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 think the shooting fast moving vehicles things is subject to chinese whispers, I would think it would be logical that you suffer a - 2 to your BS while shooting stationary tanks increases it by 2.

Well, it fits earlier rumours on the starter set, Codex releases, Chaos and flyers. And if ghost21 says they are basically okay, this is a strong point.

Morehammer wrote:Ghost21 on Warseer:

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

This definitely adds a bit of gravity to the discussion!

He also said that Sisters would absolutely, definitely, never get a White Dwarf codex.

Skeptical here too, but love the SOUND of these. Makes me want to write my own ruleset, almost. Really neat-sounding.

EW bypassed seems lame.

Ehh sounds like a lot of fan spank, though great if true

Grey elder wrote:EW bypassed seems lame.

Agreed. EW was designed to fix many problems brought about by the growing preponderance of ID in the game.

Besides didn't they "fix" the EW "problem" by adding a number of remove from game abilities?

Wow, I hope they send that wishlist to Santa. Don't know what it has to do with Sixth Edition, though.

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

On the contrary, now we will see even more fast moving transports all over the place.
I´m SO fed up playing vehicle armies vs vehicle armies, foot infantry oriented games of previous editions were far more fun.
I am yet to see one single DE army that doesnt feature 12+ banana boats and I can count the non flying circus falcon eldar armies I have seen on one hand.
Its utterly lame.

These sound spot on.

All of these are things that a bulk of the players have cried out for.

4+ cover is a joke, imperial narrative only is a joke, and so much more. Glad to see people are finally listening.

Pyriel- wrote:
I am yet to see one single DE army that doesnt feature 12+ banana boats

To be fair, it's not like non-mounted DE were that common pre-5th.

Yeah, right.... Assault before shooting? That makes zero sense. How is that going to work? Charge, assault, and then shoot the survivors?
Some of the other changes... Flying high was a 2nd ed rule for jump units.
ICs made a focus... again a 2nd throwback.... we gonna get various "field" saves back too?
The Bidding system sounds kinda like the "Stratagy rating" system from 2nd.... The Squat Ancestor Lord gave a strat bonus to get the first turn.
Movement speed..... Very 2nd ed.
Points for rerolls sounds like Blood Bowl.

This is sounding very much like more of a Throwback Edition.

I’m calling BS on this rumour. It seems more like a wish list than something GW would do (let’s face it, everything about this rumour is 100% unlike GW).

Now if this rumour does pan out, too little, too late IMO.

helgrenze wrote:This is sounding very much like more of a Throwback Edition.

Well, the management LOVES the 90s, see upcoming WD strategy

Grey elder wrote:EW bypassed seems lame.

I'm pretty ok with it. EW in the first place was an awful rule.

Pyriel wrote:
On the contrary, now we will see even more fast moving transports all over the place.
I´m SO fed up playing vehicle armies vs vehicle armies, foot infantry oriented games of previous editions were far more fun.
I am yet to see one single DE army that doesnt feature 12+ banana boats and I can count the non flying circus falcon eldar armies I have seen on one hand.
Its utterly lame.

I've never seen a DE army in any edition that wasn't entirely mechanized. The army was never designed to be footslogging. Likewise, Eldar haven't been an army designed around footsloggers since 2E. I'm not sure what the problem is here.

candy.man wrote:I’m calling BS on this rumour. It seems more like a wish list than something GW would do (let’s face it, everything about this rumour is 100% unlike GW).

Now if this rumour does pan out, too little, too late IMO.

I'm guessing at this point GW could show up at your door and hand you a years salary and your response would likely be the same.

Vaktathi wrote:Oh...I see. One of those types.

Yay those types! Well, i say why not? People continue to play with Chaos Dwarves for Pete's sake, why not stick with previous editions of the rules? I know plenty of guys who love using the 3rd ed Chaos book in 5th ed, many of our group thinks it fits the rule set more fairly (except for IW, which no one plays anyway). And besides, 3.5 was a much better rule set. It actually WAS D+D, rather than a tabletop MMO.... thing.

helgrenze wrote:Yeah, right.... Assault before shooting? That makes zero sense. How is that going to work? Charge, assault, and then shoot the survivors?
Some of the other changes... Flying high was a 2nd ed rule for jump units.
ICs made a focus... again a 2nd throwback.... we gonna get various "field" saves back too?
The Bidding system sounds kinda like the "Stratagy rating" system from 2nd.... The Squat Ancestor Lord gave a strat bonus to get the first turn.
Movement speed..... Very 2nd ed.
Points for rerolls sounds like Blood Bowl.

This is sounding very much like more of a Throwback Edition.

I would imagine charging before assault means you can shoot in the shooting phase! Flying high was a rule for swooping hawks, not jump packs because jump packs are described as making short jumps! we know little to nothing about a IC focus so could be as simple as they can kill the powerfists in a unit so they aren't as easy to kill, I hardly think that is a throw back to 2nd ed, in 2nd ed a characater with high enough WS could take out out a whole units (Calgar was pretty damn rock!), not sure how the bidding system is anything like 2nd either, from what I gather you have the same amount of points, you can either use them to try and go first or use them for a advantage. In I don't you can compare it to thinks like virus bomb, remember this was totally random and you still had to roll for the first turn. I think your seeing a fish and calling it a whale.

oni wrote:I call bull gak. All of that is so far fetched... That post and this thread need aborted immediately.

This man speaks the truth.

L. Wrex

Nagashek wrote:

Vaktathi wrote:Oh...I see. One of those types.

Yay those types! Well, i say why not? People continue to play with Chaos Dwarves for Pete's sake, why not stick with previous editions of the rules? I know plenty of guys who love using the 3rd ed Chaos book in 5th ed, many of our group thinks it fits the rule set more fairly (except for IW, which no one plays anyway). And besides, 3.5 was a much better rule set. It actually WAS D+D, rather than a tabletop MMO.... thing.

I'm not saying you can't or shouldn't play old rules, but the squakers that blindly stick to old rules and swear great fell oaths to never touch the new rules (despite never trying them out or having a clear picture of them) and decrying them simply because they're used to something else no matter how fun a new version can be (even if different), those types aren't really ever going to be satisfied with anything. It's one thing if something comes out and its a universal bomb (which likely won't be the case with 6E and wasn't the case with D&D4E), but it's another when a new edition comes out and it's decried/villified simply because it's *different* (e.g. D&D4E where you can't microcustomize everything about a character and every piece of gear as you could in 3.5E and break the game in 10 million different ways, but you *can* do something other than rolling a basic melee attack when playing a character that isn't already essentially character of medium level)

itsonlyme wrote:

helgrenze wrote:ICs made a focus... again a 2nd throwback.... we gonna get various "field" saves back too?

we know little to nothing about a IC focus so could be as simple as they can kill the powerfists in a unit so they aren't as easy to kill, I hardly think that is a throw back to 2nd ed, in 2nd ed a characater with high enough WS could take out out a whole units (Calgar was pretty damn rock!).
I think your seeing a fish and calling it a whale.

(from OP)Heroic characters:
- independent characters more powerful, armour save and invulnerable save at the same time

Hmm IC's made more powerful... Sounds like what you just posted.

Platuan4th wrote:

Chowderhead wrote:This sounds more like wishlisting than rules, IMHO.

Indeed. I really don't see GW going with a lot of this. Some, if true is either a huge change for change's sake or is a huge disappointment.

Not buying the rumors and would be very meh about the game if true.

Agreed for the most part

Just because you don't believe a rumor doesn't make it any less of a rumor.

I have no doubt that every one of those points were proposed changes, but with 40k being what it is, I doubt they all made it into the final version.
If this massive rules change were true(assuming they end up worded well and leave no ambiguity), all it would take to get me interested in 40k again would be codex balance and viable smaller armies/game size.

Platuan4th wrote:

Grey elder wrote:EW bypassed seems lame.

Agreed. EW was designed to fix many problems brought about by the growing preponderance of ID in the game.

Besides didn't they "fix" the EW "problem" by adding a number of remove from game abilities?

EW preponderance was extensive prior to the rediculous ammount of ID. Back when two codices effectively had it for the entire army. Of course the new nid codex completely lacks EW...and grenades...

helgrenze wrote:Hmm IC's made more powerful... Sounds like what you just posted.

I assume it referrers to the ability to snipe which would indeed make them more powerful as they could pick off thinks like powerfists, he also mentioned again being able to use invul and normal, I don't think this translates to go back to how it was in 2nd ed, I guess the idea say with marines is that can use something other than chaplains or librarians! what I gathered from ghosts post on warseer is this list has certainly been subject to chinese whispers

- 5 general types of psychic powers

This is something that interests me, will be interesting to see how large the list is and if any other changes of been made to how psyhic powers work

Vaktathi wrote:

Nagashek wrote:

Vaktathi wrote:Oh...I see. One of those types.

Yay those types! Well, i say why not? People continue to play with Chaos Dwarves for Pete's sake, why not stick with previous editions of the rules? I know plenty of guys who love using the 3rd ed Chaos book in 5th ed, many of our group thinks it fits the rule set more fairly (except for IW, which no one plays anyway). And besides, 3.5 was a much better rule set. It actually WAS D+D, rather than a tabletop MMO.... thing.

I'm not saying you can't or shouldn't play old rules, but the squakers that blindly stick to old rules and swear great fell oaths to never touch the new rules (despite never trying them out or having a clear picture of them) and decrying them simply because they're used to something else no matter how fun a new version can be (even if different), those types aren't really ever going to be satisfied with anything. It's one thing if something comes out and its a universal bomb (which likely won't be the case with 6E and wasn't the case with D&D4E), but it's another when a new edition comes out and it's decried/villified simply because it's *different* (e.g. D&D4E where you can't microcustomize everything about a character and every piece of gear as you could in 3.5E and break the game in 10 million different ways, but you *can* do something other than rolling a basic melee attack when playing a character that isn't already essentially character of medium level)

When it comes to new editions I give them fair shakes (love 8th ed for Dwarves, it's fine for my DE, and HATE it for my VC) but will stay with what the community enjoys, or push for changes (or stop playing). I stopped playing Warmahordes due to the constant influx of new units (the reverse of GW's problem, proving to me that too much of a good thing isn't good) and haven't been lured back to 40k in 5th yet. With 6th on the horizon (only a few years after 5th and after a very anemic codex schedule) there's little reason for me to get into it now (GK wasn't QUITE enough to get my interest, what with the $10 per model buy in cost...)

4th ed D+D did give you many options besides a melee attack for low level characters. Unfortunately, it gave you NO REASON TO EVER MAKE A MELEE ATTACK! Spell casters never ran out of magic, all players could spontaneously heal, everyone got magic items that progressed as they levelled... honestly, where is the thrill of crawling through dungeons? Where the risk? The fun of D+D was in the challenge and being well rewarded, or in a compelling storyline. I feel that that was lost in 4th ed.

Similarly i don't have a problem with new editions of 40k or fantasy, but when they change rules drasticly and unbalance the system, (magic in fantasy) or rewrite the fluff completely (as in, Marneus Calgar has been an Eldar corsair this entire time, but also the chosen of the Emperor,) then I get aggrivated. Adding to lore is wonderful. Changing it is to be avoided. Otherwise, we are playing in a different world with a different history, which is tantamount to playing a different game for those of us who find the fluff aspect intrinsic to the gaming experience.

All of this said, GW would likely make many people MUCH happier by releasing solid campaign rules. If you aren't going to balance your system around tournies, balancing around campaigns would make many people (my whole community, for instance) very happy.

I'm not saying you can't or shouldn't play old rules, but the squakers that blindly stick to old rules and swear great fell oaths to never touch the new rules (despite never trying them out or having a clear picture of them) and decrying them simply because they're used to something else no matter how fun a new version can be (even if different), those types aren't really ever going to be satisfied with anything. It's one thing if something comes out and its a universal bomb (which likely won't be the case with 6E and wasn't the case with D&D4E), but it's another when a new edition comes out and it's decried/villified simply because it's *different* (e.g. D&D4E where you can't microcustomize everything about a character and every piece of gear as you could in 3.5E and break the game in 10 million different ways, but you *can* do something other than rolling a basic melee attack when playing a character that isn't already essentially character of medium level)

I have in fact tried D&D 4, and to me it plays like a table top MMO. Now I'm not saying that style of game is bad, good, or indifferent, all I'm saying is that to me and my group it just feels like there's more freedom in 3.5. That's "our" taste that's what we like. Same goes for what I'm seeing here. I love 40k and I like where the rules are right now, but I just think that changes on this scale would just overcomplicate things and make it far less enjoyable for myself.

Plus with GW's track record for writing clear, concise, easy to understand rules do you really feel confident with them changing that much.

Mr Mystery wrote:SHENANIGANS!

The restaurant you like?

itsonlyme wrote:

helgrenze wrote:Hmm IC's made more powerful... Sounds like what you just posted.

I assume it referrers to the ability to snipe which would indeed make them more powerful as they could pick off thinks like powerfists, he also mentioned again being able to use invul and normal, I don't think this translates to go back to how it was in 2nd ed, I guess the idea say with marines is that can use something other than chaplains or librarians! what I gathered from ghosts post on warseer is this list has certainly been subject to chinese whispers

- 5 general types of psychic powers

This is something that interests me, will be interesting to see how large the list is and if any other changes of been made to how psyhic powers work

The OP gives the sniping ability a seperate bullet point.... which I read as more powerful ICs that also get sniping.
And again this sounds like a throwback. Of course in 2nd Psychic powers were divided by race.....

•- 60 Psychic Power Cards
•- 8 each for Orks, Eldar, Librarian, Inquisitor, and Adeptus
•- 4 each for Slaanesh, Tzeentch, Nurgle, Squat, and Tyranid

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

Why? Tyranids seem pretty well suited to those rules. Fleeting gaunts would be harder to hit, thus more survivable, and with the removal of random movement, more reliably fast. Trygon Tunnel and Pheromone trail would become easier to use, since you could designate units to come on after your Trygons and Lictors. Standard cover only being 5+ means that Tryanid shooting has a better chance to damage a vehicle.

helgrenze wrote:
The OP gives the sniping ability a seperate bullet point.... which I read as more powerful ICs that also get sniping.
And again this sounds like a throwback. Of course in 2nd Psychic powers were divided by race.....

I know he does, at no point does he indicate how other than being able to take armour and invul saves, so your really making a mountain out of a mole hill and that even assumes these rumors are all that accurate, honestly I think sniping and being able to use both standard and inul saves is all it is! I think its more than likely the rumors have been exaggerated! I don't see how a common pool of powers usable by all races is anything like 2nd ed (I also don't remember a lib lore, pretty sure they used adeptus, I seem to recall it was the gate and ragnar howling his army through it in the enemies turn), if they make it like a game within a game then you might have a point, actually reminds me of a chapter approved they did some time ago with generic powers all psykers could take, at worst its more like what warhammer have. Now I wonder if Grey Knight units will be able to use these generic powers, would be rather cool unless its like what we had with warhammer, the BRB lores being better than the army ones.