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.

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

Ok, so if you know for a fact these are bogus rumours, you must be ITK, so please enlighten us....

No?

Ok.

The fact is that their info since the Necron models last year has, so far, been accurate. Several things they mention correlate with other rumours or things that were seen in Pancake.

Also factor in that they are blatantly trying to establish themselves as a legitimate site, and not just a fan site, and that to run false info would be seriously damaging to their credibility, therefore they are probably pretty sure of their facts.

But most importantly, for those that seem to be getting upset/worried/taking it personally, these are tiny fractions of what may be a substantially changed ruleset, and until viewed in context with all other changes, cannot be discussed with any degree of certainty as to what it will/will not nerf.

I'm really excited for a new edition, and look forward to new stuff and all the changes and challenges it will bring.

balsak_da_mighty wrote:Oh I don't think that what they have is the best, its needs improvement. I am just not so sure this is the right thing to do. It really doesn't make sense to me. But nothing that has come down the rumor mill has.

Challenges....really!?

I can see a Tau Ethereal challenging a Demon Prince. Yeah right! Or that Tau Ethereal actually accepting that challenge. Its a waste of space in a rulebook. I don't see many people actually accepting it. When you can do that allready by moving your HQ into base with said HQ.

But I am just going to wait and see what the deal is.

Are you kidding? I totally hope the demon prince challenges my Tau, that way I can deny it and get out of combat!!!
Now, IC's HAVE to try and fight....my swarmlord can challenge someone out of range, or my crisis can hide....this is awesome.

I am sorry some people don't like change...

azreal13 wrote:But most importantly, for those that seem to be getting upset/worried/taking it personally, these are tiny fractions of what may be a substantially changed ruleset, and until viewed in context with all other changes, cannot be discussed with any degree of certainty as to what it will/will not nerf.

Don't get me wrong. I'm excited about a new edition. I like change.

The two changes so far (shooting wounds allocated by rank and snap fire) severely damage horde assault armies (like Tyranids).
I'm trying to think of any other change that could be made to bring them at least back up to where they were - and the only one I can think of is assaulting out of deep strike... which just doesn't seem likely to me.

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

Do you have more solid information? These are RUMORS, if its true you look like an idiot if they are not then they do. Let it lie and dont look stupid.

On a better note.After thinking about it, I would agree that if it is for each 6 (or for each hit if your BS1) and you get to allocate the wounds then it would be fething amazing!

rigeld2 wrote:

azreal13 wrote:But most importantly, for those that seem to be getting upset/worried/taking it personally, these are tiny fractions of what may be a substantially changed ruleset, and until viewed in context with all other changes, cannot be discussed with any degree of certainty as to what it will/will not nerf.

Don't get me wrong. I'm excited about a new edition. I like change.

The two changes so far (shooting wounds allocated by rank and snap fire) severely damage horde assault armies (like Tyranids).
I'm trying to think of any other change that could be made to bring them at least back up to where they were - and the only one I can think of is assaulting out of deep strike... which just doesn't seem likely to me.

Movement rules being similar to pancake makes it even - Genestealers running 16" in the movement phase, trygons the same, Raveners with a 21" charge threat range are all 3x faster on foot than now. Any changes in those capacities will more than make up for having meaningful shooting.

Also snap fire won't pwn Genestealers and orks. Roll 20 dice (10 rapid fires) pick out sixes and then roll again for 4+. If lucky you'll kill 1 or 2 orks/Genestealers, and not even a whole Ravener. As said before -- we need to know all the rules before judging the tiddles.

I don't see snap firing making a massive impact, at BS 1 a full squad of marines will only land 3 hits or so on average. Against a big boy mob or gaunt brood, not likely to affect the outcome. Templates may hurt more, but I would expect hits to be resolved before models are moved, so, as now, their effect can be mitigated by sensible model placement.

Challenges could become very interesting. Imagine that my one wound booster IC (haemy, sang priest etc..) challenges Abaddon. By sacrificing my character, I limit Abaddon to one wound caused in the combat, hopefully leaving the rest of the squad to win and eliminate the opposing unit. Of course, there may be some 'overkill' clause that counts wounds caused instead of wounds taken, but that would be less interesting imho.

Hmm. Sounds like the usual GW mantra. What is good in the previous edition will be nerfed. What was bad will be awesome.

Already came to conclusion months ago that 6th ED will be Fantasy influenced. Already been beefing up my troop choices (as well as certain vehicles and other types of models) in all of my 13 different armies just because. My concern is that with what I am perceiving is an increase model count per army and an increase army point lists being played.

Which in turn will slow down the game regardless of the current rumors being played out.

GW sells models. What is the best way to sell models to their best product line? Change the codex and make it happen. Thank god that I never sold any of my armies. I do not have to make a serious investment in keeping up with the 6thED changes.

But I will feel sorry for those people who will try to get into the hobby in the near future.

gorgon wrote:

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.

Nope. You only rolled shots together if the models were similarly armed and you took casualties from the nearest mode first. So that closest model had to fail a save before shooting moved to the next model. You could roll to hit and wound if the weapons and targets were the same but saves still came off of the nearest model.

To me these new Wound Allocation rules feel more clunky then the ones we already have.

Sure it works when your guys are standing a neat little ranks, but we're playing 40k.... I and most people I know usely deploy our guys is more haphazard blobs! Sure you can just "eye ball it" dureing friednly games. But in tournaments I know for a fact I'm going to have to measure each model individually to adoivd argument....
=/

I consider the current 5th ed wound allocation rules better then that garbage....

I actully liked the wound allocation rules from Pancake edition..... They were quick, and gave a pretty cool boost to massed small arms fire. If their was any truth to pancake edition that was the one I hopped for the most.

I still can't believe it. People are still complaining saying this sucks without knowing how anything else works?

How about if assault is before shooting? What if the speeds are increased? So many things we don't know. You can't apply the rumours to 5th edition rules.

All I know is 5th edition is really getting boring to play and I only played a few games. Same thing over and over again. Last turn vehicle rush, almost everyone hiding and cowering in vehicles.

Also how stupid it is you hit someone that is in range, but someone out of range dies that can't be hit? I think hitting what is in front or maybe what is in RANGE is a good idea. Remeber, don't like the rule, change it. If you can't change it, then ADAPT.

I just can't believe people are complaining still about plastic toy soldiers without even trying the rules. Why does everyone have to MATHAMMER before even trying them?

Challenges work well in fantasy-I wish we had challenges in 40k sooner. I'm a bit leery of removing models from the front, as special weapons like meltas can be picked up by a model behind it, just as a musician and standard bearer can be killed and somebody behind them can wave a flag or smack a drum (keeping the special model in the unit). Champions/sergeants are different, as they are more experienced fighters, have more attacks, better skill, and access to better gear that takes more training. Fantasy has ways of killing off champions, but they also get "look out sir"-something that should move to 40k as well, then these rules will be okay-a 'regular' will take the hit instead. These rules do really turn the game into a movement based, strategy game, not just how well you can use a net-list. In fact, if these rules come to pass, net-lists should all but disappear, as each player will decide if his army wins, based on how he arranges his units and how he picks his targets. I'm leery on some things, but I think I'm mostly in the positive on these rumors. Hope most of them pan out. Get rid of your melta guns for flamers. My Soul Grinders are happy to rejoin the table. Hehehe...

I think hitting what is in front or maybe what is in RANGE is a good idea.

That's how it worked in 4ed and it was not such a good idea. You had people doing range and LOS sniping, such that what they wanted dead was the only model affected due to carefully staying just in range and blocking of LOS with their rhinos and whatnot. It was dumb and gamey. While the current rules leave a lot to be desired, I much prefer 5ed in that regard. I am a bit worried that those shenanigans will make their return (even more so if true LOS is in), but I have a wait and see attitude.

However I agree its much too early for gnashing of teeth. The rules need context.

I remember when 5ed rumors dropped and people whined that transports were terrible under the rumors, cause of run and tanks being hit on rear armor. All the while missing the significance of the ability to take a cover save and the huge change to the damage chart.

Granted there are things that just sound silly regardless of context. Challenges just don't sit well with me no matter how the mechanics work out. I like to imagine combat as quick and decisive bloody things with no time for something like:
"Hey chap, I challenge yee to a scrape."
"Verily, skalliwag I shall smite thee. WAAGGH."
I dunno. I get why fantasy has challenges, it makes sense in the context of the game world AND the mechanics (ranks and whatnot). 40k doesn't have the constraints of WHFB. If I want my Ghaz to get at Marneus in a CC, he can pretty much cut a bloody swath to him or die trying. That's how it should be imo. Letting him just warp over to him is a bit much imo. But I have a wait and see attitude still.

Lockark wrote:To me these new Wound Allocation rules feel more clunky then the ones we already have.

Who knows how it actually works though, it could be a simple variation on the easy 4th edition system with the added caveat of "for each failed save remove the closest model to the attacking unit, rechecking distance as necessary as models are removed" or something similar. Personally this sort of rule will give a small bit of increased value to rapid fire guns vs melee hordes as you can effectively reduce the potential assaulter movement by whittling away their lead elements, something hitherto impossible in 40k, but I would say very 'realistic/cinematic'.

I'll also observe that this is exactly how casualties were removed in EPIC: Armageddon so it's not new ground for GW in general (more recently then 40k 2nd for sure).

Jack

So from the complaining I have been seeing on the interent, people don't want to think about placing their minis anywhere? Is that is why they don't want the front line being removed? So people don't want to think about, do I keep my Melta safe and losse a bit of distant or have him in the front to get a bit extra distance but maybe get shot at then?

So someone in the back can pick up the melta gun so it's ok for a model to have an extra 2" or even say 24" move? How is this fun? Can someone explain to me how this is fun?

Davor wrote:So from the complaining I have been seeing on the interent, people don't want to think about placing their minis anywhere? Is that is why they don't want the front line being removed? So people don't want to think about, do I keep my Melta safe and losse a bit of distant or have him in the front to get a bit extra distance but maybe get shot at then?

No, but thanks for the accusation.

20 strong unit of hormagaunts, spread out for max coherency (because of blasts). It's not hard to drop a bunch of wounds on them. If you nuke the front rank they now have 3 inches to make up next turn (2 for the coherency, 1 for the base).

That's a bit more concerning than "I don't want to think about placing my minis anywhere".

That's my concern. If they massively increase speed, sure... fine. I don't expect that though.

Huh, the 7 attack ghazgull was not an error. Looks like counter-charge charge reaction is there. OOooooo yeahhhhhhh

If you hate gamers and gaming why do you comment at all? All you are is a gamer if you play. Please put things constructive and not flaming, it just makes you look like a fool as well as any work you ever post.

No, you misconstrued my comment. I'm simply stating that CERTAIN parts of the gaming sub-culture are not desirable to me. And that BoW greatly reminds me of those certain parts. For the most part, I love gamers, (As I am one) but the BoW guys more often remind me of the gamers I DON'T like.
Also, I'll comment all I want, you do the same.
You don't like what I have to say? Don't read it.

matphat wrote:

If you hate gamers and gaming why do you comment at all? All you are is a gamer if you play. Please put things constructive and not flaming, it just makes you look like a fool as well as any work you ever post.

No, you misconstrued my comment. I'm simply stating that CERTAIN parts of the gaming sub-culture are not desirable to me. And that BoW greatly reminds me of those certain parts. For the most part, I love gamers, (As I am one) but the BoW guys more often remind me of the gamers I DON'T like.
Also, I'll comment all I want, you do the same.
You don't like what I have to say? Don't read it.

That's a new thread worthy if mods will allow it. The classification of gamer subculture and subtypes. Your elitism is satisfactory.

Also, BS1 when reaction shooting + assault weapons probably able to stand & shoot = charging into a shoota squad just went from amazing to very VERY costly. Charging tankbustas is now suicidal.

SlaveToDorkness wrote:

gorgon wrote:

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.

Nope. You only rolled shots together if the models were similarly armed and you took casualties from the nearest mode first. So that closest model had to fail a save before shooting moved to the next model. You could roll to hit and wound if the weapons and targets were the same but saves still came off of the nearest model.

A common misconception, but still incorrect. And far OT.

These rules just sound awful, they just give more reasons for armies to fulfill stereotypes. My Guard sometimes charge the enemy, not often, but sometimes it is useful, with these "cinematic" charge rules I will have no reason to charge, ever, no matter what, even against Tau. If the enemy charges I can shoot them with loads of special weapons and possibly heavy weapons, if I charge than not only will I likely lose combat, but before that combat begins I will get shot to bits. Honestly this seems terrible for army diversity, it will ruin several unique builds.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:

Davor wrote:So from the complaining I have been seeing on the interent, people don't want to think about placing their minis anywhere? Is that is why they don't want the front line being removed? So people don't want to think about, do I keep my Melta safe and losse a bit of distant or have him in the front to get a bit extra distance but maybe get shot at then?

No, but thanks for the accusation.

20 strong unit of hormagaunts, spread out for max coherency (because of blasts). It's not hard to drop a bunch of wounds on them. If you nuke the front rank they now have 3 inches to make up next turn (2 for the coherency, 1 for the base).

That's a bit more concerning than "I don't want to think about placing my minis anywhere".

That's my concern. If they massively increase speed, sure... fine. I don't expect that though.

There is also the potential to shoot a unit out of coherency, which will seriously muck things up.

Buttons wrote:There is also the potential to shoot a unit out of coherency, which will seriously muck things up.

I'd count that as a feature not a bug, as it discourages stringing out units in odd lines and the like when close to the enemy.

I.e. a unit formed into a skirmish line makes contact and takes fire and is quite reasonably forced to contract to effectively engage, as would happen in a small unit engagement in practice.

Jack

5th edition has been geared towards strong assault elements winning games. Disagree if you will but first consider this -- An army in 5th edition has but 1 shooting phase each game turn, but 2 Assault phases. In addition winning an assault can and often does result in a complete rout of the enemy unit (sweeping advance). Given GW's trend of nerfing the awesome and awesome'ing the nerfed, going towards strong shooting elements having more chances to damage the enemy would fit that trend perfectly.

I'm not saying I agree with or even like the proposed changes to 6th edition with these 'leaks' but i can sadly see some of them happening. I just hope the surrounding rules don't make the game further unplayable for some under used armies.

Also to cross-reference another thread for those keeping track of Beasts of War's accuracy record, Hastings has confirmed (via KrootHawk) in the 'flyers' thread that indeed we are getting 3 flyer kits in June - SM, Ork, and Necrons. Chalk one up to BoW rumor mongering (probably).

I'll update the first post with links to all the BoW videos in case people don't want to read the whole thread for links.

terranarc wrote:

matphat wrote:

If you hate gamers and gaming why do you comment at all? All you are is a gamer if you play. Please put things constructive and not flaming, it just makes you look like a fool as well as any work you ever post.

No, you misconstrued my comment. I'm simply stating that CERTAIN parts of the gaming sub-culture are not desirable to me. And that BoW greatly reminds me of those certain parts. For the most part, I love gamers, (As I am one) but the BoW guys more often remind me of the gamers I DON'T like.
Also, I'll comment all I want, you do the same.
You don't like what I have to say? Don't read it.

That's a new thread worthy if mods will allow it. The classification of gamer subculture and subtypes. Your elitism is satisfactory.

Also, BS1 when reaction shooting + assault weapons probably able to stand & shoot = charging into a shoota squad just went from amazing to very VERY costly. Charging tankbustas is now suicidal.

I approve this message.

Yes charging certain units would be the death of some strong units. on the other hand charging a Grey Knight squad with psycannon is very costly. . .

Challenged would add an interesting aspect to the game.

It would help power weapons, and hurt power fists. It would also make gk even better.

Shifting. Wound allocation to closest model would add more strategy to the game.

schadenfreude wrote:Challenged would add an interesting aspect to the game.

It would help power weapons, and hurt power fists. It would also make gk even better.

Shifting. Wound allocation to closest model would add more strategy to the game.

While we're speculating let's consider the possibility that power fists might not work the same way as they do now...

I guess my individual opinion isn't worth much on the question. I mean, even if some of those suggestions are clearly ridiculous, it's still possible that they will make it in the rulebook. For what it's worth ;

A) Challenges ; that's hateful, not because it doesn't belong, just because, as presented, it'll be abused until the end. Someone already mentioned the mindshackles scarabs.

B) Allocations : well it's the title that's misleading, this is just direct fire ranged damage allocations. And at that it's perfect. But if that tries to cover cc, or even AoE damage allocations, well, its horrible. But I don't think it is.

C) Stand and Shoot : If it's well done, YES. Also, YES to integrating counter charge reactions to the entire set.

Two different systems but directed hits exists in warmachine/hordes. Another thing to consider - but in that game system if the team leader or sergeant gets killed another model gets 'field promoted' and replaced with the sergeant model.

Perhaps we'll get field promotions for sergeants as well as special/heavy weapons (to simulate models in the squad being trained in their compatriots' weaponry).

Again all speculation at this point.

Jackmojo wrote:

Buttons wrote:There is also the potential to shoot a unit out of coherency, which will seriously muck things up.

I'd count that as a feature not a bug, as it discourages stringing out units in odd lines and the like when close to the enemy.

I.e. a unit formed into a skirmish line makes contact and takes fire and is quite reasonably forced to contract to effectively engage, as would happen in a small unit engagement in practice.

Jack

Except it makes foot slogging armies even worse. Now if you string out your unit to protect against blasts you can be shot out of coherency, if you get close to keep from getting shot out of coherency you will fall to blast templates. Also, judging by what is already has been claimed regarding shooting it wouldn't surprise me if they claimed that the models under a template have to be the ones to take the wounds making taking units out of coherency easier.

Buttons wrote:

Jackmojo wrote:

Buttons wrote:There is also the potential to shoot a unit out of coherency, which will seriously muck things up.

I'd count that as a feature not a bug, as it discourages stringing out units in odd lines and the like when close to the enemy.

I.e. a unit formed into a skirmish line makes contact and takes fire and is quite reasonably forced to contract to effectively engage, as would happen in a small unit engagement in practice.

Jack

Except it makes foot slogging armies even worse. Now if you string out your unit to protect against blasts you can be shot out of coherency, if you get close to keep from getting shot out of coherency you will fall to blast templates. Also, judging by what is already has been claimed regarding shooting it wouldn't surprise me if they claimed that the models under a template have to be the ones to take the wounds making taking units out of coherency easier.

Simple, allow a 'reform' move after the player's shooting turn, it'll reduce the occurrence of incoherency.

Also ; we don't know what are the coherency rules in 6th ed. So there's that.

rigeld2 wrote:

Davor wrote:So from the complaining I have been seeing on the interent, people don't want to think about placing their minis anywhere? Is that is why they don't want the front line being removed? So people don't want to think about, do I keep my Melta safe and losse a bit of distant or have him in the front to get a bit extra distance but maybe get shot at then?

No, but thanks for the accusation.

20 strong unit of hormagaunts, spread out for max coherency (because of blasts). It's not hard to drop a bunch of wounds on them. If you nuke the front rank they now have 3 inches to make up next turn (2 for the coherency, 1 for the base).

That's a bit more concerning than "I don't want to think about placing my minis anywhere".

That's my concern. If they massively increase speed, sure... fine. I don't expect that though.

I'm not seeing an issue with that scenario you present, which is known in some circles as a "tradeoff", or "choice". Your unit is resilient against blast weapons, or it's better placed for an assault, that sounds like exactly the sort of on-the-board tactics which have been missing from 40K. Frankly, I'm bored of Listhammer, and I'm bored of all the tablestop tactics being gamey; a version of 40K where unit placement and maneuver are more than an afterthought sounds brilliant to me - having to actually think about potential enemy flanking attacks, how to deploy units based on your enemy's army composition, being able to use ranged firepower to actually affect how your enemy is playing, and having to use the battlefield to set up successful assaults sounds much better than list tailoring, then having one army charge across the table full-tilt while the other shoots as many guns as possible at one unit after the other in turn.

Now, don't take any of that as a comment on the veracity of these rumours, just about the only part of BoW that doesn't make me cringe is the French(?) chappie who does thier painting videos, but if true, I'm liking it.