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.

htj wrote:

Lycaeus Wrex wrote:These rumours completely go against the design philosophy of recent 40K editions. I am sceptical.

L. Wrex

To be fair, 3rd ed. went completely against the design philosophy of 1st and 2nd as well. It's not inconceivable that GW have decided it's time for another major shift.

It is inconceivable that they would opt for this major a shift backwards though. It's well documented that the designers have always wanted to streamline the system and make it more approachable, easier to understand, and simpler to play. Throwing in a veritable ton of rules 'just for the sake of it' that completely counteract everything done in the past 3 editions, just makes this whole list reek of fan-based wishlisting rather than anything that would come out of a GW design studio.

I'll wait until the actual rulebook is released before I make any concrete judgements. I was already over my daily salt intake allowance on the first page, now I can't move for the stuff.

L. Wrex

Lycaeus Wrex wrote:

htj wrote:

Lycaeus Wrex wrote:These rumours completely go against the design philosophy of recent 40K editions. I am sceptical.

L. Wrex

To be fair, 3rd ed. went completely against the design philosophy of 1st and 2nd as well. It's not inconceivable that GW have decided it's time for another major shift.

It is inconceivable that they would opt for this major a shift backwards though. It's well documented that the designers have always wanted to streamline the system and make it more approachable, easier to understand, and simpler to play. Throwing in a veritable ton of rules 'just for the sake of it' that completely counteract everything done in the past 3 editions, just makes this whole list reek of fan-based wishlisting rather than anything that would come out of a GW design studio.

I'll wait until the actual rulebook is released before I make any concrete judgements. I was already over my daily salt intake allowance on the first page, now I can't move for the stuff.

L. Wrex

It's only really backwards if it is truly a shift to a similar system to 2nd, which it doesn't seem to be to me in any major sense. If anything, they've been moving away from the ultra-streamilined, and rather dry 3rd ed. As you say, we can't really know what's going on up in the Nottingham GW Bat-Cave, but having seen three editions with very similar mechanics, a large overhaul of the mechanic doesn't seem impossible.

Just to make myself clear, though, I don't put a huge amount of faith in these rumours as this Blood of Kittens source is a newish one on me and has yet to prove itself. But I can certainly believe that a major overhaul is in the works.

Doubt there will be chaos legions...hope there won't be chaos legions so I can keep on fielding my Plague Marines and Korne Beserkers together.

htj wrote:

Lycaeus Wrex wrote:These rumours completely go against the design philosophy of recent 40K editions. I am sceptical.

L. Wrex

To be fair, 3rd ed. went completely against the design philosophy of 1st and 2nd as well. It's not inconceivable that GW have decided it's time for another major shift.

Agreed, but that was then, and this is now.

3rd, 4th and 5th have all, sort of, 'made sense' based on what came before.

This stuff?

Not so much.

Lycaeus Wrex wrote:

htj wrote:

Lycaeus Wrex wrote:These rumours completely go against the design philosophy of recent 40K editions. I am sceptical.

L. Wrex

To be fair, 3rd ed. went completely against the design philosophy of 1st and 2nd as well. It's not inconceivable that GW have decided it's time for another major shift.

It is inconceivable that they would opt for this major a shift backwards though. It's well documented that the designers have always wanted to streamline the system and make it more approachable, easier to understand, and simpler to play. Throwing in a veritable ton of rules 'just for the sake of it' that completely counteract everything done in the past 3 editions, just makes this whole list reek of fan-based wishlisting rather than anything that would come out of a GW design studio.

I'll wait until the actual rulebook is released before I make any concrete judgements. I was already over my daily salt intake allowance on the first page, now I can't move for the stuff.

L. Wrex

Of course, none of those designers are still employed by GW. The oversimplification wave came and went, then reared back with the boring books of 4th edition. Now the design methodology, spearheaded by Ward, seems to be more about crazy. I quite like what they did with the Fantasy rules, and it went against pre-established conventions quite a bit (which is why it has so many haters... oh noes, my cav death star can't autowin the game on turn 2 anymore /hate /hate /hate!). I'm considering these rumors salty, but still palatable. Even if these are the playtest rules verbatim, some things will undoubtedly change.

Omegus wrote:
Of course, none of those designers are still employed by GW. The oversimplification wave came and went, then reared back with the boring books of 4th edition.

I think you're confusing 3rd edition with 4th edition.

Anyway, as much as I'd love it, I just can't see GW going for this level of sophistication/complication in their ruleset...

It all sounds so awesome that it is akin to thinking one might win the lotto.

I expect whatever 6th edition becomes, it will happen as a means of selling miniatures. So as 5th edition sold tanks, 6th edition is likely to sell infantry, flyers, moon doggies, or flip flops.

GW is a company. They will design products to sell more products. It is the GW prime directive.

I hope the rumors are true. They all look awesome to me.

But what do I know, I loved Rogue Trader.

If 6th ed is just 3rd ed Version 4 then I'll be rather bored. Fantasy was an alright change, but they made half of the classes of units useless due to steadfast (Annoying how one silly rule can nerf so much)

Get rid of the inability for cav to break steadfast and they'd be viable and fun. Part of my dissapointment comes with half my collection being pointless. It should be a PRIORITY in design philosophy to make all unit types useful

Alpharius wrote:

Omegus wrote:
Of course, none of those designers are still employed by GW. The oversimplification wave came and went, then reared back with the boring books of 4th edition.

I think you're confusing 3rd edition with 4th edition.

Anyway, as much as I'd love it, I just can't see GW going for this level of sophistication/complication in their ruleset...

Maybe. The way I recall it, 3rd edition was supposed to be all about bare-bones simplicity, but soon enough had gotten pretty crazy with all the customization, best evidenced by the trait systems of IG, SM and Chaos, and the Craftworld Codex for the Eldar. So there was a reaction to make everything more simple again, and we got bland stinkers best evidenced by the current Dark Angels and especially Chaos Space Marines books.

The rumored 6th ed changes still point to a 3rd ed-based system. It's an evolution, but the game is still far more similar to 3rd than 2nd.

Having said that, if this is a look at the future, I'm glad they're making more significant changes than they did in the jumps to 4th and 5th. IMO, we shouldn't act like third edition was the firmest bedrock around...it was a flawed system with fundamental problems they're still wrestling with today. Witness the many evolutions of the sweeping advance. Witness the different rules for LOS, targeting and screening. These aren't nuances at the edges of the system...they're basic parts of gameplay that even the studio hasn't ever seemed to be happy with. I actually like 5th ed...but IMO it's also time to break some eggs.

IMO, the USR(x) system actually would help simplify the game. The current complexity in the game isn't in the basic rules...it's in the codicies and their many different special rules and variations thereof.

Kirasu wrote:Get rid of the inability for cav to break steadfast and they'd be viable and fun. Part of my dissapointment comes with half my collection being pointless. It should be a PRIORITY in design philosophy to make all unit types useful

Yes, cavalry was definitely overnerfed, and they need to give them some kind of bonus (like that USR devastating charge[?] that no one seems to have should be standard for cavalry, and perhaps letting the second rank provide multiple attacks ala monstrous creatures). Of course, before it was all about, turn 1: march, turn 2: charge and kill the whole front rank with no opportunities for the opponent to retaliate, auto-break with fear. Game over.

Lycaeus Wrex wrote:It's well documented that the designers have always wanted to streamline the system and make it more approachable, easier to understand, and simpler to play.

Which is why they would introduce a simple and advanced version of the rules, to try to dip into both markets which actually makes far more sense then just having a super simple ruleset. Simple rules aren't engaging, they need to have some more depth to keep players hooked. A two tiered rules set, one for beginners that is easy to learn and one for more advanced players that is deeper makes so much sense that its almost out of character that GW would do it.

And honestly, I will say it again, these rules seem far more complicated in their current state then if the exact same rules were laid out in a book. They are not huge departures from 5th edition. They also clarify rules disputes which are honestly what usually takes up the most dead time.

Are they real? I will give it a 50/50... but I can hope...

Here is what I would like to see:

1) Nerfed Cover saves, they are currently a bit too powerful in my opinion, also cover giving a negative to hit and cover saves being an additional save (say before your armor) would be OK with me. However, 4+ save for being in the woods seems a bit over kill to me, and 6+ for razor wire? Since when does razor wire stop bullets or lasers?

2) Streamlined vehicle rules. Transports, skimmers, fast attack, need to be more cut and clear and all transport rules should be in the transport section of the rule book. I really dislike flipping into each section of the book to get transport rules from different classes of vehicles and yes the rules contradict themselves when dealing with different classes of vehicles. I think smaller vehicles should just have a Toughness rating, like bikes and the equivalent and not an armor value.

3) I would like to see a strategy point system. Where you don't get units that deep strike, out flank, infiltrate, or what not. Instead you get a set of strategy points and you spend them on your units, so you can infiltrate any unit, out flank any unit, deep strike any unit, but at the cost of your strategy points. They can be used for other things like calling in air strikes or a supply drop (to say swap out equipment or supply a unit with melta bombs or something), thus putting the HQ units in more of a command/support role since they would be the models spending strategy points. I think they could take a lot of the things form the strategy cards from 2nd edition and give them a point value. Then say, before the game starts you roll 4D6 and pick the highest two dice and multiply them by 10, and that is how many points you get. Certain HQ units could give a bonus to points, and perhaps for some units costs of certain strategies would be cheaper, ie scouts can infiltrate at half point cost.

4) Finally I would like to see a more diversified army list system. More ability to tweak your army built to a specific strategy. All fast attack, or all shooting, or whatever it is, of course with limitations that balance it out amongst all armies. This would allow you to run more and more different combinations in your list, and allow you to go outside the cookie-cutter tournament list system and try all sorts of new strategies that normally would not be valid in the current army list system. This could even tie into the strategy point system, where if you want all fast attack you must sacrifice some strategy points to do so.


Thoughts?

i like everything except the vehicle toughness thing, good post though.

dajobe wrote:i like everything except the vehicle toughness thing, good post though.

Toughness 5 vehicles with two wounds will never suffer instant death, and can take two hits before they die. Nob bikers, fenrisian wolves, and so forth have a toughness value and wounds. I guss I am ok with armor value 10, but I like the idea of fast vehicles getting minuses to hit because they are fast, and if they do hit wounding the rider rather than taking out the bike itself. I would only like to see this to small one man open vehicles like bikes.

Wouldnt a Railcannon solid shot S10 cause instant death? wounding the biker is what i generally assumes happens. But i see your point, like why a truck with driver and passenger gets an armour saver and they are both unarmoured dudes with no real protection? so i see the validity of your point, and putting all transports rules in same section would probably be a good idea, but still like the vehicle armour and not armour save

dajobe wrote:Wouldnt a Railcannon solid shot S10 cause instant death? wounding the biker is what i generally assumes happens. But i see your point, like why a truck with driver and passenger gets an armour saver and they are both unarmoured dudes with no real protection? so i see the validity of your point, and putting all transports rules in same section would probably be a good idea, but still like the vehicle armour and not armour save

I believe the rule states it must be more than double your toughness, so T5 would need STR11 to instant death. I don't have my rule book handy at the moment. There are no STR11 attacks in the game that I am aware of.

I think vehicle armor values should be for actual armored vehicles, that are more of a tank class. That is something I like, because it takes out all the smaller guns from even hurting it.

No, its double or more. T5 can only be instagakked by S10 weapons, because as you sad there is no S11.

yeah, otherwise, im gonna get back alot of marines from S8 attacks lol

Double, not more than double, i think

I don't have my rulebooks on me, but i'm pretty sure it's double.


As to vehicle toughness, it would depend on the T rating it was given. T 5, not so fond. T 7-10 might be viable.

An example would be the Wraithlord or Dreadknight.

It's a MC, but an artificial construct that could easily be reclassified as a vehicle if you wanted. Not saying you should, but it's doable.

Any more rumors or are we off to the Land of Wishlisting?

Crom wrote:

dajobe wrote:Wouldnt a Railcannon solid shot S10 cause instant death? wounding the biker is what i generally assumes happens. But i see your point, like why a truck with driver and passenger gets an armour saver and they are both unarmoured dudes with no real protection? so i see the validity of your point, and putting all transports rules in same section would probably be a good idea, but still like the vehicle armour and not armour save

I believe the rule states it must be more than double your toughness, so T5 would need STR11 to instant death. I don't have my rule book handy at the moment. There are no STR11 attacks in the game that I am aware of.

I think vehicle armor values should be for actual armored vehicles, that are more of a tank class. That is something I like, because it takes out all the smaller guns from even hurting it.

It's double or more, not more than double. S10 can ID T5, ask a TWC player.

You are also not including ID weaponry that activates outside of double toughness; IE Bile, Force Weapons, etc. You would also need to write conventions for toughness characteristic driven tests (Poison, toughness test, always wounds on a 6 regardless of toughness, etc). It's a nice though but the cure could be worse than the problem...

AV would work fine if the chart wasn't so black/white. That is one area I would welcome more intense rules.

Ah yeah I just looked it up, it is double or greater. I only suggest T value on small open, one manned vehicles like bikes and the equivalents (buggies, jet bikes, etc) and all over vehicles have armor values.

I'm not sure why you are suggesting things in a rumour thread to begin with honestly. As pretre said, this looks to have devolved into wishlisting... that wasn't really the intention of this thread.

Magister187 wrote:I'm not sure why you are suggesting things in a rumour thread to begin with honestly. As pretre said, this looks to have devolved into wishlisting... that wasn't really the intention of this thread.

I am both wishlisting and rumoring....in that new white dwarf they introduced strategy points which seems interesting. I did not read the full article though I just skimmed through it. Though I read rumors from all over the Internet and I have no idea how to validate a good rumor versus a far off rumor.

timetowaste85 wrote:If even half of these rumors are true, I'm going NUTS in wait for 6th This sounds like it's going to make the game more in line with fantasy, which, being a player of both systems, I find fantasy more tactically sound. So this will become a more intense game. And I'm all for that

More tactically sound = not bothering with having to guess distances anymore?

Hm.

Crom wrote:

Magister187 wrote:I'm not sure why you are suggesting things in a rumour thread to begin with honestly. As pretre said, this looks to have devolved into wishlisting... that wasn't really the intention of this thread.

I am both wishlisting and rumoring....in that new white dwarf they introduced strategy points which seems interesting. I did not read the full article though I just skimmed through it. Though I read rumors from all over the Internet and I have no idea how to validate a good rumor versus a far off rumor.

Well, you should read the full article, because they weren't strategy points, they were strategems for cities of death, a mechanic that has existed since before 5th edition.

Che-Vito wrote:

timetowaste85 wrote:If even half of these rumors are true, I'm going NUTS in wait for 6th This sounds like it's going to make the game more in line with fantasy, which, being a player of both systems, I find fantasy more tactically sound. So this will become a more intense game. And I'm all for that

More tactically sound = not bothering with having to guess distances anymore?

Hm.

I think WHFB is more tactically sound in army versus army builds. You can build the wrong army but still have magic win the game for you. Though there is a catch 22, because at the same time it makes herohammer a reality. I have seen lord characters wipe out half an army before. One character should never be so powerful to wipe out half an army. I think that overall scaling of WHFB is also off. Some armies scale well at 2000 to 2500 points while others do not scale as well.

Overall they are different games and hard to compare. I play both and have played 40K since 2nd Ed and Fantasy since 3rd (though technically did not have my own army until 4th).

Che-Vito wrote:More tactically sound = not bothering with having to guess distances anymore?

Hm.

Being able to tell the difference between 11.75" and 12" does not have anything to do with tactics. Sorry for that reality check.