# 6th edition fear



## unxpekted22 (Apr 7, 2009)

I'm not really sure why everyone is afraid of GW releasing a 6th edition rule book that is worse than 5th. If no one liked it, couldn't we all just keep playing 5th? As for tournaments, couldn't people just not go to them long enough to change something? Codex books written afterward could probably be translated to 5th rules fairly easily. I'm not sure why a lot of people act like once 6th edition comes out that they HAVE to play it like there's no other options.

Keep in mind I started the hobby the same month that the 5th edition rulebook was released by coincidence, so I've yet to actually go through a change in edition before.


----------



## KingOfCheese (Jan 4, 2010)

unxpekted22 said:


> I'm not really sure why everyone is afraid of GW releasing a 6th edition rule book that is worse than 5th. If no one liked it, couldn't we all just keep playing 5th? As for tournaments, couldn't people just not go to them long enough to change something? Codex books written afterward could probably be translated to 5th rules fairly easily. I'm not sure why a lot of people act like once 6th edition comes out that they HAVE to play it like there's no other options.
> 
> Keep in mind I started the hobby the same month that the 5th edition rulebook was released by coincidence, so I've yet to actually go through a change in edition before.


Well, i started playing in 2nd ed, and always progressed when each new edition is released, purely because everyone else does the same.

Its a bit like new codices. Once a new codex is released, nobody will play with/against the old one.
For example, if i made a DE list from the 3rd ed codex with Dark Lance spam, a lot of people would complain about it.

Regardless if 6th ed will be better or not, the game will still progress to it.
I thought 5th ed was absolute shit when it was released, but it has slowly grown on me over time.


----------



## Uber Ork (Aug 23, 2010)

Well stated KoC.

I would liken it to a rule change in sports. No one would really be ok with your team wanting to play with last years rules.







.


----------



## Dawnstar (Jan 21, 2010)

I hardly think 6th Edition will be any worse than 5th Edition myself. If GW do it right, they will expand upon the 5th Ed. rulebook, re-write some dubiously written rules, and add a few more mechanics into the game to further advance the game


----------



## unxpekted22 (Apr 7, 2009)

KingOfCheese said:


> Well, i started playing in 2nd ed, and always progressed when each new edition is released, purely because everyone else does the same.
> 
> Its a bit like new codices. Once a new codex is released, nobody will play with/against the old one.
> For example, if i made a DE list from the 3rd ed codex with Dark Lance spam, a lot of people would complain about it.
> ...


I think they probably tend to seem bad at first because its not until after the new editions codex books are released where people start to see more of the advantages of the new rules...naturally.



Uber Ork said:


> Well stated KoC.
> 
> I would liken it to a rule change in sports. No one would really be ok with your team wanting to play with last years rules.
> 
> ...


Seems like if there was a consensus among the players that last years rules were better they could just do that, I mean they wouldnt be expected to but then thats like admitting GW has us on a leash.

I guess I just dont like it when people say (essentially) look at all the success 5th edition has produced, but when 6th edition comes out I have to throw 5th in the trash even if I liked it better.


Now obviously there is the business side of GW to be concerned about in the well known idea that even if GW came out with an edition that was as perfect as it could possibly get, it would still come out with another edition changing the game in order to keep money flowing, sad but necessary I suppose. Though 5th seems to be good I think most people would say they have a long way to go before the rules are "perfect". So with this in mind I am hopeful that GW would still attempt to only make the rules better at this point in time, and not change them merely to keep sales going _yet._


----------



## KingOfCheese (Jan 4, 2010)

unxpekted22 said:


> Now obviously there is the business side of GW to be concerned about in the well known idea that even if GW came out with an edition that was as perfect as it could possibly get, it would still come out with another edition changing the game in order to keep money flowing, sad but necessary I suppose. Though 5th seems to be good I think most people would say they have a long way to go before the rules are "perfect". So with this in mind I am hopeful that GW would still attempt to only make the rules better at this point in time, and not change them merely to keep sales going _yet._


They have been doing this ever since 3rd edition.
The game has barely changed since 3rd ed, just a couple of small changes to justify the release of a new edition, and a couple of changes to the metagame so that people need to buy more models.
From a business perspective, they have to really.


----------



## unxpekted22 (Apr 7, 2009)

Right but at least the rule changes are still progressive even if only a few rules are changed at a time on purpose. I'd rather it be this I guess than GW changing rules to purposefully _flaw_ the game in a non-obvious way. I suppose eventually it could turn into an eternal cycle haha. In the far future there could be like, 17th edition which would be identical to 5th edition but no one would know that by that time.


----------



## KingOfCheese (Jan 4, 2010)

unxpekted22 said:


> I'd rather it be this I guess than GW changing rules to purposefully _flaw_ the game in a non-obvious way.


When 5th ed replaced 4th ed, they took away Victory Points and replaced it with Kill Points.
To me that is an extreme flaw that was intentionally done simply for "change" rather than improvements.


----------



## unxpekted22 (Apr 7, 2009)

Well damn that's unfortunate. Yeah I forgot about that, a lot of people like the old LOS rules better as well. But even though a lot of players find themselves preferring the 4th edition rules for those and perhaps some other things, do you think GW thought the new rules were worse? I think they may have _believed_ the changes were better, they just didn't turn out that way.


----------



## Karak The Unfaithful (Feb 13, 2011)

I think everyone is scared because they have no idea what GW are actually going to do to 6th ed


----------



## Fallen (Oct 7, 2008)

Karak hit it on the button, if GW simply said that they were going to refine the issues with 5th ed a month before 6th is to be released it would cure the xenophobia that we have.


----------



## Sworn Radical (Mar 10, 2011)

Sixth edition ? 
Well, I _'only'_ played Rogue Trader, second edition and fifth edition, having skipped third and fourth entirely ... I've gotten into the fifth ed. codices by now, but still don't like the overall feel of it ... somehow, to me, it feels the game depends a lot more one luck nowadays and a lot less on tactics. _*shrugs*_

But if there were two things I'd like to see changed for a sixth edition release, it would be these:

1. Bring back the *M * stat ....

2. Ditch the stupid _sweeping advance_ rule, which is only meant to speed up the game and would have no right to exist in a more tactical game anyways. It's simply hilarious when a single model wipes out your whole squad because of one stupid roll.


----------



## KingOfCheese (Jan 4, 2010)

Already i don't really like the way they are heading with the ridiculous 250+ point characters and powers with the 5th edition characters.
I don't see why 1 guy in power armour can withstand so much more firepower and knocks to the head than 10 normal marines combined.
I like the feeling of an army of people with equal/similar ability, rather than having 1 guy that is unrealistically more powerful than anyone else.
I guess i miss the simple HQ's from 3rd ed days.


----------



## humakt (Jan 2, 2008)

Not sure why people are afraid of 5th either. I have played every edition of the game and there has always been a part of the rules I did not like. Im sure the same will be with 6th, but I will just adapt and play. As long as its still fun thats all that matters to me.


----------



## Serpion5 (Mar 19, 2010)

KingOfCheese said:


> Already i don't really like the way they are heading with the ridiculous 250+ point characters and powers with the 5th edition characters.
> I don't see why 1 guy in power armour can withstand so much more firepower and knocks to the head than 10 normal marines combined.
> I like the feeling of an army of people with equal/similar ability, rather than having 1 guy that is unrealistically more powerful than anyone else.
> I guess i miss the simple HQ's from 3rd ed days.


It may not be that he is actually that resilient, merely the rules representing his good fortune on the battlefield. 


The only rules I dislike in 5th ed are the TLoS rules, and the morale check modifiers in CC. 

On the whole though, I think the game works to a decent standard most of the time.


----------



## eyescrossed (Mar 31, 2011)

Sworn Radical said:


> Sixth edition ?
> Well, I _'only'_ played Rogue Trader, second edition and fifth edition, having skipped third and fourth entirely ... I've gotten into the fifth ed. codices by now, but still don't like the overall feel of it ... somehow, to me, it feels the game depends a lot more one luck nowadays and a lot less on tactics. _*shrugs*_
> 
> But if there were two things I'd like to see changed for a sixth edition release, it would be these:
> ...


3rd and 4th had far more in common with 5th than RT or 2nd Edition, so you wouldn't have liked them either.


----------



## KingOfCheese (Jan 4, 2010)

Necromunda is always good to re-live some of the memories of 2nd ed.


----------



## unxpekted22 (Apr 7, 2009)

Sworn Radical said:


> 2. Ditch the stupid _sweeping advance_ rule, which is only meant to speed up the game and would have no right to exist in a more tactical game anyways. It's simply hilarious when a single model wipes out your whole squad because of one stupid roll.


My dad plays necrons and I play templars, he definitely feels the same way about that rule.

I can see why GW wants to mess with point changes, to sell more models but I'm not sure why they would want to speed the games up, perhaps their continuing gesture toward younger children being able to enjoy it more and stick around the hobby longer? Yuck, maybe they should just release a '40k 4 Kidz' version already for all our sakes.

I think that MY personal fear about 6th edition is that I _finally_ feel I have gotten comfortable with he 5th edition rules. Being my first edition, and being taught by fools the first couple of times, it has taken me a while to get the rules down. Not having a regular player the first year didn't help. 

But I suppose if the rules usually dont change that much then I probably dont have much to worry about. Plus we're still looking at, what, at least a year before it starts becoming a real possibility? If I really wanted I'm sure I could get a lot of games in within a year haha.


----------



## Serpion5 (Mar 19, 2010)

Truth, the change from 4th to 5th was not reality shattering, and I doubt the next one will be either. 

In short, you`ll be fine.


----------



## KingOfCheese (Jan 4, 2010)

For a start, there is no way in hell that GW will kill Mech armies.
If anything, they will want to make them more powerful.
Transports are cheap points wise, and expensive money wise, so it means that a typical 1500 point lists will cost more money, which means more money in GW's pocket.


----------



## Uber Ork (Aug 23, 2010)

Sworn Radical said:


> Sixth edition ?
> Well, I _'only'_ played Rogue Trader, second edition and fifth edition, having skipped third and fourth entirely


Wow, you took a huge break. You must have come back and been like, "what the heck?"  





Sworn Radical said:


> 1. Bring back the *M * stat ....


In essence this was replaced/streamlined by unit type movement (i.e. jump infantry = 12", regular infantry = 6", beasts = 6" + 12" charge, etc.)



.............



I don't see 6th having any huge changes. A few minor tweaks, but nothing like the huge leap from 2nd to 3rd. GW had to bust their butt to get all the codices redone as 2nd ed codices were no longer playable in 3rd. There would be even more races/codices to redo this time around, so I'm sure they'll just stick to minor changes. Nothing that wont work with existing codices I'm sure. 

Personally I'm hoping KP's go the way of the squats... after that I don't care much.


----------



## Lash Machine (Nov 28, 2008)

It will probably be rule tweaks like how 3rd was morphed into 4th Edition. It is worth bearing in mind that 3rd Edition was a complete overhaul or remake of the game and in many ways a totally different game from 1st and 2nd edition. GW actually listened to people who asked to be able to play with large amounts of models and vehicles and to do so in a couple of hours as opposed to days. Alot of 3rd was based on the basic mechanics of the unfourtunate remake of Epic 40K.

I expect to see 6th edition as a refinement of 5th. Expect to keep true line of sight, which was used in 1st and 2nd, and I quite like the way it plays.

Vehicles will still be tougher than in the old days and I would expect no drastic changes there. I would expect slight tweaking with close combat rules and morale again and missions and deployment.

There maybe changes to vehicle movement, shooting and embarking etc. I feel with the super sonic ruling for Dark Eldar they might be changing the amount of weapons that are capable of being fired at combat speed again on all vehicles. 

Wound allocation will probably get changed or dumped. I personally feel it is an unnessecary complication which can be abused with some uints and people's interpretation of them can still be a bit fuzzy. I like the basic premise of it but it's probably the most tricky aspect for a totally new player to grab hold of. Also slows the game down although enables that hidden fist or weapon to be targetted. I feel it will go or be replaced with some thing simpler.

Cover could also be reveiwed and foresets may go back to being a 5+ save.


----------



## Sworn Radical (Mar 10, 2011)

Uber Ork said:


> Wow, you took a huge break. You must have come back and been like, "what the heck?"


Absolutely. :laugh:


----------



## VX485 (Feb 17, 2011)

I agree with the cover save rule and morale issues.

Perhaps i should buy some GW stock just before 6th ed is released, then sell real quick day after release when everyone gets pissed


----------



## KingOfCheese (Jan 4, 2010)

Lash Machine said:


> Wound allocation will probably get changed or dumped. I personally feel it is an unnessecary complication which can be abused with some uints and people's interpretation of them can still be a bit fuzzy. I like the basic premise of it but it's probably the most tricky aspect for a totally new player to grab hold of. Also slows the game down although enables that hidden fist or weapon to be targetted. I feel it will go or be replaced with some thing simpler.


I agree.

I love the idea of the wound allocation, but it is unnecessarily complicated and disrupts the flow of the game.
When playing against another experienced player its fine, but when i try to explain it to a newer player it holds the game up completely.


----------



## MetalHandkerchief (Aug 3, 2009)

When 3rd edition came out, my entire town boycotted it. We concocted a blend of 2nd and 3rd edition with a good sprinkle of our own house rules, and they were more realistic, fun and balanced than anything GW have ever put out.

EDIT: It will probably happen again with 6th if they don't change objective holding rules (right now Elites and Fast attack that otherwise are foot soldiers can't hold objectives) a lot of people's patience is thin, and some are already using house rules on that one. That is the single most retarded thing to ever come via a rule change.


----------



## njfed (Jan 28, 2008)

Getting back to the original post. There are many reasons why you can't just ignore the new edition. If you play at a GW store, using the old edition will lead to castration and being banned from the store for six months. If you play at a local store, the owner may not appreciate no one buying the new edition. I can’t imagine a tourney not using the new edition…even at local stores. There is just too much pressure to change.

I could imagine a group of 6-8 people who play together all the time deciding to use the old rules. There are still people who play old editions of D&D.

When fifth came out, there were a few groups that started web blogs to create their own set of hybrid rules that combined 4th and 5th. My local group still reverts back to the old area terrain rules for cover without giving it a second thought. We use the 50% rule for MCs and vehicles. So adding a small house rule that does not break the game is always a possibility.

As for what I fear, it is not the 6th edition I fear as much as it has been the move to rock – paper – scissors armies. Grey Knights have removed Nids and Daemons from viability. Yes, there are some Nid shooty builds that have a chance. Fifth edition did introduce the concept of the auto win with victory points. My 10 point chaos marine army never lost to a 24 point DE army before the new DE book came out. I have not faced a DE army since. There are other match ups that are auto win for one army due to the mission. I don’t recall that happening in 3rd or 4th. Not to the extent it happens now.


----------



## MetalHandkerchief (Aug 3, 2009)

njfed said:


> There are still people who play old editions of D&D.


You mean 99.99999% of the world? 4th edition is shit and completely unplayable.


----------



## Grins1878 (May 10, 2010)

Apparently 6th ed comes with a form to fill in with every rulebook, you fill it in and they just take your wages directly every month and you get a chit for whichever nerd-crack is your desired tipple.

Regardless of what changes, I'll probably just go with it anyhow. At least the rules are easier now than in the RT days


----------



## SilverTabby (Jul 31, 2009)

Taking the Grey Knights Codex as an example, basic tenants of the game aren't going to change that much. If they were, there would be portions of that Codex where you'd read it and go "what? This doesn't work at all". 
There would appear to be some kind of change regarding independant characters (which is no bad thing in my opinion), and Psykers are likely to get the Mastery levels thing as a wholesale ruling. 

Every other change will likely affect in-game rules rather than the basic structure of the game. Things like missions, hopefully the removal of Kill points (how unfair are those to Horde armies?), and other similar tweaks. 

The thing to do is to very carefully read every Codex from GK onwards, and note the little changes. If the rumours are right and 40K gets an update sometime next year, then all Codex releases this year will be compatible, and written specifically so.


----------



## MidnightSun (Feb 10, 2009)

The only two factors I'd really like to see returned are Mission cards and Strategy cards (Although perhaps not Virus Outbreak). I have the ones that came in 2nd ed. and some extra WD expansion Strategy cards, and I think they're great. I like the fact that either side has a different objective to the other and so it results in games being more interesting (But both players getting Witch Hunt/The Assassins was awesome, by the look of it).

Midnight


----------



## GrimzagGorwazza (Aug 5, 2010)

Okay i fully belive that we can predict the pattern for 6th edition.
Now from Rt to fifth things have progressively been more and more streamlined. Games have become shorter in an effort to keep things simple for easily distracted children.
With this in mind we can make several conclusions.
1: Units will be further compartmentalised in a similar fashion to the compartments that are already in the game eg: cavalry, infantry etc.

This will result in less complex rules required in the codexes. Infantry will be split into 4 sub catagories. Heavy infantry, Fight infantry, Shooty infantry, Grunts. These will each have a stat line already given in the core rules and each race codex will simply tell you how these stats change depending on the race. for example a unit of orks takes the shooty infantry unit. the base stat is written in the core rules including points. In the ork codex a list is given for the statlines that are alterred and the modification to the points. 

2: All weapons are the same with the exception to upgrades made to the fight infantry and shooty infantry. This makes the game much faster as there is only one weapon stat to worry about.

3: Tanks all have the same armour though they are split into sub groups of light tank, heavy tank, and super heavy tank.

4: Bikes, cavalry, beasts and jump infantry are merged into a single unit type as they all have a similar effect anyway, they all make the unit move faster.

5: All characters who are not special characters are removed from the game to make identification of models easier.

6: Killpoints are removed in favour of rolling a dice to determine winner. 

7: Cover saves are removed completely to remove the pesky need to check line of sight and work out unit cover saves. Instead every unit on the battlefield gets a 5+ cover save all of the time. 

8: Several of the other races will be mixed together into 1 codex to allow more production time to be spent on space marine armies. Orks and Tau will be included in one list whilst eldar and dark eldar will be similarly mixed. necrons and tyranids will be combined into one list and csm will be given half a dex as they have no one to gang up with and we wouldn't want them getting too powerful.

9: Combat is sped up by removing that pesky wound allocation and even "to wound" rolls. The first wound inflicted in a combat automatically makes that team win the combat and removes their opponent's unit from the game. Shooting works the same way.

As well as this i can see Matt Ward becoming head of background developement and manages on his next codex (Codex: ZOMG!! Fugging ULTRAMAHREEENS!) to include a stunning 2 page piece of background information in which Roboute Guilliman is resurrected and mentions that the great crusade was really all his idea and that he is the god of the C'Tan. 

Dan Abnett will continue to put out amazing books and will eventually bludgion Ward to death with a book containing the complete compendium of the gaunt's ghosts novels. When interviewed by the police he will claim "It was in defence of the written arts" and will be freed within 24 hours.

So as you can see it looks like the next edition is going to be amazing. There is very little that i would change in these assumptions though it's possible that the mixed codex might be wrong...it's possible they will all just be grouped oin the single codex in the form of Codex: Stuff that isn't space marines. I guess we can only wait and see.


----------



## Wusword77 (Aug 11, 2008)

MetalHandkerchief said:


> You mean 99.99999% of the world? 4th edition is shit and completely unplayable.


Wow, thats an over exaggeration if I ever heard one. I'd say it's more like 15% of D&D players stick with an old edition. And I'd venture a guess it's due to them not being willing to buy a new edition as opposed to it being unplayable.

I'm not worried about 6th edition. As people have said 6th edition won't change to much from 5th, like how 5th didn't change much from 4th.

People are always going to complain about a new edition, and because it's the Internet most often they will be the same people complaining all the time.


----------



## GrimzagGorwazza (Aug 5, 2010)

Wusword77 said:


> Wow, thats an over exaggeration if I ever heard one. I'd say it's more like 15% of D&D players stick with an old edition. And I'd venture a guess it's due to them not being willing to buy a new edition as opposed to it being unplayable.



Actually whilst it probabley is an exageration i don't know a single person who plays D&D 4. They all play either 3.5 or pathfinder. And it largely is because the new rules are shockingly bad.


----------



## MetalHandkerchief (Aug 3, 2009)

Wusword77 said:


> Wow, thats an over exaggeration if I ever heard one. I'd say it's more like 15% of D&D players stick with an old edition. And I'd venture a guess it's due to them not being willing to buy a new edition as opposed to it being unplayable.


I assure you, I have yet to meet a D&D player who would rather play 4th than 3.5th.

Simple reason: D&D 4th is an over trivialized and simplified game, not fit to bear the D&D logo.


----------



## exsulis (Jul 17, 2008)

Well, 5th edition is pants compared to 4th ed!! Expected changes to from5th to 6th:

Kill points: I haven't met a person who likes it. It sucks, it is unbalanced, and just plain dumb

TLOS: Did we need laser pointers before this edition? NOO!!! Area terrain is designed to represent a terrain that we can't build that would actually obstruct visibility, and projectiles.

Wounding: the wounding shenanigans are annoying, and I fully expect GW to change it.

Cover Saves: There are way too many cover saves going around, and just about everything can claim it(I'm looking at you tanks!!) I expect GW to tone it back a point.

Vehicle dmg table: I know lots of people complain that they are too resilient, and with a cover save that may be true but most of them are unmoving pill boxes, instead of mobile gun platforms.

Vehicle movement: Right now most tanks are a move, or shoot  I expect GW to make it so tanks move again. To balance that tanks will either become a little easier to blow up, or firing all guns would add +1 to the pen table due to the tank being "off-balance" from firing all of the ordinance.

Psyker mastery level: C:GK may be the start of something. It would make it easier, and clear up Psykers instead of "this guy can use 3 psychic powers per turn" 

Toughness: I expect GW to start to use more high value T models to spread the spectrum, Yes, there is a proliferation of T4 models, and adding a few more 6+ would do this.

Missions: 5th really didn't have any, and this was a complaint at the start. What would be cool would be the massive amount of scenarios, and planet environments we had back in 3rd.


----------



## MetalHandkerchief (Aug 3, 2009)

exsulis said:


> Well, 5th edition is pants compared to 4th ed!! Expected changes to from5th to 6th:
> 
> Kill points: I haven't met a person who likes it. It sucks, it is unbalanced, and just plain dumb
> 
> ...


I would be happy if all you just said stays, as long as elites and fast attack can hold objectives again.

If not, I'm breaking out house rules.


----------



## Bhaal006 (Apr 11, 2010)

MetalHandkerchief said:


> I assure you, I have yet to meet a D&D player who would rather play 4th than 3.5th.
> 
> Simple reason: D&D 4th is an over trivialized and simplified game, not fit to bear the D&D logo.


I enjoy Playing 4th edition, mostly because I believe a system in which 90% of the playable classes are completely worthless and utterly boring is crap. if you Play a game with a cleric a druid and a wizard in the party then the fighter/barbarian/bard/rogue/paladin/ranger/sorcerer/monk/samurai/hexblade/scout/spellthief/ninja etc. all pretty much sit in a corner and do nothing useful.

I have no worries about 6th, I like new rules, it helps keep the game fresh and gives the illusion that that GW actually gives a damn.


----------



## Tahiri (Feb 28, 2011)

MetalHandkerchief said:


> I assure you, I have yet to meet a D&D player who would rather play 4th than 3.5th.
> 
> Simple reason: D&D 4th is an over trivialized and simplified game, not fit to bear the D&D logo.





GrimzagGorwazza said:


> Actually whilst it probabley is an exageration i don't know a single person who plays D&D 4. They all play either 3.5 or pathfinder. And it largely is because the new rules are shockingly bad.


 
I am in this same boat. None of the people in my group want to play 4.0 for those same reasons. Everything these days in paper RP, video games, etc has been dumbed down so much so that it can reach a wider audience. For us die hard gamers we find that to be incredibly annoying as we are not stupid and want a challenge.

In DnD 4.0 defense I did like that is made some classes actually useful all the time, aka casters, so they would not have to say, “Oh I used all my spells for the day I have to rest now and cant be useful anymore.”



As far as 6th ed Warhammer 40k goes, I would like to see more standard game types with different objectives/goals for people in the same game. After playing the same three basic game types and same three deployments it can get boring. Even adding in secret objectives and the like, as not knowing what your opponent is doing from the outset defiantly would spice up the game and would hopefully prevent people from playing for a draw on the first or second turn.


----------



## Wusword77 (Aug 11, 2008)

GrimzagGorwazza said:


> Actually whilst it probabley is an exageration i don't know a single person who plays D&D 4. They all play either 3.5 or pathfinder. And it largely is because the new rules are shockingly bad.





MetalHandkerchief said:


> I assure you, I have yet to meet a D&D player who would rather play 4th than 3.5th.
> 
> Simple reason: D&D 4th is an over trivialized and simplified game, not fit to bear the D&D logo.


I play 4th ed D&D and there are many aspects that are much better then 3.5 or below.

Honestly the previous editions are horribly unbalanced, as Wizards are insanely over powered at any point past level 5. Any melee character loses their effectiveness as they go up in levels, becoming little more then warm bodies in combat.

I will admit that losing the massive skill list was somewhat disappointing until I looked at it and saw they just added skills together. More classes is always a good thing too, and giving abilities to every class so they have something to do in combat is great.

Honestly, after playing a few games with the new rules I loved them. I've also found that most people who claim to "hate" the new rules haven't really played any games with them, they just glanced them over and thought "this is just to appeal to WoW playing kids." Happened a lot a GenCon Indy when they first released the new rule books. I would know, I was there to listen to it and I was one of the complainers.


----------



## exsulis (Jul 17, 2008)

MetalHandkerchief said:


> I would be happy if all you just said stays, as long as elites and fast attack can hold objectives again.
> 
> If not, I'm breaking out house rules.


A change to the Scoring rules is doubtful, just look at the latest codex.

One of the biggest changes from 4th to 5th was the emphasis. 4th was a static shooting edition compared to 5th's infantry run to the other side, and kill everything. :russianroulette: A lot of stuff survives shooting but doesn't live too long in CC. So it stands to reason that GW is going to make changes but the scoring/objective stuff isn't likely.


----------



## njfed (Jan 28, 2008)

Tahiri said:


> As far as 6th ed Warhammer 40k goes, I would like to see more standard game types with different objectives/goals for people in the same game. After playing the same three basic game types and same three deployments it can get boring. Even adding in secret objectives and the like, as not knowing what your opponent is doing from the outset defiantly would spice up the game and would hopefully prevent people from playing for a draw on the first or second turn.


I would like to see one of two things happen.

1. Remove ALL mission material from the main rulebook. Combine the expansion mission books into one big book that would be used.

2. Add the expansion missions into the main rule book.

In either case, I would want to see a lot more options for missions and make the expansions feel less like forgotten stepchildren. I'm not a big fan of all the material in the expansions but it would be nice to see it included.

Oh, Battle Missions = Awesome!
Apocalypse = Not so much.


----------



## gally912 (Jan 31, 2009)

Wusword77 said:


> Wow, thats an over exaggeration if I ever heard one. I'd say it's more like 15% of D&D players stick with an old edition. And I'd venture a guess it's due to them not being willing to buy a new edition as opposed to it being unplayable.


I don't think the table top RPG comparison is a valid one. D&D and its ilk demand a "gaming group" that all agree what system to use, where as the pick-up-game nature of 40k at the shop or flgs needs to have a standard ruleset.


----------



## Wusword77 (Aug 11, 2008)

gally912 said:


> I don't think the table top RPG comparison is a valid one. D&D and its ilk demand a "gaming group" that all agree what system to use, where as the pick-up-game nature of 40k at the shop or flgs needs to have a standard ruleset.


Oh it's not a good comparison. It was brought up in another post in this thread:



njfed said:


> I could imagine a group of 6-8 people who play together all the time deciding to use the old rules. There are still people who play old editions of D&D.


at which point people just went to bash the system. It's really got nothing to do with the topic at hand beyond that one post :laugh:


----------



## SilverTabby (Jul 31, 2009)

The reasoning behind Troops being the only scoring units out there is a good one. I for one got tired of facing armies jam-packed with special-snowflake units, with only two, minimum sized troop options taken because you had to. Elites are just that - Elite and specialist, not sit-on-objective units. Fast attack are also as described: Go in fast and attack, not sit on things. Enforcing the taking of grunts (anyone else remember when 50% had to be Troops?) brings balance and actually makes you have to think out your army list that little bit more. It's also a marvellous way of ensuring the basic flavour of any given army to an extent...


----------



## TheReverend (Dec 2, 2007)

KingOfCheese said:


> They have been doing this ever since 3rd edition.
> The game has barely changed since 3rd ed, just a couple of small changes to justify the release of a new edition.


You're right KoC, and most of the rules that have been introduced over time are logical rules that the players used anyway. 

Like true line of sight for example. When me and my mates picked up 2ed and saw the complex rules about terrain points, we were just like " feck that for a bucket of KFC, if you can see it you can hit it"


----------



## bitsandkits (Mar 18, 2008)

I dont think there is a fear about 6th edition rules, more likely people are scared of the damage another edition will do to there wallets, new edition means changes to mechanics,which means new units become "in" which means handing over more cash for more crack.
personally i dont think things have changed that much, its become bigger and more streamlined but in essence its still the 40k we started with many moons ago,the models are a bit lighter and the book a bit heavier, but its still two sides fighting in a way that seems ludicrous for the future , everything is the wrong scale and the fluff is mainly bollocks and we are still left scratching our heads as to what it is that keeps us coming back for more.


----------



## Arkanor (Jan 1, 2010)

SilverTabby said:


> The reasoning behind Troops being the only scoring units out there is a good one. I for one got tired of facing armies jam-packed with special-snowflake units, with only two, minimum sized troop options taken because you had to. Elites are just that - Elite and specialist, not sit-on-objective units. Fast attack are also as described: Go in fast and attack, not sit on things. Enforcing the taking of grunts (anyone else remember when 50% had to be Troops?) brings balance and actually makes you have to think out your army list that little bit more. It's also a marvellous way of ensuring the basic flavour of any given army to an extent...


QFT. Taking elites and F/A choices is currently a little bit of a tradeoff, and really ought to stay that way.

Though, with the new trend to more and more ridiculous characters, troops are having a harder time dealing with them (you ever tried bringing _Mephiston_ down with weight of fire?)


----------



## Tahiri (Feb 28, 2011)

SilverTabby said:


> The reasoning behind Troops being the only scoring units out there is a good one. I for one got tired of facing armies jam-packed with special-snowflake units, with only two, minimum sized troop options taken because you had to. Elites are just that - Elite and specialist, not sit-on-objective units. Fast attack are also as described: Go in fast and attack, not sit on things. Enforcing the taking of grunts (anyone else remember when 50% had to be Troops?) brings balance and actually makes you have to think out your army list that little bit more. It's also a marvellous way of ensuring the basic flavour of any given army to an extent...


 

Well they clearly do not care about you having to actually take troop choices. With the the amount of special characters that let you take elites, and other unit types as troop choices it is so dumb and making standard troop choices few and far between.


----------



## KhainiteAssassin (Mar 18, 2009)

I, for one, like the troops only for capping objective points, I semi Enjoy True LoS, but it needs tweaking since most all of the terrain in the game has holes in it and if you can see a sliver of a unit through the small hole, you can shoot it.

outside of that, KILL POINTS need to go, they hinder armies with bigger FoC requirements, where retarded books like Imperial guard get away with a minimal KP score from their merging BS.

I think most of the rules other then that are fairly well done in 5th. Kill Points was an idea to simplify the game but majorly hurt certain armies in KP missions. like the DE, they still get up to heights of 20 + kill points some games in well made lists with transports counting to the KP list.


----------



## unxpekted22 (Apr 7, 2009)

I like troops only for objectives as well, makes it more challenging and gives troop choices a lot more importance. They're reasoning is legitimate with every army's foundation being the standard troops. In a battle if they needed their elites to still be standing at the objective then chances are they probably dont really _own_ it.


----------



## Diatribe1974 (Jul 15, 2010)

Don't worry, Matt Ward will only write part of the 6th edition!


----------



## KhainiteAssassin (Mar 18, 2009)

unxpekted22 said:


> I like troops only for objectives as well, makes it more challenging and gives troop choices a lot more importance. They're reasoning is legitimate with every army's foundation being the standard troops. In a battle if they needed their elites to still be standing at the objective then chances are they probably dont really _own_ it.


exactly. Fantasy in 8th went back to % needed of certain things, and i think its something like 50% of your army in fantasy now needs to be troops? havnt played much of 8th as you can guess.

TROOPS are the core of any army... *grumbles more at retarded IG lists*


----------



## Tim/Steve (Jan 25, 2009)

WFB needs 25%+ to be core... which is not an issue since most people use far more then that anyway.

I like that troops have to be taken for objectives- its stops the full on elite armies that I used to see (with the laughable token troop units).
The problem with it is that it puts a lot of pressure on the troops section of a dex. This is fine if you have strong troops choices, but if they are pretty weak then it forces you to take sub-par units. An example would be comparing nids and crons: when I run a nid army I'm normally scraping along the 6 unit maximum (and certainly always was in 4th ed), but with crons I'm at the 2 unit minimum in any game I play. If they suddenly declared that it only heavy support that could defend objectives and fast attack that could take them then my nids would be screwed as I don't like their FA/HS much, but my cron army lives on destroyers and tomb spyders... codexs might be balanced overall, but with the importance shifted to troops they need each category to be balanced with other armies too 


I think everything Mat Ward has touched has shown promise but ultimately been a let down, often either not being thought through sufficiently, or just being written badly. I'm normally pretty concerned over a new ruleset anyway, but thinking that he is a part of it isn't settling my fears any. I think the best edition of 40k that I've played was 2nd, and 7th ed fantasy was much better then the current 8th (they tried to make it more accessible to noobs, and cut out a large portion of the skill needed for the game... which was made it so much fun). Having said that there have certainly been some new editions of the rules that were vast improvements (thinking 3rd to 4th in particular, but I would also probably add 4th to 5th), so I'm willing to wait and see what it looks like.


----------



## DeathKlokk (Jun 9, 2008)

I am afraid they will make it retarded like 8th ed. WHFB. Anybody want to buy some O&G or WoC?

I don't think it will happen, but they've done worse. 3rd ed. lost me for a while (until the Starcann...er _Eldar_ codex came out).


----------



## KhainiteAssassin (Mar 18, 2009)

one thing that people always forget: any unit can contest objectives, but only troops can claim.

so you can use an elite or heavy or FA to stop the opponent from getting an objective, but need a troop to claim one.


----------



## turel2 (Mar 2, 2009)

I think 6th ed, will include changes to Aircraft so that GW will sell more.

I hope there will not be super characters, like Warhammer Fantasy had with 4th edition Hero Hammer.

We can only hope that 6th edition 40k will be good.


----------



## a_bad_curry (Mar 10, 2011)

My greatest fear is that the guy who wrote the eldar codex is going to write it. Could rules be less clear!?
Im worried about the new codices that are coming out. I think eldar will be 7th edition, orks late 6th, and tau early 6th . The space marine bias is seriously worrying me, as blood angels are 4th ed, as are dark angels, and im expecting an imperial fists codex, which leads me to think xeno codices are rarely updated. 
The reason this worries me is how outdated these players codices are going to be. All i think this is going to do is alienate these players and turn to play Naive marines.


----------



## unxpekted22 (Apr 7, 2009)

a_bad_curry said:


> My greatest fear is that the guy who wrote the eldar codex is going to write it. Could rules be less clear!?
> Im worried about the new codices that are coming out. I think eldar will be 7th edition, orks late 6th, and tau early 6th . The space marine bias is seriously worrying me, as blood angels are 4th ed, as are dark angels, and im expecting an imperial fists codex, which leads me to think xeno codices are rarely updated.
> The reason this worries me is how outdated these players codices are going to be. All i think this is going to do is alienate these players and turn to play Naive marines.


havnt been around the hobby too long have you? :biggrin:

Eldar will get a new codex before 7th edition. Also, as a huge black templars fan I have to say that all the different space marine codecies are very different armies. They come out a lot because GW knows they can sell alot of SM, where as they arent too sure how many lets say....necrons they can sell.

But, this does actually bring up a point, the dark angels, that I'm going to bring up in a new thread.


----------



## MetalHandkerchief (Aug 3, 2009)

KhainiteAssassin said:


> I, for one, like the troops only for capping objective points


And then again you're a Dark Eldar player.

If they want Troop only objective caps, all troops must be balanced across codices. Which is not the case.

Any Spess Muhreen, Dark Eldar, Eldar and Ork player will have a gigantic advantage over say, Tyranids or Necrons in an objective based game.

They need to use other means to force people to take more troops. I would like the minimum FoC troop choice selections to be forced up to maximum unit size.

I.E. if a Tau Fire Warrior troops unit is one of the mandatory choices, they have to have 12 models. A smurf unit would have to be 10, and a Dark Eldar one has to be 20.

This makes it so the Smurf player can't use a Razorback for his bare minimums, nor can a Dark Eldar player use a bird for his.

Also, each core troop unit which is in fluff seen as the most common (Fire Warriors, Kabalites, Eldar Guardians, Ork Boyz etc.) needs to go back to being 1+.

With the current rules the game is not balanced.


----------



## SilverTabby (Jul 31, 2009)

MetalHandkerchief said:


> And then again you're a Dark Eldar player.
> 
> If they want Troop only objective caps, all troops must be balanced across codices. Which is not the case.
> 
> ...


Hmmmm. You want to make people take more troops, then give an example of how that would make people shy away from any army that wasn't Space Marines. Imperial Guard would either go all-out with Veterans, else have to take 55 Guardsmen for 1 mandatory Troops Choice. Tyranids would need to either fork out for 9 Warriors (which is a fairly useless and expensive unit) or take 30 gaunts / gants or 20 Genestealers, twice...

A better way to do it, would possibly be to introduce (as you stated) 1+ choices. Skaven in WHFB used to be that you could take 1 of each other unit for every 1+ Clanrats unit, which meant Clanrats featured heavily, as it should be. 

Also, if you want Special Character X that makes Y Elites into Troops, you must take 1+ Z basic Troops choice first. For example, to make a Tervigon into a Troops choice, you must have a Termagant unit. Everyone (myself included) takes the bare minimum 10 gants to do this. Make it that the first must be a compulsary full-strength unit, and suddenly you have more full-strength troops choices.

Another easy alternative, is that to hold an objective a Troops choice must be above 50% of it's original strength. They way to ensure that is to start with bigger units. At present, 1 guy can hold an objective at the end of a game...

What you also have to bear in mind is that not all armies are equal, deliberately. Eldar are a dying race, with little basic population and many specialists. Hence their Troops choices are limited, and their Elite / FA / HS sections are heavily loaded. Tyranids have many Troop options, but they're all fairly small and pathetic unless taken in sufficient numbers to represent the Swarm aspect. 

Introducing the 'basic units at full strength' rule would kill 1000pt games. Some armies simply can't afford to fork out that many points on their basic troops, as they rely heavily (and are designed to do so) on other aspects of the list to drive the army on. Yes, it would be lovely from a fluff point of view (and I try to go with that idea by taking as many troops options as possible when I play), but in some armies it's just not feasible. 

And finally, any move in that direction from GW will instantly recieve outraged cries from everyone on these forums, as another "money-grabbing move to make us fork out for more models". 

So basically, 1+ choices? Definately. 1+ choices to get Special Characters? Absolutely. 1+ choices that must be at full strength? Possibly. 2 manditory choices, both at full strength? Nope...


----------



## Arkanor (Jan 1, 2010)

turel2 said:


> I hope there will not be super characters, like Warhammer Fantasy had with 4th edition Hero Hammer.


I think it's a little late for that.


----------



## Cypher871 (Aug 2, 2009)

The majority of my game playing was 2nd and 3rd edition. I did have a few games of 4th ed but not many and I have never played 5th ed so I cannot comment on the current rules. As I understand it, over the years the rules have been 'dumbed down' to cater for the younger player and not as a solution to actually improve the game other than speeding it up.

From the comments I have read, it would seem that Uber Powerful Characters are making an unwelcome comeback. 2nd Edition had horribly powerful - almost game changing - characters that were done away with in 3rd Ed making the game much more squad focused and tactical. No single model should be so be so powerful as to overwhelm a game.

The harsh reality of our beloved hobby is that no matter how good/bad the rules are, GW need to keep the revenue coming in and the only sure-fire way of doing that is to constantly re-invent the wheel so to speak. If they relied on consumables for their profit they would soon go bust. New models are always nice but not a prerequisite for playing the game. By cyclically revamping the rules and Codices they ensure the companies viability - simple economics...after all, it's not like the models break down or wear out.

At some point I hope to actually get back to playing the game - probably a rude awakening when I do but I for one will take it as it comes.


----------

