Results 1 to 19 of 19

Thread: Possible 6e changes?

  1. #1

    Possible 6e changes?

    I haven't read the Necron codex, but I think that perhaps that one and GK WERE designed with 6e in mind.

    Thinking on that, here's things I think we might see:
    1) Different types of Power Weapons giving different bonuses (Spears +1I, Axes +1S, Sword 6+ Inv save, Hammers as now, etc).
    2) Rending on 4+
    3) DECENT Rapid Fire Weapons
    4) Weakened Cover and Transports
    5) Force Weapons no longer cause Instant Death

    PS. Has anyone ever thought that using the Fantasy rules for determining cover would be pretty damn good for 40k?

    PPS. Anyone want to see Kill-Team and Combat Patrol rules in the book? Sort of a "get started in the game" set of rules?

  2. #2
    Chapter Master RandomThoughts's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Munich, Germany
    Posts
    2,481

    Re: Possible 6e changes?

    Quote Originally Posted by Forsworn View Post
    I haven't read the Necron codex, but I think that perhaps that one and GK WERE designed with 6e in mind.
    We all assume they are.

    Thinking on that, here's things I think we might see:
    1) Different types of Power Weapons giving different bonuses (Spears +1I, Axes +1S, Sword 6+ Inv save, Hammers as now, etc).
    2) Rending on 4+
    That one seems farfetched. Why do you think it will?

    3) DECENT Rapid Fire Weapons
    Generally rumored

    4) Weakened Cover and Transports
    5+ standard cover as in previous editions rumored

    5) Force Weapons no longer cause Instant Death

    PS. Has anyone ever thought that using the Fantasy rules for determining cover would be pretty damn good for 40k?
    You mean to hit modifiers? 40K used them until 2nd edition, and a lot of people I know wish they would come back.

    PPS. Anyone want to see Kill-Team and Combat Patrol rules in the book? Sort of a "get started in the game" set of rules?
    I'd love that, but that's more wishlisting than rumor speculation.
    Last edited by RandomThoughts; 18-11-2011 at 13:34.
    Heritage: My Captain Anisha Nemo Warmachine Fiction
    My Warmachine Introduction Guide (Tactica Collection)
    My Battle Report Archive


    Quote Originally Posted by Wishing View Post
    (in Warmachine) Each model is part of a puzzle, which together makes a weapon that you use to break apart your opponent's puzzle.

  3. #3
    Veteran Sergeant
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Montreal, QC, Canada
    Posts
    110

    Re: Possible 6e changes?

    Necrons codex was written with 6th edition in mind for sure, can't tell for GK didn't read it yet.

    It you look the BA codex for exemple, Astorath and Seth, there weapon said they hit at a specific Stregth... They can't get the strength bonus for Furious Charge per example.

    I suspect that the 6th edition FAQ will provide, that an 2h axe per example is +2S for "old" codex like the relic Blade of the Marine.
    Necrons Warschythe, it specificially say it provide a +2S bonus.
    Last edited by Badruk; 18-11-2011 at 12:31.
    Blood Angels painting soon...

  4. #4

    Re: Possible 6e changes?

    I've just realised that the necron Monolith's teleportation ability says that the unit is treated "as disembarking from a vehicle that moved at COMBAT speed"

    Maybe this has sense on 6th and units can charge from a monolith portal (fingers crossed... )
    Dwarfs: 4W - 1D - 3L / Old book: 4W - 1D - 0L
    Wood Elves: 1W - 0D - 0L / Old book: 3W - 1D - 4L
    Tomb Kings: 4W - 3D- 8L
    (Skaven: 4W - 1D - 0L (Army sold))
    Sisters of Battle: 2W - 0D - 1L
    Necrons: 2W - 0D - 0L / (5th: 3W - 3D - 1L)
    (Tyranids: 6th: 1W - 0D - 0L / 5th: 9W - 4D - 9L (Army sold))

  5. #5

    Re: Possible 6e changes?

    Quote Originally Posted by Forsworn View Post
    I haven't read the Necron codex, but I think that perhaps that one and GK WERE designed with 6e in mind.

    Thinking on that, here's things I think we might see:
    1) Different types of Power Weapons giving different bonuses (Spears +1I, Axes +1S, Sword 6+ Inv save, Hammers as now, etc).
    2) Rending on 4+
    3) DECENT Rapid Fire Weapons
    4) Weakened Cover and Transports
    5) Force Weapons no longer cause Instant Death

    PS. Has anyone ever thought that using the Fantasy rules for determining cover would be pretty damn good for 40k?

    PPS. Anyone want to see Kill-Team and Combat Patrol rules in the book? Sort of a "get started in the game" set of rules?
    1: because of GKs? i think thats more a case of, in an army where everyone has a force weapon they had to give alt wargear some incentive. they wouldnt bother for the whole of 40k because a power weapon is general unique enough to appeal as a single profile

    2: Oh i'd both love and hate that! but again, why do u think this?

    3: yeah, cant wait for this if its happening

    4: again, why? just because warseer talked about it? weakened cover would be nice. I dont see gw really nerfing transports that badly, it'd lose them money.

    5: again, why, what evidence do you have? also, if they dont cause ID then what will they do?

    ps. yes, but recently decided it'd be annoying and bad. there is alot more shooting in 40k compared to fantasy, its also easier to get your armor save against that shooting. these BS modifer stack up quickly and hitting things often becomes very very hard, marines hitting on 5+s and orks never hitting doesnt sound much fun to me. This isn't a problem in fantasy because combat tends to be more important, there is also magic to chip in (more so then psychic powers right now) and they have an armour save system that makes low firepower high strength range attacks still very effective despite the difficulty to hit

    tl:dr the additional importance of shooting in 40k would cause issues if fantasy cover rules were directly ported over

    pps: Yes, but not as a get started deal, if they made it like that it'd be kinda lame
    Quote Originally Posted by Sarevok View Post
    use Grey Knight rules but with nid models
    And you people complain about Chaos space wolf proxies

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Derby, England
    Posts
    212

    Re: Possible 6e changes?

    urghh, i seriously hope they dont start making close combat weapons that change stat lines...that would make me a sad panda

  7. #7

    Re: Possible 6e changes?

    er, they already do, its jsut not on a 40k wide basis

    we have +2 s relic blades

    some DE stuff that grants extra attacks

    a whole host of GK stuff

    many of the old tyranid biomorphs

    ETC ETC
    Quote Originally Posted by Sarevok View Post
    use Grey Knight rules but with nid models
    And you people complain about Chaos space wolf proxies

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Derby, England
    Posts
    212

    Re: Possible 6e changes?

    a codex here and there i'm fine with. I just dont want it to become an integral part of 40k where every codex start to have a load of weapons that start messing around with stat lines.

  9. #9
    Chapter Master AlphariusOmegon20's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Chicago IL
    Posts
    2,787
    I'd look for FOC to change to percentages like 8th did, and a return to armor modifiers instead of AP.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    "From the fires of betrayal, Unto the blood of revenge, We bring the word of Lorgar, The Bearer of the Word, The favored son of Chaos; All praise be given unto him, For those that would not heed, We offer praise to those that do, That they might turn their gaze our way, And gift us with the boon of pain, To turn the galaxy red with blood, and feed the hunger of the Gods." - Excerpt of the 341st book of the Epistles of Lorgar.

    Waaagh! Gutzag - my first 40K Plog

  10. #10
    Chapter Master Korraz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Austria
    Posts
    3,245

    Re: Possible 6e changes?

    I'm all for Strength Modifiers instead of AP, but that would have to be part of a complete relaunch, and I fear that's not gonna happen.

    What I COULD see happening:

    -New Missions
    -KP dropped again
    -Vehicles weakened again, to what extent is unpredictable
    -New Vehicle Type: Heavy
    -Random Terrain Tables
    -Emphasize on "small terrain" (Tank Traps, Mine Fields, etc...), complete with All New And Exciting plastic kits
    -Flyers

    and some arbitrary changes for changes' sake.

  11. #11

    Re: Possible 6e changes?

    Quote Originally Posted by The Marshel View Post
    1: because of GKs? i think thats more a case of, in an army where everyone has a force weapon they had to give alt wargear some incentive. they wouldnt bother for the whole of 40k because a power weapon is general unique enough to appeal as a single profile
    Hopefully. I just figure that if they spent the time making things different, maybe it'll catch on in 6e? Or maybe there'll be a specific part in 6e about this in the rule book? It'd be fun, at least.
    2: Oh i'd both love and hate that! but again, why do u think this?
    Crowe. His rules state that he has Rending, but it happens on a 4+. My thought is that they did this so he would be useful (no offense, but a combat character with no ability to pierce armor in melee would be BAD), or that they plan to change rending in this way. My HOPE is that it's the latter.
    4: again, why? just because warseer talked about it? weakened cover would be nice. I dont see gw really nerfing transports that badly, it'd lose them money.
    Because some models are not being used (aka, not selling) because of the prevalence of cover. GW wants them to sell, so they make cover as it was before, and this makes those models useful again. You can't tell me there aren't things you leave at home because cover renders them less than useful.
    5: again, why, what evidence do you have? also, if they dont cause ID then what will they do?
    That all GK have force weapons. There's no way that people play-tested this in 5e and thought it was balanced. My thought is that they put id down the way it was in 6e and made it as such. My thought was double wounds and power weapons when you activate them. Basically, before you make attacks you activate them; if you make it, your weapons count as power weapons and deal double damage. If you fail they count as CCW.
    ps. yes, but recently decided it'd be annoying and bad. there is alot more shooting in 40k compared to fantasy, its also easier to get your armor save against that shooting. these BS modifer stack up quickly and hitting things often becomes very very hard, marines hitting on 5+s and orks never hitting doesnt sound much fun to me. This isn't a problem in fantasy because combat tends to be more important, there is also magic to chip in (more so then psychic powers right now) and they have an armour save system that makes low firepower high strength range attacks still very effective despite the difficulty to hit
    I meant the rules for SETTING UP. The ones that say to roll D6+4 and that's the amount of cover you have. This would add a bit of randomness to the cover, and would make things more interesting. The AS modifiers and to-hit modifiers would represent more realism. They'd have to be tweaked, but it could be done. A direct import would DEFINITELY be a horrible idea, but we could probably add something similar that worked.

    pps: Yes, but not as a get started deal, if they made it like that it'd be kinda lame
    I meant like, to attract people. Basically a way to play that doesn't require 3-4 hours of time, so people can get intot he game easier. It's far better to get them hooked quick, than to convince them to "try out" the game for 4-5 hours.
    Last edited by Forsworn; 18-11-2011 at 18:58.

  12. #12
    Chapter Master Vepr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Southern US
    Posts
    1,877

    Re: Possible 6e changes?

    Any changes to cover could have big impacts. Footslogging armies are already at a disadvantage and taking away a point of cover saves for them is not going to make things better. No one seems to believe they are going to nerf transports so I don't see how they are going to strengthen foot armies unless they have no plans to even bother which is a possibility.

    Orks are about due for a new codex after 6th so they could get adjustments there to make up for the issues they have with footslogging. Everyone including GW seems to have written off nids so they might just be conceding that nids are gonna suck until they get another codex in about 3 or 4 years. We could be in for another mech meta which has its good and bad points.
    It is better to have a gun and not need it rather than need a gun and not have it.

  13. #13
    Chapter Master Spiney Norman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    The Macu Peaks
    Posts
    9,301

    Re: Possible 6e changes?

    Quote Originally Posted by Vepr View Post
    Any changes to cover could have big impacts. Footslogging armies are already at a disadvantage and taking away a point of cover saves for them is not going to make things better. No one seems to believe they are going to nerf transports so I don't see how they are going to strengthen foot armies unless they have no plans to even bother which is a possibility.

    Orks are about due for a new codex after 6th so they could get adjustments there to make up for the issues they have with footslogging. Everyone including GW seems to have written off nids so they might just be conceding that nids are gonna suck until they get another codex in about 3 or 4 years. We could be in for another mech meta which has its good and bad points.
    A relatively small change to transports could make all the difference, for example increasing the risk by having wounds caused by being inside an exploding transport ignore armour saves, or disallowing troops from shooting on the turn they disembark etc. In actual fact the biggest issue with transports isn't how they function its how cheap they are, but doubling the pts cost of Rhinos and Chimeras (which is what needs to happen) isn't something you can do from the core rules.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ozendorph View Post
    Oh man, that article is awesome. The writer is basically saying, "You can use these new rules to create terrible combinations that fly in the face of the background we've been developing for decades. It's a really bad idea, and I'm not sure why we're printing it. You'd best ignore it if you want to keep your friends. I am deeply sorry."

  14. #14

    Re: Possible 6e changes?

    Quote Originally Posted by Vepr View Post
    Any changes to cover could have big impacts. Footslogging armies are already at a disadvantage and taking away a point of cover saves for them is not going to make things better. No one seems to believe they are going to nerf transports so I don't see how they are going to strengthen foot armies unless they have no plans to even bother which is a possibility.

    Orks are about due for a new codex after 6th so they could get adjustments there to make up for the issues they have with footslogging. Everyone including GW seems to have written off nids so they might just be conceding that nids are gonna suck until they get another codex in about 3 or 4 years. We could be in for another mech meta which has its good and bad points.
    Early rumors were saying the infantry could march 12", making it as fast as most transports. 18" for units with Fleet.

    Take that and simply make the transport actually dangerous to be into (as in, not "OH NOES, my unit take some S3 hits for having its raider vaporised by a demolisher cannon!") and you've got rules that make footslogging worth it. Still not as resilient as Mech, but an actual alternative.
    Quote Originally Posted by Theocracity View Post
    "When presented with multiple explanations for a new piece of content, the most likely answer is the one intentionally designed to make you, personally, angry."

    I'm going to provisionally call this 'Draigo's Razor.'

  15. #15

    Re: Possible 6e changes?

    What I think I see possibly happening, is that there was a rumour about separating weapons into types that get bonuses or penalties depending on their type of target. I think that would wildly rock the boat on the meta-game, as currently people are able to use their anti-tank weapons as effective anti-infantry weapons. by applying bonuses/penalties, and at same time turning down the whole cover-save thing, I believe we will see fewer anti-tank type weapons, in favour of more actual anti-infantry weapons. Vehicles will be taking less shots, but would that would be off-set due to anti-tank weapons recieving possible bonuses. Turning down the cover-saves would also start making what type of armour a troop model is wearing way more important. Currently it is too easy to get a 4+ cover save from one thing or another, thus making the AP value of many weapons mean nothing 80% of the time.

  16. #16
    Commander Borgnine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    556

    Re: Possible 6e changes?

    Quote Originally Posted by Korraz View Post
    I'm all for Strength Modifiers instead of AP, but that would have to be part of a complete relaunch, and I fear that's not gonna happen.

    What I COULD see happening:

    -New Missions
    -KP dropped again
    -Vehicles weakened again, to what extent is unpredictable
    -New Vehicle Type: Heavy
    -Random Terrain Tables
    -Emphasize on "small terrain" (Tank Traps, Mine Fields, etc...), complete with All New And Exciting plastic kits
    -Flyers

    and some arbitrary changes for changes' sake.
    Woah, wait a minute. Did I just read this right? Is somebody making sense here?
    WYSIWYG: When You're Sneaky It Wins You Games

  17. #17

    Re: Possible 6e changes?

    Quote Originally Posted by Korraz View Post
    I'm all for Strength Modifiers instead of AP, but that would have to be part of a complete relaunch, and I fear that's not gonna happen.

    What I COULD see happening:

    -New Missions
    -KP dropped again
    -Vehicles weakened again, to what extent is unpredictable
    -New Vehicle Type: Heavy
    -Random Terrain Tables
    -Emphasize on "small terrain" (Tank Traps, Mine Fields, etc...), complete with All New And Exciting plastic kits
    -Flyers

    and some arbitrary changes for changes' sake.
    Yeah in addition it wouldn't shock me to see some sort of special save for ICs and MCs againist remove from game effects. As well as counterattack being nerfed maybe attacking at -1 I.

    Quote Originally Posted by Vepr View Post
    Any changes to cover could have big impacts. Footslogging armies are already at a disadvantage and taking away a point of cover saves for them is not going to make things better. No one seems to believe they are going to nerf transports so I don't see how they are going to strengthen foot armies unless they have no plans to even bother which is a possibility.

    Orks are about due for a new codex after 6th so they could get adjustments there to make up for the issues they have with footslogging. Everyone including GW seems to have written off nids so they might just be conceding that nids are gonna suck until they get another codex in about 3 or 4 years. We could be in for another mech meta which has its good and bad points.
    The main rule that I could see making footslogging lists viable was the rumoured mission rules where you would get points for holding an objective for turn, which would really boost static units.

  18. #18
    Chapter Master Vepr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Southern US
    Posts
    1,877

    Re: Possible 6e changes?

    Quote Originally Posted by althathir View Post
    The main rule that I could see making footslogging lists viable was the rumoured mission rules where you would get points for holding an objective for turn, which would really boost static units.
    That could help but then again the main footslogging armies are not exactly known for their resilience. If an IG, SW, GK or DE army just has to sit back and erase groups of poorly armored boyz and gants as they sit on objectives I am not sure how much this would help. I guess it would be a question of whether or not the numbers of those armies can keep up with the firepower output of the other armies. I am not sure how that would play out really.
    It is better to have a gun and not need it rather than need a gun and not have it.

  19. #19

    Re: Possible 6e changes?

    Actually nerfing transports is good for business. All the people who sold/bought armies based on the Mech meta would have to update their armies and anyone new would buy more infantry. Then in 5-6 years with 7th edition they swing the other way again making people do the opposite. This is what happened in the 3rd to 4th to 5th change. First it was Rhino Rush then Infantry only now back to Rhinos.
    Last edited by Blackwolf; 21-11-2011 at 22:57.
    Imperial Gaurd 18,000 Orks 16,000 Marines 21,900
    Chaos Marines 7,800 Eldar 4,500 Dark Eldar 3,200
    Tau 3,700 Tyranids 7,500 Sisters Of Battle 2,500
    Daemons 4,000
    Painted

Posting Permissions

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