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.

Grot shields still helps us though for character protection..
For anything we want to protect they usually have grots around them.

I don’t have a major problem with beIng heavily forced into a single brigade or battalion for my army. We can make due with freebooter or deathskulls as a specialist dress mob. We can make due with nerfed boys and just take grots which are always useful....
But this reduction of CP on an army that uses a ton just to make units viable is going to hurt. I sincerely hope we go to 2000+1 tourney lists again.

Yeah grot screen helps...one character. But there will be more characters being exposed. ASSUMING that rumour is true of course.

But orks can use that as well to hunt down those pesky buffing characters. Removing key covering unit looks to be bit easier than before especially with fast shooters.

Well there's still disclaimer that it's just rumour atm. But any good rumour for orks I take happily atm. At least bit good news is better than no good news.

Wonder if the one strat per phase thing will remain, since wasnt that primarily brought in because of CP farmers? and just never axed?

 Vineheart01 wrote:
Wonder if the one strat per phase thing will remain, since wasnt that primarily brought in because of CP farmers? and just never axed?

I assume so, partly because some stratagems do way more than others and if spammed across several units, it can be really broken (i.e. Vets of the Long War). So if they do take away that restriction, they'd have to rework the CP cost or rules of several strats.

Imagine taking a naut trio and slapping Kustom Ammo on all three. That's over 900pts of dakka spitting double the firepower out.

cody.d. wrote:
Imagine taking a naut trio and slapping Kustom Ammo on all three. That's over 900pts of dakka spitting double the firepower out.

Exactly, it's a whole can of worms you're opening if you have unlimited stratagem usage. It would destroy their focus on less alpha striking now that you can front load the stratagem usage in T1 to blow away most of your opponent's army this way.

I don't want a game where somebody fires their lootas/hive guard / whatever 4x in a row on T1. Yeah, they'd probably lose the game anyway...but either way, it isn't fun.

Kustom Jobs isnt what i meant, that one you can do over and over but the kustom job rule itself says you cant have repeats of the same job.
But yeah theres a lot of strats that would be broken as hell if you could use it multiple times. Some strats should be excluded from this though, i.e grot shields.

I dunno, I think part of what grot shields is balanced around is that you can only use it once a turn, so you have to choose what to protect with it.

Grot shields has a lot of internal balances to it which is a good thing. Much better than say, shield drones which are quite powerful due to how flexible the rules for it are. If someone wants to get around grotsheilds they can in a turn, maybe 2 at worst.

I agree. Grot shields is a good mechanic, shield drones are a terrible mechanic. Like EC/MS for eldar, saviour protocols is one of those things that is so powerful it actually paradoxically cripples what the developers can do with the faction, because it makes it impossible to balance the faction around anything except taking full advantage of it.

T'au would be a much more interesting army, both to play and to play against, if they bit the bullet and admitted that savior protocols is a mess to be moved away from instead of something to build the entire army around the abuse of.

Saviour protocol should be on a 5+, so it could have its place in the army as a minor buff, and GW could get on with doing something different with the army.
Tau also take ages to do overwatch, which is painfully slow for the opponent who just wants to get on with his assault phase (in game that already doesn’t favor assault much).

If GW gets rid of current rules for these two things, then people won’t complain nearly as much when playing against Tau.

Grot shield is great, all my opponents know how to get around it, yet it still is a useful resource for us.

Perhaps saviour protocols could be strat with same wording as Grot shields, and overwatch with multiple units also a strat... daydreaming yeah I know. I absolutely hate playing against Tau, even though I win half the time (which is a good thing).

The best tactic vs T´au is playing with a chess clock.

Between wounds allocating, mulltiple saves , correct positioning and overwatch, I´ve yet to find someone that can make it thru 6 rounds.

Also shield drone should work a bit better than grot shild (aka allow FNP) but should NOT translate dmg to 1. and should NOT work in CC. That is just bs.

Minimum table size is now 60" x 44" (IE: 5' by 3' 8") for a 2000 point game.

This is a buff to CC armies and short ranged shooting armies (like a lot of Ork stuff), but I somehow doubt TOs will move away from 6' X 4' .

 Emicrania wrote:
I was talking with a friend of mine that works with the FAQ team. They leaked some news so his ndr Is not threatened ATM.

They should announce 9th soon enough (tomorrow maybe?), What is gonna change is:

- Smaller boards (4'*4' ?)
- Suggested army size 1500
- Terrain rules like 5th edition - ish
- Tournament rules


Automatically Appended Next Post:
This is not a rumor, is a fact, the only thing is when is gonna happen, given Nurgle year

CALLED IT

Unless we start getting new neoprene mats in those sizes theres no way anybody is gonna play that funky size.
Its hard enough to get mats for 3x6ft games

 Vineheart01 wrote:
Unless we start getting new neoprene mats in those sizes theres no way anybody is gonna play that funky size.
Its hard enough to get mats for 3x6ft games

I think these specific sizes are demarked for Kill Team boards.

IE: 4 Kill team boards = 44" x 60".

But it's totally arbitrary. I bet you won't be playing this at most tournaments, so the defacto standard will still be 6x4.

tulun wrote:
Minimum table size is now 60" x 44" (IE: 5' by 3' 8") for a 2000 point game.

This is a buff to CC armies and short ranged shooting armies (like a lot of Ork stuff), but I somehow doubt TOs will move away from 6' X 4' .

I thought so, but I'm not so sure after reading the article I'm not so sure anymore. You might still have the majority of the missions with 24" in the middle , which leave a still a big no man's land to overcome.

Surely there'd be some benefit if the enemy can't place their artillery units quite as far away anymore? If you're taking them out be deepstrike then it doesn't matter but for across the board charges and shooting then there should be some benefit.

Besides, there seem to be rumblings that TO groups are looking to implement these new sizes from what I gather so it might actually come into play

Really all the smaller boards do for combat armies is they limit how far away they can deploy artillery.
In other words, if deploying on short-ends (i always forget the deployment names, the one where you have a super deep deployment) they are going to be roughly 6" closer if you use that minimum board, since the entire board is 1ft shorter that direction. Which isnt that big of a difference, the only things that it would impact are footsloggers and they shouldnt even reach the far end of the board in the first place w/o deepstrike or transport help.

For non-LOS shooting, doesn't make a huge difference necessarily. Hopefully non-LOS shooting jacks up in price with obscuring terrain.

But LOS shooting and obscuring terrain and such, the enemy might start closer. Yeah, 24" no man's land, but they don't have to deploy RIGHT at the edge. If they have less places to deploy back into, definitely easier to charge them in general.

I still doubt we'll shift away from the 6x4 regardless.

Reece of frontlinegaming has just stated they will be switching to the new standard of 44x60 so there's that..

https://www.frontlinegaming.org/2020/06/05/four-sizes-fit-all/#comments

PiñaColada wrote:
Reece of frontlinegaming has just stated they will be switching to the new standard of 44x60 so there's that..

https://www.frontlinegaming.org/2020/06/05/four-sizes-fit-all/#comments

People have to remember this is the table most people around the world play 40k on
This is the garage table.
This is the game store table. The same ones used for magic and other card games.
This table is actually bigger then the kitchen table people started 40k on which is shorter (5ft)
This table helps the tournament organizers because they don’t need to bring with them x number of plywood toppers anymore...
This change is a massive convience for the majority of players.
And yet 6x4 is still completely viable.
This table and a large piece of green felt was my game table for about 5 years.

So, given monsters can shoot in melee in 9th, you guys think this'll make much of a differance with Ghaz. I mean he has 12 shots with his weapon but... it's only BS5

That's still 4.66 hits on average with S7, basically a whole boomdakka snazzwagon worth of shooting.

It won't make a huge difference (especially not against marines), but having him gun down a couple of infantry models per turn isn't terrible either.

It also helps if he's beend tagged and doesn't fancy risking MW to fall out of combat with 20 conscripts

So, how long should we discuss the partial rummors and when can we start read the new rule book?

 Tomsug wrote:
So, how long should we discuss the partial rummors and when can we start read the new rule book?

When the new rulebook is released...?

I dont remember the terrain rules of 5th. Were they overly complex with lots of minor things to remember?

Basically anything partially obscured got a 4+ save, and there was area terrain which made your units count as obscured if they were in its base, even if they were in plain sight.
In addition, shooting through models two model of an enemy unit would also grant cover to the target, giving rise to the kan wall archetype. When someone shot your ork boyz behind your kanz at maximum coherency, those boyz had a 4+ cover save.

That was for the likes of forests, ruins, and buildings. There were other classifications of terrain that had a lower cover save value - walls/fences only gave a 5+, as did craters left by destroyed vehicles (common tactic for trukkboy mobs was hiding in the crater of their own trukk after it was destroyed to avoid being easily wiped by the followup shooting).