Do we actually need a 6th edition?

[Denzark]

I was looking at the Hrud rumour and this question occured to me - do we need a 6th edition?

Most rational debate agrees that this ed is one of the most streamlined, balanced(-ish) versions from GW with a mix of stuff, interesting odd bits to harken back to a la ramming, with latest codexes seemingly of a par - no one can say any one codex is unbeatable by all other codexes (although I may agree there are codexes that get beaten by the majority of current codexes - thats a another story).

Are sweeping changes needed? Arguably, no. Do things need fixing? Yes or we wouldn't debate endless rules queries and have faqs/errata. Hold that thought.

Now if you agree with the position that we don't need sweeping change and innovation - that with your pet hate faq'ed/errata-ed once and for all, its a pretty decent game, then we certainly don't need the sort of changes and endless tables discussed. To hit by shooting with a BS of 3 needs a 4+. Always has, always SHOULD do. There used to be modifiers (RT - -1 per 10" moved if I remember rightly) but we don't do modifiers, right, we streamline?

So why change at all? Now you will say it is a big profit vehicle. Let me break that down. GW looks at the teenies as the target audience. So the sweeping change if the rumour correct, making it more complicated, implies a change of target audience - not a clever profit move IF they actually agree with their own assertions that their current sales model is correct.

But they want to shift more books I hear you say. Would you buy 5th ed print run 2 if it had all the FAQs and erratas fixed, and the obvious questions we ask resolved? Most people would say, hell yes. If they released a new 5th ed with different fluff or art or whatever, a lot of collectors would go for it - one year you add killteam, the next some VDR, or some small change. We'd all go for it.

But what about the big box sets like Reach and Macragge? They could still do this, as often as they do now, or more often - change the armies or terrain or add in a campaign minidex. As long as the opportunity to get the foundations of an army at a knockdown price (supplemented by flogging the opposition on ebay) was still there, most of us would buy every iteration.

But if the rules didn't change the codexes wouldn't change to match the new rules you say. Really? Codexes could change with new units but playing 5th ed rules. As long as there was some different units or chracters, even if the fluff was steady, most of us would buy.

So, GW. Fix what is wrong with 5th. Bring out new edition rulebooks, with the fixes, but change the fluff or art or something. Add a new campaign or 2. Release big box sets with changing armies. You can keep current revenue flowing with less hasle on the rules design team, who can concentrate on advanced supplements or, Heaven forbid getting codexes up to date or (a new idea of tangent chaps) what about, follow the initial TWC/Storm Raven idea but bigger? You issued unit entries without models, howabout an entire codex? Get your thrud or knib in, release World Eaters Legion, and let us do the rest.

I'm sorry this is lengthy, but 6 sounds like change for change sake which is plop. What do you think?

[Drunkencorgimaster]

I like your idea. I'm old & stupid and it takes me forever to learn new sets of rules. There are a few rules I don't like, but on average I'd be happier putting up with them instead of learning a whole new set. I don't think GW will bite though.

[BrokenWing]

I want a 6th edition, I'm not a particularly big fan of 5th edition. I don't want 6th to re-invent the wheel, but I do want it to come out. Also, I want 6th Edition's book to be organized well, so I don't have to look in 12 different places to make sure the rule I just got done reading isn't ignored by something somewhere else. If 6th edition fixed 5th editions problems and was organized as well as the 8th Edition rulebook, I'd be really happy.

[Lord Azaghul]

I hope, I hope that GW learned their lesson from 7th to 8th fantasy. The edition shift did not fix ANY of the problems that were in the army books. I'm just holding out for 9th at this point.

I like 5th - its great. Only a few MINOR things COULD be fixed. The main issue with balance has more to do with each 'dex rather then an updated or new version of the core rule set.

Quite frankly i'd rather see them do that. Spend 1 year getting all the books aligned, drop updated/repointed 'dex out - which are intended to be more balanced - every month. Then spend the rest of the time working on new editons/models/expansions.

If the fix the books the rest will follow. If they don't - they are simply ruining their own game.

[Rev. Tiberius Jackhammer]

/Shrug

It's a matter of opinion. I look at the rumors for 6th and think "Hell yeah!"

Sure, they're more complicated, but they are not overcomplicated. They are simple to use - looking at a table printed in the back of the rulebook will never be a great hardship. They bring in some balance, add interesting, sensible quirks to the rules and can result in a more interesting battlefield, in the case of the strategems.

Certainly, there are those who dislike learning new rules etc., but from a selfish point of view, I'd rather not have the game stagnate for their sake.

[DarkLink]

No 6th edition doesn't make GW a lot of money.

[Blood Lord Soldado]

It does seem rather useless to change editions at this point.

GW has a strange vision for their gaming environment. Its a game that is designed to not really have a competitive purpose. People make it a competitive event, with RTT's and stuff, but if they wanted to make it a real competition game they are light years from that.

I will probably do like I did with 3rd and 4th editions and just play 2nd edition. Long live 5th!!!

[Necron2.0]

I'll be honest, and I mean no disrespect, but this is something of a silly question. We, the players, don't need another edition any more than D&D players needed fourth edition, or Star Wars RPGers needed Star Wars D20 (and especially not the massively dumbed down Star Wars Saga Edition). In every game system I've ever been involved with, changes do not benefit the players because if the game was truly bad enough to actually require changes, nobody would be playing the game in the first place. In most cases people learn to play with and enjoy the games as they are. Rules changes generally only minorly affect the methods of playing the game, but do nothing for the overall enjoyability of the game.

Businesses like GW, like WotC, like Catalyst Game Labs, like <insert name here> periodically change their rules for really just one reason, and it has nothing at all to do with the enjoyability of the game. They change it to force the fans to buy more products, in order to make money. That, as you all already know, is it.

[Wildeybeast]

I don't have any major gripes with the current edition, so no, I don't think we need a change. Particularly not when GW has yet to fulfill their claim that they would up date all the codexes before moving on to a new edition. However, I remember when 7th edition Warhammer was released, there was an article in WD with someone like Jervis saying it would be the last big change to the Warhammer rules, that they were really happy with the way it worked and any future rulebooks would just be minor tweaks and balances. Then they rolled out 8th.

So I guess the question of whether we need a new ruleset is utterly irrelevant to GW. Do they need to update all the codexes? Yes. Did they need to release a big new expansion when they have only managed to release two UTD army books in a year? No. They need to do a number of things in the opinions of many gamers, but they will do what a) they think will make money and b)what they think is cool. I've learned to accept the squig hopper-like approach to things that they have and be happy when they do something good and quietly bury my frustration when they do something bafflingly odd.

[Emerald Rose Widow]

I'll be honest, and I mean no disrespect, but this is something of a silly question. We, the players, don't need another edition any more than D&D players needed fourth edition, or Star Wars RPGers needed Star Wars D20 (and especially not the massively dumbed down Star Wars Saga Edition). In every game system I've ever been involved with, changes do not benefit the players because if the game was truly bad enough to actually require changes, nobody would be playing the game in the first place. In most cases people learn to play with and enjoy the games as they are. Rules changes generally only minorly affect the methods of playing the game, but do nothing for the overall enjoyability of the game.

Businesses like GW, like WotC, like Catalyst Game Labs, like <insert name here> periodically change their rules for really just one reason, and it has nothing at all to do with the enjoyability of the game. They change it to force the fans to buy more products, in order to make money. That, as you all already know, is it.

Other than the fact that I liked star wars saga edition (was better than the regular d20 in the same way that pathfinder is better than dnd 3.5 ((dont talk to me about that fourth edition garbage)) in my opinion at least), I have to agree with necron on this 100%. For the most part the changes of rules is just to push the product, and to sell more.

To be honest this isn't exactly a bad thing in my opinion though, it allows for fresh new looks on things, and as long as it isn't totally borked up like dnd 4th ed was, its not bad. In general it puts a fresh face on things in a similar way a new codex does an army, which keeps the game from stagnating. Sure some will hate it, and sure it isn't really needed, but if you think about it, new stuff will get many excited and will certainly make everything more interesting and vibrant.

Or they might bork it up like 4th edition dnd, we shall see.