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.

So there's another thread, by the venerable Kid_Kyoto about the sort of rules changes that we can expect from GW. Unfortunately it's degenerated into another embarrassing wishlisting of rules people imagine they would like to see. I've attempted twice to discuss what I perceive to be will actually be the direction of change to the 5th edition rules in their transition to 6th edition. So I'm going to try and have that discussion here. To that end, I beg the moderation team to crack down on off-topic posts and in particular on wishlisting. We already have a thread for that.

Right, to start off I've seen three trends from 4th to 5th edition:

1. Universal Special Rules split into main rules and universal special rules. Examples include: Fleet, Counter-Attack, etc.

2. Flat rules fitted to the traditional Warhammer 40,000 curve: Examples include Preferred Enemy, Hit and Run, etc.

3. Introduction of concepts tested in other games. Examples include wound allocation previously used in Epic Armageddon, re-rolls for high Ballastic skill previous used in Blood Bowl blocking.

This will follow on the trend of GW being more explicit and holistic in their game design, witness the 'innovations' of integrating buildings, terrain, and so on into the game over the course of 3rd, 4th, and 5th edition.

So a couple of predictions:

Instant Death: I think we'll see non-stipulative Instant Death go from being caused by Strength twice or more the target's Toughness to being caused by wound rolls of 2+.

Eternal Warrior: I think we'll see Eternal Warrior give the bearing model a characteristic test against Instant Death rather than automatically negating Instant Death.

Combat Resolution: I think we'll see a return to combats in the main rules resolved by factors beyond wounds as stuff like Banners and Instruments of Chaos become more widespread.

Snipers: I think we'll see models with Sniper weapons will lose Rending and see it replaced by something like Telion's Eye of Vengeance.

Tank Shock: I think we're going to see tank shock and ramming cleaned up a bit so that they match the re-write in the FAQ.

Vehicles: I think we're going to see units in transports with fire points become vulnerable to template weapons like units in buildings currently are. Likewise I think they're going to do something about the one-way protection that transports give to psyckers.

Now I'm going to suggest a couple of things that it seems they could do, but are doubtful because the transition may be too shocking for some players:

Variable charge ranges: GW first instituted this with War of the Ring and continued its application in Warhammer Fantasy Battles (8th edition). If it is implemented, I expect we'll see Running become a 6" move and assaults become 1D6".

Shooting in Assault: GW first instituted this in Epic Armageddon, and it really works well where instead of Assaults they have "Engagements" where models that make it into base-to-base can use their close combat ability to attack, and those that don't can use their "firefight" ability to attack. In Epic Armageddon Firefight is a flat dice roll (like Close Combat) separate from the weapons that they're armed with, but I can see this working if models are restricted to using Assault Weapons.

Blast Markers (presumably renamed, or the 3" and 5" blast markers will be renamed): These were first implemented in Epic 40,000 and carried forward into Battlefleet Gothic and Epic Armageddon. While the stated design goal of 3rd edition was to get rid of clutter like blast markers, 5th edition brought in a whole sprue of markers for stuff like Objectives. These are great for tracking state changes in units, and tracking stuff like suppression, break points, and so on.

Universal Fall Back: Currently there's Fearless units that don't fall back but suffer No Retreat wounds, and there's normal units that fall back and risk a Sweeping Advance, and there's And They Shall Know No Fear, and ungainly hybrid conferring some of the advantages of both. Given the trend of integrating rules, I expect that these rules will be hybridized so that all units will be affected by something like No Retreat upon losing combat. Fearless units won't fall back, normal units will fall back (enemies consolidate), and And They Shall Know No Fear will allow automatic regrouping and regrouping under 50% (concurrently I'd predict that Combat Tactics will give the unit the option to fall back or not).

Terrain buy in: I think GW will give terrain points values so that players can not only buy in with their army's but also with terrain. Having the right army is just one part of strategy, and another part is finding the right battlefield... From an economic perspective, this would push sales of terrain, and provide GW with an angle for new products they can sell for armies.

So, there's some predictions I'd made for some general and army-specific changes for the transition to 6th edition, and my reasons for believing they'll come true - essentially being extensions of the trend I've seen in the progression from 4th to 5th. What do you think of my reasoning? What predictions would you make about 6th edition and what evidence and reasoning do you base them on?

Edited tags.

If these are taken up by GW it would make for a much better game... most of it anyway.

Terrain buy in would be awesome. But the problem is most terrain is home built, and sizes and types vary to an insane degree.

The main change I would predict, because it makes sense, is only being able to cause wounds to enemies you can see. Being able to see 4 guys, inflicting 10 wounds and killing the whole squad is just dumb.

terrain buy in would be awesome. Race specific terrain entries in codexes, such as battlements, webway gates, gun emplacments

It would represent troops digging in before an assault and would make foot sloggers more viable

so... instead a of a dedicated transport, they may "dig an emplacement" or similar and start with an extra heavy weapon and cover save if they don't move... it would provide an interesting counter to the proliferation of mech...


... it would take a lot to roll in though, so not sure if they'll try it in 6th

-Loki-:

That was a 4th edition rule and it didn't survive the transition to 5th edition. I've noticed that GW isn't big on bringing back legacy rules that were deliberately excised in the latest edition. So I'm not sure sure "it makes 'sense" in the sense of a good reason for predicting what we might see in 6th edition. Sorry.

I love the idea of terrain buy in, but don't know if it would go in due to how it would really change the game greatly. if it was lots of little things, such as being able to buy trenches, or tank traps i could see it working, but not for larger things.

What has lead you to believe that any of that is likely? It reads more like a wishlist than half the posts in that thread.

MasterSlowPoke:

Well, first I talked about the trends that I identified in the transition from 4th edition to 5th edition and then extended those trends, that I ennumerated for your reading convenience, and applied them to existing rules.

For example, Eternal Warrior is flat. Therefore I applied trend #2, such as occurred with Preferred Warrior moving from a flat 3+ to a re-roll, and Hit and Run being moved to a Initiative test rather than being automatic.

I apologize for being so obscure in my reasoning.

You might as well say that armor saves will also go from being flat to being mutable, based on that logic. There's no indication from GW that would indicate that they're going to change Eternal Warrior at any point. Is it possible that they'll change EW? Of course. Is it likely? Maybe. Do we have anything specific to that rule we can make an inference on? No. What you're doing is at [i]best[i] guessing.

Real prediction would be using data from more recent GW publications to infer what the next ruleset would look like. A reasonable prediction would be the inclusion of a "measure any time" rule, as seen in War both for the Ring and WHFB 8th. Another would be that the "typical" cover save might move to 5+, judging from the cover-granting psychic powers in the BA and SW books. That's not as strong a prediction, but still based on enough solid information to actually be a prediction.

What do you think about changes to vehicle shooting as a function of movement? The trend seems to be more ways to move and shoot. Examples include the prevalence of fast vehicles in BA and DE codices and the Spearhead rule.

I wish they would tone down HtH a bit. Right now the game is pretty much decided in HtH (unless you are IG). I was trying to figure it it out and the best idea I came up with was something along the lines of making the wounds in HtH come out of base to base models first. And then everyone within two inches of an enemy can attack.

Granted I face off against orks a lot so my view of this may be a bit slanted. But when facing off against a 6x30 ork strong mobs you see that HtH is a bit broken. Even if I kill of 5 - 10 orks they just get removed from the back and not much happens except that I die.

Thanks for the topic Nurglitch, very interested in seeing what other players think. And I especially like the request to keep it as a "logical prediction" opposed to "what I wouldl ike to see". I haven't posted much but will enjoy joining this thread, here goes.

No offense to GW but the trend I have noticed since Ed 1 is product sales. Not that it is a bad thing, but an expensive one From 4th to 5th it seemed like the common points played in a game doubled (maybe not double, but increased), requiring a player to field more models. With the addition of Apocolypse, fielding armor became a norm and also IMO more fun/challenging.
I can not predict the specifics of rules I see coming down the pipe but I do think there are two different ways things could go:

A bit of reverting (but like Nurglitch said, GW is not big on legacy rules). With Inquisitor a little on the rise I could see 40k going back to the days of old where armies and characters are more "customized". This would possibly play out with things you are predicting with the "Eternal". Similar to the last IG codex. Revising the army lists always brings out new models and new codex(s). Taking the game back to the days of the 1st edition getting closer to a roleplaying style could open the door for a lot more in the means of sales/models etc.

On the other hand (once again not very rule specific), speed of gameplay has always been increasing. The ability to play large points in little time. I have noticed with Ed 5 there are more options of what and where to shoot, and how to not be shot. I think this has slowed the game down a little. Epic did not last, but you did field a lot of armies. I'm sure GW has learned a lot from those rules and could be refering to that style of play to allow the player to put more out on the table. The 4th & 5th edition seemed to progressively lure younger players, made it a little less complex, easier to just grab dice and roll. This could possibly continue as the 40k world is more exposed. Something like a feature film could make or break the game in an attempt to make it mainstream to children under the age of say 14.

Yes. Terrian buy in would be amazing.

If 40K got any more simplified you might as well roll a dice each, whoever gets higer wins the game.

(not a complaint that it's too simple. )

Can't say I agree with a predicted change to Eternal Warrior. Firstly there are already multiple ways to get around it and remove a model outright anyway. More crucially the daemon codex relies on the strength of the rule;any weakness in it will directly affect chaos daemons more so than other army. Some may say that GW won't care about this and will do it anyway. I would counter that due to the steady stream of new plastic daemon models that GW will not want to discourage anyone from playing them.

I would agree that measure anytime should be available as I believe, though I could be mistaken, that such a system is currently used in fantasy and other games.

ID on wound on 2+ doesn't seem likely as ID would become far, far more prevalent and weapons that did not normally cause instant death suddenly would; autocannons in particular. Ogryn, Nobz, and Warbosses all begin falling over dead and FNP is much more limited as an ability; even a heavy bolter could ignore FNP in many situations.

Eternal warrior going to a test would result in more dice being rolled, which seems contrary to the trend of GW streamlining special rules into less clunky mechanics. The predicted changes to ID and EW would result in having to 'spam' EW to counter the new prevalence of ID, which is contrary to GW's recent trend of making special rules more special.

GW has actually gone back and forth with regard to rules before. For example, the way terrain was handled in 3rd, 4th, and 5th editions. Thankfully, GW has the sense to some times correct themselves over rules editions.

I predict that they'll get rid of the wound wrapping system as it is in 5th ed. People seem to complain about that and TLoS nearly as much as people comoplained about SMF in 4th ed. GW was smart enough to change SMF, so I can only hope they'll be smart enough to fix other new problems they created.

Also, the rules for buildings are definitely going to be expanded next edition. I could almost see some cityfight and cities of death stuff hardcoded into buildings (for example, any unit stationed on the top floor of a multi-story building gets "plunging fire" or something).

Wargear no longer obscurring Vehicles but merely giving it a cover save value.

Tharbickmonoploid:

Excellent post: not for the kudos you give me, but for contributing on topic and in depth. Pay attention people, this is how its done. I think I'll add another trend:

4. Rules are redesigned to expand the game's commercial options (examples: Building rules help sell model kits).

Masterslowpoke:

Saving throws are already curved, rather than flat. It's a case of interactions between types of saves (cover, invulnerable, armour) than within saves, so no, not really.

I think you're onto something with the pre-measuring though. That falls under #3.

However, maybe you could share what you believe constitutes "enough solid information".

sourclams:

I'd gotten the impression that the Universal Special Rules were just being given a lick of army-appropriate paint to provide special rules for units rather than following the practice of reinventing the wheel with every unit (hence the overwhelming prevalence of Furious Charge, Feel No Pain, Relentless, and so on). Not unusual for us to arrive at very different impressions of the same thing, so I'd be interested in how you get your impression.

MikhailLenin:

Please explain why you expect this to come about in 6th edition.

I could see models being allowed to take multiple saves similer to fantesy.

A model may take a Cover save and either it's armor save or an Invuln. FnP is still on top of everything.


this may cause MEQs to become neigh indestructable in cover. this could be balanced out by making Cover not nessacerly a good thing.

Cover might be harder to get/not as good.

I would greatly enjoy limitations one what you can bring into battle based on fantasy, but that's only the power gamer hating side of me talking.

Beyond that, the only real rulebook rule I wish existed was "a model using a two handed weapon gains +1 str when using it in combat."

the problem is that there arn't point costs associated with those weapons.

The Instant Death/Eternal Warrior stuff seems extremely tenuous and based on absolutely nothing.

Grey Templar wrote:I could see models being allowed to take multiple saves similer to fantesy.

A model may take a Cover save and either it's armor save or an Invuln. FnP is still on top of everything.


this may cause MEQs to become neigh indestructable in cover. this could be balanced out by making Cover not nessacerly a good thing.

Cover might be harder to get/not as good.

I disagree.

As you say, it makes MEQs neigh indestructable, and MEQ's really do not need another buff. Also, between WHFB and 40K, 40K is the faster paced, easier to understand game, and only getting one save helps that characteristic come true. Also, I fail to think of anything that could possibly cause Cover to cease to be a good thing. Plenty of things to ignore cover, but nothing that could possibly make it a bad thing.

@ Nurglitch: Never heard of Telion's Eye of Vengeance, what does it do?

Terminus:

Thank you for contributing. The Instant Death/Eternal Warrior stuff is based on:

Nurglitch wrote:2. Flat rules fitted to the traditional Warhammer 40,000 curve: Examples include Preferred Enemy, Hit and Run, etc.

In the 4th edition, Preferred Enemy meant that a model had a flat 3+ to hit any unit that qualified as a preferred enemy. Likewise, a unit could Hit and Run at any time. In 5th edition preferred enemy confers a reroll instead of a flat threshold, and Hit and Run requires a characteristic test, specifically an Initiative test. Counter-Attack in 4th did not require a Leadership test, while in 5th edition it does.

You may also have noticed that the prevalence of Eternal Warrior has been scaled back now that Synapse no longer confers immunity to Instant Death. The conditions of the Instant Death rule likewise mean that some models have partial immunity to Instant Death thanks to their Toughness characteristic being 6+ so that only weapons that stipulate Instant Death as an effect of causing a wound can affect them. It seems that the roll of Instant Death is being brought back into the game, and consequently Eternal Warrior is being scaled back.

And I just look at WFB 8th edition to see the trend, and I still say your conjecture is just that, blind guessing.

ID on 2+? Re-rolls for EW? Highly unlikely.

I predict that the Wound Allocation rule will change simply because the (apparent) majority of people doesn't have the intelligence to understand it.

It has spawned too many questions and I believe the rule will go the way of the Dodo.



The same applies to the current rules for (Emergency) Disembarkation.

they might change Emergency disembarcation to being a dangerous terrain test if there are enemies in the way and add a line saying that they become engaged in CC with them.

The buying terrain thing could be used for only one game type, where you assault each other's base. So you could barely put any points into your base, relying on soldiers, or you could make yours a fortress, and not be able to take very many casualties, but with a base that would be very hard to take.

Slarg232 wrote:

@ Nurglitch: Never heard of Telion's Eye of Vengeance, what does it do?

Sgt Telion (Space marine scout upgrade character) has a rule that allows the shooting player to allocate any wounds he inflicts. The result is that Sgt Telion can be used to snipe the special weapon or squad leader out of a target squad.