Official WarSeer Warhammer 40,000 6th Edition discussion thread

[duffybear1988]

Saw this posted on Heresy Online. No clue on the validity, but it definitely sounds intriguing.

Hull points don’t work as rumoured: they are only for front armour 14 vehicles and work like a structure point or a “wound” which can be used to negate any result, even wrecked or explodes. not sure if this is a once per game thing, i suspect so. but no more one shotting land raiders and monoliths with meltaguns

Pens give +1 to all subsequent damage rolls in that shooting phase, so essentially after a pen all weapons shooting a vehicle become AP1.

Rapid Fire: double tap up to 24” if stationary. 1 shot at 24" or 2 shots at 12" if moving. Relentless gives and extra shot at each range if stationary as well as the standard bonus.

Power weapons are ap3 but give a 5++ parry save in combat.

Stunned results stack to weapon destroyed, extra armour negates 1 stun per turn, not sure on shaken.

Strength vs Toughness chart changed to be like fantasy, so everything can be wounded on a 6.

There's going to be a bunch of FAQ/erratas when it drops for all codices.

Vehicles being hit in combat auto if stationary, 3+ is going 6", 5+ if going 12", 6+ if going flat out.

Vehicles going flat out can only be hit on a max of 4+ with shooting, fliers hit on 6+.

Damage results stack so shaken -> stun -> weapon -> immob -> wreck

Preferred enemy gives re-rolls to hit with shooting and in combat, but not the re-rolling of 1s to wound.

If these rumours are true then they do fix the Tau quite a bit - the idea of firing 3 plasma rifle shots at 24" is great.

[Purge the Heretic]

If Power weapons become AP3, A single terminator wades through a squad of battle sisters at no risk to himself....unless they faq eviscerators back in.

[gunmnky]

If Power weapons become AP3, A single terminator wades through a squad of battle sisters at no risk to himself....unless they faq eviscerators back in.

That's the least of an SoB player's worries. That entire list is crap, and nothing in 6th edition is going to change that except a new book.

[Bold_or_Stupid]

I lose more Terminators to massed Wyches, than to Incubi. You can still fail all those 2+ saves.

[Fawful]

If those preferred enemy changes are real daemons just became impossible to play against grey knights. They will have re-rolls everywhere. Unless there are some major changes in the deep striking department. I like most of the other rumoured changes, although I'm a bit worried about ap values for cc weapons as it makes ork armour even more redundant. Especially if they gain this ability at no additional cost.

Also relentless necron warrior blobs will be death incarnate to all vehicles with 3 shots at range (when standing still) and the ability to glance vehicles into a fiery crater.

[Nicho]

If these rumours are true then they do fix the Tau quite a bit - the idea of firing 3 plasma rifle shots at 24" is great.

My nids will hate that lol. I have tau to so it won't be all bad

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk 2

[Valerian]

If Power weapons become AP3, A single terminator wades through a squad of battle sisters at no risk to himself....unless they faq eviscerators back in.

No risk? Did you forget the part where he'll fail 1/6th of all saves he is required to make, regardless of weapon type? Roughly 17% chance to die from every wounding hit. That's what kills Terminators now, anyway, "torrent of fire/attacks", not typically power weapons.

V

[DJ3]

Only TH/SS termies are used. Out of all the variations, those are the only that are effective. Nobody wants a basic terminator with SB/PF anymore because they are only slightly more survivable than a basic marine at 3x the cost.

That's great and all, but buffing Terminators in order to "fix" Tactical Terminators is a stupid idea. TH/SS are undercosted, and as mentioned, there's three high-competitive armybuilds that already rely solely on Terminators. If you magically make 2+ armor become vastly more powerful by nerfing every power weapon in existence, it won't suddenly make people start playing Tactical Terminators. They get better, but so do the ones that are already powerful, and those will still be better than Tacticals by comparison. It's nonsense logic to think buffing Terminators across the board will make people play Tacs.

If they want to go back and make Storm Shields not-retarded, then by all means, buff 2+ armor. But that's a Codex issue, and it's one I can't possibly imagine them FAQing away--particularly after they just did the reverse and brought BT/DA up to the current standard.

[gunmnky]

That's great and all, but buffing Terminators in order to "fix" Tactical Terminators is a stupid idea. TH/SS are undercosted, and as mentioned, there's three high-competitive armybuilds that already rely solely on Terminators. If you magically make 2+ armor become vastly more powerful by nerfing every power weapon in existence, it won't suddenly make people start playing Tactical Terminators. They get better, but so do the ones that are already powerful, and those will still be better than Tacticals by comparison. It's nonsense logic to think buffing Terminators across the board will make people play Tacs.

If they want to go back and make Storm Shields not-retarded, then by all means, buff 2+ armor. But that's a Codex issue, and it's one I can't possibly imagine them FAQing away--particularly after they just did the reverse and brought BT/DA up to the current standard.

You're also assuming they won't FAQ SH back into reality. But then again, since every model with a power weapon might be getting a free 5++, maybe it's not such an issue anyway.

Also, it's not "nonsense" thinking. The increase to TH/SS terminators by debuffing power swords is marginal at best. They went from a 3+ to 2+ vs power weapons only. A plasma gun still does the same exact thing it did last edition [EDIT, no it doesn't, it gets 2 shots at max range and 3 on a relentless model. In fact, the amount of firepower went up so much that the power weapon nerf is moot]. So do power fists, monsterous creatures, etc. The only thing it really stops is banshee/vanguard spam. The survival of basic terminators is greatly increased, giving them far more benefit over TH/SS types. It also gives them a higher probably of surviving against the absolute spam of power weapons to every army, specifically to kill terminators. In 3rd ed, power weapons were extremely rare, and armies with even one unit filled out with power weapons were rare and always delicate (except terminators). Now armies are getting multiple power weapons at budget prices, fleet, and rending.

The SS is the only thing that makes an all terminator army competitive now, though I have yet to see any deathwing army go undefeated. They're devilishly hard to play correctly and completely unforgiving (sorry for the pun). Though it's surprising that nobody has brought up the fact that you can run units of 2 wound mega armored nobz with FNP as troops. They benefit just as much, as do broadsides. The only army I can see that loses out in 6th is Eldar who both lose the wraithlord's immunity to everything and only have 1 powerfist as wargear.

[Bartali]

For example, let's take a lascannon. This is the trademark, dedicated anti-tank ranged weapon in the game. It is generally very expensive (~25 points for the weapon alone in most armies) and its purpose is fairly plainly to kill vehicles; missile launchers are just as good against most monstrous creatures, as well as equally able to insta-kill most characters/T4 things such as 'Nid Warriors, so it's all about busting tanks, clearly. Do you know how many average lascannon shots it takes to outright destroy an AV12 (i.e., allegedly "lightly-armored", as the highest AV that Fast Skimmers or Dedicated Transports get) vehicle at BS4 (an allegedly better-than-average BS)? Nine shots. Nine lascannons, representing roughly a 225-point investment not accounting for the models carrying them, fired by troops with high BS, to destroy, on average, a single vehicle with armor, admittedly on the high end of the range, that is considered light, conceptually. If that isn't a problem I don't know what is. Furthermore, while it's true to say that one lascannon shot can destroy such a vehicle, it's equally true to say that our 9 lascannon shots might fail to do so--out of 6 hits it's not statistically wacky to fail to roll many pens and/or fail to roll any 5+ results on said pens.

If only there was a cheap anti-tank gun that could be taken en-mass, gave a plus to the roll on the damage table and as a bonus works better the closer you are.

Lascannons are overpriced and ineffective - this does not make transports overpowered.

[ZeromuS]

If these rumours are true then they do fix the Tau quite a bit - the idea of firing 3 plasma rifle shots at 24" is great.

AND if the change to preferred enemy is true regarding re-rolls in shooting. My God any time I play against Orks at almost any points size I am bringing O'Shovah. Imagine a Tau army, rerolling all its missed shooting. And then Markerlights my dear god, the markerlights. Ork Trukks are dead on first Tau shooting phase, then they need to footslog against pulse rifles and missile pods.

No need for TL Missile pod battlesuits, you can take more guns instead O.O

[Azzy]

If you think codices alone are responsible for turning the highly-competitive side of the game into a test of who has the best transports and Troops choices, that seems like an odd conclusion. This is a phenomenon that has occurred across all codices since the advent of the edition ... it just took people a little while (though not too long, really) to realize it and begin building lists that took full advantage of it--i.e. parking lots with other bits and bobs thrown in, or, from another perspective, as much AV11-12 spam as you can manage with other bits and bobs thrown in.

I'm sorry, but transport rules (that is, the manner in which units behave whilst embarked, fire points, effects of destruction of the vehicle, scoring from within, etc.), and vehicle damage tables in general (the extreme difficulty, statistically speaking, of destroying anything with better than AV10 with non-melta weapons, and the extreme randomness of the results, e.g. an equal chance to effectively Shake a vehicle, do something else meaningless such as knock the storm bolter off a Rhino, or blow it up on a penetrating hit) are completely bent right now. Granted, you can always shunt this off by saying that the problem is codices making transports or other vehicles too cheap, but when it's something that shows its face with every army that can really mech up, with the possible exception of Tau, that is not convincing.

For example, let's take a lascannon. This is the trademark, dedicated anti-tank ranged weapon in the game. It is generally very expensive (~25 points for the weapon alone in most armies) and its purpose is fairly plainly to kill vehicles; missile launchers are just as good against most monstrous creatures, as well as equally able to insta-kill most characters/T4 things such as 'Nid Warriors, so it's all about busting tanks, clearly. Do you know how many average lascannon shots it takes to outright destroy an AV12 (i.e., allegedly "lightly-armored", as the highest AV that Fast Skimmers or Dedicated Transports get) vehicle at BS4 (an allegedly better-than-average BS)? Nine shots. Nine lascannons, representing roughly a 225-point investment not accounting for the models carrying them, fired by troops with high BS, to destroy, on average, a single vehicle with armor, admittedly on the high end of the range, that is considered light, conceptually. If that isn't a problem I don't know what is. Furthermore, while it's true to say that one lascannon shot can destroy such a vehicle, it's equally true to say that our 9 lascannon shots might fail to do so--out of 6 hits it's not statistically wacky to fail to roll many pens and/or fail to roll any 5+ results on said pens.

And I could go into further detail about the manner in which this interacts with transport rules and the prime importance of Troops, but I think it's fairly plain for anyone who ponders it a while, and it would make the post overly long, but if you like I will do so.

The point is that these are core rules issues: The vehicle rules, broadly, and the transport rules, specifically.

The problems with vehicles in 5e are an outgrowth of 3e and 4e as the rules in 5e are relatively small adjustments (sometimes with disproportionate consequences) to preexisting rules. 5e did make transports more survivable than they were in 4e (which was necessary, because they were deathtraps previously). But the fact that vehicles are treated so distinctly from all other units is the root of many of their problems, but that's a problem not isolated to 5e.

[Sami]

...

And remind me again what enables an army to spam that many vehicles in a list? That's right, its codex. Troops are an important factor in the game now, so all codexes should have access to useful troops (sadly some 4th ed codexes had shocking troops choices). Troops too effective for their points? Codex issue. Vehicle rules are fine if the vehicles are costed appropriately, but again most 5th edition codexes have stuffed this up too.

Codexes need to be balanced internally (i.e. each unit ideally being useful) and externally (against the capabilities of other codexes and against the main rulebook itself). Almost every codex released for 5th has failed in some big way on this front.

[gunmnky]

And remind me again what enables an army to spam that many vehicles in a list? That's right, its codex. Troops are an important factor in the game now, so all codexes should have access to useful troops (sadly some 4th ed codexes had shocking troops choices). Troops too effective for their points? Codex issue. Vehicle rules are fine if the vehicles are costed appropriately, but again most 5th edition codexes have stuffed this up too.

Codexes need to be balanced internally (i.e. each unit ideally being useful) and externally (against the capabilities of other codexes and against the main rulebook itself). Almost every codex released for 5th has failed in some big way on this front.

Only if you ignore the rules. It's not a codex problem that a lascannon has the same chance of destroying a rhino as it does a land raider. Nor is it a codex problem that GW is sticking to USR's. Afterall, a power weapon is more powerful in the hands of a space marine than a guardsman, but without making USR's obsolete, you can't fix this at the codex level. And no, making the sword cheaper or spamming it doesn't solve the problem, it just creates new ones.

Why would you make vehicles more expensive because AT weapons can't do their job? Why would you make AT weapons even better at knocking out infantry without fixing the issue of how the anti-tank rules work at the BRB level?

[Morticon]

Only if you ignore the rules. It's not a codex problem that a lascannon has the same chance of destroying a rhino as it does a land raider.

While I do, admittedly, have trouble counting to potato, I have it on good authority that the chances of destroying a rhino are, in fact, remarkably different from destroying a land raider.

[Sildani]

Gunmnky might have been referring to the Vehicle Damage Chart, which is the same whether you glance or penetrate.

[lantzkev]

Gunmnky might have been referring to the Vehicle Damage Chart, which is the same whether you glance or penetrate.

I'm hoping he is, but in that same vein, you're more likely to be facing a "full" pen on a rhino vs a 50/50 of glance pen on a landraider, so even then it's not true lol.

[gunmnky]

Land Raider Penetrate = 1/3 chance to destroy
Rhino Penetrate = 1/3 chance to destroy

Land Raider glance = 1/6 chance to destroy
Rhino glance = 1/6 chance to destroy

Wow, those ARE remarkably different!

I didn't know a 5+ gave you a 50% chance to pen. You must tell me how that math works out.

Oh, and pen/glancing has nothing to do with destroying the vehicle. They are 2 separate events with 2 separate rolls. You can penetrate a war trakk with a vanquisher and still not destroy it. You can penetrate a land raider with a lascannon and blow it up with 1 shot. One != the other.

[Vaktathi]

The only thing it really stops is banshee/vanguard spam.

In what world were Banshee's and Vanguard Vet's spammed?

The survival of basic terminators is greatly increased

So, power weapons aren't that prevalent, meaning it's not a huge deal, yet it greatly increases the survival of basic terminators?

[gunmnky]

In what world were Banshee's and Vanguard Vet's spammed?

So, power weapons aren't that prevalent, meaning it's not a huge deal, yet it greatly increases the survival of basic terminators?

The world where people remember 3rd edition that started biel-tan armies of scorpions, banshees, and reapers? I consistently played games where banshees outnumbered my marines. I've also played games where my opponent fielded 10 strong squads of vanguard with power weapons/storm shields.

When did I say they weren't prevalent? I guess I could say it stops someone from combining 50 guard and 10 commissars into a 60 wound, 10 power weapon force? Or the 10 man squads of relic relic blades that nobody uses? Yeah, I guess it stops those too.

It increases survival against basic squads with 1+ power weapons, but it doesn't make those units useless as everyone here seems to believe. Just because a power sword doesn't do something that anti-tank weapons can't, doesn't mean its bad.