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.

Selym wrote:

 brassangel wrote:

Selym wrote:

 urion wrote:
Everyone wants a new edition till it comes out. Then they want a new edition.

I don't want a new ed. I want 5th back. I was looking forward to 6th's release, got the book, recoiled in horror, and died a little inside.

Unless a person is incapable of playing a game that requires thought, there are none who want to go back to un-killable transports with lists made up of nothing but:

5 dudes + tank
5 dudes + tank
5 dudes + tank
5 dudes + tank
5 dudes + tank
5 dudes + tank

No thank you. Good Lord that edition was a scar on the game.

I never used transports...
I just liked the lack of random. And that I could make a DP kill stuff reliably. And with EW.
:/

So you had to change the way you played one unit and that was it for you? In a universe of incredible technology and massive guns, monsters should be relatively easy to shoot down. I say this as a Tyranids player, so those using DP's can cram it with walnuts.

The "random" in 40k doesn't disable a strategy though. In WHFB, for example, the random can literally win or lose the game with one roll. Build a list reliant on magic, roll bad during the phase, and you're screwed. Relying on cavalry charges, fail to reach combat, and you're screwed. Good roll on the Yell and Bawl and watch a 200 point Giant take out a 900 point Ancient Dragon. Or have a single Purple Sun kill 1100 points of Ogres in a turn. I've even seen Mulg the Ancient win a game of Warmachine on turn 1 because of randomness.

40k random isn't anywhere near that. In fact, the only "random" is charge distance (mitigated by things like fleet, pre-measuring, and high movement rates to ensure closing in on targets quickly), and rolling on a few tables. Very few of the Traits and Psychic Powers are totally useless, however, and even if they are, it won't hinder your ability to win the game.

5th may have been less random, but it also didn't require any thought, and was way too predictable. Nobody had to think outside the box to put Grey Hunters in a Rhino. The one unit could literally handle any situation in the game, and any moron could point them at the enemy and get the job done. That's not good design.

It scores well with players in a majority of tests and surveys when there's some element of surprise to the micro portions of a game.

MajorStoffer wrote:I honestly wouldn't mind a tweak to 6th; they introduced a number of new mechanics which could use some adjusting, but a whole new edition is a bit much to consider at this point.

There are, however, some codexes which could use a ".5" treatment; Chaos in particular. Codex Heldrake and Cultists isn't terribly interesting, and my local group includes a lot of Chaos players with very limited enthusiasm for their armies anymore, especially as more and more armies get updated and blow them out of the water.

For general rules, there are some things I'd like looked at:

Challenges. They're completely asinine in 40k, make no logical sense, and instead of "Forging a narrative," they seem shoehorned in, only making sense for specific models/characters, not as a game-wide system. I'd like to see an incentive to challenge, with risks/rewards based on the outcome, but do not make it mandatory or punish armies for not accepting them.

Vehicles. Tracked vehicles are ludicrously easy to kill if they've got anything less than AV14 and in cover, whereas skimmers enjoy excellent durability in a variety of manners, especially since most skimmers can buff their saves through basic unit upgrades. Dreadnoughts, well, let's not talk about those. Any close combat vehicle is suicide. An easy tweak would be to differentiate skimmers and conventional tanks via HPs; skimmers have less, but get their saves, tanks have more, but have to rely on positioning or thicker armour.

As for dreadnoughts, honestly, since GW has decided to make all post-Chaos walkers MCs, dreadnoughts either need to become their own unit type, or folded into MCs; the hullpoint system just makes them laughably easy to kill. A 10 man guardsmen squad with krak grenades will kill anything shy of a Contemptor or Ironclad handidly in CC.

Allies. The ally matrix is a load of crap, if you ask me. Most of the "Battle Brothers" have no justification, an have resulted in enormously broken combos. Why on earth would Eldar and Tau work together? There's no fluff justification, nor for Eldar and Dark Eldar to be BB. There needs to be a lot more allies of convenience on that chart, and a number of things demoted to desperate allies or come the apocalypse.

Lastly, cover. At the start of the edition, cover was fine; a few things were demoted in saves, infantry in ruins had to rely on TLOS rather than just being "in-terrain" (as much as some TFGs locally struggle with that), vehicles got saves easier (which they need, given HPs), and all was well. Now, however, Eldar and Tau in particular have added so many ways to massively buff or remove cover entirely. Daemons as well, to a point. What I've noticed now (and these problems are from codexes, rather than the BRB) is that armies either have 2+ or 3+ cover saves by default, or their cover is ignored entirely in some capacity.

Sometimes, it feels like armies are either Terminators or Kroot in terms of durability with so many buff/debuff/rule ignoring builds becoming the norm. Psychic and pseudo-psychic buffs have gotten out of control, and enabled some serious powergaming which is all to easy to abuse, and needs to be reigned in.

This is a good post, but you are basically complaining that armies have lots of options, and some of them are powerful. As I said earlier, giving people frequent releases and new toys, as well as access to powerful combinations and units often leads to a more satisfied customer base. It's more fun when you can do crazy powerful things, especially when EVERY army gains access to some of them.

If all of the uber-stuff only belonged to Chaos, for example, then sure, it would be bad (see Space Wolves and Grey Knights during their reign(s) of terror in that horrible, horrible 5th edition); but every army is getting powerful stuff. Sure, it's more "fun" than anything, but that's what a game is about. People like to do crazy powerful things. That's a part of what happens in Magic: the Gathering with each new set released - and yet it's the most popular tournament game in existence.

Too much balance between units across the board means boring, predictable games, with everyone essentially playing the same style.

Are the rules getting a little bloated? Yes, I do feel as though GW has gotten a tad zealous with the digital and supplemental content. But I'm not giving up on assault-based armies becoming viable with Tyranids around the corner, and Orks sure to follow a few months later. We still have a chance to see what gets done with them. Hell, if GW continues we may even see a Khorne/World Eaters Supplement.

If GW can bring assault armies back into the competitive fold, this edition will be in a very good place.

What we do know is, sales were down, and the player-base fled to other games during 5th edition. Now GW has seen a growth in profit, a growth in sales volume, and is becoming more recognized outside of the general gaming community since 6th edition dropped.

It's a lot of fun to play - not perfect, but no system is - and I want to see what Tyranids and Orks bring to the table.

Again, I expect it to be more of a tweak to fold in the FAQ's and SA & Escal rules instead of a whole new edition. Didn't we have a rumor late in 5th/early 6th that there would be multiple starter sets? Perhaps GW is going to update the rule book every 2 years or so to accommodate the new content and then release a new starter set with it. Just a guess.

A starter with different army options would be fine so I don't have to EBay everything in the box except for the 10% of it that I need.

SM are the pin up boys of GW, I understand that, but seriously if GW want to sell more boxes it would help if people could get sets for stuff that actually want / need.

I actually like 6th ED for the most part but some of the rules are just ridiculous...

> Better CC, challenges are BS, 20 guys are not going to stand there and watch their leader get squished, challenges should only be allowed to be issued when there are only a couple of other units around.
> The CC to hit modifiers are absolute BS.
> I would prefer a "to hit" modifier than "cover saves", seriously, if I hit the guy in the first place, and wounded him, how the hell can you bullet magically hit a wall... <- common sense prevails?
> Inability to CC out of outflank, Dark Eldar Webways is ridiculous (however I can understand not assaulting from deep strike and drop pods as you have to get out the damn vehicle first.
> Someone mentioned being able to assault out of a none moving none assault vehicle. I dont use any of these vehicles but I would have to agree.
> Instant Death needs looking at.
> Strength D weapons need toning down a touch, not too much as I understand why they are as good as they are.
> Look out sir, one of the most idiotic rules I have ever seen. I can understand 1 guy jumping in front but 10 of them? I think not... Also how the hell would someone "look out sir" from a blast template, I am pretty sure the guy would be too busy already being blown up to worry about protecting the guy with the medals.
> ATSKNF - Yeah right, if they run away (on the basis they are scared / have fear) and get caught they should die like everyone else.
> AP2 S8 - S10 LARGE BLASTS, yeah right.
> Dont get me started on psychic tests, especially when they need to hit assuming you didnt perils, and seriously how can a none psychic unit deny the witch after all that...

I could go on, there are a number of rules that really cheese me off.

You would think I hate playing this game but I love it, have done for 15 years...! Just wish some of the rules got improved a little.

So last month I got back into 40k after a 20 year hiatus. Bought 4500 points of CSM, Lord of Skulls, a bunch of terrain and fortifications.... also picked up 6th edition rulebook, the mini 6th ed. rulebook, Escalation rulebook, Stronghold Assault rulebook, and the CSM codex. didn't these literally just come out? I know Escalation did.

This does not please me.

So now I have ~6 months of relevancy? I should be just about done painting.

So if GW has no regard for its customers, I can play that game too. I'll just be purchasing models from GW knockoff sites from now on.

Shingen wrote:
A starter with different army options would be fine so I don't have to EBay everything in the box except for the 10% of it that I need.

SM are the pin up boys of GW, I understand that, but seriously if GW want to sell more boxes it would help if people could get sets for stuff that actually want / need.

Because games like Warmachine provide starter sets for every Faction vs. Faction combination?

That's not an easy task. I imagine GW wants it to sell, and it will sell more if Marines are included in there somewhere. That's all there is to it. People who don't play either army have purchased the sets. Space Marines were made the "pin up boys" because of the customers, not GW. They've simply elected to milk that cow as long as people crave it.

sand.zzz wrote:
So last month I got back into 40k after a 20 year hiatus. Bought 4500 points of CSM, Lord of Skulls, a bunch of terrain and fortifications.... also picked up 6th edition rulebook, the mini 6th ed. rulebook, Escalation rulebook, Stronghold Assault rulebook, and the CSM codex. didn't these literally just come out? I know Escalation did.

This does not please me.

So now I have ~6 months of relevancy? I should be just about done painting.

So if GW has no regard for its customers, I can play that game too. I'll just be purchasing models from GW knockoff sites from now on.

1.) That's not their fault you did all of that.
2.) Couldn't anyone say that if they bought something late and the edition lasted 10 years too? Furthermore, there's nothing that says what you purchased will become obsolete or unusable.
3.) It's all just rumors right now. Don't go drawing rage-quit conclusions when we don't know anything.

Because games like Warmachine provide starter sets for every Faction vs. Faction combination?

No, not exactly.

1 Starter set for total newbies with SM and something else in is okay. However for the players among us who don't collect such drab models some more specific box sets with only 1 army in would be good. I would happily buy a Tyranid and Dark Eldar one just for the models and pay twice as much than I would have to with a starter boxset with some gakky marines in that will never get used.

I don't believe this "it'll be just rolling the FAQs into the main rulebook" bit at all. Like GW would ever do something like that. "Yeah we're just going to compile all this stuff into one book so new players don't have to buy 10 books and can instead buy this one, and the rest of you don't need to buy anything". Now that's wishlisting if anything on this forum has ever been.

I firmly believe that if we get a new main rulebook at all, it will once again change the game just like every new edition always has. Change provokes a shift in the metagame and list building and sparks new interest in the game and all in all boosts sales.

So if GW has no regard for its customers, I can play that game too. I'll just be purchasing models from GW knockoff sites from now on.

Forgive me if I don't cry for you. Game companies do that stuff all the time and there's absolutely nothing wrong with it. There's probably more people who want constant change than those who want their 'investment' to be the hip game everyone's playing for a decade. Many PC titles that cost 70 and nowadays with DLCs even up to 120 bucks have a lifespan of less than two years. You can keep playing the old game all you want but you've no rights to complain if some other people want to play the new one.

That said, I firmly encourage you to buy from the sites that gives you the biggest discounts.

Eh, I think 7th, if its true (which I doubt) will be 6.5th edition. Here's the book with supplements added in, and some changes to a few rules. Maybe even update the Psychic powers. But, I'd expect that the basic rules and what is/isn't good will be exactly the same.

This rumor came from 40K radio, who, if I'm not mistaken, received a C&D from GW legal not that long ago. Sounds more like someone in GW legal parsed out specifically bad information to track down who was slipping info to 40K radio.

 jifel wrote:
Eh, I think 7th, if its true (which I doubt) will be 6.5th edition. Here's the book with supplements added in, and some changes to a few rules. Maybe even update the Psychic powers. But, I'd expect that the basic rules and what is/isn't good will be exactly the same.

They do that with every new edition. Some stuff changes for the better, some for the worse. The actual core rules change very little normally. Movement, rolling to hit, etc. You can literally take a 40K player from a 10 year hiatus and he will learn to play the most current edition in 15 minutes.

I hope its true, regardless of whether it is 7th or just 6.5. I want changes to assault to make it better, more hull points to make them more survivable (I like the hull points idea, its just no vehicle has enough), and all walkers (especially dreads) either need a massive retooling or GW just needs to say Please don't bypass the language filter like this. Thanks. Reds8n and make them MCs like they've been doing with similar units recently.

Escalation was released december 2013. If GW is planning to amend it 6 months after release.. sorry but that's just bush league. I'm not drawing ragequit conclusions, just saying that if they wanna go full 'eff you' to their customers by giving us s 6 month window to use hardbound rulebooks, then I will be happy to say 'eff you' right back by supporting knock off model companies.

I have no issue with new editions, amending rules, spending money... but when escalation is already being replaced.. the fcking ink is still wet ffs.

I hope this isn't the case, its not ok to abuse/take advantage of customers is all I'm saying.

Well frak.
I bought the big 6th ed. rulebook for 60 euro when it came out, got only a few games due to the fact nobody seems to play 40k in my damned country and now im gonna have to buy a new rulebook in a few months. Emperor damn gw.

Assuming this rumour is true ofc.

I guess 7th edition will make an Ueber expensive large tank/robot/thingie a mandatory choice for an army!
And it will come in a superdeluxe metal case 200 different cover version for the cheap price of 2000$!

Considering not all the armies will be updated by the point this rumor points to, i say its a rulebook tweek, and bundling all the expansions and supplements (read Escalation & SHA). It doesn't make sense at all, even from an unlikely POV that they would go half-way into a new edition cycle, and completely scrap it.

I think it might go to tweek the rules to buff the non-eldar tau and daemons armies like orks, IG, SOB, DA etc. so that they get sale increases from supposed buffs. At least that's how I would do that. Not sure if GW has that much common sense.

 Therion wrote:
Game companies do that stuff all the time and there's absolutely nothing wrong with it.

Yeah, but barely two years after the last new edition? I've never seen a game company do that before.

 azreal13 wrote:
The removal of cover saves (which I've never been a fan of, even when they first came in) in favour of a return to To Hit modifiers would be awesome, and add a whole load of depth back in to the game IMO.

And put us back in 2nd Ed where you spend most of your opponent's turn just removing models. Cover Saves, however artificial, give you something to do during your opponent's turn, and allow you to save your troops (in a way). They need to stay.

 Sidstyler wrote:

 Therion wrote:
Game companies do that stuff all the time and there's absolutely nothing wrong with it.

Yeah, but barely two years after the last new edition? I've never seen a game company do that before.

Closest is D&D between 3 and 3.5.

 pretre wrote:
Yeah, good luck with that. You want a free kitten too?

No need to be a dick about it pretre. Another massive and super-expensive hard-back book right after someone's bought the current super-expensive hard-back book and both its expensive hard-back expansions? I think people have a right to go "No. Feth that noise." After only two years it's the gaming equivalent of a baint'n'switch.

 Sidstyler wrote:

 Therion wrote:
Game companies do that stuff all the time and there's absolutely nothing wrong with it.

Yeah, but barely two years after the last new edition? I've never seen a game company do that before.

Well, Activision has released a new Call of Duty every single year since 2006, and the new one pretty much entirely replaces the old one as far as online gaming is concerned. Someone probably plays the older games casually, but hey, we can play the older versions of Warhammer casually too.

 Therion wrote:

 Sidstyler wrote:

 Therion wrote:
Game companies do that stuff all the time and there's absolutely nothing wrong with it.

Yeah, but barely two years after the last new edition? I've never seen a game company do that before.

Well, Activision has released a new Call of Duty every single year since 2006, and the new one pretty much entirely replaces the old one as far as online gaming is concerned. Someone probably plays the older games casually, but hey, we can play the older versions of Warhammer casually too.

Video Gaming is very different than tabletop gaming, you can make a new video game each year and almost guarantee you'll keep making more and more money cause they don't support the old game servers as long anymore, heck, Halo:Reach probably isn't supported on XBL anymore, and it's only 3 years old...

6th ed is broken n crap n stuff and rules are needed!

*GW plan to release a new updated version of 6th*

GW is just gouging us for money!

Sometimes I hate all you people...

I think it's an awesome idea personally put all those FAQ's and extra rules into the BRB and maybe add a couple of extra tweaks to help with balance. We will be better off for it..

 Enigma Crisis wrote:

 Sidstyler wrote:

 Therion wrote:
Game companies do that stuff all the time and there's absolutely nothing wrong with it.

Yeah, but barely two years after the last new edition? I've never seen a game company do that before.

Closest is D&D between 3 and 3.5.

Which is funny that you mention that, because back when "3.5" came out I thought it was a pointless money grab. My dad was similarly unimpressed and whenever we all played D&D after that we just went back to 2nd edition because he knew that one better, and I guess he wasn't a big fan of the "dungeonpunk" art style of 3rd anyway.

That and I don't really consider 3.5 a new edition anyway. From what I can tell it was mostly the same as 3rd, but with a few "balance tweaks"...which even to this day I don't see much point in, since we're talking about a co-operative RPG and not a competitive game. Balance doesn't seem important to me since I doubt any DM worth his salt would let everyone in the party be the same class because it was "OP" and would likely police that gak himself if one or more characters started getting too powerful. Then again I suppose you can't do that if you play in a more "organized' way like living D&D or whatever the hell it's called.

 Therion wrote:
Many PC titles that cost 70 and nowadays with DLCs even up to 120 bucks have a lifespan of less than two years. You can keep playing the old game all you want but you've no rights to complain if some other people want to play the new one.

You're confusing two different things:

1. Annualised games like Call of Duty and... well Assassin's Creed I guess.
2. DLC.

The greater majority of games don't cost that much nor do they have a "life span". Sequels take roughly 3-5 years to come out (more if you're Blizzard, and forever if you're Valve), and that never "invalidates" the old game (not like a new rule set does), especially games with heavy single-player emphasis. It's a terrible comparison to make and one that doesn't work at all.

 PlaguelordHobbyServices wrote:

 Therion wrote:

 Sidstyler wrote:

 Therion wrote:
Game companies do that stuff all the time and there's absolutely nothing wrong with it.

Yeah, but barely two years after the last new edition? I've never seen a game company do that before.

Well, Activision has released a new Call of Duty every single year since 2006, and the new one pretty much entirely replaces the old one as far as online gaming is concerned. Someone probably plays the older games casually, but hey, we can play the older versions of Warhammer casually too.

Video Gaming is very different than tabletop gaming, you can make a new video game each year and almost guarantee you'll keep making more and more money cause they don't support the old game servers as long anymore, heck, Halo:Reach probably isn't supported on XBL anymore, and it's only 3 years old...

That's exactly what I said. A game that together with all the DLCs might cost 120 dollars will still get replaced in a year or two max. You're saying it's different because the customers who buy video games are sheep and just accept it without protest, but the customers who buy GW's products aren't sheep and wouldn't buy the new version of the rules?

I'm betting even if the new edition is a complete revolution of the rules system it will garner more positive reactions than negative from the community and customers.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:
The removal of cover saves (which I've never been a fan of, even when they first came in) in favour of a return to To Hit modifiers would be awesome, and add a whole load of depth back in to the game IMO.

And put us back in 2nd Ed where you spend most of your opponent's turn just removing models. Cover Saves, however artificial, give you something to do during your opponent's turn, and allow you to save your troops (in a way). They need to stay.

Yep, rather do that, and have cover function as a method of reducing incoming fire, rather than the total irrelevance cover can be if your models already have a half decent save. (Although with the arrival of our Taudar overlords, it's moot in a good number of games regardless!)

But I'm sure a middle ground could be found, hell, we're all basically wish listing at this point anyway, so I'd like 7th be based on alternate unit activation using I to determine selection order, and for overwatch to function as it does now, but you need to forego your own shooting in order to activate it (even with my rosiest glasses on, for it to work as in 2nd would be ridiculous)

 Therion wrote:
That's exactly what I said. A game that together with all the DLCs might cost 120 dollars will still get replaced in a year or two max. You're saying it's different because the customers who buy video games are sheep and just accept it without protest, but the customers who buy GW's products aren't sheep and wouldn't buy the new version of the rules?

Games don't get "replaced", and most of them don't cost anywhere near as much as you say they do.

You're making an absolutely terrible comparison that simply doesn't apply hwere.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Therion wrote:
Many PC titles that cost 70 and nowadays with DLCs even up to 120 bucks have a lifespan of less than two years. You can keep playing the old game all you want but you've no rights to complain if some other people want to play the new one.

You're confusing two different things:

1. Annualised games like Call of Duty and... well Assassin's Creed I guess.
2. DLC.

The greater majority of games don't cost that much nor do they have a "life span". Sequels take roughly 3-5 years to come out, and that never invalidates the old game, especially games with heavy single-player emphasis. It's a terrible comparison to make and one that doesn't work at all.

What an awful post. Games like Assassin's Creed don't have the replayability of Warhammer 40K. Well, maybe to someone it does, who am I to say? A game is a game. Saying it has a life span is of course theoretical and you know it. I know people who play Quake 1 competitively still. Granted it's about 100 players worldwide. Yet people have called that game dead about a decade. I'm fine with that.

GW isn't invalidating your rules or your models. Everything you have bought with money can be played with as long as you and the products live. So why exactly are you complaining about the fact that a game company releases a new version of its game? Because someone else might want to play that game instead of the one you have? Then you desperately claw to arguments that this is acceptable in every other gaming scene except your game. Good one.

sand.zzz wrote:
Escalation was released december 2013. If GW is planning to amend it 6 months after release.. sorry but that's just bush league. I'm not drawing ragequit conclusions, just saying that if they wanna go full 'eff you' to their customers by giving us s 6 month window to use hardbound rulebooks, then I will be happy to say 'eff you' right back by supporting knock off model companies.

If you want to throw a hissy fit, at least read the rumour first. It's not a 6 month window. The 6th edition rulebook has been out for 18 months now. The rumour is late 2014, which gives it roughly 2 and a half years. It's not GW's fault you got into the edition 18 months late, and you getting in late doesn't make it their fault you don't get to use your books as long as other people.

Though I agree, late 2014 is very early for a new edition. Personally, I haven't bought Escalation or Stronghold Assault, so I won't mind paying for a new rulebook if there's rules tweaks as well. If it's just 6th edition with those and the Errata bundled in, I'll go on not buying it.

Seriously, we've got no solid information. This is a rumour. Rumours from reliable mongers sometimes do not happen. Just go play 40k with your remarkable complete collection (seriously, at 4500pts + Lord of Skulls, you won't need to buy anything at all anymore), and wait to see what actually does happen.

 Therion wrote:
What an awful post.

Backatcha big guy.

I'll say it again:

Your comparison is terrible. Games don't get "replaced". It's not even close to the same thing as getting a new set of rules for a miniature game. Comparing a new rules edition to annualised games (of which there aren't as many as you're making it out to be - most games don't have 2-3 dedicated studios pumping out new editions of the same game every year).

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Therion wrote:
What an awful post.

Backatcha big guy.

I'll say it again:

Your comparison is terrible. Games don't get "replaced". It's not even close to the same thing as getting a new set of rules for a miniature game. Comparing a new rules edition to annualised games (of which there aren't as many as you're making it out to be - most games don't have 2-3 dedicated studios pumping out new editions of the same game every year).

You'll repeat a terrible post again? Why would you do something like that?

You have yet to provide any reasons why a new miniature game should be treated differently than a new video game in this discussion. You're even arguing against yourself. Games don't get replaced.

EA and Activision pump games out as fast as they can. So there aren't many studios capable of that? How many miniature games companies are there like GW then? What do you think these companies might have in common in their markets? Many would say they are replacing and repackaging the old crap in new gift wraps in order to make money, but you don't believe in games getting replaced so let's not use that. Open your Warhammer 2nd edition book and go play.