6th ed rumors

[Bikeninja]

I agree, there does not seem to be anything simple about the changes mentioned. While I understand many of the elements are completely unknown it still seems to be on the difficult side of things. It may be simplier but GW does not have a reputation for great rules writing. Get ready for some more rules lawyering in the extreme.

[DrLove42]

The physcis power stamdarisation works in fantasy (for the magic) but would be horrific in 40K. When Rune Priests start casting Doom and Farseers can use JotWW I think its time to quit...

[rev]

Now I'm not a usual rumor monger but I heard this from a friend that got it off a reliable site:



Take it with a pinch of salt as I hear the original poster likes to make things up, but otherwise this is all true! Your welcome ^_^


(yes, this is a joke post)

lol love this humour, made me chuckle

[Anggul]

I'm absolutely loving the looks of this.

There's only one thing I'm not liking the sound of, and that's the weakening of cover and making foot-sloggers even worse. Cover is a massive deal in combat, and I think lessening that is an absolutely terrible idea. The only way I can see this being okay is if going to ground makes you pretty much invulnerable to enemy fire which isn't specifically designed to kill guys in cover. If you get down behind cover, there isn't a 50% chance that the enemy will hit you, it will be next to impossible for them to hit you without the right weaponry, e.g. grenade launchers, flamers, that sort of thing. A squad of guys which has taken position in terrain would be a hell of a lot harder to damage than a box driving at you through the open.

Transports should make you faster and able to cross the open more safely. What they should not be is utterly necessary for a unit to do anything. Squads running through terrain and squads in transports crossing open spaces should have their own place, transports should not just be superior.

Also, it just massively favours MEQ.

[DrLove42]

Cover doesn't need fixing. What needs fixing is peoples understanding of it. I've seen people play barbed wire and low bushes as 4+ saves. They're not! There is a whole section of the rules explainign different covers give different saves!

Its not as complex as 4th Ed was with size class cover, but it doens't say everything is a 4+

Maybe the "sacrificial meat shield" of 4+ cover save needs to be changed...maybe say the ones that are "saved" hit the squad in fron thats conferring the cover save?

[Xas]

if we are doing the cover discussion I'd like to add the following line of thought:

why does cover work as a saving trow?

why does a piece of concrete or a treetrunk protect you from 2/3 of the bullets but the 3rd (or 10th depending on how you roll) suddenly gets trough?



If we are looking at E5 it works cause the game is designed to be simple and fast (bar wound allocation) but if you go more complex I think cover should be a to hit modifier that makes stationary guys in hard cover as hard to hit as moving guys in light cover (say moving and light cover both giving -1 and hard cover -2).

going to ground then would be the thing granting you some kind of save. either by a charackteristics test (initiative seams logical) or a plain x+ (prolly depending on type of cover) but importantly: each model only has to make one of those rolls once a turn to sucessfully jump into cover and preventing all damage from cover-allowing wounds (those failing would have to use their normal saves).


this would make armor saves under 3+ more important as you'd not miraculously not use it cause you are in cover and by doing that make AP weapons more important (which easily would counteract the boost to 3+ and 2+). While this would make shooting appear more deadly it would mean that close combat/special weapons would be more important to clear objectives since saturation of fire wouldnt be the be-all-end-all of getting guys outa cover if they go to ground.

[HsojVvad]

This just seems completely at odds with the "simplify, simplify" mindset as of late.

Who says GW has to "simplify"? I am getting sick and tired of "simplify" "streamline" "making it easier for the common gamer" in video games it's getting tiresome to have this in table games as well.

I for one would love to have more complexity in games. So maybe GW is trying to do something different after "streamlining" 40K for 3 edtions they are trying something different now. AFter all if the game is too streamlined how are you going to keep all those ADD kids that GW has brought in? Maybe they finally realize that their customer base they brought it is no longer sustaining GW in the long run and they are tyring to bring back the people who will sustain GW in the long run now and not short term anymore.

[DrLove42]

if we are doing the cover discussion I'd like to add the following line of thought:

why does cover work as a saving trow?

why does a piece of concrete or a treetrunk protect you from 2/3 of the bullets but the 3rd (or 10th depending on how you roll) suddenly gets trough?

The thing is "cover" is a pretty broad area of "saves". It mostly encompasses stuff getting the way of the bullets yes.

But is also cover targets being hard to hit, because they're hidden, or too small.
In the case of Ork Nob bikers it covers being hard to see because of all the smoke
In Jetbikes its because you are moving too fast.

The idea of taking one cover "save" and therefore automatically passing the rest is ridiculous. I could cuase 40 wounds on 1 guy alone, and just cos he passes one save hes not damaged by the rest? That would be some gamebreaking its unreal.

As for Initiative tests for dodging bullets, that'd be great for the Eldar's of the world with Initiatives rarely below 4, and commonly higher, but for Orks and other things they'd just be screwed

[Defenestratus]

I personally feel that all these 6th ed rumors are rubbish.

Its not coming out until the end of 2012 at the earliest.

[eldargal]

Well it hs a longer development cycle so early leaks could be occurring. But I do have my doubts about these. GW tend to be very conservative with th BRB, with good reason. If they mess up a codex its upsetting for those players but hardly the end of the world. If they mess up a BRB, its a disaster, people could just stop playing and buying completely.


I do worry aboutthe psychic powers thing, if five general types means 'damage buff, defense buff, direct damage, debuff, heal/repair' with each codex having its own version of each, then no problem. If it means Eldar, Imperium, Ork, Chaos, whatever, then that is fine. But if Librarians/Sorcerors/whatever are casting the same spells as my Farseer and vice versa, then that is offensive to me. If I wanted a game where all the races were just variations on a theme and did the same things in much the same way I wouldn't be playing 40k.