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.

Beasts of war has started posting short videos on their site regarding rumors of 40K 6th edition. These are supposedly based on 'sources' they know and since they've been right in the past I figured these are worth a look. NOTE: Warren has said multiple times that 'smart money' goes on July 7 for the release date of 6th edition. If that is true then we should really get some good rumors sometime mid-June.

The first video is on how wound allocation will work:

http://www.beastsofwar.com/warhammer-40k/wound-allocation-works-6th-edition-40k/

It looks like if this is true casualties fall from the front ranks instead of anywhere the owning player chooses. For an edition rumored to be the 'rise of xenos' that really hurts orks & nids. I'm interested to see if any of the movement rules from pancake edition make it into the rules -- being able to guaranteed run 12" for orks will mitigate losing front models as the mob crosses the table.

Thoughts welcomed.

Edit - Links to more videos from beasts of war:

Challenges in 40k?

http://www.beastsofwar.com/warhammer-40k/fantasy-style-challenges-warhammer-40k-close-combat/

A la' fantasy warhammer - Independent Characters, HQ's, and maybe even sergeants can issue/accept Close Combat challenges, regardless of their placement in the combat. Could lead to bonuses to combat resolution for the winning side of a challenge, and penalties for 'bowing out'.

Charge Reactions - Snap Fire?

http://www.beastsofwar.com/warhammer-40k/rumor-stand-shoot-40k-6th-edition/

Basically units that get charged have a final shooting action right before CC begins, at BS 1. They're not sure if heavies are allowed to fire but speculate that assault and rapid fire weapons will be able to shoot freely. Might make those genestealers think twice about running into a squad of shoota boyz or guardsmen.

Randomly Chosen Psyker Powers?

http://www.beastsofwar.com/warhammer-40k/rumor-randomly-chosen-psychic-powers-40k-6th-ed/

So the guys aren't sure how this one will work but apparently psykers will have a table to roll on for random powers before the game starts, again like fantasy. Since codices have varying numbers of psychic powers this would require a GW-wide FAQ to implement, or a table of 'generic' powers to choose from in the BRB while maintaining codex powers as 'signature spells'.

Starter Box contents?

http://www.beastsofwar.com/warhammer-40k/rumor-40k-6th-edition-starter-box/

They've heard that Deathwing (Dark Angels with Belial as an HQ and terminators) vs Chaos Space Marines (with a new dread sculpt) will be in the starter box. Darrell wants it for the little rulebook. Fall release.

No More Random Game length?

http://www.beastsofwar.com/warhammer-40k/rumor-40k-6th-ed-killing-random-game-lengths/

Warren and Darrell discuss the changes in the game if random game length goes the way of the dodo. Warren also once again confirms that the Pancake edition was in fact a GW production that was an early playtest for 6th. He further speculates that the random mission generator in the back of the document will hopefully make it into the final 6th rulebook, because of the flexibility it provided (i agree with this statement).

6th Edition Rumor Roundup

http://www.beastsofwar.com/turn-8/turn-8-fond-farewell-40k-5th-edition/

Alright so this isn't really worth watching unless you love to hear the brogue in the voices of BoW crew. At about the 1:15:00 mark or thereabouts they begin going over a plethora of 6th edition rumors that have been bandied about on the internet, then take 'votes' via the chatroom and twitter as to whether they're 'thumbs up' or 'thumbs down' (it is a recording of a live broadcast). What makes it not worth watching is the fact that they're not discussing any sources they have like in the above videos, but rather taking opinions from the internet which as we all know isn't a valid way to predict the future. They interview Rick Priestly in the last 20-25 minutes of the video, discussing Warhammer 40K's inception leading up to the way the game is now.

One new rumor that Warren brings up and i'll leave it here because i haven't heard it before - Flamers can potentially set ruins and woods on fire if they shoot into them (obviously based on a dice roll, knowing GW it'd be a 4+ roll). This would make the terrain dangerous, and potentially cause hits to any units hiding inside. Not sure if it was something he heard from a good source or just speculation so put some salt on that one.
Edit - Warren also mentioned a GW manager's conference on June 10-11. Could be to hand out the new BRB and after which the 'net would flood with 'confirmations' of rumors and such. Salt again.

Bring your own bunkers to the fight? Also, let's watch the world burn.

http://www.beastsofwar.com/warhammer-40k/rumor-40k-6th-ed-paying-points-terrain/

In this video Warren and Darrell banter about the idea that players will be able to pay points in-game for terrain and accompanying rules. Warren suggests a dropship type deployment for some terrain, while others being deployed with the rest of the army. It would definitely spur sales of terrain kits, if players knew they could bring their AV14 Bastion with them to the fight. I don't see this happening as they describe it for the sole reason that no terrain kits are codex specific. It wouldn't make sense for a Tyranid or Tau army to have an imperial bastion or skyshield, in operational condition, under their control.

The second blurb of a rumor in this video concerns terrain and flamers. A flamer (supposedly) will be able to target a terrain piece, or men in terrain, and on an additional dice roll (probably dependent on the flamer's strength) the woods/ruin etc would catch up in flame, causing additional damage to any units residing inside. It's a neat idea, and I give this one more credulity than the pay-for-terrain rumor.

Pre-Measuring in 6th Edition

http://www.beastsofwar.com/warhammer-40k/rumor-premeasuring-ranges-40k-6th-ed/

Prettymuch like the title says. Premeasuring is in, the guys discuss applications and suppose it might speed up games by preventing arguments over millimeter differences in movement and people 'fudging' their moves to get into combat earlier. Paired with the rumor that random charge distance makes it in the book too, I could see this one happening.

Close Combat weapons finally getting an AP value?

http://www.beastsofwar.com/warhammer-40k/rumor-close-combat-weapons-ap-40k-6th-ed/

Alright so Warren and Darrell say that something from Pancake edition is slated for release in 6th - Close combat weapons of differing types will get AP values, just like shooting weapons. Examples listed were Power Swords will have AP 3, Power fists will have AP 2, and Chain fists will be AP 1. Warren (as been his wont lately) argued that it would add complexity and more charts to remember, but Darrell seemed pretty sure thanks to his 'reliable source' and said that it would be no different than remembering bolters are AP 5 and Lascannons are ap 2, etc.

tetrisphreak wrote:
It looks like if this is true casualties fall from the front ranks instead of anywhere the owning player chooses..

Great, time to put all the expendables in the front

Watching the vid.. and i have a question to ask.

Does this only apply to wounds taken from shooting? or both shooting and assulting?

If it's only shooting then it would make ALOT more sense and it would make positioning much more important (ie, protecting HQ's and special weapons by placing them at the mid or rear)

If it's both then assaulting would be pretty wrecked for some assault based armies. Orks especially, for the fact that you'll lose almost all your front models.. and the models behind wouldn't be able to strike back.

Either way.. this would make tau more interesting to play... considering the amount of units they have that can jump around and flank or infiltrate (stealth suits!!)

For all the rumors of 6th ed 40K becoming more like Fantasy 8th edition, this makes no sense at all.

I hope it doesn't .

8th Ed Fantasy sucks.

I like 40K more or less as it is now. The whole point is that the systems are NOT the same, after all..

The only thing that sucks with current fantasy, is it's bring a lvl 4 caster or GTFO (hence why I play DE). I really hope they don't make it so it's psyker or go home also.

greenbay924 wrote:The only thing that sucks with current fantasy, is it's bring a lvl 4 caster or GTFO (hence why I play DE). I really hope they don't make it so it's psyker or go home also.

I hope not either... Some armies can't even field pysker at all! (Necrons, Tau)

Given that I play Orks (not the best Psykers), BT (nuff said), Daemons (with GK around forget it..) and DE (um.... none there either...), yeah..



I tried to get back into WHFB when 8th hit, but it turned me off like a switch. I used to love WHFB, but that was a few editions back.

I like it, much more tactical placement as well as adding a few risks. Also being able to keep your guys safe is pretty cool as well, have to fire a lot of shots to get through. Also they specifically said shooting no less than 3 times.

I really like it and hope this will be kept when 6th ed comes out.

I don't know what this rumor means in terms of the whole game, as i said before the entire way units move could change dramatically....rapid fire weaponry could change...psykers will probably have more options, etc.

Do I think that this means that bring a level 4 caster or GTFO? Not really, because most psykers are mastery level 1, and anything that gives mastery level 2 or above is an expensive upgrade or a special character (also expensive). What i do think is that if we can piece together previous rumors from faeit 212 and blood of kittens, psykers are going to have "lores" to choose powers from. I think codex powers specific to certain armies will remain as legal choices, but having lores to choose from in lieu of the codex specific powers will only grant more customization and variety into the game.

Back OT - If i know that the closest members of a squad will be the ones that need to take the saves, that will in fact make me think more about placement of models in units when playing. I don't think it'll break the game but it will make it require more forethought in that sense.

Most codexes don't have Mastery Levels

They might after a rewrite, but right now i think only the GK have mastery level rules ?

Ascalam wrote:Most codexes don't have Mastery Levels

They might after a rewrite, but right now i think only the GK have mastery level rules ?

Only GK have it written in, but it's pretty easy to figure out based on the number of powers a psyker can use a turn.

Back to shields in front of your good troops then, normal marine screens for my devastators.

a SLIGHTLY more psychic 6th Ed would be nice....

Crappy hand drawn sketches of the rulebook or it didn't happen!

This is idiotic and argument inducing. It'll never happen.

Stupid BoW.

Beat me to it warboss!




But yeah, ranks in 40K? What ranks?

If this does indeed happen, I see a big problem of the case where there's more wounds dealt than models closest to the source of the shooting.

"Most codexes don't have Mastery Levels
They might after a rewrite, but right now i think only the GK have mastery level rules?"
I think thats because GKs were the 1st Dex written with 6th Ed in mind.

As for this specific rule...thats going to be tough on Orks. Getting the nob close enough to the front rank that he gets into combat, but not so close that he gets shot up before the charge (or loosing enough orks up front that the charge fails).
Congo-line grots hold 2 or 3 objectives for the win? Not any more. Shoot the closest one right off the objective.
Melta-Vets jump out of the Chimera, get one shot at a vehicle, then get killed since they usually have to be in the front rank to get the range.
Poor flamer guy MUST be in front to shoot...and gets popped first for his trouble...which is much more realistic considering the fate of the guys about to be toasted and who they will be shooting at.
Jump troops can get real snarky...jumping to the side or even to the rear in order to line up shots on 'hidden' ICs and PW/PF Sgts. This rule could also create situations where you may want your Drop-pod Sternguard to come in turn 2 (or even later) to take advantage of angle of shot into units.
And the error of placement where your non-eternal IC just happens to be the closest guy to the Las-Cannon...certainly makes it much more worthwhile taking that single shot Insta-death into a unit rather than a random shot at some already immobilized/stunned transport.

AresX8 wrote:If this does indeed happen, I see a big problem of the case where there's more wounds dealt than models closest to the source of the shooting.

not saying I believe this rumors, but I disagree with your concern. all that would have to happen is once the first ranks all dead, the owning player gets to choose who dies in the next rank.

Maybe there'll be a hint in WD next week,. i mean theres gotta be SOME kind of confirmation this month right? Maybe on the back page? GW surely arent THAT stupid...

morgendonner wrote:

AresX8 wrote:If this does indeed happen, I see a big problem of the case where there's more wounds dealt than models closest to the source of the shooting.

not saying I believe this rumors, but I disagree with your concern. all that would have to happen is once the first ranks all dead, the owning player gets to choose who dies in the next rank.

IIRC, we don't know for sure if the wounds dealt can only be located to the models closest to the source of the shooting. This means that the second rank cannot have wounds allocated to it, but instead the first rank will have to double or more up on the allocated wounds.

DiabolicAl wrote:Maybe there'll be a hint in WD next week,. i mean theres gotta be SOME kind of confirmation this month right? Maybe on the back page? GW surely arent THAT stupid...

A hint in WD about wound allocation in 6th, or a hint about 6th altogether? If the former, that's oddly specific. The latter, well, we can hope. Considering the WD this month will be for June and 6th is allegedly dropping in July, it would be good to at least allude to it.

Also, for those who think this is based on ranks in the unit: Watch the video. It's just done based on models closest to the unit. So here's a simple ASCII diagram. My squad are the o's, and the O is a sergeant. Baddies are x's.
ooo
oOo

xxx
If the x's shoot and I take three wounds, I would have to allocate them to the front o, O, and o. If they shot from behind and did three wounds, I would take them on the ooo in the back. It's not ranks, it's just closest models to the enemy unit.

I'm pretty sure they used "rank" with a rather loose meaning, I think what they meant was you have to allocate to closest model first and work your way back, so if more wounds were dealt than the unit has models, it would just wrap back around and start from the beginning.


Or...the "ranks" term could hint at a new way units have to be situated...like 8th skirmisher rules! (that would...be very very bad).

As for orks, it basically kills the army if this is applied to combat as well. "Screw you and your PK nob!"

There's something about this rule I just don't believe. It will make bikes/speeders pretty dang OP, being able to zip to an angle to take a shot at that one model that's scary in the unit. Then again, if they want to sell fliers, what better way than create a rule that gives them a distinct advantage against infantry?

Yeah, i probably shoudl have been clearer. I meant both really. Maybe something about 6th Ed in general but with a hint about what way they are taking it. (wishful thinking i know - you know it's going to be 'New Edition of Warhammer 40,000 in 2 weeks, place your preorders now!!)

you know the difference between GW marketing team and a field of cowpats?

Nothing

greenbay924 wrote:
There's something about this rule I just don't believe. It will make bikes/speeders pretty dang OP, being able to zip to an angle to take a shot at that one model that's scary in the unit. Then again, if they want to sell fliers, what better way than create a rule that gives them a distinct advantage against infantry?

While it does encourage maneuverability, surely you can just put that important model at the center of the unit?

That might be the whole point though. This might be a round about way of getting rid of wound allocation. All wounds and all failed saves are taken on the closest model and work your way back. No more trying to game the system where Mr. Melta Gun takes all of the AP 2 shots, or Nobs and Paladins playing ring around the rosie. On the other hand, you won't be able to 'accidentally' lose your missile launcher guy when a Venom wound wraps your 5 man squad.

Either way though, when you start talking about 'complex' units (multiple toughnesses and armor saves) this whole thing falls apart into a complicated mess that I'm sure no one would be happy with. So thats why I'm skeptical.

morgendonner wrote:

Ascalam wrote:Most codexes don't have Mastery Levels

They might after a rewrite, but right now i think only the GK have mastery level rules ?

Only GK have it written in, but it's pretty easy to figure out based on the number of powers a psyker can use a turn.

Which would make Old Zogwort, the most powerful Psyker the orks have ever seen, Mastery Level 1?

He turned an entire Guard company into squigs in one go (granted he probably didn't intend to...).

It would also make Fateweaver and the rest of the Lords of Change mastery level 0, despite being categorically stated as being the greatest sorcerors in the multiverse They aren't Psykers..

Tigurius is ML 1, even though he's powerful enough to access the Hive Mind, suppsedly?

I didn't like this approach in fantasy much either, when i played FB. You'd end up having Teclis and Nagash rocking 5's and everyone else out in the cold.

If they were going to change the system to make everyone use Mastery Levels they'd either have to retcon/FAQ the older codexes or rerelease them pretty soon after 6th hit.

Of course it could be that only the GK codex will wind up using the mastery level stuff, also GW aren't too good at keeping to one style or design philosophy for long enough for all the codexes to be updated.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
As to the wound allocation by closest model approach, i think it might be interesting, but it will really shake up the current shenanigans until people figure out new ones.


** edit- lousy spelling**

Brother SRM wrote:

greenbay924 wrote:
There's something about this rule I just don't believe. It will make bikes/speeders pretty dang OP, being able to zip to an angle to take a shot at that one model that's scary in the unit. Then again, if they want to sell fliers, what better way than create a rule that gives them a distinct advantage against infantry?

While it does encourage maneuverability, surely you can just put that important model at the center of the unit?

Think of a 5 man terminator squad, there's no place you can put your character where it wouldn't get hit with the 2nd/3rd shot on the unit. Sure, a large unit of boyz would be fine, but I'm more concerned with something like a nob squad, usually 7-10 strong, with 3 PK (usual kit out, at least for me). It will now be much easier to remove those klawz before combat (if I'm pulled out of my wagon, that is), making the unit pretty much useless.

I still think there's something off about it, like something was lost in translation. That said, it's hard to judge this in a vacuum, would need to know what other changes are being made to actually gauge if this is game breaking, or just a quality of life (simpler wound allocation) change. The one positive thing about it, is wound allocation is NOT in either player's control, outside of the movement phase part. When it comes to actually shooting and wounding, it will be pretty straight forward how it will play out.

greenbay924 wrote:I'm pretty sure they used "rank" with a rather loose meaning, I think what they meant was you have to allocate to closest model first and work your way back, so if more wounds were dealt than the unit has models, it would just wrap back around and start from the beginning.


Or...the "ranks" term could hint at a new way units have to be situated...like 8th skirmisher rules! (that would...be very very bad).

As for orks, it basically kills the army if this is applied to combat as well. "Screw you and your PK nob!"

There's something about this rule I just don't believe. It will make bikes/speeders pretty dang OP, being able to zip to an angle to take a shot at that one model that's scary in the unit. Then again, if they want to sell fliers, what better way than create a rule that gives them a distinct advantage against infantry?

If this is true my Razorwings are going to be happy campers...

I may have to try the rule out as a houserule..