Major Changes to 40k Coming: Sideboards, Allies, and More.


There are some major changes coming to 40k, and some I just didn't believe would come until one of our best sources for rumors came forward about the new revised 6th edition (or 7th edition). The biggest and most obvious comes to using allies and something now called sideboards.

Lets take a preview of what this new revised 6th edition will look like.


Please remember that these are rumors. These are from a very solid source of information. There is a part two coming up a little later.

via a must remain anonymous source on Faeit 212
FoC removed, percentages added.

Players have a "sideboard" of up to X number of selections (2-5, bracketed on points, so 1k or less games you have 2 sideboards, at 3k+ you have 5).

Sideboards can't be more than 25% of the total, or can be none at all.

They are referred to as "Secondary Detachments."

They are used for anything from allies to just additional things from your own codex.

If they are allies, then they require an HQ and a troop, and are still bound by the 25% of total.

Both players are expected to have sideboards.

Sideboarding is now a part of the game, done before deployment but in order of turn priority.  So the person going first, picks their sideboard first after learning what race their opponent is playing, and seeing 75% of their army (and the available sideboards).

The person going second then picks their sideboard, after their opponent has selected, but before either side deploys.
----------------------------
Other tweeks include assaulting as a form of sweeping advance/consolidation.

The option to flee, in response to being charged (after overwatching) but there is the potential to be swept and the unit charging can (if they have the movement and sweep you) just hit a different unit provided it's in the same rough direction as the unit they swept.


The main thing I wanted to touch on is sideboards, % based army building, battle brothers being removed and units being able to lock themselves into combat to combat, but simultaneously enemy generals having another tool to avoid combat to counter act this.



Just to be clear so you have no misconceptions about what sideboarding is, (and I will have more details here in a bit as I get them sorted.) Sideboarding is building 2 or more alternative add on lists to your main force. There can be no more than 25% of your list and are chosen after the opponent reveals their list. Its now part of gameplay.

Post a Comment

234 Comments

  1. Sideboards? WTF Is this? "Pick a sideboard after seeing 75% of their army?" WTF how is that going to work when peoples' armies are just sitting on the staging table?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. honestly, staging table to me = look at my army list... I'm not putting all my models out just to move them again... here is my army list, here are my sideboard lists. Done. Now let's play.

      Delete
    2. You get to see everything, main army and sideboards, so you know what they're definitely taking(the 75%) as well as seeing what their options are to fill the other 25% to decide which of your own sideboards you'll take.

      Delete
    3. By revealing your 75% I am assuming its show your opponent your list, and then your sideboard lists you just select during set up.

      Nothing about having to put models out and then back away again.

      Delete
    4. I sort of like this idea, in theory. If it's as Patrick Boyle says, it will be nice to have some flexibility.

      Should I take 4 flamers to deal with horde, or 4 plasma guns to deal with terminators in my AM/TS detachment allied to my CSM?

      Hopefully clarity will increase with more details, waiting patiently to see them.

      Delete
    5. I thought TS couldn't ally with CSM?

      Delete
    6. I would like to know if you can take 'parts' of units in the sides. For instance, in my main I have 8 grey knight terminators. In one side can I have 2 psycannon termies that I can add to make them 10 man or maybe in another side I have 2 incinerators?

      Delete
    7. @40k player: Oh, they can't, according to the rules. But I like them quite a bit, so I will use them anyway. My friends don't have a problem with it as long as it's "fluffy." Traitor guard. Fluff covered.

      Delete
    8. Its 40k the gathering lol

      Delete
    9. I like it, not sold on percentages, but I like the idea that you have the option to counter the others army.

      Delete
  2. I like it. A little complicated. But I like it

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm with you Dakota but still a little confused on what this will do to the game. Will it make the pre game / setup longer? Will it add more balance or just make people buy more models?

      Delete
    2. No matter what, I think it's safe to assume it's designed to get us to buy more models >:^{D))

      Delete
    3. Honestly? I like the idea that at 2000 points, I can have 2-3 500 point selections that can be the ace in my sleeve. It will make my army lists different for each game. Instead of trying to find that"Jack of all Trades" army.

      Delete
    4. I'd like to know how this will affect allies in general, and dataslates. Do you have a primary, secondary, and then a sideboard after that?

      Delete
    5. This is great for tourneys... Death Star units can be controlled by sideboards

      Delete
    6. my God, pre-game is long enough already. The game seems to take longer every month too (I'm dreading my regular opponent buying Wyverns, just for the time it takes to resolve their shooting). Thiss will make it even more complicated. I can see where they are coming from- how can we make people with a 1500 point army buy 1875 points of models.

      Delete
    7. Oh no! People will have to buy more than the static 1500 points they play every single game? How terrible....

      Delete
  3. Awesome, sounds like a good way to make an actual all comers list. Bring on the crying from Demon players who think 5 flying monstrous creatures with ML4 isn't fair enough.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The problem is that Daemons can't build even a remotely viable list with limits to HQ. Pretty much all their utility and power can only be found in the HQ slot.

      Delete
    2. Also, our troops are so terrible I can't imagine bringing 462 points of troops at 1850.

      Delete
    3. The problem is how inflated our HQ options are. Daemons were designed around spending a significant amount of points in the HQ slot. Just look at heralds: 4 heralds = 1 hq slot. I mean, just to stop the warpstorm from killing ourselves (whoever thought of the warpstorm should be fired btw) requires a 300 point investment! It's a joke.

      I have absolutely no problem with GW limiting Flying circus as it was a gimmick that took advantage of the lack of skyfire in the game and blessings. This change, however, is overkill and nearly invalidates the Daemon codex entirely. Ever see Daemon troop spam work? Me neither.

      BTW for those looking for a laugh look at the Legion of the Damned Codex. The codex says the LotD are elites, yet the percentage rule would limit them to only spending 25% of their army on elites. Factoring in the 25% from allies, a LotD list can only spend 50% of their maximum possible points.

      Delete
    4. My whole army hinges (very effectively) on Daemon Troop spam...

      Delete
    5. really not trying to be rude or anything (please believe me :( ) i play daemons and would be really interested in your army list and (possible) how you play them? as i've tried lots of troops and it just never really worked for me :(

      Delete
    6. Well, we don't know yet if rules tweaks will make troops better overall, meaning Demons won't suddenly be "invalidated," just different.

      Different doesn't equal nerf.

      Delete
    7. That's not rude at all - it's a perfectly reasonable question!

      Slaanesh all the way, though principally because that's just my preference on the fluff. We got a Nurgle player and a Tzeentch player in our club as well, and they're having just as much success.

      Thing you've got to remember is that against Shooting, Daemons are as sturdy as a wet paper bag, so you need to be crafty and hug the cover as you run over. Daemons aren't Space Marines: you haven't got all the armour and all the guns and all the tech - you've actually got to be clever with them. Get good at guerilla warfare.

      I always have high-level Psykers with Telepathy in my list, because Invisibility is utterly invaluable, Hallucination is good fun and even Psychic Shriek can do you some good at the right moment with a lucky roll.

      Specifically with Slaanesh, a unit of 15 Daemonettes, plus a Herald with the... Exalted Locus, I think? The one that allows re-rolls to hit - that combo is pretty much a one-turn kill on the first unit it gets into combat with. The next turn your unit will get shot to pieces, so pick the unit they hit wisely, but don't fret that they're then expendable. Same idea with a Seeker Chariot Cavalcade - I've had three of those take out a Defiler on the Hammer of Wrath hits alone (they were Exalted, admittedly - but the point is that Strength 4 doesn't matter if it's also Rending).

      And then, beyond all this, remember that Daemons are actually meant to be a pretty fun army. I had a hilarious game recently where Warp Storm blew a whole in one of my units with Khorne's Wrath, then gave me a Daemon Instability test on the whole army, then obliterated my Herald. I still won, as it goes (although by the end it was two Daemonettes having a fight with a Drop Pod), but even if I'd lost the punishment from the Gods still just made me chuckle. I also play Skaven, so I usually expect worse things to happen to me!

      Oh, and the final thing to attribute to my success? Losing, over and over and over again. I reckon I was playing a good two years before I really started getting any steady victories.

      Delete
  4. Interesting way to counter-act the variety of types of armies out there... I do miss sweeping advances and options to flee, so like those as it adds a bit of dynamic to "setting traps for enemies"... the sideboard also encourages people to have larger armies which GW will appreciate =p... let the mind games begin!

    ReplyDelete
  5. All those changes sound very good to me. Hopefully we'll see a rebalancing of psychic powers as well - which seems likely with the psychic cards being withdrawn.

    ReplyDelete
  6. So after seeing flyers (or not) you could, say, choose between your Hydras or a Knight Titan?

    Kinda crazy. Hopefully these are all just pie in the sky.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I like it. Makes the Hydra no entirely shit because if your opponent doesn't bring flyers you can swap it out instead of having a unit that is almost entirely useless because it lacks interceptor. All comer's lists are bullshit anyway since they always fall short to specialized list. Have enough AA to deal with two AV 12 flyers? Sucks for you if you are playing someone who decided to spam flyers. Have enough guns to kill a T6 MC or two? Sucks for you if you are fighting someone with four T6 or great MCs. Have a few template weapons so you might be able to deal with a hundred or so guardsmen without issue? Damn shame that your opponent brought two conscript blobs and two infantry blobs for 200 guardsmen total.

      Delete
  7. "The option to flee, in response to being charged (after overwatching) but there is the potential to be swept and the unit charging can (if they have the movement and sweep you) just hit a different unit provided it's in the same rough direction as the unit they swept."

    ENGLISH MOTHAF'ER ... DO YOU SPEAK IT?!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He means that in a sweeping advance, if the enemy unit is swept, the advancing unit can charge into another enemy unit in its advance path. Kind of awesome. Brings assault back in a big way. Only problem? I play DW termis...

      Delete
    2. Ah, the trade offs for having 2+ armor saves. Good news is your bikes that you take with your termies will still sweep just fine ;-)

      Delete
  8. Wow, sideboards. Feels like a wink to the tournament scene.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It sounds like Warmachine to me but that is my first reaction to the word sideboards.

      Delete
    2. ... like a wink to the tournament scene, which is why theres no way these are accurate

      Delete
    3. @Matthew Pena: Warmachine tournaments mostly do 2-3 fairly different lists to choose from. If you brought over WMH multi-list method, any sort of named character (Pask, Farsight, Baron, Coteaz etc.) would only be in one list, though the list would be from the same army book. This would mean some powerhouse combos could only make it in one list, leaving the other one to rely on something else. Also, WMH tournaments generally require you to make use of both lists. So, your second list would need to be able to stand on its own and you better know how to use it if you want to win every round.

      The sideboard method is more of a TCG thing as far as I've experienced, though I'd be all for it in 40k.

      Delete
    4. As I said it was the first thing that came to mind. I have not played WMH after the early part of MK1 but thanks for clarifying what they really do.

      Delete
    5. Completely understood, just giving a "The more you know..." bit of exposition.

      Delete
    6. Rock on! Thanks Matthew and good name :)

      Delete
  9. Well your "reliable source" is completely wrong about the FOC being swapped for percentages so I would imagine most of the other stuff is BS as well.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What's your source? Oh, yeah...

      Delete
    2. I really did not think percentages would come in either. Im leaning towards acceptance now, but we still dont know how percentages are being implemented.

      Delete
    3. I would be super happy to see percentages as had a huge talk in the game store yesterday how we all thought that would help the game. But we also did not think GW would do it as it would hurt some of the model sales.

      Delete
    4. this reads like wishlisting to me. as it is percentages strike me as a pain. it'll also potentially invalidate a lot of lists. luckly I'm troop heavy

      Delete
    5. enjoy facing armies of solodins and unlimited henchmen spam

      Delete
    6. Hopefully this is where the percentage rumour has come from, because a 25% sideboard limit is logical in limiting sideboard options without getting too complex with how many of each choice you're allowed in SuperReserve. It makes sense fluffwise, so it gets my approval.

      Delete
    7. I don't think we'll see percentages either. That's a pretty big change and definitely more than a revision...

      Delete
    8. It may "invalidate" a lot of cheesy lists that abuse uber-combos, but may validate plenty of other lists.

      Change/different doesn't mean "nerf."

      Delete
  10. Interesting stuff :) if this is true I think it will help reignite my interest in 40k having percentages should help make lists more balanced and the addition of sideboards means you can design the list you'd like to play but have the option of changing things up if you need to in order to deal with something unpleasant/unbalanced. I really would like to build a list light on anti-flyer ability but the threat of a flying circus/3 drakes etc means you have to cover that base now we might have more options to field what we want rather than what we think we ought too :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You, sir, underestimate the power of the 40K community to find ways to exploit loopholes in GWs loosely written rulesets. There will still be plenty of broken combos and ways to gimmick this system.

      Delete
    2. You're absolutely right, as with any game. I'm sure plenty of us have played MMORPGs. "Exploit early, exploit often." In contrast, those games are usually updated rather frequently, especially in instances of loopholes/exploits. Not quite apples to apples, but I think the point is clear enough.

      Delete
    3. +1.. if there is anything that i'm hoping, it's that the rules get tightened up to address that

      Delete
    4. For example it still asks for wave serpent spam and far sight can still bring a lot of crisis suits.

      Delete
    5. Farsight can still bring lots of crisis suits? Well then sideboard something with Krak missiles surely. With the propensity for encountering tyranid warriors and other things you get the tactical flexibility to deal with spam lists.

      Delete
  11. The 25% rule kind of nullifies the usefulness of allies imo. If formations are bound by the 25%!rule too, We won't be seeing them in under 2500 point games. So in my area never, normal games are around 1000-1850 here.

    Well, I can sell my second imperial knight then, 2 were planed as allies for my tempestus army ijn 1600-1850 games. Cash to spend on something else. I don't mind changes at all, because i'm mainly a painter, not a games.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You can't dual force org until 2k...

      Delete
    2. ?? You can take up to 3 as allies at the moment

      Delete
    3. He's a 40k player, I think he knows what he's talking about ;).

      Delete
    4. There goes Tyranid Skyblight. It doesn't become legal until 3,200+ points. Not exactly a common point game.

      Delete
    5. Oh, 2 troop and an HQ. Yea for some reason I forgot they were made super accessible.

      Delete
    6. yeap, and tbh if it comes like this, I'm only annoyed because in my case they go like "Come and buy up to 3 imperial knights, you can use them as allies in your games" 2 months later: "Sorry mate, you can't do that anymore, but why don't you buy another 2 armies of 500 points?"

      Delete
    7. I could be wrong, but I read it as your allies are restricted at 25% if they form part of your sideboard?

      Delete
    8. @Shadow, hmm, interesting point! that just cheered me up :)

      Delete
    9. Flip it around. Make your Imperial Knights your Primary, then you can ally with whatever other force. That sounds like what you're doing anyway with 2 knights on the field.

      Delete
    10. Yea making the knights a primary is definitely a good idea as that would also make them all scoring. Then you can add in whatever you want as allies. Even with the foc% restriction you should be good as 2 knights =800 points of 'troops'

      Delete
  12. 40k with sideboards. I'll be damned if it isn't a nice piece of wishlisting and attempts at solidifying tourney play (which GW doesn't give a hoot about). I smell bovine feces in the air.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. me too, limits on allies I can buy, but something like sideboards doesn't strike me as a likely intended rule. possiably because GW gives me the impression they think those types of things we should detirmine on our own

      Delete
    2. The funny thing is, Tournament Organizers usually do a good job of implementing balances without changing the rules at all. Simple scenarios, points for victory conditions, and even allowing certain publications have seen a variety of winners in the 6th ed tournament scene.

      I think that stuff should be left up to tournament organizers.

      If GW does give us percentages and sideboards, TO's should let it ride for a while to see if it needs tweaking.

      Delete
  13. This sounds soooo made up to me.
    Percentages have some kind of chance to happen, porting from WH fantasy, but sideboards? Really? They are a direct port from Magic! I can't really see it happening... (they also look very bad for a game not based on cards)

    ReplyDelete
  14. Not being able the be ready for EVERYTHING is a complaint we hear a lot.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Well looks like I was on the money lol. Predicted this locally, even set up a Throne of Skulls tournament in the summer that calls for side-boards at 25-35% of total points. This will be great if it pans out.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Percentages and sideboards, way to invalidate builds from all previous codexes and make the game even more complicated. If this is true I'll stick to painting.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. See ya, hopefully 25% (250@1000,500@2000) won't be that hard for others.

      Delete
    2. Its not about "hard" its just not needed. If there can't be balance in a point / FoC system, then there won't be balance in a percentage based system. WHFB is not magically balanced because it used percentages, deathstars still exist.

      But maybe thats a cunning business plan: Make the system that brings in like 2/3 of all the profits more like the system hardly anyone (in comparison ) plays.

      Delete
    3. Its not that people don't play fantasy, its that each book and edition doesn't invalidate the previous book and edition, so people are able to play with models they bought back in 1995. That's why it isn't as profitable as 40k; plus it draws a more mature crowd, typically more discerning with how they spend their money than a 14 year old who sees a wraithknight for the first time :)

      The % system in WFB is very balanced, and while its possible to still use certain types of deathstars, the game is extremely rock-paper-scissory; nice horde/death star, here's a spell that has the potential to nerf the whole thing. Nice wizard, here's an ambushing unit to take them out. Nice ambushing unit, here's a horde/deathstar that it has no chance of beating. Etc.

      Delete
    4. +1 @Nick, That is a good way to sum it up.

      Delete
    5. @Sethdr, @40k player: Except it doesn't "invalidate" all previous lists. We haven't built lists under whatever the new system is to know yet. Also, it may kick some, but will make way for others. It's the players limiting what they want to play, not the game itself.

      Change doesn't equal nerf.

      Furthermore, death stars aren't a problem when an army has a way to deal with them. Enter sideboards, Lords of War, etc.

      Delete
  17. What if the flyers are in their sideboards? >:)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Then they aren't dedicated night scythes hopefully :)

      Delete
    2. Its turn based, according to the above; presumably, the person going first has to declare what they are going to use, and the person going second can then react. Gives a bit more incentive to going second (which is welcome). In either case, again according to the rumor above, you can see your opponent's sideboards along with the 75% of their army they will field no matter what, so one isn't totally hamstrung if you go first

      Delete
    3. If the first player has to declare sideboards before the second player chooses then going second will be a big advantage. Seize the initiative would need to be adjusted though. This does seem to really make pre-game set up much more complicated.

      Delete
    4. Going second is already a huge advantage. If this were how it goes it would make going first an auto-lose.

      Delete
    5. I think I have to disagree on going second. In so many games where victory comes down to secondary objectives, first blood is HUGE, and going first almost guarantees getting it. I would say this incentivizes going second. I do not think its anything remotely close to making going first an auto-lose

      Delete
    6. Currently most top tournament armies really, really want to go first - vehicles moving for their jink +1 cover saves, psychic powers getting cast, FMC's to swoop, etc, in addition to just being able to get the first shots off.

      Delete
    7. Errr... I don't see how you would choose one after the other. Surely you'd just exchange lists with your opponent and determine your side boards at the same time?

      Delete
    8. It days in the rumour that the person going second picks their side board after the person going first, presumably after having seen the list for the selected side board.

      Delete
    9. Says*

      You win this round auto-correct...

      Delete
  18. Wow, love these ideas. Especially sideboarding.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Me too! My gut reaction is that these are brilliant changes. Of course, only time will tell...

      Delete
  19. It's a good idea. Bye bye fliers.
    Could be great if you could also take fortifications..

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I bet skyfire gets nerfed to be something like "+1 BS to hitting fliers" (making you hit them on 5+ instead of with your BS)

      Delete
    2. gSkyfire is already pretty nerfed in that 90% of units with skyfire are icapable olf shooting ground units. to me interceptor is what'll be enrfed if anything

      Delete
    3. 90% can't shoot ground units? You need to look again. Most units with skyfire also either have interceptor, the ability to choose to have skyfire, or have an alternate firing mode for ground targets.
      Interceptor desperately needs a rewrite to limit it to what it should be doing - shooting at aircraft and drop pods, not shooting teleporting terminators and lictors jumping out of the bushes.

      Delete
    4. ...and Marbo...

      OH WAIT HAHAHAHAH MARBO IS GONE!!!!

      Delete
    5. Skyfire units can also shoot normally at skimmers. There are quite a few popular skimmers in 40k.

      Delete
  20. Do we know anything about, if true, the quantities of each percentage bracket? I imagine it would go something like max 25% HQ, max 25% Elite, Min 25% Troops with no limit, max 50% Fast Attack and max 50% Heavy Support. Fortifications would probably be max 25%. My reasoning is that if Fast attack and heavies were 25%, we would be so heavily restricted points-wise that most armies would be seriously crippled until you got to games of 4k or higher. Warhammer Fantasy Rare Choices are a rough equivalent to 40k Elites (really rough), while the specials are more akin to our Fast Attack/Heavy Support. Elites being limited to 25% of the army (250pts in 2k) is not as huge of a handicap as 25% to either fast attack or heavy support. That's my prediction anyway. We'll see what actually happens, but I'm making no judgements until I actually see the update and what I can do with it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I would counter that Rare are typically closer to Heavy Support, while Special are closer to Elite/Fast Attack.

      Also, its 500pts for a 25% limit at 2k.

      I would see something similar to what you say anyway, maybe dropping FA to 25% and bumping Elites to 50, as I think more armies make better use of Elite vs FA, though I dont have any evidence to prove my point.

      In any case, we have already had some talks about moving to a percentages system anyway for a local 'fun' tournament as a way to try to limit cheesing the lists as much as we could. I am very interested to see if this pans out.

      Delete
    2. Larry at BoLS who only posts independently verified rumors have the breakdown posted on the BoLS frontpage.

      Delete
    3. Independently verified? What do you even mean?

      Delete
    4. Maybe they will only limit points spent on HQ and require amount to spend on troops, leave rest open... They do seem to want open lists..

      Delete
  21. I have to admit, my first reaction to the post title was "But I don't own a sideboard. I have a large chest of drawers, will that do?"

    My reaction after reading the post was to scratch my head about the idea of dragging potentially 500 points of additional, useless models to a game on top of (in this example) the 1500 points main detachment and the 500 point sideburn I'm already using (If I am at all understanding what this source is trying to say).

    I forsee a lot of power gamers with Milkman's Shoulder if this comes in.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I garentee 90% of players would just ignore sideboards and go "yeah these are my allies" without building flex into their lists

      Delete
    2. So kinda like mysterious terrain as I don't see myself using this most of the time.

      Delete
  22. After Tyranids all I can say about this rumor and all of the others to come is "pics or it didn't happen".

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Tyranids will probably have a special exception that they can't do it, because, well, GW hates nids!
      :)

      Delete
    2. Now that is a rumor I believe! ;)

      Seriously though, Tyranid rumors were so wrong it wasn't funny, right up until the point where someone actually had a book on hand and started posting directly from it. When someone posts a picture of the front and back covers THEN I will start to take them seriously.

      Delete
  23. Good news, I'm ready for some big changes.

    ReplyDelete
  24. I'm suffering kidney failure from all this salt!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Quick, hook him up to the dialysis machine!

      Delete
    2. I'll get the machine that goes PING!

      Delete
  25. This reminds me of pre-6th edition fake rumors...

    ReplyDelete
  26. Sideboarding sounds like absolute bollocks. Who wants to carry a whole bunch of extra units around just in case you want to swap some out after your opponent has deployed and thus increase deploying time? No thanks.

    The other stuff...salty. Ewww.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. same source that told us we were getting mini-dexes and supplements a longtime before they happened and how they would work.

      Delete
    2. for me it just seems a bit odd as it's a very tourny scene sounding rule. could it be perhaps an optional rule tossed in the book as a "for tournments" ?

      Delete
    3. It allows counters to exist, and for the player going second to have a slight army list advantage which to me seems a good thing. I like the sound of it all to be honest, gives players more choice and the ability to have counters to annoying but specific lists built in. Surely it wouldn't increase deployment time much, just a bit of list comparing which you're really supposed to do anyway.

      But then I'm not a tournament player lugging models around. I usually think in a modular way to building lists anyway so to have that built into the game suits me down to the ground.

      It would mean tournaments may have to consider what players are having to bring and adjust accordingly.

      Delete
    4. Sideboards would actually help the tournament scene a lot right now, as there are way too many cases of 'game over' just because of the matchup - you can't build an all-comers list these days, you will have something that will take your lunch money. This gives flexibility to adjust for that.
      This also makes you need to buy more models for your army, which would make it appealing to GW, which is probably a more relevant argument in favor as GW has not shown a great deal of concern about balance in tournament games.

      Delete
    5. @Karvala - Well if they can pull both off then win win :P

      Delete
    6. No disrespect at all Nat and I appreciate that you report on what you're told, but it just seems to be pretty impractical to me. I'd consider it more likely to see the percentages get introduced and not sideboards. Not only is it hassle and takes a chunk of pre-game list building to the deployment itself it also doesn't really make any logistical sense: forces are committed in a real battle and timescales rarely allow extra units to be deployed from a distant HQ or depot in response to what hostiles are in the field. The FOC is there to theoretically limit specialist-heavy compositions and reserves are there to represent forces committed after the start of the engagement. Changes should be made to how the FOC restricts units to prevent lopsided cheese lists, not by juggling available units just before a game.

      Iffy!

      Delete
    7. I don't see how it would be so much more work? Ok you would be carrying more models around which is a hassle sure, and it may not be super realistic (but you would field a force in real life to counter what you know is coming, the person going second has effectively sacrificed the initiative for extra scouting and redeploying). But adding to case size and adding in an extra minute or so of list comparing before deployment seems a worthy sacrifice for flexible lists and self balancing as far as I'm concerned at least.

      Delete
    8. no disrespect taken. still rumors, but just from a good longtime source.

      As I have a little more time to consider sideboards (by a couple hours), I am starting to really like how they feel when making a list. I have always hated the oops, I cant handle that. 6th edition has been so hard to come up with a take all comers style list, virtually impossible to be honest. Its been best to just take a slightly more crazy unbalanced list and hope for the best player draws.

      Delete
    9. I'm still having a good beard-stroke! We'll see how it works in practice if it pans out.

      In my tourney experience I had to get 4-5 games in for one day, it was a proper "We need to get X games done before lunch, GO" type thing and faffing about with lists between each game won't help that much. If I have to face less Heldrakes though...

      Delete
    10. Might force tournaments to slow down a bit then, which might be good? (I'm not a tourney player if that wasn't already blindingly obvious)

      Delete
    11. I will be playing dusty models... Sideboards mean anti flyers unit, anti rank unit, anti super unit, and maybe a fort... 40K needs some life I've watched a lot of players get disenchanted with the game since 6th came out... I haven't seen new players replacing.... Power gamers can to easily chase off newbies with super lists now, all these changes would let newbs into game easier

      Delete
    12. Not to mention it isn't "Cinematic" at all.

      Delete
  27. With all what's being suggested I might finally see a Typed or Written Army List with Points provided by an opponent.

    That'll be a novelty...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hmm, I always have a printed army list of an excel spreadsheet with each unit's upgrade/points cost.

      It's more to help me remember everything I have than for my opponent's sake, but I keep it on the table so anyone can look at it. Usually, no one but me does. More than anything, I just love using excel and building spreadsheets. I'm just that nerdy, I suppose.

      Delete
    2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9qYF9DZPdw

      Delete
    3. Now GW just needs to design a list builder program

      Delete
  28. Anyone else see the "flee in response to being charged, but after over watch" just BROKEN?! That is the final death nail for assault armies. Every shooting army will ALWAYS flee, why the hell not? they get to shoot then have a chance to get away and shoot, and if they fail they are swept, and get to shoot at your combat unit on their turn anyways. What the actual F--

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. i think you are misunderstanding something. Swept means destroyed. Shooty armies tend to have shitty initiative, assault armies dont...

      Delete
    2. If they're swept they're destroyed, and the assaulting unit can go for another unit near by, which I'd highly likely to be there when fighting Tau due to supporting overwatch fire.

      Delete
    3. I entirely understand that. Right now in 6th ed the worst thing that can happen to an assault army is to entirely destroy the unit you charge because it is then your opponents turn aka they light you up. CC is protection and you always want to win it on your opponents turn so you can get into a new one. Adding sweeping advance in is helpful, but a good opponent will normally be able to mitigate it. On the other hand, they are adding yet another way for a charge to be failed and for you to lose your entire unit the following turn. Fleeing is a win win for shooting armies.

      Delete
    4. Indeed. Its involves risk on the unit being charged at. Also, assuming this is similar to Fantasy, I would assume that you can only flee once per phase, so nothing is stopping another unit to sweep them up even after a successful flee.

      Even then, keep in mind that this all just seems like wish-listing to me, so this might not even be valid.

      Delete
    5. That depends how it works, because they get to over watch they can still cause the assault to fail, or take out a guy or two, which with random charge ranges was always enough to possibly fail a charge, which could in turn fail a sweep. Look at the tau commander who lets his unit run d6" after over watch, its devastating.

      Delete
    6. I sure hope its just wish listing... Im a BA player... and I play with IG and 2 tau player regularly. The chance even is just too powerful, because of the fact that the unit is basically gone anyways, so really what are the shooting armies risking?

      Delete
    7. Darkstrider? You mean the guy who wants to be up close and personal with a 5+ armor save, T3, 2W for 100pts? You mean the guy who, if you are running him as warlord, is almost guaranteed victory points?

      Yeah, really devastating. He is good (I love him to death, usually around turn 2) but its not 'devestating.' He does one thing well and then dies.

      Delete
    8. Not necessarily, there's no guarantee they'll rally after fleeing, they'll likely have lower initiative and so be swept easier, and the assaulting unit could redirect to another of your units, which for many shooting armies is likely to be nearby due to Tau supporting overwatch and Guard's General hordey nature. If anything if your opponent is really only charging one of their units in under these rules it'd be better to take the charge and try to bog the assault unit down allowing your other shooty troops to back off from the combat to avoid consolidation charges and shoot up the unit after its chewed through your roadblock.

      Delete
    9. Yeah, this change is a boon to assault armies, not a hindrance. You mean that a unit of ten daemonettes assaulting 20 guardsmen now has the opportunity to wipe out that entire unit while only losing 2 guys (to overwatch), and then immediately thereafter assault and cripple another unit of 20? 40 guardsmen for 10 Daeomonettes? fair trade in my book.

      Delete
    10. I get the feeling I am the only one posting here who actually PLAYS an assault army... hmm maybe thats because it hasnt worked in years.. funny how i didnt have any problems back in 3rd.

      Delete
    11. Funny how I play blood angels with 30 assault marines...

      Delete
    12. In how many points? Cuz I play BA too and 30 usually isnt enough to crack a gun line. What else do you run? I actually just picked the game up for the first time since 3rd and havent been able to get much done against my IG friend unless I run a null deployment drop pod list.

      Delete
    13. The average assault range is 7.5 inches (assuming the army isn't fleet, in which case it is better). Not too shabby. We will have to wait and see how the sweeping advance rule is written, but even if it is only a d6 consolidation into another enemy unit, 3 inches goes a long way against gunlines, and rolling a 5 or 6 would be devastating. Don't even get me started on how much damage you would cause if you, say, moved the distance the enemy unit fell back.

      Delete
    14. usually 1500-1850. Typical units include the following, not necessarily all at the same time.

      Lib w/ pack

      Hammernators x5

      Sternguard w/ combiplas (flamer for weaklings) and a razorback

      Sanguinary Guard (cause they are awesome looking)

      1-2 Sanguinary priest w/ jump pack

      Snipers w/ teleport homer (for termies, especially if an assault unit is headed that way)

      3x 10 assault marines, 2x infernus pistol each.

      1x 10 tactical w/ plasma cannon and flamer

      devestators w/ 2x missile, 1-2x las

      baal predator


      I would suggest that you not try for the big rush early on, but instead step back and try to weaken specific points in the enemy line. Deep striking hammernators behind a big-nasty is a dangerous proposition for the enemy, especially if you have set up a turn 2 or 3 rush with 20 assault marines.

      Also remember, in the case of Tau, that each unit can only overwatch once. If you can pull a multi-charge with one unit of weakened assault marines and aggro out all the overwatch fire, then you can then feel free to smash apart the rest with your less-dead squads.

      Delete
    15. Average on 2D6 is 7"...not 7.5". Still your point is a solid one.

      The way I read that rumor, it said to me that if your 2D6" sweeping advance is enough to catch the fleeing enemy, then not only are they dead but if your 2D6" takes you into a new enemy you assault them as well.

      Delete
    16. Finally, remember to set up the damned terrain. My alternate is Tau, who Ive been running for nearly 8 years. If you want to ruin a Tau commander's day, force him to split his force so that a good portion of it cant even react to one side of the field. LOS blocking terrain, area terrain, etc are all your friend as a blood angel or any other assault force.

      In short, I suppose my message is 'play smarter,' as the forces do work well if you use them correctly.

      Delete
    17. But thats just sweeping advance. Thats what its always been. I am super happy to see that back. The problem I have is that they are making it harder and harder to even get into combat, and even to attempt it you are being punished. and Id rather still have my old consistent charge range. I have failed more than my fair share of charges at under 6" due to a combination of random die rolls and losing a model in over watch. add fleeing to that and you have 3 chances every charge to fail it.

      Delete
    18. Whatever guys, im done crying. Sorry to waste your time. Im still having trouble agreeing with a lot of the changes I have seen jumping back in. Sorry. ~Josh

      Delete
    19. I still think if these rumours are true assault armies (including my nids and dark eldar) will be far better off. You seem to be thinking purely of one unit charging another rather than the situation in a game where you'll have several units likely charging and enemy supporting units to redirect to.

      I'd agree on random charge range however, maybe if you could choose to force a low roll up to 6" but the charge would become disordered would help? But then again maybe that would just be clunky.

      Delete
    20. ooooh, now I see your concern. I understand. Trust me. I have rolled double ones on my assault distance more times than I care to count (seriously, its scary how often I do it). I too like consistent charge ranges, but we have to work within the rules, and honestly, random is fluffier. Let me ask you a question, how often have you not declared a charge at 10 inches because of fear of failing and overwatch? The randomness is supposed to encourage aggression, and while it wont always work, if you start declaring those charges too, you will see it all balances out in the end. As it is though, if you play your charges conservatively, yes, you will notice that the random roll doesn't work in your favor (because, statistically, it can't, since you aren't ever risking those long charges to balance the numbers out)

      Delete
    21. I have seen that same thinking (1 unit v 1 unit) often color people's reaction to overwatch in general. They seem to ignore the fact that 230pts of assault marines can have their entire assault opened up by 75pts of assault scouts, who may or may not die in the process.

      Scouts charge, any unit(s) overwatch, remaining scouts strike home (or all are dead), then assault marines come in and say "lolwut? Overwatch? Where?"

      Delete
    22. This could also mean BA special characters, with super high IN, could get a significant boost.

      Delete
    23. Good old vampire Jesus Mephiston could be on the up.

      Delete
  29. This just sounds like a legal way of list tailoring.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. List tailoring is legal anyways, you are 'supposed' to fight a specific opponent with a specific force for a specific number of points.

      So I have a very good idea of what my opponent will bring, just as he has a good idea what I will bring. So we are both....List Tailoring.

      Delete
  30. Yea, something seems clunky with this rumor and larger Dataslates/Formations....... (Shame really, I was kind of excited at first)

    ReplyDelete
  31. If all this turns out to be accurate then I'm really glad I stuck with pure Eldar and didn't get caught up in the "Taudar" ally nonsense. This is also (if true) good news for Dark Angels because the FOC really hamstrung the army, mainly by being restricted to only three fast attack choices.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The removal of 'Battle Brothers' was probably the best thing I saw from this rumor. If something has to be true from this, I can only hope its that.

      Delete
    2. Where did you read that BB are somehow removed? Or come to that conclusion?

      Delete
    3. It says so in the post.

      Delete
  32. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. Agreed. Josh, I simply cannot follow your logic, especially if you play blood angels. You should be salivating at this change.

      Delete
    3. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    4. Why? Getting back something I used to have with the condition its worse than before? Please note I just picked the game back up a few months ago for the first time since 3rd.

      Delete
  33. I don't buy the percentages thing for a moment. If by some fluke they are real, I forsee a LOT of "nah, we still use the FOC here."

    ReplyDelete
  34. So...FOC is out, but allies are required to take an HQ and troops?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Your primary detachment would still have to take HQ and troops to, like Fantasy.

      Delete
    2. It might become a little wonky at the low points limit, like space marines have a little trouble fielding an HQ at low points values with a 'max 25%' rule (captains at 100pts each means that he cant really have much at 500pts...not that I think he should)

      This is going to be most apparent at the low points values that allies would be appearing at, and may cause a little conflict. I think the rumors have said something about 'HQs can exceed maximums as long as they are single model units' or such.

      Delete
  35. Wait wait wait. First they say "Sideboards can't be more than 25% of the total, or can be none at all." Ok, optional, no more than 25% of your points. But then they say "Both players are expected to have sideboards."
    So, which is it? 0% or mandatory?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You are expected to have a sideboard in the setup phase, if you have one 'sideboard' then you effectively have a list as it stands now, ie one way the list will be constructed.

      Makes sense, you dont want to have spare (375/462/500/whatever) sections of army list to plug-and-play, then you dont have to.

      Delete
    2. So they're not mandatory, and the "both players are expected to have sideboards" is just bunk?

      Delete
    3. You could just have one side board of 0 points. The 'expected' bit could be a push by GW so that when I walk into a shop I can expect to be allowed to use my sideboard because it is 'expected' that the sideboard rule is commonplace.

      Delete
    4. It's just the wording of a rumour, not the rules. Sounds like it'll be something for TO's to decide, ie. You must have 2 side boards for this tournament type arrangement, but if you're just playing a friend you don't have to.

      Delete
  36. I like this idea - I could see this being in a more competitive suggestions section of the book, if that could be such a thing, rather than the main rules for a game; either way I think its a fun idea, easily implemented.

    In about 10 minutes I was able to take my standard Dark Eldar/Eldar Allies list and create a new one under this system:

    Main Force (minimum 50%, or 952 points):

    Baron Sathonyx
    4 trueborn, blasters, venom
    4 trueborn, blasters, venom
    5 warriors, blaster, venom
    5 warriors, blaster, venom
    17 hellions

    Allies (max 25%, or 462 points):

    Farseer, jetbike, shard of anaris
    3 jetbikes, shuriken cannon
    wraithknight, 2x wraithcannons

    Sideboard options (max 25%, or 462 points):

    OPTION 1:
    3 ravagers, dissie cannons, flickerfields/nightshields

    OPTION 2:
    3 ravagers, dark lances, flickerfields/nighshields

    OPTION 3:
    2 voidravens, flickerfield/nightshields, 2x monoscythe

    And there we have it. Competitive core list, with allies almost exactly as I would have brought them anyways. Plus, now I don't have to rely on prescienced ravagers to take down flyers - I can see that my opponent brought flyers, and take voidravens instead, or see MEQ/TEQ and take dissies, etc.

    Hell, I could even add a sideboard (based on # allowed at 1850 of course) to add in more trueborn or more warriors, to go even more venom spam in the face of masses infantry. Just a ton more options, without adding anything to my collection or having to paint anything new.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This is exactly how i read this, gimme a core army and let me slot in 25% of something useful based on what i'm facing.

      Delete
    2. I don't think you can have a ally now if it's not part of your sideboard

      Delete
  37. I call bullgak. this is just fantasy players wishlisting again

    ReplyDelete
  38. I rather like that depiction of assault, I hope that one’s true. It opens up some interesting tactical options on how you position your army’s squads.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Not a fan on the idea of 25% for allies, because of how they were pushing Knighs, but I like the idea of side boards if they work like a side deck does in, say yugioh.

    ReplyDelete
  40. How does Inquisition work with this then given that they are a special detachment? does the Inquisition Detachment just ignore this and count as main army? Like can I still go SM + Inquisition 750pts with a 250/250 AM/Sisters Sideboard?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Or Inquisition + Inquisition 75% with GK 25%?

      Delete
  41. Now if sideboards have to start the game in reserve (maybe even a -1 penalty to arriving).... Things just got interesting. Tactically and thematically it would make a lot of sense. Once you see what your enemy is bringing to the table you try to rush reinforcements to the front to deal with it.

    ReplyDelete
  42. I'm confused. At 2,000 points I have to have a core list of 75%, or 1,500 and a side board of 25% or 500. So where does the choice come in? If we're playing 2k then I HAVE to take all the units out of my sideboard to make my 1,500 point core force up to 2,000 points. Is there something I'm missing here? If the sideboard was 50% it'd make sense, as it's giving me a 1,000 points to chose from to add 500 points to my core list. No?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The sideboard, from what I understand, would be part of your core list. So you initially reveal 50% of your core list with your 25% Lords of War/Fortification/Allies/Formations and finish of with the flexible last 25% from your codex. Alternatively you could flip which 25% you reveal. Again, I'm hoping the sideboard is forced to be held in reserves. It's a counter to your opponents list but it may not make it there in time.

      Delete
    2. No.

      at 2k you have

      core list -1500pts
      sideboard A - 500pts
      sideboard B - 500pts
      sideboard C - 500pts

      So you can look at your opponent and say that Sideboard B is specialized against force type B, and so is better than Sideboard A or C.

      At the same time, your opponent is going to be going over the same considerations with their three sideboards. In this way you have to anticipate 1) how you are going to deal with their core force, 2) which sideboard you are going to use, 3) what are they likely to bring on as a sideboard in order to counter yours.

      Delete
    3. Well that would make sense, except that is says you choose your sideboard after you see your opponents list. I didn't see anything that states the sideboard has to taken from pre-selected lists. Don't won't to get involved in a back and forth here, this are generalized rumors. Glad to see you have it figured out exactly as it will be on this rumor set. You should run for office! ;)

      Delete
    4. Thats how I interpreted the second segment where it talks about how you have between 2 and 5 sideboards, as well as how it seems to work with how the rest of the rumor is described.

      Having a few friends play magic, this is also how those tend to work in that system.

      Having said all this, and argued on here for far longer than I have time for (Curse you nerd rage...), I am quite likely wrong, as this is rumor and may be wishlist instead. Thus is life.

      Delete
    5. Sideboard is just 25% of points that need not be on list can be anything legal to your list.. You pick your sideboard at table from all your available models.

      Delete
  43. Go away battle brothers!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (and this is from a guy who has Tzeentch demons allied with TS)

    ReplyDelete
  44. So the whole system is being changed back to 2nd edition rules basically? So no FOC's, all % base and just seems way to bold for GW to make this move. What's next Magic and Go-Bot allies WTF!

    ReplyDelete
  45. I want that female inquisitor to be a model....

    ReplyDelete
  46. "40K Radio
    21 min ·
    Ok, it seems a nasty rumor is making its way around the interwebs. Many forums are saying 40k 7th is switching over to % based lists. We are here to 100% confirm that is not happening.
    We have always told you guys the truth about everything in the past 12 months. Our source has been spot on with everything from release schedules to what each army will have.
    So please rest easy knowing that force org will still be in the game.
    These are facts, not rumors from your trusted source for insider 40k news, not rumors."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Man I how they are wrong. The changes would be very welcome

      Delete
  47. End to battle brothers - tick
    Changes to assaults -tick
    Sideboards - big tick... it makes a sound way to balance 40k. Really a game where it has never been truly possible to balance. .. because its not chess with identical teams. But this way, you choosr the balance strategy. That balls in your court. Don't blame gw there. If your allowed 3 side boards, then sideboard 1 = anti tank/anti teq, sideboard 2 = anti flyer options, sideboard 3 = anti hoard options.

    Who knows if any of this is true, but I hope it is. Adds variety and variability into the game ... and so it should!

    ReplyDelete
  48. So what are we getting? A slight tweak to the rules (incorporating FAQs, Stronghold Assault, and Escalation) or a fundamental change to how 40K is played (percentages, sidebars)? The current rumors are pointing in opposite directions. I'll believe the former before I ever believe the latter, though.

    Is it reasonable to believe that only a few years after the release of the edition that was 'here to stay' that they would drastically alter the game? Is there any indication in the recent codexes that such was their intent? Do we really believe that GW would make it difficult to field Knight allies or many of their dataslates only a few months after their release? The percentages being thrown around on BoLS are ridiculous; they would make it impossible to field most named Space Marine or Daemon HQs in an average-sized game while making Guard hordes mandatory.

    Many argue that these changes are meant to counter the various deathstars and power builds, but the most notorious of these (i.e., the Tau/Eldar combinations) were introduced less than a year ago. Did GW immediately recognize this and get to work on revising the fundamental rules of the game?

    I've lost a lot of confidence in the rumormongers recently, even so-called "reliable sources". Not only did IG not get new artillery models, but they saw previous units disappear, Tyranid rumors were way off base, and I clearly remember that a "reliable source" claimed that Space Marines were going to get specialized Rhinos.

    ReplyDelete