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'd rather just see them tone down the uber rules: Flyers, superheavies, allies, etc. Limit LoW to 2k+, I personally would get rid of fortifications too (limit them rather, out of normal games) as it seems rather silly that you can buy your own fortifications without it being a specific scenario.

Assault does need to be better but I don't think any of us want a return to assault-dominated 3rd edition.

The one thing I've maintained since I started looking at 6th edition is that most of the additional rules don't belong in competitive/pick-up games, and weren't needed for fluff/narrative/campaign games. If we were playing a campaign where my army is sieging yours in a Hive World, do we really need there to be "official" rules for bunkers and fortifications? People were always coming up with their own rules for those things, because they were largely dependent on the specific scenario and narrative anyways. Would the game be better off without those things, thereby removing them from pick-up games (which is the most common way to play, in the US at least) where you're at the mercy of whatever your opponent turns up with?

NoggintheNog wrote:

 Bull0 wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 Bull0 wrote:
By the sounds of it quite a lot of people are welcoming it and are going to buy it.

I suspect that will largely depend on what is actually in it.

Well of course, but Kroot's point was that the 2 year life cycle is a complete dealbreaker. Which if this thread is anything to go by is very much not the case. That's what I meant there

I should imagine that if the reality of that '2 year life cycle' means not only replacing the £45 book, but the £30 codex and so on and so on, the response would be very different indeed.

At the moment, people are happy the game may be moving on from 6th. If moving on from 6th is more of the same but with additional cost, it won't go down well.

Yep. I get that. We just said that. I'm not meaning to say the thing is already sold, people, I was just arguing with Kroot who said it was already dead and buried because of the short life cycle which is patently untrue.

 Brother SRM wrote:

 whembly wrote:
I think the fact that units can overwatch... should allow units to assault from reserve.

Overwatch is a fething joke. Units should be able to assault from reserves regardless of it. That and not being able to assault out of stationary transports are probably the only really glaring things I'd change about 6th.

It's actully the fact wounds are removed from the front rank that hurts the most for any assault based army that is't wearing power armour.

Overwatch is just the iceing on the cake.

 Lockark wrote:

It's actully the fact wounds are removed from the front rank that hurts the most for any assault based army that is't wearing power armour.
Overwatch is just the iceing on the cake.

Man, the whole wounds removed from the front thing can feth off completely. I don't go in for the "6th is too complicated and random" "I hate mysterious objectives" stuff but that particular change is horrible. Look at my cowardly sergeant hiding at the back of his squad. I feel heroic.

Well there still is lookout, sir, and ICs happen to pass these on a 2+

Sergeants aren't ICs.

@BullO: my issue is that I was reasonably expecting the book to be of playing value for FOUR years, the typical lifespan of a 40k codex. That is part of the perceived value in buying the limited edition, that I would have a copy of the rules that people could "ohh" and "ahh" at (which they did when I first picked up the book) and I could break it out for special occasions. I used the small copy for some games because I wanted to take care of the LE copy; I *expected* it to last. Maybe that was foolish on my part, hence I feel like I've been duped into buying a high-end product whose value was vastly over-inflated.

My plan was not really to sell it; indeed, I may have purchased a LE 7th edition if I had gotten the same value of any previous LE book. Instead, 6th will go down as the shortest edition of 40k (to my knowledge), and I will be expected to fork out more money for a brand new book. This time however I will wait a while to see what the consensus on the edition is, so as not to make that same mistake again.

Yeah, fair enough, that would be anyone's complaint with 6th ed whether they bought the LE or the normal book. I agree, it's a bit of a rip. Just where you specified LE and the "value" I inferred you meant in terms of resale value.

 Accolade wrote:
@BullO: my issue is that I was reasonably expecting the book to be of playing value for FOUR years, the typical lifespan of a 40k codex. That is part of the perceived value in buying the limited edition, that I would have a copy of the rules that people could "ohh" and "ahh" at (which they did when I first picked up the book) and I could break it out for special occasions. I used the small copy for some games because I wanted to take care of the LE copy; I *expected* it to last. Maybe that was foolish on my part, hence I feel like I've been duped into buying a high-end product whose value was vastly over-inflated.

My plan was not really to sell it; indeed, I may have purchased a LE 7th edition if I had gotten the same value of any previous LE book. Instead, 6th will go down as the shortest edition of 40k (to my knowledge), and I will be expected to fork out more money for a brand new book. This time however I will wait a while to see what the consensus on the edition is, so as not to make that same mistake again.

This is 40k , everything is over priced

 Sir Arun wrote:
Assaulting after deep strike never existed in prior 40k editions, save for the old Vanguard Vets rules.

And Tyranid Seeding Swarm if you rolled a HIT on the scatter dice, but now I'm being intentionally obscure.

Old 4th Edition CSM Codex "generic" Daemons could assault after Deepstrike, no?

Boss Zagstruk with a unit of Storm Boyz can still assault after deep striking.

the previous Nid dex: Ymgarl Genestealers kinda deep struck then could move and assault.

 Zweischneid wrote:
Old 4th Edition CSM Codex "generic" Daemons could assault after Deepstrike, no?

Yep. The old Chaos Bikers jetbiking up, summoning deamonettes, then charging my grey knights and killing them before they even shot hehe.

 Bull0 wrote:

NoggintheNog wrote:

 Bull0 wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 Bull0 wrote:
By the sounds of it quite a lot of people are welcoming it and are going to buy it.

I suspect that will largely depend on what is actually in it.

Well of course, but Kroot's point was that the 2 year life cycle is a complete dealbreaker. Which if this thread is anything to go by is very much not the case. That's what I meant there

I should imagine that if the reality of that '2 year life cycle' means not only replacing the £45 book, but the £30 codex and so on and so on, the response would be very different indeed.

At the moment, people are happy the game may be moving on from 6th. If moving on from 6th is more of the same but with additional cost, it won't go down well.

Yep. I get that. We just said that. I'm not meaning to say the thing is already sold, people, I was just arguing with Kroot who said it was already dead and buried because of the short life cycle which is patently untrue.

How can you claim it is untrue though? Evidence?

I think despite this thread which contains the usual 10-15 suspects, that just maybe the larger market WILL be impacted negatively by this accelerated cycle. Heck I've known gamers over the years who were tired of the 4 year cycle.

Red Corsair - my argument was in this thread, people have said they're welcoming the book. More people than have said they aren't. That's how I can say it isn't true. Because it obviously isn't, it's there in front of you. The 2 year cycle isn't a dealbreaker, clearly, because there are a load of people ITT that say it isn't. It doesn't get easier than that.

snip.

Reds8n

Whether people will accept faster cycle dramatically depends on the quality of the output. If there are significant changes that do improve the game every time, the community will go with it, pretty sure.

If on the other hand GW is just substituting one flavor of crap with another this will not go down well. I'm sure as hell not spending ~ 80 € for a new rulebook every two years if I get the same mess in a different form. I think most players will then stick to one version or the other and just ignore the new rulebooks untill something changes. As this requires a few editions more to be produced first, I would venture a guess that it would be the 8th or 9th ed that will mark the grave of 40k, unless GW cleans up the mess and lives to see players return to the tables.

Thank you for attention to Rule No.1!!

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Thank you for attention to Rule No.1!!

Rule #1 has something to do with sexy Asian girls? Neat.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

.
What is that ?
Video game “booth babe” ?

I think she must be a general, with all those stars. Or she lost a fight with a box of stick-on stars. Either way, the message is clear.

 Sir Arun wrote:
Assaulting after deep strike never existed in prior 40k editions, save for the old Vanguard Vets rules.

Planetstrike comes to mind.

One star sneaked into her hear. Oh, those sneaky bastard stars !
Maybe the stars are actually giving in control of her, and the star in her hear is there to whisper her commands. Like “Use that plastic gun to kill Matt Ward” or “Die your nails black”.

I would be sort of okay with a new edition of the core ruleset if they actually improve the clarity of the rules and balance shooting vs. assault a little better.

If they just release a "new" book with additonal USR's and a few uneeded rule changes with no overall improvement to the gameplay (like 6th edition), then I will be mad and most likely go back to playing 5th edition once every month or two and spend my money on something like Flames of War or Malifaux instead.

 Kroothawk wrote:
Who would ever buy a 75 US$ rulebook from them again, when GW can't even promise that it will last 2 years.
That would be a Rackham-level loss of confidence in the company, and we know where that led to.

BTW I just learned that FW changed almost all unit rules from the 2 year old book Imperial Armour 11 (£42).

I believe some units in the IA2 Marines 2nd edition book were just updated only months earlier in the IA Apocalypse 2E book (contemptor maybe?).

Could someone post a summary? The OP doesn't look updated, and still ends with this question:

 Ravajaxe wrote:
6th edition would be only 2 years old at the time. If this is true, should we only expect a debugged V6.1 ruleset, along with Escalation added-in and Stronghold replacing current fortification section ?

Has there been more information revealed by rumormongers, or is everybody still in the dark atm?

The only "new" info from the past couple weeks is about 2-3 pages back from a rumormonger in France who said the new books are at the printer. Other than that, it's just been a discussion about the previous rumors of escalation/stronghold/etc being folded into the core rules. The rest is just hopes, dreams, and wishlisting (with some mudslinging in between).

AAAWWWW the pic is broken for me..

I think a lot of problems could be removed by having the core rules and a lot of bolt ons. You agree to use Allies, Mysterious Terrain/Objectives. Dataslates, LoW, etc and then play, that way you wouldn't be 'forced' to play against something you hated, you would know what your getting in to. I just talk to the person I'm playing but judging by the amount of complaining not many people are able to do that.

Removal of BB from Allies, buff to assault (6+D6 charge range?, charging from reserve/stationary vehicles (as has already been mentioned) would make a good change too.

 Bull0 wrote:
Yep. I get that. We just said that. I'm not meaning to say the thing is already sold, people, I was just arguing with Kroot who said it was already dead and buried because of the short life cycle which is patently untrue.

Guess we will have to see who is right then. Only thing we know ATM is that the escalation of book releases coincidenced with a 10% decline of revenue (not adjusted for inflation), not a growth. And the current team obviously doesn't show any interest in game balance.

I sincerely hope that 7th edition wont be like what 3rd edition was to 2nd edition, i.e. stripping the game off all its complexity and starting from scratch with an oversimplified ruleset that robbed a lot of fun from the game

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
One star sneaked into her hear. Oh, those sneaky bastard stars !
Maybe the stars are actually giving in control of her, and the star in her hear is there to whisper her commands. Like “Use that plastic gun to kill Matt Ward” or “Die your nails black”.

This guy is the bomb.

Die your nails black. That's awesome. Sig'd