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.

Terminus:

To be honest I haven't paid that much attention to WFB lately. But I think I pointed out that I don't predict rerolls for Eternal Warrior, I predict a characteristic test.

Mind you, you haven't managed to offer any kind of argument beyond asserting your own doubt, so I guess we know what your opinion is worth in this case.

You're really yet to show why your "guesstimates" on EW/ID (or anything else) are anything but blind guessing. Your claims of trend analysis aren't solid enough to warrant refutation.

As said before, this reads like a wishlist.

sourclams:

I think I pointed out the trends I've seen in the transition from the 4th edition to 5th edition, given examples as evidence of those, and then hazarded some educated guesses. I'm not claiming to be scientific here. If they aren't solid enough for you, perhaps you'd like to specify what would be solid enough, given the information at hand.

Also, how does this read like a wishlist? Take the Epic Armageddon comments: Stuff like the wound allocation is lifted directly from that game, and given that GW got burned on radical change with 3rd edition it seems reasonable to hypothesize that they're pursuing a strategy of gradual change. Epic Armageddon is a great game and the fact that elements of it are finding their way in 40k suggests that others might as well.

Personally I think GW is going to nerf vehicles.

In 4th Edition vehicles were rarely used, unless you were Eldar or Tau. In 5th Edition everyone uses vehicles including Eldar and Tau (who's vehicles even got nerfed). I wouldn't be surprised if we saw the vehicle damage charts played with again possibly to allow destruction of vehicles on a Penetrating 4+ instead of 5+. Also I imagine Skimmers may get their 4+ cover for moving 12" instead of the way it is now with 24".

I agree, I could see vehicle rules in general tweaked, if not "nerfed".

I would like to see two damage charts again - glancing and penetrating. But it's unlikely with simplifying occurring lately.

But with the DE codex having "Supersonic" (move cruising and fire all weapons), on many vehicles giving them the 4+ for moving 6"+ would make them almost impossible to kill.

I honestly don't know what to expect. I expect good things in this edition will suck and things that suck in this edition will be good. To boost sales. Look at Termagants as an example for Tyranids, as well as most Eldar stuff, and some Tau wargear. Note that I never played 4th, but this is from what I hear about a friend who studies older rulebooks.

sourclams wrote:Your claims of trend analysis aren't solid enough to warrant refutation.

What he said.

Anyway, practically every 5th edition army after Space Marines has some way to get around the very movement-limiting vehicle rules of the main rulebook. IG russes have lumbering behemoth, blood angels are fast, dark eldar have all sorts of shenanigans like supersonic, etc. I'm wondering if they will loosen up the movement/shooting restrictions in 6th.

Cover going to 5+ rather than 4+ would go a long way to make vehicles more vulnerable.

Outside of the inexcusably priced 35 point take-me-or-you-are-a-functionally-braindead-uncompetitive-loser, most vehicles do not strike me as outlandishly tough. Tough yes, but not unfairly so. Keep in mind the only army I have owned for the better part of a year is Tyranids who regularly get pounded left, right and center against vehicles so when I say that it really, really should carry some weight.

Make it much, MUCH harder to the point of almost impossibility, or just flat out impossible to get a 4+ cover save on a vehicle. Seriously it should not be able to shoot back at you period if it's getting a 4+ cover save as a vehicle there should be that much cover. Everything else give it a 5+ tops. Sorry but infantry is much, much better at ducking, dodging, weaving and sneaking into fox holes and behind trees to avoid incoming fire than a vehicle and something with an armor value does not need a cover save as well.

Further if a transport is destroyed it's occupants should not be able to assault or shoot the following turn. No actions allowed except movement and running. It's the height of infuriating to crack open a vehicle and then have the guys inside pile out in my face and whoop MY arse because I got that inconvenient box out of their way once it's served it's purpose of getting them all the way across the board.

Terminus:

Okay, I get that you disagree with my conclusions. I started this thread so that people could disagree. What I'm curious about it why people like you and sourclams feel that the trends I've identified are not the case. I know they might not be the case and don't claim to be making any kind of rigorous trend analysis. I'm curious about the 'why' of it.

For vehicles, a trend that has come from 3 codexes is vehicles getting a 5+ cover/inv save. I'd wager GW may be leaning that a 4+ cover save is too good and will reduce it to a 5+.

Looking at the Battle Missions book, the reserves roll will become more common. When I look at Cityfight, it appeared to be a testbed for 5th edition rules dealing with buildings/ruins. With this in mind, I think the Battle Missions book is the direction will be going towards with 6th ed missions.

The TLOS rules still don't work as they really aren't true LOS (casualties from models out of LOS, spotting an entire unit b/c you can see the foot of a single model, etc...) Definitely needs a reworking. From a gaming perspective, I liked the area terrain rules if used sparingly. It's a bit aggravating trying to hide a model, but your opponent can still see the model's hand that is held high above the terrain piece. I suppose I'm ok with some abstract LOS vs. TLOS in its current state.

IIRC, 3rd edition allowed you to shoot at units other than the closest, but they received a cover save. 4th replaced that ruling with Target Priority. 5th is back to cover saves. I'd prefer Target Priority. Cover is all too common this edition. Another alternative could be base sizes and possibly vehicles in relation to blocking LOS (similar to Warmachine).

Nurglitch wrote:Terminus:

Okay, I get that you disagree with my conclusions. I started this thread so that people could disagree. What I'm curious about it why people like you and sourclams feel that the trends I've identified are not the case. I know they might not be the case and don't claim to be making any kind of rigorous trend analysis. I'm curious about the 'why' of it.

I disagree because this combination of rules will basically extremely devalue multiple wounds (e.g. all characters) and FNP, both of which GW seems to be fond of lately. It just seems like too much of a change, with no indication from their most recent ruleset that the ID rules are changing in any way, much less in such a radical way. Your suggestion not only adds complexity (ID = 2xT is easier than ID = 2xT-1), but also slows the game with additional rolls (a whole lot more additional rolls). Plus, it's not really supported by the fluff. ID is something that basically gibs you. Plasma and autocannons (for example), have been described killing Space Marines in many fluff pieces, but it's nothing compared to taking a missile to the face or being vaporized by a melta/fusion weapon.

Wel, if they do any of these changes they better nerf shooting.. expecially if they add random charges.

Or i guess ill be rebuilding a IG army for even more easymode..

I disagree with the predicted changes to EW/ID. It's such a radical change that would completely alter a lot of unit interactions, such as Scatter Laser War Walkers vs. Nobz, Autocannons vs. Plague Marines, etc. Most importantly it would really hurt the vast majority of HQ choices out there, since you would be able to ID Eldar with Heavy bolters, Space Marines with Shuriken Cannons, and TMCs with lone meltaguns.

I don't disagree that the rule might change, but I think it will be more subtle.

One of the changes I do expect to see is a revamp of the vehicle move+fire rules. As some have said, the last several codices have seen a proliferation of rules like PotMS, Fast, Lumbering Behemoth, Supersonic, etc that allow vehicles to fire extra weapons. On the other hand though, because of all these new rules I don't think we'll see a flat, "vehicles can move and fire," but we might see an overall increase in vehicle shooting and mobility.

Good point. I never bothered to read the Spearhead rules GW released. Any rules nuggets that may have come from there?

It basically gave new benefits to squadrons of vehicles (something we may well see, since squadron rules are not exactly awesome right now).

Non-walker/MC vehicles in squadrons moving at cruising speed can fire one extra weapon than normal (so russes could move while firing main gun and both sponsons, for example). Squadrons of walkers/MCs can run and then fire one weapon.

So if there is any trend we can point to in 40K, it's the relaxation of shooting restrictions on vehicles. Hopefully, their attempt to balance this out (undoubtedly by making the vehicles more vulnerable) won't be overboard as to render them useless (doubtful, vehicle kits are great for revenue).

It will be interesting if they incorporated the spearhead rules into the main game. Jack up the points level so everyone is fielding squadrons of vehicles.

I agree that they will probably address the 1-way protection that vehicles give psykers. There are abilities that can hit models without line of sight, but models in a vehicle are protected. Meanwhile those same models can strike from their vehicle. It's an unequal equation, one that GW is sure to address sooner or later.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I think the weapon skill chart will see a change...the whole "your weapon skill is 10 and mine is 1 and I still hit you on a 3+" has been the source of much complaint. It will probably be more like the strenght-toughness chart.

It's clearly more of a wishlist, but terrain buy-in is a terrific idea. Terrain is increasingly showing itself to be one of the differentiating factors in the "40k experience", and there should be rules to keep things even but enhance the play experience.

I mean, think about it: would you take vehicles all of the time if you were able to RELIABLY place trenches in your deployment zone? Would your army list change if you could reliably deploy fixed anti-tank weapons? I know that if I could put down cheap lascannon artillery pieces and 3+ cover in my deployment zone, I'd certainly approach list building from a different angle... it could even make a static gunline viable again.

Things I feel confident will change with 6E:
1. Wound allocation (fixing mixed AP)
2. Cover saves (toning them down)
3. Vehicle squadron rules (tuning them up)
4. Insta-death (as has been noted, a complete mess)

A wildcard change would be rapid-fire guns, which I predict will get the ability to move and shoot full range again. This would counter mechanization to an extent.

Wound allocation needs to be fixed. Its stupid that you can do 5 unsaved wounds to 5 TWC and not kill a single one.

Just roll the saves and remove models. Roll on majority armor save.

sourclams wrote:As said before, this reads like a wishlist.

1+

The problem seems to be ceding control of who gets to select casualties. In 4th edition you could do wonderful things with firepower to shape and control your opponent's units using line of sight. Thanks to a rule commonly called "Torrent of Fire" (since it had no official title in the rules) the attacker could target individual members of the squad.

5th edition gives some control of casualties in the face of minor fire, but removes it in the face of overwhelming firepower. Some special rules allow specialists to picked out by targeting models instead of units. This promotes large complex units.

That's why I expect that GW will turn Sniper weapons into a type of weapon that can target models, not units. The complex wound allocation works to promote diversity within units and helps deal with the perennial problem of independent characters in squads.

Take a unit of ten Orks, including one Nob and one Big Shoota. A single round of eight wounds is not going to threaten the Nob or Big Shoota, the squad's heavy hitters. A round of ten wounds, and both have to take a saving throw. The same firepower that burns tanks, like Meltas, Lascannons, and Missiles, also tends to effective again multi-wound models.

If Eternal Warriors with multiple wounds suffered Instant Death only when they failed a Toughness test, they would have significant protection against extra opportunities to suffer Instant Death. Remember that, by my prediction, while Marneus Calgar may suffer Instant Death from a Shuriken Cannon, he suffers it on roll of 5 or 6 on 1D6.

Crunching the numbers though, I think I missed a couple of important things in my prediction: You know how some weapons are just too weak to harm some things? With a wound roll of N? Conversely a player has two opportunities to roll 6 on S v T before they are incapable of inflicting a wound (S = T+2, S = T+3). Changing Instant Death to S > T+2 (or 2+ to wound) does indeed go too far. After all, currently it's S = 2T (anywhere from S > T to S > T+4).

Currently:
T1 = S2+
T2 = S4+
T3 = S6+
T4 = S8+
T5 = S10
T6+ = N (partial immunity to Instant Death)

Previously Predicted Instant Death (S > T+2)
T1 = S3+
T2 = S4+
T3 = S5+
T4 = S6+
T5 = S7+
T6 = S8+
T7 = S9+
T8 = S10
T9+ = N (partial immunity to Instant Death)

Recalibrated Predicted Instant Death (S > T+3):
T1 = S4+
T2 = S5+
T3 = S6+
T4 = S7+
T5 = S8+
T6 = S9+
T7 = S10
T8 = N (partial immunity to Instant Death)

This makes T3 less vulnerable to Instant Death, T4 the same as always, T5 more vulnerable, and T6 now threatened.

Question is, why bother messing with the Instant Death rules? It's not like multi-wound models are crushing everything in sight.

Why bother making Hit and Run test on Initiative? Why bother making Counter-Attack depend on a Leadership test? Why bother returning Gets Hot to rolls of 1 (previous the threshold in 4th edition was the number of dice roll: You could roll two hit dice both at 2 and score an armour save for each. Why have Preferred Enemy confer a reroll rather than a flat 3+?

In the last case, conferring a re-roll rather than a flat 3+ meant that attacks could be made more reliable according to WS. 5th edition Preferred Enemy really benefits models with better Weapon Skill as well as models with equal or less Weapon Skill. 4+ & 5+ rerolled are better than 3+ & 4+ to hit, respectively.

Ditto units with higher Leadership have more reliable Counter-Attack, and units with higher Initiative have more reliable Hit and Run.

Reliability is a big thing in 40,000. Differentiation of reliability is an even bigger thing. Adding characteristics tests to Universal Special Rules seemed to be a trend that was following this trend to 'Warhammerize' universal special rules. As classic Warhammer rules go, the To Hit and To Wound charts are classics (despite basically being modifiers in fancy dress), and the Reroll. One's a flat line and the other is a curve.

After all, WS, S & T determine the reliability of units in combat, and BS determines the reliability of units at hitting in shooting, and so on. Rerolls help to curve these flat lines determining reliability. Rules that give curves to general rules or universal special rules are good for adding 'flavour' to units. Think of re-rolls as the 0.5 effect, named after the 4+ Feel No Pain rule = half the wounds effected by Feel No Pain should fail to cause a casualty.

Ghazkull's Bionic Bonce rule is a wonderful example of the reroll effect despite not being a reroll, but an additional rule, a step up in reliability and potential. He has the universal special rule of Slow and Purposeful conferred by his Mega Armour. Previously in 4th his rule made no sense since Slow and Purposeful prevented a model from getting bonus attacks from charging, and Ghazkull's rule doubled the number of bonus attacks from charging. Well, it turned out that the rule made perfect sense from a 5th edition rule sense. It gives Ghazkull that special Orkish character of hitting like a freight train. Hitting last is fine: he's armed with a Power Klaw anyways.

Take Skilled Rider and Move Through Cover: a reroll and an extra die to a multi-die roll (which is like a reroll, but re-rolled twice without breaking the "No more rerolls than one" rule).

Fearless conferring No Retreat! wounds worked well when the number of wounds was a multiple of the difference in combat scores, rather than doubling down on existing casualties caused. But it was a great innovation in commonalizing Fearless and non-Fearless units, since before small units of Fearless troops could 'tarpit' stuff like Dreadnoughts and Wraithlords and such. It meant that Fearless units were no longer immune to the additional effects of losing combat.

That's why I expect something like a return to 4th edition style combat modifiers in 6th, heralded by stuff like Banners and Instruments of Chaos. 5th edition is more like a simplified engagement resolution for Epic Armageddon than it is a simplified assault resolution for 4th edition.

In fact the only reason that I can think of why the design team hadn't simply flipped the Epic Armageddon rules for 5th edition was the innate conservativism of gamers. People don't want their non-consumable products 'invalidated' by technological advances. The transition to 3rd edition Warhammer 40,000, and to Epic 40,000 showed how fans react to radical change.

Plus, why do it all at once when you know you have several editions to do it in? Isn't the business model set for the product to renew itself something like every five years? Getting it right the first time will only annoy people into quitting because the army optimized to the previous edition is no longer optimal. So GW spreads the hurt around, experiment with the loss leaders to see what might sell Space Marines, and they've found a way to sell the same game five times and give themself enough leeway to steer and correct as the project goes on.