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 sounds like it was a great time. Thanks for passing the info along.

Regarding GCults, there aren't many on this forum who have put more time and effort into a GCult army than me, and I'm firmly in the camp of "do it right or don't do it at all." I'm a Tyranid player too, and think the allies system is inherently unfair. But allowing Tyranids to ally with IG doesn't really result in a GCult. GCult have their own background, units and depth, and if they're going to be done, they at least deserve a decent FW army list. Note that GCults had no connection to Tyranids originally.

Back on topic, Phil K's comments about Alessio are interesting to me. If you remember, about a year ago we had a bunch of rumors about 6th edition, most of which turned out to be false. But one of them hinted that Alessio's departure is what let them monkey with the system more. Then we had the pancake edition, which were similar to, but 100% identical to the rumors from last summer. Anyway, it kinda seems to me like 6th edition took some interesting twists and turns during its development.

Regarding 2nd edition etc., I played in GW GTs back in that era. The main problems with the game are that it was heavily "patched," and required a lot of decisions from TOs about what to allow. But it was a fun, playable (once patched) game with a ton of flavor. If it was as terrible as some suggest, the game wouldn't have grown as much as it did during that era.

I think the Merican Lancers just found allies,I am so stealing this Westminster Guard idea someday.

I love the game is getting more in depth,the Sportshammer people might not be happy but they will figure out what is best and be happy.
But the majority of the gamers play for fun and 6th is fun squared

adamsouza wrote:

Vaktathi wrote: it really doesn't seem like they thought them through or tested them much, Vehicles and Allies in particular.

We've had the rules for less than a month. They had them finished at least 6 months ago. Something tells me that they spent more time testing them than any of the critics here have.

Because they had the rules done for 6 months doesn't mean they were testing it for that period of time. 6 months is about what you'd need for editorial, pictures, sourcing, printing, stocking, and shipping. 6 months means they finished them 6 months ago, not that they were testing and making changes in the meantime. You can see the playtesting group in the credits section, half of them are design studio staff that worked on writing it and it's a relatively small playtest group for a product of this size.

Just as an FYI, codex books are usually finished about 4-6 months before release as well, that doesn't stop them from getting out blatantly broken (good and bad) rules and units that are picked up on by 90% of the players as soon as they open the book.

RogueRegault wrote:

On the bright side, I might get to dust off my Ork Splatta Cannon. (Literally. It's sat in one place for 15 years now.)

Can relate with that massively! Haven't played any edition since 2nd after the abject horror I experienced as half of my army became obsolete - especially my beloved boarboyz and artillery.

Kannon or Lobba?! Pah!!
Subsequent army lists were a slap in the face as my glorious arsenal of pulsa rockets, splatta kannons, smasha guns, squig katapults and traktor kannons gathered dust!

I sit in wait of the 6th edition dex - which will inevitably dash my naive optimism.

According to a guy on ATT who attended, Target Locks are going to be FAQ'd to infer Split Fire imminently, so I guess that will be the FAQ before Summer's end.

How on Earth did that not make the first FAQ if the book's been done for 6 months?!

Interesting write up. For me I don't think 40K is in that bad a place considering where the company's head is at these days.

The dicussion about Associative/Disassociative rules was ironic, because I was turned off Fantasy by some of the rules which didn't really work in my head, namely Horde. Spreading your formation wide allows extra ranks to attack? That makes no sense

I'd prefer not to see a dumb Storm of Magic type 40K release in a year's time, but I can happily ignore the tacky add ons if the core rule system is sound (which I think it is).

I've not managed to get a game in yet but I love 6th compared to 5th. I love how it feels more like a game you are meant to tinker with because of all the sprawling USRs It does feel like earlier editions where there were lots of possibilities and very fluff orientated. I like the renewed emphasis on characters because that's what most of the novels are about - heroes being heroic. As opposed to cheese spam. Every game needs to have cycles some editions will add loads to the game others will strip it back. In 10 years time we will have people nostalgic for the Alessio years who want a stripped down game.

I look forward to expansions and would like to see something along the lines of Storm of Magic for psykers with warp enfused fortifications. Although that might be a bit much with the new psyker rules being so recent. Maybe they should aim for fortifications with some new modular terrain kits.

Thanks for the article, I've always liked Philly Kelly's work, not that I'd really believe a senior developer would be leaving GW anyway.

I just bought the new edition and seeing the changes of how they've compiled everything from fluff, hobbying, and the rules into this massive book along with mind blowing art is pretty awesome. I have yet to play the game though, and read the rules in their entirety for that matter, but I am at least impressed at how pretty this hard copy of this "Lexicanum" is. Which sparks the idea, maybe GW should consider making an actual paper version of the Lexicanum. I'd buy it.

Furthermore, anyone else interested in how the 40k game developed over the editions? Like 1st edition is the orginal, 2nd is the crazy days, 3rd is the blandhammer, ect.? Anyone who's actually been around long enough care to explain the evolution of 40k?

Different minds, different ideas.

DemetriDominov wrote:
Furthermore, anyone else interested in how the 40k game developed over the editions? Like 1st edition is the orginal, 2nd is the crazy days, 3rd is the blandhammer, ect.? Anyone who's actually been around long enough care to explain the evolution of 40k?

Rogue Trader (1st edition) was crazier than anything GW has put out since. Rules for air-to-air combat, dinosaurs, etc with much more tongue-in-cheek heavy metal style 80's cyberpunk fluff, vehicles had turning radii, etc. A lot more "techy" less "Catholic Space Dark Ages in SPAAACE". Definitely a bit "racier" in terms of content. Game was highly random in almost every way, no army lists or points anything, GM required to setup battles and judge things, lots of D100 tables.

2nd edition was the first edition where it didn't need a 3rd player as a GM, where stuff still was random and whacky but a bit more codified and the 40k universe as we know it took shape. Didn't work well much past what we would currently consider 1000-1250pts. A bit cartoonisized in terms of fluff. The game was ridiculously imbalanced.

3rd edition was the age of "GRIMDARK", and the first few years stripped the game down to an awkward bland version of 2nd in the name of playability. Gradually added more and more stuff back in and introduced several races as core races that had been side-show WD features in 2nd.

4th edition was a carry-on of 3rd, cutting down on lots of the WD extras and focusing more on codex+BGB, non-skimmer tanks *really* sucked during this period, this was the age of the Eldar, Tau and Necrons on top.

5th edition was an awkward attempt to force a competitive overlay over 3rd and 4th, that sorta half-assed it, resulting in core rules that worked out more competitively but only in the most meta of senses, with fluff moving more and more towards exaggerated kiddy filler.

RT - No army lists. More like races you could slap gear on till you reached a point limit. Less serious. It was the 80's the bar was set pretty low.

2nd Edition - Army lists YAY !!! Hand to hand combat was broken. If you were really good, like say a Genestealer or Lord Mephiston, you would chew through ANYTHING if you got your mits on it and thye wouldn't even get a chance to hit you back. Weapons had armor modifiers instead of AP. Basically a more complicated way of doing everything we do now. Wargear was on cards, psychic rules were an expansion.

3rd Edition - 2nd edition kicked in the nuts. It's more blanced, hand to hand works better, AP better than save modifiers, but army lists were basically genericed and Psychic power and personalities were nerfed with a lead pipe.

4th edition - some of the nerfed stuff returns in gimped format. Skimmers FTW !!!

5th edition - enough years went by that they printed a new edition ? Bitching new plastics a plenty.

6th edition - Brings back lots of the cool stuff from 2nd edition in a format that is more balanced.

Vaktathi wrote:

DemetriDominov wrote:
Furthermore, anyone else interested in how the 40k game developed over the editions? Like 1st edition is the orginal, 2nd is the crazy days, 3rd is the blandhammer, ect.? Anyone who's actually been around long enough care to explain the evolution of 40k?

Rogue Trader (1st edition) was crazier than anything GW has put out since. Rules for air-to-air combat, dinosaurs, etc with much more tongue-in-cheek heavy metal style 80's cyberpunk fluff, vehicles had turning radii, etc. A lot more "techy" less "Catholic Space Dark Ages in SPAAACE". Definitely a bit "racier" in terms of content. Game was highly random in almost every way, no army lists or points anything, GM required to setup battles and judge things, lots of D100 tables.

It's worth adding to this, as an historical note, that Rogue Trader developed significantly over its six-year life. Revised rules and army lists for all the factions (well, Marines, Guard, Orks, Eldar, Chaos and Tyranids, which was all there was) were published in White Dwarf and later collected in compendia. By about 1990, the game's core mechanics were already 90% 2nd edition (albeit mercifully without the ghastly cards for everything).

And Squats, Harlequins (who could take Landraiders and Rhinos), GS cult etc.
The rules for robots were nice and ridiculous as well.

Vehicle rules for RT were hilarious with the targetting grid transparency that you placed over a diagram of the vehicle you were shooting at to determine which part of the tank got hit.

RT also allowed all imperial armies to take land speeders, jetbikes, rhinos, predators and land raiders.

BrookM wrote:Since when are the GK chaos lovers?

Since Chaos was begin to grow.

Kilkrazy wrote:

BrookM wrote:Since when are the GK chaos lovers?

Since Chaos was begin to grow.

Should've seen that one coming.

adamsouza wrote:RT - No army lists. More like races you could slap gear on till you reached a point limit. Less serious. It was the 80's the bar was set pretty low.

There were plenty of army lists. Multiples for some armies, in fact. They just weren't in the rulebook, they came later.

As English Assassin said, the game evolved *greatly* during its lifespan.

2nd Edition - Army lists YAY !!! Hand to hand combat was broken. If you were really good, like say a Genestealer or Lord Mephiston, you would chew through ANYTHING if you got your mits on it and thye wouldn't even get a chance to hit you back. Weapons had armor modifiers instead of AP. Basically a more complicated way of doing everything we do now. Wargear was on cards, psychic rules were an expansion.

That's being disingenuous. If you were smart about it, you could limit said ubercharacters to one kill in combat per player turn. You could also hit them with stasis grenades or vortex, or just lay down some blind and watch them stumble slowly out of the cloud. Second edition was a shooty edition -- and that is the truth.

I loved combining Gate with a mass of purestrains for ultimate maneuvering.

That or anti-plant missiles removing all the forests on the table, leaving those sneaky terminators in front of a massive blob of brood brothers and hybrid heavies

Kroothawk wrote:

- Mat Ward is a nice fellow not deserving the flak he gets

Sure, mat ward is nice himself, but he can't write a good codex if his life depended on it

thefarseerofnorthryde wrote:

Kroothawk wrote:

- Mat Ward is a nice fellow not deserving the flak he gets

Sure, mat ward is nice himself, but he can't write a good codex if his life depended on it

This, sorta.

His bit about the rules and the suits controlling them strike me as strange though. I don't hate the guy because he writes bad rules. I hate him because he mauls fluff. So adamant about retconning the crap out of armies, but they never want to touch the main storyline. I'll accept armies drastically changing if they'd just let the damn corpse die and move on with the story.

DemetriDominov wrote:
Furthermore, anyone else interested in how the 40k game developed over the editions? Like 1st edition is the orginal, 2nd is the crazy days, 3rd is the blandhammer, ect.? Anyone who's actually been around long enough care to explain the evolution of 40k?

1st edition: Basically a weird hybrid of a pen and paper RPG and a tabletop battle game. It was very story line driven, very hoakie and pulpy, and incredibly 80s.

2nd edition: Turned it into a larger scale battle game between two forces. Made the game function without a dungeon master arbitrating imbalances or setting up scenarios. Was better codefied as a universe. Was hilariously unbalanced, poorly written, and not easily playable. This was the last time a tactical marine was good.

3rd edition: A hard restart cutting out a lot of the wackiness of the previous editions. Had issues with phalanx formations, assaults being unbroken for an entire game, and missing rules (such as no description of what to do with destroyed vehicles). Much more easily playable than second and was somewhat balanced until codexes started the trend of different author different power level.

4th edition: A refinement of third with expanded codexes and better written rules. A few instances of content cutting for gameplay benefit (specifically chaos) but on the whole the game expanded. The ruleset was nice but interacted badly with codexes, eldar skimmers and tyranid monstrous creatures won every game. No one took troops.

5th edition: A refinement of fourth with reduced effectiveness in skimmers, random game length, and a dramatic power increase for most vehicles. Probably the best ruleset GW has put out for competitive play, but codex imbalance started to hit a xenith midway through the edition and the overt overpowering of transports saw some armies practically vanish outside of friendly non competitive play. True line of sight and wound allocation were some of the most reviled rules GW has put into a rulebook.

6th edition: GW has decided to abandon efforts to create a competitively balanced game in an attempt to recapture the narrative gameplay of second edition. Flyers and flying MCs are intensely overpowered (but neat), there was a dramatic increase in random and "zany" rules. The game isn't particularly workable as a competitive game without quite a bit of tournament house ruling. As a ruleset in isolation it's the worst written since third with a rather intense number of conflicts between its own pages and lengthy (and bad) FAQs released for all codexes.

That sorta covers it, Shuma...

However, while I have ranted at length at my local club about a lot of the sheer stupidity wtf elements of 6th edition, a lot is actually quite fixable either at club level or with GW writing sensible FAQs.

Club Level fixes:

Ignoring the whole new terrain placement rules stuff.
Ignoring the double force org stuff.
Putting allies back to their 'special' status... EG, when there's multiple players.

FAQ fixes:
Flakk missiles... please, pretty pretty please....
Reversal on character stuff, so that Ork Nob Warbikers aren't the best sniper unit in the game...

Truth is, these fixes are extremely minor compared to say, the list of changes that many UK clubs and tournaments do in Fantasy 8th edition in order to make a halfway sensible game.

gorgon wrote:

adamsouza wrote:RT - No army lists. More like races you could slap gear on till you reached a point limit. Less serious. It was the 80's the bar was set pretty low.

There were plenty of army lists. Multiples for some armies, in fact. They just weren't in the rulebook, they came later.

I only had the RT Rulebook back then, so I never saw an army list until 2nd Ed.

gorgon wrote: As English Assassin said, the game evolved *greatly* during its lifespan.

True. I can honestly say I've enjoyed playing it all along that evolution.

gorgon wrote:

2nd Edition - Army lists YAY !!! Hand to hand combat was broken. If you were really good, like say a Genestealer or Lord Mephiston, you would chew through ANYTHING if you got your mits on it and thye wouldn't even get a chance to hit you back. Weapons had armor modifiers instead of AP. Basically a more complicated way of doing everything we do now. Wargear was on cards, psychic rules were an expansion.

That's being disingenuous. If you were smart about it, you could limit said ubercharacters to one kill in combat per player turn. You could also hit them with stasis grenades or vortex, or just lay down some blind and watch them stumble slowly out of the cloud. Second edition was a shooty edition -- and that is the truth.

That was not my experience. All the "solustions" you propose were wargear cards and not something the rank and file would have access to.

He asked what was different and H2H was much more exploitable in 2nd Edition than in any edition since. Higher initiative went first. You added your highest attack roll to your Weapon Skill and compared to your enemy's roll. The difference was how many time the loser got hit. Genestealers had like a 6 WS and 4 attack dice resulting in them out performing pretty much anyone in H2H.

One time I saw a lone genestealer make it across the board, his brood decimated by assualt cannons, to avenge the fallen as he single handedly wiped out all but one terminator in H2H.
Lord Mephiston was legendary, in or gaming group, for chopping tanks to peices.

That reminds me, stat lines were higher in 2nd edtion. Space Marine veterans and termies had 5's for WS and BS. I'm pretty sure Mephiston had S7. Basic stat lines were nerfed in 3E and stayed that way.

Compel wrote:
Club Level fixes:

Ignoring the double force org stuff.
Putting allies back to their 'special' status... EG, when there's multiple players.

Both of these severely hurt some armies. Those that do not have access to Skyfire units or Flyers of their own. Tau specifically suffers at higher point games as they rapidly run out of slots to use for their anti tank.

I found that quite a nice read, smiled when he said Matt's a nice guy. Sure he is, he just can write rules.

Tau among others are expecting a flyer within the year, so I don't know how long they have to wait for there anti-flyer stuff. The lack of allies really hurts them since they wont be able to deal with them at all without grabbing terrain.

Flashman wrote:Interesting write up. For me I don't think 40K is in that bad a place considering where the company's head is at these days.

The dicussion about Associative/Disassociative rules was ironic, because I was turned off Fantasy by some of the rules which didn't really work in my head, namely Horde. Spreading your formation wide allows extra ranks to attack? That makes no sense

I'd prefer not to see a dumb Storm of Magic type 40K release in a year's time, but I can happily ignore the tacky add ons if the core rule system is sound (which I think it is).

Precisely. WHFB 8th was already ruined by the overly imbalanced magic system and instead of trying to fix it, they release an add-on that further aggreviates the problem making magic bat-crap insanely OP.

Well, on to the shelves with my WHFB minis, more time for 40k. 9th will come someday.

thefarseerofnorthryde wrote:

Kroothawk wrote:

- Mat Ward is a nice fellow not deserving the flak he gets

Sure, mat ward is nice himself, but he can't write a good codex if his life depended on it

There is something I heard regarding the comic industry, looks to fit here as well.

You can get lots of regular work if you have at least two of the following:

You are a nice guy and work well with others,
You get your work in on time,
You make a quality product.

Experiment 626 wrote:

Vampirate of Sartosa wrote:

Nagashek wrote:

NAVARRO wrote:They want fun? Make Nids allies to Imperial guard, and bring Genecult back.

this x1000.

I don't like that idea for Genecults, if only because I always saw the Nids as consuming the Cults as soon as they showed up. The Nids aren't particularly discriminating in who they eat.

Personally I agree with this view.

In the end, the cults are either killed by their enemies or else the 'Nids devour them as they wipe out the planet and every last scrap of biological matter on it.

Plus, you know that it would end being horribly abused in the end... For every person who's actually 'doing it right' and just sticking to some guardsmen + transport + maybe one or two pieces of heavier equipment, you'd have 10+ gak-wipes adding Tervigons + Swarmlord + 'Stealers to their armoured gunline.

Thanks but no thanks.

Of course that's what happens. And according to the Allies rules you ally "conveniently" with the other part of your army list only for as long as you need to for that battle or part of a battle. Yet these ally lists will become the staple of what most people play over a period of time. That "one shot alliance forged out of self serving need" sure did happen every week that I played that guy, or for every game of that tournament. I see no difference between a Genestealer list that should only be alive long enough for the Swarm to show up or to be destroyed, or Necrons and Blood Angels teaming up. Oh yea, except one of those things makes sense and the other doesn't. At least my Genestealer list could represent a different cult on a different world any time I play.

As far as abuse... well, is that any more abusive than any one of a dozen combos people have already come up with with the allies matrix? Any less fluffy? At least with TMC's in your GS cult you can just explain it as the GS cult was still fighting the PDF or SM who came to fight when the rest of the Swarm arrived. :shrug:

Davylove21 wrote:According to a guy on ATT who attended, Target Locks are going to be FAQ'd to infer Split Fire imminently, so I guess that will be the FAQ before Summer's end.

How on Earth did that not make the first FAQ if the book's been done for 6 months?!

Exactly this. If there's already a USR that covers TLs, then why in the 9 hells were target locks just FAQ'd out of existence?

Vaktathi wrote:4th edition was a carry-on of 3rd, cutting down on lots of the WD extras and focusing more on codex+BGB, non-skimmer tanks *really* sucked during this period, this was the age of the Eldar, Tau and Necrons on top.

Incorrect. Unless you had the best meta EVAR allowing those armies to just wtfpwn everyone, Tau was never a top tier army. Not even close. Eldar wasn't PRECISELY tearing things up either. It was doing well, and Necrons were... okay. But to say that these were the top ranking armies in 4e is just disingenuous. The Eldar armies that were winning IIRC had little to do with skimmer rules and more to do with rediculous Seer Councils. Tyranid armies were solid, Necrons were solid (but hardly winning GTs) Eldar were solid, SM were very solid and super customizable, but IW were just hammering everyone until they got the 4e CSM book and Demon Bombing was a common tactic as well. (Very late into 4e) Sadly, my Meta echoed the national meta, and my Tau were not in a happy place.

ShumaGorath wrote:

DemetriDominov wrote:
Furthermore, anyone else interested in how the 40k game developed over the editions? Like 1st edition is the orginal, 2nd is the crazy days, 3rd is the blandhammer, ect.? Anyone who's actually been around long enough care to explain the evolution of 40k?

1st edition: Basically a weird hybrid of a pen and paper RPG and a tabletop battle game. It was very story line driven, very hoakie and pulpy, and incredibly 80s.

2nd edition: Turned it into a larger scale battle game between two forces. Made the game function without a dungeon master arbitrating imbalances or setting up scenarios. Was better codefied as a universe. Was hilariously unbalanced, poorly written, and not easily playable. This was the last time a tactical marine was good.

3rd edition: A hard restart cutting out a lot of the wackiness of the previous editions. Had issues with phalanx formations, assaults being unbroken for an entire game, and missing rules (such as no description of what to do with destroyed vehicles). Much more easily playable than second and was somewhat balanced until codexes started the trend of different author different power level.

4th edition: A refinement of third with expanded codexes and better written rules. A few instances of content cutting for gameplay benefit (specifically chaos) but on the whole the game expanded. The ruleset was nice but interacted badly with codexes, eldar skimmers and tyranid monstrous creatures won every game. No one took troops.

5th edition: A refinement of fourth with reduced effectiveness in skimmers, random game length, and a dramatic power increase for most vehicles. Probably the best ruleset GW has put out for competitive play, but codex imbalance started to hit a xenith midway through the edition and the overt overpowering of transports saw some armies practically vanish outside of friendly non competitive play. True line of sight and wound allocation were some of the most reviled rules GW has put into a rulebook.

6th edition: GW has decided to abandon efforts to create a competitively balanced game in an attempt to recapture the narrative gameplay of second edition. Flyers and flying MCs are intensely overpowered (but neat), there was a dramatic increase in random and "zany" rules. The game isn't particularly workable as a competitive game without quite a bit of tournament house ruling. As a ruleset in isolation it's the worst written since third with a rather intense number of conflicts between its own pages and lengthy (and bad) FAQs released for all codexes.

An excellent summary of the editions - thank you for posting it!

I laughed especially hard at this extremely sad but true comment:

2nd edition: Turned it into a larger scale battle game between two forces. Made the game function without a dungeon master arbitrating imbalances or setting up scenarios. Was better codefied as a universe. Was hilariously unbalanced, poorly written, and not easily playable. This was the last time a tactical marine was good.

Alpharius wrote:I laughed especially hard at this extremely sad but true comment:

2nd edition: Turned it into a larger scale battle game between two forces. Made the game function without a dungeon master arbitrating imbalances or setting up scenarios. Was better codefied as a universe. Was hilariously unbalanced, poorly written, and not easily playable. This was the last time a tactical marine was good.

Wow...you guys really think that? I must have been living in Bizarro world. In my experience, Tacs were *terrible* competitive choices in 2nd since armor mods were so harsh.

Case in point...at the 1998 Baltimore GT, GW staff told me I was the ONLY SM player with a Tac squad (and that was only a combat squad since the tourney rules allowed buying them that way). I won best comp mainly because of that. So there were all of 5 Tac marines at the entire tourney. The next year under 3rd edition rules, some guy brought 81 slogging marines...6 Tac squads, 2 Dev squads and a Captain. Five Tacs at the entire tourney one year...60 in one army the next. I don't know how anyone can claim that the AP system wasn't a gigantic boost to power armor.

I'm a little afraid to look out the window in case I see that the grass is blue and the sky is green.