# 6th Edition Rumours (1st Post Updated 17 June 2012)



## Zion

> OMG finally finally my poor little site is fixed thanks for the patience everyone! So anyway it looks like I started some rumor spilling last week as everyone in the rumor mill decided to jump in the game. I hope what I am about to post is not already outdated, but with life and the server repair I haven’t have time to keep up.
> Ok, let us get ready for some fun guys 6th is about two months away so let us set up some ground rules first off.
> That leaked 6th edition pdf was and is still a complete fabrication.
> 40k 6th edition is going to be much closer to Fantasy 8th and 40k 2nd edition than anything else.
> GW still has rumor lock down in place, so these leaks are for the most part things that have been seen before from previous editions of Games Workshop games. This is to protect sources from the long arm of GW.
> Ok, with that said lets get to it.
> *Let us start with 6th edition fluff progression.*
> The Imperium is fracturing and the Space Marines are starting to separate themselves from the Lords of Terra. The heretical and xenophobia has gotten to a tipping point causing many chapters to take actions against the “best wishes” of many in the Imperium.
> A discovery of galactic importance has happened.
> At a time before right before the Horus Heresy the Emperor had intrusted Roboute Guilliman in the protection of one Xenos race that was completely immune the temptations of Chaos and would prove the ultimate key to the destruction of Chaos. The Horus Heresy ended such plans. Fast forward today with discovery of these lost correspondences, it is believed by the Ultramarines and others that the Tau are that lost race. So now instead of being charge with their destruction the Astartes are the Tau protectors.
> *Rules changes*
> Every unit gets a 6+ save vs. all Psychic Powers.
> Random Charge Lengths are in
> Pre-measuring is in.
> Random Battle field effects are in.
> All armies can purchase buildings for placement on the battlefield.
> Psychic powers are selected during deployment. (except Grey Knights)
> Deployment and Missions types have doubled.
> *Get ready for the Big one..*
> 
> *ALLIES ARE BACK IN*
> 
> That is right allies are back in and this will be according to fluff and will have certain restrictions. So for instance Tyranids will not have any allies. Tau with all Space Marine Chapters. Necrons with Blood Angels. Imperial Guard with Space Marines. Chaos Space Marines with Demons. If it fits the fluff it will be done.
> 
> 
> This is just to get you guys started.
> Expect more to come out as we get closer to the impeding release of Warhammer 40k 6th edition.
> Oh again forgot to mention in the CSM rumor post to add that Oblit options will be even more expansive with close combat load out available.


Source

Personally I don't think the Allies thing works for me.... Actually there a lot of bits that have me scratching my head but we'll see in a couple months I guess.

EDIT: More from the comment section of the same page: *DEBUNKED The information came from an old site in 1998. You can find it on Wayback Machine here. The author of this rumor stated he was just trying to make a point that some rumors just don't pan out and things change. So we'll see.  Either way I'm leaving this one up so it doesn't get reposted later:*
_



Lexington / May 5, 2012

Y’know, I’ve got similar sources as Tasty, and here’s things they’ve told me…

- Now this Emporor rumour (God there are so many) is very interesting. Here’s the gist: The Emperor does die (physically, anyway). As prophesizeed all the way back in 1st ed (WWWAAAGGGHHH the Orks!!!! supplement), the Waaaggghhh!!! comes sweeping through human space and threatens to engulf Earth. En route, they overrun the Crimson Fists’ homeworld, and the destruction of that oft- destroyed chapter finally becomes canon. In order to save Earth, they Emperor vacates his mortal shell for good and contests directly with Mork and Gork in the warp. One of the Ork Gods is destroyed in the psychic conflict, the Waaaggghhh! is broken, and IG amd marines sweep the demoralized greenskins back to the borders of huma space. Who remains as sole deity of the Orks? The Orks aren’t sure. A religious schism fractures the entire race, dissolving the previous clan allegiances. Instead of clans, all Orks everywhere are either Gorkers or Morkers.

Exciting stuff, eh? 

Click to expand...

_EDIT: A rollup from Faeit212:



> 6th Edition/Chaos Rumor Compilation+
> 
> There are a couple new rumors mixed into this, but for the most part I've taken what should be considered to the strongest pieces of information and compiled them into one location. With so many bits of information it is getting rather hard to see a larger, more complete picture of what this next edition is going to be.
> 
> There are couple new bits in bold italics below.
> 
> There has been a lot of charges about 40k being a lot like warhammer fantasy with these new changes. Personally I do not think of these as bad. Instead I see 8th edition fantasy as a testing ground for a better 40k ruleset. Games Workshop has had plenty of time now to see just where the game should be going. With the current 40k rules and Fantasy 8th edition, I see a better, more complete ruleset. The best of both worlds.
> 
> These rules taken in pieces like we have them currently, make for quite the mess. The rules look out of place, and are quite shocking to start to get a grasp on them. Thats why a compilation of these more solid rumors is so vital.
> 
> Please remember though that until we get something in our hands, these are still considered to be rumors.
> 
> 2012 Schedule
> via Tastytaste
> June-July 6th Edition
> Sept-Oct Chaos Space Marines
> Sprinkle in some flyers, buildings, and that is all you will see from the 40k front for the year.
> 
> 
> Chaos Space Marines
> The Chaos Space Marine codex is the only 40k codex for this year. It is not going to be divided into two codexes or anything special. This is not the return 3.5 codex everyone has been wanting this is more a clean up than anything else.
> 
> Troops choices will be Chaos Space Marines and Cultists
> All Cult Marines are Elites
> No new Special Characters
> Special Characters will unlock Cult Marines as troops (Kharn for Berserkers and so on)
> Typhus makes Cultists into Zombies
> Chaos Dreadnaught is removed and replaced with a new unit (like how pariahs were replaced with Lychguard)
> CSM now get a Flyer a Mechanical Chaos Dragon (model is done will be part of initial release)
> Lesser and Greater Demons are gone
> Spawn replaced by “Fell Beast”
> Rules for Traitor Guard are in!
> 
> Oblit options will be even more expansive with close combat load out available.
> 
> 
> via Bigred on BOLS
> Codex author is Phil Kelly ~Whew...
> Chaos Cultists are available in blob squads into the thirties...
> Certain Named Characters grant various USRs and other special rules to Cultists when selected.
> 
> 
> via Grant
> Imagine a dragon made of "fire" and coverd in a platemale armor and you won't be too far off. That is the best discription I can give.
> 
> Some of the concept art shows it mauling a valkyrie mid flight. It is pretty cool.
> 
> Chaos units that kill a unit get to roll on a chart for gifts from a chaos lord very similar to the power from pain rule that Phil gave to DE.
> 
> Thousand sons are still relentless and still have ap 3 bolters.
> The codex is a full color hard cover book.
> There are no legion rules
> 
> 
> 6th Edition
> via Tastytaste at Bok
> That leaked 6th edition pdf was and is still a complete fabrication.
> 
> 40k 6th edition is going to be much closer to Fantasy 8th and 40k 2nd edition than anything else.
> 
> GW still has rumor lock down in place, so these leaks are for the most part things that have been seen before from previous editions of Games Workshop games. This is to protect sources from the long arm of GW.
> 
> Let us start with 6th edition fluff progression.
> 
> The Imperium is fracturing and the Space Marines are starting to separate themselves from the Lords of Terra. The heretical and xenophobia has gotten to a tipping point causing many chapters to take actions against the “best wishes” of many in the Imperium.
> 
> A discovery of galactic importance has happened.
> 
> At a time before right before the Horus Heresy the Emperor had intrusted Roboute Guilliman in the protection of one Xenos race that was completely immune the temptations of Chaos and would prove the ultimate key to the destruction of Chaos. The Horus Heresy ended such plans. Fast forward today with discovery of these lost correspondences, it is believed by the Ultramarines and others that the Tau are that lost race. So now instead of being charge with their destruction the Astartes are the Tau protectors.
> 
> Rules changes
> •Every unit gets a 6+ save vs. all Psychic Powers.
> •Random Charge Lengths are in
> •Pre-measuring is in.
> •Random Battle field effects are in.
> •All armies can purchase buildings for placement on the battlefield.
> •Psychic powers are selected during deployment. (except Grey Knights)
> •Deployment and Missions types have doubled.
> 
> ALLIES ARE BACK IN
> That is right allies are back in and this will be according to fluff and will have certain restrictions. So for instance Tyranids will not have any allies. Tau with all Space Marine Chapters. Necrons with Blood Angels. Imperial Guard with Space Marines. Chaos Space Marines with Demons. If it fits the fluff it will be done.
> 
> 
> via Bigred at Bols
> Psychic Powers
> -There will be at least 4+ "Disciplines" of Psychic Powers in the game. (WFB has 8 lores)
> -Disciplines seem to fall roughly along the lines of the sects described in the novel "A Thousand Sons" as used by the Heresy-Era chapter.
> -Each Discipline will have a "Default" power and a set of others that you will roll for each game.
> -Number of rolls you get and the the exact details of which powers you end up with are said to be similar to WFB 8th's power selection mechanic.
> -Powers have a "Casting Cost" that is different from the mechanic used in WFB 8th.
> -Certain 6th Codices will add additional racial specific Disciplines.
> 
> 
> via Grant
> As far as 6th ed...
> I will also add that vehicles use "hull points" in 6th. If a vehicle has 3 hull points it will die after 3 shaken results, but it can still explode after 1 shot as normal.
> 
> All cc weapons have AP values in 6th similar to what was in the fake 6th ed rule book leak.
> 
> There are going to be no different levels of Eternal Warrior either.
> 
> I know all of these rumors sound ridiculous but they may not be bad for the game at all. I have been chatting with the source for my documents, we both feel that based off of the csm codex that assaults off of consolidation will be back as well as possibly off the bloody deep strike. This is not only backed up by the fact that they are "nerfing" assault range, but also because of 2 special rules.
> 
> say hello to "snap fire" and the return of overwatch.
> 
> Snap fire - allows a unit to shoot at an attacking unit at bs 1 prior to being assaulted.
> 
> Rhino's have 3 hull points, Landraiders and the defiler have 4. Any damage chart result other than wrecked or explodes will take 1 hull point away.
> 
> HQ's can now challenge each other just like in fantasy. This must be accepted by opponent or is played normal. HQ that wins, wins the assault for his unit.
> 
> "Mysterious Terrain", basically you don't know if the stuff is difficult or dangerous until you roll a d6 upon entering it
> 
> Vehicles have assigned hull points (There is no formula)


Mostly what we've seen before on here, but also some more information from other sources. I don't mind the hull point idea as it'd show the progressive damage a vehicle would take as it takes hits and would go a long way to letting foot armies be more effective (though it'd make Necrons rather scary good since they can glance something to death much faster this way then) but some of these other ones are hit or miss. The terrain itself just bugs the heck out me to be honest. Random terrain? Really? This isn't magical and something that could be explained away, this is just silly. If this happens it'll be a rule I expect most people will ignore.

EDIT: More from Faeit212 regarding the potential change to psychic powers.



> With the changing in psychic powers, it was time to do a little digging to discover what we might be seeing as far as what disciplines might be in 6th edition. These come from the A Thousand Sons novel from the Black Library.
> 
> First off here is the relevant rumor from yesterday discussing psychic powers.
> -There will be at least 4+ "Disciplines" of Psychic Powers in the game. (WFB has 8 lores)
> 
> -Disciplines seem to fall roughly along the lines of the sects described in the novel "A Thousand Sons" as used by the Heresy-Era chapter.
> 
> For the complete rumor set on psychic powers.... here is the link
> http://www.natfka.blogspot.com/2012/05/6th-edition-psychic-powers.html#more
> 
> With these rumors in mind, here are those disciplines from the novel. This seems like the direction we are headed.
> Corvidae - Precogs: Ahriman was the head Corvidae.
> Pyrae - Pyromancers
> Pavoni - biomancers: Healers and Fleshchangers
> 
> Athanaeans - Telepathy
> Raptora - Telekinesis Were able to create Kine Shields for protection


EDIT (*ADDED 14 May 2012*): Some bits from some of our forum members:



SilverTabby said:


> I'm confident a 6th Ed is imminent. Simply because of a game I played almost a year ago, where my opponent was having trouble remembering how 5th worked, and kept saying "really?" when I said something worked this way, then showing him the BRB. He also said it about the WH Codex I was using at the time, and it turned out the confusion was because he'd been playtesting the WDDex for months before then.
> 
> So I'm confident we aren't seeing huge sweeping changes, but it's different enough to give pause in places. Firing of weapons from vehicles may see some adjustment, as I had a "hang on there" moment or two. But one thing I am confident of: 6th exists. It's been written, tested and is ready to go. Exact dates may vary, but it's there...





Katie Drake said:


> Yeah, I actually saw what the new rulebook looks like just a few days ago, like the front cover. Fairly nifty. I can only imagine that it's been printed and waiting for a while now.


So we have some actual confirmation that 6th is coming (something we haven't seen from the "big name" rumor sources yet). An allaying the fear that 6th is going to ruin the game (at least a bit I think). And we've had an actual sighting of the actual rulebook will look like. So good solid signs there (for a change).

EDIT: *Added 16 May 2012 *


Necrosis said:


> BoW just release some rumors on wound allocation:
> http://www.beastsofwar.com/warhammer-40k/wound-allocation-works-6th-edition-40k/
> 
> You will have to allocate wounds to models closest to the unit that fired at you.


EDIT: *Added 17 May 2012*


> More from Beasts of War. Take with as much salt as you like, but the BoW guys believe their source is solidly reliable.
> 
> http://www.beastsofwar.com/warhammer-40k/fantasy-style-challenges-warhammer-40k-close-combat/
> 
> With another mention of "cinematic" it's sounding like 6th will be 40K: "Movie Edition". But that may end up being an assumption made too soon.


EDIT: *Added 18 May 2012.* 


> More from BoW: http://www.beastsofwar.com/warhammer-40k/rumor-stand-shoot-40k-6th-edition/
> 
> The BS1 Quick Fire rule that Tasty mentioned? Yeah, it's here too. Wonder if they have the same source?


EDIT: *Added 21 May 2012*


> More from BoW: http://youtu.be/5TTU1O3eO4Q


EDIT: *Added 26 May 2012* *EDIT: 27 May 2012 CONFIRMED* The 5th Edition BRB is no longer for sale on the GW US site, searching it and then clicking on it redirects you to the main page. 
From Faeit212 but caught by a member of our forums. Good work!


TheKingElessar said:


> Apologies for double post, but...
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Faeit 212*
> _Yesterday I recieved an email and information that Games Workshop is sending out to its stores about the upcoming release of 6th edition! This is news, mostly because it is as close as we can get to a confirmation of all the rumors that 6th edition is on its way.
> 
> Check these out.....
> 
> A big thanks to the two people below for sending in the information to me, so that we can share it here with the greater community!
> 
> via Alex
> Just heard this from my local GW, they've been told to remove all 5th edition rulebooks from shelves and sales on May 28th which means 6th could be right around the corner!
> 
> via Tatepon
> Today gw stores got an email.
> in it were orders to remove the 40k rulebook tomorrow (26.05) from the shelves after the shop closes.
> 
> it will be removed from the website on the 28th.
> 
> additionally theyll have a retail-meeting mid june after which more informations will follow.
> 
> furthermore we were told asking customers that it was removed because there will be something new soon and that more info will be released in the near future._
> 
> 
> 
> - Link.
Click to expand...

EDIT: *Added 11 June 2012*


mcmuffin said:


> From Faeit 212
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whitehat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Plastic Plaguebearers & Nurglings, Finecast Blue Scribes in August (amongst what Im presuming is that metal daemons will be released with Finecast Versions.)
> 
> Finecast will replace all metal models in the next year (unsure if that means specialist)
> 
> 6th ed - a few morsels
> 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
> 
> Vehicles are WS0 if stationary, and WS1 if they move, no matter how far they go.
> 
> 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...
> 
> Vehicles cannot contest (unsure if scoring units in transports can
> 
> 6 Missions and 3 deployment types (2 of the deployments are the same as current, Spearhead & Pitched Battle.)
> 
> Troops are the only ones that can score (including of course 'scoring units')
> 
> 5+ Cover save for most things including ruins.
> 
> Allies rules are in, but its meant to be for team games (ie separate force org chart, distrusted ally rules similar to Fantasy)
> 
> Percentages are *not* in
> 
> Wound Allocation is closest to furthest.
> 
> 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
> 
> Preferred Enemy is including shooting and you may reroll wound rolls of a 1 (either shooting or combat)
> 
> Rapid Fire weapons may now can shoot at long range while moving. restriction on assaulting after rapid firing remains.
> 
> Jump Infantry get a free strike at I10 when they charge into combat
> 
> Psychic Power Decks using a dice system similar to Fantasy.
> 
> Flyers are in.
> 
> FNP drops to 5+ Save.
> 
> I'm calling it now - Infantryhammer
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> random charges make me want to puke, i like the changes to vehicles being hit in combat, FNP at 5+ is an improvement, makes sang priests less annoying.
> 
> 
> 
> oh, and . . . .
> 
> 
> 
> I FUCKING HATE THE IDEA OF THIS TYPE OF WOUND ALLOCATION
Click to expand...

*EDIT: Added 12 June 2012 From Faeit212 *



> 6th Edition Rulebook/ Starter Set Limited Run
> Just a couple small rumors to that are worth while mentioning today. We have one regarding the scope or size of the new rulebook, and talk of a special very limited run of the starter set.
> 
> These are rumors, please take with the required bit of salt
> 
> via Harry
> I hear a certain 'big book' available in all good stores soon has 440 pages
> 
> I know there is a special (Limited run) edition of the starter set.
> The limited edition starter set will have a run of just 5,000 copies


And from our Forums:



GrizBe said:


> Just nabbed some interesting stuff via Darnok at Warseer:
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by Warhammer 40,000: Rulebook, £45
> 
> There is no time for peace. No respite. No forgiveness.
> 
> There is only WAR.
> 
> In the nightmare future of the 41st Millennium, Mankind teeters upon the brink of destruction. The galaxy-spanning Imperium of Man is beset on all sides by ravening aliens and threatened from within by Warp-spawned entities and heretical plots. Only the strength of the immortal Emperor of Terra stands between humanity and its annihilation, and in his name, countless warriors and agents do battle against the encroaching darkness. Foremost amongst them stand the Space Marines, the ultimate protectors of Mankind.
> 
> Across airless moons, within the depths of dark, twisted hive worlds and even in the immaterial realm of Warp space, battles rage that will shape the future of the galaxy forever.
> It is a universe that you can enter today, if you dare. But remember that this is a dark and terrible era, and there is no peace amongst the stars...
> 
> The Warhammer 40,000 Rulebook is your essential guide to playing atmospheric battles in the 41st Millennium. It helps you field majestic armies of Citadel miniatures across the war-ravaged battlefields of the far-future, in the ultimate contest of strategy and skill.
> 
> With 440 full-colour pages, this hardback Rulebook is packed with rich background and contains all the rules for fighting pulse-pounding tabletop battles. The Rulebook includes exciting features such as dynamic close-combat, flyers, psychic devastation and interactive scenery. As well as jaw-dropping artwork, contained within is a history of the 41st Millennium and a richly detailed guide to the races and weapons of the far-future. It also features a comprehensive hobby section to set you on the path to choosing, collecting and building your own Warhammer 40,000 army of Citadel miniatures.
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by Warhammer 40,000: Psychic Powers, £8
> 
> One of the many exciting features of Warhammer 40,000 is Psychic devastation, where Psykers wreak havoc on the battlefield. Psychic Powers is the complete set of Psychic cards, which be used in conjunction with Psychic Disciplines. They make a great accessory to your tabletop games.
> 
> This set contains 35 large-format cards and come stored in a plastic fan-opening case, which bears the Aquila. There are 7 cards for each Psychic Discipline, each of which is represented by distinct artwork. There is also an instruction leaflet that classifies which powers can be used by the main Psykers in the Warhammer 40,000 universe.
> Quote:
> There are also "Munitorum Templates" (£12, designed with a metal effect look), "Munitorum Tape Measure" (£10, looking like a Servoskull) and "Munitorum Dice" (£10, while stocks last).
> 
> On advance order on 23th, available from 30th of June.
> 
> Is it just me, or does that psychic powers thing sound kinda like Storms of Magic but for 40K?
> 
> Also, Servo Skull measuring tape? Sweet. lol


EDIT:* Added 13 June 2012*
More from Faeit 212:


> Tonight we have another set, with a minor correction (on cover saves), from Whitehat. He seems to have quite a bit of information on 6th edition.
> 
> Please remember that these are rumors. Salt Required.
> 
> Here is a link to the first set from Whitehat.
> http://www.natfka.blogspot.com/2012/06/6th-edition-rules-assault-distances.html
> 
> 
> via Whitehat
> Preferred Enemy: Reroll hits in CC & Shooting AND Rerolls 1 to wound.
> 
> I've checked, Black Templars vow, accept any challenge only gives Preferred Enemy in combat (damn)
> 
> The Pancake rule set is mainly wrong, but there is a lot of stuff that made it into the final product.
> 
> Expect FW to put out a book of there flyers but with added 6th Ed goodness.
> 
> 
> 
> I mistyped the cover saves. Ruins are 4+, the vast majority of stuff is 5+
> 
> I did not mistype WS1 for moving vehicles, they are not WS10 if they moved - flyers might be different; not sure.
> 
> Preferred Enemy change of reroll 1's to wound is in addition to current rules for Preferred Enemy
> 
> Flyers are noted in the BRB changing some of the existing vehicles (Summary sheet in the back)
> 
> Eldar Flyer, Void Raven and Tau I believe are in the same wave.


EDIT: *Updated 13 June 2012 (again)*


> More rumors from Faeit212:
> 
> 
> 
> The AP of close combat weapons has been one of the most discussed new rules rumored to be a part of 6th edition. Even though Darnok says to add lots of salt to this one, the shooting at fast vehicles thing I like. Although I can see how quickly all the Grey Marine players (non-painted) would become Blood Angels.
> 
> 
> 
> Please remember that these are rumors, and as Darnok says for this set, use Heavy amounts of salt.
> 
> via Darnok
> These come from a birdy, but I'd advise on heavy NaCl-usage...
> 
> AP are on ccw but he says power weapons are ap 2, not 3.
> When you charge it's double your move, infantry move 6, bikes 8 cav 7 etc.
> It's move assault then shooting now!
> Fnp is 5+.
> Master crafted ccw give you a 5+ invuln save
> When you shoot you roll to hit depending on the speed of your target. Fast vehicles you always need a 6.
> A unit can't claim a object while inside a vehicle.
> There's new kinds of instance death. If your say strengh 8 vs a space marine captain toughness 4 you only do 2 wounds! Strengh 5 or more would do 3 wounds & kill him.
> In kill point missions you get kill points based on what the units points cost, so for example a landraider would be worth 5 kill points & a unit of marines 3pts.
Click to expand...

EDIT: *Added 14 June 2012*

Even more from Faeit212. Gotta say that I have to seriously tip my hat to whomever runs that blog becase when to rumors they do an excellent job keeping up on them.


> A while back we were looking a 6th edition release date of July 7th, and that seemed to be very consistent through the world of rumors. Then suddenly we had Games Workshop release a video with nothing more than a big date on it. It was pretty obvious that the date was for the release of 6th edition, but what was the date for?
> 
> It was assumed, and seemingly correct that this would be the big announcement date, along with being the first day of pre-orders, then we would have a June 30th release date. However there are some that contend that the 23rd is the actual release date for 6th. The picture above is quite convincing, What you do you think?
> 
> via Ieuan from Sons of Isis
> 23 VI 12 is release date! Well it's got to be right, you wouldn't get one of these (shown on my local stores Facebook page, GW Oxford) just for a pre order date!
> 
> via Commissar Merces
> "Prerelease party on the 23rd, come in and get your WD and have a tournament with an announcement later that day"
> "The real party is going to be on the 30th, the 23rd is just the warm up. But come on in for fun events and there will be a bit announcement that night."
> "We don't know of any sponsored event on the 23rd, only on the 30th."
> 
> via REDEATH
> I heard that digital (iPad) edition of 6th won't be available till September to be released with the starter set. (I guess so they get everyone that buys the hardback in June that owns an iPad will go and buy the digital version too) I also heard that the 6th and all the forthcomming codexes will have a code to purchase a discounted digital version....so if you buy the lets say hard back Chaos Marine Codex for $42 then you can get the digital version at $22
> 
> 
> There are quite a few out there that still say the release date is June 30th. I suppose we will know for sure in a couple days.
> 
> via BramGaunt
> It's the 30th.
> 
> via Darnok
> It's the 30th


EDIT: From Arcane here on the board (non-rumor material trimmed for sake of clarity):


Arcane said:


> 6th edition preview rules (in WD) will be released on the 23rd.
> 
> 
> 
> This is straight from my FLGS owner.
Click to expand...

EDIT: Did some digging around online for new stuff we haven't seen reposted a hundred times and here's what I came across:


> From "Just a Rhino":
> 
> 
> 
> 
> However on her recent journey to Games Workshop World HQ in Overcast Olde England one of our contributors was given a few snipets of inside info about 6th edition one of which was a cryptic:
> 
> "wound allocation was based on percentages."
> 
> 
> 
> From BigRed on BoLS:
> 
> 
> 
> There are 5 Lores:
> 
> Biomancy
> Divination
> Pyromancy
> Telekinetics
> Telepathy
> 
> We've heard each of these Lores has a d6 chart you roll on for powers, and a "default" power you can always choose to take in lieu of rolling. That would add up to 35 powers.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

EDIT: *Added 15 June 1012*


mcmuffin said:


> So, here is something i heard from a little birdy, which i won't name, feel free to burn me at the stake or whatever
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hull points don’t work as rumoured: they are only for front armour 14 vehicles and work like a structure point or a “wound” which can be used to negate any result, even wrecked or explodes. not sure if this is a once per game thing, i suspect so. but no more one shotting land raiders and monoliths with meltaguns
> 
> 
> and pens give +1 to all subsequent damage rolls in that shooting phase, so essentially after a pen all weapons shooting a vehicle become AP1
> 
> rapid fire: double tap up to 24” if stationary. 1 shot at 24 or 2 shots at 12 if moving. Relentless gives and extra shot at each range if stationary as well as the standard bonus.
> 
> power weapons are ap3 but give a 5++ parry save in combat
> 
> Stunned results stack to weapon destroyed, extra armour negates 1 stun per turn, not sure on shaken
> 
> 
> Strength vs toughness chart changed to be like fantasy, so everything can be wounded on a 6.
> 
> there's going to be a bunch of FAQ/erratas when it drops for all codices
> 
> vehicles being hit in combat is auto if stationary, 3+ is going 6", 5+ if going 12", 6+ if going flat out
> 
> though, vehicles going flat out can only be hit on a max of 4+ with shooting, fliers hit on 6+
> 
> Damage results stack so shaken -> stun -> weapon -> immob -> wreck
> 
> 
> 
> Preferred enemy gives re-rolls to hit with shooting and in combat, but not the re-rolling of 1s to wound
> Just something to fill the rumour mill more, i think this is reliable but take with some NaCl
Click to expand...

EDIT: *Added 17 June 2012*
Possible 6th Edition Rulebook Cover:


>


More information will be added as I run across it.


----------



## Sandshreeeew

That whole thing about the Tau doesn't sound right to me tbh :/ hope it's not true. Don't mind the whole allies thing as long as it's not used in tournaments, or there's some restrictions to it.


----------



## spanner94ezekiel

Wow, I think I might need to drown myself in salt for these rumours.
Tau under Astartes protectorate? The SM are the most xenophobic, alien hating bunch in the galaxy. 
Necron/Blood Angel Alliances? Only in Ward's wet dreams...


----------



## Katie Drake

Calling bullshit on the entire thing. This makes no sense, Tasty's just having some fun at our expense.


----------



## Zion

Katie Drake said:


> Calling bullshit on the entire thing. This makes no sense, Tasty's just having some fun at our expense.


Quite possible, but since I have no sources of my own I can't confirm or deny any of this so it's all up in the air right now. I'm sure we'll be seeing something soon to help clear up all of this, but in the mean time we'll be left shifting through increasing numbers of rumors as the new edition gets closer.


----------



## arlins

Had a anhialation barge batter the sh$t out of Mephiston last night .
suppose id better go apologise now were gonna be buddies .......
.............:biggrin:



oh and someone pass the salt


----------



## Obinhi

It seems to me that this is the rantings of a mad man. Hes taken some ideas from previous edditions and throw away fluff ideas and combined them into something that sounds like it could be. 

I feel like the leaks at GW have really been sealed this time around. We only have what? 3 months left, people are bound to start casting runes and reading tea leaves just to feel like they know something.


----------



## SGMAlice

Gorkers and Morkers?! The idea is interesting, different and quite a spin on the entire Fluff world of the Orks. But, as much as it is interesting, i don't particularly care for it to happen. Too much individuality would be lost if all Ork clans were suddenly dissolved into two different 'camps'.

As for the Tau twist: It is in the realms of possibility, if the Emperor did 'Order' this then the Space Marines would do it, no matter how Xenophobic they have become under the influence of the High Lords of Terra. If i recall correctly they are bound to the Emperor's service first and foremost, therefore would NOT disobey a direct decree.
Especially the Ultramarines. GW's poster boys they may be but all throughout their Fluff they have been the most zealous of the chapters in following their 'God Emperor'.

False or not, these would definitely put 40k on a whole new path.

Alice

Edit: Purchase Buildings??! Really?  what is this: DoW?


----------



## Katie Drake

Zion said:


> Quite possible, but since I have no sources of my own I can't confirm or deny any of this so it's all up in the air right now. I'm sure we'll be seeing something soon to help clear up all of this, but in the mean time we'll be left shifting through increasing numbers of rumors as the new edition gets closer.


Oh, I don't mean to say that _you're_ making this up, but I think TastyTaste is. I generally have a good track record on these things, so I'm pretty confident. =) Time will tell, though.


----------



## CattleBruiser

On the off chance that these rumours are true then i'll definitely have a tau/SM/IG army (tau and SM are allies and through SM IG are allied). a giant 50 man blob with 5 heavy weapons and 5 special weapons and markerlight support.

Now back to the realm of possibility, i doubt the building and allies thing will go through.


----------



## Words_of_Truth

All sounds a bit over the top and not particularly in keeping with GW's traditional way of developing things. I like the idea of natural allies (not necrons) tho, mainly because I want to add Khorne Daemons to my World Eaters and actually have them be useful.

The relationship between Tau and Imperium is interesting, as I've always had a speculative idea that Tau where designed by the Old ones to destroy Chaos. I don't find the Ork idea to be very good though, why spend so much time recently building up the Crimson Fists only to have them obliterated, and if the Emperor was to die, to waste his death on Orks would be pretty rubbish.


----------



## Pride365

Wow this sounds just crazy!


----------



## GrizBe

Theres a simple rule to always follow to know if any of this is true or not:

"If its Via Blood of Kittens and from Tasteytaste, Its bullshit."

Seriously... how many times do I have to tell people he IS NOT a reliable rumor monger? His correct rumours he copies off other people (Stickmonkey and Harry to name two) who've posted them days before he has, and everything unique to him has ALWAYS been wrong. I repeat, he has a ZERO PERCENT record for correct rumors that are unique to him.

Since no-one else has made any mention of any of this, its all crap.

I mean seriously, the Emperor dying? Astartes protecting xenos? Anyone who believes this needs smacking upside the head with a power fist.


----------



## Wusword77

I need an entire road salting truck for these rumors.

Buying buildings?
Psy Powers selected during deployment (except Grey Knights)?
Allies in non Apoc games?
STORY ADVANCEMENT?!?!?

I stopped believing (and started chuckling) at Fluff Progression


----------



## mcmuffin

5th ed is so close to having balanced rules, why do they feel the need to ruin a good game? These rumours are horseshit.


----------



## Necrosis

Wusword77 said:


> I need an entire road salting truck for these rumors.
> 
> Buying buildings?
> Psy Powers selected during deployment (except Grey Knights)?
> Allies in non Apoc games?
> STORY ADVANCEMENT?!?!?
> 
> I stopped believing (and started chuckling) at Fluff Progression


I agree 110%. This is just someone trying to gain attention by making stuff up or copying it.


----------



## Akatsuki13

First off I wouldn't consider SM the most xenophobic of the Imperium, that would be the fanatics and zealots of the Ecclesiarchy. Some Space Marines and Chapter are more xenophobic than some but others aren't quite on that level and will work with some aliens against a greater threat. There was a story in the 3ed of the Tau Codex where during one of the early wars between the Imperium and the Tau, an Imperial diplomat and a Captain of the Imperial Fists come to a Tau world to negotiate with the Tau in an effort to stall the Tau long enough for Imperial reinforcements to arrive in conflict. In the story the Captain displays little in the way of direct hatred for the Tau and even appears to develop a bit of respect for the Fire Warriors after watching some of their combat drills. Beyond that there are instances of Space Marines setting aside hatred of one alien race when in the face of a greater threat such as Chaos or the Tyranids. So really a SM's xenophobia depends on the individual, the Chapter and the aliens in question. Don't get me wrong, they don't like aliens but some will tolerate certain aliens in certain circumstances.

Out of all that, the notion of the Emperor finding a race resistant to Chaos and commanding Guilliman to protect them for some future plan against Chaos is intriguing but at the same time seems really out of place. Elements of it does make sense, especially in regards to the Tau. Given the Emperor's experiments and plans to deal with the threat of Chaos I could see him developing an interest in a race with Chaos cannot easily tempt. Added to this there's an old quote from Eldrad Ulthran, one of the greatest Eldar Farseers about that Tau which does add some potential to this notion.



> I have followed the myriad potential futures of the Tau with great interest. Though barely even striplings compared to us, I feel a strange protectiveness towards them. In time I believe they will exceed even our greatest feats and master the darkness within their souls.


If it is true or at least elements of it then we could see a bit of rise in the Tau which wouldn't be a bad thing.

That being said, I just can't see the Ultramarines finding some old text from the Great Crusade indicating that the Emperor commanded the Tau be protected by them and carrying through with it. First off there would be no way to prove the authenticity of such a document. It could be true or could be a hoax created as part of some vile scheme. Second if they went through with it such an act could lead to some serious issues between the Chapter and the rest of the Imperium. Third they would be protecting an alien empire that was actively expanding into the Imperium's space, taking whole worlds and systems from them. I just can't see the Smurfs ignoring that and I don't really see the Tau being told to stop expanding their borders and going through with it.

Also there is one other aspect of it that leaves me wondering about it. We know that 6,000 years ago, during M35 they were a primitive hunter-gather society. So I can't help but wonder would the Tau have even existed as a sentient species back in M31? Don't know maybe an early Neanderthal Tau could have existed back then but I doubt they would have drawn the Emperor's interest.

Ultimately the idea of the Emperor finding a species resistant to the tainting influence of the Warp and commanding them being protected is rather interesting. However this idea of the Smurfs becoming the protectors of the Tau is ridiculous and kind of reminds me of some bad fanfiction.


----------



## MadcapCH

Part of me wants to believe this... the rest of me thinks back to the movie Airplane Returns...

NSFW


----------



## GrizBe

Akatsuki13 said:


> Out of all that, the notion of the Emperor finding a race resistant to Chaos and commanding Guilliman to protect them for some future plan against Chaos is intriguing but at the same time seems really out of place. Elements of it does make sense, especially in regards to the Tau. Given the Emperor's experiments and plans to deal with the threat of Chaos I could see him developing an interest in a race with Chaos cannot easily tempt. Added to this there's an old quote from Eldrad Ulthran, one of the greatest Eldar Farseers about that Tau which does add some potential to this notion.



Thats actually probably one of the biggest flaws with this... As thats exactly why he created the Grey Knights, to have a group resistant to chaos to fight against them. 

@MadcapCH: Nope, thats fine for these forums, we don't mind swearing and such here, and its compeltely appropraite inreguards to this.


Again.. seriously.. Tasteytaste is just some whiney little attention whore crying out for people to take notice of him. As i've pointed out time and time again, he's never been right about anything before, so makes me wonder why the hell people still pay him attention and want to believe him.


----------



## Necrosis

GrizBe said:


> Thats actually probably one of the biggest flaws with this... As thats exactly why he created the Grey Knights, to have a group resistant to chaos to fight against them.
> 
> @MadcapCH: Nope, thats fine for these forums, we don't mind swearing and such here, and its compeltely appropraite inreguards to this.
> 
> 
> Again.. seriously.. Tasteytaste is just some whiney little attention whore crying out for people to take notice of him. As i've pointed out time and time again, he's never been right about anything before, so makes me wonder why the hell people still pay him attention and want to believe him.


Maybe I should start posting fake rumors? Maybe people will start paying attention to me?

Fake Rumors I'm making up:
Armour saves can be taken after cover saves
Cover saves reduce to 5+
Changes to the to hit chart in close combat (you will now be able to hit people on a 2+ to 6+)
If passengers disembark from vehicles that are shaken and stunned they cannot fire as they are still affect by it and thus may not fire.
Vehicle damage table will now have a 7 and 8 (for AP1 and Open top vehicles)
Rules now for fielding allied players and doing 2vs2 games (this does not mean you can field just one ally unit, their are strict rules about it).

Fake Fluff Changes:
Chaos finally manages to break out of Cadia
Tau have quickly expanded but have now entered a civil war due to Commander Farsight

I'll make up some more later.


----------



## bobahoff

I'll believe these when they happen, or maybe i wont, no I wont for the simple reason of balance as soon as the alliance rule happen the back of my table edge is gonna get way more killy. 3 of 3 broadside squad+my BA=mega hurt for all concerned in high points games and my tactical squads all being replaced by fire warriors in the rest


----------



## YaMissed2

all of this reminds me of 2nd edition, the most broken edition ever, so lets prey this is rumor


----------



## DeathKlokk

Why must you stink up our forums with this obvious Bullshit?


----------



## bobahoff

YaMissed2 said:


> all of this reminds me of 2nd edition, the most broken edition ever, so lets prey this is rumor


never played anything but 5th ed, never had a problem with fifth ed, dont know why they are changing the rules personally, I think they should bring all dexes up to speed before re inventing the rules of the game


----------



## Akatsuki13

GrizBe said:


> Thats actually probably one of the biggest flaws with this... As thats exactly why he created the Grey Knights, to have a group resistant to chaos to fight against them.


Actually what he was claiming with was before the Horus Heresy. I highly doubt the Grey Knights were in the Emperor's original plans as they were created in response to the Horus Heresy along with the Inquisition. It's impossible to say the full scope of the Emperor's plans for Chaos had the HH never happened. We know he sought to built a bridge into the Webway so the Imperium would not need to use the Warp to travel and to rid humanity of religion so their worship could not be twisted to feed the Chaos Gods but beyond that we have no idea what he could have been planning beyond that or even the things he had discarded from his plans in favor of other things.

Not that I fully believe in this rumor but I could see some of these elements being used in new fluff.


----------



## Karyudo-DS

bobahoff said:


> never played anything but 5th ed, never had a problem with fifth ed, dont know why they are changing the rules personally, I think they should bring all dexes up to speed before re inventing the rules of the game


Yes, yes you do think that. GW on the other hand thinks the Dark Eldar codex can skip being updated a couple editions. While it makes little sense to reinvent the game when the source martial isn't really up to date yet they have no problem doing it. 

Of course this is all nothing but silly rumor but buying buildings would be nice. Planetstrike was pure made up crap. 

GW: You can place buildings to defend
Us: Great, how did you balance that?
GW *cricket noise*

Well they had the stratagem thing but really nothing balanced out how many barricades and turrets you could have. Stupid to have a game without any real balance. May as well go back to playing with Gi Joes at that point.

Still, again, I'm seeing tons of rumors and claims and nothing to back up any of it on anything, reputable or not so I don't care till I see it.


----------



## gen.ahab

Those rules changes could be cool, and some of the fluff changes are interesting, but I really am not keen on this Tau thing.


----------



## SavageConvoy

I nearly broke my iPod when I was using it to read the rumor and got to the Tau part. Then I realized it's the work of a bad troll using random bits of pieces from rumors. It's things like this that make me stop taking any rumor as credible.


----------



## falcoso

I do like the idea of tau becoming protected by the imperium - the weakest thing sin the universe which lose pretty much every battle to be the answer to the imperium's prayers.
Tbh it is a good idea, just the fluff may not add up

I don't even know about Mork or Gork so can't comment.

I like the 6s save against psykers, its like magic dispell, the other new stuff seems like bullshit.

What they should do is let u have cover and armour (except if u wouldn't normally get armour) cus if u r hiding behind a wall ur armour doesn't disappear, obviously thought to make it fair, if u get both save then the cover save should be high except when the cover save would normally be lower than armour, at which point it remains the same. Or something like that, it actually sounds pretty confusing reading it back but anyway...

I like that alliances are back... BUT Y R NECRONS ALLYING WITH SPACE MARINE, specifically blood angels, so what the rest of the imperium don't like them but blood angels do? and y r necrons allying with the imperium, they should be neutral except aginst old one races at which point they ally with the opposite team


----------



## lockeF

I feel like the building thing could make sense, I mean, it would be a way to get players to buy more crap for their completed armies. Already have a 5k army? Why not buy a bunch of turrets and such to be competitive? When examined through the lens of making more money, it kinda makes sense.

But in all reality, I agree with those that have spoke about not wanting such radical changes; I have really only ever played 5th and have read through 4th rules and quite honestly I think the game runs fine and even most of the dexes work fine when playing with friends. So to do such radical things like pre-measuring (god I hope not) and buildings, I would be highly disappointed. Again, got into it during 5th, can you just like opt out of playing 6th? Thats what I did with DnD when it went from 3.5 to 4 and that worked well.


----------



## Necrosis

falcoso said:


> I do like the idea of tau becoming protected by the imperium - the weakest thing sin the universe which lose pretty much every battle to be the answer to the imperium's prayers.
> Tbh it is a good idea, just the fluff may not add up
> 
> I don't even know about Mork or Gork so can't comment.
> 
> I like the 6s save against psykers, its like magic dispell, the other new stuff seems like bullshit.
> 
> What they should do is let u have cover and armour (except if u wouldn't normally get armour) cus if u r hiding behind a wall ur armour doesn't disappear, obviously thought to make it fair, if u get both save then the cover save should be high except when the cover save would normally be lower than armour, at which point it remains the same. Or something like that, it actually sounds pretty confusing reading it back but anyway...
> 
> I like that alliances are back... BUT Y R NECRONS ALLYING WITH SPACE MARINE, specifically blood angels, so what the rest of the imperium don't like them but blood angels do? and y r necrons allying with the imperium, they should be neutral except aginst old one races at which point they ally with the opposite team


Don't want to be rude but you can full type your words out. Its annoying to read when you don't.


----------



## SavageConvoy

I don't know what to make from the "buying buildings" thing. I think he may just be making an assumption from the 40K approved towers and turrets from FW.


----------



## Zion

DeathKlokk said:


> Why must you stink up our forums with this obvious Bullshit?


I don't follow rumors all that closely after the mess regarding this Sisters with two different sources loudly claiming they were correct. If I stumble upon something and don't see it here, I post it. Otherwise I tend to stay away from the mess rumors have become. Basically I don't keep up with rumors enough anymore to be sure what is right and what is wrong when it comes to these things, especially when past rumors have been contrary to what I think.


----------



## TheKingElessar

The 6++ vs Psychic Powers is hilariously dumb. It just shits in the mouths of Sisters, and pisses on Wolf Tail Talismans. And as for Collars of Khorne...


----------



## Akatsuki13

falcoso: I must disagree with you that the Tau have lost most of their battles. The First, Second and Third Sphere Expansions are filled with Tau victories. In fact the Third Sphere saw the Tau Empire's size increase by 133%. It's just that they haven't been updated since the 4th Edition and typically the big victories are contained in an army's Codex while in others they tend to be on the losing end. Plus unlike the other races, they don't have a personal timeline of battles and significant moments. Which we'll probably seen when they are next updated.

Though I won't deny that if the Imperial gathered a proper crusade to face the Tau that they would eventually wipe them out but it would not be a swift campaign simply because they have been constantly adapting and improving their tactics and technology.


----------



## Fallen

nothing about this interests me in the slightest, even if its fake there is nothing here that makes me go "well, thats interesting at least"


----------



## Adramalech

I like that they're putting psykers in the spotlight, but the projection of their apparent versatility worries me, even with the 6+ save.

I'm also a little put out by the idea of random charge lengths.

I think everyting else is just peachy-keen.

taking this with a teaspoon of salt, though.


----------



## Vanchet

If the Emperor was gonna whack any god I think Gork an Mork are the last on his mind, Be The Chaos Gods or the Hive mind


----------



## Taggerung

Ugh...I hope not, I don't like any of this. The fluff is worse than terrible.


----------



## Helicon One

DeathKlokk said:


> Why must you stink up our forums with this obvious Bullshit?


Yes, I much prefer my bullshit to come in slightly less obvious forms.

Any rumour posting now is totally indistinguishable from wishlisting and should be treated as such.


----------



## GreaterDragon

I'm glad everyone's reaction to this is similar to mine. All of this seems mighty suspicious. And didn't the Ultramarines have a presence on the Damocles Gulf Crusade? Suddenly they change their minds?


----------



## Sworn Radical

Well, I still like 2nd edition ... it actually was quite amusing when you left out special (overpowered) characters and the stupid random missions. We only used to play self-made campaigns, quite similar to today's _planetary empires_. Not sure a backwards twist would 40k any good though ... don't get me wrong, I really like the current edition, but it has several flaws and stupid rules tbh. ... but all the way back ?

As for the so-called _'fluff'_ changes mentioned on page one of this thread ... they just made me violently regurgitate my Sunday morning coffee. Let's just hope they're all complete bullshit ...


----------



## GrizBe

*Sighs* Do I really have to say this again?

*"Everything from BoK and Tasteytaste is complete and utter rubbish. He has a ZERO percent accuracy record."*

Again, as I've said before, THE only times he's gotten anything right are when he has copied known reliable sources. Everything unique to him, like this, has been 100% pure bullshit.

Blood of Kittens and Tasteytaste have zero credability, zero reliability and therefore should be paid zero attention.


----------



## bobahoff

Just conjecturing here but perhaps the alliance thing has merit, not in the obvious way like BoK says but a sort of order vs chaos way that they do in fantasy. Sort of like imperium, tau and eldar versus chaos orks and dark eldar, after all they really need a massive fluff overhaul, there's only so much more they can do in the current millennium perhaps its time to change to warhammer 41000


----------



## Helicon One

bobahoff said:


> Just conjecturing here but perhaps the alliance thing has merit, not in the obvious way like BoK says but a sort of order vs chaos way that they do in fantasy. Sort of like imperium, tau and eldar versus chaos orks and dark eldar, after all they really need a massive fluff overhaul, there's only so much more they can do in the current millennium perhaps its time to change to warhammer 41000


Nothing that involves stripping the 40k background down into "Goodies vs Baddies" has any merit whatsoever.


----------



## GrizBe

Helicon One said:


> Nothing that involves stripping the 40k background down into "Goodies vs Baddies" has any merit whatsoever.


Exactly.... its why the entire universe is 'grimdark' and shades of grey.


----------



## Sethis

These changes turn 40k into Fantasy with regards to rules. Random Charges, Random Psychics, Random Terrain...

So that's a big "bullshit" I'm calling.

Couldn't give a crap about the fluff, but there is no way THE EMPEROR is going to die fighting Gork and Mork. No fucking way. Even Matt Ward isn't retarded enough to write that.

Big pile of bollocks, really.


----------



## Zion

GrizBe said:


> *Sighs* Do I really have to say this again?
> 
> *"Everything from BoK and Tasteytaste is complete and utter rubbish. He has a ZERO percent accuracy record."*
> 
> Again, as I've said before, THE only times he's gotten anything right are when he has copied known reliable sources. Everything unique to him, like this, has been 100% pure bullshit.
> 
> Blood of Kittens and Tasteytaste have zero credability, zero reliability and therefore should be paid zero attention.


Unfortuntately his loud crowing of information that he's gotten elsewhere has apparently lead to his rumors being repeated and places like BoLS and Faeit212 (and likely others) as he's seen as reputable. I shared it because I wasn't aware of his parroting (as I'm sure others weren't) which leads me to think that a lot of people aren't aware of this.

Either way the rumors weren't all bad sounding, even if the rest were bollocks. Being able to choose powers right before deployment would have been a good way for psykers to get more mileage in tournaments. Either way with the prediction of July being the release of 6th edition it shouldn't be too much longer for us to wait to see what we're really getting.


----------



## GrizBe

Makes me wonder how many people actually bother to read rumors properly, or even do a little research to check them out.... Afterall, It took me all of 5 minutes when he first started comming out with stuff, back with Grey Knights, to see that he'd copied everything he'd said from other... and as for his 'big exclusive reveals'... everything about them was wrong. 

Its a pattern thats repeated over and over... He claims a bunch of exclusive 'wow look at me!' type rumors like this... then people give him credit as he sticks in a bunch of stuff from know reliable guys that he's reworded a little to give his bullshit some credit.... then call him reliable for being a parrot. 

Yes i know its the internet, and you'll always get idiots etc on it... but it just pisses me off that a guy with no credability gets so much praise when its soo easy to sow how he's been wrong time and time again.



edit: To make a point. His '2012 release schedual' rumors he claimed were 100% accurate back in January... he said we'd have Dark Angels in April and Chaos in May.... he made no mention of a Necron second wave which everyone else had ppointed out as far back as November.

I'll also point out he knows crap about teh game or the hobby... In his articles he's posted he's called the new paints total crap for not having the old colours, when as everyone knows, they're much better then the old ones... and he's called necron scarabs 'usless as they're a swarm', when every necron list has a full block of them as they're an auto-include...


Edit 2: I'll also point out his 100% accurate Necron rumors included the 'Necromancer' which doesn't exist... Wave 1 Wraiths and Spiders, a '100% confirmed SC 'The Enfleshed' who will make flayed ones troops', C'tann shards being done away with completely, Pariahs still being in, and 'Wraith Lord' character thats 100% confirmed.

Anyone see any of those things anywhere?


----------



## Vhalyar

GrizBe said:


> Edit 2: I'll also point out his 100% accurate Necron rumors included the 'Necromancer' which doesn't exist... Wave 1 Wraiths and Spiders, a '100% confirmed SC 'The Enfleshed' who will make flayed ones troops', C'tann shards being done away with completely, Pariahs still being in, and 'Wraith Lord' character thats 100% confirmed.
> 
> Anyone see any of those things anywhere?


You need to calm down somewhat, because you're looking a bit silly and not making a very credible point. I went back to check where this necromancer & co crap came from, and it's not actually from BoK 

Here's the relevant article.

He says "Or follow the thread over on Heresy-Online here for any updates" and there's where the Necromancer is from, along with the rest of the silly things that never came to pass (which are originally from Warseer and in particular ghost; who recently got ousted from the forums for inventing fake rumors). He didn't endorse them, he didn't write them, he never said these were true. He said "hey these guys have a huge rumor compilation, go look at it".

So yeah, you've already made your feeling pretty clear multiple times. Let people read what they want to read and discuss what they want to discuss.


----------



## DeathKlokk

The Allies thing may be because Apocalypse is getting folded into the core rulebook similar to the "Legendary Battles" (?) rules in the WHFB book. I could see that since a lot of their recent Apoc stuff has had "safe for regular 40K games" labels in it. 

I could see a lot of this being semi-true but it's been filtered through so many people it's unrecognizable as what's actually in the rules. I'm speaking of the rules parts, the fluff part is utter rubbish that some 8 year-old made up.


----------



## GrizBe

Vhalyar said:


> You need to calm down somewhat, because you're looking a bit silly and not making a very credible point. I went back to check where this necromancer & co crap came from, and it's not actually from BoK
> 
> Here's the relevant article.


Which, if you'll read... The compilation sites BoK as its source... as noted further down with his 'previous necron rumors' links that all link back to his own site.

Also, the first big rumor on that link if you'll note is his 'The entire army gets a shooting attack that kills all units that are the same as the one attacked' rumor... which was wrong.... when other were already acrediting that to Trayzn's Close Combat Empathic Oblitarator.


----------



## Vhalyar

GrizBe said:


> Which, if you'll read... The compilation sites BoK as its source... as noted further down with his 'previous necron rumors' links that all link back to his own site.
> 
> 
> 
> Also, the first big rumor on that link if you'll note is his 'The entire army gets a shooting attack that kills all units that are the same as the one attacked' rumor... which was wrong.... when other were already acrediting that to Trayzn's Close Combat Empathic Oblitarator.


The compilation here at heresy had rumors from a large number of sources, all jumbled up together. I guess we can attribute them to Harry too then and call him a liar?

And right under that first explanations there's a second one that's more sensible. He's giving two explanations but you only cared to cite the first one. And he never said the entire army gets a shooting attack with that effect.

The article is right there and you can't even be arsed to read it right, or you're just half-quoting on purpose. Every time I look one one of these so-called errors on his part I see the opposite.

C'tan shards are out? He said, when criticizing the compilation here:



> The C’Tan aren’t out of the codex and Immortals aren’t troops because of a Lord… they just are.


This is hopeless. I'm filing everything you say as mostly incoherent ravings :laugh:


----------



## GrizBe

As I pointed out... the rumors I mentioned as being wrong ORGIONATED with BoK. 

Yakfaces correct interpritation is edited in at a later date, and completely different to the 'accurate' rumor as given by BoK.

Also, I point out many times, BoK has copied his correct rumors from Harry, days after Harry has already posted them.


Seriously, if your gonna critises someone, learn to read. I'm just pointing out in one instance with the Necrons as an example how BoK has taken credit for others work, and how everything he's started himself as being true and correct has been wrong.

Your 'C'tan aren't out of the codex' Comes weeks after his inital 'they're gone completely claim', and days after reliable people have already pointed out they work now as their new shard forms.


----------



## TheKingElessar

Zion said:


> Either way the rumors weren't all bad sounding, even if the rest were bollocks. Being able to choose powers right before deployment would have been a good way for psykers to get more mileage in tournaments. Either way with the prediction of July being the release of 6th edition it shouldn't be too much longer for us to wait to see what we're really getting.


Pffft. Psykers have PLENTY of versatility and utility already. Wolves take Rune Priests all the time. Librarians are the only good generic BA HQ. Librarians feature pretty commonly for SMs and GKs too, who are ALL psychic ofc. Farseers are commonplace. Most of the better Nid MCs are Psykers. It's DE, Orks, BTs (of course!) DA and again, obviously, Tau who don't use them - even IG have Psyker Battle Squads. [Do Sisters still count as an army?]


----------



## Firewolf

>> Apparantly, according to sources, minis will come with square bases, and will fight in ranks, replacing the skirmish feel of current edition. And Abbadon is gonna have a horsey type mount. Also, the Squats are coming back, and they will be called Squats. Also heard Primarchs are making a come back, now that would rock!!!!


----------



## Adramalech

Firewolf said:


> >> Apparantly, according to sources, minis will come with square bases, and will fight in ranks, replacing the skirmish feel of current edition. And Abbadon is gonna have a horsey type mount. Also, the Squats are coming back, and they will be called Squats. Also heard Primarchs are making a come back, now that would rock!!!!


Due, in part, to my post-sleep stupor:


----------



## Necrosis

Adramalech said:


> Due, in part, to my post-sleep stupor:


Let me clear it up for you, he is trolling.
Unless... your trolling me with that message.


----------



## SGMAlice

GrizBe said:


> As I pointed out... the rumors I mentioned as being wrong ORGIONATED with BoK.
> 
> Yakfaces correct interpritation is edited in at a later date, and completely different to the 'accurate' rumor as given by BoK.
> 
> Also, I point out many times, BoK has copied his correct rumors from Harry, days after Harry has already posted them.
> 
> 
> Seriously, if your gonna critises someone, learn to read. I'm just pointing out in one instance with the Necrons as an example how BoK has taken credit for others work, and how everything he's started himself as being true and correct has been wrong.
> 
> Your 'C'tan aren't out of the codex' Comes weeks after his inital 'they're gone completely claim', and days after reliable people have already pointed out they work now as their new shard forms.


Just out of interest:

What are you going to Do/Say if this all turns out to be on the mark?

Going by experience with this... 'Rumour Monger' is all good and well but you have made your point. Repeating it seems a tad... silly.

Alice


----------



## GrizBe

SGMAlice said:


> Just out of interest:
> 
> What are you going to Do/Say if this all turns out to be on the mark?
> 
> Going by experience with this... 'Rumour Monger' is all good and well but you have made your point. Repeating it seems a tad... silly.
> 
> Alice


Well as i've said, he's got zero credability for me for the reasons I've given. If it does turn out to be true... well, i'll eat the forum server. Given his record though, we can hold the silicon sauce for a while...

I just get annoyed with human stupid and people taking and giving credit where none is due.


----------



## Tawa

spanner94ezekiel said:


> Wow, I think I might need to drown myself in salt for these rumours.
> Tau under Astartes protectorate? The SM are the most xenophobic, alien hating bunch in the galaxy.
> Necron/Blood Angel Alliances? Only in Ward's wet dreams...


Turns out the Emperor was an Ethereal all along.....
True story.
:laugh:


----------



## turel2

GrizBe said:


> Well as i've said, he's got zero credability for me for the reasons I've given. If it does turn out to be true... well, i'll eat the forum server.


Please don't eat the server, it will piss Jezlad off loads .


----------



## Diatribe1974

I honestly wouldn't be surprised if GW was floating out some wild shit to people to judge their reactions. If enough negative responses? They remove it. Most positive? It gets moved on to the next area on their list. Rinse and repeat for everything they're thinking about.


----------



## Zion

TheKingElessar said:


> Pffft. Psykers have PLENTY of versatility and utility already. Wolves take Rune Priests all the time. Librarians are the only good generic BA HQ. Librarians feature pretty commonly for SMs and GKs too, who are ALL psychic ofc. Farseers are commonplace. Most of the better Nid MCs are Psykers. It's DE, Orks, BTs (of course!) DA and again, obviously, Tau who don't use them - even IG have Psyker Battle Squads. [Do Sisters still count as an army?]


Being able to switch powers makes them MORE versatile. So of course a 6+ save vs offensive couldn't hurt the if this became true. I was just thinking the ability to say, take Blood Lance when facing a Mech army at will wouldn't be a bad thing for psykers.

And Sisters count as an army as much as anyone else does. Quit trolling.


----------



## TheKingElessar

Zion said:


> Being able to switch powers makes them MORE versatile. So of course a 6+ save vs offensive couldn't hurt the if this became true. I was just thinking the ability to say, take Blood Lance when facing a Mech army at will wouldn't be a bad thing for psykers.
> 
> And Sisters count as an army as much as anyone else does. Quit trolling.


I just wondered if you'd bite that. 
Psykers are already generally more powerful than other types of HQ, they don't need any boosts.
Having more versatility just makes the game more easy mode - like taking Lore of Metal against WoC in WFB7e.

I can categorically state, despite having no proof, that they won't undo in 40k something they only just repaired in WFB.


----------



## Majere613

Regarding the Marines/Tau thing.
I'm currently getting ready for a doubles event at GW, and there is a PDF handout which contains the rules for it:
http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m2290501a_40K_Doubles_Pack_June_2012.pdf

Now, near the end of this is a big coloured matrix showing who can ally with who, and how much they trust each other. There are a few suprises, like the Sisters of Battle not trusting any of the Marine chapters- even the Templars who you'd think they agree with on a lot of points. But here's the kicker: The box for Marines and Tau is 'Brothers in Arms', the strongest level of trust. At the time I thought it was a misprint. Now...

I'm not saying I like the idea, but this seems to back it up.


----------



## redmapa

I still think that tyranids not having allies is totally unbalanced, genestealer cults are the perfect excuse for tyranids to have IG or even orks as allies..


----------



## Necrosis

Majere613 said:


> Regarding the Marines/Tau thing.
> I'm currently getting ready for a doubles event at GW, and there is a PDF handout which contains the rules for it:
> http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m2290501a_40K_Doubles_Pack_June_2012.pdf
> 
> Now, near the end of this is a big coloured matrix showing who can ally with who, and how much they trust each other. There are a few suprises, like the Sisters of Battle not trusting any of the Marine chapters- even the Templars who you'd think they agree with on a lot of points. But here's the kicker: The box for Marines and Tau is 'Brothers in Arms', the strongest level of trust. At the time I thought it was a misprint. Now...
> 
> I'm not saying I like the idea, but this seems to back it up.


Why do the sisters and black templars not get along, I mean come on, they both hate psykers and regard the Emperor in a high regard. Wow is this chart mesh up.


----------



## Akatsuki13

Actually from what I've read Orks can somehow tell if another Ork has been infected by genestealer and will actually kill them rather quickly than let them spread. So Orks and Tyranids wouldn't happen in all likelihood. Tyranid alliances period wouldn't work just because of their nature. They consume anything and everything in sight. To ally with another race requires that both sides be able to reason to some degree as well as the ability to communicate, something the 'Nids can't really do.

As to the Tau being brothers in arms with Space Marines (at least the Chapters that don't have an individual Codex) is a little odd. I know some SM commanders that have faced the Tau in battle have developed some respect for the Tau and their ways of war but it's still a little strange to see them having the highest level of alliance. Though I can see SM commanders seeing the Tau as more preferable ally than the Eldar who have a long and sorted history of deception and manipulation. Maybe that played a role in GW's decision. Or maybe we're going to see something big develop in the Eastern Fringe in either next edition or the next Tau Codex, which ever comes out first.

We'll just have to wait and see.


----------



## TheKingElessar

Necrosis said:


> Why do the sisters and black templars not get along, I mean come on, they both hate psykers and regard the Emperor in a high regard. Wow is this chart mesh up.


I would *guess* that because the Sisters are a branch of the Ecclesiarchy, they are despised by the Templars, who do not regard the Emperor as divine the way the Ecclesiarchs claim - like most Space Marine Chapters. Pinnacle of Mankind, not Diety afterall.

There is a fluff justification for distrust and reluctance...Especially if (I don't recall) the BTs were one of the Chapters caught up in the Age of Apostasy's battles against the Sisters of the time. [Even if Alicia Dominica ended said problem personally...]


----------



## Necrosis

TheKingElessar said:


> I would *guess* that because the Sisters are a branch of the Ecclesiarchy, they are despised by the Templars, who do not regard the Emperor as divine the way the Ecclesiarchs claim - like most Space Marine Chapters. Pinnacle of Mankind, not Diety afterall.
> 
> There is a fluff justification for distrust and reluctance...Especially if (I don't recall) the BTs were one of the Chapters caught up in the Age of Apostasy's battles against the Sisters of the time. [Even if Alicia Dominica ended said problem personally...]


That would be a fine explanation if other space marines were in the same category, I mean space wolves are far worse in the sisters of battle point of view but according to ally matrix, sisters get along better with space wolves then Black Templar. Also Black Templar's hold the Emperor in a Higher Regard then most space marine chapters. 

As fluff justification, the sisters fought the space wolves after they slaughter a bunch of Ecclesiarchy personal while when the sisters fought the Black Templar, the Black Templar had the were of one of the greatest saints.

This is just something that one person just wrote and slap together without giving it much thought (not to mention makes the game even more unbalance then it is). Also how space marines and tau brothers in arms? Space marines lead a crusade against them.


----------



## TheKingElessar

I'm with you completely, was just postulating. *Shrug*


----------



## Fallen

Majere613 said:


> I'm currently getting ready for a doubles event at GW, and there is a PDF handout which contains the rules for it:
> http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m2290501a_40K_Doubles_Pack_June_2012.pdf


where did you find this on their site?


----------



## Necrosis

TheKingElessar said:


> I'm with you completely, was just postulating. *Shrug*


And today I learned a new word!


----------



## Adramalech

Necrosis said:


> Let me clear it up for you, he is trolling.
> Unless... your trolling me with that message.


I was honestly confused. I didn't think "trolling" was the best word for what he was doing at the time I posted my response, but I hadn't had my breakfast or my tea yet, so I was feeling rather--"lazy," I think, is the term I'm looking for--and didn't feel like using a meme generator to replace "trolling" with "sarcasm."


----------



## LordOfAbsolution

To be Honest I reckon that if the Sister's weren't so tied into the Ecclesiarchy, then the sister's would be running along side the Black Templars holding hand and screaming shit about the Emperor (I for one as a BT player would love to see a Crusader squad made of Initiates, Neophytes and Sisters.)

But as for Ultramarines being the best buds and ...protectors? of the Tau I have to claim big bull on that, Imperial fists maybe? the Imperial Firsts were one of the first chapters to talk to the Tau and they got along fine, filthy Xeno scum but they were fine. I'm pretty sure it was an Ultramarine who sparked up the Tau against the Imperium wasn't it? so even if they Pretty boys walked up to the Tau, arms open saying sorry and wanting hugs I think the 'Greater Good' will shoot them in the face with a point-blank Rail cannon...


----------



## Majere613

Fallen said:


> where did you find this on their site?


It's quite well buried, and is probably only accessible via the UK version of the site. You start at the Community and Events link from the links just under the main navbar, from there go to the Events Calendar, then to Doubles Weekends. The download link is then on that page taken from '40k Doubles Weekend June'.

Annoyingly, looks like I'm now going to the September one which means the force I'm working on will be all wrong. Bah.


----------



## TheKingElessar

Necrosis said:


> And today I learned a new word!


----------



## falcoso

Akatsuki13 said:


> falcoso: I must disagree with you that the Tau have lost most of their battles. The First, Second and Third Sphere Expansions are filled with Tau victories. In fact the Third Sphere saw the Tau Empire's size increase by 133%. It's just that they haven't been updated since the 4th Edition and typically the big victories are contained in an army's Codex while in others they tend to be on the losing end. Plus unlike the other races, they don't have a personal timeline of battles and significant moments. Which we'll probably seen when they are next updated.
> 
> Though I won't deny that if the Imperial gathered a proper crusade to face the Tau that they would eventually wipe them out but it would not be a swift campaign simply because they have been constantly adapting and improving their tactics and technology.


No yeah sorry I meant when playing actual games, the ones I've seen the Tau have lost (however they have been played by someone who doesn't really understand half the rules properly)


----------



## falcoso

Necrosis said:


> Don't want to be rude but you can full type your words out. Its annoying to read when you don't.


Sorry about that


----------



## falcoso

Can someone explain what those colours meant, I mean I understand the order of trust, but would that effect the game in the tournament, or they can ally just as long as its not grey? If so then why not just have 'ally', 'not ally', and 'dunno figure it out for ur self just have a suitable amount of fluff to back it up'

And since when would necrons ally with orks? We're far to snobby to fight with such common rabble, and they are the spawn of the Old ones - our sworn enemy (albeit a dead one but still)

Sorry about the several posts, I was just doing it as I was reading through it so I didn't forget...


----------



## Majere613

falcoso said:


> Can someone explain what those colours meant, I mean I understand the order of trust, but would that effect the game in the tournament, or they can ally just as long as its not grey? If so then why not just have 'ally', 'not ally', and 'dunno figure it out for ur self just have a suitable amount of fluff to back it up'
> 
> And since when would necrons ally with orks? We're far to snobby to fight with such common rabble, and they are the spawn of the Old ones - our sworn enemy (albeit a dead one but still)
> 
> Sorry about the several posts, I was just doing it as I was reading through it so I didn't forget...


It's a hand-out for a team event, so the rules for allies in the event are listed earlier in the document. Basically if you're 'Brothers In Arms' you get a bonus ability to hand out to one squad in each force, whereas at the other end of the scale there's a chance a squad will get Pinned because they don't trust their alleged 'allies'. 
As I said though, the main reason I linked it was that it's an official GW event, and the Tau-Marine relationship seems to chime with the 6th ed rumour, so let's not get too far off-topic lest we get Dethklokked...


----------



## Karyudo-DS

Majere613 said:


> As I said though, the main reason I linked it was that it's an official GW event, and the Tau-Marine relationship seems to chime with the 6th ed rumour, so let's not get too far off-topic lest we get Dethklokked...


Or the rumor was about the event specifically. I kind of wonder why the event would need a handout if the rule was in the edition...unless to act as a preview.


----------



## Firewolf

Adramalech said:


> Due, in part, to my post-sleep stupor:


>> Trolloing, perhaps. Stupid, most def not. This tread is full of so much shite, I didnae think a little more would make a difference. Fucking Marines protecting a xenos race, seriously?? I know you didnae post that, so not a go at you. But the more I read in this thread, the more I feel like Im reading about Fantasy. If i upset or offended you then Im sorry, but a man can only stomach so much crap.k:


----------



## Firewolf

Adramalech said:


> I was honestly confused. I didn't think "trolling" was the best word for what he was doing at the time I posted my response, but I hadn't had my breakfast or my tea yet, so I was feeling rather--"lazy," I think, is the term I'm looking for--and didn't feel like using a meme generator to replace "trolling" with "sarcasm."


>> sorry about double post, but yeah mate, I was being sarccy.:victory:


----------



## falcoso

just out of curiosity, where did read that 40k was getting square bases? Cus I highly doubt it given that pretty much every other rumour on this thread seems to be pointing to towards 40k just becoming fantasy with new fluff


----------



## khrone forever

that was a troll my friend


----------



## Firewolf

falcoso said:


> just out of curiosity, where did read that 40k was getting square bases? Cus I highly doubt it given that pretty much every other rumour on this thread seems to be pointing to towards 40k just becoming fantasy with new fluff


>> I was being sarcastic mate. as I said earlier, a little more shite in a thread full of shite isnae gan tae make a difference.:wink:


----------



## Akatsuki13

LordOfAbsolution said:


> But as for Ultramarines being the best buds and ...protectors? of the Tau I have to claim big bull on that, Imperial fists maybe? the Imperial Firsts were one of the first chapters to talk to the Tau and they got along fine, filthy Xeno scum but they were fine. I'm pretty sure it was an Ultramarine who sparked up the Tau against the Imperium wasn't it? so even if they Pretty boys walked up to the Tau, arms open saying sorry and wanting hugs I think the 'Greater Good' will shoot them in the face with a point-blank Rail cannon...


Well at least one Captain of the Imperial Fists has some respect for the Fire Caste and how they wage war. Though that does not indicate the feelings of the Chapter as a whole. It's the same with the Ultramarines. For example, Captain Sicarius of the Second Company of the Ultramarines led the Zeist Campaign against the Tau to reclaim worlds taken by their expansion and what to push further into the Empire but couldn't get the approval for it from his Chapter Master and the Administratum. While in another battle between the Ultramarines, led by Chapter Master Calgar and the Tau saw the two forces ally when it was discovered that the planet they were fighting on was a Necron Tomb World. Together they drove back the Necrons and Calgar allowed the Tau to evacuate before he declared an Exterminatus
on the planet.

As I said before, it all depends on the SM commander, the Chapter and the situation. Of course the nature of the Tau and their beliefs do help in this matter. They do not have the sorted history with them as they do the Eldar. That could be why the SM seem generally hold them in a higher regard than other xenos. The Eldar will just as likely screw you over in the middle of a battle for their own enigmatic reasons while the Tau will typically honor such an alliance until the immediate threat is dealt with.



falcoso said:


> No yeah sorry I meant when playing actual games, the ones I've seen the Tau have lost (however they have been played by someone who doesn't really understand half the rules properly)


Yeah you should never compare how person plays as how their army actually is. We all win and lose games just as every 40k army wins and loses battles.


----------



## Adramalech

Firewolf said:


> >> sorry about double post, but yeah mate, I was being sarccy.:victory:


lol You really shouldn't apologize. Especially when I'm the one who was all like "It's too early in the morning for effective communication, blah."


----------



## Adramalech

Firewolf said:


> >> Trolloing, perhaps. Stupid, most def not. This tread is full of so much shite, I didnae think a little more would make a difference. Fucking Marines protecting a xenos race, seriously?? I know you didnae post that, so not a go at you. But the more I read in this thread, the more I feel like Im reading about Fantasy. If i upset or offended you then Im sorry, but a man can only stomach so much crap.k:


Never was I offended.

But, that meme I posted just doesn't do you any justice. Sorry about that...


----------



## BalancedDiet

...Interesting

I think I'll just wait and see.


----------



## misfratz

SGMAlice said:


> Gorkers and Morkers?! The idea is interesting, different and quite a spin on the entire Fluff world of the Orks. But, as much as it is interesting, i don't particularly care for it to happen. Too much individuality would be lost if all Ork clans were suddenly dissolved into two different 'camps'.


One of the problems I had with GorkaMorka was that I could never tell the difference between Gorkers and Morkers. I'd reckon most Orks would struggle too.

At least with the clans there's a strong colour tie to help you along (Black = Goffs, Red = Evil Sunz, Blue = Deathskullz, Yellow = Bad Moons and Brown = Snakebites). Obviously, all Orks are green, but the absence of purple and orange clan colours has often puzzled Imperial xenobiologists...


----------



## misfratz

redmapa said:


> I still think that tyranids not having allies is totally unbalanced, genestealer cults are the perfect excuse for tyranids to have IG or even orks as allies..


I wouldn't have said that it was unbalanced, but it's certainly unimaginative.


----------



## Zer0

I think the fluff is utter shite. If they're going to shift the story forwards I'd like to think it'd be done incrementally. For instance, an Ork empire scores a major victory against a well known Imperial stronghold, another Black Crusade, etc. 
As for the rules, I like the idea of buying terrain for the army, but that's just because I like terrain and I think (unless they release a bunch of kits) it would leave room for some cool custom works.
And the allies? It depends on how they pull it off but I think it could be awesome. It'd be the perfect excuse to dabble in another army's range without making a full commitment. I think the best way to implement this would be a tiered system. Not a rumor, but I think the levels should be 1.) Natural allies, 2.) Allies of convenience (X+) and 3.) Natural enemies. 1. would be you can throw units from a certain codex into your army without penalty (probably restrict them by points, FOC ratio, etc). Eg. Ultramarines and Guard . 3. Would mean you could never use units from these codices together like Necrons and Eldar. 2. Would work like that old Apocalypse Grey Knights formation where, after the GKs performed their mission, the enemy got to control them. You could use this to prevent some abusive combos because you'd have to think that, on a roll or X+ depending on the combination, you'd have to fight your own allies.

Not a rumor, just how I think it could be pulled off.


----------



## Firewolf

Adramalech said:


> Never was I offended.
> 
> But, that meme I posted just doesn't do you any justice. Sorry about that...


>> Tis all good my man, all good. Im a bit "crappy" if I dont get my coffee in the morning.:laugh:


----------



## falcoso

Firewolf said:


> >> I was being sarcastic mate. as I said earlier, a little more shite in a thread full of shite isnae gan tae make a difference.:wink:


Yeah I figured it was a load of crap but as the meme said, i couldn't tell if u were trolling or plain stupid and belieed someone elses troll (no offense btw)

Also I just read on the chaos rumours thingy about Khorne possibly having phsycic resistance - maybe the whole psyker having a save isn't that far from the truth


----------



## TheKingElessar

misfratz said:


> At least with the clans there's a strong colour tie to help you along (Black = Goffs, Red = Evil Sunz, Blue = Deathskullz, Yellow = Bad Moons and Brown = Snakebites). Obviously, all Orks are green, but the absence of purple and orange clan colours has often puzzled Imperial xenobiologists...


Purple is the colour of Madboyz, and Orange of Brewboyz.


----------



## Sephyr

I don't really believe the fluff changes here. I think at this point GW may well be leaking false info just for kicks. 

However, I almost wish it was true just to witness the colossal mental bluescreen across the hobby. It would be epic. Oh, to read the posts of Black Tempars suddenly made to babysit the xenos communists....


----------



## bitsandkits

Sephyr said:


> I don't really believe the fluff changes here. I think at this point GW may well be leaking false info just for kicks.
> 
> However, I almost wish it was true just to witness the colossal mental bluescreen across the hobby. It would be epic. Oh, to read the posts of Black Tempars suddenly made to babysit the xenos communists....


whats more likely GW leaking false info to through people off the scent or people making up stuff because GW have sewn up the rumour mill in house so much that an entire month of lord of the rings landed and nobody knew anything about it?


----------



## nevynxxx

How does that quote go again? "Never attribute to malice, what can just as easily be attributed to stupidity."


----------



## Zion

bitsandkits said:


> whats more likely GW leaking false info to through people off the scent or people making up stuff because GW have sewn up the rumour mill in house so much that an entire month of lord of the rings landed and nobody knew anything about it?


I ran across a post recently in a blog from someone who said they knew someone who had some sources and apparently there is information flying all over the place that contradicts other bits of information. It seems GW is handling the rumor control by flooding everyone with conflicting information to keep people from being able to spread anything reliable. Which would mean that there is a kernel of truth in there somewhere (in theory at least) but which kernel it is will remain a mystery.

On the other hand I did see another comment that the rumors don't line up because most of them are being based on guesswork centered around the model lines rather than the actual codices.

Both could be true, but either one could explain why we're seeing so many conflicting, and frankly confusing rumors.


----------



## bobahoff

bitsandkits said:


> whats more likely GW leaking false info to through people off the scent or people making up stuff because GW have sewn up the rumour mill in house so much that an entire month of lord of the rings landed and nobody knew anything about it?


or perhaps no one leaking anything, just people mis reading their tarot cards again


----------



## Zion

bobahoff said:


> or perhaps no one leaking anything, just people mis reading their tarot cards again


Well there's the problem. They obviously should have been using the Emperor's Tarot instead.


----------



## Firewolf

falcoso said:


> Yeah I figured it was a load of crap but as the meme said, i couldn't tell if u were trolling or plain stupid and belieed someone elses troll (no offense btw)
> 
> Also I just read on the chaos rumours thingy about Khorne possibly having phsycic resistance - maybe the whole psyker having a save isn't that far from the truth


>> No offense taken. Khorne has always had a bit of psychic resistance though.


----------



## Necrosis

This source isn't reliable but I heard that GW might bring back the movement stat (via FAQ). Take this with a large grain of salt.


----------



## GrizBe

I'd doubt that... they removed the movement stat for streamlining and balence purposes. I really doubt they'd put it back in and have all armies moving at different rates again.


----------



## Necrosis

GrizBe said:


> I'd doubt that... they removed the movement stat for streamlining and balence purposes. I really doubt they'd put it back in and have all armies moving at different rates again.


The reason he said for it, is cause the want to replicate the success that they have had with fantasy (he also talk about psychic lore, random charge range and percentage army).


----------



## GrizBe

I doubt all the 'change to fantasy style' too. Yes, some of it makes sense, but alot of it would require far too much to be rewritten, or needing of people having to have a stack of print outs to play their armies properly.


----------



## Adramalech

Zion said:


> I ran across a post recently in a blog from someone who said they knew someone who had some sources and apparently there is information flying all over the place that contradicts other bits of information. It seems GW is handling the rumor control by flooding everyone with conflicting information to keep people from being able to spread anything reliable. Which would mean that there is a kernel of truth in there somewhere (in theory at least) but which kernel it is will remain a mystery.
> 
> On the other hand I did see another comment that the rumors don't line up because most of them are being based on guesswork centered around the model lines rather than the actual codices.
> 
> Both could be true, but either one could explain why we're seeing so many conflicting, and frankly confusing rumors.


It'd be exceedingly nice if we had a rumors R&D team to study design philosophy and model trends and keep tabs on the credibility and ravings of rumor mongers, and develop a logical set of possibilities for release schedules, rules changes, new models, etc.

then we could rate the viability of any given rumor on a grading scale, and avoid confusion like we're having now.


----------



## Necrosis

GrizBe said:


> I doubt all the 'change to fantasy style' too. Yes, some of it makes sense, but alot of it would require far too much to be rewritten, or needing of people having to have a stack of print outs to play their armies properly.


Well do note that in fantasy the rules change a lot and gw was releasing FAQs that were over 5 pages long (for each army).


----------



## GrizBe

Necrosis said:


> Well do note that in fantasy the rules change a lot and gw was releasing FAQs that were over 5 pages long (for each army).


Thats kinda my point... they'd have to FAQ EVERY 40k army, even the ones with the relatively new codexs for all the rule changes. 

With Fantasy, the FAQ's were generally just clarifications or omissions, not complete rewrites.


----------



## Marius_Ruberu

I like the ally idea but thats about it. Although rumor, if this all does happen, ie Crimson Fists getting killed off, and Orks dropping to only two clans, I see most of my cutting GW out for good, and stop playing and buying. Half my friends play the Fists and a couple of them have Orks.


----------



## GrizBe

Thats one reason I completely disbelieve these rumors... The Crimson Fists getting killed off. They've been an icon of GW since the Rouge Trader days, killing them off would piss off too many people, including those that work for them.


----------



## TheKingElessar

Crimson Fists have even been poster-boys, appearing on RT front cover, and one of the more recent Marine Codexes too.

Not a chance they will write them out.

I heard a rumour that Nids were the first Codex written for 6th - but even if we assume that's true, and infantry vs vehicles will be better balanced, look at the 3 Codexes since Nids - DE, GKs, Necrons...they all have MORE than enough anti-infantry to deal with most of what Nids can muster...


----------



## Zetronus

Wow after 12 pages of reading I have come away with the following info -

I have no choice but to buy another damn'ed rule book in two months time! considering I only got my 5th ed TODAY!

....sigh.... 



Helicon One said:


> Nothing that involves stripping the 40k background down into "Goodies vs Baddies" has any merit whatsoever.





GrizBe said:


> Exactly.... its why the entire universe is 'grimdark' and shades of grey.


Indeed... its not about good v's evil... its about power... who has it, who wants it and who weilds it!


----------



## Zion

Zetronus said:


> Wow after 12 pages of reading I have come away with the following info -
> 
> I have no choice but to buy another damn'ed rule book in two months time! considering I only got my 5th ed TODAY!
> 
> ....sigh....



It's a sad fact with this game that sometimes you'll invest in something but have to turn around an invest in another. It happened to me with Warhammer Fantasy when it changed over from 7th Edition to 8th Edition.


----------



## deathwatch27

The two ork factions (gorks and morks) are the two tribes from the old Gorkamorka game that GW released a good few years ago, and why would they ignore all the fluff about all the different groups with their own unique models. Less clans means less models sold.
Necrons allies with blood angels.. Bollox! how and why would this happen?


----------



## GrizBe

Okay.. gonna go over the 'New Rumors' from BoK and Tastey *eyerolls*



> The Chaos Space Marine codex is the only 40k codex for this year. It is not going to be divided into two codexes or anything special. This is not the return 3.5 codex everyone has been wanting this is more a clean up than anything else. - Pure fan-boy wishlisting. Will never happen.
> 
> Troops choices will be Chaos Space Marines and Cultists well duh...
> All Cult Marines are Elites Plausible
> No new Special Characters Unlikely, every codex released in the last few years has added new characters.
> Special Characters will unlock Cult Marines as troops (Kharn for Berserkers and so on) Plausible given the likes of Crowe and Dragio for GK's.
> Typhus makes Cultists into Zombies Dah fuk?
> Chaos Dreadnaught is removed and replaced with a new unit (like how pariahs were replaced with Lychguard) Utter bullshit. Chaos Dreds will never be removed.
> CSM now get a Flyer a Mechanical Chaos Dragon (model is done will be part of initial release) The dragon zord from power rangers? :shok:
> Lesser and Greater Demons are gone Bullshit demons will never be removed from the fluff.
> Spawn replaced by “Fell Beast” Utter bullshit too. its too ingrained as a risk of chaos you may get spawnified.
> Rules for Traitor Guard are in!


 Doubtful... unless its some kind of 'inqusitorial henchmen' thing.

Given I can write off more then half of that without even thinking, its yet again Tasteytaste crying out for attention. Its utter bollocks from BoK yet again.


----------



## khrone forever

deathwatch27 said:


> The two ork factions (gorks and morks) are the two tribes from the old Gorkamorka game that GW released a good few years ago, and why would they ignore all the fluff about all the different groups with their own unique models. Less clans means less models sold.
> Necrons allies with blood angels.. Bollox! how and why would this happen?


the blood angles and crons ally in the cron codex, and i think its in the BA codex aswell


----------



## GrizBe

khrone forever said:


> the blood angles and crons ally in the cron codex, and i think its in the BA codex aswell


They only did that as it was beneficial to them to. Straight afterwards they went back to kicking each others asses.

I quote "The Silent King reluctantly joined forces with the Blood Angels to defeat a Tyranid Splinter fleet."

Nothing pally about it, just a truce of conveiniance.


----------



## Katie Drake

Actually GrizBe, I don't think he's quite as full of crap this time. I'm decent at sniffing out bad rumors and I'm not seeing too many here.




> The Chaos Space Marine codex is the only 40k codex for this year. It is not going to be divided into two codexes or anything special. This is not the return 3.5 codex everyone has been wanting this is more a clean up than anything else.


I think this could absolutely be true. Please note that the rumor is that it *will not* be a return to the 3.5e version.



> Troops choices will be Chaos Space Marines and Cultists


Seems fine.



> All Cult Marines are Elites


Sounds reasonable.




> No new Special Characters


I'll agree that this seems unlikely, there has to be upgrade characters and stuff like every other new book, yes?



> Special Characters will unlock Cult Marines as troops (Kharn for Berserkers and so on)


Makes perfect sense, will just be irritating for those that would like say a pure Khorne army that isn't led by Kharn, though I suppose that's no different than any other themed army these days.



> Typhus makes Cultists into Zombies


Seems likely, remember that during the Eye of Terror campaign the Lost and the Damned had rules for Plague Zombies. Fluff-wise the Plague Zombies are a creation of Typhus/Nurgle, as the Terminus Est was sighted numerous times before and during the Plague Zombie outbreaks at the onset of the 13th Crusade. Rules-wise this could easily be represented by giving the Cultists Slow and Purposeful and Feel No Pain just as an example. It'd encourage people to buy zombie kits from the Fantasy range too, which is only a good thing in GW's eyes.



> Chaos Dreadnaught is removed and replaced with a new unit (like how pariahs were replaced with Lychguard)


This seems plausible too. He's not talking about literally removing the unit and rendering it unusable, see the example of Pariahs and Lychguard. It's still entirely possible to field your Pariahs as Lychguard in the current Codex and it'll be equally possible to do this with the Dreadnought model. Fluff-wise they may make it that this walker thingy is a Daemon Engine or sometimes even a Chaos Dreadnought so mutated by the warp... yadda yadda. You get it. Insert fluff wand waving here.



> CSM now get a Flyer a Mechanical Chaos Dragon (model is done will be part of initial release)


This doesn't seem all that unlikely to me - though I'd be surprise if it was literally in the form of a dragon, I can definitely see Chaos armies getting a flyer broadly similar to the Stormraven or Valkyrie _called_ the dragon, and possibly even with a mouth and claws and stuff like most Chaos things have.



> Lesser and Greater Demons are gone


Sickeningly I can't discount the possibility of this. Since Daemons are a separate force now with their own Codex it's possible we'll see the writers making the two entirely distinct on the tabletop outside of Apocalypse and similar.



> Spawn replaced by “Fell Beast”


Isn't the Fell Beast that thing the Ring Wraiths ride around on in the Lord of the Rings? Anyway, I can see this happening just as the Pariahs and Lychguard did, similar to how the Dreadnought will work. Say that it's some big Chaos monster, some of which are Chaos Spawn, others mutated animals/xeno creatures, still others created in labs by Fabius Bile or something like that.



> Rules for Traitor Guard are in!


This seems the least likely of all the rumors to me. Can I see Cultists being given an option to exchange laspistols for lasguns and take special/heavy weapons? Absolutely. A Chimera transport? Maybe, probably not. The addition of Sentinels and Leman Russ Battle tanks and so on? Definitely not. So yeah, Traitor Guard may make an appearance in the form of options for a Cultist unit, but nothing more.




GrizBe said:


> They only did that as it was beneficial to them to. Straight afterwards they went back to kicking each others asses.
> 
> I quote "The Silent King reluctantly joined forces with the Blood Angels to defeat a Tyranid Splinter fleet."
> 
> Nothing pally about it, just a truce of conveiniance.


Actually, they didn't go back to fighting afterward, hence all the screaming and gnashing of teeth by people that are physically incapable of thinking outside of the box.


----------



## GrizBe

I can't see Chaos Dreadnaughts being replaced though... other sources (Stickmonkey for instance) have said they're still in and nastier then ever, and they're ones I trust more then BoK. 

Also.. from a purly 'fluff' point of view... why would enteral warriors from the warp abbandon their dreadnaughts their legions brought with them, given we're talking entire legions that joined up with chaos for various reasons, that would have taken hundreds of them with them? Afterall we get plenty of chaos terminators used...



And okay, it wasn't a 'Yay, we've defeated the nids, lets go kill the marines!' situation... but the point still is they only teamed up to defeat a greater foe and weren't all sitting around drinking beers afterwards or anything like that.


----------



## Katie Drake

GrizBe said:


> I can't see Chaos Dreadnaughts being replaced though... other sources (Stickmonkey for instance) have said they're still in and nastier then ever, and they're ones I trust more then BoK.


Fair enough.



> Also.. from a purly 'fluff' point of view... why would enteral warriors from the warp abbandon their dreadnaughts their legions brought with them, given we're talking entire legions that joined up with chaos for various reasons, that would have taken hundreds of them with them? Afterall we get plenty of chaos terminators used...


They wouldn't, that's the thing. They take a name (let's call it the Chaos Death Knight for the purposes of this example), attach it to a rough concept (a walking, chaotic vehicle with both guns and close combat weapons) and then fluff excuse it in a way that won't piss anyone off that currently owns a Dreadnought.

So that means that people that buy the new Death Knight fluff-wise have a Daemon Engine created by the Daemon Forges or whatever nonsense, and if you use a Chaos Dreadnought model then your Death Knight is just a Chaos Dreadnought, but they all use the same rules. It's a way of adding a "new" unit to the army (probably with new abilities too) without invalidating any existing models. It's just a way that allows people to have their own interpretation on the unit.


So just because Pariahs aren't in the new Necron book, that doesn't mean that Necrons just stopped using Pariahs. It just means that if you want to take Pariahs you use the Lych Guard rules which is perfectly fine.




> And okay, it wasn't a 'Yay, we've defeated the nids, lets go kill the marines!' situation... but the point still is they only teamed up to defeat a greater foe and weren't all sitting around drinking beers afterwards or anything like that.


Yeah, that I totally agree with. So many people can't accept it, though. =/


----------



## GrizBe

Okay... fair enough on the chaos dreads... but still seems silly to me to remove them. Pariahs yeah.. they were silly and didn't fit well with the necron theme... Dreads... I just can't see it... but I can see a suplimentation of them with deamon engines... 



And I really can't see why people can't accept it. Not really much different in marines and eldar working together like they have before...


----------



## Zion

Pretty in depth look there Katie Drake. Actually out of the rumors we've seen recently the Chaos Marine ones have been the more consistent and going in a single direction than the 6th edition ones have been, though I'm sure I've missed the initial teething problems that led up to this.

Regarding the 6th edition rumors (aside from the quality of the rumors themselves and their sources) I think we're seeing them in a vacuum at the moment and being to haste in giving a knee-jerk reaction to them. I'm abstaining from committing one way or the other on these rumors until we see the actual rulebook because it's too easy to get worked up about rumors that turn out to be exaggerated or incorrect (the Necron HQ choice who wounds all models in a unit that are the same is a good example of this sort of reaction to something that wasn't 100% correct).


----------



## boreas

Well, those rumors, as weird as some of them are, are better than nothing. I'd rather have wrong rumors than no rumors at all since it at the very least promotes some kind of discussion...

**Insert my usual rant about GW rumors blackout here**

Phil


----------



## falcoso

Now these new rumours are much more believable



GrizBe said:


> Okay.. gonna go over the 'New Rumors' from BoK and Tastey *eyerolls*
> 
> Doubtful... unless its some kind of 'inqusitorial henchmen' thing.
> 
> Given I can write off more then half of that without even thinking, its yet again Tasteytaste crying out for attention. Its utter bollocks from BoK yet again.


 
With the deamons thing I think they are going to do it because they have their own codex and (certainly for me anyway) I think people prefer to use the deamons codex as they have there own special rules and ranged attacks so are generally better than their CSM codex peers.

I doubt that they would et rid of the CRimson Fists, unless in some odd way the 40K anniversary piece was a last hurah.

I like the idea of hull points because it would make it much more realistic, but it would make things lke gauss the bets value for points anti-vehicle weapon in the game, I would love to see a landraider stroll up to my hoarde of warriors (yes I have somehow made a hoarde in a necron army) and completely annhialate it.

The snap shooting is very fantasy like, and I think it should be a special rule for units which are normally quick like scouts, it would seem to me something which all Tau wuld have.


----------



## nevynxxx

falcoso said:


> With the deamons thing I think they are going to do it because they have their own codex and (certainly for me anyway) I think people prefer to use the deamons codex as they have there own special rules and ranged attacks so are generally better than their CSM codex peers.


*If* (and only if) they are including rules for allies, it would make perfect sense to move the deamons to their own codex, and have them as allies.

That ties in with fluff.

That makes people buy more books.

That leaves more room in the marine dex to go into cultists etc.

Seems pretty sensible....

I also agree that being allies doesn't have to mean the two forces wont ever fight, or will even like each other. Just a way of modelling fluff. Imperial guard aliiy with Tau, well actually *these guard are Demiurg* etc etc


----------



## Bindi Baji

GrizBe said:


> I can't see Chaos Dreadnaughts being replaced though


Someone "may have" found out about a new model that's been worked on and then gone on to jump to a wild conclusion


----------



## Zion

nevynxxx said:


> *If* (and only if) they are including rules for allies, it would make perfect sense to move the deamons to their own codex, and have them as allies.
> 
> That ties in with fluff.
> 
> That makes people buy more books.
> 
> That leaves more room in the marine dex to go into cultists etc.
> 
> Seems pretty sensible....
> 
> I also agree that being allies doesn't have to mean the two forces wont ever fight, or will even like each other. Just a way of modelling fluff. Imperial guard aliiy with Tau, well actually *these guard are Demiurg* etc etc


Except Daemons already have their own book and very few people play them due to their rules creating an artificial hard mode to play the game with.



Bindi Baji said:


> Someone "may have" found out about a new model that's been worked on and then gone on to jump to a wild conclusion


I've seen a similar response that some of the rumors are people jumping to conclusions because they've seen a model and basing their rumors on that rather than any hard facts. Who knows, maybe the Chaos Dreadnought will get a new model that doesn't look like a traditional Dreadnought. If that's the case that could prove to be pretty interesting to see something new that doesn't look like what we see with the other boxy Dreadnought bodies.


----------



## GrizBe

Bindi Baji said:


> Someone "may have" found out about a new model that's been worked on and then gone on to jump to a wild conclusion


That makes much more sense to me.


----------



## jaysen

I found the following comments on Jawaballs' site... Don't have an opinion about their truth.

•Wound allocation: Back to 4th ed we go! All wounds are distributed by armor type, multi-wound models count for as many models as they have remaining wounds. Sarge and his special weapon buddies are last to die.
•Running in the movement phase….most of us do this already!
•Instant Death, this is awesome! Instant death is totally changed, if your toughness is exceeded by 4 points of strength you take 2 wounds. By 5, 3 wounds, etc. Tyranids, rejoice!
•If you double your opponent’s WS, you hit on 2′s in combat!
•If you double your opponent’s WS, you hit on 2′s in combat! If their WS is double yours, you hit on a 5, triple, you hit on a 6!
•Rigid saves: sounds like FnP, but is ignored by AP 1,2,3 or instant death attacks. FnP is Rigid 4+
•Removed from play now just means removed as a casualty. Necrons get a break from JotWW!
•Preferred enemy: Shooting and HtH! But like 4th ed, always hit on a 3+, if normally hitting on a 3+, now hits on a 2+. If you choose to shoot at a unit that you have PE against, but don’t, you lost the rule for the rest of the game! Now Destroyers with preferred enemy: Everything! makes sense!
•iers of Eternal Warrior, still reading it, but if you have EW 1, you ignore ID 1, etc. level 3 ignores all ID
•If a unit can be singled out by an attack (JotWW) it becomes it’s own unit. Shielded (USR) ignores that rule.
•Falling back is now your movement + D6″
•some units can cause Terror which triggers a morale check
•Shaken applies to all units now, like pinning for infantry and shaken as now for vehicles
•Broken units automatically fail their morale if they lose a combat.
•Surrounded: if broken and falling back, if you end your move within 12″ of an unengaged enemy model, the unit is destroyed! Wow!
•Tactical Retreat: If a unit falls off the board, they are removed from play but does not count as destroyed. You can choose to leave the game and not give up a KP or VPs.
•Immobilized counts for all unit types. Immobile units EV value (evasion) is decreased, usually +1 to hit them.
•Tiered fearlessness: can be pinned or shaken. Nice! Fearless units are subject to rules but are better against them. Level 3 fearless ignores everything, though. Stubborn the same. Cold Blooded new rule allows you to choose to pass or fail. ATSKNF largely remains the same.
•Critical hits: this is a blanket rule that automatically wounds and ignores all saves but invulnerable, vehicles take a penetrating hit. Triggered by certain attacks and difficult terrain roles, which now are on a 6, not a 1.
•new Dense terrain type: can’t see through it at all. If a unit is in it, you ignore this unit for shooting.
•Cover saves now 5+ for all but fortified ruins.
•Skilled Rider now IGNORES difficult terrain checks.
•Airborne rule: units with this rule ignore difficult and dangerous terrain, but still gain a cover save form it.
•Move through cover: run/cruise through difficult terrain.
•Turn phases: Move, Assault, Shoot, Consolidate
•BIG! In order to control a mission objective, you must have it for an ENTIRE turn.
•Turns are defined, things that occur :at the beginning of the turn” are clearly defined.
•Cruise and Combat speed are for all units now, cruising or running for infantry, is a straight double movement, no more random roll.
•You cannot shoot before charging anymore. A Charge is a double move.
•Engage action: charge normal movement distance (not double), but can shoot in the following shooting phase
•Flat Out: Triple movement
•Fleet adds 2″ to your movement value!
•Fast rule: shoot twice if stationary, shoot normally after moving or charging
•Rage: can’t remain stationary, must take -1 morale check to not charge enemy unit within 12″
•Alpha Strike: charging into terrain makes defenders I10, charging already engaged unit makes attacker I10
•In HTH, if a template deviates onto combat, each unit under it only takes 1 hit. Can’t target into HtH.
•BIG RULE: No Retreat is now a critical hit for every wound you lost combat by (ignores armor) but you can pass a morale check with a -1 for every wound you lost combat by. Wow, that levels the playing field, a LOT!
•Sweeping advance: if you lose combat and fail a morale, you roll 5+ and break out of combat or are destroyed. If your In is higher than the pursuing unit’s In, you break off on a 4+
•3″ consolidation
•Hit and Run now only 3″, but can now shoot in the following shooting phase
•Hulk rule: can not attack in HtH
•Intractable rule: cannot be bound in HtH
•All models with a base (infantry, walkers, MCs) do NOT block LOS. They grant a 5+ cover unless the squad leader of the firing unit can not see the target unit, in which case the save is a 4+
•Look out sarge: a unit can force a cover save to a unit behind it, even if normally the target unit would not get a save, but the intervening unit takes a critical wound for every save that is passed
•Evasion: 3 base for all units. Massive: Tanks, MCs, GCs, bastions, walkers, super-heavies -1 Ev. Stationary -1. Jink +1, Swarm +1, Flyer always a 6, point blank (squad leader is within 12″) EV always 3
•Divide fire: if you have the divide fire rule, you can give up a shot to shoot all remaining weapons at different targets! A vehicle that holds still can do some serious work, but is easier to hit.
•Night Vision now lets you reroll your check unless their stealth is higher than their Night Vision.
•Multi-Targeting: if you have this rule, you can double your shots if you hold still!! Wowzers. If you have multi-targeting(3) you can shoot three times. If you hold still, you shoot 6 times!
•Overwatch! If an enemy unit ends its move within 12″ of a unit with this ability, they can perform a defensive shooting action at them out of sequence
•Relentless: can fire as if they held still, rapid fire to 18″ as opposed to 24″
•Tiered stealth: +1. 2. 3 etc.
•Swarms: eternal warrior (1), +1 evade, vulnerable to blasts
•veiled: tiered level 1, 2d6x3 to spot, level 2 2d6x2, level 3 2d6x1.5 to spot.
•Draw Back rule: performed in the consolidation phase, 2d6″ move after shooting: eldar jetbikes
•In the consolidation phase (after shooting) you can join or leave a unit, embark in a vehicle(!), move or regroup.
•You can oly regroup if you are not within 12″ of an enemy unit, but if you embark into a vehicle, you automatically regroup.
•Patch up: bye bye wound allocation tricks! If you have more than one multi-wound model with a wound, take a wound from one and give it to another until only one model remains with less than full wounds! Peace out, Draigowing!
•Defensive fire: you can shoot a unit that comes within 12″ out of sequence with this rule. Nice! shoot units as they assault you.
•Charge by CHance: sounds like over-watch but for assault. If a unit appears within 6″ of the unit with this rule, it can assault that unit. Sounds like shooting a transport, blowing up it up, then assaulting the unit inside.
•Rapid Fire: tiered rapid fire, if within 12″ you get one extra shot. rapid fire (2) gives 3 shots at 12″, 2 at 18″
•assault weapons count as a secondary close combat weapon in HtH
•Ordnance weapons take 2 fire actions to fire, ordnance barrage take 4 fire actions
•“bomb” type weapons are fired in the movement phase
•grenades can be used as weapons against massive type models (MCs!) or vehicles but your WS is 1
•Directed Hits: attacker chooses what models take the wounds. Stopped by shielding units, or the shielded rule.
•Grenade launchers halve the WS of the defending unit when attacking them with grenades
•ID causes an additional wound even if the str value of the attack isn’t high enough to normally cause ID. Eternal warrior block ID if the tier is higher.
•master crafted rerolls a miss, multiple master crafted weapons of the same type in the same unit reroll one miss per model with the rule (speeds things up a lot)
•coarse weapon: only another coarse weapon may grant an additional attack and can’t be directed.
•Blast weapons. Wow! Hit with BS as normal, if you miss, scatter the number x 2 (always scatters). So if you hit on a 4, you can only ever scatter 4″ max!
•Template weapons: can shoot out 3″ from the firing model unless otherwise greater, if it hits the firing point of a vehicle or bastion, D3 models inside are hit! Can be fired in the turn you assault, hitting D6 times on the target unit at the weapons str and ap.
•blast weapons hit as described above. Any model partially under the template gets hit at full strength (even vehicles). If the blast hits a vehicle, full strength to armor in firer’s facing. If not on vehicle, full strength to armor facing the center of the blast but -3 on the damage table.
•Multiple blasts: fire one weapon as “lead.” Resolve where it lands, all secondary shots must touch the preceding template and hit as many enemy models as possible, moving towards the enemy unit if the shot missed. Wow. Faster, and much deadlier.
•Rail Weapons: awesome! Target a model within range, even if not in LOS. Roll to hit as with a blast weapon. After final point is determined, draw a line between point and firing unit. All units under the line take as many hits as models under the line. Holy crap, this can rape tanks! A Hammerhead could theoretically hit as many tanks as are in a straight line and in range! Models out of LOS get a 4+. Multiple rail weapons resolve simultaneously, indirect rail weapons only grant a cover save if the unit is in area terrain.
•Barrage: roll to hit as with blast weapon. If target is out of LOS you hit with BS, roll the scatter, on a “Hit” you hit. On an arrow you scatter double the die roll. On a BS miss, you scatter as normal.
•Bombing is a free action done in the movement phase
•AA weapons always hit target as if it were evade 3
•Entangling weapons cause target to be in difficult and dangerous
•pinning weapons cause cumulative morale checks to be pinned. -1 for each unsaved wound.
•
•Snipers are finally legit! All sniper weapons are pinning, rending, directed hits! Wow, they can choose who they can hit! Finally.
•Targeter: shooting unit makes target count as stationary for EV purposes.
•Twin-linked template weapons increase their range to 6?. Wow, twin flamers now shoot farther instead of rerolling to wound.
•Rapid fire weapons fire like assault weapons now, meaning they can always fire once out to max range, and an additional shot if within 12?. Nice!
•Force weapons cause ID(2) so they don’t own monstrous creatures anymore. Thank goodness.
•Power weapons now have the parry rule, which grants a 5++ in HtH! Awesome! A reason to take them.
•Monstrous creatures now hit with a weapon that is 2xS, ap 2
•All CCWs are ap6, which means Orks and Gaunts and such get no save from most HtH attacks.
•whitcblades are str7, and can be “chanelled” activated with a ld test, to allow the wielder to reroll any failed invul saves.
•Melta bombs finally have the melta rule and ap!
•Psychic Hood: roll a D6 if within 24?, add mastery level, blocker needs to beat defender to stop power. Can’t be used inside a transport.
•Unit Types:
•Infantry: 6? move, 12? run or charge
•Beasts or Calvary: move 7?, charge 21?, run 14?
•Jump Infantry: move 9?, charge or run 18?, deep strike
•Flying Infantry: airborne, move 9?, run or charge 18?, deep strike
•Jet Pack: move 6?, airborne, draw back, deep strike, 12? charge or run
•Bikes: move 8?, charge or run 16?, fast, multi-targeting (1), jink, +1 toughness against shooting attacks only, more resistant to ID
•Jetbikes: move like bikes, plus airborne, and draw back for Eldar
•MC’s: massive, monstrous, multi-targeting (2), relentless
•Gargantuan Creatures: 9? move, fearless (3) and a host of other rules
•Ground Vehicle: any vehicle not specified is a ground vehicle, move 6?, fearless (2), hulk, intractable, multi-targeting(1), relentless
•Skimmer: move 8?, same rules as ground vehicle but also airborne
•Fast Skimmer: same as skimmer but also: jink, fast
•walkers: vehicle, fearless (2), massive, multi-targeting(1), relentless
•artillery: same as above but also crew, crew members are markers that represent firing models. take one away every time the vehicle suffers an unsaved glancing or penetrating hit.
•Fortifications: same as above bu also hulk and immobile
•Characters
•special rule: covering fire: Character forgoes shooting to allow unit to have one directed shot if the unit rolls at least 3, 6?s to hit.
•Characters allow their unit to regroup in the consolidation phase. No mention to minimum unit sizes.
•Characters have directed hit rule in HtH and shooting!
•Characters can either be a squad leader or an IC.
•Squad leaders are really important. They determine characteristic tests, facing for shooting at vehicles, seeing if the enemy unit is in cover, point blank range, etc.
•If squad leader dies, another model takes his/her place.
•IC’s can not join vehicles or MCs/GCs unless they are of the same unit type.
•Psykers
•Psykers can perform one “power” type action per level of mastery. Mastery goes from one to 6. Humans rarely exceed 3, Eldar or Daemons rarely exceed 5.
•All psykers level 1 unless specified otherwise. 1 power per level, can’t be duplicate power unless otherwise specified.
•Perils on 2 or 12, critical hit. No mention of rerolling successful invul saves.
•Psyker squads are cleared up. One model counts as using the power.
•Any psyker can attempt to stop a power, works on a 5+ so long as the defender is not in a vehicle and within 24?
•Vehicles
•No vehicles can go up levels in a building anymore, even walkers.
•Terrain checks for every piece of terrain moved through.
•Hitting a Vehicle in HtH is different. If vehicle moves, they are WS10, if they hold still, WS0.
•“Tank” type vehicles get -1 to the damage table. Leman Russ, hoooo!
•Super heavies: -3 on the damage table.
•weapon destroyed is -1 to multi-targeting. Reduced to 0 can only fire one weapon. reuced to -1, can’t shoot.
•Immobilized 2 times = dead.
•Explodes is now d6? radius. All units in range, or that were embarked roll a d6 for as many models as were hit. On a 6, the unit takes a critical hit. Exploded vehicles leave no debris behind.
•wrecks are a 5+, difficult, dangerous
•hull breach: for every additional stunned or immobilized result in the same phase, the damage is 1 higher. Ouch.
•skimmers that are immobilized hit the ground off their base, and models underneath move out of the way.
•Sqaudrons: any stunned, shaken, immobilized result ignored on a 5+ with +1 for each vehicle in the squadron. If test is failed, each vehicle in the squadron suffers the result.
•smoke=5+ cover
•dangerous terrain=roll d6, on a 6, vehicle suffers penetrating hit. only invul save to stop
•repair rules got WAY better: on a 5+, repairing model removes a shaken, stunned, immobile or weapon destroyed result. Or, can boost the vehicle with the same role to add a level of multi-targeting! Techmairnes and Techpriests just got waaaaay cooler.


----------



## bobahoff

If all them rules are in the 6th ed I am going to go to GW HQ with a chainsaw, and I aint gonna be cutting down trees. 
Seriously though some of those rules sound like they are from the ''leaked'' 6th ed so I call bull shit on the lot


----------



## burad

That's all really complicated.


----------



## pantat

bobahoff said:


> If all them rules are in the 6th ed I am going to go to GW HQ with a chainsaw, and I aint gonna be cutting down trees.
> Seriously though some of those rules sound like they are from the ''leaked'' 6th ed so I call bull shit on the lot


pretty sure it is the 'leaked' 6th pdf round-up and summary of it. I remember reading that exact list a few months ago


----------



## maddermax

Yeah, they just don't seem right to me - so many of those changes seem far too complicated for little gain.


----------



## TheKingElessar

The list Jaysen posted is indeed from the "leak" which was full of shit. Except the comment 'most of us already do this!' in Running in the Movement Phase. I certainly hope that is untrue, as it is technically cheating to do so. If someone tried that in a Tournament game, I'd tell them to fuck right off chap.

Thanks anyway Jaysen. 

As regards Chaos Cultists, Beasts of War said, with a surprising degree of certitude, that they would NOT be in the September box, and heavily implied the Codex also.


----------



## LukeValantine

Its funny, we are seeing even more rumors these days when we all know GW has clamped down on leaks more then ever. Logically there should be less rumors not more.


----------



## Magpie_Oz

LukeValantine said:


> Its funny, we are seeing even more rumors these days when we all know GW has clamped down on leaks more then ever. Logically there should be less rumors not more.


OR it could be that in the absence of hard fact, reliable leaks we're just making shit up.

Higher security leads to greater wild rumours I reckon.


----------



## Dawnstar

jaysen said:


> Lots of text


99% sure that's just a summary of the "leaked" pdf, which is widely believed to be complete rubbish


----------



## LukeValantine

Magpie_Oz said:


> OR it could be that in the absence of hard fact, reliable leaks we're just making shit up.
> 
> Higher security leads to greater wild rumours I reckon.


So you caught the sweet smell of human desperation as well? I agree that this is the most likely cause of the influx of wild conjecture. After all one of humanities greatest fears is the unknown.


----------



## Adramalech

Magpie_Oz said:


> OR it could be that in the absence of hard fact, reliable leaks we're just making shit up.
> 
> Higher security leads to greater wild rumours I reckon.


QFT


----------



## Adramalech

LukeValantine said:


> So you caught the sweet smell of human desperation as well? I agree that this is the most likely cause of the influx of wild conjecture. After all one of humanities greatest fears is the unknown.


I doubt it goes as deep as that.... I'd attribute this more to boredom than to fear. Why not speculate in unsound ways when no one actually knows anything?


----------



## GrizBe

Pretty much what Magpie said. With less hard facts, you get more people like Tasteytaste springing up with their loads of crap that people are willing to believe. 

Its why I don't trust anyone but the known reliables like Harry and Stickmonkey. If they've not made mention of it, its 99% probable its not true.


----------



## nevynxxx

Zion said:


> Except Daemons already have their own book and very few people play them due to their rules creating an artificial hard mode to play the game with.


Well that's sort of my point. At the moment, without ally rules, they *have* to be in both. If you include ally rules, then you don't need them in the CSM dex.

It's ironic, but the mess of chaos actually works better as a number of different factions forced to work together.


----------



## Zion

GrizBe said:


> Pretty much what Magpie said. With less hard facts, you get more people like Tasteytaste springing up with their loads of crap that people are willing to believe.
> 
> Its why I don't trust anyone but the known reliables like Harry and Stickmonkey. If they've not made mention of it, its 99% probable its not true.


Seeing as anyone could be wrong or that it's becoming common for new rumor sources to appear who only follow blogs I just look at the rumors as a way to judge what we might be getting and then hope for the best. Harry and Stickmonkey are good, but they can't be everywhere at once (and I believe Stickmonkey has been kept from talking about things in the past due to an NDA) so I don't immediately discount rumor sources. I do however take enough salt to make the Pacific Ocean look like fresh water.



nevynxxx said:


> Well that's sort of my point. At the moment, without ally rules, they *have* to be in both. If you include ally rules, then you don't need them in the CSM dex.
> 
> It's ironic, but the mess of chaos actually works better as a number of different factions forced to work together.


I wouldn't say the "have" to be anything. GW is always open to doing anything they want when it comes to the rules and fluff. For all we know they'll separate completely and instead the books will become stronger and better written. But that's just me playing Devil's Advocate.

GW keeps writing Chaos as a force that's full of infighting but needs each other to be successful which I can understand, but I'd like to see mono-god armies become a thing honestly. I know some people play them now, but I'd really like to see them become an actual playable choice in more than just fun games (or as a way to counter Grey Knights).


----------



## GrizBe

Yeah, Stickmonkey has had NDA's on him in the past for releases... which is how you know if he does say something its probably right. Same as how if he doesn't make note of, or disreguards something its probably wrong.

But have to remember when it comes to new rumor mongers, we have the case of Ghost21 for instance.... he came from nowhere with a bunch of rumors, some turned out to be true (admittedly the ones anyone could have guessed) and he was reguarded as one of the most reliable sources for new rumors for a long time.... Then later when it became clear he was wrong about alot of thing, he admitted he'd made everything up and was just guessing and stopped posting them.


----------



## jaysen

I agree that the summary of the pdf leak had way too many drastic changes, such as a new stat line and changes to how you score a hit and a wound. I would bet that the real 6th edition will dawdle with the same things they always change, cover saves for vehicles, close combat wound allocation, feel no pain, and actions after winning an assault. I doubt any of the basic stats or mechanics of the game will change.


----------



## bitsandkits

jaysen said:


> I agree that the summary of the pdf leak had way too many drastic changes, such as a new stat line and changes to how you score a hit and a wound. I would bet that the real 6th edition will dawdle with the same things they always change, cover saves for vehicles, close combat wound allocation, feel no pain, and actions after winning an assault. I doubt any of the basic stats or mechanics of the game will change.


People said the new paint range was just the old paint in new pot or droppers andd yet here we are with double the number of paints and a massive change,dont expect GW to do the expected they can surprise you when you least expect it


----------



## SilverTabby

jaysen said:


> I agree that the summary of the pdf leak had way too many drastic changes, such as a new stat line and changes to how you score a hit and a wound. I would bet that the real 6th edition will dawdle with the same things they always change, cover saves for vehicles, close combat wound allocation, feel no pain, and actions after winning an assault. I doubt any of the basic stats or mechanics of the game will change.


I don't know, we're likely to see the new WHF to-wound chart in 6th. Which I think is a shame, as some things should be too hard to wound...


----------



## boreas

True... I do hope for a revamped "to hit" chart. A WS 8 hyper-enhanced proto-human assassin shouldn't miss a cadian grunt 33% of the time!

Phil


----------



## SilverTabby

Oh, I don't know about that. Have you ever fought in a weapon-based melee? Skill counts for something, but not as much as you'd think...

I'd prefer there to be a bottom end shift, so it's much harder to hit said WS8+ monsters. Introduce 6+ to hit rather than 2+ to hit.


----------



## boreas

I have... When it'a big melee, CC skills don't count as much. Hence, for WFB i'd understand. But when it come to super-human combat skills (like many WH40k HQ can demonstrate), I don't think real-world comparison apply, though.

Phil


----------



## Stephen_Newman

I think a challenge option would be cool for this edition. After all then you can fight more cinematically where the head honchos face off whilst their cronies bash each others brains in around them.


----------



## TheKingElessar

SilverTabby said:


> I don't know, we're likely to see the new WHF to-wound chart in 6th. Which I think is a shame, as some things should be too hard to wound...





SilverTabby said:


> I'd prefer there to be a bottom end shift, so it's much harder to hit said WS8+ monsters. Introduce 6+ to hit rather than 2+ to hit.


I completely agree, especially since I like Kharn being the only 2+ to hit CC model at present. Though there's certainly an argument for Lucius the Eternal doing the same.


Stephen_Newman said:


> I think a challenge option would be cool for this edition. After all then you can fight more cinematically where the head honchos face off whilst their cronies bash each others brains in around them.


While there's no doubt this is cool in WFB, some armies would be heavily penalised by this (Tau, Eldar, Tyranids, Imperial Guard) just like some can be hurt disproportionally in WFB (Tomb Kings., Vampire Counts.)

Plus, encouraging more HeroHammer is a backwards step for a game that no longer wishes to pay more than lip service to it's skirmish roots.


----------



## Arcane

Can't say I am too excited about this. Like usual GW is probably going to ignore and leave behind several old codex which will be crippled and gimped by these new rule changes. If SoB are mentioned in the 6th ed BRB I will be incredibly surprised.


----------



## darktide

Arcane said:


> Can't say I am too excited about this. Like usual GW is probably going to ignore and leave behind several old codex which will be crippled and gimped by these new rule changes. If SoB are mentioned in the 6th ed BRB I will be incredibly surprised.


They'll be mentioned, just like the Chaos Dwarves in WHF. Get mentioned in the rule book but the only book for them will be something that is a Forgeworld army list or they will just be stuck with a PDF


----------



## SilverTabby

TheKingElessar said:


> While there's no doubt this is cool in WFB, some armies would be heavily penalised by this (Tau, Eldar, Tyranids, Imperial Guard) just like some can be hurt disproportionally in WFB (Tomb Kings., Vampire Counts.)


I wouldn't include 'nids in that. They have 2 ICs, and no sargeants save the broodlord. 



Arcane said:


> Can't say I am too excited about this. Like usual GW is probably going to ignore and leave behind several old codex which will be crippled and gimped by these new rule changes. If SoB are mentioned in the 6th ed BRB I will be incredibly surprised.


Uhm, in the 5th ed book, Sisters got a larger entry than grey knights did. Seriously, they aren't going to get forgotten. Given how long they've been working on this, I would be amazed if there isn't something prepared for release day that tugs all the older codeces in line. They've done it before, they can do it again. Back then it wasn't as easy as now, either, what with online PDFs being so easy to disseminate...


----------



## Obinhi

I do have to say that I think it would be cool if they changed the to hit chart for CC to something like the to hit chart for ranged weapons. Keep it as is with it being 3+ on the higher end of skills, but allow for re-rolls at maybe 5-6+ to represent the much higher skill. 

TBH my IG would not mind at all, as if the enemy is getting enough Close Combat troops to my line to screw me its my fault, not his.


----------



## Arcane

SilverTabby said:


> Uhm, in the 5th ed book, Sisters got a larger entry than grey knights did. Seriously, they aren't going to get forgotten. Given how long they've been working on this, I would be amazed if there isn't something prepared for release day that tugs all the older codeces in line. They've done it before, they can do it again. Back then it wasn't as easy as now, either, what with online PDFs being so easy to disseminate...


Easy to disseminate an online PDF like they already have(_not_) done for the SoB WD codex? 

The 5th ed BRB virtually retconned the SoB out of existence save for a couple paragraphs and mention in "Forces of the Imperium". I remember buying it on release years back, cracking it open with my friends and feeling the huge sigh of disappointment as the 1000$ in models I had sitting on the shelf barely got a mention. 

But maybe you are right. Maybe they didn't release the PDF because they are planning to come out with a full codex soon. Maybe come 6th ed, every army will be promptly updated with online PDFs. Maybe every army will be able to field flyers and many older Codex won't have useless, redundant, and outdated rules. Maybe each army will have a full fluff and art section in the big rulebook and some new official artwork will be released for the SoB. Maybe GW will have sanctioned tournaments in the USA again and offer prize support for licensed FLGS for events, leagues and tournaments. 

Maybe GW will get bought out by WotC and all that will happen. Until then I'm not holding my breath. :smoke:


----------



## boreas

I remember having the exact same thoughts when 5th ed came... We had to fight teeth and nail to get a half-decent FAQ... Then that sad PDF debacle. I finally sold my whole SoB army on eBay this week...

Phil


----------



## SilverTabby

Arcane said:


> Easy to disseminate an online PDF like they already have(_not_) done for the SoB WD codex?
> 
> The 5th ed BRB virtually retconned the SoB out of existence save for a couple paragraphs and mention in "Forces of the Imperium". I remember buying it on release years back, cracking it open with my friends and feeling the huge sigh of disappointment as the 1000$ in models I had sitting on the shelf barely got a mention.
> 
> But maybe you are right. Maybe they didn't release the PDF because they are planning to come out with a full codex soon. Maybe come 6th ed, every army will be promptly updated with online PDFs. Maybe every army will be able to field flyers and many older Codex won't have useless, redundant, and outdated rules. Maybe each army will have a full fluff and art section in the big rulebook and some new official artwork will be released for the SoB. Maybe GW will have sanctioned tournaments in the USA again and offer prize support for licensed FLGS for events, leagues and tournaments.
> 
> Maybe GW will get bought out by WotC and all that will happen. Until then I'm not holding my breath. :smoke:


I prefer to live in hope than grind my teeth and damn them for something that hasn't happened yet and may not. Makes life a lot more pleasant to live in, not constantly being annoyed for future mistakes that may never occur... :wink:


----------



## Zion

Arcane said:


> Easy to disseminate an online PDF like they already have(_not_) done for the SoB WD codex? _There are a number of reasons the rules may not have been put online yet, to list a few that I can think up off the top of my head: the temporary status of the rules (aka they don't want to convert them over to PDF because they have an actual codex in the works), updating them further before putting them online (to clean up errors that resulted in the errattas that we saw in the FAQ), someone screwed up and deleted the document, saving it for release when Finecast Sisters are ready for release, or no one has thought about it and it just hasn't been done yet._
> 
> The 5th ed BRB virtually retconned the SoB out of existence save for a couple paragraphs and mention in "Forces of the Imperium". I remember buying it on release years back, cracking it open with my friends and feeling the huge sigh of disappointment as the 1000$ in models I had sitting on the shelf barely got a mention. _It also gave a miniscule mention to the Grey Knights. Don't read too much into it, you'll just end up getting upset over something that wasn't intended as an actual slight._
> 
> But maybe you are right. Maybe they didn't release the PDF because they are planning to come out with a full codex soon. Maybe come 6th ed, every army will be promptly updated with online PDFs. Maybe every army will be able to field flyers and many older Codex won't have useless, redundant, and outdated rules. Maybe each army will have a full fluff and art section in the big rulebook and some new official artwork will be released for the SoB. Maybe GW will have sanctioned tournaments in the USA again and offer prize support for licensed FLGS for events, leagues and tournaments. _Okay, now you're just being sarcastic and a bit snippy. Don't take out your anger with GW on your fellow Heretics. It's not fair to them to recieve your venom when they're not the ones responsible for you being mad in the first place._
> 
> Maybe GW will get bought out by WotC and all that will happen. Until then I'm not holding my breath. :smoke: _Yes because GW being bought out by the same people who can't balance MtG (thus card bans and errattas for cards, and rules lawyering that just gets down right -silly- would really be an improvement._


Comments in yellow. 

Basically, relax a little. We've waited how long for a new codex? I'm sure we can manage to wait a little longer. It's not like the WD one is half as bad as the internet claims (I still play at 2K just because the internet says I should lose at that point level and I like to annoy the internet as a whole (for the record I've yet to lose to Blood Angels or Grey Knights, so much for instant win armies)), it's just one of small scope. 

Yes I'm annoyed that we stil don't have new models (I'd really love to be able to paint my models without trying to define when parts like hair and weapons stop and where the armor stops because they're just a big lump for example) and I'd love a full codex too, but taking it out on your fellow wargamers and Heretics is just silly.

In short, Keep the Faith. We're not getting Squatted, we're just taking a little longer to produce a new codex and model line for. It's what happens when you're not just some cookie cutter army like the Space Marines (I'm sure they design new Space Marine models but taking exisiting ones and adding stuff to them and calling them "done"). We'll get our new codex in due time, until then either keep showing the enemies of the Imperium that we still have what it takes, or perhaps put the girls on the shelf and try out something else.


----------



## Arcane

I really hope you guys are right and come 6th ed I'll eat my words and I hate being the dissenter amongst the SoB community here. Obviously we all love the army to death, otherwise we wouldn't have stuck with it this long. After seeing the amazing job they did with GK and DE, a new release would truly be an emperor send. But that time seems almost past... CSM is a sure thing, they have to do a 6th ed SM dex, then Tau seem certain, at which point there's talk of DA, BT, or Eldar. You only get 2 codex a year (2010 was a fluke). 1 of those is always a SM army. So you're looking at 2014 at the earliest at which point we will be on the ass end of 6th ed and 7th ed will be due the following summer. -_-

I'm really sad to hear you sold your army Boreas


----------



## Obinhi

Zion said:


> Comments in yellow.
> 
> Basically, relax a little. We've waited how long for a new codex? I'm sure we can manage to wait a little longer. It's not like the WD one is half as bad as the internet claims (I still play at 2K just because the internet says I should lose at that point level and I like to annoy the internet as a whole (for the record I've yet to lose to Blood Angels or Grey Knights, so much for instant win armies)), it's just one of small scope.
> 
> Yes I'm annoyed that we stil don't have new models (I'd really love to be able to paint my models without trying to define when parts like hair and weapons stop and where the armor stops because they're just a big lump for example) and I'd love a full codex too, but taking it out on your fellow wargamers and Heretics is just silly.
> 
> In short, Keep the Faith. We're not getting Squatted, we're just taking a little longer to produce a new codex and model line for. It's what happens when you're not just some cookie cutter army like the Space Marines (I'm sure they design new Space Marine models but taking exisiting ones and adding stuff to them and calling them "done"). We'll get our new codex in due time, until then either keep showing the enemies of the Imperium that we still have what it takes, or perhaps put the girls on the shelf and try out something else.


Here Here! Look at the IG and the Dark Eldar if you need proof!


----------



## boreas

That's ok, still have my GKs and SMs (as well as my Lizardmen). I also sold my Necrons (currently on eBay, the auction ends tomorrow), metal GKs and will be selling my Tau. I sold my Inquisitorial Imperial Guard (mostly an Imperial Navy with Vultures anf Valkyries), my Reaver (yep!), battlefleet gothic Tau and SMs last year. My Warhound will be one of the last pieces to go...

At that point, I might consider a Thousand Sons army if the next CSM codex makes such a thing possible... and if 6th ed. revives some interest for 40k in my group. WFB 8th ed. almost did that, but in the end i failed (imperial warmachines and 6th level spells are to blame!).

Phil


----------



## Adramalech

Arcane said:


> Easy to disseminate an online PDF like they already have(_not_) done for the SoB WD codex?
> 
> The 5th ed BRB virtually retconned the SoB out of existence save for a couple paragraphs and mention in "Forces of the Imperium". I remember buying it on release years back, cracking it open with my friends and feeling the huge sigh of disappointment as the 1000$ in models I had sitting on the shelf barely got a mention.
> 
> But maybe you are right. Maybe they didn't release the PDF because they are planning to come out with a full codex soon. Maybe come 6th ed, every army will be promptly updated with online PDFs. Maybe every army will be able to field flyers and many older Codex won't have useless, redundant, and outdated rules. Maybe each army will have a full fluff and art section in the big rulebook and some new official artwork will be released for the SoB. Maybe GW will have sanctioned tournaments in the USA again and offer prize support for licensed FLGS for events, leagues and tournaments.
> 
> Maybe GW will get bought out by WotC and all that will happen. Until then I'm not holding my breath. :smoke:


>Maybe GW will get bought out by WotC and all that will happen.
I can not honestly say that such a thing would displease me.


----------



## Zion

Adramalech said:


> >Maybe GW will get bought out by WotC and all that will happen.
> I can not honestly say that such a thing would displease me.


So the horribly imbalanced nature of MtG (aka he who has the most money wins) is a prospect you'd want in 40K? Or 40K anime edition (aka D&D 4th Edition or the Book of the 5 Swords)? Or getting dozens of poorly balanced supplements that just clutter up the game and create MORE codex jumping and broken codexes (D&D 3.5 AND D&D 4)?

Why would this be a good thing again exactly?


----------



## TheKingElessar

*cough Forge World cough*


----------



## Zion

TheKingElessar said:


> *cough Forge World cough*


1. Optional, and a large number of the rules are free.
2. Nothing in there is ripping off another system (like WoW)
3. Most of their stuff is alternate model kits or upgrade kits
4. You end up paying enough in points that you usually balance out the abilities that you gain. This is the opposite of WotC's design philosophy of really cheap bigger sticks (making everyone use them or them being banned after a whole bunch of them were sold, making WotC a lot of money).

So no, not Forge World. Do people just like harping on GW so much that they're willing to jump to conclusions without even looking at all the facts anymore?


----------



## Obinhi

I think most people use this when they want to harp on GW:
http://www.thinkgeek.com/books/humor/8e6c/images/2070/

Anyway, My own opinion is that maybe, just maybe GW should have dedicated teams devoted to armies full time. For example, have an Ork team for 40K and Fantasy, have a team that does IG and Empire, one that does Elves and Eldar. I feel like they could spend 6 months per game system and still come out with great, consistant stuff. 

I kind of see it like my job. We dont have guys who show up and then get dispatched all willy nilly. You are assigned to a shop with in a section and with in the shop you have dedicated duties. You know about the rest of the section and can fill in if need be, and every few years you get moved to a new shop just so you stay fresh. I feel like if GW went about things like this no one could be accused of being a hired fan boy.

That being said they people would say that we had no continuity or some other such rubbish.


----------



## Arcane

Zion said:


> So the horribly imbalanced nature of MtG (aka he who has the most money wins) is a prospect you'd want in 40K? Or 40K anime edition (aka D&D 4th Edition or the Book of the 5 Swords)? Or getting dozens of poorly balanced supplements that just clutter up the game and create MORE codex jumping and broken codexes (D&D 3.5 AND D&D 4)?
> 
> Why would this be a good thing again exactly?


I stopped playing MTG sometime around Mercadian Masques (spelling?). I can't comment on it's balance but I do know they still have some of the best artists in the world working on the game and every Friday my FLGS pulls in 50-100 players weekly, 50-200 for tournaments. No Joke. So they did -something- right. 

He who has the most money often has an advantage in 40k. You are lying to yourself if you say otherwise. 

Although WoTC did change D&D quite a bit, they also kept on producing Forgotten Realms books which kept on many of the original designers and artists from TSR, and is still, even in 4th edition, more similar to AD&D. D&D 3.5, while somewhat of an annoyance was generally accepted by most players as fixing many rules, and also fit seamlessly with 3.0, so it didn't hurt anything and you didn't need to buy the books if you didn't want to. 

So yes, while not everything WoTC did with D&D and MTG was great but they are successful with it. They also offer prize support just for playing D&D everyweek or MTG at the store. Like wtf they give you money for playing their game :clapping: ? 

I would take dozens of mediocre supplements with a few good ones over a company that only releases a few books a year for a single game system.


----------



## Karyudo-DS

Zion said:


> 4. You end up paying enough in points that you usually balance out the abilities that you gain. This is the opposite of WotC's design philosophy of really cheap bigger sticks (making everyone use them or them being banned after a whole bunch of them were sold, making WotC a lot of money).


Yet jet-bike armies laugh at me... otherwise I might agree, but some of the pricey units are ridiculous, FW or not. (Though not everything FW is)


----------



## Arcane

SM and Tau being "Brothers in Arms" for the Warhammer World event seems to give credence to the rumours about 6th ed allies etc...


----------



## yanlou

"Chaos Dreadnaught is removed and replaced with a new unit (like how pariahs were replaced with Lychguard)" 

I call major bull on this one, why would GW remove an iconic unit with multiple models and multiple references to been with CSM for something else, even GW wouldnt be so stupid, so i highly doubt it would be removed, more likely theyll have something similar to dread as another unit entry ie Contemptor dreads or Decimator or new types of dreads ie something similar to mortis pattern.


----------



## Zion

Arcane said:


> I stopped playing MTG sometime around Mercadian Masques (spelling?). I can't comment on it's balance but I do know they still have some of the best artists in the world working on the game and every Friday my FLGS pulls in 50-100 players weekly, 50-200 for tournaments. No Joke. So they did -something- right.
> 
> He who has the most money often has an advantage in 40k. You are lying to yourself if you say otherwise.
> 
> Although WoTC did change D&D quite a bit, they also kept on producing Forgotten Realms books which kept on many of the original designers and artists from TSR, and is still, even in 4th edition, more similar to AD&D. D&D 3.5, while somewhat of an annoyance was generally accepted by most players as fixing many rules, and also fit seamlessly with 3.0, so it didn't hurt anything and you didn't need to buy the books if you didn't want to.
> 
> So yes, while not everything WoTC did with D&D and MTG was great but they are successful with it. They also offer prize support just for playing D&D everyweek or MTG at the store. Like wtf they give you money for playing their game :clapping: ?
> 
> I would take dozens of mediocre supplements with a few good ones over a company that only releases a few books a year for a single game system.


In essence you don't mind the idea of spending 2-3x as much regularly just to keep up with the current edition, or the idea of having dozen's of poorly balanced supplements basically wrecking any sense of balance is something you consider a perk? More isn't always better.

I used to play MtG in 7th Edition. It was an apparent race to spend the most money to build the best deck. I got out when 8th rolled around and everyone jumped on the Darksteel Forge/Colossus bandwagon. Needless to say the mechanics of an indestructible artifact deck was so broken just about everyone was trying to play it because it was THE way to win. I tried playing a Myr deck but just couldn't keep my interest up. And out I went.

D&D 3.5 was fun, but allowing the wrong supplement into a campaign essentially meant dealing with trying to balance encounters for one player. And D&D 4 is so bad it killed the D&D games at my flgs (and I've heard several people say that they only play 3.5 or Pathfinder instead).

When it comes to development, yes GW is slower, but they're a smaller staff within a smaller company. And for all our complaints of balance they still do a better job that WotC.

Additionally, points costs are what help balance two competing armies out. It isn't perfect, but it's a lot better than "at least 60 cards, no more than 4 of any one card" and requiring you to memorize a new list of banned cards every couple months.

Furthermore if money was such a great factor into building an uberarmy then why is Draigowing so popular? Oh that's right, one of it's big selling points is that it doesn't need a lot of models. 



yanlou said:


> "Chaos Dreadnaught is removed and replaced with a new unit (like how pariahs were replaced with Lychguard)"
> 
> I call major bull on this one, why would GW remove an iconic unit with multiple models and multiple references to been with CSM for something else, even GW wouldnt be so stupid, so i highly doubt it would be removed, more likely theyll have something similar to dread as another unit entry ie Contemptor dreads or Decimator or new types of dreads ie something similar to mortis pattern.


I assume it's still going to be in essence a Dreadnought but it's going to get a new name or perhaps a different style model. Probably something to reflect the hundreds millenia these these things have been stomping around in the warp.


----------



## Obinhi

I can see the chaos forces going away from the dreadnoughts and twards something else. Seeing as the dark cog boys would not be constrained by the the same things the mechanicum would be I can see advances for the chaos side, with some draw backs to make things even.

I would even go so far as to say they would keep the rules for the dreads because not all of the traitor legions would throw the dreads into the meat grinder just for fun, and you would think fluff wise that a metal clad hellion tear-assing around the battle field is worth more to Korne alive then dead.


----------



## yanlou

If you use that same logic, then dreadnoughts would be in abundance with chaos as they would be mere toys to the Dark mechanicus and they wouldnt have to be built the traditional way either, so infact i think chaos ought to have loads of them.


----------



## Obinhi

yanlou said:


> If you use that same logic, then dreadnoughts would be in abundance with chaos as they would be mere toys to the Dark mechanicus and they wouldnt have to be built the traditional way either, so infact i think chaos ought to have loads of them.


Yes but you have to admit that if given a choice, why would you stop at two legs? And why would you need an fully developed Space Marine who takes no end of time, material and I would think money, when you could pluck some babie out of its mothers womb in the most disgusting way and throw it into a hulking 8 legged metal beast. Not sure how meny people have babies around here, but they have one hell of a temper.

This is getting off into a more fluff based arguement, I'm just saying that we on earth still have the means to produce sherman tanks, but we dont because an abrams works better for us, as far as a massive box that runs on jet full works. I'm just saying that for any army to phase out a peice of equipment in favor of a new type CSM seems to be kind of a shoe in. They could even take a page out of the Ork book and have looted dreads you know?


----------



## yanlou

Mate, your whole argument is flawed. Dreadnoughts have been in use since before the heresy, they are standard war machinery for chaos. CSM are familiar with them and for them effective and because of that familiarity they are easier to maintain and produce and the reason why they wouldnt be able to use babies is more then likely down to the fact there brains are not mature enough to pilot a dread.

Your whole thing with the tanks is down to technology we have better technology to create better things we also develop the means to build and produce this better technology making it as easy to produce ie an Abrams as it would have been back in ww2 for shermans, this however does not entirely work for 40k as technological progression is much slower even with the Dark mechanicums usuage of warp energy it is still slow.

How much CSM fluff have you actually read as to me it sounds like you dont know how much chaos marines rely on dreads.


----------



## boreas

The thing is, existing fluff matters not to codex writers. Look how GKs went from hyper-pure guardians of the Imperial sanctity to sorcerers capable of blood-sacrifice. If GW want to change Chaos dreads to Daemon engine, nothing will stop them.

Phil


----------



## Obinhi

yanlou said:


> Mate, your whole argument is flawed. Dreadnoughts have been in use since before the heresy, they are standard war machinery for chaos. CSM are familiar with them and for them effective and because of that familiarity they are easier to maintain and produce and the reason why they wouldnt be able to use babies is more then likely down to the fact there brains are not mature enough to pilot a dread.
> 
> Your whole thing with the tanks is down to technology we have better technology to create better things we also develop the means to build and produce this better technology making it as easy to produce ie an Abrams as it would have been back in ww2 for shermans, this however does not entirely work for 40k as technological progression is much slower even with the Dark mechanicums usuage of warp energy it is still slow.
> 
> How much fluff have you actually read as to me it sounds like you dont know how much chaos marines rely on dreads.


Well...I'm not one for derailing a thread on 6ed rumors to defend my thinking and to point out how its not flawed, but since you asked.

As I've been playing and into the fluff since 1998 I would have to say that I am well aquanted with most of the factions in the setting. I'm not going to go into exactly how grimdark the forces of chaos are, but I belive the story of the unfleshed demonstrates how far the dark cog boys will go with babies. I think I also need to point out that the entire reason that the loyal forces have slow technological progress (you know, aside from it being a pain in the ass for GW to rewrite the rules when the IG discovers that GPS inertial guided bombs are pretty darn good at killing things and I dont care who you are but launching a solid projectile at 10% of the speed of light is going to ruin a hive ships day...) is because of the dogma and ritualization of technological processes which in turn has converted the idea that a plan or designe can always be improved into the idea that the very same plans and designes are already perfect and cannot be improved, so dont try.

The Dark Mechanicum on the other hand (As seen for example in the book Mechanicum) feels like the big E took far too meny liberties with his edicts against things like AI and all that. They feel, for good or for Ill, that no line of thought or investigation should go unplumbed, even if that means strapping screaming six year olds into metal walking robots just to see what happenes, you know FOR SCIENCE! Fast forward 10,000 years and yes, I see no logical break down in the idea that a bunch of cyborgs who are nuttier then a box of squrill turds whould use insane children and not astrates to drive some new form of walker. I also see no reason why they would stop building standard dreads, seeing as, according to fluff, ever plucky guardsman or hard as nails sgt has a melta bomb and also has the godly luck to kill the dread prior to being turned into pink mist by a well placed assult cannon salvo.

I would also like to point out that progress does happen in the chaos realm at a faster rate simply because the empire takes a 'Aint broke dont fix it' view where as the renagades take the 'Can this be any more fucked up?' view. I will use another real life example, we have 250 pound bombs all the way up to conventional bombs with a enough explosive power to be confused with a low powered nuke. Now ask your self why. Why would you need a bomb that can level most of a city in one go? Because 'Fuck You' thats why. We do it because we can. Lets go back to 40K - The Imperial Forces by and large cannot think out side of the box long enought to come up with an idea like this so it would not even come up, but seeing as the forces of chaos said goodbye to the box ten thousand years ago, and have the help of deamons who are constructed out of the very stuff of crazy nightmares, so say that 'Oh thats too far over the line, even for chaos' suggests that you sir don't have a real grasp of what chaos is about.

My last point is perhaps the most mundane, but dont you think if chaos had access to weaponized hat full of land sharkes some one would have used it? If GW produced a unit of psycotic jokaero who had guns like the SAG and needed an Iron Warrior Captian to control them dont you think everyone who wanted to try them out would have? Hell I would be getting into chaos right now if GW said they were going to do that!

In conclusion, if you dont think GW will replace the dread, then fine, but dont try to call my exceptance of what at this point is wild mass guessing into question as illogical just because you cannot fully understand the power of the dark side.

PS I am your father.:grin:


----------



## Adramalech

Obinhi said:


> I think most people use this when they want to harp on GW:
> http://www.thinkgeek.com/books/humor/8e6c/images/2070/
> 
> Anyway, My own opinion is that maybe, just maybe GW should have dedicated teams devoted to armies full time. For example, have an Ork team for 40K and Fantasy, have a team that does IG and Empire, one that does Elves and Eldar. I feel like they could spend 6 months per game system and still come out with great, consistant stuff.
> 
> I kind of see it like my job. We dont have guys who show up and then get dispatched all willy nilly. You are assigned to a shop with in a section and with in the shop you have dedicated duties. You know about the rest of the section and can fill in if need be, and every few years you get moved to a new shop just so you stay fresh. I feel like if GW went about things like this no one could be accused of being a hired fan boy.
> 
> That being said they people would say that we had no continuity or some other such rubbish.


Kind of like how Wizards has dedicated Design and Development teams on every magic block. And on the game in general, to keep things more or less consistent.


----------



## Obinhi

Adramalech said:


> Kind of like how Wizards has dedicated Design and Development teams on every magic block. And on the game in general, to keep things more or less consistent.


I would not say exactly like MtG, seeing as for normal play cards from what, two years ago are not allowed?

I would think that if you have like 3 guys who only had to worry about say...Tau, we might have had a codex for them in 5th ed. And you cant say that would not be a sound buisness dicision becuase I know for a fact that every serious Tau player would have bought it.


----------



## Adramalech

Obinhi said:


> I would not say exactly like MtG, seeing as for normal play cards from what, two years ago are not allowed?
> 
> I would think that if you have like 3 guys who only had to worry about say...Tau, we might have had a codex for them in 5th ed. And you cant say that would not be a sound buisness dicision becuase I know for a fact that every serious Tau player would have bought it.


I didn't say exactly, either. 

EDIT 1: It'd make more business sense to have a single design team and a single development team that work collectively on everything 40k in terms of rules and fluff.

Personally, though, I like the quality of the product and method of acquisition GW has for their minis (non-randomized kits with what have been amazing sculpts as of late)

EDIT 2: lower prices would be pretty nice, too. More easily acquired=more sales=more money.


----------



## Arcane

Zion said:


> In essence you don't mind the idea of spending 2-3x as much regularly just to keep up with the current edition, or the idea of having dozen's of poorly balanced supplements basically wrecking any sense of balance is something you consider a perk? More isn't always better.
> 
> I used to play MtG in 7th Edition. It was an apparent race to spend the most money to build the best deck. I got out when 8th rolled around and everyone jumped on the Darksteel Forge/Colossus bandwagon. Needless to say the mechanics of an indestructible artifact deck was so broken just about everyone was trying to play it because it was THE way to win. I tried playing a Myr deck but just couldn't keep my interest up. And out I went.
> 
> D&D 3.5 was fun, but allowing the wrong supplement into a campaign essentially meant dealing with trying to balance encounters for one player. And D&D 4 is so bad it killed the D&D games at my flgs (and I've heard several people say that they only play 3.5 or Pathfinder instead).
> 
> When it comes to development, yes GW is slower, but they're a smaller staff within a smaller company. And for all our complaints of balance they still do a better job that WotC.
> 
> Additionally, points costs are what help balance two competing armies out. It isn't perfect, but it's a lot better than "at least 60 cards, no more than 4 of any one card" and requiring you to memorize a new list of banned cards every couple months.
> 
> Furthermore if money was such a great factor into building an uberarmy then why is Draigowing so popular? Oh that's right, one of it's big selling points is that it doesn't need a lot of models.


Really seems like you are "back in my day"ing. People always do this when they love something and don't want it to change. Just like a great band can't keep releasing the same album, MTG couldn't keep releasing the same editions. It had to change to keep progressing and is the only CTCG I know of which after 15+ years is still increasing in popularity. I don't play anymore for the same reasons you don't, but had they kept the game the same, no one would be playing anymore because it would be OOP.

Also Draigowing? Have yet to see people winning major tournies with that one... last time I tried a Necron tank IDed an entire squad with a single blast template, lol balance. Not to mention a decent deck of MTG doesn't cost as much as even a Draigowing let alone the thousands people drop on GW models. And just wait, come June they will cost even more...

And why are you comparing a Miniwargame and a PnP RPG and CTCG? Apples and Oranges. It's only a matter of time before WoTC releases a wargame of their own and probably take a huge bite out of GW's sales. 

Not sure where you are from but GW doesn't do a better job here state side. They dropped tourney support, closed most of their retail locations and enbargoed sales from overseas. Now if I want to buy models I either drive 2 hours to the GW store or order on GW dot com. Any other retailers can't undercut the price and shipping takes long than ordering direct. Thanks GW.


----------



## Adramalech

Arcane said:


> Really seems like you are "back in my day"ing. People always do this when they love something and don't want it to change. Just like a great band can't keep releasing the same album, MTG couldn't keep releasing the same editions. It had to change to keep progressing and is the only CTCG I know of which after 15+ years is still increasing in popularity. I don't play anymore for the same reasons you don't, but had they kept the game the same, no one would be playing anymore because it would be OOP.
> 
> Also Draigowing? Have yet to see people winning major tournies with that one... last time I tried a Necron tank IDed an entire squad with a single blast template, lol balance. Not to mention a decent deck of MTG doesn't cost as much as even a Draigowing let alone the thousands people drop on GW models. And just wait, come June they will cost even more...
> 
> And why are you comparing a Miniwargame and a PnP RPG and CTCG? Apples and Oranges. It's only a matter of time before WoTC releases a wargame of their own and probably take a huge bite out of GW's sales.
> 
> Not sure where you are from but GW doesn't do a better job here state side. They dropped tourney support, closed most of their retail locations and enbargoed sales from overseas. Now if I want to buy models I either drive 2 hours to the GW store or order on GW dot com. Any other retailers can't undercut the price and shipping takes long than ordering direct. Thanks GW.


dude, I know. When the closed the GWS near me I was like









Then, when I found out they closed the GWS at colorado mills mall when I was visiting my family I was like that again :c

Good thing they opened another one in Colorado. Too bad I'll be going to colpar hobbies instead ;D


----------



## Arcane

Adramalech said:


> dude, I know. When the closed the GWS near me I was like
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then, when I found out they closed the GWS at colorado mills mall when I was visiting my family I was like that again :c
> 
> Good thing they opened another one in Colorado. Too bad I'll be going to colpar hobbies instead ;D


Damn that sucks, they only have 1 left here in Michigan. I really think if they want to succeed as a business here in the USA they need to offer more support to other local retailers. They don't even send out promotional posters, card board cutouts or banners to vendors. I can't think of any foreign company who is successful in the USA by trying to run their own private retail locations. Even a Honda dealership will sell used Fords and Chevys.


----------



## Adramalech

Arcane said:


> Damn that sucks, they only have 1 left here in Michigan. I really think if they want to succeed as a business here in the USA they need to offer more support to other local retailers. They don't even send out promotional posters, card board cutouts or banners to vendors. I can't think of any foreign company who is successful in the USA by trying to run their own private retail locations. Even a Honda dealership will sell used Fords and Chevys.


yep.


----------



## Zion

Arcane said:


> Really seems like you are "back in my day"ing. People always do this when they love something and don't want it to change. _No, I'm just point out the flaws that people don't want to admit exist in WotC's way of doing things. Because apparently only GW is able to do anything wrong. Ever._
> 
> Just like a great band can't keep releasing the same album, MTG couldn't keep releasing the same editions. _No long running game can, but MTG invalidates older decks by taking them from being played at all when new editions roll out (outside of casual play or one specific tournament type that has a banned/restricted list that is basically a small book). There is very little carry over (mana and some basic cards) so whole decks can be invalidated with no way to continue to play specific kinds of themes. It's like a band that switches genres every album._
> 
> It had to change to keep progressing and is the only CTCG I know of which after 15+ years is still increasing in popularity. I don't play anymore for the same reasons you don't, but had they kept the game the same, no one would be playing anymore because it would be OOP. _I'm not saying they shouldn't change, I'm saying they suck at long term balance. When it comes to balance GW actually does a better job overall, and has erratta'd things to fit editions better when the fans asked for it. WotC just bans/restricts things instead.
> _
> Also Draigowing? Have yet to see people winning major tournies with that one... last time I tried a Necron tank IDed an entire squad with a single blast template, lol balance. Not to mention a decent deck of MTG doesn't cost as much as even a Draigowing let alone the thousands people drop on GW models. And just wait, come June they will cost even more... _GW models, still good between codex changes, MtG, only good if they reprinted your cards into the new edition. MtG is a game made of thin sheets of laminated cardstock, GW models are made of resin, plastic or metal. No comparison for pricing works there. But I stand by that the GW models are able to be used longer thus meaning you get more for your money overall. More expensive, sure, but they're still valid for a lot longer. _
> 
> And why are you comparing a Miniwargame and a PnP RPG and CTCG? Apples and Oranges. It's only a matter of time before WoTC releases a wargame of their own and probably take a huge bite out of GW's sales. _There is no minature wargame to compare to so all I've got is the existing trends that they have with their games. And because the trends WotC follow are the same with pretty much all of their games it's what I've been making my baseline comparison with. WotC produces lots of product for something, damns the balance, and make money because people will scramble to buy it just to keep up with the power creep that comes with every new set of cards, and every new book. It's actually worse than GW's in a lot of ways because it enforces mandatory bandwagonning. Sure you can play for fun (and in D&D ignoring anything not in the core rules is usually for the best anyways these days) but you have to jump onto the next big thing just to keep up. Oh, and say you liked your (say) Wood Elf deck? Too bad it's no longer tournament legal outside of one specific game type! It'd be like an army being squatted every new edition that came out only to eventually get a partial replacement sometime before the next edition came out. And it's more WotC would just buy out someone else and update that over and over again pushing it away from being anything recognizable and more into being something like something else so they can try to make money from a new demographic (the move of D&D 4th towards being more like a tabletop version of WoW is an example of that). GW produces new specialist games from time to time, but I can't think of anything in the last 10 years that WotC is responsible for producing that was wholly original to them. I may be wrong, but I can't think of anything.
> _
> Not sure where you are from but GW doesn't do a better job here state side. They dropped tourney support, closed most of their retail locations and enbargoed sales from overseas. Now if I want to buy models I either drive 2 hours to the GW store or order on GW dot com. Any other retailers can't undercut the price and shipping takes long than ordering direct. Thanks GW. _I'm in New York state so I get a massive tax markup on everything I buy (the big paint set had a $45USD mark up from taxes alone). The loss of the tournament that was being accused of imbalanced and poorly run isn't something wrong (infact people should be HAPPY that it went away after the amount of negative response I saw last year), GW still runs tournaments in their own stores and has now a budget for supply prize support to FLGS now who keeps their products in stock (an improvement). The embargo was silly but there was likely a legitimate legal reason for why they did this. And if you think the loss of GW's is bad now (you can thank a bad economy meaning they can't afford to keep every single store open which means the stores that don't pull in enough money HAVE to close or GW would be taking big penalties finacially which would hurt us worse) IF WotC bought out GW (somehow) I don't think ANY GWs would still be open because it'd save them money since they can just sell their stuff in Big Box Stores and FLGS instead of needing to pay more employees so everyone would lose their GWs._


Comments in yellow.

The point is GW isn't the best thing out there, but neither is WotC. Putting lipstick on a pig doesn't make it a better pig, and for every perk you like about the way one company does something there is a drawback somewhere. 

Basically to try and claim that any company is perfect is a blatant lie and to try and say a company that can't even balance it's existing product lines could do it better is incredibly silly. 

TL;DR: If you really hate the way GW runs it's house go play something else, because you won't be happy with anything they do. Either way leave it out of a thread about a GW based thread because it's borderline trolling. You're in a thread about something related to a specific company then talking about how you wish they would go under or sell their product to another company. I'm not a GW fan boy (I've been known for loudly complaining several times about things I don't like (Warhammer Fantasy 8th Edition especially)), but honestly I can live without the constant GW bashing. Be constructive and address GW directly if you have a problem. Write the CEO an actual letter. Or go complain somewhere more appropriate. Let's put this thread back on track and stick with the 6th edition rumors, not how much anyone wants to hate on GW this week because they think GW came to their house to kick their cat.

EDIT: Here's a great roll up of some different companies and their support http://www.houseofpaincakes.com/2012/05/musings-of-game-store-owner.html It's not all inclusive but it's got good points from a store owner's POV.


----------



## Arcane

Zion said:


> Comments in yellow.
> 
> The point is GW isn't the best thing out there, but neither is WotC. Putting lipstick on a pig doesn't make it a better pig, and for every perk you like about the way one company does something there is a drawback somewhere.
> 
> Basically to try and claim that any company is perfect is a blatant lie and to try and say a company that can't even balance it's existing product lines could do it better is incredibly silly.
> 
> TL;DR: If you really hate the way GW runs it's house go play something else, because you won't be happy with anything they do. Either way leave it out of a thread about a GW based thread because it's borderline trolling. You're in a thread about something related to a specific company then talking about how you wish they would go under or sell their product to another company. I'm not a GW fan boy (I've been known for loudly complaining several times about things I don't like (Warhammer Fantasy 8th Edition especially)), but honestly I can live without the constant GW bashing. Be constructive and address GW directly if you have a problem. Write the CEO an actual letter. Or go complain somewhere more appropriate. Let's put this thread back on track and stick with the 6th edition rumors, not how much anyone wants to hate on GW this week because they think GW came to their house to kick their cat.
> 
> EDIT: Here's a great roll up of some different companies and their support http://www.houseofpaincakes.com/2012/05/musings-of-game-store-owner.html It's not all inclusive but it's got good points from a store owner's POV.


You're the only one who really has a problem with what I said, in fact, some agreed. Trolling? It's called a different opinion, you will find many of them on the internet. I didn't trash GW or call names, just pointing out business practices they have which I disagree with and my disappointment at the loss of their presence in my area. Calling troll is a sure fire way to point out when you don't have much else to support your opinion. 

Still you are comparing a card game with a miniature game. It doesn't make sense. IF GW updated every codex/army like they should every edition it wouldn't matter if the old edition was completely imbalanced/overwritten because there would be new edition books which would fix this. If the new book wasn't out yet then they just would release a PDF to fix it; something GW doesn't do! (BT anyone?) So you wasted all those paragraphs comparing why orange create a problem due to their peels, but hey guess what, apples don't need to be peeled!

I've never said WoTC is perfect. I dislike a lot of things they do, but they do some decent things. At least I didn't say GW should get bought out by White Wolf lol. 

Actually I think it would be great if GW pulled all their retail locations stateside and supported LGS. The tourneys they run at GW stores are a joke. Last month they had a doubles tourney and allowed sharing of powers/abilities inter-army with no restrictions for allies. KFF Leman Russ anyone lol? 'Ard Boyz was fun and I would love to play it again or at least a decent standard tourney with real prize support and not just a pat on the back. The employees at GW don't actually help, they are just there to sell you more GW stuff. At least at a LGS someone will give you a straight opinion on different models and codex; not "Yeah it's awesome, buy 10 please". 

I don't hate GW. I love their game which is why I have thousands of dollars in their product. I just wish they supported that product and their customers better than they do, there's nothing wrong with expecting that.


----------



## Obinhi

Zion said:


> Comments in yellow.
> GW models, still good between codex changes, MtG, only good if they reprinted your cards into the new edition. MtG is a game made of thin sheets of laminated cardstock, GW models are made of resin, plastic or metal. No comparison for pricing works there. But I stand by that the GW models are able to be used longer thus meaning you get more for your money overall. More expensive, sure, but they're still valid for a lot longer.


I just have to point out that I still use a first ed ork shoota boy. He is way smaller then the modern orks so I just call him 'Tittybobo, King of the grots' he dies after the nob in my shoota boy squads just because he is so funny. 

I dont want to quote everything you said but I did read and I agree with almost all of it. I was into MtG from Ice Age to the Wetherlight block. Got out and then got back in just to try in new pyrexia, still not my cup of tea.


----------



## DecrepitDragon

So I came to this thread hoping to see some fine and fresh rumours about 6th ed, and I seem to have stumbled into a support/complaint battle over GW's development methods. . . . 

Isn't there like another hundred hate/love threads already without cluttering up the rumours section too?

Just a thought guys.


----------



## Adramalech

Jesus. Hey, Zion? Arcane? this is getting pretty out of hand. Maybe we should all stop and just agree to disagree for now?


----------



## Karyudo-DS

Arcane said:


> I don't hate GW. I love their game which is why I have thousands of dollars in their product. I just wish they supported that product and their customers better than they do, there's nothing wrong with expecting that.


Like codex entries not getting models for months if not longer...or never. Could be worse, could be how Catalyst handles Battletech, with medicore tiny metal mini's and a can-retread-the-same-fiction attitude. Though 40k's base plot doesn't seem to move that's more normal. Unless these rumors do occur which would be interesting. I guess not a bad idea for an anniversary, weird fluff or not.


----------



## Eleven

Zion said:


> Putting lipstick on a pig doesn't make it a better pig...


I have always hated the 'put a pig in a dress' cliche. It premise is completely ridiculous and it's totally loaded from the start because it presumes without any sort of evidence that what your opponent is arguing for is worthless and ugly.

Sure wizards of the coast isn't perfect, purely for the fact that nothing is, but it is alot fairer to it's fanbase than is GWS in terms of pricing, support for the product, and respect for the player base.

The only reason I feel that GWS holds any ground is because of the quality of the models (of course) and people just love the lore of warhammer so much.


I haven't really looked into this thread before now, but I hope that all the things that are in the OP are wrong. 

The part about vehicles having HP is hilarious. If that is correct, then my squad of 20 necron warriors will always kill every vehicle in the game in a volley.


----------



## Magpie_Oz

Eleven said:


> Sure wizards of the coast isn't perfect, purely for the fact that nothing is, but it is alot fairer to it's fanbase than is GWS in terms of pricing, support for the product, and respect for the player base.


Aren't "Wizards of the Coast" just another part of Hasbro?

I supported TSR, Avalon Hill -> Hasbro for years, long before I took to 40k and GW. Eventually the games I played with them disappeared, almost overnight. One of which was a proto-trading card game we played in 1983 10 years before WotC "invented" them in 1993.

There was never a shop that stocked their products in my town and barely one in Australia and at no point was I ever able to meet with other patrons of the company at an event organised by the company.

From where I sit GW is unique in that respect.


----------



## Eleven

Magpie_Oz said:


> Aren't "Wizards of the Coast" just another part of Hasbro?
> 
> I supported TSR, Avalon Hill -> Hasbro for years, long before I took to 40k and GW. Eventually the games I played with them disappeared, almost overnight.
> 
> There was never a shop that stocked their products in my town and barely one in Australia and at no point was I ever able to meet with other patrons of the company at an event organised by the company.
> 
> From where I sit GW is unique in that respect.


Well, I obviously can't speak for Australia, but I know that I can find about a million places to play WotC games around where I live in the states. And you're right, there are no WotC stores, but that's why we have independent retailers. And from the horror stories I've heard about GWS locations, I think i'm just as well avoiding the 6 of them that are established in my city.

When i'm talking about support, i'm talking about support for the games. That's what players really need, not a brick and mortar.


----------



## Achaylus72

Magpie_Oz said:


> Aren't "Wizards of the Coast" just another part of Hasbro?
> 
> I supported TSR, Avalon Hill -> Hasbro for years, long before I took to 40k and GW. Eventually the games I played with them disappeared, almost overnight.
> 
> There was never a shop that stocked their products in my town and barely one in Australia and at no point was I ever able to meet with other patrons of the company at an event organised by the company.
> 
> From where I sit GW is unique in that respect.


Exactly, i have seen many a company bring out games and promote them as the next big thing, then stay around for a few months or a couple of years only to vannish overnight.

At least in this respects GW have been around for 25 years and aren't to vannish any time soon.


----------



## Magpie_Oz

Eleven said:


> Well, I obviously can't speak for Australia, but I know that I can find about a million places to play WotC games around where I live in the states. And you're right, there are no WotC stores, but that's why we have independent retailers. And from the horror stories I've heard about GWS locations, I think i'm just as well avoiding the 6 of them that are established in my city.


At least there are GWS locations, if WotC are going to make the claim "World leader in Hobby Games" they might want to look a bit further beyond the US border, as GW does.



Eleven said:


> When i'm talking about support, i'm talking about support for the games. That's what players really need, not a brick and mortar.


But that is the whole point of all of the things I have bought from my $500,000 home through my $75,000 Subaru to my $3000 worth of Advanced Squad Leader games to my 20c potato peeler the only stuff I own I KNOW I can go tomorrow to the shop where I bought it and talk to the guy who sold it to me and ask him about the product how best to use it, what I should buy next and what the next get together HE is organising as part of the company policy and sit around and talk shit for 3 hours with him, is the $1k worth of stuff I bought from Games Workshop.

I only found out Wizards of the Coast even existed upon working out what WotC stood for in this thread, never realising that they have 1000's of mine and my kids' money.


----------



## bitsandkits

magpie has a very good point, as freaky as people may think GWs business model is, it works and has continued to work since they invented it and nobody in the wargame industry has had the balls to copy it, plenty of people are willing to cash in on stealing GWs IP or developing games in the "style" of GW but no one, not even the big hitters has the nards to actually put there effort and money into bricks and mortar and yet despite this they are happy to charge similar prices for similar products.


----------



## Arcane

This is obviously becoming a discussion of UK company in the USA vs USA company in the UK/AUS. It doesn't even make sense to compare the two at this point and I'm sorry I even brought it up. 

I do find it rather funny though that an AUS player is very pleased at the state of GW in his nation. From everyone down under I hear nothing but bad things, especially with insane price hikes. 

WotC -did- have many retail locations just like GW across the USA, then they realized it was more economical to work with authorized dealers. You gents over in England probably never got the chance to visit one. I've visited GW shops in London and still stand by that they are unnecessary. Maybe you can go talk to the guy but if you want good information on models, armies and news you will get it from other players like you find here on Heresy. The guys behind the counter generally don't play at a competitive level, they are salesmen.


----------



## Magpie_Oz

Arcane said:


> This is obviously becoming a discussion of UK company in the USA vs USA company in the UK/AUS. It doesn't even make sense to compare the two at this point and I'm sorry I even brought it up.
> 
> I do find it rather funny though that an AUS player is very pleased at the state of GW in his nation. From everyone down under I hear nothing but bad things, especially with insane price hikes.


Prices on everything in Oz are higher than elsewhere so we whinge about most things. Sure I don't like the prices but I can see why they are set at that level and I do buy a fair amount of my stuff from the US because of it.



Arcane said:


> WotC -did- have many retail locations just like GW across the USA, then they realized it was more economical to work with authorized dealers.


The point was raised that WotC look after their fanbase better but there in one you show they put company profits over customer serivce.



Arcane said:


> You gents over in England probably never got the chance to visit one. I've visited GW shops in London and still stand by that they are unnecessary. Maybe you can go talk to the guy but if you want good information on models, armies and news you will get it from other players like you find here on Heresy. The guys behind the counter generally don't play at a competitive level, they are salesmen.


It isn't about whether the advice is good bad or otherwise I am comparing customer service. The guy in the shop taking a genuine interest in my interest in their product. 

I know full well he is doing it mainly to sell me things but as I said I spent half a million dollars with a builder who disappeared the instant he got the final cheque and $75000 with a car dealer who vanished in just a big a cloud of dust. 

The GW guy I can go an talk to whenever I want, he knows my name and we can have a chat for a bit while I hang about in his shop and meet some of the other 40k guys. That means a lot to me.


----------



## bitsandkits

Sorry arcane but i have to disagree that the stores are unnecessary, GW is a company and a plc at that, if any store withing the company was unnecessary it would be closed down,the simple fact GW have a store in any location in the UK and elsewere is because it makes money, GW is a business and they are here to make money, when that isnt the case then the stores are gone. Stores are still the easiest and fastest way for people to access GW products first and foremost and as a secondry bonus they give like minded people a place to go to game/paint/network, the last time i went into my store i had a 45 min conversation about "the good old days" with a gent a few years my senior who was gob smacked to bump into someone who like him remembers 40k 1st edition. 

GW is big because it does the store thing well, other companies like PP,mantic, etc etc exist because GW exist, the core of the fantasy wargaming hobby is GW and there sucess is inpart related to its high street presence, and we all forget that GW turned its back on the wargame mail order trend long ago in order to have the high street presence,while other wargames companies had photo copied catalogs or relied on a mention in wargames illustrated or dragon magazine or sales at conventions, GW said "we can make these games almost main stream and open stores in shopping centers ".
The company like it or not was built on the back of the stores, Ok times have changed,internet is king, stores have moved or closed and GW has adapted to mail order and killed off all but the indies who will match its store format,but thats OK, better that than supporting failing stores and biting the dust.


----------



## Arcane

Hate to tell you, that all sounds well and good but it just isn't that way in the States. WFB isn't big here at all. GW pulled the majority of their retail locations because they realized it just doesn't work here. There is nothing you guys are talking about which is exclusive to a GW store. Any FLGS could have the same old guy who knows you by name and talks to you for 30 minutes about the good old days, that and they are (usually) locally owned by a sole proprietor, not a corporation. If anything, cutting their losses, getting rid of retail locations and supporting small businesses would be good for everyone. Instead they do the opposite, embargo all internet sales, even a LGS can't put their GW inventory online, and drop game support at non-official locations. I would love to see 5 LGS in town owned by local people than 5 GWs with some college kid behind the counter and all the profits going back to the Emperor over in Notingham. 

If anything GW should take a lesson from a company like STIHL, who supports independent businesses, and still has world wide success despite not being sold in big box stores. They don't need retail locations because they develop such a relationship with their dealers and offer them support that they work hand in hand.


----------



## Magpie_Oz

Arcane said:


> Hate to tell you, that all sounds well and good but it just isn't that way in the States.


The you guys need to lift your game, I can easily say the GW shops are the best in Oz in terms of customer experience, bar none. 

I'm heading off to the UK soon so it will be interesting to compare.


----------



## TheKingElessar

Forums don't bring in new players, shops do.

No new players, no more Hobby.

Simple.


----------



## boreas

I stand by what I said in the past. It's a cultural thing... From what I understand, NA customers don't want shop beacuse they tend to have their own "mini-club" in their basements, they want faster access to new rules models. UK customers like that GW has brick and mortar shop. 

Phil


----------



## darktide

So anyone new here anything new about 6th edition? Or is this just going to be a thread that goes off in such a completely different direction that I don't need to check it anymore?


----------



## Zion

darktide said:


> So anyone new here anything new about 6th edition? Or is this just going to be a thread that goes off in such a completely different direction that I don't need to check it anymore?


Any new rumors will be added to the first post as they're found or posted. So if you're just looking for more updates that's the easiest place to check. I've been digging around but I haven't found anything else outside of the old leak document and BoW's later post saying that some things from the leak where no longer valid but it's partially accurate.


----------



## humakt

There don't appear to have been much in the way of rumours in this thread over the last few pages. Please try at least to stay on topic. GW prices and customer service are not relevant to this thread. If you want to discuss these side of things you should take it to the General 40k section.


----------



## Adramalech

darktide said:


> So anyone new here anything new about 6th edition? Or is this just going to be a thread that goes off in such a completely different direction that I don't need to check it anymore?


We can always discuss the existing 6th ed rumors in more depth, if you wish.

If only that 6++ save against psykers weren't lost in the salt desert....


----------



## Zion

After looking over the GW event their holding at Warhammer World I'm beginning to wonder if some Tasty's rumors may be related to this event instead of 6th edition (the Event also occurs on July). The pamplet for the event is *here*.

The two things that strike me are the 5 missions (which have cropped up from time to time as a 6th Edition change) and allies. 

Either way this is just some speculation to offer an alternative viewpoint. I've been looking for solid information, but we're two months out from this supposed hard date and have yet to see anything concrete in terms of rumors being collaborated by multiple sources (of any kind, they seem to be firing all over the place) so who knows? Because right now with what we've got it's hard to be sure if we really are getting a 6th Edition.


----------



## Mokuren

Zion said:


> The two things that strike me are the 5 missions (which have cropped up from time to time as a 6th Edition change) and allies.


I was laughing pretty hard at the Tau going under Astartes protectorate, then I saw that official event alliance grid and couldn't help but notice that Spehhs Mhreens are "brothers in arms" with Tau. And that made me pause.

I... Am not against it, I mean, I'm okay with fluff not being set in stone and I've never really taken it very seriously in the first place (it's hard to), and if this means allies get back in then hoo boy am I excited, it might actually compensate the utter lackluster, partial nonsense and immense boredom we got with the Sisters' WDdex, so maybe I won't give up and start (probably) collecting Chaos if the new dex doesn't suck. Though knowing myself I will probably get a model or two regardless.

I frankly never understood why they did away with the allies rules, if it was such a bother in competitive play just make it unavailable at tournaments and bam. I also don't get why they still make people pay for a codex, especially at such prices, instead of making them available for free online and make physical copies optional; if more people know the rules, especially those specific to each army, you have more people that can potentially be interested in playing and by extension buy miniatures.

But I digress, and I apologize for that.

But hey, maybe this Tau and Space Marine suddenly becoming buddies thing means that Matt Ward will do the next Tau codex?


----------



## Adramalech

Mokuren said:


> I was laughing pretty hard at the Tau going under Astartes protectorate, then I saw that official event alliance grid and couldn't help but notice that Spehhs Mhreens are "brothers in arms" with Tau. And that made me pause.
> 
> I... Am not against it, I mean, I'm okay with fluff not being set in stone and I've never really taken it very seriously in the first place (it's hard to), and if this means allies get back in then hoo boy am I excited, it might actually compensate the utter lackluster, partial nonsense and immense boredom we got with the Sisters' WDdex, so maybe I won't give up and start (probably) collecting Chaos if the new dex doesn't suck. Though knowing myself I will probably get a model or two regardless.
> 
> I frankly never understood why they did away with the allies rules, if it was such a bother in competitive play just make it unavailable at tournaments and bam. I also don't get why they still make people pay for a codex, especially at such prices, instead of making them available for free online and make physical copies optional; if more people know the rules, especially those specific to each army, you have more people that can potentially be interested in playing and by extension buy miniatures.
> 
> But I digress, and I apologize for that.
> 
> But hey, maybe this Tau and Space Marine suddenly becoming buddies thing means that Matt Ward will do the next Tau codex?


Not six months ago, I could have sworn that everyone was whining about matt ward codexes.

Now everyone wants him to write their favorite codexes for the new edition.

It's really quite amusing.


----------



## Zion

Adramalech said:


> Not six months ago, I could have sworn that everyone was whining about matt ward codexes.
> 
> Now everyone wants him to write their favorite codexes for the new edition.
> 
> It's really quite amusing.


I think it's a case of "Well if everyone else gets a broken* codex I want one too."



*I still stand by that codexes aren't NEARLY as broken as people claim, but the mindset still exists.


----------



## Mokuren

Adramalech said:


> Not six months ago, I could have sworn that everyone was whining about matt ward codexes.
> 
> Now everyone wants him to write their favorite codexes for the new edition.
> 
> It's really quite amusing.


Oh, do not misunderstand, I still think his fluff is beyond terrible, but at least it's a terrible I can laugh and point at, so it works out fine to me.

The point is that, given his blatant fanboyism for Space Marines, and Ultramarines in particular, if that part of the Imperium suddenly has the hots for them it's probably because he's somehow involved in their writing.

Kind of like Necrons with their (temporary) Blood Angels alliance. I wonder if this means Tau will get giant robots a la dreadknight? I'd be kind of disappointed if they didn't, it would look a lot less silly on them.


----------



## SilverTabby

I'm confident a 6th Ed is imminent. Simply because of a game I played almost a year ago, where my opponent was having trouble remembering how 5th worked, and kept saying "really?" when I said something worked this way, then showing him the BRB. He also said it about the WH Codex I was using at the time, and it turned out the confusion was because he'd been playtesting the WDDex for months before then. 

So I'm confident we aren't seeing huge sweeping changes, but it's different enough to give pause in places. Firing of weapons from vehicles may see some adjustment, as I had a "hang on there" moment or two. But one thing I am confident of: 6th exists. It's been written, tested and is ready to go. Exact dates may vary, but it's there...


----------



## Katie Drake

SilverTabby said:


> But one thing I am confident of: 6th exists. It's been written, tested and is ready to go. Exact dates may vary, but it's there...


Yeah, I actually saw what the new rulebook looks like just a few days ago, like the front cover. Fairly nifty. I can only imagine that it's been printed and waiting for a while now.


----------



## Adramalech

Zion said:


> I think it's a case of "Well if everyone else gets a broken* codex I want one too."
> 
> 
> 
> *I still stand by that codexes aren't NEARLY as broken as people claim, but the mindset still exists.


@Mokuren: I wonder if he'll write the eldar codex next and they'll get a fluff alliance with the black templars? lmao

@Zion: definitely, definitely. Phil Kelly writes good dexes, too. ^.^


----------



## Zion

SilverTabby said:


> I'm confident a 6th Ed is imminent. Simply because of a game I played almost a year ago, where my opponent was having trouble remembering how 5th worked, and kept saying "really?" when I said something worked this way, then showing him the BRB. He also said it about the WH Codex I was using at the time, and it turned out the confusion was because he'd been playtesting the WDDex for months before then.
> 
> So I'm confident we aren't seeing huge sweeping changes, but it's different enough to give pause in places. Firing of weapons from vehicles may see some adjustment, as I had a "hang on there" moment or two. But one thing I am confident of: 6th exists. It's been written, tested and is ready to go. Exact dates may vary, but it's there...


Duly noted, and the best confirmation I've heard to date. Added the first post. 



Katie Drake said:


> Yeah, I actually saw what the new rulebook looks like just a few days ago, like the front cover. Fairly nifty. I can only imagine that it's been printed and waiting for a while now.


Also good news! We're finally seeing something more concrete than BoK and a PDF that was likely put together two years ago. Also added to the first post.

Thanks for the information!

EDIT:



Adramalech said:


> @Mokuren: I wonder if he'll write the eldar codex next and they'll get a fluff alliance with the black templars? lmao
> 
> @Zion: definitely, definitely. Phil Kelly writes good dexes, too. ^.^


Personally I don't want "broken" codex books. I just want ones that let you do anything that's in the fluff without options being "must have" choices or unusable options.


----------



## Adramalech

Zion said:


> Personally I don't want "broken" codex books. I just want ones that let you do anything that's in the fluff without options being "must have" choices or unusable options.


There will -always- be people who work to figure out "the best" units and "the best" unit upgrades.

That's just how gaming works. :\


----------



## DecrepitDragon

Hmm . . .

Chief Librarian Tigurius as an allied HQ with my XV8's and Fire Warriors, supported by a couple of squads of assault marines.

Somehow, I really cant see this happening. I really think the mention of the tounament allies pdf has coloured the whole "allies" rumour a bit too much.

And even that seems doubtful. The most likely, and common alliance of its day, Chaos and Daemons, was removed from both WFB and 40K, at around the same time (new book development and release dictating specific times), and that really came as a surprise to most of us.

I dont think GW were ever pinned down on a specific reason for the choice either, except to say that it made game dev and army dev that much simpler.

Looking at the way they have brought out army books and codices since, I highly doubt that allied armies will ever feature in anything but tourneys, larger games, or game expansions like Apocalypse.

And I must say, I'm fine with that.

Edit - Actually, that brings to mind a question: Is the "allies" rumour centred around a single army, containing allied forces, or is it multiple players with specific armys, combined into one force, such as Apoc?


----------



## Zion

Adramalech said:


> There will -always- be people who work to figure out "the best" units and "the best" unit upgrades.
> 
> That's just how gaming works. :


Making up you're own rating system to determine what you rate higher or lower is fine, demanding that it's the only right answer and everyone listen to you (as some blogs do) isn't. Opinions are great, but when people start touting them as fact, especially when you ignore play style, local meta, or even personal preferences (this is a folly some people participate in with Mathhammer. Sure the unit works well on Paper, but if you can't play it well (say the meta is bad for it, or you don't like it or try to use it well or your opponent just murders it because they know what it MIGHT do) well then it isn't really that great. Especially when you spend a LOT of points for it. Really in the "best" unit are great, but I often find them no where as good as people claim.


----------



## Adramalech

Zion said:


> Making up you're own rating system to determine what you rate higher or lower is fine, demanding that it's the only right answer and everyone listen to you (as some blogs do) isn't. Opinions are great, but when people start touting them as fact, especially when you ignore play style, local meta, or even personal preferences (this is a folly some people participate in with Mathhammer. Sure the unit works well on Paper, but if you can't play it well (say the meta is bad for it, or you don't like it or try to use it well or your opponent just murders it because they know what it MIGHT do) well then it isn't really that great. Especially when you spend a LOT of points for it. Really in the "best" unit are great, but I often find them no where as good as people claim.


I'm just stating that power gamers exist and will continue to put their intellectual resources toward breaking game resources in their favor so they can win, and toward determining what their best options are overall.

In any case, I'm not here to argue with you right now.

EDIT-I haven't been touting my opinion as fact in regards to this rather spirited discussion, and I honestly don't see where you got that or why it's an issue.


----------



## Zion

Adramalech said:


> I'm just stating that power gamers exist and will continue to put their intellectual resources toward breaking game resources in their favor so they can win, and toward determining what their best options are overall.
> 
> In any case, I'm not here to argue with you right now.
> 
> EDIT-I haven't been touting my opinion as fact in regards to this rather spirited discussion, and I honestly don't see where you got that or why it's an issue.


I wasn't talking about you, I was speaking in a general sense about the internet. The internet has a nasty habit of latching onto one or two specific things in a codex and never letting go of them as THE choice to take.

Heretics obviously are more forward thinking and independent than that though. At least I like to believe we are.


----------



## Kreuger

@ Silvertabby - that sounds promising. I for one am looking forward with more hope than skepticism, the closer to 2nd ed's customization and flexibility we get, the better.




Zion said:


> Making up you're own rating system to determine what you rate higher or lower is fine, demanding that it's the only right answer and everyone listen to you (as some blogs do) isn't. Opinions are great, but when people start touting them as fact, especially when you ignore play style, local meta, or even personal preferences (this is a folly some people participate in with Mathhammer. Sure the unit works well on Paper, but if you can't play it well (say the meta is bad for it, or you don't like it or try to use it well or your opponent just murders it because they know what it MIGHT do) well then it isn't really that great. Especially when you spend a LOT of points for it. Really in the "best" unit are great, but I often find them no where as good as people claim.


Hmm, I half agree with you. I was always of two minds about power gaming. On the one hand I'd work out the statistics of my guys and their weapons in some hypothetical combats to make sure I was spending my points efficiently. On the other hand I never went min-max on units or armies. I always brought idiosyncratic armies I would have fun with, and my opponent wouldn't feel abused by.

But all of that said, there are and have been objectively better and worse units. Units where, all things being even sort of equal the points don't balance out.

Conceptually points values should all be balanced around an equation like (x dire avengers = y space marines) or some such, or (x bloodletters = y close combat terminators).

Well, perhaps more likely an array where x bloodletters = (y space marines or z dire avengers or d hormagaunts or etc.) And I think ideally it should balance between range, combat, and probability to reach either. For instance Bloodletters in the 3.5/4 chaos codex were ridiculously overpowered. At 26 points a model they were str 5 with power weapons, a bunch of attacks, both armor and invulnerable, and could summon in and charge on the same turn.

If my chaos army got in summoning range and I rolled even middling for reserves, I could wipe out a flank of the enemy's army. And I always reached summoning range.

They were objectively too powerful. For the points they cost and their ability to kill meq or well any troops, they were unbalanced. In an ideal system all equal points values would have some equivalency to cancel each other out. Consequently, victory in the game and skill would be demonstrated by aligning my forces against your forces so that the army functions as more than the sum of its parts. . . . in an ideal world. As it is GW makes this assertion for a whole army, "my 1500 points function equally to your 1500 points." Only it doesn't always/often work out that way.

Okay . . . that turned into a dissertation.


----------



## Adramalech

Zion said:


> I wasn't talking about you, I was speaking in a general sense about the internet. The internet has a nasty habit of latching onto one or two specific things in a codex and never letting go of them as THE choice to take.
> 
> Heretics obviously are more forward thinking and independent than that though. At least I like to believe we are.


Oh okay. I was worried this was going to turn into another tangent. EDIT-screw that. topics and conversations change and evolve. It'll come back to 6th ed eventually, so the mods have nothing to worry about, but we must be free to wander with our thoughts as we desire.

My opinion is: if the internet says it's right, and it plays well for me, then it's right.


----------



## Karyudo-DS

Adramalech said:


> I'm just stating that power gamers exist and will continue to put their intellectual resources toward breaking game resources in their favor so they can win, and toward determining what their best options are overall.


I think the hope here though is that while they exist, that the codex's aren't made for them specifically in which a few specific units are incredible and the others just exist to make sure the printer worked before printing the good ones.

Power gamers I don't mind, as long as they are beatable, more than one trick army players and fun to play. I know I go for the good options sometimes, though some of it's just preference in what I like... don't really crunch the statistics too much.

On the topic of the new rulebooks... I hope they come in small this time as well. I do like the ease of flipping through the 5th ed starter rulebook.


----------



## Zion

Kreuger said:


> Hmm, I half agree with you. I was always of two minds about power gaming. On the one hand I'd work out the statistics of my guys and their weapons in some hypothetical combats to make sure I was spending my points efficiently. On the other hand I never went min-max on units or armies. I always brought idiosyncratic armies I would have fun with, and my opponent wouldn't feel abused by.
> 
> But all of that said, there are and have been objectively better and worse units. Units where, all things being even sort of equal the points don't balance out.
> 
> Conceptually points values should all be balanced around an equation like (x dire avengers = y space marines) or some such, or (x bloodletters = y close combat terminators).
> 
> Well, perhaps more likely an array where x bloodletters = (y space marines or z dire avengers or d hormagaunts or etc.) And I think ideally it should balance between range, combat, and probability to reach either. For instance Bloodletters in the 3.5/4 chaos codex were ridiculously overpowered. At 26 points a model they were str 5 with power weapons, a bunch of attacks, both armor and invulnerable, and could summon in and charge on the same turn.
> 
> If my chaos army got in summoning range and I rolled even middling for reserves, I could wipe out a flank of the enemy's army. And I always reached summoning range.
> 
> They were objectively too powerful. For the points they cost and their ability to kill meq or well any troops, they were unbalanced. In an ideal system all equal points values would have some equivalency to cancel each other out. Consequently, victory in the game and skill would be demonstrated by aligning my forces against your forces so that the army functions as more than the sum of its parts. . . . in an ideal world. As it is GW makes this assertion for a whole army, "my 1500 points function equally to your 1500 points." Only it doesn't always/often work out that way.
> 
> Okay . . . that turned into a dissertation.


That has less to do with power gamers (personally I define these as the ultra-competitive guys who have to crush their opponent's army to have fun.) and more to do with powerful armies (currently that'd be mostly anything Mech armies these days). In theory a points total should be the same strength as another one, but when you start factoring in edition rules and player ability into it then you can start to see different codexes being stronger or weaker (older codexes are legitimately weaker due to the cost of everything in the book being off, but that comes with power creep).



Adramalech said:


> Oh okay. I was worried this was going to turn into another tangent. EDIT-screw that. topics and conversations change and evolve. It'll come back to 6th ed eventually, so the mods have nothing to worry about, but we must be free to wander with our thoughts as we desire.
> 
> My opinion is: if the internet says it's right, and it plays well for me, then it's right.


No tangential arguments on this one from me. I know not everyone agrees with me when I say that there aren't any truly broken codexes (if it can be beaten by a different codex, then it isn't broken. It can be poorly balanced to the rest of the game though. But that's just how I see it). Either way it's largely opinion on what is "best" (I happen to use Repentia like a rage powered sledgehammer to run around the table mucking things up but the internet says they're horrible) and if it plays well for you that's the most important thing.



Karyudo-DS said:


> I think the hope here though is that while they exist, that the codex's aren't made for them specifically in which a few specific units are incredible and the others just exist to make sure the printer worked before printing the good ones.
> 
> Power gamers I don't mind, as long as they are beatable, more than one trick army players and fun to play. I know I go for the good options sometimes, though some of it's just preference in what I like... don't really crunch the statistics too much.
> 
> On the topic of the new rulebooks... I hope they come in small this time as well. I do like the ease of flipping through the 5th ed starter rulebook.


Power gamers (of the "having fun by skull dragging my opponent" variety) do tend to be more of the one trick ponies, but there are some decent playing ones out there too. Either way the best trick I found isn't to try and try to beat them at their own game (unless your army really is better at it) but instead play up to your own strengths instead.


----------



## SilverTabby

Regarding Allies: the WH codex got it right, and I hope that if it's included it works similarly.

Simply: if you wanted cool stuff from an ally, you had to take x basic troops first. With the IG allies, you needed 1 troop for marginally cool things, Leman Russes required you take 2. Same with the space marine stuff, with the added restriction you couldn't take Sororitas.

What I would like to see is something akin to: To take an HQ or FA you must take 1 full strength troops choice from your allies. To take an Elite or HS choice, you must take 2 troops choices, one of which must be full strength. These *do* count towards your FOC limits, but do not fill your manditory 2 troops from your own codex.

That'll stop cherry-pickers.


----------



## Adramalech

Zion said:


> No tangential arguments on this one from me. I know not everyone agrees with me when I say that there aren't any truly broken codexes (if it can be beaten by a different codex, then it isn't broken. It can be poorly balanced to the rest of the game though. But that's just how I see it). Either way it's largely opinion on what is "best" (I happen to use Repentia like a rage powered sledgehammer to run around the table mucking things up but the internet says they're horrible) and if it plays well for you that's the most important thing.


lol @ "rage-powered sledgehammer"

anyway, I still do my best to give what the internet says a try before continuing to fail with my own misbegotten schemes.


----------



## Zion

Adramalech said:


> lol @ "rage-powered sledgehammer"


To justify my Repentia have killed (to date):

5 Tactical Marine Squads (and their transports)
3 Sternguard Squads (and their Razorbacks)
3 Venerable Dreadnoughts
4 Drop Pods
5 Dreadnoughts
3 Hive Guard
2 Land Raiders
1 Vindicator
8 Bike Marines
1 Attack Bike
1 Libarian (on a bike)
12 Gaunts

EDIT: I forgot a couple
8 Scouts (7 with Sniper Rifles, 1 with a Heavy Bolter)
1 Bjorn the Fell Handed
Not bad for something that has to "borrow" a Rhino to get around in, eh?


----------



## Adramalech

Zion said:


> To justify my Repentia have killed (to date):
> 
> 5 Tactical Marine Squads (and their transports)
> 3 Sternguard Squads (and their Razorbacks)
> 3 Venerable Dreadnoughts
> 4 Drop Pods
> 5 Dreadnoughts
> 3 Hive Guard
> 2 Land Raiders
> 1 Vindicator
> 8 Bike Marines
> 1 Attack Bike
> 1 Libarian (on a bike)
> 12 Gaunts
> 
> Not bad for something that has to "borrow" a Rhino to get around in, eh?


;u; it's beautiful <3


----------



## Zion

Adramalech said:


> ;u; it's beautiful <3


I forgot the squad of Scout Snipers from Sunday as well. They're my armies MVPs at the moment. :biggrin:


----------



## Adramalech

Zion said:


> I forgot the squad of Scout Snipers from Sunday as well. They're my armies MVPs at the moment. :biggrin:


LAWL! I hate scout snipers. My friend would always use them in lower-point battles with my CSMs

this is back when I used CSMs, of course, and not my wonderful, wonderful DE <3


----------



## experiment 626

SilverTabby said:


> Regarding Allies: the WH codex got it right, and I hope that if it's included it works similarly.
> 
> Simply: if you wanted cool stuff from an ally, you had to take x basic troops first. With the IG allies, you needed 1 troop for marginally cool things, Leman Russes required you take 2. Same with the space marine stuff, with the added restriction you couldn't take Sororitas.
> 
> What I would like to see is something akin to: To take an HQ or FA you must take 1 full strength troops choice from your allies. To take an Elite or HS choice, you must take 2 troops choices, one of which must be full strength. These *do* count towards your FOC limits, but do not fill your manditory 2 troops from your own codex.
> 
> That'll stop cherry-pickers.


If allies come back, they should work exactly like they do in Fantasy. (ie: they're for multi-player games and/or 'opponents permission' type games and most definately NOT! for mainstream play!)

Allies coming back, especially into any kind of a competitive setting will just screw up the entire edition and turn it into a giant mess of OTT stupidity. Doesn't matter how you try and restrict it, all allies will do is allow armies to ignore their buint-in weaknesses and the game will suck rotten monkey-balls.
Imagine for example a GK paladin army, now backed-up by blobsquads of IG?!
Or how about CSM's summoning in bloodcrushers + plaguebearers?!
God forbid you run into Eldar teaming up with their dark cousins! (fotuned venoms & doomed squads getting hit by wyches should be real fun, right?!)
I'd hate to be the poor bastard getting to fight hordes of Ork boyz backed-up by Plague Marines & Oblits...

Allies just break the game. Leave them to multi-player & special senarios, or else risk destroying the entire game for the next 4-5+ years!


----------



## Arcane

Zion said:


> To justify my Repentia have killed (to date):
> 
> 5 Tactical Marine Squads (and their transports)
> 3 Sternguard Squads (and their Razorbacks)
> 3 Venerable Dreadnoughts
> 4 Drop Pods
> 5 Dreadnoughts
> 3 Hive Guard
> 2 Land Raiders
> 1 Vindicator
> 8 Bike Marines
> 1 Attack Bike
> 1 Libarian (on a bike)
> 12 Gaunts
> 
> Not bad for something that has to "borrow" a Rhino to get around in, eh?


I've been wanting to run some, they are actually very good under the right circumstances, such as vs dreadnoughts. Unfortunately DCA are cheaper and my Sister list has no shortage of anti tank.


----------



## Zion

Arcane said:


> I've been wanting to run some, they are actually very good under the right circumstances, such as vs dreadnoughts. Unfortunately DCA are cheaper and my Sister list has no shortage of anti tank.


I only run one Battle Conclave in my army (with 5 DCA and 2 Crusaders) so the Repentia make a great second combat unit because they're pretty flexible in terms of what they can kill (3 attacks each on the charge, hitting Marines on 4s and wounding them on 2s without saves is rather fun to throw about the table), and have one of the few Acts of Faith I actually want to go off every turn (the rest are rather meh). Plus at less than 200 points (they're like 210 with the borrowed Rhino with a Dozer Blade I usually give them from one of my Battle Sister squads (aka "Grand Theft Rhino" or "The Can of Rage")). Meltas are nice for anti tank, but I like the strength of the number of attacks the Repentia can drop in a turn which allow me murder vehicles, and they fit pretty well into lower point games (Dominions aren't bad, but the ability to bring a mini-nuke like Repentia is pretty fun in my book).


----------



## Wingman

experiment 626 said:


> If allies come back, they should work exactly like they do in Fantasy. (ie: they're for multi-player games and/or 'opponents permission' type games and most definately NOT! for mainstream play!)
> 
> Allies coming back, especially into any kind of a competitive setting will just screw up the entire edition and turn it into a giant mess of OTT stupidity. Doesn't matter how you try and restrict it, all allies will do is allow armies to ignore their buint-in weaknesses and the game will suck rotten monkey-balls.
> Imagine for example a GK paladin army, now backed-up by blobsquads of IG?!
> Or how about CSM's summoning in bloodcrushers + plaguebearers?!
> God forbid you run into Eldar teaming up with their dark cousins! (fotuned venoms & doomed squads getting hit by wyches should be real fun, right?!)
> I'd hate to be the poor bastard getting to fight hordes of Ork boyz backed-up by Plague Marines & Oblits...
> 
> Allies just break the game. Leave them to multi-player & special senarios, or else risk destroying the entire game for the next 4-5+ years!


 
I agree, I really hope if there are allies rules that they are for multiplayer. Also I'm hoping that it would be more than order vs. chaos since 40k seems to have more teams then that.


----------



## bobahoff

Aw go on just imagine the fun I could have with an interceptor squad with my blood angels or a furioso or death company dreadnought with my grey knights.

I can hear the cries of cheeeeeeeeeeeeeeese


----------



## philthymcnasty

I have to agree with allies breaking the game, but more importantly it takes away from the fun. I enjoyed the xenophobia and the chaos infighting, it gave the game character. Frankly character is all this game has going for it, i started playing void 1.1 metropolis, all pewter miniatures, cheaper, better rules, and the rules are a free pdf. if they break the game, i will have no choice but to move on.


----------



## SilverTabby

Just because a rule is there, doesn't mean everyone will use it. Allies used to be in the game. 2nd Ed had it, and right up until the early 2000's you could take them. Didn't break it then, unlikely it will do so now. 

Yes, you'll have idiots who abuse it. Yes, some will powergame with it. But after the initial "oh my god I can do this wheeeeeee!" factor wears off, it'll be business as usual. 

All that has to be included is the phrase "with opponents permission" or something similar, and hey presto! All sorted if you don't want to face the lists presented in previous comments.


----------



## Arcane

I have to agree with Silver Tabby. Having played with allies in 3rd edition and allied units in 5th edition WH for tournaments I can honestly say it was not broken. 

At most you could take a couple units of Battle Sisters with a IG army, or take the equivalent of a platoon of Guardsmen and a Leman Russ in a SoB army. You could put an Inquisitor with a IG army to give them an interesting unit. Other than that, you really couldn't do much and it in no way broke the game. I can't say I ever rolled a tourney with my IG which included 20 SoB. 

What you would probably see at most is the ability to take 1-2 Troops and a tank (Predator, Razorback etc) from another army. Game breaking? No. Fun? Yes.


----------



## Magpie_Oz

SilverTabby said:


> Just because a rule is there, doesn't mean everyone will use it.


BING ! For goodness sakes guys if there is something in the rules, especially something as nebulous as Allied forces and you don't want to play it THEN DON'T one of the beauties of the GW game is it has that flexibility. 

So rather than stomping off in a huff to play another game that is riding on GW's coat tails and will probably disappear by the end of the next summer like so many before..... just play the game as you and your mates want to play it. 

I think that is on Page 2 of the rule book.


----------



## Tawa

SilverTabby said:


> But after the initial "oh my god I can do this wheeeeeee!" factor wears off, it'll be business as usual.


We must have the same Royal Engineer friends..... :laugh:

Anyways, topical reply. Wayyy back in the mists of 2eD 40k my gaming circle abused the allies as a way of kickstarting a new army project. Sure, we had armies of CSM with a fledgling IG contingent or SM with 'nids etc, but we found it added a bit of hilarity to the games and it spurred us on to get the new armies up to spec to game with properly.

But alas, as already pointed out there will always be the cheesemongers that abuse things in the wrong way


----------



## DecrepitDragon

I honestly dont think that "cheese" gamers, or their counterparts, the flexible users of allies, will count for much when considering when, if, or how allies might be added. Since when did GW add or remove a major game mechanic because the players loved/hated it?

Every mention so far, of any alliy capable force, was a designed factor when the codices in question were released. WH were designed with allies in mind, as were the old CSM and Daemons, even as far back as 2nd ed, as some of you have noted.

How many current codices, that will still be current during the first years of 6th ed, have been designed with allies in mind?

In my humble opinion, I would say, none. In fact, aside from Daemons, most of the new books have been accused of being OP or easy to abuse to some extent (which, to be fair, can be said about most books, I know). This would lead me to conclude that they were never intended to be joined by any other units from any other codex - why would they be needed?

However, the allies system in WFB is a clean, simple and straight-forward way of joining two different armies, and it only takes up, what? around 5 or 10 pages in the rule book? Though I may not agree with its inclusion into 40K, as Magpie suggests at least with this style of allies, I wouldn't need to use it to play a game, and not using it, wouldn't necesarily cut down the number of games I might be able to play.

If allies are coming to 40k again, the WFB system would be the form I would expect it to take.


----------



## misfratz

In order to increase sales GW have roughly two options: sell more to existing customers or attract new customers.

I would have thought that a formal set of rules for adding allies would be a no-brainer way for GW to attempt the first of those two - sell more to existing customers.

Adding allied units to an existing army is a perfect stepping stone towards building a second army, as you can start with just one unit (or perhaps one unit and one character), and still get to play "normal" sized games as you expand your new force.

To be honest, it's the sort of omission that I find frankly bizarre, which is perhaps explicable by the fact that I've never played in a tournament, so I don't accept the premise that the most important function of the ruleset is to provide a balanced set of rules for tournament play.


----------



## Tawa

How does the WFB allies system work in a nutshell?


----------



## TheKingElessar

DecrepitDragon said:


> I honestly dont think that "cheese" gamers, or their counterparts, the flexible users of allies, will count for much when considering when, if, or how allies might be added. Since when did GW add or remove a major game mechanic because the players loved/hated it?


Have you HEARD of the Starcannon? It went from an awesome Marine-killer to the piece of shit it is today, because of the years of bitching and whining by Marine players that their precious heroes were dying like cattle to Eldar's thousands of years older technology.

As for


misfratz said:


> I don't accept the premise that the most important function of the ruleset is to provide a balanced set of rules for tournament play.


Balanced rules are to the benefit of all. Balanced rules stop dickheads ruining the fun of other people - tournament organisers can always rebalance the game better for their events if truly required - pick-up games have to deal with whatever shit gets printed in the BRB...it should therefore be GW's priority to ensure rules are fair for people who have no recourse to other rules, eg, casual players.


----------



## Kreuger

On your point about starcannons, I can't speak to GW's thought process but they were pretty broken. The problem wasn't that they killed marines so well, it was the cost to do it. If I recall, starcannons cost about the same as a heavy bolter, with the same number of shots, and higher strength and Ap value. They were about as balanced as CSM blood letters were under the last chaos codex. For 1 point more than an assault marine I got a unit who was stronger, had better saves, had power weapons, and could be summoned and charge in the same turn. The closest comparable unit was lightning law assault terminators, and they cost almost twice as much, and couldn't charge from deep striking.

On your second point, I couldn't agree more. A well written, well edited, well referenced, and well balanced rule set is in the best interest of GW and of the entire player base. How could it be in anyone's best interest to produce an inferior game? The only possible argument against balance is the supposition that a spiraling system of codex creep leads long time power gamers to buy a new army every year or every other year. However that undermines the community and the other gamers who want an opportunity to compete fairly and improve their armies to do so.


----------



## Vanchet

Anyone have a link to the pic of the rule book cover?


----------



## DecrepitDragon

TheKingElessar said:


> Have you HEARD of the Starcannon? It went from an awesome Marine-killer to the piece of shit it is today, because of the years of bitching and whining by Marine players that their precious heroes were dying like cattle to Eldar's thousands of years older technology.


When I said game mechanic, I meant something more broad than just an individual weapon from one codex. Something like overwatch, or consolidation into combat (and, indeed, allies). These were primarily removed because that was the direction the devs wanted to take the system, not because we either liked or disliked them.

(And lets be honest about it, did GW change the starcannon because we were whining about it, or because it was broken?)



TheKingElessar said:


> Balanced rules are to the benefit of all. Balanced rules stop dickheads ruining the fun of other people - tournament organisers can always rebalance the game better for their events if truly required - pick-up games have to deal with whatever shit gets printed in the BRB...it should therefore be GW's priority to ensure rules are fair for people who have no recourse to other rules, eg, casual players.


This I really couldn't agree more with. A fine point, well made. :victory:

@Misfratz, I do agree with your wide description of how GW could increase sales, but I would say that most of us have one or two (sometimes more) main armies. Which would you be likely to buy first: a new, fresh cool unit for your main army, or an untried but interesting option from another codex? I think most of us would choose the former, even if the second option held some novelty value.

@Tawa, The WFB allies is a broad gathering of all the armies into three groups, loosely defined as good, neutral and bad. You can ally with almost any other force, gaining benefits from members of your own group, and hinderences from the opposing group. There are some provisos and such, but thats it in a general sense.


----------



## Necrosis

BoW just release some rumors on wound allocation:
http://www.beastsofwar.com/warhammer-40k/wound-allocation-works-6th-edition-40k/

You will have to allocate wounds to models closest to the unit that fired at you.


----------



## Arcane

Necrosis said:


> BoW just release some rumors on wound allocation:
> http://www.beastsofwar.com/warhammer-40k/wound-allocation-works-6th-edition-40k/
> 
> You will have to allocate wounds to models closest to the unit that fired at you.


I find that hard to believe as it sounds like a step back to earlier editions. It seems like GW has favored TLOS over shooting at closest models.


----------



## Necrosis

I for one actually like this rule. Always hated how when i shot a unit all the guys in the back died. Also TLOS can work with this rule.


----------



## Zion

Necrosis said:


> BoW just release some rumors on wound allocation:
> http://www.beastsofwar.com/warhammer-40k/wound-allocation-works-6th-edition-40k/
> 
> You will have to allocate wounds to models closest to the unit that fired at you.


I'm curious how this pays out with a large number of wounds. Do they mean that wounds have to be allocated starting from the closest models, or only on the closest models? If its the latter it'd make foot sloggers more resiliant as they'd only have to worry about losing a couple models at a time (even more so if you can abuse that by keeping 1 lone model ahead of the rest), but if it's the first that'd be a lot more fair to both sides I think (though it makes my expensive Heavy Flamers a lot less good since they'd be forced to take saves every turn then ). Since they only showed 3 wounds but had 6 models it's hard to know exactly where this is going since the example wasn't complete. How will the possible new rule handle situations where the unit takes more wounds than there are models for example? Do you just loop back around and start from the front again?

Anyways, good find. I've added your post to the front page with the link and all. Nice find!



Arcane said:


> I find that hard to believe as it sounds like a step back to earlier editions. It seems like GW has favored TLOS over shooting at closest models.


It's just wound allocation not target priority. And it makes sense (unless you've got a sniper rifle) that you'd be shooting at the nearest models first when shooting at a given unit. You're still shooting at a given unit, you're just wounding the ones nearest to you TLOS style (I assume at least).

Of course I'm just guessing and can be totally wrong.


----------



## SilverTabby

That would make the shoot-then-charge option less favoured. You'd shoot yourself out of charge range. Which I wouldn't be against...


----------



## Zion

SilverTabby said:


> That would make the shoot-then-charge option less favoured. You'd shoot yourself out of charge range. Which I wouldn't be against...


True, but I think in turn we'd see models setting up the charge closer to enemy models when they can (like 2-3" close) to prevent this problem. And shooting yourself out of charge range (when your looking at just being in at 6" or even 5") happens now, it's just something we have to plan around and for.


----------



## TheKingElessar

Starcannons got hit twice though - in fact three times. Once by increasing minimum squad size, one in cost, and once by nerfing the statline. Any one of those was enough, or two at most. A trifecta of nerf. 

As to this rumour - jeez, I hope not!

Firstly, close combat in underweighted by the rules, and would require massive overhaul to be better enough to justify this.
Secondly, CC specialists often need to be at the front (eg, PK Nobz) in order to allow them to strike your desired target. Them getting killed sooner is bad.
Thirdly, special weapon troops, same as above. Flamers have an 8" range, Meltas are most effective in 6" Fusion and Infernus Pistols have only 6" range - these MORE EXPENSIVE squad members MUST be closer to the foe to do anything.

Making basic units less effective because their upgrades become shit is a move towards Herohammer.

I've played an Edition of that already, and it was cool cos I was a child. I have no desire to return to that.


----------



## Magpie_Oz

I had always thought the whole "take casualties from the back" thing was to sort of simulate people running forward when the front row falls, picking up the dropped weps etc.

Don't understand why you'd change that.


----------



## TheKingElessar

Especially given they've changed how it works in WFB...


----------



## Zion

TheKingElessar said:


> As to this rumour - jeez, I hope not!
> 
> Firstly, close combat in underweighted by the rules, and would require massive overhaul to be better enough to justify this.
> Secondly, CC specialists often need to be at the front (eg, PK Nobz) in order to allow them to strike your desired target. Them getting killed sooner is bad.
> Thirdly, special weapon troops, same as above. Flamers have an 8" range, Meltas are most effective in 6" Fusion and Infernus Pistols have only 6" range - these MORE EXPENSIVE squad members MUST be closer to the foe to do anything.
> 
> Making basic units less effective because their upgrades become shit is a move towards Herohammer.
> 
> I've played an Edition of that already, and it was cool cos I was a child. I have no desire to return to that.


It makes the heroes less effective and more likely to get bubble wrapped too since they're independent characters and have to be in base to base with an enemy model to swing (unless the rules for that change) that means they'd be stuck waiting for a turn or two unless they were forward, forcing them to take more wounds. 

And the Nob doesn't have to be in 6" of an enemy before the charge, he's not an independent character so he can swing from 2" which means as long as there are some Boyz around for him to be within 2" of he's got roughly an 8" range.

I don't like what this does to specialist shooting models (unless this somehow works so we still don't have to pull them as someone else in the squad "picks up their weapon" and continues the fight) but we don't have the full rule set yet, so I think we're still missing important details (like how the assault rules will work, or where the rest of the wound allocation rules are since that example BoW gave only works for wounds less than the total number of models in the squad). It looks bad but it may not be as crap as we think it is right now.



Magpie_Oz said:


> I had always thought the whole "take casualties from the back" thing was to sort of simulate people running forward when the front row falls, picking up the dropped weps etc.
> 
> Don't understand why you'd change that.


Given the example BoW gave it forces people to be smarter about their ICs and Sergeants (keeping them further back, thus having to think about positioning more though I don't know why anyone would be putting a Cyclone Missile Launcher up in the front anyways). I think this is a ruleset designed around more tactical thinking and the idea that in the universe of 40K anyone can die (which I'm actually kind of okay with because that's how it is in the fluff (unless your Celestine that is, she can survive the end of the Universe as long as the Emperor doesn't say it's her time) and it promotes people having to work a more serious risk/reward strategy in their squads).

Either way, I think we'll see in the future how well this plays out (as BoW did say that we may NOT see this) and how the full ruleset goes.


----------



## Adramalech

We already have to allocate our wounds as evenly as possible. Making short-range upgrade weapons (meltas, flamers, heat lances, etc) and CC models that much less effective is a terrible idea.

I don't want to have to spend more points on transports for my DE T.T


----------



## Zion

Adramalech said:


> We already have to allocate our wounds as evenly as possible. Making short-range upgrade weapons (meltas, flamers, heat lances, etc) and CC models that much less effective is a terrible idea.
> 
> I don't want to have to spend more points on transports for my DE T.T


I shot the BoW guys a PM asking for some more clarification. If they give me anything I'll post it up here.

That said, it may be a case of bubblewrapping more important models in the middle and only moving them forward when you need them to be at the forefront of things. It just means you can't have them in the front -all- of the time. Either way, we don't have a complete ruleset, and if I recall correctly the 6th edition rules from the PDF that BoW mentioned was partially correct had you pull generic guys first then everyone else, so it may be a combination of the two. You take wounds on the generic guys (pulling from the front) then the ICs, special weapons, ect. 

Either way before the rest of the internet cries that the sky is falling remember that BoW warned us to take salt, these may not be the rules we're getting, these are just the ones they've been told about, and they may be different than what they were told. ADDITIONALLY in the terms of 5th Edition it sounds bad, but without the full context of the edition these rules are for we can't fairly or accurately judge how these are supposed to actually work in the grand scheme of things.

TL;DR: Keep calm and carry on. :wink:


----------



## Arcane

Not to mention how much it would slow down the game. Hmm, which model is closest, err hold on let me measure them all...


----------



## Zion

More from Beasts of War: http://www.beastsofwar.com/warhammer-40k/fantasy-style-challenges-warhammer-40k-close-combat/


----------



## TheKingElessar

I know the Nob has an 8" reach, but Orks aren't exactly tough, what with no armour to speak of. Easy enough to make that the front.

What a dumb nerf to CC units it would be...


----------



## Zion

TheKingElessar said:


> I know the Nob has an 8" reach, but Orks aren't exactly tough, what with no armour to speak of. Easy enough to make that the front.
> 
> What a dumb nerf to CC units it would be...


Very true. Who knows, maybe shooting really will be taking a nerf as we've heard before (though if that's the case, it'll likely be under some kind of easier modifier than the evasion stuff, because that was a bit too much).


----------



## TheKingElessar

And far too complicated. The 'leak' was just so horribly broken though - I tried to get one of my friends to do a batrep with me to demonstrate, but neither of us could stomach it in the end. The further we delved, the less fun it became.

Shooting doesn't need a nerf, all we need is a change to the way the A stat works. At present, CC is rarely deadly enough, as you don't have enough dice to be assured of killing things, especially vehicles.

Once that's done, we give units that made a Consolidate move in the previous Assault Phase a 'free' Cover Save of 5+, or Stealth if they are in Cover.

Hosing units in your lines becomes MUCH harder, but non-elite CC units will still get torrented down most of the time.


----------



## mcmuffin

I might have a chat with darrell on saturday night and try to glean some more info on 6th ed stuff.


----------



## Adramalech

Zion said:


> I shot the BoW guys a PM asking for some more clarification. If they give me anything I'll post it up here.
> 
> That said, it may be a case of bubblewrapping more important models in the middle and only moving them forward when you need them to be at the forefront of things. It just means you can't have them in the front -all- of the time. Either way, we don't have a complete ruleset, and if I recall correctly the 6th edition rules from the PDF that BoW mentioned was partially correct had you pull generic guys first then everyone else, so it may be a combination of the two. You take wounds on the generic guys (pulling from the front) then the ICs, special weapons, ect.
> 
> Either way before the rest of the internet cries that the sky is falling remember that BoW warned us to take salt, these may not be the rules we're getting, these are just the ones they've been told about, and they may be different than what they were told. ADDITIONALLY in the terms of 5th Edition it sounds bad, but without the full context of the edition these rules are for we can't fairly or accurately judge how these are supposed to actually work in the grand scheme of things.
> 
> TL;DR: Keep calm and carry on. :wink:


oh ok


----------



## TheKingElessar

mcmuffin said:


> I might have a chat with darrell on saturday night and try to glean some more info on 6th ed stuff.


It is a nice advantage over the rest of Heresy that we will see the guy on Saturday in person...:wink:


----------



## mcmuffin

TheKingElessar said:


> It is a nice advantage over the rest of Heresy that we will see the guy on Saturday in person...:wink:


Well, considering we are drinking with him on saturday night and staying in the same hotel, I may have to try to get some more 40k rumours out of him.


----------



## scscofield

mcmuffin said:


> Well, considering we are drinking with him on saturday night and staying in the same hotel, I may have to try to coax something out of him.


That line could be taken in other ways :-D Sorry couldn't resist.


----------



## mcmuffin

I have edited my post so as not to infer any puerile connotations :security:


----------



## DecrepitDragon

Spoilsport. :biggrin:


----------



## Zion

mcmuffin said:


> Well, considering we are drinking with him on saturday night and staying in the same hotel, I may have to try to get some more 40k rumours out of him.


Is that what they're calling it these days? Is he going to share his "leak" with you? Perhaps "unload some information" while he's at it?


Yeah, editing it didn't help any.



Childish jokes aside, as always I'd love to know more if we could hear more. I'm avoiding jumping to any conclusions on this stuff and instead waiting to see what we're actually getting before I make any sort of major statement about how great or horrible 6th edition is.


----------



## Adramalech

Zion said:


> Is that what they're calling it these days? Is he going to share his "leak" with you? Perhaps "unload some information" while he's at it?
> 
> 
> Yeah, editing it didn't help any.
> 
> 
> 
> Childish jokes aside, as always I'd love to know more if we could hear more. I'm avoiding jumping to any conclusions on this stuff and instead waiting to see what we're actually getting before I make any sort of major statement about how great or horrible 6th edition is.


I see what you did there

ALSO: frotting <3


----------



## Archon Dan

Challenging seems like it could be interesting but boasts some serious complications as well. Some units would become uber powerful, either slaying whatever they challenge or keeping it at bay(keeping it from wiping their squad) while wiping out their squad. I just don't see it happening except on a limited basis. Perhaps one character per codex who is known to be the CC badass. Dark Eldar actually already have a character who can do similar. Drazhar can be repositioned at the start of the combat phase, so long as he maintains coherency and can be placed in the spot you want. Let's him target an IC or the squad or just retreat behind his minions. So it that case, Drazhar could accept a challenge and then move elsewhere.


----------



## Zion

More from BoW: http://youtu.be/fmEmwEJjoK8

Looks like the Quick Fire rule that Tasty mentioned. I'm wondering if they have the same source on this one.


----------



## DecrepitDragon

Interesting.

WFB used to get additions from 40k to streamline the rules, seem its going the other way for a change.

Charge reactions, a WD with strange terrain/weather effects, allies. . .

I wonder how much is actually going to be accurate, or whether its all just wish-listing by all of us rumour starved players.


----------



## Necrosis

Charge reaction is probably also going to require an initiative test.


----------



## Adramalech

Necrosis said:


> Charge reaction is probably also going to require an initiative test.


Well I would certainly hope so. .__.


----------



## Zion

Necrosis said:


> Charge reaction is probably also going to require an initiative test.


So as an example if we add in the initiative test: 1-3 roll for a Guardsman to shoot, then a 6+ to hit, and then a 5+ to wound a Space Marine? That's a lot of rolls and we haven't even gotten into combat yet. A 6+ to hit is a strong blow already, then again I play Sisters and my normal Invul Save for most of my army is 6++ so I can tell you that you won't make nearly enough of those on average to count on them to make it reliable. Adding an initiative test takes something that wouldn't hit much to start with normally (lucky rolls aside as you'd still have to wound and get past their armor) and it gets a lot worse as a rule.

Not to mention even the BoW guys aren't sure what weapon types can do it, might end up just being Pistols or it might have a set restriction of another type (Leadership test to see if the squad's morale holds up and their able to keep their head and shoot the charging unit?). We can be sure that they'll only get to shoot the first unit that charges them though (just like how counter-charge doesn't give you another attack if you're already in combat and you're charged again I can't imagine that a unit up to it's neck in combat would be able to take shots at someone else slamming into their lines), so if you've tied up some Marines for a turn with some Gaunts the Genestealers would be safe to finish the job.

But that's supposition on my part. We've got, what exactly? Around a month and a half before 6th drops (if the rumors stand that is)? We'll have a better understanding of it all then I'm sure.


----------



## Necrosis

Zion said:


> So as an example if we add in the initiative test: 1-3 roll for a Guardsman to shoot, then a 6+ to hit, and then a 5+ to wound a Space Marine? That's a lot of rolls and we haven't even gotten into combat yet. A 6+ to hit is a strong blow already, then again I play Sisters and my normal Invul Save for most of my army is 6++ so I can tell you that you won't make nearly enough of those on average to count on them to make it reliable. Adding an initiative test takes something that wouldn't hit much to start with normally (lucky rolls aside as you'd still have to wound and get past their armor) and it gets a lot worse as a rule.
> 
> Not to mention even the BoW guys aren't sure what weapon types can do it, might end up just being Pistols or it might have a set restriction of another type (Leadership test to see if the squad's morale holds up and their able to keep their head and shoot the charging unit?). We can be sure that they'll only get to shoot the first unit that charges them though (just like how counter-charge doesn't give you another attack if you're already in combat and you're charged again I can't imagine that a unit up to it's neck in combat would be able to take shots at someone else slamming into their lines), so if you've tied up some Marines for a turn with some Gaunts the Genestealers would be safe to finish the job.
> 
> But that's supposition on my part. We've got, what exactly? Around a month and a half before 6th drops (if the rumors stand that is)? We'll have a better understanding of it all then I'm sure.


A 6+ to hit may seem low, but what if the weapons are twin link or don't require to hit (flamer) or is a blast weapon (grenade launcher). Take a look at genesteallers and wyches, if they charge you and your reaction is to shot them with a flamer (and if your sisters a heavy flamer also) then that squad might be dead before they finish their charge.

Reason I say this is cause Forge world created a similar rule called reaction fire: http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Downloads/Product/PDF/Z/zonemortalis.pdf


----------



## Zion

Necrosis said:


> A 6+ to hit may seem low, but what if the weapons are twin link or don't require to hit (flamer) or is a blast weapon (grenade launcher). Take a look at genesteallers and wyches, if they charge you and your reaction is to shot them with a flamer (and if your sisters a heavy flamer also) then that squad might be dead before they finish their charge.
> 
> Reason I say this is cause Forge world created a similar rule called reaction fire: http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Downloads/Product/PDF/Z/zonemortalis.pdf


Right, but we may not see templates as an option for quick fire (as we don't know what weapons will get to do it or the full rule). And yes, a heavy flamer would squish T3/T4 enemies pretty good (look a mob of Boys on fire!) but who knows, maybe this will be a USR for certian kinds of weapons? Like rapid fire or twin-linked but on certian kinds of weapons(like pistols (that'd make a Plasma Pistol worth more points for sure)). 

There are just too many possibilities with something like this for us to know for sure. Especially when we take into consideration that we don't know the full wound allocation for shooting rules (do all wounds only go on the models in front for example, or do they start there and work backwards as the wounds pile up until you run out of range (and start in the front again) or something else?). Heck we don't even have information how templates will wound in the future yet. 

Either way I think comparing things to Forge World is nice in theory, but it's like comparing it to Fantasy or any of the Specialists Games. 40K is it's own monster, and may carry over some similarities but I don't think it's going to lift rules wholesale anytime soon (plus Forge World writes their stuff seperate from the codex writers who the mainline stuff). Eitherway before we start jump to conclusions and muddle the waters with additional supposition let's not go adding anything we don't know to the rumors). If you got a source and you want to share, that's awesome! I'd love to add more pieces to the jigsaw, but be careful when stating opinions or ideas that don't have backing as people do confuse supposition for actual rumor from a source. It's started arguments and flame wars on some sites and I don't want to see it pop up here.


----------



## Arcane

Seems really doubtful they will be causing such a nerf to CC, what with the emphasis seeming to be on uber CC ICs these days. Also the reaction fire seems to be contrary to these "challenge" rumors. On top of all that, slowing down the game. 

GW has really covered this new rulebook up well this time.


----------



## TheKingElessar

Arcane said:


> what with the emphasis seeming to be on uber CC ICs these days.


Go through any old Codex - GW has always favoured special Characters being CC monsters, and the majority of options are CC-related for IC wargear, it's only the players who have ever shown a preference for shooting characters.

Who wouldn't want a Captain with a Lascannon instead of a Bolt Pistol?! :laugh:


----------



## Arcane

TheKingElessar said:


> Go through *any* old Codex - GW has always favoured special Characters being CC monsters, and the majority of options are CC-related for IC wargear, it's only the players who have ever shown a preference for shooting characters.
> 
> Who wouldn't want a Captain with a Lascannon instead of a Bolt Pistol?! :laugh:


Been through them all. I played 3rd ed SoB and Gk, I would hardly call the special characters CC monsters by today's standards. Certaintly not the Canoness and even the GK characters weren't quite the Mephistons of today. Of course there were Ghazghkulls out there but they seemed to be the exception rather than the rule that has been these last couple years.


----------



## TheKingElessar

Not by today's standards, sure. But the vast majority of Characters have always been CC-oriented. Celestine, Canoness with a Cloak, Jump Pack, and Eviscerator, Yarrick, Ghazzy, Phoenix Lords barring Maugan Ra, Marneus Calgar, Chaplain Xavier, Dante, Azrael, Kharn, Abaddon, the list goes on and on. 

Games Workshop shows a marked preference for CC-based units and characters, in every edition of the game, excepting that in this Edition shooting is inherently superior to CC.


----------



## Words_of_Truth

Hmm well I can only think of one good ranged character and I think that's the Raptor's Chapter Master from Forgeworld who is totally ranged afaik.


----------



## Zion

More from BoW: http://youtu.be/5TTU1O3eO4Q

Another one that lines up with the old PDF document. Maybe related to the BoK rumor where it happens in the deployment phase? 

No talking about it being cinematic this time.


----------



## SGMAlice

Words_of_Truth said:


> Hmm well I can only think of one good ranged character and I think that's the Raptor's Chapter Master from Forgeworld who is totally ranged afaik.


Lias Issodon is not totally ranged. Essentially he is a Tactical Sergeant, with a Power Weapon and named Bolter. Thats it.

Alice


----------



## Words_of_Truth

SGMAlice said:


> Lias Issodon is not totally ranged. Essentially he is a Tactical Sergeant, with a Power Weapon and named Bolter. Thats it.
> 
> Alice


Was a while since I read his rules but will do so again, it's only that I recalled he was more focused towards ranged which is rare.


----------



## SGMAlice

Words_of_Truth said:


> Was a while since I read his rules but will do so again, it's only that I recalled he was more focused towards ranged which is rare.


Indeed. The Power Weapon is as standard but the Bolter has a better profile than normal.

Alice


----------



## Magpie_Oz

The named bolter tho' has the Sternguard ammo which leans towards a ranged preference?


----------



## SGMAlice

Magpie_Oz said:


> The named bolter tho' has the Sternguard ammo which leans towards a ranged preference?


Yes, it can use Special Issue Ammunition but if it does so its profile changes from Rapid Fire to Heavy. Sternguard do not have that limitation.

Lias leans more towards Stealth than anything else.

Alice


----------



## Zion

Words_of_Truth said:


> Hmm well I can only think of one good ranged character and I think that's the Raptor's Chapter Master from Forgeworld who is totally ranged afaik.


Some named SC's who (in my opinion) are more shooting oriented:

Sergeant Telion: BS6 Sniper who can share his BS with someone in his squad (if he doesn't shoot) and allocate wounds (if he does). Comes with a Bolt Pistol but no close combat weapon.

Brother-Sergeant Chronus: BS5 Tank Commander that makes his tank ignore shaken and stunned results and uses his BS. Can survive if the tank does by is basically a Techmarine with a bolt pistol then (WS4 with a Servo arm).

Knight Commander Pask: BS4 Leman Russ Commander who get a +1 vs tank penetration rolls or reroll to wound vs MCs if his tank didn't move. He's destroyed if the tank is.

Shadowsun: Yes she's Weapon Skill/Strength/Initiatve 4 (that can't join a unit unless her drones die), but no one really takes her for that, they take her because she's BS5 with two fusion blasters and provides a leadership 10 bubble in a stealth suit.

Maugan Ra: WS/BS7 but only has a special missile launcher and a series of special rules that pertain to shooting.

Finally I'd argue the Doom of Malan'tai because while it can become S10, it's abilities aremuch better suited for shooting than for close combat.

Now I didn't go through every codex, just the ones I had immediately around, but I'd say we have a few SCs out there who are more shooty than punchy at least.


----------



## Words_of_Truth

I'd be really interested in a Raptor's army, especially after _Deliverance Lost_ Just the colour scheme isn't that appealing.

Anyway keep telling myself, no more marines, everyone seems to play them be they Imperial or Traitor, I hope this new edition makes for more interesting diversity instead of armies of one extreme to another.


----------



## misfratz

Words_of_Truth said:


> Anyway keep telling myself, no more marines, everyone seems to play them be they Imperial or Traitor, I hope this new edition makes for more interesting diversity instead of armies of one extreme to another.


The rumours of cultists in the 6th edition starter set are very interesting in this regard.

If the Chaos side had a good list (in addition to Daemons), with only a very small number of power armour guys, then it would help a lot.


----------



## Words_of_Truth

Zion said:


> Some named SC's who (in my opinion) are more shooting oriented:
> 
> Sergeant Telion: BS6 Sniper who can share his BS with someone in his squad (if he doesn't shoot) and allocate wounds (if he does). Comes with a Bolt Pistol but no close combat weapon.
> 
> Brother-Sergeant Chronus: BS5 Tank Commander that makes his tank ignore shaken and stunned results and uses his BS. Can survive if the tank does by is basically a Techmarine with a bolt pistol then (WS4 with a Servo arm).
> 
> Knight Commander Pask: BS4 Leman Russ Commander who get a +1 vs tank penetration rolls or reroll to wound vs MCs if his tank didn't move. He's destroyed if the tank is.
> 
> Shadowsun: Yes she's Weapon Skill/Strength/Initiatve 4 (that can't join a unit unless her drones die), but no one really takes her for that, they take her because she's BS5 with two fusion blasters and provides a leadership 10 bubble in a stealth suit.
> 
> Maugan Ra: WS/BS7 but only has a special missile launcher and a series of special rules that pertain to shooting.
> 
> Finally I'd argue the Doom of Malan'tai because while it can become S10, it's abilities aremuch better suited for shooting than for close combat.
> 
> Now I didn't go through every codex, just the ones I had immediately around, but I'd say we have a few SCs out there who are more shooty than punchy at least.


Sure but the ratio of CC orientated characters compared to those who are equally as effective via shooting is woefully low and tend to be minimalistic in that they get a single extra shot or +1 to penetration where as melee characters have god knows how many attacks brutally hard to kill and generally take out units single handedly.



misfratz said:


> The rumours of cultists in the 6th edition starter set are very interesting in this regard.
> 
> If the Chaos side had a good list (in addition to Daemons), with only a very small number of power armour guys, then it would help a lot.


I hope so, the game seems so centred around MEQ that it's not interesting, especially compared to fantasy which is so diverse and intricate in the differences it makes battles a lot more unique and different.


----------



## TheKingElessar

Zion said:


> Some named SC's who (in my opinion) are more shooting oriented:
> 
> Sergeant Telion: BS6 Sniper who can share his BS with someone in his squad (if he doesn't shoot) and allocate wounds (if he does). Comes with a Bolt Pistol but no close combat weapon.
> 
> Brother-Sergeant Chronus: BS5 Tank Commander that makes his tank ignore shaken and stunned results and uses his BS. Can survive if the tank does by is basically a Techmarine with a bolt pistol then (WS4 with a Servo arm).
> 
> Knight Commander Pask: BS4 Leman Russ Commander who get a +1 vs tank penetration rolls or reroll to wound vs MCs if his tank didn't move. He's destroyed if the tank is.
> 
> Shadowsun: Yes she's Weapon Skill/Strength/Initiatve 4 (that can't join a unit unless her drones die), but no one really takes her for that, they take her because she's BS5 with two fusion blasters and provides a leadership 10 bubble in a stealth suit.
> 
> Maugan Ra: WS/BS7 but only has a special missile launcher and a series of special rules that pertain to shooting.
> 
> Finally I'd argue the Doom of Malan'tai because while it can become S10, it's abilities aremuch better suited for shooting than for close combat.
> 
> Now I didn't go through every codex, just the ones I had immediately around, but I'd say we have a few SCs out there who are more shooty than punchy at least.


Maugan Ra has a Rending Shuriken Cannon, not a Missile Launcher, and he also has a WS7 and a S7 Power Weapon.

I'm not saying shooty characters don't exist - but that GW has always made a determined effort to make CC characters instead. You can easily name me a dozen or more shooty ones - even defunct ones like Stumper Muckstart - and I'll find over twice that number of CC guys, even excluding Forge World.

Three of those are also only brought in in this Codex, iirc - I don't THINK Pask was in the old IG book, but don't own a copy.

Deliverance Lost was surely Raven Guard, not Raptors. Raptors are a Blood Angel Successor, no?


----------



## Words_of_Truth

Raptors are a Raven Guard successor who are part of the focus in Deliverance Lost, at least their origins are.


----------



## SGMAlice

Words_of_Truth said:


> Raptors are a Raven Guard successor who are part of the focus in Deliverance Lost, at least their origins are.


This^ They are indeed a successor of the Raven Guard.

Alice


----------



## Zion

Words_of_Truth said:


> Sure but the ratio of CC orientated characters compared to those who are equally as effective via shooting is woefully low and tend to be minimalistic in that they get a single extra shot or +1 to penetration where as melee characters have god knows how many attacks brutally hard to kill and generally take out units single handedly.


Oh I know, I just wanted to point out that there are a few out there. Not a LOT mind you (averaging about 1 a codex at most out of the upwards to roughly 5 or so SCs at least in the books I looked at) but after looking at the SCs in the books I've got I think we've got a pretty good split between CC specialists, shooting specialists, generalists (SCs that do both shooting and CC about equally) and support SCs (like Master of the Forge who gives you up to 6 Dreadnoughts, or Khan who lets you make an outflanking army). Sure a lot of SCs are punchy, but there are also a fair number who are shooty or support based as well.





Words_of_Truth said:


> I hope so, the game seems so centred around MEQ that it's not interesting, especially compared to fantasy which is so diverse and intricate in the differences it makes battles a lot more unique and different.


That has to do more with the largest of codexes we got being Marine based (IG, 3 Xenos (Tyranids, Dark Eldar and Necrons) and 4 Marine codexes (with multiple chapters being able to be built from in the Vanilla Marine book, Space Wolves pulling triple duty as Space Wolves, Iron Hands and Chaos Marines, Blood Angels being the used as Blood Angels, Khorne based armies and I've heard of a couple people using them as Night Lords, and Grey Knights saw a lot of players jumping on board due to the strengths of the book (and a lot of crying from parts of the internet that you MUST play them to win hasn't helped any)) as well the interchangeability between books with a lot of the same basic equipment it means that picking up Marines isn't just a good starter army but a reasonable investment if you want to play your army in largely different ways to keep it fresh without spending a lot of money.



TheKingElessar said:


> Maugan Ra has a Rending Shuriken Cannon, not a Missile Launcher, and he also has a WS7 and a S7 Power Weapon.


My mistake. I assumed it was a missile launcher for some reason. I don't know where that idea came from.

And I must have missed something, Maugan Ra only has his Shuriken Cannon listed under his wargear, or is there some standard wargear for Phoenix Lords I missed? I'll admit I was skimming through this morning and I'm not an expert on Eldar so I likely missed something.

Either way, he still looks like someone designed to spend more time shooting than anything else.


----------



## Karyudo-DS

Zion said:


> And I must have missed something, Maugan Ra only has his Shuriken Cannon listed under his wargear, or is there some standard wargear for Phoenix Lords I missed? I'll admit I was skimming through this morning and I'm not an expert on Eldar so I likely missed something.
> 
> Either way, he still looks like someone designed to spend more time shooting than anything else.


Each Phoenix Lord's wargear is similar to their aspect, though I don't think any literally use their aspect gear but Ra being related to the reapers might be what you were thinking with their missiles and such.


----------



## TheKingElessar

The Maugetar :


Eldar Codex said:


> This is an ancient shuriken cannon that has an inbuilt executioner (see page 23). It has the following profile: Range: 36" S: 6 AP: 5 Assault 4, Pinning, Rending


Ra is the only Phoenix Lord that really achieves a balance between ranged and assault combat.

Oh - and Khan grants a boost to the whole force, yes - but he runs around with a giant sword.

I remember now that Raptors are a RG successor (haven't read Deliverance Lost yet...) just got thrown by my friend Chris playing them as Codex:BA. Silly mistake on my part.


----------



## davespil

Yeah, I hate the focus that GW puts on CC. Its the future, most people should be shooting. I wish there were more skills for shooting and a focus on fire and maneuver. Maybe some benefits for firing from a fixed position or having not moved last turn. You know, add some realism to the game.

Also, they need to extend the ranges of guns. I can hit a man size target from 500 yards away with out any kind of scope on an M16A2 9 out of 10 times. And I only got to fire my rifle 3-4 times a year... So 40,000 years in the future only really heavy guns have that kind of reach? Obviously there will be penalties for firing that far. Firing at a paper target and firing at a moving person are completely different. But it is very possible.

I also want to know why a Marine running around in power armor can move and run as fast (or move and charge) as fast as a rhino. Just some things that they need to fix, but I doubt it will happen. Apparently the future contains a lot of people with worse guns then we have now, running as fast as their transports just to charge each other in hand to hand combat.


----------



## Words_of_Truth

Marines can run as fast as a rhino because their armour is fully powered with servos and enhancements.


----------



## Zion

Words_of_Truth said:


> Marines can run as fast as a rhino because their armour is fully powered with servos and enhancements.


Or the Rhinos aren't very fast. It's a robust and durable, but slow vehicle. I mean the Blood Angels have completely different engines in theirs just to make them less ponderous. 

That or you can assume their is some kind of real-world reason they don't drive Rhinos quickly like they easilly throw track. 

And do we REALLY need to make Rhinos that much faster? We already have a lack of non-mech armies in the game, I don't think we need to encourage it further.


----------



## SGMAlice

For clarification:

Rhino: Top Speed: 70Kph

As referenced from the IA books.

Alice


----------



## Words_of_Truth

Well transports all broadly move at the same speed for balance I guess.


----------



## mcmuffin

Foot armies are good, people just don't like trying them out for fear of loss.


----------



## Tawa

SGMAlice said:


> For clarification:
> 
> Rhino: Top Speed: 70Kph
> 
> As referenced from the IA books.
> 
> Alice


Which is only slightly slower than the UK's Warrior, and a nudge faster than the US Bradley.


----------



## Kreuger

Also consider the nature of movie in rough terrain in a combat situation. If I recall the rules allow a rhino on a road to move more efficiently.


----------



## Zion

SGMAlice said:


> For clarification:
> 
> Rhino: Top Speed: 70Kph
> 
> As referenced from the IA books.
> 
> Alice


I'd assume that's on flat ground with no obstacles or debris. In your typical 40K battlefield (one of rough terrain, collapsed buildings and craters) I'd assume they'd probably do 10-15mph (16-24kph) to prevent from throwing a track, losing control or hitting something.


----------



## SGMAlice

Zion said:


> I'd assume that's on flat ground with no obstacles or debris. In your typical 40K battlefield (one of rough terrain, collapsed buildings and craters) I'd assume they'd probably do 10-15mph (16-24kph) to prevent from throwing a track, losing control or hitting something.


Indeed. The Entry states two speeds. One for On Road and one for Off Road.
These values are 70Kph and 48Kph respectively.

Based on evidence from various sources, it can be assumed that the Off Road speed is to account for the circumstances you suggest.

Alice


----------



## mcmuffin

SGMAlice said:


> Indeed. The Entry states two speeds. One for On Road and one for Off Road.
> These values are 70Kph and 48Kph respectively.
> 
> Based on evidence from various sources, it can be assumed that the Off Road speed is to account for the circumstances you suggest.
> 
> Alice


plus then I imagine the effects of having missiles flying your way and stuff flying all over the place would reduce that to about 30kph


----------



## SGMAlice

mcmuffin said:


> plus then I imagine the effects of having missiles flying your way and stuff flying all over the place would reduce that to about 30kph


Paint the scenario in any way you wish. I was merely providing information to assist in the conversation as i own every Apocalypse/IA book available and these books are those that contain this kind of information. 

Alice


----------



## mcmuffin

SGMAlice said:


> Paint the scenario in any way you wish. I was merely providing information to assist in the conversation as i own every Apocalypse/IA book available and these books are those that contain this kind of information.
> 
> Alice


Oh, i wasn't trying to be irascible, i was just elaborating more on the information you gave us to try and justify why they move relatively slowly in game.


----------



## Zion

SGMAlice said:


> Paint the scenario in any way you wish. I was merely providing information to assist in the conversation as i own every Apocalypse/IA book available and these books are those that contain this kind of information.
> 
> Alice


Top speeds in given conditions aside, making the standard Rhino or Chimera (and by association, vehicles based on these vehicle chassis) faster really doesn't seem like a good idea in the grand scheme of things. It takes away bonuses to armies who have faster moving skimmers, and brings every army closer to feeling and acting the same. Making footsloggers slower doesn't really seem like a fair solution as that means they become even less useful and more prone to static gun-line builds instead.

Basically neither making vehicles faster or infantry models slower is really good for the game. It promotes an even bigger push away from footsloggers (save for gun-lines) and makes the mech saturation even greater.


----------



## SGMAlice

Zion said:


> Basically neither making vehicles faster or infantry models slower is really good for the game. It promotes an even bigger push away from footsloggers (save for gun-lines) and makes the mech saturation even greater.


This is essentially why Mech has become so prominent in 40k as it stands today. They can move much further than infantry, and as a bonus they can protect whatever is inside them (assuming a transport vehicle).

Berzerkers in a Rhino springs to mind here. Foot Slogging them would result in them being annihilated before they got across the board, a vehicle reduces the chance of this significantly.

It seems, in this edition, that the only reason people take any infantry at all is because they are the only unit able to capture objectives. This isn't likely, obviously, but its getting further and further towards that point. Biker armies are in fact perfect examples of this.

Alice


----------



## Words_of_Truth

Heh Just realised btw, an entire army of Raptors inside fortifications get a 2+ cover save, and a 5+ for being in the open if they go to ground.


----------



## Mokuren

SGMAlice said:


> It seems, in this edition, that the only reason people take any infantry at all is because they are the only unit able to capture objectives. This isn't likely, obviously, but its getting further and further towards that point. Biker armies are in fact perfect examples of this.


I feel that vehicles should be an important factor in every army, but as they stand now things are pretty much ridiculous, with odds and point economy stacked so much in favour of vehicles that it's not even funny.

When fielding a Rhino costs about as much as two space marines, and said Rhino is pretty much impervious to space marine fire except from the back, where there is a 1 in 6 chance of scoring a glancing hit on a successful shot, the problem is pretty simple to identify: you're basically forced to always take all the anti-tank weaponry you can afford every time you're given the chance to, otherwise you're going to face things you cannot possibly take down, because Rhinos are the bottom of the ladder and it only gets worse.

Not just that: an anti-tank troop will cost as much as a tank, on average, but the tank will be not only more durable (on average) but also equally capable of fielding heavy weapons, thus capable of tank-hunting on their own and most likely with greater mobility and range than infantry, while at the same time being impervious from weapons infantry is equipped by default. Again, the cost-effectiveness ratio is highly in favour of vehicles.

I think the main problems, however, are two: the first being that weapons of huge, mass infantry murder are way too cheap, most armies can afford long-range blasts, or large blasts even, capable of annihilating MEqs or, in some cases, TEqs reliably but at the same time without being as effective against vehicles. The second problems is that transports had become way too reliable for MEqs: exploding a DE Raider has a great chance of annihilating or at least severely crippling whatever troop is aboard, but most marines will just shrug as the Rhino they are in turns into a trap of fiery death and go "Oh well, it's 35 points that made me cover 12" in one turn without dying, can't complain".

And here comes the odd part: anti-tank weapons are usually _cheaper_ than dedicated anti-infantry weapons, like heavy flamers usually going at 20 points and being much more limited than, say, meltaguns, which just about any fool can use and come at 10 points per model and, guess what, they blow up TEqs just fine in case there's no vehicle in range.

It'd be nice if vehicles weren't able to manoeuvre like infantry except better and shoot with better and cheaper weapons more easily and at the same time be dirt cheap and perfectly safe as transports even in the off-chance they blow up. Maybe even just removing the free pivoting in the shooting phase and have that count as movement would kind of maybe do something to make 40k less of a vehiclefest.


----------



## TheKingElessar

^ There we have it. Full 180 degrees from the start of the Edition, when people bitched and moaned that Infantry getting a 4++ for Cover was insanely broken, uberoverpowered, etc etc.

I'd like to point out, however, that vehicles categorically CANNOT pivot in the Shooting Phase, for ANY reason, so if you're still doing that, no wonder you think it's unbalanced...


----------



## Mokuren

TheKingElessar said:


> ^ There we have it. Full 180 degrees from the start of the Edition, when people bitched and moaned that Infantry getting a 4++ for Cover was insanely broken, uberoverpowered, etc etc.


4+ sounds broken until you realize there's plenty of ways to get around that. Assaulting (hey guess which 5e codex got all grenades forever for free? Oh yeah just about all of them!) and massed shooting comes to mind. Also, this doesn't really help MEqs much as their armour saves are usually better than cover anyways... Except against anti-tank weaponry, which as we noted above only shoots against infantry when there aren't vehicles around, and if you're out of vehicles and your opponent isn't you're pretty much screwed anyways.

Really, the abundance of easy 4+ cover saves sounded broken because not everyone and their dog had 35 point Rhinos and the equivalents thereof, so it technically still wasn't vehiclehammer and infantry was still a big deal with easy 4+ cover saves against big anti-infantry hitters. Then things changed.




TheKingElessar said:


> I'd like to point out, however, that vehicles categorically CANNOT pivot in the Shooting Phase, for ANY reason, so if you're still doing that, no wonder you think it's unbalanced...


Considering pivoting is free in the movement phase and pivoting on the spot doesn't count as moving, and shooting comes right after moving, there's not really much of a difference. Of course pivoting in the shooting phase doesn't go outside of friendly games but it's functionally the same thing.


----------



## ohiocat110

I'd just like to point out that two Space Marines cost about $7 retail, while a Rhino that costs as many points retails for $33. When GW is writing the rules, and considers itself "a model company first"...well, you can deduce what the rules are going to look like. 

6th ed can't change point costs, but I wouldn't be surprised to see an even higher premium on mobility to basically force people into taking dedicated transports for Troops.


----------



## Mokuren

ohiocat110 said:


> I'd just like to point out that two Space Marines cost about $7 retail, while a Rhino that costs as many points retails for $33. When GW is writing the rules, and considers itself "a model company first"...well, you can deduce what the rules are going to look like.
> 
> 6th ed can't change point costs, but I wouldn't be surprised to see an even higher premium on mobility to basically force people into taking dedicated transports for Troops.


It's basically what they've done with the sister's WDdex, someone at GW probably noticed they had entire warehouses full of St. Celestine that no one bought so they went "Hey let's make her the one and only mandatory HQ for the army by making her so much better than all other choices, also let's double her stats and halve her point cost!" and BAM!

I'm still hoping we'll one day see a generic "Saint" HQ, with customization options to make her different than the other named character, kind of like how daemon princes were supposed to be, though possibly without a 4e chaos-level nerf.

Personally, I don't think retconning vehiclesploitation has to be done working on point value only, they just need somewhat stricter mechanics so they cannot be always better than any other non-vehicle choice all the time. I'm okay with vehicles being tough, I'm okay with vehicles being impervious or near-impervious to small arms fire, I'm not okay with vehicles being no-brainers and obviously better alternatives to foot-slogging or the vast majority infantry in general. Vehicles should be supporting infantry, not taking its place.


----------



## TheKingElessar

Well, in the case of Sisters especially, that's how it is. Vehicles getting Infantry where they need to go and shielding them while they spit hot Melta death out the top hatch.

Still the girls doing all the lifting.

Also, it is very much NOT the same, as vehicles who have their target destroyed before they fire will be left exposed and unable to fire at full effect, if at all. Turning vehicles was a 4e thing, and not being able to do it now is actually a huge change.

Overall, Transports got better, but guntanks are slightly worse - and since Transports hadn't been good since early 3rd (to the point of completely unusable in 4e) this is better for the game by far.

4+ Cover was quite the big deal to all of the people running Assault Cannons and Plasma Guns (ie, pretty much everybody but Ork, Nid and Eldar players...

While McMuffin is slightly out in his assertion that Foot Armies are inherently fine, certainly some can truly compete with Mechanised forces, yes.


----------



## Arcane

TheKingElessar said:


> Not by today's standards, sure. But the vast majority of Characters have always been CC-oriented. Celestine, Canoness with a Cloak, Jump Pack, and Eviscerator, Yarrick, Ghazzy, Phoenix Lords barring Maugan Ra, Marneus Calgar, Chaplain Xavier, Dante, Azrael, Kharn, Abaddon, the list goes on and on.
> 
> Games Workshop shows a marked preference for CC-based units and characters, in every edition of the game, excepting that in this Edition shooting is inherently superior to CC.


While you are open to sharing your opinions, my statement stands that the recent codex ("by today's standards") have shown a favoring of stronger CC characters than in previous editions. So, as I originally said, it seems unlikely that they would then go and nerf the CC of said units by making drastic changes to the conventions of assaulting and CC in general, if that makes it more clear. opcorn:



Mokuren said:


> Considering pivoting is free in the movement phase and pivoting on the spot doesn't count as moving, and shooting comes right after moving, there's not really much of a difference. Of course pivoting in the shooting phase doesn't go outside of friendly games but it's functionally the same thing.


Have to disagree with you there. That's just sloppy. This, just like running a unit directly after moving them then moving another unit, shouldn't exist even in friendly games. It makes a big difference, especially in parking lot games, of who can move where, who's sponsons can shoot what and who is in the way of who. Not to mention cover given... Just bad form.


----------



## TheKingElessar

But that's not accurate - there were a multitude of CC characters in 2e easily capable of beating entire enemy armies. It's more balanced now than then, by some way.

You're looking at people like Draigo and Mephiston as though they were the norm for CC characters in this Edition - they aren't. Hell, even then - they won't beat 30 Ork boyz alone.


----------



## Arcane

What do 30 ork boyz have to do with anything? We were speaking on context of special characters initiating challenges and wrist shots at them when assaulting. The newest codex are the only indication which we have for the direction that GW is going with 6th edition. The point being that they seem to be favoring more and more powerful special characters so any rule which goes counter to that thinking seems unlikely. 

So what do you disagree with? You already agreed that "by today's standards" special characters are more powerful. Thus I postulate GW is planning to put emphasis on them in 6th ed. So could you agree it seems unlikely that they will make CC worse?


----------



## SGMAlice

*`*



TheKingElessar said:


> But that's not accurate - there were a multitude of CC characters in 2e easily capable of beating entire enemy armies. It's more balanced now than then, by some way.


The Avatar of Khaine in 2nd Ed:



Name | WS | BS | S | T | W | I | A | Ld | Sv
Avatar | 10 | 10 | 8 | 8 | 7 | 10 | 5 | 10 | 2+


It was one hell of a combat monster, its is rare to find even one '10' in 5th Ed (Outside of Ld Values), He has 4!. But i'm not sure he could take out entire armies on his own.

Alice


----------



## Arcane

SGMAlice said:


> But i'm not sure he could take out entire armies on his own.


Yeah, I'm not sure I could think of any one special character who could.


----------



## TheKingElessar

Well since an army could be Abaddon and 5 Terminators...

I didn't know you were talking about in this challenges nonsense - that's highly unlikely. 40k's Herohammer has always been about heroically avoiding each other while chopping down line troops and winning that way. I doubt Mat Ward is going to bring in a rule that barely works well when units have formations to a game where the units set up skirmishing.

I agree that GW are unlikely to DELIBERATELY make CC worse than it already is. But then, they are unlikely to have meant to hit it so hard in 5th...


----------



## Arcane

Well there is this consolidate into combat nonsense that seems like it would easily break the game. As far as Mat Ward goes, who knows what's in store since GK Chapter masters are now three times the tactical genius that Creed once was. :dunno:


----------



## Dawnstar

Arcane said:


> Well there is this consolidate into combat nonsense that seems like it would easily break the game.


As far as I know, this was around in 4th Edition. I don't know a whole lot about how it worked, but a few tweaks to make it less powerful than it was might be a good way to rejuvenate CC and make it viable as well


----------



## DecrepitDragon

Dawnstar said:


> As far as I know, this was around in 4th Edition. I don't know a whole lot about how it worked, but a few tweaks to make it less powerful than it was might be a good way to rejuvenate CC and make it viable as well


My thoughts exactly.

Add that to the "charge reaction" rumour, and both shooty _and_ cc armies get a boost.

@Arcane - I must confess I'm not sure that consolidate would break the game, seems a bit pessimistic to me. Without balance, yes, anything has that potential, but it worked before, so why not now?


----------



## Arcane

Well when you've got things like Blood Talons, DCAs with 50 power weapon attacks, Purifiers, Wolf cav etc (things that weren't the same in 4th ed) I can see many units getting annihilated on the charge only to leave opponents crying as they destroy their entire army. I thought I had people hating my DCA Jacobus deathstar already, if they can consolidate into cc... good luck lol. 

I'll admit, that's just speculation. It could be alright with some restriction but it's a fine line they are walking with uber cc units.


----------



## Gret79

SGMAlice said:


> The Avatar of Khaine in 2nd Ed:
> 
> 
> 
> Name | WS | BS | S | T | W | I | A | Ld | Sv
> Avatar | 10 | 10 | 8 | 8 | 7 | 10 | 5 | 10 | 2+
> 
> 
> It was one hell of a combat monster, its is rare to find even one '10' in 5th Ed (Outside of Ld Values), He has 4!. But i'm not sure he could take out entire armies on his own.
> 
> Alice


It was nice, but not so good for 300 points, when one lascannon did 2d6 wounds, hurt it on a 3+ and reduced it's save to an inv of 5+. Predator annihilators were the game winners in 2nd. Anything they shot at died. (monstrous creature wise) it was a depressing time for my avatar - even if he did d4 damage ) 

The stats were better, but you could one hit kill almost anything.


----------



## SilverTabby

To be fair, CC isn't terrible, just hard to get right in-Game. I only realised lately that I can charge multiple units at once with one squad, so huge broods are a good thing. The rulebook is badly laid out, with poorly worded sections on how to do things. 

I really hope 6th is worded nice and clearly, and everything relevant is in an obvious location.

And you can't compare 2nd to now. *Everything* was harder. T7 Mephiston anyone? And the Bloodthirster had an almost clear run of 10s...


----------



## Gret79

SilverTabby said:


> I really hope 6th is worded nice and clearly, and everything relevant is in an obvious location.


 
Absolutely seconded - although this is the equivalent of the search for the grail




Also...
Because everything in 2nd was harder, nothing was (if that makes sense)
I think characters like Mephiston are harder now because nothing else is as hard as it used to be. 
I'm really hoping for a balanced 6th ed. And maybe a nicer eldar army to fight with. But I can dream


----------



## Archon Dan

While these rumors may be "truer" than those from six months ago, some just don't make sense. Challenging could be cool, but I've already covered that at least one character can get around it. Stand and fire is nice until you think of a unit like 10 Necron Immortals given Counter Attack by Zandrekh, with a Harbinger of Storm with Lightning Field and a Harbinger of Destruction with Gaze of Flame attached. So, the charging unit is facing 20 S 5 AP 4 shots, 4 S 4 AP - shots and one S 8 AP 2 shot. It is then getting a D6 S 8 AP 5 automatic hits, loses its charge bonus attacks and is fighting a unit very likely to pass the Counter Attack Ld check. Sounds like something I'd put on an objective if that were the case. And random powers just ruins certain armies without a serious re-working of their psykers and powers. Does the GK codex look set-up for random powers?

I'm not saying these can't be true, just questioning if they are. I would not be surprised if GW pays these so-called sources everyone seems to have to give dis-information. They know rumors can spread and it is very easy to get a happy employee to spread a false rumor. I don't buy for a minute that BoW or any other site is engaging in any form of espionage or file hacking, though BoW claims to do that in one of those videos.


----------



## misfratz

Archon Dan said:


> While these rumors may be "truer" than those from sixth month ago, some just don't make sense. Challenging could be cool, but I've already covered that at least one character can get around it. Stand and fire is nice until you think of a unit like 10 Necron Immortals given Counter Attack by Zandrekh, with a Harbinger of Storm with Lightning Field and a Harbinger of Destruction with Gaze of Flame attached. So, the charging unit is facing 20 S 5 AP 4 shots, 4 S 4 AP - shots and one S 8 AP 2 shot. It is then getting a D6 S 8 AP 5 automatic hits, loses its charge bonus attacks and is fighting a unit very likely to pass the Counter Attack Ld check. Sounds like something I'd put on an objective if that were the case. And random powers just ruins certain armies without a serious re-working of their psykers and powers. Does the GK codex look set-up for random powers?


A few points...

1. The thing about rumours is that they are always going to be incomplete. The objections that you raise could well be resolved by the details - you'll have to wait and see when you have the rulebook in your hands. We don't know what limitations there might be on rumoured rules like stand and fire, we don't know how the psychic powers would be reworked alongside random powers, we don't know exactly how challenging would work.

2. Your argument about the one Necron unit becoming very strong due to stand and fire could easily have been used as a way to show that 5th edition wound allocation would never happen because it would make units like Ork Nobz too strong. Yet it did happen, and Ork Nobz could be set up to abuse/take full advantage of the wound allocation rules.

3. We've recently seen with 8th edition fantasy, that GW is not particularly bothered about changing the core rules in a way that breaks certain armies - eg the changes to fear and magic affecting Vampire Counts and Tomb Kings - and then attempting to fix those armies when they are redone.

So, in conclusion, I would advise you not to think too hard about the rumours. At best they give us a bit of a flavour of how the rules might turn out, but expecting them to make sense is just creating trouble for yourself.


----------



## TheKingElessar

If *I* were the one trying to fix CC, what I would do would be, instead of Consolidating into another unit, which was insane at the time, and even worse nowadays (as Arcane says, some things like Blood Talons Dreads would just make you pack up in no time, especially if Lucius pods get forced into the main game...) - any unit that successfully won a round of combat would have a 4+ Cover save, or Stealth if they already had a Cover Save, in the ensuing Shooting Phase.

This grants a decent amount of survivability, without giving them the automagic protection of being locked.


----------



## misfratz

TheKingElessar said:


> This grants a decent amount of survivability, without giving them the automagic protection of being locked.


The other reason that consolidation into combat was very strong is that it enabled CC units to fight in both players close combat phases, whereas shooting units only get to shoot in your own shooting phase.

So that's a problem that you also fix with your suggestion.

If I interpret GW's rumoured new rule, they propose to balance allowing CC units to fight in both phases by allowing shooting units to have an extra round of shooting when they are charged - this leads to a large increase in damage dealt by all concerned per turn of game, which is consistent with the changes made to Fantasy.


----------



## Words_of_Truth

How about if the shooting unit doesn't move they get to return fire in the enemy phase?


----------



## SGMAlice

misfratz said:


> If I interpret GW's rumoured new rule, they propose to balance allowing CC units to fight in both phases by allowing shooting units to have an extra round of shooting when they are charged - this leads to a large increase in damage dealt by all concerned per turn of game, which is consistent with the changes made to Fantasy.


If this is, as how you have interpreted it, it suggests a possible attempt to shorten the length of games.

More Damage Per Turn = Less units Left For the Next Turn.

It would be in keeping with the general consensus that GW has been going for in each successive Edition of 40k; Simple and Quick, Easy To Play, Aimed More At New Players.

Just a thought 

Alice


----------



## misfratz

SGMAlice said:


> a possible attempt to shorten the length of games.
> 
> More Damage Per Turn = Less units Left For the Next Turn.


Or, of course, you can keep the length of the game the same, if you start the game with more models on each side, which leads to more models sold by GW.


----------



## SGMAlice

misfratz said:


> Or, of course, you can keep the length of the game the same, if you start the game with more models on each side, which leads to more models sold by GW.


Possible. But that would require a major overhaul of the entire system.

1. Reduce Points Values Significantly

or 

2. Change The FoC

Neither of which are going to happen. Ever.

Alice


----------



## Vaz

Haters gonna hate, but Mat Ward has my full support to write the 6th Edition rulebook - I was wary at first, but after looking at how every army (excepting Tomb King's so far) has turned into a potentially top tier army yet still keep balance among the majority of units (only a few having no need to be taken - Ushabti, Sand Serpents, Empire Swordsmen, Thundertusks, and Arrer Boyz being the only ones so far I would never consider using). 

Of course, Just keep him away from fluff, expansions (Storm of Magic, the fuck?), and codices.


----------



## nevynxxx

Or just play a higher point value game to get back to the amount of time you currently spend playing.....


----------



## Aramoro

Saying never is a big statement as it's already happened twice in the games history.


----------



## SGMAlice

nevynxxx said:


> Or just play a higher point value game to get back to the amount of time you currently spend playing.....


That wasn't the point.

The point was that GW are possibly attempting to reduce the time it takes to play a game, regardless of the maximum Point Value allowed, in order to make the game even more accessable by new players.

As 'Accessability' has been a major focus for GW of recent.

Alice


----------



## nevynxxx

SGMAlice said:


> That wasn't the point.
> 
> The point was that GW are possibly attempting to reduce the time it takes to play a game, regardless of the maximum Point Value allowed, in order to make the game even more accessable by new players.
> 
> As 'Accessability' has been a major focus for GW of recent.
> 
> Alice



Well it sort of was. It's the exact opposite of where you said:


SGMAlice said:


> Reduce Points Values Significantly


So what if the core forces are 500 points and a game with them takes 30 mins to play for a newbie.....If you are playing 3k now, then play 4k under the new rules. That means you buy more mins? Oh, that's good for GW.



p.s. Do the rules *have* maximum points value?


----------



## SGMAlice

You seem to be confusing the two points.

In either case it was merely speculation based on evidence of GW's prior behaviour. 

Alice

Edit: By 'Maximum Points Value Allowed' i meant the set points value of the game currently being played .eg. 500pts game, 1000pts game, 1500pts game e.t.c.


----------



## nevynxxx

SGMAlice said:


> You seem to be confusing the two points.


It would appear so....


----------



## Necrosis

Archon Dan said:


> While these rumors may be "truer" than those from six months ago, some just don't make sense. Challenging could be cool, but I've already covered that at least one character can get around it. Stand and fire is nice until you think of a unit like 10 Necron Immortals given Counter Attack by Zandrekh, with a Harbinger of Storm with Lightning Field and a Harbinger of Destruction with Gaze of Flame attached. So, the charging unit is facing 20 S 5 AP 4 shots, 4 S 4 AP - shots and one S 8 AP 2 shot. It is then getting a D6 S 8 AP 5 automatic hits, loses its charge bonus attacks and is fighting a unit very likely to pass the Counter Attack Ld check. Sounds like something I'd put on an objective if that were the case. And random powers just ruins certain armies without a serious re-working of their psykers and powers. Does the GK codex look set-up for random powers?
> 
> I'm not saying these can't be true, just questioning if they are. I would not be surprised if GW pays these so-called sources everyone seems to have to give dis-information. They know rumors can spread and it is very easy to get a happy employee to spread a false rumor. I don't buy for a minute that BoW or any other site is engaging in any form of espionage or file hacking, though BoW claims to do that in one of those videos.


The rumors have hinted you only get to make one charge reaction. And lightning field is probably going to get FAQ to become a charge reaction meaning, you can only do one of the three: Use lightning field, counter attack or stand and shoot. Also with I2, your probably going to fail stand and shoot and even if you do pass, your still only hitting on 6's.


----------



## Zion

Necrosis said:


> The rumors have hinted you only get to make one charge reaction. And lightning field is probably going to get FAQ to become a charge reaction meaning, you can only do one of the three: Use lightning field, counter attack or stand and shoot. Also with I2, your probably going to fail stand and shoot and even if you do pass, your still only hitting on 6's.



I haven't heard of anything solid mentioning the initiative tests thing yet (in fact it was only mentioned it as a "probably"), but if you've heard something more definite I'll add it to the first post.

Possible testing aside (which I hope doesn't happen because it'll imbalance the effectiveness of the ability between armies like between Eldar and Guardsmen. Fluff-wise it makes sense but I don't like seeing armies neutered like that) the limit of 1 charge reaction (to units that are not engaged) makes sense to me. If it isn't in the initial BRB I imagine it'll be errata'd or FAQ'd rather quickly to prevent it from being too full of cheese.


----------



## Archon Dan

misfratz said:


> So, in conclusion, I would advise you not to think too hard about the rumours. At best they give us a bit of a flavour of how the rules might turn out, but expecting them to make sense is just creating trouble for yourself.


Fair enough and good points. I meant to make this a way for people to see we're still at that point where we can't trust rumors. It's better than a few months ago where people were posting in forums, "Heard this from a friend of a friend who works for Forge World..." Guess I'm the one who got carried away and actually tried to debunk them. Oops.


----------



## Arcane

SGMAlice said:


> Possible. But that would require a major overhaul of the entire system.
> 
> 1. Reduce Points Values Significantly
> 
> or
> 
> 2. Change The FoC
> 
> Neither of which are going to happen. Ever.
> 
> Alice


Exactly. They can't change these because doing so would require an entire rewrite of all codex or updating them with a pdf; both of which GW will not do.

What we should really all be wondering is, will they change the rules for cover/area terrain and targets again.


----------



## Mokuren

Arcane said:


> What we should really all be wondering is, will they change the rules for cover/area terrain and targets again.


Don't they do that every edition? I think it's one of the safest bets. The point is _how_ they'll do it.


----------



## Karyudo-DS

Mokuren said:


> Don't they do that every edition? I think it's one of the safest bets. The point is _how_ they'll do it.


Well with the rumor about position mattering for wounds I would assume that they would at least only grant cover saves to models specifically in cover.

At least if they want to be literal about it. Which works too I guess.


----------



## mcmuffin

It all sounds like shit, the whole game will be ruined and unplayable and everyone will move to warmahordes. I hate games workshop and all that stuff etc etc . . . . :scratchhead:


----------



## TheKingElessar

Sorry, I don't buy the 'never change FoC' argument. In 4e it was a total mess, all over the show, but look at the current Codexes too, Wolves and Daemons get free extra HQs.

It's not a lot, but the possibility exists in each Codex for a unique Force Org specific to that army (as those show) so I'd never rule it out.

McMuffin - fuck Warmahordes, move to Dystopian Wars! 

They won't change Cover to applying on a model-by-model basis, as that slows down and complicates the game. They also won't change 'aura' effects (Such as Straken, Sanguinary Priests, Shield of Sanguinius, Kustom Force Field etc) to working by model rather than unit either - best to keep it simple.


----------



## Mokuren

TheKingElessar said:


> Sorry, I don't buy the 'never change FoC' argument. In 4e it was a total mess, all over the show, but look at the current Codexes too, Wolves and Daemons get free extra HQs.
> 
> It's not a lot, but the possibility exists in each Codex for a unique Force Org specific to that army (as those show) so I'd never rule it out.


I think that a WHFB-like FoC would be better for the game. It doesn't even need to be drastic: just keep the usual minimums and limits, such as 1 HQ and 2 Troops compulsory and the maximum amounts unchanged, except you also have to respect a certain percentage points-wise.

This would make troops actually more common instead of an excuse to field the minimum possible and then only take the underpriced heavy hitters en masse. Though I realize this would most likely murder chaos entirely as you couldn't field 9 obliterators on every list anymore and that would basically kill every chance of competitive play (according to the metagame).

It would also make the sisters' WDdex five times as boring and ten times as bullshit as you'd be forced to field dozens upon dozens of extremely expensive models with little to no customization options. Even less than the codex has in general.

Rant aside, I think a fantasy-like FoC would be best, if done right. We'll just have to wait and see about the _if_.


----------



## bobahoff

im all for a percentage based FOC. it would encorage me to play larger games and buy more models. win win as far as GW is concerned


----------



## Karyudo-DS

TheKingElessar said:


> Sorry, I don't buy the 'never change FoC' argument. In 4e it was a total mess, all over the show, but look at the current Codexes too, Wolves and Daemons get free extra HQs.


Well not free, but the option to take two entries as one. So sort of free, but if you want to throw out the FoC you need a really good way to do that. I think the percentage option could work, it gives the shaft to some codex's but then again who beyond maybe nids gets a huge benefit? 



TheKingElessar said:


> They won't change Cover to applying on a model-by-model basis, as that slows down and complicates the game.


Just like they wont change how you allocate wounds to the closest models right? That's the rumor I was thinking about. If I shoot at you and you HAVE to allocate wounds on the model based on it's position it would seem odd that the cover rule didn't care about its position at all...why bother caring about it in the first place right? It also wouldn't slow down the game much if that were the case, your closest unit to mine is either in cover or not. 

Of course it's all rumor and none of it might be the case, all just theorizing here anyway. I wouldn't imagine it would slow the game down much as it is. Just role them like they're different weapons. Though as is it does sort of simulate the units in cover covering units not in cover. So... yeah I have no idea.


----------



## SilverTabby

Percentage based FoC? So what you are saying is you want a return to the 2nd Ed FoC...:Wink:


----------



## TheKingElessar

Percentages, without the artificial restriction in WFB (no more than 2 of any unit) would completely break the game. Imagine, please, a Necron army of 4 Troops choices (because Troops are still the only Scoring in most books, and are completely necessary...no army of mine at any size ever takes under three...) and a swarm of about 12 Heavy Destroyers in units of 1. Even with the 0-2 thing, Necrons are laughing (2x10 Scarabs, 2x5 Tomb Blades, 2x4 Wraiths, 2x1 Heavy Destroyer) while Daemons have only 2 Heavy Support options, etc etc.

Percentages unrestricted leads to literal SWARMS of Attack Bikes and Land Speeders, so it doesn't benefit Xenos in the least, and they're the only ones ever struggle with the FoC as is.


----------



## Da Joka

I see a change to the FoC coming in 6th, how I have no clue, but the last few new Codexs haven't shown the FoC, witch to me, means that they're doing that so those armies won't have to follow it and will use the new one. That or GW is just being lazy...

Anywho a lot of the rumors that BoW have been sharing seem to screw over assaulty armies. 

The wound allocation really hurts hordes like Orks, also I could see some really screwed up things, mainly when you have this rule and models with more then 1 wound. Nobz are the best example, say you shoot at my boyz and get like 12 wounds with Heavy Bolters. The Nob lives with one wound, but 11 other boyz are dead, and now the Nob is way out in front so my squad has to waste a full turn regrouping, and not moving forward. The same goes for Stand and Fire, this means you could knock out the front line of assaulters, and make so a lot of assaults (that just barely made it normally) wouldn't even make it at all. With out the front line wounds Stand and Shoot would be great, but only if it was at BS 1.

I do like the HQ challenges in assault though.


----------



## TheKingElessar

Da Joka said:


> the last few new Codexs haven't shown the FoC,


Huh? In Grey Knights, for instance, it's on page 81...It's very much in there...


----------



## DecrepitDragon

Could it be possible that this wound allocation stuff (closest models etc), isn't to be applied to the entire shooting phase, but only to the "Stand and Shoot" charge reaction?

If the test before standing and shooting (init, or Ld, for example) was combined with BS1, realistically, most common unit builds will kill, what? as a guess anywhere between two and four models on average?

Combine that with those wounds caused being allocated to the front "ranks" of the assaulting unit, and you have a very defensive ability for the shooty types out there.

On the other hand, a good balance to this would be consolidation into combat (or possibly some other consolidate mechanic such as cover saves or stealth etc). It could even be something as ridiculous as "chargers strike first" . . . .

Maybe not that last point, but you get the idea. Some (and forgive the choice of words) - power unit builds - will always be hard, generally no matter what combination of "extra" rules they can use. And if some current common builds become obsolete, it wont be long before there's new ones anyway.

This is all just speculation though. Ho hum.


----------



## TheKingElessar

Chargers Strike First would be a move backwards, since they just removed that from WFB. Not impossible, as you say, but I'm hopeful the Design Team are smarter than that.

Certainly, if the 'kill closest first' thing is true, it could lead to a lot of failed assault moves, and so makes assaulting even weaker than now - I would never field another CC unit, what's the point?


----------



## Zion

TheKingElessar said:


> Chargers Strike First would be a move backwards, since they just removed that from WFB. Not impossible, as you say, but I'm hopeful the Design Team are smarter than that.
> 
> Certainly, if the 'kill closest first' thing is true, it could lead to a lot of failed assault moves, and so makes assaulting even weaker than now - I would never field another CC unit, what's the point?


I think there is a lot of overreaction here about being able to shoot people out of assault range (which could easily be prevented by being closer before launching an assault). Your normal group of Marines shooting at a unit of Marines charging them with BS 1 (that'd be 10 Marines, 1 with a Meltagun and the Sergeant with a Bolt Pistol) hits three times on average, and wounds maybe once. Can you get lucky and end up wiping a squad? Yes, but your dice would have to be outstanding AND your opponent's basically useless.

Plus there is always the chance the two rules don't intersect. There are a lot of assumptions going on based on what little we know. 5th editions rules take up, what, about 90 pages? I can't imagine we can extrapolate that much information from what little we have now.

On another note I think Beasts of War has added some credibility to their rumors with this flyer release, even if it did come via sketches. Actually the sketches mean that we definitely don't have an accident here in their rumor since they gave us a decent look at what we were getting before photos came out and didn't just say we'd get something in a vague, could be written off as a guess manner.


----------



## TheKingElessar

It's not overreaction - IF those work that way, as I said, then there is literally no reason to take CC units in competitive play, as they can't even be relied upon to do their job.

Tbh, I think BoW had plenty of credibility already  especially since the sketches were direct from the models, not the Codex in the case of the Necron Croissant.

Nobody charges with Tactical Squads, a better example would have been Wyches into a Tactical Squad, which could get incredibly messy.


----------



## Zion

TheKingElessar said:


> It's not overreaction - IF those work that way, as I said, then there is literally no reason to take CC units in competitive play, as they can't even be relied upon to do their job.
> 
> Tbh, I think BoW had plenty of credibility already especially since the sketches were direct from the models, not the Codex in the case of the Necron Croissant.
> 
> Nobody charges with Tactical Squads, a better example would have been Wyches into a Tactical Squad, which could get incredibly messy.


Just for fun the same Tactical squad shooting at 10 Wyches:




*Marines with Bolters:* 
Wounds:Chance
0 : 15.19%
1 : 30.38% 
2 : 28.481%
3 : 16.614%
4 : 6.749%
5 : 2.025%
6 : 0.464%
7 : 0.083%
8 : 0.012%
9 : 0.001%
*Marine with Melta:* 
Wounds:Chance 
0 : 86.111%
1 : 13.889%
*Powerfist Sarge with Bolt Pistol:*
Wounds:Chance
0 : 88.889%
1 : 11.111%

Average Result:
Defender GroupHits:3
Wounds:2.028
Wounds Lost:2.028
Models Lost:2.028 / 10 (20.3%)



So is it possible to potentially kill an entire charging squad? Not really. In fact you're most likely going to do 3 maybe 4 wounds. Careful placement will get the squad into combat anyways (just like you would plan for difficult terrain when charging into cover you can plan for this) even if you have to pull a few models from the front. 

What I'm assuming will happen is more like this: you declare an assault, moves are made, then the assaulted unit gets to shoot, wounds are taken (I'd assume like they are now in assault, allocated as you wish, but as evenly as possible) then the rest of the initiative order is followed. It's how I'd handle writing something like this personally at least.

I see this as likely a way to balance shootier units or slower units against faster CC oriented ones so the CC ones don't just steamroll the shoot/slower ones (I'll admit I've done some of this steamrolling in the past with both my Repentia and my battle conclave, and I've been on the receiving end being smacked by an Archon and his Incubi....and combat isn't as much fun for the player who has to pick up all of his models before he gets to do anything. Does it happen that way in the fluff? Sure. But in the fluff you'd also have people unloading their weapons into the oncoming unit in an attempt to take as many with them as they could). So I see this as a welcome change that will do the game some good if it works in a well thought out and balanced manner. Now we'll definitely see for sure in about a month and a half (assuming someone doesn't leak the BRB by then) so for now I'm reserving judgement and trying to keep from jumping to conclusions on how it's going to potentially ruin the game.

As for BoW: I recieved a comment in one of the flyer threads about how people didn't take them seriously just because they were drawings (instead of vague hints I guess?*). I thought they were a clever way to show us upcoming products without explicitly showing us something that would get them in trouble and it was a lot better than vague descriptions.


*I know the intent was that they probably didn't take them seriously because they weren't photos but I think people need to be a bit more realistic about these things: taking photos of unreleased products creates evidence would get you FIRED. Heck, photos on your phone are tagged with data like the date, time, and location of where the photo was taken. And often photos have information embedded in them saying who took them too! Sketches are at least harder to prove where they came from once you get rid of them (especially if you don't sign them ).
[/SIZE]


----------



## TheKingElessar

Really? Well, I guess some people are hard to please. Maybe having met some of the BoW guys colours my view. *Shrug*

My point, overall, is that combat is inherently inferior to shooting in 5th, and making shooting stronger in any way, is unlikely to help balance that discrepancy. At present, CC units are something of an afterthought for most competitive armies, and making them less reliable (due to the *possibility *of being shot, failing a charge, and then getting hosed in the open next turn) means they will be disregarded wholesale.


----------



## DecrepitDragon

TheKingElessar said:


> My point, overall, is that combat is inherently inferior to shooting in 5th . . . .


Really?

Several of the newset codices have drastic leanings towards cc lists, and these are all the books that were heavily touted as being overpowered.

Also, comparing phases directly, without taking into account army types is a little misleading. Tau, for example, will always have a stronger shooting phase than cc, whereas, Nids would tend towards the opposite end of the scale.

This would lead me to believe that if, as you say, these rumoured rules would break cc even more, then I postulate that some armies abilities would improve, whilst some would degrade - but only within that one phase. What about the rest of the turn?

Balance is key here, something GW often struggle with, true, but the "wait and see" argument seems wisest with rumours of this calibre (no offense intended Zion).


----------



## Zion

DecrepitDragon said:


> Balance is key here, something GW often struggle with, true, but the "wait and see" argument seems wisest with rumours of this calibre (no offense intended Zion).


None taken. That's exactly the kind of thinking I've been trying to make a point of. We don't know nearly enough about the rules of 6th to really say what's going to be good or bad. So far all I've seen is people getting worked up about how the rules are going to ruin something about the game (believe me there are a lot of these out there, and many of the reactions are worse than I've seen here), so I'm assuming these are just growing pains at this point (I've yet to see any real posts about how people are bailing 40K because of 6th, just a lot of hemming and hawing about how they MIGHT if the rules look like the leaks we got) since every edition (much less anything GW does to be honest) causes these reactions.


----------



## TheKingElessar

DecrepitDragon said:


> Really?
> 
> Several of the newset codices have drastic leanings towards cc lists, and these are all the books that were heavily touted as being overpowered.
> 
> Also, comparing phases directly, without taking into account army types is a little misleading. Tau, for example, will always have a stronger shooting phase than cc, whereas, Nids would tend towards the opposite end of the scale.
> 
> This would lead me to believe that if, as you say, these rumoured rules would break cc even more, then I postulate that some armies abilities would improve, whilst some would degrade - but only within that one phase. What about the rest of the turn?
> 
> Balance is key here, something GW often struggle with, true, but the "wait and see" argument seems wisest with rumours of this calibre (no offense intended Zion).


Indeed. There are many reasons, but chief amongst them:

Shooting is less conditional on good movement, and thus harder to counter;
Shooting is only based on your own capability, not the foe, so it's MUCH more reliable;
Hitting with shooting is much easier, averaging 3+ for MEQs, not 4+;
Shooting can be done from turn one - achieving this with assault is nigh-impossible against a skilled opponent;
You can't (with a few notable/rarely used competitively exceptions) kill yourself from shooting, dying to enemy assault capability is expected;
Shooting usually musters greater dice - even where it doesn't in a 1-off, it will do for the sustained time it takes a unit to actually REACH combat;
Being too successful in CC means you get shot to shit in the next turn anyway, without the ability to Consolidate into another enemy.

I think that's enough reasons for now...


----------



## Sothot

My only argument against that is (and Necron player, so biased)
- a unit's shooting phase will average 4-5 enemy models removed, losing assault can and usually will cost the entire unit
-denying assault is a game of fractions of inches, and if a single model makes it, it will pull the entire unit into itself. If a single model can shoot, only a single model will shoot.

I find 5th to be decided in the assault phase.


----------



## TheKingElessar

The Movement Phase is by FAR the most important.


----------



## DecrepitDragon

TheKingElessar said:


> Shooting is less conditional on good movement, and thus harder to counter
> Excuse me? If thats true in some cases, its a marginal difference at best.
> 
> Shooting is only based on your own capability, not the foe . .
> Since their armour and toughness have nothing to do with it I suppose? Yes, BS isn't an opposed roll, but, again, the differences vary far more by army, than it does by phase, and you dont get cover saves in combat.
> 
> Hitting with shooting is much easier, averaging 3+ for MEQs, not 4+
> Again, this is far more army dependant than phase dependant. Also, there are as many BS3 armies out there as there are WS3, in fact, consider Orks.
> 
> Shooting can be done from turn one - achieving this with assault is nigh-impossible against a skilled opponent
> True enough, but if we could all assault from turn one, we wouldn't really need or do much in the movement phase. This is simulated battle, not "imaginary heroic slaughter" - a certain amount of realism should be required surely.
> 
> You can't (with a few notable/rarely used competitively exceptions) kill yourself from shooting, dying to enemy assault capability is expected
> Again true, but inaccurate - you dont die because you assault, you die because they hit back. They also shoot back, so no real difference there.
> 
> Shooting usually musters greater dice - even where it doesn't in a 1-off, it will do for the sustained time it takes a unit to actually REACH combat
> Thats what cover and strategy is for - if I have a huge unit of hormogaunts, I'm going to do everything in my power to get them across the table in one piece, at which point I will probably unleash almost as many dice in one go, as an equivelent single unit could with shooting in the time it takes to get there. If not as many, then not too far off it, and probably enough to hurt the target.
> 
> Being too successful in CC means you get shot to shit in the next turn anyway, without the ability to Consolidate into another enemy.
> I'd like to counter this point with some flippant remark about the tides of battle - but I actually miss cosolidation, and am a supporter of its return, so, yeah, since it was removed this particular problem can be annoying. But not necesarily a game breaker.


What you seem to be arguing here is that the game is imbalanced because close combat is less effective than shooting. And I couldn't disagree more.

You will _rarely_ win a game with shooting alone. However it is also true that you will _rarely_ win a game with combat alone.

Those armies that are weak in one area, usually compensate in another. This makes army composition and its use, far more important than which specific phase is going to win or lose the game for you.

If you think the combat phase is weaker, you could always use some of the combat monster characters you mentioned earlier in this thread. That might even things up a bit for you since I believe you pointed out that most are cc orientated?


----------



## Karyudo-DS

TheKingElessar said:


> Indeed. There are many reasons, but chief amongst them:
> 
> Shooting is less conditional on good movement, and thus harder to counter;
> Shooting is only based on your own capability, not the foe, so it's MUCH more reliable;
> Hitting with shooting is much easier, averaging 3+ for MEQs, not 4+;
> Shooting can be done from turn one - achieving this with assault is nigh-impossible against a skilled opponent;
> You can't (with a few notable/rarely used competitively exceptions) kill yourself from shooting, dying to enemy assault capability is expected;
> Shooting usually musters greater dice - even where it doesn't in a 1-off, it will do for the sustained time it takes a unit to actually REACH combat;
> Being too successful in CC means you get shot to shit in the next turn anyway, without the ability to Consolidate into another enemy.
> 
> I think that's enough reasons for now...


Missing one thing, shooting can't lock an enemy in combat usually, unless you count pinning which seems worthless to me. Though you have to assault, lose as little as you can and not kill everything to lock an enemy unit up in CC of course, but it's not all bad.

I do get what you're thinking though. There are CC armies out there but they spam attacks and numbers to make it even work. Unfortunately if you made CC nicer then I think I will fear the nid rush.


----------



## mcmuffin

TKE is 100% correct, shooting is the dominant force in 5th ed. Those of you talking about recent armies being CC oriented, you are mistaken, they have CC elements, and can make CC builds, however their most competitive builds involve firepower. Necrons- fantastic anti-tank and anti-infantry in tesla, their basic troops have great anti-infantry and suppression firepower. Wraiths are a decent tarpit, but are not an excellent cc unit, they are good. Grey knights are a shooting army, they put out massive firepower at mid range.


----------



## TheKingElessar

DecrepitDragon said:


> What you seem to be arguing here is that the game is imbalanced because close combat is less effective than shooting. And I couldn't disagree more.
> 
> You will _rarely_ win a game with shooting alone. However it is also true that you will _rarely_ win a game with combat alone.
> 
> Those armies that are weak in one area, usually compensate in another. This makes army composition and its use, far more important than which specific phase is going to win or lose the game for you.
> 
> If you think the combat phase is weaker, you could always use some of the combat monster characters you mentioned earlier in this thread. That might even things up a bit for you since I believe you pointed out that most are cc orientated?


Well, neither of us has the time, I imagine, to go through those characters one-by-one, but suffice it to say that 90% or more of them are shit.

There's a reason nobody uses Chaplains anymore, barring fluff bunnies and noobs - they provide too limited and situational a buff, when there are far superior options that can be guaranteed to affect the game in some material fashion, even if only be influencing the opponent's movement.

While use of appropriate and adequate cover is something most gamers indeed never experience, I can assure you that I play the vast majority of my games under such conditions. Indeed, the first time I went to a tournament and experienced the dearth and scarcity that is considered the norm, it was quite the culture shock. Fortunately, I wasn't wholly surprised, and brought my own cover with me, in the form of hulls. [Technically, that's not quite true, but it sounds better. In actuality I'd attended a tourny in 4th that took the edge off the first one in 5th, though ofc in 4th terrain didn't need to be 3d, and so there was more of it.]

Back on-topic - there's no reason whatsoever to use the majority of CC-oriented characters. The few worth using, for instance Mephiston, get around it by being so badass that the opponent simply has to deal with them, even though he's a unit of one.

I wins games by shooting alone all the time. Mcmuffin can tell you, in fact, that had I not assaulted him in our game on Saturday, he would have won by a larger margin in shorter order. Granted, Space Wolves are as good assaulted as assaulting (technically, perhaps better) but I was Blood Angels - no slouches in assault. 

Combat can indeed be a deciding factor in many games, but that's not to say that it is a powerful, as meaningful, or as good as shooting.

Your assertion of armies being weak in one area being compensated in another is, sorry, laughable. I have no doubt you'd throw out Tau as the bog-standard example, but you'll find that Tau are actually quite shit at shooting. 

Apart from the fact that they cost far too much to actually get an appreciable number of shots out per turn, the line troopers are only BS3, despite being supposedly as well drilled as anybody.

It's easy, and lazy, to say that BS3 is the average, but that actually isn't even remotely true. A cursory glance at the Codexes reveals that, of the 16 (including SoBs) the following can easily form armies purely of BS4 guys;
Space Marines, Space Wolves, Blood Angels, Black Templars, Dark Angels, Chaos Space Marines, Imperial Guard, Sisters of Battle, Dark Eldar, Necrons, Eldar, Grey Knights.

Now, that IG list would be weaker than if it weren't entirely BS4, so if we take it out, and make the 'not' list; Tau, Nids, Daemons, Orks, Imperial Guard - that is still a third of the Codexes that are NOT BS4. Speaking of, you're not stupid, you understand the comparative system I was referring to in previous post, so your mention of toughness and save are merely irritating red herrings.

You don't die BECAUSE you assault, no - but in doing so you give the opponent a chance to kill you in your own turn, meaning you can expect to take MANY more casualties than if it's only in their turns. Not as much as twice, no, that'd be misleading - but certainly a lot more opportunity for casualties.

Assault-based armies are inherently weak as Troops units need to be preserved - throwing them into the teeth of the enemy and having none left by turn 4 - or having them too deep into enemy lines with no remaining mobility (or, worse, tarpitted by something they can't hurt because you were stupid) is Very Bad. This is why, when the internet was all a-ga-ga over All Vets All The Time IG lists, I was pointing out that they're not as good as people say. Suicide Melta, and CC units, both want to be outside the Troops choices. If your whole army is based on getting to grips with the enemy in H2H, then you've singularly failed to create a balanced list.



> Shooting is less conditional on good movement, and thus harder to counter
> Excuse me? If thats true in some cases, its a marginal difference at best.


Don't play the idiot. There are tons of 36, 48, even 60" range weapons in common usage. The majority of the board is in range of most non-GK armies from T1 onwards. While good movement is required to remove Cover Saves (although, there are plenty of weapons that ignore cover, and usually these are the crowd control weapons that are the anathema of CC units) in most cases, simply firing through Cover is in no way a Truly Bad Thing. Take enough shots, and failing to kill with half stops being such an issue. Sit in the open, and the enemy must cover some open ground eventually, at this point you finish them off.

Going back to your WS3 claim, let's look at that. Armies that typically field WS3 [or worse] models en masse...Daemons, IG, Tau, Sisters, Nids. Wow, so it IS the exact same number, as you say - excepting that the tournament circuit sees virtually none of these players, barring IG - which is a logistical nightmare for transport, and so sees a much lower proportion than it might. Since 4 of those 5 are typically considered uncompetitive at the highest level, and two of those will generally implode on b2b contact with the enemy, I'm not entirely sure what point you were trying to make.



> Thats what cover and strategy is for - if I have a huge unit of hormogaunts, I'm going to do everything in my power to get them across the table in one piece, at which point I will probably unleash almost as many dice in one go, as an equivelent single unit could with shooting in the time it takes to get there. If not as many, then not too far off it, and probably enough to hurt the target.


Hormagaunts are quite cheap. But, they tend to explode to enemy shooting, even in Cover. See, shooting tends to be S4 or better, meaning it wounds on at least a 3+. So, after 2/3 of it hits, and 2/3 of it wounds, EVERY TURN, I have no problem with half of it bouncing off, as you have to remove the models outside of Cover (if there are any) to protect your Cover save, and that slows your assaulting unit (with no Grenades) down further and further.

So, yeah, since they'll be Fearless, they'll probably reach me. Then, my Metal Bawkses will laugh at their pathetic swipes of chitin claws, and I'll drive backwards killing Synapse nearby until I can Tank Shock the Gaunts over and over, or I'll get out into Cover, shoot you, and strike first before you get a chance, wiping you out in your own turn.

Maybe if you didn't hit moving vehicles on 6s if they went over 6", and Fast vehicles didn't both 'exist' and 'be prevalent' then there'd be more of a case...but Shooting > Combat, just like Movement > both put together.


----------



## mcmuffin

Saying that armies balance out with shooting and combat is also a laughable point. The two top codices at the minute: GK and SW, can both do shooting and combta better than most other armies in the game, however both of them still tend towards shooting. Assault is really only great for one thing: stopping things from shooting and annoying movement.


----------



## TheKingElessar

mcmuffin said:


> Saying that armies balance out with shooting and combat is also a laughable point. The two top codices at the minute: GK and SW, can both do shooting and combta better than most other armies in the game, however both of them still tend towards shooting. Assault is really only great for one thing: stopping things from shooting and annoying movement.


*Ahem* Imperial Guard.


----------



## SilverTabby

As someone who depends heavily on CC for my 'nids, I have quite a bit of trouble killing things in CC unless I've planned it carefully, simply because the stats have levelled out so much since 2nd. 

Once, CC troops were nails, and Shooty troops were good at shooting. Now most are ok at both. 

For example: genestealers were once the most feared CC critter out there. WS 7, S6, 4 attacks and I6-8? Ouch. Now? They are more or less the same as marines, with a couple of attacks ad initiative that is about equal to most Eldar. No power weapons, just a small chance that some wounds will bust armour. No-one really fears the genestealer any more.


----------



## Zion

SilverTabby said:


> As someone who depends heavily on CC for my 'nids, I have quite a bit of trouble killing things in CC unless I've planned it carefully, simply because the stats have levelled out so much since 2nd.
> 
> Once, CC troops were nails, and Shooty troops were good at shooting. Now most are ok at both.
> 
> For example: genestealers were once the most feared CC critter out there. WS 7, S6, 4 attacks and I6-8? Ouch. Now? They are more or less the same as marines, with a couple of attacks ad initiative that is about equal to most Eldar. No power weapons, just a small chance that some wounds will bust armour. No-one really fears the genestealer any more.


I don't know, my Battle Sisters still don't want to be anywhere near even 3-4 Genestealers. 

More to the recent conversation regarding shooting vs close-combat units: A really good round of shooting typically nets me a few dead models in a squad. A good round of close combat nets me the removal of the opponent's squad completely. Typically how I see shooting is a way to soften, delay or potentially finish off an enemy unit. I can't count on it to do the job on it's own, so I usually need to go in and hit the unit I want dead with something close combaty

The problem I have with the claim that shooting is king (from someone who's army only really gets at shooting within 12" of the opponent's models) is that the biggest problem I run into is that I can not reliably nueteralize an opponent's army unless I focus fire on a specific target until it's dead (and we can't see if it's fleeing until AFTER we finish shooting at it. If I spread out the shooting to hit a little of everything I can weaken but not break his list. For me my close combat units can on the otherhand remove 2-3 threats from the table in a good round of combat (choosing your targets helps a lot too) and can often be the deciding factor on how well I'll do in a given game/turn

Personally I feel that 40K has a good balance in it's rock-paper-scissors feel. Units that are good at shooting are either restricted by the range of their weapons (Sisters) or aren't that good in combat (WS/S/T3 like some of the Sisters units, Guard and Tau). Units that do combat well either can't shoot or don't bring a lot of quality shots (a unit of Bolt Pistols is how Marines tend to handle it and though Orks get around their quality control issues with quantity, they do that for everything and have other weaknesses (like low leadership and initiave) or have really poor range (usually 12" or less). And balanced units tend to have Rapid Fire weapons, or run around being basically okay at everything while not being awesome at it (Tactical Marines are a good example of units that are okay at anything you put them up to, but aren't the best at it).

As for really awesome shooting vehicles they can't do combat (free hits at their rear armor regardless where you attack from in relation to it!), can be kept from shooting their awesome weapons by being stunned/shaken/weapon destroyed/wrecked/exploded, and if their walkers they either tend to be in squadron (which makes them a little more survivable but means they wreck on a 4-5 and explode on a 6) or are independent but suffer the same issues as regular vehicles, have middling armor (typically 12) and can be killed rather quickly by a decent player.

Really all it comes down to for me in the end is the dice screwing you over. Because in all honesty that tends to be the most effective way to lose a game these days (at least for me) as it effects me more than being shot, assaulted or even deployment.


----------



## mcmuffin

TheKingElessar said:


> *Ahem* Imperial Guard.


Shame I have only ever played one decent imperial guard player, and beat him. Every other guard player i have played has been shite, but I fail to see how they are better than GK or Wolves, both of those armies have wonderful counters to guard. not saying guard aren't good, but they are just slightly behind wolves and the Gay boys.


----------



## Karyudo-DS

SilverTabby said:


> No-one really fears the genestealer any more.


Oh I keep my eyes on Ymgarls on the table. Seen them take down Dreadnaughts. I agree though CC is so evened out you need those extra attacks to do anything. It sort of bothers me a big hulking Wraithlord should in theory be able to just squish your nids into the ground but the way the rolls are it's at best got a 50/50 shot at getting one skill depending...definitely works out like that versus Marines. Super human or not it does feel like some units are easy to counter. Even the WS 10 the avatar brings isn't THAT scary. Useful, but very beatable while being maxed out.

Friend of mine has the same issue with his big nids though as I like to shoot the crap out of them second they're in range. Of course thinking of any man vs bug sci-fi movie I guess you have to be creative with swarming to make the most out of CC.

Of course shooting seems so much more straight forward.


----------



## Katie Drake

SilverTabby said:


> For example: genestealers were once the most feared CC critter out there. WS 7, S6, 4 attacks and I6-8? Ouch. Now? They are more or less the same as marines, with a couple of attacks ad initiative that is about equal to most Eldar. No power weapons, just a small chance that some wounds will bust armour. No-one really fears the genestealer any more.


They're still very, very scary for armies that don't have solid (meaning fairly competent and tough) troops. Sisters of Battle, Tau, Vanilla Marines and so on can have a difficult time if the Genestealers can get into close combat. Some other armies don't have too difficult a time with them because they're super shooty (Guard, Grey Knights, Space Wolves, Dark Eldar, Necrons) or competent close combat fighters (Grey Knights, Space Wolves, Blood Angels, Orks).

It's not that Genestealers are bad, it's just that six of them can't rip through several units in a row before going down anymore. My Blood Angels still aren't a big fan of seeing Genestealers, especially if there's multiple units of them Infiltrating and pretty much anyone that isn't meched up still needs to worry.


----------



## mcmuffin

Well, speaking from the space wolf standpoint, i like seeing stealers because of counter attack. The lack of grenades is the stealer's only massive issue, because if they could charge through terrain and hit at initiative my wolves would be terrified, but as is i sit in terrain with grey hunters, let them try and charge, if they fail i bolter them, if they pass i ounter attack and kill most of them before they can attack. win-win really.


----------



## DecrepitDragon

mcmuffin said:


> TKE is 100% correct, shooting is the dominant force in 5th ed. . . .





TheKingElessar said:


> Well, neither of us has the time, I imagine, to go through those characters one-by-one, but suffice it to say that 90% or more of them are shit. . . .


Did I just commit a social faux pas there?

TKE, you obviosly feel very strongly about your viewpoint, and I can see why - I'm not completely blind to your points at all.

Suffice to say, without making this another page long retort, I still disagree. Primarily because I dont play in tourneys anymore. Finding that killer combination list isn't as important to me these days as it used to be, and as such, I find my games, and the phases to be far more of a balanced affair.

I suppose it could be argued that the tourney events push the system to its limits, where inconsistences will be highlighted to a greater degree.

Also, just so you know, I am a Tau player, and have been since release - and I totally agree that BS3 sucks. I'm also a Guard player, so I suppose there's no hope left for me then? 

In any case, it'll still be interesting to see the new edition and the changes it will bring.


----------



## Katie Drake

DecrepitDragon said:


> Suffice to say, without making this another page long retort, I still disagree. Primarily because I dont play in tourneys anymore. Finding that killer combination list isn't as important to me these days as it used to be, and as such, I find my games, and the phases to be far more of a balanced affair.


Yeah, I'm finding this too. Ever since I stopped playing competitively the game has become a mix of shooting and assault with neither one really having more importance than the other. I'm finding it a much more entertaining affair too.


----------



## DecrepitDragon

Katie Drake said:


> I'm finding it a much more entertaining affair too.


Indeed.

I have no issues at all with most tourney players and their armies of uber destruction, but since I left all that behind, got out the cakes and coffee and just played for fun, I've enjoyed my hobby a whole helluva lot more.

Its all relative really isn't it.


----------



## OpTi

I enjoy the challenge of competitive play but when you're army is just clearly inferior to someone else's even when you've put in every effort to min-maxing it you can it's really frustrating to even play with.

All we want is a fairly balancedish game, it doesn't need to be perfect, I have tons of chaos sat in my cupboard doing nothing because i can't bear to put it on the table, only to look across at my opponents army and know that i'm screwed before we even start (based on knowing thier skill as a player primarily but also knowing what thier army is capable of).

Most of the problem is the codex's, the main rules only really need tweeks to bring CC and shooting into line and maybe a few other mechanic tweeks.


----------



## TheKingElessar

DecrepitDragon said:


> I suppose it could be argued that the tourney events push the system to its limits, where inconsistences will be highlighted to a greater degree.


This. When playing purely casually, pretty much anything can fly, even genuinely tripe units like Spawn or Swooping Hawks.

All the same, designing the rules to be balanced well for competitive play benefits everybody, because a fair game is fair for all.


----------



## TheKingElessar

Apologies for double post, but...


Faeit 212 said:


> Yesterday I recieved an email and information that Games Workshop is sending out to its stores about the upcoming release of 6th edition! This is news, mostly because it is as close as we can get to a confirmation of all the rumors that 6th edition is on its way.
> 
> Check these out.....
> 
> A big thanks to the two people below for sending in the information to me, so that we can share it here with the greater community!
> 
> via Alex
> Just heard this from my local GW, they've been told to remove all 5th edition rulebooks from shelves and sales on May 28th which means 6th could be right around the corner!
> 
> via Tatepon
> Today gw stores got an email.
> in it were orders to remove the 40k rulebook tomorrow (26.05) from the shelves after the shop closes.
> 
> it will be removed from the website on the 28th.
> 
> additionally theyll have a retail-meeting mid june after which more informations will follow.
> 
> furthermore we were told asking customers that it was removed because there will be something new soon and that more info will be released in the near future.


 - Link.


----------



## Karyudo-DS

TheKingElessar said:


> Apologies for double post, but...


Double post or not that's interesting if true (and we should know that shortly). I honestly couldn't think of any other reason to pull rulebooks beyond updates...or GW suddenly found lead in them.

Actually I almost think there might be lead in them :laugh: toss yer BRB's out now!


----------



## Zion

TheKingElessar said:


> Apologies for double post, but... - Link.


Nice catch! I've added it to the first post.



Karyudo-DS said:


> Double post or not that's interesting if true (and we should know that shortly). I honestly couldn't think of any other reason to pull rulebooks beyond updates...or GW suddenly found lead in them.
> 
> Actually I almost think there might be lead in them :laugh: toss yer BRB's out now!


Why would I want to throw away my BRB? There is some nice art in there! Plus I can always use a blunt object to throw at people....


----------



## Karyudo-DS

Zion said:


> Why would I want to throw away my BRB? There is some nice art in there! Plus I can always use a blunt object to throw at people....


Yep, but if it's filled with lead...:read:


----------



## Zion

Karyudo-DS said:


> Yep, but if it's filled with lead...:read:


Some people consider all that fluff to be heavy reading as it is, why make it any harder for them?


----------



## humakt

I suppose this rumour can be confirmed easily enough by going online on the 29th. The thing thats bothering me is there is no hint of a July release in WD. Thats seems to be pointing to the summer flyer release.


----------



## bobahoff

humakt said:


> I suppose this rumour can be confirmed easily enough by going online on the 29th. The thing thats bothering me is there is no hint of a July release in WD. Thats seems to be pointing to the summer flyer release.


There was no hint of the flyers last month either just some whitescars missions but here the flyers are


----------



## Bindi Baji

humakt said:


> I suppose this rumour can be confirmed easily enough by going online on the 29th. The thing thats bothering me is there is no hint of a July release in WD. Thats seems to be pointing to the summer flyer release.


even before the rumour blackout each new ruleset was only known due to rumours as GW have in recent history always tried to keep people buying the current rule book almost a month before change over - a thoroughly disgusting mindset, 
however the book is finished and just over a month away, 
with CSM not too far behind it


----------



## slaaneshy

The Baji has spoken - not long now then folks!


----------



## TheKingElessar

Bindi Baji said:


> even before the rumour blackout each new ruleset was only known due to rumours as GW have in recent history always tried to keep people buying the current rule book almost a month before change over - a thoroughly disgusting mindset,
> however the book is finished and just over a month away,
> with CSM not too far behind it


Agreed, I bought the 7e WFB book very soon before 8th, despite the staff member I bought it from knowing full well I wouldn't have my army done before 8e came out.

I can obviously understand the desire to maximise revenue from the book - but then, they could sell the defunct copies to collectors instead of destroying them - just like with the paints. I'd happily have bought out all the CHaos Black, Iyanden Darksun, Golden Yellow, Scorched Brown etc etc for something like a pound each. [In fact, if anyone has a stock of surplus Chaos Black, get in touch...]


----------



## Zion

5th Edition BRB is no longer for sale on the US site. Searching for it and then clicking on it redirects you to the main page.


----------



## Dawnstar

Zion said:


> 5th Edition BRB is no longer for sale on the US site. Searching for it and then clicking on it redirects you to the main page.


Can also confirm for the NZ store - searched for the rulebook and clicked for a home page redirect


----------



## DecrepitDragon

Zion said:


> 5th Edition BRB is no longer for sale on the US site. Searching for it and then clicking on it redirects you to the main page.


Also removed entirely from the UK site.

Ooh the anticipation begins. . .


----------



## TheKingElessar

Well, it's still a while until July 7th...


----------



## Zion

TheKingElessar said:


> Well, it's still a while until July 7th...


And it's still a couple days until they were supposed to pull the BRB. 

I expect we'll start seeing the GW hype train rolling into the station around the first with pre-orders sometime towards the end of the month.


----------



## TheKingElessar

I'm not sure but I think the next WD is the 22nd. I'd say then that we'll get a video on the 17/18th, possibly a teaser a couple days before that even, then the next WD will announce the release like it was actually news.

Pre-orders for limited edition bits will go up the day after WD, so 23rd, then the 'normal' BRB will be a week later on the 30th.

I guess, anyway.


----------



## Zion

TheKingElessar said:


> I'm not sure but I think the next WD is the 22nd. I'd say then that we'll get a video on the 17/18th, possibly a teaser a couple days before that even, then the next WD will announce the release like it was actually news.
> 
> Pre-orders for limited edition bits will go up the day after WD, so 23rd, then the 'normal' BRB will be a week later on the 30th.
> 
> I guess, anyway.


I'm hoping they do an "Intro to 6th" sort of thing personally. Knowing what they were thinking and the like does make it easier to get the rules (it helped improve my understanding of 5th rather well), but we'll see.


----------



## TheKingElessar

Given how quickly that died, I doubt it. Especially with the whole RaI thing - I Imagine that's VERY frustrating for them as writers to know idiots across the internet are constantly claiming to know what was going on in the minds of people they've never met (said writers) and using it as a stick to beat people with who disagree...


----------



## Zion

TheKingElessar said:


> Given how quickly that died, I doubt it. Especially with the whole RaI thing - I Imagine that's VERY frustrating for them as writers to know idiots across the internet are constantly claiming to know what was going on in the minds of people they've never met (said writers) and using it as a stick to beat people with who disagree...


I'm sure we'll always get people who claim that very thing, I just liked the videos because it explained the writer's logic for the rule changes and made it easier to get why certain things now worked a certain way. It kept me from thinking "this is a stupid rule, why'd they do THAT?" since I already knew about why and that was a big help to me.


----------



## Karyudo-DS

TheKingElessar said:


> ...idiots across the internet...


You say that like there's other kinds of people on the internet... :laugh:

Do wish they would sort of hype things up in advance a bit. Debating whether I want to buy some kits or not at all and me debating makes them no money.



Zion said:


> It kept me from thinking "this is a stupid rule, why'd they do THAT?" since I already knew about why and that was a big help to me.


I had the same reaction to many rules but after looking over the 5th ed BRB after awhile the level of abstraction started to make sense and any rule that didn't make logical sense made a lot more when you see somethings as estimated. Hoping they don't drastically change much though here. I don't mind trying to improve things but it'd be nice to not question a ton of seemingly odd changes.


----------



## Zion

Karyudo-DS said:


> I had the same reaction to many rules but after looking over the 5th ed BRB after awhile the level of abstraction started to make sense and any rule that didn't make logical sense made a lot more when you see somethings as estimated. Hoping they don't drastically change much though here. I don't mind trying to improve things but it'd be nice to not question a ton of seemingly odd changes.


My change over was from 3rd to 5th so there was a lot to adjust to....I STILL have to consciously think of the newer rapid fire rules just because I'll screw it up if I'm not paying attention (they used to only get 1 shot on the move not 2).


----------



## Karyudo-DS

Yeah I skipped 4th as well, though it'd been long enough between playing I barely remembered much beyond...the part where you have models and stuff.


----------



## humakt

The brb being no longer available is pretty much all the confrimation we need. So that leaves just over 3 weeks before we see concrete evidence in WD.

I am expecting big changes this edition, rergardless of rumours. There has not been a big shake up of the rules since 2nd to 3rd really.


----------



## SilverTabby

Intro-level rule sets will likely hit the shops about a week before the rules become available to buy. The staff need to know how to play before release day, so they are proficient at at least the basic stuff. 

*That's* when we'll get the major accurate leaks of changes to the basic game. 

I don't know when stock is sent out, but I doubt it's more than a week before release, and I doubt Independant retailers will get any until after GW release day.


----------



## bitsandkits

New edition comes out on the 14th july.


----------



## TheKingElessar

SilverTabby said:


> The staff need to know how to play before release day, so they are proficient at at least the basic stuff.


I had an argument with a guy last week, for the second time in 3 months, that Dreadnoughts are in fact a type of Vehicle.

This guy is training to become a Store Manager.

So...yeah, forgive me if I don't think a week is enough time for them all to become proficient at the basics...


----------



## mcmuffin

GW staff, for the most part, know more about the inside of their arsehole than they do about the rules for the games they are trying to sell.


----------



## TheKingElessar

mcmuffin said:


> GW staff, for the most part, know more about the inside of their arsehole than they do about the rules for the games they are trying to sell.


Is that *really* a criticism? Surely that would be a boon of some sort...


----------



## Words_of_Truth

Dreadnoughts are a type of vehicle but in close combat ain't treated like a normal vehicle.


----------



## TheKingElessar

Irrelevant. He was stating, categorically, that Walkers were not Vehicles.


----------



## Boc

bitsandkits said:


> New edition comes out on the 14th july.


God... dammit... I'll be stuck in the bayous of Louisiana... I'll let my commander know I'll have to skip out on it in order to pick it up right away, I'm sure that'll go over well


----------



## SilverTabby

Familiarity breeds complacency. Gw staff deal with the rules for 3 different systems, every day. However, they don't use the BRB every game like we do. If they aren't sure about something, normally when running a huge in-store game, they wing it until they can check later, or go with what the majority of the regulars are saying. They then forget to check later, and the on-the-spot ruling sticks in their minds. 

I say this from experience. A week will get them the basics, then once the BRB comes in they'll read it once, maybe twice then get back to it. 90% of staff games are intro games. It's not surprising the deeper rules occasionally slip. Customers have the leisure of their hobby being an escape from work.

Anyway, July 14th you say? I think I need to start saving for the book then...


----------



## TheKingElessar

I'd be sympathetic to that Tabby, but the guy's a prick.

Like I said, twice in three months, maybe less actually. And he wasn't 'are you sure' he was 'No Rick, Walkers aren't Vehicles.'

We all know anecdotes aren't worth a hill of beans - but my point is that there are some inside the company, not just outside it, that couldn't give a shit about learning rules correctly, and intro game is the only level they're capable of playing at. And I've done one, I know what it's about, and am not ragging on their purpose.


----------



## humakt

SilverTabby said:


> Anyway, July 14th you say? I think I need to start saving for the book then...


I have been keeping money by to get the new rules as soon as I can. Not sure I would go to the expense of getting a special edition set though if they have one.


----------



## bitsandkits

Yes Tabby 14th July is release day, though we should start to see the count down and such after the flyer release some point. Dont know about any supporting models or materials yet, if they do a special edition like previous year i will pick one up for the shelf.


----------



## SilverTabby

Oh, I'm not saying some staff aren't simply dicks, I'm just saying why some don't get it quite right :wink:


----------



## Zion

TheKingElessar said:


> Is that *really* a criticism? Surely that would be a boon of some sort...


Their insurance doesn't have to pay for colonoscopies?


----------



## Words_of_Truth

TheKingElessar said:


> Irrelevant. He was stating, categorically, that Walkers were not Vehicles.


Then he's an idiot  If it has an armour value and moves it's a vehicle.


----------



## Karyudo-DS

TheKingElessar said:


> Like I said, twice in three months, maybe less actually. And he wasn't 'are you sure' he was 'No Rick, Walkers aren't Vehicles.


Obviously, some OTHER idiot just accidentally put their rules in the VEHICLE section right? I'm curious what his argument is because we've know walkers were vehicles since Empire Strikes back at least


----------



## slaaneshy

I'd be ininterested of if he thought they are infantry? If so, stick them in a rhino!!


----------



## TheKingElessar

slaaneshy said:


> I'd be ininterested of if he thought they are infantry? If so, stick them in a rhino!!


Hahaha, he did, I should have said that!


----------



## Dawnstar

slaaneshy said:


> I'd be ininterested of if he thought they are infantry? If so, stick them in a rhino!!


Or a Land Raider 

Or have your Stormraven carry two dreadnoughts


----------



## Karyudo-DS

Dawnstar said:


> Or a Land Raider


I would be that guy. If he told me a Dread was infantry I would put it in a Land Raider and chaaaaaarge! Just because.


----------



## Zion

Karyudo-DS said:


> I would be that guy. If he told me a Dread was infantry I would put it in a Land Raider and chaaaaaarge! Just because.


Into terrain no less to take advantage of the assault launchers?

The real question is if a Dread is Infantry, how much transport space does it take up?


----------



## slaaneshy

Two inside, two on the roof, one driving - so you can get five in by my reckoning!


----------



## Lordgimpet

Lol back in 2nd ed you could have them in a rino. it used to be either 10 marines, 5 terminators or 1 dreadnaught


----------



## bitsandkits

slaaneshy said:


> Two inside, two on the roof, one driving - so you can get five in by my reckoning!


6, you can get one in the glove box


----------



## slaaneshy

Ah yes - but only on the delux versions


----------



## Gret79

Deluxe = Grey Knights


----------



## boreas

Stop giving GW ideas. Next thing you know, there will be a 150$ kit, the Storm Raider. Basically, a Land Raider, but 12"x12" and 8" high, transporting a dread, 2 marines units or 10 termies.

Or better yet, the Storm Raider can transport a Land Raider that can trasport marines. Turn one: move Storm raider 12", disembark land raider (2" from the front ramp), disembark termies (2" from the front ramp), assault...

Phil


----------



## Zion

boreas said:


> Stop giving GW ideas. Next thing you know, there will be a 150$ kit, the Storm Raider. Basically, a Land Raider, but 12"x12" and 8" high, transporting a dread, 2 marines units or 10 termies.
> 
> Or better yet, the Storm Raider can transport a Land Raider that can trasport marines. Turn one: move Storm raider 12", disembark land raider (2" from the front ramp), disembark termies (2" from the front ramp), assault...
> 
> Phil


Apparently you've never heard of a Thunderhawk then:


----------



## humakt

See that would be awesome, a rhino with a dread rack inside, like the MTT that deploys battledroids in star wars.


----------



## boreas

I'd forgotten about the ultimate plastic dream  Next C: SM? But then again, FW could do the big one form the Horus Heresy novels (Stormbird?), that could disembark a Storm Raider, that could disembark a Land Raider, that... well, you get the drift 

Next thing you know, 6th ed. will be played on 12'x8' tables as standard!

Phil


----------



## SilverTabby

Lordgimpet said:


> Lol back in 2nd ed you could have them in a rino. it used to be either 10 marines, 5 terminators or 1 dreadnaught


For some reason, my memory of that was the dreadnought was towed behind it. Do modern rhinos have towbars?


----------



## scscofield

SilverTabby said:


> For some reason, my memory of that was the dreadnought was towed behind it. Do modern rhinos have towbars?


::is picturing a Dread on roller skates grabbing the rear hatch of a rhino::


----------



## Tawa

scscofield said:


> ::is picturing a Dread on roller skates grabbing the rear hatch of a rhino::


Ahahahahaaaaa!!!!! :laugh:


#Wheeeee!!!!#


----------



## Zion

Tawa said:


> Ahahahahaaaaa!!!!! :laugh:
> 
> 
> #Wheeeee!!!!#


I'd assume the same army that has this also has Dreadnoughts that have learned to "Tanksurf" and indeed use it as a legitimate transport strategy.


----------



## scscofield

That's how Ven Dreads roll, they are elite after all.


----------



## Karyudo-DS

Zion said:


> I'd assume the same army that has this also has Dreadnoughts that have learned to "Tanksurf" and indeed use it as a legitimate transport strategy.


I demand a model of a Dread surfing a Rhino now. If 6th ed lacks this it will suck, regardless of whatever other babble it does have.


----------



## Zion

scscofield said:


> That's how Ven Dreads roll, they are elite after all.


Ven Dreads have earned the honor to tank surf Landraiders.


----------



## asianavatar

My Greyknight Dreadknight can forgo the option of a jump pack to surf a stormraven.


----------



## Karyudo-DS

Well now of you can drop a Land Raider from a Stormraven and the Land Raider can carry a (possibly surfing) dread from which I assume now has a capacity to carry 5 models on it's shoulders who don't count as moving whenever they disembark...

Gentlemen, I think we have the greatest game ever created here.


----------



## Zion

Karyudo-DS said:


> Well now of you can drop a Land Raider from a Stormraven and the Land Raider can carry a (possibly surfing) dread from which I assume now has a capacity to carry 5 models on it's shoulders who don't count as moving whenever they disembark...
> 
> Gentlemen, I think we have the greatest game ever created here.



On a 2+ the Surfing Dread can balance two more Dreads, one on each shoulder, who can balance 3 between them on a 3+, who can in turn balance 4 on a 4+, all the way to 6 on a 6+. Failure to make the roll causes them all to wipe out and resolve hits against the Land Raider like they had made a ramming attempt from a distance equal to how far the fell.


----------



## slaaneshy

How many dreadnaughts could a Matt Ward dreadnaught chuck if a Matt Ward dreadnaught could chuck dreadnaughts?


----------



## Zion

slaaneshy said:


> How many dreadnaughts could a Matt Ward dreadnaught chuck if a Matt Ward dreadnaught could chuck dreadnaughts?


Almost as many as the Ultramarine Dreadnought because their superior in everyway.:wink:




Disclaimer: No I don't think Ultramarines are better in everyway. Please don't lynch me.


----------



## TheKingElessar

The last couple pages are why I love Heresy.

Well, until you start on the Matt Ward bullshit.


----------



## mcmuffin

We need to make cheerleader dreadnoughts that can do human. . . . er dreadnought . . . pyramids. S8 AP1 pom pom punch.


----------



## scscofield

With a terminator as the small one they toss into the air to do all kinds of flips before being caught.


----------



## mcmuffin

And we could have a comtemptor as the one fat chick who always fucks up the whole routine :laugh:


Woohoo mahfuckas! 2000 posts.


----------



## OIIIIIIO

scscofield said:


> With a terminator as the small one they toss into the air to do all kinds of flips before being caught.


Only have flipping Termies of Goto writes the books .... sorry.:yahoo:


----------



## boreas

Well, with all that, what we really need is Bloodball 40 000k

Phil


----------



## TheKingElessar

I want to see a Furioso Librarian Dreadnought riding a Thunderwolf, inside a Land Raider, inside a Storm Raider, inside a Thunderhawk, accompanied by a Storm Talon and with Psybolt Ammo.


----------



## mcmuffin

Nah, I want Acolyte Henchmen inside a chimera inside a rhino inside a land raider inside a storm raven inside Coteaz' mind.

Inquisiception.


----------



## TheKingElessar

mcmuffin said:


> Nah, I want Acolyte Henchmen inside a chimera inside a rhino inside a land raider inside a storm raven inside Coteaz' mind.
> 
> Inquisiception.


Someone Rep this man!


----------



## Zion

TheKingElessar said:


> Someone Rep this man!


Done.


----------



## Arcticor

So much for rumors....


----------



## mcmuffin

Arcticor said:


> So much for rumors....


Screw the rumours, this is way more fun. :grin:


----------



## Dawnstar

TheKingElessar said:


> Someone Rep this man!


Done. Easily the best thing I've seen all day


----------



## Karyudo-DS

mcmuffin said:


> Screw the rumours, this is way more fun. :grin:


I was going to suggest someone write all this down so we could put it to use :laugh:


----------



## slaaneshy

It


TheKingElessar said:


> The last couple pages are why I love Heresy.
> 
> Well, until you start on the Matt Ward bullshit.


But no thread is complete with at least one reference to him. My job here is now done...


----------



## Ravner298

> Nah, I want Acolyte Henchmen inside a chimera inside a rhino inside a land raider inside a storm raven inside Coteaz' mind.
> 
> Inquisiception.


Laughed out out. Now the coworkers think i'm a nutjob. Rep'd.


----------



## mcmuffin

Haha, thanks for le reppage guys!


----------



## Black Legionare

Alright so I've gotten an e-mail from my FLGS stating that GW will be taking pre-orders for the 6th Ed rulebook June 30th for a July 7th release.


----------



## mcmuffin

Black Legionare said:


> Alright so I've gotten an e-mail from my FLGS stating that GW will be taking pre-orders for the 6th Ed rulebook June 30th for a July 7th release.


Fuck yeah.


----------



## OpTi

Black Legionare said:


> Alright so I've gotten an e-mail from my FLGS stating that GW will be taking pre-orders for the 6th Ed rulebook June 30th for a July 7th release.


Might i ask where? as i work in a FLGS and seeing as i was working mearly 2 and a half hours ago hadn't heard this information


----------



## Mogloth

I've never been around during a version update. Does it mean all the rules in the codexes are not usable anymore?

How long will there be between the core book release and the codexes?


----------



## boreas

Well, when 5th came out, GW produced major FAQs. Lots of consternation ensued, because they botched some of them. They finally put most of them right. 

Then, codexes come out one at a time... mostly, since some like SoB didn't really get one. But don't be afraid, it's usually a huge period of fun, with whining and powergaming being couterbalanced by all sort of coll new shenanigans,...

Phil


----------



## Karyudo-DS

Mogloth said:


> I've never been around during a version update. Does it mean all the rules in the codexes are not usable anymore?
> 
> How long will there be between the core book release and the codexes?


The last Dark Eldar codex before the recently released one was 3rd edition (or 13 years ago I think) both the codex's for my armies came out during 4th edition. So yeah...look at the printing dates on some of those things, some are pretty old now.

From my understanding they release at least one codex a few months after the edition. Though that might be wrong but if you're waiting on edition specific codex updates...yeah might be awhile. In theory you're army should work and the new BRB should translate any oddities from previous books (in a perfect world). Like how the 5th ed book states that G (guess range) weapons were now barrage, old edition mechanic. 

So everything should be good.

Less you play nids.


----------



## Bindi Baji

OpTi said:


> Might i ask where? as i work in a FLGS and seeing as i was working mearly 2 and a half hours ago hadn't heard this information


It may well be someone jumping the gun before they actually received confirmation, it certainly wouldn't be the first time that's happened.


----------



## Black Legionare

Bindi Baji said:


> It may well be someone jumping the gun before they actually received confirmation, it certainly wouldn't be the first time that's happened.


Perhaps that is the case. It's just what I was told.

And my FLGS is located in South Florida.


----------



## SilverTabby

Looking at dates, July 14th is the Studio Open Day. Depending on setup, having that on 40k release day would either be a stroke of brilliance or an utter disaster. 

I'm not sure which, yet.


----------



## DecrepitDragon

SilverTabby said:


> Looking at dates, July 14th is the Studio Open Day. Depending on setup, having that on 40k release day would either be a stroke of brilliance or an utter disaster.
> 
> I'm not sure which, yet.


Yep. Seems strange to me. I wouldn't imagine GW having a distraction (such as it would be) from the main BRB launch.

Its workable, and not impossible at all - just seems very unlikely.

Adds a little weight to the possible 7th release date. But how heavy are a flys wings?


----------



## humakt

I did notice the GW open day being in July. I suppose that design staff have finished working on 6th edition months ago so they will have had plenty of time to prepare.


----------



## SilverTabby

It will mostly have been finished by Christmas, and the couple of months following were sorting WD, and then they finished writing the supplements for the box...

They've done about 4 more projects since then, and are knee deep in preliminary Hobbit stuff.


----------



## humakt

SilverTabby said:


> They've done about 4 more projects since then, and are knee deep in preliminary Hobbit stuff.


And who wants that? Those damned hobbits seem to get everywhere!


----------



## Words_of_Truth

Are they going to update the LOTR game with _The Hobbit_ stuff? they'd be fools not to.


----------



## Gret79

I'm told that's why they've had to clamp down on leaks, because of the dragon from the hobbit. No one is allowed to see it.
And now they're not telling anyone anything, not even the gw staff.

Oh and the obligatory joke

"knee deep in Hobbit stuff"


Eww.


----------



## nevynxxx

Gret79 said:


> "knee deep in Hobbit stuff"
> 
> Eww.


Knee deep in hobbits is bad enough..... Knee deep in their "stuff" must be, slippery....


----------



## LOCHRIESBLOOD

Only when wet.... Yep spot on about The Dragon "smaug" or what ever his name is. The studio producing the movie want the dragon to be a supprise. So cant have a leaked image of said model floating about. So complete and utter clamp down followed by furious speculation and rumour mongering. Well at least its better than just furious mongering that would be weird and maybe slippery.


----------



## Karyudo-DS

Bah, I saw Smaug 20 years ago. Hardly expect to be really surprised unless he doesn't look like a dragon or something. Which would be odd.


----------



## LOCHRIESBLOOD

Na it will be a dragon remember its not a Bay movie that rapes all your child hood memories.


----------



## Gret79

That scene would then just be shaky camera and bits of dragon sticking out from behind a post...Or smaug would be an alien.

And moving onto topic - what about the chaos flyer/dragon? that rumour appears to have gone quiet?


----------



## Rhaven357

Not sure how I feel about a chaos dragon in 40k. on the one hand it'd be cool to model my wolf lord with dragonslayer honors but don't dragons kinda scream fantasy.


----------



## LOCHRIESBLOOD

What like orks, eldar, ogyrns and god forbid Squats! Don't? Its well within a certain:wink: designers capabilities and 40k is Warhammer innn SPAACCEE!


----------



## mcmuffin

LOCHRIESBLOOD said:


> What like orks, eldar, ogyrns and god forbid Squats! Don't? Its well within a certain:wink: designers capabilities and 40k is Warhammer innn SPAACCEE!


I refer you to 

*McMuffin's Law: As an online discussion about 40k grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Squats approaches 1.*


----------



## Karyudo-DS

mcmuffin said:


> I refer you to
> 
> *McMuffin's Law: As an online discussion about 40k grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Squats approaches 1.*


I still don't see how they would ruin the vibe of this game. In fact I'd start up an army just for them.


----------



## Words_of_Truth

Well they were mentioned yet again in the recent Primarchs anthology.


----------



## TheReverend

Words_of_Truth said:


> Well they were mentioned yet again in the recent Primarchs anthology.


Yes they were, in a very credible way. I see them reappearing in the next Tau codex...


----------



## TheKingElessar

Not to divert too much, but how the fuck does Michael Bay keep getting movies??

Worst Director Ever.

Also, Demiurg would be only surprising by their omission.


----------



## darktide

Rhaven357 said:


> Not sure how I feel about a chaos dragon in 40k. on the one hand it'd be cool to model my wolf lord with dragonslayer honors but don't dragons kinda scream fantasy.


They would probably NAME the flyer Dragon. But if they do it better have some really cool daemon wings and a spiky fuselage


----------



## Karyudo-DS

TheKingElessar said:


> Not to divert too much, but how the fuck does Michael Bay keep getting movies??
> 
> Worst Director Ever.


Oh come on, I can forgive him for making a Battletoads movie and casting turtles instead, not that big of a deal.















Wait, it's not SUPPOSED to be Battletoads?!?! :shok:


----------



## bitsandkits

TheKingElessar said:


> Not to divert too much, but how the fuck does Michael Bay keep getting movies??
> 
> Worst Director Ever.
> 
> Also, Demiurg would be only surprising by their omission.


because his films make a shit ton of money and money is king in hollywood.


----------



## LOCHRIESBLOOD

Money is king in this hobby


----------



## Zion

LOCHRIESBLOOD said:


> Money is king in this hobby


Some hobbies you pay to win. We pay massively to play.


----------



## LOCHRIESBLOOD

Bit like a cult:grin:


----------



## Zion

LOCHRIESBLOOD said:


> Bit like a cult:grin:


He knows! Quick, someone send the Sisters of Silence to resolve this!


----------



## Bindi Baji

TheKingElessar said:


> Worst Director Ever.


How about worst Director ever that does not go by the name Uwe Boll


----------



## Words_of_Truth

The only reason Bay makes money is he's given a lot of money to spend on big effects, everything else is crap.


----------



## Karyudo-DS

Zion said:


> Some hobbies you pay to win. We pay massively to play.


Ask a jetbike army, we still P2W too


----------



## Words_of_Truth

The fact it's so dear to do an army with loads of troops I may just go for a small elite bike army next time.


----------



## Diatribe1974

I wonder how much new lore they'll introduce with the 6th edition?


----------



## Zion

Diatribe1974 said:


> I wonder how much new lore they'll introduce with the 6th edition?


For the updated books it'll probably draw heavily from what exists to save time, but the other ones likely will be looking at some bigger and possibly broader updates. Beyond that, no idea.


----------



## Arcane

Oh you know, something like, Emperor sleeping/semi-dead, certain doom upon mankind, Space Marines, Xenos, More Space Marines... that kinda stuff.


----------



## TechPr1est

whats this thing i read in the 5th editon book. it says that the techpriests have found a problem with the golden throne, a problem they cannot fix. does anyone have any details on that? 


it is on page 129 and is the year 986999.M41


----------



## slaaneshy

The flusher stopped flushing and the u bend is proper blocked after a millennia back fill of the emperors brown stuff!


----------



## Stephen_Newman

slaaneshy said:


> The flusher stopped flushing and the u bend is proper blocked after a millennia back fill of the emperors brown stuff!


Nah an eror message has popped up saying an error has occurred in the system. To reboot the system press any key.

Except the Mechanicum cannot find the "any" key.


----------



## scscofield

They know where the Any key is, they just do not know the proper ritual to press it.


----------



## boreas

They found it's an iThrone... And since the Mechanicum mainly use Android servitors, there's no way they can fix that.

Phil


----------



## Zion

boreas said:


> They found it's an iThrone... And since the Mechanicum mainly use Android servitors, there's no way they can fix that.
> 
> Phil


Considering that Apple Products have the recovery procedure of reboot or replace I can't blame them. Neither would be a good option when the Throne is keeping the Emperor alive.


----------



## DecrepitDragon

boreas said:


> And since the Mechanicum mainly use Android servitors, there's no way they can fix that.
> 
> Phil


So they called in the "Brother" engineer, and he walked away scratching his arse saying "Sorry - I only do Canons" . . .

Ah, the old Brother printers . . . anybody else remember them? (I hope so, otherwise that joke wont make a lot of sense). :grin:


----------



## Zion

DecrepitDragon said:


> So they called in the "Brother" engineer, and he walked away scratching his arse saying "Sorry - I only do Canons" . . .
> 
> Ah, the old Brother printers . . . anybody else remember them? (I hope so, otherwise that joke wont make a lot of sense). :grin:


Yeah, they're still around. I've picked up a laser printer by them about a year ago. Works great.


----------



## Callistarius

Not sure if a release date has been mentioned, but my local GW (in Australia) is advertising a "Super-Fantastico New Release!" for Saturday 30th June. 

It was also strongly hinted that initial release may be hardcover rulebook only, not a boxed set like AoBR. If they do it as a hardcover release of same size as WHFB that would suggest $124AUD for a possible price.


----------



## Karyudo-DS

Callistarius said:


> It was also strongly hinted that initial release may be hardcover rulebook only, not a boxed set like AoBR.


Yeah I think we already figured on that. Rulebook first, starter set (like AoBR) after. Interesting date though. Would be nice...I think.


----------



## DanoNecrono

Not sure if this has been mentioned already and considering how many pages this thread has I can't justify going through them all. I had one of the GW employees tip me off that they were slowly pulling off all the 5th edition rule books from shelves. Taking everything I hear with a grain a salt I went to the GW website and couldn't find the 5th edition rule book there either.

Callistarius: My GW employee also gave me the same date


----------



## Zion

DanoNecrono said:


> Not sure if this has been mentioned already and considering how many pages this thread has I can't justify going through them all. I had one of the GW employees tip me off that they were slowly pulling off all the 5th edition rule books from shelves. Taking everything I hear with a grain a salt I went to the GW website and couldn't find the 5th edition rule book there either.
> 
> Callistarius: My GW employee also gave me the same date


It wasn't slowly. GW stores have already pulled them. FLGS may still carry them but GW stores were told to stop selling them already last I heard.


----------



## your master

I was told this weekend by my local GW manager that they will have the book to show off in july ready for release in august


----------



## TheKingElessar

It was slowly Zion, it was off the site before it was off the shelves at my local GW, different rankings of store removed them at different times, some were (presumably) told to sell out their remaining stock as it was low enough to be realistic.


----------



## Adramalech

I can't find the 5th ed rulebook on the site, either. Only time I've ever known GW to pull a product is if they're putting it somewhere else or replacing it with something else.

given that everyone is saying that GWS are pulling them or trying to move their remaining stock, I'd guess at the latter.

WHOO! 6th EDITION!


----------



## TheKingElessar

It's been off the site over a week.


----------



## Adramalech

TheKingElessar said:


> It's been off the site over a week.


Whatever the case, I want to lock the people who made the decision to sell the remaining BRBs when the new BRB is on the way in a dark room with legos all over the floor.


----------



## Zion

Adramalech said:


> Whatever the case, I want to lock the people who made the decision to sell the remaining BRBs when the new BRB is on the way in a dark room with legos all over the floor.


Don't forget to take away their shoes and socks too!


----------



## SilverTabby

boreas said:


> They found it's an iThrone... And since the Mechanicum mainly use Android servitors, there's no way they can fix that.
> 
> Phil


Bloody iProducts. I want digital codeces and not to have to have an iPad to do so...


----------



## boreas

Come to think about it... Warhammer 40k is not a game. It's a Prophecy. A Prophecy about the Big War opposing Apple (the Empire) and Chaos (PCs, the Android platforms, etc). 

Woooaaa.....


Phil


----------



## Arcane

In that case I have been playing the wrong army lol!


----------



## Karyudo-DS

boreas said:


> Come to think about it... Warhammer 40k is not a game. It's a Prophecy. A Prophecy about the Big War opposing Apple (the Empire) and Chaos (PCs, the Android platforms, etc).
> 
> Woooaaa.....
> 
> 
> Phil


No way the empire is only 5% of the armies though


----------



## SavageConvoy

Great. Now somebody is going to make Hipster Marines. 
They were loyal before the Emperor was GOD!


----------



## bobahoff

Is this where the new fluff comes out with the ultramarines heroic defence of a local starbucks from a rampaging chaos horde armed with blackberries


----------



## darktide

bobahoff said:


> Is this where the new fluff comes out with the ultramarines heroic defence of a local starbucks from a rampaging chaos horde armed with blackberries


Blackberries are kind of starting to die so they maybe more like the Eldar. I's say Androids are more in line with Chaos. Pretty much the same in performance and options, but not quite the as much a single Deity cult.


----------



## Zion

darktide said:


> Blackberries are kind of starting to die so they maybe more like the Eldar. I's say Androids are more in line with Chaos. Pretty much the same in performance and options, but not quite the as much a single Deity cult.


Necrons of course would use the 1980s Cellphone. Large, unweildly, not really a lot of options, but they would continue to use it because that's how they did it in their day!


----------



## TheKingElessar

No, Blackberries were never good, they just seemed to, with that glossy veneer. At least Eldar ruled the galaxy once...


----------



## Zion

TheKingElessar said:


> No, Blackberries were never good, they just seemed to, with that glossy veneer. At least Eldar ruled the galaxy once...


So Blackberries are Tau then? Looked good when they came out but quickly became outdated.....


----------



## Gret79

Does that mean the Eldar are Nokia?

Good when they came out, everywhere for a good while, now painfully sliding into obscurity?


----------



## Zion

Orks are two cans and some string. Primitive but functional.

Chaos Daemons don't call, they just show up unannounced.


----------



## boreas

I guess the conventional phone is the Imperial Guard... I've got a set of 3 cordless for 59$. Not expensive, not fancy, but they make up with numbers...

edit: man, phones are the new fruits. Rumors have GOT to come out!


----------



## bobahoff

Well that just leaves dark eldar so I reckon they must be sony ericson. They're both smart stylish and cause untold misery and pain


----------



## TheKingElessar

Zion said:


> So Blackberries are Tau then? Looked good when they came out but quickly became outdated.....





Gret79 said:


> Does that mean the Eldar are Nokia?
> 
> Good when they came out, everywhere for a good while, now painfully sliding into obscurity?


Hahaha, both excellent. Surely Nids are Samsung, if they're overtaking everything in their path...


----------



## Turnip86

I guess Squats are Sagem, small and relegated to obscurity?


----------



## boreas

Went to the local cellphone store. Asked for a cellphone. 

The guy aswered "sure, which one?". 
I answered "A Kaldor". 
He asked me "What brand is that?". 
I answered "Draigo... A grey one, please." 

His head exploded.

Phil


----------



## mcmuffin

TheKingElessar said:


> Hahaha, both excellent. Surely Nids are Samsung, if they're overtaking everything in their path...


No, nids are more the equivalent of the phone gotten for a fiver in Lidl or Aldi, no good when they came out and getting worse.


----------



## Arcane

I really wish we had some more solid info to add to this thread


----------



## SilverTabby

There's less than a month to wait, I'm content to be patient. 

Or if nothing's out by the Studio Open Day, you can guarantee someone's gonna slip... :wink:


----------



## Gret79

boreas said:


> Went to the local cellphone store. Asked for a cellphone.
> 
> The guy aswered "sure, which one?".
> I answered "A Kaldor".
> He asked me "What brand is that?".
> I answered "Draigo... A grey one, please."
> 
> His head exploded.
> 
> Phil


:biggrin: The new draigo - a phone that exists in 5 dimensions at once and as such, can even call fictional characters...

It's THAT good.

And anyone who has knowledge of this phone is put to death.

But we need more rumours! I don't want to wait till the 16th and then find out we still know nothing...and then we'll have to wait till august for anything to happen...


----------



## mcmuffin

From Faeit 212



> via Whitehat
> Plastic Plaguebearers & Nurglings, Finecast Blue Scribes in August (amongst what Im presuming is that metal daemons will be released with Finecast Versions.)
> 
> Finecast will replace all metal models in the next year (unsure if that means specialist)
> 
> 6th ed - a few morsels
> 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
> 
> Vehicles are WS0 if stationary, and WS1 if they move, no matter how far they go.
> 
> 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...
> 
> Vehicles cannot contest (unsure if scoring units in transports can
> 
> 6 Missions and 3 deployment types (2 of the deployments are the same as current, Spearhead & Pitched Battle.)
> 
> Troops are the only ones that can score (including of course 'scoring units')
> 
> 5+ Cover save for most things including ruins.
> 
> Allies rules are in, but its meant to be for team games (ie separate force org chart, distrusted ally rules similar to Fantasy)
> 
> Percentages are *not* in
> 
> Wound Allocation is closest to furthest.
> 
> 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
> 
> Preferred Enemy is including shooting and you may reroll wound rolls of a 1 (either shooting or combat)
> 
> Rapid Fire weapons may now can shoot at long range while moving. restriction on assaulting after rapid firing remains.
> 
> Jump Infantry get a free strike at I10 when they charge into combat
> 
> Psychic Power Decks using a dice system similar to Fantasy.
> 
> Flyers are in.
> 
> FNP drops to 5+ Save.
> 
> I'm calling it now - Infantryhammer


random charges make me want to puke, i like the changes to vehicles being hit in combat, FNP at 5+ is an improvement, makes sang priests less annoying. 

oh, and . . . . 

I FUCKING HATE THE IDEA OF THIS TYPE OF WOUND ALLOCATION


----------



## Zion

mcmuffin said:


> From Faeit 212
> 
> 
> 
> random charges make me want to puke, i like the changes to vehicles being hit in combat, FNP at 5+ is an improvement, makes sang priests less annoying.
> 
> oh, and . . . .
> 
> I FUCKING HATE THE IDEA OF THIS TYPE OF WOUND ALLOCATION


Random charges makes sense (sometimes the ground is slick or is loose and isn't as easy to run on, ect), and until we see the full ruleset this may be a balancing factor to allow shootier units a chance. I didn't really think FnP needed to be nerfed, but then again I don't see it too often in my area. As for the Wound Allocation, we'll adjust. Again, we don't have the full information just yet so try to not get worked up. It may still be where you take wounds on squad leaders and differently loaded models last and pull casualties from the rest of the squad from the front. We'll see.

Overall interesting, though not really that revealing in the long run (not really much in the way of new stuff outside of the vehicle rules, which means everything hitting moving tanks on 3s (and the tank gets to hit back on 5s? Wait....what?). I'll add it when I get off work today.


----------



## Necrosis

If these changes are true then my sisters of battle will be a bit more happy and my dark eldar will be sad.


----------



## Stephen_Newman

via Whitehat
Plastic Plaguebearers & Nurglings, Finecast Blue Scribes in August (amongst what Im presuming is that metal daemons will be released with Finecast Versions.) 

Finecast will replace all metal models in the next year (unsure if that means specialist) 

6th ed - a few morsels 
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 

Vehicles are WS0 if stationary, and WS1 if they move, no matter how far they go. 

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... 

Vehicles cannot contest (unsure if scoring units in transports can 

6 Missions and 3 deployment types (2 of the deployments are the same as current, Spearhead & Pitched Battle.) 

Troops are the only ones that can score (including of course 'scoring units') 

5+ Cover save for most things including ruins. 

Allies rules are in, but its meant to be for team games (ie separate force org chart, distrusted ally rules similar to Fantasy) 

Percentages are *not* in 

Wound Allocation is closest to furthest. 

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 

Preferred Enemy is including shooting and you may reroll wound rolls of a 1 (either shooting or combat) 

Rapid Fire weapons may now can shoot at long range while moving. restriction on assaulting after rapid firing remains. 

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

Psychic Power Decks using a dice system similar to Fantasy. 

Flyers are in. 

FNP drops to 5+ Save. 

I'm calling it now - Infantryhammer 

I freaking love this!

Most of these changes are what I would love to see. More mission variety, easier to demech mech armies, flyer rules, challenges and being more like Fantasy in general all get a big thumbs up from me!


----------



## Eleven

Zion said:


> Overall interesting, though not really that revealing in the long run (not really much in the way of new stuff outside of the vehicle rules, which means everything hitting moving tanks on 3s (and the tank gets to hit back on 5s? Wait....what?). I'll add it when I get off work today.


You are presuming that they won't change the melee to hit chart. Which thu might, even though it's a little unlikely. 

The change to the vehicle rule in any case will make Mcs dead Killy against mech. The random charge range is just a total face palm. What a stupid idea. Why is. Charge range random but regular movement not random? Why add an extra meaningless roll to a game that already has too much rolling? Why add a roll that causes assault units to take a stupid all or nothing test? And 3d6 take away te highest for terrain? That's brutal.Basically say goodbye to ever getting a 6 inch charge thru terrain.

Everything else I like a lot. Maybe I'll get to use my raptors after all...tear.

5+ cover will validate ap 3 in a big way and pseudo validate ap 4 weapons.

Being able to move and shoot gauss will make tesla totally useless. Unless there is a buff to assault weapons.


----------



## Eleven

An someone explain to me what this psychic deck system is (don't play fantasy) so I know whether to be mad or not? It doesn't randomize the psychic powers you get does it?


----------



## Words_of_Truth

The way the rules for 40k are atm make me think how armies like the Imperial Fists and Tau ever win a fight in stories.


----------



## Zion

Eleven said:


> An someone explain to me what this psychic deck system is (don't play fantasy) so I know whether to be mad or not? It doesn't randomize the psychic powers you get does it?


Fantasy uses a winds of magic system. Long story short they have a randomly generated dice pool each turn for casting/dispelling. They also have all the core rulebook spells as a purchasable deck of cards for easy reference.


----------



## Jezlad

Well if they change the psychic rules to the shite that is fantasy 7th edition I will be quitting for good.

My first (and last game) of fantasy 7th resulted in all 3 mages killing themselves. 

Those rules are shit.


----------



## Zion

Jezlad said:


> Well if they change the psychic rules to the shite that is fantasy 7th edition I will be quitting for good.
> 
> My first (and last game) of fantasy 7th resulted in all 3 mages killing themselves.
> 
> Those rules are shit.


Magic went to a high-risk/high-reward system. I rarely see many mages die from their miscasts, and they don't miscast unless they're forced or they're throwing large amounts of dice at a spell (or just roll badly). If anything the magic terrain is the worst part since even Beastmen and Wood Elves (two races who live in areas with magical woods) don't even get any form of protection from magical forests in the current rules. Not to mention the entire board can kill you if those rolls go badly.


----------



## Arcane

Stephen_Newman said:


> Finecast will replace all metal models in the next year (unsure if that means specialist)


and still be just as expensive right? Zzzzzzz


----------



## d3m01iti0n

What is this I hear about a BT White Dwarf update?


----------



## khrone forever

Jezlad said:


> Well if they change the psychic rules to the shite that is fantasy 7th edition I will be quitting for good.
> 
> My first (and last game) of fantasy 7th resulted in all 3 mages killing themselves.
> 
> Those rules are shit.


i played about 70 odd games with fantasy 7th ed and i dont remember any of my mages dieing more than 5 times over the course of those games.

you mush have been very unlucky


----------



## Zion

d3m01iti0n said:


> What is this I hear about a BT White Dwarf update?


Unconfirmed rumor. It's possible but I don't see it being all that likely.

But I could be wrong.


----------



## Bindi Baji

Zion said:


> Unconfirmed rumor. It's possible but I don't see it being all that likely.
> 
> But I could be wrong.


there are models banked from about a year ago but nothing has happened with them as yet, 
I believe they will see the light of day, 
but I have no idea about when and the WD rumour is just speculation due to no one being entirely sure whats happening yet


----------



## mcmuffin

Wait, are we talking about 7th ed or 8th ed fantasy?


----------



## Karyudo-DS

Eleven said:


> The random charge range is just a total face palm. What a stupid idea. Why is. Charge range random but regular movement not random? Why add an extra meaningless roll to a game that already has too much rolling? Why add a roll that causes assault units to take a stupid all or nothing test? And 3d6 take away te highest for terrain? That's brutal.Basically say goodbye to ever getting a 6 inch charge thru terrain.


Actually it sounds like something referred to as a compromise. You want to charge me but instead of getting to actually shoot and wound you, you instead just might not make it. Course that leaves you open to a lot more shots my turn. I could also see charging through dense terrain to be even harder so I can see a logic here. Not sure I like how it would play though. 

Do like the idea of jump infantry getting an extra attack, I mean the DFA is in every video game anyway.

The vehicles having a WS seems the odd part to me. We had a system for hitting that seemed fine though I guess this would let you miss. Though as pointed out if I have a WS I should be able to attack...possibly a way to make tank shock useable? Its entirely useless for me most of the time anyway.


----------



## davespil

I'm seriously over the random bad things that can happen to you by rolling badly. They need to get rid of it in 6th, though they probably won't cause they probably think its clever or funny.

Sly Marbo throwing a demo charge that can scatter behide him is BS. Does he throw like a girl? They need to start adding some common sense to this game. Tell me how he can only through a demo charge 6 inches but it can scatter 8 inches?!? I can throw a football 40 yards, it doesn't scatter 20 yards behind me sometimes...

The 'gets hot rule' is worse! Why would an army field a weapon that has a 1 in 6 shot to kill u every time you fire it? How many Marines get killed during training every year? You have to fire it often to be profecient enough with it to use it on the battlefield and that takes putting a lot of rounds down range. Since they added it to WHFB it sounds like it will never go away.


----------



## Magpie_Oz

The random events that you mention I think are an attempt to balance out some weapons, add some spice and model some environmental factors into the game. Maybe Marbo slipped in his throw and the demo went awry?, I've seen it happen with a grenade. Plasma guns are unstable but powerful so the risk in firing them is accepted.

I think it is all the things that can go wrong with your troops and plans is what sets 40k apart.


----------



## SilverTabby

If random charge distances are in, then the average charge distance just went up from 6" to 7". I can see it being really annoying (I like knowing how far I can assault) but also I can see the justification for it, and likely there will be a new USR introduced that helps the really fast units make it into combat. Possibly something like Beasts will get 3D6, pick the 2 highest, etc.

These are just rumours, and only a couple at that. Never take a rule in isolation from the rest of the game, it can be taken completely out of context. As was pointed out before, is random distance replacing the charge reaction rumour? That way Shooty units don't get better, but CC have a potential huge boost...

My primary two armies are one CC (nids) and one Shooty (sisters) and I'm really looking forwards to seeing how new rules affect them differently. My first arranged game with my Sisters post-change is with one of the writers, so I'm looking forwards to seeing how he hands me my backside in new and interesting ways. With 'nids too, so I can steal the ideas he uses...


----------



## mcmuffin

Random charges are an awful idea, unless assaulting units are amazeballs or something.


----------



## boreas

The thing is, charges in 8th WFB are not _completely_ random. Let's say you have a movement of 4 (the "normal"). Now, you have 45% chances of charging between 10-12". So, if you add the fact that you can pre-measure, you can actually charge accurately most of the time. A completely random charge would be rolling, let's say, a 20 sided dice and assaulting that distance.

What's killing WFB for me (and my gaming group) is that it becomes a artillery or magic festival most of the time. That might be due to me playing lizards and my friend playing empire, though. 

I would't mind some randomness in movement in 40k, just as long as it's, for exemple) (2d6)+6" for jump-pack. That (bell-curve+fixed move) really isn't that bad. As for other variables ("gets hot", dangerous terrain,etc), it just expresses, well, the random things usually labeled under "shit happens".


----------



## Zion

Bindi Baji said:


> there are models banked from about a year ago but nothing has happened with them as yet,
> they will see the light of day,
> but I have no idea about when and the WD rumour is just speculation due to no one being entirely sure whats happening yet


Pretty much everything that is BT is in plastic (conversion kit), Finecast, or part of one of the generic Marine boxes. So unless they get something unique I have no idea what it is they'd be fielding that requires new models.



mcmuffin said:


> Wait, are we talking about 7th ed or 8th ed fantasy?


I ended up talking about 8th because I that's the one that seems to have turned people off the most. Plus I don't remember hearing about wizards dying that easilly in 7th from miscasting. But I could be just recalling it incorrectly.



davespil said:


> I'm seriously over the random bad things that can happen to you by rolling badly. They need to get rid of it in 6th, though they probably won't cause they probably think its clever or funny.
> 
> Sly Marbo throwing a demo charge that can scatter behide him is BS. Does he throw like a girl? They need to start adding some common sense to this game. Tell me how he can only through a demo charge 6 inches but it can scatter 8 inches?!? I can throw a football 40 yards, it doesn't scatter 20 yards behind me sometimes...
> 
> The 'gets hot rule' is worse! Why would an army field a weapon that has a 1 in 6 shot to kill u every time you fire it? How many Marines get killed during training every year? You have to fire it often to be profecient enough with it to use it on the battlefield and that takes putting a lot of rounds down range. Since they added it to WHFB it sounds like it will never go away.


Firstly, it's a game. Any attempts to argue that it's not like real life are doomed from the start to look silly and be full of holes.

Secondly, Randomness means you can't just throw your guys headlong into my guys and know you'll win. It's what gives weaker armies a fighting chance and what can turn the tides of battle (surprisingly enough this does equate to real life because sometimes dumb luck accounts for a lot more than people think). And it's not like you can't mitigate randomness. I play 3 Exorcists for this reason. If one doesn't do it, two should and if two can't then the third usually does the trick. Especially when I'm trying to crack hard to kill things.

As for "Gets Hot!", it's a 1 in 6 followed by an armor save (it could be worse, it could be the weapon's profile against your model which would wound most models on a 2+ and then kill them because of AP2). So a 1 in 6 (16.7%), followed by a 2 in 6 (or 1 in 3 aka 33%) to kill a Marine, or just wound him if he's a multi-wound model. And that's not counting if they have FnP where you'd have a 1 in 6, a 2 in 6 to fail the save (or 1 in 3) and a 3 in 6 (or 1 in 2 aka 50%) to fail that save. Now I still learning on how to calculate probablility correctly so feel free to correct me on this but in the first situation you'd have a 1/18 chance (5%) of failing both rolls. When dealing with models like Plague Marines or other units with Feel no Pain and Plasma you have a 1/36 (2.7%) chance of failing all three rolls. That looks pretty survivable to me.

Plus take in consideration that weapons like Plasma Guns are the bane of MCs (multiple shots per gun with a high strength that'll wound most of them on 3s, and ignore armor (most MCs don't have invunerable saves)) and Plasma Cannons are the bane of everyone (small blast templates with a high stregth, low AP and usually on a model that has BS 4 meaning they'll kill a couple of models everytime they fire minimum) they had to do something to keep the weapon unique and interesting but not making it so people would just run Plasma on everything that could take it. Sure it's not great against tanks, but Plasma is one of the best Infantry/Monstrous Creature killers in the game (at least the Imperium's version). Besides, if you think that Marine has it bad, try being the Obliterator who turns his blood into white hot plasma to shoot it and then somehow burns himself with his gun.

As for Marbo, maybe he threw the Demo charge forwards but it was thrown back, or it hit something and was deflected? Or maybe it got stuck in a tree, or dragged off by some indigenious wildlife? You can use your imagination to explain these things. Infact GW encourages games to tell a story (they used to give reasons in your codex why one army would fight another, one of my personal favorites is from the Witchhunters codex on why they would fight Eldar: "1. Because the entire race are heretical witches."). That's why the BRB has such a big section on campaigns in it, and how you can make your own. They WANT you to tell stories and do interesting things with these guys, not just crunch numbers to determine who is the best at beating face.


----------



## Tranx

Zion said:


> They WANT you to tell stories and do interesting things with these guys, not just crunch numbers to determine who is the best at beating face.


If you play Orks then you get to tell stories AND determine who is best at beating face! :biggrin:


----------



## Zion

Tranx said:


> If you play Orks then you get to tell stories AND determine who is best at beating face! :biggrin:


Quite true! 

And as a note in the favor of some randomness it's resulted in one of my Rhinos killing a Trygon Prime a few weeks ago by Tank Shocking it (that's right, a lowly Rhino ran over a MC that's at least 3 stories tall). And then a Nob with a powerklaw by passing it's invunerable save versus his penetrating hit against it. If the game was all about pure numbers and percentages I wouldn't have tried that, but with the off chance it would work I did. And it added some very characterful moments to the games I've played.


----------



## SilverTabby

I've been having a discussion on another forum about something just like that - someone who says that if the Emperor doesn't provide the Acts of Faith, then it can't be purely the Sisters hyping themselves up with their belief, it MUST be a psychic power they use to get those bonuses. 

Anything can be explained away using imagination. Don't take things literally or at face value in a game like this :wink:


----------



## Zion

SilverTabby said:


> I've been having a discussion on another forum about something just like that - someone who says that if the Emperor doesn't provide the Acts of Faith, then it can't be purely the Sisters hyping themselves up with their belief, it MUST be a psychic power they use to get those bonuses.
> 
> Anything can be explained away using imagination. Don't take things literally or at face value in a game like this :wink:


Humanity are a low-level psyker race, so it's possible. I remember from Eisenhorn that the BBEG (Big Bad Evil Guy) was using the churches of the planet to essentially brainwash the populious, and when he'd gotten the right conditions with them all chanting together the overall effect was enough to unleash some seriously nasty things, despite the fact that these people had no real psychic abilities. Never underestimate the power of enough people getting together and believing something at the same time.


----------



## Klaivex

Zion said:


> Quite true!
> 
> And as a note in the favor of some randomness it's resulted in one of my Rhinos killing a Trygon Prime a few weeks ago by Tank Shocking it (that's right, a lowly Rhino ran over a MC that's at least 3 stories tall). And then a Nob with a powerklaw by passing it's invunerable save versus his penetrating hit against it. If the game was all about pure numbers and percentages I wouldn't have tried that, but with the off chance it would work I did. And it added some very characterful moments to the games I've played.


how did your rhino get an invulnerable save?


----------



## Zion

Klaivex said:


> how did your rhino get an invulnerable save?


Just about everything but the Battle Conclave, Priests and Confessors in a Sisters of Battle army has the Shield of Faith special rule. Shield of Faith gives me a 6++ invunerable save that can't be shot off because it's not wargear (HA Vindicare Assasin!). This includes all my tanks. And no, they did not get a points increase for this rule, and yes it comes standard.


----------



## Karyudo-DS

If we can measure distances then I doubt random charge will be much of an issue and I don't see why we can't when most games let you do it. I would love for jump troops to get some sort of advantage to, I'd actually use mine!

Of course as for Gets Hot!; I've rarely issues with it and I always run some plasma.

My only issue is random extra rolls and math. A quick charge check might not be terrible.


----------



## Arcane

More random chances are bad because it makes the game less about skill/tactics and more about luck. I shouldn't be able to measure for my shots/assaults because deducing if that target is in range is part of the skill behind commanding an army. The more random chances the game gets the closer it is to being playable by a computer, not a human with experience. It's like WoW where your character swings a weapon and hits based on a % chance, not actual skill of the player. Unfortunately GW is trying to cater or a wider audience, like Blizzard does, and making more chances random makes the game more accessible to casual and younger players. 

For example, my friend's squad of Necron Immortals defeated Dark Eldar's Lilith in close combat in a game recently. That should never happen. Recent codex have removed the old large wargear/armory options, streamlined armies and made them all closer to being the same. Gone are the targeters, auspex, blessed weapons, and other interesting items which made units unique in the past. 

There are better ways to add flavor and depth to a game than just throwing random dice rolls and hoping something interesting happens in the rules. But that takes skill and talent on the part of the designer. Unfortunately adding more options and diversity via text doesn't sell more models.


----------



## Karyudo-DS

Arcane said:


> More random chances are bad because it makes the game less about skill/tactics and more about luck. I shouldn't be able to measure for my shots/assaults because deducing if that target is in range is part of the skill behind commanding an army.


40k is already a dice game as it is. I played a game where I deep-striked DW in front of an enemy marine squad, on his turn he killed my entire squad with JUST bolter fire. Really wasn't a tactical error, was just the dice that rule the game. Granted without any tactics you wont be able to take advantage of bad dice either. 

I can understand not wanting people to pre-measure because if they do it all the time it slows the game down for them to employ "perfect tactics" but I still don't agree with picking a target THEN checking to see if you can shoot it and sitting there like an idiot in a penguin costume if the target is out of range. I mean the technology welding armies not having range-finders is sad.


----------



## Jezlad

khrone forever said:


> i played about 70 odd games with fantasy 7th ed and i dont remember any of my mages dieing more than 5 times over the course of those games.
> 
> you mush have been very unlucky


Probably. I was born with a two inch cock... 






























Looked MASSIVE on a baby... :laugh:


----------



## Jezlad

When I said 7th ed fantasy I meant the newest one... whatever ed that is.


----------



## maddermax

Jezlad said:


> When I said 7th ed fantasy I meant the newest one... whatever ed that is.


8th is the newest one. If 6th ed 40k goes the way of 8th ed fantasy.... well, that'll suck.


----------



## Eleven

Karyudo-DS said:


> Actually it sounds like something referred to as a compromise. You want to charge me but instead of getting to actually shoot and wound you, you instead just might not make it. Course that leaves you open to a lot more shots my turn. I could also see charging through dense terrain to be even harder so I can see a logic here. Not sure I like how it would play though.


what are you talking about? There is no compromise here. it's just a nerf to assault and shooting is not involved. What are you talking about?


----------



## Eleven

Guys here's your sign: All the people that are against random stuff have great reasons why they think that random stuff will be bad. The defenders argument is just, "Uh...I don't think it will be bad." That pretty much tells you what's going on right there.


----------



## Archon Dan

So much of these latest rumors would be so annoying. I'm really hoping for the game to not change so drastically. This is my first edition change and I'd hate to no longer enjoy the game.


----------



## humakt

I quite like the idea of shooting removing nearest first. Its more relistic for a start. The only armies this will really effect are orks and nids. All other armies can deploy straight from assault vehicles. Actually maybe Eldar as well but I have seen very few close assault orientated eldar armies.


----------



## darklove

Archon Dan said:


> So much of these latest rumors would be so annoying. I'm really hoping for the game to not change so drastically. This is my first edition change and I'd hate to no longer enjoy the game.


I love the sound of those changes: suddenly the Necron codex makes perfect sense.

Why give a shooting unit like Destroyers Preferred Enemy unless it applies to shooting?
Why have Jump Infantry assault units with I2 unless they get some early smacks in?
Reanimation Protocols 5+ would be the same as, but better than, FNP.

Necrons are starting to sound like a codex written for 6th ed.


----------



## SilverTabby

Eleven said:


> Guys here's your sign: All the people that are against random stuff have great reasons why they think that random stuff will be bad. The defenders argument is just, "Uh...I don't think it will be bad." That pretty much tells you what's going on right there.


Which thread have you been reading? Because it's not this one...


----------



## misfratz

Arcane said:


> For example, my friend's squad of Necron Immortals defeated Dark Eldar's Lilith in close combat in a game recently. That should never happen.


Never is a strong word. Use it carefully.

At one extreme we have games such as chess and noughts&crosses/tic-tac-toe, where no randomness is involved. A sufficiently powerful computer would be unbeatable in both of those games as a result.

At the other extreme you could have something like a simple dice-off. Completely random.

Is it notable that many more people play games such as chess than just rolling a die to see who rolls highest? I think it does at least establish that a game could be too random to be interesting to play.

Do I think that 40K is anywhere close to being too random? Not at all. If anything 40K has such a plethora of different unit and weapon types, and a bizarre set of armour rules, that there are a bit too many "paper, scissors, stone" combinations. Randomness can help to soften the edges of this, and so I welcome it.


----------



## darklove

misfratz said:


> Is it notable that many more people play games such as chess than just rolling a die to see who rolls highest? I think it does at least establish that a game could be too random to be interesting to play.


This = false.

You are ignoring facts that you should be aware of.

How many people play 'Craps' or Roulette in casinos or online? How many people play the lottery? There are many totally random games that are vastly more popular than chess if you consider purely the number of people playing them.

People, in general, like random in games. What people don't like is if someone then tries to claim there is somehow any skill involved in a random action like rolling a die or picking a number out of a hat.

40k will always be a balance between random chance and skill because there is a mix of choices that people make and also outcomes that are decided by rolling dice.


----------



## Gret79

I think the game has to have an element of both - You need to know what will happen if you try something, but luck needs to be in the mix - so the strategy you try still has the element of associated risk. 
I fired 10 Wraithguard at 5 SS/TH deathwing - killed them all in one turn of shooting. Will this happen again? potentially, but it's a fluke that went a long way towards winning the game from my side. It could had been a complete failure - but it made it interesting. 
To use an analogy - football.
One of the most popular games in the world, players know what they want to do before they do it - but luck plays a massive element
http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rc...t7iSDw&usg=AFQjCNF31UTVHUvzps3G-vSZXYG-P8TdVg
He meant this one, but fluked it in.


----------



## Zion

Eleven said:


> Guys here's your sign: All the people that are against random stuff have great reasons why they think that random stuff will be bad. The defenders argument is just, "Uh...I don't think it will be bad." That pretty much tells you what's going on right there.


Actually my argument has been "let's wait and see before committing to angst because without the full picture we're just being incredibly silly." To get all worked up without all the facts is just a waste of time. We can't possibly know the full extent of how 6th will work just yet but people seem to think they know based on some of the rules. If the rumors are correct the BRB this edition is going to be 136 pages longer than 5th edition's. Now I'm sure some of that is stuff like new art and fluff, but I'm also sure that means we're going to have over 100 pages of rules, a lot of them new. To judge a whole edition preemptively on what would be less than a tenth of all it'll likely contain? Unfair to the folks who spent time working on this, unnecessary and generally silly. 

Why is it everytime GW releases something we use the following list?
1. Rumors come out announcing product
2. As more information is released internet switches to "Chicken Little Mode"
3. People threaten to quit the game
4. Product comes out and is usually not nearly as bad as people believe
5. People quit playing due to a sense of betrayal
6. New players replace the old ones
7. Repeat

I've seen this exact thing happen with every single codex release since IG (before that I never followed 40K blogs or forums) and it's incredibly silly. People are getting wound up on partial facts and sometimes old versions of rules that are later updated and end up ruining the game for themselves before they even see how it'll change.


----------



## GrizBe

Just nabbed some interesting stuff via Darnok at Warseer:





> Originally Posted by Warhammer 40,000: Rulebook, £45
> 
> There is no time for peace. No respite. No forgiveness.
> 
> There is only WAR.
> 
> In the nightmare future of the 41st Millennium, Mankind teeters upon the brink of destruction. The galaxy-spanning Imperium of Man is beset on all sides by ravening aliens and threatened from within by Warp-spawned entities and heretical plots. Only the strength of the immortal Emperor of Terra stands between humanity and its annihilation, and in his name, countless warriors and agents do battle against the encroaching darkness. Foremost amongst them stand the Space Marines, the ultimate protectors of Mankind.
> 
> Across airless moons, within the depths of dark, twisted hive worlds and even in the immaterial realm of Warp space, battles rage that will shape the future of the galaxy forever.
> It is a universe that you can enter today, if you dare. But remember that this is a dark and terrible era, and there is no peace amongst the stars...
> 
> The Warhammer 40,000 Rulebook is your essential guide to playing atmospheric battles in the 41st Millennium. It helps you field majestic armies of Citadel miniatures across the war-ravaged battlefields of the far-future, in the ultimate contest of strategy and skill.
> 
> With 440 full-colour pages, this hardback Rulebook is packed with rich background and contains all the rules for fighting pulse-pounding tabletop battles. The Rulebook includes exciting features such as dynamic close-combat, flyers, psychic devastation and interactive scenery. As well as jaw-dropping artwork, contained within is a history of the 41st Millennium and a richly detailed guide to the races and weapons of the far-future. It also features a comprehensive hobby section to set you on the path to choosing, collecting and building your own Warhammer 40,000 army of Citadel miniatures.







> Originally Posted by Warhammer 40,000: Psychic Powers, £8
> 
> One of the many exciting features of Warhammer 40,000 is Psychic devastation, where Psykers wreak havoc on the battlefield. Psychic Powers is the complete set of Psychic cards, which be used in conjunction with Psychic Disciplines. They make a great accessory to your tabletop games.
> 
> This set contains 35 large-format cards and come stored in a plastic fan-opening case, which bears the Aquila. There are 7 cards for each Psychic Discipline, each of which is represented by distinct artwork. There is also an instruction leaflet that classifies which powers can be used by the main Psykers in the Warhammer 40,000 universe.





> There are also "Munitorum Templates" (£12, designed with a metal effect look), "Munitorum Tape Measure" (£10, looking like a Servoskull) and "Munitorum Dice" (£10, while stocks last).
> 
> On advance order on 23th, available from 30th of June.



Is it just me, or does that psychic powers thing sound kinda like Storms of Magic but for 40K?

Also, Servo Skull measuring tape? Sweet. lol


----------



## misfratz

darklove said:


> This = false.
> 
> You are ignoring facts that you should be aware of.
> 
> How many people play 'Craps' or Roulette in casinos or online? How many people play the lottery? There are many totally random games that are vastly more popular than chess if you consider purely the number of people playing them.
> 
> People, in general, like random in games. What people don't like is if someone then tries to claim there is somehow any skill involved in a random action like rolling a die or picking a number out of a hat.
> 
> 40k will always be a balance between random chance and skill because there is a mix of choices that people make and also outcomes that are decided by rolling dice.


Oh yes, you're completely right, how did I miss that?


----------



## Zion

More rumors before the arguments set in again (from Faeit212):



> 6th Edition Rulebook/ Starter Set Limited Run
> Just a couple small rumors to that are worth while mentioning today. We have one regarding the scope or size of the new rulebook, and talk of a special very limited run of the starter set.
> 
> These are rumors, please take with the required bit of salt
> 
> via Harry
> I hear a certain 'big book' available in all good stores soon has 440 pages
> 
> I know there is a special (Limited run) edition of the starter set.
> The limited edition starter set will have a run of just 5,000 copies


----------



## Gret79

:goodpost:


Zion said:


> Actually my argument has been "let's wait and see before committing to angst because without the full picture we're just being incredibly silly." To get all worked up without all the facts is just a waste of time. We can't possibly know the full extent of how 6th will work just yet but people seem to think they know based on some of the rules. If the rumors are correct the BRB this edition is going to be 136 pages longer than 5th edition's. Now I'm sure some of that is stuff like new art and fluff, but I'm also sure that means we're going to have over 100 pages of rules, a lot of them new. To judge a whole edition preemptively on what would be less than a tenth of all it'll likely contain? Unfair to the folks who spent time working on this, unnecessary and generally silly.
> 
> Why is it everytime GW releases something we use the following list?
> 1. Rumors come out announcing product
> 2. As more information is released internet switches to "Chicken Little Mode"
> 3. People threaten to quit the game
> 4. Product comes out and is usually not nearly as bad as people believe
> 5. People quit playing due to a sense of betrayal
> 6. New players replace the old ones
> 7. Repeat
> 
> I've seen this exact thing happen with every single codex release since IG (before that I never followed 40K blogs or forums) and it's incredibly silly. People are getting wound up on partial facts and sometimes old versions of rules that are later updated and end up ruining the game for themselves before they even see how it'll change.


:goodpost:

The main things I'm thinking - 
I like 40k now. 
Will 6th change much? maybe - but how much can it change? grey nights and necrons codex's will still work with the rules and they're already printed.
Will I still play - quite probably...
Will I lose any sleep over any rumours - no

And if it is absolutely awful, we'll all still have 5th ed rules. And the fluff will still be the same.


----------



## GrizBe

Guess you guys missed the previous post i made with some confirmed stuff in it. lol.


----------



## Zion

GrizBe said:


> Guess you guys missed the previous post i made with some confirmed stuff in it. lol.


I did for a moment there but it's been added to the first post now. Nice find! I'd rep you for it but apparently I've repped you too recently for something else.


----------



## Gret79

I'm adopting a 'wait and see policy' 

I'd like a separate psychic phase with cards again - I enjoyed dark millenium.


----------



## Stephen_Newman

Oh my wallet is so screwed this month. Will defo need those Magic cards and the idea of a servo skull tape measure is too cool to not buy!


----------



## GrizBe

Zion said:


> I did for a moment there but it's been added to the first post now. Nice find! I'd rep you for it but apparently I've repped you too recently for something else.


Last week for my comment about why Sisters of Battle weren't popular.


----------



## Synack

I'm so bored with 5th ed, I really don't care what 6th ed is like, so long as it's different.


----------



## Zion

GrizBe said:


> Last week for my comment about why Sisters of Battle weren't popular.


Fair enough. :grin:

I like to rep the rumor submissions we get but I can't always find posts worth repping to be able to continue to give rep to our regular rumor submitters.


----------



## pantat

I really really hope that closest model wound allocation thing isn't true, but I won't bitch and moan about anything until I've read the rulebook myself.


----------



## mcmuffin

Psychic Disciplines? Does this mean that codex psychic powers will be obsolete? Or will it go the way of 8th ed "i cast a spell" - "I dispell it" "i cast another spell"-"i dispell it"

I'm starting to worry a small bit.


----------



## Synack

mcmuffin said:


> Psychic Disciplines? Does this mean that codex psychic powers will be obsolete? Or will it go the way of 8th ed "i cast a spell" - "I dispell it" "i cast another spell"-"i dispell it"
> 
> I'm starting to worry a small bit.


As opposed to "I cast this power" - "I psychic hood it"


----------



## Bayonet

The Jump Infantry thing is interesting as I'm just starting out a DOA Force... 

I welcome a move from Mech Hammer, my 4k Wolves have all been built around Rhinos and Razorbacks. Less emphasis on these vehicles means a nice drop pod army would be just as viable, or even a foot slogging one. Slightly worried my Wolves don't have a flyer though with this new Flyer ruleset but there's other Armies in the same boat!

This is my first Edition change and I have to say I'm very excited.


----------



## Words_of_Truth

I also think there's only so much you can do with tanks, and I really hate looking at a board where all you see is vehicles until the second or third turn.


----------



## Sethis

It's not Storms of Magic - it's the 8th Ed rulebook copy/pasted.

7 Spells = 6 spells and a signature.

35 cards = 5 Disciplines, so 3 fewer than the 8 in WFB, which suits the fact that hypothetically Psychic Powers are used less than Mages in WFB (yeah, right). Every codex will obviously get it's own Discipline except possibly Marines and IG because they're as vanilla as they come. Chaos will get God-Specific lores with the exception of Khorne who will get added dispel/ward saves against magic a la Dwarves. And so on and so forth. We already have the GK book with "Mastery Levels" from 1 to 4 which is yet another copy/paste job and "Psychic Devastation" sounds like "Irresistable Force" to me, which is hardly exciting to anyone who's watched a game of Fantasy.

Basically Psychic looks like it'll = Magic Phase it just remains to be seen how they generate dice for the power usage.

Given how badly the magic phase fucked up 8th Edition I just hope they've learnt their goddamned lesson and don't have such fucking stupid spells as Dwellers and Power Scrolls.

Mind you, I wouldn't mind Eldrad being the next Teclis.


----------



## Karyudo-DS

Bayonet said:


> The Jump Infantry thing is interesting as I'm just starting out a DOA Force...


Kind of makes me worry about BA now. Who knows though. Might help make Skyclaws more interesting. I know I don't use my Assault Marines much either though I suppose I could. If the change is true I'll have to give them a shot.


----------



## boreas

> interactive scenery


Regarding that... I've read (on B&C, I think) that there might be more interaction with the scenery. As an example, it was said that flamer-type weapons might put scenery abalze. That might be fun!

Phil


----------



## Zion

boreas said:


> Regarding that... I've read (on B&C, I think) that there might be more interaction with the scenery. As an example, it was said that flamer-type weapons might put scenery abalze. That might be fun!
> 
> Phil


If I recall correctly Beasts of War mentioned this in one of their 6th edition rule preview videos too. So this may have some credibility.


----------



## Stephen_Newman

I like the idea of flamers rising in prominance. Plasma guns were the staple of 4th ed and meltaguns took over for 5th. It would be wonderfull if my flamer heavy Tigers could rock this edition!


----------



## boreas

Or... might I imagine... make all three equally good and balanced!? 

Phil


----------



## mcmuffin

boreas said:


> Or... might I imagine... make all three equally good and balanced!?
> 
> Phil


Lol, this is GW, the only thing they even remotely try to balance is their budget.


----------



## Karyudo-DS

boreas said:


> Regarding that... I've read (on B&C, I think) that there might be more interaction with the scenery. As an example, it was said that flamer-type weapons might put scenery abalze. That might be fun!
> 
> Phil


I like the idea of more interaction. I played a couple games where we rolled lighting strikes on ruins, setting them on fire (dangerous test) so having offical ways to do that would be nice. With flamers beings easy to get it would be nice to use them if outside of range of a real target.

I'm curious about the psykers though too; would these powers replace or add to the existing codex ones? I know the DA psykers have next to nothing but my Eldar... Want both to be useful beyond hoods.


----------



## andrewm9

I don't know about the psychic powers thing. If psychic powers are going to be important enough to warrant generic lists then what about all the codices who don't use them at all like DE, Sisters, and Daemons. More importantly what about psychic defenses since those 3 barely have any or none at all in the case of Sisters. My feelings on the matter are mixed at best. On one hand it will be cool to see a little more variety in the psychic powers department and perhaps a little more difficulty in using them in some cases. On the other it coudl be bad for some armies who have nothing in that department especially if they add a psychic phase back to the game.


----------



## bitsandkits

andrewm9 said:


> I don't know about the psychic powers thing. If psychic powers are going to be important enough to warrant generic lists then what about all the codices who don't use them at all like DE, Sisters, and Daemons. More importantly what about psychic defenses since those 3 barely have any or none at all in the case of Sisters. My feelings on the matter are mixed at best. On one hand it will be cool to see a little more variety in the psychic powers department and perhaps a little more difficulty in using them in some cases. On the other it coudl be bad for some armies who have nothing in that department especially if they add a psychic phase back to the game.


But powers already exist, all this edition will do is change them, they are not going to become instant game winner because of the very things you haven mentioned, i wouldnt worry about it.


----------



## SavageConvoy

But they are coming out with a card pack and Psychic power book. As a Tau player I'm considerably worried about how much Psychic powers are going to come into play. Especially if they are using the random power charts since that means that half of those powers are going to pants-shittingly overpowered.


----------



## Bindi Baji

I'm hearing that some stores will be open very late on the 22nd, v late indeed, could the 23rd be the actual release date for 6th edition, 
and if so will that make up for england going out of the euros that day?


----------



## Jezlad

They fucked up movement, missions and cover last edition... It follows that this time around the elbow lickers will fuck up the psychic phase :thank_you:


----------



## SilverTabby

That post on the deck can easily be interpreted as "here are cards with all the powers written on them, so you don't have to keep referring back to the BRB every time you cast them". Doesn't mean they are introducing random cards ala Dark Millenium. 

I would personally find having my 'nid powers on cards in front of me easier than referring back to the book, and would actually remind me to cast them. 

Partial rumours = unnecessary panic and blowing things out of proportion.


----------



## SilverTabby

Also, the complaints of "but this army has no counter" can easily be fixed by having a list in the BRB or on an FAQ of generic wargear (similar to the stuff any army in WHF can take). Dark Millenium used wargear cards in that fashion. 

Next panic-stricken question?


----------



## SavageConvoy

I'm just making that assumption because they made Cards for the magic in Fantasy. Not wargear, common weapons, USR, infantry types, but Magic. Why? Because that's what it all ended up revolving around. 

Now I'm hearing something that could be coming to 40k that made me quit Fantasy. You can see why I'm eager to find out.


----------



## Zion

SavageConvoy said:


> I'm just making that assumption because they made Cards for the magic in Fantasy. Not wargear, common weapons, USR, infantry types, but Magic. Why? Because that's what it all ended up revolving around.
> 
> Now I'm hearing something that could be coming to 40k that made me quit Fantasy. You can see why I'm eager to find out.


I think they made the cards because it makes it easier to keep track of your available spells, what they do and even which ones you've already used that turn (flip them face down, or "tap" them MtG style), something you don't normally need to do with the other things you mentioned because they have consistent rules that don't change (and usually not by much if they do change somehow) so it's easier to keep track of then the magic spells you randomly generate each game (unless you're a Loremaster).

And yes, the edition does seem to revolve around magic, but GW keeps trying to sell large block formations as the key thing about this edition (because "they look so much cooler".....or because they sell more models that way). Either way I don't normally find myself looking up equipment or the wargear as much as I do spells to be honest.


----------



## boreas

Even better than card: Army builder will probably allow to print a little list of powers after your psyker's entry (the way they do for WFB magic - you choose one or more lore and those spells are all there). Not cards, no looking in the book, just look at your army list.


----------



## Katie Drake

I understand the position of folks urging that people don't get too upset or worried about incomplete rumors, but please also realize that to many people Games Workshop has been shockingly consistent in fucking up at _least_ one major thing per edition on the rules front (let alone the other things that they do that piss people off). A certain degree of trepidation is only natural.


----------



## mcmuffin

Well if they do fuck up psychic powers at least i have my world eaters to fall back on, hopefully they will get heavy psychic defence. Please GW don't fuck up 40k like you did to fantasy


----------



## Zion

Jezlad said:


> They fucked up movement, missions and cover last edition... It follows that this time around the elbow lickers will fuck up the psychic phase :thank_you:


Are you talking about 4th or 5th editon? Now I can't chime in on 4th editon but as I was coming back into 40K, 5th Edition was being credited as a major improvement on 4th edition. Only now as the rumors for 6th have been circulating for a while and 5th has worn out a welcome am I really hearing people saying that 5th edition is horrible and broken and useless. But then again I don't read a lot of the ultra-negative blogs and threads about how everything sucks.


----------



## Karyudo-DS

Katie Drake said:


> I understand the position of folks urging that people don't get too upset or worried about incomplete rumors, but please also realize that to many people Games Workshop has been shockingly consistent in fucking up at _least_ one major thing per edition on the rules front (let alone the other things that they do that piss people off). A certain degree of trepidation is only natural.


Yes and no certainly. I mean no matter what everyone is likely to think at least one change will be incredibly stupid once they see it. I expect that and to see something I don't agree with. There's 5th ed. things likes that but overall the game plays well so I don't complain.

I can find things to complain about here but some of the ideas sound interesting. They also sound like homebrew rules in some cases. 

Personally I have no postive/negative/apocalyptic opinion on these till I see them together in a book and use them. The psyker thing seems good and bad depending what it means. I have one army that loves pysker and the other with 3 powers.


----------



## boreas

I might Gripe and Moan about a ton of things when GW is concerned (international pricing, FAQs and updates, etc...) but usually, rulesets aren't part of it. No matter what, I'm pretty sure that 6th ed will be great fun, with it's ups and downs, and we'll all be having a great time at it in a month!

Phil


----------



## Zion

Katie Drake said:


> I understand the position of folks urging that people don't get too upset or worried about incomplete rumors, but please also realize that to many people Games Workshop has been shockingly consistent in fucking up at _least_ one major thing per edition on the rules front (let alone the other things that they do that piss people off). A certain degree of trepidation is only natural.


More and more often I find myself telling people to not get upset or panic before they know the full scope of things because it's often unfounded, based on less than even partial truths and just fills threads with angst, bickering and makes us look bad. Now this isn't to say that pessimism isn't unfounded or being cautious of a potential change is bad, it's just how you handle these feelings and reactions that is. It's one thing to say "Based on what we know at the moment, this doesn't look too good." or "I don't like the way this rumor sounds, but maybe we're missing something." and another to say "GW is evil, they ruin everything forever, they punched my grandmother and gave my cat several purple nurples!" (paraphrasing of course). I'm not against opinions, I'm against rash, unfounded reactions that often end up so disproportionate to the actual rumor that the negativity actually affects people's perceptions of what we actually get.


----------



## SavageConvoy

To me it's a concern when I have an army (as in my only army because I don't want another one just yet and I spent a lot of time and money to build up this one) may be completely unfieldable UNLESS we happen to skip an entire game mechanic (Psychic Powers)

And I know people will just say "Wait till they update your army." Because I just spent crap tons of money and time for tiny shelf decorations. I'm not trying to bitch and/or moan. I am, but that's not the point. I'm just trying to emphasize why I think a rumor may be a really bad change if true. I know it's speculation until it hits paper. But I've seen a lot of rumors prove true and I'm not seeing why I shouldn't anticipate this one.


----------



## boreas

SavageConvoy said:


> And I know people will just say "Wait till they update your army." Because I just spent crap tons of money and time for tiny shelf decorations. I'm not trying to bitch and/or moan. I am, but that's not the point. I'm just trying to emphasize why I think a rumor may be a really bad change if true. I know it's speculation until it hits paper. But I've seen a lot of rumors prove true and I'm not seeing why I shouldn't anticipate this one.


Mind you, if you have only one army and if it's an older one (like Tau, which I think you did specify), an edition change can be really worst than for most. I remember the 5th ed. FAQ that came out for WH and DH. I did bitch & moan, in fact, the whole crowd at B&C did so loud enough to get GW to change it.

Phil


----------



## Karyudo-DS

Yeah I could see a rules change really affect the fun factor with only one army. Hopefully they won't completely give anyone the shaft. Flyer rules for instance sound great...if you have flyers or at LEAST a way to deal with them. Sort of hoping that Eldar tanks get FAQ'd to count as flyers. Though they had some apoc rules like that. We shall see what all happens pretty quick here though.


----------



## Archon Dan

darklove said:


> I love the sound of those changes: suddenly the Necron codex makes perfect sense.
> 
> Why give a shooting unit like Destroyers Preferred Enemy unless it applies to shooting?
> Why have Jump Infantry assault units with I2 unless they get some early smacks in?
> Reanimation Protocols 5+ would be the same as, but better than, FNP.
> 
> Necrons are starting to sound like a codex written for 6th ed.


I was actually hoping for Preffered Enemy to affect shooting. It's some of the other stuff I have issue with. I really don't like all assault distances to be random. That actually screws Beasts and Calvary unless they change their rules significantly. If you give Wraiths the Whip Coils, initiative is rarely an issue. And Reanimation can be upgraded to a 4+. The reason it is 5+ base is because it is loads better than FNP. The only armies I could see being able to boost FNP similarly would be Marine variants. Say that an Apothecary or Priest gives 4+ FNP out to 6" but only 5+ out to 12". But then every other army is stuck with only 5+ and that makes DE very killable.


----------



## d3m01iti0n

All Psykers are dirty dirty heretics and you can keep them. Update BT already. And dont fuck it up.


----------



## Eleven

Zion said:


> It's one thing to say "Based on what we know at the moment, this doesn't look too good." or "I don't like the way this rumor sounds, but maybe we're missing something." and another to say "GW is evil, they ruin everything forever, they punched my grandmother and gave my cat several purple nurples!" (paraphrasing of course). I'm not against opinions, I'm against rash, unfounded reactions that often end up so disproportionate to the actual rumor that the negativity actually affects people's perceptions of what we actually get.


Why are you so interested in controlling other people's ideas and reactions though? If someone's gut instinct is to say, this sucks and I hope they don't do it like this. Why shouldn't they be able to say it? Alot of people in here (myself not included) think that the psychic changes could be bad because they have experience with fantasy. I don't and the changes to the psychic stuff sound interesting and possibly cool. But for all I know it's going to blow chucks. Your exaggeration of people's reaction is silly. I think alot of us know that gws is not the best at rules and gameplay, so we are just hoping that they improve instead of making something worse. It's the great models and the cool lore that make us stay (that and the fact that everyone plays 40k so it's hard to play anything else).

What I prefer to bitch about is adding of more random unpredictable effects. Particularly random charging distances and random terrain. If you are within 30 feet of your target, you should be able to accurately predict how long it will take to move up to them. Running isn't a chaotic procedure, and people should be able to run in a normal way without sometimes only running 5 feet and sometimes 30 feet.

As for mysterious terrain, I think they should add a mission where there is mysterious terrain. call the mission death world and in that place all the terrain has bizarre effects. I don't want mysterious terrain in every game because it doesn't make sense. If i'm playing in a ruined city, I want the buildings to be reliably predictable. If I walk into it, it will be a ruined building inside and movement is slightly impeded. No tentacles leaping out of walls or poisonous indigenous life forms killing space marines that are in power armor or whatever.

Perhaps if they had levels of mysterious terrain, like, "You find ammo inside the building." That wouldn't be so bad I guess. But if it's like, "Oh shit there's a fucking bomb inside the building and it blows up your shit!" that will be frustrating. Maybe if they had 1 of the 6 missions be 'mysterious terrain' and there was mysterious stuff in each different kind of terrain. something for forrest and something for ruins.


----------



## Sephyr

SilverTabby said:


> Also, the complaints of "but this army has no counter" can easily be fixed by having a list in the BRB or on an FAQ of generic wargear (similar to the stuff any army in WHF can take).


That is true.

However: when was the last time GW ever addressed imbalances in such a manner?

In fact, you could argue that the actively stomp on outdated armies, given Grey Knights hard-countering Daemons and having a pretty much specific anti-Tau bit of wargear.


----------



## Zion

Eleven said:


> Why are you so interested in controlling other people's ideas and reactions though? If someone's gut instinct is to say, this sucks and I hope they don't do it like this. Why shouldn't they be able to say it? Alot of people in here (myself not included) think that the psychic changes could be bad because they have experience with fantasy. I don't and the changes to the psychic stuff sound interesting and possibly cool. But for all I know it's going to blow chucks. Your exaggeration of people's reaction is silly. I think alot of us know that gws is not the best at rules and gameplay, so we are just hoping that they improve instead of making something worse. It's the great models and the cool lore that make us stay (that and the fact that everyone plays 40k so it's hard to play anything else).


I'm not looking to control anyone. Heck, I WANT people to have ideas and opinions (or else we'd all be the same...and I really don't want a world of people who all play the same army the same way all the time) I'm just saying that we look more like a group of well reasoned adults when we don't jump to conclusions before all the facts are in. Yes the actual rules CAN be bad, but more often than not the general reaction is considerably overblown, especially in light of how the full rules work (the rumored Ward Staves, the Necron Character who was rumored to hit all models in a unit that were the same with shooting attacks, and the possibility that Necrons were going to get FnP instead of Resurrection Protocols come to mind as a few examples of things I've seen get blown out of proportion on incomplete, incorrect or partial rumors). I just recommend salt and not jumping to conclusions. If you want to that's fine, but I'm still going to advocate salt, and waiting for the full ruleset before jumping to conclusions.

Let's look at the rumors for the psychic powers for a moment: what we know is that there is a deck of cards and unconfirmed rules saying their will be some common powers. But what the reactions are saying is that we're hinging the sucess on an entire edition on the mechanic that we know next to nothing about for this edition. That's a lot to weigh in on this one peice of a puzzle.

And considering that this isn't the only forum I look at (I regularly check Warseer, DakkaDakka along with several blog sites and running Google searches for new tidbits) I can say that my perception of the reactions isn't that far off. I've seen more anger, whining and general bile in reaction to just about anything than is probably good for anyone to have to look at. To say the internet tends to be a machine that generates its own drama often for no reason really isn't that out of line from my viewpoint at least.



Eleven said:


> What I prefer to bitch about is adding of more random unpredictable effects. Particularly random charging distances and random terrain. If you are within 30 feet of your target, you should be able to accurately predict how long it will take to move up to them. Running isn't a chaotic procedure, and people should be able to run in a normal way without sometimes only running 5 feet and sometimes 30 feet.


I can see where you're coming from, but you're getting mad about a rumor that doesn't encapsulate the full Assault Phase. For all we know there'll be other rules that come into effect with this, or this could be more specific than we currently know. 

And out in the open on flat ground, sure running isn't a problem and you should be able to cover ground easilly but on uneven terrain (or fields with gopher holes) or through craters, or over deep gravel I can say from experiance that you won't always be able to run as fast since the terrain could easilly cause a wide variety of injuries, or trip you up.

Another way to look at the run move is that the models started running in the movement phase, and then slow down/stop in the shooting phase. Enviromental conditions would still apply of course, but it at least makes more sense than saying your models sprinted a meter.



Eleven said:


> As for mysterious terrain, I think they should add a mission where there is mysterious terrain. call the mission death world and in that place all the terrain has bizarre effects. I don't want mysterious terrain in every game because it doesn't make sense. If i'm playing in a ruined city, I want the buildings to be reliably predictable. If I walk into it, it will be a ruined building inside and movement is slightly impeded. No tentacles leaping out of walls or poisonous indigenous life forms killing space marines that are in power armor or whatever.


The easiest way to fix the terrain thing is to ignore it if it turns out to be useless/broken. At my FLGS that's been the policy for the 8th edition magical terrain rules. The only exception is occasionally there is a peice or two added to a board for tournament games.



Eleven said:


> Perhaps if they had levels of mysterious terrain, like, "You find ammo inside the building." That wouldn't be so bad I guess. But if it's like, "Oh shit there's a fucking bomb inside the building and it blows up your shit!" that will be frustrating. Maybe if they had 1 of the 6 missions be 'mysterious terrain' and there was mysterious stuff in each different kind of terrain. something for forrest and something for ruins.


That could be interesting. Depending on what they have that might be worth developing into a homebrew mission.


----------



## SilverTabby

Sephyr said:


> That is true.
> 
> However: when was the last time GW ever addressed imbalances in such a manner?
> 
> In fact, you could argue that the actively stomp on outdated armies, given Grey Knights hard-countering Daemons and having a pretty much specific anti-Tau bit of wargear.


Grey Knights actually are just as, if not more effective against 'nids than Daemons, as they have stuff that affects psykers and ALL Synapse counts as psykers. And they do nasty things to multi-wound things - oh wait... :wink:

People only really tend to see the balance addresses when it specifically applies to them. And then, if it addresses it in a detrimental fashion, they don't class it as rebalancing, they class it as 'nerfing'. 

My last ever game using the WH codex, I went all-out to make the list specifically anti-DE. My opponent had a number of WTF? moments, spent the game getting very frustrated and had his main units locked in a sandpaper CC for 4 turns because I kept making my 3++ saves. The new Codex addressed all the imbalances that made that game horribly unfun, in my opinion made a pure Sisters force better, and yet the internet is screaming about it being 'nerfed'. 

Simple thing is, some people will like the changes, some won't, and those who don't like it will always shout the loudest.

I'll be buying my BRB on release day, reading it over about a week, then making up my mind after a few dozen games. I doubt I'll do much internet reading before then, as the haters will be screaming from the rooftops and it'll be hard to hear the good things...


----------



## ohiocat110

Things I hope get fixed:

- Wound allocation shenanigans where it can sometimes be to your advantage to fire less weapons to cause more wounds. That's just idiotic.

- Kill points. Why is my 50 point unit worth the same as your 350 point unit when figuring out who won?

- The near-invulnerability of passengers in transports that explode

What will probably happen:

- Vehicles will get even awesomer, because its the easiest way to drive expensive model sales. I have a feeling dedicated transports will become more or less mandatory for competitive armies.

- The psyker rules revamp, since they did it in Fantasy and the codex rules are really all over the place. Kind of ambivalent here, as the rules do need work, but it's an easy thing to screw up for the very reason that they're handled so differently across codexes.

In any case, I have a big pile of Marine parts that have been mothballed until 6th comes out. No point starting an army until I have some idea how they'll play.


----------



## Zion

ohiocat110 said:


> In any case, I have a big pile of Marine parts that have been mothballed until 6th comes out. No point starting an army until I have some idea how they'll play.


I'm sitting on the urge to start a Daemons army depending how the new rules look for infantry and deep striking look. So I can sympathize.


----------



## Eleven

Zion said:


> I'm just saying that we look more like a group of well reasoned adults when we don't jump to conclusions before all the facts are in. Yes the actual rules CAN be bad, but more often than not the general reaction is considerably overblown, especially in light of how the full rules work (the rumored Ward Staves, the Necron Character who was rumored to hit all models in a unit that were the same with shooting attacks, and the possibility that Necrons were going to get FnP instead of Resurrection Protocols come to mind as a few examples of things I've seen get blown out of proportion on incomplete, incorrect or partial rumors). I just recommend salt and not jumping to conclusions. If you want to that's fine, but I'm still going to advocate salt, and waiting for the full ruleset before jumping to conclusions.


I understand what you are saying for sure. But it's hard to counter argue a lot of these things before we know the rules completely either. The whole point of this news and rumors forum is to say what we do know and talk about it. As for the incorrect rumors, sure they happen alot, but perhaps just as often the rumors end up being correct. It's worth while to say. After all, imagine if the necron character had ended up the way that we thought from the rumors. It would have been terrible for the game. Thing is we have to base our discussion on these things with what we know. We can't assume that GWS will implement something to make these rules ok. Sure it's not good to get fanatic about it, but there's nothing wrong with saying that if the rumor is true, it would suck.




Zion said:


> I can see where you're coming from, but you're getting mad about a rumor that doesn't encapsulate the full Assault Phase. For all we know there'll be other rules that come into effect with this, or this could be more specific than we currently know.
> 
> 
> And out in the open on flat ground, sure running isn't a problem and you should be able to cover ground easilly but on uneven terrain (or fields with gopher holes) or through craters, or over deep gravel I can say from experiance that you won't always be able to run as fast since the terrain could easilly cause a wide variety of injuries, or trip you up.


The rumor i've read is that charges are random in the complete open no matter what. And that if you are running thru difficult terrain it's even worse than it is now. To me this seems like too much. Difficult terrain already foils many a charge. 



Zion said:


> The easiest way to fix the terrain thing is to ignore it if it turns out to be useless/broken. At my FLGS that's been the policy for the 8th edition magical terrain rules. The only exception is occasionally there is a peice or two added to a board for tournament games.


Fair enough. The thought behind ignoring rules that are in the core rulebook are a little iffy to me. But if everyone did it then I guess that would be cool. I'd just rather there not be any bad rules in the rulebook.


----------



## Zion

Eleven said:


> Fair enough. The thought behind ignoring rules that are in the core rulebook are a little iffy to me. But if everyone did it then I guess that would be cool. I'd just rather there not be any bad rules in the rulebook.


We found that given some bad rolls the entire board could kill you rather often, and it just led to use not wanting to play with terrain. The best way to deal with it was ignore the magic terrain.

EDIT: I think one of the worst instances was the Wood Elves player's free woods that he's allowed to place in his deployment zone which turned out to be magical and trying to kill his army.


----------



## Katie Drake

Eleven said:


> Fair enough. The thought behind ignoring rules that are in the core rulebook are a little iffy to me. But if everyone did it then I guess that would be cool. I'd just rather there not be any bad rules in the rulebook.


I don't think anyone likes the idea of having to ignore dumb rules, but we all know there's going to be at minimum one bad rule in 6th. It's inevitable.


----------



## ohiocat110

Zion said:


> I'm sitting on the urge to start a Daemons army depending how the new rules look for infantry and deep striking look. So I can sympathize.


Exactly. I had a couple viable plans for fun foot Marine armies in 5th, but I'll be surprised if Infantry don't take another hit. Some of the stuff floating around like random assaults and nerfed melta will make even a BA DOA army a tough sell, much less footsloggers. 

But maybe if it's not so bad and we see some of the rumored tactical options, 6th can be more than just a contest of who brought the most tanks.


----------



## SilverTabby

Don't forget, in 8th you get your movement *PLUS* 2D6 random. Currently in 40k we (usually) get 6", or D6/2D6 pick the highest through terrain. 

I can foresee a whole movement overhaul if that's being brought in, as 2D6 in the assault phase is *too* random. There has to be a minimum guaranteed distance, and I trust Games Dev to know this.


----------



## Sethis

ohiocat110 said:


> - Kill points. Why is my 50 point unit worth the same as your 350 point unit when figuring out who won?


To balance MSU and suicide melta. Trading a termicide unit for a land raider in a KP game is a zero sum equation. If you use VPs instead then suddenly you're ~150pts up in addition to the tactical effects of nuking their main transport. Hence DoA melta spam would be even better than it was. Also Razorspam armies would be even better (you killed a 35pt transport? Boo hoo. Guess I'll shoot your Falcon back and suddenly have quadruple the points) KPs are in the game for a good reason.



ohiocat110 said:


> - The near-invulnerability of passengers in transports that explode


It only looks that way because everyone plays MEQs or Open Topped transports. If Eldar or Tau had gotten a new book this edition then it would be a lot more noticable. As it is, ask any Guard player how much he likes losing ~50% of his squad every time a Chimera blows up and the remainder running away.



ohiocat110 said:


> - Vehicles will get even awesomer, because its the easiest way to drive expensive model sales. I have a feeling dedicated transports will become more or less mandatory for competitive armies.


Doubt it. The best option would be for them to drive infantry and bike sales now, because everyone already has a dozen APCs. They need to take the good options and make them mediocre, while making the mediocre options good. That's pretty much the pattern so far: Rhino rush 3rd -> Gunline 4th -> Mechanised 5th -> ???

With regards to the "Fantasy 40,000" rules we're seeing leaked, I just pray that they learned from 8th Ed and the thousands of people who bitched about how unfun it was. They seem to have been paying some attention because the latest army books are not as broken as the old ones were in the new system - e.g. More balanced Magic, less broken Magic Item combinations, less obnoxious deathstars/monsters and so on. Here's hoping they carry that across.


----------



## Zion

More from Faeit 212:


> Tonight we have another set, with a minor correction (on cover saves), from Whitehat. He seems to have quite a bit of information on 6th edition.
> 
> Please remember that these are rumors. Salt Required.
> 
> Here is a link to the first set from Whitehat.
> http://www.natfka.blogspot.com/2012/06/6th-edition-rules-assault-distances.html
> 
> 
> via Whitehat
> Preferred Enemy: Reroll hits in CC & Shooting AND Rerolls 1 to wound.
> 
> I've checked, Black Templars vow, accept any challenge only gives Preferred Enemy in combat (damn)
> 
> The Pancake rule set is mainly wrong, but there is a lot of stuff that made it into the final product.
> 
> Expect FW to put out a book of there flyers but with added 6th Ed goodness.
> 
> 
> 
> I mistyped the cover saves. Ruins are 4+, the vast majority of stuff is 5+
> 
> I did not mistype WS1 for moving vehicles, they are not WS10 if they moved - flyers might be different; not sure.
> 
> Preferred Enemy change of reroll 1's to wound is in addition to current rules for Preferred Enemy
> 
> Flyers are noted in the BRB changing some of the existing vehicles (Summary sheet in the back)
> 
> Eldar Flyer, Void Raven and Tau I believe are in the same wave.


----------



## OpTi

Just been invited to a "Mystery Event" at my local GW by the manager on the 23rd, seems to coincide with rumours


----------



## SilverTabby

KPs are in no way balanced or fair. I played a game a while back where I had 12KP o n offer, my opponent had 6 total. Once he'd killed off enough small units of cheap 'nids, there was no way I could win, even wiping out his force. Which is ridiculous. 

Victory points are fairer, simply because it works on the *value* of what you kill, not just the fact it's a unit.


----------



## Karyudo-DS

Well I did play an IG army with a 60 man squad, that was the most worthless KP ever. Though I did kill it.

Hope the vehicle addendum is true. Makes sense.


----------



## bitsandkits

OpTi said:


> Just been invited to a "Mystery Event" at my local GW by the manager on the 23rd, seems to coincide with rumours


Either that or you should lube up


----------



## Bindi Baji

OpTi said:


> Just been invited to a "Mystery Event" at my local GW by the manager on the 23rd, seems to coincide with rumours


I'm guessing that's one of the stores that won't be opening at midnight on the 22nd, the plot thickens


----------



## Zion

SilverTabby said:


> KPs are in no way balanced or fair. I played a game a while back where I had 12KP o n offer, my opponent had 6 total. Once he'd killed off enough small units of cheap 'nids, there was no way I could win, even wiping out his force. Which is ridiculous.
> 
> Victory points are fairer, simply because it works on the *value* of what you kill, not just the fact it's a unit.


If you table your opponent you win. Otherwise armies without troops left on the table could never win objective games.

I believe KPs need to be adjusted, not gotten rid of. 3 KPs for an HQ, 2 for an Elite or Heavy, 1 for a Fast attack, Troop or Dedicated Transport comes to mind as a possible solution.


----------



## scscofield

Or they could just do it based off the actual points....


----------



## Zion

scscofield said:


> Or they could just do it based off the actual points....


That punished players who want to play small elite armies, and often had problems with people who would "make mistakes" with their math. VPs seem nice now, but having used them they were a pain in the ass, resulted in confusion and it took longer to determine who won based on VPs. KPs count up very quickly, reduce MSU suicide unit armies and generally work smoother than VPs did.


----------



## scscofield

FLGS does only VPs, never have any confusion or issues.


----------



## misfratz

Zion said:


> KPs count up very quickly, reduce MSU suicide unit armies and generally work smoother than VPs did.


There's a problem with the basic mechanics of the game that having three individual land speeders is better than a squadron of three land speeders (assuming you have the force organisation chart slots available). This was one factor that lead to min/maxing army lists with minimum sized units.

This was a problem because different armies could take advantage of it to a different extent.

You can see KPs as an attempt to balance this back the other way, and dissuade min/maxed army lists, but I think it's a typical GW approach of creating a new mechanic in an attempt to fix an underlying problem, and generally making the problem worse.


----------



## Zion

scscofield said:


> FLGS does only VPs, never have any confusion or issues.


Congrats then. I could say the same about KPs, and I tend to run 18 kill points at 2K. Am I at a disadvantage in KP games? Sure, but in the other two game types I have the advantage of having more models and units on the tables than most of my opponents. That's one of the reasons KPs were put into 5th edition instead of VPs, to prevent large model count armies from ruling all the game types, or armies with MSU Troops from using their small (and low point) units as sacrificial lambs to tie up expensive units to get an advantage. If your small unit is worth just as much as the deathstar you're trying to hold up or stop you're likely to be more tactical about it than sacrificial.

But that's just my experiences and insights talking rather than any proven facts or dev notes.


----------



## bitsandkits

We prefer KP's but at a push we will eat Planters


----------



## Gret79

Personally, I prefer nobbys 

chili ftw


----------



## CattleBruiser

Wait, if vehicles are WS0 stationary and WS1 while moving, doesn't that mean we'll all be hitting on 3's no matter how far they moved?


----------



## bitsandkits

Gret79 said:


> Personally, I prefer nobbys
> 
> chili ftw


i bet you do! you dirty boy, i bet you like "opening" his packet and having a nibble.

Back on topic, they have peanuts :shok:


----------



## Zion

CattleBruiser said:


> Wait, if vehicles are WS0 stationary and WS1 while moving, doesn't that mean we'll all be hitting on 3's no matter how far they moved?


Pending further changes, yes.


----------



## Gret79

bitsandkits said:


> i bet you do! you dirty boy, i bet you like "opening" his packet and having a nibble.
> 
> Back on topic, they have peanuts :shok:


Peanuts...good...

Must..refrain...from...counter...innuendo...

Avoid.. all... 'openings'

:headbutt:

And now that's sorted - I like the idea of vehicles having a ws - but being hit on 3's all the time? That makes me think that we're missing something. They'll have thought of that.
Won't they?:dunno:


----------



## Zion

Gret79 said:


> Peanuts...good...
> 
> Must..refrain...from...counter...innuendo...
> 
> Avoid.. all... 'openings'
> 
> :headbutt:
> 
> And now that's sorted - I like the idea of vehicles having a ws - but being hit on 3's all the time? That makes me think that we're missing something. They'll have thought of that.
> Won't they?:dunno:


Possible changes we're not seeing:
- To Hit Chart changes for Assault
- Grendades will work differently for sticking on vehicles than hitting the vehicle will
- Vehicles will get bonuses to protect them from being hit on 3s when the move
- The WS is just for the vehicles attacks back as it tries to ram/crush the things it's in contact with (say tank shocking now working like an assault move and you get an attack for every model in base contact)
- Or some other thing I can't think of that will be incredibly obvious once we see it.


----------



## Karyudo-DS

Only thing about KPs I don't like is that they prompt me to chase small/weak units for quick points. Guess I would do that anyway but I remember MWA basically used VPs. You counted you kills, surviving units that weren't salvaged (alive, but useless) and points for occupying the enemy DZ. Worked just fine, because you had to keep units alive to win both conditions and be really mobile if you failed either of the first too. They would just need some sort of salvage for vehicles.

Either way if my tank has a ws then I'm going to assault with it. Just because.


----------



## Gret79

There was a rumour abour being able to throw grenades a while back - Hitting a vehicle with weapon skill would seem to countermand that as well. There'd be no point having it both ways. I'm still looking forward to the new ed though


----------



## SilverTabby

There may well be a rule that you auto-hit against anything with WS0. Saves on having an entire seperate "to hit" chart vs vehicles like we currently do. We just don't know. 

You used to be able to throw grenades. It would be a nice addition to see some back like that, but I'm not sure how... Range is restrictive and having them have a combat effect *and* a shooting effect would overpower them, especially as every marine and his uncle carries them, whilst some armies have none.

And pork scratchings beat peanuts. But salted pistachios and macadamias beat pork scratchings. Unless pregnant at the time. :wink:


----------



## Gret79

Honey roasted Cashews beat all other forms of nuts.

Did someone say that spain get the White Dwarfs early? I thought I read it somewhere on here but can't find the post. Do we find out about the new ed on the 16th or 23rd?


----------



## Lethiathan

> +++ Begin Transcript. Adeptus Terra Incription Level 5 +++
> 
> 1st Legion report short-range scan results.
> 
> Forces massing for new assault on Imperial space. Strength unknown. Adaptive tactics required.
> 
> Contact expected in T-minus 10 Days.
> 
> Stand by....
> 
> +++ End transmission +++


This was a Message from GW Burton, Seems like either more release date info, or the rumours about orks invading terra is true


----------



## Gret79

Lethiathan said:


> This was a Message from GW Burton, Seems like either more release date info, or the rumours about orks invading terra is true


might have to wander in. thats my local...


----------



## Karyudo-DS

Gret79 said:


> There was a rumour abour being able to throw grenades a while back - Hitting a vehicle with weapon skill would seem to countermand that as well. There'd be no point having it both ways. I'm still looking forward to the new ed though


There's plenty of point to having both, attacking a vehicle with grenades could like 5th letting you throw against other targets (or tanks too but less effectively).

This would make Guardians with plasma grenades useful agi- ...oh right, try lost them. Sad again. Though the BRB might have generic grenades you can add to most armies if the codex lacks then being included. Don't see why they couldn't. Not saying I think they will as the 5th versions do work.


----------



## Zion

More rumors from Faeit212:



> The AP of close combat weapons has been one of the most discussed new rules rumored to be a part of 6th edition. Even though Darnok says to add lots of salt to this one, the shooting at fast vehicles thing I like. Although I can see how quickly all the Grey Marine players (non-painted) would become Blood Angels.
> 
> Please remember that these are rumors, and as Darnok says for this set, use Heavy amounts of salt.
> 
> via Darnok
> These come from a birdy, but I'd advise on heavy NaCl-usage...
> 
> AP are on ccw but he says power weapons are ap 2, not 3. _Id don't know how I feel about this one. It puts the Power Weapon on the same level as the Power Fist, but I rather liked the idea that there would be a difference that justified such a large point difference rather than just the higher Strength at I1._
> When you charge it's double your move, infantry move 6, bikes 8 cav 7 etc.
> It's move assault then shooting now! _I'm pretty sure this was both in the pdf we saw earlier in the year and contradicts the previous charge range rumor, unless it'll be move+D6"_
> Fnp is 5+. _Nothing contradictory here and has come up a couple times, probably true_
> Master crafted ccw give you a 5+ invuln save _I'm guessing this is one of those invunerable saves that only works in close combat, that or Space Marines can deflect bullets with their powerswords now._
> When you shoot you roll to hit depending on the speed of your target. Fast vehicles you always need a 6. _It seems rather weird that this one would return from the PDF, especially with the other things we're seeing with the vehicle rules. Possibly thrown in to throw people off, or shooting vehicles if getting harder while punching them is easier, or maybe this will only affect Fliers._
> A unit can't claim a object while inside a vehicle. _Honestly, I'm okay with this. Less metal boxes more tactical flexibility!_
> There's new kinds of instance death. If your say strengh 8 vs a space marine captain toughness 4 you only do 2 wounds! Strengh 5 or more would do 3 wounds & kill him. _So double strength = double wounds instead of outright killing something? That works for me. Though I may be reading that wrong_
> In kill point missions you get kill points based on what the units points cost, so for example a landraider would be worth 5 kill points & a unit of marines 3pts. _Looks rather like what I was mentioning earlier. Either an example of a Stand Alone Complex or GW is preemptively stealing my ideas. :shok:_


I've added my thoughts in yellow.


----------



## Adramalech

move-assault-shooting turn order really fucks up my dark eldar. :s

that tidbit makes my stomach churn.


----------



## Zion

Adramalech said:


> move-assault-shooting turn order really fucks up my dark eldar. :s
> 
> that tidbit makes my stomach churn.


It's an older rumor that may not be true. We'll have to wait and see to know for sure. It may have been tossed in as a red herring or it might be real. Either way 6th edition is probably going to change a LOT of current army builds.


----------



## Words_of_Truth

I got this from the bolthole:

There is no time for peace. No respite. No forgiveness.

There is only WAR.

In the nightmare future of the 41st Millennium, Mankind teeters upon the brink of destruction. The galaxy-spanning Imperium of Man is beset on all sides by ravening aliens and threatened from within by Warp-spawned entities and heretical plots. Only the strength of the immortal Emperor of Terra stands between humanity and its annihilation, and in his name, countless warriors and agents do battle against the encroaching darkness. Foremost amongst them stand the Space Marines, the ultimate protectors of Mankind.

Across airless moons, within the depths of dark, twisted hive worlds and even in the immaterial realm of Warp space, battles rage that will shape the future of the galaxy forever.
It is a universe that you can enter today, if you dare. But remember that this is a dark and terrible era, and there is no peace amongst the stars...

The £45 Warhammer 40,000 Rulebook is your essential guide to playing atmospheric battles in the 41st Millennium. It helps you field majestic armies of Citadel miniatures across the war-ravaged battlefields of the far-future, in the ultimate contest of strategy and skill.

With 440 full-colour pages, this hardback Rulebook is packed with rich background and contains all the rules for fighting pulse-pounding tabletop battles. The Rulebook includes exciting features such as dynamic close-combat, flyers, psychic devastation and interactive scenery. As well as jaw-dropping artwork, contained within is a history of the 41st Millennium and a richly detailed guide to the races and weapons of the far-future. It also features a comprehensive hobby section to set you on the path to choosing, collecting and building your own Warhammer 40,000 army of Citadel miniatures.

One of the many exciting features of Warhammer 40,000 is Psychic devastation, where Psykers wreak havoc on the battlefield. Psychic Powers is the complete set of Psychic cards, which be used in conjunction with Psychic Disciplines. They make a great accessory to your tabletop games.

This £8 set contains 35 large-format cards and come stored in a plastic fan-opening case, which bears the Aquila. There are 7 cards for each Psychic Discipline, each of which is represented by distinct artwork. There is also an instruction leaflet that classifies which powers can be used by the main Psykers in the Warhammer 40,000 universe.


There are also "Munitorum Templates" (£12, designed with a metal effect look), "Munitorum Tape Measure" (£10, looking like a Servoskull) and "Munitorum Dice" (£10, while stocks last).

On advance order on 23th, available from 30th of June.


----------



## Adramalech

Zion said:


> It's an older rumor that may not be true. We'll have to wait and see to know for sure. It may have been tossed in as a red herring or it might be real. Either way 6th edition is probably going to change a LOT of current army builds.


Well yeah, but the idea itself..... just... pisses me off. A change to the turn order that would nerf the FUCK out of DE? they're already a tactical tight-rope!  As it stands, wyches (and most other CC units) need to get stuck in with an enemy unit that they can kill in 1.5 turns, so they can charge another unit on MY turn. They can't charge another unit on my turn if they get shot to pieces after finishing off their intended target on my opponent's turn, and they can't move or assault a new enemy unit on my turn if they originally charged a unit that takes 2 turns to finish off.

who the fuck would even -want- to spread a rumor like that?


----------



## khrone forever

it may be that you move, then assult, then shoot, then actually do the combat.

i mean that the assault phase may be just moving into assault and not fighting it, more like fantasy, where you move/assault, then do magic, shooting, then resolve the combats


----------



## spanner94ezekiel

There are some things I don't get here...



> AP are on ccw but he says power weapons are ap 2, not 3.
> When you charge it's double your move, infantry move 6, bikes 8 cav 7 etc.
> Eh? Since when do bikes move 8" or cavalry 7"? Really unsure as to what this means.
> It's move assault then shooting now! Which retard came up with that idea?
> 
> "Enemy sighted!"
> "Open fire, then charge the remnants, sir?"
> "No, imbecile! Fuck your guns, I want to hit them with my sword!"
> 
> :no:
> Fnp is 5+.
> Master crafted ccw give you a 5+ invuln save
> When you shoot you roll to hit depending on the speed of your target. Fast vehicles you always need a 6.
> A unit can't claim a object while inside a vehicle.
> There's new kinds of instance death. If your say strengh 8 vs a space marine captain toughness 4 you only do 2 wounds! Strengh 5 or more would do 3 wounds & kill him. I assume it means S10. Otherwise something is severely fucked up here.
> In kill point missions you get kill points based on what the units points cost, so for example a landraider would be worth 5 kill points & a unit of marines 3pts. By what rules? Are we going by 50pts = 1 kpt, or what?


The lack of sense or specificity makes me highly critical of this info.


----------



## Arcane

Words of truth, that was posted like 3 pages back. 

They won't change the order of phases. That would invalidate every assault weapon in the game and make pistols useless. Unless they are going to go through and fix every codex they break doing this it won't happen.


----------



## Words_of_Truth

Sorry 

I wasn't sure since I thought that would of confirmed the whole psychic card rumours.


----------



## nevynxxx

From Bury's facebook page... Are all the stores doing this, or just the smaller ones?



Bury on Facebook said:


> ++++ Incoming Message ++++
> +++++ Priority Briefing +++++
> +++ Saturday 23rd June +++
> ++ Obligatory Attendance++


----------



## boreas

Arcane said:


> Words of truth, that was posted like 3 pages back.
> 
> They won't change the order of phases. That would invalidate every assault weapon in the game and make pistols useless. Unless they are going to go through and fix every codex they break doing this it won't happen.


Either a FAQ, or a change to assault weapons rules at large (ie they are considered like a specila attack at Ini 10 in CC)...

Phil


----------



## Adramalech

khrone forever said:


> it may be that you move, then assult, then shoot, then actually do the combat.
> 
> i mean that the assault phase may be just moving into assault and not fighting it, more like fantasy, where you move/assault, then do magic, shooting, then resolve the combats


oh. I guess that makes sense. ._.

thanks for all the feedback, everyone.


----------



## Eleven

Arcane said:


> They won't change the order of phases. That would invalidate every assault weapon in the game and make pistols useless. Unless they are going to go through and fix every codex they break doing this it won't happen.


Not to post the obscenely obvious but couldn't they just let assault weapons fire in....the assault phase, before the charge?


----------



## ehafh

are we going to be able to pre order the new rulebook? 
or do we have to wait until the 26th or whenever to order or pick it up at a store?


----------



## Karyudo-DS

Eleven said:


> Not to post the obscenely obvious but couldn't they just let assault weapons fire in....the assault phase, before the charge?


They could, but then they wouldn't have much reason to change the order of phases to begin with. Logically I could see why it would make sense to not let you shoot because the target unit doesn't get to shoot back and you get an extra attack to boot. Unless either of those are changed and they might be. So no you aren't necessarily all that obvious when we aren't 100% how everything else works, there might be an obvious reason because of something else.

Maybe.


----------



## Arcane

Eleven said:


> Not to post the obscenely obvious but couldn't they just let assault weapons fire in....the assault phase, before the charge?


Seeing as how every edition since 3rd has followed the simple move, shoot, assault standard it seems extremely unlikely that they are going to change things so much as you suggest and make the game that much more complicated and slow. But you never know, I mean hey they could make it so you have to move, assault and then shoot with each unit, in order during your turn... but uhm, probably not.


----------



## Eleven

Arcane said:


> Seeing as how every edition since 3rd has followed the simple move, shoot, assault standard it seems extremely unlikely that they are going to change things so much as you suggest and make the game that much more complicated and slow. But you never know, I mean hey they could make it so you have to move, assault and then shoot with each unit, in order during your turn... but uhm, probably not.


I don't think they are going to switch the phases. I'm merely suggesting that it would be very easy for them to do so. The reason I don't think they will switch it is because it's just not intuitive to attack in melee and then shoot afterwards.


----------



## SilverTabby

Assault *moves* being done in the movement phase I can see happening, especially if assault distances are move+xD6. After all, that's how it was in 2nd Ed, it's how it is in fantasy... Why should chargers get to move, (shoot) then move, then get an additional xD6 as well, when everything else just gets to move once? 

Nothing wrong with charges being in the movement phase, then fighting being done in the assault phase. If you are carrying assault guns, shooting them can be done as an additional first phase of fighting, or done in initiative order maybe, or even both sides gets a round of shooting if your target has assault weapons and an appropriate skill to react... Could that be a the charge reaction rumour? I don't know. In 10 days we will though!

In other news, I just played my last game of 5th ed. Roll on the 23rd!


----------



## d3m01iti0n

So basically what Im getting from all this is.........if the new rules suck, we just keep playing 5th?


----------



## Zion

d3m01iti0n said:


> So basically what Im getting from all this is.........if the new rules suck, we just keep playing 5th?


What I'm getting from it is the same thing I've seen in the past for other things: initially there will be confusion, a sense of betrayal and rage. Some people will leave, some will come in and generally nothing of real signifigance will change with how we play with our little plastic men.

That aside, anyone else surprised we haven't seen leaks of the BRB yet? It's in warehouses and awaiting shipping so I'm a bit shocked myself.


----------



## Arcane

Zion said:


> That aside, anyone else surprised we haven't seen leaks of the BRB yet? It's in warehouses and awaiting shipping so I'm a bit shocked myself.


I think they are being extremely tight lipped this time. A group of players and I at our FLGS told the manager we would like to preorder the special edition and he said he still didn't even know his allocation amount yet so he couldn't comment on availability. Seems like even stores won't know much until next week.


----------



## ohiocat110

Sethis said:


> To balance MSU and suicide melta. Trading a termicide unit for a land raider in a KP game is a zero sum equation. If you use VPs instead then suddenly you're ~150pts up in addition to the tactical effects of nuking their main transport. Hence DoA melta spam would be even better than it was. Also Razorspam armies would be even better (you killed a 35pt transport? Boo hoo. Guess I'll shoot your Falcon back and suddenly have quadruple the points) KPs are in the game for a good reason.


Those are reasons, but not good ones. The odds balance the point differential. The chances of DSing a termicide unit within 6", hitting, penetrating, and getting a kill result on AV14 are not reliable (maybe 30%). So if you need 3 to even the odds, the points balance as well. A properly built melta DoA squad with a SP costs more than the LR, so KP actually give it an advantage.

Blame codex creep and GW wanting to sell models, more than VP for Razorspam. Besides, if you're actually talking a bare bones Razorback compared to a Falcon, the RB will never touch it. Make it a 75 point Lasback and the Falcon still has an edge in weaponry, AV, and speed. 

KP aren't there because of play balance, they're there so players don't have to do math at the end of games. Another reason that's not particularly good. I'd rather take the 2 minutes and have objective games that make sense.


----------



## darktide

Arcane said:


> I think they are being extremely tight lipped this time. A group of players and I at our FLGS told the manager we would like to preorder the special edition and he said he still didn't even know his allocation amount yet so he couldn't comment on availability. Seems like even stores won't know much until next week.


My local store said that their GW rep told them to have folks pre-order copies of the new White Dwarf and plan to come in for a "discussion" on the 23rd about the contents. Said it would be a 10-15 minute discussion.

Sounds like a rather lame way to run things if you ask me. Oh Look we have this collector/gamer edition set for, insert high price here, not to mention all these other cool limited things. Too bad we are only going to give you one week to save up the necessary money


----------



## Obinhi

I dont know about only having one week to save darktide, the signs point to the real relese being at the end of the month which is pay day for most of us folks (the first is on a weekend. I also point out that July 4th is mid week this year so alot of us adults are going to have nearly a week off to brood over the new rules. I have the money (well 80 bucks...) set aside for this new stuff with an additional sum of cash to fall back on if something really gets my eye. The psyker power cards have be somewhere between 'gotta have it' and 'rage about it'

I am going to the event on the 23rd at my local shop and the owner knows about as much as I do...I think, Maybe they are in on it?


----------



## arizonajirt

lucky for me, i saw the trailer GW put out before i placed an order for anything on their site. now I have to sit around for a week for the pre-order so i have give them my money again.


----------



## capnmoe

Just wanted to say that my FLG store is having a release day tournament on the 22nd and will have the new rulebooks available to sell and pick up at midnight. So clearly the 23rd is the actual release date.


----------



## Karyudo-DS

Zion said:


> Some people will leave, some will come in and generally nothing of real signifigance will change with how we play with our little plastic men.


HEY! Some of them are women...



Zion said:


> That aside, anyone else surprised we haven't seen leaks of the BRB yet? It's in warehouses and awaiting shipping so I'm a bit shocked myself.


Armed guards with assault rifles and several mounted .50 caliber machine-guns. At night Roomba's carrying land mines sweep the warehouse.









They don't want us in. :read:


----------



## Zion

Karyudo-DS said:


> HEY! Some of them are women...


True, but the only real all woman army is metal. 





Karyudo-DS said:


> Armed guards with assault rifles and several mounted .50 caliber machine-guns. At night Roomba's carrying land mines sweep the warehouse.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They don't want us in. :read:


With how often Roombas run into things I can't imagine giving them landmines would be good. Maybe broken beer bottles to stab people with so they don't accidentally blow up the books.


----------



## Karyudo-DS

Zion said:


> True, but the only real all woman army is metal.


Well...yeah. ALL is the important part, I have some female Eldar heh but I don't know, in theory the landmines should only go off if you step on them...either that or grab some popcorn. :laugh:


----------



## Arcane

capnmoe said:


> Just wanted to say that my FLG store is having a release day tournament on the 22nd and will have the new rulebooks available to sell and pick up at midnight. So clearly the 23rd is the actual release date.


 My FLGS owner assured us that the 23rd is the re-order date and the actual release would be after a week or so. If the 23rd were the release they would be doing pre-orders now, which they are not.


----------



## SilverTabby

I wouldn't be surprised in the slightest if the 23rd is the day GW stores sell them, with FLGSs getting to order them on that day. After all, GW makes less money on trade accounts than they do selling direct through their own stores, and getting people into their stores to play games and buy stuff is the reason they exist. 

Plus, GW wanting to promote their own stuff first? Why the hell not. It's theirs, after all...


----------



## Bindi Baji

It does indeed sound like the rulebook will be available on midnight of the 22nd/23rd, popped in to GW for some naggaroth night this am and the store manager was hinting about it being on release then, he was winking, smiling inappropriately, touching the side of his nose and using the words "hint" "hint", 
I did at one point refer him to the local mental health unit


----------



## TechPr1est

yay my local gw is bringing cake:biggrin:


----------



## Sethis

Bindi Baji said:


> I did at one point refer him to the local mental health unit


:laugh: :goodpost:


----------



## Bayonet

Bindi Baji said:


> It does indeed sound like the rulebook will be available on midnight of the 22nd/23rd, popped in to GW for some naggaroth night this am and the store manager was hinting about it being on release then, he was winking, smiling inappropriately, touching the side of his nose and using the words "hint" "hint",
> I did at one point refer him to the local mental health unit


 
I'd be more worried about him inviting you into his van to see his Puppies.


----------



## Cougar

Bayonet said:


> I'd be more worried about him inviting you into his van to see his Puppies.


:shok: *shudder* thats just nasty

surely you mean his fenrisian wolves !


----------



## Zion

Cougar said:


> :shok: *shudder* thats just nasty
> 
> surely you mean his fenrisian wolves !


There are no wolves on Frenis though. So how can there be Frenisian wolves? :shok:


----------



## SGMAlice

Not sure if this is new, as the date on the page is 8th June, but i'll post it up anyway.



Faeit212 said:


> Stores are starting to take pre-orders for the new Warhammer 40k 6th edition as well as the starter set. These are not official pre-orders yet, so it seems a little bit premature to me. However, I think retailers are getting a little excited for some must buy sales.
> 
> I imagine there are others as well, but this is just what I have. I am sure stores just want to know how many to order, and are trying to work up some hype.
> 
> 
> 
> Tophawtdog4411 said:
> 
> 
> 
> a store in petersburg MI is saying it will take pre orders next week for 6th edition rulebook and starter set further confirming 6th editions imminent release
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Barracks Game Store said:
> 
> 
> 
> Next week we'll start taking pre-orders for the new Warhammer 40k 6th edition rulebook as well as the starter kit. $35 for either will guarantee you'll have one at release!
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Found HERE

Alice


----------



## slaaneshy

Any idea what the price is expected to be?


----------



## Zion

slaaneshy said:


> Any idea what the price is expected to be?


About 45GBP.


----------



## SGMAlice

Nothing definite as far as i know but as the excerpt i just posted stated; $35 is the asking price, which is what the last BRB cost so is likely to be the same.

Alice


----------



## misfratz

slaaneshy said:


> Any idea what the price is expected to be?


The Fantasy rulebook is £45. I'll eat my hat if it is less than that, and the recent press release rumour had it at that price.


----------



## Zion

SGMAlice said:


> Nothing definite as far as i know but as the excerpt i just posted stated; $35 is the asking price, which is what the last BRB cost so is likely to be the same.
> 
> Alice


This one is 136 pages longer and GW doesn't base pricing of new things off of old ones. Plus there have already been rumors that it's going to cost £45GBP which is about $70USD.


----------



## SGMAlice

Zion said:


> This one is 136 pages longer and GW doesn't base pricing of new things off of old ones. Plus there have already been rumors that it's going to cost £45GBP which is about $70USD.


Whoah! Alright, calm down. :shok:

I was not aware of it extended length. I obviously missed that part.

Alice


----------



## Zion

SGMAlice said:


> Whoah! Alright, calm down. :shok:
> 
> I was not aware of it extended length. I obviously missed that part.
> 
> Alice


It's cool, but it does make me wonder why I keep updating the summary if no one uses it. 

Rumored length puts it at 440 pages. Current book is 304. Needless to say there will be a bit of a learning curve if even 1/4 of that is rules as the old rules capped out at around 90 pages, and that would be around 110.


----------



## SGMAlice

I read it. I just missed it thats all 

That does seem like a lot of pages for the rules, maybe this time they have used clearer explanations for the rules, to limit RAI RAW confusions. Either that or they have put in lots of pretty pictures for us all to look at :laugh:

Alice


----------



## Karyudo-DS

SGMAlice said:


> Either that or they have put in lots of pretty pictures for us all to look at :laugh:
> 
> Alice


My bet is on that, 100 pages of pretty pretty buy me now pictures.


----------



## Zion

Karyudo-DS said:


> My bet is on that, 100 pages of pretty pretty buy me now pictures.


As long as it isn't just 100 extra pages of recycled artwork I could get behind that. I like the pretty pictures of pretty things. :biggrin:


----------



## bitsandkits

Pre orders by indies at this point is normal, they dont get advanced notice anymore so judging stock requirements is likr pissing in the wind so any chance to get some firm numbers they jump on so they have atleast a chance of getting enough stock for release day. this is a no brainer purchase for most 40k players so most can expect a nice pre summer holiday sale spike


----------



## misfratz

Zion said:


> Rumored length puts it at 440 pages. Current book is 304. Needless to say there will be a bit of a learning curve if even 1/4 of that is rules as the old rules capped out at around 90 pages, and that would be around 110.


I recall there was some speculation as to whether apocalypse, etc, would be folded into the main rulebook.

On the other hand, the new rules for interactive scenery, psychic powers and flyers could probably easily account for an extra 20 pages of illustrated rules.


----------



## Karyudo-DS

Zion said:


> As long as it isn't just 100 extra pages of recycled artwork I could get behind that. I like the pretty pictures of pretty things. :biggrin:


Well we get that at least once a month! 

I did like all the pictures in my 3rd ed book but for some reason liked the AoBR book more fot playing. Sans pictures saddly but works. Debating waiting for the starter details if they mention it though.


----------



## slaaneshy

£45 aint bad, I was expecting around £60, although I will probably wait until I can get a mini rule book on ebay, i'm no fan of a massive weighty source book, frankly I find it unwieldy.


----------



## Psychocath

I wonder what they'll be doing collectors-ed wise with this edition. Really liked the 5th ed specials, was too broke to afford 'em though and I'd like another crack at getting a pretty copy. Liber Chaotica and HH collected visions are getting lonely on my shelf!

Also looking forward to the Chaos update, of course.


----------



## Sethis

slaaneshy said:


> £45 aint bad, I was expecting around £60, although I will probably wait until I can get a mini rule book on ebay, i'm no fan of a massive weighty source book, frankly I find it unwieldy.


Just do what everyone else will be doing - buy the starter box from Wayland or something, keep the rulebook and any models you like the look of, and sell the rest on ebay to break even.


----------



## boreas

As far as I can remember, my 5th ed collector's was about 100$CDN (I ordered it from GW US, delivered to a friend's place over there). Now, without possibility of ROW shipping and no-one in the US anymore (friend moved back!), I'm looking at 90$CDN (plus local taxes, 100$) for the "normal" rulebook...

Consensus here is... we'll all get mini-rulebooks. And possibly one big rulebook for the group if the fluff/scenarios/extras are nice or needed. Mind you, a lot of people here all already anticipating getting the digital copy... but not the one one the Apple store. With price rise and being captive of the Canadian market, PDFs, China-made FW stuff and even pressure molded minis are unfortunately getting pretty popular. And since our two local tournements (one 40k and one WFB) allow pretty much anything, including non-GW minis, it's not about to get better.

Phil


----------



## Zion

misfratz said:


> I recall there was some speculation as to whether apocalypse, etc, would be folded into the main rulebook.
> 
> On the other hand, the new rules for interactive scenery, psychic powers and flyers could probably easily account for an extra 20 pages of illustrated rules.


There was speculation back when the leaked dev pdf was floating around but sicne we haven't heard anything since about Apoc being in the main rules I'm not holding my breath.



Karyudo-DS said:


> Well we get that at least once a month!
> 
> I did like all the pictures in my 3rd ed book but for some reason liked the AoBR book more fot playing. Sans pictures saddly but works. Debating waiting for the starter details if they mention it though.


We get pretty model pictures sure, but only the codex and BRB books have the neat artwork. Too bad they recycle so much of it without adding new stuff. I really look forward to the new stuff but a lot of books tend to rest on the old stuff to carry them through.

Anyhoo, more rumor roundup stuff from Faeit212:


> A while back we were looking a 6th edition release date of July 7th, and that seemed to be very consistent through the world of rumors. Then suddenly we had Games Workshop release a video with nothing more than a big date on it. It was pretty obvious that the date was for the release of 6th edition, but what was the date for?
> 
> It was assumed, and seemingly correct that this would be the big announcement date, along with being the first day of pre-orders, then we would have a June 30th release date. However there are some that contend that the 23rd is the actual release date for 6th. The picture above is quite convincing, What you do you think?
> 
> *via Ieuan* from Sons of Isis
> _23 VI 12 is release date! Well it's got to be right, you wouldn't get one of these (shown on my local stores Facebook page, GW Oxford) just for a pre order date!_
> 
> *via Commissar Merces*
> _"Prerelease party on the 23rd, come in and get your WD and have a tournament with an announcement later that day"_
> _"The real party is going to be on the 30th, the 23rd is just the warm up. But come on in for fun events and there will be a bit announcement that night."_
> _"We don't know of any sponsored event on the 23rd, only on the 30th."_
> 
> *via REDEATH *
> _I heard that digital (iPad) edition of 6th won't be available till September to be released with the starter set. (I guess so they get everyone that buys the hardback in June that owns an iPad will go and buy the digital version too) I also heard that the 6th and all the forthcomming codexes will have a code to purchase a discounted digital version....so if you buy the lets say hard back Chaos Marine Codex for $42 then you can get the digital version at $22 _
> 
> 
> There are quite a few out there that still say the release date is June 30th. I suppose we will know for sure in a couple days.
> 
> *via BramGaunt*
> _It's the 30th._
> 
> *via Darnok*
> _It's the 30th_


So preorder/prerelease part is the 23rd (my FLGS is doing a 1.K tourney on the 24th personally to say "goodbye" to 5th) and the actual book will be available on the 30th. It fits GW's modus operandi lately giving everyone about a week to get excited about what'll be coming out and to get their preorders in.

September for the digital copy sounds reasonable too, especially if they're adding in a coupon code to the books. That's a good way for owners of the books to get backups as well as reduce the amount you have to carry from place to place. So I can dig it.

EDIT:


Sethis said:


> Just do what everyone else will be doing - buy the starter box from Wayland or something, keep the rulebook and any models you like the look of, and sell the rest on ebay to break even.


So wait an additional 90 days to play a game everyone else will be playing sooner? :/

Now while I may invest in the starter box (to update the one we have at my FLGS for running intro games for new players out of) and likely be keeping the small rulebook from it (then again I may end up investing in 2, so the club can get a tiny rulebook and a larger sample army so we'll have two loaners for new players to get a handle on how to play at slightly larger games), I'm personally going to be investing in a rulebook. Maybe even the collector's edition one if I can afford it. But then again I'm a bit fo a collectors as well as a gamer and everything else.


----------



## Karyudo-DS

Recycled artwork can have a point; make some of the rules easier to flip through if keep them consistent... Of course I would rather have all new since its years between any specific BRB or codex release.

Coupons could be awesome, at least if they weren't purely for the iPad version. It would be nice to get an official digital variant to go with but I still lack the pad so oh well.


----------



## Zion

Karyudo-DS said:


> Recycled artwork can have a point; make some of the rules easier to flip through if keep them consistent... Of course I would rather have all new since its years between any specific BRB or codex release.
> 
> Coupons could be awesome, at least if they weren't purely for the iPad version. It would be nice to get an official digital variant to go with but I still lack the pad so oh well.


The problem is that GW might using Apple's easy publishing software which means they might be locked into using the iPad for the moment. At least until they either find a better solution to making digital copies available. I'm sure some inventive people will find a way to put them online as PDFs for everyone else though, which means GW is the only one who will really get screwed by this in the end since that'll cut into their profit margin from the book sales if the non-iPad users just pirate them.


----------



## Arcane

The 5th edition codex also almost completely left out Grey Knights and Sisters of Battle so there should at least be a few more pages attributed to them. I'm really hoping for a full SoB fluff and art section but.... yeah.

Also...



> *6th edition preview rules (in WD) will be released on the 23rd.*


This is straight from my FLGS owner.


----------



## Zion

Arcane said:


> The 5th edition codex also almost completely left out Grey Knights and Sisters of Battle so there should at least be a few more pages attributed to them. I'm really hoping for a full SoB fluff and art section but.... yeah.


Full sections WOULD be nice. The generic "Forces of the Imperium" actually had me thinking that it was some general fluff about the Imperium and for a long time I just skimmed past that. It wasn't until about 2010 that I actually realized the Grey Knights were still kicking about. Sisters I'd been on and off the fence about since late 2008 with their older models and 3rd edition book, but at least they got more info in the BRB than Grey Knights did.

EDIT: I'm a little skeptical when it comes to how much FGLS owners know sometimes (I tend to be the one keeping up on rumors and feeding them to ours and to my local group to keep them abreast what may be in the works), but I've added it to the first post. It makes sense and explains why the WDs are hitting a week early this month.


----------



## Sethis

Zion said:


> So wait an additional 90 days to play a game everyone else will be playing sooner? :/


I tend to be pretty good at picking up rules after only playing with them two or three times, so it doesn't bother me.

Go into GW, read the store copy of the rulebook when you can prise it from salivating 11yr olds, play some intro games in the store with your mates, and if you go to a club then borrow a rulebook from the club/someone who bought it. Or go the illegal PDF route about 4 hours after release.

Then buy the starter set from anywhere but GW for 20% off and keep the minibook. k:


----------



## Zion

Sethis said:


> I tend to be pretty good at picking up rules after only playing with them two or three times, so it doesn't bother me.
> 
> Go into GW, read the store copy of the rulebook when you can prise it from salivating 11yr olds, play some intro games in the store with your mates, and if you go to a club then borrow a rulebook from the club/someone who bought it. Or go the illegal PDF route about 4 hours after release.
> 
> Then buy the starter set from anywhere but GW for 20% off and keep the minibook. k:


Personally I take a bit longer to memorize rules but I tend to be functional. Though I make it a point to keep my books within arm's reach when I'm reading other people's tacticas or when I'm unsure about something when I play so I can double check and help drill the rules into my brain. Plus if the rules shift too much I'll want it on hand to reference for list building since I bring pre-built lists when I go gaming.

Plus I like reading the fluff material, seeing the pretty pictures and generally pouring over the book like the complete nerd I am. So for me it's not really viable to just skip out on the BRB (though getting any extra shiny versions would just because I'm an uber nerd and I like those sorts of things).


----------



## Eleven

Zion said:


> The problem is that GW might using Apple's easy publishing software which means they might be locked into using the iPad for the moment. At least until they either find a better solution to making digital copies available. I'm sure some inventive people will find a way to put them online as PDFs for everyone else though, which means GW is the only one who will really get screwed by this in the end since that'll cut into their profit margin from the book sales if the non-iPad users just pirate them.


I'm pretty sure that the people that were gonna pirate will still pirate and the people that were gonna buy will still buy. My necron codex was just stole the other day....still have my PDF copy. I think that's the last GWS rule book i'm gonna buy.


----------



## Zion

Eleven said:


> I'm pretty sure that the people that were gonna pirate will still pirate and the people that were gonna buy will still buy. My necron codex was just stole the other day....still have my PDF copy. I think that's the last GWS rule book i'm gonna buy.


Sadly I'm all to aware of this and find it sad that people feel it's better to steal something than pay for it, but that concept is hardly anything new. And while I'm sorry to hear that your Necron book got swiped, I don't really see it as a good thing to steal the books. I'm willing to look them up online if I want to get an idea what's inside, but to use them on a regular basis and never buy a copy just feels off to me. But then again I basically grew up with books welded to my hands so for me it might just be a feeling of familiarity I get when flipping through a book rather than reading it on a tablet or my monitor.


----------



## ehafh

i'm guessing it will be a matter of days after release before people scan the book and post it on torrent sites. i'll probably check it out on both formats, but i'd never pay for a digital version.

i'm opting to buy the regular edition book, or a mini book, and i'll download the .pdf when someone shares it. i just got into the whole thing and am basically waiting for this to come out to start learning how to play. the collectors edition sounds cool, and i'd probably spring for it if i hadn't already spent like 200 bucks this month on getting started in the hobby.


----------



## Mokuren

A friend of mine, who has a friend that works in a GW store, confirmed that 23/06 is when pre-orders start.

Take that with the usual pinch of salt, of course, but it would make sense considering the WD preview comes out the same day. It'd be a good plan to raise the hype and scrounge a few more pre-orders.


----------



## Archon Dan

Something to bear in mind is that this is not a codex release, but a new edition release. A week for pre-order works for a codex as not everyone will buy it, but everyone is going to buy a new core rulebook. I think the 23rd will be a reveal date and start pre-orders and launch will still be the 7th of July. A two-week pre-order period sounds about right for a new rulebook. But we'll have to see I guess. I'm keeping the 7th in my mind so I won't be disappointed if it's not the 30th. And if it is the 30th, I get a little surprise.


----------



## Zion

Did some digging to see if I could spot anything new online that hadn't been repeated to death already and here goes (I've trimmed off anything not directly related to rumors so for the full context of articles and the like just check the links) *passes out the extra salt*:

From "Just a Rhino":


> However on her recent journey to Games Workshop World HQ in Overcast Olde England one of our contributors was given a few snipets of inside info about 6th edition one of which was a cryptic:
> "wound allocation was based on percentages."​


Not really sure how that would work, but we'll know for sure if it's true and how to do it I'm sure.

From BigRed on BoLS:


> There are 5 Lores:
> 
> Biomancy
> Divination
> Pyromancy
> Telekinetics
> Telepathy
> 
> We've heard each of these Lores has a d6 chart you roll on for powers, and a "default" power you can always choose to take in lieu of rolling. That would add up to 35 powers.




Not too much else to consider, but it's a start at least. I can't verify the first one (and it DOES sound a bit out there, but so did most of the rumors at first) but the second at least provides some insight. I'm rather curious how it'll all work.


----------



## Arcane

Zion said:


> Sadly I'm all to aware of this and find it sad that people feel it's better to steal something than pay for it, but that concept is hardly anything new. And while I'm sorry to hear that your Necron book got swiped, I don't really see it as a good thing to steal the books. I'm willing to look them up online if I want to get an idea what's inside, but to use them on a regular basis and never buy a copy just feels off to me. But then again I basically grew up with books welded to my hands so for me it might just be a feeling of familiarity I get when flipping through a book rather than reading it on a tablet or my monitor.


To me it's pretty simple. If you are at tourney and ask to see a rule in someone's codex and they don't even have a codex, why are they even there? They better be able to borrow one from someone or hopefully get disqualified. Of course they could print off the entire PDF and bring it but at that rate of effort, why not just buy the book and enjoy owning it?


----------



## mcmuffin

Arcane said:


> To me it's pretty simple. If you are at tourney and ask to see a rule in someone's codex and they don't even have a codex, why are they even there? They better be able to borrow one from someone or hopefully get disqualified. Of course they could print off the entire PDF and bring it but at that rate of effort, why not just buy the book and enjoy owning it?


I own a digital copy of every codex, but all of the ones i play with i have the actual paper dex


----------



## SilverTabby

Zion said:


> Did some digging to see if I could spot anything new online that hadn't been repeated to death already and here goes (I've trimmed off anything not directly related to rumors so for the full context of articles and the like just check the links) *passes out the extra salt*:
> 
> From "Just a Rhino":
> 
> Not really sure how that would work, but we'll know for sure if it's true and how to do it I'm sure.
> 
> From BigRed on BoLS:
> 
> 
> Not too much else to consider, but it's a start at least. I can't verify the first one (and it DOES sound a bit out there, but so did most of the rumors at first) but the second at least provides some insight. I'm rather curious how it'll all work.


Just bear in mind that the WHW staff don't know more than your average store staff, in general. They don't have access to the Studio, and whilst they may talk with other staffers from departments within, it's not as prevalent as you might think. Studio staff tend to play their games within the studio, and don't frequent WHW itself. Bugmans is used for meetings, and not often as socialising. 

They also know their jobs are more on the line re. rumours, simply because of where they work.

This from someone whose local *is* WHW, and knows how the Studio works :wink:

------------------- 

On a digital codex PoV - I own paper copies of all the ones I use. Those I don't, I borrow from a friend. I would not get a digital copy of anything I didn't already own. I fully intend to scan my Sisters Dex for personal use, but that's because the WD are already falling apart. Scanning for personal use is fine. Scanning and posting it online? Not on, and gives an excuse for price rises...


----------



## Katie Drake

SilverTabby said:


> Scanning for personal use is fine. Scanning and posting it online? Not on, and gives an excuse for price rises...


GW would raise prices just as often even if piracy wasn't a concern. They don't need an excuse because they know people will keep buying no matter what.


----------



## Zion

Katie Drake said:


> GW would raise prices just as often even if piracy wasn't a concern. They don't need an excuse because they know people will keep buying no matter what.


Not exactly. There is a pretty good article I read recently, and pretty much it boils down to GW ensuring they sell enough to ensure they keep excess stock down by only selling to X number of people at a time. When MORE people buy it means they need to maintain more stock, do larger runs and generally increase production and storage space, costing them money until it reaches a new cap Y.

Generally the idea is if they say do batches of 6 kits at a time, kits 1-5 cost them money, and kit 6 is where they make money back, but kit 7 costs them money again since they have to maintain 5 unsold kits. This is likely why they instituted the manditory minimum stock levels with FLGS in exchange for a budge. It actually saves them more money to essentially store the product at someone else's store and give them a little money to fund prize support than it does to keep the product on hand themselves.

Additionally GW has to balance the cost of the product to how fast it sells. If it sells to fast they may make money initially as they don't have to maintain storage space in their locations, but when demand starts to drop they see it as losing money. But if the price increases too much then demand drops further causing them to continue to lose more money as they have unsold products from the runs they do sitting around costing them money for storage and the like.

Needless to say this is a simplified explanation of what I read but essentially it boils down to complex maths, and internal cost analysis to maintain supply and demand at a certain level to save them money on their end. It would certainly explain why GW announced the price increase was going to affect mostly the things we have to buy the least of (dice, tape measures, rulebooks, ect), because that's what costs them the most in the long run since the have to maintain the unsold ones.

EDIT: I just realized the internet taught me some basics of business economics and I apparently read to much.....I can't decide if this is a good or bad thing yet.


----------



## Troublehalf

Right folks, don't have the time or energy to read through the whole thing, but these are the rumours I've gathered, please add at your will or just ignore <_< These are all copied and pasted, I would do my best to go through but it's 4:00am here nearly. Also, it's in a different person (how it's written). So ignore that. I also understand these may of already been mentioned and added, I fully understand that. Just doing this before I try to go to sleep or I'll forget. Don't hurt me either 

-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
-Vehicles are WS0 if stationary, and WS1 if they move, no matter how far they go.
-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...)
-Vehicles cannot contest (unsure if scoring units in transports can)
-6 Missions and 3 deployment types (2 of the deployments are the same as current, Spearhead & Pitched Battle.)
-Troops are the only ones that can score (including of course 'scoring units')
-5+ Cover save for most things (ruins are 4+).
-Allies rules are in, but its meant to be for team games (ie separate force org chart, distrusted ally rules similar to Fantasy)
-Percentages are *not* in
-Wound Allocation is closest to furthest.
-Duelling is similar to challenges in fantasy but contrary to earlier rumours, 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
-Preferred Enemy is including shooting and you may reroll wound rolls of a 1 (either shooting or combat)
-Rapid Fire weapons may now can shoot at long range while moving. restriction on assaulting after rapid firing remains.
-Jump Infantry get a free strike at I10 when they charge into combat
-Psychic Power Decks using a dice system similar to Fantasy.
-Flyers are in.
-FNP drops to 5+ Save.
-AP are on ccw but he says power weapons are ap 2, not 3.
-When you charge it's double your move, infantry move 6, bikes 8 cav 7 etc.
-It's move assault then shooting now!
-Fnp is 5+. Master crafted ccw give you a 5+ invuln save
-When you shoot you roll to hit depending on the speed of your target. Fast vehicles you always need a 6.
-A unit can't claim a object while inside a vehicle.
-There's new kinds of instance death. If your say strength 8 vs a space marine captain toughness 4, you only do 2 wounds! Strength (9?) or more would do 3 wounds & kill him.
-In kill point missions you get kill points based on what the units points cost, so for example a
landraider would be worth 5 kill points & a unit of marines 3pts.


----------



## Zion

Troublehalf said:


> Right folks, don't have the time or energy to read through the whole thing, but these are the rumours I've gathered, please add at your will or just ignore <_< These are all copied and pasted, I would do my best to go through but it's 4:00am here nearly. Also, it's in a different person (how it's written). So ignore that. I also understand these may of already been mentioned and added, I fully understand that. Just doing this before I try to go to sleep or I'll forget. Don't hurt me either
> 
> -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
> -Vehicles are WS0 if stationary, and WS1 if they move, no matter how far they go.
> -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...)
> -Vehicles cannot contest (unsure if scoring units in transports can)
> -6 Missions and 3 deployment types (2 of the deployments are the same as current, Spearhead & Pitched Battle.)
> -Troops are the only ones that can score (including of course 'scoring units')
> -5+ Cover save for most things (ruins are 4+).
> -Allies rules are in, but its meant to be for team games (ie separate force org chart, distrusted ally rules similar to Fantasy)
> -Percentages are *not* in
> -Wound Allocation is closest to furthest.
> -Duelling is similar to challenges in fantasy but contrary to earlier rumours, 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
> -Preferred Enemy is including shooting and you may reroll wound rolls of a 1 (either shooting or combat)
> -Rapid Fire weapons may now can shoot at long range while moving. restriction on assaulting after rapid firing remains.
> -Jump Infantry get a free strike at I10 when they charge into combat
> -Psychic Power Decks using a dice system similar to Fantasy.
> -Flyers are in.
> -FNP drops to 5+ Save.
> -AP are on ccw but he says power weapons are ap 2, not 3.
> -When you charge it's double your move, infantry move 6, bikes 8 cav 7 etc.
> -It's move assault then shooting now!
> -Fnp is 5+. Master crafted ccw give you a 5+ invuln save
> -When you shoot you roll to hit depending on the speed of your target. Fast vehicles you always need a 6.
> -A unit can't claim a object while inside a vehicle.
> -There's new kinds of instance death. If your say strength 8 vs a space marine captain toughness 4, you only do 2 wounds! Strength (9?) or more would do 3 wounds & kill him.
> -In kill point missions you get kill points based on what the units points cost, so for example a
> landraider would be worth 5 kill points & a unit of marines 3pts.


Yup, we got all those in the first post too (can't blame you for not reading the entire thing, it's getting _kinda_ long now). Appreciate the effort though.


----------



## TechPr1est

i dont mind the wound allocation thing it makes feel more realistic


----------



## Antonius

I must say, i don't like the Hull Points Mechanic. How on earth is that going to be integrated with older codices without an exhaustive list to all units current and future. Given that there won't be a new codex release simultaneously. I could see the whole transports and shooting out of them stuff coming back from 4th (weakens some mech armies' effectiveness, but still makes them viable). Mech should be a better contender with air/infantry, not a case of "this build is OP compared to the others". Classic SM tacticals should not need a near compulsory rhino to be even vaguely effective (my measuring stick).

Plus, until newer edition codices come out, the psychic power cards will be a pile of useless crap - as Codex>Rulebook in these scenarios (unless you want to gimp units such as Psyker Battle Squads). Plus, i think it would remove the distinctions between the psykers of the respective races to an extent and the whole "lores" thing doesn't really suit a sci-fi universe.

Flyers i see the logic for, and i think that's the transition that 40k will make - movement from mehtal bawkses to the skies (so they can sell their most expensive minis in high quantities - Stormravens/Valkyries). That is fair enough, but i don't think they will nerf mech into oblivion.

Removing Objective claiming in a vehicle is probably a likely extension, and perhaps will be needed to reduce the effectiveness of mech (giving nids a break), and is a minor, not fundamental change to the game mechanic.

I also don't believe that variable charge ranges will be popular - i know the current system minus running used was in 4th (and probably in previous editions), and its a tried and tested game mechanic that GW is unlikely to change.

GW BRB for 6th i can see why it'll be £45. Accounting for price increases in value (which usuall round up to the nearest £5 for "simplicity" or profit more like).

Anyway, rant over
Antonius
Thank God Schools League is using 5th Edition this year - I have a mech army and don't need it to be gimped just yet


----------



## misfratz

Antonius said:


> I must say, i don't like the Hull Points Mechanic. How on earth is that going to be integrated with older codices without an exhaustive list to all units current and future....


It could be a balls-up, with GW waiting for subsequent codex releases to iron out all the kinks, or they could have thought of a way to make it work just fine.

They may simply add hull point values with a FAQ, a list in White Dwarf, or a list in the new rulebook. Or you might be able to calculate a hull point value from the armour values.

Hull points could be interesting, and it's hard to know if it's good or bad until we know the details.

I prefer to concentrate on the positive possibilities than worry over potential problems. It's too late for anything to be changed after all.


----------



## ohiocat110

Troublehalf said:


> Right folks, don't have the time or energy to read through the whole thing, but these are the rumours I've gathered, please add at your will or just ignore <_< These are all copied and pasted, I would do my best to go through but it's 4:00am here nearly. Also, it's in a different person (how it's written). So ignore that. I also understand these may of already been mentioned and added, I fully understand that. Just doing this before I try to go to sleep or I'll forget. Don't hurt me either


Pretty much as I suspected, mostly subtle buffs to vehicles and subtle nerfs to infantry. Infantry may be able to do a bit more damage to other infantry, but they'll get cut down in droves losing a point from FNP and cover saves, and be more likely to get stuck in no-man's-land with random charges.. 6th will be all about taking maximum Dedicated Transports and escorting them to objectives, if this holds. 

Start ordering your Rhinos and Razorbacks now.


----------



## darklove

Probably means that basic games are going to be nearer to 2k than 1.5k, as now. I don't mind, you can play a bigger game in the same amount of time...


----------



## mcmuffin

ohiocat110 said:


> Pretty much as I suspected, mostly subtle buffs to vehicles and subtle nerfs to infantry. Infantry may be able to do a bit more damage to other infantry, but they'll get cut down in droves losing a point from FNP and cover saves, and be more likely to get stuck in no-man's-land with random charges.. 6th will be all about taking maximum Dedicated Transports and escorting them to objectives, if this holds.
> 
> Start ordering your Rhinos and Razorbacks now.


I already have 11 :biggrin:


----------



## Cougar

> From my local GW Facebook........
> 
> 
> +++INCOMING TRANSMISSION+++
> +++SOURCE UNKNOWN+++
> +++IMPERIAL SIGNATURE CONFIRMED+++
> +++VOCAL DATA CORRUPTED+++
> +++ATTEMPTING TO RETRIEVE+++
> ...
> ************************************
> 
> +++....SEGMENTUM..S..LAR....ALL CHAPTERS...>>>>>
> 
> ... +++RETRIEVE FAILED+++CONVERTING TO TEXT+++
> +++TEXT DATA CORRUPTED+++
> 
> ************************************
> 
> +++ BE WAR\|NED¬¬¬```. THE WAR//&%^ HAS CHANGED. HO''{[[]PE IS LOST. THEY WILL REACH YOU<><>>>&%$ IN NINE DAYS. OUR ASTROPATHS!~##~ ARE DEAD. ALL;;::-_CHAPTERS IN SOLAR @@'[{}'SEGMENTUM BE WARNED;;;lllllTHE WAR HAS CHANGED. HOPE ==+IS LOST...+++
> 
> +++SIGNAL REPEATS+++
> +++TRANSMISSION LOST+++


 
I only wish 'hope is lost' ment taking FNP from the marines completely :biggrin:
saves way to many of them... lol


----------



## Zion

ohiocat110 said:


> Pretty much as I suspected, mostly subtle buffs to vehicles and subtle nerfs to infantry. Infantry may be able to do a bit more damage to other infantry, but they'll get cut down in droves losing a point from FNP and cover saves, and be more likely to get stuck in no-man's-land with random charges.. 6th will be all about taking maximum Dedicated Transports and escorting them to objectives, if this holds.
> 
> Start ordering your Rhinos and Razorbacks now.


Pretty everyone already has Rhinos and Razorbacks already thanks to 5th edition, so why would they need to order them? :scratchhead:

And if you noticed the vehicle WS mechanic (when moving they have WS1) that means that infantry will consistently either hit vehicles on a 3+ in close combat or automatically (WS0 when stationary). Additionally if you read the full hull points rumor (vehicles get a set number of hull points that are removed with each successful pen or glancing hit and when they run out they're wrecked) they'll be dying a lot faster to concentrated tank fire unless the the damage chart gets a major overhaul.

Seriously, this is like the 3rd or 4th time I've seen this in the last week and it seems people are cherry picking which rumors they're looking at to claim what 6th edition is going to "ruin". 

Now for some historical context: 5th edition had this too coming out and it wasn't the game ruiner that people were claiming, and honestly I don't see 6th edition being that way either. It's going to be a new way with our plastic/metal/resin/Finecast men/women/aliens/daemons with our friends. Maybe it'll be more competetive, maybe it won't. Either way it's not the sign of the end times and the Ragnarok isn't going to occur just because 6th edition is going to hit.


----------



## darklove

Well at least the rumoured vehicle changes make Gauss a genuine option again for Necrons. In 4th ed. it was possible to 1-shot vehicles with a single glancing hit, perhaps 6th ed. will be especially kind to Necrons and make that lost dream a reality once more.


----------



## TheKingElessar

mcmuffin said:


> I already have 11 :biggrin:


Between all my flavours of Marines, I own almost 30 varied Rhino chassis...


----------



## TheKingElessar

Antonius said:


> Removing Objective claiming in a vehicle is probably a likely extension, and perhaps will be needed to reduce the effectiveness of mech (giving nids a break), and is a minor, not fundamental change to the game mechanic.


This is a *massive* change that primarily impacts on Xenos, as usual, just not Nids in a negative way. Marines are more capable of surviving a turn in the open than anything that isn't T4 with a 3+, and it massively neuters Fast Skimmers, if they follow the same movement rules, as they will no longer be able to claim objectives going last, as you cannot move Flat Out and Disembark.


----------



## Karyudo-DS

Ugh, only have a pair of Rhinos that are usually configured as tanks. Not really interested in more until they upgrade DA though...not that DA troops have to hoof it otherwise.

Transmission looks interesting, is it possible plot is happening in 40k? Insanity!


----------



## Zion

TheKingElessar said:


> Between all my flavours of Marines, I own almost 30 varied Rhino chassis...


I'm not quite that bad.....4 Chaos Rhinos, 6 Sisters Rhino/Immolaters and 3 Exorcists (Rhino Chassis), but yeah, I'm done buying Rhinos for a while. I'm really hoping for a viable Infantry option to become available again (I'm essentially looking for something that isn't overpowered (thus invalidating armies....again), just functional without the preverbial metal boxes) .


----------



## Zion

Karyudo-DS said:


> Ugh, only have a pair of Rhinos that are usually configured as tanks. Not really interested in more until they upgrade DA though...not that DA troops have to hoof it otherwise.
> 
> Transmission looks interesting, is it possible plot is happening in 40k? Insanity!


Might be the rumored increased threat of Chaos.


----------



## SilverTabby

Antonius said:


> Plus, until newer edition codices come out, the psychic power cards will be a pile of useless crap - as Codex>Rulebook in these scenarios (unless you want to gimp units such as Psyker Battle Squads). Plus, i think it would remove the distinctions between the psykers of the respective races to an extent and the whole "lores" thing doesn't really suit a sci-fi universe.


Depends what is on the cards. We don't know this yet, or how they will work. 


TheKingElessar said:


> This is a *massive* change that primarily impacts on Xenos, as usual, just not Nids in a negative way. Marines are more capable of surviving a turn in the open than anything that isn't T4 with a 3+, and it massively neuters Fast Skimmers, if they follow the same movement rules, as they will no longer be able to claim objectives going last, as you cannot move Flat Out and Disembark.


And maybe that's *why* it's changed? Nothing pisses me off more than fighting DE and having them have a couple of tanks sit back out of range until the last turn then just zip in. Forcing them to take at least one turn in the open adds something more tactical in...

A counter to that might be a mission where the game ends once all objectives are claimed?


----------



## SGMAlice

My Orks have multiple Rhino's :mrgreen:

That 'Transmission' looks to be dated the approximate time till the one of the rumoured release dates, 23rd. Maybe just a silly count down method. And the 'Hope Is Lost' may hint at Chaos but then that sounds like its a tragic turn for everyone as it suggests that the imperium is going to start losing :dunno:

Alice


----------



## normtheunsavoury

SGMAlice said:


> And the 'Hope Is Lost' may hint at Chaos but then that sounds like its a tragic turn for everyone as it suggests that the imperium is going to start losing :dunno:
> 
> Alice


The Imperium has pretty much been losing since the Great Crusade went tits up, its not really a change, more of a clarification.


----------



## SGMAlice

This i know, however GW may advance it past mere words in a book suggesting such things. They may in fact provide more Fluff/Storyline advancement.

Don't know if i can put any other way.

Alice


----------



## SilverTabby

The Imperium isn't lost because one system falls. However, it adds something new to have a force *take* Terra, and hold the Emperor to ransom :wink:

There were arms of the Inquisition that wanted the Throne to be turned off so the Emperor could properly ascend. Maybe they are taking a step towards that?


----------



## SGMAlice

ooooo! And so begins the conspiracy theories and 'Star Child' thingymabobs i noticed a while back :laugh:

In my opinion it would be a good idea to advance the Story Line, even a little. It would take some of the stagnation out of the game.

Alice


----------



## Obinhi

I for one will welcome the psyker power cards. I can see lores as in the fluff every race can shoot lightning out of something, every race can boil brains ect. Why is it my psyker battle squad can only make some one shit in pants or flatten them with force, why cant they combine to cause deep striking units come in perfectly on target, or to atleast counter an enemy psyker.

I hope to god we get some story progression, honestly WH40k can cover 40000-49999 in my book.


----------



## mcmuffin

So, here is something i heard from a little birdy, which i won't name, feel free to burn me at the stake or whatever



> Hull points don’t work as rumoured: they are only for front armour 14 vehicles and work like a structure point or a “wound” which can be used to negate any result, even wrecked or explodes. not sure if this is a once per game thing, i suspect so. but no more one shotting land raiders and monoliths with meltaguns
> 
> 
> and pens give +1 to all subsequent damage rolls in that shooting phase, so essentially after a pen all weapons shooting a vehicle become AP1
> 
> rapid fire: double tap up to 24” if stationary. 1 shot at 24 or 2 shots at 12 if moving. Relentless gives and extra shot at each range if stationary as well as the standard bonus.
> 
> power weapons are ap3 but give a 5++ parry save in combat
> 
> Stunned results stack to weapon destroyed, extra armour negates 1 stun per turn, not sure on shaken
> 
> 
> Strength vs toughness chart changed to be like fantasy, so everything can be wounded on a 6.
> 
> there's going to be a bunch of FAQ/erratas when it drops for all codices
> 
> vehicles being hit in combat is auto if stationary, 3+ is going 6", 5+ if going 12", 6+ if going flat out
> 
> though, vehicles going flat out can only be hit on a max of 4+ with shooting, fliers hit on 6+
> 
> Damage results stack so shaken -> stun -> weapon -> immob -> wreck
> 
> Preferred enemy gives re-rolls to hit with shooting and in combat, but not the re-rolling of 1s to wound


Just something to fill the rumour mill more, i think this is reliable but take with some NaCl


----------



## Obinhi

More to think about, I really hope they don't touch power weapons, and this is honestly what I think, but if PW are ap 3 then Meganobs will become gods, fucking monsters in all walks of life, No thank you, please do not make it so I cannot take my nobs with out being called the cheese master!


----------



## Mokuren

Obinhi said:


> More to think about, I really hope they don't touch power weapons, and this is honestly what I think, but if PW are ap 3 then Meganobs will become gods, fucking monsters in all walks of life, No thank you, please do not make it so I cannot take my nobs with out being called the cheese master!


What about terminators then? Not even wielding power weapons give you a chance, and this also, incidentally, means that they won't be able to take each other out unless they spend more points on stronger (and I1) weapons.

Oh hey guess who gets screwed up beyond all hell with a change like this? Hell yes, _chaos terminators!_ The ones who don't even have storm shields and will therefore suck against the way cheaper and more speshul loyalist terminators!

... Good thing their codex is next.

Oh, and the benefit of giving a power weapon to a SoB is _lower_ than giving one to a SM. I mean, _even lower_ than before. At the same cost. Heck, even IG sergeants get more punch out of a power weapon than a SoB with this rule, and it's cheaper to them, too.


----------



## Obinhi

Mokuren said:


> What about terminators then? Not even wielding power weapons give you a chance, and this also, incidentally, means that they won't be able to take each other out unless they spend more points on stronger (and I1) weapons.
> 
> Oh hey guess who gets screwed up beyond all hell with a change like this? Hell yes, _chaos terminators!_ The ones who don't even have storm shields and will therefore suck against the way cheaper and more speshul loyalist terminators!
> 
> ... Good thing their codex is next.
> 
> Oh, and the benefit of giving a power weapon to a SoB is _lower_ than giving one to a SM. I mean, _even lower_ than before. At the same cost. Heck, even IG sergeants get more punch out of a power weapon than a SoB with this rule, and it's cheaper to them, too.


well Meganobs get 2+/5++, All have two wounds, furrious charge, you always put them in a truck or wagon so them being slow is no longer an issue, and on top of that you can give them a pain boy for FNP and you can do war gear sillyness for wound allocation bullcrap. So if you make power weapons AP 3 then you allow the 2+ armor save, Humans, Tau and eldar will need 5s to even wound, and then go a head and throw in the silly wound allocation combined with atleast getting hit with s7/6 big choppas or the powerklaw, how exactly are you going to kill them off? And you know damn well people will take KFF to protect the transport they are in, ya, good luck killing them off. Terminators dont really come close under this supposed system because now the orks not only have wounds and FNP on them, they also have strength mod weapons that are not effected by the change in power weapons. 

All I am saying is that the Orks get a real boost out of this would be change where as anyone who gets power armor takes it in the rear. Not really something I would feel good about taking advantage of...not to say I wouldn't I mean hey, we all like to win right, but I would so have to take a shower after, it would just feel dirty to me.


----------



## mcmuffin

Obinhi said:


> well Meganobs get 2+/5++, All have two wounds, furrious charge, you always put them in a truck or wagon so them being slow is no longer an issue, and on top of that you can give them a pain boy for FNP and you can do war gear sillyness for wound allocation bullcrap. So if you make power weapons AP 3 then you allow the 2+ armor save, Humans, Tau and eldar will need 5s to even wound, and then go a head and throw in the silly wound allocation combined with atleast getting hit with s7/6 big choppas or the powerklaw, how exactly are you going to kill them off? And you know damn well people will take KFF to protect the transport they are in, ya, good luck killing them off. Terminators dont really come close under this supposed system because now the orks not only have wounds and FNP on them, they also have strength mod weapons that are not effected by the change in power weapons.
> 
> All I am saying is that the Orks get a real boost out of this would be change where as anyone who gets power armor takes it in the rear. Not really something I would feel good about taking advantage of...not to say I wouldn't I mean hey, we all like to win right, but I would so have to take a shower after, it would just feel dirty to me.


1. They dont have an invul save, so one power fist kills them
2. Wound allocation will be changing
3. Marines need a nerf
4. AFAIK meganobz can get a painboy
5. Tau and eldar currently still need 5s to wound them, so it doesnt change at all

and orks get nerfed by the cover and armour values on close combat weapons

Not that big a deal, i'm more worried about paladins under this system


----------



## Zion

I have a strong feeling that at this point the rumors we're seeing are coming from the .pdf edition, are from different versions of the rules as things evolved and changed, or are conflicting due to misinformation. Needless to say I'm not even trying to figure out which are the "correct" rumors.


----------



## mcmuffin

Zion said:


> I have a strong feeling that at this point the rumors we're seeing are coming from the .pdf edition, are from different versions of the rules as things evolved and changed, or are conflicting due to misinformation. Needless to say I'm not even trying to figure out which are the "correct" rumors.


I am fairly confident in my source


----------



## Zion

mcmuffin said:


> I am fairly confident in my source


I'm sure you don't doubt them, but I'm not taking sides.


----------



## Obinhi

mcmuffin said:


> 1. They dont have an invul save, so one power fist kills them
> 2. Wound allocation will be changing
> 3. Marines need a nerf
> 4. AFAIK meganobz can get a painboy
> 5. Tau and eldar currently still need 5s to wound them, so it doesnt change at all
> 
> and orks get nerfed by the cover and armour values on close combat weapons
> 
> Not that big a deal, i'm more worried about paladins under this system


Cybork gives the invol save, for 5ppm its real cheap for what it is.

Even if wound allocation changes from what it is to nearest to farthest and all that, I doubt that the current exploit with wargear can be changed

Marines do not need a nerf at all. If you cant beat marines you are at fault for real, they dont ever have numbers, and every army that is not MEQ has ether CC weight of numbers or shooting weight of numbers. Marines just plain dont.

Hero pain boy dont have the codex with me, but we have one

I really cannot see a coversave in CC but if there is, we have a KFF for that, and as for AV on CCW, the only real power weapon we have is the power klaw, so we are used to other 6+ guys getting armor saves against us, it happens. So what we have here is a situation where some armies will just not be effected in any real way, where others will take a hit, so who really wins here? I stand by what I said.


----------



## mcmuffin

Obinhi said:


> Cybork gives the invol save, for 5ppm its real cheap for what it is.
> 
> Even if wound allocation changes from what it is to nearest to farthest and all that, I doubt that the current exploit with wargear can be changed
> 
> Marines do not need a nerf at all. If you cant beat marines you are at fault for real, they dont ever have numbers, and every army that is not MEQ has ether CC weight of numbers or shooting weight of numbers. Marines just plain dont.
> 
> Hero pain boy dont have the codex with me, but we have one
> 
> I really cannot see a coversave in CC but if there is, we have a KFF for that, and as for AV on CCW, the only real power weapon we have is the power klaw, so we are used to other 6+ guys getting armor saves against us, it happens. So what we have here is a situation where some armies will just not be effected in any real way, where others will take a hit, so who really wins here? I stand by what I said.


Right, well unless you are taking Mad Cock Grotsnik, meganobz can have neither feel no pain nor cybork bodies. 

I can beat marines just fine, i play marines, but they are still too good and all rules benefit them (largely anyway). Marines can take plenty of numbers as well, like 60 in a fairly standard army

Cover saves in CC would be retarded and makes no sense

Orks will no longer get their tee-shirt saves in combat, which means every wound is a guaranteed dead ork, coupled with 5+ cover being standard now instead of 4+, they will die a lot faster

Who wins again with the rumoured 6th ed rules? Marines, specifically termies, and more specifically GK.


----------



## Karyudo-DS

mcmuffin said:


> Who wins again with the rumoured 6th ed rules? Marines, specifically termies, and more specifically GK.


Structure points for 14 AV units sounds sort of good, things are expensive enough as is and while the rapid fire change sort of seems to invalidate the Stormbolter I guess +5 pts for a version you can assault with isn't bad for balance either. 

AP3 would still kill Marines and most basic infantry so in a way the change isn't that different. Although the +2 units become very scary at that point but in a way Terminators are supposed to be... still that suggests that you'll need something equal to go toe-to-toe with them, sending Banshees after them would now be suicidal.

They'd have to change MC's though too somehow because a Wraithlord is next to useless when it can never roll on anything able to wound it (practically) anyway, if MC attacks were still power weapons they wouldn't even be heavy hitters anymore period. I don't mind +2 units becoming immune to power weapons necessarily but that would mean you would really want them to fight others I can't think of many options Eldar would have for one to even do that, they're melee centric units would be mediocre against that.

I could see this work depending how it all fit's together, though as is it makes me really want to keep +2 units at range. Which might not be bad for the game.


----------



## Obinhi

Karyudo-DS said:


> Structure points for 14 AV units sounds sort of good, things are expensive enough as is and while the rapid fire change sort of seems to invalidate the Stormbolter I guess +5 pts for a version you can assault with isn't bad for balance either.
> 
> AP3 would still kill Marines and most basic infantry so in a way the change isn't that different. Although the +2 units become very scary at that point but in a way Terminators are supposed to be... still that suggests that you'll need something equal to go toe-to-toe with them, sending Banshees after them would now be suicidal.
> 
> They'd have to change MC's though too somehow because a Wraithlord is next to useless when it can never roll on anything able to wound it (practically) anyway, if MC attacks were still power weapons they wouldn't even be heavy hitters anymore period. I don't mind +2 units becoming immune to power weapons necessarily but that would mean you would really want them to fight others I can't think of many options Eldar would have for one to even do that, they're melee centric units would be mediocre against that.
> 
> I could see this work depending how it all fit's together, though as is it makes me really want to keep +2 units at range. Which might not be bad for the game.


except terminators can deep strike, that and put them in a beefed up land raider and they become death, the destroyer of worlds.


----------



## Zion

Obinhi said:


> except terminators can deep strike, that and put them in a beefed up land raider and they become death, the destroyer of worlds.


Maybe, but that's only based on the current rules. Who knows how they'll look next edition exactly.


----------



## CattleBruiser

My tau love the rumoured relentless changes... and my banshees cry at the power weapon changes.

Oh well, most of this stuff about charges and close combat doesn't affect me much, tau will still die to anything in close combat and eldar will still survive with the close combat units and die with the shooty ones. There's even a much needed buff to tau with the relentless change. 3 shot plasma rifles anyone?


----------



## Obinhi

I dont know Zion, if they take the deep strike option from terminators they better let them go in drop pods. But I dont see that.


----------



## Zion

Obinhi said:


> I dont know Zion, if they take the deep strike option from terminators they better let them go in drop pods. But I dont see that.


Don't Space Wolf Terminators already deploy that way anyways? And aren't Drop Pods better than your average deep strike roll anyways?


----------



## SGMAlice

As long as they stick to Hull Points for AV14 then i'm not particularily bothered about that, despite its silliness. Anything else would be a overly stupid, Tanks are Armored, yes, but not enough that they can withstand a shot anymore than they already do.

Stop trying to take things from Apocalypse and my Super Heavies GW! :ireful2:

Alice


----------



## Sethis

If the fantasy wound chart is real then my Wraithlords need 4 wounds and a 2+. _Minimum_.


----------



## darklove

SGMAlice said:


> As long as they stick to Hull Points for AV14 then i'm not particularily bothered about that, despite its silliness. Anything else would be a overly stupid, Tanks are Armored, yes, but not enough that they can withstand a shot anymore than they already do.
> 
> Stop trying to take things from Apocalypse and my Super Heavies GW! :ireful2:
> 
> Alice


Although if the points work the way some rumours say they can be used to off-set stunned or weapon destroyed results, etc.


----------



## SGMAlice

darklove said:


> Although if the points work the way some rumours say they can be used to off-set stunned or weapon destroyed results, etc.


Thats what the Wargear is for. No MBT equivalent Tank is going to be untouched never mind undamaged by a shot from an Anti-Tank weapon and/or the resulting explosion.

Super Heavies, yes, they are massive and have much thicker armor. Structure points make sense in that context, not this one.

Alice


----------



## ohiocat110

SGMAlice said:


> Thats what the Wargear is for. No MBT equivalent Tank is going to be untouched never mind undamaged by a shot from an Anti-Tank weapon and/or the resulting explosion.
> 
> Super Heavies, yes, they are massive and have much thicker armor. Structure points make sense in that context, not this one.
> 
> Alice


I don't see how it's that big of a deal. If you're glancing or penetrating a vehicle, you're getting a result anyways, even if it's just a shake. Like you said, wargear can improve the odds of survival, but it's only the odds (never a sure thing), and wargear like extra armor is only available of certain vehicles anyways.

All a system like hull points does is make the vehicle damage system more deterministic over time, meaning it flattens out the probability curve of vehicles absorbing an unusual number of damaging hits through luck. You'll no longer see the super Rhino that take penetrating 10 ML hits and keeps on trucking because they were all shakes. 

For the system to have any real effect on overall gameplay, the number of hull points would have to be lower than the chances of destroying the vehicle through the damage chart. For example, say a Predator has 6 hull points, and a penetrating hit does 2 hull points of damage. Three such hits will destroy the vehicle...but three such hits will also give 3 1/3 chances to destroy the vehicle through damage. All that's really happening is the elimination of statistical anomalies. Over time in thousands of games, the net result is to make vehicle damage more predictable, and less susceptible to random runs of luck. 

Of course, that's just an example based on one possible system, but that's likely going to be the effect of hull points. I suspect they will closely match the odds of being destroyed through the damage chart. If it works out that they get more hull points, all that will happen is very unusual runs of luck will be eliminated. If they get less, then vehicles would take a true hit in terms of survivability.


----------



## SilverTabby

Karyudo-DS said:


> They'd have to change MC's though too somehow because a Wraithlord is next to useless when it can never roll on anything able to wound it (practically) anyway, if MC attacks were still power weapons they wouldn't even be heavy hitters anymore period. I don't mind +2 units becoming immune to power weapons necessarily but that would mean you would really want them to fight others I can't think of many options Eldar would have for one to even do that, they're melee centric units would be mediocre against that.
> 
> I could see this work depending how it all fit's together, though as is it makes me really want to keep +2 units at range. Which might not be bad for the game.


MCs don't have power weapons, they ignore armour saves. There's the difference :wink: 

Terminator armour suddenly becoming better is no bad thing. It used to go from 3+ on 1D6 to 3+ on
2D6. That's one hell of a leap in effectiveness. Having it become that good again means it's as good as the fluff. It also makes rending worth paying for, as that's not "power weapons" either, it's ignore armour. Which means genestealers can still do their fluffy thing of punching through terminators like tissue paper. That's all going by current rules though, which are changing in a week.

At this point, I'm just ignoring new rumours. We have a week to wait, and given no rulebooks have been sent out and the Studio is so tightlipped it's amazing they can eat, everything is speculation. 

Patience is a virtue.


----------



## Obinhi

ohiocat110 said:


> I don't see how it's that big of a deal. If you're glancing or penetrating a vehicle, you're getting a result anyways, even if it's just a shake. Like you said, wargear can improve the odds of survival, but it's only the odds (never a sure thing), and wargear like extra armor is only available of certain vehicles anyways.
> 
> All a system like hull points does is make the vehicle damage system more deterministic over time, meaning it flattens out the probability curve of vehicles absorbing an unusual number of damaging hits through luck. You'll no longer see the super Rhino that take penetrating 10 ML hits and keeps on trucking because they were all shakes.
> 
> For the system to have any real effect on overall gameplay, the number of hull points would have to be lower than the chances of destroying the vehicle through the damage chart. For example, say a Predator has 6 hull points, and a penetrating hit does 2 hull points of damage. Three such hits will destroy the vehicle...but three such hits will also give 3 1/3 chances to destroy the vehicle through damage. All that's really happening is the elimination of statistical anomalies. Over time in thousands of games, the net result is to make vehicle damage more predictable, and less susceptible to random runs of luck.
> 
> Of course, that's just an example based on one possible system, but that's likely going to be the effect of hull points. I suspect they will closely match the odds of being destroyed through the damage chart. If it works out that they get more hull points, all that will happen is very unusual runs of luck will be eliminated. If they get less, then vehicles would take a true hit in terms of survivability.


I for one wont sweat a hull point system, but I do think that the current system is pretty good for what it is. A trooper with a missile launcher does not fire at the general area of the tank, he shoots for the track, or the exaust system if it is exposed, or maybe a seem in the armor. But we cannot have called shot in the game so what can you do? 

I does kind of feel like vehicles need a small nerf to try and cut down on the all mech lists, (i'm just as guilty as any one for this) but it would give foot bound armies a fighting chance.


----------



## SilverTabby

I would love to see the proposed hull point system come in. It means all tanks would have a finite number of glancing / penetrating hits they can take, regardless of result. I hate it when rhinos take double figures of hits, and getting 1s and 2s on all of them. If they could take a maximum of, say, 4 hits that get through their armour it would make things more reasonable and less frustrating, especially for those of us with no tanks. 'Nids big things can only take 6 hits that go through their armour...


----------



## Eleven

I seriously hope that the rumor about only armor 14 getting hull points is wrong. LRs and leman russes and monoliths don't need a nerf.....it's rhinos and razor backs and chimeras that need the nerf.

edit:: now that I read it again, it would be a buff to the armor 14 vehicles....which is legitimate.


----------



## mcmuffin

Obinhi said:


> I for one wont sweat a hull point system, but I do think that the current system is pretty good for what it is. A trooper with a missile launcher does not fire at the general area of the tank, he shoots for the track, or the exaust system if it is exposed, or maybe a seem in the armor. But we cannot have called shot in the game so what can you do?
> 
> I does kind of feel like vehicles need a small nerf to try and cut down on the all mech lists, (i'm just as guilty as any one for this) but it would give foot bound armies a fighting chance.


Foot lists have well more than a fighting chance contrary to the opinion of the intertubes. Templars, deathwing, loganwing, footdar, the list goes on. Dont be fooled by internet idiots


----------



## MrPete

If the whole "wounding anything on a 6" pans out to be real (which I kinda suspect it will be), I can only assume it'll be in close combat, as things like bolters already need 6s to wound targets such as Wraithlords, big tyranid nasties etc.


If it does turn out to be accurate though....well, you'll just have to be more careful about what you attack and what you attack it with (don't go assaulting ork blobs with solitary Trygons etc)


I can understand the Hull Points thing on AV14 if im honest. These are supposed to be the big heavy tanks, and its a bit of a wiffle when the thing gets blown up on turn 1. So i'm cool with that.


Hopefully Eldar will still get to use all their psychic tricks, while perhaps taking advantage of some of the new ones. I somewhat suspect the new psychic stuff will benefit certain aspects of the imperium more though. At least everyone should be able to keep their own psychic stuff though - I don't particularly feel like giving up Doom, Fortune etc.

The only thing so far thats annoyed me is the power weapon changes. Almost as if its geared towards helping certain armies over the others. Funny that...

Also, if its infantryhammer, i'm calling it - Nids move to top tier, certainly top 3.


----------



## Wax

Thought you guys might like this. Salt to taste.


----------



## Arcane

MrPete said:


> I can understand the Hull Points thing on AV14 if im honest. These are supposed to be the big heavy tanks, and its a bit of a wiffle when the thing gets blown up on turn 1. So i'm cool with that.


It would be cool if every army had an AV 14 vehicle. As it stands now this is just a big buff to Space Marines and not most other armies. 

Infantry are fine as they are now. Plenty of tournies are won with infantry lists. It's just the loudest minority gets heard on the internet who cry about not being able to take out a few rhinos.


----------



## Zion

Arcane said:


> It would be cool if every army had an AV 14 vehicle. As it stands now this is just a big buff to Space Marines and not most other armies.
> 
> Infantry are fine as they are now. Plenty of tournies are won with infantry lists. It's just the loudest minority gets heard on the internet who cry about not being able to take out a few rhinos.


Space Marines have 3 Landraider variants (and the Black Templars can make a whole army of them that are lanceproof!), the Necrons would get their Monolith souped back up again, Ork Battlewagons become even more useful (and they can take around 8 in a single list, so the Battlewagon rush just got nastier), and Imperial Guard just got better Leman Russ variants.

I'm beginning to think the "Apoc in 40K" and "Superheavies in 40K" rumor may be infact be because of this rule actually.


----------



## mcmuffin

Zion said:


> Space Marines have 3 Landraider variants (and the Black Templars can make a whole army of them that are lanceproof!), the Necrons would get their Monolith souped back up again, Ork Battlewagons become even more useful (and they can take around 8 in a single list, so the Battlewagon rush just got nastier), and Imperial Guard just got better Leman Russ variants.
> 
> I'm beginning to think the "Apoc in 40K" and "Superheavies in 40K" rumor may be infact be because of this rule actually.


They can only take 4 battlewagons in an army maximum.

Also the rulebook art looks meh


----------



## Zion

mcmuffin said:


> They can only take 4 battlewagons in an army maximum.
> 
> Also the rulebook art looks meh


Take two Warbosses, Two Nob Mobs as Troops with Battlewagon Dedicated Transports, 3 units of Nobs with Battlewagon Dedicated Transports from the Elite Section and 3 Battlewagons from the Heavy Section. That's 8.


----------



## Karyudo-DS

mcmuffin said:


> Foot lists have well more than a fighting chance contrary to the opinion of the intertubes. Templars, deathwing, loganwing, footdar, the list goes on. Dont be fooled by internet idiots





Arcane said:


> Infantry are fine as they are now. Plenty of tournies are won with infantry lists. It's just the loudest minority gets heard on the internet who cry about not being able to take out a few rhinos.


Very true, with deepstrikes and DWA I've never really felt like I needed vehicles, beyond having reliable tank killing weapons beyond a couple Cyclones up front or assaults if I land close enough. I can see some good in this idea though. I've had pairs of Predators shooting each other for entire games killing nothing before. Have to see how this is written though.



mcmuffin said:


> Also the rulebook art looks meh


Yes indeed it does look awesome. 

Actually it sort of reminds me of 3rd ed. Not entirely sure. Also doesn't look to terrible to me, though I guess with the covers as of late maybe this just seems like an improvement to me.


----------



## Zion

Karyudo-DS said:


> Actually it sort of reminds me of 3rd ed. Not entirely sure. Also doesn't look to terrible to me, though I guess with the covers as of late maybe this just seems like an improvement to me.


Huh...now that you mention it, it does kind of seem like a throwback to the older editions. I like that since it gives you a bigger feeling of something epic than the lone hammer.


----------



## Crimson Shadow

I had a random thought today:

If, in 6th edition, power weapons grant a 5++ in close combat, did regular Grey Knights just get even better?

i.e., The Nemesis sword increases the invulnerable save by 1 in close combaat. And power weapons grant a 5+ invulnerable, therefor does every Grey Knight now have a 4++ in CC?


----------



## Zion

Crimson Shadow said:


> I had a random thought today:
> 
> If, in 6th edition, power weapons grant a 5++ in close combat, did regular Grey Knights just get even better?
> 
> i.e., The Nemesis sword increases the invulnerable save by 1 in close combaat. And power weapons grant a 5+ invulnerable, therefor does every Grey Knight now have a 4++ in CC?


We'll have to wait to see how that works. It might be a fixed parry save sort of deal.


----------



## Karyudo-DS

Zion said:


> Huh...now that you mention it, it does kind of seem like a throwback to the older editions. I like that since it gives you a bigger feeling of something epic than the lone hammer.


Well the advantage of the hammer was that it seemed to very obviously be the rulebook, or at least not a codex as it's image was more iconic than scenic. Though I still think I like this one more.


----------



## Eleven

an invuln save for power weapons would make them more on par wiht the power fist. right now the fist is the better option usually. unless of course the fist gets the save too.


----------



## Cheexsta

Crimson Shadow said:


> I had a random thought today:
> 
> If, in 6th edition, power weapons grant a 5++ in close combat, did regular Grey Knights just get even better?
> 
> i.e., The Nemesis sword increases the invulnerable save by 1 in close combaat. And power weapons grant a 5+ invulnerable, therefor does every Grey Knight now have a 4++ in CC?


It's no more likely than power fists (and anything else that is treated as a power weapon with extra rules) getting it.

It sounds like _only_ power weapons will be gaining the 5++ save. Since close combat weapons are gaining AP values, it seems very unlikely that _any_ weapon in the rulebook will continue to "count as" or be "treated like" a power weapon, as they'd all be able to have their own individual statline.


----------



## mcmuffin

Zion said:


> Take two Warbosses, Two Nob Mobs as Troops with Battlewagon Dedicated Transports, 3 units of Nobs with Battlewagon Dedicated Transports from the Elite Section and 3 Battlewagons from the Heavy Section. That's 8.


Derp, i'm an idiot, i thought only 1 nob mob could do it


----------



## mcmuffin

What i was told was that force weapons =/= power weapons, they will have their own entry


----------



## Fhadhq

Wax said:


> Thought you guys might like this. Salt to taste.


Nice to see the 1st Legion on it. :so_happy:
Pretty colorful compared the the previous editions.


----------



## Zion

mcmuffin said:


> Derp, i'm an idiot, i thought only 1 nob mob could do it


About the only thing I can think of that has a limit like that are the 'Ard Boyz, maybe you were thinking of them?


----------



## mcmuffin

Zion said:


> About the only thing I can think of that has a limit like that are the 'Ard Boyz, maybe you were thinking of them?


Nope, i'm just a fucking idiot


----------



## boreas

mcmuffin said:


> What i was told was that force weapons =/= power weapons, they will have their own entry


Force weapons might get AP2 and a 4++ save? Of course, that would be "upped" to a 3++ on the Nemesis Force Sword. I can't see why my purifiers would be unfair, with their halberd making them Ini 6 with a 3+/4++ save?  

All in all, it'll be fun to play a "whole new game"!


----------



## Karyudo-DS

mcmuffin said:


> What i was told was that force weapons =/= power weapons, they will have their own entry


Well they're currently under the Psyker entry because of the test and all, wouldn't imagine they would depart from that too much, maybe list it with the other weapons.



mcmuffin said:


> Nope, i'm just a fucking idiot


Well the first step on the road to recovery...is smashing your head into a brick wall, you can barrow my wall.:so_happy:

Curious about close combat weapons getting an AP though...sort of makes sense that I could cut through an Ork with a chainsaw like it was butter but the term CCW is generic as far as I know...unless it was something like a number minus strength or something.


----------



## SilverTabby

It also makes sense of the Sisters list, where the Sister Superiors all have the option to purchase chainswords. 

Just lends weight to my emphasis on everything from GKs onwards being written with the 6th rules more or less finalised. 

I'd expect several more strange things to suddenly become much clearer and better.


----------



## nevynxxx

So up thread there was a little bit of a spreadhsheet posted that had an entry for "Cut and past facebook status" as part of the build up from nowish.... I'm thinking we are seeing these now... 



Bury Store on Facebook said:


> +++++++ incoming message +++++++
> ++ Planet Designation M41:137:39 ++
> .........
> ..
> +++++++ Mission Directive +++++++
> +++ Secure Planetary Resources +++
> ++++++++ Incoming Xenos +++++++


So:

1) Is buryjust making stuff up?
2) If not, are all stores posting the same things?
3) If not, is someone keeping track of them all to collate?
4) Do we know which planet that is?


----------



## Troublehalf

Apparently Dark angels are 'getting something very exciting for 2-3 months time'. So, 23rd June is when preorders go live and 30th is when you get them dispatched.

All very interesting, I love reading rule books just for fun.


----------



## Akhara'Keth

When you look close at the picture you can identify the last two words as "only war". Since GW prints "in the grim darkness of the far future blablabla" only on the rulebook and not on Codices, I'm pretty sure that it is the rulebook cover.


----------



## The Sturk

I'm not a fan of the supposed Power Weapon change, for reasons already mentioned. Termies, Meganobs and Pallys will become even harder to kill in CC. Granted, my army doesn't deal too much with CC, and having my Overlords withstand power attacks would be nice, but has a whole, its just a bad idea. I also hope that this 5++ is only used in CC.


----------



## Zion

Added the cover to the first post. We should really see something by Wens-Friday I think if they usual White Dwarfs that hit early occur again. But I can always be wrong, so we'll have to wait and see.


----------



## MadCowCrazy

This thread has become quite large so I'm copying the first post into a new thread so we can continue the discussions anew since there will be allot to talk about in a not too distant future :crazy:

New thread here : http://www.heresy-online.net/forums/showthread.php?t=112303


----------

