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.

This may seem like a rant, but really it's more thinking out loud for discussion and debate. I'm not angry while typing this.

I was just thinking about this today after reading some discussion on the new SoB rules and why they may/may not be releasing a full codex yet. Beating a dead horse? Maybe, but an interesting discussion nonetheless.

6e looming.

To be frank, I'm totally happy with 5e. Perhaps the armies themselves could use some tweaking but I'm not really happy with the idea of another edition of 40k. I mean...why?

I'm also happy with the same version of Axis and Allies boardgame that's been out for years. I'm playing the original Icewind Dale on my computer and loving it. Also, Schwartzeneggar's Predator was better than any of the sequals that have come after...hands down.

Do we really need updates every 4-5 years or so? Can't we just stick with the current version?

New version of the rules comes out, immediatly peoples armies have to change, or not, codexes need to be updated, tourney's need to be adjusted. Granted, most of this isnt GW's problem but what's the reason behind changing the rules every two years or so?

The ONLY answer is money. (which I suppose is ok since GW is a business.)

If GW was really worried about putting together a tighter ruleset it would've been done long ago and would reflect better in current written rules. (Grey Knights codex rules problems anyone?) How many versions does it REALLY take to get 40k right? The fact of the matter is that it will NEVER be "right". Not when GW can charge $90 bucks for a book, A BOOK, and get away with it. How many books have you seen in a Barnes and Nobles or a local book store that cost $90? That price is insane. But Hey! "It's the newest and improved version of the rules and it's well worth that cash!"

Tell me that GW does it so that we have a better gaming experience, tell me that and I'll laugh in your face. Again....Money.

Putting out a book is probably one of the cheapest things they do....and obviously requires little talent. The only real talent represented in the writing of these rulebooks is the artwork. (and even that can be questionable sometimes) However, call it a collectors edition, and you've got gullible gamers lining up. What the hell is a collectors edition rulebook anyway. I'll tell you what it is, its worthless in 4 years when the newest version comes out...you may be able to start up a fire in the winter with the pages, I'll let you know in a few months.

I dunno, I just think its funny. I would be completely happy not ever "updating" the current rules. As I've noted, it's never a true "update" its a way to sell expensive books and/or new starter sets. (with the pocket rules) Don't insult me GW, it's bad enough you've got my money, just tell me that you're putting out a new ruleset to dig into my pocket.

I'll play your 6e, right along side my Icewind dale and old Axis and Allies Boardgame. I'll pay you to do it too, but know that you don't have me fooled, you're not doing a single thing FOR me. You're gouging me, not "improving" the rules I play 40k by. You're not trying to make a better gaming experience for me. You're selling me overpriced books and models....which I'll buy.

Quit lying to us saying this new version is an improvement, we're not stupid. I've had just as much fun playing editions 1,2,3,4 AND 5. I'll expect I'll enjoy 6 but not any more than the previous ones.

It's a shame that GW is corperate now and not Home-owned anymore....I miss those days. Less blatant lies for your cash.




Well that felt good, anyone care to comment?

All I can guess from this post is that you have no experience of other wargames outside GW.

The incredible fluff and models is what draws us to this game - compared to all the other systems out there, a snapshot of a battle just looks far cooler! However, playing the game, the rules are far from good. More recent wargames/rulesets have badly aged 5e, showing it to be an eclectic set of mismatched rules, rather than an intuitive ruleset with incredible depth.

It is because of the ruleset which is why many competitors are catching up with GW - and at the rate things are going, 6e is going to go a long term in determining whether GW can turn around their fortunes...

What I'm not really happy with are the missions.
It seems that almost each RTT adopts them. Boring.

The main issue the rules have is a clear lack of definition. GW needs to take a few lessons from WOTC with MTG as to how to define things, a lot of the issues in YMDC are due to a lack of definitions for terms and the line between RAW and RAI gets blurrier with each codex.

OP: You prefer rulesets that already exist because you already went over the hump of learning them in the first place. Newer editions have to come out in order to streamline more rules and set more definitions, just look at the vehicle damage tables from 4th edition and look at the one now: it's much easier to remember and it speeds up the game.

All games update their rules eventually. It has to happen. Some rule sets get bloated (see D&D 3.5) and unbalanced. Some just need updates to terms and expressions for clarity (see Magic: The Gathering). 40K is no different. Codices change, new rules are introduced, and eventually a revamp of the base rules are needed. Simple changes for balance can cause drastic overall changes. (Lets make vehicles weaker, but if we do that then we need to change "x", but if we change "x" we need to change "y", and if we change "y"...)

As for the "ZOMG it costs $90!!!!":
1) Have you never bought a textbook? That you use for 6 months?
2) Axis and Allies current retails for $100, with a new release yearly (from 2006 to now).
3) How else are they going to recoup development costs?

MIKEtheMERCILESS wrote:All I can guess from this post is that you have no experience of other wargames outside GW.

You would be very incorrect.

25+ years of wargaming has earned me quite a bit of experience in the trends of wargaming.


A solid ruleset should only require 1-3 rewrites with a competant staff. After that....its a money grab.

I'm not really getting how "6th edition is looming"...

If GW follows their update schedule for the main rulebook, 6th edition should come out next year.

Shrike325 wrote:
As for the "ZOMG it costs $90!!!!":
1) Have you never bought a textbook? That you use for 6 months?

The Bible? Any cookbook? Have you BEEN in a bookstore?

2) Axis and Allies current retails for $100, with a new release yearly (from 2006 to now).

Proving my point here. "MONEY GRAB!" Different company/same story. The current lineup of A&A are all just variations on the original formula....which stands strong even today.

3) How else are they going to recoup development costs?

Definatly not by putting out expensive textbooks driving people to torrent sites. How bout, say, more models? Archon's Court and Thunderwolf Cav could be a start.

coolyo294 wrote:If GW follows their update schedule for the main rulebook, 6th edition should come out next year.

However, even with their increasingly tight sphincters, we usually get rumblings of things that are going on, especially something as big as a new edition. To date I've not heard anything and all their new codex releases have been very much 5th edition, not some kind of "5.5 preparing for 6th", which indicates the change would not be soon.

I don't mind a new edition as long as I can get a pocket size rulebook like the AoBR version. I'm not paying £40 or £50 for a paving slab full of recycled fluff.

I would like them to edit it better but realistically that isn't going to happen.

I doubt the fundamentals of the game will ever change. Despite the partial reset from 2nd to 3rd edition, 40K is still at heart very recognisably the Warhammer Fantasy Battle I played in 1981.

There will be probably be some tinkering around with things like the Vehicle Damage rules.

If the rules were good then there wouldn't be a need to update them. But 40k now has a lot of competition out there, and people who play more than just 40k all seem to agree that a lot of the competing products offer far more balanced rules.

As for the price, they seem to be competitive overall. A lot of the rules and models for other ranges cost the same or more than GW products. The thing that limits GW is how many models you actually need to play their game.

I think if GW adjusted their rules system to need half as many models you'd find GW is probably one of the cheaper companies around. Just compare Warmachine costs to GW for example. If you could play a round of 40k with 10 models, you'd probably spend half as much on an army.

If GW were smart, they would come out with a new rules system and points system that could make 1000pts the new tournament range people play on with about half as many models and we'd be set. That or actually invest time and effort into their other games like Necromunda or Space Hulk to compete more evenly against the competition.

Now as for the core rules themselves, they're also quite bad. 40k gets a lot flak for trying to be a tournament level game while being so poorly balanced. Although there is next to no variety in the rules, Warmachine is much more suited for tournament play than 40k is for example.

Some of the glaring issues that absolutely must be resolved in 6th (some of which could have been fixed with just codex revisions) are:

Transport costs (specifically IG and Marines).
Firing points (specifically for IG and Marines).
Plasma vs. Melta.
TLOS.
Indirect Fire.
Codex Creep (specifically in Marine books).
Delay in codex revisions.
The scale of the game.

they need to keep dealing with issues that come up.


8th edition of Fantesy actually showed some great strides towards a better rules set. there are a comple of things that are a little off, but overall those things are negligable.


most rules issues tend to involve an older codex that is having some conflicting problems with the current rule set. it would be nice if GW updated its books more often, but they are a business and I am sure there are things going on behind the scene that we don't see. it is probably alot of work to decide whats the next thing to do, they are probably juggling a million ideas around at once.