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.

I would love to see something like what they have in fantasy where high strength weapons reducing the armor save you get. I mean, I understand how power armor can stop a lasgun shot, and even how it can stop a autocannon round. However...the armor can protect them just as well fromm the lasgun as it does from a S10 Manticore shot!?!? How does that make sense?

Armor Modifiers? Like in Fantasy? Personally, I don't mind the idea, but implementation would have to be progressive, as in it only affects weapons X,Y,Z, in 6th Ed. and by 7th or 8th, it affects several types.

Footsloggin wrote:Armor Modifiers? Like in Fantasy? Personally, I don't mind the idea, but implementation would have to be progressive, as in it only affects weapons X,Y,Z, in 6th Ed. and by 7th or 8th, it affects several types.

Why? Just make it a clean break away, like they did with 3rd edition. Half assing things never works well.

Weening into it is a better way to think of it than "Half-Assing it". Players who strictly play 40k would be cold and lost, by weening a player into it, it allows them to gradually get used to the new system, before implementing it entirely.

Vaktathi wrote:The problem is that it makes sniping upgrades too easy, and often results in situations where more shooting=fewer casualties. For example, a Leman Russ hits a full squad of SM's with a battlecannon and wounds all 10. Normally this would kill them all, but it also declared (since shooting is simultaneous) that it would fire its three heavy bolters as well. 9 shots, 5 hit, 3 wound, and now we've got 10 AP3 wounds and 3 AP4 wounds. The AP4 wounds go on the Missile Launcher, Flamer and Sergeant, and the 10 AP3 wounds go on the 7 putz guys. So the 7 putz guys die, and one of the other three dies, but two remain, whereas had the HB's not shot, all 10 would be dead. That's a *bad* mechanic. In some ways it helps mitigate upgrade sniping, but *not* in a good way.

The best way to fix this is to add in the rule that states that all wounds from the same weapon type need to be allocated before moving on to the next weapon type. This way, the 10 wounds from the battlecannon would be allocated to 10 models, and then you would allocate the 3 wounds from the heavy bolters to whatever is left (assuming anything at all is left).

I love kill points, I would like to keep those very much as they provide fantastic balance. Keep victory points as a tie breaker, as victory points are a not a good indicator of a military victory. Imagine if modern war was based off $ cost of target... the US would lose a battle just based on the cost of bombs and fuel, and the loss of just one fighter would potentially lose a war. Same applies to 40k, elite units cost more, but are not necessarilly worried about a single unit in the grand scheme of things. If they were, then Space Marines would not take the field, as the risk of losing a marine would outweigh the benefit of using them.

Except this is the way war actually does work in the real world. I'm not going to argue the point, because thats not what this thread is about.

As I mentioned destructible terrain would not be ridiculously complicated but infact very simple and intuitive. Measure the terrain. Put a die next to the terrain = to the # of inches long it is. Each time it takes a wound, remove 1 from the die. Also, the hill was a specific example of indestructable terrain. Finally, the terrain doesnt go away, it just doesnt provide cover anymore--it still remains as an area of difficult ground.

Thats another thing that you have to keep track of, and another thing thats open for abuse.

-The 1+/4+/6 of hitting immobilized/combat/cruising speed vehicles to be converted to 1+/3+/5+.

Hell no!! Even moving at cruising speed my vehicles are ridiculously vulnerable in combat. Vehicles should fear long range AT weapons, not a guy w/ a grenade. I like the way the system works just fine.

Oh, but I just remembered one thing I have long wished to see: Pinning(and by extension going to ground) = penalty to close combat for a turn. It makes no sense to me that a unit can be pinned, which forces it to remain stationary and makes it unable to fire any weaponry at all, but if the unit is charged they get to fight like nothing happened. Either they should all strike at I1 for that round, or lose 1 attack each, etc.

sorry, but that rule is pretty pointless. There are few open-topped tanks, and the likelihood of getting hit by an AP1 weapon on an open-topped vehicle is low. Might as well stick with 1-6.
and how do you intend rolling a 0?

Well, rolling a 1 on a glancing hit w/ an AP- weapon gets you a -3... so I would say rolling a 3 on a glancing hit w/ an AP- weapon gets you a 0... seems logical, no?

Anyway, my thoughts are to keep the chart as is in 5th, but to add a damage result of of 'vehicle annihilated' from 4th ed. Basically, explodes (doing more damage than a normal explosion) and killing any vehicle passengers immediately (no saves of any sort). I would also like to see some sort of system in place for multiple shaken/stunned results. A vehicle that took multiple shaken results in a turn shouldn't be treated the same as a vehicle that only took one.

I haven't had too many problems with tlos, but I can see why gw put it in the rules. Honestly, I think models need to be in base contact with cover to get any bonuses out of it, on top of that, its a pain in the a$$ to bend down and squint.

Agreed. Either touch the damn cover or you're out in the open, as simple as that. Perhaps the solution here is to have two levels of cover: Cover, and screening(or concealment I suppose). Screening/concealment being a lesser save to represent objects in between the firer and target, and cover representing actually taking cover.

I would love to see something like what they have in fantasy where high strength weapons reducing the armor save you get. I mean, I understand how power armor can stop a lasgun shot, and even how it can stop a autocannon round. However...the armor can protect them just as well fromm the lasgun as it does from a S10 Manticore shot!?!? How does that make sense?

The reason we won't have this, is because of this:

I would love to see them bring back the Ork special rule for Choppas. They still count as CC weapons, but reduce the armor save of the unit to 4+ if they had better.

When they released Orks/5th ed. they said that they wanted to move away from armor save modifiers in 40k because they felt that it made the game to similar to fantasy and made things to complicated. Maybe they'll reverse course, but I doubt it.

Ideally I don't want to see this at all.

Reasonably I don't want to see it until every army has a 5th ed codex.

Logically I expect it in 6 months

Is it really time to think about 6th ed?

Come on , GW still has to do more than 5 codices and actual speed won't get them into position before 2014...

If its wishlisting, lets move focus to shooting and add some flyers.

The basic set + expansions seems fine, so :

- basic 40k = secondary HQ, 0-1 elite/FA/HS, 2 + X troops ( no SC, no USR, no PSI, up to 1500 pts )
- advanced 40k = full FOC ( full codex, up to 5000 pts )
- expanded 40k = add flyers, superheavies, strategic assets ( 3000 + x pts )

-Loki- wrote:

Footsloggin wrote:Armor Modifiers? Like in Fantasy? Personally, I don't mind the idea, but implementation would have to be progressive, as in it only affects weapons X,Y,Z, in 6th Ed. and by 7th or 8th, it affects several types.

Why? Just make it a clean break away, like they did with 3rd edition. Half assing things never works well.

+1,000,000,000. Re-think the entire system and put out a gets-you-by army lists book with the core rules. There will be panic at first, but if the 6th ED rules are made properly, the reception will be favorable in the long run. (Make RAW sensible enough that Dakka won't be clogged with pointless arguments.) ( )

What will GW probably do? My answer is admittedly cynical. They will probably just tweak a few things here and there to stay the course of streamlining games to move the highest number of models on and off the the table in the least amount of time, and continue dumbing the system down to the absolute lowest common denominator possible.

What do we want them to do? I can't answer as "we" because I know I am in the extreme minority on Dakka so I very rarely share my opinion on this subject. I do not like 5th edition 40K. I do not like it on so many levels that honestly I have recently started to genuinely question why I even bother to play it. That said, what I want them to do is write game rules that reflect the history of the 41M they spent 25 years creating.

That is my main complaint. They have turned away from too much that made 40K great to begin with. I feel 5th edition is hollow, superficial, and leeching on the corpse of former editions. The Codices make fluff references to things that do not even exist in this edition, or if they do still exist they are essentially irrelevant (such as the different Ork clans having been reduced to color schemes).

Then there are the mechanics. Damage to any vehicle is 1d6 of "one size fits all". Wound allocation removes models that the shooter cannot even see, or in CC models that they did not have BTB contact with. CC Wargear is 32 flavors of vanilla with a few sprinkles thrown in. Streamlined, basic, and lackluster.

I realize this post is not offering solutions. I do not have any, and frankly even if I did it would not matter. GW is trading at its highest value in the last 5 years. Their earnings in 2010 are est. $126.5 million. A single voice or a thousands voices, nothing is going to change the formula they have adopted unless it affects their bottom line. And if I do quit again? I think their position on that is perfectly clear:

Games Workshop wrote:But the universe is a big place and, whatever happens, you will not be missed.

1hadhq wrote:Is it really time to think about 6th ed?

Yes

Come on , GW still has to do more than 5 codices and actual speed won't get them into position before 2014...

Whats your point, half of the codecies haven't even seen 4th ed. books yet.

I've only ever played 5th edition but I hate wound allocation. It just seems so overcomplicated.

Are you sure it's only 5? That would be DH, WH, Necrons, Tau, and X? I have a feeling CSM will get an update, as well as Eldar and maybe Orks. I don't think Chaos Daemons will get a new Codex, but rather be assimilated into the CSM Codex... While I hope this isn't so, I have a feeling it will happen anyway...

There's my 2 bits of Sense.

Footsloggin wrote:Are you sure it's only 5? That would be DH, WH, Necrons, Tau, and X? I have a feeling CSM will get an update, as well as Eldar and maybe Orks. I don't think Chaos Daemons will get a new Codex, but rather be assimilated into the CSM Codex... While I hope this isn't so, I have a feeling it will happen anyway...

The new GW policy is that if they produced a codex for it during 4th/5th ed. then they intend on supporting and maintaining that army as a seperate entity indefinitely. Daemons wont be reintegrated back into CSM, as it was a very well though out conscious decision that split them off in the first place.

chaos0xomega wrote:

Footsloggin wrote:Are you sure it's only 5? That would be DH, WH, Necrons, Tau, and X? I have a feeling CSM will get an update, as well as Eldar and maybe Orks. I don't think Chaos Daemons will get a new Codex, but rather be assimilated into the CSM Codex... While I hope this isn't so, I have a feeling it will happen anyway...

The new GW policy is that if they produced a codex for it during 4th/5th ed. then they intend on supporting and maintaining that army as a seperate entity indefinitely. Daemons wont be reintegrated back into CSM, as it was a very well though out conscious decision that split them off in the first place.

It was a douchebag business decision, which is why my three CSM Land Raiders are now Battlewagons instead. Unless they put out another no-brainer deal like AoBR, my GW purchasing has slowed to a trickle.

Get rid of the rule of wound allocation.

Down grade cover saves from 4+ to 5+.

chaos0xomega wrote:

1hadhq wrote:Come on , GW still has to do more than 5 codices and actual speed won't get them into position before 2014...

Whats your point, half of the codecies haven't even seen 4th ed. books yet.

That is the point.

2011 may see updates of 3 codices. The other non-5th ed codices would go in a series of 3 per year too.
I don't believe the reduced design team starts on 6th ed before more than 12-14 ( of16 ) codices are done.

As long as they put the Chaos back into Chaos Space Marines, I am prefectly fine with 6th being on the way.

I think reintroducing the 7+ vehicle explodes rule is needed, I think that perhaps reducing the mobility of vehicles in terrain may help, light terrain immobilised on a 1, medium terrain, less than 6 inches immobilised on a 1 or 2 over 6 inches, heavy terrain, 6 or less immobilised 1 or 2 can't go over 6!

Whilst you have objective missions you need kp's to balance against msu!

Maybe also change the weapon skill to hit chart slightly?

As for when? Well hopefully this year will see 3 codices GK, Necron and Tau, start of 2012 release sob then in the summer new rules and sm codex, and then release orks and eldar both at Xmas for good Xenos enemies, with CSM in Jan 2013

Well, GW should rethink about the standard mission,
especially the mission with 2 objectives is totally boring.

Some really goo thoughts so far but I think people are missing GWs main motivation which is sell more product.

We know that each edition of Fantasy and 40k since 99 has been written with the goal of selling new product or more of existing products.

I would expect that 6th edition will incorporate PLANET! STRIKE!, Cities of Death and unnamed flier suppliment rules to push those. There will probably be standard missions that require bastions or other toys. Superheavies might also make their way into the game. I would also expect simplification in some way to make 2000 points the standard force.

1hadhq wrote:Come on , GW still has to do more than 5 codices and actual speed won't get them into position before 2014...

Yes, if it was up to fans that's how it would be, but if this was a GW staff meeting I'd fire you on the spot. THe 4 year edition cycle is set in stone since it give new players a jumping on point, makes old players drop a bundle on the new rule book and newly optimized units and just gives everything a bump.

6th edition - 2012.

I bet work has already started.

I just got my 5th e rulebook, they'd better not change anything!

I'd like to see the rules written in plain English (either proper British or American) with a proof reader and a competent editor (preferably one who has gaming experience). Also a glossary of terms would be helpful to cut down on all of those "but it could mean this" type of threads.
I expect the point cost of figures to decrease since, like kidkyoto said, the object is to have the players purchase more product. Then GW can raise the standard level of play to 2000 points and necessitate the purchase of more product as a win/win for them.

So we know this thing is coming, but hopefully the transition doesn't eliminate many models from gw's range of miniatures. On top of that.
-tlos can stay
-the expansions probably WILL be written in, works in our favor i guess?

Leo_the_Rat wrote:with a proof reader and a competent editor (preferably one who has gaming experience). Also a glossary of terms would be helpful to cut down on all of those "but it could mean this" type of threads.

It's refreshingly blind optimism like this that makes me smile. I don't know how you've managed to not have it crushed out of you by GW's astounding ineptitude and complete lack of caring. Good job keeping it up though, just don't pick up one of the wrong armies.

Kid_Kyoto wrote:Some really goo thoughts so far but I think people are missing GWs main motivation which is sell more product.

We know that each edition of Fantasy and 40k since 99 has been written with the goal of selling new product or more of existing products.


The 4 year edition cycle is set in stone since it give new players a jumping on point, makes old players drop a bundle on the new rule book and newly optimized units and just gives everything a bump.

6th edition - 2012.

I bet work has already started.

I assume you bet the new ERA begins on 25.12.2012

I'd take that as I don't see enough ressources on GW's design team to do any real WH40k 6.0. At best you look at a 5.5 beta....

2011 has already planned 40k and whfb releases and there seem none of the major xenos codices involved.
So no space orks, no space elfs, no space chaos mortals, and importantly no more space marine codices to pimp to sell more product before 6th ed?
You know, 2012 has to have some whfb releases too, GW won't dedicate it to flush out 6 codices pre - X-mas 2012.
OTOH, the timeline is in stasis, if GW moves it they may need less codices.....

They should get someone from wizards of the coast to help them get the rules written. Say what you will, but Magic has a huge tournament scene and a tight and well written set of rules. example- the dark eldar codex has the entry for the webway portal, which states blah blah units may enter as if board edge, then has another paragraph, then a tacked on 'oh, btw vehicles cannot use this'. Where simply writing 'any non-vehicle unit'. would work better. It's the small stuff like that, but when you add it all up over the course of the big rule book, it can make for a bit of a headache.

Should I even bother starting up a space marine force at this point? I feel like by the time I have the thing finished a new codex and 6th will be in the works...

It probably won't change to much for SM. Even if it does i dobt there will be an entire model overhaul so you could still use most if not all of what you have.

I can't really see anything terribly wrong with 5th edition... Add something that discusses rules for using IA books..... Oh, and change up vehicle squadrons. They're awful. There's basically no reason to use them, aside from Apoc, since they all have to fire on the same target. Yeah, right. I can take nine basilisks, but they only get three targets? Pft, gtfo.

Or at least make a declarative statement in regards to using IA/Planetfall/Cities of Death and other Forgeworld products. Let us know that yes, Forgeworld rules are legal to use in tournies and normal games or no, even though we own them, Forgeworld rules are not supposed to be used in tournies and normal games (whatever normal is).