Official WarSeer Warhammer 40,000 6th Edition discussion thread

[Gargantuan]

Beasts of war found something.
Essentially wound allocation while under fire changed.
You have to allocate wounds to models closest to shooting enemy.
Source : http://www.beastsofwar.com/warhammer...h-edition-40k/

If that's true then it's a massive improvement IMO.

[Archibald_TK]

Beasts of war found something.
Essentially wound allocation while under fire changed.
You have to allocate wounds to models closest to shooting enemy.
Source : http://www.beastsofwar.com/warhammer...h-edition-40k/

Just looking at it without taking any other rule into consideration, that would ruin the day of many assault units. With Snap Fire and random charge distances, it would be even harsher (thought it could actually kind of balance the ability to consolidate right into melee).

[Maxis Lithium]

I suspect this is a bit of broken telephone. I suspect it will be going back to only being able to shoot those IN RANGE of the weapon (or take wounds from guys in range first) and targets out of range would be allocated wounds after.

[Voss]

Well, if the rulebook releases in July as suspected, then we should see something about special edition book/bag/dice bundles pre-orders sometime in June. I mean, there were two or three versions of the WHFB 8th ed book that were up for pre-orders before that little gem released. We're almost there guys. Let's not give up now!

Nope. The projected date is July 14th... if that is accurate, we will probably see preorders up on July 6th or 7th, and not before.

Heard one from a new source, in that the 6th edition has been posponed, possibly for as long as 12 months and that the flyers are "in leiu of". This is down to something happening with in production.

With the way books are printed, this isn't even possible, unless the entire printing company literally burned to the ground. If the company had mechanical problems, the delay would be a matter of 12 days, not months, and the printing schedule would probably be able to absorb most of that.

[Liber]

If that's true then it's a massive improvement IMO.

I agree with Brock.

So far all of these changes sound very promising to me. Promising as in they could screw it up, but if they implement them correctly 40k will be a vastly improved game.

[Theocracity]

That's a neat system. It makes wound allocation a bit less gamey, and more based on tactics and unit positioning. You might not want your special weapons in front, but they could also be sniped out if you get flanked. I like it.

[Vandelan]

I'm not exactly sure how a system of wound allocation like that is supposed to help when there is a large amount of wounds incoming. It works great with a low number of shots, but with enough wounds, it seems like it would just become the current rules all over again.

[Rlyehable]

I suspect this is a bit of broken telephone. I suspect it will be going back to only being able to shoot those IN RANGE of the weapon (or take wounds from guys in range first) and targets out of range would be allocated wounds after.

I'm not exactly sure how a system of wound allocation like that is supposed to help when there is a large amount of wounds incoming. It works great with a low number of shots, but with enough wounds, it seems like it would just become the current rules all over again.

I, also, think that this is a good improvement. No more magic bullets being able to shoot around corners, while insisting on "true line of sight". I hope that it also includes only being able to allocate to models in range. I.e. within 12" if the weapon range is only 12". I also hope that models outside of cover get allocated to first as well (as it was in 3rd; i.e 6 models in cover, but 4 out of cover - the 4 out get allocated first).

[Formerly Wu]

I, also, think that this is a good improvement. No more magic bullets being able to shoot around corners, while insisting on "true line of sight". I hope that it also includes only being able to allocate to models in range. I.e. within 12" if the weapon range is only 12". I also hope that models outside of cover get allocated to first as well (as it was in 3rd; i.e 6 models in cover, but 4 out of cover - the 4 out get allocated first).

Let's not get ahead of ourselves here. I'd like "magic bullets" to go away too, but this rumor doesn't say anything about that.

I like this change in that it emphasizes a more theatrical, rather than "gamey," approach to tabletop events. Bolters mowing down the first rank of an oncoming green tide; soldiers catching bullets for their beloved captain; that kind of thing. The more that events resemble an actual battlefield- rather than an arbitrary series of actions designed to take advantage of the rules- the better, as far as I'm concerned.

Hopefully this is representative of the overall 6th design philosophy.

[WildWeasel]

It's terrible. Slow down and massive arguments. "This bolter marine is clearly 1/32" closer to your guy there than my power first sergeant is to that other guy you're trying to measure from."

[Battleworthy Arts]

It's terrible. Slow down and massive arguments. "This bolter marine is clearly 1/32" closer to your guy there than my power first sergeant is to that other guy you're trying to measure from."

Its definitely better than it currently is.

Sent from my Nexus S 4G using Tapatalk 2

[Wrath]

Well, it was rumored that 6E would have elements of 2E. That is another step in that direction. <Random Psy was a feature of 2E also>

Just waiting for missions cards to show up now. =]

[KarlPedder]

I'm not exactly sure how a system of wound allocation like that is supposed to help when there is a large amount of wounds incoming. It works great with a low number of shots, but with enough wounds, it seems like it would just become the current rules all over again.

Because instead of the "special models" being the last models in the unit to take a wound or a second or third wound in the case of more incoming wounds than models it will be their position relevant to the firing unit that dictates if/how many wounds they are allocated. It increases the relevance of unit formations and increases the importance of positioning when firing at infantry units.

[Cheexsta]

It's terrible. Slow down and massive arguments. "This bolter marine is clearly 1/32" closer to your guy there than my power first sergeant is to that other guy you're trying to measure from."

That's what I'm thinking, too. It could still work in context of other rules, but it just seems slow and clumsy.

On a sidenote, if this isn't true I sincerely hope that we don't go back to only being able to remove casualties from inside range, as some other have suggested. Coupled with premeasuring, there'd be all sorts of range-sniping going on - even more than in 4th edition where it quite regularly happened (to me, at least; I'd often forget to keep my important models behind everyone else).

[Sami]

Thing is, the whole point of the wound allocation system was also designed to represent other models dropping their weapons and picking up the ones held by the specialist. "Oh no, our flamer dude is dead. Lets just leave his useful gun with his corpse, as the enemy deserve not to be burned horrifically now".

I've no issue with wounds being allocated from front to back, but there should be an option for specialists to pass their weapons on. Perhaps something like if you fail the save on the specialist, on a roll of 5+ you can swap him out for a regular dude instead. The unit as whole still gets "pushed" backwards, but it still means that you can make good on your weapons.

Because like it or not, most squads in this game consist of 1-2 good weapons and a bunch of ablative wounds. Make it easier to get rid of the good weapons and you'll end up with a lot of chuff on the table, and an even bigger shift to mech for units which don't have "useful" guns on all models. Most of those special weapons people allocate wounds from are to deal with vehicles anyway, so again +1 bonus for meching up.

Unless something else is added in, I really do not like this rule as it stands right now.

[KarlPedder]

Yet in 3rd ed Im sure they justified why you couldn't just have another squad member pick up another weapon and either way it doesn't help justify character upgrades "passing on" their weapons......

It's just a mechanic Sami trying to use "realistic" justifications for rules is never a good idea because realistic doesn't always translate well to good gameplay that this seems to be lost on people so often still continues to amaze me.

[ReveredChaplainDrake]

The new rule on wound allocation seems to make things even more gamey, depending on exactly what the details of allocation are.

For example, 2 Plasma wounds and 8 Bolter wounds get fired at a 5 man Bolter marine squad. No specials, no sergeants, nothing. What this rumor means is that those 2 Plasma wounds can be allocated into the same Bolter dude, while each other Marine takes his own saves. Introducing, new 6th edition wound allocation: No longer will wound allocation shenanigans be limited to the likes of Thunderwolves, Paladins, and Nobz who have to tweak their wargear around so no two models are the same.. Now, Bolter Billy can be used as a plasma shield to cheese out wonky game mechanics, too!

There's also even more magic bullet-bending action if the closest models are not actually in LoS.

Oh, and how the heck is this supposed to work in CC? You're 0" away. Does this mean that models in base contact have to die first? Great, another reason Tyranids (particularly far-stretching units like Hormagaunts and Genestealers) will never see the table. If they do assault somebody, the models will physically hinder your opponent's ability to remove Billy the Wonder-Patsy from the fray.

For the life of me, I can't find a way where this rumor isn't cheeky. Common sense alone seems to dictate that this rumor refers to the allocation of unsaved wounds... but then it makes you wonder how units with varying IV saves (Thunderwolves, Terminators, Paladins) are supposed to work. Who confirms these rumors anyway, and why do I feel that whoever is providing these leaks is just trolling us?

[The Dude]

For example, 2 Plasma wounds and 8 Bolter wounds get fired at a 5 man Bolter marine squad. No specials, no sergeants, nothing. What this rumor means is that those 2 Plasma wounds can be allocated into the same Bolter dude, while each other Marine takes his own saves.

Actually, nothing says this range bit isn't in addition to other allocation rules, e.g. allocate wounds in ascending AP order starting with the closest model.

[Rick Blaine]

Sounds like something that would increase the length of the shooting phase by an order of magnitude.

[megatrons2nd]

For example, 2 Plasma wounds and 8 Bolter wounds get fired at a 5 man Bolter marine squad. No specials, no sergeants, nothing. What this rumor means is that those 2 Plasma wounds can be allocated into the same Bolter dude, while each other Marine takes his own saves. Introducing, new 6th edition wound allocation: No longer will wound allocation shenanigans be limited to the likes of Thunderwolves, Paladins, and Nobz who have to tweak their wargear around so no two models are the same.. Now, Bolter Billy can be used as a plasma shield to cheese out wonky game mechanics, too!

You can do that now. It doesn't sound like it matters much either way. If the rules are similar that would mean failed save on like models transfer amongst themselves. Thus ending with 2 casualties either way. It sounds like just the casualty removal begins with the closest models first.