BoLS Lounge : Wargames, Warhammer & Miniatures Forum
Page 14 of 28 FirstFirst ... 4121314151624 ... LastLast
Results 131 to 140 of 278

Thread: 6th ed rumors

  1. #131

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Melissia View Post
    Or the rumors are probably just stupid BoK vomit.
    Most likely.

    I'd take anything that starts off with "As I am done with GW forever." with a rather large grain of salt... i.e. the size of a meteor.
    Armies - Skaven, Tomb Kings, Eldar, Iron Snakes, Dark Eldar, Retribution, & Legion
    Blog - http://chronowraith.blogspot.com

  2. #132
    Chapter-Master
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Norfolk (God's County)
    Posts
    4,522

    Default

    I hope this is bollocks...
    I'M RATHER DEFINATELY SURE FEMALE SPACE MARINES DEFINERTLEY DON'T EXIST.

  3. #133

    Default I call B.S. on this

    Honestly I think it's totally BS. Seriously. Someone who plays Flames of War decided to make up 40k rules that ran more like that game. I would be surprised if any of this is true.

  4. #134

    Default

    This is someone's unalatiral wet dream. I don't belive this for a second. BOK is getting desperate.

  5. #135

    Default

    Looks like some valid rumors mixed with (for lack of a better term) fan-wank.

    A few parts make sense, but then get extended to almost every other rule. Game length is increased at least 25% (probably more) and a good deal of that is just in the setup phase.

    The number of new rules seems very much against the recent history of GW of making things "simple".
    I'm thinking it'd probably turn out more like Daleks playing Quiddich. "It is the Potter!! EXTERMINATE! EXTERMINATE! " (someone I know on twitter)

  6. #136

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Xas View Post
    whoever said that this would give a boost to nobbikers prolly missed a tiny part:

    you remove all but one (1) model with less than its maximum wounds left from the game at the end of turn (ignoring ICs) so wound allocation is death with that rumor-rules.
    Quote Originally Posted by DrLove42 View Post
    Hang on...so if i have 5 individual Nob bikers...all tooled for wound alloc...

    And all of them get wounded...at the end of the turn 4 of them are removed?

    That is just retarded! Theres no point taking multiple wound models anymore!
    Fools.

    You can no longer allocate separate wounds to multiple wound models, so you cannot have multiple wound models that are running around at less-than-full health, yet able to do full damage.

    The new rules ignore wound allocation tooling, because all wounds are rolled as save groups, not wargear groups. As long as your models have the same saves, they are considered one group for the purposes of wound allocation.
    If your model has different wargear but the same saves, it is part of the group.
    If your model is a squad leader that has the same saves, it is part of the group.
    If your model is an independent character in shooting but has the same saves, it is part of the group.
    If your model is a character that has an invulnerable save that the rest of the squad does not, then it is not part of the group.

    We can probably assume that you still remove whole models from the same save group.
    If your models have different wargear but the same saves, you remove whole models.
    If your model is a squad leader that has the same saves, you remove whole models.
    If your model is an independent character in shooting but has the same saves, you remove the whole model.

    This means that you can no longer tool multiple wound models to abuse wound allocation.


    Goodbye, Paladins. Goodbye, Nob Bikers. Thank you for your cooperation, Carnifexi.

  7. #137

    Default

    OK, I had this thought as a way to see if this might be true:
    Maybe the point of comparison should be to compare WFB7 is to WFB8 as 40K5 is (will be to) 40K6?

    Make any sense?
    I'm thinking it'd probably turn out more like Daleks playing Quiddich. "It is the Potter!! EXTERMINATE! EXTERMINATE! " (someone I know on twitter)

  8. #138

    Default

    I'm not sure I believe a lot of whats in here. A lot of it is twisty, and at a glance moves game balance in all kinds of weird directions. On a personal level I'm repulsed by the idea of adding strategems and the biding system into the rule book. I've hated them in every supplement GW has put out because they've done a horrible horrible job of balancing them every time.

    That being said, tts interesting taking a look at some of the ups and downs that are buried in this. For example, the vehicle rules (relating to survivability).

    Cover saves for vehicles are down to a 5+ from a 4+ (assuming you're screening with less important vehicles). Penalty to survivability. No shock there

    Based on the To Hit chart, BS 4 will always hit vehicles moving at combat speed on a 2+. BS 3 will do it on a 3+. So vehicles will be taking significantly greater number of hits going forward. Another penalty to survivability (except flat out DE vehicles who are in high cotton). Okay.

    But them we look at the vehicle damage table. Based on the vehicle damage modifiers as I'm reading them, there's a -1 for being not AP1, and a minus 2 for being a glancing hit. So non-melta glances are at a net penalty of -3 (thats a lot of just cant shoot next turn). Non-melta pens have only a 1/6 chance of destroying on a pen. That's halves the chance of a vehicle getting krumped by a non-melta weapon right there. Boatloads of extra survivability. Bonus points again if you were running DE (no more open-topped penalty).

    My gut check without running the math is that vehicles are actually more survivable. Special winners being Dark Eldar, and to a certain extent, anything AV 14 that can shrug off more of that shooting. Not sure that's the right direction there. My Leman Russ Squadrons won't complain but I'm not sure its right.

    Also, I forsee a special hammering coming out for infantry based heavy weapons. Stationairy infantry take a beating on that to hit chart. And with crap all for cover saves too. If this is accurate anyway. My feeling. Not so much.

  9. #139

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ataraxean View Post
    My gut check without running the math is that vehicles are actually more survivable. Special winners being Dark Eldar, and to a certain extent, anything AV 14 that can shrug off more of that shooting. Not sure that's the right direction there. My Leman Russ Squadrons won't complain but I'm not sure its right.

    Also, I forsee a special hammering coming out for infantry based heavy weapons. Stationairy infantry take a beating on that to hit chart. And with crap all for cover saves too. If this is accurate anyway. My feeling. Not so much.

    You also forgot about embarked units only being able to shoot 12", but also become relentless. Agien a huge bone to Dark Eldar Gun Boats.

    But at the same time Floot Sloggers are faster then ever, and the ability to consolidate 3" after CC with a non-WS vehicle is a HUGE boost to assault based armies like nids and Orks.
    Warhammer 40k = Emperor's Children(CSM) and Orks.
    Brush Fire: Historia Rodentia= Aquitar, Vandalands, and Ribenguo.

  10. #140

    Default

    While the rumours may be bogus, what is wrong with having a bit of complexity into the game? Come on, Battletech for example has lots of charts, and complex rules and is lots of fun. Why can't we have a bit more complexity in 40K?

    To me the rumours if false looks very plausible. Now if they are bunk, and fake, just curious as to what is real by accident then? Only time will tell.
    What is the most important rule? That we should do whatever the hell we want, but preferably in the best interests of Games workshop when possible? :P Ill go with that

 

 
Page 14 of 28 FirstFirst ... 4121314151624 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •