Do we actually need a 6th edition?

[BuFFo]

Of course then GW would probably also drop vehicle cover saves, return transports be being not-very-good, and otherwise smack vehicles with the nerf bat. And then transports would be back to being rare.

As you say, old costs with current rules would be much better, or current cost with some of the old rules to make transports not so crazy good.


It's tweaks like this that are why I want 6th ed. In 4th, vehicles weren't good enough. Now, they're too good. If GW does a good job, we'll keep iterating towards a better and better core rule set. Hopefully that's how this actually turns out.

I just noticed...

Your avatar is pretty awesome!

[Storm Seer]

I really don't understand how people can think 5th edition is good. The more games I've played, the more irritating it has seemed.

Nothing seems to work as it 'should'. I know it's difficult to get the game to match the fluff, but brainstorming house rules comes up with so many obvious changes (without straying into movie marines territory).

A few examples:
Land Raiders should not be nearly so easy to immobilise driving through difficult terrain. I've lost count of the number of times my LRs have ground to a halt for driving over the edge of a small crater. Ridiculous!

Terminators should be able to walk -through- walls, so why don't they count as having assault grenades?! And they die far too easily (yes, I roll a lot of ones!). Surely they should be immune to small arms fire.

A squad on a tower can only fire a few weapons at an enemy squad below them (true LOS rules) BUT the squad below can see ONE guy on the tower and can therefore shoot the entire squad?! Yep, in 5th ed, it's really bad to have the high ground! (for crying out loud, this is SO dumb!).

A move and fire option would be nice for the heavy bolter in marine armies (you know, that iconic weapon that is never taken).

More of a skirmish feel would be very welcome. Having played some DIY rules skirmish games, where every model is important and gets to participate (yes, basic bolter marines moving forwards and gunning people down while the heavy weapon hangs back and provides covering fire!) going back to using squads as basically a 10-wound special weapon (or 10-wound MM bunker in the case of a tac squad in a rhino) is so very disappointing.

Oh yeah, and meltaguns being able to destroy bunkers?! No, just no! Blow a hole in the wall... yes. Level the building... er, no!

[Sister Rosette Soulknyt]

My only gripe is finish what you started with, finish off 5th ed first, make sure every army has a 5th ed codex and not some wannabee lazy A$%ed stop gap because 6th is due out soon.

[Duncndisorderly]

I agree.
I would be far happier if they focussed on getting the codex right for the armies first as there is still a massive imbalance/bias imho in some codex's.
I agree that they should look at the rules that constantly create issues such as line of sight, terrain etc but that is something they could/should have sorted with a FAQ donkeys years ago.
Im not against a 6th ed as long as they give it some thought first and actually create a useable unambiguous rulebook where i dont need to mark 4 different pages just to clarify one issue, and sure I love the fluff but i'd rather they sort the basics first, and tbh the fluff is best reserved for the dex anyway.
The rule book should be a rulebook first and an opportunity to promote/sell product second. If they did that then the rule book could be significantly lowered in price which in itself would probably cut down some of the carping about the need for a new book. I wouldnt even mind if they released two versions of the rule book one with and one without the fluff ala the mini rules in the box sets.

[TheRise]

Do we need a 6th ed? No.
Would we want to keep 5th ed for ever? No.
Did we want to keep 1st ed forever? No.
Do we need new ed's? Yes.
Do we want a 6th ed, but a bit simpler? Yes.

They need more editions, why didn't you saying this about moving to 5th or to 4th ro to 3rd? The rules are rubbish for 6th ed. So they need to make it easier to understand, so they are more profitable.
Then again are all of the leaks we see right and confirmed? No.

[DrLove42]

I'm perfectly happy with 5th.

Some of the "proposed" changes/rumours to 6th sound alright, but a lot sound rubbish

What needs fixing is the codexes more than the rules.

I see GW in the same way that companies that make online games are (say Activision and Call of Duty). The rules, gameplay and nearly everything they provide is perfectly fine and with the right people is great. However you then find the people who play outside the spirit of the game, in a "hardcore I must win" way that ruins it for a lot of people and play in a way not intended that need fixing/removing.

But thats a different discussion for a different time.

[Denzark]

Do we need a 6th ed? No.
Would we want to keep 5th ed for ever? No.
Why not? Chess doesn't chnage every 5 years?
Did we want to keep 1st ed forever? No.
Do we need new ed's? Yes.
Do we want a 6th ed, but a bit simpler? Yes.
Simpler than 5th or simpler than the alleged leaked changes?

They need more editions, why didn't you saying this about moving to 5th or to 4th ro to 3rd?
Not sure if the lounge was around then or I might have done. And only thought of this recently when considering Hrud.
The rules are rubbish for 6th ed. So they need to make it easier to understand, so they are more profitable.
Then again are all of the leaks we see right and confirmed? No.

The question can boil down to, do the rules need swinging changes or simply tweaks. 5.1 or 6.0?

[Bigthunda]

I started playing when 5th edition came out, so I haven't actually played any games with older rules...from what I've heard 5th seems to be an overall streamlined system. I think most of the problems stem from unbalanced codices, not necessarily rules issues. Most of the rules we're seeing for 6th seem over complicated to me,, although I do like the sound of stratagems and less random turn stuff (and the Chaos Legions/Traitor Marine dexes <3 )

[DrLove42]

See I seem to like all the things people hate and want rid of

I like random game lengths
I like who who gets turn 1 starts
I like the cover mechanic if you use it properly

Yes you need house rules and a pinch of common sense to make things work.

But do you think 6th will be the all glorious saviour of games and will not need house rules and FAQ's to iron out the creases?

[Lord Azaghul]

I really don't understand how people can think 5th edition is good. The more games I've played, the more irritating it has seemed.

I think the biggest fear most people have is that GW seems to have a nack for taking things that work ok, and somehow making them worse - catastrophicly worse.

Given their writing rules behavor since 2008, I have very little hope for a 'good/fun' 6th edition, espiecally if they don't change the AB's/Codex's first.