Switch Theme:

40k 6th edition? already?  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut





Oakley, CA

While my response is slightly off topic it does fit into the 6th ed discussion.

I'm expecting a much better set of rules for 40K when 6th edition arrives. After reading WotR and playing a bunch of games; GW has lost every excuse for not making a better version of 40K. WotR proves that GW can write good rules.



Check out my blog Wargaming Shenanigans

 
   
Made in us
Willing Inquisitorial Excruciator





Philadelphia

BDJV wrote:While my response is slightly off topic it does fit into the 6th ed discussion.

I'm expecting a much better set of rules for 40K when 6th edition arrives. After reading WotR and playing a bunch of games; GW has lost every excuse for not making a better version of 40K. WotR proves that GW can write good rules.


Yup. When they're given a blank slate, and aren't slavishly holding onto their legacy rules, like they are with 40k and fantasy.

Look at their specialist games as well. Mordheim, Gothic, Necromunda. They're all great games, with a minimum of rules problems, and they were built as Whocares was saying - all the factions at the same time, tested, and released (ok, he was suggesting they be staggered). When GW started adding bands to Mordheim, for example, they couldn't keep it balanced.

When they do them (rules and armies) at the same time, they tend to be better balanced.

Daemonhunters 1000 points (painted)
Flesh Tearers 2000+ points (painted) - Balt GT '02 52nd; Balt GT '05 16th
Kabal of the Tortured Soul 2000+ points (painted) - Balt GT '08 85th; Mechanicon '09 12th
Greenwing 1000 points (painted) - Adepticon Team Tourny 2013

"There is rational thought here. It's just swimming through a sea of stupid and is often concealed from view by the waves of irrational conclusions." - Railguns 
   
Made in gb
Lieutenant Colonel




HI all.
The problem with the current 40k rules , is that the core rules only covers about 40% of the game play.So the remaining game play has to be covered with lots of 'patches', (USRs, codex special rules for ,racial, character, weapon and equipment.)

IF a NEW rule set was written to cover the current game play,(maybe expand it?).
It would be possible to get a MUCH more straight forward and intuitive rule set, where EVERYTHING is covered in the core rules .

Having lots of exeptions and additions (special rules) is NOT good game design.(It may be a good marketing ploy perhaps?)

Current 40k is more like version 3.7, NOT 5.

Actual 40k 4th ed, by Andy Chambers, was published by Mongoose Publishing, under the guise of S.S.T!

I cannot fathom GW logic.They chase after tweenies that buy a load of stuff and leave after 2 years.
So why are they hung up on keeping the unsuitable and outdated Warhammer game mechanics and legacy issues ?

I think the best option would be a complete re-write.
But unfortunatley GW relise as long as they make the new minis look and sound 'kewl' ,the rules can be utter 'Chrome Covered Crud.' Some people will still buy Citadel Minatures anf GW kits.

TTFN
Lanrak
   
Made in us
Nasty Nob on Warbike with Klaw





Buzzard's Knob

I agree with Cruentes. They should make 6th edition a sci-fi variant of War of the Ring. With 15MM miniatures. They should also make a detailed skirmish version of the rules for use with the existing miniatures.

WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGGGGGHHHHH!!!!!!!!!! 
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut




warpcrafter wrote:They should also make a detailed skirmish version of the rules for use with the existing miniatures.


This is an awesome idea.

I mean, sure, they have Necromunda which is awesome. But that game's release was years ago and it's still based on the second edition system. Most newer players don't even know about it. And, on top of that, my one problem with the game was that it was basically just humans. It would be awesome if they made a newer version of the game that was more like Mordheim in that it included "warbands" from every army in 40k.

I would so play the hell out of that.

Build a fire for a man and he will be warm for a day; set a man on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life.

Sly Marbo was originally armed with a power weapon, but he dropped it while assaulting a space marine command squad just so his enemies could feel pain.

Sly Marbo doesn't go to ground, the ground comes to him.  
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





whocares wrote:
warpcrafter wrote:They should also make a detailed skirmish version of the rules for use with the existing miniatures.


This is an awesome idea.

...

I would so play the hell out of that.


Me too!

You ever wonder if Inquisitor was 40k scale, and there were A LOT more army lists and characters, then perhaps people would have, you know, actually played it?
   
Made in gb
Junior Officer with Laspistol





Sheffield, England

I would've played the hell out of it!

The 28mm Titan Size Comparison Guide
Building a titan? Make sure you pick the right size for your war engine!

 
   
Made in us
Battlefield Professional




Empire Of Denver, Urth

warpcrafter wrote:I agree with Cruentes. They should make 6th edition a sci-fi variant of War of the Ring. With 15MM miniatures. They should also make a detailed skirmish version of the rules for use with the existing miniatures.


Mmmm 15mm GW miniatures.
I'd build every single army.
Only in my dreams.

“It is impossible to speak in such a way that you cannot be misunderstood” -- Karl Popper 
   
Made in us
Nasty Nob





SoCal

GW will never do a well supported skirmish version. Their whole schtick is to make people buy large armies for the smallest of games of 40k.

   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





Zip Napalm wrote:
warpcrafter wrote:I agree with Cruentes. They should make 6th edition a sci-fi variant of War of the Ring. With 15MM miniatures. They should also make a detailed skirmish version of the rules for use with the existing miniatures.


Mmmm 15mm GW miniatures.
I'd build every single army.
Only in my dreams.


Wouldn't that be great indeed? Probably never, but...

With the success of Flames of War, who can say?
   
Made in jp
[MOD]
Anti-piracy Officer






Somewhere in southern England.

Mahu wrote:I disagree completely.

Each codex should be making every attempt to define the race with a unique play style. It that involves giving races abilities that match thier fluff, then so be it.

5th edition played with 5th edition codexes is the best version of 40k by far in terms of theme, list variation, and race specific tactics. Orks play like Orks, Deamons play like Deamons and Marines play like Marines.

The way I view it is the codexes are just as important as the core rulebook in considering the system, and exceptions to rules have been in the game since the beginning.


You can make individual factions using a variety of properly thought out USRs contained in the main rulebook. It's basic system design to minimise the number of exceptions and special cases in auxiliary manuals.

The reason why GW do it the way they do is because they haven't developed the game rules properly from codex to edition to codex.

For instance, it's fairly obvious that Tau Markerlights need a make-over, but GW needed to think about that 18 months ago while developing the 5e book, which obviously they didn't.

This pattern of development is part of what causes power creep, because a codex being written now for releas in 2010 reacts to 5e core rules and the extra rules in the recent (Ork, SM, etc) 5e codexes.

Petition to stop ratification of EU Article 13 on Internet Copyright

We're not very big on official rules. Rules lead to people looking for loopholes. What's here is about it. 
   
Made in ca
Morally-Flexible Malleus Hearing Whispers






Well I kind of moved near Toronto, actually.

I think you underestimate the Psycannon. They are even putting it on Land Raiders, these days.

I actually disagree with Augustus (for once), despite the awesome of this Exodites. I think the army rules remain quite seperate from the main rule book. The Universal Special Rules as well as the three phase game, infantry statlines, vehicles, Independent Characters, etc, etc remain solid core rules. Rules such as Feel No Pain, Rending, Fearless, Scout increasingly standardize the game with every codex and edition. Gone are the days when Hit and Run did three different things depending on which codex you were reading.

Dakka Articles: Eldar Tactica | In Defence of Starcannons (math) | Ork Takktika Quick Tips
taco online: WoW PvP
ur hax are nubz 
   
Made in us
Willing Inquisitorial Excruciator





Philadelphia

Tacobake wrote:I think you underestimate the Psycannon. They are even putting it on Land Raiders, these days.

I actually disagree with Augustus (for once), despite the awesome of this Exodites. I think the army rules remain quite seperate from the main rule book. The Universal Special Rules as well as the three phase game, infantry statlines, vehicles, Independent Characters, etc, etc remain solid core rules. Rules such as Feel No Pain, Rending, Fearless, Scout increasingly standardize the game with every codex and edition. Gone are the days when Hit and Run did three different things depending on which codex you were reading.


Actually, according to GW's own FAQ's and erratas, codexes take precedence. So, we still have the situation where "hit and run" in the BRB is different than "hit and run" for Seraphim in the witch hunters codex. I'm sure there are other examples as well, that's the only one I could think of off hand. Oh, and you mean how everyone except IG can share dedicated transports, because their codex specifically says they can't share?

Issues like that still exist and will always exist because of the game design structure they currently use. And don't get me started on wargear and weapons between codexes




Daemonhunters 1000 points (painted)
Flesh Tearers 2000+ points (painted) - Balt GT '02 52nd; Balt GT '05 16th
Kabal of the Tortured Soul 2000+ points (painted) - Balt GT '08 85th; Mechanicon '09 12th
Greenwing 1000 points (painted) - Adepticon Team Tourny 2013

"There is rational thought here. It's just swimming through a sea of stupid and is often concealed from view by the waves of irrational conclusions." - Railguns 
   
Made in us
Spawn of Chaos





Mahu wrote:I disagree completely.

Each codex should be making every attempt to define the race with a unique play style. It that involves giving races abilities that match thier fluff, then so be it.

5th edition played with 5th edition codexes is the best version of 40k by far in terms of theme, list variation, and race specific tactics. Orks play like Orks, Deamons play like Deamons and Marines play like Marines.

The way I view it is the codexes are just as important as the core rulebook in considering the system, and exceptions to rules have been in the game since the beginning.


Perfect.

definition of tournament: a competition in which contestants play a series of games to determine an overall winner.

Ooooohhhhhh C-A-T-S CATS CATS CATS!

I suk at speling :/ 
   
Made in gb
Long-Range Black Templar Land Speeder Pilot







Cruentus wrote:
Tacobake wrote:I think you underestimate the Psycannon. They are even putting it on Land Raiders, these days.

I actually disagree with Augustus (for once), despite the awesome of this Exodites. I think the army rules remain quite seperate from the main rule book. The Universal Special Rules as well as the three phase game, infantry statlines, vehicles, Independent Characters, etc, etc remain solid core rules. Rules such as Feel No Pain, Rending, Fearless, Scout increasingly standardize the game with every codex and edition. Gone are the days when Hit and Run did three different things depending on which codex you were reading.


Actually, according to GW's own FAQ's and erratas, codexes take precedence. So, we still have the situation where "hit and run" in the BRB is different than "hit and run" for Seraphim in the witch hunters codex. I'm sure there are other examples as well, that's the only one I could think of off hand. Oh, and you mean how everyone except IG can share dedicated transports, because their codex specifically says they can't share?

Issues like that still exist and will always exist because of the game design structure they currently use. And don't get me started on wargear and weapons between codexes





IG aren't the only ones who cant share dedicated transports, templars and (i think) tau are in the same boat, anyway I Like the idea of writing all thecodexes at the same time as the rulebook but the universal codex (3rd ed) is not the way to go, it was soooo unimaginative and boring, If theywere to do something like that again i'd want every army to be of the diversity and customizability as they currently are, which could trebel the size of the book IMO.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





Cruentus wrote:...And don't get me started on wargear and weapons between codexes


Exactly right, and...

What about RHINOS? How many codices have them?

They are all the same tank literally, but there are how many variants because of codex sillyness?

Smoke launchers, overcharged engines, firing points, self immobile repair or not, that kind of stuff is a great example of the convoluted mess I was talking about.
   
Made in se
Whiteshield Conscript Trooper




Augustus wrote:
Exactly right, and...

What about RHINOS? How many codices have them?

They are all the same tank literally, but there are how many variants because of codex sillyness?

Smoke launchers, overcharged engines, firing points, self immobile repair or not, that kind of stuff is a great example of the convoluted mess I was talking about.


That could really come down to which Rhino model the army uses, in a world as big as 40k I'd assume there are many different variants in the fluff. Also it could be put down to how different crews are trained in the use of the Rhino.



ADHD and wargaming makes it hard to have only one army.  
   
Made in gb
Regular Dakkanaut




Nottingham

Yep, fething mess created by a company for which Rules and Balanced Gameplay are secondary.

40K will NEVER be fixed, too many hanging on legacy issues.....

Still fun to play however and so what if its busted.

Then again, I NEVER play tournaments.....

My comments are my own, and mine own alone. If you have any complaints, please report to Mr Spanky who will take them down for you.....


 
   
Made in us
The Last Chancer Who Survived





Norristown, PA

Good point but I always thought the whole idea of a codex was to give armies special rules. So you have your "standard" ruleset, and then each army has their own strenghts and weaknesses and special things they can do. If other armies could issue orders, what would be special about guard? or what if everyone army have drop pods and break into combat squads?

   
Made in au
Hurr! Ogryn Bone 'Ead!





melbourne

hmmmm...... good old 4th ed where all the rules made sences.
   
Made in us
Willing Inquisitorial Excruciator





Philadelphia

Necros wrote:Good point but I always thought the whole idea of a codex was to give armies special rules. So you have your "standard" ruleset, and then each army has their own strenghts and weaknesses and special things they can do. If other armies could issue orders, what would be special about guard? or what if everyone army have drop pods and break into combat squads?


But see, I don't understand this extremist logic. No one is saying that everyone gets to have every rule in the BRB. If "combat squads" is a USR. When the marine book is out, their squads are given that USR as an army rule. If GW then decides that the hyper-trained =I= Stormtroopers (and only them), should also be able to combat squad, then that squad entry can be given the USR. Without creating some backward description of how it works that makes it different than marines (or anyone else).

The differences in the army books (which I'm still advocating), would be in troops types - gee, IG grunts versus Necron Warriors - they seem different. Weapons they use, wargear, vehicles, etc. Rules that should be (or could be) similar across books should be USRs. I.e. Deep Strike, Poison, FNP, the jump back out of combat one (mind-lock atm), ATSKNF, etc. If you want to give an army deep strike, don't have three versions of it, two which contradict how it works in the BRB. Have one Deep Strike USR. Then have another USR, available for other units if necessary, that allows you to do something different, i.e. assault off Deep Strike. Don't write another Deep Strike rule and call it something else.

Could the list of USRs be long? Possibly. But it also wouldn't prevent differences in army builds, army lists, units themselves. It also makes it easier to "balance" long-term. If you know everyone (termies, daemons, PAGK, etc.) are all Deep Striking, you know what it does. If you add assault to the Daemons. You know its a little better.


Daemonhunters 1000 points (painted)
Flesh Tearers 2000+ points (painted) - Balt GT '02 52nd; Balt GT '05 16th
Kabal of the Tortured Soul 2000+ points (painted) - Balt GT '08 85th; Mechanicon '09 12th
Greenwing 1000 points (painted) - Adepticon Team Tourny 2013

"There is rational thought here. It's just swimming through a sea of stupid and is often concealed from view by the waves of irrational conclusions." - Railguns 
   
Made in gb
Lieutenant Colonel




Hi all.
Just to comment on what has just been said about the rule book and the codex books.

In other NON GW games I play , the rule book covers ALL element /unit interaction in the game.(All the rules for everything in the game.)

The equivilents of codex/army books just contain force composition choices,and background.(With modeling painting guides in some cases.)

Having rules that superceed-contradict core rules added peicemeal to a game system sporadicaly in isolated context ,(special rules in codex-army books)Is the worst possibly way to add to game play, in reguard to game balance and player comprehension .

But may be the most obvious way to make new armies seem more 'special' desirable?

One rule book I own has 45 army lists and over 600 unit stats included!
The rules cover ALL WWII theaters/ major land engagments including supporting air/artillery operations , airborne and beach asaults,and combat engineering , (bridging mine fields,) etc..
All within a 100 page book.WITHOUT ANY SPECIAL RULES AT ALL!!

40k can not manage the rules on 'how to move units' without using 5 Universal Special Rules and seperate table for vehicle movement!

TTFN
lanrak.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






SoCal, USA!

Augustus wrote:I realized a pattern seems to be emerging with codex writing in 5th edition, that is each codex is rewriting the core game for 5th edition with codex specific global style rules. I'm not talking about codex specific rules like only Eldar have Brightlances for example but the strategic kind of rules that really modify the basic game. Each new codex seems to really break the structure of the game with some significant special rules,

I don't lik this for 3 reasons:

(1) It makes outdated codices diadvantaged
(2) It makes the core rules in the basic book meaningless,

Will even one army survive the codex rewrites that actually uses the morale rules as written in the core book? What is the point of instant death for example, everything one would like to instant death is now immune to it with Eternal Warrior/hive mind it seems...

(3) It makes the game a convoluted mess, where a player has to own and bring every codex with him all the time to have the whole rule set.

Welcome to WFB6+-style 40k!

The phenomenon that you are describing has been the norm in WFB since mid-6th Edition. It is GW's way of differentiating armies from each other and showing how each of them is special / different / unique. You're only behind the curve because you don't play or follow WFB.

1. outdated like, say, Dogs of War? Yes. I'm still hoping for an Army Book before WFB8 rolls around...

2. the core rules will still apply to a few armies, just as in WFB, but a lot of the stuff will be obsoleted by special rules and abilities. In WFB, less than 1/3 of the armies take unmodified morale (psychology / break) tests as a matter of course; these are generally deemed to be "uncompetitive" armies. In WFB, the two armies that completely ignore psychology and break tests (Daemons & Vampires) are considered to be Tier 0, with a commanding advantage over other armies.

3. GW is not unaware that this encourages additional Army Book sales to those who don't even play the various armies, but need to be informed as to what their opponent might bring.

Again, look at WFB for the future of 40k. If you don't like it, get out now.

   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






SoCal, USA!

warpcrafter wrote:They should also make a detailed skirmish version of the rules for use with the existing miniatures.

Space Hulk, coming soon to a hobby store near you.

Q4, 2009

   
Made in jp
[MOD]
Anti-piracy Officer






Somewhere in southern England.

40K already is a detailed skirmish rules with bits taken out to make the armies larger. It was developed as a skirmish set originally.

Petition to stop ratification of EU Article 13 on Internet Copyright

We're not very big on official rules. Rules lead to people looking for loopholes. What's here is about it. 
   
Made in de
[ARTICLE MOD]
Cultist of Nurgle with Open Sores





Germany, Sauerland

I am with Mahu on this issue. And therefore I oppose Augustus opinion. But only kinda half. You know, when I read the introduction with all that "and now they add all these army specific rules to make it different", I was all like "yes, yes, great, eh?". And then came the conclusion.
And that I do disagree with.
5th edition basic rules are much better than everything before. The "real" 5th edition codices, already named as "Daemons, Orks, SM and Guard" are all great. Chaos does have one playable army, but it simply is due to a broken design idea. The other four codices are great because they influence and balance each other. And I am looking forward to seeing more of this being done.

Because of that, I agree with one of Augustus criticisms: Old codices get outdated a lot. And that one is the real problem. GW got their act together and currently release great stuff. The new game is not 3.7 but a really good new version. Sadly it still needs to be carried by some uninspired 3rd and 4th edition codices. And, since it is en vogue to be sceptical, this will break their back (or at least make it, again, a so-so release instead of the cool thing it could be), because, as usual, they won't finish their line-up so, for once, we can play a _complete_ game of 5th edition.


Augustus wrote:You ever wonder if Inquisitor was 40k scale, and there were A LOT more army lists and characters, then perhaps people would have, you know, actually played it?

What? You know, I bought Inquisitor because I thought it ought to be the best thing ever invented. I was both a roleplayer and a wargamer. The only thing that I found new, creative and astonishing about Inquisitor was that I had never knew whether to cry about the roleplaying or the wargaming part first. I mean, even completely stat-free story-telling systems use some kind of balancing!

Painted armies: 3000+ Nurgle CSM. Converted, yet unpainted armies: Too many.
DR:80S+G++M+++B++I-Pw40k03D++A++WD-R+++T(D)DM+ 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





tierlieb wrote:5th edition basic rules are much better than everything before. The "real" 5th edition codices, already named as "Daemons, Orks, SM and Guard" are all great. Chaos does have one playable army, but it simply is due to a broken design idea. The other four codices are great because they influence and balance each other.
Fair enough! I think the Space Marine power that forces rerolls to invulnerable saves for example was a direct answer to the Daemon codex to support your concept of the codices balancing eachother.
JohnHwangDD wrote:Welcome to WFB6+-style 40k!...Again, look at WFB for the future of 40k. If you don't like it, get out now.

I don't want to quit, I love the models and stories.

But you have me there, I don't follow WHFB, I quit playing it for reasons like this, the same reason I don't play war machine:

"So I chose a decent amy, set up well, used some clever maneuver and now... I loose?.. Why again?"

"Well, because my army/character specific unique hidden combo special rule reverses the tactical situation."

No thanks...

*EDIT quote blocks

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2009/04/17 00:03:40


 
   
Made in gb
Regular Dakkanaut




Nottingham

Play DBM, All rules, armies, EVERYTHING in a single 50 something page book from 5000bc to 1487ad!

But hang on, thats designed as a quick dirty fun tournament game for adults....

40K is for shillling figures and books!

My comments are my own, and mine own alone. If you have any complaints, please report to Mr Spanky who will take them down for you.....


 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




Scotland

With all this talk of 6th edition,surely not enough time has elapsed to
justify it? The rules as they are,are clear and not written by a madman!
There doesn't seem to be a major rules rewrite needed so why would GW
feel the need to do so soon a 6th edition rulebook?It's not as if it's
going to be chock full of new rules,plus the price will probably be
£40!
What they should do (they won't ,I know)is forget a rules reprint and
concentrate on bringing all the codexes up to date.White Dwarf should
at least be publishing updates on armies,as the timelines for codexes
are too slow.The talk of the 'Big four' of Chaos marines getting codexes
may be wide of the mark.More likely they will share a single codex.
But please GW,no new rulebook just yet!!!!!

 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






SoCal, USA!

Augustus wrote:
JohnHwangDD wrote:Welcome to WFB6+-style 40k!...Again, look at WFB for the future of 40k. If you don't like it, get out now.

I don't want to quit, I love the models and stories.

But you have me there, I don't follow WHFB, I quit playing it for reasons like this, the same reason I don't play war machine:

"So I chose a decent amy, set up well, used some clever maneuver and now... I loose?.. Why again?"

"Well, because my army/character specific unique hidden combo special rule reverses the tactical situation."

No thanks...

So I'm guessing you don't play CCGs like Magic?

I don't play WM/H because I already have plenty of Magic and 40k, so a CCG-like minis game is redundant for me.

WFB is very low on my interest scale, as my primary army has been sidelined for more than an edition, but I've at least played along when major WFB happenings are going on. But balance in WFB is a real mess compared to 40k. The scope of Special Rules is so much larger and pervasive, that the game feel is totally alien.

   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: