6th edition rumour and news summary (1st post updated daily with new info!)

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.

**Kingsley**

ShumaGorath wrote:Also, I'll wait to see your tourney results when discussing tacticals.

Well, two days ago I won an "end of 5th edition" tournament with my vanilla Marines, earning me a free copy of 6th edition. It wasn't a GT, though, so maybe you won't count that.

ShumaGorath wrote:The best troop unit in the game is the IG vet squad. The second best troop in the game is the inquisitorial henchmen squad. The utility and power of the plaguemarine squad didn't survive the introduction of the IG, wolf, or GK codexes.

ShumaGorath wrote:Ironically tau still lose to every assault army in the game almost without question. Clearly "screening" isn't doing them a lot of favors.

ShumaGorath wrote:How is a morale system fine when there are all of three codexes out of like 14 that even interact with it?

I don't consider any of these statements true.

ShumaGorath wrote:If you discount codexes with access to ATSKNF and fearless

Why would you do that? ATSKNF isn't magic. In many cases, units that fall back keep falling back thanks to enemies within 6", ATSKNF or no ATSKNF. Similarly, having "access" to something is different than actually having it. In the tournament I played on Saturday, I killed enemy units by causing them to fall back off the table in all three of my games, two of which were played against Codices with access to ATSKNF or Fearless.

ShumaGorath wrote:
Sixth edition addresses almost all of these points.

No, they just push some numeric values around a bit.

That's because that's all that needs to be done. Most of these "problems" are overblown or outright fake.

ShumaGorath wrote:
Overall, there aren't really deep problems at the core of 40k right now

I expect you would say that if the rulebook was just full of scorpions and asbestos.

Actually, I consider myself pretty even-handed. I didn't enjoy the way things worked in late 3rd and early 4th edition, so I stopped playing the game. As things got better, I came back. If 6th edition were bad, I'd quit the game again. In a world that includes Dust Warfare, Infinity, MERCS, and so on, there's no reason (aside from the sunk cost fallacy) to feel beholden to GW's system. I freely invite you to quit the game if you actually think 6th edition is bad-- I don't enjoy playing with people who constantly complain about the ruleset anyway, and it sounds like you might be better served with other systems.

ShumaGorath wrote:Some people can be pleased regardless of the reality.

And some people can be mad regardless of the reality.

**Agamemnon2**

I have to say, I just have no excitement left for this edition of the rules. Nothing I've seen is encouraging me in any way. I don't want to give my Dark Eldar Vypers and a Warseer. I don't want to join my Guardsmen with Bloodletters. I never field psykers, and I'm not interested in starting now.

Frankly, the idea that the tournament metagame might be thrown into chaos is what's giving me at least a tiny bit of joy, but even then, I have no doubt the usual suspects will emerge victorious.

**swalker91**

I know this is a bit early saying as 6th ed. isn't out yet but is there any rumours going round about when FAQs/erratas might actually be released?
I don't know if there has been a sort of bulk release after all the other editions previously so if any veterans can recall the last few editions that would be great!
Would it be expecting too much of GW for them to have sorted erratas out already?!

**Kingsley**

matphat wrote:
ShumaGorath wrote:Allies distills WAAC to an even more ludicrous degree by more than doubling the force org chart at 2k and allowing cross codex cherry picking of overpowered units.

I think this is the most compelling statement in the whole thread.

And yet it's completely irrelevant, as has been stated multiple times. People simply aren't going to play with doubled force organization charts, and if allies prove to be imbalanced TOs will likely drop them as well.

**Agamemnon2**

Pah. People are going to play with whatever will give them the least bit of advantage, just as they always have.

**matphat**

Fetterkey wrote:
matphat wrote:
ShumaGorath wrote:Allies distills WAAC to an even more ludicrous degree by more than doubling the force org chart at 2k and allowing cross codex cherry picking of overpowered units.

I think this is the most compelling statement in the whole thread.

And yet it's completely irrelevant, as has been stated multiple times. People simply aren't going to play with doubled force organization charts, and if allies prove to be imbalanced TOs will likely drop them as well.

I'm not talking tourneys, I'm talking every day games at the local store.

If I don't want to play against double FoC or Allies. I have to turn down players who do. If this doesn't cause a schism in an already niche market that struggles for players a lot of places, I don't know what will.

**Phazael**

For me, the biggest issues revolve around the AP power weapons. I own enough 40k to start my own god damn store, but I only own like 10 terminator models (metal GK ones) and some characters. If they both make standard power weapons not work against terminator armor and then turn around and make chainswords essentially power weapons against most xenos armies, I think I am done for an edition. I play mostly xenos armies, carting out my IG or old GKs for the occasional easy win. I don't want to play the same damn shooty necron list that everyone else is; I like my melecrons. But when even shooty terms flatly ignore power weapons, well I am back to shooting at them and spamming wraiths like every other army out there. I'd really like to play my mele warrior nid list, but boneswords are already overpriced enough without being unable to tackle terminators. Do we really need artificer armor to be this strong in the game?

The other thing that royally irritates me as a Nid player are the ally rules. I mean, seriously no one thought at its most basic level that one army not having access to the added slot choices would not create balance issues? And if you are Xenos, almost all of the alliance options are redundant things anyhow. Meanwhile MEQs get to plug their gaps with the IG and GK lists....

Don't really care about the rest of the changes, but damn Ward loves him some marines......

**N.I.B.**

warboss wrote:
N.I.B. wrote:
If FNP unlike currently won't work on Instant Death, along with nerfed cover saves, it sounds like GW have sold their last Tyranid Warriors and Raveners. That's basically a huge nerf to FNP overall, regardless if it gets a slight boost when used on MC's.

A shame, I really thought 6th ed would unlock the 75% of my codex that I can't deploy outside beer&pretzel games. Instead the viable pool of units got even smaller. Look how the mighty Genestealers have fallen.

Last I checked, FNP doesn't work versus ID currently so that's not a change.

As for genestealers, I suspect their viability would hinge on the assault into cover rules. Does anyone know if you're still going last if you don't have frag grenade equivalents?

Oops, you're right I forgot that for some reason, thought FNP only was negated by attacks that negated armour saves. I knew there was a reason I don't use T4 multiwound models

When I said Genestealers have fallen, I'm talking about the significant nerf to Fleet. They lost a lot of average threat range in one fell 6th ed sweep, and have to eat that up with a scoop of nerfed cover saves on top. One of the few things in my army most of my opponents feared in 5th ed, was 20 infiltrated Genestealers in terrain, with FNP. That's 20 bodies with a 4+/4+ save and an 18" threat range who could use their Fleet move to strategically reposition themselves to either get out of terrain for a clean charge or move models into terrain if the enemy was too far away, to get a cover save. No more. Big nerf.

Btw am I the only one who's relieved that Tyranids won't be able to ally with anyone? The mere though of the Great Devourer bro-fisting with any other force in the universe makes me throw up a little in my mouth. The Tyranids should be feared by all, the ominous Shadow in the Warp, the end of everything living. And many players seem to fear Tyranids more than any other army. It's not based in the codex being OP (of course), but in how the models looks on the table and how different it plays. I think no allies is very fitting for Tyranids. I will gladly assume the role as the lone arch enemy of all things, the ultimate alien force.

**Rogue Wolves**

Im about 96% sure from talking with some gw people that the starter set will be Power Armoured CSM vs. Terminator Armoured DA

**sharkticon**

ShumaGorath wrote:
The best troop unit in the game is the IG vet squad. The second best troop in the game is the inquisitorial henchmen squad. The utility and power of the plaguemarine squad didn't survive the introduction of the IG, wolf, or GK codexes.

YOU LIE, HOOKER! Obviously the IG Platoon is the best troop in the game. Three multiple melta/plasma units, three av 12 vehicles, and two objective holder squads in one troop slot <3<3<3<3<3<3

**Kingsley**

matphat wrote:I'm not talking tourneys, I'm talking every day games at the local store.

If I don't want to play against double FoC or Allies. I have to turn down players who do. If this doesn't cause a schism in an already niche market that struggles for players a lot of places, I don't know what will.

Why don't you just play 1500-1999 point games, where doubled FoCs don't exist? Also, keep in mind that Allies, at the store level, will likely be used to take fun/cool units rather than overpowered combos. If someone really wants to take an Inquisitor and single squad of Grey Knights with his Guardsmen, that's not exactly bad for the game.

**sharkticon**

Fetterkey wrote:
ShumaGorath wrote:Also, I'll wait to see your tourney results when discussing tacticals.

Well, two days ago I won an "end of 5th edition" tournament with my vanilla Marines, earning me a free copy of 6th edition. It wasn't a GT, though, so maybe you won't count that.

Don't listen to Shuma, Fetterkey. Tacs are awesome, Combat squads + Combat tactics + the Space marine bullgak rule (ATSKNF) makes tacs quite abusable when you don't cripple them by taking Vulcan.

**Pyriel-**

random assault rolls, random terrain, random and very powerful leader traits, exceptionally exploitable allies and force org options. I could take a mixed arms assault force, try and position myself as best I can, play to the best of my ability to the games objectives or I could just take six long fang squads and three hydra flak tanks, ignore half the games rules, and table you in short order. This edition is breaking any sense of competition 40k could have. Tactics won't survive the dramatically increased randomness and army construction won't survive the opportunity cost of multi codex min maxing and force org shenanigans.

On the plus side iron warriors can finally have their three basilisks and 18 transforming gun terminators again. Remember how fun that was?

...dont forget the random terrain.
And GW have the audacity to call this edition more strategy and less luck.
lol

Sixth edition addresses almost all of these points. It brings buffs to Tactical Marines

The problem is that it brings the same and very unneeded buffs to already OP crap like grey hunters!

There are deeper problems at the core of 40k right now.

: Power creep and unchanged legacy units (tac marines, gaunts, guardians haven't changed since third and are awful)

: The schism between effective and noneffective firepower (A double tapping marine plasma gun does 1.11 wounds to another marine, a bolter does .222, one plasmagun marine does equivalent damage to 2.5 bolter ones and yet only costs about 30% more than a normal marine.) This is a direct imbalance that strongly favors min maxing (which is why you see it everywhere).

: The logical inadequacy of multipurpose units in a game that only lets you do single actions (why take a mixed unit like tacticals or guardians when it's own loadout is contradictory? Can't fire the special and heavy at the same time and neither one is going to be good at killing the thing the bolters are "good" at killing meaning the opportunity cost and thus point value of the weapons themselves is wasted). Again, this directly favors min maxing over taking multipurpose or resilient units.

: A turn has been removed from shooting since third due to running and combats have been made vastly deadlier, but only some specific units can take advantage. This means that orks hit a tau line a turn earlier and the tau lose the game by default, but tyranids gain little since their turn of impact didn't increase with the addition of the run rules. The way GW has made up for quicker impact of assault units has been to power up shooting dramatically. That makes the game an all or nothing affair of tabling vs getting tabled. It's like a giant slow tower defense game.

: Transports in defense break the logical flow of the firing phase because an entire 200+ point block of shooting will typically be utilized on a single transport while leaving the occupants unscathed to then utilize their own firepower on the return on a softer and more valuable target. Being forced to sink 8 bolters into the side of a vehicle so that I can also fire 2 meltaguns at it is stupid. It breaks the game. It has always broken the game. It directly favors MSU and min maxing. This wasn't a problem in fourth because transports were prohibitively expensive and anti vehicle weaponry was still cheap, but the opportunity cost of transports became too good and obvious when the majority of them dropped 33% or more in cost.

: etc, there are other issues like the lack of a functioning morale system with layers of non working patches, the fundamental imbalance caused by random reserve rolls, exceptionally poor basic mission and deployment design, blah blah.

Sixth edition addresses almost none of these points, adds a lot of uneeded randomness, and makes it easier to minmax through allies and expanded for org selection. It's putting (ugly) lipstick on a pig, this games designers have no idea what they're doing.

QFT!

That´s what you get when actual rule and game balance need to step aside for certain model sales!

No, they just push some numeric values around a bit. Addressing these issues would require a revamping of the basic shooting and movement systems in a way that GW isn't willing to do. If anything shooting appears dramatically more powerful in sixth with the reduction of cover and the removal of easy wound allocation.

Exactly. On top of this is basically outright removes a number of units that from now on will never be seen on the tabletop, thus making the game even more predictable.
We certainly dont need MORE legion pf the damned crap that is never ever used due to overcosted values.

You have not run into many good tau players have you?

While it was quite the struggle, my beloved xenos did well in 5th

I have. They all to a man survived by cheap rules exploits (look up the old necron build by dash for a fun example) and insane spamming. Hardly anything fun and if this gak continues over to 6ed nothing is solved at all.

Alright, that was pretty good. Can't get into a wall o text battle right now. Random assault is not hugely imbalancing, that's just absurd (look up the % of time 6 **or higher** is rolled on a 2d6). Nor does random terrain. You should know the probabilities before you play, and know the risks, and then decide in game if the risk is worth it.

So why not also add in random shooting then?
Every unit that wishes to shoot can only range Xd6. That sound fun to you?

**H.B.M.C.**

timofeo wrote:

"Maybe you want some Daemons with your Chaos Space Marines."

Urge to kill... rising...

**davethepak**

H.B.M.C. wrote:
timofeo wrote:

"Maybe you want some Daemons with your Chaos Space Marines."

Urge to kill... rising...

I think he likes the way they can whiz across the field....

Can we have a bit more than that?

Also, on the allies...heh...he mentioned the ones that almost make sense... apparently these guys have not seen the rules...

**ShumaGorath**

You should know the probabilities before you play, and know the risks, and then decide in game if the risk is worth it. I see a lot of changes, I don't see shooting being "unscathed.

Now who is contradicting ones self? If a 500 point assault terminator unit rolls double ones in an assault that is a quarter of an army failing to get to grips with an enemy. That is a single roll having a disproportionate and unblancing effect on the game. The presence of randomness doesn't need to be 1/0, the presence of randomness itself is enough. Probabilistic curves flatten in volume, but assault distance rolls will not be high enough volume to flatten, thus every roll will be very important. that 12 and that 2 will and and lose games and whenever it happens both players will feel cheated. In essence they were. The random nature of the game overwrote their own intentions for good or ill and took over. This doesn't happen as much in shooting or assault because averages appear in masses.

You should understand how randomness and statistical averages work.

Those long fangs will be camping in worse cover usually, so they'll die quicker

Yes, they'll die quicker to shooting. How is that not exactly what i said?

Using transports as mobile bunkers to shoot out of won't be as strong either.

It wasn't strong before. You don't get inside the razorback, you shield your long fangs from shooting by having them next to it and it shoots for itself.

Will MSU be as good considering that concentrated fire from one direction will take out special weapons more easily than before (since wound allocation is closest to farthest).

That doesn't really effect MSU more than wound allocation already did. The point of MSU is to do away with ablative models in the first place since they're dead weight.

**xxvaderxx**

To some one that has ACTUALLY READ OR SEEN the book, is it true that after X amount of glancing hits, the next glance WRECKS the vehicle?. That would pretty much kill this edition for me, i mean what is a futuristic battle game with out tanks or mechs...?

**Bloodhorror**

xxvaderxx wrote: i mean what is a futuristic battle game with out tanks or mechs...?

Decent.

**Agamemnon2**

Yes, that appears to be the case. Every glancing hit takes off a hull point, when you run out of HP, you get wrecked. I'm looking forward to 10 necron warriors rapid firing land raiders into dust and ashes.

**AgeOfEgos**

xxvaderxx wrote:To some one that has ACTUALLY READ OR SEEN the book, is it true that after X amount of glancing hits, the next glance WRECKS the vehicle?. That would pretty much kill this edition for me, i mean what is a futuristic battle game with out tanks or mechs...?

That's a great question I haven't seen answered yet. Necron glances to remove hull points is good---necron glances that remove hull points to 0 (which cause wrecks) is really good.

**Kingsley**

xxvaderxx wrote:To some one that has ACTUALLY READ OR SEEN the book, is it true that after X amount of glancing hits, the next glance WRECKS the vehicle?. That would pretty much kill this edition for me, i mean what is a futuristic battle game with out tanks or mechs...?

This is true, but glancing hits no longer cause vehicle damage results. This means individual lucky shots will be less effective, but vehicles won't be able to weather tons of glancing hits and stay alive like they can now.

**Therion**

land raiders into dust and ashes.

a futuristic battle game with out tanks or mechs...?

Razor/Chimeraspam is dead. It's been mentioned a dozen or a couple dozen times in this thread. Vehicle durability dropped by something like 50%, and sometimes a lot more, depending on what is shooting. In 6th you'll use either flyerspam, infantryspam, or a combined arms approach.

Jump infantry assault armies aren't complaining either, considering their assault range used to be 18" and now it's ~21" on average while also gaining their free I10 attacks for every model.

Personally I'm intrigued in seeing what the metagame will look like in a half a year or a year because a lot of armies that aren't dominating now become better when their worst opponents disappear from the tournament circuit. An example of this would be Dark Eldar, who never had any trouble tabling non-mech Marines in just a few turns of shooting, but couldn't often crack their Razor boxes before all the paper planes were shot down. Naturally they had the exact same problem against the 15x AV12 vehicle IG armies but the situation was even worse.

**Kirasu**

I just don't understand the *need* to make assaulting prone to failing even in open ground. Why not make shooting units roll 2d6 if they are within 12" to see how far they can shoot? That's basically the same thing

If Unit A will kill unit B with shooting and unit B will kill unit A with assault.. yet unit B fails to assault 25% of the time then why would you ever take unit B over unit A?

It's a needlessly random rule since shooting was already better in 5th than assault!

**Kingsley**

Therion wrote:Vehicle durability dropped by something like 50%, and sometimes a lot more, depending on what is shooting. In 6th you'll use either flyerspam, infantryspam, or a combined arms approach.

Uh, what? Lots of vehicles got *more* resilient because they can no longer be suppressed by random lucky shots and penetrating hits are less likely to kill. Ordnance was also strongly buffed. Razorbacks (and to a lesser extent Chimeras) are probably dead in the water, but I think we'll still see lots of Rhinos, Predators, Leman Russes, and even Vindicators.

**ShumaGorath**

Therion wrote:
land raiders into dust and ashes.

a futuristic battle game with out tanks or mechs...?

Razor/Chimeraspam is dead. It's been mentioned a dozen or a couple dozen times in this thread. Vehicle durability dropped by something like 50%, and sometimes a lot more, depending on what is shooting. In 6th you'll use either flyerspam, infantryspam, or a combined arms approach.

Durability isn't what made razorspam good. Distributed firepower is what made it good. The razorbacks exploded the first time they were shot anyway, the point was that the opponent could only shoot so many things a turn. This change doesn't really do much to negate that.

**xxvaderxx**

Fetterkey wrote:
xxvaderxx wrote:To some one that has ACTUALLY READ OR SEEN the book, is it true that after X amount of glancing hits, the next glance WRECKS the vehicle?. That would pretty much kill this edition for me, i mean what is a futuristic battle game with out tanks or mechs...?

This is true, but glancing hits no longer cause vehicle damage results. This means individual lucky shots will be less effective, but vehicles won't be able to weather tons of glancing hits and stay alive like they can now.

In a world where plasma guns can fire and move and you have on demand long rage high strength firepower, there are no "Individual lucky shots".

I mean, i was looking for an answer from someone that had actually seen this with their own eyes, because it is a rather steep turn for the worst, vehicles were already paper thin in 5th, now they are not worth bringing to the table all together. Dont get me wrong, this does not affect me negatively, i play wolves, have more bodies than i could ever paint, and can field 10 hunter guys with 2 plasma guns for 160 points, which basically get all the rumored benefits from this edition so far, none of the drawbacks and are powerful and cheap enough to spam. But with out armor, this game is basically dead to me, there are far better gun line v gun line games out there.

**Joe Mama**

LOL, the frothing at the mouth came back a little, I can see you need to wipe your mouth off again. Oh well. I shouldn't have such high expectations.

If a 500 point assault terminator unit rolls double ones in an assault that is a quarter of an army failing to get to grips with an enemy. That is a single roll having a disproportionate and unblancing effect on the game.

That can happen in 5th too with difficult terrain. Did you nerdrage about that? Missing with a melta gun at close range to a Land Raider can also have a "disproportionate" effect on the game, but what do you know, most shooting isn't auto-hit.

You should understand how randomness and statistical averages work.

Seriously? I mean really, are you going through some tough non-40k related issues? What the hell is the reason for a comment like that? I'm pointing out politely and in a half-silly manner how angry you are coming across, and you decide, on top of that seething rage, to throw out insults of my intelligence? Really? Perhaps you should step back and take a break friend.

Yes, they'll die quicker to shooting. How is that not exactly what i said?

Shooting is unscathed you claimed, yet things which camp in cover in order to shoot will die quicker? Ablative wounds for said campers will be far less effective? Seems shooting is going to be *different*, not unscathed as you claimed. Your word choice has been very poor today.

**Kingsley**

xxvaderxx wrote:In a world where plasma guns can fire and move and you have on demand long rage high strength firepower, there are no "Individual lucky shots".

What? Sure there are. Plasma guns are exactly the type of weapon that put out the "individual lucky shots" I'm talking about. Predators or Vindicators have front armor 13, but that one lucky 6 from a plasma or autocannon shot currently has a very high chance to silence them for a turn. In the new edition, the impact of that one shot won't be particularly significant.

**Therion**

The razorbacks exploded the first time they were shot anyway

That's just so much BS it's unreal. Do you need me to give you the statistical chances of a let's say a BS4 missile launcher, or a BS3 multi-laser, for killing an enemy Chimera or a Razorback? Really? They explode the first time they are shot at? So what will they do in 6th edition? Explode on their own?

By all means keep your eyes closed and keep playing what you were playing. It'll take some people longer to adjust to the changes.

Vehicles are now a lot closer to the durability of monstrous creatures. AKA not durable.

penetrating hits are less likely to kill

AP1 is more likely to kill than before. AP2 is as likely to kill as before. AP3, AP4, AP5 and AP6 are less likely to kill as before, while AP- is as likely to kill as before. I'm sure the AP3 missile batteries are crying themselves a river, considering 5 missiles nearly average an automatic Razorback death in 6th (2.22 hull point damage and ~2 rolls on the damage chart).

**Agamemnon2**

Therion wrote:
land raiders into dust and ashes.

a futuristic battle game with out tanks or mechs...?

Razor/Chimeraspam is dead. It's been mentioned a dozen or a couple dozen times in this thread. Vehicle durability dropped by something like 50%, and sometimes a lot more, depending on what is shooting. In 6th you'll use either flyerspam, infantryspam, or a combined arms approach.

Frankly, I can't be bothered to rework my army lists. I don't have the time, the desire to paint or the money to spend on multiple new units.. I'll field the same goddamn no-wins bullcrap lists I've fielded through all of 5th, and if it turns out they get tabled on turn 2 instead of turn 4, whoop-de-****ing-doo. Maybe this time around, it'll be so much of a no-contest that my opponents will get fed up and quit the game because there's no challenge anymore. I don't care, and to an extent, GW has done nothing with their lackluster coverage to make me do so. They appear to have surrendered control of the narrative to internet forums like this one, where rumors and flawed metagame calculations run amok.

I only ever fielded a maximum one Leman Russ, one Chimera and one Griffon at any one time. They were already fragile, especially since Space Wolves usually showed up in a drop pod on turn 1 and fired meltas at my side armor. Why would I want to keep going if the units I like will only get weaker and weaker. I dread to think how badly the new rules will shaft Ogryns, just like every rules and codex change has since 2nd edition.