Sunday, May 4, 2014

Predictions for 6.5 or 7th, or it can 2nd ed Strikes Back?

What do these three codexes have in common with 6.5 or 7th edition?  Allow me to wax on the topic.  This post has been a long time coming.

JJ typing, as a buddy of mine Dylan said: The problem JJ and I have is that there are so many editions of 40k rolling around in our head we get them confused when we play.  Thinking of that sentence makes me possibly understand why holidays are so hard on olde people.  They are filled with joy and sorrow from a life time of memories, loved ones still with them and those who have gone.

While reading the Tyranid codex back in March something made no sense.  Then it clicked when I remembered something from the 3rd ed Necron codex.

Looks like there is a lot of talk online regarding percentages.  This is something they did in 2nd ed.  With a lot of rules in 6th ed corebook reflecting 2nd ed there may be a throwback to a different age of 40k.  After all nostalgia is setting in with some people.  Could be those in charge of GW books have pined over the Golden Days of 2nd ed.  Hell they probably were playing back then and want to have a second renaissance.  Those who remember 2nd may have noticed elements of that edition have been inserted into 6th.  Seems we are in the flow of the past and ebb of the future.

This entry may mean little to some.  Though others maybe making the connection.  In 3rd-5th there was no Heavy class for a vehicle type.  Necron Monolith model is the first model to have this special rule inserted into the game.  While there are some rules in the game that cannot be changed unless there's a double codex release i.e. Harlequins Codex: Eldar and Dark Eldar dropping at the same time.  Other codexes allow subtle changes in fundamental rules of 40k.  Heavy being one of them.  Won't go into Imperium luring rules into darkened alleys and hitting them over the head.  We can see that in 5th, there was only one unit in the entire game with the special rule Heavy.  6th landed and now other models have the same rule i.e.  Leman Russ.  It was given this rule years before the Astra Militarum codex landed.  Yes, the codex might have been the apple of some writers eye, or they saw similarities with present rules and added Hv to its type.  Some maybe asking "relevancy?" and I don't blame them.  Others may know exactly where I'm going.

You can't use Cover Saves in close combat.  Those familiar with 40k6 pg 26.  Had to read the last sentence of Acid Blood a couple of times before it made sense.  A 40k buddy of mine says: "That it doesn't make sense.  GW doesn't think that far ahead when making a new edition.  Will probably be FAQd."  Well I believe 6.5 or 7th will allow cover saves to be taken in close combat.  A guardsman is in horrendous battle against a tyranid.  He notices several members of his unit being wounded by acid spurting forth from tyranid injured bodies.  This guardsman uses terrain to shield him from  unworldy lethal ichour to avoid the same fate.  Perhaps the same guardsman is fighting against a xenos wielding a blade crackling with hear splitting energy.  The xenos swings at him again and again.  After a couple of unlikely dodges he leaps over a fallen tree trunk and reposes.  He dodges farther behind the fallen tree while the energy weapon nearly rends trunk in half saving the guardsman from a fatal wound.

Minour rant about space marines.

Space marines are losing, or not winning, in tournaments and GW doesn't like that xenos are winning.  There may be a nerfing of xenos "deathstars" so GW can ensure their go-to-boy is leading the charge again.  You don't have to look to hard to notice that no other army in the 40k universe even comes close to 162 selections.  Many armies are skunked, even double skunked by Space Marines.  Hell some are close to being triple skunked by SM.  My opinion, not based in fact, is that GW wants SM to win at tournaments (which they don't support.)

Off SM rant.

Xenos have been winning on the tournament scene and I couldn't be happier.  I'd like for GW to include the FAQs in the books instead of them being online.  However that would lead to some people purchasing a new corebook and codexes more than once a year.  GW tried this in 3rd by releasing 2nd edition codexes which included the FAQs.  Unfortunately online FAQs are the most cost efficient way to update information

My personal opinion for lack of FAQs is because that manpower is for writing digital codexes.  Of course it would also take someone who can read to make correct FAQs i.e. Canoptek Wraiths are not affected by difficult or dangerous terrain yet when they charge into difficult terrain they assault at Initiative Step 1.  I've heard that Rick Priestley does the FAQs.  If he is, or whoever they are, doing the FAQs I personally think he should familiarize himself with the rules of the unit in question before ordering GWs million monkeys with typewriters to perform dictation.

Wrapping this up.  GW has introduced rules into codexes that are later folded into the corebook.  Like Monolith Heavy I believe that in the next edition of 40k you'll be able to make cover saves when in assault.

slainte mhath


  1. While I think that sometimes things get previewed, I don't think that is the case here. Rather, since the attack is not itself a close combat attack it does not inherently ignore cover.

    1. Now you have me thinking. So there are some wounds that happen in close combat that you can take a cover save against? Besides Acid Blood in the new Tyranid codex can you provide examples where cover saves can be taken in close combat?

    2. Chainfist rhino, rhino explodes, guys in cover from where rhino is/was take cover saves. Happens in assault phase, but is not a close combat attack. Also, overwatch occurs in assault phase, though not in fight sub phase.

    3. Nice! Excellent job, sonsoftaurus. Exploding rhino. Didn't even occur to me. Yeah we make saves for those. Usually armour is better than cover save though.


  2. I do agree that sometimes codexes are written with future changes in mind. (Look at destroyers getting preferred enemy in the necron 5th edition codex...that made no sense at the time).

    However at the same time, GW has been pushing content forward so quickly, they aren't even proofreading some of the codexes. So whether or not it's just a mistake, or a foreshadowing is anyones guess.

    Honestly I just want GW to fix assault. I'm tired of just shooting stuff. I want to smash it with my chainsword/powerweapon/axe.

    1. Excellent point, Greg. Forgot about Destroyers getting Hatred. Yeah, there hasn't been a lot of editing in the codexes. I especially noticed it in the Tyranid codex.


Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...