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.

That's why I said "good" ideas. Bidding as a method of deciding who goes first is a good idea adopted by many games, mostly of the board variety and by the sound of these rumors, the new system isn't dependent on what you play (thus allowing for certain armies to always outbid other forces), but rather on bonuses for the losing bidder. The balancing of the bonuses is what will make or brake the system if it ever comes out.

lord_blackfang wrote:

Platuan4th wrote:If the bidding is anything like AT-43

Have you read the rumours?

Yes, I have. It says nothing about whether armies all have the same amount, only that the loser of the bid can buy things with the unused points. My point was that unless all armies have equal amounts, some armies will ALWAYS go first.

Pyriel- wrote:

* the biggest rule changes:
- similar ballistic to hit chart as wound chart: compare BS to target’s speed and unit type. BS 3 hits moving infantry on 4+, but lightning fast jetbikes on 6+ and stationary tank on 2+… HUGE

Unbeatable Dark eldar anyone?

And those GK paladin apotecharies for 75 freaking points will become even more extinct then the falchions.

What a load of dung.

Well it did say that they will errata codex's so they may well errata things like that

Platuan4th wrote:One book for everything: Lord of the Rings

And in the darkness bind them?

AlexHolker wrote:

Platuan4th wrote:One book for everything: Lord of the Rings

And in the darkness bind them?

Generally, I find the binding is done by some sort of glue.

If these rumors turn out to be true then it marks the first time in a long time that I'd be excited about 40K again. GW needs to add some complexity to the game while at the same time cleaning up the rules. If they did both it would make 40K a really fresh and unique game.

People have been abandoning ship to other games for years and GW surely has noticed. With WM/H and Infinity, and now Mantic's WarPath and the rumors that PP want to get in on the sci-fi genre, it would be wise for 40K to inject some fresh, bold ideas into the game. It might just bring people back to the fold, at least out of curiosity.

Well I'm certainly looking forward to experiencing these changes, but is there any hint of a release date for this. Sorry if it's already been mentioned, can't be arsed to skim through the thread.

These rumors have the sound of 'spaghetti, meet wall'!

Sorry, but this all sounds far too awesome to be true :(

But if it is true... goddamn sounds like they're going in the right direction!

Platuan4th wrote:

AlexHolker wrote:One book for everything: Lord of the Rings

And in the darkness bind them?

And free races vs chaos as theme....

LotR in space

some of these rumours sound a little "out there"

but I like the sound of alot of them! would definately revive alot of my enthusiasm for 40k!

At the mention of a "designer who left the company", I can't help but think this is something of Andy Chamber's.

While I'm not hot on all of these changes, others sound pretty cool.

Sounds like re-vamped AT-43. It was a pretty good system and if they meshed it well with 40k I think they could have a pretty good game

There is no possible way that this is true. Theese rules would be so confuddled and confusing they'd loose all hope of teaching new players. No, just no. If this much change happens I'll be more than happy to treat it like I do 4th edition D&D and just keep playing by 5ths rules forever and never acknoledge 6th's exsistence.

I don't know about the majority of people out there but all of those proposed changes are really really bad IMO. And there is no way anything but vanilla Space Marines would be first to come out if they were changing that much of the ruleset.

So I say this topic needs a massive pile of

Hey I cannot vouch for these rumors, but there is some general ideas in here that are on the right track. 6th is still being play tested and is not done for one thing. So take it with a grain of salt, but at the sametime I am sure some of things the rumorer has said will go down.

Thanks, TastyTaste owner of Blood of Kittens

Infinity came to mind too.

See, the problem is that there might (indeed, there ARE) good ideas, but the system simply can't keep up with it any more. It wasn't built for this stuff. It's like clinging to DOS when you build new OS.

Mr.Church13 wrote:There is no possible way that this is true. Theese rules would be so confuddled and confusing they'd loose all hope of teaching new players.

Never seemed to be a problem for most other wargames out there. Methinks you need to take a look at other games and see how simple they can be with much deeper mechanics. Flames of War doesn't seem to have any problem with shooting hits ranging from 2+ to impossible depending on target and actions.

No, just no. If this much change happens I'll be more than happy to treat it like I do 4th edition D&D and just keep playing by 5ths rules forever and never acknoledge 6th's exsistence.

Oh...I see. One of those types.

Vaktathi wrote:At the mention of a "designer who left the company", I can't help but think this is something of Andy Chamber's.

Andy left ages ago. I would have thought Alessio would be a more plausible candidate. Can't think of any other major developers who have left GW recently, (does Gav Thorpe count)?

filbert wrote:

Vaktathi wrote:At the mention of a "designer who left the company", I can't help but think this is something of Andy Chamber's.

Andy left ages ago. I would have thought Alessio would be a more plausible candidate. Can't think of any other major developers who have left GW recently, (does Gav Thorpe count)?

Alessio always wanted things very simple and toned down, 5E and books like the CSM codex are his hallmarks. It's difficult to see this as his work. Likewise, Gav never really did much with the core rules and it doesn't feel like his style of rules design either.

No, just no. If this much change happens I'll be more than happy to treat it like I do 4th edition D&D and just keep playing by 5ths rules forever and never acknoledge 6th's exsistence.
Oh...I see. One of those types.

Yup I'm one of those guys that says if you like 4th play it till your eyes bleed and have fun, but as for me and my group we liked what we had and didn't think it was broke.

filbert wrote:

Vaktathi wrote:At the mention of a "designer who left the company", I can't help but think this is something of Andy Chamber's.

Andy left ages ago. I would have thought Alessio would be a more plausible candidate. Can't think of any other major developers who have left GW recently, (does Gav Thorpe count)?

might be the changes he wanted to do with 4th but was told are to extreme?

Ghost21 on Warseer:

"starter set isnt black legion...... rest is kinda accurate"

This definitely adds a bit of gravity to the discussion!

I quite like a lot of these rumors. It's interesting that no matter what rumors get posted there is always a sizable group of doomseers predicting ruination. And people wonder why GW tries to stop the rumors.

I like the ideas, but who knows if there's any merit to them whatsoever...

I'm a little disappointed that this is probably not true, to be honest... While there's a little bit of what seems like needless complication in there (tiered special abilities, for example) almost the entire list sounds like a huge improvement.

Love the idea of 'bidding' for first turn. Love the modified shooting chart. And if other stuff becoming more complex, I could definitely see them going back to a 'TLOS, but ignore infantry' style LOS setup to keep things rolling.

Ah well... we can dream.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Arschbombe wrote:I quite like a lot of these rumors. It's interesting that no matter what rumors get posted there is always a sizable group of doomseers predicting ruination. And people wonder why GW tries to stop the rumors.

If GW were more forthcoming themselves, there wouldn't be so many crazy rumours to stop...

Mr.Church13 wrote: No, just no. If this much change happens I'll be more than happy to treat it like I do 4th edition D&D and just keep playing by 5ths rules forever and never acknoledge 6th's exsistence.

4th edition never happend.... never I tell you!

Bat Manuel wrote:Sounds like re-vamped AT-43.

Yikes!

I certainly hope 40K isn't heading in that direction!

Platuan4th wrote:

AlexHolker wrote:

Platuan4th wrote:One book for everything: Lord of the Rings

And in the darkness bind them?

Generally, I find the binding is done by some sort of glue.

I've never had a problem mind, but to hear the quick wear and tear some people on dakka talk about I could believe GW's books were bound in the dark.

Well, if true...there's definitely more 2nd edition flavor in there.

GW's said on the record that they now know that shakeups tend to generate more sales than slight revisions. So while I think 5th is in a pretty good place overall, I could definitely see this stuff coming to pass.

I'm keeping my fingers crossed that Tyranids get one heckuva errata, lol.

The far fetched, though amazing, ballistic skill changes could finally bring infantry back into the game as mattering. So many people complain that they only every see parking lots, yet with those simple ballistic skill changes, you could actually start to see differing units on the table top. I would LOVE for the changes listed to go into effect, however, I am a hopeless cynic and I don't believe any of this feth.