[Apoc] Purgicator

[crisis_vyper]

As many of you are aware, a leaked playtest rulebook and accompanying FAQ have been made available on the internet. Reading some of the rumours, it correlates with the weird upgrades in some of the newer codices and from the looks of it, some of the mechanics of 2nd-4th edition are making a comeback. BOLS, Blood of Kittens, etc are all raving about it, and I ought to give 2S its own thread about this particular '6th' rulebook.

My personal opinion? We are all going down a very bumpy ride if some of these are true......

[Arguleon-veq]

FAR too many changes that just are not needed, which will make us have to totally change our armies, which is of course what they want. More models sold. Thanks GW.

The changes are massive. Its nothing like the changes between 3rd and 5th. This is like 2nd into 3rd, maybe even bigger.

[cazboab]

If the leaked book is genuine, I think it has the potential not to suck with some fine tuning, but the changes to the phase order, template and assault weapons are needlessly complex and in particular screw craftworld eldar royaly.

[BigToof]

I'm still wondering as to it's validity.  Much of it does seem a rehash with the same verbage used from 5th edition.
There are far too many new rules, but it does address a lot of 5th ed. issues.
Namely, bringing down cover saves (intervening units no longer offer saves, 5+ for most things), making Tank shocking "more vulnerable" (as the whole unit gets to shoot at you if you come at them) and (my personal favorite), lets you throw templates into fire points to damage the unit inside.
A lot of it is pretty raw, and I get the feeling that if it "is" real, then it's a very early version.
DE changes make me wince and want to go WWP and buy as many Hexrifles as I can (you can allocate wounds as a sniper).
Ork changes make me want to buy a horde of Gretchin as bullet catching would be semi-legitamite.  Letting Weirdboyz block Psycics on 5+ is a nice... uh... something.  Boosting Tank shooting with Meks is also very Orky.
Assault is overall odd and I'm not sure if Orks would do well out of it.
But the biggest winners?
Sisters.
I'm not kidding.  All flame weapons for cooking transports, meltas for breaking them open, and now that escaping combat is a number that is (mostly) the same across the board, you'll be fine.
.
..
...
Ok, Tyranids and Tau got pretty ugly too.

Best,
-BT

[El ShasOcho]

The fact that this seems to un-nerf sisters tau and nids like BT said makes me think either this is GW trying to get all of the power gamers to dump the power armor and jump to those armies, OR this is all made up by someone who hates marines and how much GW loves them. The reason I can see it being the first is that that is certainly GW's style, people might think "Oh they're fixing the balance" when they're actually just shifting it to armies nobody plays right now.

[Kur'os]

I'm sorry to say it, but I'm not familiar with the sites listed.  Would it be possible for someone to post a link? 

Just with what posts I've read here, I'm liking the sound of 6th ed.  Would it be fair to say that shooting might be more prevalent than CC in said edition?

-Kur'os

[El ShasOcho]

I haven't found the actual leak, just people talking/listing whats in it. Just google wh40 6th ed leaks and you should find plenty on it.

[cazboab]

Would it be fair to say that shooting might be more prevalent than CC in said edition?

In a few very specific ways it may be, but I'm inclined to say its mostly only removing the option to shoot before you charge, and CC armies will still be the best way to do a lot of damage quickly.

[crisis_vyper]

I'm sorry to say it, but I'm not familiar with the sites listed.  Would it be possible for someone to post a link? 

Well, to be honest, it is popping up in a lot of 40k-based blogs and I found the leaked rules using Google, so I think it is easier done than said. Besides if I were to link to the leaked book, it would be pulled down anyway. So for now I guess you will have to hear it from the bloggers.

[Dragonborn Seth]

You guys may discuss the rules, and link to websites and blogs discussing the rules, but under no circumstance will a link to a download of the rules be posted, because this is potentially copyrighted material, and we will treat it like any other GW release in that regard.

I think this is almost definitely a legitimate leak. We've seen this in the past, with the Grey Knights, and with the 5th ed rulebook. And, if it were a hoax, it is an extremely elaborate one. I wouldn't bet on every one of the rules in here making it all of the way to the final product, and definitely not without having some wording touched up a bit whether they need it or not, but I'd put money on this being an authentic document.

[Mabbz]

Close combat is worse for us in that charge ranges are doubled.

Please tell me you're joking. With that rule even guard could potentially make a turn one charge (with rough riders, 6" move, d6" run, 24" assault), so fast assault armies will get their entire army in cc by turn two at the latest.

[Pottsey]

Taken another read of the Rules. These bits stand out to me as a Tau Player.

BS is now rolled against Evasion (EV). For the most part Evasion is based on speed. Evasion stats at a base value of 3 and you apply modifies like remaining stationary is -1 EV, if you are massive +1. so a BS3 Firewarriors hits on 4+. BS3 against EV hits on 2+. If within 12” cannot have EV better then 3 due to point blank range. Looks to me the most modules will be EV 3 when moving and EV 2 when not. Firewarriors hitting stationary targets on 3+. HQ Firewarrers now hit stationary on 2+ should be fun mixed in with new shooting rules.

Relentless does all the stuff as before as well as boosts rapid fire range to 18” instead of 12”. 6 plasma shots per Battlesuit at 18”!!! Then finish it off with a Burst and Fusion shot per suit just for good measure. (Can someone else read this sounds too good to me, perhaps I misread something)

AP3 now bypass’s Feel Know Pain.

Broken troops are destroyed if they are within 12” of enemy units at the start of their Movement phase.

Looks like Fearless comes in three levels. Level 1 can be pinned just they suffer no negative modifiers. Level 2 cannot be pinned. Fearless level 3 pass all moral checks.

Airborn units (Battlesuits) ignore the dangerous and difficult terrain types but can still swoop down and get cover from them. Go Battlesuits.

Fallback/sweeping advance has change a lot. The simple version is role a 5+ to break off combat or get destroyed. If squad leader Initiative is higher than pursuing unit breakoff is 4+.

[Shaslain]

Yea, we were talking about the leak at my LGS just yesterday. And for the most part I like the huge changes, it gives the game an entirely new feel. The best part is that you have the option to still play 5th if you want to or accept the new rules. From what I read in the rules, I think my Tau army is getting a HUGE bump in effectiveness which makes me happy.

The only problem I have is with the Blood Angels having all fast vehicles, if you have the leak and read about the new vehicle rules then you will understand what I am saying. Other than that I think its a home run!

[Pottsey]

Ok these rules are fake! I know because they just made ethereal's great. Suicide an ethereal and your whole army gets preferred enemy for close combat and shooting. Plus no one runs off the board, worse case you fail the test and are shaken which means cannot perform support actions, run, limited to 1 shot per turn while shaken.

If you take Aun-Va you get preferred enemy and Furious charge. Did Game workshop just make Tau good at CC? stg 6 battlesuits hitting on 3+ in CC! These rules have to be fake.

[Watchdog]

Ok these rules are fake! I know because they just made ethereal's great. Suicide an ethereal and your whole army gets preferred enemy for close combat and shooting. Plus no one runs off the board, worse case you fail the test and are shaken which means cannot perform support actions, run, limited to 1 shot per turn while shaken.

If you take Aun-Va you get preferred enemy and Furious charge. Did Game workshop just make Tau good at CC? stg 6 battlesuits hitting on 3+ in CC! These rules have to be fake.

If we are reading the same leak, it says that if a regular Ethereal dies you only get the Preferred Enemy against the unit who killed the Ethereal and if it is a vehicle, too bad, since it only works against infantry. Am I right?

[Zeeblee]

Personally I've never found problems killing marines.  And this is playing with primarily AP4/5 weaponry.  The real issue with 5th edition is how easy it is to get a 4+ cover save. This makes it so low AP weaponry isn't actually all that valuable, but torrent fire is.  I've been playing with that mentality since beginning the game since I didn't really have options for better firepower, but looking at other armies who would enjoy using those guns I can see the problem(s).

[Tempest Six Two]

4 and above.  Strength 4 = -1 save modifier, Strength 5 = -2, Strength 6 = -3 and so on.  40k, in Second Edition, used to have identical rules in this regard.

Very true MT- I got my 2nd edition rulebooks out last night and read through all the armour save stuff again, and TBH they should just cut and dump it back into 6th edition- at least we know the grammar will be correct, as most 2nd edition stuff appears to have been written by actual english people with a solid grasp on the english language. As opposed to the monkeys in charge at the moment....

Oh, and SUSTAINED FIRE DICE!! Remember kids- two jams and you can fire next turn, roll three jams and your assault cannon explodes!! Or you can be lucky and get 9 shots off

Here ends my "bring back the second-ed radness" rant...   

[Dragonborn Seth]

The real issue with 5th edition is how easy it is to get a 4+ cover save.

If the leak and rumours are anything to go by, the new 'average' cover save will be a 5+ in 6th, with a 4+ being reserved for ruins. I'm all for making terrain cover saves more diverse. As it stands, 4+ makes up the overwhelming majority of cover, with a 5+ being bad and a 6+ being completely worthless and thankfully rare. Changing 5+ to the 'middle-ground' would be totally fine with me, though my Tyranids aren't going to enjoy it.

[knightperson]

[snip]
40K doesn't do that. In 40K, the side with the most killy stuff wins. It doesn't matter that your Chapter Master is surrounded by 108 Gaunts, he still wins because he killed more of them. If 40K was done right, the Tyranid player would just sit there and announce "you need to kill more Gaunts than you have attacks in order to win this fight!" and allow combat resolution to kill the guy for him.

That's a 5th edition thing. In 4th the combat modifier was based on how many of each side were involved in the combat, not how many had previously died. Some of the tyranid upgrades (like for the carnifex) said that it counted as 10 models rather than 1 for purposes of outnumbering in melee. But that system had weaknesses too. 8 terminators who just killed 14 of 31 termagants without losing any of their own could still be scared by the fact that they were "outnumbered 2 to 1", which didn't make much sense.

Armour Modifiers would go some way to rebalancing this clusterfuck of a system. Ditching Invuns would be even better, since that means we'd see an end to half the klkn Space Marine players insist on pulling.

I don't think invulnerables are the problem. They are reasonably rare and tend to be weaker than the regular saves. Dark Eldar Wyches have a 4+ invuln but only in melee. A couple of their characters have a 2+, but only until he fails it once. Daemons all have invulnerables, but most of them are 5+; Tzeentch units have 4+ and the Lord of Change has a 3+, but they are either expensive or vulnerable to melee. The only thing I can think of that has a constant, good invulnerable save is the assault terminator. Yes, a 2+/3+ is a pain to deal with, but the models are expensive and just as vulnerable to a torrent of fire as a terminator with a 2+/5+. First-Rank-Fire-Second-Rank-Fire, markerlight-assisted Fish Of Fury, Bladestorm, or several other things will usually get rid of them. They're only twice as hard to kill with massed fire as a regular space marine, but cost significantly more than twice as much, don't they?

Now a strong enough attack modifying armor save might make sense, but only if it starts fairly high. A strength 5 or 6 hit should not reduce an armor save for a toughness 4 character since you're getting more wounds. Now if you get to a strength of +3, maybe that should drop the save by one, but the situations where it would matter are small enough that I don't think it's worth the extra arithmetic. I think a better system would be if the AP stat was a modifier, although that would require turning everything upside-down. Maybe if AP is turned into an armor save modifier of "5 minus AP." So an AP3 weapon would worsen the armor save by 2, giving space marines a 5+, terminators a 4+, and anything with a 5+ or worse would get nothing at all. An AP1 weapon would worsen the save by 4, giving terminators a 6+, but nobody else would get anything.

The math would be kind of a pain I admit, but it still wouldn't be as bad as the AD&D 2nd edition's concept of THAC0 and negative armor classes that a few of us might be able to remember, and everybody just dealt with that!

[knightperson]

That's a 5th edition thing. In 4th the combat modifier was based on how many of each side were involved in the combat, not how many had previously died. Some of the tyranid upgrades (like for the carnifex) said that it counted as 10 models rather than 1 for purposes of outnumbering in melee. But that system had weaknesses too. 8 terminators who just killed 14 of 31 termagants without losing any of their own could still be scared by the fact that they were "outnumbered 2 to 1", which didn't make much sense.

How does that not make sense? The Terminators have just spent 10-20 seconds emptying their mags, hacking with their weapons and generally unleashing all the killing power they possess, and yet the Gaunts still don't seem to have thinned out! Have you never watched Zulu, or 300, or Aliens?

Well, because they killed almost half of the bugs without losing a single one of the Emperor's Finest. Both systems have problems. With the 4th edition version and the example above, it wouldn't make sense that the terminators would have a morale check at minus 2 or something because they are clearly winning. In 5th edition rules, same scenario, the tyranids would take 14 No Retreat armor saves, which makes sense. But if there were another 30 gants in the mix, the gants would still take them even though they have a much better chance of winning.

Now with the Invuns, the issue is they are getting way, way too high. They are also getting far too common. The point of AP was that you either got lots of attacks, or one really powerful attack. In short, the power-attack was meant to pretty much guarantee a kill versus whatever you shot. Ergo, you shot tough stuff with big guns, and weak stuff with little guns.

Invuns being so common, you now have to shoot tough stuff with little guns, because Terminators get a 3+ save against anti-tank weaponry. That leaves you with the situation of not having any little guns left for the weaker units, and no targets worth hitting with your big guns... well, except the obligatory three Land Raiders carrying these 3+ Invun models.

We need to go back to this shtlk making sense, and taking away Invulnerable Saves would do that. If not across the board, then take them off the Space Marines.

As I hinted above, there are going to be situations in nearly any rules mechanic where stuff doesn't make sense. But I still don't see why this is a Space Marine problem (although there are plenty of other things that are). Can you give an example of the "plentiful, strong Invulnerable Saves" that you keep saying Space Marines get? Assault terminators are the only things I can think of, and as I said they're expensive.

[Lord Zambia]

The entire problem with 5th has it is once again swinging in favour of the Space Marines. Do you know how hard it is to beat Space Marines with smaller, weaker units? Take 30 Gaunts vs 10 Marines. Assume both units are exactly the same cost. The Marines kill six Gaunts, the Gaunts kill two Marines. Which side won? The Marines. Why? They killed more.

...but hang on, Gaunts are worth less than Marines! How is it remotely fair that a unit that caused the same 'points' worth of damage loses purely because the individuals are inferior?

Now imagine if we add morale. After the kills we have 8 Marines vs 24 Gaunts. Those Gaunts outnumber 3:1... that would count as at least three kills. The Gaunts still lose on that model, but they only lose by one, not four. It starts to pull the numbers back into a more level playing field.

If you play purely by Kills, you're just pandering once more to the Space Marines and their 30 man 2+ save 3++ Invun army, whilst arbitrarily punishing people for bringing Horde armies.

I dont often get to say this, at all, so I am taking the opportunity to say so now: Wargamer, I 100% agree with you there.

For those interested I am writing up a house-ruled edition to take place outside of LGS's when finished, then if/when 6th comes out all my mates are simply switching to the houseruled edition. Changing 40k so its not AS close combat focused, changing some purely stupid mechanics, and adhering to the fluff alot more. (Example is space marines are actually space marines. Worth 10 men each (not 3 or 4) in both points and battle) I'd be glad to post up finished copies (probs a few months away yet) of core rules and codecies as i finish them if anyone is intrigued )

[Journeyman]

To clarify, I want armour modifiers back across the board. One of the reasons I've all but stopped playing is that the metagame states "if you're not a Marine, you don't get saves. If you are a Marine, you get more saves than you'll ever need."

The problem with that is that putting armour modifiers in still means that Marines almost exclusively get saves so it doesn't really solve anything. Yes those saves might be reduced, but if they're reducing Marine saves they're removing the saves for quite a lot of other units completely.

[Lord Zambia]

To clarify, I want armour modifiers back across the board. One of the reasons I've all but stopped playing is that the metagame states "if you're not a Marine, you don't get saves. If you are a Marine, you get more saves than you'll ever need."

The problem with that is that putting armour modifiers in still means that Marines almost exclusively get saves so it doesn't really solve anything. Yes those saves might be reduced, but if they're reducing Marine saves they're removing the saves for quite a lot of other units completely.

Which makes cover all the more worthwhile. You shouldn't be able to waltz up the board in the open shouting "I'm 3+ armour save n00b" and expect to make it to the enemy alive.

[Journeyman]

Which makes cover all the more worthwhile. You shouldn't be able to waltz up the board in the open shouting "I'm 3+ armour save n00b" and expect to make it to the enemy alive.

I was actually thinking more about combat if I'm honest. Units like Genestealers, Orks and Dark Eldar struggle to survive being hit back as it is, being told they're getting a -1 modifier to their save would be a massive kick in the teeth.

I'm not saying I'm entirely against the idea, just that it would take a lot of work to get right and to balance the points costs of units accordingly.

As I hinted above, there are going to be situations in nearly any rules mechanic where stuff doesn't make sense. But I still don't see why this is a Space Marine problem (although there are plenty of other things that are). Can you give an example of the "plentiful, strong Invulnerable Saves" that you keep saying Space Marines get? Assault terminators are the only things I can think of, and as I said they're expensive.

The point is, yes 3++ Terminators are expensive but they are not expensive enough. After all, IIRC, they cost no more than a standard Terminator but are twice as likely to survive the anti-tank firepower directed at them and are far more deadly in combat. The Space Wolves codex got it right on that score, if you want walking tanks you have to pay through the nose for it (more than half again of what Vanilla Marines pay and still significantly more than what Blood Angels pay). I'm not saying I agree with removing invulnerable saves across the board, units like Wyches and Zoanthropes depend on them to make them viable options after all, but they are becoming far too common and too ridiculous. Hell, I remember when a Hive Tyrant having a 6++ was considered terrifying.

[Lord Zambia]

So perhaps marines need to cost more. After all, if they are worth 10 standard soldiers each (at least), why do they only cost 3 times as much?

[The Man They Call Jayne]

I personally feel that Invuns should never go better than a 4++. The few 2++ that simply fail and stop working are fine with me, because they are not garenteed. But being able to take a unit of 10 guys who can rip tanks apart ad shrug of railgun fire like it wasnt there is just too much.

[Chicop76]

5Th edition made all imperiam armies besides sister much stronger than the previous editions. The abundance of cover saves really helped marines and guard get saves they never got before. In 3rd you had to shoot the unit in front to get to the second unless you had a guess weapon. When 4Th came along high leadership armies could just pick what they wanted to shoot at and just kill what you wanted. Than 5Th brought back screening where the units at least get a cover save.

What bothers me with 5Th the rules heavily favor the Imperial guard out of any army out of there.
1. Blast and templates effect more models. Check.
2. Tlos allows for shooting through buildings and trees. Check.
3. Abundance of 4+ cover which you have gear that pretty much guarantee 3+ cover in the game. Check.
4. Nerf rending which was a threat to our tanks. Check.
5. Lose consolidation where you can enter combat and never shoot the unit like genestealers. Check.
6. Losing guess and making guess weapons more accurate. Check
7. Have the ability to deny cover or re roll passed cover save on the enemy. Check.
8. Skimmers are easier to blow up. Check.
9. Vehicles are harder to blow up. Check.
10. Commissars and command squad HQ untargetable. Check.
11. Cheaper vehicles and men. Check.
12. Only army in the game that can recover from going to ground the following turn. Check.
13. Getting rid of target priority which hurt this army due to low leadership. Check.
14. making sniper rifles better/ worst. Now rifles can take out tanks which guard can field the most sniper rifles in the game. Check.

The winning combat rules greatly helped space marines in conflicts. In 4Th edition it would be possible for 200Pt's of genestealers to wipe out 1k points of marines. Now marines have a pretty decent chance of dealing with  genestealers thanks to nerving rending. Also I remember in 4Th the Xeno armies use to cream marine armies. If you swarm you would win combat and an abundance of AP 3 weapons really help carry the day, but thanks to cover saves and giving marines a +3 invul save the army is much harder to beat.

5Th edition rules was designed to cripple Xeno armies. Look at eldar and Nids in 4Th edition for example. Both armies back than was very strong armies. i have to admit though that Nids back in 4Th was more broken than any army out right now. If the old codex nids followed 4Th edition rules fighting 5Th edition army it is a very good chance nids would probably due better. AP 16 genestealers could easily shred a landraider.

i am glad that the IC rule where if the character was within 6" of a friendly troop could not be targeted is gone. With that rule you pretty much had to wipe out the players entire army to target their IC.

[Wargamer]

Blood Angels don't get free Rhinos. If their assault squad removes their jump packs, they can buy a transport at 35pts cheaper than normal. Because their Rhinos are more than 35pts, they still have to pay the difference.

[Paradoxrifts]

If you play purely by Kills, you're just pandering once more to the Space Marines and their 30 man 2+ save 3++ Invun army, whilst arbitrarily punishing people for bringing Horde armies.

First off..

In a game with fourteen codices, with each individual codex having myriad individual ways to play them you posit that any hundred points of one unit should preform roughly as well as any other hundred points worth of any other unit?

If that is your intention then adopting that as a design philosophy would single-handedly wipe out any synergy a designer would like to build into an army list to keep it interesting.

But maybe I'm wrong about that. Perhaps you'd just like every Troop choice to be equitable choice, each unit preforming identically well in shooting and close combat for the amount of points you've pumped into it.

It's not a bad idea and it certainly has its merits compared to the current system of using the rules of the game to hawk whatever plastic kits that GW released alongside the latest iteration of the codex.  My problem is that it effectively makes Troops choices even more boringly vanilla than they already have a reputation of being. You would end up effectively having the same 'unit' as the baseline unit for every single army. Different looking models, different number of models but effectively the same unit doing effectively the same thing.

I've long lamented the pasteurisation of WH40K that has seen armies uncomfortably sharing their traditional strengths with other armies as well as losing the traditional weaknesses that helped define the character of each of the available  armies.     

As for your solution..

The problem with that  is you've inadvertently swung back the other way and are now advantaging horde armies by adding a non-variable into the equation. Now the larger squad of Gaunts has the same amount of dice with which to get a result but it isn't as reliant on getting that good result as the smaller squad of Space Marines. It would be fairer in my opinion to give the larger squad an extra amount of attacks depending on how badly they outnumber their opponents. That way everyone is using dice and only dice to influence the course of the combat. 

[Wargamer]

Funny, you'd think 40K players of all people would appreciate a force multiplier.

Most game systems I read do not adopt such a simplistic "kills = victory!" mentality. Outnumbering opponents, having supporting units, having morale boosts, being better drilled, being so bloody psychotic you refuse to fall over... these and countless others are used as justification for granting combat bonuses beyond how many people you can hit with a big stick.

The reason I used Gaunts vs Marines is because it highlights what is so fundamentally wrong with this game. Look a little deeper, if you will:

30 Gaunts. 30 models that exist solely to engage and destroy enemies in close combat.
10 Marines. 10 models that have ranged ability, and fill an 'all round' role.

In theory, these units are balanced. In theory, assuming equal point values, victory would boil down to who went first, or who charged. The Gaunts should take losses from the Marine shooting, but then have the raw combat power to make up the difference in an orgy of melee combat.

Thing is, as my last game as Necrons vs Tyranids proved, it doesn't work that way. My units bounced charges by standing there and relying on high toughness and great saves to carry them through, then bitchslapped their weak, nigh-armourless opponents. Despite my units not being meant for close combat, I was able to win, or at least draw, against a dedicated assault unit. Why? Because only kills matter.

Force multipliers would not automatically swing the game in favour of the horde. Remember, putting all your eggs in one basket has the potential for catastrophic failure. Besides, you can always bypass it by adding in alternative force multipliers. You don't need to go solely with how many bodies you have on the ground. Five Terminators surrounded by 30 Gaunts deserve to be insta-gibbed for their stupidity. Five Terminators in fortified cover, on the other hand, should probably be getting a combat resolution bonus to represent how much harder it is to shift a dug in opponent.

[Chicop76]

Funny, you'd think 40K players of all people would appreciate a force multiplier.

Most game systems I read do not adopt such a simplistic "kills = victory!" mentality. Outnumbering opponents, having supporting units, having morale boosts, being better drilled, being so bloody psychotic you refuse to fall over... these and countless others are used as justification for granting combat bonuses beyond how many people you can hit with a big stick.

The reason I used Gaunts vs Marines is because it highlights what is so fundamentally wrong with this game. Look a little deeper, if you will:

30 Gaunts. 30 models that exist solely to engage and destroy enemies in close combat.
10 Marines. 10 models that have ranged ability, and fill an 'all round' role.

In theory, these units are balanced. In theory, assuming equal point values, victory would boil down to who went first, or who charged. The Gaunts should take losses from the Marine shooting, but then have the raw combat power to make up the difference in an orgy of melee combat.

Thing is, as my last game as Necrons vs Tyranids proved, it doesn't work that way. My units bounced charges by standing there and relying on high toughness and great saves to carry them through, then bitchslapped their weak, nameless opponents. Despite my units not being meant for close combat, I was able to win, or at least draw, against a dedicated assault unit. Why? Because only kills matter.

Force multipliers would not automatically swing the game in favour of the horde. Remember, putting all your eggs in one basket has the potential for catastrophic failure. Besides, you can always bypass it by adding in alternative force multipliers. You don't need to go solely with how many bodies you have on the ground. Five Terminators surrounded by 30 Gaunts deserve to be insta-gibbed for their stupidity. Five Terminators in fortified cover, on the other hand, should probably be getting a combat resolution bonus to represent how much harder it is to shift a dug in opponent.

In 4th edition when they was fearless the issue really wasn't the case. In 5th you take more wounds for being fearless nerfed the Nids even more. I personally think most of 5th rules targeted mainly Eldar and Nids, but to be fair I remember marine armies was a joke in 4th and didn't really fair well in 3rd either. The fearless rolls force you to lose additional units where in 4th you didn't lose additional units for losing combat and you easily won combat due to outnumbering anyway.

Now the only way to get fearless rolls to hurt marines is if they fail leadership and if you catch them with an int test. if you don't catch them typically they would rapid fire you or assault you next turn. Heaven forbid if they are BA or SW. To be honest I fear this situation with SW more than BA. BA players hopefully have fearless models which would forced to take saves if they loose combat. Grey Knights is a pain if they took an Inquisitor due to the fact the unit is stubborn. Man I really hate stubborn. I noticed the only armies that benefit from stubborn are the same OP Imperial armies. Guard heavily abuse the stubborn rule while some marine armies which should never have this rule benefit from it as well.

[Paradoxrifts]

Funny, you'd think 40K players of all people would appreciate a force multiplier.

I appreciate a good force multiplier as much as the next man but only if a player pays for the privilege of having it, or alternatively plays smart enough to earn it for themself.

Taking advantage of good cover in such a way that forces your opponent not only to deal with the threat you've created but expend more resources than they'd ordinarily have to in order to neutralize it is a legitimate reward for good manoeuvring.

:Sidenote: They've released all of that beautiful plastic & resin terrain over the last couple of years but it is a downright tragedy that nowhere are you allowed to make advantageous terrain and it's placement on the battlefield part of your army. Madness!
 
But bringing larger squads to the table requires just what exactly? A willingness to spend more money on your army than an army with a smaller model count would ordinarily cost? More patience to sit down, assemble and paint the additional models required?

These things are commendable but they're not worth an innate unpaid for advantage because outnumbering a smaller enemy unit with a 30-model unit just doesn't  require an appreciable level of gaming skill and/or luck to earn it.

[Chicop76]

Tau benefit from stubborn too, if you take the most OP character in the game. Boy, 5Th edition really bolstered his rules I think it needs a complete overhaul and some unbiased mechanics. I reckon I have never played a game where tactical marines HAVENT entered combat at some point (Electing to charge, for example). And don't get me started on an archon running away because 2 of the warriors he is standing near are killed by lasgun fire. Then a tank drives in the general direction of the archon and he runs even further. And as long as he's within walking distance of that tank he is still so damn scared. Or a Tau commander losing both his gun drone buddies and thinking "y'xa'uk this, i'm getting the hell outta here" and flies off the board.

At least you probably never lost half your Tau army to a 50 point Witch Hunter rhino. I think tank shock for a Raider makes sense, but for a rhino and chimera. I am tired of the tank shocking madness against Tau who suffers the most out of any army against Tank Shock. Heck the only time I get Tank Shocked is when I play Tau, imagine that.

Oh you mean give a really good power to the worst chracater on the game and give stubborn to an army that really do not benefit from it unless you take a huge point sink to use it. no bias at all.

[KCKitsune]

The thing that I hated about 5th edition was Run.  I mean with Run you can get into close combat much faster. 

I also hated units that could deep strike, but not suffer any bad effects for it (Drop Pods and Monoliths, I'm looking at you).  If you're going to Deep Strike, then you should be willing to accept the fact that you might screw up and lose an expensive unit because you got greedy.

[Lord Witherfume]

Monoliths have no ability to protect themselves from deepstrikes. Mostly just some special characters, drop pods and trygons have Benifts. Most armies (tau, daemons, chaos and others) have abilities or wargear which help deepstrikers. It is annoying, sure, but there is still random aspects to it and it's often easy to judge where units will deepstrike. I've had no problems dealing with such things. The worst things are units which can assault on deepstrike. Thankfully they are few and far between.

I actually play DoA blood angels, and even with their special rules I've lost multiple units to bad scatters. Risk vs reward for me means being too bold sometimes.

Run, I feel is one of the best additions to the game. I've used it with my shooty necrons more then my melee armies for sure. Allows you to sit still and shoot for more turns before rushing for objectives and makes it easier to avoid combats.

[Chicop76]

The thing that I hated about 5th edition was Run.  I mean with Run you can get into close combat much faster. 

I also hated units that could deep strike, but not suffer any bad effects for it (Drop Pods and Monoliths, I'm looking at you).  If you're going to Deep Strike, then you should be willing to accept the fact that you might screw up and lose an expensive unit because you got greedy.

Daemon players would disagree with your opinion about dsing. That army have to pay a ton of points to ds acurate and when they come in have no fail saves ds turn one like other armies.

Run made sence. Many game systems use a run mech. Although it makes fleet less special. Runing helps daemons survive after ds due to template madness, so run is a good thing.

[Journeyman]

But bringing larger squads to the table requires just what exactly? A willingness to spend more money on your army than an army with a smaller model count would ordinarily cost? More patience to sit down, assemble and paint the additional models required?

These things are commendable but they're not worth an innate unpaid for advantage because outnumbering a smaller enemy unit with a 30-model unit just doesn't  require an appreciable level of gaming skill and/or luck to earn it.

You've clearly never tried playing a horde combat army, believe me, it takes skill. When 1 well placed blast template can wipe a whole unit almost regardless of scatter you really have to think about what you're putting where and how you're going to reach the enemy lines with enough to make a dent. Also, as has been pointed out, units like Hormagaunts are dedicated combat troops. Yes, they are a horde unit, but they are bred purely for combat purposes. Why should they struggle like hell to fulfil their role just because half the players out there simply sit and laugh "T4  and 3+ armour n00b"? I ran the math, and 20 Hormagaunts against 5 ordinary Terminators lose the combat every time, despite initially outnumbering them 4:1 and ending the combat outnumbering them more than 5:1. How is that logical? I agree the system shouldn't work entirely on outnumbering, but outnumbering should count for something. Hell 20 Hormagaunts barely beat 10 normal Marines, and that's assuming the Marines aren't in cover. The thing is, in combat situations numbers matter, and the game doesn't take that into account at the the minute, so I'm hoping that they put outnumber back into combat resolution in 6th.

[Lord Witherfume]

Horde units cannot fight  1vs1 against better units. Horde units need to be able to charge two or more of their units in. With less expensive troops, a combat should be influenced by other units, either via abilities, firepower or charging in. A tervigon, is a great support unit which can bolster the hormagaunts with feel no pain, or other special rules. Toxin sacs make hormagaunts even more deadly for a small cost. Armies which have non-new troops need to make sure the elements of the army can support each other. Non meq armies cannot be played like space marines with the expectation to win.

A fellow at my flgs plays tyranids and his army used a lot of gaunts and gargoyles backed up by other units. I've never seen him loose a game. We are non an 'Ard boyz competitive group, but horde armies can do very well. But it requires practice.

[Journeyman]

Horde units cannot fight  1vs1 against better units. Horde units need to be able to charge two or more of their units in. With less expensive troops, a combat should be influenced by other units, either via abilities, firepower or charging in. A tervigon, is a great support unit which can bolster the hormagaunts with feel no pain, or other special rules. Toxin sacs make hormagaunts even more deadly for a small cost. Armies which have non-new troops need to make sure the elements of the army can support each other. Non meq armies cannot be played like space marines with the expectation to win.

A fellow at my flgs plays tyranids and his army used a lot of gaunts and gargoyles backed up by other units. I've never seen him loose a game. We are non an 'Ard boyz competitive group, but horde armies can do very well. But it requires practice.

I'm not expecting them to fight 1v1 and win. I'm expecting them to fight 4v1 and have some chance of holding against all-round Terminators. 30 man Hormagaunt unit is roughly equivalent in points to 5 standard Terminators. 2 turns of shooting brings down about 8, so 22 make combat and they still lose in combat. That's not logical, that's retarded. As for practice, I've been playing Tyranids for about 8 years, I know how they work and the current codex doesn't, but a bad codex could be countered by decent core rules, unfortunately we have neither for horde armies currently.

[Schev]

The reality is that a unit of Hormagaunts is not designed to take down a hyper elite unit like Terminators. If you change the scenario to be Genestealers vs Terminators, then things are altered dramatically in favor of the Genestealers (assuming they get the charge). Hormagaunts are line troops and line troops exist to take on other line troops. Hormagaunts on the charge will kill about 4 normal Marines, and lose about 3 of their own number, assuming 22 make combat as in your scenario. That's about as it should be.

[Chicop76]

The reality is that a unit of Hormagaunts is not designed to take down a hyper elite unit like Terminators. If you change the scenario to be Genestealers vs Terminators, then things are altered dramatically in favor of the Genestealers (assuming they get the charge). Hormagaunts are line troops and line troops exist to take on other line troops. Hormagaunts on the charge will kill about 4 normal Marines, and lose about 3 of their own number, assuming 22 make combat as in your scenario. That's about as it should be.

To be fair Hormagaunts with furious charge, poison, and preferred enemy can easily wipe out 5 terminators vs 20 Hormagaunts. 45 attacks that hit with 33 wounds that equal 6 dead Terminators and 12 dead maries. Although you have to take upgrades which makes the model 10 points a piece with a hive tyrant near by giving off the preferred enemy aura. Even without the aura that still would be 35 hits with 25 wounds killing 4 terminators or 8 marines.

Noow if you look at no synapse, no upgrades than the Hormagaunts would do poorly. Although I would use Termagaunts with a Tyrant and Tervigon near by whicn would come out cheaper and produce much better results. I have had 20 termagaints wipe out 5 man terminator squads many times as long as I had my Tervigon and Tyrant near by.

[Farseer Del]

Should we possibly be looking into splitting this discussion off into its own thread in G40k? Maybe even just throwing up a 6th ed wishlist now that the leak is confirmed fake-ish?