Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Accolade wrote:
I bought one of the limited edition copies of the 6th edition rulebook, with thicker parchment page and a corner embossed in gold with its unique number out of the 4000 printed. I protected it and kept from making a mess of it, using the DV copy for rule purposes, while the encased LE copy sat like a holy tomb in my library.

Seems so foolish and vain now, to see that book go from something of value to nearly worthless...and it will, too, since most of the fluff will be repeated and there will be a *new* LE 7th edition, most likely covered in gold, surrounded by "BUY WHILE SUPPLIES LAST!":

I feel your pain... In a moment of weakness, I bought the Limited Editon 4th edition rulebook (it was soo pretty... :( ). Turned out to be a little ironic... the rulebook I spent the most on was for the edition of the game that I disliked the most...

Based on some sources and other chatter, I maintain that 6th is basically a living edition. We will get updates and new starter boxes, but probably no more numerical monikers.

As long as we see some of the following things, I'll be tickled:

-Battle Brothers are completely eliminated. Allies are a neat addition to the game, but the rules/penalties for Allies of Convenience are more than enough to grant people options, without blatantly devastating combos. Speaking of which, no more allying with one's self, unless this is granted to Tyranids as well. Seriously, GW, that would be an FAQ fix that doesn't invalidate the codex.

-Something must be done to assist assault-based armies. Not overcompensation, just throw them some sort of a bone: assault from reserves, run + assault for some unit types, sweeping into another combat (without gaining a charge bonus), or eliminate the stupid assaulting into cover thing that makes them go last after already taking two rounds of shooting and a full round of Overwatch. Shooting should be the primary mode of fighting in 40k, as it's the future, but GW did give us assault-based armies. Make them viable. 5th edition was supposedly assault-friendly, yet the tournament scene was dominated by Dual Lash Prince + 9 Obliterators, then IG Leafblower, then Long Fangs spam, then Coteaz + robot monkeys with lasers.

-Eliminate re-rolls for saves. We already have cover, armor, invulnerable saves, Feel No Pain, It Will Not Die, healing psychic powers, and Regeneration. Enough with granting already unkillable units a mulligan if they should take a single freaking wound. (Obviously this takes the edge off of a few death stars, without making them totally worthless to field.)

 brassangel wrote:
-Something must be done to assist assault-based armies. Not overcompensation, just throw them some sort of a bone: assault from reserves, run + assault for some unit types, sweeping into another combat (without gaining a charge bonus), or eliminate the stupid assaulting into cover thing that makes them go last after already taking two rounds of shooting and a full round of Overwatch. Shooting should be the primary mode of fighting in 40k, as it's the future, but GW did give us assault-based armies. Make them viable. 5th edition was supposedly assault-friendly, yet the tournament scene was dominated by Dual Lash Prince + 9 Obliterators, then IG Leafblower, then Long Fangs spam, then Coteaz + robot monkeys with lasers.

I would really, really like to see a return of charging units striking first. The extra attack is all well and good, but it's not much use to low-initiative armies when their assault units get wiped out before they even get to swing.

 insaniak wrote:

I would really, really like to see a return of charging units striking first. The extra attack is all well and good, but it's not much use to low-initiative armies when their assault units get wiped out before they even get to swing.

That would completely invalidate the whole concept of assault grenades.

I think the fact that units can overwatch... should allow units to assault from reserve.

 whembly wrote:
I think the fact that units can overwatch... should allow units to assault from reserve.

Overwatch is a fething joke. Units should be able to assault from reserves regardless of it. That and not being able to assault out of stationary transports are probably the only really glaring things I'd change about 6th.

 Sir Arun wrote:
That would completely invalidate the whole concept of assault grenades.

In their current form, yes.


Easily fixed by changing Assault Grenades to granting the unit something akin to a Hammer of Wrath attack, just using the grenade's Strength and AP.

 brassangel wrote:
Based on some sources and other chatter, I maintain that 6th is basically a living edition. We will get updates and new starter boxes, but probably no more numerical monikers.

As long as we see some of the following things, I'll be tickled:

-Battle Brothers are completely eliminated. Allies are a neat addition to the game, but the rules/penalties for Allies of Convenience are more than enough to grant people options, without blatantly devastating combos. Speaking of which, no more allying with one's self, unless this is granted to Tyranids as well. Seriously, GW, that would be an FAQ fix that doesn't invalidate the codex.

For once, I hope GW doesn't listen to people(by which I mean to imply that I normally wish they would, not that they actually do). Allies are fantastic from the perspective of fluffy gaming, and getting rid of them isn't going to suddenly turn 40K into a balanced tournament ruleset the ruthlessly competitive types will just cheesemonger another way, so why take away the options Allies provide? OK, so certain specific combos become less effective, that happens every year when GW release an imbalanced codex or a new edition of the rules; give them a few weeks and there'll be a new power list to complain about.

 insaniak wrote:
I would really, really like to see a return of charging units striking first.

Return? When was that ever part of 40K?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Return? When was that ever part of 40K?

It would appear that it wasn't. I'm possibly getting senile.

Am I thinking of WHFB?



Either way, I still wants it. The 2nd ed assault rules at least allowed low initiative models to fight...

 Yodhrin wrote:
Allies are fantastic from the perspective of fluffy gaming, and getting rid of them isn't going to suddenly turn 40K into a balanced tournament ruleset the ruthlessly competitive types will just cheesemonger another way, so why take away the options Allies provide?

Fluffy allies? Haven't seen any yet although I don't play very often. I've only seen the power combos of some sort lifted off the internet or units that plug holes for armies with a glaring weakness (like adding in a close combat unit or two to Tau or IG that has no relation to "fluff"... why buy ogryns when you can get assault units that are much better pt for pt from allies? Psychicly weak army like Tau? Throw in a farseer and suddenly you got table wide protection with the old codex). I franky hope allies become an alternative to a second force org in 2000pt games and up instead of standard at all games. I also hope they truly cut back significantly on who is considered a battle brother. Marines disregard guardsmen as unreliable and inferior and IG hold marines in awe or fear them but suddenly they're bro-fisting across every battlefield? Tau and eldar have almost nothing in common yet suddenly they're brothers from another non-human mother? I see both the theoretical and practical reasons why GW introduced allies but in the end they're just a cheese tool for the majority of people I see. I do see the value in having them but I think just like with escalation and stronghold that allies should be reserved for "bigger" games of 2001+ pts.

 warboss wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:
Allies are fantastic from the perspective of fluffy gaming, and getting rid of them isn't going to suddenly turn 40K into a balanced tournament ruleset the ruthlessly competitive types will just cheesemonger another way, so why take away the options Allies provide?

Fluffy allies? Haven't seen any yet although I don't play very often. I've only seen the power combos of some sort lifted off the internet or units that plug holes for armies with a glaring weakness (like adding in a close combat unit or two to Tau or IG that has no relation to "fluff"... why buy ogryns when you can get assault units that are much better pt for pt from allies? Psychicly weak army like Tau? Throw in a farseer and suddenly you got table wide protection with the old codex). I franky hope allies become an alternative to a second force org in 2000pt games and up instead of standard at all games. I also hope they truly cut back significantly on who is considered a battle brother. Marines disregard guardsmen as unreliable and inferior and IG hold marines in awe or fear them but suddenly they're bro-fisting across every battlefield? Tau and eldar have almost nothing in common yet suddenly they're brothers from another non-human mother? I see both the theoretical and practical reasons why GW introduced allies but in the end they're just a cheese tool for the majority of people I see. I do see the value in having them but I think just like with escalation and stronghold that allies should be reserved for "bigger" games of 2001+ pts.

It's true. As long as allies exist, designing codices is pretty much impossible unless the first special rule is "Cannot ally with anyone". Any intended weakness to balance the obvious strengths will just be avoided by players by going dual or triple codex.

 insaniak wrote:
Am I thinking of WHFB?

That was/is part of Fantasy. I think. Maybe.

 insaniak wrote:
Either way, I still wants it. The 2nd ed assault rules at least allowed low initiative models to fight...

Initiative didn't matter in 2nd Ed. Weapon Skill was king, and then attacks. Higher Weapon Skills could mean you could win combat if you rolled a 2 or higher. Initiative only mattered if you drew, which was rare.

 Yodhrin wrote:
Allies are fantastic from the perspective of fluffy gaming

I've never understood this reasoning to keep the allies rule. If allies are fluffy, why do you need a rule telling you you're allowed to take them, just ask your opponent and take them. I had heaps of allied games with friends before the allies rules existed.

Allies, IMO, should be a house rule. By default they do not exist, but if you want them, discuss it with your opponent and decide what are fluffy and/or fair allies to take.

I personally like taking my IG alongside my SW, which is a pretty understandable alliance. However for the sake of having a better core game, I'd rather the core rules didn't have allies and if I want to take them as allies, I just ask my opponent first... kind of like I did before 6th edition, lol.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Initiative didn't matter in 2nd Ed. Weapon Skill was king, and then attacks. Higher Weapon Skills could mean you could win combat if you rolled a 2 or higher. Initiative only mattered if you drew, which was rare.

I wouldn't say "rare", but less common.

I liked the 2nd edition combat system other than the fact it was purely a skirmish based system and inappropriate for any game of large size. Most my 2nd edition armies were only 30-40 models tops, and it wasn't uncommon to play a game with only 20-30 models per side.

Ugh. I just hope the get deep-striking units and the like the ability to assault back. Overwatch is penalty enough as it is.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
Am I thinking of WHFB?

That was/is part of Fantasy. I think. Maybe.

Was a WHFB rule up until 8th edition made it initiative order.

Just another of the many, many, many reasons why 8th ed WHFB is a really bad game...

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:
Allies are fantastic from the perspective of fluffy gaming

I've never understood this reasoning to keep the allies rule. If allies are fluffy, why do you need a rule telling you you're allowed to take them, just ask your opponent and take them. I had heaps of allied games with friends before the allies rules existed.

Allies, IMO, should be a house rule. By default they do not exist, but if you want them, discuss it with your opponent and decide what are fluffy and/or fair allies to take.

What AllSeeingSkink said. I could see ally rules being an optional guideline, like in the WHFB rulebook, just to give you something to work off IF you want to incorporate them into a casual game, but as core mechanic, they suck.

I have frequently played with or against allies pre-6th edition (houseruled) and initially tought they were a neat addition, but it turned out horrible.

In retrospective, I hated pretty much everything about 6th edition (not that 5th was perfect, but IMO all the "fixes" just made the game less enjoyable on the whole) and would be happy if 7th really was a new game instead of an update to 6th.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
I liked the 2nd edition combat system other than the fact it was purely a skirmish based system and inappropriate for any game of large size. Most my 2nd edition armies were only 30-40 models tops, and it wasn't uncommon to play a game with only 20-30 models per side.

It didn't even work in 2nd Ed. The scale was too big. Working out combat when a unit of 10 charged a unit of 10 took forever.

That combat system worked in Necromunda.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
It didn't even work in 2nd Ed. The scale was too big. Working out combat when a unit of 10 charged a unit of 10 took forever.

That combat system worked in Necromunda.

Yeah, for anything other than 1 or 2 models either side fighting each other, the 2nd ed combat rules were just painful. I was certainly by no means asking for them back... The only part of it that I liked was the fact that a charging model didn't lose its opportunity to fight just because his opponent had a higher initiative.

I wouldn't hold out much hope for 7th. Allies, escalation, stronghold assault is a cash cow GW will not want to give up.
Too much investment in molds etc.

Hopefully they will restrict Lords of War choices to games of 2000 points or more like 30k.

That would suddenly balance a lot of the worst problems with 6th now.

Knowing GW it wouldn't surprise me that once they've sold enough big kits to nerf them into the ground or make them unusable.

 Accolade wrote:
I bought one of the limited edition copies of the 6th edition rulebook, with thicker parchment page and a corner embossed in gold with its unique number out of the 4000 printed. I protected it and kept from making a mess of it, using the DV copy for rule purposes, while the encased LE copy sat like a holy tomb in my library.

Seems so foolish and vain now, to see that book go from something of value to nearly worthless...and it will, too, since most of the fluff will be repeated and there will be a *new* LE 7th edition, most likely covered in gold, surrounded by "BUY WHILE SUPPLIES LAST!"

6th edition Limited Edition...I feel so very used...

I also bought that book, and it's very pretty. I won't buy a LE 7th ed, but I think I made that decision when I bought LE 6th ed, tbh. Even if this is an exception and they go back to 4 year life cycle books, I'd rather pay £45ish for my rulebook than £100odd. It's nice to have one pretty one to keep nice somewhere and look at when I'm old. That isn't going to go away.

If you bought it to sell it (hence the comments about it now being "worthless") then I feel bad for you, but that was a crummy idea. If it's "worthless" because you won't be able to use it to game with once 7th is out, you already said you use your paperback copy for gaming, as does everyone else because the LE book is so huge and impractical. So generally, I'm not seeing the angst. The LE books are keepsakes, if you think they'll be worthless once they're out of date then very very very do not buy them because they're not worth it.

If I'd just bought in at the £45 level only to learn we might be getting a new book this summer, I'd be pretty fethed off. That's a crappy place to be, and I feel bad for anyone in that position. It's an eternal dilemma; what are GW meant to do, stop selling the book when the new one's on the way? Some kind of trade-up deal where if you bought your 6th ed rulebook in the six months preceding the new edition's release, you get the new one at a discount, or something, might work. Guess that's not really GW's style though.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
I liked the 2nd edition combat system other than the fact it was purely a skirmish based system and inappropriate for any game of large size. Most my 2nd edition armies were only 30-40 models tops, and it wasn't uncommon to play a game with only 20-30 models per side.

It didn't even work in 2nd Ed. The scale was too big. Working out combat when a unit of 10 charged a unit of 10 took forever.

That combat system worked in Necromunda.

Maybe I was just more patient in my early teens, lol, it didn't bother me until I played against tyranids who had a ton of termagaunts and an ork army that was pretty hordish.

Who would ever buy a 75 US$ rulebook from them again, when GW can't even promise that it will last 2 years.
That would be a Rackham-level loss of confidence in the company, and we know where that led to.

BTW I just learned that FW changed almost all unit rules from the 2 year old book Imperial Armour 11 (£42).

 Bull0 wrote:
If you bought it to sell it (hence the comments about it now being "worthless") then I feel bad for you, but that was a crummy idea. If it's "worthless" because you won't be able to use it to game with once 7th is out, you already said you use your paperback copy for gaming, as does everyone else because the LE book is so huge and impractical. So generally, I'm not seeing the angst. The LE books are keepsakes, if you think they'll be worthless once they're out of date then very very very do not buy them because they're not worth it.

Just because you don't intend to sell it doesn't mean that it doesn't have some sort of value. I imagine a lot of people justify having collections of expensive LE books on the basis that should they no longer be interested they'll be able to recover most of their costs (like you can with pretty much any LE GW item that isn't tied to a release)

 Kroothawk wrote:
Who would ever buy a 75 US$ rulebook from them again, when GW can't even promise that it will last 2 years.
That would be a Rackham-level loss of confidence in the company, and we know where that led to.

By the sounds of it quite a lot of people are welcoming it and are going to buy it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Herzlos wrote:
Just because you don't intend to sell it doesn't mean that it doesn't have some sort of value. I imagine a lot of people justify having collections of expensive LE books on the basis that should they no longer be interested they'll be able to recover most of their costs (like you can with pretty much any LE GW item that isn't tied to a release)

If you're buying it thinking that one day you can sell it, how is that different to buying it to sell it and what difference does that make to my point that if you're buying it thinking one day you can sell it, that's a bad idea, because rulebooks simply don't hold their value well?

 Bull0 wrote:
By the sounds of it quite a lot of people are welcoming it and are going to buy it.

I suspect that will largely depend on what is actually in it.

 insaniak wrote:

 Bull0 wrote:
By the sounds of it quite a lot of people are welcoming it and are going to buy it.

I suspect that will largely depend on what is actually in it.

Well of course, but Kroot's point was that the 2 year life cycle is a complete dealbreaker. Which if this thread is anything to go by is very much not the case. That's what I meant there

Assaulting after deep strike never existed in prior 40k editions, save for the old Vanguard Vets rules.

 Bull0 wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 Bull0 wrote:
By the sounds of it quite a lot of people are welcoming it and are going to buy it.

I suspect that will largely depend on what is actually in it.

Well of course, but Kroot's point was that the 2 year life cycle is a complete dealbreaker. Which if this thread is anything to go by is very much not the case. That's what I meant there

I should imagine that if the reality of that '2 year life cycle' means not only replacing the £45 book, but the £30 codex and so on and so on, the response would be very different indeed.

At the moment, people are happy the game may be moving on from 6th. If moving on from 6th is more of the same but with additional cost, it won't go down well.