New rumors from Heresy Online.... Enjoy - Mez

Hull points don’t work as rumored: they are only for front armor 14 vehicles and work like a structure point or a “wound” which can be used to negate any result, even wrecked or explodes. not sure if this is a once per game thing, i suspect so. but no more one shotting land raiders and monoliths with meltaguns

Pens give +1 to all subsequent damage rolls in that shooting phase, so essentially after a pen all weapons shooting a vehicle become AP1.

Rapid Fire: double tap up to 24” if stationary. 1 shot at 24" or 2 shots at 12" if moving. Relentless gives and extra shot at each range if stationary as well as the standard bonus.

Power weapons are ap3 but give a 5++ parry save in combat.

Stunned results stack to weapon destroyed, extra armor negates 1 stun per turn, not sure on shaken.

Strength vs Toughness chart changed to be like fantasy, so everything can be wounded on a 6.

There's going to be a bunch of FAQ/erratas when it drops for all codices.

Vehicles being hit in combat auto if stationary, 3+ is going 6", 5+ if going 12", 6+ if going flat out.

Vehicles going flat out can only be hit on a max of 4+ with shooting, fliers hit on 6+.

Damage results stack so shaken -> stun -> weapon -> immob -> wreck

Preferred enemy gives re-rolls to hit with shooting and in combat, but not the re-rolling of 1s to wound.

"Pens give +1 to all subsequent damage rolls in that shooting phase, so essentially after a pen all weapons shooting a vehicle become AP1."

I wonder if it resets at the end of the phase. In either case, it's more book keeping that I can't see adding anything to the game.

Something about that just feels so off.

A lot of that is literally ripped from pancake edition and the vehicles rumors make no sense.
So let me get this straight, if I stun you twice, a weapon pops off? If I penetrate you once with an autocannon, all other missiles and bolters being fired from the opposite side of the vehicle magically find its way into the hole I made previously? Haha
FFS, these are the worst wishlist/fake rumors I've ever read.

Still thanks for passin it along Mez.

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

That is a lot of stuff to remember for shooting at vehichles if true. Almost sounds like a ploy to sell damage markers.

I dont care anymore. When I get a copy of the book I will be in a better mood of all these rumors

Same. I have zero hype. Heres hoping GW pulls out all the stops with their reveal cause I'm yawning an awful lot the more I hear about 6th.

I kind of like the hull points one, means I can use landraiders and not be to scared of that lucky first turn lascannon shot.

tuiman wrote:I kind of like the hull points one, means I can use landraiders and not be to scared of that lucky first turn lascannon shot.

Except russ spam would be far more difficult to kill, and would make things that are already hard enough for railguns to pen, even more difficult to damage. I could possibly believe it if it was "rear" armor, and not "front" however...

All my excitement for 6th has long since faded however. I really hope GW doesn't think their marketing is actually being effective...

Edit- it occurred to me just after posting this that firing a railgun, scoring a pen, causing a shaken, and then a subsequent railgun penetrating would do diddly on a 3+ because of this "hull point"... would kind of make lascannons better than railguns, which sounds like heresy if you ask me.

Their... marketing? What marketing?

uberjoras wrote:

tuiman wrote:I kind of like the hull points one, means I can use landraiders and not be to scared of that lucky first turn lascannon shot.

Except russ spam would be far more difficult to kill, and would make things that are already hard enough for railguns to pen, even more difficult to damage. I could possibly believe it if it was "rear" armor, and not "front" however...

All my excitement for 6th has long since faded however. I really hope GW doesn't think their marketing is actually being effective...

Edit- it occurred to me just after posting this that firing a railgun, scoring a pen, causing a shaken, and then a subsequent railgun penetrating would do diddly on a 3+ because of this "hull point"... would kind of make lascannons better than railguns, which sounds like heresy if you ask me.

I did not think people used russ spam these days?

As you say, mabe rear armour, how many units have av 14 anyway, just out of interest? Monolith, landraider and leman russ? Seems silly to make a rule like that that would aply for so few models

H.B.M.C. wrote:Their... marketing? What marketing?

I'd certainly love the rapid fire relentless rumour to be true but haha poor Noise Marines.

"Noise Marines get 3 shots at 24"!"

"Thousand Sons get 3 shots at 24" AND can do it while moving AND their shots are AP 3 AND they get a 4+ invulnerable AND cover is 5+ now".

Nitros14 wrote:I'd certainly love the rapid fire relentless rumour to be true but haha poor Noise Marines.

"Noise Marines get 3 shots at 24"!"

"Thousand Sons get 3 shots at 24" AND can do it while moving AND their shots are AP 3 AND they get a 4+ invulnerable AND cover is 5+ now".

Untill the new codex arrives shortly after 6th, and they get nerfed

tuiman wrote:
I did not think people used russ spam these days?

As you say, mabe rear armour, how many units have av 14 anyway, just out of interest? Monolith, landraider and leman russ? Seems silly to make a rule like that that would aply for so few models

You'd be surprised how many russes i see. One local player did a 2k game with the express desire to field as many of them as possible. I usually see 3+ at any rate.

tuiman wrote:

uberjoras wrote:

tuiman wrote:I kind of like the hull points one, means I can use landraiders and not be to scared of that lucky first turn lascannon shot.

Except russ spam would be far more difficult to kill, and would make things that are already hard enough for railguns to pen, even more difficult to damage. I could possibly believe it if it was "rear" armor, and not "front" however...

All my excitement for 6th has long since faded however. I really hope GW doesn't think their marketing is actually being effective...

Edit- it occurred to me just after posting this that firing a railgun, scoring a pen, causing a shaken, and then a subsequent railgun penetrating would do diddly on a 3+ because of this "hull point"... would kind of make lascannons better than railguns, which sounds like heresy if you ask me.

I did not think people used russ spam these days?

As you say, mabe rear armour, how many units have av 14 anyway, just out of interest? Monolith, landraider and leman russ? Seems silly to make a rule like that that would aply for so few models

Monolith, Landraider, Russ, and Battlewagon. That's it, and they are not that common. AV14 isn't competitive in 5th edition's 3M environment. I could really see them cycling AV14 back into being competitive.

tuiman wrote:
Untill the new codex arrives shortly after 6th, and they get nerfed

More likely Noise Marines get buffed I think.

schadenfreude wrote:Monolith, Landraider, Russ, and Battlewagon. That's it, and they are not that common. AV14 isn't competitive in 5th edition's 3M environment. I could really see them cycling AV14 back into being competitive.

Battlewagons are 14/12/10, no rear 14 on those nasty vehicles, thank god.

Coyote81 wrote:

schadenfreude wrote:Monolith, Landraider, Russ, and Battlewagon. That's it, and they are not that common. AV14 isn't competitive in 5th edition's 3M environment. I could really see them cycling AV14 back into being competitive.

Battlewagons are 14/12/10, no rear 14 on those nasty vehicles, thank god.

He was listing vehicles with any AV14 face. Russes don't have rear armor 14 either.

terranarc wrote:Something about that just feels so off.

A lot of that is literally ripped from pancake edition and the vehicles rumors make no sense.
So let me get this straight, if I stun you twice, a weapon pops off? If I penetrate you once with an autocannon, all other missiles and bolters being fired from the opposite side of the vehicle magically find its way into the hole I made previously? Haha
FFS, these are the worst wishlist/fake rumors I've ever read.

Still thanks for passin it along Mez.

Makes about as much sense as shaking or stunning a tank in the first place. When an armored vehicle takes a hit that does nothing to it the people inside don't hide under their chairs and wait for the noise to go away.

ShumaGorath wrote:Makes about as much sense as shaking or stunning a tank in the first place. When an armored vehicle takes a hit that does nothing to it the people inside don't hide under their chairs and wait for the noise to go away.

Eh, always assumed stunned represented something like a missile explosion -almost- flipping the tank or a momentary power interruption while they reroute things. Shaken maybe knocks the turret around in the wrong direction or impairs targeting vision with explosion debris or something. "Shaken" and "Stunned" are just easy terms to represent "recoverable damage resulting in short-term interruption of service".

Actually, they usually bail out, or GTFO of dodge on any serious hit, especially one that actually punches through the armor. Its actually kind of historical. Nobody wants to be caught in a burning tank.

kestral wrote:Actually, they usually bail out, or GTFO of dodge on any serious hit, especially one that actually punches through the armor. Its actually kind of historical. Nobody wants to be caught in a burning tank.

Why? If you're a space marine an exploding vehicle probably won't even hurt.

Rapid Fire: double tap up to 24” if stationary. 1 shot at 24" or 2 shots at 12" if moving. Relentless gives and extra shot at each range if stationary as well as the standard bonus.

If true then Warrior Blobs, Gauss Immortals and Deathmarks just got MUCH better, especially if I attach an Overlord with the Phaeron upgrade to the squad. 60 S4 shots at 24"? Yes please!!!

Zathras wrote:

Rapid Fire: double tap up to 24” if stationary. 1 shot at 24" or 2 shots at 12" if moving. Relentless gives and extra shot at each range if stationary as well as the standard bonus.

If true then Warrior Blobs, Gauss Immortals and Deathmarks just got MUCH better, especially if I attach an Overlord with the Phaeron upgrade to the squad. 60 S4 shots at 24"? Yes please!!!

Dont forget monoliths being harder to kill again with the hull points thing, if (and its a big if) most of the rumours floating around are true, necrons do look like they will become a very strong top tier army

These sound very much like the leaked rules; in fact the only (slightly) changed one is hull points.

If these are correct and the core of the leaked rules survive, 6th may actually be worth playing.

On the other side of the coin the rumours fro fantasy 8th sounded really good before it was released and look how that turned out.

Nightbringer's Chosen wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:Makes about as much sense as shaking or stunning a tank in the first place. When an armored vehicle takes a hit that does nothing to it the people inside don't hide under their chairs and wait for the noise to go away.

Eh, always assumed stunned represented something like a missile explosion -almost- flipping the tank or a momentary power interruption while they reroute things. Shaken maybe knocks the turret around in the wrong direction or impairs targeting vision with explosion debris or something. "Shaken" and "Stunned" are just easy terms to represent "recoverable damage resulting in short-term interruption of service".

In modern armor warfare that kind of thing doesn't really happen. Who knows though, the vehicles of the far future seem to be pretty badly designed, so maybe they just have shaky ignitions or something. Either way that explanation would add a form of legitimacy to the idea of stacking results. If the turret got spun round in a bad position and then took another hit maybe it's breaking completely now.

Palindrome wrote:
On the other side of the coin the rumours fro fantasy 8th sounded really good before it was released and look how that turned out.

8th is the best ruleset Fantasy has ever had.

Since 8th Fantasy has become tremendously more popular.

Except among people who want a dice game to be perfectly predictable and non-random I guess.

Im not sure why so much angst is directed at things like stacked glancing, or after the first pen etc. Seems like an elegant way to reduce the power of mech without completely nerfing it.

You still have the advantages but now its easier to stop/suppress parking lots.

IMO this is poop and alot of this won't happen. If it somehow does happen then the rest of 6th edition doesn't look good.

Nitros14 wrote:

Palindrome wrote:
On the other side of the coin the rumours fro fantasy 8th sounded really good before it was released and look how that turned out.

8th is the best ruleset Fantasy has ever had.

Since 8th Fantasy has become tremendously more popular.

Allegedly 8th has been a commercial failure, at at least has significantly underperformed. I have no hard details on this as GW will never release them but I have heard this from 3 different 'in the know' sources and I certainly have seen far less games played. I do know that my fantasy armies are now mouldering in their cases even though I had played fantasy since 4th ed.
I am sure that there are a plethora of threads about this very subject in the fantasy section though and my point was that good early rumours do not automatically mean that the released game will be good.

Nitros14 wrote:

Palindrome wrote:
On the other side of the coin the rumours fro fantasy 8th sounded really good before it was released and look how that turned out.

8th is the best ruleset Fantasy has ever had.

Since 8th Fantasy has become tremendously more popular.

Except among people who want a dice game to be perfectly predictable and non-random I guess.

In the same way that any game that hemorrhages players and sales becomes "tremendously more popular"! Like it if you want but eighth edition was a disaster that drove a significant portion of their playerbase away from the game. On it's face it's a bad game system that seems more designed to be a drinking companion or wacky board game for children than anything adults would enjoy. YMMV

Nitros14 wrote:
Since 8th Fantasy has become tremendously more popular.

Except among people who want a dice game to be perfectly predictable and non-random I guess.

I've heard the opposite. Guess we'll never know since only GW knows the truth and wouldn't tell us if things were going bad anyway.

And yeah, cute, but you missed the issue entirely if that's what you think is wrong with WHF and 40k. No one wants the random element completely gone, but too much randomness is just fething stupid and makes the game feel ultimately pointless, like nothing you did ever mattered because it was all down to chance in the end. If you have to roll for everything and nothing is predictable then you might as well skip playing the damn game and roll a single d6 at the start to determine a winner. Saves time, saves arguments, and saves you a lot of money since you don't even need an army to deploy.

If they intend on "balancing" vehicles like this, it's the most awkward and hamfisted way of doing it, and it really just makes dealing with vehicles in general rather frustrating if for nothing than the record keeping. Also not seeing how shaking/stunning should upgrade to blowing off guns and immobilzing the tank, to ultimately destroying it. That said, this sounds exactly like something GW would do.

It also doesn't help that this putzes gun tanks again, something that wasn't really necessary.

Vaktathi wrote:If they intend on "balancing" vehicles like this, it's the most awkward and hamfisted way of doing it, and it really just makes dealing with vehicles in general rather frustrating if for nothing than the record keeping. Also not seeing how shaking/stunning should upgrade to blowing off guns and immobilzing the tank, to ultimately destroying it. That said, this sounds exactly like something GW would do.

Again, armored vehicles are not shaken or stunned when hit by weapons. If they aren't damaged or destroyed nothing happens. The incoming fire may influence the behavior of the occupants, but no one gets hit with an RPG and decides to not move the tank. Shaken/stunned is inane and should of been removed from the game a decade ago for being silly. Any game mechanic that reduces the incidence of the logically impossible scenario of a shaken/stunned result is a mechanic that's on the right track.

To be honest I don't see a problem with this. It simply means that wieght of fire will be a lot more effective which takes away alot of the need for suicide melta sqauds.

Plus these are incomplete rumours, its a bit early to tell how they will play out.

I always assumed that stunned/shaken results simply meant minor damage that could be quickly repaired by the crew or an injured crewman.

Nitros14 wrote:

Palindrome wrote:
On the other side of the coin the rumours fro fantasy 8th sounded really good before it was released and look how that turned out.

8th is the best ruleset Fantasy has ever had.

Since 8th Fantasy has become tremendously more popular.

Not round these parts, oddly enough. Fantasy's all but dead here. There's so few players that games nights at the local GW are seriously struggling.

Palindrome wrote:
I always assumed that stunned/shaken results simply meant minor damage that could be quickly repaired by the crew or an injured crewman.

That's not really representative of how vehicular warfare works in the real world though. The vehicles occupants would rarely have the technical expertise to actually fix the vehicle they're driving and combat vehicles are generally designed without important easily broken and easily fixed systems. There's virtually nothing in or on a modern tank or aircraft that can be "fixed" by the occupants from within the vehicle without tools in a short period of time. Crew injury makes more sense, but that would logically result in a permanently reduced capability for the vehicle, not just one round of inaction.

Fantasy was dead around here in 7th, 8th brought it to life. Who knows obviously your experiences are very different. I certainly enjoy fantasy a lot more than 40k right now.

Rumours about commercial sales are just that. I'm sure people who hate 8th are all too willing to believe it's a commercial failure based on rumours.

Nitros14 wrote:Fantasy was dead around here in 7th, 8th brought it to life. Who knows obviously your experiences are very different. I certainly enjoy fantasy a lot more than 40k right now.

Rumours about commercial sales are just that. I'm sure people who hate 8th are all too willing to believe it's a commercial failure based on rumours.

Anecdotally the game seemed to suffer greatly from the intensely overpowered army books "designed for eighth" and eighth itself seemed to kind of push out the community that had cared about game balance and had been concerned about the direction balance had gone with recent army books. Whichever rumors you wish to believe go ahead and believe them, but I've never heard a single store owner or rumor state that fantasy is doing better after eighth and I've heard quite a few that state the opposite. Where there's smoke there is often fire.

I will LOL with 6th ed. turns out to be just minor fixes to wound allocation, flyer rules, cover changes, and minor changes to vehicle damage.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Palindrome wrote:
I always assumed that stunned/shaken results simply meant minor damage that could be quickly repaired by the crew or an injured crewman.

That's not really representative of how vehicular warfare works in the real world though.

Leman Russ look like they were designed in the 1920's yet they are supposed to be cutting edge sci fi technology. 40K bears very little resemblence to the real world.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Buttons wrote:I will LOL with 6th ed. turns out to be just minor fixes to wound allocation, flyer rules, cover changes, and minor changes to vehicle damage.

I won't, I will be slightly dissapointed that I won't be using my 40k armies for yet another edition but only briefly before I go back to playing decent games.

ShumaGorath wrote:Anecdotally the game seemed to suffer greatly from the intensely overpowered army books "designed for eighth" and eighth itself seemed to kind of push out the community that had cared about game balance and had been concerned about the direction balance had gone with recent army books. Whichever rumors you wish to believe go ahead and believe them, but I've never heard a single store owner or rumor state that fantasy is doing better after eighth and I've heard quite a few that state the opposite. Where there's smoke there is often fire.

Actually one of the nice things about 8th is the general balance of the army books. All of the new books have been really well balanced, Ogres slightly on the strong side, Tomb Kings slightly on the weak side Some of the old 7th edition books are still a bit too strong but nothing like 40k's Grey Knights.

One of the things I like about Fantasy is all the different varied armies that are viable whereas in 40k you see endless Grey Knights, Space Wolves and Blood Angels. Tons of 40k armies are in variously broken states (Tyranids, Chaos Marines, Tau, Sisters, Daemons, Eldar etc) while only Wood Elves and Brettonians are really bad.

Obviously anecdotally all I can say is how fantasy is doing around here. I can say that our local big Fantasy tournament Gottacon had a much bigger fantasy showing this year and that since 8th there's been a lot more people down to play fantasy.

I mean as fun as 7th and 30 power dice Daemons, the game being decided almost entirely by how well you could eyeball your charge distance and cavalry/monsters blowing up almost anything with a frontal charge was...

ShumaGorath wrote:

Palindrome wrote:
I always assumed that stunned/shaken results simply meant minor damage that could be quickly repaired by the crew or an injured crewman.

That's not really representative of how vehicular warfare works in the real world though. The vehicles occupants would rarely have the technical expertise to actually fix the vehicle they're driving and combat vehicles are generally designed without important easily broken and easily fixed systems. There's virtually nothing in or on a modern tank or aircraft that can be "fixed" by the occupants from within the vehicle without tools in a short period of time. Crew injury makes more sense, but that would logically result in a permanently reduced capability for the vehicle, not just one round of inaction.

I really don't like the look of these rumours. Far too much bookkeeping on vehicles. Maybe they are trying to swing it back to Infantryhammer?

Exceptionally poor balance killed 7th rather than the rules themselves. 6th was a much better edition though.

I have to laugh at some of the people in these threads saying how poorly 6th edition has been marketed and how they would never buy it...yet it is the same people slavering over any morsel in all of the rumor threads I have encountered.

I for one am excited to be a part of the ancitipation of what a new edition will bring and will almost assuredly buy the 6th ed starter pack, depending on the armies contained within, of course.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Nitros14 wrote:

Palindrome wrote:
On the other side of the coin the rumours fro fantasy 8th sounded really good before it was released and look how that turned out.

8th is the best ruleset Fantasy has ever had.

Since 8th Fantasy has become tremendously more popular.

Except among people who want a dice game to be perfectly predictable and non-random I guess.

In the same way that any game that hemorrhages players and sales becomes "tremendously more popular"! Like it if you want but eighth edition was a disaster that drove a significant portion of their playerbase away from the game. On it's face it's a bad game system that seems more designed to be a drinking companion or wacky board game for children than anything adults would enjoy. YMMV

And I say good riddance to those people-I love 8th. Hate it if you want, I think it's far superior to 7th. Randal from Clerks said it best: "You won't be missed."

Palindrome wrote:

Buttons wrote:I will LOL with 6th ed. turns out to be just minor fixes to wound allocation, flyer rules, cover changes, and minor changes to vehicle damage.

I won't, I will be slightly dissapointed that I won't be using my 40k armies for yet another edition but only briefly before I go back to playing decent games.

I personally like the current edition, perhaps infantry can use a boost and wound allocation and ID can be modified, but I sure don't want a complete overhaul.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Again, armored vehicles are not shaken or stunned when hit by weapons. If they aren't damaged or destroyed nothing happens.

Crews very much can be shaken and stunned in armored vehicles, something goes off nearby and shakes up the vehicle and the driver whacks his head on a panel, spalling may wound the loader and the commander has to take over, the crew may hop out temporarily to make sure it doesn't explode or to free a stuck track, the internal communication between the commander and driver may get cut, something may knock the engine and they have to restart it, etc. A lot of that is easily abstracted by the simple "shaken/stunned". There's a lot of stuff that may force a vehicle to either not shoot or not move for several seconds. FoW has a very similar state called "bailed" when the tank suffers a hit but isn't actually destroyed or has been bogged down in rough terrain, OGRE has "Disabled", etc.

demontalons wrote:Im not sure why so much angst is directed at things like stacked glancing, or after the first pen etc. Seems like an elegant way to reduce the power of mech without completely nerfing it.

You still have the advantages but now its easier to stop/suppress parking lots.

Transports need a nerf, not tanks. Transports have always been pretty easy to kill, it's the already underused battle tanks that are going to get hurt by these (unless they have av14, apparently). If you want to nerf transports, up the consequences to riders when they get destroyed. It's that easy.

Hollowman wrote:

demontalons wrote:Im not sure why so much angst is directed at things like stacked glancing, or after the first pen etc. Seems like an elegant way to reduce the power of mech without completely nerfing it.

You still have the advantages but now its easier to stop/suppress parking lots.

Transports need a nerf, not tanks. Transports have always been pretty easy to kill, it's the already underused battle tanks that are going to get hurt by these (unless they have av14, apparently). If you want to nerf transports, up the consequences to riders when they get destroyed. It's that easy.

It also doesn't help that it requires a lot more tracking/record keeping and makes overwhelming vehicles with weeny hits much easier than it should be.

According to this, all Grey Knights get a 5+ invul in close combat. Oh my god. Oh. My. God.

I read it all through and it seems nothing except the max 4+ to hit a flat-out vehicle benefits the Eldar. The Rapid Fire boost will make it even harded for Eldar to fight the IG. Fire Dragons now sucks against AV14. Holofields now become much worse due to the stacking of damage results. Wraithlords are now absolutley useless. Their strength was being unable to be hurt by stuff like bolters. With Rapid Fire being buffed, this nullifies them even more, I will probably never use them again. Vehicles being hit on a 5+ when going 12" instead of a 6+ really sucks, a lot of Eldar firepower will be useless against Orks, as we constantly have to go flat-out in order to avoid being destroyed.

Marzillius wrote:According to this, all Grey Knights get a 5+ invul in close combat. Oh my god. Oh. My. God.

I read it all through and it seems nothing except the max 4+ to hit a flat-out vehicle benefits the Eldar. The Rapid Fire boost will make it even harded for Eldar to fight the IG. Fire Dragons now sucks against AV14. Holofields now become much worse due to the stacking of damage results. Wraithlords are now absolutley useless. Their strength was being unable to be hurt by stuff like bolters. With Rapid Fire being buffed, this nullifies them even more, I will probably never use them again. Vehicles being hit on a 5+ when going 12" instead of a 6+ really sucks, a lot of Eldar firepower will be useless against Orks, as we constantly have to go flat-out in order to avoid being destroyed.

If the leaked edition is correct then its only base powerweapons that get the 5+.

According to this rumour (and indeed the leaked rules) all the codices will be getting FAQed and remember these are far from the entirety of the rules so throwing your teddy is a bit premature.

Nitros14 wrote:

Palindrome wrote:
On the other side of the coin the rumours fro fantasy 8th sounded really good before it was released and look how that turned out.

8th is the best ruleset Fantasy has ever had.

Since 8th Fantasy has become tremendously more popular.

Except among people who want a dice game to be perfectly predictable and non-random I guess.

Weird, because my experience has been similar to others'; in my hometown Fantasy was pretty popular 5th through 7th. Not as popular as 40K, but definitely the second most popular miniatures game system. After 8th? It all but disappeared. I think when I moved away there were maybe two people still playing it. I dunno how it is at the shops I go to now, since I only go to play Warmachine and that's on a different day than 40K and Fantasy, but most shops that are advertising GW game days seem to be advertising 40K nights, and not really mentioning WHFB.

EDIT: huh, apparently this was my 1000th post. wheeeeeee

Hollowman wrote: If you want to nerf transports, up the consequences to riders when they get destroyed. It's that easy.

Isn't that kinda how it worked in 4th though, and hardly anyone used transports because they were more of a liability than anything? You have to be careful with this stuff, you can't just outright nerf vehicles, and I imagine GW definitely doesn't want to since those vehicle parking lots probably make them a lot of money.

That and I'd like to actually have a reason to keep using my tanks. "They look cool" isn't a good enough reason to spend $30-40+ each on them.

let me point out the alternative............if you dont like 6th edition......keep playing 5th

Yeah but the problem there is that you'd have to keeping playing 5th.

No thanks.

If power weapons are now AP3 wouldn't give Terminators (and other 2+ save models) a HUGE boost as they would now have a 2+ save against all attacks in CC?

Seems a little harsh to me.

Hmm, if those rapid.fire rules are correct I'm going to have a lot of fun going Marine hunting with my Crisis suits...

Narhay wrote:I have to laugh at some of the people in these threads saying how poorly 6th edition has been marketed and how they would never buy it...yet it is the same people slavering over any morsel in all of the rumor threads I have encountered.

I'm not seeing any "slavering". What I'm seeing is a lot of people rolling their eyes thinking "Just release the fething thing GW! So these stupid contradictory rumours will stop."

We have seen practically no marketing from GW on this, and no, the pithy Youtube video does not count. They are trying to rerelease their premier game system with only 1 week of official prior announcement. New Line must really have a tight vice-like grip on GW's balls for them to not give them some wiggle room for this. This release will fall hard on it's arse as we all know the Internet is a "vocal minority" and little timmy is going to have this sprung upon him out of nowhere and now mummy has to drop £45 on a new rulebook with only a week's notice. If that was my mum I know exactly what she'd say.

Rant over.

With the amount of rumours (some of them presumably true) flying around, and the anticipation so high already, i don't think GW needs to do any marketting.

Praxiss wrote:With the amount of rumours (some of them presumably true) flying around, and the anticipation so high already, i don't think GW needs to do any marketting.

I say again. What marketing? GW views the Internet crowd as a vocal minority, we are not their main demographic. The big spenders are the little Timmys with a core game buy then one or two big splurges at a birthday and/or Christmas. Esp. in this economic climate imagine all of the parents that are only being given a week's notice for something that is pretty much a compulsary update for mummy's little darlings fave game. I know I don't have £45 or thereabouts lying around.

Grimtuff wrote:The big spenders are the little timmys.

Grimtuff wrote:>The big spenders are the little Timmy's parents

Fixed.

Grimtuff wrote:

Praxiss wrote:With the amount of rumours (some of them presumably true) flying around, and the anticipation so high already, i don't think GW needs to do any marketting.

I say again. What marketing? GW views the Internet crowd as a vocal minority, we are not their main demographic. The big spenders are the little Timmys with a core game buy then one or two big splurges at a birthday and/or Christmas. Esp. in this economic climate imagine all of the parents that are only being given a week's notice for something that is pretty much a compulsary update for mummy's little darlings fave game. I know I don't have £45 or thereabouts lying around.

I wonder how true that actually is though? Warseer has nearly 80k unique members, this by no means encompasses all of GW's audience its certainly a big chunk of it. I have a great deal of scepticism about the mythical 'little Timmy' and his massive spending power.

That doesn't mean that I think that GW have handled their marketing well by any means.

Praxiss wrote:If power weapons are now AP3 wouldn't give Terminators (and other 2+ save models) a HUGE boost as they would now have a 2+ save against all attacks in CC?

Seems a little harsh to me.

It gives the like of SG more of a boost IMO, Termies still got their 5++ which was at least something. I've got some SG I've been holding off building to see if 6th allows pistol strength to be used in CC a la Pancake (Infernus Pistols, yum!) but even if that isn't true, if this pans out they could definitely become a regualr fixture for my lists..

skoffs wrote:

Grimtuff wrote:>The big spenders are the little Timmy's parents

Fixed.

I would have thought that was implied...

Obviously not.

If power weapons are now AP3 wouldn't give Terminators (and other 2+ save models) a HUGE boost as they would now have a 2+ save against all attacks in CC?

Unless there's a FAQ that states that all weapons (and monstrous creatures) that 'ignore armour saves' are AP3, that would change almost nothing. Very few commonly used units in this game actually use power weapons.

Therion wrote:

If power weapons are now AP3 wouldn't give Terminators (and other 2+ save models) a HUGE boost as they would now have a 2+ save against all attacks in CC?

Unless there's a FAQ that states that all weapons (and monstrous creatures) that 'ignore armour saves' are AP3, that would change almost nothing. Very few commonly used units in this game actually use power weapons.

Except all Grey Knights, Assault Terminators, DE Incubus, Sanguinary Guard...

Most dedicated assault units are either equipped with power weapons of some sort or their common unit builds arm them with them. Anything that is not explicity called a power weapon in normally referenced as "counts as a power weapon" which is the same thing to all intents and purposes.

The biggest clue to this being valid is in the Necron codex I think, where there is an item of wargear that's description simply says it is a power weapon, whereas the Warscythe, which, to all intents and purposes is a power weapon in 5th, explicity says "ignores armour saves" which is not the same thing in the context of this particular rumour.

azreal13 wrote: Anything that is not explicity called a power weapon in normally referenced as "counts as a power weapon" which is the same thing to all intents and purposes.

In 5th edition it is, will this be the same in 6th? I have my doubts.

Palindrome wrote:

azreal13 wrote: Anything that is not explicity called a power weapon in normally referenced as "counts as a power weapon" which is the same thing to all intents and purposes.

In 5th edition it is, will this be the same in 6th? I have my doubts.

Really?

I don't. The definition of power weapon is set in the BRB, which the codices then refer back to. They may change the definition of what a power weapon does, but those units that are armed with weapons that "count as" power weapons will still carry weapons that count as power weapons, it will just be their game effect that will change.

azreal13 wrote:

Palindrome wrote:

azreal13 wrote: Anything that is not explicity called a power weapon in normally referenced as "counts as a power weapon" which is the same thing to all intents and purposes.

In 5th edition it is, will this be the same in 6th? I have my doubts.

Really?

I don't. The definition of power weapon is set in the BRB, which the codices then refer back to. They may change the definition of what a power weapon does, but those units that are armed with weapons that "count as" power weapons will still carry weapons that count as power weapons, it will just be their game effect that will change.

Arguing RAW for rumours of an as yet released BRB?

azreal13 wrote:

Therion wrote:

If power weapons are now AP3 wouldn't give Terminators (and other 2+ save models) a HUGE boost as they would now have a 2+ save against all attacks in CC?

Unless there's a FAQ that states that all weapons (and monstrous creatures) that 'ignore armour saves' are AP3, that would change almost nothing. Very few commonly used units in this game actually use power weapons.

Except all Grey Knights, Assault Terminators, DE Incubus, Sanguinary Guard...

Grey Knights: Force Weapons
Assault Terminators: Thunderhammers, Lightning Claws

Under the current rulebooks These are all different from "power weapons", and there is no indication that this would change.

Chaos Terminators, Lych Guard, Triarch Praetorians (?), Howling Banshees, SM Captains/Sergeants.

Isn't a powerfist just a power weapon that doubles strength?


Also - back to y original post - if power weapons are AP3 then Termies get a save. Yes they get an invul now, but if they suddenly get a 2+ against power weapons instead of a 5+, that makes a massive difference. They woudl be nearly impervious to everything!

Praxiss wrote:
Isn't a powerfist just a power weapon that doubles strength?

Nope, its a powerfist. This rule appeared in the 'leaked' rules which also specifically stated that only actual power weapons got the parry save, anything that "counted as a power weapon" didn't get it. If the parry save is real I strongly suspect that only something specifically called a power weapon in the unit entry will get the 5+ save.

There are conflicting rumours about the AP of power weapons, I think that they will stay as they are.

Praxiss wrote:Chaos Terminators, Lych Guard, Triarch Praetorians (?), Howling Banshees, SM Captains/Sergeants.

Isn't a powerfist just a power weapon that doubles strength?

But we are simply assuming that if Power Weapons get AP3, then all the special power weapons with special rules would also get AP3. There is no reason to think that a rule that would double strength wouldn't also have an effect on the AP value (if this rumor is even true). So they could very well include Power Weapons are AP 3, Power Fists are AP 2, Thunderhammers are AP 1, or whatever.

Also - back to y original post - if power weapons are AP3 then Termies get a save. Yes they get an invul now, but if they suddenly get a 2+ against power weapons instead of a 5+, that makes a massive difference. They woudl be nearly impervious to everything!

Terminators would still be hurt by the same shooting that already hurts them. We don't know if pistol rules will change, so maybe there is something there that will have an effect in close combat. Since we don't know if this rule is even true, or what the other rules are going to be , it is a bit early to be in panic-mode about this.

d-usa wrote:

azreal13 wrote:

Therion wrote:

If power weapons are now AP3 wouldn't give Terminators (and other 2+ save models) a HUGE boost as they would now have a 2+ save against all attacks in CC?

Unless there's a FAQ that states that all weapons (and monstrous creatures) that 'ignore armour saves' are AP3, that would change almost nothing. Very few commonly used units in this game actually use power weapons.

Except all Grey Knights, Assault Terminators, DE Incubus, Sanguinary Guard...

Grey Knights: Force Weapons
Assault Terminators: Thunderhammers, Lightning Claws

Under the current rulebooks These are all different from "power weapons", and there is no indication that this would change.

Perhaps I'm not explaining myself properly, there are numerous weapons that are considered power weapons or count as power weapons (I don't have my BRB to hand, but I'm pretty sure force weapons are described as power weapons, and then the extra rules explained in their rules entry) and have extra rules in addition to this, such as all the example you list. I would argue that it would be most likely that these weapons will still be power weapons with extra rules under 6th, just that the actual ramifications of what consists of a power weapon may change.

It is equally possible that they could have their own individual rules in 6th, so, for instance, a power fist becomes a weapon that doubles the users strengh, strikes I1 and ignores armour saves, and at no point is referred to as a power weapon. The net effect is the same as in 5th, but the implications are slightly different (if this is true of course, but it keeps coming up in rumour threads and I think it makes sense) All IMO of course!

page 42 of the BRB defines what a power weapon is and then says: a lightning claw is a power weapon... same for powerfists and so also a thunderhammer.

page 50: force weapons have the same effect as power weapons (some wiggle room here?)


but ofcourse the definitions will likely change in the new rule book if this ap3 stuff is going to happen. I do hope they leave some 'non-power weapons' that deny armour saves alone though or my warscythes just got a lot less awesome

I just think that there is no point even getting worked up about a rumored rule in 6th edition that is being judged based on the way it is written in 5th edition.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Anecdotally the game seemed to suffer greatly from the intensely overpowered army books "designed for eighth" and eighth itself seemed to kind of push out the community that had cared about game balance and had been concerned about the direction balance had gone with recent army books. Whichever rumors you wish to believe go ahead and believe them, but I've never heard a single store owner or rumor state that fantasy is doing better after eighth and I've heard quite a few that state the opposite. Where there's smoke there is often fire.

I know another thing that often accompanies smoke; confirmation bias.

Altruizine wrote:
I know another thing that often accompanies smoke; confirmation bias.

Confirmation bias, confirmation bias everywhere

Robbietobbie wrote:page 42 of the BRB defines what a power weapon is and then says: a lightning claw is a power weapon... same for powerfists and so also a thunderhammer.

page 50: force weapons have the same effect as power weapons (some wiggle room here?)


but ofcourse the definitions will likely change in the new rule book if this ap3 stuff is going to happen. I do hope they leave some 'non-power weapons' that deny armour saves alone though or my warscythes just got a lot less awesome

Such definitions are easy to change in the 6th ed BRB it is likely that the weapons where codexes refer to the BRB for the rules such as Power Weapons, Powerfists, Lightning Claws etc will simply get unique listings with their own AP values. It's the codex weapons that state they are "power weapons" or work like "power weapons" that will potentially suffer from a blanket change to the core rules for Power Weapons such as them becoming AP 3 unless they are specifically FAQed otherwise unlike weapons that specifically state they ignore armour saves like how the Warscythe does that I think will be more the issue.

azreal13 wrote:The biggest clue to this being valid is in the Necron codex I think, where there is an item of wargear that's description simply says it is a power weapon, whereas the Warscythe, which, to all intents and purposes is a power weapon in 5th, explicity says "ignores armour saves" which is not the same thing in the context of this particular rumour.

There are actually two examples of each type in the Necron Codex both the Hyperphase Swords and Rods Covenant are described as Power Weapons while the Warscythe and one of the SCs Weapons (an SC who has an ability to turn into a MC for all intents and purposes....) specifically state they ignore armour saves and make no mention of them being power weapons.

d-usa wrote:I just think that there is no point even getting worked up about a rumored rule in 6th edition that is being judged based on the way it is written in 5th edition.

This is Dakka! Of course there is... Without baseless speculation, we'd rapidly run out of thing to talk about.

Valete,

JohnS

I think a change of power weapons to ap 3 is a brilliant move. It tightens the gap between meltaguns and plasmaguns. Right now there is almost no reason to take plasmaguns, but if power weapons are ap 3 , then there is more an incentive to take plasmaguns.

Terminators would get a boost, but not become Gods. Army lists would need to adjust and take less melta and more plasma. There is still plenty of ap 2 weapons in the game to threaten terminators.

With power weapons ap 3, then standard terminators get a boost and become threats to armor and enemy terminators. GK terminators can still get thunder hammers which will be ap 2. Terminators will be threats to terminators and regular guys with boosted power weapons won't be the terminator killers they are today.


As for thie armor 14 giving a structure point, I like that to. IG lists have become armor 12 spam lists because the meltagun makes almost no distinction between armor 12 and armor 14. Now armor 14 becomes more of a threat and a viable choice. Not over the top ( battle cannons were never over the top).

I would like to see the rule read that each facing of armor 14 grants a structure point. So leman Russ's and battle wagons get 1 structure point and land raiders and monoliths get 3 structure points. This makes those big vehicles a threat. If they get 1 structure point, a melta vet squad can still take the vehicle out in one volley. With 3 structure points they can't.

Davylove21 wrote:

Altruizine wrote:
I know another thing that often accompanies smoke; confirmation bias.

Confirmation bias, confirmation bias everywhere

And not a drop to drink!

Nitros14 wrote:Fantasy was dead around here in 7th, 8th brought it to life. Who knows obviously your experiences are very different. I certainly enjoy fantasy a lot more than 40k right now.

Rumours about commercial sales are just that. I'm sure people who hate 8th are all too willing to believe it's a commercial failure based on rumours.

Well, in opposition to this, 40k is not dead in 5th, but it could become dead in 6th.

Really quite interesting, this whole C&C weapons having AP is actually logical i can see a list being like:
enter ramdom guys fist AP-
close combat weapon: AP 6
choppa, claws and teeth (tyranids) chain swords AP 5
khrone axe, big choppa AP 4
power weapons AP 3
power fist/thunderhammers , rending AP 2
chain fists AP 1
with ignore armour saves probably being around AP 2 but if they are careless (it is GW =P ) they'll be AP 1 or every one will get the own status.

I do hope if these rumors are true, that the 30in range on tau pulse rifles gets alloted into the rapid fire business. That would make Firewarriors pretty nasty-though not as nasty as another person mentioned Ksons to be....

Mezmaron wrote:
Power weapons are ap3 but give a 5++ parry save in combat.
Preferred enemy gives re-rolls to hit with shooting and in combat, but not the re-rolling of 1s to wound.
[/i]

Um. No. Eff you, GW. All this does is buff all GK armies save the henchman spam ones, and make Draigowing an abomination unto the lord. The Nemesis swords already add +1 to the I save of a model with a save. So all PAGK now have a 4++ in CC.

And what does this do for my Wyches, eh? Oh yeah. Nothing. Worse than nothing. It screws them.

And now Tau get to take a 50pt army upgrade that they can, in total fluff rape not seen since Draigo, intentionally try to get it killed to twinlink their army. Not to mention they get no extra use from their longer range weapons than anyone else, but hey! At least Crisis Suits get a buff making them even MORE of a must include choice than they already were. 3 TL plasma shots at 24 inches once the Etherial dies? Great!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

timetowaste85 wrote:And I say good riddance to those people-I love 8th. Hate it if you want, I think it's far superior to 7th. Randal from Clerks said it best: "You won't be missed."

Maybe not to you, but they are to me. Fantasy is dead here. It doesn't matter if I love 8th or not. No one else is playing it, so I don't get to play.

Nagashek wrote:Um. No. Eff you, GW. All this does is buff all GK armies save the henchman spam ones, and make Draigowing an abomination unto the lord. The Nemesis swords already add +1 to the I save of a model with a save. So all PAGK now have a 4++ in CC.

And what does this do for my Wyches, eh? Oh yeah. Nothing. Worse than nothing. It screws them.

And now Tau get to take a 50pt army upgrade that they can, in total fluff rape not seen since Draigo, intentionally try to get it killed to twinlink their army. Not to mention they get no extra use from their longer range weapons than anyone else, but hey! At least Crisis Suits get a buff making them even MORE of a must include choice than they already were. 3 TL plasma shots at 24 inches once the Etherial dies? Great!

Of course if the rumor about errata coming out with the book is true then nemesis weapons might get changed to not necessarily be power weapons. Who knows. Same with the Ethereal piñata.

Also the thing about rapid fire could very well have been just lazy and the rule might say that they fire twice at full range, rather than 24". A lot of people forget about pulse rifles, Tau isn't exactly the most common army these days.

Nagashek wrote:Maybe not to you, but they are to me. Fantasy is dead here. It doesn't matter if I love 8th or not. No one else is playing it, so I don't get to play.

Everybody in my club is playing fantasy right now, it took me 3 weeks to get a game of 40k recently because everyone is bored with 5th but loves 8th. 6th can't come quick enough for me.

The parry save for power weapons is right out of the "pancake" rules. I'm sure it's safe to assume that it only applies to basic power weapons. those without any special rules. So Nemesis Force Weapons will not provide a 5++. Actually many of these rumours seem like they are from the "pancake" rules (or slightly changed), so maybe more was kept from that than we were led to believe.

airmang wrote:The parry save for power weapons is right out of the "pancake" rules. I'm sure it's safe to assume that it only applies to basic power weapons. those without any special rules. So Nemesis Force Weapons will not provide a 5++. Actually many of these rumours seem like they are from the "pancake" rules (or slightly changed), so maybe more was kept from that than we were led to believe.

Or maybe (*gets out tinfoil*) certain sites repost believable rules in order to milk the opportunity for website hits before 6th ed hits?

airmang wrote:The parry save for power weapons is right out of the "pancake" rules. I'm sure it's safe to assume that it only applies to basic power weapons. those without any special rules. So Nemesis Force Weapons will not provide a 5++. Actually many of these rumours seem like they are from the "pancake" rules (or slightly changed), so maybe more was kept from that than we were led to believe.

That or we're getting trolled/rumor reverb from the old pancake rumors. If the core things from pancake actually are in 6th I'll be a happy guy.

airmang wrote:The parry save for power weapons is right out of the "pancake" rules. I'm sure it's safe to assume that it only applies to basic power weapons. those without any special rules. So Nemesis Force Weapons will not provide a 5++. Actually many of these rumours seem like they are from the "pancake" rules (or slightly changed), so maybe more was kept from that than we were led to believe.

Or this entire mess is merely culled from pancake and that is it. Whomever is issuing these "fresh" rumors may not have gotten the memo. I put no stock in these, I'll wait until the actual release. If it's as bad as this, great, I saved $100. If it's good, well great. I can keep playing. Even with these changes I could still be optimistic enough to believe that GW fixed things elsewhere that make these changes balanced. Certain rules, when taken in a vacuum are just horrible. When you see what else was done, you begin to understand why.

The truth is, GW is trying to control information, but they are not doing it. Silence is not control. In the absence of news, people create news. Others listen and may believe. If those rumors spread, GW has lost control of their message. If they remain silent, nothing stops the rumors, and people get angry, fed up, and leave. Only by releasing information can they control it.

im sad to say i dont like any of the rumours so far.. well apart from the AV14 one, but thats cos im that guy who rocks 3 LR all the time -_- lol

I know this doesn't have much to do with the actual rules of 6E but the question is on my mind, are there any rumblings of special edition accessories to go along with the new edition and 25th anniversary of 40k?

Dice, Templates, etc? I know we got the finecast model but heres to hoping for more goodies right?

Rapid Fire: double tap up to 24” if stationary. 1 shot at 24" or 2 shots at 12" if moving. Relentless gives and extra shot at each range if stationary as well as the standard bonus.

Power weapons are ap3 but give a 5++ parry save in combat.

These simply cannot be true.
Buffing bolters this much basically means stormbolters are useless, why ever take a stormbolter?
They better damn give stormbolters an appropriate buff to still make them worth taking and paying points for over rapid fire weapons.

Also what weapons get that relentless extra shot, rapid fire only or will stormbolters on relentless minis also get an extra shot?

Power weapon ap3 is even worse, this is the death to all non-fist terminators.
How can a non fist terminator army (typical GK or normal LC termies, wolfguard with power weapons, claws etc) stand up to say a deathwing all fist or normal fist/hammer heavy army?
One version of terminator eat other termies for breakfast while the other version can do nothing in return.

Pyriel- wrote:

Rapid Fire: double tap up to 24” if stationary. 1 shot at 24" or 2 shots at 12" if moving. Relentless gives and extra shot at each range if stationary as well as the standard bonus.

Power weapons are ap3 but give a 5++ parry save in combat.

These simply cannot be true.
Buffing bolters this much basically means stormbolters are useless, why ever take a stormbolter?
They better damn give stormbolters an appropriate buff to still make them worth taking and paying points for over rapid fire weapons.

Also what weapons get that relentless extra shot, rapid fire only or will stormbolters on relentless minis also get an extra shot?

Presumably, the incentives to take storm bolters would be moving and still firing twice at 24" and being able to charge after you fire.

The Rapid fire rules have me skeptical: combi-bolters have always(?) been better at short range, but this would make them just better.

I'm fine with the PF vs. PW distinction: it encourages a mix-- PFs would be necessary to deal with other 2+s, but PWs give you the speed to not always strike last. I think all terminator variants have a power fist (or equivalent) option?

Pyriel- wrote:

Rapid Fire: double tap up to 24” if stationary. 1 shot at 24" or 2 shots at 12" if moving. Relentless gives and extra shot at each range if stationary as well as the standard bonus.

Power weapons are ap3 but give a 5++ parry save in combat.

These simply cannot be true.
Buffing bolters this much basically means stormbolters are useless, why ever take a stormbolter?
They better damn give stormbolters an appropriate buff to still make them worth taking and paying points for over rapid fire weapons.

Also what weapons get that relentless extra shot, rapid fire only or will stormbolters on relentless minis also get an extra shot?

Power weapon ap3 is even worse, this is the death to all non-fist terminators.
How can a non fist terminator army (typical GK or normal LC termies, wolfguard with power weapons, claws etc) stand up to say a deathwing all fist or normal fist/hammer heavy army?
One version of terminator eat other termies for breakfast while the other version can do nothing in return.

Storm Bolters allow you to charge afterwards, AND are all S5. I mean, GK are the only ones that count, right? In seriousness, who can take SB that actually get them as an upgrade as opposed to standard? Termies have alot going for them apart from SB, in fact I'd say that's only a small fraction of their overall damage output and factors almost nothing into their cost. PAGK get SB standard, and even the buff of RF weapons wouldn't affect them much, if at all. They are still S5 shots, they can still assault afterwards, still get psychic powers, and access to S7 rending weapons. I don't think ayone is concerned about the pintle mounted SBs on Rhinos...

Really what this does is give an amusing boost to Chaos termies (if true) as they've always been lacking in their non-heavy weapon firepower.

It also (naturally) gives a lovely boost to anyone fielding Plasma (and hmm, a BRB boost to plasma right before releasing Dark Angels...?) As observed, TH/SS termies gain a boost in CC but are barely affected by this increase as you can really only hurt them with AP2 weapons outside of CC, and they have a 3++, but all other termies die at a much higher rate.

Nagashek wrote:In seriousness, who can take SB that actually get them as an upgrade as opposed to standard?

Sternguard but taking them means you can't use their fancy ammo rules so it's a terrible idea even with Rapid Fire being as it is right now.

Hull points don’t work as rumored: they are only for front armor 14 vehicles and work like a structure point or a “wound” which can be used to negate any result, even wrecked or explodes. not sure if this is a once per game thing, i suspect so. but no more one shotting land raiders and monoliths with meltaguns

Makes large vehicles more survivable, and also would seem to fit with the "Heavy" vehicle type from the Necron book


Pens give +1 to all subsequent damage rolls in that shooting phase, so essentially after a pen all weapons shooting a vehicle become AP1.

Not sure about this one, but it does make some sense. Only question is how it handles multiple pen hits at the same time.

Rapid Fire: double tap up to 24” if stationary. 1 shot at 24" or 2 shots at 12" if moving. Relentless gives and extra shot at each range if stationary as well as the standard bonus.

Adds a lot of mobility to troops, and helps units like Tac squads, Fire warriors, IG Squads, and plasma weapons.

Power weapons are ap3 but give a 5++ parry save in combat.

Fair trade, and fluffy. Parry save is invul I assume? would it stack with existing Invul saves like Nemesis Power Swords?

Stunned results stack to weapon destroyed, extra armor negates 1 stun per turn, not sure on shaken.

Makes sense.

Strength vs Toughness chart changed to be like fantasy, so everything can be wounded on a 6.

I hope the To Hit in CC chart is redone as well to allow for 2+ and 6+ results. Make it follow the SvT to wound chart and it makes it even easier to learn and play, rather than 2 different charts.

There's going to be a bunch of FAQ/erratas when it drops for all codices.

Obvious

Vehicles being hit in combat auto if stationary, 3+ is going 6", 5+ if going 12", 6+ if going flat out.[i]

I like this. Makes range bands matter a bit more. Hoping fliers work with 12" range bands instead of 6" then odd flat out speeds.

[i]Vehicles going flat out can only be hit on a max of 4+ with shooting, fliers hit on 6+.

Fast vehicles harder to hit? Genius!

Damage results stack so shaken -> stun -> weapon -> immob -> wreck

Makes sense. I would love to see a 0 or less -> no result on the damage chart though.

Preferred enemy gives re-rolls to hit with shooting and in combat, but not the re-rolling of 1s to wound.

This buffs PE. I would like to see them bring back more of the targeted PE though, rather than global.

I like most if not all of these rules. I hope all of these, as well as the idea that vehicles can fire all weapons when moving combat speed, or one weapon at cruising speed are true.

Grimtuff wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:I really don't like the look of these rumours. Far too much bookkeeping on vehicles. Maybe they are trying to swing it back to Infantryhammer?

The only real bookkeepy thing would be the pen hit bumps damage rolls. As for the rest, it makes plenty of sense to me. If a tank is shaken and takes another shaken result, it bumps to stunned instead. If a tank has a stunned result, and takes another stunned, it bumps to weapon destroyed. A tank can keep losing weapons til it runs out, then it bumps to immobilized. If a tank is immobilized and takes a second immobilized result, it bumps to wrecked. I imagine shaken and stunned results go away as now.

People already keep track of damage done to vehicles, with markers or dice. It's a logical system that works rather simply. I do hope for a 0 or less no damage result though. And maybe a 7+ annihilated result, where any passengers all take an auto wound and are autopinned.

Ahhhh nerd rage about rumours. Really speaks about the character of the person complaining/whining/sulking/crying.

Why not just wait till the actual 6th edition book comes out before nerdraging?

I'm seeing a multitude of reactions here. Among them, though, there's no rage. That would require a level of RAAGH! and unreasoning hyperbole that's not really in evidence here. Nobody's spamming exclamation points or posting in call caps. I don't see anyone whining, either.

Davor wrote:Ahhhh nerd rage about rumours. Really speaks about the character of the person complaining/whining/sulking/crying.

Why not just wait till the actual 6th edition book comes out before nerdraging?

Sorry, but it's not unreasonable to express discontent about the possibility of something happening. Happens in politics all the time

The new rumors seem like total bogus to me. Necrons would be rocking everyone's vehicles left and right - spam Warriors and glance everything to death in seconds.

Infantry? Here we go Wraiths.

I'm nerdraving about these rumors! I like them and hope to see these incorporated into 6th edition.

ShumaGorath wrote:

terranarc wrote:Something about that just feels so off.

A lot of that is literally ripped from pancake edition and the vehicles rumors make no sense.
So let me get this straight, if I stun you twice, a weapon pops off? If I penetrate you once with an autocannon, all other missiles and bolters being fired from the opposite side of the vehicle magically find its way into the hole I made previously? Haha
FFS, these are the worst wishlist/fake rumors I've ever read.

Still thanks for passin it along Mez.

Makes about as much sense as shaking or stunning a tank in the first place. When an armored vehicle takes a hit that does nothing to it the people inside don't hide under their chairs and wait for the noise to go away.

The hit that does nothing is the one that did not glance or pen.

I am very excited about the possibility of these things - just a few of these minor changes give some of the older armies a boost as well....a stationary crisis suit now gets three plasma shots? Yes please.

Firewarriors get two shots at 30" if they dont move? (hoping they will faq their RF range is 30").

Now, if kroot get assault for their guns....those changes alone would make tau competitive again.

Presumably, the incentives to take storm bolters would be moving and still firing twice at 24" and being able to charge after you fire.

Sob?
I see far to little stormbolters (outside GK) as it is and not buffign rapid fire weapons relative to the stormbolter will see even less variation.

Ahhhh nerd rage about rumours. Really speaks about the character of the person complaining/whining/sulking/crying.

Why not just wait till the actual 6th edition book comes out before nerdraging?

Complaining and sulking? Might as well be passion but I guess thinking a step further that whining was to much to ask.
Besides, raging at nerd ragers...what does that tell about your own character?

Pyriel- wrote:

Presumably, the incentives to take storm bolters would be moving and still firing twice at 24" and being able to charge after you fire.

SOB?
I see far too little stormbolters (outside GK) as it is and not buffing rapid fire weapons relative to the stormbolter will see even less variation.

GK henchmen and some IG models also get options for stormbolters. I think they are worth the points so what limits me is a lack of available stormbolters for the model conversions. It's that limitation, not the rules, that prevents more people from using them IMO.

EDIT: Looks like current edition IG have lost any options for stormbolters except for Yarrick and vehicle weapons.

MajorWesJanson wrote:

The only real bookkeepy thing would be the pen hit bumps damage rolls. As for the rest, it makes plenty of sense to me. If a tank is shaken and takes another shaken result, it bumps to stunned instead. If a tank has a stunned result, and takes another stunned, it bumps to weapon destroyed. A tank can keep losing weapons til it runs out, then it bumps to immobilized. If a tank is immobilized and takes a second immobilized result, it bumps to wrecked. I imagine shaken and stunned results go away as now.

People already keep track of damage done to vehicles, with markers or dice. It's a logical system that works rather simply. I do hope for a 0 or less no damage result though. And maybe a 7+ annihilated result, where any passengers all take an auto wound and are autopinned.

Actually, the bigger chore would be marking exactly how far each vehicle moved during its turn. If you wanted to use proper markers to track it you'd need at least three different kinds for this task alone (assuming a stationary vehicle is marked by receiving no marker).

Altruizine wrote:[Actually, the bigger chore would be marking exactly how far each vehicle moved during its turn. If you wanted to use proper markers to track it you'd need at least three different kinds for this task alone (assuming a stationary vehicle is marked by receiving no marker).

Isn't that just like now?

The great thing is I still have that "leaked PDF", and if the rules show to be a pain in the ass, i will have where to run...

But seriously: to much lucky breakes strategy in any game... Rolled distances for assault, and roled psychic powers seens to be game breakers, as anyone could ever relly on those things anymore...

6th is coming, im waiting for it, and if it come in a way I dont like, them i will use 5th, until the 7th shows up

Pyriel- wrote:Sob?
I see far to little stormbolters (outside GK) as it is and not buffign rapid fire weapons relative to the stormbolter will see even less variation.

I have no idea how much they cost in the current SoB list but I know with Space Marines it's a codex problem rather than a problem with the main rules. A stormbolter would be superior to a regular bolter under the rumors we've seen, just not by a whole lot so they shouldn't be a very expensive upgrade. I'd like to see more stormbolters too but that's an issue for future codexes rather than the main rulebook.

Pyriel- wrote:

Rapid Fire: double tap up to 24” if stationary. 1 shot at 24" or 2 shots at 12" if moving. Relentless gives and extra shot at each range if stationary as well as the standard bonus.

Power weapons are ap3 but give a 5++ parry save in combat.

These simply cannot be true.
Buffing bolters this much basically means stormbolters are useless, why ever take a stormbolter?
They better damn give stormbolters an appropriate buff to still make them worth taking and paying points for over rapid fire weapons.

Also what weapons get that relentless extra shot, rapid fire only or will stormbolters on relentless minis also get an extra shot?

Power weapon ap3 is even worse, this is the death to all non-fist terminators.
How can a non fist terminator army (typical GK or normal LC termies, wolfguard with power weapons, claws etc) stand up to say a deathwing all fist or normal fist/hammer heavy army?
One version of terminator eat other termies for breakfast while the other version can do nothing in return.

As a DW player my heart bleeds tiny little tears of pure pain for SW and GK ooooo its terrible such a misery that the 2 most OP armies in 40k my get a nerf while one of the worst (for beginers) may get a huge buff... awww the Huge manities.... waill and tug at yer hair... sarcasm off lol

But on topic... this is all gonna be false anyway..no rumour is true untill the book is out... lol

Nagashek wrote:

Pyriel- wrote:

Rapid Fire: double tap up to 24” if stationary. 1 shot at 24" or 2 shots at 12" if moving. Relentless gives and extra shot at each range if stationary as well as the standard bonus.

Power weapons are ap3 but give a 5++ parry save in combat.

These simply cannot be true.
Buffing bolters this much basically means stormbolters are useless, why ever take a stormbolter?
They better damn give stormbolters an appropriate buff to still make them worth taking and paying points for over rapid fire weapons.

Storm Bolters allow you to charge afterwards...

Not to mention that there are other armies than SM that use rapid fire weapons. Not everyone cares about your stormbolters.

The rapid fire rules don't make sense for Hot Shot Lasguns though I'm willing to accept a 24" range for them in 6th edition.

erikwfg wrote:

Altruizine wrote:[Actually, the bigger chore would be marking exactly how far each vehicle moved during its turn. If you wanted to use proper markers to track it you'd need at least three different kinds for this task alone (assuming a stationary vehicle is marked by receiving no marker).

Isn't that just like now?

lol, owned.

If I'm reading this right...

"Power weapons are ap3 but give a 5++ parry save in combat. "

Grey Knight Nemisis Force Swords add +1 to any save, therefore all Strikes will now have 4++ in close combat...

WHAAA?!

Was noted already, but discussed whether they would actually get this new bonus seeing as they aren't power weapons, they just "counts as".

JB wrote:

Pyriel- wrote:

Presumably, the incentives to take storm bolters would be moving and still firing twice at 24" and being able to charge after you fire.

SOB?
I see far too little stormbolters (outside GK) as it is and not buffing rapid fire weapons relative to the stormbolter will see even less variation.

GK henchmen and some IG models also get options for stormbolters. I think they are worth the points so what limits me is a lack of available stormbolters for the model conversions. It's that limitation, not the rules, that prevents more people from using them IMO.

EDIT: Looks like current edition IG have lost any options for stormbolters except for Yarrick and vehicle weapons.

I use them on my SM command squad, power weapon/fist/ hammer, storm shield, & storm bolter.

I for one like the "rumors" here so far.

However, I also realize a lot of implications for them (listed as a lot of concerns in earlier posts). I am not going to worry about any of those concerns at this point, as we are only seeing a VERY small part of the picture.

While I WONT say "well, if we see that issue, certainly GW did and addressed it" as well, we know that is NOT sound logic.

However, considering there is an entire book of stuff, and new FAQs etc...I am not going to get too excited about any of this.

I will be pre-ordering my book as soon as I can...and hoping that overall things will be better. As I play nids and tau, I would say they can't get worse....but you never know.

davethepak wrote:I for one like the "rumors" here so far.

However, I also realize a lot of implications for them (listed as a lot of concerns in earlier posts). I am not going to worry about any of those concerns at this point, as we are only seeing a VERY small part of the picture.

While I WONT say "well, if we see that issue, certainly GW did and addressed it" as well, we know that is NOT sound logic.

However, considering there is an entire book of stuff, and new FAQs etc...I am not going to get too excited about any of this.

I will be pre-ordering my book as soon as I can...and hoping that overall things will be better. As I play nids and tau, I would say they can't get worse....but you never know.

As a long standing DA player i hear you bro, but even i think Nids need a buff and so do soooo badly too, i would even happily wait for my green marine dex to see a new Tau one

Praxiss wrote:If power weapons are now AP3 wouldn't give Terminators (and other 2+ save models) a HUGE boost as they would now have a 2+ save against all attacks in CC?

Seems a little harsh to me.

I always felt like 2+ armour saves were pretty meaningless, yeah it is nice if you are getting shot at by bolters and stuff, but there are so many high AP weapons that stuff like storm shields are a must if you actually want survivability.

Not to mention that there are other armies than SM that use rapid fire weapons. Not everyone cares about your stormbolters.

Really, there are...?
Same can be said back, not everyone cares about your opinion.

Thing is these rumors dont make sense from a logic point of view, there has to be stuff missing. It is never a good idea to throw in really big game changers into a somewhat balanced set of variables, the result...well just take a look at what happens every time relic tries that when balancing their games, lol.

Sometimes, I really love DakkaDakka

d-usa wrote:Sometimes, I really love DakkaDakka

And I now want to send my dinner back. That image made me really not hungry. Ugh. Welp, can't wait for the 30th so I can get my 6th edition.

d-usa wrote:Sometimes, I really love DakkaDakka

Lolz

That said, I'm sure hammers, pf's, scythes, etc. Will be ap2. Probably just normal pws won't be

Yea, by power weapon, I think he means power sword/axe/halberd. The fist will be stronger and the hammer and the chain fist will be better again. Anyway, I thought this had already been accepted.

The question that I´m curious about is what weapons (if) will be subjected to the relentless getting +1 shot.

If power weapons are AP3 and power fists AP1, I would question what other major buffs (detriments) sgt. related equipment might hold (singling out hidden fists for example). It's not like we see Sgts. running around with power weapons right now--and reducing the AP to 3, regardless of a 5++ will certainly not increase the frequency of them being taken.

Pyriel- wrote:

Not to mention that there are other armies than SM that use rapid fire weapons. Not everyone cares about your stormbolters.

Really, there are...?
Same can be said back, not everyone cares about your opinion.

Thing is these rumors dont make sense from a logic point of view, there has to be stuff missing. It is never a good idea to throw in really big game changers into a somewhat balanced set of variables, the result...well just take a look at what happens every time relic tries that when balancing their games, lol.

Theres nothing missing. Infantry based rapid fire weapons are useless. They have been useless since halfway through third edition. No one takes a unit because the bolter is a worthwhile weapon, it was difficult to convince people to even take fire warriors and they're the best that infantry based firepower has ever had. Storm bolters are a fringe weapon that themselves have never been particularly good, to refuse an obvioius and much needed buff to basic infantry to protect the sanctity of a gun that was both rare and unliked anyway is silly.

To pretend that 40k is "somewhat balanced" or that it's portrayal of warfare couldn't do with some tweaking is disingenuous. As a simulator of the logical flow of warfare 40k isn't great.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Pyriel- wrote:

Not to mention that there are other armies than SM that use rapid fire weapons. Not everyone cares about your stormbolters.

Really, there are...?
Same can be said back, not everyone cares about your opinion.

Thing is these rumors dont make sense from a logic point of view, there has to be stuff missing. It is never a good idea to throw in really big game changers into a somewhat balanced set of variables, the result...well just take a look at what happens every time relic tries that when balancing their games, lol.

Theres nothing missing. Infantry based rapid fire weapons are useless. They have been useless since halfway through third edition. No one takes a unit because the bolter is a worthwhile weapon, it was difficult to convince people to even take fire warriors and they're the best that infantry based firepower has ever had. Storm bolters are a fringe weapon that themselves have never been particularly good, to refuse an obvioius and much needed buff to basic infantry to protect the sanctity of a gun that was both rare and unliked anyway is silly.

To pretend that 40k is "somewhat balanced" or that it's portrayal of warfare couldn't do with some tweaking is disingenuous. As a simulator of the logical flow of warfare 40k isn't great.

Yeah we really need to iron out those pesky illogical stunned and shaken rules so my suspension of disbelief can be settled and I can focus on the more rationally palatable aspects of the game like long range weapon touting bio-morphing space traveling insects, human souls being bound to mechanized bodies, magical psychic powers, space elves and orcs, Gods manifesting themselves out of hedonistic tendencies... you know the logical meat and potatoes of my plastic toy soldier's imaginary universe.

The vehicle rules sound promising, assuming that they do something to address the horrible glancing hit rules in 5th Edition. Specifically, Glancing Hits should not guarantee a Stun result.

ShadarLogoth wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Pyriel- wrote:

Not to mention that there are other armies than SM that use rapid fire weapons. Not everyone cares about your stormbolters.

Really, there are...?
Same can be said back, not everyone cares about your opinion.

Thing is these rumors dont make sense from a logic point of view, there has to be stuff missing. It is never a good idea to throw in really big game changers into a somewhat balanced set of variables, the result...well just take a look at what happens every time relic tries that when balancing their games, lol.

Theres nothing missing. Infantry based rapid fire weapons are useless. They have been useless since halfway through third edition. No one takes a unit because the bolter is a worthwhile weapon, it was difficult to convince people to even take fire warriors and they're the best that infantry based firepower has ever had. Storm bolters are a fringe weapon that themselves have never been particularly good, to refuse an obvioius and much needed buff to basic infantry to protect the sanctity of a gun that was both rare and unliked anyway is silly.

To pretend that 40k is "somewhat balanced" or that it's portrayal of warfare couldn't do with some tweaking is disingenuous. As a simulator of the logical flow of warfare 40k isn't great.

Yeah we really need to iron out those pesky illogical stunned and shaken rules so my suspension of disbelief can be settled and I can focus on the more rationally palatable aspects of the game like long range weapon touting bio-morphing space traveling insects, human souls being bound to mechanized bodies, magical psychic powers, space elves and orcs, Gods manifesting themselves out of hedonistic tendencies... you know the logical meat and potatoes of my plastic toy soldier's imaginary universe.

Regardless of the silliness of the setting the game is an abstraction of modern post industrial warfare. It's basically just world war two with giant samurai in it. A big point of that warfare is small arms firefights and those haven't been particularly meaningful in 40k for a decade. Almost every unit that can fire a rapid fire gun is better off using it as a club instead. Portions of the game that don't work in a logical or "realistic" way and aren't in some other way good detract from the game. Some of them are required (igougo), and some are part of the fluff and fun (close combats), but some things are neither fluffy nor logical. Some things are just remnants of poor game design in the past and should/need to be revised.

Personally I don't think it is bad game design though, it allows a sub-dual intermediate damage spectrum for tanks without being overly complicated. It also allows for dynamic distinction between vehicles, MCs, and troops. Vehicles being easy to silence but hard to kill is fundamental to the core game mechanics, and I think you'll be waiting a long, long time if you ever expect that distinction to completely go away.

Also, to what end? What are you going to replace it with, an all or nothing damage table? Are we going to simultaneously reduce the cost of every single vehicle in the most recent two codices as they pay a premium to ignore glance results that you wish to be expelled from the game?

davethepak wrote:I for one like the "rumors" here so far.

However, I also realize a lot of implications for them (listed as a lot of concerns in earlier posts). I am not going to worry about any of those concerns at this point, as we are only seeing a VERY small part of the picture.

While I WONT say "well, if we see that issue, certainly GW did and addressed it" as well, we know that is NOT sound logic.

However, considering there is an entire book of stuff, and new FAQs etc...I am not going to get too excited about any of this.

I will be pre-ordering my book as soon as I can...and hoping that overall things will be better. As I play nids and tau, I would say they can't get worse....but you never know.

As a budding nids player I agree with you here. I dont remember the glory days that nids enjoyed as I started (and quit) 40k in 5th.

Seems to me an easy way to reduce a lot of their woes that I've noticed in my short affair with them would be making the T4 bugs less prone to being wiped out by a single salvo from Longfangs. Either add Eternal Warrior to monstrous creatures or make some rule that to ID a monstrous creature you add +1 to their toughness when calculating or subtract 1 or something. Seriously.. Space Wolves seem like they were created solely for the purpose of elimating T4 3+ bugs. =(

Grimtuff wrote:I say again. What marketing? GW views the Internet crowd as a vocal minority, we are not their main demographic. The big spenders are the little Timmys with a core game buy then one or two big splurges at a birthday and/or Christmas. Esp. in this economic climate imagine all of the parents that are only being given a week's notice for something that is pretty much a compulsary update for mummy's little darlings fave game. I know I don't have £45 or thereabouts lying around.

Who says how GW views the internet crowd? The current black out on info only makes sense if GW views the internet crowd as either A. A large part of the demographic or B. able to influence a large part of their demographic. GW seems to view the internet crowd as singularly powerful - able to create product sales through rumors and curiosity and destroy product sales through negative criticism. In that light, their non-advertising makes sense. In any other light, it does not.

ShadarLogoth wrote:Personally I don't think it is bad game design though, it allows a sub-dual intermediate damage spectrum for tanks without being overly complicated. It also allows for dynamic distinction between vehicles, MCs, and troops. Vehicles being easy to silence but hard to kill is fundamental to the core game mechanics, and I think you'll be waiting a long, long time if you ever expect that distinction to completely go away.

Also, to what end? What are you going to replace it with, an all or nothing damage table? Are we going to simultaneously reduce the cost of every single vehicle in the most recent two codices as they pay a premium to ignore glance results that you wish to be expelled from the game?

If this is directed at me, I counter by pointing out that I never said that I wanted an all or nothing system, nor do I want Stunned results to go away (though in their current incarnation they're a bit ridiculous), I just don't believe that a Glancing Hit should have a guaranteed effect. In the current system you roll D6 and subtract two from the result. It would be pretty simple to change it so that results that have a modified score of less than a 1 have no effect, and truly glance off of the armor.

SkaerKrow wrote:

ShadarLogoth wrote:Personally I don't think it is bad game design though, it allows a sub-dual intermediate damage spectrum for tanks without being overly complicated. It also allows for dynamic distinction between vehicles, MCs, and troops. Vehicles being easy to silence but hard to kill is fundamental to the core game mechanics, and I think you'll be waiting a long, long time if you ever expect that distinction to completely go away.

Also, to what end? What are you going to replace it with, an all or nothing damage table? Are we going to simultaneously reduce the cost of every single vehicle in the most recent two codices as they pay a premium to ignore glance results that you wish to be expelled from the game?

If this is directed at me, I counter by pointing out that I never said that I wanted an all or nothing system, nor do I want Stunned results to go away (though in their current incarnation they're a bit ridiculous), I just don't believe that a Glancing Hit should have a guaranteed effect. In the current system you roll D6 and subtract two from the result. It would be pretty simple to change it so that results that have a modified score of less than a 1 have no effect, and truly glance off of the armor.

That doesn't sound like a bad system (and would go a long way in re-balancing everyone else with the extremely cheap Fortitude), and no I was really referring to ShumaGorath's desire to see shaken and stunned completely removed from the game.

Hollowman wrote:

Grimtuff wrote:I say again. What marketing? GW views the Internet crowd as a vocal minority, we are not their main demographic. The big spenders are the little Timmys with a core game buy then one or two big splurges at a birthday and/or Christmas. Esp. in this economic climate imagine all of the parents that are only being given a week's notice for something that is pretty much a compulsary update for mummy's little darlings fave game. I know I don't have £45 or thereabouts lying around.

Who says how GW views the internet crowd? The current black out on info only makes sense if GW views the internet crowd as either A. A large part of the demographic or B. able to influence a large part of their demographic. GW seems to view the internet crowd as singularly powerful - able to create product sales through rumors and curiosity and destroy product sales through negative criticism. In that light, their non-advertising makes sense. In any other light, it does not.

This is all assuming they are a rational actor, of course, and not the corporate equivalent of a 4chan user going HERP DERP DERP in a pile of rancil mayonnaise, whom they sometimes seem to do an uncanny impression of.

Hollowman wrote:

Grimtuff wrote:I say again. What marketing? GW views the Internet crowd as a vocal minority, we are not their main demographic. The big spenders are the little Timmys with a core game buy then one or two big splurges at a birthday and/or Christmas. Esp. in this economic climate imagine all of the parents that are only being given a week's notice for something that is pretty much a compulsary update for mummy's little darlings fave game. I know I don't have £45 or thereabouts lying around.

Who says how GW views the internet crowd? The current black out on info only makes sense if GW views the internet crowd as either A. A large part of the demographic or B. able to influence a large part of their demographic. GW seems to view the internet crowd as singularly powerful - able to create product sales through rumors and curiosity and destroy product sales through negative criticism. In that light, their non-advertising makes sense. In any other light, it does not.

Very well said. Anyone that says a multi-national multi-million dollar company like GW ignores the internet and power gaming community is simply not taking the time to think about it rationally. They are quite aware how negative perception shouted from the rooftops of a vocal minority can cause huge chunks of plastic to hang from the shelves in perpetuity.

I don't think GW ignores the Internet anymore. I just think they hate all of us. I know my local GW manager has always done his best to disparage and belittle all GW hobby forums and people who post on them. Either he's a massive tool by choice, or it's some kind of party spiel he's been ordered to push.

Agamemnon2 wrote:I don't think GW ignores the Internet anymore. I just think they hate all of us. I know my local GW manager has always done his best to disparage and belittle all GW hobby forums and people who post on them. Either he's a massive tool by choice, or it's some kind of party spiel he's been ordered to push.

Well, I don't if I would call it hate, however if you worked for GW and everywhere you turned you had people spewing vitriol at the company just because they can't figure out how to win games with their plastic toy soldiers...how would you feel?

I remember having a similar discussion with a blackshirt. Great guy, non judgmental, however he said he simply stopped visiting forums because he got sick of being shouted down by the vocal minority for having the audacity to disagree with their assessment of random unit A.

GW deserves a fair bit of criticism, but just look at the knee jerk reactions and negative perceptions on this very thread. Extreme amounts of hyperbole gets thrown around by some, largely grounded in baseless assumptions about ineptitude that couldn't possibly co-exist with a company as successful as GW. The difficulty level they present themselves with having a massive amount of armies with a massive amount of options is that some options aren't go to work with some strategies as well as others, and ultimately some options are simply going to fall out of favor whenever a paradigm shift is made with a new codex/edition . However, instead of looking into themselves, or just realizing you can't always win a game with dice, people rage on the company, as if winning was some how a part of the contract when you bought your models.

Not that I can't empathize with this mentality. I tried long and hard to get my old Pariahs to work only to see them get less and less competitive with each successive edition. However, I feel in general GW has made huge strides in creating a more balanced and dynamic game since I started playing 12 years ago.

Tough noogies. Negative customer feedback is a given for every industry. Do you think video game programmers have it any easier from their fans? Hell no, they get death threats and inarticulate shrieks of fury whenever a patch is delayed or a game's ending does not please the million. The same for MTG's rules developers and artists, countless popular novelists or TV and movie directors, actors and writers

People hating you is the cost of doing business. Lashing out at them or treating them with contempt in return, though, that's just plain oafish.

Did you just condone death threats by pissed off video gamers and censure GW for being defensive in the same post?

So its ok for fans to have ridiculously irrational reactions and beat there chest into an insane frenzy...but if a company chooses to take this insane frenzy with a rational grain of salt they are evil?

What a delightful world we live in.

It's "Welcome to the Internet" I guess. In a place where you can leave your opinion without without any consequences, there is going to be a lot of hatred. People foreign to the internet communities are simply alienated by that.

What they miss, is that the real life is no different. No one is going to pat a construction worker on the back for just doing his job. If he screws up, he is going to get shouted at.
If GW does their job of providing great miniatures and rules, they even get praised for it - that more than our construction worker can hope for.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ShadarLogoth wrote:So its ok for fans to have ridiculously irrational reactions and beat there chest into an insane frenzy...but if a company chooses to take this insane frenzy with a rational grain of salt they are evil?

Nah, not evil. Just stupid. They want our money, so they have to be nice to get it.

Well, pretty sure they are getting that money either way.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

It's "Welcome to the Internet" I guess. In a place where you can leave your opinion without without any consequences, there is going to be a lot of hatred. People foreign to the internet communities are simply alienated by that.

I agree this is something that is certainly symptomatic of the internet community at large, however that doesn't mean it's right or ideal.

I believe we, especially as a community of generally above average intellects, have a responsibility to strive for more rational discourse, particularly in forums such as this. I guess it depends on you point of view, but do you come hear for the cathartic nature of spewing hate with no desire to learn and get better, or do you come here to share your ideas with like minded and dissenting opinions with the hope of getting better at your craft?

Sorry...

tldr wrote:If I'm reading this right...

"Power weapons are ap3 but give a 5++ parry save in combat. "

Grey Knight Nemisis Force Swords add +1 to any save, therefore all Strikes will now have 4++ in close combat...

WHAAA?!

Please, this is a ridiculous jump of conclusions. Force Weapons are currently treated as power weapons, but if they're going to introduce a statline for all close combat weapons, then I seriously doubt that any weapon will "count as" or be "treated like" a power weapon any more. Force weapons will more likely have their own weapon statline, which in no way indicates that they'll also get the 5++ rule. There's no need to freak out about GK becoming even more powerful.

Of course, I'm making as many assumptions as you, but this solution seems far more likely to actually happen.

Also keep in mind that pancake had this exact change and limited the 5++ save to power weapons without additional abilities.

Mezmaron wrote:Damage results stack so shaken -> stun -> weapon -> immob -> wreck

I'm going to have so many haywire grenades

Buttons wrote:

Praxiss wrote:If power weapons are now AP3 wouldn't give Terminators (and other 2+ save models) a HUGE boost as they would now have a 2+ save against all attacks in CC?

Seems a little harsh to me.

I always felt like 2+ armour saves were pretty meaningless, yeah it is nice if you are getting shot at by bolters and stuff, but there are so many high AP weapons that stuff like storm shields are a must if you actually want survivability.

It's been my experience that it's not a few high-powered weapons that get rid of models with 2+ saves, it's loads of light weapons. You hit a unit of 5 terminators with 30-40 shots from a unit of burna boys or warbikers or lootas and the law of averages says you will kill a couple of them at least. I've lost a unit of 10 meganobs over thee turns to massed IG lasgun fire (Their transport got blown up on turn 2 and they're slow and purposeful...) and those bastards have two wounds!

On the other hand, I've had my Dark Eldar shooting smothered by a blanket of heavy bolters quite effectively. People have to much of a fixation on melta and power fists. Really!

Cheexsta wrote:
Please, this is a ridiculous jump of conclusions. Force Weapons are currently treated as power weapons, but if they're going to introduce a statline for all close combat weapons, then I seriously doubt that any weapon will "count as" or be "treated like" a power weapon any more. Force weapons will more likely have their own weapon statline, which in no way indicates that they'll also get the 5++ rule. There's no need to freak out about GK becoming even more powerful.

Of course, I'm making as many assumptions as you, but this solution seems far more likely to actually happen.

That's also assuming that Parry Saves qualify as Invulnerable saves...

i like the power wepon parry gives you reason to take them

I'd imagine the "can move 6" and fire everything" isn't going to be a blanket rule applied to all vehicles, but that there will be a "Heavy" quality given to some vehicles (like the Leman Russ or the Land Raider) which will enable them to move 6" and fire all weapons. Ravagers and most Flyers (well, the units that will be flyers) already have it, except up to 12" instead.

It has been pointed out before that Leman Russes don't quite have this rule yet, and I'd also like to say that Monoliths pretty much have this rule already (except it restricts them to only moving 6" as well).

warpcrafter wrote:

Buttons wrote:

Praxiss wrote:If power weapons are now AP3 wouldn't give Terminators (and other 2+ save models) a HUGE boost as they would now have a 2+ save against all attacks in CC?

Seems a little harsh to me.

I always felt like 2+ armour saves were pretty meaningless, yeah it is nice if you are getting shot at by bolters and stuff, but there are so many high AP weapons that stuff like storm shields are a must if you actually want survivability.

It's been my experience that it's not a few high-powered weapons that get rid of models with 2+ saves, it's loads of light weapons. You hit a unit of 5 terminators with 30-40 shots from a unit of burna boys or warbikers or lootas and the law of averages says you will kill a couple of them at least. I've lost a unit of 10 meganobs over thee turns to massed IG lasgun fire (Their transport got blown up on turn 2 and they're slow and purposeful...) and those bastards have two wounds!

On the other hand, I've had my Dark Eldar shooting smothered by a blanket of heavy bolters quite effectively. People have to much of a fixation on melta and power fists. Really!

While it's true that power weapons may not be as effective as multiple attacks, this is going to make disintegrator cannons very effective as the main source of anti-terminator. After all, my army relies partially on 2 squads of incubi to go in and kill marines as soon as I've popped all their transports, and this includes termies from the occasional land raider.

Dr. Delorean wrote:I'd imagine the "can move 6" and fire everything" isn't going to be a blanket rule applied to all vehicles, but that there will be a "Heavy" quality given to some vehicles (like the Leman Russ or the Land Raider) which will enable them to move 6" and fire all weapons. Ravagers and most Flyers (well, the units that will be flyers) already have it, except up to 12" instead.

The alleged reasoning behind the rumour is to remove bookkeeping from phase to phase, ie. what a vehicle does in the Movement phase cannot have any bearing on what it does in the Shooting phase.

I understand it as all vehicles being able to move 6" initially. Then, in the Shooting phase, they can fire or move again, or some combination depending on Type (standard can fire everything or move another 6" and fire 1 weapon, for example; Fast can move another 6" and fire everything, or move 12" and fire one weapon...)

I LOVE the ideia of AP3 power weapons... I think they should aways have been like that... More tham it, i think all CCW should have AP: chaiswords? AP6, Power Weapons? AP3, Vibro Blades? AP4...

And i think some rare CCWs should have AP2, lets say Eldar Power Weapons on dedicated units (Banshees), Thunder Hammers, and/or Power Klaws...

Dont forget that Power Fists and Lightning Claws work per rules as Power Weapons, so they would stay with an AP3, and the Parry rule would be for Power Weapons without special rules (like thise LCs, PFs, and Force Weapons, who ignore armor as power weapons, using the RAW from 5th).

I dislike the idea of AP3 power weapons. If they can cut through anything like we are told in fluff, why is terminator armour an exception?

p_gray99 wrote:While it's true that power weapons may not be as effective as power weapons

Indeed!

Because fluff also says a lot of other ridiculous stuff which doesn't make for a good game. Like Ghazghkhull Thrakka having such thick skin that bolter rounds have no effect on him. Last time I checked a boltgun could still wound him on a 5+.

TBD wrote:

p_gray99 wrote:While it's true that power weapons may not be as effective as power weapons

Indeed!

Sorry, didn't notice that. Fixed it.

I'm in favor of AP for weapons in CC but I would like to see some pistol types become effective in CC as well.

Bolt Pistol: AP 5
Plasma Pistol: AP 2
Infernus Pistols: AP 1

...as examples.

I'm not in favor of giving more CC weapons like Banshee power weapons an AP of 2. Power klaws, power fists, and the Exarch power weapons should probably be AP 2 but not the rank and file Banshees. And I don't have any TEQ models in my army.

How about splinter pistols in C.C. giving poisoned attacks?

Instead of a bonus attack, you should simply be allowed to shoot the pistol while in close combat, full profile and everything. At your melee opponents only, of course.

Not sure how i feel about the suggestion that powerweapons are only ap3. So now storm sheilds are redundant? and we can just start playing terminator hammer instead of infantry or tank hammer. Lists like Deathwing will become the norm. And to all ye non TEQ capable lists, well, your screwed.

Yeah, i sincerly hope that this is wrong, as are the rules concerning dueling, and the multiple hits on front armor AV14 thing. That sounds weak as well.

Jidmah wrote:Instead of a bonus attack, you should simply be allowed to shoot the pistol while in close combat, full profile and everything. At your melee opponents only, of course.

Even more so if it becomes move assault shoot (sorry if that has been shot down, not to sure on that on) otherwise pistols and assault weapons are effectivly useless

sennacherib wrote:Not sure how i feel about the suggestion that powerweapons are only ap3. So now storm sheilds are redundant? and we can just start playing terminator hammer instead of infantry or tank hammer. Lists like Deathwing will become the norm. And to all ye non TEQ capable lists, well, your screwed.

Yeah, i sincerly hope that this is wrong, as are the rules concerning dueling, and the multiple hits on front armor AV14 thing. That sounds weak as well.

Like i said before if my deathwing get a massivly needed buff i will be happy, i dont want OP though just nasty enough to make GK and SW worry a little. Remember that DW at the moment in the hands of a skilled player do "alright to good" but anyone else they get groin punched easily, and if you playing GK or SW who can do what you do but better and cheaper (sometimes) then its a real uphill struggle, i just want them to ballance the playing field a little.

Nitros14 wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:Anecdotally the game seemed to suffer greatly from the intensely overpowered army books "designed for eighth" and eighth itself seemed to kind of push out the community that had cared about game balance and had been concerned about the direction balance had gone with recent army books. Whichever rumors you wish to believe go ahead and believe them, but I've never heard a single store owner or rumor state that fantasy is doing better after eighth and I've heard quite a few that state the opposite. Where there's smoke there is often fire.

Actually one of the nice things about 8th is the general balance of the army books. All of the new books have been really well balanced, Ogres slightly on the strong side, Tomb Kings slightly on the weak side Some of the old 7th edition books are still a bit too strong but nothing like 40k's Grey Knights.

One of the things I like about Fantasy is all the different varied armies that are viable whereas in 40k you see endless Grey Knights, Space Wolves and Blood Angels. Tons of 40k armies are in variously broken states (Tyranids, Chaos Marines, Tau, Sisters, Daemons, Eldar etc) while only Wood Elves and Brettonians are really bad.

Obviously anecdotally all I can say is how fantasy is doing around here. I can say that our local big Fantasy tournament Gottacon had a much bigger fantasy showing this year and that since 8th there's been a lot more people down to play fantasy.

I mean as fun as 7th and 30 power dice Daemons, the game being decided almost entirely by how well you could eyeball your charge distance and cavalry/monsters blowing up almost anything with a frontal charge was...

Man, you must be way off in your way of thinking here. First of all, 8th edition in WFB made the one most imbalancing efforts ever made to the game if you think about all army books. That is the main problem. Amries like Wood Elves, Bretonnia and so on are utterly worthless atm and players will stop playing. It's also very one sided games when large infantry blobs are dominating the meta.

When it comes to 40k I just can't beleive those who complain about Grey Knights when there are a Necrons Codex out that instantly wins th UK Masters, which is filled with good players. Look at reality and don't just be a GW fanboy.

You are most welcome to like the WFB 8th edition rules, but look at reality and not just in your own meta.

p_gray99 wrote:I dislike the idea of AP3 power weapons. If they can cut through anything like we are told in fluff, why is terminator armour an exception?

They can't cut through anything, and never have. Personally, I approve of a return to the situation where the heaviest personal armour requires anti-vehicle weapons to penetrate. If a Guardsman with a power sword can't kill a buggy, he shouldn't have much chance against a suit of superheavy armour either.

AlexHolker wrote:

p_gray99 wrote:I dislike the idea of AP3 power weapons. If they can cut through anything like we are told in fluff, why is terminator armour an exception?

They can't cut through anything, and never have. Personally, I approve of a return to the situation where the heaviest personal armour requires anti-vehicle weapons to penetrate. If a Guardsman with a power sword can't kill a buggy, he shouldn't have much chance against a suit of superheavy armour either.

I seem to remember reading in the old Incubus description that their axes (yes it was axes back then) could happily carve through anything, and the only reason they couldn't hurt vehicles was because there wasn't enough force applied, rather than it being anything to do with the weaponry.

sennacherib wrote:Not sure how i feel about the suggestion that powerweapons are only ap3. So now storm sheilds are redundant? and we can just start playing terminator hammer instead of infantry or tank hammer. Lists like Deathwing will become the norm. And to all ye non TEQ capable lists, well, your screwed.

Yeah, i sincerly hope that this is wrong, as are the rules concerning dueling, and the multiple hits on front armor AV14 thing. That sounds weak as well.

Well there are still weapons that still don't give an armor save. Necron Warscythes are an example of this, as they specifically state 'no armor saves of any kind may be taken'

Taken from Herey Online: http://www.heresy-online.net/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=959935713&d=1339896870

A cover? A cover with DarkAngels on it ?
( tactical marking on the marine in front )

Another BT cover? fantastic.

EDIT: Are they DA? 'cos I really can't tell at that size

1hadhq wrote:A cover? A cover with DA on it ?

Indeed, he looks quite black templarish with his tabard though! I wonder if it's the BRB; we didn't have a faction specific cover since the 3rd.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Charax wrote:EDIT: Are they DA?

Yes, it's DA. The green marine with red DA tactical marks and red bolter is the giveaway.

Idc for the cover (looks gakky though => no necrons!), just scan the rules part already!

ShadarLogoth wrote:

Agamemnon2 wrote:I don't think GW ignores the Internet anymore. I just think they hate all of us. I know my local GW manager has always done his best to disparage and belittle all GW hobby forums and people who post on them. Either he's a massive tool by choice, or it's some kind of party spiel he's been ordered to push.

Well, I don't if I would call it hate, however if you worked for GW and everywhere you turned you had people spewing vitriol at the company just because they can't figure out how to win games with their plastic toy soldiers...how would you feel?

I remember having a similar discussion with a blackshirt. Great guy, non judgmental, however he said he simply stopped visiting forums because he got sick of being shouted down by the vocal minority for having the audacity to disagree with their assessment of random unit A.

GW deserves a fair bit of criticism, but just look at the knee jerk reactions and negative perceptions on this very thread. Extreme amounts of hyperbole gets thrown around by some, largely grounded in baseless assumptions about ineptitude that couldn't possibly co-exist with a company as successful as GW. The difficulty level they present themselves with having a massive amount of armies with a massive amount of options is that some options aren't go to work with some strategies as well as others, and ultimately some options are simply going to fall out of favor whenever a paradigm shift is made with a new codex/edition . However, instead of looking into themselves, or just realizing you can't always win a game with dice, people rage on the company, as if winning was some how a part of the contract when you bought your models.

Not that I can't empathize with this mentality. I tried long and hard to get my old Pariahs to work only to see them get less and less competitive with each successive edition. However, I feel in general GW has made huge strides in creating a more balanced and dynamic game since I started playing 12 years ago.

Excellent points....

In fact, this part is gold "everywhere you turned you had people spewing vitriol at the company just because they can't figure out how to win games with their plastic toy soldiers...how would you feel?"

However, instead of saying "its the nature of the beast, and the beast is nasty mean and evil" they could look at other companies and see if things are different.

I don't think it has quite hit them yet in how they should be more interactive with their customers, instead of fostering a feeling they are being ignored.

For example, if lots of people were complaining that they "did not win a game" and there was a thread that said "Having problems winning with ARMY X? ". Or even a message of "we realize there was a mistake in CODEX X, we are working with our playtesters to come up with a balanced solution, until such we suggest discussing it with your opponent".

Other companies manage it...sure, it is still hard (really hard, ever read the blizzard forums, another company was WOTC and their Star Wars games - the designers would actually answer questions, and occasionally fix rules) but the problem is not that "its hard" its that GW does not try. Communications is one of the hardest things for companies to get ...and gw is terrible at it.

They either ignore it (we will just raise prices and see what happens) or have communication that is so far from reality that its worthless (their pr on the finecast stuff). Managing a community is very hard; but if you don't even try...its disastrous.

Also, its not just that some of the rules are bad...that can happen to any company (you never have an infinite amount of time to play test) its that so many of them are, and how readily apparent they are.

Even in this example, if GW bothered to communicate, they could say "hey, give this a chance, it was not as bad in playtesting" or "oops, that one slipped through...".

So in summary; they can either manage the situation or stick their head in the sand and become a victim of it.

Now, I hear a lot of these rumors (getting back on topic) and some of them...well, they DO seem broken (how the heck and I gonna kill termies if my power weapons are ap3???) but we have to wait and see everything, to see the context before we freak out. Tragically, gw does not have a great track record here....but one can hope.

Personally, so far, some of these changes feel good...I do think a land raider should be harder to kill than a single shot, but easier than 300...and so far, these new rules sound like they might do that. We shall see....what two weeks?

Gah Heresy is work blocked, any kind soul willing to rehost the pic on imgur or some similar free hosting site, as I'm in work for another five hours.

to refuse an obvioius and much needed buff to basic infantry to protect the sanctity of a gun that was both rare and unliked anyway is silly.

And did I do that or is it just your wishful thinking?

Bolters need a buff as do all rapid fire weapons BUT that also means the better ones like stormbolters need their own buffs to keep them within the fluff (being better then "simple" bolters) and point cost.
There needs to be an inventive to take and use both.

ShadarLogoth wrote:Did you just condone death threats by pissed off video gamers and censure GW for being defensive in the same post?

So its ok for fans to have ridiculously irrational reactions and beat there chest into an insane frenzy...but if a company chooses to take this insane frenzy with a rational grain of salt they are evil?

There's nothing rational about the vitriol I get from GW redshirts about how rumors and especially the forums that spread them are hurting the games community. GW is not "being defensive", they're responding to negative feedback by throwing a hissy fit. It's not "You shouldn't believe everything they say on the internet", it's "You shouldn't believe anything they say on the internet." It's not "Lack of balance between different codexes isn't as bit of a problem as those people say", it's "All those tournament players are having badwrongfun."

Agamemnon2 wrote:

ShadarLogoth wrote:Did you just condone death threats by pissed off video gamers and censure GW for being defensive in the same post?

So its ok for fans to have ridiculously irrational reactions and beat there chest into an insane frenzy...but if a company chooses to take this insane frenzy with a rational grain of salt they are evil?

There's nothing rational about the vitriol I get from GW redshirts about how rumors and especially the forums that spread them are hurting the games community. GW is not "being defensive", they're responding to negative feedback by throwing a hissy fit.

Maybe they just don't like you in particular Assuming you live in Finland we meet the same redshirts and I've never seen them throwing hissy fits at anyone at all.

I wouldn't put it past them. Still, I'm more sinned against than sinning.

I did say that it's GW as an institution that's throwing whatever the proper term should be for an institutional hissy fit. The individual redshirts are more likely to exaggerate, misattribute or tell flat-out untruths when it comes to the online community.

I used to work for GW, and I always went on various forums to learn the latest tactics, rules queries, and general feeling of people, because most of the time if something was a talking point on a forum, I'd need to answer the same question in-store.

But I was the odd one out, generally the opinion of forums is that they are a hive of scum and villainous tournament players who play to win, not to have fun.

I endeavoured to keep my rules knowledge of every game system (and codex) as sharp as possible, to avoid the stereotype that redshirts know nothing about the game or the rules. Reading forums helped me do that, and pretty often I'd tell a customer a strategy that I read online if they told me they were having trouble against a particular opponent.

It should be said that I did work there casually, not full-time.

Also, that cover picture looks a bit like the front cover of the limited edition 3rd edition codex, the one with the cardboard sleeve. Maybe we're seeing the limited edition copy?

The win/fun dichotomy has always annoyed me. It is false. The objective of every game is to win. The purpose of many games is to have fun (there are others). These do not exclude each other.

Exactly, it's not like wanting to win and wanting to have fun are mutually exclusive.

@pretre: The link 'twas posted naught one page ago, dear sir.

Agamemnon2 wrote:The win/fun dichotomy has always annoyed me. It is false. The objective of every game is to win. The purpose of many games is to have fun (there are others). These do not exclude each other.

It's more of an excuse by horrid players to justify to themselves why they are so bad.. and that is "Because they like to have fun, and those who beat them don't enjoy having fun". This mindset also allows them the comfort of never having to learn to get better.

Storm bolters always get 2 shots at full range, moving or not. For a 3 point upgrade over a bolt pistol id say that's more than fair. Then consider gk psybolts. Bolters/pulse rifles/gauss blasters & flayers all need a boost to make them tactically feasible. Rumors do just that.

I'd rather lose a hard faught battle then win all the time...

yes the objective is to win the game, but i'd rather it be challenging. if i came across a build that always won, with ease, i'd probably stop playing it (mind you i'm not playing in a tourny but generaly playing)

I also probably wouldn't play against someone who played the same army that won with ease every time (not that that happens, but if it did), i want to enjoy my time playing... Yes winning is the goal, but losing doesn't equal the game not being fun in itself...

tetrisphreak wrote:Storm bolters always get 2 shots at full range, moving or not. For a 3 point upgrade over a bolt pistol id say that's more than fair. Then consider gk psybolts. Bolters/pulse rifles/gauss blasters & flayers all need a boost to make them tactically feasible. Rumors do just that.

I believe people are wondering if/how the weapon in question (or any assault weapon for that matter) interacts with Relentless in 6th ed. As it would appear Termies gain no benefit from the rule with their basic weapons.

CSM Termies OTOH...

I'd also guess Stormbolters will still be assault weapons, so charging after is viable, not so much with bolters.

Dr. Delorean wrote:@pretre: The link 'twas posted naught one page ago, dear sir.

Someone asked that someone rehost the picture so that they can see it while they are at work.

Agamemnon2 wrote: The objective of every game is to win.

That certainly does not means the objective of playing any particular game is to win. There is a world of difference between playing to win and playing to have fun/chill out with your mates/teach some new players etc.

I regularly play games where someone goes off some tangent, be it Kill unit/player X, or amass something (money/resoucres) or other bizarre odditites totally unconnected with what will actually provide victory. I regularly play games with odd forces/tactics fully expecting to lose, just to break a rut of seeing the same thing all the time. All these things can be a great fun, and we may not even be checking who actually won at the end of the game, so long as everyone had fun, who cares. First and foremost playing games is a social event not a competitive event.

Many games are played in a larger context than just the single session. A certain game I play a lot is usually within a wider campaign context. Such campaigns may well mean you do not play to win an individual game, but play with some other objective (kill a particular enemy and ignore the actual victory conditions being not uncommon).

Many years ago we used to play a ww3 boardgame, after 1 panzer unit scored a series a spectacular victories in 1 game the other guy made it his mission in most games afterwards to kill that specific unit. Counter productive, but funny as hell.

Formosa wrote:

sennacherib wrote:Not sure how i feel about the suggestion that powerweapons are only ap3. So now storm sheilds are redundant? and we can just start playing terminator hammer instead of infantry or tank hammer. Lists like Deathwing will become the norm. And to all ye non TEQ capable lists, well, your screwed.

Yeah, i sincerly hope that this is wrong, as are the rules concerning dueling, and the multiple hits on front armor AV14 thing. That sounds weak as well.

Like i said before if my deathwing get a massivly needed buff i will be happy, i dont want OP though just nasty enough to make GK and SW worry a little. Remember that DW at the moment in the hands of a skilled player do "alright to good" but anyone else they get groin punched easily, and if you playing GK or SW who can do what you do but better and cheaper (sometimes) then its a real uphill struggle, i just want them to ballance the playing field a little.

Any time one army's power is increased to be better than or "worry" the other two most potent armies in the game, every other army is nerfed that much harder as a result.

I think that assigning AP to weapons (by the rumors that is) is not a good idea. I have a great deal of problems with AP5 on chains swords than with power weapons. Do you know how powerful that will be against Xeno armies? Especially in the hands of standard space marine squad?

Very unbalanced.

I am hoping that the rumor is not correct.

In my area the price increase and the lack of information to my LFGS means that he (and other indi's) in my region are cutting back on what they carry on stock on hand by 20% (a few are cutting back more).

Not good. Not Good at all.

Kirasu wrote:It's more of an excuse by horrid players to justify to themselves why they are so bad.. and that is "Because they like to have fun, and those who beat them don't enjoy having fun". This mindset also allows them the comfort of never having to learn to get better.

Why should they, though? If they really don't care about winning tournaments, who are you to tell them that they should?

Adam LongWalker wrote:I think that assigning AP to weapons (by the rumors that is) is not a good idea. I have a great deal of problems with AP5 on chains swords than with power weapons. Do you know how powerful that will be against Xeno armies? Especially in the hands of standard space marine squad?

My Necrons do not care at all

Adam LongWalker wrote:I think that assigning AP to weapons (by the rumors that is) is not a good idea. I have a great deal of problems with AP5 on chains swords than with power weapons. Do you know how powerful that will be against Xeno armies? Especially in the hands of standard space marine squad?

Of course, we don't know if there will be a difference between regular "close combat weapons" and chainswords and if there is who will get what. It's quite possible that Tactical squads will have regular CCWs which may or may not have an AP and Assault Squads (which are pretty terrible right now) would get AP5 chainswords.

It would definitely make Blood Angels and Black Templars a bit rough though.

puree wrote:

Agamemnon2 wrote: The objective of every game is to win.

That certainly does not means the objective of playing any particular game is to win. There is a world of difference between playing to win and playing to have fun/chill out with your mates/teach some new players etc.

You've missed the point completely there mate. The OBJECTIVE of every game is to win, no-one goes into a game thinking "I'm gonna try my hardest to lose this one!" The POINT of the game is to have fun. I.e. how you go about trying to achieve your objective is not detrimental to your opponent's enjoyment of the game.

Grimtuff wrote:

puree wrote:

Agamemnon2 wrote: The objective of every game is to win.

That certainly does not means the objective of playing any particular game is to win. There is a world of difference between playing to win and playing to have fun/chill out with your mates/teach some new players etc.

You've missed the point completely there mate. The OBJECTIVE of every game is to win, no-one goes into a game thinking "I'm gonna try my hardest to lose this one!" The POINT of the game is to have fun. I.e. how you go about trying to achieve your objective is not detrimental to your opponent's enjoyment of the game.

While it is personally important to me that my opponent enjoys a game, it's a very dangerous thing to claim people have responsibility for the fun of others. Fun is a very ill-defined term, and sometimes even a person's best efforts at congeniality combined with a certain style of play can tick off a player whose own needs for fun do not line up well.

It's certainly the fundamental responsibility of each person to make sure they are sharing enough with their opponent in terms of personal expectations and desires, to give said opponents at least a chance to ensure they have fun. For example, Someone playing strictly by the rules, or NOT strictly by the rules ... are neither of them things that inherently impugn fun, unless the opponent doesn't want to do the same ... and it's really his job to share that, not his opponent's to guess it.

Grimtuff wrote:
You've missed the point completely there mate. The OBJECTIVE of every game is to win, no-one goes into a game thinking "I'm gonna try my hardest to lose this one!" The POINT of the game is to have fun. I.e. how you go about trying to achieve your objective is not detrimental to your opponent's enjoyment of the game.

Actually I didn't miss the point at all. That is why I specifically emphasised the playing bit. The poster I was quoting was the one missing the point. He was talking about the difference between win/fun. When people talk of playing to win/fun they are talking about what they playing for.

The OBJECTIVE of PLAYING and the OBJECTIVE of the GAME itself are not of neccessity one and the same.

MVBrandt wrote:

Grimtuff wrote:

puree wrote:

Agamemnon2 wrote: The objective of every game is to win.

That certainly does not means the objective of playing any particular game is to win. There is a world of difference between playing to win and playing to have fun/chill out with your mates/teach some new players etc.

You've missed the point completely there mate. The OBJECTIVE of every game is to win, no-one goes into a game thinking "I'm gonna try my hardest to lose this one!" The POINT of the game is to have fun. I.e. how you go about trying to achieve your objective is not detrimental to your opponent's enjoyment of the game.

While it is personally important to me that my opponent enjoys a game, it's a very dangerous thing to claim people have responsibility for the fun of others. Fun is a very ill-defined term, and sometimes even a person's best efforts at congeniality combined with a certain style of play can tick off a player whose own needs for fun do not line up well.

It's certainly the fundamental responsibility of each person to make sure they are sharing enough with their opponent in terms of personal expectations and desires, to give said opponents at least a chance to ensure they have fun. For example, Someone playing strictly by the rules, or NOT strictly by the rules ... are neither of them things that inherently impugn fun, unless the opponent doesn't want to do the same ... and it's really his job to share that, not his opponent's to guess it.

Okay, to break it down further: Wheaton's law. That is all.

But now we're going a little OT.

Grimtuff wrote:

puree wrote:

Agamemnon2 wrote: The objective of every game is to win.

That certainly does not means the objective of playing any particular game is to win. There is a world of difference between playing to win and playing to have fun/chill out with your mates/teach some new players etc.

You've missed the point completely there mate. The OBJECTIVE of every game is to win, no-one goes into a game thinking "I'm gonna try my hardest to lose this one!" The POINT of the game is to have fun. I.e. how you go about trying to achieve your objective is not detrimental to your opponent's enjoyment of the game.

And that also doesn't mean that you can't have two wholly different "win conditions." Maybe he hates those tanks and wants to destroy them all. Clearly, for him winning is killing all of your tanks, even if, for you, winning is killing that stupid Captain of his that keeps killing your favorite squad.

pretre wrote:

Nice photoshop looking cover, it does look badass to be fair, but as i said it looks photoshoped, hope its real as i love DA

Stoff3 wrote:
Man, you must be way off in your way of thinking here. First of all, 8th edition in WFB made the one most imbalancing efforts ever made to the game if you think about all army books. That is the main problem. Amries like Wood Elves, Bretonnia and so on are utterly worthless atm and players will stop playing. It's also very one sided games when large infantry blobs are dominating the meta.
.

Those books are like a decade old. There are probably a bunch of 9 year old gamers running around out there who are younger than the armybooks in question!

So, you can't fault 8th for being imbalanced for that reason. It would be extremely poor system design to try to devise a set of core rules that weighed new books (designed under a new philosophy) against ancient books that are due for replacement.

You can, however, fault GW for putting out the new books too slowly.

Formosa wrote:

Nice photoshop looking cover, it does look badass to be fair, but as i said it looks photoshoped, hope its real as i love DA

That doesn't look photoshopped at all. Look at the light reflected in the bottom corner, for one thing. That's very difficult to photoshop in a photorealistic way.

Furthermore, unless that artwork already exists somewhere, you're suggesting that the "photoshopper" actually illustrated a detailed full-page picture of Dark Angels in the exact Games Workshop style. Although, for all I know that illustration does already exist (but I haven't seen it anywhere).

Well, if it's photoshopped, then surely that artwork must already exist somewhere. If so, where? Or are we to believe a fairly talented artist decided to mock this up to troll us, then failed to take a proper photograph so we could actually properly see the artwork? This seems unlikely.

Can't really see that as the cover of the new rulebook, but if it is, what are we going to call it? The big puke green rulebook (BPGR)?

Re: CCW AP weapons.

I don't think it 'nerfs xenos' at all. Necrons have 3+ armor, Tau are 3+ or 4+. Eldar are 4+ and higher initative.

Dark Eldar have higher initiative, so they are still hitting first, and units that only have 5+ armor to begin with (warriors) are still going to get stomped in CC. Plus they'll probably still have FNP.

Orks are going to take a hit, but going from a 6+ save to no save I don't think will ruin the army.

I think it's a good idea. A squad of berzerkers should not get tied down by a blob squad of IG. It also gives a LOT more diversity in close combat units where as currently it's simply power weapons, rending, or nothing at all.

Can the rules just come out already? That way all the rumors and hating will stop.

timd wrote:Can't really see that as the cover of the new rulebook, but if it is, what are we going to call it? The big puke green rulebook (BPGR)?

I'd go with the BYDARPh

(Big Yellow Dark Angels Recruitment Pamphlet)

mmmmm moving wall of fire with Guardsmen using frfsrf 10 men putting out 27 (30 if we get to give the sgt a lasgun) shots at 24" and can always wound on a 6..

Dr. Delorean wrote:@pretre: The link 'twas posted naught one page ago, dear sir.

Really? No way! Or I posted it so you didn't have to click the link.

Ok, almost back on topic...

There was mention of a "special edition" or "collectors' edition" of the rulebook.

However, I could have been mistaken on that, so...
(it could have just been the starter?)

1 - Has there been a special edition of the rulebook before?
2 - If yes, what was "special" about it?

thanks!~

Leather cover I think, with fancy effects. Might have had a 40K book in a metal case at one point, not 100%

They have also had a copy of the book, any new counters etc with a themed Bag for the last three releases (at least the last three anyays, I am 100% certain on 8th fantasy and 4th and 5th 40K, not so sure on 7th fantasy.)

Formosa wrote:

pretre wrote:

Nice photoshop looking cover, it does look badass to be fair, but as i said it looks photoshoped, hope its real as i love DA

That doesn't look photoshopped to me. It's heavily artifacted and could be shopped but it doesn't have any obvious signs of being altered.

Previous special editions were bound in leather, sold in metal ammo crate cases and sold in special cardboard slip sleeves.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Formosa wrote:

pretre wrote:

Nice photoshop looking cover, it does look badass to be fair, but as i said it looks photoshoped, hope its real as i love DA

That doesn't look photoshopped to me. It's heavily artifacted and could be shopped but it doesn't have any obvious signs of being altered.

its the warhammer 40k logo that looks wonky so it looked photoshopped to me

Mezmaron wrote:Strength vs Toughness chart changed to be like fantasy, so everything can be wounded on a 6.

My MC's are really going to enjoy those Lasguns...

S3 already wounds t6 on a 6+. As far as t7 goes, you can make 2 or 3 armor saves a turn, it's going to be ok.

tetrisphreak wrote:S3 already wounds t6 on a 6+. As far as t7 goes, you can make 2 or 3 armor saves a turn, it's going to be ok.

Yeah, I sounded quite pessimistic, my bad...but there's always that chance

Also, does this mean that S1 could wound T10? Isn't that a bit silly?

Always the slight change that you hit a monster in the eyeball I guess.

TheSneak109 wrote:

Mezmaron wrote:Strength vs Toughness chart changed to be like fantasy, so everything can be wounded on a 6.

My MC's are really going to enjoy those Lasguns...

I don't really understand the point of this change, it just makes the efficacy of high toughness as a defensive measure truly less effective. It could open up the gates for more ubiquitous T8 or above though which could be cool.

Maybe it forces you to play tactically with high toughness creatures? Just because you are T7 doesn't mean that you can just march across the table in the open.

Formosa wrote:its the warhammer 40k logo that looks wonky so it looked photoshopped to me

It looks wonky because of the angled lines in the image behind it.

d-usa wrote:Maybe it forces you to play tactically with high toughness creatures? Just because you are T7 doesn't mean that you can just march across the table in the open.

That would imply that that has ever been the case. Which it hasn't. Most MCs can be easily brought down in a single turn of shooting and if you're not ignoring st4 at least than the immunity to low strength fire is effectively meaningless anyway.

ShumaGorath wrote:

TheSneak109 wrote:

Mezmaron wrote:Strength vs Toughness chart changed to be like fantasy, so everything can be wounded on a 6.

My MC's are really going to enjoy those Lasguns...

I don't really understand the point of this change, it just makes the efficacy of high toughness as a defensive measure truly less effective. It could open up the gates for more ubiquitous T8 or above though which could be cool.

It seems to be more of a philosophical change than anything else. It ensures that a unit won't get locked in combat with something it can *never* hurt.

Although this is more clear-cut in WHFB, where everything has the same attributes on their statline. 40K's vehicles complicate it (walkers, specifically, since you can't be locked down by anything else). But who knows, maybe they'll say a 6 always glances a walker, or do something else to make them a less hopeless encounter for improperly-equipped infantry.

This would likely have more effect in melee than in shooting. a wraithlord would no longer be immortal in melee with Kroot or Guardsman.

I saw a meltdown at a tourni where one of the players charged a wraithlord with his full kroot squad only to discover the pain of his decision later.

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

I don't play to win. I play to have fun. If I loose, no big deal. It's not life altering if I don't win with plastic toy soldiers.

Davor wrote:I don't play to win. I play to have fun.

You been paying attention at all? These two things are not mutually exclusive. In fact, they're not even dependant on one another. You do play to win, because you don't play to lose or to draw.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

Davor wrote:I don't play to win. I play to have fun.

You been paying attention at all? These two things are not mutually exclusive. In fact, they're not even dependant on one another. You do play to win, because you don't play to lose or to draw.

Oh but I do. When I play agasint my son, I don't play to win or tie lots of time.

ShumaGorath wrote:

TheSneak109 wrote:

Mezmaron wrote:Strength vs Toughness chart changed to be like fantasy, so everything can be wounded on a 6.

My MC's are really going to enjoy those Lasguns...

I don't really understand the point of this change, it just makes the efficacy of high toughness as a defensive measure truly less effective. It could open up the gates for more ubiquitous T8 or above though which could be cool.

How many models in the game are even affected by this? If I recall correctly, the only toughness 8 model is the Wraithlord, and the only toughness 7 model is the C'tan Shard. Neither of those are commonly fielded, at least in my experience, so this change wouldn't exactly shake up the game much.

Dark eldar pain engines (both types) are toughness 7 as well.

See that change I won't mind, will give my Guardsmen with lasguns something more than Harsh language to use against the Talos.

d-usa wrote:Always the slight change that you hit a monster in the eyeball I guess.

Yea but GW uses base 6 for their system so a 16% chance to wound t4 through t10 with str 1 is laughable. Surely the odds would vary as you move up the chart.

Red Corsair wrote:

d-usa wrote:Always the slight change that you hit a monster in the eyeball I guess.

Yea but GW uses base 6 for their system so a 16% chance to wound t4 through t10 with str 1 is laughable. Surely the odds would vary as you move up the chart.

Maybe they'll use the same system they use for 7+ to hit in WHFB, one can hope.

Red Corsair wrote:

d-usa wrote:Always the slight change that you hit a monster in the eyeball I guess.

Yea but GW uses base 6 for their system so a 16% chance to wound t4 through t10 with str 1 is laughable. Surely the odds would vary as you move up the chart.

Myabe 6th ed will use a D20 system?

D6 systems have inherant weaknesses and that is a good example of one

Morathi's Darkest Sin wrote:See that change I won't mind, will give my Guardsmen with lasguns something more than Harsh language to use against the Talos.

I concur. I love seeing IG "flashlights" take down the big gribblies.

Hey in second they used every die under the sun even sustained fire


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Grimtuff wrote:

Red Corsair wrote:

d-usa wrote:Always the slight change that you hit a monster in the eyeball I guess.

Yea but GW uses base 6 for their system so a 16% chance to wound t4 through t10 with str 1 is laughable. Surely the odds would vary as you move up the chart.

Maybe they'll use the same system they use for 7+ to hit in WHFB, one can hope.

+1 this would be exceptable

Redoing the toughness chart is silly to me, as is complaining about T8 models. Wraithlords are ONLY armor value 11/12 if you compare that to a dreadought which isn't very scary at all, yet boltguns can't damage a dreadnought (from the front/side) and I don't see people all concerned.

Allowing everything to wound on 6s is just lazy design

Red Corsair wrote:Hey in second they used every die under the sun even sustained fire

Only for weapon damage and the sustained fire dice were just D6 with a fancy paint job

To be honest I am undecided on always wounds. Basically I don't mind what happens

Really though, it's fairly easy to see that this is a change done to enhance the impact of quantity over quality. Really, another movement towards a more hoard-favoured game.

"Throw more dice, not better dice," seems to be the mantra for 6th.

It is an expected departure from "take few troops and put them in boxes" that is 5th.

True, but I'm not entirely fond of this dichotomy between having either a parking lot of metal boxes, or a massive hoard of little men.

Then again, I am nothing if not a fan of the weird and elite options that tend to be fairly small in numbers. Which brings up the point that maybe 40k, and GW in general lately, just doesn't like to cater to what I enjoy.

Fafnir wrote:Really though, it's fairly easy to see that this is a change done to enhance the impact of quantity over quality. Really, another movement towards a more hoard-favoured game.

Well, since GW calls themselves a model company, anything that might encourage the use of, and thus the sale of more models makes sense.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Fafnir wrote:

Then again, I am nothing if not a fan of the weird and elite options that tend to be fairly small in numbers. Which brings up the point that maybe 40k, and GW in general lately, just doesn't like to cater to what I enjoy.

As am I. The army Im currently working on will be used mostly as a counts as Deathwing. However, for the times I feel like playing them as codex SM, Im going to set up my tac squads up as the 5 man min squads, simply to fill the required troop slots in the FOC.


Unless 6th does away with the FOC in favor of a different system...

I would imagine though, that the new DA codex could lend some new life to my truescales in the form of Deathwing. Assuming 6th edition is better than it's being made out to be right now.

Palindrome wrote:

Red Corsair wrote:Hey in second they used every die under the sun even sustained fire

Only for weapon damage and the sustained fire dice were just D6 with a fancy paint job

To be honest I am undecided on always wounds. Basically I don't mind what happens

This made me lol. What do you expect everyone to use a different die to hit with? Of course it would have to be restricted to damage.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kirasu wrote:Redoing the toughness chart is silly to me, as is complaining about T8 models. Wraithlords are ONLY armor value 11/12 if you compare that to a dreadought which isn't very scary at all, yet boltguns can't damage a dreadnought (from the front/side) and I don't see people all concerned.

Allowing everything to wound on 6s is just lazy design

I agree, this was how I always took it. After all the wraithlord is eldars dreadnaught. Or of course they could just give it it's armor value back, it was silly to change it in the first place IMO.

A really nice shake up to 40k would be an introduction of a d10 or d12 for saves, shooting etc....

That way the increments go up less than the almost 17% per side as it is now.


Would require a statline errata for every model but that would only take about 2 mins of actual thought.

Somehow I think changing the d6 system that has been in use since 1998 would require a BIT more than 2 minutes of thought as that changes the value of virtually every single unit and a ton of rules..

Also, not going to happen. GW likes d6s so no real reason to think about changing it.

Why would they put one specific army on the front of the main rulebook?

It would make more sense if that was the new Dark Angels codex cover...

TBD wrote:Why would they put one specific army on the front of the main rulebook?

It would make more sense if that was the new Dark Angels codex cover...

Crimson Fists were on the cover of RT, Blood Angels were on the cover of 2nd Edition, and Black Templars were on the cover of 3rd. It's hardly without precedent.

TBD wrote:Why would they put one specific army on the front of the main rulebook?

It would make more sense if that was the new Dark Angels codex cover...

Because 3 of the last 5 rulebooks did the exact same thing?

Hmmm... if everything can wound on a 6, then I wonder what will become of the Gauss rule.

Brother SRM wrote:Crimson Fists were on the cover of RT, Blood Angels were on the cover of 2nd Edition, and Black Templars were on the cover of 3rd. It's hardly without precedent.

You forgot the Ultramarines on the BfM version of the 4th ed book...

5th ed is the only edition so far that has been sans Marines.

azazel the cat wrote:Hmmm... if everything can wound on a 6, then I wonder what will become of the Gauss rule.

The current gauss rules have nothing to do with auto wounding on a 6, I assume they will retain their auto penny.

Gauss isnt auto-pen, its auto glance on a 6

Fafnir wrote:True, but I'm not entirely fond of this dichotomy between having either a parking lot of metal boxes, or a massive hoard of little men.

Then again, I am nothing if not a fan of the weird and elite options that tend to be fairly small in numbers. Which brings up the point that maybe 40k, and GW in general lately, just doesn't like to cater to what I enjoy.

Remember those hoards of little men equal new sales for GW. All according to plan

The one big complaint I was hearing from 40k players was they were tired of having 50 men tied up by a T7 model which they could never wound. But besides the Wraithlord and Pain Engines, how many models were there that were immune to low strength attacks? What this allows is for designers to have a wider variety of toughness on units and not be afraid of making the toughness on a model too high. It means a running a T6 model into CC with a bunch of I-guard isn't a no brainier anymore.

I will agree with the other comments about GW should move away from the D6. In interviews with GW designers when asked about why the D6, they say its the most common and easily accessible die. I like the idea of keeping but with one die type, but the D6 is too impacted by a +1 swing, D10's would be better. Given they expect a player to pay $300+ to start a new army, the cost of a pack of D10s is negligible. Plus, their model for a GW store being the one stop shopping place for all the game's needs, having D10 boxes for sale would not be a stretch.

TBD wrote:Why would they put one specific army on the front of the main rulebook?

Having Dark Angels represent the entirety of Space Marines isn't too much of a stretch. In that case, it seems entirely appropriate to go back to showcasing Space Marines on the cover.

Kirasu wrote:Redoing the toughness chart is silly to me, as is complaining about T8 models. Wraithlords are ONLY armor value 11/12 if you compare that to a dreadought which isn't very scary at all, yet boltguns can't damage a dreadnought (from the front/side) and I don't see people all concerned.

Allowing everything to wound on 6s is just lazy design

a dread can be killed by high strength gun in one shot. it takes at least three shots to kill a wraithlord.

Red Corsair wrote:

Palindrome wrote:

Red Corsair wrote:Hey in second they used every die under the sun even sustained fire

Only for weapon damage and the sustained fire dice were just D6 with a fancy paint job

To be honest I am undecided on always wounds. Basically I don't mind what happens

This made me lol. What do you expect everyone to use a different die to hit with? Of course it would have to be restricted to damage.

Have you ever played D&D? Some game systems (Force on Force) even use a score based system like 40K but different dice depending on the capabiliies of the model. Any dice role could theoretically be made with xsided dice.

Absolutionis wrote:

TBD wrote:Why would they put one specific army on the front of the main rulebook?

Having Dark Angels represent the entirety of Space Marines isn't too much of a stretch. In that case, it seems entirely appropriate to go back to showcasing Space Marines on the cover.

Maybe it's also a sign to going back to 10 years between Xenos updates

Brother SRM wrote:

TBD wrote:Why would they put one specific army on the front of the main rulebook?

It would make more sense if that was the new Dark Angels codex cover...

Crimson Fists were on the cover of RT, Blood Angels were on the cover of 2nd Edition, and Black Templars were on the cover of 3rd. It's hardly without precedent.

Very true, but then GW said to themselves "Why are we putting one specific army on the front of the main rulebook?" And they corrected themselves by making 4th and 5th ed books nice collections of subtle symbolism... Did those rulebooks have a lot of trouble selling for their lack of SM covers or something?

I think a collage of gothic frescoes representing the playable armies would have made a better rulebook cover. Then again, anything would be a better cover than SMs... As if the fans won't already get plenty of that thrown in their faces.

I say leave the SM covers for the SM codices.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Absolutionis wrote:

TBD wrote:Why would they put one specific army on the front of the main rulebook?

Having Dark Angels represent the entirety of Space Marines isn't too much of a stretch. In that case, it seems entirely appropriate to go back to showcasing Space Marines on the cover.

The Dark Angels are more than welcome to represent the entirety of SMs all day long... But this isn't a SM book, it's the rulebook.

So, to sum it up, people are upset because the rulebook is going with the poster boy army instead of a generic symbol.

All Space Marines are the posterboys. The combined Space Marine armies are probably more sales than the other armies combined, so having a Space Marine army on the book isn't that big of a stretch.

Get over the cover of the rule book. It doesn't ruin anything in game.. If it makes you that sad, cry in the Front Cover thread, quit Warhammer, or shut up. Seriously.

Really. The people hating on anything that has a Space Marine on it is probably the worst thing in this hobby, and that's including the price tag. If Space Marines rustle your jimmies that much, you might need to find a different plastic crack to enjoy.

(and somehow, I don't think you'd be crying if there was a Dark Eldar or an Ork on the cover instead of Space Marines.)

Archonate wrote:The Dark Angels are more than welcome to represent the entirety of SMs all day long... But this isn't a SM book, it's the rulebook.

It's a rulebook for a game that has SPace Marines as it's poster boys and best selling range. It's hardly surprising for them to feature on the rulebook.

I'm really not seeing the problem, to be honest. It's a rulebook. It has a picture on it that is 40K-related, because it is a 40K rulebook. That 40K related picture features Space Marines, because they are a big part of the game, and will be in the start set.


Of all the things GW does that are worth complaining about, giving us more Space Marine artwork than other races really doesn't feature high on the important-o-meter.

silent25 wrote:

Fafnir wrote:True, but I'm not entirely fond of this dichotomy between having either a parking lot of metal boxes, or a massive hoard of little men.

Then again, I am nothing if not a fan of the weird and elite options that tend to be fairly small in numbers. Which brings up the point that maybe 40k, and GW in general lately, just doesn't like to cater to what I enjoy.

Remember those hoards of little men equal new sales for GW. All according to plan

The one big complaint I was hearing from 40k players was they were tired of having 50 men tied up by a T7 model which they could never wound. But besides the Wraithlord and Pain Engines, how many models were there that were immune to low strength attacks? What this allows is for designers to have a wider variety of toughness on units and not be afraid of making the toughness on a model too high. It means a running a T6 model into CC with a bunch of I-guard isn't a no brainier anymore.

I will agree with the other comments about GW should move away from the D6. In interviews with GW designers when asked about why the D6, they say its the most common and easily accessible die. I like the idea of keeping but with one die type, but the D6 is too impacted by a +1 swing, D10's would be better. Given they expect a player to pay $300+ to start a new army, the cost of a pack of D10s is negligible. Plus, their model for a GW store being the one stop shopping place for all the game's needs, having D10 boxes for sale would not be a stretch.

Getting 20+ d10 or d20 dice is quite a money-sink though, where getting 20 or even a hundred d6 is not. Not that I care, I have a huge box of dice that has grown for almost 20 years, containing anything from d3 to d1000 (It's a huge d10 with a d10 inside, that has another d10 inside).

Archonate wrote:
And they corrected themselves by making 4th and 5th ed books nice collections of subtle symbolism... Did those rulebooks have a lot of trouble selling for their lack of SM covers or something?

That observation is only relevant if you plan to go a step further and claim that non-SM covers would sell more.

If we accept that the cover art doesn't matter one whit when it comes to sales, then we're left to consider what other motives could govern the choice of artwork.

I hate Space Marines. I would be thrilled if I never had to look at another one again in my life. But Space Marines were what got me into 40K. They were the first army I played. They were the only army I knew about from the WH40K universe before I started playing. And they were the first one I wanted to read about when I started to uncover the background. Like it or not, they truly are the poster boys, and that's not about to change. They symbolize the fictional universe more acutely than any other race does, and it's totally fitting and proper for them to be splattered all over the cover, to the exclusion of everything else.

Woop! Be it a new rulebook cover or the cover of the new DA dex, I'm happy to see something getting under of the iron certain.

insaniak wrote:

Brother SRM wrote:Crimson Fists were on the cover of RT, Blood Angels were on the cover of 2nd Edition, and Black Templars were on the cover of 3rd. It's hardly without precedent.

You forgot the Ultramarines on the BfM version of the 4th ed book...

5th ed is the only edition so far that has been sans Marines.

Actually there are Marines on the cover of 5th edition, Ultramarines at that.

Please let random charge distances be just some stupid thing thrown in the thread to piss me off and not the truth...

I am standing 2 inches away from an enemy mob....I need to charge them but there is the possibility I could roll snake eyes and be blinded all to hell and stumble around for no reason at all.

Yeah that makes a lot of sense...

I hope the new edition will be a lot more balanced and bring additional options to Codexes via erratas/FAQ or other. For example, by taking extra Saga on my HQ for 30 points all SW troops could not be shot at on the roll of 4+. This could be balanced by prohibiting flamers for Skyclaw jump infantry and bikers.

CainTheHunter wrote:I hope the new edition will be a lot more balanced and bring additional options to Codexes via erratas/FAQ or other. For example, by taking extra Saga on my HQ for 30 points all SW troops could not be shot at on the roll of 4+. This could be balanced by prohibiting flamers for Skyclaw jump infantry and bikers.

Sounds like Stealth Marine talk to me, boy.