6th ed rumors

[Galadren]

- new turn sequence: prepare-movement-assault-shooting-consolidate
new phase “consolidate” phase for random movements, jetpack movements, pursuits, morale checks/effects and resolving shooting reactions
assault before shooting – big units are real roadblocks!<<

I don't like that, really. What I don't like is the assault before shooting. I know "realistic" isn't a term we like to use a lot with this game given that it isn't, but I think shooting then assault reflects a unit firing their weapons as they close with the enemy before charging. Personal opinion, though.

Taking these rumors with this much salt.

[slxiii]

Complete horse****. When's the last time you had rumours for books that are still a year out?

[Kawauso]

Complete horse****. When's the last time you had rumours for books that are still a year out?

A rule book for the game itself will take much more work, by more people, over a much longer period of time than a single codex.

[Dalleron]

I like how the Chaos Legions codex wouldn't "invalidate" the current codex. But really, who'd use the current one if a Legion one came out tomorrow?

[Kawauso]

I don't like that, really. What I don't like is the assault before shooting. I know "realistic" isn't a term we like to use a lot with this game given that it isn't, but I think shooting then assault reflects a unit firing their weapons as they close with the enemy before charging. Personal opinion, though.

I'm wary of a change like this, too.
But I don't imagine they would want to invalidate the already-minor shooting ability of units like Assault Marines (i.e. you're never going to buy flamers, etc. if you can't use them before an assault), so I imagine assault/pistol weapons would likely have some way of mattering in the assault phase, anyway, if these rumours are true.

Perhaps an out-of-sequence firing rule for such weapons, or some other way that they can impact on an assault.

[DarkLink]

Fearless ICs had better extend fearless to their unit in 6th.

[Galadren]

Fearless ICs had better extend fearless to their unit in 6th.

I agree with that completely. I think IC's should extend special rules to their squads in general as it would reflect their superior leadership and ability to pass on their expertise to the troops they lead.

[slxiii]

A rule book for the game itself will take much more work, by more people, over a much longer period of time than a single codex.

Which is one of many reasons why this is BS. You think the book is finished right now? If it was, very few people would have this kind of info.

[C.of.N.finity]

I don't think pistols will be considered CCW's anymore, but I think you will be allowed to shoot your assualt weapons while in combat. Gives a new meaning to 'assualt' weapons, and would level out the attack lost for pistols. Storm bolters and the like...could be interesting.

[Kawauso]

Which is one of many reasons why this is BS. You think the book is finished right now? If it was, very few people would have this kind of info.

The lengthy development cycle leaves more time for rumours to be leaked, and in greater quantity.
And as I said before, -more- people would be working on a rulebook as opposed to a codex - which means more people would have that kind of info, not less.

Barring adjustments from playtesting (which would be largely minor), yes, the book would be finished by about now if it's intended to come out next year, I would think.
The framework for 6th would have to be nailed down by now, by and large. Anything else would be risking feature creep. It takes a long time to iron out the kinks in a design, and that's what the time between now and a supposed next-year release would be for - playtesting and removing minor errors that crop up. This time would -not- be used for making any major changes to the rules/design.

I'm taking these rumours with a grain of salt like everyone else, of course - but there's too much detailed information here, all presented too reasonably, for me to discount them as false very easily. I'd say they're more true than false, and probably pretty close to what we might see in the next rulebook (barring elaboration on the details, of course).