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.

Well you have to look at GW's hitory as a company.

When BMW or Audi say they are making a new model car people are interested to see how far technology etc has come and what is in store for regular brands in 4-5 years time.

People look with excitement to these releaes because they have a track record of progression and advancement.

When GW announce a new Edition for 40k, due to passed experiences with them, most people just simply hold their breath and hope for an average book, most people dont expect leaps and bounds and rules fixes since GW has never printed a readable rules book yet...

So the cynics out there are most likely just letting off the steam before the actual release. Will 6E fix 40k? I hope it does but aftr seeing 6 editions of this game, history will say they will not fix this game.

Milisim wrote: Will 6E fix 40k? I hope it does but aftr seeing 6 editions of this game, history will say they will not fix this game.

It doesn't really need to 'fix' it... it just needs to fix the more broken bits.

5th ed was by no means perfect, but it was a huge enough improvement over 4th to get me playing again. I don't expect perfection, just an enjoyable game.

GW has never printed a readable rules book yet...

Well now you're just being obtuse. The very fact people have been using the 5th ed rulebook for years with little issue proves they can. I'm not saying that there aren't examples of rules that defy singular interpretation (The doom scythe's death ray springs to mind), just that most of the time the rules are entirely useable.

Dr. Delorean wrote:

GW has never printed a readable rules book yet...

Well now you're just being obtuse. The very fact people have been using the 5th ed rulebook for years with little issue proves they can. I'm not saying that there aren't examples of rules that defy singular interpretation (The doom scythe's death ray springs to mind), just that most of the time the rules are entirely useable.

You have to admit their are allot of times where your opponent plans to do something and you sit back and go HUH?
The table i play regularly breaks concepts of the game with extreme scenario's

5th has no proper way of determining how conflicting rules behave. roll a die is a terrible method.
Instant death is a terrible mechanic that invalidates half of some armies overall builds

All in all 6th cant fix the game as the game itself isnt necesarily broken. It has some unclear bits but most of it comes from the codexes being gak.
Examples:
Army wide force weapons further invalidate muti wound models and even major IC's and MC's. Its not that the grey knights are OP its just that they tell certain armies to go home no matter what. Oh you have big baddies to bad you shouldve brought little baddies.
Not to mention the last few armies have an easy time ignoring shaken and stunned results despite many armies relying on those results to survive.
etc.

For me the biggest problem is that 40k is ablanced and well established game that functions perfectly fine as long as both players are marines.

6th wont fix xenos
6th wont fix 40k

logg_frogg wrote:Personally The release of a new edition doesn't scare me nor does it make me think that I should just keep playing an outdated edition because it's *better*

I'm not sure if an edition of a game being "outdated" even means anything. It's not like an almanac or a newspaper where the passage of time invalidates the product. Any edition of 40k remains as playable today as it ever was.

Agamemnon2 wrote:

logg_frogg wrote:Personally The release of a new edition doesn't scare me nor does it make me think that I should just keep playing an outdated edition because it's *better*

I'm not sure if an edition of a game being "outdated" even means anything. It's not like an almanac or a newspaper where the passage of time invalidates the product. Any edition of 40k remains as playable today as it ever was.

Quite true, but I guess I just like to live in the present rather than use the books that are proudly collecting dust on my shelves lol.

I suppose it might be fun to try and play a game of rogue trader Necromunda can be fun once in a while too

Well not played for months, so a new rule set has me interested. however look at Drop Zone Commander, total new game, in 2 months went from uber hype to whinners... and the rules and figures are not out yet!

Druidic wrote:Well not played for months, so a new rule set has me interested. however look at Drop Zone Commander, total new game, in 2 months went from uber hype to whinners... and the rules and figures are not out yet!

Is that supposed to winners or whiners?

BladeWalker wrote:So the Chaos Terminators Masterclass painting class that is being held at Warhammer World on September 1, 2012 will be to paint the ones from the starter box?

Not to derail I just saw that date and thought it was strange to have a "how to paint chaos" out of nowhere. It was the first What's New in a while.

I wouldn't say out of nowhere... one of the Masterclasses that they have been promising since the first one was painting a full squad in a day; though the original idea was to paint an entire battleforce in a day. I'd also doubt that they would use the starter box ones when it would be cheaper for them to use the actual chaos terminator sprues and not have lots of Dark Angels left over.

Quite true, but I guess I just like to live in the present

It's not about living in the present at all. I'd say playing an older edition you think is better is more rational than playing a new edition simply because its new. Millions of people play PC games that are old every day, even competitively, despite the fact that multiple new ones with shinier graphics (but worse gameplay and/or content) have been released. Most people like to see if the new product is any good before even considering to abandon the old one that they like.

Therion wrote:

Quite true, but I guess I just like to live in the present

It's not about living in the present at all. I'd say playing an older edition you think is better is more rational than playing a new edition simply because its new. Millions of people play PC games that are old every day, even competitively, despite the fact that multiple new ones with shinier graphics (but worse gameplay and/or content) have been released. Most people like to see if the new product is any good before even considering to abandon the old one that they like.

The big thing is that the current edition isn't great and isn't balanced. It's completely fine for casual play but once you get to competetive play there are armies with clear advantages(GN's being able to field a razorback with Str6 HB's that counts as a troop choice/scoring unit for 65 pts? lets get real!), vehicle dmamge doesn't work well, instant death/eternal warrior/*removed from play* all need fixing.

There will always be balancing issues with any printed rule set. It's not like you can patch/nerf text based rules very easily like you can with video games.
All I really hope is that My CSM are tournament viable again... Breazing into the finals with a solid list and then getting pummeled by razor spam piloted by some newb drives me insane lol.

How do you presume a new edition of the core rulebook will make a terrible codex (CSM) better and the most competitive codex (GK) worse? Which rumoured change of a core rule will change the situation? You should've just said you'll support any change that makes your army more competitive. I'm afraid you're not getting any.

Therion wrote:How do you presume a new edition of the core rulebook will make a terrible codex (CSM) better and the most competitive codex (GK) worse? Which rumoured change of a core rule will change the situation? You should've just said you'll support any change that makes your army more competitive. I'm afraid you're not getting any.

Simply changing the Wound Allocation rules or going to a Percentage System instead of a Force Org Chart will nerf Grey Knight pretty drastically. Now he may also be referring to the new Codex that CSM is rumored to be getting very soon.

Im all for the sooner the better...but Im not jumping into a $70+ book until I hear about some of the changes. Im not very into 5th, and if the changes arent steep enough Im not getting into 6th either.

Heard from a friend that 6th will have random charge distances like Fantasy. Do not know where he heard that from but I have not heard about it. Anyone else here anything similar to this? Because that is exactly what this game needs: more randomness.

Kurce wrote:Heard from a friend that 6th will have random charge distances like Fantasy. Do not know where he heard that from but I have not heard about it. Anyone else here anything similar to this? Because that is exactly what this game needs: more randomness.

Probably the last 5 rumors threads re: 6th edition. The most recent one was Beasts of War though.

insaniak wrote:

Lorizael wrote:Wow, it's almost like GWs policy is doing what it's meant to!

Maybe for some.

I generally don't waste the energy getting excited based on internet rumours. Yes, some people are getting excited now, with the vague rumours that we have about 6th. But how many more would be getting excited if GW had actually put some effort into hyping this over the last couple of months?

GW is still leaning on the fanboys to support them...the people who use all (or a large chunk) of their disposable income for GW products. They know these people have $70 in their pocket, and that its slated for GW product, so they have no qualms about a last minute release of a huge thing like a new edition of their main product. Sure they would probably sell more if they let people know earlier, but GW doesnt seem interested in selling more product, instead they seem to like to sell the same amount of product for higher and higher prices, but thats an entirely different issue.

However, add me to the list of people who would love to see a flop due to lack of advanced notice...I would find that highly entertaining.

Milisim wrote:Well you have to look at GW's hitory as a company.

When BMW or Audi say they are making a new model car people are interested to see how far technology etc has come and what is in store for regular brands in 4-5 years time.

People look with excitement to these releaes because they have a track record of progression and advancement.

When GW announce a new Edition for 40k, due to passed experiences with them, most people just simply hold their breath and hope for an average book, most people dont expect leaps and bounds and rules fixes since GW has never printed a readable rules book yet...

So the cynics out there are most likely just letting off the steam before the actual release. Will 6E fix 40k? I hope it does but aftr seeing 6 editions of this game, history will say they will not fix this game.

Wait, You've SEEN six editions of the game?

I guess you could count 3.5 as its own edition.

Mad4Minis wrote:

insaniak wrote:

Lorizael wrote:Wow, it's almost like GWs policy is doing what it's meant to!

Maybe for some.

I generally don't waste the energy getting excited based on internet rumours. Yes, some people are getting excited now, with the vague rumours that we have about 6th. But how many more would be getting excited if GW had actually put some effort into hyping this over the last couple of months?

GW is still leaning on the fanboys to support them...the people who use all (or a large chunk) of their disposable income for GW products. They know these people have $70 in their pocket, and that its slated for GW product, so they have no qualms about a last minute release of a huge thing like a new edition of their main product. Sure they would probably sell more if they let people know earlier, but GW doesnt seem interested in selling more product, instead they seem to like to sell the same amount of product for higher and higher prices, but thats an entirely different issue.

However, add me to the list of people who would love to see a flop due to lack of advanced notice...I would find that highly entertaining.

I think I would sort of enjoy this as well.

Yeah, because it would be great if the new edition flopped and we lost a ton of people out of the hobby. Sigh. As much as I may not agree with everything that GW does, they do provide us with a hobby that I enjoy by virtue of their existence.

How long do you think that the hobby would last if the company went down the tubes?

6th wont fix xenos
6th wont fix 40k


This is pretty much how I feel about 40k in general. I've played DE for a long time not nearly as long as some from 3rd but I like a lot of DE players were patiently waiting for the holy grail as an update and when it finally came at first it was so awesome what with the new model line and rules that we really didn't look at the problem that still faced us from the previous dex and wtih lances being priced more and Imperium armies gaining fast transport/weapons platforms we no longer became the fastest army in the game anymore. I can't even play 40k anymore, I just don't get any enjoyment out of it, when I play it almost feels like me and my opponent are playing completely different games.

I have a feint hope that 6th will fix xenos problems but it won't, xenos players just have to face facts that we aren't GWs intentional audience. And now that 40k prices keep going up I just can't make an argument to keep buying.

@Luthon1234: You know this kind of thing is cyclical right? There were times when Nidzilla, Orks and Mechdar were on top of the world. In fact it wasn't that long ago. Before that Chaos was on top and and on and on. That doesn't sound too much like GW hating on Xenos. It is just that people have short memories.

Pretre makes a good point And I'd like to point out that orks are still one of the nastiest armies in existence. I'm pretty sure that of the three GT's/2-day events I know about last weekend that we had:

Daemons & Eldar take overall at the Bugeater & Game Empire events. (not sure who had overall at the Railhead Rumble)

Orks, & Eldar take Best General at the Bugeater & Railhead Rumble.

The idea that Xenos is worse than MEQ is just wrong. They've pretty much always been strong or over the top and they mostly still are. Granted I won't say they don't have a higher learning curve than your average MEQ army. But if you actually take the time to learn them they are nasty, even in the world of GK's and SW's.

More chaos rumors from Faeit 212:

Grant wrote:via Grant
*The book is called chaos space marines.
*There are no legions. theDarkGeneral is wrong
*I don't know if I mentioned it before but the "random terrain" is officially called "mysterious terrain"

*Also the anti psyker stuff in the book is a special rule called "suffer the witch". Every unit can negate a power on a 6 up but it can be buffed....yeah...can you say GK nerf?

*One is called ecstasy...which sounds weird but basically it allows the user to fire his weapon at his strength value. I can't remember what unit has it though!

*Some usr names are "strike down", "blind", and "un-weilding". Not sure what they do.

*There is a usr called "invisibility" that seems to have an affect on targeting a the unit and also effects assault.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Not a fan of this Grant guy's rumors. They all sound really out there.

You know a threads sunk to a low spot, when car maker analogies crop up.

Hulksmash wrote:

The idea that Xenos is worse than MEQ is just wrong. They've pretty much always been strong or over the top and they mostly still are. Granted I won't say they don't have a higher learning curve than your average MEQ army. But if you actually take the time to learn them they are nasty, even in the world of GK's and SW's.

GK, Imp, BA vs...uhm...DE?

Sigvatr wrote:

Hulksmash wrote:

The idea that Xenos is worse than MEQ is just wrong. They've pretty much always been strong or over the top and they mostly still are. Granted I won't say they don't have a higher learning curve than your average MEQ army. But if you actually take the time to learn them they are nasty, even in the world of GK's and SW's.

GK, Imp, BA vs...uhm...DE?

What's your question?

pretre wrote:. It is just that people have short memories.

This.

Many armies have seen the top and the bottom of the hill. Except the Tau - I think they have always been at the bottom.

I understand the gripes about not having balance - but I think most people just want their army/armies to be the top. It is human/hobby nature to want your army to be competitive. Or at least recently updated.

pretre wrote:

Sigvatr wrote:

Hulksmash wrote:

The idea that Xenos is worse than MEQ is just wrong. They've pretty much always been strong or over the top and they mostly still are. Granted I won't say they don't have a higher learning curve than your average MEQ army. But if you actually take the time to learn them they are nasty, even in the world of GK's and SW's.

GK, Imp, BA vs...uhm...DE?

What's your question?

I guess that it's up to personal opinion, but imo, overall, non-Xenos tend to get better codexes.

/e: And yes, I do know that GK were worse. Then again, Necrons get a new codex that's relatively balanced. When GK got their new codex back then...well, it's obvious.