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.

I agree, these rumours sound just ridiculous. I feel like I'm reading some 40K version of Weekly World News....

This rule can make outflanking shooty units very viable and potent. However this rule as rumored would be a nightmare to play in a tourny setting. I can already hear all the arguments about which model is closer, what the actual reference point is for who is closer, and who got bumped forward by accident or terrain.

This will make the game horrible in my opinion

Yakface -

From what I got from that video, was that the closest models have to take the wounds no matter what. I think that this might have overridden the WA shenanigans IMO. But... Salt and Speculation.

I think this is quite funny though...

4th ed and 5th ed boned Tau quite badly upon release. Now this may have fixed Tau for a bit. I just tested the rules using a Battlesuit Unit with Shield Drones.

Overall verdict is they are quite powerful when used with these rules. JSJ behind the unit, shooting their specials while a Firewarrior Team blasts them from the front is quite badass. It's made Tau shooting quite nasty.

But again... Salt and Speculation.

I expect that this is only the first in a series of speculative videos from the BoW crew. I enjoy their banter and the fact that they're spoon feeding at least some details about 6th when GW is being so tight-lipped about it all. 4 years ago by this time black boxes would have been on their way to gaming stores with the shiney new 5th ed rulebooks. These days we get nothing but a white dwarf 7 days before the stuff releases. So, speculative or not, at least it's a discussion point.

I've read through (and taken notes on) the entire pancake document more times than was probably rational... The rules presented in that pdf were well written, fluid, and aside from some typos and a few "huh?" moments, would have made a GREAT 6th edition. Then beasts of war even did a video talking about it and how much they liked it...only to recant about a week later and say that their 'source' confirmed that it was a playtest but wouldn't see the printers. It's irrational but seeing these rumors about wound allocation, psyker love, and basically WH Fantasy w/ guns rumors I begin to wonder...

What if the debunking of the pancake edition is simply obfuscation? Why would the GW team scrap a good ruleset that was HUGELY accepted by the internet community in favor of just modifying their 8th ed fantasy book to include plasma guns and bolters, etc? Sure, the pancake could use tweaks (keep the turn order the same, for example) but overall working off that set of rules would make more sense than starting fresh and giving us Warhammer FantasyK. I'm at a loss, but I will be watching the Beasts of War site now to see what else they have to throw at us regarding 6th.

As to their flyer rumors, it's the 17th now so the White Dwarf for june is just 9 days away from street date...which means that leaked pictures should start showing up as early as this weekend, if past trends hold true. Let's see if they were accurate about the storm talon, fighta-bomma, and night/doom scythe kits.

Puscifer wrote:
From what I got from that video, was that the closest models have to take the wounds no matter what. I think that this might have overridden the WA shenanigans IMO. But... Salt and Speculation.

Taking this with 5th ed rules, this still woundn't prevent a player from putting 2 HighS/LowAP wounds on the same model, which is the only problem with Wound Allocation in 5th.

elrabin wrote:

Puscifer wrote:
From what I got from that video, was that the closest models have to take the wounds no matter what. I think that this might have overridden the WA shenanigans IMO. But... Salt and Speculation.

Taking this with 5th ed rules, this still woundn't prevent a player from putting 2 HighS/LowAP wounds on the same model, which is the only problem with Wound Allocation in 5th.

Going by pancake as a reference - what if the # of wounds possessed by models had to be filled before moving to the next models, with instant death wounds counting as a full model's worth? Then those 2 lascannon shots would gimp 2 nobz boom-pow. Without knowing the full scope of the rumored rule and the rest of the rules that go along with it it's hard to judge if this will fix WAS or not.

tetrisphreak wrote:

elrabin wrote:

Puscifer wrote:
From what I got from that video, was that the closest models have to take the wounds no matter what. I think that this might have overridden the WA shenanigans IMO. But... Salt and Speculation.

Taking this with 5th ed rules, this still woundn't prevent a player from putting 2 HighS/LowAP wounds on the same model, which is the only problem with Wound Allocation in 5th.

Going by pancake as a reference - what if the # of wounds possessed by models had to be filled before moving to the next models, with instant death wounds counting as a full model's worth? Then those 2 lascannon shots would gimp 2 nobz boom-pow. Without knowing the full scope of the rumored rule and the rest of the rules that go along with it it's hard to judge if this will fix WAS or not.

I would expect a simple solution that keeps a similar feel to the current version -- you assign wounds one weapon type at a time. Even if you start wrapping wounds, this would prevent you from stacking ID wounds on one model.

elrabin wrote:

tetrisphreak wrote:

elrabin wrote:

Puscifer wrote:
From what I got from that video, was that the closest models have to take the wounds no matter what. I think that this might have overridden the WA shenanigans IMO. But... Salt and Speculation.

Taking this with 5th ed rules, this still woundn't prevent a player from putting 2 HighS/LowAP wounds on the same model, which is the only problem with Wound Allocation in 5th.

Going by pancake as a reference - what if the # of wounds possessed by models had to be filled before moving to the next models, with instant death wounds counting as a full model's worth? Then those 2 lascannon shots would gimp 2 nobz boom-pow. Without knowing the full scope of the rumored rule and the rest of the rules that go along with it it's hard to judge if this will fix WAS or not.

I would expect a simple solution that keeps a similar feel to the current version -- you assign wounds one weapon type at a time. Even if you start wrapping wounds, this would prevent you from stacking ID wounds on one model.

I agree - allocating wounds based on weapons strength/AP goes a lot further to make the game more balanced than allocating by wargear on the targeted models. If 2 of my plasma shots cause wounds to space marines, I expect 2 space marines to die, not just the 1 guy with a meltagun because the bolter wounds wrapped around the unit.

Chimera_Calvin wrote:Finally, if there is a general increase in speed (which would favour assault armies) this will provide a counter-balance by allowing gunline armies to maintain distance with good target selection.

Which was a bit of a problem in pancake edition. In my test games, I was swamping my opponent with ease (using Tyranids). So could I see this happening, along with the Snap Fire rumor? Sure. It'll certainly mess with some things, but players will adjust.

I'm personally keeping my mind open even to the crazier rumors that crop up, just because I think all signs point to some significant changes to our game in a couple months. And I'm looking forward to it. Fifth edition was a good edition, but it's gotten stale IMO.

tetrisphreak wrote:What if the debunking of the pancake edition is simply obfuscation? Why would the GW team scrap a good ruleset that was HUGELY accepted by the internet community in favor of just modifying their 8th ed fantasy book to include plasma guns and bolters, etc? Sure, the pancake could use tweaks (keep the turn order the same, for example) but overall working off that set of rules would make more sense than starting fresh and giving us Warhammer FantasyK.

I loved the pancake edition as well, although I've kinda accepted that it's not what we're going to get. If I had to lay money on something, I'd guess that there are some things from pancake that could make it into 6th, and that there are some concepts that could cross over in spirit even if the rules approach is different (Defensive fire => Snap Fire?).

But I also think they likely had 6th edition set in stone before the pancake edition was released, so the response from the community was largely irrelevant.

Added this salt-clogged rumor to the rumor monger thread. Just sounds like a weird mechanic.

How does BoW rate on the Rumor Monger accuracy scale?

Alpharius wrote:How does BoW rate on the Rumor Monger accuracy scale?

Comic relief?
Well, they sometimes leak pics early.

No one has asked this yet so far as I can read, but what will this do to blast weapons? If a devil dog is hitting a DS assault squad and hits 6 wounds, do just the 3 models closest take the 6 wounds and the rest of the squad goes unmolested?

Any opinions?

Lysenis wrote:No one has asked this yet so far as I can read, but what will this do to blast weapons? If a devil dog is hitting a DS assault squad and hits 6 wounds, do just the 3 models closest take the 6 wounds and the rest of the squad goes unmolested?

Any opinions?

In my opinion, wound allocation will not work anything like BoW has described at all.

No thanks, I already played 3rd and 4th ed range sniping, rather not backslide.

Watched the video, it may be more cinematic or realistic... but it's much less heroic and epic having your leaders cowering behind ranks of cannon fodder. I hope the rules as a whole complement each other much better than all the individual pieces we are seeing. Looks like a mess so far.

tetrisphreak wrote:
What if the debunking of the pancake edition is simply obfuscation? Why would the GW team scrap a good ruleset that was HUGELY accepted by the internet community in favor of just modifying their 8th ed fantasy book to include plasma guns and bolters, etc? Sure, the pancake could use tweaks (keep the turn order the same, for example) but overall working off that set of rules would make more sense than starting fresh and giving us Warhammer FantasyK. I'm at a loss, but I will be watching the Beasts of War site now to see what else they have to throw at us regarding 6th.

My thoughts exactly, the way they debunked pancake was always a bit fishy, It pretty much overnight shutdown most of the momentum and hype of pancake which is exactly what GW would have wanted.

Kroothawk wrote:

Alpharius wrote:How does BoW rate on the Rumor Monger accuracy scale?

Comic relief?
Well, they sometimes leak pics early.

Beasts of War -
Flyers
Ork fighter PENDING
Storm hawk PENDING
2 Necron flyersPENDING

Leaked 6th Ed is Real
It was an 'all in' playtest, evasion out, turns and apoc not changed PENDING

Wound Allocation
Wound Allocation is closest models to shooting unit first. PENDING


We don't have a lot of historical data submitted, so most of it is recent. They are really hanging their hat on the whole 6th edition thing though. I think they will get credit for the flyers. I should probably add the leaked necron pics for them though.

All I have to say is this:

I think this makes a lot of sense, I always found it strange that I could kill 8 Orks in an advancing mod of boys and the front line remains exactly where it is. Those front 8 should be dead hopefully forcing the unit further back.

The way it's played now, technically the units gets a free move as they get to re-coup the front row of guys and not lose any ground.

No idea how to take this, my gut is saying just to sit back and wait, however we are now getting very close to when we should expect to see 6th on the horizon.

As someone has already noted in this thread and something I have said myself several times in recent months, will GW actually release 6th with only the week or so notice they have been using the past year.

Crazy in my mind if they do, but I'm waiting with interest. I'm just eager to see where we are going rules wise for the next four years with this edition.

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

Another rumour vid has been put up, Warhammer fantasy style challenges.

This is so silly. 6th edition will not be Warhammer Fantasy 40,000.

40k and Fantasy are designed to be nothing alike. If they were to be similar, GW has failed.

It's actually rather ironic that Darrel, the guy who has a very problematic interpretation of preexisting Codecies and Rulebooks, is extrapolating rumors from what he hears about 6thEd.

The challenge rumor seems even more stupid from a flavor standpoint. The Tyranid Codex even has a hilarious scene of a 'challenge' presented against it by an Avatar... and the Tyrant subsequently responds to the 'challenge' by ordering four Carnifexes to eat the Avatar.

This "challenging" rule complicates matters even further. Can Bjorn challenge? Can Sanguinary Priests? Can Runt'erds? A unit of four ICs?

Again, this is complicated, has little impact, and any impact it may have would be rules-explotation by unfun players. Opposite of pancake-edition rules. Opposite of fun.

Morathi's Darkest Sin wrote:No idea how to take this, my gut is saying just to sit back and wait, however we are now getting very close to when we should expect to see 6th on the horizon.

As someone has already noted in this thread and something I have said myself several times in recent months, will GW actually release 6th with only the week or so notice they have been using the past year.

This would be terrible, what about all of us who need ample time to set funds aside and preorder what will most likely be a $70+ book? (based off fantasy 8th). Not to mention if they do collector's edition. I really, really hate GW's release philosophy of "let's do no advertising, no promotions, no nothing! That'll sell models!" If I knew what armies were on the horizon, or rules changes, I could plan finances accordingly, as it stands it's more like "dang, those new necrons are nice, too bad I need to eat this week or I would have totally ordered some."

Alpharius wrote:

Lysenis wrote:No one has asked this yet so far as I can read, but what will this do to blast weapons? If a devil dog is hitting a DS assault squad and hits 6 wounds, do just the 3 models closest take the 6 wounds and the rest of the squad goes unmolested?

Any opinions?

In my opinion, wound allocation will not work anything like BoW has described at all.

Agreed

Actually, I'm also willing to believe challenges are possible. Not sure the BoW guys have a good grasp of the details...I suspect there are some limiting factors in there. But sure, the general idea is plausible enough.

Regarding making 40K more like WFB...can you imagine a GW executive deciding that they'd get more cross-pollenation between their core games if they made their rules more alike instead of continuing to make them more dissimilar? I can. I don't know that I'd agree, but I can believe someone in the organization might have ideas like that.

pretre wrote:We don't have a lot of historical data submitted, so most of it is recent. They are really hanging their hat on the whole 6th edition thing though

I agree. We will know soon enough...

tetrisphreak wrote: I'm at a loss, but I will be watching the Beasts of War site now to see what else they have to throw at us regarding 6th.

And this is exactly what BoW is counting on. Sensationalize or outright make up info and reap the link bait revenue. These sites used to have to worry about their reputation on rumor related things, and now it's just become a contest to see who can stir up the gaming population the most. Doesn't matter that people may think it's bogus if they still click the link.

At least Pretre is compiling a list for all the rumormongers, so hopefully these shenanigans won't be so quickly forgotten when the next big release is on the horizon.

greenbay924 wrote:

Morathi's Darkest Sin wrote:No idea how to take this, my gut is saying just to sit back and wait, however we are now getting very close to when we should expect to see 6th on the horizon.

As someone has already noted in this thread and something I have said myself several times in recent months, will GW actually release 6th with only the week or so notice they have been using the past year.

This would be terrible, what about all of us who need ample time to set funds aside and preorder what will most likely be a $70+ book? (based off fantasy 8th). Not to mention if they do collector's edition. I really, really hate GW's release philosophy of "let's do no advertising, no promotions, no nothing! That'll sell models!" If I knew what armies were on the horizon, or rules changes, I could plan finances accordingly, as it stands it's more like "dang, those new necrons are nice, too bad I need to eat this week or I would have totally ordered some."

Aye, pretty much why I've been raising it. I cannot quite believe GW would be daft enough to spring such a large release out of the blue. For individual armies, codexes and like maybe thats just about fine, but a whole edition change, nah, surely not. Also taking into account collectors/limited editions etc it really seems crazy to me that they may do this.

I am wondering though, We'll know with the next White Dwarf, because at the very least the White Dwarf before 8th Fantasy came out advertised it, and I think preorders for the limited bits came online the week after the June White Dwarf came out.