6th Edition being pulled?

commandersasha wrote:

...OK, new USR rule rumoured for 6.5:

Quote :

All Internet 40K Forum Moderators should accompany their rulings with pictures of girls in pop socks.

That’s better, this change will have the TDC stamp of approval.

This release is still conjecture, but at this point it does appear to happening. I am awaiting this new BRB with considerable interest, and some trepidation – I think it had better be absolutely spot-on, otherwise this could backfire big time. First, we have Jervis Johnson’s recent WD article where he said [again quoting CommanderSasha here] that “he is a big fan of gaming where like-minded players agree on how to use the huge range of models available in 40K to create balanced games, and he emphasized how GW have done the best they can for their fans by creating a hugely diverse power spectrum and the onus is now entirely on us, the fans, to make the game playable, balanced and fun.” Coming so close to the release of this new ruleset, that could open up quite a few doors for new directions. Big ones, too.

And then we have the content. There have been numerous expansions released since 6th first came out, Stronghold, Escalation, Death from the Skies, etc., plus the dataslates and supplements. It makes sense that many, if not all of the universal rules from these will get incorporated into the new BRB, but many of them have been recent releases and they are not cheap, so as convenient as this move may be, it will also cause quite a bit of alienation. Especially considering that 6th itself is only 2 years old, barely.

And lastly, there are the actual changes and their R&D. If there are considerable new rule changes to go along with the amalgamated content, that might help to mollify some people (and if there aren’t, well ……… more people leaving the hobby, many more). But considering that we have a new BRB coming after just 2 years instead of the traditional 4, and considering how much other products they have been pumping out during those two years, how well-tested and integrated will these changes be? I do not own all of the recent new codexes, but my own confidence in the “design team” was rather shaken after the release of the ‘Nid codex earlier this year.

I want to be positive about this pending release, I really do, but if it is not well done, I can see the game taking yet another huge hit from its already-dwindling fan base.

I find the whole thing contradictory. First they say, "Let the player's manage the rules." And then they release a new ruleset. Not to derail us again, so no one do that please, but it could be a good thing if hasbro bought GW, because at least they deal in games. I may catch some flakk here, but I think the game sells more than the hobby side of 40K. I say that because a hobbyist will look at a pack of mandrakes, think they're beautiful and drop whatever price games workshop asks for them. If Games Workshop would take some responsibility with the game side and frequently update rules they'd do much better. As a gamer I can say with certainty I won't be buying any mandrakes or court of the archon models until our new codex release, if even then. However, all it would take from GW is to make mandrakes playable, I don't know give them power weapons and a pain token, and remove the minimum of 1 member from each slot in the court, and we'd all start buying mandrakes, slyyths, and medusae.

That rant actually ties into the on-topic part of my post here, if it's true that things like escalation and stronghold assault are going to make it into their book then I think it's even more important for GW to takes responsibility for their game. If the basic rulebook says I can use a revenant titan, and I show up to a tournament (I'm feigning ignorance here) and I can't play with it, even though the basic rule book permits it, I'll be pissed that I just spent $300 on something unplayable. It's not in games workshop interest to have certain models banned. And tournament organizers and the players will do just that. They will never sell but only to hobbyists. On the other hand if the rules were more balanced, they'd sell more models. Like Gobsmakked said, if this release happens, and they just throw a bunch of crap out there without any thinking, all it will do will drive people who play 40k mostly for the gaming side, into the arms of games with better, more balanced rule sets, that are probably cheaper.

I personally get the feeling that this new rulebook is just that, a way to consolidate all the other supplement releases into the BRB, in an attempt to sell more models. The problem is, when it's in the basic rulebook, the legitimacy of simply excluding it from regular play goes by the wayside. It can be done, sure, but there will be no standard, meaning there will be different house rules everywhere you go. What's the point in playing a game that will change rules city to city? Where fortifications are okay here, but not there, and super heavies are fine there, but not here.

So yeah, in summary: 6.5/7th edition rulebook. Don't screw it up GW.

Ill divulge what my buddy was playing at Adepticon when he was on the floor in the middle of the night play testing 7th, "Supposedly"

1. Overwatch is going back to 2nd edition rules. This being you chose a squad or whatever to do nothing in your turn, they basically post up and cover an alley way or what have you a valley etc you get the picture. During the opposing players turn if at anytime their units come into range/Los that unit may fire at full BS right away. From what I understand this makes it more tactical and seems like more fun.

2. In conjunction with this I believe assault has been fixed, being as you can assault out of reserves like it used to be (WWP should allow it anyway but whatever) However from my understanding you jump out of a drop pod or WWP into a squads overwatch you then take full BS shots right away.

From what he said it sounded like the game got a little bit more tactical and it revives assault. So you can choose to do nothing during your turn and get ready for overwatch or you use your turn and you get slaughtered because of sneak attacks. That was the big change that he told me about, I think some of the other stuff is pretty good and I wouldnt doubt that they incorporate all of the other books into this new edition. I don't know what they will call it and I personally don't think it matters, as long as they bring assault back. I'm choosing DE because of the range of options I have (drifting away from Tau) I don't want to be forced into a play style. Assuming what my buddy said is true I have high hopes for a possibly more tactical game.

Its_Rumble wrote:

Ill divulge what my buddy was playing at Adepticon when he was on the floor in the middle of the night play testing 7th, "Supposedly" [....]

"Supposedly"  .... love the trust.

Part of that makes me a little sad, i.e., they've further complicated overwatch. The rules didn't need further complication they needed streamlining.  

Revive assault* =  good; however, full BS from out flanking or arriving from reserve = bad.  The rule still removes from existence an actual ambush.  How is it an ambush if the unit being ambushed has the time of day to take aimed shots??????

In other words:

Assuming (1) Mandrakes can assault immediately after outflanking, (2) the ambushed unit can overwatch at full BS against them..... would you field mandrakes?

NO.... they are still being killed off by effective shooting before doing the one (and only) thing that they can do with outflanking/infiltrating.

Mechanically/math-hammer speaking; 120 points of fire warriors double tapping into 120 points of mandrakes still kills 6-7 mandrakes (6-7 of 8 ). (stealth and 5+ cover; 5 of 8 mandrakes dead before completing the ambush).  

*technically, assault was never dead; just DE assault was dead because low toughness and no armor is very weak to overwatch. Together with easy access to strength boosting weapons (power axe... giving a marine Sargent an instant kill weapon against DE for the same price of an old power weapon at the cost of what? going second in CC-- the status F@#&ing quo.  I just LOVE risking the shadow field in those challenges.....).  Tougher units or units with armor aren't phased by overwatch. Note that most deathstars are close combat units.  Finally, with the effectiveness of assault against vehicles, assault is arguable bigger than it was in previous editions for other armies..... I apologize for  spontaneous rant.

Unless I can get any additional information out of the local GW store here; I'll bite my tongue and just adopt some optimism--i.e., stand and stare into a corner chanting "change can be good.  change can be good.  change can be good. [etc. etc.]."

Well the thing is you do not get both, you would not want to assault a unit that is in overwatch mode. Which means they effectively lose a turn of actions with that unit. It only behooves a General to keep units in overwatch in certain situations. I would have to imagine a general who kept all of his units in overwatch will lose, badly. The type of ambush I was talking about is you post up a unit in cover or whatnot in a strategic place, they forgo their movements shooting etc and then during your turn they can shoot whatever they can, Their ambush. A unit moves shoots posts up somewhere (opting out of overwatch) you fly in out of no where( Venom Raider WWP what have you) and jump their guns in assault that turn (your ambush).

Overwatch now happens no matter what. I think it will even it out in the end because you really have to pick and choose. Both sides will, hence making a more strategic game.

Why are you fielding Mandrakes XD

From what I understand people were pissed at the beginning of 6th because they were bringing back overwatch, which worked quite well from what I've heard, but it was this new version.

In regards to tau though all they do is wait for their next shooting phase. But think of this. You have their firewarrior base in overwatch constantly, ok as a tau player I swear to god I get more kills out of my FW in overwatch than I do any other part of the game, 2-3 12 man squads at double tap? even with my crap dice I will get wounds. However there is this really pesky Crisis team jumping around on one side of the board with 6 burst cannons doing their thang (jet packs FTW, *corsairs*). Oh its a good thing you brought a raider with 9 wyches and a haemon. You drive that raider right into their chest jump out and assault without fear of overwatch from 24 S5 AP5 shots, which would wreck your wyches day. *sift through the bloody ripped apart can of tuna and pick up your free pain token, thank you very much*

Moral of the story

Don't assault Fire warriors in overwatch mode.

Do assault the things not in Overwatch.

Obviously this is all purely situational and you will be making that crack decision at game time.

Oh I get.... too bad its too late to edit my response.....


Someone has to field mandrakes,.... albeit I've been fielding them mostly as objective markers.

Yea I probably didn't explain it as well as I could have in the first place. Well then I have to say those are some damn sexy objective markers. I want to look into converting the wood elf dryads into mandrakes. Maybe kit bash or get good enough with greenstuff to make their pants.

That would actually be a good Overwatch system: as in SpaceHulk, Overwatch should be a chosen action, and as such should cost you an alternative action, such as shooting in your previous turn.

In a discussion of potential new rules, Mandrakes are EXTREMELY relevant, as are Genestealers: they are sexy iconic units, with great fluff and great models, who are currently unusable because of the current main rule set.
If future rule sets are to shift towards more close combat, and less stand-and-shoot, Mandrakes and Genies will be the Litmus paper test.

In other news, there are rumours of a shift to a % based 40k system again. Would be interesting to see how they do it with lords of war, fortifications etc. Without those it'd be fairly straightforward and similar to fantasy - min 25% troops, max 25% everything else might work (hit your cap in some places but not others)

See, the percentage thing I just don't see being true. There are always rumours of course, but that one is too far in my eyes.
The 6.5 theory has been floating for a long time, comes from many sources and seems very much in keeping with GWs style for managing 40k at the moment. Moving to a percentage system, getting rid of the force organization chart, just seems to me to be too large a leap. Its too radical a change for a simple rules update that this new version is supposedly going to be.
I really don;t see both going together. IF there is a move to percentage, then its not 6.5. That is too radical a change for an update, and would have to imply a much more comprehensive change in the rules.
Considering how strong the 6.5 stuff is and has been for a while, I'm tempted to lean that way and call shenanigans on the percentage rumour.

Anybody heard a specific date of when the new / not new edition will hit shelves, also anyone wanna take bets on when the new /n ot new edition's errata comes out lol.

About the percentage thing, it's probably a rumor because many speculate the new rulebook is to tie the rules from fantasy and 40k together. Making both games accessible to both players. I kind of believe this rumor because, I believe warmachine does the same thing, and since they've taken a good chunk of GW's market, it would make sense for GW to follow suit.

That being said I hadn't thought about that. If the two rules do merge into one I wonder which will disappear. Will fantasy have a force organization chart, or will 40k be percentage based?

may 24 is supposedly preorder day. Percentages would be neat but would certainly require retooling my armies (especially my double knight IG army in the works) based on the percentages that BoLS reported today...25% for allies and other detachments hurts a little haha. But I think that would certainly balance out the game some.

The rumoured 25% for Lords of War sounds about right to me. It takes any of the more ridiculous ones out of anything but larger games (a Revenant would only be playable at 3600 points or above), which is where they belong, but still allows some of the smaller and less offensive LoW in. Crucially this includes allowing a Knight, the GW cash cow, in 1500 point games.

Just checked it out. I might be on board with percentages because it balances out a lot of things. For instance <25% lords of war means no revenant titans in a 2000 point game, <20% fortifications means no macro cannon... I think? and <25% allies would mitigate some of the ally cheese without getting rid of it.

But I still can't bring myself to believe it.

EDIT: Though 40% troops seems a little high. I know chaos space marines will not like that amount. Most space marines probably. 800 points in troops is a lot.

EDIT #2: Thought Count Adhemar, how would that effect Imperial Knights in general? The codex is supposed to be playable in regular games, but you couldn't take <25% super heavies in an army that consists of super heavies?

Expletive Deleted wrote:

EDIT #2: Thought Count Adhemar, how would that effect Imperial Knights in general? The codex is supposed to be playable in regular games, but you couldn't take <25% super heavies in an army that consists of super heavies?

Thinking about it, Knights aren't actually LoW anyway. So you'd still be able to field a single Knight at 1500 points if there's a 25% allies limit. Knight Primary detachments would be unaffected.

Good catch. Super heavies do not equal lords of war.

In other news, we have a rumor about sideboards being in:
http://natfka.blogspot.com/2014/05/major-changes-to-40k-coming-sideboards.html

Pretty crazy stuff and seems to be a nod towards the competitive crowd. If true this will certainly be a massive change along with percentages.

ligolski wrote:

In other news, we have a rumor about sideboards being in:
http://natfka.blogspot.com/2014/05/major-changes-to-40k-coming-sideboards.html

Pretty crazy stuff and seems to be a nod towards the competitive crowd.  If true this will certainly be a massive change along with percentages.

Now that's just getting silly. So I can/must bring up to 5 different secondary detachments, each of which is up to 25% of my points total. How the hell am I transporting all this stuff?

Not sure I believe that one at all. Seems to be tournament based and we all know what GW think about tournaments.

*sniff sniff* something smells like it's come out the back of a bull. That's too major a change for an updated edition, that'd need a new edition. If it is 6th updated, I reckon we'll simply see a consolidation of Escalation, Stronghold Assault and the extensive FAQs into the main book, and probably some tweaks to everything that 6th introduced such as allies, fortifications, overwatch, and rulebook psychic powers.

I for one would love this idea of a secondary detachment. I hate having to bring an ADL for flyers, and sometimes run into no flyers. This also allows for the All comers lists to come into play. I hope this is true.

Is it just me or does "sideboard" seem too magic the gathering?

It's Very Magic the Gathering.

Well, even if that does get included (which I highly doubt), people will probably just not play with that rule, like how people play without flyers and other nonesense

ligolski wrote:

In other news, we have a rumor about sideboards being in:
http://natfka.blogspot.com/2014/05/major-changes-to-40k-coming-sideboards.html

Pretty crazy stuff and seems to be a nod towards the competitive crowd.  If true this will certainly be a massive change along with percentages.

Why do people still believe Naftka at all? He just takes whatever crap people send him and throws it on his site as "news".