Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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

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

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

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

Meganobz have 3 PK attacks, 4 if charging.

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

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

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

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



Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gorechild wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No, this will not happen.

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

* Third, it will stop conga lines. Enough said

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

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

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

Aah right, thanks Yak

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

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

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

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

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

You were playing it wrong.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cheers

Andrew

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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