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.

Shadowbrand wrote:I'm for it. My only request is to make foot slogging viable.

Keep your feet on the ground lad!

Bring back the movement stat?

If 6th edition means cool new rules and models for eldar then I say BRING IT.

They could put a tax on duplicate units.

E.G If you have 1 rhino it costs 35, 2 they cost 40, 3 50 points and so on.

I wonder if there'll ever be a way of taking super heavys in standard 40k without breaking the game.

Alas, if GW did give Space Marines a balanced, sensible Codex and gave Xenos some love, they would effectively be commiting sepukku. There are so many irritating 12-year-old players who play Ultramarines that if GW did give Xenos a chance of winning, the 12-year-old population would get bitchy because they didn't win whenever they played against the Tyranid player in the FLGS, they would all complain, stop playing, and stop buying, and GW would go bankrupt and die.

I know, it is sad that GW's fate is tied to the whims of some whiney kids, but there you go.

obsidianaura wrote:They could put a tax on duplicate units.

E.G If you have 1 rhino it costs 35, 2 they cost 40, 3 50 points and so on.

I wonder if there'll ever be a way of taking super heavys in standard 40k without breaking the game.

I think they will include supper heavies in standard games. I imagine a system where you lower there points cost by dealing them penetrating hits before the battle starts, maybe lowering the armor.

Actually, I hope they get rid of the idea that there is such a thing as the standard game and every thing is a standard game from kill team to apoc.

nomotog wrote:
Actually, I hope they get rid of the idea that there is such a thing as the standard game and every thing is a standard game from kill team to apoc.

I really would rather not see a Titan accross the table from me in a 2000 point game... and I would rather not have to buy my own forgeworld Titans to be competitive in tournaments. So I like the idea of keeping Apoc separate...

5th Edition is nothing special IMHO. It gives me a big feeling of "meh". A new edition might be an improvement, and might shake things up a bit. Also, I'm looking forward to seeing what new cheap plastics a new starting set might bring.

Summed up, I'm cheap and unimpressed, so bring on something new.

Personally I'm quite keen to see the rumours of a revamped shooting system happen. It would be a good way to dispose of some of the current cover save nonsense by having a To Hit shooting table more like the current melee one.
BS values of 1-10 across the top, and the target types down the side, e.g.:

Stationary Infantry
Moving Infantry
Stationary Vehicles
Moving Vehicles
Flat out Vehicles
Moving Bikes....
etc

This would introduce a better balance between light, fast armies that are hard to hit and slow ponderous units with heavy armour to protect them from the inevitable hits.

Played 3rd, 4th, and 5th. 5th dropped the ball with the cover saves and some other things I didn't like. I think a new edition is needed to present some new ideas besides what we saw in 5th. Hoping to see something that makes the game more interesting as well as footsloggers more viable.

akaean wrote:
Currently the only thing which casuses an initiative tests are either Hit and Run, or Jaws. Since no MCs that I know of have Hit and Run yet, Jaws is really the only thing it neuters. But I think everybody can agree that a 100 point space wolf character shouldn't be able to nuke a 200 point TMC every turn.

Mawlocs have Hit & Run. But they are Initiative 4 so pass their tests 2/3 of the time anyhow.

I'm looking forward to 6th in hopes tha tthey fix a few things.

One of the most awful things imo currently is that a signifigant chance of winning goes to the player who goes first (or who has a deep strike/infiltrating heave list.

one single roll off and one player is at a signifigant advantage over the other shoot first removing models from the other player before they get to do anythign so simple math they get to strike back with less.

oen rumour I liked had a bidding system for going first where the player going second got some kind of bonus for going second to compensate for the loss.

also I know it'd never happen, but in Malifuax (awsome game) you play with cards and have opportunities to "cheat" in cards at times. negates some o fthe luck of just plain dice. I knwo there are rules for some units to have twin linked or reroll to wound or even hit in close combat, but some method to maek sure somethign actually hits every now and again or just a modifier. lke say instead of twin linked you jus thit not missiing. or once per turn you get a declared hit or one declared 6... just brain storming, btu i knwo i've been on the receiving end and the playign end of extremely bad rolls and it just sucks.... one of my fav moents in 40k thus far was 10 space wolve troops charging my group of 7 gretchin w/ ruth and the marines player rolled so bad he lost combat lost a few units to the fearless and got squished hte next turn , mathmatically unlikely to happen again but sucks when your dice jsut refuse to stop hitting snake eyes and there's no way to fix it .

also I'm ready for new missions. I've played a few cities of death rounds and apoc, its fun but like ard boys missions ... fun stuff with quircky units liek the messanger. maybe 2 D6 to deremine mission type, heck there's more mssion types in dredfleet than standard 40k

also alot of the proposed rules even the ones I put would liekly break some armies liek somebody said get rid of wound allocation, upping feel no pain to a 5+ and upping cover save. fine for some armies, but do that and suddenly the ork codex for one becomes pretty worthless, we need cover and nobz are probably our best units they are the reason ork players can stay competative with an old codex. and i'm sure my ideas woudl kill some other army btu who knows... the onyl thing I'm sure is I hope the bidding for who goes first with a signifigant penalty fo rthe first player or advantage for second player happens

If 6th edition is the only way that will make vehicules less essential and vital to any army, then it's clear I want it.

Khornate25 wrote:If 6th edition is the only way that will make vehicules less essential and vital to any army, then it's clear I want it.

That's a very valid point of view, but what if 6th edition turns out to be Wartanker 40k?

Assuming of course that it could be made even more armor-centric...

Nope. Don't want 6th. I want all the army books updated first.

My plan for sixth ed is simple. Spam tanks if vehicle rules stay the same or get better. Take shrike and spam fleet of foot infantry if things get drastically shifted towards footslogging (Which I wouldn't put past GW, since they've certainly made a killing on vehicle models by now.)

I think all the talk of "The possibility of nerfing tanks! THANK GOD!" from one group isn't taking into account that ...well..If you nerf my tanks, I will instead fill the board with the meanest, beefiest troopers I have. So will all the other people in the same situation. After about the 100th time you see me set 20 TH/SS terminators and shrike down on the board (Or whatever particular combination of units works best at that point, because there WILL be one. For all I know it could be ASM swarm with chaplains.) and rush them at you, it may get about as boring as "Oh great, that same parking lot." ...particularly with the rumors I am hearing that may tip the scales in the "Wanna win a gun fight? BRING A KNIFE!" direction...Again.

In the grim darkness of the future wars should be fought tank to tank.

More vehicles, less infantry!

Something I don't really understand... everyone seems to want all the codexes updated before sixth. Wouldn't you rather they release sixth and THEN update all the codexes (starting with the oldest, not goddamn Space Marines) so that everything is written for the current edition? I'm actually glad my Eldar most likely won't be updated til sixth, I want a rules set actually made for the edition it's in and the edition that will be around for a while.

Amen to that! I am really excited for 6th. I want new rules and ideas. Maybe new scenarios.

So my thoughts on the current state of 5th ( also my list of things that should be fixed in 6th )

Cover saves, They exist, but for the love of Chaos, not everything should give a cover save. Especially the Idea that when tanks provide cover, the tanks themselves don't get touched.
Cover should be something that, like armor, be destroyed/ pierced with enough fire power ( i.e. apply AP to cover, cause that shrub isn't going to save you from that incoming plasma burst)

Vehicles, Vehicles Everywhere. I'm not sure on why they thought this would be a good idea, sure it s all it seems to do it proliferate use of special weapons and debalance the game. I'm not really sure on fixes to this, but i think the DMG chart needs to be reimagined on how it works.

last one i can think of at the moment, but this is one that must be addressed in some form or another.
Capturing Objectives, and more specifically who can do it. Why must I wait for some Chaos marines to get to an objective to capture it when I have a perfectly good unit of terminators sitting on it that have no where else to be.


This is a more codex specific gripe.
"special" Characters. This one is aimed more at the Space marines and Chaos Space marines codex more than anything else, special characters are just that, special, they should give you strong abilities and benefits, but not without some drawbacks. really most IC don't have draw backs of any sort and can be fielded by any chapter/warband whatever, maybe i'm oldschool, but dammit if you play with someone like calgar, or abaddon or typhus, you should be only able to field him with the appropriate army.

Durza wrote:I think they shouldn't change edition until every codex is in 5th. Or they should not give Space Marines a 6th ed codex and see how they like it.

This! By the emperor THIS!!!!!!!!!!

Damned SM always getting new updates as soon as a new edition roles around...

But as far as 6th goes...lets get Necrons, and Tau updated first, than we'll see about another edition...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

DeathReaper wrote:In the grim darkness of the future wars should be fought tank to tank.

More vehicles, less infantry!

HERESY!

While I'm as annoyed as you guys about parking lot lists, I wouldn't want it to swing to all infantry and certainly not back to 4th edition's gunline. I want to see some real balance between the army styles, not switch it to another extreme.

Of course I've noted a few people complain about cover saves and wound allocation, and while I find that interesting as when taking a neutral stance , as an ork player I say: Zog the lot of yah, we need all the help we can get.

I am all about catching up too but I still look forward to new editions, however I haven't been screwed over by one yet with SW, I imagine I'll hate them once I get skipped. Poor Darkies

obsidianaura wrote:They could put a tax on duplicate units.

E.G If you have 1 rhino it costs 35, 2 they cost 40, 3 50 points and so on.

I wonder if there'll ever be a way of taking super heavys in standard 40k without breaking the game.

There is. Spearhead has rules for using super heavies in non Apoc games.

Who actually wants 6th edition?

Me me me!

* I play Nids, therefore I want the moron who invented Splinter Cannons to publicly apologize on a page-sized picture in the 6th ed brb.
* I'm quite fed-up with Vehiclehammer. It's such a cheap no-brainer to mech up. And how come that vehicles are way more nimble and manouverable than infantry? Skipping around the table, pushing squads around left and right, with almost no danger from to terrain or other units. Doesn't make sense.
* Wound allocation abuse.

By the way, anyone who thinks a 4+ cover save is too much should sell his army and start up with Nids, then we'll talk again.

candy.man wrote:

obsidianaura wrote:They could put a tax on duplicate units.

E.G If you have 1 rhino it costs 35, 2 they cost 40, 3 50 points and so on.

I wonder if there'll ever be a way of taking super heavys in standard 40k without breaking the game.

There is. Spearhead has rules for using super heavies in non Apoc games.

Yeah I know about spearhead never played it though.

What i mean when i say standard 40k is the standard rules with no add-ons

I'm excited about it.

Why? I really don't want to play against a Baneblade in a 1000 point game. To be fair, if you go down this line of reasoning you'll end up with something very similar to Spearhead. I know from experience. A few friends and myself tried to work it out, we ended up with modded rules that are just stupidly similar to Spearhead.

I hate the limit on senarios, 9 possibilities that's it. Kill points suck ! True line of sight sucks, if someone can't figure out the abstraction that a a piece of terrain represents I don't want to play them.

I kind of do, 5th edition is extremely boring, considering a match is mostly decided before any dice are thrown. The game is 5% what you do on the table, 10% your luck with the dice, 20% how you deployed, and the rest is all just how tuned your list is.

Agreed - something needs to be done to make vehicles less desirable. The problem is the cost of that is codex based so a new edition either has to make vehicles more vulnerable (new damage charts) or make the penalties for being in a vehicle like 4th edition.

I would like to see a more diversified vehicle damage chart with modifiers for AP 2 and 3 but that will have to be a 2d6 vehicle damage chart and I don't see that happening.

I like the simplicity of CC morale but I would like to see firepower based morale be buffed up. (Great you unload all that firepower and you get rewarded with making your opponent make a base Leadership test of 9 or 10. Whereas you cause 3 or 4 casualties in HTH and they will be testing on a 5 or 6...)