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.

There's a constant "wut do you want in 6th?"

I don't understand? I don't find anything wrong with the 5th edition rules. (the core rules) so... Why is there such an element of we need a new rulebook.

Someone, please enlighten me.

Because it's inevitably going to happen, so we might as well weigh in on what changes we think are necessary in hopes that GW will listen to the community's concerns.

It doesn't, but 6th edition will bring in a large chunk of revenue to GW, hence the update.

It has been 4-5 years since 5th edition was released, and whilst the majority of it is balanced, there are signs in the newer codices of change, and it is around this time a new edition is released.

For example, the Plasma Weapon type listed in the GK codex suggest a new way laying out weaponry, and the new psyker levels (forget the official name) is also alien to 5th edition. The prevelance of psykers and psychic defense hints at psychic powers becoming a larger part of 40k.

For the most part, GW don't listen to the community bar the FAQs that Yakface and Co. help out with, so what we think about the current edition is moreorless dismissed, however, 5th does have some issues, such as cover (is there anything that DOESN'T get a 4+ cover save nowadays?).

Fifth edition was released in august 2008.... didn't third ed go for 7 years?

Scipio Africanus wrote:Fifth edition was released in august 2008.... didn't third ed go for 7 years?

It's 4:10am here, don't blame me if i'm off by a year.

3rd ed was 98 to 2004 but for 2 years you had the trial assault/vehicle rules which a lot of people used. come to think of it, thats really weird how GW would actually playtest something with fan input, alas andy chambers is gone. I think 3rd was some of the best times for the hobby (although without the trial rules the system was horribly flawed)

Im looking forward to a new edition of 40k. I like change

Yeah like others said it's coming like it or not so we may as well start thinking now and getting ideas.

Personally I think 5th is solid. I'd like a little more psychic influence in the game. Maybe not a whole phase but a little more.

the only other problem I see is a bit too much mech, need to add a little more risk to transports.

Avatar 720 wrote:For the most part, GW don't listen to the community bar the FAQs that Yakface and Co. help out with, so what we think about the current edition is moreorless dismissed, however, 5th does have some issues, such as cover (is there anything that DOESN'T get a 4+ cover save nowadays?).

A couple of things with that... Yakface and the INAT crew don't 'help out' with the FAQs. For one batch of the GW FAQs, GW looked to the original 'YakFAQ' for a bit of a leg-up on which issues needed to be addressed, and so credited Yakface in that batch of FAQs.

So far as listening to the community goes... the current state of the game, and its evolution from the skirmish game that it started out as, has come precisely from listening to gamers and trying to give them what they want. Where people get disillusioned is through thinking that what they personally want, or what the dozen or so people loudly complaining on the internet forum they frequent want must be an indication of what the majority of the 40K-playing community actually wants... so when GW doesn't appear to listen, they assume that GW are 'ignoring the community'...

GW listen to the community. They just don't always act on everything that every part of the community wants. That would be impossible.

GW listens to the community???? I just think hell just froze over

^ yeah... You just kinda solidified what he was saying.

I like how GW works. As far as support goes, they have a good bit of it. Their customer service has drooped with the firing of staff, but the stores are great for beginners. Their online store is also comprehensive and simple.

Back on topic...

On support, they offer great amounts for their mainstream games, warhammer and 40k. There arepeople who complain about no support for the specialist games... But they don't make more then ~1% of their income at large off of those games... In fact, the support offered there is better then is to be expected

I think gw listens to the community.

Hey, who was pushing for a new dark eldar codex? Oh, what? The community?! I didn't reAlist they listned

Andilus Greatsword wrote:Because it's inevitably going to happen, so we might as well weigh in on what changes we think are necessary in hopes that GW will listen to the community's concerns.

I would agree with that. Personally I'm not convinced that 5th was a huge leap forwards from 4th, nor that it is perfect. However, since 6th edition is inevitable, we may as well try to get it changed to the format we want.

My concern is more with the timely publication of codexes, though. My nightmare is that a new Tau codex will come out shortly before 6th Edition, which will make it obsolete.

I've been playing since 98, and I had alot more fun in 3rd edition than I have recently. I tried to put my finger on it....and it is not the rules. I think the 5th edition rules are ok....I think LOS and cover were way better in 3/4th edition

It's the codexes. I used to run a 45 point commander in 3/4 and would spend the extra points on troops.

Now, you almost have to spend 200 some points on your commander, to cheese out your army with gimmicks.

For me personally, I only enjoy playing when it is someone who runs an old style army ( 4-5 tac squads in rhinos/razorbacks, a commander with just a power weapon, maybe some dreads and scouts). The moment someone throws down Thunderwolf cavalry or Vulkan or flying dreadnaughts, I know I'm not going to enjoy the game.

You can wipe out a whole squad of guys hiding behind a solid wall because one guy's elbow is sticking out. The rules are not fine.

Like you said, people are asking 'what would you like in 6th' rather than, '5th edition is balls.'

40k now is mechanised hero hammer.

Whatever you may think of 5th,it looks like we get 6th after next years olympics.I am not sure how i feel about that,i have barely got my head round most of the stuff in 5th as it stands at the moment.

You can wipe out a whole squad of guys hiding behind a solid wall because one guy's elbow is sticking out. The rules are not fine.

Couldnt agree more and have been thinking about this of late. Some of the situations that arise due to that rule are simply ludacris.
I have never agreed with the justification that "models arent static on the table, imagine your squad members ducking and diving, running about on the tabletop, hence why you can shoot models out of LOS" (paraphrased obviously). That is trying to represent fluff. You cannot mix that into rules imo, you either represent all fluff equally with all rules or simply implement one solid rule, can you see those guys? No? then they cant be killed.

I have to admit that I never really played 40k before 5th Ed as I was too busy loving LotR.

However I have talked to a lot of people about the old editions and obviously read a lot from here so I can kinda see what people aren't so keen on.

I'm not so keen on everything getting a fething cover save. I mean c'mon?! It's awful. You can just put units in front of other units to give them a 4+ save. That needs the biggest overall because at the moment most low AP weaponry is just so easily negated.

TLOS - sometimes I like this but my T'au do not. JSJ was one of the main tricks we pulled off apparently and the change to TLOS completely buggered that up, and Fish of Fury.

Other than that...runs nice

I think people think it needs an update because people will always find personal faults within the majority of game systems, save for small skirmish ones perhaps or ones that are really simple (then they'd complain it's too simple).

I want 40k to change in line with what I think, naturally, but then I can play it however I want in my own home. I honestly think GW should publish some rules to help make the game a little more dynamic. Even something like the re-introduction of Overwatch would add some spice to the game, as would skirmish type IC actions - I want my SM Captain to jump from a 2nd story building and assault the guy below me, why not? They could easily make such rules optional if players want to play some more focused, smaller games.

I LOVE Apocalypse, 3,000pts+ games don't seem to take much longer to play. I'm happy with 5th Ed & large games, completely.

I also think the tournament mentality and people obsessing over the 'meta-game' system & balance don't help people's view of the game. GW games have never had hardcore tournament play as their focus, that's not to say there's an inbalance between Codex books, obviously there is, but I feel that's due to the time gap between releases & designer's attempting to refine any ideas they have whenever they get the chance. Yes, they could do Beta army lists before a New Codex comes out, holding a few key things back for the release, and seek to get direct input from beyond their own Studio by running a couple of 'open' beta sessions up at Warhammer World (which would be awesome and serve only to aid the rumour mill/excitement about a pre-release) but I doubt that would happen.

Codex books can be helped by the release of Eratta's updating army list points costs etc and I really wish they would - 160pts for a Carnifex or 90pts for a Wraithlord, please

40k will always NEED an update. All wargaming is based around abstract representation & I don't think a perfect system exists. In order for GW to create more harmony within their Codex books they'd need to stop all releases for several years & write all the Codex books in one go - this may be largely impossible due to the creative nature of design. They want to bring new units in, but may not know what until something clicks, or a mini designer could come up with a mini concept and have that then turn into rules - like the beloved Khorne Berzerker or some Forgeworld releases.

You can wipe out a whole squad of guys hiding behind a solid wall because one guy's elbow is sticking out. The rules are not fine.

I always used TLOS in my games, even back in 2nd & 3rd Ed, contrary to the rules. It just takes a little common sense to make it work. If you see someones elbow, like a fraction of a mm, then, clearly, you aren't going to be able to target the whole unit unless you get a lucky scatter roll with a blast weapon - or indeed the model itself to begin with. The minis are representations of an occupied space, obviously they don't move. It's up to you as a player to take TLOS with a little pinch of salt & maybe GW's for not adding a little salt of their own in the way the rules are written. Unless something in the rules is clear cut (like the rolls needed to hit or wound) change them to the term 'guideline', have some fun & try not to take an abstract rules system literally

Unfortunately times are changing, and looking at the rulesets for the other major competing game systems just shows how dated the core rules for 40k look.

5th edition tends to arbitarility switch between simulation (True LOS) and abstract (cover saves while in the open, LOS not needed to rest of the squad) with aparrently no rythme or reason. Additionally, the rules put too much emphasis on vehicles, leading to the pleathora of mech you see today.

Just because the game is played on an army scale, this does not mean that you should not innetivably say "well that doens't make sence, but whatever works". When the rules for 40k are 100% intuitive, they support the mechanics while actually making sense to the user, and rule loopholes aren't around to exist as another tactic - then they can rest on their laurals.

If not, they've got a lot of work to do - there's plenty of competitors out there who are more than happy to do it for them!

I think it's more due to baddies that play Speds Mahreens still lose and are crying for a rules buff.

40K is fine.

A mostly unchanged 4th ed with 5th ed vehicles, 5th ed assaults, 5th ed FnP, and 5th ed monstrous creatures, was all the game really needed. That could have all been done in a 2-page PDF over a weekend, but instead we get these monolithic core book releases.

The problem is GW isn't really trying to move forward in iterations towards a "Best" 40k - at a time when it seems like a new core rulebook would make money without being too disruptive we get a book written by a guy that had very little or nothing to do with the previous book's design process and is just writing down what they personally want to see happening on the board regardless of how well they do/don't understand the game system.

GW appear to rehash the game on a regular cycle just to create a need for people to buy new rulebooks and begin yet another cycle of codexes.

There's no real attempt to improve the game or strive for perfection because they need to keep churning it over and looking for reasons to rewrite the rules. It doesn't matter how good the latest rules are, they already have the next edition's release in the back of their mind. It's just ridiculous that you can't pick up an edition of the game and get all the codexes to match, they are releasing the game faster than they run the cycle of army books meaning that many codexes are a whole game edition behind. At least if you look back to 2nd edition 40K and 5th edition Fantasy you could get all the rulebooks and the codexes/army books for the same edition.

Fantasy has had eight editions, why is it so hard to get something right? Actually there have been several editions of the various games that were okay and probably requiring minor adjustments, but they just broke them for the sake of a huge overhaul.

MIKEtheMERCILESS wrote:Unfortunately times are changing, and looking at the rulesets for the other major competing game systems just shows how dated the core rules for 40k look.

5th edition tends to arbitarility switch between simulation (True LOS) and abstract (cover saves while in the open, LOS not needed to rest of the squad) with aparrently no rythme or reason. Additionally, the rules put too much emphasis on vehicles, leading to the pleathora of mech you see today.

Im hoping for a return of 40k to a more skirmish type system, or elitehammer as some are calling it, with the majority of vehicle use going to Epoc level games.

As far as my complaints for 5th ed:

Everything moves 6 inches, except the huge amount of units given special rules to make them faster or slower. WTF, just bring back the M stat.

The over-saturation of special rules. This would be just fine in a much smaller scale game, like Necromunda, but in an army scale game its just too much.

The dice rolling...units of Ork boyz or IG troops causing 50, 60 or more armor rolls to be needed...there has to be a better way of dealing with squad vs squad volley fire.



Overall 40k comes across as either too detailed for a army scale game, or using too many units for a skirmish level game. It seems they tried to get the best of both worlds but ended up coming out for the worse. Returning standard 40k to skirmish level would allow the keeping of special rules and other details, and a revamped Epoc system would allow a more simplified larger scale version of 40k. Essentially what PP seems to be heading for with their new large scale system.

lord_blackfang wrote:You can wipe out a whole squad of guys hiding behind a solid wall because one guy's elbow is sticking out. The rules are not fine.

Agreed. Half ass LOS and targeting rules make 5th edition very meh for me. I also don't particularly like the set up rules at this point.

Mad4Minis wrote:
Overall 40k comes across as either too detailed for a army scale game, or using too many units for a skirmish level game. It seems they tried to get the best of both worlds but ended up coming out for the worse. Returning standard 40k to skirmish level would allow the keeping of special rules and other details, and a revamped Epoc system would allow a more simplified larger scale version of 40k. Essentially what PP seems to be heading for with their new large scale system.

Fantasy, 40K and even LOTR have spent the last few years going away from skirmish level games and demanding ever larger armies with greater numbers of figures (and therefore purchases). I don't see GW reversing this trend, it was games that could be played with small numbers of figures that probably led to the demise of the Specialist Games.

Howard A Treesong wrote:

Mad4Minis wrote:
Overall 40k comes across as either too detailed for a army scale game, or using too many units for a skirmish level game. It seems they tried to get the best of both worlds but ended up coming out for the worse. Returning standard 40k to skirmish level would allow the keeping of special rules and other details, and a revamped Epoc system would allow a more simplified larger scale version of 40k. Essentially what PP seems to be heading for with their new large scale system.

Fantasy, 40K and even LOTR have spent the last few years going away from skirmish level games and demanding ever larger armies with greater numbers of figures (and therefore purchases). I don't see GW reversing this trend, it was games that could be played with small numbers of figures that probably led to the demise of the Specialist Games.

Thats why I think there should be 2 versions...broken down a bit like this:

base 40k game
skirmish level, around 1/2 as many models needed as current 40k
few, if any, vehicles used
focus on heroes/elites and their retinues
detailed actions, reactions, skills, abilities, etc



Epoc game
army level, current 40k and larger size
plenty of vehicles
focus on army level tactics
less use of special powers and abilities


Essentially both systems would use the same base, however Epoc would group and speed up squad volley fire, some of the special powers/abilities (particularly of heroes & similar) would go away to speed larger scale play. Think more like Epic, where heroes and command influence a combat but dont dominate it.

Ratius wrote:Couldnt agree more and have been thinking about this of late. Some of the situations that arise due to that rule are simply ludacris.

Ludicrous. Ludicrous. Ludicrous.

Sorry, pet peeve.

So far as the Tau Codex coming out right before the 6th edition book and being immediately out of date, has that happened previously?