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.

So I am taking no faith in the current rumor set.

But, I was wondering...If these turn out to be true...how would things change?



1. 40k run is part of the movement phase
2. assault distance is not influenced by terrain, but gives minus two to initiative
3. vector strikes allow armour saves, but deal one to six hits
4. 40k uses a percentage system for the army list
5. you can bring as many different allies as you want. You can spend a fourth of your points on allies, but they also count as their normal category
6. you can bring three allies to a game and must choose one
7. bikes can strike units in 1” in the movement phase without assaulting just like chariots, but can attacked back
8. fortification and lords of war rules are in, but no profiles
9.you have to pass a initiative test to shoot overwatching, get minus three to ballistic talent
10. you can engage new unit after victory in melee, but enemy can shoot overwatch again
11. you can choose to flee if you are charged but can be destroyed
12. if you want to run in 12” of enemy you have to pass a leadertest
13. vehicles get no cover saves against infantry, only against other vehicles



So as an exercise...assuming the above is 100% true (you might have to take some liberties) How would it change your tactics for specific units or armies?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
1. 40k run is part of the movement phase
My tyranid games would be so much faster!...but battle focus wouldn't work with shooting first

2. assault distance is not influenced by terrain, but gives minus two to initiative
makes more sense than the current rendition, and genestealers are much better...I4 )through cover? Excellent

3. vector strikes allow armour saves, but deal one to six hits
my tyranids just got a lot better, sure, bikes live easier now...but other vehicles and fliers will fear me

4. 40k uses a percentage system for the army list
odd and kind of impossible to play with without knowing percentage...it would be nice to see some balance...triptides...psh

5. you can bring as many different allies as you want. You can spend a fourth of your points on allies, but they also count as their normal category
as long as battle brothers is gone?

6. you can bring three allies to a game and must choose one
This is ecellent for my elitest grey knights who might need one of three special tools depending on the enemy.

7. bikes can strike units in 1” in the movement phase without assaulting just like chariots, but can attacked back
jetbikes and seerstar just got gross...move in, "assault", and assault jump away

8. fortification and lords of war rules are in, but no profiles
well that would make sense as they're subject to change, guess its time to buy a harridian

9.you have to pass a initiative test to shoot overwatching, get minus three to ballistic talent
I'm assuming, initiative to fire at normal bs, otherwie bs-3, my GK characters and Eldar will love this

10. you can engage new unit after victory in melee, but enemy can shoot overwatch again
GK PALADINS

11. you can choose to flee if you are charged but can be destroyed
most of my armies are fearless or in vehicles...

12. if you want to run in 12” of enemy you have to pass a leadertest
makes sense...like another layer of IB for tyranids...bleh

13. vehicles get no cover saves against infantry, only against other vehicles
So the lascannon guy across the map can thread the needle but my vehicles up close can't see the treads and it gets cover? Time to amp up long ranged infantry AT

 ductvader wrote:
1. 40k run is part of the movement phase

Makes Sense. it was one of the harder things for me to learn was that run took place in the shooting phase. Doesn't really make a significant strategic difference, just mildly quicker games.

 ductvader wrote:
2. assault distance is not influenced by terrain, but gives minus two to initiative

Also seems like a good move. Simplify a bit. On the other hand, Imperial Knights just got a huge boost that they didn't need, and low initiative armies like Tau and Orks took a nerf.

 ductvader wrote:
3. vector strikes allow armour saves, but deal one to six hits

FMCs take a big hit.

 ductvader wrote:
4. 40k uses a percentage system for the army list

While it seems like this would add complexity to the game, it would make the FOC more relevant again. Assuming that Formation units are occupants of their FOC slot.

 ductvader wrote:
5. you can bring as many different allies as you want. You can spend a fourth of your points on allies, but they also count as their normal category

25% of points on allies is an improvement. But unlimited # of allies is still dumb. Especially if they keep Battle Brothers. Witness the Adeptecon top 16 lists:
http://bloodofkittens.com/blog/2014/04/04/tits-tournaments-adepticon-2014-top-16-championships-lists/
Everyone that had the option included a Ordo Xenos Inquisitor via inquisition allies. There needs to be consequences for taking allies or we will keep seeing the same broken stuff.

 ductvader wrote:
6. you can bring three allies to a game and must choose one

What does this mean? Choose one to do what?

 ductvader wrote:
7. bikes can strike units in 1” in the movement phase without assaulting just like chariots, but can attacked back

Eh, I don't think the game needs this. It would make Nob Biker deathstars more relevant, but the new Ork Codex will probably mess them up anyways.

 ductvader wrote:
8. fortification and lords of war rules are in, but no profiles

Personally I hate LOW. I think they belong to a different game (apocalypse) than the game I want to play (40k). That being said, both of these things could work if they spent a little time fixing all of the missing / broken rules. #1 being D-weapons. I'm not sure that GW sees any problems with these rules, and that frightens me about this inclusion because it will just fracture the community more.

 ductvader wrote:
9.you have to pass a initiative test to shoot overwatching, get minus three to ballistic talent

Interesting. This is a pretty significant nerf of tau in particular, and gunline in general. I like this quite a lot in theory, but don't like having to roll dice to determine if I can roll more dice. Also this is a buff to Eldar. High imitative + High BS = more powerful overwatch.

 ductvader wrote:
10. you can engage new unit after victory in melee, but enemy can shoot overwatch again

This is a big and very welcome buff to Assault armies. I wonder if you have to use the D6 consolidate to engage the next unit, or if you can roll a 2D6 charge. On the other hand, this will open the flood gates to broken combos. If you thought beaststar was a problem before, wait until you see this.

 ductvader wrote:
11. you can choose to flee if you are charged but can be destroyed

I need more information about the mechanics of this one to comment on it. Perhaps you forfeit overwatch in favor of fleeing 1D6, if the charging unit can still make the charge even after you have fled, you are swept?

 ductvader wrote:
12. if you want to run in 12” of enemy you have to pass a leadertest

This is weird. I guess it reduces the ability to do last minute object contesting, but I still don't like rolling dice to see if I get to roll dice.

 ductvader wrote:
13. vehicles get no cover saves against infantry, only against other vehicles

This is big. A significant nerf to mech, and the sort of thing that will make a difference to the Landraider spam / Necron armor spam that I see once in a while. On the other hand I still don't like this as a fix to the problem of sometimes an army not being able to engage another army.
I would rather that to wound against Armor became a table that was a little more generous to lower strength shooting. More like this:
AV S 10 11 12 13 14 3 6+ 6+ - - - 4 5+ 6+ 6+ - - 5 5+ 5+ 6+ 6+ - 6 4+ 5+ 5+ 6+ 6+ 7 3+ 4+ 5+ 5+ 6+ 8 2+ 3+ 4+ 5+ 5+ 9 2+ 2+ 3+ 4+ 5+ 10 2+ 2+ 2+ 3+ 4+
Then rather than roll a 2nd dice for Pen results, you would take what you roll minus the minimum you had to roll to determine pen results. +1 = Crew Shaken +2 = Weapon destroyed +3 = Explodes. Fewer dice rolls, less matchups without some sort of engagement.

Overall, it would seem that these rules changes would give Tau a nerf that they desperately need, and would generally benefit Marines, Eldar, and Dark Eldar. They would seem to fix a few broken combos while at the same time opening up the game to so many more. Lastly, biomancy became even more important. With initiative playing a key part is so many of these rules, Warp Speed is going to be one of the most powerful psychic abilities in 40k.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ductvader wrote:
3. vector strikes allow armour saves, but deal one to six hits
my tyranids just got a lot better, sure, bikes live easier now...but other vehicles and fliers will fear me

Interesting that your take on this is so much different from mine. I use vector strike as an ignores cover AP:3 weapon, and kill MEQ. I probably vector strike 3 Squads of Infantry and 1 of bikes for every vehicle.

 ductvader wrote:
9.you have to pass a initiative test to shoot overwatching, get minus three to ballistic talent
I'm assuming, initiative to fire at normal bs, otherwie bs-3, my GK characters and Eldar will love this

I pray you are not right about this. It would slow down the games so much, and generally provide another case of rolling dice to be able to roll dice. From the time I declare a charge with my Mawloc into some crisis suits, it could be 15-20 minutes before I get to roll my charge distance. UGGH!.

I like your AV table but I think that it's time for AV to go.

AV 10 needs to be T7
AV 11 is T8
AV 12 is T9
AV 13 is T10
AV 14 is T11

And...That's all I have for that "mechanic"

Let's not give any credence to obviously fake rumors. Anything that breaks on Natfka is fake almost without exception. His site is useful for aggregating news and rumors that break elsewhere, but everything he gets first is made up. Happens over and over and over, and he has explicitly stated he will post anything he gets. It's the content that he's interested in. It drives traffic.

slaede wrote:
Let's not give any credence to obviously fake rumors. Anything that breaks on Natfka is fake almost without exception. His site is useful for aggregating news and rumors that break elsewhere, but everything he gets first is made up. Happens over and over and over, and he has explicitly stated he will post anything he gets. It's the content that he's interested in. It drives traffic.

So?

If Natkfa is hitting 40% right? So? At least I heard it first there.

This thread is not to debate validity, you can go to the rumors forum for that.

We are here to talk tactics assuming this is true.

 ductvader wrote:

slaede wrote:
Let's not give any credence to obviously fake rumors. Anything that breaks on Natfka is fake almost without exception. His site is useful for aggregating news and rumors that break elsewhere, but everything he gets first is made up. Happens over and over and over, and he has explicitly stated he will post anything he gets. It's the content that he's interested in. It drives traffic.

So?

If Natkfa is hitting 40% right? So? At least I heard it first there.

This thread is not to debate validity, you can go to the rumors forum for that.

We are here to talk tactics assuming this is true.

Natfka's accuracy rating on that thread is unreliable because he gets credit for a lot of stuff he didn't break. Why would you want to discuss tactics on something that is obviously made up?

Because why not?

You don't make a very compelling argument against this voluntary mental exercise.

No one is forcing you to stay here.

If this turns out to be true and I learn something...yayme!

If this turn out to be false and I still learn something from this excellent audience...once again...yayme!

There's no real downside here.

6. you can bring three allies to a game and must choose one

This is definitely a money-making argument. I absolutely dislike it.

 wuestenfux wrote:

6. you can bring three allies to a game and must choose one

This is definitely a money-making argument. I absolutely dislike it.

Time for Wuestenfux to go buy 500 pts of Dark Eldar, 500 pts of Tau, and 500 pts of some kind of Codex: Marine.

I really like the rumored rules for the overwatch, something had to be done. A free round of shooting with no tactical decisions to be made or downside at all was too much. The way you have it, take an I test at -3 BS seems fair. My idea was you get to shoot it but your next turn you have to only do snap shots.

Am I slow or what? How is that "Legion of the Damned" army from Adepticon legal?

Hey must of "deleted" tyranids because if you have to take allies guess how many tyranids can take? Otherwise just hope they fixed the chart in addition

If the Vector Strike rumors are true people might stop complaining about heldrakes...

A man can dream right?

Wait. I know I'm late to the party, but, in my minidex, Vector Strikes are listed as having a strength, but they don't mention ignoring cover or having an AP. (I'v emissed moth of 6th edition and am only starting to come back here at the tail end.) ... how does that work? Was it in the (now missing) FAQ?

No its under the Vector Strike USR. Resolved at unmodified strength with an AP value of 3 and has ignores cover


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And yeah Flying Circuses will take a big hit if that is true. They will still be good though and definitely better against vehicles. Bringing back consolidation into assault would be amaaazing. I'm just trying not to let my hopes get too high

1. 40k run is part of the movement phase
It would be an awful blow to those of us who love rhino shenanigans. Also, it would break Battle Focus (I suppose GW could FAQ that, eh?)

2. assault distance is not influenced by terrain, but gives minus two to initiative
Presumably my Marine's assault grenades will negate that

3. vector strikes allow armour saves, but deal one to six hits
That would be awesome for my marines, awful for my vehicles. FYI, Vector Strike allows saves, it's only AP3.

4. 40k uses a percentage system for the army list.
I'm not sure how this would impact me, I don't spam very much and my lists tend to be fairly evenly spread points-wise

5. you can bring as many different allies as you want. You can spend a fourth of your points on allies, but they also count as their normal category
The points restriction would effectively limit you to 1 ally anyhow.

6. you can bring three allies to a game and must choose one
So... a side-list? If so, then that would be very powerful at tournaments.

7. bikes can strike units in 1” in the movement phase without assaulting just like chariots, but can attacked back
That would be neat. My bikes are gak in assault right now, but they don't need even more buffs.

8. fortification and lords of war rules are in, but no profiles
I don't use either, so I don't care.

9.you have to pass a initiative test to shoot overwatching, get minus three to ballistic talent
This seems like such a bizarre rule, that I can't even comment on it. It mega buffs Eldar and mega nerfs Tau (who rely on their overwatch not to get assaulted).

10. you can engage new unit after victory in melee, but enemy can shoot overwatch again
That would be awesome, my assault marines might actually see use again.

11. you can choose to flee if you are charged but can be destroyed
This would be OP for marines, as presumably they would merely be locked in combat rather than destroyed. If not, then it would be an interesting rule change - I would definitely attempt to flee from a horde of 30 boyz or hormagaunts, since they would otherwise annihilate my unit in assault.

12. if you want to run in 12” of enemy you have to pass a leadertest
Sucks to be an assault army

13. vehicles get no cover saves against infantry, only against other vehicles
Yeah, feth me for trying to use vehicles, right?

 ductvader wrote:
I like your AV table but I think that it's time for AV to go.

AV 10 needs to be T7
AV 11 is T8
AV 12 is T9
AV 13 is T10
AV 14 is T11

And...That's all I have for that "mechanic"

AV=T is probably a good idea, but bump all your numbers up by one or else give vehicles more hull points.

 DanielBeaver wrote:

 ductvader wrote:
I like your AV table but I think that it's time for AV to go.

AV 10 needs to be T7
AV 11 is T8
AV 12 is T9
AV 13 is T10
AV 14 is T11

And...That's all I have for that "mechanic"

AV=T is probably a good idea, but bump all your numbers up by one or else give vehicles more hull points.

Good lord buddy, The idea was to Decrease the scenarios where one army can't engage with another. And you want to make it so that S4 can't even touch AV 10? You think 40k would benefit from more matchups where one side doesn't do anything but pick their models up off the board? Maybe we should just make it so that infantry can't shoot at vehicles at all, would that be a good move?

I think your desire for vehicles that are even harder to hurt stems from the randomness of the Pen table. If you look at my suggested change to the Pen table, I think you will see that my proposal was to increase the number of glances while greatly decreasing the number of explodes, speeding up the game and reducing the need to lookup results from tables, and remember those results. Giving S4 the ability to glance but not pen AV 11 (T7) and requiring strength 8 to explode it would not be the significant Debuff that you think it is. A Land Raider would be impossible to explode, while AV 13 would require s10 roll a 6 in order to explode it. Surely that is fair.

ETA:
I also think my suggestion of adding 1 more chance to harm something to the "to Wound" table is not a bad idea. It would decease the OP nature of Iron Arm.
T/AV S 6/10 7/11 8/12 9/13 10/14 3 6+ 6+ - - - 4 5+ 6+ 6+ - - 5 5+ 5+ 6+ 6+ - 6 4+ 5+ 5+ 6+ 6+ 7 3+ 4+ 5+ 5+ 6+ 8 2+ 3+ 4+ 5+ 5+ 9 2+ 2+ 3+ 4+ 5+ 10 2+ 2+ 2+ 3+ 4+

tag8833 wrote:
Maybe we should just make it so that infantry can't shoot at vehicles at all, would that be a good move?

I'd be down for that. Weapons strength 4 and below can't harm AV10 without rending, but count as being +1 strength higher when shooting at open-topped vehicles.

Anti-infantry shooting should be anti-infantry; if you want to shoot at vehicles, use heavy/special weapons and monstrous creatures.

As a disclaimer, I have no idea what game-wide ramifications this would have on balance. The idea of vehicles being durable like actual vehicles just appeals to me on an aesthetic/fluff level.

Absolutely can't wait for consolidate into assault (hoping 1d6, 2d6 would be flying rodent gak), and pretty keen on a % FoC.

Sideboards are good, but "allies only" sideboards are incredibly fething stupid.

As mentioned earlier dice rolls to see if you can roll more dice are terrible. The run within 12" of an enemy one is particularly daft, as its based on Fantasy wherein running and unit vision arcs are vital whilst in 40k its pointless. And of course you'll get stupid situations such as troops being too scared to run *away* from a nearby enemy

Vector strike changes seem good IMO. We need less AP3 and ignores cover in this game not more.

Then rather than roll a 2nd dice for Pen results, you would take what you roll minus the minimum you had to roll to determine pen results. +1 = Crew Shaken +2 = Weapon destroyed +3 = Explodes. Fewer dice rolls, less matchups without some sort of engagement.

Love that suggestion man. Anything that removes pointless dice (pen table result) or removes sheer randomness from the dice is good by me.

 ductvader wrote:
1. 40k run is part of the movement phase

No real change. It will occasionally be annoying when you finish off a unit's only target with your other shooting and can't decide to run them instead of having them stand around uselessly, but most run moves are pretty predictable in the movement phase. Though I'm not sure how credible this is given the fact that GW recently published two codices with special rules that let you shoot and then run, making run moves part of the movement phase would require adding new rules for moving 1D6" after shooting.

2. assault distance is not influenced by terrain, but gives minus two to initiative

Don't like it. Assault units are usually charging units they're going to slaughter effortlessly if they make it into combat. A penalty to charge range is a relevant penalty against a squad of guardsmen, a penalty to initiative isn't since even striking at I1 isn't going to prevent the inevitable slaughter. And this would either make the current initiative penalty redundant (you're I1 and you're at -2 initiative), or it would replace it and become completely irrelevant because pretty much everyone who cares about charging has frag grenades.

3. vector strikes allow armour saves, but deal one to six hits

Don't really care either way. Probably not a major difference since the two changes cancel each other.

4. 40k uses a percentage system for the army list

Huge change, and I hate it. Welcome to the MSU edition. Vehicle squadrons will never be used, and tables will be full of cheap 50-100 point tanks that aren't an efficient use of FOC slots in the current edition. Unfortunately it does seem to fit with what GW is doing recently.

5. you can bring as many different allies as you want. You can spend a fourth of your points on allies, but they also count as their normal category

Not much of a change, but I still hate it. A 25% cap punishes a lot of armies for no good reason, but it's probably not much of a difference for the armies that abuse overpowered buff units. Your divination inquisitors and Tau commanders fit within the 25% limit, and GW's idiocy with formations and single-unit "codices" pretty much makes the FOC irrelevant for allies already.

6. you can bring three allies to a game and must choose one

Unbelievably stupid idea. Why is this even necessary? Why are my allies more flexible than my main army? I doubt this will have any real effect on strategy though because nobody is going to play with this rule.

7. bikes can strike units in 1” in the movement phase without assaulting just like chariots, but can attacked back

It's fluffy, but doesn't make any real difference because nobody will ever use it. If you're 1" away you're getting charged next turn, so all using this rule instead of charging does is allow your opponent to shoot your bikers and/or then get the bonus attacks when they declare their own charge. If this is real then GW clearly doesn't play their own games.

8. fortification and lords of war rules are in, but no profiles

No change. They're already in according to the standard rules of the game, and putting them in the core rulebook isn't going to do anything to convince the people who whine and cry about how they aren't "real 40k".

9.you have to pass a initiative test to shoot overwatching, get minus three to ballistic talent

Another stupid change. Overwatch is a melee stat, why does the fact that my Tau suck at hitting you with a sword mean that they're also terrible at responding to new threats and shooting them to death? It doesn't make much of a difference though, since overwatch is just more tedious dice rolling unless you're Tau. I'll just roll some random pointless dice and then take my dead unit off the table like always.

10. you can engage new unit after victory in melee, but enemy can shoot overwatch again

Also stupid. We've had this before, and it isn't fun. If we go back to the bad old days of "I successfully charged, I win the game" then I'll probably just stop playing completely.

11. you can choose to flee if you are charged but can be destroyed

Awesome change, and a big buff to shooting armies. Your unit is guaranteed to die if you're charged, so fleeing now means that you have a chance of keeping it alive AND you don't allow any risk of leaving the opposing assault unit locked in combat and immune to shooting during your turn. Unfortunately I suspect GW probably doesn't understand how this is going to work outside of their own "narrative" games.

12. if you want to run in 12” of enemy you have to pass a leadertest

Incredibly stupid. Running just becomes even more of a pointless rule. This has no real effect since anyone within 12" of an enemy is probably going to shoot the enemy instead of running.

13. vehicles get no cover saves against infantry, only against other vehicles

Incredibly stupid. This has no effect on strategy because nobody is going to pay any attention to this rule.

I pray to the emperor for percentage based force organization

1. 40k run is part of the movement phase
I think this makes a lot of sense. Some players already do this (I don't like it, because it allows them to "run" into positions that might not have been available at the time the run move is actually supposed to happen, but YMMV). Honestly, though, I see it as a bad idea. I think it would be better if they just categorized flat out, turbo boosting, and running as some special category of "out of turn movement" so that it is understood intrinsically that they happen outside the movement phase. It might speed up the game but it also creates quite a weird situation where people and other things are moving faster than they can, so I imagine this will get wonky for new players with "Infantry only move 6 inches in the movement phase...except when they move more than that" type of things, which are hallmarks of bad game design. It's also less tactical if this is the case.

2. assault distance is not influenced by terrain, but gives minus two to initiative
This is a really good change. Going to initiative 1 hurts a lot, but at least in this case many units which can be easily pasted will have a bit more capability, and it should add some effectiveness back to assault-slanted units.

3. vector strikes allow armour saves, but deal one to six hits
This would really relegate vector strikes to anti-vehicle attacks. Really hurts T5 and T6 monsters whose saves are already crap (Greater Daemons), but also gives most of those same things a pretty potent offense. I personally think this is too much; I consider a vector strike the thing swoops out of the sky and makes a diving attack of some kind, this seems like it lands and fights quite a bit (which doesn't fit a lot of them). I have also heard a rumor that vector strikes are going to allow overwatch, but I don't think there is much truth to that (or any of these, for that matter).

4. 40k uses a percentage system for the army list.
I don't foresee this happening at all. It will make the game scale strangely. In some ways it is believable because, for example, it would eliminate things like a Riptide in a 500 point game, but GW wants to play bigger games with more models on the table, so they aren't going to do something like this to scale things down. That being said diversity is in their best interests, and percentages would mean that at different points levels certain things become less or more usable in a list, which would lead us to need more stuff.

5. you can bring as many different allies as you want. You can spend a fourth of your points on allies, but they also count as their normal category
I only care that battle brothers is gone/altered to not be so intermingled with each army's abilities, that makes a true mess of things. This also limits us on allied contingents so I doubt GW would do this.

6. you can bring three allies to a game and must choose one
A side-list is great but there is a certain principle point at which the sheer stupidity of having to carry around all this stuff is. For a 1750 point event I would need to bring about 1387 points of my normal army, and then take an additional 1380 points of allies (25% x 3). It's a lot of bookkeeping, I doubt this will be a thing.

7. bikes can strike units in 1” in the movement phase without assaulting just like chariots, but can attacked back
Yeah, because bikes need a buff. It's cool that they recognize the silliness of a guy driving up on a bike and then stopping to fight, but I'd almost rather have bikes not be able to assault normally and do this instead if at all. As it is they are already so powerful and undercosted that there is little reason to not utilize them, this would just put them more over the top and we'd have a whole edition of Bikers in no time.

8. fortification and lords of war rules are in, but no profiles
Expected and I'm totally fine with it, as long as it is not forced. Nothing will make super heavies lamer than if every army we see has one.

9.you have to pass a initiative test to shoot overwatching, get minus three to ballistic talent
This should help assault and I don't think it will add much issue. Most things will still end up shooting the overwatch at BS1, it's just those few elite units who are a cut above that will benefit. I don't think we need the possibility of no overwatch on initiative...what cinematic moment does that correspond to? An entire unit of guys stopping to reload right when they get charged?

10. you can engage new unit after victory in melee, but enemy can shoot overwatch again
This would be pretty rough. I liked the transition in this edition to assault being a more realistic tool to remove or herd threats from ideal cover and other positions, but it seems this would herald a shift back toward the days of "this game is about killing people and here are two different but equally effective ways to do it."

11. you can choose to flee if you are charged but can be destroyed
I think this would be pretty interesting, but it would make marines VERY powerful as it is now. I assume the 6th ed ATSKNF would forbid them using such a rule. I don't see it coming up that much but it would be fun to see Tau running for their lives.

12. if you want to run in 12” of enemy you have to pass a leadertest
Negligible possibility of failure for most units, but still. being near a bad guy should make you run harder, not stand more still.

13. vehicles get no cover saves against infantry, only against other vehicles
If this is true it will shift the game viciously toward infantry and frankly makes no sense. The current setup with cover saves is pretty simple and by and large works fine. I don't like the idea at all, think of the rulebook picture it shows as an example now, where the Rhino is totally covered except for a corner of the chassis, getting NO cover save. Pointless.

 Peregrine wrote:

4. 40k uses a percentage system for the army list

Huge change, and I hate it. Welcome to the MSU edition. Vehicle squadrons will never be used, and tables will be full of cheap 50-100 point tanks that aren't an efficient use of FOC slots in the current edition. Unfortunately it does seem to fit with what GW is doing recently.

I was thinking this meant a percentage of points not a percentage of units. A percentage of points would sidestep the issue you highlight while also punishing the army builds that like to have nothing but 4 1-man crises suites for troops. or 3 3-man jetbikes as the only troops.

Then again my interpretation might make too much sense.
HQ: 5-25%
Elite: 0-25%
Troops: 25-50%
Fast: 0-25%
Heavy: 0-25%

So at 2000 points that would mean.
HQ, Elite, Fast, and Heavy would all max out at 500 points, and you would have to spend a min of 500 points on troops.

I hope these rumors aren't true. They're either pointless with more dice rolling or I don't like them.

tag8833 wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

4. 40k uses a percentage system for the army list

Huge change, and I hate it. Welcome to the MSU edition. Vehicle squadrons will never be used, and tables will be full of cheap 50-100 point tanks that aren't an efficient use of FOC slots in the current edition. Unfortunately it does seem to fit with what GW is doing recently.

I was thinking this meant a percentage of points not a percentage of units. A percentage of points would sidestep the issue you highlight while also punishing the army builds that like to have nothing but 4 1-man crises suites for troops. or 3 3-man jetbikes as the only troops.

Then again my interpretation might make too much sense.
HQ: 5-25%
Elite: 0-25%
Troops: 25-50%
Fast: 0-25%
Heavy: 0-25%

So at 2000 points that would mean.
HQ, Elite, Fast, and Heavy would all max out at 500 points, and you would have to spend a min of 500 points on troops.

Seems horrifically punishing to armies that have expensive HQ's.

 BlaxicanX wrote:

tag8833 wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

4. 40k uses a percentage system for the army list

Huge change, and I hate it. Welcome to the MSU edition. Vehicle squadrons will never be used, and tables will be full of cheap 50-100 point tanks that aren't an efficient use of FOC slots in the current edition. Unfortunately it does seem to fit with what GW is doing recently.

I was thinking this meant a percentage of points not a percentage of units. A percentage of points would sidestep the issue you highlight while also punishing the army builds that like to have nothing but 4 1-man crises suites for troops. or 3 3-man jetbikes as the only troops.

Then again my interpretation might make too much sense.
HQ: 5-25%
Elite: 0-25%
Troops: 25-50%
Fast: 0-25%
Heavy: 0-25%

So at 2000 points that would mean.
HQ, Elite, Fast, and Heavy would all max out at 500 points, and you would have to spend a min of 500 points on troops.

Seems horrifically punishing to armies that have expensive HQ's.

The only problem I see here is not being able to take 3 Russes with a Tank Commander HQ.

Otherwise 500 pts of HQ is quite generous.

Oh I can take Asurman and Karandras for 470ish? Yeah, 500 is fair; I can still take 2 Flyrants.

If LoW and percentages are in, that basically means LoW are out. Except, of course, for Eldar who can still bring two large D blasts to 1850 point games. The rich gets richer, and so it goes.

The three different allies thing is stupid. Spend money to tailor your list. Just another option that will cause friction in casual games, and turn tournaments even more into a competition of who spends more money on their armies. Yay! Everyone loses.

As for everything else, depends on how it's implemented, but probably fine.

tag8833 wrote:

Good lord buddy,

I largely agree with you, don't get all huffy about it.

The vehicles don't get cover from infantry if it includes jinx saves then wave serpents won't get it.

The running in movement phase would up battle focus.

The assault thing may help fix howling banshees because unless you are i10,9 (banshee i5 reduced by 2 is three while opponent reduced by 5) so therefor that could be cool

The int test for overwatch annoys tau but stopping orks doing it is stupid I'd suggest a negative WS modifier if you fire overwatch.

While I do love khorne bezerker so can foresee one squad getting into a unit in a gun line and destroying them because of the int test and consolidating into another unit because of them being within 6 to support fire.

The ally things looks like a pain and a money grab could possibly be exploited but otherwise annoying to someone who doesn't want to take them(although tyranids don't )

The percentage system while stopping tri-tide annoys other armies and doesn't fix wave serpent spam or a steel council at 1500 points.

Ld to run within 12 of an enemy, c'mon that's just annoying

My 2.9999999999999999999999999999999 cents

40k should share less mechanics with FB, not more.