|
|
Post by commissardanno on May 16, 2012 17:16:12 GMT -5
I think we need a topic for WH40K 6th, since we seem to be spamming other topics. Anywho, talk about rumors, facts and possible scuplts for the upcoming release.
|
|
|
|
Post by neb on May 17, 2012 11:23:40 GMT -5
Beats of war = good,
Yakface =good,
Blood of kittens = wouldn't trust a single word what-so-ever.
Stop panicking ross lol
|
|
|
|
Post by discordian on May 17, 2012 13:35:51 GMT -5
REPENT THE END IS NEAR!
|
|
|
|
Post by doctorclockwork on May 17, 2012 13:44:34 GMT -5
Blood of kittens was actually spot on with the blood angels and grey knights codices. Why don't you trust them?
|
|
|
|
Post by discordian on May 17, 2012 14:10:16 GMT -5
Blood of kittens was actually spot on with the blood angels and grey knights codices. Why don't you trust them? I don’t trust them because they lift a lot of their stuff from other sources but add their own little touch of vagueness to it. So that when the full rules are leaked by some early draft they're like "hey we where right because the way we said it fills in the blanks better" If you want real rumors try and track down dedicated English run forums. That’s where all the supposed greats get their private information from if they're not actual apart of GWs distribution system. |
|
|
|
Post by discordian on May 22, 2012 15:43:17 GMT -5
So planes next month. There are prices floating around from stores being notified of there pricing.
That kind of nails it in the bag for 6th edition coming out the following month, like all the rumors suggest.
I'm curious if there will be some kind of rules supplement for them or are they are just going to be classified as random units waiting for the next edition to come out to make sense of it. I'm banking on it having the full rules for the fliers in 6th edition so that the transition from 5th will be a little easier.
|
|
|
|
Post by ross on May 22, 2012 16:36:53 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by discordian on May 22, 2012 20:10:15 GMT -5
I am not a big fan of this method. The taking wounds itself wont take alot of time, but the people trying to take advantage of this mechanic will slow the game to a crawl.
|
|
|
|
Post by jeremyholiday on May 22, 2012 21:51:51 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by ross on May 23, 2012 5:29:55 GMT -5
I am not a big fan of this method. The taking wounds itself wont take alot of time, but the people trying to take advantage of this mechanic will slow the game to a crawl. I don't see how, it's a simple concept - the squad took 5 wounds from shooting so the 5 guys closest take one wound each. As far as moving your guys and shooting it's no different then when people move their guys so they can charge specific models in a unit or positioning hqs so they don't have to suicide charge into combat. |
|
|
|
Post by discordian on May 23, 2012 7:49:53 GMT -5
I am not a big fan of this method. The taking wounds itself wont take alot of time, but the people trying to take advantage of this mechanic will slow the game to a crawl. I don't see how, it's a simple concept - the squad took 5 wounds from shooting so the 5 guys closest take one wound each. As far as moving your guys and shooting it's no different then when people move their guys so they can charge specific models in a unit or positioning hqs so they don't have to suicide charge into combat. Positioning by moving and charging in the same turn is really not hard at all, I'll agree with you. Trying to move based on where you think the enemy will be moving to and then proceeding to shoot you from next turn is a different story. Some people are going to have a lot of trouble playing an allocation mechanic across three different phases in two different turns without having me mash my teeth in annoyance. Also taking from the front like you said is going to make shooting more powerful. Oddly enough it will benefit 3 of the 3 armies I play, but it will hinder the armies that don't rely on shooting or fast redeployment methods to win. You shoot your opponent they remove from the front reducing there total assault threat range. They are dumb enough to shoot you and you remove the ones from the front reducing their assault range even more. I just want to believe there’s more too it. The more I think about this the more I realize that the other rumors about assaulting out of deepstrike and assaulting before the shooting phase like in fantasy are true, because otherwise assaulting if it will be like it exists now would be a terrible in 6th under this system. |
|
|
|
Post by greenmtvince on May 23, 2012 10:43:08 GMT -5
Mmmm, extra measuring and debates over whether the guy waving his lasgun around is closer than the guy using his lasgun to scratch his back.
As a bonus, Nids and Foot Orks will get a much needed nerf-bat because they were so OTT.
|
|
|
|
Post by ross on May 23, 2012 16:17:11 GMT -5
Well as it stands now a shooting army has almost no chance of beating drew's orks. IG come close to actually putting out enough firepower to make it an even fight when the orks get to them.
Disclaimer: Drew's orks are not too overpowered because the game is cc oriented so there are a lot of powerful cc units/armies that can easily go toe to toe with orks - my point is if you want to make a shooting army, there is almost no point because the current game system means the guys in the back just take it for the team and the squad still gets there on turn 3 with still enough to beat up on the wimpy shooty troops. I have heard that 6th edition overall wants to turn the focus to shooting (as it is in the future where shooting should be the main thing in warfare) instead of cc. Thus if that is their true desire - then taking shooting wounds on the front guys is a good way to do it.
|
|
|
|
Post by greenmtvince on May 23, 2012 18:31:11 GMT -5
Well as it stands now a shooting army has almost no chance of beating drew's orks. I accept that challenge... Glad to see the orks are getting a fighta-bomma. And call me crazy, but I actually like the Storm Talon. A little conversion work and I think it'd be perfect. |
|
|
|
Post by droofus on May 23, 2012 18:55:47 GMT -5
(as it is in the future where shooting should be the main thing in warfare) Whenever someone says that, I always think of a Knight in the 13th century. He would naturally assume that the future of warfare was close combat from horseback since he could never imagine the implications of gunpowder weaponry. Likewise, I think it foolish to assume just because ranged weaponry reigns supreme today that it will continue to do so for the rest of human existence. Also: You're on, Vinnie. Shall we say 1850 and then try and find a weekend that works for both of us? ;D |
|
