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.

I can see the narative moving form imperium to chaos focus, good vs evil. Horus Heresy novel line, if its shown them anything, is that G vs E sells. They've sold quite a few books with the old legions telling that story....

Well, they will finally have disposed of most things that made 40k's fluff interesting then.

Still hope they come up with a set of rules that better compete with PP's systems. Smaller points values, smaller armies, etc. Then just roll the apoc and normal 40k rules together (which is the next step with the super heavy rules rumored etc).

They're going to have a tough time competing in a market with systems that provide reasonably comparable models, stronger tournament level rules, and less financial commitment to play (not on a unit by unit basis because they're pretty even, but on an army by army basis.)

Hell, at this point they may as well take FW's molds, make finecast/plastic upgrade kits, and come up with a horus heresy set of rules and upgrade kits to convert their normal line to heresy era armors. Probably would be a hit.

Nvs wrote:Still hope they come up with a set of rules that better compete with PP's systems. Smaller points values, smaller armies, etc. Then just roll the apoc and normal 40k rules together (which is the next step with the super heavy rules rumored etc).

They're going to have a tough time competing in a market with systems that provide reasonably comparable models, stronger tournament level rules, and less financial commitment to play (not on a unit by unit basis because they're pretty even, but on an army by army basis.)

I really don't think so. Visuality is GW's strong suite and many players simply want games which have large armies and lots of impressive looking vehicles and monsters. Heck, even many WM players want that, this is why PP made Unbound.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

morgendonner wrote:Yea no question a lot of the changes seem like good ideas.

I'm a big fan of normal cover becoming only a 5+.

Lots of people say that, but how it would affect army balance? 5th ed armies are made with 5th ed cover in mind.

Backfire wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

morgendonner wrote:Yea no question a lot of the changes seem like good ideas.

I'm a big fan of normal cover becoming only a 5+.

Lots of people say that, but how it would affect army balance? 5th ed armies are made with 5th ed cover in mind.

However, if these rumours are true than each army will be getting a big errata document to make them better fit in 6th edition. Basically we don't have enough info to say much for any of the rumours to be good or bad.

The rumors are true...

...IF they allow an additional 10% price rise

The rumors are false...

...IF they do not allow a price rise

Wow, I'd like to see some of this stuff... but certainly not all of it.

Keeping up with who moved how fast last turn... yeah, good luck with that.

ThirdUltra wrote:

itsonlyme wrote:
Did you bother to read past the post you quoted? If you look a few posts afterwards you will see I corrected it, Rally phase was last, not Psychic I to have all my 2nd ed books (even some rogue trader ones), I am fully aware of how the psychic phase worked, it was a game within a game, it was actually very similar to how magic was done in 4th and 5th ed, only difference was I lost D6 thousand sons when someone played eneregy drain (back when they weapon options), as far as I remember their was one dueling card (I forget the name), power cards could be used for bonus strength I believe, was someting like +3 strength.

I apologize for not seeing your post afterwards as when I responded to your intial post it took me to the end of the thread, and then i just picked up from there.

I believe the card was Mind War which allowed you to duel an opposing psycher. The Eldar power Executioner allowed you to duel in close-combat, which was kind of similar but on a physical level, but you were in a astral-state that if you lost nothing happened.

My point originally, was that assaults before shooting was or seems like a 2nd edition mechanic, where that was the norm.
I know there were other phases in-between, but I was focusing on the order between assaults and shooting phases.

Again, I apologize for the misunderstanding...

Its cool mate, I wrote that message after a conversation with the ex so you felt the full force and my anger, sorry buddy

carmachu wrote:I can see the narative moving form imperium to chaos focus, good vs evil. Horus Heresy novel line, if its shown them anything, is that G vs E sells. They've sold quite a few books with the old legions telling that story....

This has got me thinking. Perhaps GW is moving away from the “Knights in spaaaaace” fluff to a more classic setup of “desperate struggles in a grim dark future”?

itsonlyme wrote:

ThirdUltra wrote:

itsonlyme wrote:
Did you bother to read past the post you quoted? If you look a few posts afterwards you will see I corrected it, Rally phase was last, not Psychic I to have all my 2nd ed books (even some rogue trader ones), I am fully aware of how the psychic phase worked, it was a game within a game, it was actually very similar to how magic was done in 4th and 5th ed, only difference was I lost D6 thousand sons when someone played eneregy drain (back when they weapon options), as far as I remember their was one dueling card (I forget the name), power cards could be used for bonus strength I believe, was someting like +3 strength.

I apologize for not seeing your post afterwards as when I responded to your intial post it took me to the end of the thread, and then i just picked up from there.

I believe the card was Mind War which allowed you to duel an opposing psycher. The Eldar power Executioner allowed you to duel in close-combat, which was kind of similar but on a physical level, but you were in a astral-state that if you lost nothing happened.

My point originally, was that assaults before shooting was or seems like a 2nd edition mechanic, where that was the norm.
I know there were other phases in-between, but I was focusing on the order between assaults and shooting phases.

Again, I apologize for the misunderstanding...

Its call mate, I write that message after a conversation with the ex so you felt the full force and my anger, sorry buddy

No problem; I can totally understand where you're comming from on that though....

Cheers!

Dunno how true this all is? but when will the new edition be?

candy.man wrote:This has got me thinking. Perhaps GW is moving away from the “Knights in spaaaaace” fluff to a more classic setup of “desperate struggles in a grim dark future”?

This is what needs to happen if GW has the balls to milk the 40k universe for all it's worth... Unfortunately, GW isn't particularly renowned for its ball-having.

And the turn system keeps getting more screwed up. Really? In the far far future, I understand that armor is better and life is cheaper, but everything is CC now? This is awful. Make shooting more versatile, keep CC the same. If most of this is true, then I quit.

crazypsyko666 wrote:And the turn system keeps getting more screwed up. Really? In the far far future, I understand that armor is better and life is cheaper, but everything is CC now? This is awful. Make shooting more versatile, keep CC the same. If most of this is true, then I quit.

From what I can tell, the reason GW would change the assault phase to before the shooting phase is to somewhat nerf c.c. As of now, you shoot up whatever, then assault whatever. What this new system does it makes one decide to either shoot at a squad or assault it, not both.
It's in ways a nerf, not in the sense of making assault any less powerful on its own, but not allowing the systematic cut down of everything before the assault occurs. I've seen many move units in range to assault a vehicle, such as a rhino, shoot it, causing it to explode, then assaulting what comes out. With this new set of rules, you see a squad get in assaulting range of the vehicle, and have to choose to assault it and shoot what comes out, or shoot the vehicles and wait to be assaulted.
For armies like Space Marines, this looks to be a bad change, since it messes with why the army works so well. On the other hand, this helps armies who get decimated quicker in 5th edition, because now they aren't having one squad be shot up and assaulted all at once.
Until the summer of 2012, when 6th edition is rumored to come out, we can't be 100% certain that these are the new rules. I think it be best to wait and see how the next few codexes come out, such as Necrons, and see how they fare. If they seem lacking in 5th edition standards, expect a big change from 6th edition. If not, expect most of these rumor to end up false. Time will tell.

FalkorsRaiders wrote:

crazypsyko666 wrote:And the turn system keeps getting more screwed up. Really? In the far far future, I understand that armor is better and life is cheaper, but everything is CC now? This is awful. Make shooting more versatile, keep CC the same. If most of this is true, then I quit.

From what I can tell, the reason GW would change the assault phase to before the shooting phase is to somewhat nerf c.c. As of now, you shoot up whatever, then assault whatever. What this new system does it makes one decide to either shoot at a squad or assault it, not both.
It's in ways a nerf, not in the sense of making assault any less powerful on its own, but not allowing the systematic cut down of everything before the assault occurs. I've seen many move units in range to assault a vehicle, such as a rhino, shoot it, causing it to explode, then assaulting what comes out. With this new set of rules, you see a squad get in assaulting range of the vehicle, and have to choose to assault it and shoot what comes out, or shoot the vehicles and wait to be assaulted.
For armies like Space Marines, this looks to be a bad change, since it messes with why the army works so well. On the other hand, this helps armies who get decimated quicker in 5th edition, because now they aren't having one squad be shot up and assaulted all at once.
Until the summer of 2012, when 6th edition is rumored to come out, we can't be 100% certain that these are the new rules. I think it be best to wait and see how the next few codexes come out, such as Necrons, and see how they fare. If they seem lacking in 5th edition standards, expect a big change from 6th edition. If not, expect most of these rumor to end up false. Time will tell.

Ouze wrote:
"Sarge, they are rushing us - permission to open fire?"
"No, first we fight them with knives! Then, if we live... we can try shooting!"

Backfire wrote:

Nvs wrote:Still hope they come up with a set of rules that better compete with PP's systems. Smaller points values, smaller armies, etc. Then just roll the apoc and normal 40k rules together (which is the next step with the super heavy rules rumored etc).

They're going to have a tough time competing in a market with systems that provide reasonably comparable models, stronger tournament level rules, and less financial commitment to play (not on a unit by unit basis because they're pretty even, but on an army by army basis.)

I really don't think so. Visuality is GW's strong suite and many players simply want games which have large armies and lots of impressive looking vehicles and monsters. Heck, even many WM players want that, this is why PP made Unbound.

The two don't have to be mutually exclusive. There's no reason 40k can't offer a Kill Team reboot for 6th, or at least ensure balance or alternate options/FOCs/whatever, at lower point levels to create more fitting forces for small scale games. Doing that doesn't mean that the core 40k rules have to follow suit, there can be different options at different point levels, just as there are from regular 40k to Apocalypse. So essentially, the FOC chart could shift slightly at different point levels. Over a certain point level and Troops choice minimums go up, but Flyers or Superheavies become available as well.

Individual starter sets would reinforce this. You buy a small scale force that's playable right out of the box, then you can scale up from there. Smaller cost of entry, but still the same potential to scale up to Apocalypse size games for those who want to. I think it's the best possible change GW could make, which is why I don't see it happening in reality, unfortunately.

It always amuses me when people get mad at having rumors to read. Why the negative attitudes from some? They're Rumors. They're fun to read and think about. Time will tell what actually happens.

I feel that a lot of these changes sound positive. Removing randomness is a good think, IMO and shaking up the status quo helps keeps the game interesting over the long haul. I look forward to seeing how things pan out and hope a lot of this is accurate.

Reecius wrote:It always amuses me when people get mad at having rumors to read. Why the negative attitudes from some? They're Rumors. They're fun to read and think about. Time will tell what actually happens.

But it will affect people W/L records!

If the OP is true I will eat my shorts on you tube(a cake made to look like my shorts). I will eat my words though, it would take a lot to pull some people back to warhammer and a release like this would do the trick for me. Yet some how it is really hard to believe.

This goes against GW's new policy of squelching rumors. BoK's seems to have mixed reputation concerning news.

And really the 6th Ed codex is probably +15 months away from being sent to the masses. I'll have take what has been posted as a grain of salt until much much later.

Like the 3rd quarter of 2012.

Some of the proposed changes are awful. Having to keep up with how far every unit moved and then figure out how far they can shoot? The turns take long enough as it is!

Some of the rumored changes are nice, but others are just terribad. So, I'd like some salt, with my salt.

Maybe the phases will be integrated. Like I move, you move, I declare assaults, you declare assaults, and so on. Or maybe the shooting phase will now allow both players to shoot in the shooting phase, like the assault phase is now.

Am I the only person that thinks most of what BOK says is total BS? It seems like he just dumps a metric crap ton of ideas that range from possible all the way up to yea friggin right. Then the ones he pegs or gets close enough to, claims its why he is right and the others are shrugged off as bad intel or early writtings. Personally, I think the majority of that list sounds like terrible ideas.

If it is true, then 6th edition can kiss my ass

KingCracker wrote:Am I the only person that thinks most of what BOK says is total BS? It seems like he just dumps a metric crap ton of ideas that range from possible all the way up to yea friggin right. Then the ones he pegs or gets close enough to, claims its why he is right and the others are shrugged off as bad intel or early writtings. Personally, I think the majority of that list sounds like terrible ideas.

If it is true, then 6th edition can kiss my ass

I'm fairly certain he himself did not post these, but it was posted by someone else on his sight.

The list of roumored changes in question is looking seriously like they fired all of the games designers and the bean counters have stepped up to the plate and took over most every function, not including painting and models designing.

When I see some of them, the only thing missing there is that both sides set up, go into overwatch, and then sit there the whole game, waiting each other out.

It's not out of line to say that they took steps backwards there.

(Next part of the rumor is that EACH of the side sets are going to be up over the $120.00 a piece mark, and that templates will be gold plated with turd encrusted jewels.)

I don't mind saying this is a bad bad rumor. Blood of Kittens needs to be hornswaggled.



Anyone ever get the feeling they've been cheated?

Ouze wrote:I don't buy it. Their trend has been towards simplifying, not adding more rules. Adding a whole new phase? Seems unlikely. Also, assaulting and then shooting just makes no logical sense.

"Sarge, they are rushing us - permission to open fire?"
"No, first we fight them with knives! Then, if we live... we can try shooting!"

Fantasy bucked the trend of simplification IMO, as has their last few codex and army book releases which have been anything but simplifications...

As for assault then shoot, it actually makes sense to me, I don't know if it makes more sense, but it makes sense. To me, its more representative of the fact that if you're in such close proximity to the enemy, you're not going to line up and trade volleys with them, you're going to rush in, beat them down, and if they break and flee you'll gun em down with ranged ability. It also has the added bonus of actually toning down assault units a bit. They won't be able to thin you out with guns before beating you senseless in cc. Close combat focused armies are going to have to think things through a bit more in regards to when and what they want to assault.

But that is what happens in war...you shoot up the vehicle, pillbox, troops in a trench, then move in for assault/close up shooting. Even back in the olden days, you marched forward, fired, then fixed bayonets and charged...not the other way around.

The olden days and the newen days are very different. Starting in WW1, this trend sort of reversed. German Sturmstruppen would infiltrate forward into enemy trenches and assault the position (remember, assault does not fully equate to hand to hand combat, just close in combat, guns can be used just as much as a chainsword), then disengage using guns to suppress the enemy, or to gun down any fleeing opponents. This has largely been the commonly used tactic ever since. Think about it, if you're close enough to engage in CQB with the enemy, you're not going to sit there and trade gunfire and give the enemy the chance to charge in on you, you're going to get in close first, assault the position, and then use firearms to disengage or mop up the survivors. You know those videos that are floating around of Marines or Soldiers breaching a building by kicking the door in or shaped charges to blow a hole in a wall? Thats an assault.

So, GW is trying to implement rules that hurt Space Marines, but help Tyranids? These rules are just covered in heresy.

You mean GW is actually going to balance the most (currently) overpowered and (currently) underpowered factions? :SHOCK:

I don't like the idea of shooting modifiers. Someone compared it to Flames of War, which is correct, but FoW does it better. You simply take the training of who you're shooting, and add +1 for each one of 4 criteria if they are met. With the 40k rumors, we'll have to check the BS of the shooter, then the unit type of the target, how fast they were moving, other modifiers, etc.

When I first read the rumor (before I got to the bit that covered the if you moved x inches you need a y to hit part), I got excited because I thought it would be something along the lines of you compare the units initiative to the units bs and figure it out from there. Its not hard figure something like that out in your head (assuming it used a chart similar to the to hit or to wound chart,which is rather easily memorized if you are smart enough to realize the pattern).

Anyway, if even half of this stuff is somewhat accurate, I'll be fairly ecstatic.

megatrons2nd wrote:

KingCracker wrote:Am I the only person that thinks most of what BOK says is total BS? It seems like he just dumps a metric crap ton of ideas that range from possible all the way up to yea friggin right. Then the ones he pegs or gets close enough to, claims its why he is right and the others are shrugged off as bad intel or early writtings. Personally, I think the majority of that list sounds like terrible ideas.

If it is true, then 6th edition can kiss my ass

I'm fairly certain he himself did not post these, but it was posted by someone else on his sight.

Again I am being civil on my comments concerning BoK, however if this site has a dubious past for stating dubious reports, regardless of whom wrote the article, the only conclusions to me are this is a simple stunt to gain readership on to that site.

Adam LongWalker wrote:

megatrons2nd wrote:

KingCracker wrote:Am I the only person that thinks most of what BOK says is total BS? It seems like he just dumps a metric crap ton of ideas that range from possible all the way up to yea friggin right. Then the ones he pegs or gets close enough to, claims its why he is right and the others are shrugged off as bad intel or early writtings. Personally, I think the majority of that list sounds like terrible ideas.

If it is true, then 6th edition can kiss my ass

I'm fairly certain he himself did not post these, but it was posted by someone else on his sight.

Again I am being civil on my comments concerning BoK, however if this site has a dubious past for stating dubious reports, regardless of whom wrote the article, the only conclusions to me are this is a simple stunt to gain readership on to that site.

+1to that sentiment. Good call !

chaos0xomega wrote:

So, GW is trying to implement rules that hurt Space Marines, but help Tyranids? These rules are just covered in heresy.

You mean GW is actually going to balance the most (currently) overpowered and (currently) underpowered factions? :SHOCK:

I've been trying to wrap my mind around why anybody would dislike these new rules... Then I realized these rules balance out SMs quite fairly, and SM players just feel entitled to superiority.

chaos0xomega wrote:As for assault then shoot, it actually makes sense to me, I don't know if it makes more sense, but it makes sense. To me, its more representative of the fact that if you're in such close proximity to the enemy, you're not going to line up and trade volleys with them, you're going to rush in, beat them down, and if they break and flee you'll gun em down with ranged ability. It also has the added bonus of actually toning down assault units a bit. They won't be able to thin you out with guns before beating you senseless in cc. Close combat focused armies are going to have to think things through a bit more in regards to when and what they want to assault.

The olden days and the newen days are very different. Starting in WW1, this trend sort of reversed. German Sturmstruppen would infiltrate forward into enemy trenches and assault the position (remember, assault does not fully equate to hand to hand combat, just close in combat, guns can be used just as much as a chainsword), then disengage using guns to suppress the enemy, or to gun down any fleeing opponents. This has largely been the commonly used tactic ever since. Think about it, if you're close enough to engage in CQB with the enemy, you're not going to sit there and trade gunfire and give the enemy the chance to charge in on you, you're going to get in close first, assault the position, and then use firearms to disengage or mop up the survivors. You know those videos that are floating around of Marines or Soldiers breaching a building by kicking the door in or shaped charges to blow a hole in a wall? Thats an assault.

Actually, what you typically do is suppress the target first with fire (usually a second squad that's nearby and in position to shoot at the target). Then you hit them with your assault squad. And the assault squad might be armed with weapons like shotguns which provide powerful blasts and can be used on the move, but tend to have a very short range - i.e. what the game more or less defines as "assault weapons". That's not to say that it always works that way. But when you have an aware enemy, that's the accepted tactic.

Flames of War captures it perfectly. You pound the enemy during your shooting phase in order to pin them, usually using either another nearby platoon or artillery. If you don't pin the defenders, then their defensive fire (which of course is absent from 40K) will shoot up your assaulting platoon and quite possibly drive them back to their starting position.

Or to put it in 40K CWE terms... Your Dark Reapers blast the enemy space marines right before your Howling Banshees charge them.