Official WarSeer Warhammer 40,000 6th Edition discussion thread

[Eldoriath]

Seeing that almost everyone and their brother has assault grenades any rule that is negated by them becomes rather obscure...

[Mikial]

Liber- Anyone besides me care to articulate how utterly ridiculous this point is? I'm having trouble finding the words.

Just wanted to make another point, though others responded to this pretty well. Snapfire would make certain units practically immune to assaults, Firedragons and IG platoon's to name two. Even at BS 1 snapfire would unbalance some units both ways. For example, Space wolf grey hunters would be pretty dumb, well even dumber, as they get to shoot you in the shooting phase, shoot you again when you charge them and then get an extra attack as if 'they' charged. This is balanced?


A lot of these rumors seem absurd, unusable, or unbalanced in their current form. Oh, and I do play fantasy, well did, as 8th edition killed it in my area.

It was a really big mistake and major unbalancing change when they took "Overwatch", or "Snap Fire" out of the rules. It's absurd that your well armed infantry unit simply stands there and watches as an assault unit comes around the corner, charges them, and cuts them to pieces without them ever firing a shot in self defense. It's completely reasonable and (dare I use the word in a 40K post?) realistic for a unit to hunker down and stare down their rifle sights at where they expect the enemy to appear. What else is a unit that relies on firepower, such as IG or Eldar Guardians, going to do when faced with the potential to be assaulted by an enemy that will rip them to pieces in close combat like Nids, orks or demons?

[Gauthic]

Perhaps Snap Fire is at normal BS unless the assaulting unit has assault grenades, then they're BS 1 as they're firing while taking cover

[For mankind]

Mh if the rumors are true, I am asking myself, how snap fire would work with the random charge movement?

Is it not triggerd when the charging unit dosen't make it?
Or is it triggerd when the charging unit makes it, but losses have to be removed from the models closest to the unit snap fireing, so that after the snap fire the charge range may not be enugh for the surving models to make it into close combat.
Could it be possible, that snap fire wouldn't just weaken an opponent running into close combat, but avoid the close combat at all?

[Theocracity]

Mh if the rumors are true, I am asking myself, how snap fire would work with the random charge movement?

Is it not triggerd when the charging unit dosen't make it?
Or is it triggerd when the charging unit makes it, but losses have to be removed from the models closest to the unit snap fireing, so that after the snap fire the charge range may not be enugh for the surving models to make it into close combat.
Could it be possible, that snap fire wouldn't just weaken an opponent running into close combat, but avoid the close combat at all?

I would assume that it only triggers if you make it in to Assault, and unless the rules for model removal change you would have the choice about which to remove. Even then you'd have already made it to Assault.

The situation where a unit doesn't make the charge would just be the opponent's shooting phase as the assaulters pay for not making it far enough.

[Dwane Diblie]

Everyone that has refered to 2nd ed Overwatch has been right in catching the - mods to hit as being the balancing factor, but that was not all. In order to go on to Overwatch you had to give up your shooting and you where restricted by your movement as to weather you could fire heavy weapons (or Marines use their rapid fire rule). It was always better to fire normaly unless under threat of assault that you can't see or unless you couldn't see anything to start with.

It seem to me that everyone here is thinking that we are going to get some massavly overpowered abitily to shoot in discriminantly at anything that trys to assault us as offten as we want reguardless of what was done in the previous turn. To say Snap Fire is in the game is good, as is to say Overwatch is in also, but there are way too many variables as to how it is triggered and how much damage it will do and what the restrictions on it are to start getting angry, annoyed or calling it OP. We realy have no idea. I would love to see it brought back in to the game and I trust there will be some hefty restrictions to its use.

As for it being OP in 2nd ed? Depended on the amount of terrain and knowlage of the rules. You could quite easely make it realy hard for your units to be hit by making sure you took advantage of as many mods as posable. -1 for being on overwatch, -1 for being assaulted by target, -1 for emerging from out of site (not cover), -1 for soft cover, -2 for hard cover. the last 2 rarly got added as you could chose the point where you took the shot, but say you did got the best result then you would have been at -5 to hit. Only some of the mightest characters could have hit that.

[lantzkev]

well in 2nd edition we also had firing arcs, so you could avoid it by positioning yourself well or limit it's effects.

Warspiders were terrors until you put some overwatch up.

[Archibald_TK]

BolS posted the rules for June Warhammer World Mission Pack

The last page contain an interesting ally chart. It may be a hint of 6th or it may be the reason why the rumour started in the first place. Each race has best buddies, not so happy allies, unholy alliances and races that will never ally with them at any cost (like Eldar and Necrons).

- Tau are best friends with Eldar and vanilla Marines, it's the only army that can ally with anyone (except Nids of course)
- Nids have no friends at all.
- Necrons have no best buddies (not even BA!), so do Orks and GK.
- SoB don't ally happily with Astartes of all kind.

EDIT-
Someone on their blog mentioned that the chart is the same as last year. I was unable to find the old one to verify the claim but I think it's worth mentioning it.
EDIT 2-
Saw the old chart, it's not the same as there are major differences (like Tau shifting from being unable to ally with SM to best buddies). It also means that that concept of allies at WHW is not specifically tied to 6th and thus may not be a hint about a change of rules. On the other hand it gives credence to some of the rumoured background changes.

[Tarax]

Just thought about this: if we get snap-fire, do we also get retreat as a assault-reaction? That would fit in completely to Fantasy and also benefit some armies which will loose against whatever may assault them.

[SideshowLucifer]

I would be thrilled with charge reactions, but I don't see it happening. 40k is more of an action-packed type of game where retreating would likely lessen the over-the-top brutality of war.

[brassangel]

It was a really big mistake and major unbalancing change when they took "Overwatch", or "Snap Fire" out of the rules. It's absurd that your well armed infantry unit simply stands there and watches as an assault unit comes around the corner, charges them, and cuts them to pieces without them ever firing a shot in self defense. It's completely reasonable and (dare I use the word in a 40K post?) realistic for a unit to hunker down and stare down their rifle sights at where they expect the enemy to appear. What else is a unit that relies on firepower, such as IG or Eldar Guardians, going to do when faced with the potential to be assaulted by an enemy that will rip them to pieces in close combat like Nids, orks or demons?

It would also be realistic for them to make a tactical withdrawal, find cover, and buy more time to shoot at the approaching unit. In other words: exactly as it happens now.

The armies mentioned (Tyranids, Orks, Daemons) are dedicated assault armies, for the most part, but are consistently at or near the bottom of the pile in competitive play. Why? Shooting is already too good. There's no more Sweep either, so assault units only get to hit once (if at all) before getting shredded by small arms fire.

You basically get three stories with dedicated assault armies or units - outside of a 600+ point Deathstar, of course:

"I killed a 30 point Rhino, and then got shot to pieces by the unit piling out. There goes my 220 points of Genestealers. Sweet!"

"I played against a Coteaz list that spent 25 minutes in every shooting phase blowing holes in my Orks. Game lasted until the top of 3. Sweet!"

"I actually got my Bloodletters units into assault. Yeah, they hit some mopey dudes who blocked the flanks from me, and were promptly shot to bits by the far cheaper units behind them. Sweet!"

I don't want Sweeping Advance back in a way where one unit can run through an entire army, but if Snap-Fire and Overwatch are in 6th after a shooting-heavy 5th, assault-based armies will basically have paid their dues long enough to have earned something like that.

Meltaguns, Missiles, and Psybolts have dominated the game for far too long. Not close combat attacks.

[KarlPedder]

While I tend to play shooty armies myself so it doesn't effect me so much, but there is something wrong when you don't really want to win a CC in a single round if you launched the assault because if you do you will be left swinging in the wind where your opponents entire army can now shoot at the assault unit that just killed one of their squads. Sweeping assaults with something like snapfire helps with this, if you assault an enemy unit that is on their lonesome then it will be same as now but if you wipe out an enemy squad and are close enough you expose yourself to 1 units reduced shooting instead of potentially your opponents whole army.

[Spell_of_Destruction]

While I tend to play shooty armies myself so it doesn't effect me so much, but there is something wrong when you don't really want to win a CC in a single round if you launched the assault because if you do you will be left swinging in the wind where your opponents entire army can now shoot at the assault unit that just killed one of their squads. Sweeping assaults with something like snapfire helps with this, if you assault an enemy unit that is on their lonesome then it will be same as now but if you wipe out an enemy squad and are close enough you expose yourself to 1 units reduced shooting instead of potentially your opponents whole army.

I completely agree that this is one of the really weak 'gamey' aspects of the system. There are plenty of ways to solve this but I'm not sure that any of them would fit into GW's dumbed down rules style. I have always thought that 40k should have charge reactions like WHFB and to protect the charging troops you could use smoke grenades or a nearby squad could provide covering fire. Y'know - somewhat realistic tactics.

[althathir]

While I tend to play shooty armies myself so it doesn't effect me so much, but there is something wrong when you don't really want to win a CC in a single round if you launched the assault because if you do you will be left swinging in the wind where your opponents entire army can now shoot at the assault unit that just killed one of their squads. Sweeping assaults with something like snapfire helps with this, if you assault an enemy unit that is on their lonesome then it will be same as now but if you wipe out an enemy squad and are close enough you expose yourself to 1 units reduced shooting instead of potentially your opponents whole army.

Yeah this has always bugged me too, and something like snapfire is needed if we can consolidate into assaults again.

That said early in the rumour cycle one of my friends mentioned seeing a rumour that turn order would change. For example...
P1 would move
P2 would Shoot
P1 would Assault
p2 would move
P1 would shoot
P2 would assualt

p1 = player that went first

I haven't seen a rumour like this one anywhere (so its really unlikely IMO), but it does make a lot more sense to me.

[Eldoriath]

@althathir
Could have been a mix up with some WD, or perhaps it was FW, about switching place on the shooting. But this was special for real close quarter combat with limited vision. Those rules went just like how you describe but they were official as special scenario rules. But I guess rumour reverb could have made those rules into rumours about 6th ed turn order.

[althathir]

@althathir
Could have been a mix up with some WD, or perhaps it was FW, about switching place on the shooting. But this was special for real close quarter combat with limited vision. Those rules went just like how you describe but they were official as special scenario rules. But I guess rumour reverb could have made those rules into rumours about 6th ed turn order.

Fair enough, like I said it was second hand information. It just makes more sense to me than adding in overwatch, plus it breaks up the turn order a bit so their is less wait time between which player is active which seems to be a fairly big complaint.

[Sami]

Just thought about this: if we get snap-fire, do we also get retreat as a assault-reaction? That would fit in completely to Fantasy and also benefit some armies which will loose against whatever may assault them.

Would like to see an opposing I test (much like checking for sweeping advances). If you're consolidated in to, you can choose to snap fire or flee. Snap fire gives you the chance of taking out their unit but you might still end up in combat, while fleeing would leave them out in the open ready for return fire, but you might get swept up as you were hacked down while running like cowards :P

[SideshowLucifer]

So every army that would want to retreat would pretty much just fail the retreat test. Yeah, that sounds like a great idea..lol

[Theocracity]

So every army that would want to retreat would pretty much just fail the retreat test. Yeah, that sounds like a great idea..lol

Both flavors of Eldar would be fine, befitting of the tricky xenos cowards they are.

As for Guard? Well there's a reason why Commissars shoot those who try to run. Hold the line, you dogs! Tau would probably get some sort of way of avoiding that fate in their new dex, to show their tactical nature.

Necron would probably prefer to shoot and fight, as they have a lot of firepower and survivability advantages. And any Ork who wants to run from a fight is a weedy git who deserves what he gets.

It's not too useful to discuss this as a rule, since it is speculation instead of rumor, but I think people could live with it.

Edit: Thinking about it more, a retreat reaction would not be that great as it dilutes the purpose of Combat Tactics. We should probably wait to get any solid rumors about it before discussing it further.

[Mikial]

Sorry if this has already been discussed, but I've heard that Apocalypse will be dropped and the rules will become part of the regular 6th Ed rules. Anyone heard anything about this?