There was a similar thing with the current Tyranid Codex when it was released late. The printers (who had originally printed the previous edition) had a number of files on their system and apparently they picked the tyranid one and printed a whole run. Unfortunately that file was the previous codex.....
Angron's hobbies include crochet and flower pressing - but he does them with barbed wire and his face, respectively.Originally Posted by Rick Blaine
How does it stay in the air? Oh, it's powered by pure handwavium
Quick, let me take my (Mat) Ward save!
Every battle report "this" year in the White Dwarf has used 6th edition rules.
Analyze the battle reports and you will see the direction of the new 6th edition rules.
They did the same with the 5th edition, it was really obvious with the Apocalypse books.
Instead of all this wild speculation, examine and analyze the battle reports.
Use analytical deduction rather than emotional reactivity.
You wouldn't have an example on hand, would you?
Draigo's Razor: When presented with multiple explanations for a new piece of 40K content, the most likely answer is the one intentionally designed to make you, personally, angry.
/////
Tales of the Seferim Sector: an ongoing series of narrative battle reports.
Kommanda Shinbash's Misfits - 1500 pt Orks
I could see this since they are very vague about what happens in the reports. The battle reports gloss over many details and rarely address the larger rule issues found by gamers on the forums. I would love if GW used battle reports as an opportunity to clear up the intent or how rules should be interpreted.
That's really interesting. Ive seen a few cases this year (can't remember specifics and no white dwarfs to hand) where I've thought they've played rule wrong.
Other thing is the non-FOC legal nature of sone of the campaign army pictures in the current WD- probably just for photo purposes but you never know..
Maulerfiends are on the loose, Maulerfiends are go;
Mauler, Mauler, Mauler, Maulerfiends!
WD Battle reports have always been a bit hazy on the rules, and have been getting more lax in their reporting over the last 50 issues. I'd say the WD stuff has more to do with the laziness and lack of quality of the magazine than a conspiracy to play 6th ed battles subtly disguised as 5th ed.
For wound allocation I think it would be very much simpler and easier to
a) remove any ability for units to have different armour or toughness outside of characters.
b) force removal of whole models first
c) allow models to pick up other models heavy/special weapons
Explain this by saying that 'wounded men will heroically throw themselves in the line of fire to protect their healthier comrades', 'normal soldiers will protect the specialists and leaders in their unit at all costs - even their lives', stuff like that.
Characters are allocated hits in the same way as currently - except now, you have only two groups: the character and the unit.
This might make large squads containing one or two specialists a little more deadly, but I think that is the price we should pay for a more streamlined game.
Well I learned something new today: people still read White Dwarf. I was convinced that GW simply kept printing them to keep up appearances
Not sure if this has been pointed out yet, but it needs to be done: for 8th edition Fantasy, random charge distances massively increased the maximum charge distance for all units. Example: I play Dwarfs, Dwarf charge range went from 6 inches and only 6 inches to being able to move a whopping 15 inches in a single charge.
So please take this into consideration when you feel the urge to sing the death knell for assault, when in all likelihood the average assault range will be increased (possibly by vast amounts) along with the often mentioned 'assault from consolidation' change. I think assault heavy armies will do just fine.
I personally think that having casualties removed from those models closest to the firer would be great. This would make special models and Heavy Weapon models more endangered if put at the front and add another level of strategic depth into the placement of our models in units.
For those people complaing about the unrealistic nature of losing Heavy Weapons, it's quite simple to say that it is assumed the weapon was damaged or destroyed by the firing that killed the model.
I've got a big, fat "meh" on the proposed change to wound allocations. After 4e, I'm not convinced that something like this is either necessary nor desirable.
--Kyn
Armies: Waaagh! Þursblóð, Hivefleet Orochi
Ever been in an actual firefight? You don't see soldiers running up into gunfire with a knife and a curse... You see guys hunkered down in cover, providing support/covering fire, and even when it comes down to "hand-to-hand" fighting, its usually with small-arms... I see no reason things would have changed in the 41st millenium...
The days of men physically fighting one another was made irrelevant with the invention of the gun... The game should really support that...
For Orks the Lookout sir rule may not seem likely. The thought of an Ork selflessly jumping in front of his commander to protect him from incoming fire doesn’t seem to fit their nature. However the reality of the situation cannot be further from the truth, especially when the commanding Ork grabs the boy next to him and uses him as a shield.
For My armies, go here....Link
Except 40k isn't futuristic warfare, its science fantasy and swords are cool- think lightsabres in star wars. Its a massive part of the background an won't be changing- assault is here to stay
Maulerfiends are on the loose, Maulerfiends are go;
Mauler, Mauler, Mauler, Maulerfiends!
And yet we still do..... . There is nothing more satisfying than defeating an opponent up-close. It also makes the game not as crap as it would be if only guns were used.
Angron's hobbies include crochet and flower pressing - but he does them with barbed wire and his face, respectively.
How does it stay in the air? Oh, it's powered by pure handwavium
Quick, let me take my (Mat) Ward save!
it is really needed that shooting and assaulting are both equally good. shooting does need a little buff, but transports need a nerf.
anyway, beastsofwar does have a new video online, where they talk about stand and shoot / charge reactions. so it may be the real deal.
"And the greatest of them all are the Ultramarines."
Thats a Fact.
Liberarting more Worlds than any other Legion while suffering fewer casualties than any other Legion.
Each member of the Ultramarines Honour Guard has earnt more commendations and glories in a lifetimes service than a whole company of Space Marines from any other Chapter.
Warhammer 40K Tournament Matches with Ultramarines - W:191/L:0/D:0
You have no clue what ur talking about....so let me fill you in. I am a United states Marine...half our boot camp and ait was hand 2 hand combat and bayonet training...sometimes you run out of ammo and you have to fight with knives the buttstock of your riffle or a rock if you have nothing else. So to sit there and say it dosent matter any more i promise you it does. Yes u use supporting fire and stuff like that but what if ur behind enemy lines or your doing a stealth mission where silence is best.
Svien187@ I totally agree. Most people are clueless as to the extent of close combat training that is given to people in the Military nowadays.
As far as I am concerned I hope that 6th fixes the parts of Assault that I despise. I have a squad of Firewarriors and a squad of Crisis Suits. My opponent multi-charges them with a big squad of scarabs. He wins combat by 5 on the Firewarriors but doesn't cause 1 wound to the Crisis Suits and yet they have to take their leadership test at a -5. That is complete and utter BS. If 6th does not change that particular thing in assault, then for the first time in 12 years I won't own a 40k army because mine will be sold. I am tired of the endless price hikes and the rules written by idiots. Not to mention the abomination that is Ward and anything that spews from his mind.
As a former US Army soldier. I did not receive that much training, maybe 1 week. However, close combat does still affect the battle, it just depends on the situation, tactical needs, Countries training regimen, and sub military training regimen. Marines, Army, Air Force, and Navy all receive different training, for the specific mission types they are expected to perform. Thus, your Marine training will give you a different view of what a battlefield would look like than that of a Regular Army Soldier, and even that of an Airman. I am not saying you are wrong, just skewed in the importance of that little bit of close combat that does happen. Close combat is brutal, and demoralizing when it happens, but it is not the standard of warfare everywhere. Although, I can see it happening more and more frequently now that combat is done in the closer confines of cities again.
Edit: I have been out for going on 10 years, so the training may have changed in that time.
Sanity is just the most common form of insanity
All the world's a joke and the people merely punchlines
It's probably not a good idea to go into actual Warfare in this discussion.
Relevant to the game, Close Combat is a fun aspect that most people enjoy playing, so I can't see GW completely nerfing it. After all, we have several Close-Combat dependant armies already established. Whilst they may be heading towards pointing the game towards shooting more, they've committed too much to the aspect to go cold-turkey.
well we had a week of bayonet a week of puggle stick fighting and weeks of mcmap yes i agree that h2h is diffrent from everyone but i was trying to make the realistic point if the stuff hits the fan and your out of amo or something like that u have to know how to get into h2h and survive or its over....I feel that in the game h2h is somewhat more important right now cause alot of units I personally use rock in h2h Ie bezerkers and Khorne lord with deamon weapon. shooting for me is just a means to help me get my h2h hand in there and get the job done
Looks like Beasts of War have confirmed that 6th Ed will have Challenges.
Sounds like a very interesting mechanic to me, very typical of 40k's style. I like it. Hopefully I understand it correctly:
- A character (not including upgrade characters) can issue a challenge to an enemy character in the same combat. The player whose turn it is (or the one who launched the assault that turn?) has precedence over who challenges whom first, but only one challenge per character (or combat?).
- If accepted, the characters are moved into base contact and the combat is resolved. The rest of the combat continues as if the characters weren't there?
- The character who wins wins combat for his whole side, regardless of the outcome of the rest of the fight.
- If the challenge is refused, the refusing character moves out of combat with the enemy, so can't fight this turn.
If this is right, then it really adds to the tactical possibilities of assault. If you have a character that is good in combat, you can challenge enemies to make sure you win the assault. If you have a disposable character, you could challenge a good enemy just so they don't slaughter your squad. If you have a character you really need to survive, you could refuse a challenge so he doesn't get smashed by a hidden power fist...or if you really need a character dead, you could always choose not to challenge him and just use normal 5th edition assault tactics to kill him (assuming those work).
I can see people starting to take plenty of defensive characters (with storm shields and whatnot) with the sole purpose of tying up enemy offensive characters in assault. Challenge them, and either way their attacks will be drawn away from your squad.
Posting Permissions
