Official WarSeer Warhammer 40,000 6th Edition discussion thread

[Theocracity]

Something I worry about is that a lot of people have been hoping that 6th will help out Infantry armies, and nerf transports. But at the same time, there's a big new focus on Flyers - something infantry would probably have a hard time dealing with. Unmounted infantry might be out of the frying pan, and into the fire.

[BramGaunt]

Well... as long as you don't have AA weapons... you ARE pretty screwed if you are on foot facing fliers. Also, all this "we boost infantry" is nothing but speculation at this time.

I can also see it being a huge disadvantage if you are in a flying transport and get shot down. After all, you are falling from the sky in a burning wreck (or what used to be a burning wreck), even Power armour would have a hard time saving you. (Also, I have the picture of falling Terminators in my minds eye, and one is stuck head down in the mud up to his waist, his Storm Bolter and Legs pointing out. "Little help...?")

[Eldoriath]

I also hope that the starter includes som terminators since that would bring my terminator count up beyond 50 ^^

@Edit
Awesome image there BramGaunt xD

But one boost for infantry could be that they all are counted as having AA mount, hitting on normal BS instead of only on 6s. Would be a huge boost for infantry to be very usefull. I mean, pintle mounted weapons used to count as being AA mounted...

[Souleater]

Something I worry about is that a lot of people have been hoping that 6th will help out Infantry armies, and nerf transports. But at the same time, there's a big new focus on Flyers - something infantry would probably have a hard time dealing with. Unmounted infantry might be out of the frying pan, and into the fire.

In 2nd Edition models could not assault skimmers. For HTH armies that was a real struggle.

After all, you are falling from the sky in a burning wreck (or what used to be a burning wreck), even Power armour would have a hard time saving you.

I imagine they will be killed outright. would certainly make the Necron 'redeploy the passengers' rule.

Although I expect Loyalist Marines will get a special rule that largely negates 'death by impact'....

[Theocracity]

In 2nd Edition models could not assault skimmers. For HTH armies that was a real struggle.




I imagine they will be killed outright. would certainly make the Necron 'redeploy the passengers' rule.

Although I expect Loyalist Marines will get a special rule that largely negates 'death by impact'....

I think it will come down to how they handle the distinction between Fighters, Bombers, Gunships and Transports. If the latter two have the option of behaving as Flyers or as fast skimmers, then there's probably little need to be rocketing around at Flyer speed with troops on board. You'd just be wasting time and putting your troops at risk for a crash. Cynicism aside, I don't think Marines would get special dispensation - a Stormraven is a gunship / transport, and thus designed to get stuck in, not strafe or bomb. Bombers (like the void raven) could focus on strafing at speed, fighters (like the Razorwing) would target other flyers or strafe, gunships (like the vendetta) hover and focus lots of weapons on ground troops, and AA guns take shots at the lot of them .

[Ragnar69]

A good friend of mine works in the FLGS and informed me that the German starter box will be available second week of June.

[Maxis Lithium]

Starter BOX or just the book? Perhaps the book and collector's edition thingy like last time. I'd be surprised if they don't do the book first and the starter box at GD UK.

[Wrath]

From BoLS:
"6th Edition
-Many of the general concepts from magic from Warhammer Fantasy are coming to Warhammer 40,000.
-There will be "lore equivalents"
-Psychic powers will be generated randomly by psykers (like fantasy)
-Entirely new rules for constructing army lists (~Look at Fantasy for hints)
-The FOC may be history"

No sources listed.

[MagicHat]

I sincearly hope those never happens...
The FOC works.
The current psychic system works.
those changes just seems... bad. It takes choice from the players.

[lantzkev]

FoC is far from perfect, case in point when you can spend 1/20th on your "troops" and then your heavy takes up 75% of your points...

There's nothing about FoC in this current setup that works really well, it works for armies like marines, but honestly larger sized army (individually cheaper points) make more sense with a % based system.

[Shas'O'Stormblade]

I'm trying to figure out how random psychic powers would affect armies like Eldar. I can see something like this happening too often:

Warlock approaches group of Genestealers and knowing that he can't take them on in CC he decides to flame them using destructor, but instead rolls enhance. Well there goes that warlock.

They would have to totally redo all the Eldar psychic powers in some kind of update, or else Eldar will be virtually unplayable until they get a new codex.

[lantzkev]

I would imagine it'd be more like past versions where you had a power or two you always have, then random that you determine at the start (sort of like these "roll to see what effect you have for the game" tables are)

[MagicHat]

FoC is far from perfect, case in point when you can spend 1/20th on your "troops" and then your heavy takes up 75% of your points...

Ridiculous hyperbole aside, is there anything actually wrong with that?

There's nothing about FoC in this current setup that works really well, it works for armies like marines, but honestly larger sized army (individually cheaper points) make more sense with a % based system.

I have not seen any percentage suggested system that would not cause more imbalance, impair players choice of theme/preference for no gain or that wasn't just a worse FOC essentialy.
The only criticism I have found viable is scalability, which is easily solved by expanding the slots depending on size of the battle.
Maybe I am wrong and GW have a system that works great for 40K, but I can't see how.

[lantzkev]

I haven't ever seen a argument that actually shows how % impairs choice beyond the intent of troops making up a larger portion of your army then your any other individual selection of your army.

a % based will make all games have roughly the same (or at least a smaller max) of heavy vehicles, etc.
% also stops the min troop selection, then maxing elites or heavies that happen alot in lower point games.

If that limits your options, so be it, it creates a little better balance.

And it's a balance that scales without having to ask your opponent for permission to use the force org chart again.

[Tarax]

From BoLS:
"6th Edition
-Many of the general concepts from magic from Warhammer Fantasy are coming to Warhammer 40,000.

So we'll be getting a seperate 'Magic'-phase again, like in 2nd edition?
I can't see what's wrong with the current system. Although sometimes it's hard to remember when and if your Psyker already used a power in a previous phase, etc.

-There will be "lore equivalents"

Or will each army get its own list. But currently some armies do not have Psykers. What about them?

-Psychic powers will be generated randomly by psykers (like fantasy)

What bugs me most about the current system is that Eldar have to buy their powers, will Marines (all variants) can choose. Powers that are more powerful cost the same for Marines as less powerful powers, will Eldar have point values given to them. If powers will be generated randomly, then hopefully all powers will be similar in strength. Maybe "lore equivalents" isn't so bad after all.

-Entirely new rules for constructing army lists (~Look at Fantasy for hints)

So percentages it is. Not entirely sure if I'm going to like this one. The FOC is reasonably balanced. Maybe we have to see what they will do before we judge them. Yet, I'm sceptical.

-The FOC may be history"

Would this mean the the catagories will not be HQ, Elite, Troops, Fast and Heavy anymore? This would mean a Ravening Hordes type booklet to have everyone review his/her army/armies.

[Sami]

Seeing as my 1500pt army has about 50% of its points tied up in troops, I'm not too worried about this change :P.

They could also combine the FOC and the % system, so you could still only have 3 heavy choices, but those choices can not total more than X% of your total points allowance.

[Fluxeor]

I'm not entirely keen on a % based system. Granted it wont affect my Blood Angels or Ultramarines forces (since BA is almost entirely troops and UM is basically a battle company) but my Dark Angels has its points tied up mostly in elites and fast attack (using the regular Marine Codex, we'll see what the starter box actually does to it though) ><

[MagicHat]

I haven't ever seen a argument that actually shows how % impairs choice beyond the intent of troops making up a larger portion of your army then your any other individual selection of your army.

a % based will make all games have roughly the same (or at least a smaller max) of heavy vehicles, etc.
% also stops the min troop selection, then maxing elites or heavies that happen alot in lower point games.

If that limits your options, so be it, it creates a little better balance.

And it's a balance that scales without having to ask your opponent for permission to use the force org chart again.

You're implying that focusing on one category is causing imbalance. I have not seen anything that suggest a person spending 70 % in Heavy have an army more OP then someone that spreads out their points.
And not everyone have categories that are good/choices they want either.
Forcing everyone to spend 25 % on troops only creates balance if everyone have troops that are equal. They are not.
500 points of fire warriors, guardians or tactical space marines is not as capable as 500 points of IG veterans, BA assault marines, any GK troop choice or Grey hunters IMO.
That is the basis of most percentage systems, and it is already flawed, since it forces weaker armies to take more of their weaker choices. The good books don't give a damn, since they already took 25% troops.

From there, we either give to much or to little freedom for the players, either impairing army choice or creating the imbalance of spam. Either way, it is the already good books that benefits most, usually having several great units in all the slots or the most OP unit to spam.

If there are % limits, say 25 % in every slot we stop themed armies like Air Cavalry or Nidzilla. Imperial fists that want to focus on heavies? Denied.
I don't know what restriction you are talking about, and I sure as hell don't know what GW would do, but I have little faith that it would be better then the FOC.

[Theis]

Random magic powers, and the completely over powered nature of the magic system in fantasy is what stopped me playing fantasy. There's almost no one that plays fantasy at any of the five flgs near me any longer. I am very concerned they'll do the same thing with pyschic powers now.

[Makiaveli]

I read this on dakka
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum...st/423481.page
And it sounds like a really good plan for 6th edition. A solid, deep, and tactical core ruleset that can be expanded upon with extra books rather than a 4 year edition cycle. Just hope it's true.

Anything new on this rumor? The idea of a basic set of rules that hangs around sounds nice to me. I have been out of 40K for several editions, and one thing that's held me back is the fear that by the time I built up an army, the rule book would be out of date and I would have to buy a new one.

Note I am just curious, not trying to whine about GW etc, I just have very little free time to devote to building an army, and so just never seemed like a good idea to start up again.