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.

This one made me chuckle

Abandon: If there is more than one model with less than its initial wounds in an unit in the consolidation phase, the owning player must remove all but one as casualty ( ID(3) ). Independent characters are ignored.

If true, there will be many remodeled paladins and nobs next summer.

These feel legit to me, and as others have said, 40k needs a fresh take pretty badly. They seem like good changes really.

Also, for the "these make the game too slow" crowd, several of the changes feel like they streamline thing and make it go quicker, like measuring LOS from the squad leader, taking all tests at the squad leaders statistics, and assigning armor groups wounds instead of "identical models". Also, the important thing to note about making FNP a save is that it means Independent Characters don't take 2 saves AND FNP, just 2 saves from among the 4. As winterman quoted, the elimination of the diversified multi-wound model "shenanigans" just by itself will make the game flow better imo.

Overall, assuming all these changes are true (they are probably not), I think it will keep the actual game around the same speed, but make the pregame take longer and give you a few more things to track (but also likely less special rules about movement).

Well, looks like there'd be very little reason not to take 'ard Case on your Wagons, now...

Mr.Church13 wrote:Shooting already gets the short end of the stick in 5th ed if they go with this there will be very little reason to take anything other than assault units and the biggest guns so the reward for actually hitting is worth the loss of CQC potential.

I don't know how the changes are going to affect that dynamic (If they're true)---but I find it difficult to call assault armies strong in 5th Edition.

I'm all for change. Not a fan of 5th at all.

Pretty sure if they eliminate wound spreading, gonna find it difficult to convince myself to run Draigowing.

So a Blood Angel assault marine gets a single attack in CC that can be S8 a d Rending! I love it!

So they work for years and years and years to try to 'perfect' their game model - to try to get it more streamlined - and make it easier to play a 2K in a few hours rather than all day, then they simply throw all that away for this rule-stuffed edition? I doubt it. This all seems like utter crap.

I will be the first to admit I was wrong if this turns out to be true (because I probably won't have much interest in playing), but I sincerely doubt it. The list seems too put together. It seems too "finished".

Seems like a wishlist above all else.

winterman wrote:This one made me chuckle

Abandon: If there is more than one model with less than its initial wounds in an unit in the consolidation phase, the owning player must remove all but one as casualty ( ID(3) ). Independent characters are ignored.

If true, there will be many remodeled paladins and nobs next summer.

What? I'm not sure I understand this... wouldn't this make it impossible to do the would allocation on paladins/nobz??? Help me out here...

I guess there's no point of wound allocation then...

whembly wrote:
What? I'm not sure I understand this... wouldn't this make it impossible to do the would allocation on paladins/nobz??? Help me out here...

I guess there's no point of wound allocation then...

If so then, HOORAY for GW!! The idea that a unit should be able to run around with half dead models ONLY because they're have different color shoes on or some other inconsequential piece of wargear that doesn't protect them was ridiculous.

whembly wrote:

winterman wrote:This one made me chuckle

Abandon: If there is more than one model with less than its initial wounds in an unit in the consolidation phase, the owning player must remove all but one as casualty ( ID(3) ). Independent characters are ignored.

If true, there will be many remodeled paladins and nobs next summer.

What? I'm not sure I understand this... wouldn't this make it impossible to do the would allocation on paladins/nobz??? Help me out here...

I guess there's no point of wound allocation then...

This would indeed make it impossible to do the standard wound allocation tricks on Paladins and Nobz-- and that's almost certainly the point, given that many players have complained about the current state of affairs.

warboss wrote:

whembly wrote:
What? I'm not sure I understand this... wouldn't this make it impossible to do the would allocation on paladins/nobz??? Help me out here...

I guess there's no point of wound allocation then...

If so then, HOORAY for GW!! The idea that a unit should be able to run around with half dead models ONLY because they're have different color shoes on or some other inconsequential piece of wargear that doesn't protect them was ridiculous.

The counter-argument could be made that it's less realistic for every bullet to be magically diverted to the half-dead guy in the squad. Wound allocation is the one thing which sets the vindicare assassin apart from any other model, the ability to choose your target regardless.

Having a squad of half-dead models simply means they're resillient, rather than simply being bulletcatchers after the very first unlucky save.

"Oh no! I've taken a shot in the shoulder, I'm done for. Every wound must be allocated to me until I die. Woe is me!"

Not that I believe Nob Bikers are fun to kill along with paladins, but it makes as much sense either way. As for the rules, I'd have to see them complete within the context of 6th rather than a single rule which affects a minority of 40k models (since they exclude ICs). I would love to see the return of the more powerful ICs because it will make those Brotherhood Champions nigh unstoppable. I'd hate to see what this change would do to Crowe though...

warboss wrote:

whembly wrote:
What? I'm not sure I understand this... wouldn't this make it impossible to do the would allocation on paladins/nobz??? Help me out here...

I guess there's no point of wound allocation then...

If so then, HOORAY for GW!! The idea that a unit should be able to run around with half dead models ONLY because they're have different color shoes on or some other inconsequential piece of wargear that doesn't protect them was ridiculous.

More like I'm paying 55 points for each one of them.

And I don't know about Paladins, but it's still possible to do slight Shenanigans to Nobz, since you could have one group with bare bones 6+, one group with 6+/5++, one group with 4+, one group with 4+/5++... It'd make slightly smaller groups 'tougher', with the shenanigans. So not really doing away with it, per-say, but making it less effective.

Abandon: If there is more than one model with less than its initial wounds in an unit in the consolidation phase, the owning player must remove all but one as casualty ( ID(3) ). Independent characters are ignored.

I'm not even sure what this even means; you take an auto-wound if you don't have full wounds in consolidation? That doesn't even make sense.

Abandon-rule gets thumbs up from me.

I play orks to kicks ass and chew squicks. Not to bookkeep each nobs wound allocations.

daedalus-templarius wrote:

Abandon: If there is more than one model with less than its initial wounds in an unit in the consolidation phase, the owning player must remove all but one as casualty ( ID(3) ). Independent characters are ignored.

I'm not even sure what this even means; you take an auto-wound if you don't have full wounds in consolidation? That doesn't even make sense.

If you have two nobs with one wound each one of them dies

Varied movement speeds, multiple saves on a model, overwatch...... People, this IS a 2nd ed revision.

These new rumored changes bog down the game considering how many models we have. There's too many variables going on. This doesn't look good.

Yeah, I'm less inclined to believe the validity. First, most of these rules will invalidate the current army books. Now its not like GW hasn't done that before, but I seem to recall towards the end of 4th edition, the new books started using 5th edition terminology, etc. If 6th is really so near, you would think that the newer books would have used some 6th terminology, yet Dark Eldar lances dont have a number associated with them, etc.

Also, it seems like the new rules would be a little too in depth for the large size games GW is shifting towards...

youbedead wrote:

daedalus-templarius wrote:

Abandon: If there is more than one model with less than its initial wounds in an unit in the consolidation phase, the owning player must remove all but one as casualty ( ID(3) ). Independent characters are ignored.

I'm not even sure what this even means; you take an auto-wound if you don't have full wounds in consolidation? That doesn't even make sense.

If you have two nobs with one wound each one of them dies

So what is the point of having multiple wound troops

"Oh I guess you got one wound on me, guess now that you didn't hit me with anything else/I saved it, I'll lose a model" No thanks.

Abandon sounds really far fetched,k considering how many armies rely on multi-wound troop units.

Paladins, Nobz, Crisis suits, lots of Tyranid broods, Orgyns... Yeah, if it works how it's described, a lot of units simply won't see the light of day. My guess is he missed something vital when describing that rule.

-Loki- wrote:Abandon sounds really far fetched,k considering how many armies rely on multi-wound troop units.

Paladins, Nobz, Crisis suits, lots of Tyranid broods, Orgyns... Yeah, if it works how it's described, a lot of units simply won't see the light of day. My guess is he missed something vital when describing that rule.

No, it makes perfect sense, its just that they expect you to arm all multiwound models identically, or at the very least to minimize variation. The way wound allocation works, if all models are identical, you should only ever really have one wounded multiwound at a time.

-Loki- wrote:Abandon sounds really far fetched,k considering how many armies rely on multi-wound troop units.

Paladins, Nobz, Crisis suits, lots of Tyranid broods, Orgyns... Yeah, if it works how it's described, a lot of units simply won't see the light of day. My guess is he missed something vital when describing that rule.

I believe the idea is to give you the option of spreading wounds out (at the expense of those models dieing at the end of turn) or concentrating them on single models.

I like it.

chaos0xomega wrote: If 6th is really so near, you would think that the newer books would have used some 6th terminology, yet Dark Eldar lances dont have a number associated with them, etc.

We have. The Grey Knights book uses the unit type "Infantry (Character)" on the ICs , Mordak, and Crowe - the (Character) part is entirely useless in 5th edition, but is likely to matter in 6th. It also has Psychic Mastery levels, which are self contained in the codex but would probably be superseded by the rulebook.

I really like 5th, but a lot of these changes look pretty fun.

Just have to wait and see how it all pans out.

What really alarms me the most though, is the first paragraph where the informer talks about hating the company and their attitude towards their customers. I have heard that too often from former employees. That is not a good sign in my eyes.

I don't buy it. Infantry moving 18" a turn?

warboss wrote:

whembly wrote:What? I'm not sure I understand this... wouldn't this make it impossible to do the would allocation on paladins/nobz??? Help me out here...

I guess there's no point of wound allocation then...

If so then, HOORAY for GW!! The idea that a unit should be able to run around with half dead models ONLY because they're have different color shoes on or some other inconsequential piece of wargear that doesn't protect them was ridiculous.

It's good they're getting rid of a tactic that shouldn't exist, but doing so by adding yet another kludge is not.

Omegus wrote:I don't buy it. Infantry moving 18" a turn?

As it stands now, foot lists are at a severe disadvantage in objective missions (particularly with Dawn of War deployment!). Transports add mobility, survivability, and firepower at a pretty light cost-- the only real drawback is Kill Point missions, and a lot of tournaments shy away from KPs (with some justification- a Rhino is equivalent to a Land Raider? Really?).

Some added movement for infantry would be particularly welcome (especially since it seems run moves are out in this theoretical 6thE).

Yes, that's fine, I wouldn't care about 2x movement, but 3x? Even 2nd edition didn't have that crazy nonsense. It's the only thing that jumps out as truly ludicrous.