Thoughts on what 7th may be.

[Renegade]

Though a long way off still, could the newest rule expansions be testing the water for what GW have in mind for seventh edition?

About now would be a good time to test the ideas for a new edition, bringing out expansions as a test bed for some of the biggest changes would be advantageous. If they do build on this, then I am looking forward to what else they may have in mind.

GW management may be a lot of things, stupid is not one as War Hammer is still the market leader, but would it be like them to think this far ahead?

Thoughts?

[Mr Mystery]

All joking apart, I reckon about now is right for them to start tinkering with the rules that will eventually become 7th Ed.

Why now? It's been out for a year, and many many games have been played. Which equates to feedback on the changes they introduced.

A common bit of feedback (and no small amount of whining) is the reigning in of the assault phase, something they've changed quite a bit over the years. In 3rd Edition, assault was king. With just a smidge of experience, your combat oriented units could leap from pasting to pasting without ever being exposed to incoming fire. This was tweaked to prevent you going straight from one combat to another. It was further tweaked to prevent massed assaults from ridiculously fast troop carriers in a single turn (most ridiculous was Blood Angels. Souped up vehicle storms 18" up the board, with a potential +6" because the driver is having a bad day. Troops pile out 2", and then charge 6", for a total charge range of up to 32" in a single turn.)

But now it's felt by some they went too far, as all those changes stand, but now your opponent can shoot in the face at point blank range as you charge in. Plus, the traditional combat nutters friend of Fleet no longer extends your charge reach, as you cannot run and assault at all.

Fairly confident they'll be tinkering away with this, seeing if the removal of an existing rule will redress the balance, or if it needs a tweak, overhaul, new rule etc.

Likewise hull points. They're cool, but can be a bit of a liability against a cunningly prepared opponent (like my Necrons ).

Then there's other considerations. Can the redress be applied by just tinkering with the rules within the armies that depend upon assault the most (like Orks and Nids, who generally aren't that reliant on dakka in their background, no matter how shooty an army you can make). Both are yet to get their 6th Ed books (though Nids are of course expected shortly).

[Arkhan Land]

old school over-watch or something like it would be cool. Maybe you can only run or shoot in a turn you want your unit to use overwatch, helps end overpower of overshooty and give more chances to assault units. that said maybe more elite units can have abilities that always let them do it.

[Popsical]

I think GW just evolve their rules constantly until the next rule book scrambles it all again. Hence codexs getting labelled 3.5 or 5.5 etc.
I would not be surprised if the whole show is run like a tombowler, rules get put in and then randomly drawn out to create the final product.
40k is a great game, sure at the moment my army is sub par due to being totally mechanised, but in a few years it'll come back into vogue and then I will have a few months of awesome. If as a player you want to be competitive year in year out you gotta own all the armies and just rotate them as they fall from grace or rise phoenix like.

[SaveModifier]

It'll be second edition.

[Fanboy]

I live in hope its something similar to 4th ed, with terrain rules like 5th ed.

Flyers 0-1 optional, or dump flyers, and revert back to skimmers......
Furious charge: +1 str +1 Ini
You can charge from a stationary transport vehicle.
Hell, just bring 4th ed close combat/HTH rules back.
keep allies
dump warlord traits
dump challenges
dump over watch. lets encourage a little bit of HtH

[Katharon]

Terrain has gotten perfect. Fliers are fine since everyone will soon have a codex with AA options or can simply take allies with their own AA. They improved Assault and Charging just fine with 6th -- people just need to suck it up and learn to play more tactically.

Instead of thinking about 7th, just look for ways to refine 6th. Majority will rules, so don't expect your own private reservations and opinions to mean much.

[daboarder]

word is that 6th is meant to last longer than other editions, and I hope thats the case, for all its faults (codex CSM, Escelations, Formations) its a fantastic rules set that has a good balance between cinematic, solid rules, and large and small scale detail.

[Katharon]

word is that 6th is meant to last longer than other editions, and I hope thats the case, for all its faults (codex CSM, Escelations, Formations) its a fantastic rules set that has a good balance between cinematic, solid rules, and large and small scale detail.

If you don't like Escalation or Formations, then you'll have to take out Allies and double FoC too.

[Dimitrios]

I think 6th Ed is a solid foundation to build on. Following on from the major overhaul to Fantasy that all but crippled the game for many I do not see them making heavy changes. Equally lets remember that the company will not re-introduce restrictive FOC's as they will want to maximise sales on all of their produce. The game is purely a mechanism for the company to makret and sell their customers miniatures.

Someone above rightly pointed out that all 6th needs is a slight rules tweaking to fix certain aspects that did not function as designed.

I forsee the following:

1. The addition of more fortifications (encouraging us to buy more of their fortifications).
2. Tweaking of Universal Special Rules to change the balance of certain units (encouraging us to buy units we have not yet bought).
3. Tweaking of Psykic Powers (to encourage/ discourage the use of psykers and affect the purchasing of psykic characters).
4. Tweak assault rules (to force players to buy additional assault models in armies that now only have ranged models).

From a rules/ balance perspective I would appreciate and welcome the following:

1. Armour saves for vehicles - In my opinion this would offer some protection against glancing hits cause from low penetration shots whilst offering no extra protection against dedicated anti vehicle weaponry (S7 AP4 spam would have a reduced effect on a tank with a 3+ save, whilst light transports with a 4+ save would still be equally vulnerable). It equally brings vehicles back up to par with monstrous creatures.
2. Change of Flying Stance for monstrous creatures - I believe that a change of stance from flying to walking should carry the same penalties that disembarking from a transport does, ie. Not allowing charges. This would force players to plan ahead and land their monstrous creatures at the end of their turn, allowing their opponent a full turn of shooting before the creature reaches their lines.
3. Alter the turning arces of fliers depending on their speed - I believe a 90% turn should only be allowed if the flier has not fired or it has moved slowly. If an aircraft/ MC has moved at a greater speed its turning arc should be limited. The ability for a flier to zoom on from a table edge, land a powerful weapon on a group of miniatures and then slow, turn 90% and launch the same weapon on a nearby model in the same turn is unrealistic and over powered in certain circumstances.