6th edition 40k rumors (from Blood of Kittens)

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.

**Chrysis**

In what way do these rumours help Tyranids?

Tyranids have 0 IC's with Invulnerables. Moving Assault before Shooting means you can't shoot metal boxes (which you don't have, but all your enemies do) open to eat the contents, and if an assault ends in your enemies turn your troops aren't safe from being shot anymore. Across the board drops in cover saves make it more difficult to approach in one piece.

About the only benefit I can see is the BS modifiers, assuming that running is enough to get you protection. Of course the Monstrous Creatures probably get the same modifier as a vehicle, so they get even easier to kill before they can achieve anything.

**FalkorsRaiders**

chaos0xomega wrote:

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

**ShatteredBlade**

Lunchmoney wrote:The far fetched, though amazing, ballistic skill changes could finally bring infantry back into the game as mattering. So many people complain that they only every see parking lots, yet with those simple ballistic skill changes, you could actually start to see differing units on the table top. I would LOVE for the changes listed to go into effect, however, I am a hopeless cynic and I don't believe any of this feth.

This about sums up my position.

**Korraz**

Or they could finally stop having two completely different rules sets, bring vehicles and infantry in line and don't have to balance Fish and Plutonium with more and more rules additions.
This will keep going forever. Parking Lot - Pedestrian Area - Parking Lot - Pedestrian Area - Parking Lot - Pedestrian Area -....

**Cypher's Sword**

only read the first line, I don't feel like buying another rulebook, give me at least two more years on this one, I mean come on it's $60 frakin' bucks to begin with.

**insaniak**

Cypher's Sword wrote:only read the first line, I don't feel like buying another rulebook, give me at least two more years on this one, I mean come on it's $60 frakin' bucks to begin with.

That's nothing that says you have to switch to the new edition straight away.

**lord_blackfang**

Or just don't buy the full size book. I'm doing just fine with the mini rulebook from the starter and that one is practically free if you consider the value of the models in the box.

**The Dwarf Wolf**

I Liked it. Seens like a big jump. If that come true it would seens like D&D 3.5 to 4.0

Rules that actually focus on tactica, and less in chance!!!! Man give me that!!!!

Funny, the thing i less liked was the BS change, all the rest is amazing. More control over my tactical options.

Nowaday, warhammer is pretty much: Make it right on the list, hope for luck, and dont be a dumb-ass.

Changes like that would bring changes in the game style, and add some extra fun. Chance must be there and ifluence the game, it could not be the game.

Obviously, i have seen this before, and old player will say "no you are changing to much!!!", but i loved everything in there...

Anyway, that looks like a wishlist, and i will take lots of salt...

But bring some hope... Maybe GW could do something good this days...

**carmachu**

The Dwarf Wolf wrote:I Liked it. Seens like a big jump. If that come true it would seens like D&D 3.5 to 4.0

And do you recall what happened when they did that/ The fan base split, a new game came about called pathfinder and alot of hard feelings.....

**Havok210**

I must say that I am hesitant to believe these rumors as well. Many of the ideas in the original post seem to have been stolen from other games. I was an avid player of AT-43 and while it was a good game, the rules really slowed the pace. Bidding was very one sided with certain armies, the "you move, then I move" heavily favored lower point armies as I would be out of turns and the other player would get to move like 3 or 4 things while I watched.

I started playing 40k because it was fast paced and the rules, albeit not perfect, were simple enough that I enjoyed playing. Just my $0.02.

**warboss**

Eh, I don't have any strong opinions off the bat. 4th and 5th editions were incremental changes to the 3rd edition ruleset and relatively easy to evaluate. If these changes are true, they're big enough that I'd have to play a few games in order to give an opinion about them.

**gorgon**

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.

As others have said, I think it's less about realism and more about just creating a shooting vs. assaulting tactical decision. Obviously, that would have a variety of repercussions. However, we went through entire editions with things working that way and many good games were had.

Chrysis wrote:Tyranids have 0 IC's with Invulnerables. Moving Assault before Shooting means you can't shoot metal boxes (which you don't have, but all your enemies do) open to eat the contents, and if an assault ends in your enemies turn your troops aren't safe from being shot anymore.

I've never had a lot of luck pulling that off consistently just because you have to have the vehicle semi-surrounded to prevent your opponent from placing the occupants in a spot where assaulters can't reach them. On the other hand, I think I'd have a lot more success charging and popping transports with Trygons, then unloading a wall of worms on them from Termagants with Devourers. I like that idea a lot, actually.

Kinda funny that we might have to wait 14-15 months to find out if there's any truth to these.

**Alpharius**

Archonate wrote:
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.

Whoa - settle down guys!

Try not to tar every Space Marine player with the same brush too.

And really, the SM Codex is the most overpowered?

I'm sure you mean the Space Wolf Codex, and possibly the Blood Angel Codex, but not the Space Marine Codex, right?

**daedalus-templarius**

I actually want to check out 2nd edition now, just to see what it used to be like. I didn't even really start playing till 4th.

**BrassScorpion**

daedalus-templarius wrote:I actually want to check out 2nd edition now, just to see what it used to be like. I didn't even really start playing till 4th.

It was fun, but played much slower than now. Reading those rules out of curiosity will be amusing, but you'd never want to play a 3000 point game now using your current Codex and those 2nd Ed. rules, not unless you'd like the game to take twice as long as you are used to.

**lixulana**

or it is just a big conspiracy to make the 40k players take up fantasy and the fantasy players to move to 40k.

**SkaerKrow**

BrassScorpion wrote:
daedalus-templarius wrote:I actually want to check out 2nd edition now, just to see what it used to be like. I didn't even really start playing till 4th.
It was fun, but played much slower than now. Reading those rules out of curiosity will be amusing, but you'd never want to play a 3000 point game now using those rules, not unless you'd like the game to take twice as long as you are used to.

To be fair, 3,000 points in Second Edition was a Chief Librarian, a Captain, four Marine Squads, two Tanks and a Dreadnaught.

**daedalus-templarius**

Yea I found the Dark Millennium expansion, no core rules yet though.

**Alpharius**

daedalus-templarius wrote:Yea I found the Dark Millennium expansion, no core rules yet though.

I started with 2nd, so I know I have a biased view of it, but man, those were good times!

**gorgon**

Alpharius wrote:
daedalus-templarius wrote:Yea I found the Dark Millennium expansion, no core rules yet though.

I started with 2nd, so I know I have a biased view of it, but man, those were good times!

That's something hard to impress upon people. Yes, 2nd ed had many problems. Yes, it was patched to death with FAQs and WD articles. Yes, it was slower than 3rd and its descendants. Yes, games could degrade into overwatch battles.

But the game was fun, and had its appeals and strengths. Personally, I've enjoyed seeing GW recently go back and revisit some 2nd ed material both in the main rules and in codices. It's an overdue admission that there were appealing aspects that were worth preserving instead of being discarded. Like I said, the system was far from perfect, and yet the game's popularity grew a lot in those days. So there were some things they were doing right. And note that gunline battles (albeit sans overwatch) and rules clunkiness haven't ceased to exist in recent editions.

Again, no idea if these are true. But if it's a hoax it's at least an entertaining and good one.

**chaos0xomega**

Eumerin wrote:
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.

Yeah, thats true.... but thats what the previous turn is for

Now that you mention pinning, I would like to see that rule have some impact on a units ability to fight a cc. It makes no sense to me that a unit that was effectively hugging the dirt, etc. would stand up and fight with no ill effect if it were charged.

Alpharius wrote:
Archonate wrote:
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.

Whoa - settle down guys!

Try not to tar every Space Marine player with the same brush too.

And really, the SM Codex is the most overpowered?

I'm sure you mean the Space Wolf Codex, and possibly the Blood Angel Codex, but not the Space Marine Codex, right?

I ment Marines in general, including SW, BA, BT, DA, and GK. They are all one army to me, regardless of the fact that they have 20 different codecies...

**htj**

So you think the Vanilla Marine codex is OP?

**SkaerKrow**

chaos0xomega wrote:

I ment Marines in general, including SW, BA, BT, DA, and GK. They are all one army to me, regardless of the fact that they have 20 different codecies...

Sweeping generalizations like that don't work. Vanilla Marines =/= Blood Angels =/= Space Wolves =/= Black Templar =/= Dark Angels. Heck, it could be argued that Astartes Codexes show up in Bottom, Mid and High Tier right now. The stat line may be the same, but the wrinkles imposed by the actual Codex books makes them all quite different in how they play and how they're built.

**Biophysical**

I don't understand the complaint against "keeping track" of movement. We do that already with vehicles and bikes for the purposes of turbo-boosting, skimmers moving fast, and close-combat to-hit rolls. It shouldn't be hard to add infantry into that mix, as they only one movement type (two if you count staying still). If the rumors have any shred of truth to them, it looks like the modifiers are something like this:

-BS 3 = 4+ to-hit
-Tanks (MCs, perhaps) are 1 point easier
-Stationary units (vehicles only, perhaps) are 1 point easier
-Fast movers (>6"

are 1 point harder
-Really fast movers (>12"

are 1 point harder still.

This seems pretty simple to keep track of, honestly.

**Eumerin**

chaos0xomega wrote:
Yeah, thats true.... but thats what the previous turn is for

Now that you mention pinning, I would like to see that rule have some impact on a units ability to fight a cc. It makes no sense to me that a unit that was effectively hugging the dirt, etc. would stand up and fight with no ill effect if it were charged.

That gives them a chance to unpin before you can charge them.

Now admittedly, about half the armies in the game pretty much ignore pinning (or, as I used to joke regarding my Dark Elves, the fact that my Dark Elves had a higher than normal Leadership stat meant that my army actually had to take leadership tests instead of outright ignoring them...). And pinning doesn't do much to close combat anyway.

**SkaerKrow**

Biophysical wrote:I don't understand the complaint against "keeping track" of movement. We do that already with vehicles and bikes for the purposes of turbo-boosting, skimmers moving fast, and close-combat to-hit rolls. It shouldn't be hard to add infantry into that mix, as they only one movement type (two if you count staying still). If the rumors have any shred of truth to them, it looks like the modifiers are something like this:

-BS 3 = 4+ to-hit
-Tanks (MCs, perhaps) are 1 point easier
-Stationary units (vehicles only, perhaps) are 1 point easier
-Fast movers (>6" are 1 point harder
-Really fast movers (>12" are 1 point harder still.

This seems pretty simple to keep track of, honestly.

In a world where everyone hits tanks that didn't move on a 2+, I see either the vehicle damage/armor penetration rules changing quite a bit or...nope, they would have to change.

**gorgon**

Or the players can adjust by not running low AV vehicles in gunlines.

Not saying other rules adjustments couldn't happen, just that the intent there is fairly clear.

**Biophysical**

SkaerKrow wrote:
Biophysical wrote:I don't understand the complaint against "keeping track" of movement. We do that already with vehicles and bikes for the purposes of turbo-boosting, skimmers moving fast, and close-combat to-hit rolls. It shouldn't be hard to add infantry into that mix, as they only one movement type (two if you count staying still). If the rumors have any shred of truth to them, it looks like the modifiers are something like this:

-BS 3 = 4+ to-hit
-Tanks (MCs, perhaps) are 1 point easier
-Stationary units (vehicles only, perhaps) are 1 point easier
-Fast movers (>6" are 1 point harder
-Really fast movers (>12" are 1 point harder still.

This seems pretty simple to keep track of, honestly.
In a world where everyone hits tanks that didn't move on a 2+, I see either the vehicle damage/armor penetration rules changing quite a bit or...nope, they would have to change.

I'm not sure I agree. We've all seen the math on just how bad lascannons are against vehicles, but I'll review
BS3 lascannon vs. Armor 11 (5th Edition): 3/6 hits, 4/6 penetrates, 1/3 destroys = 0.11 (1/9) destroyed results/shot
BS3 lascannon vs. Armor 11 (4th Edition): 3/6 hits, 4/6 penetrates, 1/2 destroys + 1/6 glances, 1/6 destroys = ~.168 destroyed results/shot
BS3 lascannon vs Armor 11 (rumors, stationary vehicle, 5th ed damage table): 5/6 hits, 4/6 penetrates, 1/3 destroys = ~0.185 destroyed results/shot

It's not tremendously worse than 4th edition, and if the vehicles move, its even less impressive. I wouldn't call it game-breaking. In fact, I'd say it's just about right. Moving vehicles are only slightly more vulnerable than they currently are (assuming no change in damage table), and I think most would say they probably should be. The movement restriction means stationary fire tanks (which are the hardest to get to with meltas) are the hardest hit, which is also probably a good thing.

**Theduke07**

If they don't change how vehicles move and shot. Lot of gak is getting shelved, Predators, because they won't be worth it. They're already written off once they hit the table but this will just kill them.

**Ouroborus**

Cypher's Sword wrote:only read the first line, I don't feel like buying another rulebook, give me at least two more years on this one, I mean come on it's $60 frakin' bucks to begin with.

$60.00 is pretty cheap for a hardcover, probably full colored book that you'll be using for years on end.