Official WarSeer Warhammer 40,000 6th Edition discussion thread

[Gorbad Ironclaw]

I'm not too familiar with FoW. Does it have much focus on assault? I'd think it'd be less of a problem in a game with more shooting and less crazies with swords.

It have quite a big focus on assaults actually. Trying to kill dug-in infantry with shooting is almost impossible with most weapons (or at least very time consuming), if you want to inflict decisive casualties and seize objectives you are almost certainly going to have to assault (the exception is tank on tank armies, as they can't assault each other). Sure, if you catch an infantry platoon out in the open with artillery and heavy machine guns they are going to suffer badly, but in general you have to push forward and engage to get rid of infantry. It also features an actual effective pinning mechanism, something you need to employ as well as units you assault get to shoot at you but pinning them degrades their ability to shoot.

So there is absolutely no requirement to have random movement just to go with premeasuring. If I remember correctly doesn't Epic also allow you to premeasure and have no random movement(how about Warmaster)? And neither does Warmachine/Hordes.

Now, whatever you need it or not I don't think is going to be determining of if GW would do it or not. Randomness seems to be the name of the game so I could see it being included for everything just for the sake of it.

[althathir]

Honestly, it's not. Flames of War allows premeasuring at any time, and has no random movement. It works just fine.

I'm not very familiar with flames but there are alot of other balancing factors from what people have told me not the least of which is more abilities for infantry and no force with quite as crappy shooting as orks. Granted its really hard to see how big of an effect one possible rule would have without knowing the framework so I probably was overreacting. In the existing framework 40k shooting is already is king, adding premeasuring puts more pressure on assault on assault armies at least that was my reasoning.

[Theocracity]

It have quite a big focus on assaults actually. Trying to kill dug-in infantry with shooting is almost impossible with most weapons (or at least very time consuming), if you want to inflict decisive casualties and seize objectives you are almost certainly going to have to assault (the exception is tank on tank armies, as they can't assault each other). Sure, if you catch an infantry platoon out in the open with artillery and heavy machine guns they are going to suffer badly, but in general you have to push forward and engage to get rid of infantry. It also features an actual effective pinning mechanism, something you need to employ as well as units you assault get to shoot at you but pinning them degrades their ability to shoot.

So there is absolutely no requirement to have random movement just to go with premeasuring. If I remember correctly doesn't Epic also allow you to premeasure and have no random movement(how about Warmaster)? And neither does Warmachine/Hordes.

Now, whatever you need it or not I don't think is going to be determining of if GW would do it or not. Randomness seems to be the name of the game so I could see it being included for everything just for the sake of it.

I like the sound of that system. I remember the Leaked rules set had some steps towards using covering fire for assault troops, which I liked. But you're right in that it probably will have no bearing on how GW does things. I think it'll be fine.

[megatrons2nd]

Something I noticed today. Several Vehicle only Dark Eldar weapons are listed as assault weapons. The Void Lance, Void mine and the Missiles. Is it possible that the type of weapons will effect the way it shoots for vehicles in 6th? Maybe an assault weapon may fire at a higher movement speed or will have less targeting penalties for movement. Just a weird observation.

[Hokiecow]

I don't know if it's any different then Tau CS who have relentless and assault weapons, pointless.

[Rlyehable]

On chain-assaults and snap-fire.

I remember how powerful chain-assaults were in 3rd ed., especially with a non-mechanized gun line (i.e. Tau, IG). If 6th keeps 5ths outflank and transports, I can see how snap-fire would be a counter-balance. However, chain-assaults would likely be the more powerful of the two.

For chain-assaults, I suspect that it will still be from a 3" or d6" consolidation, and not be counted as charging.

For snap-fire, I suspect that it will not include heavy, template, or blast weapons. I also suspect it will be 1 shot each at BS1, not rapid-fire or assault-X. My fear is that this will replace the close combat attacks of the unit being charged; in which case it is completely useless.

But, as with all rumors, I will have to wait and see.

[Rick Blaine]

My fear is that this will replace the close combat attacks of the unit being charged; in which case it is completely useless.

Uh-huh. Sure. I guess you never faced a real killy unit with a higher Initiative?

[KarlPedder]

On chain-assaults and snap-fire.

I remember how powerful chain-assaults were in 3rd ed., especially with a non-mechanized gun line (i.e. Tau, IG). If 6th keeps 5ths outflank and transports, I can see how snap-fire would be a counter-balance. However, chain-assaults would likely be the more powerful of the two.

For chain-assaults, I suspect that it will still be from a 3" or d6" consolidation, and not be counted as charging.



For snap-fire, I suspect that it will not include heavy, template, or blast weapons. I also suspect it will be 1 shot each at BS1, not rapid-fire or assault-X. My fear is that this will replace the close combat attacks of the unit being charged; in which case it is completely useless.

But, as with all rumors, I will have to wait and see.

I don't know snap fire as just against chain assaults sounds alright let them fire at full effect at BS1 blast markers (if they want to risk it),templates (vastly increasing the value of flamers for counter assault) and not impact how they fight in CC adds a level of risk to chain assaults but still 1 unit at BS1 shooting at you is better than being a sitting duck for their whole army next turn.

[Tarax]

Just throwing my 2ct in.

What is snap-fire only works with pistols? But if you do so, you can't use your pistols in close combat and therefore loose +1 Attack.

[Ghal Maraz]

Just throwing my 2ct in.

What is snap-fire only works with pistols? But if you do so, you can't use your pistols in close combat and therefore loose +1 Attack.

I can actually see that, but I would add Assault weapons to the equation (even if that would create a lot of balancing problems: flamers, meltas, plasmas...)

[Formerly Wu]

I can actually see that, but I would add Assault weapons to the equation (even if that would create a lot of balancing problems: flamers, meltas, plasmas...)

This would do very little to balance consolidation assaults. Pistols and assault weapons are common among armies that are already strong in assault, but the weak and shooty armies who would be most affected by consolidation (Guard, Tau, DE warriors) typically make do with rapid fire weapons.

[megatrons2nd]

I don't know if it's any different then Tau CS who have relentless and assault weapons, pointless.

I always thought that that part was a hold over from the playtesting cycle where they did not have relentless.

[Eldoriath]

Yeah, that rule is from the relentless-less era where you had to have a specifik rule in order to shoot rapid fire weapons as stationary and also still be allowed to assault.

[Aun Tier]

For the Tau weapons-relentless deal, The only two Assault weapons I can think of immediately are Fusion Blasters and Missile Pods. Neither can be heavy because of the special XV8 rule. The FB can't be RF because if it were it would get two shots, and it can't be a pistol because that just feels wrong. The MP can't be RF because it's meant to fire 2 shots at full range, which doesn't fit with RF, and it can't be a pistol because it's not 12". Hence both are Assault.

[Eldoriath]

You forgot Burst cannon, Cyclic ionic blaster, the barrage assault Airburst fragmentation launcher and the flamer.
Basically all weapons are assault, plasma rifle is really the only weapon that isn't (talking about crisis suits here).

[KarlPedder]

Yeah, that rule is from the relentless-less era where you had to have a specifik rule in order to shoot rapid fire weapons as stationary and also still be allowed to assault.

This doesn't make sense Crisis suits have always been "relentless" and it has always been solely for Plasma Rifles I can't say concerning 4th ed because I never played it but in 5th without Relentless you can't assault if you shoot regardless of what mode you shoot and you can't make the full range shot if you move Relentless lets you move shoot either mode and still assault.

In 3rd it let move and assault and still fire 1 shot at full range but in 3rd Rapid Fire weapons only got 1 shot at 12" range but could still assault so relentless wasn't as buff in that edition.

[GreenDracoBob]

Basically, Crisis Battlesuits were allowed to fire Rapid Fire weapons (basically just the Plasma Rifle) as if they were always stationary. When 5th Edition came out, it made the Jump Infantry (Jetpack) unit type Relentless, which basically included the former effect (and made Marker Drones such as well in the relevant cases). However, all of this "ignores" the fact that the primary benefits of Relentless--firing heavy weapons on the move and assaulting after using Rapid Fire or Heavy weapons--is somewhat useless on Crisis suits which can neither equip heavy weapons nor typically want to assault.

[Hokiecow]

Right, what he said ^



Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Tapatalk 2

[Eldoriath]

In 4th they changed that you could fire twice at 12" but couldn't assault if you fired a rapid fire weapon, and the current tau 'dex was released in 4th ed. This explains their special recoil absorbation rule.

[Azzy]

Regarding snap fire, I wonder if assault grenades are going to be able to negate the chance for snap fire. That would actually make assault grenades useful for low Initiative armies.