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.

tetrisphreak wrote: Who was this email from? The grammar is horrible.

Haha, directly from GW, a Sales Account Manager

'Jump Infantry get a free strike at I10 when they charge into combat'

Uh, what? I haven't come across this rumour before. Does this mean an extra attack before their normal attacks? Or do they just get I10 on the charge for their normal attacks? As much as I'd love to equip my Interceptors with Falchions to take advantage of this rule, I really hope that this is one rumour that doesn't prove to be true. All it would do is seriously boost marine armies, many of which can get FC on top of their already good enough I4 (not to mention GK halberds). It would do nothing really to help anything else - I still wouldn't charge warp spiders into combat unless I really had to for example.

Random Charges are 2D6 pick the highest (unless going through Difficult Terrain where its 3D6 and you drop the highest.) Move through cover I believe adds an extra D6

This is a game changer. The whole assault dynamic of 40K will be abandoned in favor of shooting. I hope there's more to this. If not, this rule is very ill conceived and poorly thought out.

Vehicles go the same distance in the movement phase (I believe 6" and fire everything regardless if fast or not) but in the shooting phase can make an extra move (apparently some kept forgetting what vehicles moved to fast to fire...

Interesting, but what happens with assault transports that want to move 12" in the movement phase? This rule seems very implausible.

Wound Allocation is closest to furthest.

Interesting and while the idea is very cinematic the in game practice will be anything but. I no longer see sergeants and/or other hero's running headlong into battle, but rather a cautious approach with plenty of meat shields. Depending on how other rules intertwine, such as IC needing to be in base contact to fight in an assault, will make this mechanic harder to deal with.

Dueling is similar to challenges in fantasy but contrary to earlier rumors, they don't replace Combat res, just add to sides. A IC can challenge another IC in the same combat even if not in base to base. If the defending IC refuses, he simply cannot attack that turn, if he does he counts as being in b2b and no one else can hurt him apart from the attacking IC. I'm guessing this is to offset the Wound Allocation rules

This is just fething stupid.

Psychic Power Decks using a dice system similar to Fantasy.

I call bs on this one. It invalidates EVERY codex in print.

ColdSadHungry wrote:'Jump Infantry get a free strike at I10 when they charge into combat'

Uh, what? I haven't come across this rumour before. Does this mean an extra attack before their normal attacks? Or do they just get I10 on the charge for their normal attacks? As much as I'd love to equip my Interceptors with Falchions to take advantage of this rule, I really hope that this is one rumour that doesn't prove to be true. All it would do is seriously boost marine armies, many of which can get FC on top of their already good enough I4 (not to mention GK halberds). It would do nothing really to help anything else - I still wouldn't charge warp spiders into combat unless I really had to for example.

Strange logic. FC I5 Marines already strike first on the charge most of the time so I10 would not change that. On the other hand units like Wraiths that have a puny initiative values would benefit greatly from such a rule in any form. What the rule would do is make jump infantry slightly better than it's been as an assault unit compared to foot infantry with transports. I don't think it's a bad idea as the trend for years and years has been that whenever you have to choose between a transport and jump packs you choose the transport. GW wants to sell more Marines with jump packs. We know everyone already have a couple Rhinos and a dozen Razorbacks.

Wound Allocation is closest to furthest.

I don't like this rule as it essentially means the return of sniping. Players will look for their opponents to place their models carelessly and then taking advantage of it with fast moving shooty units by making the target of choice the closest target. A character you want dead is on one edge of a unit, so you circle the unit and unload to the unit to make sure the desired model dies. Remember in 4th edition when only those models could die that you could see, and players made 'tunnels' from their own vehicles and whatnot so that a lascannon only saw one target in the enemy unit, for example a hero or a special weapon guy? I remember a lot of really nasty games at tournaments. Point being, I don't see the reason for adding a rule like this again. There was nothing wrong with wound allocation in 5th aside from the multi-wound model unit shenanigans.

Psychic Power Decks using a dice system similar to Fantasy.

I agree with the poster above that this is pretty out there. It's not as easy to add in magic to 40K as it's into FB. Only one army in FB doesn't use magic and they're really special and have their own benefits to compensate. In 40K however atleast Necrons, Dark Eldar, Tau and Black Templars are completely void of psykers (and sometimes psychic defence). What would be the point of a massive overhaul of a phase that only some armies in 40K have access to?

Well, if those rumors are true, my Canoptek army just got a bit better, but my Tyranids are still screwed. i was hoping for % based army design, as it would solve alot of problems with the Tyranid army IMO. Ah well, shall wait and see. Excited to hear about the new figs however

oni wrote:

Psychic Power Decks using a dice system similar to Fantasy.

I call bs on this one. It invalidates EVERY codex in print.

Actually it wouldn't - It would require every player intending to use a psyker to buy an additional deck of cards in order to use them in-game.

Not sure how psykers who purchase their powers, like daemons and eldar, would get around this rule, perhaps it'll be FAQ'ed to let them get 2 powers for free, since they'll be somewhat random.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Therion wrote:

Wound Allocation is closest to furthest.

I don't like this rule as it essentially means the return of sniping. Players will look for their opponents to place their models carelessly and then taking advantage of it with fast moving shooty units by making the target of choice the closest target. A character you want dead is on one edge of a unit, so you circle the unit and unload to the unit to make sure the desired model dies. Remember in 4th edition when only those models could die that you could see, and players made 'tunnels' from their own vehicles and whatnot so that a lascannon only saw one target in the enemy unit, for example a hero or a special weapon guy? I remember a lot of really nasty games at tournaments. Point being, I don't see the reason for adding a rule like this again. There was nothing wrong with wound allocation in 5th aside from the multi-wound model unit shenanigans.

Another unanswered question is with closest-to-furthest wound allocation, do multi-wound models get extra wounds allocated before moving to further back ranks? What about weapons that cause instant-death? Unless those two issues are resolved properly 6th will still be rife with multi-wound shenanigans.

I liked the pancake editions wound wrap up phase, where you had to move all the wounds around so that you only had at most 1 wounded model in a unit(other than IC) So sure you would wound shenanigans for the turn but at the end of the turn the models would still die

Therion wrote:

ColdSadHungry wrote:'Jump Infantry get a free strike at I10 when they charge into combat'

Uh, what? I haven't come across this rumour before. Does this mean an extra attack before their normal attacks? Or do they just get I10 on the charge for their normal attacks? As much as I'd love to equip my Interceptors with Falchions to take advantage of this rule, I really hope that this is one rumour that doesn't prove to be true. All it would do is seriously boost marine armies, many of which can get FC on top of their already good enough I4 (not to mention GK halberds). It would do nothing really to help anything else - I still wouldn't charge warp spiders into combat unless I really had to for example.

Strange logic. FC I5 Marines already strike first on the charge most of the time so I10 would not change that. On the other hand units like Wraiths that have a puny initiative values would benefit greatly from such a rule in any form. What the rule would do is make jump infantry slightly better than it's been as an assault unit compared to foot infantry with transports. I don't think it's a bad idea as the trend for years and years has been that whenever you have to choose between a transport and jump packs you choose the transport. GW wants to sell more Marines with jump packs. We know everyone already have a couple Rhinos and a dozen Razorbacks.

Wound Allocation is closest to furthest.

I don't like this rule as it essentially means the return of sniping. Players will look for their opponents to place their models carelessly and then taking advantage of it with fast moving shooty units by making the target of choice the closest target. A character you want dead is on one edge of a unit, so you circle the unit and unload to the unit to make sure the desired model dies. Remember in 4th edition when only those models could die that you could see, and players made 'tunnels' from their own vehicles and whatnot so that a lascannon only saw one target in the enemy unit, for example a hero or a special weapon guy? I remember a lot of really nasty games at tournaments. Point being, I don't see the reason for adding a rule like this again. There was nothing wrong with wound allocation in 5th aside from the multi-wound model unit shenanigans.

Psychic Power Decks using a dice system similar to Fantasy.

I agree with the poster above that this is pretty out there. It's not as easy to add in magic to 40K as it's into FB. Only one army in FB doesn't use magic and they're really special and have their own benefits to compensate. In 40K however atleast Necrons, Dark Eldar, Tau and Black Templars are completely void of psykers (and sometimes psychic defence). What would be the point to a massive overhaul of a phase that only some armies in 40K have access to?

What I meant was that most SM are already at least pretty good at assault. Giving every single jump packer I10 attacks on the charge means that every single SM army has this in their arsenal should they choose it (BA could be insane). Other armies just wouldn't benefit overall from it due to lower WS or S or whatever and how many jump pack units do you see outside of SM armies? One or two and Jet Packs aren't the same thing.

ColdSadHungry wrote:
What I meant was that most SM are already at least pretty good at assault. Giving every single jump packer I10 attacks on the charge means that every single SM army has this in their arsenal should they choose it (BA could be insane). Other armies just wouldn't benefit overall from it due to lower WS or S or whatever and how many jump pack units do you see outside of SM armies? One or two and Jet Packs aren't the same thing.

The rumor, if true, evokes a "Death from Above" vignette in my head for any combatant using a jump pack to maneuver.

Let's look at what we have to compare to - WHFB. In Fantasy, chariots do what's called "impact hits" when they charge. By my understanding this is a similar game event, a large fast contraption and/or fighter is causing damage simply by their arrival to the fracas, then continuing to fight using whatever close combat weapons are available to it.

In that vein, I could see Jump Pack equipped infantry getting D6 S5 AP - hits, at I10, on the turn they charge to simulate the force of their arrival (which further means that in the rules JP infantry no longer 'cover the last few yards of the assault on foot' as they do now - these charge attacks will come from further away than now). If the D6 system isn't where GW is going with this, then it'll probably be 1 hit per jump packer that is charging. After the 'impact hits' resolve (see what i did there? Game cross-referencing is already in full effect.) then combat will resolve normally from there. Potentially a unit of 6-10 jump pack Blood Angels could annihilate a 4 man blasterborn unit without even swinging their chainswords, going by the very little we know about this mechanic. GW must really hate DE lately, a lot of these rumors nerf that codex.

If the 2D6 charge is on top of the normal 6in move, surely CC armies just got a boost, with a potential 18" assault in a single turn, (24" for Jump Packers.)
Even on the average 2D6 roll they can go 13" in a turn, and on the worst thats still 8"

Thats was the thing in 8th Fantasy, everyone intially bemoaned the random charge ranges, then realised as long as you roll average, you are going further than before.


edit - Oh wait, reading fail, its pick the higest, yeah, that sucks. Had it given a potential increased range it would have been good, this way is terrible, you are more likely to be going less than 12" every turn you charge.

2nd edit - If it as suggested below, 6" move, then 6" Charge + Roll 2D6 and pick the highest, then I'll return to my, damn this is awesome for CC armies position, and my Orks will be all chuckling darkly.

tetrisphreak wrote: GW must really hate DE lately, a lot of these rumors nerf that codex.

The awesomeness of this statement cannot be denied.

Can we at least wait to decide who GW hates this week until we see a book?

Oh wait, lemme tip it the other way. A guy I know told me that all DE players get free beer at every tournament they go to just for showing up.

lord_blackfang wrote:We had 5+ cover in 4th and liked it fine that way!

More importantly, we had LOS blocking area terrain and a rule that you could only kill as many models as you can see. Not getting shot at all is always preferable to getting a cover save.

Don't see why they can't go back to...

Good solid wall/barricade = 4+ cover save

Ruins/thick foliage = 5+ cover save

Grass/fence = 6+ cover save

It was logical and it worked IMHO

ColdSadHungry wrote:'Jump Infantry get a free strike at I10 when they charge into combat'.

storm boyz spam ftw

Oh, are we now at the phase where everyone flies off the handle based on some unpalatable snippet of a rumour taken out of context?

Charges are probably 6+(2d6 highest) so no need to panic just yet.

Casualties from the front? See above, charge range might be increased by 4.5" on average.

Units might be able to charge straight out of transports, so no issue with splitting vehicle movement.

HiveFleet wrote:Well, if those rumors are true, my Canoptek army just got a bit better, but my Tyranids are still screwed. i was hoping for % based army design, as it would solve alot of problems with the Tyranid army IMO. Ah well, shall wait and see. Excited to hear about the new figs however

The jump infantry rule is interesting for 'nids. Imagine bonesword shrikes or 30 gargoyles dropping on someone with that initiative bonus. Guess it all depends how cover affects it too though.

The WS thing for vehicles is fantastic for nids, MC's needing 4+/6+ to hit moving vehicles was always dumb. The Preferred Enemy change to shooting would also be interesting *cough* devilguants *cough* tyrannofex *cough*. Pity about FNP though.

Charges are probably 6+(2d6 highest) so no need to panic just yet.

Does anyone have any explanation why? Are the tabletops getting bigger? Is the idea that jump infantry or cavalry charges on turn one if they roll lucky for their charge distance and that slow monsters like Tomb Spyders and Carnifexes charge on turn two? In this form this rule would also have massive metagame ramifications. 9 Tomb Spyders (27 T6 wounds with 3+ AS) for 450 points is quite an incredible bargain if they're charging on turn two (6 move, D6 run, 6 move, 6+2D6 pick lowest assault for max 30 inches in just two turns for the slowest model in the game). People are saying infantryhammer but it definately wouldn't be shooty infantryhammer because shooty units only have a turn to shoot, if that, before they're getting swamped by multi-charges. What about infiltrators? Let's go back to the 60 infiltrating Stealers that's perfectly viable in 1.85K even now. They infiltrate to 18", move 6", fleet D6", assault 6"+2D6" while picking lowest? Say wut?

ColdSadHungry wrote: Other armies just wouldn't benefit overall from it due to lower WS or S or whatever and how many jump pack units do you see outside of SM armies? One or two and Jet Packs aren't the same thing.

Scourges, Hellions, Warp Spiders, Swooping Hawks, Shrike Swarms, Sky Slasher swarms, gargoyles, and vespids. And While Jet Packs may not move like other jump infantry they are still the jump infantry unit type.

pretre wrote:

tetrisphreak wrote: GW must really hate DE lately, a lot of these rumors nerf that codex.

The awesomeness of this statement cannot be denied.

Can we at least wait to decide who GW hates this week until we see a book?

Oh wait, lemme tip it the other way. A guy I know told me that all DE players get free beer at every tournament they go to just for showing up.

That was just an observation based on the admittedly small window of insight I currently have. Trust me, I'm not even a DE player but i can see how parts of rules negatively affect armies such as theirs. when the big picture arrives, hopefully sooner rather than later, then I will criticize legitimately. At this point, it's all speculation.

oni wrote:
This is a game changer. The whole assault dynamic of 40K will be abandoned in favor of shooting. I hope there's more to this. If not, this rule is very ill conceived and poorly thought out.

As someone else mentioned it will probably be a set value + the best of 2D6. Meaning that charges could go from 6" flat to a variable 7-12".

Therion wrote:

Charges are probably 6+(2d6 highest) so no need to panic just yet.

Does anyone have any explanation why? Are the tabletops getting bigger? Is the idea that jump infantry or cavalry charges on turn one if they roll lucky for their charge distance and that slow monsters like Tomb Spyders and Carnifexes charge on turn two? In this form this rule would also have massive metagame ramifications. People are saying infantryhammer but it definately wouldn't be shooty infantryhammer because shooty units only have a turn to shoot, if that, before they're getting swamped by multi-charges. What about infiltrators? Let's go back to the 60 infiltrating Stealers that's perfectly viable in 1.85K even now. They infiltrate to 18", move 6", fleet D6", assault 6"+2D6" while picking lowest? Say wut?

Aren't charge reactions in the game now? So you will get to shoot at them 1-2 times while they travel towards you, and then again when they charge. You might even be able to declare a fallback reaction, then regroup and shoot them again (note: I have not heard this presented as a rumour anywhere, I'm just extrapolating from the way charge reactions work in WFB, an the fact that 40K has had a voluntary fallback option in the past).

Anyone else noticed that several GW communications have started calling people "collectors" - almost like part of the GW hobby is collecting miniatures rather than buying miniatures for your army(ies) that you use and not buying the useless unit ones.

mmmh, interesting turn of phrase.

Lovepug13 wrote:

ColdSadHungry wrote:'Jump Infantry get a free strike at I10 when they charge into combat'.

storm boyz spam ftw

That's what I was thinking!!!

Orkz hitting first... dats krumpty!

Aren't charge reactions in the game now? So you will get to shoot at them 1-2 times while they travel towards you, and then again when they charge. You might even be able to declare a fallback reaction, then regroup and shoot them again (note: I have not heard this presented as a rumour anywhere, I'm just extrapolating from the way charge reactions work in WFB, an the fact that 40K has had a voluntary fallback option in the past).

First of all if they get the first turn you get zero turns to fire against the fastest units or infiltrating units, and if the slower units just get the first turn you get one shooting phase in addition to the rumoured snap fire. The snap fire was rumoured to be BS2 so it's far from a real shooting phase or even a stand and shoot reaction from FB.

The voluntary fallback rule that 40K had in the past was never a charge reaction like you seem to suggest. It was an experimental rule for those assaults where a couple of Marines with bolters were fighting with a monster they couldn't do any damage to, meaning they were locked in the combat forever despite not being able to do anything.

Oakenshield wrote:

ColdSadHungry wrote: Other armies just wouldn't benefit overall from it due to lower WS or S or whatever and how many jump pack units do you see outside of SM armies? One or two and Jet Packs aren't the same thing.

Scourges, Hellions, Warp Spiders, Swooping Hawks, Shrike Swarms, Sky Slasher swarms, gargoyles, and vespids. And While Jet Packs may not move like other jump infantry they are still the jump infantry unit type.

Yeah, but how many of those units do you actually want in CC? Even with the I10 attacks? Certainly not the Eldar ones or the Vespids. Hellions already get I6 anyway but both Hellions and Scourges are just S3, T3 like Craftworld Eldar - simply not good enough to be in CC. Don't know much about the Nids. Marines on the other hand, the ones with Jump Packs are already assault marines, they'll just be even better than they are now and would be able to completely ignore something that may be a bit of help against them such as having I5 or I6. Sanguinary Guard will just be plain crazy. I'm not saying that other armies won't benefit from this but that marines will benefit more because it will boost their already assault orientated units.

fullheadofhair wrote:Anyone else noticed that several GW communications have started calling people "collectors" - almost like part of the GW hobby is collecting miniatures rather than buying miniatures for your army(ies) that you use and not buying the useless unit ones.

mmmh, interesting turn of phrase.

Well, you collect your army don't you? Some people don't play and just collect, build, and paint models. We all collect them to a certain degree.

Therion wrote:

Charges are probably 6+(2d6 highest) so no need to panic just yet.

Does anyone have any explanation why? Are the tabletops getting bigger? Is the idea that jump infantry or cavalry charges on turn one if they roll lucky for their charge distance and that slow monsters like Tomb Spyders and Carnifexes charge on turn two? In this form this rule would also have massive metagame ramifications. 9 Tomb Spyders (27 T6 wounds with 3+ AS) for 450 points is quite an incredible bargain if they're charging on turn two (6 move, D6 run, 6 move, 6+2D6 pick lowest assault for max 30 inches in just two turns for the slowest model in the game). People are saying infantryhammer but it definately wouldn't be shooty infantryhammer because shooty units only have a turn to shoot, if that, before they're getting swamped by multi-charges. What about infiltrators? Let's go back to the 60 infiltrating Stealers that's perfectly viable in 1.85K even now. They infiltrate to 18", move 6", fleet D6", assault 6"+2D6" while picking lowest? Say wut?

I guess you must have missed the first line of my post. Weird.

Goresaw wrote:Infantryhammer? More like Suckitnonpowerarmorhammer.

Reduced cover saves is seriously bad news for almost every xeno player. The changes seem to make shooting far more dangerous (to xenos, of course) and make hand to hand less useful. The game is already horribly shooty, this is just going to make it worse. Games will go faster though, because every turn about 20% more orks, eldar, tyranids, etc.... will be dying every shooting phase.

As a Tau player that still takes his army to local tournies I have to say that I welcome the return of reasonable coversaves. This combined with the return of tactical positioning for ranged combat makes me a very happy camper.

Therion wrote:

ColdSadHungry wrote:Wound Allocation is closest to furthest.

I don't like this rule as it essentially means the return of sniping. Players will look for their opponents to place their models carelessly and then taking advantage of it with fast moving shooty units by making the target of choice the closest target. A character you want dead is on one edge of a unit, so you circle the unit and unload to the unit to make sure the desired model dies. Remember in 4th edition when only those models could die that you could see, and players made 'tunnels' from their own vehicles and whatnot so that a lascannon only saw one target in the enemy unit, for example a hero or a special weapon guy? I remember a lot of really nasty games at tournaments. Point being, I don't see the reason for adding a rule like this again. There was nothing wrong with wound allocation in 5th aside from the multi-wound model unit shenanigans.

I love this rule in that it brings back tactical play. When 4th ed ended our gaming group was still vigorously playing it, I can't say the same for 5th. Yes, overall the rules were better written in 5th but KP and wound allocation ruined what otherwise would have been a great ruleset.
(Oh Lord, Please let KP be gone and return our VP system that we were happy with.)

Therion wrote:

Psychic Power Decks using a dice system similar to Fantasy.

I agree with the poster above that this is pretty out there. It's not as easy to add in magic to 40K as it's into FB. Only one army in FB doesn't use magic and they're really special and have their own benefits to compensate. In 40K however atleast Necrons, Dark Eldar, Tau and Black Templars are completely void of psykers (and sometimes psychic defence). What would be the point of a massive overhaul of a phase that only some armies in 40K have access to?

I agree with you in that this is (IMO) a completely unnecessary change to the game. But hey, this makes it like Warmahordes, Right?

focusedfire wrote:But hey, this makes it like Warmahordes, Right?

40K used cards before WM was even written.

I like the current rumors about the changes to Psychic Powers. Currently, Psychic Powers seem very underwhelming, especially those possess by Eldar.

~Tim?

Beast of Nurgle wrote:You know they REALLY should just drop FNP now.. they've gutted the rule to the point of uselessness IF the rumors are true..

My necrons have no sympathy for your guys with a 3+ save getting FNP reduced to 5+...



Actually, FNP needed a nerf, it was being handed out like candy (well, if not like candy, like invul saves for marines).