards for each Psychic Discipline, each of which is represented by distinct artwork. There is also an instruction leaflet that classifies which powers can be used by the main Psykers in the Warhammer 40,000 universe.
Darnok wrote:There are also "Munitorum Templates" (£12, designed with a metal effect look), "Munitorum Tape Measure" (£10, looking like a Servoskull) and "Munitorum Dice" (£10, while stocks last).
On advance order on 23th, available from 30th of June.
darrkespur wrote:£45 is a ridiculous price. I know that it will be that as that's what the Warhammer book is, but it's still utterly ridiculous.
I'd actually disagree with you there, while there is no arguing that it's expensive, assuming it is full colour, over 400 pages and hardback as mentioned, it is only a bit more expensive than you would pay for a similar "coffee table" art book in Waterstones or wherever, they comfortably fall within the £30-£40 bracket.
For a full colour hardback, £45 is more than reasonable. Take a look in Waterstones sometime, darrkespur, your jaw will be left open at the cost of some hardback books with minimal content.
Warhammer 40,000: Psychic Powers, £8 wrote:One of the many exciting features of Warhammer 40,000 is Psychic devastation, where Psykers wreak havoc on the battlefield. Psychic Powers is the complete set of Psychic cards, which be used in conjunction with Psychic Disciplines. They make a great accessory to your tabletop games.
This set contains 35 large-format cards and come stored in a plastic fan-opening case, which bears the Aquila. There are 7 cards for each Psychic Discipline, each of which is represented by distinct artwork. There is also an instruction leaflet that classifies which powers can be used by the main Psykers in the Warhammer 40,000 universe.
So THATS why they have random psychic powers. Wow I can't believe no one guessed that.
The entire thing was a plan to sell psychic power cards.
muwhe wrote:Confirmation that "Interactive scenery" shows up in 40K. As expected I guess.
Having been playing (and enjoying) Malifaux lately, that was something I had been hoping for.
Unless, of course, GW take "interactive scenery" to mean things like arcane fulcrums. In which case I'll be rather less pleased.
Otherwise, £45 is acceptable, if a bit steep, given that DC's "Absolute" editions cost around the same amount for larger leaves, higher page counts and more colour. (I realise that they don't have comparable development costs to a wargame, but still, I might have hoped to see the main rulebook treated as a loss leader.)
Oh FFS, so now, just like WHF, there's going to be a broken 40k "magic phase" where you can wipe out half a guy's army with a lucky roll? And just like I predicted the rulebook is gonna cost the same as the WHF rulebook.
Not liking the sound of things at all, this is not the direction 40k needs to go in: even more insanely expensive, and with more random bs.
Sidstyler wrote:Oh FFS, so now, just like WHF, there's going to be a broken 40k "magic phase" where you can wipe out half a guy's army with a lucky roll?
Wow, you inferred all that just from the existence of a psychic card pack? You must be alpha++ level yourself
So it look's like we're back to psychic card/dice-dueling ala 2nd edition again?
Interesting. Does anybody know if this is going to be in a separate phase (psychic phase) or if it is relevant to what power is being used at the time (shooting, assault, start-of-turn/movement, etc)?
the remove the closest model sounds like a lot of arguing about who is closest and the like. probably slowing the game down as a result.
In 5th ed, the rules allowed to take away the models who are far away or lack behind. This has all been justified. Now they need to bring up a new justification.
I'm hoping that if Psyers are the new go-to unit, that the new rules will have some sort of roll to dispel included.
not all races have psykers after all (necrons for sure, unsure about any of the other armies tbh).
if the rumour abotu RF guns being able to move and fire at full range what will Relentless mean? maybe allow the unit to fire twice at full range while on the move? or maybe just allwo you to charge after shooting (in which case, the Phearon upgrade for 'crons just became a lot less appealing).
More pancake style rumors are cropping up. These are from war seer.
Originally Posted by Darnok These come from a birdy, but I'd advise on heavy
NaCl-usage... AP are on ccw but he says power weapons are ap 2, not 3.
When you charge it's double your move, infantry
move 6, bikes 8 cav 7 etc.
It's move assault then shooting now!
Fnp is 5+. Master crafted ccw give you a 5+ invuln save
When you shoot you roll to hit depending on the
speed of your target. Fast vehicles you always need
a 6.
A unit can't claim a object while inside a vehicle.
There's new kinds of instance death. If your say strengh 8 vs a space marine captain toughness 4
you only do 2 wounds! Strengh (9?) or more would do 3
wounds & kill him.
In kill point missions you get kill points based on
what the units points cost, so for example a
landraider would be worth 5 kill points & a unit of marines 3pts.
I'm going to reiterate that the Pancake playtest is closer to our final document than GW would admit.
tetrisphreak wrote:Chill, sidstyler. We don't know for sure psykers will break the game - plus getting in cc and challenging one seems a pretty easy way to kill them
You have come across Hive Tyrants, no?
I'm intrigued to see who is going to be able to access these psychic disciplines given that Necrons, Dark Eldar, Tau, Black Templars have no psykers AND whether the pyschic disciplines will eclipse the existing powers of races that do have psychers.
My bet (and worry) is that they'll be unlocked by some piece of wargear that everyone has access to. Welcome to 40K Storm of Magic folks
htj wrote:Oo, more rumours mentioning the 5+ FNP. This bodes ill for my Dark Eldar.
DE have no psykers either.
I wonder if the aerial assault rule will let us move after shooting. That would probably make them overpowered. It'd be like the old Eldar crystal targetting matrix.
Zweischneid wrote:Honestly, every bit of extra randomness in the system will increase the reliance on player skill and boost overall balance by reducing the impact of list building and occassionally off-key rules and power (e.g. JoTWW).
You and I have vastly different ideas about what constitutes "player skill"...
In my mind, a skill is something you can learn, and become more proficient at with more time spent playing the game. For example: deploying your army properly, setting up fire lanes, how to best take advantage of terrain when moving up the board, etc. Rolling big numbers is not a "skill", it's plain dumb luck.
I dunno, maybe someone could explain to me how "more randomness = more skill", because I simply don't see it. The more random the game is the more skill it takes away, not the other way around.
htj wrote:Oo, more rumours mentioning the 5+ FNP. This bodes ill for my Dark Eldar.
DE have no psykers either.
I wonder if the aerial assault rule will let us move after shooting. That would probably make them overpowered. It'd be like the old Eldar crystal targetting matrix.
I wouldn't count on it. As you say, it'd really push them into broken territory. I'd be interested to see if the non-psyker races get some kind of equivalent psychic defence stuff. Kinda like Dwarves and magic in fantasy.
My bet (and worry) is that they'll be unlocked by some piece of wargear that everyone has access to. Welcome to 40K Storm of Magic folks
Considering GW has always thought that massive templates that autokill everything underneath and often cannot be prevented in any way (reference: FB magic, 40K apocalypse, 20 years of GW games) is synonymous to fun, I wouldn't be surprised in the slightest if they managed to ruin 40K entirely with the psychic devastation (tm).
In my mind, a skill is something you can learn, and become more proficient at with more time spent playing the game
In my opinion the closest that GW games got to actual skill was when you managed to bait your opponent into a trap (either by playing mind games or just maneouvring to make it happen) and flank or rear charge his elite units to death with much inferior units in the previous edition of FB. You really did something on your own when your 150 point unit destroyed a 300 point unit and a 350 point hero with no casualties. Then of course GW thought that it's much more fun that you can never be sure how far your own units will be able to charge and that your opponent's slowest units will sometimes outcharge your fastest units, and that a flank or a rear charge shouldn't be as unforgiving as before. They also clearly thought that movement spells (which make enemy plans hard to predict) and other subtle magic isn't nearly as fun as black holes of doom that win you the game automatically if you get lucky.
When a game ends and a player has won, GW wants the players to laugh and joke about 'that triple six' Joe rolled at that crucial moment which won him the game against all odds, instead of Bob's donkey-like misuse of units and strategic incompetence.
Zweischneid wrote:Honestly, every bit of extra randomness in the system will increase the reliance on player skill and boost overall balance by reducing the impact of list building and occassionally off-key rules and power (e.g. JoTWW).
You and I have vastly different ideas about what constitutes "player skill"...
In my mind, a skill is something you can learn, and become more proficient at with more time spent playing the game. For example: deploying your army properly, setting up fire lanes, how to best take advantage of terrain when moving up the board, etc. Rolling big numbers is not a "skill", it's plain dumb luck.
I dunno, maybe someone could explain to me how "more randomness = more skill", because I simply don't see it. The more random the game is the more skill it takes away, not the other way around.
The theory might be that the less you can 'count on' the more you'll have to be able to deal with using your 'tactical genius' and if you can't, then...
But I'm with you - I'm not a big believer of that, or of wanting more randomness in 40K.
The more I read, the more this feels like 8th Edition Fantasy. I shall resist crying foul until I've digested the rules properly, but I can't be doing with a Fantasy style reset of the 40K Universe along the lines of...
"Psychic energy courses across the surface of every world unleashing legions of daemons into the material plane, raining storms of destructive power across the battlefield and driving entire armies to depraved insanity."
The psychic deck sounds more like powers that ALL kinds of pyskers can use regardless of army list, in addition to their normal powers (Sorta like storm of magic for WFB?). I find it a bit unlikely that every single psychic power would be invalidated by this new deck.
Flashman wrote:The more I read, the more this feels like 8th Edition Fantasy. I shall resist crying foul until I've digested the rules properly, but I can't be doing with a Fantasy style reset of the 40K Universe along the lines of...
"Psychic energy courses across the surface of every world unleashing legions of daemons into the material plane, raining storms of destructive power across the battlefield and driving entire armies to depraved insanity."
That would cause me to check out for good.
Though I too shall refrain from passing judgement until I've read the rulebook and tested it in a few games, this indeed might be the final push to send me to Warmachine or somesuch.
Of course, it might yet turn out to be no worse than 5th, only differently poor, and I'll remain half-heartedly involved in 40k while mainly playing Space Hulk anyway...
Whitehat wrote:I mistyped re: the cover saves. Ruins are 4+, the vast majority of stuff is 5+
I did not mistype WS1 for moving vehicles, they are not WS10 if they moved - flyers might be different; not sure.
Preferred Enemy change of reroll 1's to wound is in addition to current rules for Preferred Enemy
Flyers are noted in the BRB changing some of the existing vehicles (Summary sheet in the back)
Eldar Flyer, Void Raven and Tau I believe are in the same wave.
Thanks WhiteHat, the clarification is nice. Vehicles are going to be overall easier to hit now, regardless of movement - considering they're nigh-impenetrable to CC if they've moved 7+ inches in the current edition, that is a change i'm happy with, even with my razor-spam blood angels. I'm sure the big picture will fit together nicely -- I read (actually pored over) the pancake leak and was happy with just about every change to the game. It felt like the playing field was more on the level compared to how it is now. I suspect we'll see many more leaks within the next 17 days since it's so close to release, plus GW managers have had their Nottingham meeting....
I'm not overly worried about the Psykers as, luckily, the guys i tend to play with in my little group dont use many of them.
it woudl be nice if the Psyker-less armies got soem sort of ability to avoid the attacks (Ld test perhaps to measure their willpower to resist or soemthing).
If Preferred Enemy lets you re-roll missed to-hit rolls and 1's to wound then Heavy Destroyers just got a HUGE boost!
If Preferred Enemy lets you re-roll missed to-hit rolls and 1's to wound then Heavy Destroyers just got a HUGE boost!
Wishful thinking. He said in addition to the current rules. Meaning, you re-roll hits in close combat and you re-roll wound rolls of 1 in close combat and shooting.
Its would be a long haul to read through 8 pages so apologies if these have been covered...
Wound allocation - I like the sound of this. Closest to Furthest. I'd normally stick my Melta Gun right at the front of the unit armed with Bolters, in order to ensure hes in range for shooting, now I have to rethink, which is good. I also hope that they make templates and blast kill what it hits!
As for a new Tau Fighter, I found the idea of a Tau Fighter briefly ammusing. Tau, Tie, Tau Tie... oh I give up!
geordie09 wrote:Its would be a long haul to read through 8 pages so apologies if these have been covered...
Wound allocation - I like the sound of this. Closest to Furthest. I'd normally stick my Melta Gun right at the front of the unit armed with Bolters, in order to ensure hes in range for shooting, now I have to rethink, which is good. I also hope that they make templates and blast kill what it hits!
As for a new Tau Fighter, I found the idea of a Tau Fighter briefly ammusing. Tau, Tie, Tau Tie... oh I give up!
The problem is then you have blast template sniping which makes very little sense
If Preferred Enemy lets you re-roll missed to-hit rolls and 1's to wound then Heavy Destroyers just got a HUGE boost!
Wishful thinking. He said in addition to the current rules. Meaning, you re-roll hits in close combat and you re-roll wound rolls of 1 in close combat and shooting.
The way i read his first group of leaks, preferred enemy works on shooting and cc, so there's your re-rolls to hit. In addition to that, to-wound rolls of 1 can be re-rolled as well, from what i gather here. That does indeed make heavy destroyers better.
But with that I ponder, in pancake edition once a unit shot at something it didn't have preferred enemy against (including vehicles) it lost the ability for the duration of the game. if that caveat still exists within the final document once your heavy destroyers target a tank, the unit will lose PE for the rest of the game...so that's not good.
geordie09 wrote:Its would be a long haul to read through 8 pages so apologies if these have been covered...
Wound allocation - I like the sound of this. Closest to Furthest. I'd normally stick my Melta Gun right at the front of the unit armed with Bolters, in order to ensure hes in range for shooting, now I have to rethink, which is good. I also hope that they make templates and blast kill what it hits!
As for a new Tau Fighter, I found the idea of a Tau Fighter briefly ammusing. Tau, Tie, Tau Tie... oh I give up!
The problem is then you have blast template sniping which makes very little sense
But with scatter would this not be down to the element of chance still? As it stands it means that important unit members are protected until the end. Surely the wound allocation rule which combats this and should be echoed in blast and templates? Its just a thought like.
The more I think about it, Flyers, and things with Arial assault, are going to be very cool this edition if the rules are true.
If we're thinking this right, vehicles can move 6 and fire, or move 12 and not fire, then get an extra move in a later phase. If its like the current edition, move 6 for ground, move 12 for air.
Fast vehicles can now move 12 and fires ALL of their weapons, its just you have to move 6, fire everything, then move another 6.
But here's where it gets important for all vehicles and flyers. Is the extra move before the shooting phase or after/during the shooting phase. If you make your extra move before the shooting phase, its business as usual. If its after/during, things get interesting.
You could use fast vehicles to block lanes of fire for your opponent, and during your turn, scoot them aside, fire, and then move them back during your bonus move.
Suddenly the Ork bombers make sense. Right now, you move 12 and then drop a bomb. Which is nearly USELESS as the base is already almost 6 inches long, You basically have to begin your movement (or end your movement) so close to the enemy as to be silly. Arial assault allows you to move 12, fire, and then fly away to safety!
Dark eldar ravagers.... Can you say jump shoot jump? Sick. I really hope this is all true, because this sort of jump shoot jump tactic (that pretty much the entire DE vehicle fleet can do) is what the DE need to be a truly competitive top tier army as opposed to IG/Grey Knight bait at tourney.
geordie09 wrote:Its would be a long haul to read through 8 pages so apologies if these have been covered...
Wound allocation - I like the sound of this. Closest to Furthest. I'd normally stick my Melta Gun right at the front of the unit armed with Bolters, in order to ensure hes in range for shooting, now I have to rethink, which is good. I also hope that they make templates and blast kill what it hits!
As for a new Tau Fighter, I found the idea of a Tau Fighter briefly ammusing. Tau, Tie, Tau Tie... oh I give up!
The problem is then you have blast template sniping which makes very little sense
But with scatter would this not be down to the element of chance still? As it stands it means that important unit members are protected until the end. Surely the wound allocation rule which combats this and should be echoed in blast and templates? Its just a thought like.
True - Imagine this scenario: A battle cannon (s8 ap3) targets a unit of space marines containing 6 bolters, a flamer, and a melta gun. The blast covers the meltagun and 3 bolters, and rolls a hit. The dice to wound are rolled, scoring 3 wounds - The player could then remove 2 bolter guys and the melta gun, or just 3 bolters. If the blast hit 4 guys and caused all 4 wounds, then the models under the template would be pulled. Sergeants and special weapon guys might get a "Look out, Aaah!" rule to prevent this if the squad has enough models (again like fantasy) - We will have to see more to know how that all relates.
It just makes sense to have real-time placement on the battle field. i suspect snipers will have a 'directed hits' special rule as well allowing them to pick out who takes wounds.
I also suspect the classification of 'dense' terrain to return, which would completely block line of sight. And with Darnok's rumors of being able to march in 40K, infantry move speeds are going to be notched up to as fast or faster than current transport vehicles, so getting across the table on foot will no longer be such a hindrance.
If Preferred Enemy lets you re-roll missed to-hit rolls and 1's to wound then Heavy Destroyers just got a HUGE boost!
Wishful thinking. He said in addition to the current rules. Meaning, you re-roll hits in close combat and you re-roll wound rolls of 1 in close combat and shooting.
Reroll hits in CC & Shooting AND Rerolls 1 to wound.
I've checked, Black Templars vow, accept any challenge only gives Preferred Enemy in combat (damn)
The Pancake rule set is mainly wrong, but there is a lot of stuff that made it into the final product.
Expect FW to put out a book of there flyers but with added 6th Ed goodness.
If Preferred Enemy lets you re-roll missed to-hit rolls and 1's to wound then Heavy Destroyers just got a HUGE boost!
Wishful thinking. He said in addition to the current rules. Meaning, you re-roll hits in close combat and you re-roll wound rolls of 1 in close combat and shooting.
The way i read his first group of leaks, preferred enemy works on shooting and cc, so there's your re-rolls to hit. In addition to that, to-wound rolls of 1 can be re-rolled as well, from what i gather here. That does indeed make heavy destroyers better.
But with that I ponder, in pancake edition once a unit shot at something it didn't have preferred enemy against (including vehicles) it lost the ability for the duration of the game. if that caveat still exists within the final document once your heavy destroyers target a tank, the unit will lose PE for the rest of the game...so that's not good.
Surely the fact that Destroyer have Preferred Enemy: Everything (as quoted from the 'dex) counter acts this?
Reroll hits in CC & Shooting AND Rerolls 1 to wound.
Allright then. So since you seem to be posting random snippets about special rules, any chance you had a look at what what kind of disadvantages or advantages open topped has in 6th edition, and what AP- and AP1 for a gun means when shooting at vehicles?
I'm sure a lot of people would also like the movement and assault movement rules to be clarified and the same goes for vehicle movement speeds and shooting rules. Is charging now one move, or do you still move in the assault phase? How fast do units move? Is the assault phase before or after the shooting phase? Something along those lines would be nice.
If Preferred Enemy lets you re-roll missed to-hit rolls and 1's to wound then Heavy Destroyers just got a HUGE boost!
Wishful thinking. He said in addition to the current rules. Meaning, you re-roll hits in close combat and you re-roll wound rolls of 1 in close combat and shooting.
The way i read his first group of leaks, preferred enemy works on shooting and cc, so there's your re-rolls to hit. In addition to that, to-wound rolls of 1 can be re-rolled as well, from what i gather here. That does indeed make heavy destroyers better.
But with that I ponder, in pancake edition once a unit shot at something it didn't have preferred enemy against (including vehicles) it lost the ability for the duration of the game. if that caveat still exists within the final document once your heavy destroyers target a tank, the unit will lose PE for the rest of the game...so that's not good.
Surely the fact that Destroyer have Preferred Enemy: Everything (as quoted from the 'dex) counter acts this?
geordie09 wrote:Its would be a long haul to read through 8 pages so apologies if these have been covered...
Wound allocation - I like the sound of this. Closest to Furthest. I'd normally stick my Melta Gun right at the front of the unit armed with Bolters, in order to ensure hes in range for shooting, now I have to rethink, which is good. I also hope that they make templates and blast kill what it hits!
As for a new Tau Fighter, I found the idea of a Tau Fighter briefly ammusing. Tau, Tie, Tau Tie... oh I give up!
The problem is then you have blast template sniping which makes very little sense
But with scatter would this not be down to the element of chance still? As it stands it means that important unit members are protected until the end. Surely the wound allocation rule which combats this and should be echoed in blast and templates? Its just a thought like.
True - Imagine this scenario: A battle cannon (s8 ap3) targets a unit of space marines containing 6 bolters, a flamer, and a melta gun. The blast covers the meltagun and 3 bolters, and rolls a hit. The dice to wound are rolled, scoring 3 wounds - The player could then remove 2 bolter guys and the melta gun, or just 3 bolters. If the blast hit 4 guys and caused all 4 wounds, then the models under the template would be pulled. Sergeants and special weapon guys might get a "Look out, Aaah!" rule to prevent this if the squad has enough models (again like fantasy) - We will have to see more to know how that all relates.
It just makes sense to have real-time placement on the battle field. i suspect snipers will have a 'directed hits' special rule as well allowing them to pick out who takes wounds.
I also suspect the classification of 'dense' terrain to return, which would completely block line of sight. And with Darnok's rumors of being able to march in 40K, infantry move speeds are going to be notched up to as fast or faster than current transport vehicles, so getting across the table on foot will no longer be such a hindrance.
I don't mind the idea of wound allocation in this way if its those caught in the blast who the wounds are allocated to, this makes sense. The way it works now those wounds would all be allocated to bolter carrying marines instantly by the defending player, marines which the mini representing them may not have even been under the blast. If closest to furthest is in place for further shooting defending players would also subsequently remove marines in a manner which would benefit the unit if more shooting takes place, much in the way the way they do now in order to avoid potential cc charges! Don't get me wrong though, I've used this to my advantage many time and won't be bothered either way, i just think it would be interesting to employ it!
I can't see it being anymore expensive than the Space Marine Battle Force. And the cost of the boxed set won't be reflected by the hardback as it will be puny a5 style rules no doubt!
I'm chiming in super late here.... but I honestly can;t wait for a new CSM Codex! It will be fun to not be pigeon holed into using 1 of 2 heavily mathhammered builds! whoop!
Zweischneid wrote:Honestly, every bit of extra randomness in the system will increase the reliance on player skill and boost overall balance by reducing the impact of list building and occassionally off-key rules and power (e.g. JoTWW).
You and I have vastly different ideas about what constitutes "player skill"...
In my mind, a skill is something you can learn, and become more proficient at with more time spent playing the game. For example: deploying your army properly, setting up fire lanes, how to best take advantage of terrain when moving up the board, etc. Rolling big numbers is not a "skill", it's plain dumb luck.
I dunno, maybe someone could explain to me how "more randomness = more skill", because I simply don't see it. The more random the game is the more skill it takes away, not the other way around.
More randomness does not equal more skill. People who think otherwise really do not know what they are talking about. Randomness is bad for determining skill. A little bit of randomness is awesome to spice a game up. But, too much randomness makes it where the game becomes unplayable and belittles the decisions and tactics that a player makes and employs because none of it is reliable due to too much randomness.
I moved away from 40K due to how bad the rules were and played WHFB maybe 10 times and concluded the rules made it where your tactics did not matter much due to the amount of randomness involved in the game. If 40K goes the way of WHFB, then I will probably end up playing it a little bit and then quitting due to me getting tired of losing to some idiot who dumps the maximum number of dice hoping for double 6's just to cast some broken psychic power that eats half my army.
Good players can find ways to get around randomness as much as possible, but I agree.. too much is irritating. Take Blood Bowl for example where every player regardless of skill fails every roll 1/6th of the time, thus the only skill involved is acquiring rerolls for everything!
If 40k goes the way of WHFB, I will be buying a 3rd 40K ARMY!
Randomness to me = fun.
I obviously do not know what Im talking about since Ive only been playing since RT days and my opinion is disregarded as I believe comp players in 40k ruin the game... Adding more Randomness to the game will hopefully IMO (And from what I can tell GW's aswell) bring about a more beer and chips atmosphere to 40k and move away from the comp days.
I was under the impression I would most likely sell my 40k stuff and move on to infinity, FoW and WHFB as my main games but with the leaks Im seeing here.... I might stick around for a bit.
If Preferred Enemy lets you re-roll missed to-hit rolls and 1's to wound then Heavy Destroyers just got a HUGE boost!
Wishful thinking. He said in addition to the current rules. Meaning, you re-roll hits in close combat and you re-roll wound rolls of 1 in close combat and shooting.
Reroll hits in CC & Shooting AND Rerolls 1 to wound.
I've checked, Black Templars vow, accept any challenge only gives Preferred Enemy in combat (damn)
The Pancake rule set is mainly wrong, but there is a lot of stuff that made it into the final product.
Expect FW to put out a book of there flyers but with added 6th Ed goodness.
Hope, Walkers rules are not as per "Pancake" one, also does the Heavy rule is still in place (for Monolith?) giving Structure points?
Milisim wrote:If 40k goes the way of WHFB, I will be buying a 3rd 40K ARMY!
Randomness to me = fun.
I obviously do not know what Im talking about since Ive only been playing since RT days and my opinion is disregarded as I believe comp players in 40k ruin the game... Adding more Randomness to the game will hopefully IMO (And from what I can tell GW's aswell) bring about a more beer and chips atmosphere to 40k and move away from the comp days.
I was under the impression I would most likely sell my 40k stuff and move on to infinity, FoW and WHFB as my main games but with the leaks Im seeing here.... I might stick around for a bit.
Yeah. I agree with you. You do not know what you are talking about. The competitive scene has nothing to do with you if you do not want it to. Do not go to tournaments. Simple as that. See how hard that was? If you and your buddies want to have a "beer and chips" atmosphere and throw dice, that is fine. A competitive and comprehensive rule set still allows for this while also fostering a competitive environment. Ever played M:tG? For every competitive player there are a hundred "kitchen table" players. And yet, the competitive nature of M:tG does not inhibit them in anyway. They still get to sling their overpriced creatures and spells at each other and the competitive scene gets to do what they love to do. Ya' know. Competing. Which you cannot do if the rules only allow for a very small measure of play skill to be involved.
Milisim wrote:If 40k goes the way of WHFB, I will be buying a 3rd 40K ARMY!
Randomness to me = fun.
I obviously do not know what Im talking about since Ive only been playing since RT days and my opinion is disregarded as I believe comp players in 40k ruin the game... Adding more Randomness to the game will hopefully IMO (And from what I can tell GW's aswell) bring about a more beer and chips atmosphere to 40k and move away from the comp days.
I was under the impression I would most likely sell my 40k stuff and move on to infinity, FoW and WHFB as my main games but with the leaks Im seeing here.... I might stick around for a bit.
Yeah. I agree with you. You do not know what you are talking about. The competitive scene has nothing to do with you if you do not want it to. Do not go to tournaments. Simple as that. See how hard that was? If you and your buddies want to have a "beer and chips" atmosphere and throw dice, that is fine. A competitive and comprehensive rule set still allows for this while also fostering a competitive environment. Ever played M:tG? For every competitive player there are a hundred "kitchen table" players. And yet, the competitive nature of M:tG does not inhibit them in anyway. They still get to sling their overpriced creatures and spells at each other and the competitive scene gets to do what they love to do. Ya' know. Competing. Which you cannot do if the rules only allow for a very small measure of play skill to be involved.
To me the game currently is rife with randomness, since it uses D6's to determine everything - move through cover, hitting stuff, wounding stuff, killing vehicle charts, etc etc. Everything is a dice roll. So how do we compete in 5th edition? Redundancy to mitigate for bad luck. 6th will be more of the same in competitive lists - If 1 is good, 3 is better. Taking multiples or units that dump boatloads of dice will still be the ticket to make sure your battle plan goes forward.
Amidst all these random snippets folks are dooming and glooming over there are other rumors that aid competitive players. Weight of dice will matter - if you can kill a rhino with 3 glancing hits suddenly a unit of devastators can start reliably killing transports each shooting phase, rather than hoping for a 5 or 6 to pop up. I just wish i had the damn book in my hands, i want to get into 6th as soon as possible.
Milisim wrote:I obviously do not know what Im talking about since Ive only been playing since RT days and my opinion is disregarded as I believe comp players in 40k ruin the game... Adding more Randomness to the game will hopefully IMO (And from what I can tell GW's aswell) bring about a more beer and chips atmosphere to 40k and move away from the comp days.
Much as I would agree that it would be an improvement for "friendly" 40k to move away from the "tournament" mentality, I fail to see how more randomness will achieve that. (It would be fair to point out that even Rogue Trader, with its random equipment and psychic powers tables, didn't randomise movement distances.) Moreover, no amount of added randomness will fix Warhammer 40,000's real problem: lack of balance between and within army lists. Tournament lists will have to change, of course, but until those fundamental imbalances are corrected, spam-filled netlists will still dominate (and spoil) the game; they'll just become focussed around managing and minimising those random chances (and, of course, around exploiting all the other unasked-for and unnecessary changes these rumours suggest).
Yeah. I agree with you. You do not know what you are talking about. The competitive scene has nothing to do with you if you do not want it to. Do not go to tournaments. Simple as that. See how hard that was? If you and your buddies want to have a "beer and chips" atmosphere and throw dice, that is fine. A competitive and comprehensive rule set still allows for this while also fostering a competitive environment. Ever played M:tG? For every competitive player there are a hundred "kitchen table" players. And yet, the competitive nature of M:tG does not inhibit them in anyway. They still get to sling their overpriced creatures and spells at each other and the competitive scene gets to do what they love to do. Ya' know. Competing. Which you cannot do if the rules only allow for a very small measure of play skill to be involved.
This is pretty much the perfect reply to the "anti-competitive" crowd. I don't understand how people can invest time and money into a hobby or something they care about, yet not get competitive about it. I don't have to win, but I like a challenge and balanced rules. Competition is fun. Even though I don't understand the "fluff bunny, let's throw dice" attitude, I don't wish those players gone altogether. At the end of the day, you might not like how someone plays the game, but you should respect how others play it. No one forces non-competitive people to tourneys just like no one forces me to intentionally take bad units. A game that can accommodate both is better for everyone. Remember people, this is a niche hobby. Losing half a player base will kill it.
Milisim wrote:If 40k goes the way of WHFB, I will be buying a 3rd 40K ARMY!
Randomness to me = fun.
I obviously do not know what Im talking about since Ive only been playing since RT days and my opinion is disregarded as I believe comp players in 40k ruin the game... Adding more Randomness to the game will hopefully IMO (And from what I can tell GW's aswell) bring about a more beer and chips atmosphere to 40k and move away from the comp days.
I was under the impression I would most likely sell my 40k stuff and move on to infinity, FoW and WHFB as my main games but with the leaks Im seeing here.... I might stick around for a bit.
Yeah. I agree with you. You do not know what you are talking about. The competitive scene has nothing to do with you if you do not want it to. Do not go to tournaments. Simple as that. See how hard that was? If you and your buddies want to have a "beer and chips" atmosphere and throw dice, that is fine. A competitive and comprehensive rule set still allows for this while also fostering a competitive environment. Ever played M:tG? For every competitive player there are a hundred "kitchen table" players. And yet, the competitive nature of M:tG does not inhibit them in anyway. They still get to sling their overpriced creatures and spells at each other and the competitive scene gets to do what they love to do. Ya' know. Competing. Which you cannot do if the rules only allow for a very small measure of play skill to be involved.
To me the game currently is rife with randomness, since it uses D6's to determine everything - move through cover, hitting stuff, wounding stuff, killing vehicle charts, etc etc. Everything is a dice roll. So how do we compete in 5th edition? Redundancy to mitigate for bad luck. 6th will be more of the same in competitive lists - If 1 is good, 3 is better. Taking multiples or units that dump boatloads of dice will still be the ticket to make sure your battle plan goes forward.
Amidst all these random snippets folks are dooming and glooming over there are other rumors that aid competitive players. Weight of dice will matter - if you can kill a rhino with 3 glancing hits suddenly a unit of devastators can start reliably killing transports each shooting phase, rather than hoping for a 5 or 6 to pop up. I just wish i had the damn book in my hands, i want to get into 6th as soon as possible.
Obviously, some things need to be random or the game would be very static and become repetitive. Poker is fun for a reason. Sure, you can get blown out when you think you have it on lock but that is the random aspect of the game. Same thing for M:tG. I do not see why table top gaming has to be any different. Look at Warmachine. The only random parts of that game are attack rolls and damage rolls. And even that can be mitigated due to boosting in that game. However, 40K and WHFB? It just keeps getting more and more random. Random movement is a very bad idea. Having very slow units charge farther than very fast units is absolutely ridiculous and really kills the skill and flavor of the game.
Kurce wrote: Obviously, some things need to be random or the game would be very static and become repetitive. Poker is fun for a reason. Sure, you can get blown out when you think you have it on lock but that is the random aspect of the game. Same thing for M:tG. I do not see why table top gaming has to be any different. Look at Warmachine. The only random parts of that game are attack rolls and damage rolls. And even that can be mitigated due to boosting in that game. However, 40K and WHFB? It just keeps getting more and more random. Random movement is a very bad idea. Having very slow units charge farther than very fast units is absolutely ridiculous and really kills the skill and flavor of the game.
That point I agree with - so far though everything i've seen doesn't make me think that slow and purposeful nurglings will be assaulting further/faster than jetbike reavers. I know in Fantasy a cavalry unit can roll 1,1 and fail a charge, while a dwarf thunderer unit can roll 6,6 and charge 1/4 across the board - but both of those instances are extremes of the bell curve. A game system is set up and built to run on averages, so going by that a move stat + d6 charge will equate to faster charging regardless of unit, compared to now.
The comp guys want tighter rules the rec players want funner(is that a word) rules....
As a rec player current 5E is aboring and sterile environment, thus I am glad to see some of the 8E whfb coming to 6E 40k.. also I am not one of the people who pine for the 7E days of WHFB either. (Even though 8E magic is OP)
Random events and other mechanics allow for a more interesting game. Like someone said though... 50% of the hobby is Rec vs Comp. So balancing the two is hard to do.
CT GAMER wrote:And if I wanted to study pie charts and statistical breakdowns I could take a math course at my local community college.
Any quality changes that make the game less predictable and less open to Mathhammer are a good thing as far as I'm concerned
And If I wanted to play a decision-making takes a back seat to randomness, I'd be at a craps table in Atlantic City.
See how easy it is to contribute nothing but a glib putdown?
At least craps is a game.
I think what he means is that it now becomes a game where all people can play and you don't need to be a genius with superior intellect to win a game (hyperbole). A lot of players don't want to make "super lists" and also new players may become discouraged if they keep get a pounding at the start when they are trying to learn the rules. Some people just want to turn up and have a bit of fun irregardless and don't take the rules too seriously.
Not defending the guy or his viewpoint but there are those who don't want to play the WAACs style of gaming.
As had been said so many time before a war-game that only uses each player skill is chess. On the topic of randomness WAR is random. "Is that building safe to cross" "Is my back up going to make it on time" Without the random parts of this game you might as well just line up your army's and shoot gumdrops at the other side.
Automatically Appended Next Post: On this topic Im willing to try whatever they bring in 6th.
tetrisphreak wrote:Agreed. Whitehat! more rumors! lol
What the hell is up with your sig...
As for the rumors of 6th, I do not mind Psychic cards all that much. I am unsure of how they would determine power dice, though. And what they would do with Dark Eldar since there they do not have psykers. Is that quote earlier in this thread actually from GW? It looked like it. Very interested in how this would work...
DarthOvious wrote: A lot of players don't want to make "super lists" and also new players may become discouraged if they keep get a pounding at the start when they are trying to learn the rules. Some people just want to turn up and have a bit of fun irregardless and don't take the rules too seriously.
Not defending the guy or his viewpoint but there are those who don't want to play the WAACs style of gaming.
A lot of players don't want to make 'fluffy lists' and also new players may become discouraged if they have every game handed to them at the start when they are tring to learn the rules. Some people just want to turn up and have a bit of challenge and think that rules are an important part of the game.
Not defending the guy or his viewpoint but there are those who don't want to play the LAACs style of gaming.
Now that we got this stuff out of the way, can we get back on topic?
Orkz are not even in there, and we are still 4th edition. They skipped us! No codex, no plastic meganobz, no plastic anything! We are being skipped again!
Milisim wrote:If 40k goes the way of WHFB, I will be buying a 3rd 40K ARMY!
Randomness to me = fun.
I obviously do not know what Im talking about since Ive only been playing since RT days and my opinion is disregarded as I believe comp players in 40k ruin the game... Adding more Randomness to the game will hopefully IMO (And from what I can tell GW's aswell) bring about a more beer and chips atmosphere to 40k and move away from the comp days.
I was under the impression I would most likely sell my 40k stuff and move on to infinity, FoW and WHFB as my main games but with the leaks Im seeing here.... I might stick around for a bit.
Yeah. I agree with you. You do not know what you are talking about. The competitive scene has nothing to do with you if you do not want it to. Do not go to tournaments. Simple as that. See how hard that was? If you and your buddies want to have a "beer and chips" atmosphere and throw dice, that is fine. A competitive and comprehensive rule set still allows for this while also fostering a competitive environment. Ever played M:tG? For every competitive player there are a hundred "kitchen table" players. And yet, the competitive nature of M:tG does not inhibit them in anyway. They still get to sling their overpriced creatures and spells at each other and the competitive scene gets to do what they love to do. Ya' know. Competing. Which you cannot do if the rules only allow for a very small measure of play skill to be involved.
The problem is that you get those competetive players everywhere, not just at the tournies. Well GW have now pulled out of the competetive circuit so they don't need to service that part. I'm not against tournies or competetiveness but there are other players out there who just don't like it and it really shows your bitterness at the sounds of this by insulting people with lines like "You do not know what you're talking about". I think you've just shown here that you are one of those WAAC players with that kind of attitude just because he has a different opinion from you.
Don’t understand why peoples complain about the Randomness factor in the wargaming.
This is where you have to use your brain more often, calculate what the chances prior to taking the actions. The WFB 8th edition is just pure essence of this. If you want to take risk you will pay for it if you fail, like in everywhere where the term of Strategy is used - business, market stock ect.
Imho more randomness creates more competitive games; as you have to learn not to take risky rolls with 5% chances of succeed but use your brain and strategy to increase the odds to acceptable level… most peoples losing the games because they taking to high risks and then complain about their dice rolls…
Like my last game vs Tryanids where my opponent complained that he could not destroy my Ark with his Tfex in one shot… well 50% to hit 50% to glanc, 4+cover save = to 17,5% … good luck .
Conclusion, imho randomness is good, teach you how to act safely and select the target based on odds not whish thinking.
Da Kommizzar wrote:Orkz are not even in there, and we are still 4th edition. They skipped us! No codex, no plastic meganobz, no plastic anything! We are being skipped again!
Maybe you can get a cool WD codex, like us SoB players did?
Da Kommizzar wrote:Orkz are not even in there, and we are still 4th edition. They skipped us! No codex, no plastic meganobz, no plastic anything! We are being skipped again!
Considering how much plastic they've gotten, including the brand new flyer, I don't think Orks were skipped whatsoever! Their codex has aged really well also. I don't see them getting a new codex too soon, but they'll manage without it for some time.
Da Kommizzar wrote:Orkz are not even in there, and we are still 4th edition. They skipped us! No codex, no plastic meganobz, no plastic anything! We are being skipped again!
There's been plenty of rumors of orks getting their 'finish out the range' wave. Be patient.
DarthOvious wrote: A lot of players don't want to make "super lists" and also new players may become discouraged if they keep get a pounding at the start when they are trying to learn the rules. Some people just want to turn up and have a bit of fun irregardless and don't take the rules too seriously.
Not defending the guy or his viewpoint but there are those who don't want to play the WAACs style of gaming.
A lot of players don't want to make 'fluffy lists' and also new players may become discouraged if they have every game handed to them at the start when they are tring to learn the rules. Some people just want to turn up and have a bit of challenge and think that rules are an important part of the game.
Not defending the guy or his viewpoint but there are those who don't want to play the LAACs style of gaming.
Now that we got this stuff out of the way, can we get back on topic?
I didn't deny what you said, I was just pointing that others don't see things like that when they were trying to put forth that that was the case.
Yes, lets get back on topic. I haven't read your message until I posted a reply to the others so please forgive the messages I have posted before this one.
god.ra wrote:Imho more randomness creates more competitive games
I have no idea where this comes from. The only thing variance adds is the possibility of a worse player beating the better player through luck. Any commercial game needs it in some amount, because bad players constitute the majority of it's customer base, and you don't want a single guy who "cracked the system" scaring everyone off. That's it. Nothing more.
So it may be good for GW. It might even be good for the community as a whole*. But let's not pretend that adding an extra d6 roll will make 40k more competitive. Quite the opposite.
*unless of course people do the sensible thing and return to minimaxing to reduce variance as much as possible. That'll be fun.
tetrisphreak wrote:Agreed. Whitehat! more rumors! lol
What the hell is up with your sig...
You made me look, darn it . . . but I agree.
People that honestly use the phrase WAAC are the bane of any system. Sometimes if they are referring to themselves, but always if it is about someone else.
Very little about these rules make me want to run out and but the book though. Maybe once I have a chance to actually read some of it.
Editing to add: This is somewhat odd for me, as I actually enjoy reading rule books and things of that nature. /shrug
Here's something to think about with random charge ranges-
In WFB, you declare a charge before shooting or moving, then you roll for distance. If you make it, you make it, and charge in. If you don't make it, however, you still move up a bit- possibly a whole 6" in WFB, maybe 6 or maybe a random distance in 6th.
What this does, is makes counter-charges an actual risk to be taken when attacking an enemy. Yeah, if my Ork boyz manage that 11" charge on your Guard Blob, they'll be able to take out a significant number, and maybe survive, maybe wipe out your blob without taking too many casualties back. However, if they fail, well, guess what. They're now in range to be charged themselves- and will be fighting at Init 2, Str 3, with only 2 or 3 attacks each, instead of 3 or 4.
There's the potentials for longer charges (though not really, as you'll generally be replacing regular movement with the Charge), counterbalanced by the potential of being counter-charged. Also, it makes pistol range make more sense, as 12" is at the very edge of the charge possibility- do you shoot your pistols at those 2 remaining Tac marines, where you're definitely in range, and maybe not kill them? Or do you charge, and potentially not reach them, but definitely take them out if you make it.
His Master's Voice wrote:
I have no idea where this comes from. The only thing variance adds is the possibility of a worse player beating the better player through luck. Any commercial game needs it in some amount, because bad players constitute the majority of it's customer base, and you don't want a single guy who "cracked the system" scaring everyone off. That's it. Nothing more.
So you don't think that having a contingency plan in case your 2D6" charge move fails requires more skill than always knowing exactly what's going to happen?
lord_blackfang wrote:So you don't think that having a contingency plan in case your 2D6" charge move fails requires more skill than always knowing exactly what's going to happen?
lord_blackfang wrote:So you don't think that having a contingency plan in case your 2D6" charge move fails requires more skill than always knowing exactly what's going to happen?
No, it requires a contingency plan.
Playing chess doesn't require skill, it just requires you to be good at chess...
There is a HUGE difference between WFB charges and simple "Random charge distance". In WFB you have a set MINIMUM charge range which is movement +2" and thus I think we need some major clarifications on if charging in 6th is purely random (Which makes no damn sense) or if its base movement + a roll. Also there seems to be conflicting rumors with one saying how you double your movement when you charge, which seems in direct contention with "random charges"
I have no idea where this comes from. The only thing variance adds is the possibility of a worse player beating the better player through luck. Any commercial game needs it in some amount, because bad players constitute the majority of it's customer base, and you don't want a single guy who "cracked the system" scaring everyone off. That's it. Nothing more.
Perfectly said. Variance exists in games so that weak players get to win a couple games or hands in the short term but are still always losers in the long term. No amount of randomness will make a dumb guy smart, he just gets lucky every now and then. Therefore randomness brings weak players into the scene for good players to beat, but too much randomness kills the whole game.
Yeah. I agree with you. You do not know what you are talking about. The competitive scene has nothing to do with you if you do not want it to. Do not go to tournaments. Simple as that. See how hard that was? If you and your buddies want to have a "beer and chips" atmosphere and throw dice, that is fine. A competitive and comprehensive rule set still allows for this while also fostering a competitive environment. Ever played M:tG? For every competitive player there are a hundred "kitchen table" players. And yet, the competitive nature of M:tG does not inhibit them in anyway. They still get to sling their overpriced creatures and spells at each other and the competitive scene gets to do what they love to do. Ya' know. Competing. Which you cannot do if the rules only allow for a very small measure of play skill to be involved.
Yours is a perfect reply as well. The guys who openly say they refuse to compete and want to actively make stupid decisions and field ineffective units and get upset if their opponent isn't fielding ineffective units and making stupid decisions while drunk could simply do that with their friends like they always have. The thing is they don't want to. They want to play against strangers they've never met at the local store or at an open gaming club, and want the entire world and the game itself to change so that there's no chance whatsoever of ever meeting a person who doesn't fit the criteria of a drunk pretzel eating strategically incompetent toy soldier general with awful unit choices. It's just sad.
Kirasu wrote:There is a HUGE difference between WFB charges and simple "Random charge distance". In WFB you have a set MINIMUM charge range which is movement +2" and thus I think we need some major clarifications on if charging in 6th is purely random (Which makes no damn sense) or if its base movement + a roll. Also there seems to be conflicting rumors with one saying how you double your movement when you charge, which seems in direct contention with "random charges"
It's not purely random in any case, it's a probability and assessing your chances of success and managing the risks is a skill, no matter what everyone here thinks. It's one of the core aspects of Hordes and that game is lauded as very balanced and tactical.
lord_blackfang wrote:It's not purely random in any case, it's a probability and assessing your chances of success and managing the risks is a skill, no matter what everyone here thinks. It's one of the core aspects of Hordes and that game is lauded as very balanced and tactical.
I do not think anyone actually disagrees with that. The issue is that you are saying it takes more skill to use one set of skills than it takes to use another.
Currently you cannot know if your charge is valid because you cannot measure. There is ALREADY a need for contingency plans.
Changing the game to one that involves randomness instead of. . .skill is not requiring more skill.
I have no idea where this comes from. The only thing variance adds is the possibility of a worse player beating the better player through luck. Any commercial game needs it in some amount, because bad players constitute the majority of it's customer base, and you don't want a single guy who "cracked the system" scaring everyone off. That's it. Nothing more.
Perfectly said. Variance exists in games so that weak players get to win a couple games or hands in the short term but are still always losers in the long term. No amount of randomness will make a dumb guy smart, he just gets lucky every now and then. Therefore randomness brings weak players into the scene for good players to beat, but too much randomness kills the whole game.
Yeah. I agree with you. You do not know what you are talking about. The competitive scene has nothing to do with you if you do not want it to. Do not go to tournaments. Simple as that. See how hard that was? If you and your buddies want to have a "beer and chips" atmosphere and throw dice, that is fine. A competitive and comprehensive rule set still allows for this while also fostering a competitive environment. Ever played M:tG? For every competitive player there are a hundred "kitchen table" players. And yet, the competitive nature of M:tG does not inhibit them in anyway. They still get to sling their overpriced creatures and spells at each other and the competitive scene gets to do what they love to do. Ya' know. Competing. Which you cannot do if the rules only allow for a very small measure of play skill to be involved.
Yours is a perfect reply as well. The guys who openly say they refuse to compete and want to actively make stupid decisions and field ineffective units and get upset if their opponent isn't fielding ineffective units and making stupid decisions while drunk could simply do that with their friends like they always have. The thing is they don't want to. They want to play against strangers they've never met at the local store or at an open gaming club, and want the entire world and the game itself to change so that there's no chance whatsoever of ever meeting a person who doesn't fit the criteria of a drunk pretzel eating strategically incompetent toy soldier general with awful unit choices. It's just sad.
And this is why I play EDH (Commander) M:TG it is kitchen table gaming at the finest.
That said, everyone who plays this hobby plays for their own reasons, at my FLGS we have both sides, some come to our Wednesday Night competition and some come on thrusday to just have fun. It is how it works.
lord_blackfang wrote:It's not purely random in any case, it's a probability and assessing your chances of success and managing the risks is a skill, no matter what everyone here thinks. It's one of the core aspects of Hordes and that game is lauded as very balanced and tactical.
I do not think anyone actually disagrees with that. The issue is that you are saying it takes more skill to use one set of skills than it takes to use another.
Currently you cannot know if your charge is valid because you cannot measure.
There is ALREADY a need for contingency plans.
Changing the game to one that involves randomness instead of. . .skill is not requiring more skill.
Fair enough, it's a different skill, and both are pretty shallow (calculating odds on 2D6 vs eyeballing ranges in the 6-12" range... both easy enough to be irrelevant after a few games and hardly indicative of good generalship) but the former has greater predicting power and allows for a finer degree of risk management.
Kirasu wrote:There is a HUGE difference between WFB charges and simple "Random charge distance". In WFB you have a set MINIMUM charge range which is movement +2" and thus I think we need some major clarifications on if charging in 6th is purely random (Which makes no damn sense) or if its base movement + a roll. Also there seems to be conflicting rumors with one saying how you double your movement when you charge, which seems in direct contention with "random charges"
It's not purely random in any case, it's a probability and assessing your chances of success and managing the risks is a skill, no matter what everyone here thinks. It's one of the core aspects of Hordes and that game is lauded as very balanced and tactical.
Yeah but warmachine isn't 100% random. When you do a damage roll you add your combined strength + weapon to the 2d6 roll. This is still very difference from your damage being simply just a 2d6.
We'll see, but base movement + random die roll is completely different from "random die roll" as you have a minimum to plan upon and I seriously hope it's not a totally random roll.. That would make the assault phase extremely gimmicky
lord_blackfang wrote:So you don't think that having a contingency plan in case your 2D6" charge move fails requires more skill than always knowing exactly what's going to happen?
No, it requires a contingency plan.
Playing chess doesn't require skill, it just requires you to be good at chess...
It is and is not a skill, it is a form of thinking. Skills are things people have trained for. Chess requires you to access a diffrent train of though which is not really a skill, simply because everyone can do it but few can accept it. Those that are good at chess tend to be people that can think along multiple trains of thoughts and relate to people (when they figure out they can do that anyways. . . )
I have no idea where this comes from. The only thing variance adds is the possibility of a worse player beating the better player through luck. Any commercial game needs it in some amount, because bad players constitute the majority of it's customer base, and you don't want a single guy who "cracked the system" scaring everyone off. That's it. Nothing more.
Perfectly said. Variance exists in games so that weak players get to win a couple games or hands in the short term but are still always losers in the long term. No amount of randomness will make a dumb guy smart, he just gets lucky every now and then. Therefore randomness brings weak players into the scene for good players to beat, but too much randomness kills the whole game.
My biggest hope is that measuring is allowed whenever.
I am entirely incapable of spacial correspondence, apparently.
I constantly and consistently misjudge ranges.
I never really understood the idea of pre-measuring though - shouldn't it be 'prior to measuring', or somesuch?
Pre-measure is what happens before you measure, right?
Actually chess is more about recognizing patterns, same with street fighter. Thats why the experienced players can have problems with newbs(not to say they will lose, just have problems) because they have no idea what the hell they are doing.
Anyway I think it is more likely to be something along the lines of 3 +2d6 take the highest for infantry just because anything else makes the charge speed too fast IMO.
Liking everything else so far, however in a vacuum it is hard to know for sure.
Also there are few things that I buy and know I am going to use for 4-5 years. 75 bucks isn't bad for that. I spend 60 on a video game that I most likely wont get more than 100 hours out of.
Random game length is a good example of a really ridiculous rule. I'm sure most players remember atleast one extremely frustrated instance of having a huge victory in their hands if the game continues for even one turn but then the 16.6% chance comes to screw everything up. Not to mention games with objectives where a player whose entire army is being tabled due to bad play moves one of his last models/units to a critical objective and then the game ends against all odds. Now if the contingency plan to that is 'just table your opponent quicker' then people need a reality check. That's nothing more than variance introduced in the game so that weak players sometimes get a lot better results than they deserve.
I hate the idea of random charge length. I can accept randomness in the shooting/attack results, but I hate random movement. It's one of the things I really liked about the pancake edition is it did away with a lot of the random movement and minimized the number of times you had to move a unit in a single turn. The game flowed so much faster.
Random game length was just a bad attempt at fixing bad missions. Maybe this time they'll figure out something else to prevent last turn Land Speeder objective grabs.
Maelstrom808 wrote:I hate the idea of random charge length. I can accept randomness in the shooting/attack results, but I hate random movement. It's one of the things I really liked about the pancake edition is it did away with a lot of the random movement and minimized the number of times you had to move a unit in a single turn. The game flowed so much faster.
How do you feel about the current random run rules? I'm assuming you're not a fan?
lord_blackfang wrote:Random game length was just a bad attempt at fixing bad missions. Maybe this time they'll figure out something else to prevent last turn Land Speeder objective grabs.
According to what we have in the OP, looks like vehicles being unable to contest objectives fits the bill there.
Also, something I just thought of: if vehicles count as WS 1 if they don't move/don't move very far, does that mean Lelith Hesperax will get roughly a bajillion attacks against them? Not that she'd do anything to them though...
Vintersorg wrote:4+ ruins cover is total garbage.
This means that a fallent colum gives more cover to a soilder than a undamaged ferrocrete wall...
...
...
...
Really? -.-
I think thats because there usually is more to a ruin than just a dropped pillar. Especially when you consider all of the ruined building terrain that GW tries to sell.
Myself, I just hope things like forests become area terrain again. The large forest populated by 3 small trees because its impossible to play/manuver with more is stupidly unrealistic when considering what has blocked LOS and what has not.
Vintersorg wrote:4+ ruins cover is total garbage.
This means that a fallent colum gives more cover to a soilder than a undamaged ferrocrete wall...
...
...
...
Really? -.-
Given that ruins give 4+ cover, and a ferrocrete wall would give 4+ cover or block LoS completely... no. Not really.
I do not really want the rules to change, what would be best would be to mix 3rd, 4th, and 5th concepts into 6th. This would recieve the best of the above with the rules/concepts that everyone liked. Trying to make an entirely different game for a new edition is just stupid, editions are meant to be advances and fixs that further the original idea. When you upgrade from Windows'85 to '95 it is not a completely foreign thing there, it maintains what it was with a few adjustments to allow user-friendly and fixings of bugs/quirks.
For US it looks like this at current exchange rate. Seems kinda low to me though...
40kGW 440 Full Color Hardback Rule Book - £45/$56.
40k Psychic Cards 35 Large Format carts with holder £8/$10
Metal Look Templates £12/$15
ServoSkull Tape Measure £10/13
Metal Look Dice £10/$13
Feel as though it will be closer to this
40kGW 440 Full Color Hardback Rule Book - $70
40k Psychic Cards 35 Large Format carts with holder $20
Metal Look Templates $40
ServoSkull Tape Measure $20
Metal Look Dice $20
lord_blackfang wrote:So you don't think that having a contingency plan in case your 2D6" charge move fails requires more skill than always knowing exactly what's going to happen?
No, it requires a contingency plan.
Playing chess doesn't require skill, it just requires you to be good at chess...
Like it!
going back to randomness:
It's easier to make strategic decisions about charge if you know what the odds are (premeasuring + roll) than build your strategy on assumption that you are within 6"... So what is more unpredictable in terms of gaming/strategy???? And what is less random???
Smolo82 wrote:For US it looks like this at current exchange rate. Seems kinda low to me though...
40kGW 440 Full Color Hardback Rule Book - £45/$56. 40k Psychic Cards 35 Large Format carts with holder £8/$10 Metal Look Templates £12/$15 ServoSkull Tape Measure £10/13 Metal Look Dice £10/$13
Feel as though it will be closer to this 40kGW 440 Full Color Hardback Rule Book - $70 40k Psychic Cards 35 Large Format carts with holder $20 Metal Look Templates $40 ServoSkull Tape Measure $20 Metal Look Dice $20
The GW exchange rate to other countries has never matched global trading values since i've been paying attention. Just look at Australian prices compared to the GBP and USD. Your second set of numbers are probably more accurate, just based on guesses.
) What would the reason for NO CODICES at all for half a year?
again. He already edited his post once because the initial rumour was too unbelievable.
.