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.

After reading the new White Dwarf and reading letters to the editor someone wrote how he is coming back, and loving the new direction that GW is doing. He asked only one thing to keep it simple like they did with Age of Sigmar and Lord of the Rings and asks to do it with 40K. The reply was coy. "Only time will tell" is what I got from the reply.

So for those who got their issue early and read it, what do you think? I know it's basically a non answer that doesn't commit, but do you think they could be telling the truth? Maybe just teasing us so we keep discussing it more? All I know is it looks like they sort of confirmed a new edition is coming. It doesn't say it will be simplified but didn't say it will be bloated like it is. All I get is time will tell and something new is coming.

Yes I know a lot of rumours say we will be getting a new edition next year, but to see this coming from GW is a bit surprising. Not denying just seems weird . Even a years out away can only mean good things coming in from now on?

What you think? Like it, don't like it, or am I reading too much and anything GW does that is not the norm we make a big deal out of it. Just like how GW gives out free minis and people still complain.

A new edition is inevitable.

Sad Panda, with a near perfect track record, says it'll be next year, and that it will be a simpler ruleset, because GW have privately acknowledged 7th isn't good enough.

For me, speculation about anything around this is largely pointless.

The only discussion is really about what the changes will be. We know it won't be "Sigmar simple" so where will the line be?

The rules for 7th edition aren't that bad. The problem lies with the codices that are written for each edition. Mainly the fact that GW keeps forgetting to inform the Codex writers of the new rules. Which is why you currently have Nob bikers costing the same this edition as they did back in 4th edition where they had Wound allocation shenanigans which made them significantly tougher.

They also realistically need to scale back some of the more ridiculous BS. Most of the Eldar Codex being the main culprits. Also I would really like GW to either GET RID OF the ally rules or change them so that levels don't exist. IE Everyones battle brothers or get rid of it completely. Realistically only IoM and Eldar benefit from the current rules. (Demons/Chaos to a lesser extent) Nids and Orks are left in the breeze in regards to allies.

Historically, the Codex is where I'd level most criticism for game issues, but 6th/7th has brought

- allies
- core psychic powers (Invisibility)
- Overwatch (assault armies already had it tough)
- mysterious objectives
- random charges
- super heavies
- flyers

These issues are then exacerbated by poor codex writing.

 Azreal13 wrote:
Historically, the Codex is where I'd level most criticism for game issues, but 6th/7th has brought

- allies
- core psychic powers (Invisibility)
- Overwatch (assault armies already had it tough)
- mysterious objectives
- random charges
- super heavies
- flyers

These issues are then exacerbated by poor codex writing.

regarding what you wrote as being issues with 7th edition some I agree with, others I kinda agree with, others I mostly disagree with..


Allies: I like the idea of allies, and think they're here to stay for the long haul (GW has introduced too many ally codexes to back away from allies entirely without angering a LOT of their customers) the problem is you hear about "super friend" combinations that are absolutely flying rodent gak insane. careful editing however can address this. moving forward, and GW's already doing so, being careful to specify "so and so ability only applies to other armies from faction X" So I hope allies continue, just that GW works carefully with them.

Psykic Abilities: mostly agree here, they're a mess some are almost useless and others are broken good. and to make matters worse they're decided randomly, so someone with a psyker rolls the dice at the start of the game, to detirmine if his libarian is gonna be a moderartely good unit. or "broken OP" I suspect the idea was they'd be balanced by being random so that it'd even out over several games, but assuming someone has multiple opponents this won't always be the case. IMHO they'd be better off balancing the powers and letting people pick and choose.

Overwatch: by itself it's not that bad, but in an edition where assault kinda sucks already it's salt in the wound, we can keep over watch if they buff assault. hell let us assault out of rhinos etc and that itself should be eneugh


- mysterious objectives: I honestly forget these are a thing and lots of other people do. just scrap em

Random Charges: yeah random charges doesn't add anything to the game

Super Heavies: the easest way to handle these would be to tone down the rules for super heavies and gargantiun creatures where nesscary. I mean some super heavies are just poorly pointed (*eyes the wraith knight*) but by and large a lot of em are out there, and errataing all of them would take too much time etc. better off just examining the core rules.

Fliers:yet again they're not going to go anywhere, but there's room for improvement in the rules I'm sure

A new edition is always inevitable, it's the timeline which is always a matter of controversy.

7th is near perfect.
Just remove random charge.
The only problem you can have, is with others players, who don't have the same mindset as you, not with the game.
How can having more choices, more possibilities be bad ?
I really don't understand people who hate choice and possibilities.

 godardc wrote:
7th is near perfect.
Just remove random charge.

No, no it's not. It's one of the worst gaming systems out there. Sadly it's still the only game in town and so either accept the mess it is, or play nothing.

 godardc wrote:
7th is near perfect.
Just remove random charge.
The only problem you can have, is with others players, who don't have the same mindset as you, not with the game.
How can having more choices, more possibilities be bad ?
I really don't understand people who hate choice and possibilities.

I can only think a statement like that is informed by little knowledge of other, better written rulesets/editions.

Balance =\= less choice.

As it currently stands, choice largely falls into "no reason to ever take it" and "auto take." There are very few options which genuinely fall into that middle ground of advantage vs disadvantage.

This is, largely, down to GW being very reluctant to employ negatives in their rules writing. Other than the occasional "on a 1 something bad happens" there's very little. Even then, the negatives are normally so incidental in relation to the positives as to be irrelevant. ("Gets Hot" being a good example, there's so many ways to mitigate that on so many units it ceases to functionally be a negative most of the time.)

Without decent balance, we're left with the illusion of choice, which is just a nonsense.

As to player mindsets? Well, a better game won't make anything like as big a distinction between a player playing for laughs and one playing to win. As I've often said, 40K is the only game where "competitive" is a playstyle rather than an attitude.

A better ruleset doesn't limit possibilities, lack of imagination does that, and 7th is an over complicated, bloated ruleset which does nothing to promote varied play that wasn't possible before, presents little depth or subtlety outside of list building (which in and of itself is limited once you figure out the numbers) and does everything to stifle the straightforward one to one, even pointed battles which most games consist of.

Concerning the posts stating combat is underpowered in the current edition.... remember when you could jump from combat to combat with little to no consequences?

Yeah I do..... it was horrible for shooting armies. And I don't think making all vehicles, assault vehicles would work either. Many assault heavy factions or units for example don't really use transports anyway. Nids and jump infantry for example don't really use transports and the likes of orks already have a ton of assault vehicles anyway.

Overwatch is a nice feature, but then it needs some tweaking. Combat does need changing to help combat focused armies, but none of the suggestions here would really help in my honest opinion.

That was three editions ago.

 godardc wrote:
7th is near perfect.
Just remove random charge.
The only problem you can have, is with others players, who don't have the same mindset as you, not with the game.
How can having more choices, more possibilities be bad ?
I really don't understand people who hate choice and possibilities.

Lack of balance, in many cases, removes possibilities.

Imagine someone who wants to collect Tau. He/she likes big mecha bots. He/she will buy Riptides and Stormsurges because of the models, and spend time painting them. Obviously, that person will want to field them.
Now, imagine his/her friends likes orks. Big waves of green skins makes his/her heart happy. He/she imagines a big waagh running through the battlefield, crushing stuff with their big choppas.

These two people won't have fun playing against each other with the armies they like, just because they're a huge gap in power. Obviously, taking random units should be weaker than trying to get good synergies, but not to this extent. In this case, both players will have to carefully select their units and loadouts if they want to have a fair game. This definitely took options from them.
The problem doesn't lie with the players: at the moment, a fluffy Tau or Eldar list can just destroy a fluffy Ork or Tyranid list. Just taking a sensible CAD with standard choices does not guaranty a fair game, far from it.

Oh my God are people still complaining about Overwatch?

Nah, I don't think it hints at all, though I do expect the less cumbersome version within a year.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Oh my God are people still complaining about Overwatch?

Going to back that up with anything, sport? Or are we just gak and running?

 Azreal13 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Oh my God are people still complaining about Overwatch?

Going to back that up with anything, sport? Or are we just gak and running?

My proof is that a full squad of Tactical Marines will kill under two Orks. Ya know, the things with Tshirts.

OK, that proves you don't understand why OW is a poorly designed mechanic

 Azreal13 wrote:
OK, that proves you don't understand why OW is a poorly designed mechanic

It's only poorly designed in that it makes players waste time rolling dice to do 0 damage.

IT's not the actual reason close combat is bad

Random charges are okay, it's the extremely low minimum on it that makes it terribly unreliable. If it was 6 + d6 it would be ahuge improvement.

 Konrax wrote:
Random charges are okay, it's the extremely low minimum on it that makes it terribly unreliable. If it was 6 + d6 it would be ahuge improvement.

Nice idea

 Konrax wrote:
Random charges are okay, it's the extremely low minimum on it that makes it terribly unreliable. If it was 6 + d6 it would be ahuge improvement.

yeah that would be good

 godardc wrote:
7th is near perfect.
Just remove random charge.
The only problem you can have, is with others players, who don't have the same mindset as you, not with the game.
How can having more choices, more possibilities be bad ?
I really don't understand people who hate choice and possibilities.

I have played 5E, 6E and 7E of 40k, and have read a number of books from 4E. I have read through the rules of MEdge (but not got to play it yet), and played some Epic Armageddon. 7E is by far the worst of the lot. The writing is horrendous, terminology changes from one sentence to the next, there are insane imbalances and so much rules bloat that you genuinely cannot play the game half the time.

There is no variety in 40k, unless you wish to effectively concede most of your games, because listbuilding choices are like choosing between a meal in a high-class Chinese restaurant for £5, and a Pot Noodle for £10. There is never any reason whatsoever to take one of those options, and every reason to take the other. Sure, you get a lot of kinds of models, but how many actually see action? How many stick around for more than Turn 1?
With more armies comes more balance issues - every single new release has pushed back direly needed updates for armies like CSM, BA and Nids, who are pretty much unplayable now thanks to every new release giving us a new level of power creep. Except for the CSM supplement re-release, because GW hates us.

We don't hate variety, but there are very good reasons to hate 7E.

 Baldeagle91 wrote:
Concerning the posts stating combat is underpowered in the current edition.... remember when you could jump from combat to combat with little to no consequences?

Yeah I do..... it was horrible for shooting armies. And I don't think making all vehicles, assault vehicles would work either. Many assault heavy factions or units for example don't really use transports anyway. Nids and jump infantry for example don't really use transports and the likes of orks already have a ton of assault vehicles anyway.

Overwatch is a nice feature, but then it needs some tweaking. Combat does need changing to help combat focused armies, but none of the suggestions here would really help in my honest opinion.

Yes, melee Deathstars are what has been ruining this game since the start of 4E, right up until now. How dare melee units get into assault, we must punish them for a thing that hasn't existed since ~2007.

Wrong person quoted.

I don't get what OP is trying to say. A new edition is coming no matter what unless GW goes belly up, WD making a pass off comment like that isn't really groundbreaking. And if this thread is to talk about what will be in the next edition, it's also pointless because we have no clue.

I think it makes sense for GW to trim some of the rules. People loved, and often still love, second edition, but the game really took off when third edition massively simplified the rules. Seriously, third edition could fit all of the game rules, scenarios, and even "get you by" lists in under 100 pages.

I'm not advocating a return to third edition, but the core rules have moved closer to the second edition, pseudo skirmish style, where every model is important and distinct. Meanwhile, the codices and scenarios are moving to larger formations, larger models, and more devastating firepower. So you have a rule set that, better than any other, really can capture the intensity of a firefight between two infantry squads, being used to play a game in which most meaningful combat is between tooled characters, Monstrous or Gargantuan creatures, or units with high volume heavy weapon shooting.

The rules aren't bad. They're not particularly good, but 7th edition 40k works for things like kill team level games, where the fiddliness pays dividends. Using the 7th edition ruleset to play a game between a space marine company and elder wraithknight spam is the problem. The latter game would be way better played with a much simpler ruleset.

 CrownAxe wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
OK, that proves you don't understand why OW is a poorly designed mechanic

It's only poorly designed in that it makes players waste time rolling dice to do 0 damage.

IT's not the actual reason close combat is bad

Not always 0 damage, and that's the problem with the difference that extreme luck can make. In one game against my friend''s Blood Angels, near the end of the game he had two surviving Sanguinary Guard models charge my unit of Tactical Marines. The SG, with a 2+ save and power weapons would have had little to fear from my TM squad in close combat. My bolters all missed the overwatch shots. Then the plasmagun stood up, took aim, and squeezed off a pair of 6s to hit. *poof* went the SG.

The problems with close combat is that there is no benefit to winning an assault if the enemy doesn't run away. You don't maintain any sort of momentum, like keeping the charge bonus or getting any other sort of bonus in future rounds, so unless you're a super assault unit, it nearly always just devolves into a multi-turn long tarpit waste of time. Close combat should be decisive, but it never really is unless you're a melee god. And, it also encourages gaming the system: nope, don't want to shoot the unit I'm going to charge because I might kill too many of them to prevent me from reaching them with my random charge range, and don't want to wipe them out on my turn, because then I'm standing around with my pants down for their whole army to shoot me. But, I sure as hell don't want a return to consolidating from one close combat into another, leaving assault armies nearly immune to any shooting once they get close enough.

 Polonius wrote:
I think it makes sense for GW to trim some of the rules. People loved, and often still love, second edition, but the game really took off when third edition massively simplified the rules. Seriously, third edition could fit all of the game rules, scenarios, and even "get you by" lists in under 100 pages.

Part of why 3rd Edition worked so well is because it simplified and reset everything at the same time, rules and armies. Since then, every new edition has just been a revision to 3rd, with the armies often going through more than one edition with no changes. I don't want an AoS style reboot to the game. I want a 3E style reboot to the game. Roll it all back, reset everything to a new rulebook with basic "get-you-by" army lists until all new, properly written and tested against each other codices come out. Wishful thinking, I know.

In theory, there's nothing wrong with things like super heavies, flyers, formations, etc. It's just the tacked on implementation onto a game that never had them to begin with is the problem. There are ways to do them right.

I would pay $300 for a single book that had 3E rules plus get you buy lists. In reality though, if it was text and diagrams you could do it in 200-300 pages even with ALL existing codecies and suppliments. If you removed fluff.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
OK, that proves you don't understand why OW is a poorly designed mechanic

It's only poorly designed in that it makes players waste time rolling dice to do 0 damage.

IT's not the actual reason close combat is bad

Not always 0 damage, and that's the problem with the difference that extreme luck can make. In one game against my friend''s Blood Angels, near the end of the game he had two surviving Sanguinary Guard models charge my unit of Tactical Marines. The SG, with a 2+ save and power weapons would have had little to fear from my TM squad in close combat. My bolters all missed the overwatch shots. Then the plasmagun stood up, took aim, and squeezed off a pair of 6s to hit. *poof* went the SG.

The problems with close combat is that there is no benefit to winning an assault if the enemy doesn't run away. You don't maintain any sort of momentum, like keeping the charge bonus or getting any other sort of bonus in future rounds, so unless you're a super assault unit, it nearly always just devolves into a multi-turn long tarpit waste of time. Close combat should be decisive, but it never really is unless you're a melee god. And, it also encourages gaming the system: nope, don't want to shoot the unit I'm going to charge because I might kill too many of them to prevent me from reaching them with my random charge range, and don't want to wipe them out on my turn, because then I'm standing around with my pants down for their whole army to shoot me. But, I sure as hell don't want a return to consolidating from one close combat into another, leaving assault armies nearly immune to any shooting once they get close enough.

 Polonius wrote:
I think it makes sense for GW to trim some of the rules. People loved, and often still love, second edition, but the game really took off when third edition massively simplified the rules. Seriously, third edition could fit all of the game rules, scenarios, and even "get you by" lists in under 100 pages.

Part of why 3rd Edition worked so well is because it simplified and reset everything at the same time, rules and armies. Since then, every new edition has just been a revision to 3rd, with the armies often going through more than one edition with no changes. I don't want an AoS style reboot to the game. I want a 3E style reboot to the game. Roll it all back, reset everything to a new rulebook with basic "get-you-by" army lists until all new, properly written and tested against each other codices come out. Wishful thinking, I know.

In theory, there's nothing wrong with things like super heavies, flyers, formations, etc. It's just the tacked on implementation onto a game that never had them to begin with is the problem. There are ways to do them right.

So you had one situation where you roll two 6s, a 1/36 chance which is clearly outside the average, and that stroke of luck really defines what overwatch is to you?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Spoiler:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
OK, that proves you don't understand why OW is a poorly designed mechanic

It's only poorly designed in that it makes players waste time rolling dice to do 0 damage.

IT's not the actual reason close combat is bad

Not always 0 damage, and that's the problem with the difference that extreme luck can make. In one game against my friend''s Blood Angels, near the end of the game he had two surviving Sanguinary Guard models charge my unit of Tactical Marines. The SG, with a 2+ save and power weapons would have had little to fear from my TM squad in close combat. My bolters all missed the overwatch shots. Then the plasmagun stood up, took aim, and squeezed off a pair of 6s to hit. *poof* went the SG.

The problems with close combat is that there is no benefit to winning an assault if the enemy doesn't run away. You don't maintain any sort of momentum, like keeping the charge bonus or getting any other sort of bonus in future rounds, so unless you're a super assault unit, it nearly always just devolves into a multi-turn long tarpit waste of time. Close combat should be decisive, but it never really is unless you're a melee god. And, it also encourages gaming the system: nope, don't want to shoot the unit I'm going to charge because I might kill too many of them to prevent me from reaching them with my random charge range, and don't want to wipe them out on my turn, because then I'm standing around with my pants down for their whole army to shoot me. But, I sure as hell don't want a return to consolidating from one close combat into another, leaving assault armies nearly immune to any shooting once they get close enough.

 Polonius wrote:
I think it makes sense for GW to trim some of the rules. People loved, and often still love, second edition, but the game really took off when third edition massively simplified the rules. Seriously, third edition could fit all of the game rules, scenarios, and even "get you by" lists in under 100 pages.

Part of why 3rd Edition worked so well is because it simplified and reset everything at the same time, rules and armies. Since then, every new edition has just been a revision to 3rd, with the armies often going through more than one edition with no changes. I don't want an AoS style reboot to the game. I want a 3E style reboot to the game. Roll it all back, reset everything to a new rulebook with basic "get-you-by" army lists until all new, properly written and tested against each other codices come out. Wishful thinking, I know.

In theory, there's nothing wrong with things like super heavies, flyers, formations, etc. It's just the tacked on implementation onto a game that never had them to begin with is the problem. There are ways to do them right.

So you had one situation where you roll two 6s, a 1/36 chance which is clearly outside the average, and that stroke of luck really defines what overwatch is to you?

In case you missed my very first sentence, I'll repeat the relevant part:
"that's the problem with the difference that extreme luck can make."
If that isn't clear enough, Overwatch is just another "random for the sake of random" game mechanic that GW uses far too often. Added in with all the other design issues with close combat (some I also mentioned), it's poor game design, pure and simple, to allow just a bit of luck to change the entire flow of a game regardless of any other factor.

Overwatch is a bad mechanic because it breaks a fundamental structure of the game (you shoot once per turn in your shooting phase) for zero penalty.

The original Overwatch mechanic allowed you to fire at full effect, but it also required you to forego your own shooting, and through models having their own fire arc and also being able to choose when they fired (at a target entering or moving within LOS) it introduced a tactical element to moving that the current game doesn't really replicate.

Modern Overwatch is just extra free shooting, and its effectiveness is massively uneven. Orks fire at 50% efficiency, Marines at 25%. Armies don't have equal access to mechanisms which boost Overwatch, and those that can are often already effective at shooting, tipping their advantage still further, and undermining armies reliant on assault.

Then there's the outliers. Ever tried charging a unit of Flamers with some Wyches? Or a unit of D Scythe Wraithguard with, well, pretty much anything?

Overwatch causes people to game the system, as mentioned, and even moderately lucky dice can completely screw up an otherwise sensible attempt at assault.

In many ways, its efficacy is almost irrelevant, it's a poor concept for a rule that shouldn't have made it into the final edit and isn't mirrored in any other prominent system, largely because they're much better designed.