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.

Crom wrote:I would like to see some options for activating units one at a time, and then switching back and forth. that way there is no real advantage to going first and it plays more like chess.

40k is nothing like chess. You don't have restrictions on number of units. That system works well only in games that have an even number of units, or no turn structure (ie. each move is a turn, not each move is back and forth) and/or where each unit is of similar quality.

Does anyone want to explain to me how this doesnt make the game all assault based? Ive read this theoretical ruleset and now see no point in even carrying guns with anything other than my BA. Just seems like shooting is going from ineffective due to prevalence of cover to usesless because no one without an extremely high BS or something with rerolls will be able to hit anything. Not forgetting that now since you stab someone with a knife BEFORE you shoot at them assault armies will just be on you before you react.

Maybe I'm just missing something here, but it seems to me like I should just start pulling off all the guns from my armies. I'm not trying to sound angry here I'm just really confused at this decision.

randyc9999 wrote:

Omegus wrote:There is plenty to love about vehicles in this theoretical 6th edition, including transports.

I am intrigued by this from the rumor:

Fire point: can fire if vehicle has advanced or surged, but only 12” regardless of weapon type, embarked troops are relentless

So now, for instance, a regular tactical squad with a melta and a multimelta in a rhino can fire both if the Rhino moves 12" (but only at targets 12" or less away). However, camping, say, a unit of Jokeros in a Chimera in the backfield will be pretty pointless.

Did you miss the part where it said all units in vehicles are relentless? That means heavy weapons can fire on the move, if only out to 12".

It looks like they are making units a bit more mobile (although not that much more) and vehicles a bit more powerful and tougher because they want armies moving at each other. If there really is only the one mission the game is now about moving onto objectives right away and killing as much of the other guys army as possible.

That sounds like fun to me. No more playing conservatively, sitting in the back hiding, waiting for last turn objective grabs.

The leadership changes look great too. Being able to surpress fearless units leans shooty armies can slow down assualt armies and being fearless isn't so crazy good as before.

The more I reader these the more I like them.

all of my guardsman will dual wield chainswords!!! all of my marines will have power fists and chainswords!!! my necron and tau will DIE!!!

Mr.Church13 wrote:Does anyone want to explain to me how this doesnt make the game all assault based? Ive read this theoretical ruleset and now see no point in even carrying guns with anything other than my BA. Just seems like shooting is going from ineffective due to prevalence of cover to usesless because no one without an extremely high BS or something with rerolls will be able to hit anything. Not forgetting that now since you stab someone with a knife BEFORE you shoot at them assault armies will just be on you before you react.

Maybe I'm just missing something here, but it seems to me like I should just start pulling off all the guns from my armies. I'm not trying to sound angry here I'm just really confused at this decision.

It looks to me like the balance between assault/shooting is likely to remain where it is now (slightly skewed towards assault). The reduction of cover saves is huge, as is the way blasts work. Since being in terrain slows down infantry terribly, they will never be getting cover saves against blasts. Further, the ability to assign every 5th wound means you can kill specific troublesome enemies far easier. Also of note, some units will likely have overwatch, and multiple weapons on vehicles will no longer be such a waste (since you can split fire). Vendettas with heavy bolters make a lot more sense with that rule in place.
Overall, it really seems pretty balanced between the two imo.

Mr.Church13 wrote:Does anyone want to explain to me how this doesnt make the game all assault based? Ive read this theoretical ruleset and now see no point in even carrying guns with anything other than my BA. Just seems like shooting is going from ineffective due to prevalence of cover to usesless because no one without an extremely high BS or something with rerolls will be able to hit anything. Not forgetting that now since you stab someone with a knife BEFORE you shoot at them assault armies will just be on you before you react.

Maybe I'm just missing something here, but it seems to me like I should just start pulling off all the guns from my armies. I'm not trying to sound angry here I'm just really confused at this decision.

Let's see... cover saves are a lot harder to come by, ranged attacks can direct a portion of their wounds, and your assessment of the hit charts is incredibly exaggerated?

Magister187 wrote:

Mr.Church13 wrote:Does anyone want to explain to me how this doesnt make the game all assault based? Ive read this theoretical ruleset and now see no point in even carrying guns with anything other than my BA. Just seems like shooting is going from ineffective due to prevalence of cover to usesless because no one without an extremely high BS or something with rerolls will be able to hit anything. Not forgetting that now since you stab someone with a knife BEFORE you shoot at them assault armies will just be on you before you react.

Maybe I'm just missing something here, but it seems to me like I should just start pulling off all the guns from my armies. I'm not trying to sound angry here I'm just really confused at this decision.

It looks to me like the balance between assault/shooting is likely to remain where it is now (slightly skewed towards assault). The reduction of cover saves is huge, as is the way blasts work. Since being in terrain slows down infantry terribly, they will never be getting cover saves against blasts. Further, the ability to assign every 5th wound means you can kill specific troublesome enemies far easier. Also of note, some units will likely have overwatch, and multiple weapons on vehicles will no longer be such a waste (since you can split fire). Vendettas with heavy bolters make a lot more sense with that rule in place.
Overall, it really seems pretty balanced between the two imo.

And then genestealers were made to move 36" in 2 turns with move through cover to ignore terrain and given assault grenades, or be allowed to come in from the back table edge and there was many lulz

I understand th hit chart. But what gets me is the if it moves even straight twoards me in an open field in a huge swarm it gets the equal equivilent of a cover save in my reduced BS.

MrDrumMachine wrote:And then genestealers were made to move 36" in 2 turns with move through cover to ignore terrain and given assault grenades, or be allowed to come in from the back table edge and there was many lulz

I do many instead of many

Magister187 wrote:

Crom wrote:I would like to see some options for activating units one at a time, and then switching back and forth. that way there is no real advantage to going first and it plays more like chess.

40k is nothing like chess. You don't have restrictions on number of units. That system works well only in games that have an even number of units, or no turn structure (ie. each move is a turn, not each move is back and forth) and/or where each unit is of similar quality.

If you ever played warzone back in the 90s, they did this via action points and activation one unit/vehicle/character at a time and then you traded turns off. I think it makes for better game play. Warzone was one of the best balanced game systems I played, but when I quit war gaming for a long time, I heard their last edition they screwed it all up though and they totally unbalanced the game.

When you activate a squad you can do whatever you with with it's activation points. In 40K you could activate a squad, move them, shoot them assault them, and then when you are done your opponent does the same and you trade off from there. Once everything has been activated turn 1 is over, and you start turn 2.

I think the easiest way to see how true these rumors are is to wait for the SoB WD dex or even the next full release (rumored to be Necrons). These should have terminology that either fits with current rumors, or doesn't. Until 6th actually comes out, with GW's great Finecast Wall, we won't know until the day its released onto the internet with pictures and everything...

Crom wrote:

Magister187 wrote:

Crom wrote:I would like to see some options for activating units one at a time, and then switching back and forth. that way there is no real advantage to going first and it plays more like chess.

40k is nothing like chess. You don't have restrictions on number of units. That system works well only in games that have an even number of units, or no turn structure (ie. each move is a turn, not each move is back and forth) and/or where each unit is of similar quality.

If you ever played warzone back in the 90s, they did this via action points and activation one unit/vehicle/character at a time and then you traded turns off. I think it makes for better game play. Warzone was one of the best balanced game systems I played, but when I quit war gaming for a long time, I heard their last edition they screwed it all up though and they totally unbalanced the game.

When you activate a squad you can do whatever you with with it's activation points. In 40K you could activate a squad, move them, shoot them assault them, and then when you are done your opponent does the same and you trade off from there. Once everything has been activated turn 1 is over, and you start turn 2.

I understand how that system works, which is why I feel it won't work at all for 40k. Units range so greatly in quality/cost, that it can't possibly be balanced for an army with 3 or even 4 times the units to have that system. Seriously, think about orcs/nids/IG vs. Crons/SM/GK.

I haven't seen how Rapid fire weapons will work in these rules. If assault weapons count as 2 close combat weapons and pistols may either be at it's strength or a second close combat weapon, maybe the rapid fire weapon will always be able to fire 1 shot at max range or 2 at close range as long as you don't surge.

Tau having a 36" threat range sounds nice or being able to have an orderly fall back rather than being routed every time the enemy gets close.

Mr.Church13 wrote:Does anyone want to explain to me how this doesnt make the game all assault based? Ive read this theoretical ruleset and now see no point in even carrying guns with anything other than my BA. Just seems like shooting is going from ineffective due to prevalence of cover to usesless because no one without an extremely high BS or something with rerolls will be able to hit anything. Not forgetting that now since you stab someone with a knife BEFORE you shoot at them assault armies will just be on you before you react.

Maybe I'm just missing something here, but it seems to me like I should just start pulling off all the guns from my armies. I'm not trying to sound angry here I'm just really confused at this decision.

You are missing something.

BS3 will hit most things more often or the same. Only moving jump infantry and bikes and flyers, or flat out (eg fast) vehicles will be hit less often -- but keep in mind this is coupled with removal of cover saves for these units moving fast -- Ohh and you can hit these guys as often as before as long as you are within 12" and the squad leader is alive. MCs and stationary things will be hit more often. Couple with a bit downgrading for cover and better control of who is wounded, shooting is ramped up a bit in my opinion. There's some stuff to compensate though (MCs being able to take armor and cover if they brace, as an example).

I remember the knee jerk reaction to the 5ed assaulting vehicle rules -- everyone thought tanks would be worthless due to being hit on rear armor. Boy were they wrong.

EDIT oh forgot this gem

non-vehicles/MC are invisible for determining cover saves, but if such an unit is in fire corridor, wounds cannot be directed

That is huge. Shooting has gotten a serious improvement. No more bringing your own cover unless its an MC or vehicle.

I better start painting some venomthropes now.

FalkorsRaiders wrote:I think the easiest way to see how true these rumors are is to wait for the SoB WD dex or even the next full release (rumored to be Necrons). These should have terminology that either fits with current rumors, or doesn't. Until 6th actually comes out, with GW's great Finecast Wall, we won't know until the day its released onto the internet with pictures and everything...

Eh, I dunno. Beastmen came out not too long (6 months?) before a fairly big makeover to WFB, and it still needed the FAQ/errata. And figure Necrons will probably still be a full year out from 6th. What you might see are more USRs and fewer army/unit special rules. Then again, the rumors point to Necron WBB being a unique rule and not just a FNP USR. So I'm really not sure we're going to be able to tell. If Tau or BT come next year as rumored, those might incorporate 6th ed concepts, much like the Daemon codex did with 5th.

Something that jumped out at me is that you can see a number of unit special rules incorporated into the USRs and rules. Lumbering is Lumbering Behemoth. Veiling (2) might be for Harlies. Shielding is for Tyrant Guard, etc. Still might be a hoax, but at least it's a reasonably thorough one, lol.

Are we missing the rules for a Vanish reaction? I can't find them anywhere.

Edit: I agree with winterman -- shooting looks a lot more dangerous. Not only is cover downgraded (a lot in some instances), it's slower to move through and thus you won't want some units to be in it. Snipers actually look worth it too, especially in larger units. Lose the squad leader and lose a VP? Ratlings FTW!

Yeah gorgon, as I added to my postabove they also removed cover saves from models in between the fire lane. Only MCs and vehicles give cover. That is huge for alot of armies and makes those cover save bubbles pretty much mandatory. SHooting is far from nerfed if these rules end up being implemented as rumored.

There is also a line in there about a modifier to hit if you're in short range, whatever that is. I'm guessing that works somewhat like WFB.

I think that it says if you are in short range and your squad leader is still alive, then you can use the short range row on the to hit chart. It also defines short range as within 12" in the shooting section (I believe, sometimes its hard to follow).

Is it me, or does it also sound like someone playing a terminator army/deathwing army (which usually relies HEAVILY on equipment variation for wound allocation) is getting the shaft?... I mean, fluff-wise (as they've made precedence in the GK FAQ as having some authority) it should seem that an army of super-elite troops should be able to handle themselves well...

With wound allocation going to 'armor groups' instead, it kinda makes them go down easily imo...

I will say though, a sgt and IC's getting multiple saves is nice... albeit this will lead to IC and named character armies...

Wound allocation didn't impact Deathwing much because everything still had a single wound. Something gets hit, it does. It's only game breaking when dealing with units with more than one wound.

Revarien wrote:Is it me, or does it also sound like someone playing a terminator army/deathwing army (which usually relies HEAVILY on equipment variation for wound allocation) is getting the shaft?... I mean, fluff-wise (as they've made precedence in the GK FAQ as having some authority) it should seem that an army of super-elite troops should be able to handle themselves well...

With wound allocation going to 'armor groups' instead, it kinda makes them go down easily imo...

I will say though, a sgt and IC's getting multiple saves is nice... albeit this will lead to IC and named character armies...

Though you do gain some survivability from wound allocation on 1 wound models, it really isn't as significant as some people claim it to be. I like it, when it is reasonable, but typically for Deathwing Terminators you don't get that many good options to have them completely diverse anyway.
Honestly, giving each squad a member (the sergeant) who can take both a 2+ and 3++ is probably an upgrade in survivability.

As excited as I would be for a codex: chaos legions, all these changes seem like a bit much. I prefer my games simiple and easy to learn.

Honestly, I feel like the complexity of the rules is compounded by two factors:
1) We are used to 5th edition rules, so the fact that these are changes to the rules we know complicates them.
2) They aren't in a rulebook, they are paraphrased on a spiel from ICQ. They are in a continuous stream and include minimal details or explanation. I am pretty sure you could lay out the 5th ed rules in the same way and they would seem far more confusing.

Seriously though, these rumours contain at least as many streamlined rules as they do new things like the hit chart and strategems (which I have a feeling they might include as cards/counters in the new starter sets, if those rumours are true). I dunno, I just think its impossible to evaluate how these changes as a whole will impact the flow and complexity of the game without playing a game using them.

Magister187 wrote:

Revarien wrote:Is it me, or does it also sound like someone playing a terminator army/deathwing army (which usually relies HEAVILY on equipment variation for wound allocation) is getting the shaft?... I mean, fluff-wise (as they've made precedence in the GK FAQ as having some authority) it should seem that an army of super-elite troops should be able to handle themselves well...

With wound allocation going to 'armor groups' instead, it kinda makes them go down easily imo...

I will say though, a sgt and IC's getting multiple saves is nice... albeit this will lead to IC and named character armies...

Though you do gain some survivability from wound allocation on 1 wound models, it really isn't as significant as some people claim it to be. I like it, when it is reasonable, but typically for Deathwing Terminators you don't get that many good options to have them completely diverse anyway.
Honestly, giving each squad a member (the sergeant) who can take both a 2+ and 3++ is probably an upgrade in survivability.

Somewhat. Though Draigo-wing suffers significantly under this change.

I like it! Now if they can improve the basic firewarrior, or give us TH/SS termie squats, ill be content Tau wise.

gorgon wrote:

FalkorsRaiders wrote:I think the easiest way to see how true these rumors are is to wait for the SoB WD dex or even the next full release (rumored to be Necrons). These should have terminology that either fits with current rumors, or doesn't. Until 6th actually comes out, with GW's great Finecast Wall, we won't know until the day its released onto the internet with pictures and everything...

Eh, I dunno. Beastmen came out not too long (6 months?) before a fairly big makeover to WFB, and it still needed the FAQ/errata. And figure Necrons will probably still be a full year out from 6th. What you might see are more USRs and fewer army/unit special rules. Then again, the rumors point to Necron WBB being a unique rule and not just a FNP USR. So I'm really not sure we're going to be able to tell. If Tau or BT come next year as rumored, those might incorporate 6th ed concepts, much like the Daemon codex did with 5th.

Something that jumped out at me is that you can see a number of unit special rules incorporated into the USRs and rules. Lumbering is Lumbering Behemoth. Veiling (2) might be for Harlies. Shielding is for Tyrant Guard, etc. Still might be a hoax, but at least it's a reasonably thorough one, lol.

Are we missing the rules for a Vanish reaction? I can't find them anywhere.

Edit: I agree with winterman -- shooting looks a lot more dangerous. Not only is cover downgraded (a lot in some instances), it's slower to move through and thus you won't want some units to be in it. Snipers actually look worth it too, especially in larger units. Lose the squad leader and lose a VP? Ratlings FTW!

I don't follow WHFB, but rumors said necrons would be set up gearing towards 6th. tau and BT will most definitely be geared towards 6th, but as a Necron player, I'd like my precious necrons to be incorporated in that list, please?

Noisy_Marine wrote:As excited as I would be for a codex: chaos legions, all these changes seem like a bit much. I prefer my games simiple and easy to learn.

And yet, going by the rules forum, there is nothing simple about it.

As far as learning, I am convinced at least 80% of 40K players never read the whole rulebook, but rather "pick it up on the way".

Sidstyler wrote:If your troops can move faster than their transport then why bother taking a transport?

How else are the All Mighty Space Marines going to hide and cower and not get hit with anything then? That is the only reason why people take transports now. Not because of speed, but because the Space Marines are scared they may get shot at.

In regards to Chaos Legions Codex, More tidbits is being posted by Ghost 21:

Ghost21 wrote:

vladsimpaler wrote:If you hadn't posted this, I would have. Personally I just want the Company of the Chosen back. Maybe in a mono-Khorne book, haha

expect extensive cult lists but not books, same with other legions

ghost21;5603204 wrote:a cult legion list is significantly different to a cult list .. if you catch my meaning

In regards to background (for those like me who are not in the know):

Bold_or_Stupid wrote:the cults are: Khorne Berzerkers, Nurgle Plague Marines, Slaanesh Noise Marines and Tzeentch Thousand sons.

The legioans are: Alpha Legion, Black Legion,Death Guard, Emperors Children, Iron Warriors, Night Lords, Thousand Sons, Word Bearers and World Eaters. At least two of these has been subsumed entirely into a cult Troop type.

What's that Smell, Ah it's only BS.