ShumaGorath wrote:

Reecius wrote:Ah yes, all the chicken little's are already crying about the sky falling.

Come on people. This happens EVERY time. Every edition change, every new book, everyone flips out before they have any real facts.

Continue to enjoy the game now and wait to see what happens. Then, gasp, try it out and make a judgement call. No need for these overly dramatic statements based on rough rumors coming from the memories of a supposed play tester.

In other words, be cool people. These are just rumors.

But if the 40k community isn't being reactionary children then what are they?

Hahaha, got me there!

I think the sky would literally fall if the online community was calm and patient for a change of pace.

Balance wrote:

Brother Ramses wrote:With all the new rules along with the different levels of play, expect the starter set to have model, "cards" for ruls and stats, just like all the new game systems. Pokemon/Magic 40k 6th Edition!!

Yes, having a game be created such that reference material is widely available and easy to use is horrible and ruins the game.

Wait, didn't WH40k 2nd edition have cards and datafaxes?

And 40k use to have Squats, Overwatch, and SW turn 1 tabling opponents. Notice how we don't have them anymore?

Someone made comments about using counters and what not. What I find surprisingly is when I got my 5th edition book, with the metal case for the minis, it also came with counters and tokens.

Funny thing is, I haven't seen ONE PERSON ever use them. GW has made counters of units, for running, or has gone to ground, and other stuff.

So this is nothing new, but people just never seemed to use them.

We all use the dice to do it now, so it's just something to get use to, nothing to say "the sky is falling" or "its the end of the world". You are just making yourself look foolish, since so many other games do it, and is more fun and don't take up as long as a 40K game to boot.

Brother Ramses wrote:

Balance wrote:

Brother Ramses wrote:With all the new rules along with the different levels of play, expect the starter set to have model, "cards" for ruls and stats, just like all the new game systems. Pokemon/Magic 40k 6th Edition!!

Yes, having a game be created such that reference material is widely available and easy to use is horrible and ruins the game.

Wait, didn't WH40k 2nd edition have cards and datafaxes?

And 40k use to have Squats, Overwatch, and SW turn 1 tabling opponents. Notice how we don't have them anymore?

Read the rumors again..... Overwatch is looking like it is back.... And Characters will be getting a serious buff, maybe even allowing up to 3 saves per shot (Cover, Invul, Armor.).... Sound familier?

No more than 2 saves for characters, including re-rolls.

Sounds nice....

We also getting random number of heavy bolter (for example) shots? I still have those dice around here somewhere....

Sustained fire dice? I loved those things. Three dice per noise marine, baby, woo!

OK, correct me if I'm wrong but wouldn't assault before shooting pretty much make assault weapons obsolete.

Having assault weapons (based on the rumor dump) gives you a bonus attack in CC now...So it doesn't make them obsolete, in fact it makes things like codex: tyranids even better.

doubled wrote:OK, correct me if I'm wrong but wouldn't assault before shooting pretty much make assault weapons obsolete.

There's another post with more information:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/360/377248.page#2980372

More specifically, assault weapons (supposedly) help in close combat and can be used in Overwatch.

Sidstyler wrote:

I'll never understand the "lists meant to win = bad" thing, though. It makes me think that there are actually people out there who design their armies and play every game with the intention of losing and I don't think anyone needs to explain how absurd that is, no one actively tries to lose every game and if you do you're just wasting time. I have nothing against casual play, it's all I really do in any game, but I also disagree with this notion that trying to win is bad or wrong.

You apparently haven't seen this thread, then.

Well. I can't find it.

It may have been a "worst units" thread, but whatever it was, I know by the end everyone was trying to outdo each other with the 'worst possible army lists', and had even set up a potential tournament where it was guarenteed that everyone would try their hardest to win using each list. Whoever lost the most matches would be the 'winner' of best army. It was actually quite entertaining, and tactically interesting.

I don't know some of these rules sound pretty far out there.

I am going to wait until I see the rulebook with my own eyes and have played a few games to see how they work out before I make any bold, sweeping statements about how good or bad anything is...

Omegus wrote:

Sageheart wrote:WOW these rules really change things up. Whole armies are going to be entirely reformatted.

So no more razorback spam in 4/5 lists? Damn, I really enjoyed that. :(

Yeah just kinda sucks for the guy who spent mad billz on having 20+ chimeras..

Nobody spent the bills on 20+ chimeras, and if they did, they were going for an apocalypse level army. Transports will still be useful in 6th edition, if these are indeed 6th edition rules.

Sageheart wrote:

Omegus wrote:

Sageheart wrote:WOW these rules really change things up. Whole armies are going to be entirely reformatted.

So no more razorback spam in 4/5 lists? Damn, I really enjoyed that. :(

Yeah just kinda sucks for the guy who spent mad billz on having 20+ chimeras..

shame on me for spending £2000 on 3 mech list armies and now to find out tanks might not need needed to transport my troops

and I bought everything just in the past 2 months. Oh lucky me.

Sucks for you, then. If you dropped £2000 on tanks, then you had the money to spare. You'll still be able to use them. These rumors are unconfirmed, and even if they are true, transports are still useful. Quit crying about it.

Marthike wrote:shame on me for spending £2000 on 3 mech list armies and now to find out tanks might not need needed to transport my troops

and I bought everything just in the past 2 months. Oh lucky me.

Have you considered that it might be your fault for spending that massive an amount of cash on extremely one dimensional armies that have been widely predicted as "in" for 5th edition and likely to be less powerful in the future?

Anvildude wrote:It may have been a "worst units" thread, but whatever it was, I know by the end everyone was trying to outdo each other with the 'worst possible army lists', and had even set up a potential tournament where it was guarenteed that everyone would try their hardest to win using each list. Whoever lost the most matches would be the 'winner' of best army. It was actually quite entertaining, and tactically interesting.

Stuff like that is fine if it's just for fun, but you know what I mean, some people promote this style of play as if it were the only way to have fun and it's not.

ph34r wrote:extremely one dimensional armies

How so? I don't see how mech armies are any more one dimensional than armies which rely entirely on running toward the other guy and hoping he rolls 1's.

As far as mech being "out" next edition, I kinda doubt it. Unless they decide that they're just sick and tired of making money by giving people a reason to buy their most expensive kits.

doubled wrote:I don't know some of these rules sound pretty far out there.

Well, I clearly remember when the rumors of no more Victory Points and it would be objective based, people said BS and it was pretty far out there.

So while I agree most is not all are fake, you just never know. I guess next year we will know for sure one way or the other.

Magister187 wrote:

Crom wrote:

Magister187 wrote:

Crom wrote:I would like to see some options for activating units one at a time, and then switching back and forth. that way there is no real advantage to going first and it plays more like chess.

40k is nothing like chess. You don't have restrictions on number of units. That system works well only in games that have an even number of units, or no turn structure (ie. each move is a turn, not each move is back and forth) and/or where each unit is of similar quality.

If you ever played warzone back in the 90s, they did this via action points and activation one unit/vehicle/character at a time and then you traded turns off. I think it makes for better game play. Warzone was one of the best balanced game systems I played, but when I quit war gaming for a long time, I heard their last edition they screwed it all up though and they totally unbalanced the game.

When you activate a squad you can do whatever you with with it's activation points. In 40K you could activate a squad, move them, shoot them assault them, and then when you are done your opponent does the same and you trade off from there. Once everything has been activated turn 1 is over, and you start turn 2.

I understand how that system works, which is why I feel it won't work at all for 40k. Units range so greatly in quality/cost, that it can't possibly be balanced for an army with 3 or even 4 times the units to have that system. Seriously, think about orcs/nids/IG vs. Crons/SM/GK.

The system would need tweaking for sure, as well as the unit structure and squad/unit quantities but that doesn't mean it is impossible. More elite armies which have less units would have more actions or more abilities to fire and attack versus a horde army which is filled with quantity of units and not quality. It really wouldn't be much different from other than, giving opponents more reactionary opportunities. A horde of 30 models moves towards you, you can counter by moving to cover since you know they are going that way. Where as before you would have to wait your opponents whole turn.

I think in the end it is about the same since everything gets to go once before the turn ends, the order is just changed is all.

Some of these rules that are coming up even with the GW "clamp" on rumor control, as you can see that's not working, are right from 2nd edition for those who don't know. Sustain fire dice, pistol ST in CC, armor and invul saves on IC. There has been chatter on how all these changes will ruin the game and how it hard and long to play according to the rumors. I say the rumors are taking the game back to some of it roots. Switching from 2nd edition to 3rd sucked, 4th edition sucked, and 5th is so simple it can't suck. I would welcome these changes. If over watch is true, HW squad guard armies will get to return to their glory days(my old days). For the comments on "snap!, armies will have to be changed!" Try playing through 4 editions!

Sidstyler wrote:

ph34r wrote:extremely one dimensional armies

How so? I don't see how mech armies are any more one dimensional than armies which rely entirely on running toward the other guy and hoping he rolls 1's.

Out of curiosity, have you ever played against a mech army?

If even half of these rumors are true, I'm going NUTS in wait for 6th This sounds like it's going to make the game more in line with fantasy, which, being a player of both systems, I find fantasy more tactically sound. So this will become a more intense game. And I'm all for that

timetowaste85 wrote:If even half of these rumors are true, I'm going NUTS in wait for 6th This sounds like it's going to make the game more in line with fantasy, which, being a player of both systems, I find fantasy more tactically sound. So this will become a more intense game. And I'm all for that

40K the toughest of characters can die, in fantasy you can have a Lord wipe out half an army no problem. I think 40K is far more balanced when it comes to units/characters/warmachines and such. I think fantasy has a bit more tactics involved because it is more complicated, otherwise I think 40K is a more solid system, sans say the over powered cover saves.

2nd edition of 40K was all about cheese. Displacement fields, vortex grenades, assassins, ultimate power force cards, etc. Every weapon had it's own STR value with modifiers. It will make the game drag on, become all about characters, and elite troops will own everything. What I like most about 5th edition is that I came back into gaming after a 15 year break, is how well balanced the game is. So I quit right when 3rd edition came out. In fact I remember buying the 3rd Ed book, but never actually playing a 3rd Ed game. My buddy decided he wanted to start a Tau Army and I dusted off my old 2nd Edition Space Wolves from a box in the basement. First game my blood claws charged into a unit of the Kroot thinking, oh well they are cheap cannon fodder troops I will shred them. They destroyed my blood claws after I got my licks in. In 2nd edition that would have never happened.

Terminator armor was 3+ on 2D6 back then so STR 6 attacks were a 6+ on 2D6 to save. I really hope they don't turn this into Herohammer 40K with the next edition. They also need to seriously streamline vehicle rules.

Crom wrote:

timetowaste85 wrote:If even half of these rumors are true, I'm going NUTS in wait for 6th This sounds like it's going to make the game more in line with fantasy, which, being a player of both systems, I find fantasy more tactically sound. So this will become a more intense game. And I'm all for that

40K the toughest of characters can die, in fantasy you can have a Lord wipe out half an army no problem. I think 40K is far more balanced when it comes to units/characters/warmachines and such. I think fantasy has a bit more tactics involved because it is more complicated, otherwise I think 40K is a more solid system, sans say the over powered cover saves.

2nd edition of 40K was all about cheese. Displacement fields, vortex grenades, assassins, ultimate power force cards, etc. Every weapon had it's own STR value with modifiers. It will make the game drag on, become all about characters, and elite troops will own everything. What I like most about 5th edition is that I came back into gaming after a 15 year break, is how well balanced the game is. So I quit right when 3rd edition came out. In fact I remember buying the 3rd Ed book, but never actually playing a 3rd Ed game. My buddy decided he wanted to start a Tau Army and I dusted off my old 2nd Edition Space Wolves from a box in the basement. First game my blood claws charged into a unit of the Kroot thinking, oh well they are cheap cannon fodder troops I will shred them. They destroyed my blood claws after I got my licks in. In 2nd edition that would have never happened.

Terminator armor was 3+ on 2D6 back then so STR 6 attacks were a 6+ on 2D6 to save. I really hope they don't turn this into Herohammer 40K with the next edition. They also need to seriously streamline vehicle rules.

Actually I remember weapons having a "str rating" and an "armour save modifier". i.e. a profile would be "STR6 -3 armour save", so Termie armour would get 6+(normally 3+ with no modifier) on 2d6. All other armour used 1d6 with few exceptions.

These rumours completely go against the design philosophy of recent 40K editions. I am sceptical.

L. Wrex

Lycaeus Wrex wrote:These rumours completely go against the design philosophy of recent 40K editions. I am sceptical.

L. Wrex

To be fair, 3rd ed. went completely against the design philosophy of 1st and 2nd as well. It's not inconceivable that GW have decided it's time for another major shift.

htj wrote:

Lycaeus Wrex wrote:These rumours completely go against the design philosophy of recent 40K editions. I am sceptical.

L. Wrex

To be fair, 3rd ed. went completely against the design philosophy of 1st and 2nd as well. It's not inconceivable that GW have decided it's time for another major shift.

It is inconceivable that they would opt for this major a shift backwards though. It's well documented that the designers have always wanted to streamline the system and make it more approachable, easier to understand, and simpler to play. Throwing in a veritable ton of rules 'just for the sake of it' that completely counteract everything done in the past 3 editions, just makes this whole list reek of fan-based wishlisting rather than anything that would come out of a GW design studio.

I'll wait until the actual rulebook is released before I make any concrete judgements. I was already over my daily salt intake allowance on the first page, now I can't move for the stuff.

L. Wrex

Lycaeus Wrex wrote:

htj wrote:

Lycaeus Wrex wrote:These rumours completely go against the design philosophy of recent 40K editions. I am sceptical.

L. Wrex

To be fair, 3rd ed. went completely against the design philosophy of 1st and 2nd as well. It's not inconceivable that GW have decided it's time for another major shift.

It is inconceivable that they would opt for this major a shift backwards though. It's well documented that the designers have always wanted to streamline the system and make it more approachable, easier to understand, and simpler to play. Throwing in a veritable ton of rules 'just for the sake of it' that completely counteract everything done in the past 3 editions, just makes this whole list reek of fan-based wishlisting rather than anything that would come out of a GW design studio.

I'll wait until the actual rulebook is released before I make any concrete judgements. I was already over my daily salt intake allowance on the first page, now I can't move for the stuff.

L. Wrex

It's only really backwards if it is truly a shift to a similar system to 2nd, which it doesn't seem to be to me in any major sense. If anything, they've been moving away from the ultra-streamilined, and rather dry 3rd ed. As you say, we can't really know what's going on up in the Nottingham GW Bat-Cave, but having seen three editions with very similar mechanics, a large overhaul of the mechanic doesn't seem impossible.

Just to make myself clear, though, I don't put a huge amount of faith in these rumours as this Blood of Kittens source is a newish one on me and has yet to prove itself. But I can certainly believe that a major overhaul is in the works.

Doubt there will be chaos legions...hope there won't be chaos legions so I can keep on fielding my Plague Marines and Korne Beserkers together.

htj wrote:

Lycaeus Wrex wrote:These rumours completely go against the design philosophy of recent 40K editions. I am sceptical.

L. Wrex

To be fair, 3rd ed. went completely against the design philosophy of 1st and 2nd as well. It's not inconceivable that GW have decided it's time for another major shift.

Agreed, but that was then, and this is now.

3rd, 4th and 5th have all, sort of, 'made sense' based on what came before.

This stuff?

Not so much.

Lycaeus Wrex wrote:

htj wrote:

Lycaeus Wrex wrote:These rumours completely go against the design philosophy of recent 40K editions. I am sceptical.

L. Wrex

To be fair, 3rd ed. went completely against the design philosophy of 1st and 2nd as well. It's not inconceivable that GW have decided it's time for another major shift.

It is inconceivable that they would opt for this major a shift backwards though. It's well documented that the designers have always wanted to streamline the system and make it more approachable, easier to understand, and simpler to play. Throwing in a veritable ton of rules 'just for the sake of it' that completely counteract everything done in the past 3 editions, just makes this whole list reek of fan-based wishlisting rather than anything that would come out of a GW design studio.

I'll wait until the actual rulebook is released before I make any concrete judgements. I was already over my daily salt intake allowance on the first page, now I can't move for the stuff.

L. Wrex

Of course, none of those designers are still employed by GW. The oversimplification wave came and went, then reared back with the boring books of 4th edition. Now the design methodology, spearheaded by Ward, seems to be more about crazy. I quite like what they did with the Fantasy rules, and it went against pre-established conventions quite a bit (which is why it has so many haters... oh noes, my cav death star can't autowin the game on turn 2 anymore /hate /hate /hate!). I'm considering these rumors salty, but still palatable. Even if these are the playtest rules verbatim, some things will undoubtedly change.

Omegus wrote:
Of course, none of those designers are still employed by GW. The oversimplification wave came and went, then reared back with the boring books of 4th edition.

I think you're confusing 3rd edition with 4th edition.

Anyway, as much as I'd love it, I just can't see GW going for this level of sophistication/complication in their ruleset...

It all sounds so awesome that it is akin to thinking one might win the lotto.

I expect whatever 6th edition becomes, it will happen as a means of selling miniatures. So as 5th edition sold tanks, 6th edition is likely to sell infantry, flyers, moon doggies, or flip flops.

GW is a company. They will design products to sell more products. It is the GW prime directive.

I hope the rumors are true. They all look awesome to me.

But what do I know, I loved Rogue Trader.

If 6th ed is just 3rd ed Version 4 then I'll be rather bored. Fantasy was an alright change, but they made half of the classes of units useless due to steadfast (Annoying how one silly rule can nerf so much)

Get rid of the inability for cav to break steadfast and they'd be viable and fun. Part of my dissapointment comes with half my collection being pointless. It should be a PRIORITY in design philosophy to make all unit types useful

Alpharius wrote:

Omegus wrote:
Of course, none of those designers are still employed by GW. The oversimplification wave came and went, then reared back with the boring books of 4th edition.

I think you're confusing 3rd edition with 4th edition.

Anyway, as much as I'd love it, I just can't see GW going for this level of sophistication/complication in their ruleset...

Maybe. The way I recall it, 3rd edition was supposed to be all about bare-bones simplicity, but soon enough had gotten pretty crazy with all the customization, best evidenced by the trait systems of IG, SM and Chaos, and the Craftworld Codex for the Eldar. So there was a reaction to make everything more simple again, and we got bland stinkers best evidenced by the current Dark Angels and especially Chaos Space Marines books.

The rumored 6th ed changes still point to a 3rd ed-based system. It's an evolution, but the game is still far more similar to 3rd than 2nd.

Having said that, if this is a look at the future, I'm glad they're making more significant changes than they did in the jumps to 4th and 5th. IMO, we shouldn't act like third edition was the firmest bedrock around...it was a flawed system with fundamental problems they're still wrestling with today. Witness the many evolutions of the sweeping advance. Witness the different rules for LOS, targeting and screening. These aren't nuances at the edges of the system...they're basic parts of gameplay that even the studio hasn't ever seemed to be happy with. I actually like 5th ed...but IMO it's also time to break some eggs.

IMO, the USR(x) system actually would help simplify the game. The current complexity in the game isn't in the basic rules...it's in the codicies and their many different special rules and variations thereof.

Kirasu wrote:Get rid of the inability for cav to break steadfast and they'd be viable and fun. Part of my dissapointment comes with half my collection being pointless. It should be a PRIORITY in design philosophy to make all unit types useful

Yes, cavalry was definitely overnerfed, and they need to give them some kind of bonus (like that USR devastating charge[?] that no one seems to have should be standard for cavalry, and perhaps letting the second rank provide multiple attacks ala monstrous creatures). Of course, before it was all about, turn 1: march, turn 2: charge and kill the whole front rank with no opportunities for the opponent to retaliate, auto-break with fear. Game over.

Lycaeus Wrex wrote:It's well documented that the designers have always wanted to streamline the system and make it more approachable, easier to understand, and simpler to play.

Which is why they would introduce a simple and advanced version of the rules, to try to dip into both markets which actually makes far more sense then just having a super simple ruleset. Simple rules aren't engaging, they need to have some more depth to keep players hooked. A two tiered rules set, one for beginners that is easy to learn and one for more advanced players that is deeper makes so much sense that its almost out of character that GW would do it.

And honestly, I will say it again, these rules seem far more complicated in their current state then if the exact same rules were laid out in a book. They are not huge departures from 5th edition. They also clarify rules disputes which are honestly what usually takes up the most dead time.

Are they real? I will give it a 50/50... but I can hope...

Here is what I would like to see:

1) Nerfed Cover saves, they are currently a bit too powerful in my opinion, also cover giving a negative to hit and cover saves being an additional save (say before your armor) would be OK with me. However, 4+ save for being in the woods seems a bit over kill to me, and 6+ for razor wire? Since when does razor wire stop bullets or lasers?

2) Streamlined vehicle rules. Transports, skimmers, fast attack, need to be more cut and clear and all transport rules should be in the transport section of the rule book. I really dislike flipping into each section of the book to get transport rules from different classes of vehicles and yes the rules contradict themselves when dealing with different classes of vehicles. I think smaller vehicles should just have a Toughness rating, like bikes and the equivalent and not an armor value.

3) I would like to see a strategy point system. Where you don't get units that deep strike, out flank, infiltrate, or what not. Instead you get a set of strategy points and you spend them on your units, so you can infiltrate any unit, out flank any unit, deep strike any unit, but at the cost of your strategy points. They can be used for other things like calling in air strikes or a supply drop (to say swap out equipment or supply a unit with melta bombs or something), thus putting the HQ units in more of a command/support role since they would be the models spending strategy points. I think they could take a lot of the things form the strategy cards from 2nd edition and give them a point value. Then say, before the game starts you roll 4D6 and pick the highest two dice and multiply them by 10, and that is how many points you get. Certain HQ units could give a bonus to points, and perhaps for some units costs of certain strategies would be cheaper, ie scouts can infiltrate at half point cost.

4) Finally I would like to see a more diversified army list system. More ability to tweak your army built to a specific strategy. All fast attack, or all shooting, or whatever it is, of course with limitations that balance it out amongst all armies. This would allow you to run more and more different combinations in your list, and allow you to go outside the cookie-cutter tournament list system and try all sorts of new strategies that normally would not be valid in the current army list system. This could even tie into the strategy point system, where if you want all fast attack you must sacrifice some strategy points to do so.


Thoughts?

i like everything except the vehicle toughness thing, good post though.

dajobe wrote:i like everything except the vehicle toughness thing, good post though.

Toughness 5 vehicles with two wounds will never suffer instant death, and can take two hits before they die. Nob bikers, fenrisian wolves, and so forth have a toughness value and wounds. I guss I am ok with armor value 10, but I like the idea of fast vehicles getting minuses to hit because they are fast, and if they do hit wounding the rider rather than taking out the bike itself. I would only like to see this to small one man open vehicles like bikes.

Wouldnt a Railcannon solid shot S10 cause instant death? wounding the biker is what i generally assumes happens. But i see your point, like why a truck with driver and passenger gets an armour saver and they are both unarmoured dudes with no real protection? so i see the validity of your point, and putting all transports rules in same section would probably be a good idea, but still like the vehicle armour and not armour save

dajobe wrote:Wouldnt a Railcannon solid shot S10 cause instant death? wounding the biker is what i generally assumes happens. But i see your point, like why a truck with driver and passenger gets an armour saver and they are both unarmoured dudes with no real protection? so i see the validity of your point, and putting all transports rules in same section would probably be a good idea, but still like the vehicle armour and not armour save

I believe the rule states it must be more than double your toughness, so T5 would need STR11 to instant death. I don't have my rule book handy at the moment. There are no STR11 attacks in the game that I am aware of.

I think vehicle armor values should be for actual armored vehicles, that are more of a tank class. That is something I like, because it takes out all the smaller guns from even hurting it.

No, its double or more. T5 can only be instagakked by S10 weapons, because as you sad there is no S11.

yeah, otherwise, im gonna get back alot of marines from S8 attacks lol

Double, not more than double, i think

I don't have my rulebooks on me, but i'm pretty sure it's double.


As to vehicle toughness, it would depend on the T rating it was given. T 5, not so fond. T 7-10 might be viable.

An example would be the Wraithlord or Dreadknight.

It's a MC, but an artificial construct that could easily be reclassified as a vehicle if you wanted. Not saying you should, but it's doable.

Any more rumors or are we off to the Land of Wishlisting?

Crom wrote:

dajobe wrote:Wouldnt a Railcannon solid shot S10 cause instant death? wounding the biker is what i generally assumes happens. But i see your point, like why a truck with driver and passenger gets an armour saver and they are both unarmoured dudes with no real protection? so i see the validity of your point, and putting all transports rules in same section would probably be a good idea, but still like the vehicle armour and not armour save

I believe the rule states it must be more than double your toughness, so T5 would need STR11 to instant death. I don't have my rule book handy at the moment. There are no STR11 attacks in the game that I am aware of.

I think vehicle armor values should be for actual armored vehicles, that are more of a tank class. That is something I like, because it takes out all the smaller guns from even hurting it.

It's double or more, not more than double. S10 can ID T5, ask a TWC player.

You are also not including ID weaponry that activates outside of double toughness; IE Bile, Force Weapons, etc. You would also need to write conventions for toughness characteristic driven tests (Poison, toughness test, always wounds on a 6 regardless of toughness, etc). It's a nice though but the cure could be worse than the problem...

AV would work fine if the chart wasn't so black/white. That is one area I would welcome more intense rules.

Ah yeah I just looked it up, it is double or greater. I only suggest T value on small open, one manned vehicles like bikes and the equivalents (buggies, jet bikes, etc) and all over vehicles have armor values.

I'm not sure why you are suggesting things in a rumour thread to begin with honestly. As pretre said, this looks to have devolved into wishlisting... that wasn't really the intention of this thread.

Magister187 wrote:I'm not sure why you are suggesting things in a rumour thread to begin with honestly. As pretre said, this looks to have devolved into wishlisting... that wasn't really the intention of this thread.

I am both wishlisting and rumoring....in that new white dwarf they introduced strategy points which seems interesting. I did not read the full article though I just skimmed through it. Though I read rumors from all over the Internet and I have no idea how to validate a good rumor versus a far off rumor.

timetowaste85 wrote:If even half of these rumors are true, I'm going NUTS in wait for 6th This sounds like it's going to make the game more in line with fantasy, which, being a player of both systems, I find fantasy more tactically sound. So this will become a more intense game. And I'm all for that

More tactically sound = not bothering with having to guess distances anymore?

Hm.

Crom wrote:

Magister187 wrote:I'm not sure why you are suggesting things in a rumour thread to begin with honestly. As pretre said, this looks to have devolved into wishlisting... that wasn't really the intention of this thread.

I am both wishlisting and rumoring....in that new white dwarf they introduced strategy points which seems interesting. I did not read the full article though I just skimmed through it. Though I read rumors from all over the Internet and I have no idea how to validate a good rumor versus a far off rumor.

Well, you should read the full article, because they weren't strategy points, they were strategems for cities of death, a mechanic that has existed since before 5th edition.

Che-Vito wrote:

timetowaste85 wrote:If even half of these rumors are true, I'm going NUTS in wait for 6th This sounds like it's going to make the game more in line with fantasy, which, being a player of both systems, I find fantasy more tactically sound. So this will become a more intense game. And I'm all for that

More tactically sound = not bothering with having to guess distances anymore?

Hm.

I think WHFB is more tactically sound in army versus army builds. You can build the wrong army but still have magic win the game for you. Though there is a catch 22, because at the same time it makes herohammer a reality. I have seen lord characters wipe out half an army before. One character should never be so powerful to wipe out half an army. I think that overall scaling of WHFB is also off. Some armies scale well at 2000 to 2500 points while others do not scale as well.

Overall they are different games and hard to compare. I play both and have played 40K since 2nd Ed and Fantasy since 3rd (though technically did not have my own army until 4th).

Che-Vito wrote:More tactically sound = not bothering with having to guess distances anymore?

Hm.

Being able to tell the difference between 11.75" and 12" does not have anything to do with tactics. Sorry for that reality check.

I think this thread is all done for now.