6th ed rumors

[Xas]

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!

as you are allocating wounds after rolling all saves yes you could be as reatarded as that and have 4 nobbikers killed by 5 failed saving trows.

or you could remove two of them as casualties and have one lose one wound just as any non-complex unit would do under 5th edition.

it isnt an issue for multi wound models but only for wound allocation shenanigans.

[Xas]

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.

how's that a boost to DE gun boats? or do you mean "just not as bad for DE as for the rest"?

i dont see the 2 more shots my splinter cannon gets (useing the heavy6 over the assoult 4 mode after mofing my vehicle into range) as any way of compensation the 24" loss of range of said cannon

[Ataraxean]

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.

Ifyou mean 'boon' instead of bone then yeah, nightshields would LOVE that 12 inch rule. But its a minor boost. I noticed it, but since I was looking at vehicle survivability, it didn't seem relevant. There's a lot in that rumor dump. Hard to comment on it all.

But from an IG standpoint I never felt particularly good about firing autocannons/lascannons from the hatch of a Chimera anyway. The realism end of that bugged me.

And 12 inches still lets melta and plasma do their thing, whcih was most of what I had spitting out of there anyway.

[harveydent]

i used to do game company testing, and what this looks like is a massive conglomeration of possible changes, new ideas, and tweaks to the current system. it all looks very 'preliminary.'

there are things that seem like they would make good additions to the game.

there are things that come off as being pretty drastically different than what we have now.

i don't think anyone at GW is bad enough of a game designer/developer that they would include such a wide morass of junk in a single rules set.

i'm pretty sure these are all mechanics that were to be tested for the new edition, the best of which (and the ones being the most intuitive) might make it through the gauntlet.

[MoonFever]

I don't know...I've read through these rumors and though I agree that a lot of these fly in the face of the path GW seemed to be taking with 40K since 2nd edition, they have piqued my interest. After first review, I can't say which ones sound more bonkers than the others, because there are a lot of rules that seem to impact other areas, and need to be taken in altogether.

But honestly, think about this: GW to continue to make money has to get new people into the hobby, or bring back old players, or pique existing players to buiy more stuff. There is only so far you can go with existing armies...I think that is one of the worries with Warmachine/Hordes...how much more can they realistically add without collapsing into a heap of brokenness? If they dynamically change the rules, it could benefit them twofold: Older players that have left since 2nd ed, or since they started playing other games, give 40K another chance. New players see a more dynamic game system. All a game has to do is get more players back than they lose...just look at M:tG....

Honestly, any change that eliminates the potential for leafblower armies is good in my book...

[LordDave]

I'm not an expert on 40k and this is my first post here, but this is how it looks to me:

>Fundamentals:
>characteristic tests as normal,
>if unit must make test, it is made by squad leader
>...
>Majority characteristic: characteristic-value with most wounds in unit, if draw, use the higher

This is dumb. Ld test made by the guy with the most wounds, not the highest Ld?

>instant effect: count as being flyer for shooting, opposing player can make 6” consolidation move with the unit

This breaks a fundamental of 40k. Opposing player never needs to touch your models. The last thing I want is
someones cheezit fingers on my freshly painted artwork.

>who: (disembarked) units with Overwatch

GW is not going to bring back overwatch.

>jetbikes: 10”, ignore terrain*, flat out

if infantry move 6, jetbikes will move 12" ...duh.

>Every time when something is measured from the squad leader, or he has to make a test for the unit,
>but the unit has no leader anymore, the opposing player can choose one model for this purpose

pointless and dumb?

overall if 6th is going to have an increase in complexity, it won't be this mixed up bunch of old rules come back.
and will still be much more streamlined than all this jumble of rules.

[Ataraxean]

Honestly, any change that eliminates the potential for leafblower armies is good in my book...

As long as the changes don't take the game to far in that direction. A rules set that marginalizes shooting based armies in favor of assault armies would be just as bad as the opposite (which does not describe 5th Ed BTW).

The game could use a bit of tweaking away from mech, but not a complete overreaction. Mech Guard is a rough matchup right now depending on list design, but not an unbeatable one. I've got a buddy who made the Hard Boyz finals with mech guard last year who, like me, has been in the game rolling Guard as his main army since 2nd ed.

I've seen his 2,500 list drawn/beaten by foot Orks and 'Nids, and I've personally tabled him with Wolves. There's a fine balance between shooting and assault (with much of that in the terrain setup/rules). As long as they don't break it too far in either direction things should be fine.

[CPK]

After reading the top part, im quite confused. it he hated the company and had already left it, why would he even bother to get the 6th edition rule rumors. and who would he persuade, to give him that much "rule changes?" anyways, im taking those things with extreme amounts of salt. how did "streamlined" 5th edition become so that confusing.

either the guy is pissed off that he got fired from GW for trying to do something his way, or he's jealous that someone else took the job he wanted.

[Ataraxean]

>Fundamentals:
>characteristic tests as normal,
>if unit must make test, it is made by squad leader
>...
>Majority characteristic: characteristic-value with most wounds in unit, if draw, use the higher

This is dumb. Ld test made by the guy with the most wounds, not the highest Ld?

What it means is that if you have to take for example a toughness test and the unit has 4 one-wound models with T-3 and a single three-wound model with T-5, you use T-3 for the test, as you have 4 wounds of toughness 3 models and versus three wounds of toughness 5 models. Its pretty reasonable honestly, though a tiny bit more work than the current system.

Shouldn't apply for leadership checks as those should be made at squad leader's leadership. Otherwise whats the point.

[Denzark]

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.

Hang on fella. Have you come on first post and written off 2 other posters as fools?

IF I have read you right, why don't you take your 'clever' name and jog on back to warseer...