The latest 6th edition rumor is a new system for wound allocation, at least for shooting. This brings forth a more cinematic view of the table top and gets rid of some of the odd funky formations we see every day.

We are getting closer, and little bits here and there are filtering down from various sources. A large thanks goes out to those sources. Also a thanks to tyarlashan for catching this one.

Please remember that these are still considered rumors until we get the book in our grubby little hands.

This information comes to us from Beasts of War
During shooting, wounds must be allocated to the models that are closest to the unit shooting at them. This means if 4 models are wounded from shooting, the four closest models in range are allocated wounds. Apparently you can move them around how you want between those 4 models, but its the closest models that are effected by the shooting.

This means that your melta gunners in the front will often be some of the first to die. No longer will you be able to allocate wounds to the rear of the unit.

With snap fire, overwatch and other changes coming, we are looking at a much more tactical game on the horizon.

81 Comments:

  1. I like it, the less wound allocation shenanigans the better.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Sounds like a real take-notes approach. So if I run at you with 30 boys, I only have to get rid of the first 4 or so regardless how many rounds you shoot? Now your IC's get to act like cowards and hide in the rear? Unless melee is radically changed, horde armies are at a big disadvantage...enough shooting of the guys in front and once again you're a round (or more) from ever getting the charge off....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. IC have upgraded stats for a reason, da warboss, so they can take fire. And if you want them leading the charge, then you have to take that risk. How is if fair that when you shoot at 30 boys the ten in the back die? This is normal. You complain that you will have more trouble pulling off the assult. When in real life does a strait up charge accross the battlefield ever work without taking serious casualties? Just put your boys in a trukk.

      Delete
  3. YES SIMPLICITY FTW!!!!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How is this simpler? You are adding an extra layer and more measuring and possibly more conflict. "wah! My melta guy wasn't theclosest!!1!"
      Was much simpler and quicker before.

      Delete
    2. I believe that may have been sarcasm

      Delete
    3. Yes I hope it was sarcasm. Wound allocation is retarded. Nothing like shooting a mob of 20 orks who are stretched in a 10-12 inch line, doing 5 wounds and watching him pick out the 5 guys 10 inches away so that his poweclaw nob is still right in my face. This way seems to accomplish being faster, AND adding in more strategy at the same time.

      Delete
  4. Can IC be selected when shot? Just wondering as they cant be singled out as of now...

    ReplyDelete
  5. Ah, so back to 4th Ed, where you would move so that your shooting would force multiple wounds on the PF guy, and thus kill them off.
    Sigh.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Makes deepstriking and outflanking much more relevant when you might be able to target an enemy's weakness.

    ReplyDelete
  7. In practice would be just as wonky as any other system. Closest to whom in the firing unit? If I have a 30-strong shoota boy unit wrapping around a tac squad and I move one boy a fraction closer than the others on one end the wounds all start down there? Or if this goes in conjunction with the old leaks, measure from squad leader? Model to model, with multiple measures every fire after to-wound rolls made?

    Boost to MSU shooty armies if they can get the angle on the guys they want to kill - OK two wounds, one of which has to be on that guy. OK now two more, one of which has to be on that guy. Three more, one of which...

    Sounds needlessly messy and sloppy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Most probably it's going to count from group leader aka sergeant.

      Delete
    2. I imagine it's going to be closest-to-closest like in current assault rules. You simply have to find the least amount of distance between the firing unit and the target unit.

      Delete
  8. Agree with sonsoftaurus - more complications + favours msu.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Yes, It's much more cinematic to have your heroes and squad leaders leading the charge from the back. :(

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, then simply put the brave lads in front of the unit :P

      I like this rule actually :))

      Delete
    2. Sounds like you allocate each wound to the nearest model, then the next and so on and so forth until you've gone through all the models that you can see and start again at the front.

      Sounds to me that it's more likely that this would be the way hits are allocated before wound rolls. This way, a model can only be hit once (and therefore only suffer one wound maximum) until all the other models in the squad (presumably that are within los) have taken their hit, and the process starts again with the nearest model.

      So far, I'm liking what I'm hearing about the possible rule changes. 5th Ed was rubbish, but then again, I started out on Rogue Trader, so I would think that :)

      Delete
    3. Well that's where the platoon Commissar usually is anyways, using a bull whip to keep the grunts moving forward...

      Delete
  10. This rule sucks like the rest of the rumours for 6th Ed. so far... Unecessarily complicated (do you measure for each model in the firing squad?), creates more issues than it resolves IMHO and certainly is a huge disadvantage for CC armies.

    I think the concept of a more cinematic game is utter crap. On the contrary, the game rules need to be more abstract, the cinematic side of the game flows naturally if each player is enjoying him/herself and not mirred in bookkeeping.

    I am not a tournament player, but I think the ruleset should be able to satisfy this type of gamers. Casual, beer&bretzel gamers who enjoy telling story while gaming will do so anyway. I don't need GW to make the game more cinematic for me to imagine that my last game with my IG against Orks took place on the world of Sybellia in the Jericho Reach as part of the Achilus Crusade...

    Next time will they require us to use smoke markers to better represent the conditions on the battlefield? And obviously GW will sell these at a premium...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hit the nail on the head here. And don't forget that as vehicles seem to be getting worse in 6th ed., I expect to see the following (using World Eaters as an example):
      1) Rhinos move forward.
      2) Rhinos take 3 glancing hits and die.
      3) Squad jumps out, player spends five minutes arranging models so that powerfist guy is at the back.
      4) Squad moves forward, front row or two of models die because of overwatch.
      5) Squad charges.
      6) More models die to Snap Fire.
      7) Only one or two models are actually left to fight in Close Combat.
      Obviously this is using the main rules of 5th edition, with rumoured rules for 6th, but unless there are more(!) rules we're not aware of, I feel that 6th edition will be a disappointment.

      Delete
    2. What if the Hull Points thing is what you need to get through FIRST before actually damaging the vehicle?

      What if Overwatch and Snapfire or not interchangeable, can only pick one or the other as a reaction?

      What if Armour or Saves are done by levels?

      Rhino still active, damage to squad is not as bad, and enough to still make it in contact with the enemy!

      Delete
    3. The trouble with 'Hull Points needing to be depleted before even damaging vehicles' would be that it would make the game even more of a tankfest than it already is. For example, a leman russ could survive, on average, six railgun hits before it was even in any sort of danger. Vehicles with saves or negative to hit modifiers would be even more survivable (flyers, anyone?).

      Delete
  11. Oh boy can't wait for the measurement arguments bound to come up from this ingenious rule

    ReplyDelete
  12. I swear there are more whiny bitches in this hobby than anywhere on the planet.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm sorry, have you been to a Twilight showing in theater?

      Delete
    2. LOL, Twilight. Shimmery vampires aren't real.

      Delete
  13. if true a stupid rule
    anyone can just put his ICs and S-Weapon guys in the back

    the prob. with wound allocation is that guys that can not do it lose out... like nid warriors, ect.
    its a complettly unneeded rule IMO only good for chees nothing more... not good for killing the S-weapon guy quiker out of a squad... spez with big squads

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. i want to add that this rule only hurts melee units since they have harder time getting across the board if they have to pick of closest models

      Delete
    2. Have to agree with you guys there. Nids are really gonna struggle. Everytime they move forward the first 2 ranks get gunned down! Every rumoured rule though seems to badly screw over nids so GW must have plans for them to fix it, WD codex/update maybe.

      Delete
    3. Foot slogging orks are now obsolete too :(

      Delete
    4. foot slogging orks have been obsolete for a while: they're only good for noob-stomping.

      Delete
    5. Theres a tactical play here if you put your powerfist guy in the back: Yes you avoid shooting mostly but come assault time if hes in the VERY back, he likely wont be engaged, I like this rule as of now.

      Delete
  14. I think this sounds excellent. Why dont people want a more sophisticated game? how will large units not benefit of being better able to hide their special weapons? This will make you think before you move, you need to be carefull were you place your meltas and powerfists. Micro-management people, i salute it! You will also have the choice of hiding your lords and heroes in the thickness like a covard or put him in front with his better save to protect his force. I really hope this rule is true. I would also like to see GW give us rules like: you have 10 marines in which only 6 is visible due to a solid wall or something, your opponent lay down some heavy fire and cause 8 saves to be saved. NOW... you will HAVE to put 2 wounds on the front 2 of the 6 visible, and the rest of the 4 saves on the 4 remaining marines. YOU CANNOT kill something behind a wall.

    I have liked a lot of the rumors of 6th edition, if 6th doesnt become what me and my friends hope, we will probably house rule the hell out of it using most rumors

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The trouble is the micromanagement. By all accounts, the game tends to get bigger, with more models on the table each edition to fill out a 2000 point game. With more models and more complicated (micro-management) rules, the games will become tedious, long, and the same amount of cheese will still happen.

      Delete
  15. slows the game down too much. Unless it's sped up in other areas I call shenanigans.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How are they going to raise points levels and sell more models if the game takes longer to play?

      Delete
    2. Agreed and agreed again. With games trending larger (more models for 2000 points) with each Codex that releases, and a nerfing of vehicles (meaning more troops starting off on first turn), games are going to get quite long, with a lot of different markers to denote overwatch and hull points. This is really starting to sound much more complicated than the current game.

      Delete
  16. Well, this means that meltas are suddenly far less desirable the before, meleé squads have quite a bit more trouble actually reaching the enemy and the term 'ablative meat shields' is suddenly absurdly accurate.
    I imagine that the every nasty meleé bloke trudges forward with the unit champion and the special weapons guy on his sides and the rest of the squad in a half circle in front of him, to absorb all shooting.
    It is curious that nearly all 6th ed rules we heard so far are utter garbage. Then again, this one is the least overtly stupid, so who knows what'll be in store yet.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If you have a 10 man squad and you take 10 wounds then every member will still have to save.

      It may provide a small amount of protection, but then again you can have an interceptor squad teleport behind you or be outflanked by fast vehicles, and now it works against you.

      Delete
  17. Armchair game designers with butthurts! LOLS!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Obnoxious internet guy with superiority complex!LOLS!

      Delete
  18. This seems like a very intuitive and sensible rule. I don't see why people are complaining. Surely it stands to reason that the troops at the front of a unit are killed by incoming fire first.

    -Andy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. just because it makes sense story-wise doesn't mean it will be a viable, balanced game mechanic.
      You know how wounds from template weapons can be allocated to models not touched by the template? That's a good game mechanic that doesn't make sense story wise. When my Flamers of Tzeentch drop 5 templates on a 10-man squad, and they all hit the same 5 guys, It should kill the whole squad, not the 5.

      Delete
    2. I never liked that rule. It simply doesn't make sense.

      Delete
    3. That's what I'm saying. It doesn't make sense fluff-wise, but it is a NECESSARY game mechanic.

      Delete
    4. I'm using templates as an example of an existing rule that doesn't make sense in the fluff, but is s necessary game mechanic: making rules purely for fluffy reasons leads to an unbalanced and easily exploited game system.

      Delete
    5. I guess reread the rule they state. It says wound allocation, not unsaved wound allocation. If you do 20 wounds to a 10 man squad then they all take 2 wounds and now need to do their armor saves. At least that is how I read what they said.

      So in the template example the closest 5 guys may get an extra wound over the rest of the squad and are more likely to die, but it doesn't prevent the rest dying.

      Delete
    6. Id suspect Template weapons would be an exeption to this rule as how would firing a huge missle at a squad only kill the ones it is "closest" too. Hmmm just thought how would than work for a blask weapon that can fire 72inches, how would you figure out which models are closest if im 4 feet away???

      Delete
  19. Also, for those people who are saying that this will be too complicated, Epic already uses this rule and I have never found it complicated.

    -Andy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. it's not complicated, it's easily exploited and not a fix to the existing problem.

      Delete
    2. It's not more complicated, but it adds an extra layer of time consuming crap that isn't needed.

      Delete
    3. Like I say, this is a rule in Epic and I have never found that it slows the game. It is usually obvious which models are closer.

      -Andy.

      Delete
  20. What about ducking and jumping out of the way. Thats always how I envisioned it.

    A space marine sees an Eldar warrior lining up a shot, he wouldn't just stand there and take it, even with superior armor, he would duck or dodge it. The guy in the back didn't see the Eldar shooter, he would get hit.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How would that rule be written, and how would it help the game?

      Delete
  21. I can understand the complaints on how this could be abused or slow the game, but frankly, it's just like true line-of-sight. No more removing the squaddies behind the transport/cover, and it makes WAY more sense. As for slowing the game down, it shouldn't unless a player is being a jerk, and like all these 6th rumors, there could be more too it we aren't hearing.

    ReplyDelete
  22. I'm not sure how it's tactical to change from one way of wanting odd wonky formations to another of wanting odd wonky formations.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Plus it is only one aspect of a particular sequence of events. Are they changing the way Armour works? Are they changing the way saves are done? Until we learn more, it is just one step in a bunch.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wounds and unsaved wounds are different also.

      Delete
  24. Please just wait for whole rule set and dont judge like its a part of 5th.

    Take rumours as they are.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am, and as far as I can tell, this will slow down the game considerably. Instead of putting all of your models down in some random order, you must now spend some time working out where your models are going to go, and during shooting, extra measurements need to be made, and probably some arguments over which model is closer. It's just a little unnecessary, given that the only problem with the current wound allocation is in the fluff.

      Delete
    2. To be honest, I see it speeding up play considerably.
      For instance: I am playing a Draigo-wing list, and I take a number of bolter rounds to the face. I then have to spend a decent amount of time determining *who* those bolter rounds will go on to. Now, this is determined for me, and I can cut straight to rolling the dice. For me, it will go MUCH faster.
      As for determining where your models are, I assume everyone does that anyways. I always make sure my psycannons, meltaguns, etc. are at the front of my unit so they have range. These just present new parameters.

      Delete
    3. Your right Karg, this doesnt slow the game. What its doing is finally giving STRATEGIC thinking a run for its money. It will now cause people to actually think about hoow their squads are going to work: HQ in the middle, PF near front to be engaged but not at the front, missle man toward rear but not at the very rear to avoid deepstriking ass biters. It only increases your descision making, hell why dont you try out this rule with a few models in your collection. I did with my necron warrior and DKoK grenaideers and I encountered no problem for this rule even at multiple angles.

      Delete
  25. Are there ANY 6th Ed "rumors" that aren't stupid beyond belief? How can you believe any of this garbage? I hope you're all remembering the sources of these "rumors" (not Faeit 212, the d-bag originators) if they are outright lies that you discount them 100% in the future.

    ReplyDelete
  26. So its ok for one side to whine and cry because of a possible change to their charging army, but not ok for the other side when they shot that charging army and the dead dropped from the rear of the line like teleporting shots through the mass! lol rich

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I always saw it as someone has already commented: the people at the front, no matter how much armour they have, will try and avoid getting shot, so stepping to the side, whereas the people behind them cannot see the firer, and therefore also the bullet/projectile/laser (that is now headed towards them because the person in front ducked [or whatever is appropriate]) until it is too late.
      Makes sense to me.

      Delete
    2. So a group of guys running full speed,one notices that that dude is aiming at ME, so I will step right , so step left , duck ... Makes lots of sense to me too!

      Delete
    3. something missing from above, step right... someone there, step left... someone there, duck... comrades stomping him into the dirt as they charge over him.

      Delete
    4. or you know you could actually read the rule book. specifically the part where it mentions that casualties removed from the back are abstract and its envisioned that they were shot first with the rest for the unit advancing over their corpses.....at its CORE 40k is a turn based game it is NEVER going to be a tactical simulation on the level you seem to want and therefore the rules NEED to accommodate both players with a certain amount of abstract fudging.

      Delete
    5. I understand it was the RULE... no problem there. Now there is a possibility that the RULE is going to change. So again, it's ok for one set of whiners to moan, and the other set of whiners to not moan?

      There are going to be 2 types of people for each rule, all the time. Last edition it went to the horde, now its going to the shooters! (supposedly)

      Delete
    6. At this point anon above, the book would have to be finished as it is now being produced rapidly for the July release..

      Delete
  27. real shield walls such as storm termins in the front and no "tag! back of the group is dead".

    ReplyDelete
  28. Cannot WAIT to see how the WAAC gamers take this. If this comes to light, there's going to be a lot of ruler shenanigans, with a lot of room for cheating if you don't double-check your opponent, and a millimeter is going to be the deciding factor when it comes to killing those special weapons, or regular doods.

    Yes, this might get rid of certain blob layout strategies, keeping meltagunners up front and whatnot, but... I only foresee more difficulty, not less. It's going to make tournaments just.. not fun at all. I've already come across way too many players that measure down to the nano-meter when it's my turn, but are quite generous with an 'inch' when it comes to their turn.

    ReplyDelete
  29. All in favor of this rule say I!

    Seriously, This is just one rule out of a potential many new ones and people are getting butthurt because suddenly their wound allocation crap dissapears? This is more visceral and demands a greater tactical thinking about how you position your squad.Do you people think that in real life a 10 man squad would randomly be positioned? NO! Everyone has a point to watch and keeps FORMATION. So stop mubling about how this slows the game because ive often found through YEARS of gaming I enjoy the slow games more than a quick rushed one.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Though this rule could be a hassle measuring wise (Along with the inevitable arguments about which units are going to be hit), I actually think this rule might be pretty good. First off its realistic, I always thought it was weird having soldiers getting shot in the front yet the ones in the back just spontaneously dies in their stead. It also makes flanking and other such tactics legitimate, and taking away the advantage that armies with higher unit counts had. Of course I can't judge since the actual book hasn't come out yet, whether its a good change or bad one really depends on the other rule changes that come along with it.

    ReplyDelete
  31. From a tau standpoint it's kind of nice.
    Current rules
    Oh god you're orks are coming right at me and are about to assualt me! * shoots them and kills five in the back... And then gets brutally slaughtered in assualt*
    Rumored rules
    Oh god boyz! *shoots them and kills 5 in front saving me for a turn*

    It would definitely change things up when it comes to assaults, and give more shooty armies a fighting chance against melee armies

    ReplyDelete
  32. just more space marine douchebaggery. Good bye Hormagaunts, I hardly knew you...

    ReplyDelete

 
Top
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...