PDA

View Full Version : Another Edition?



ozzyboy
03-02-2009, 16:39
I was rereading the 25th Anniversary of Warhammer issue of White Dwarf, and it doesn't look like there's gonna be a rules update soon, which is fine. Do you see 5th edition as a point for games workshop to stop, and focus more on the armies codexes? If no, then what do you foresee? I'm happy with fifth edition, but would like a new starter set or some such later. (Lets disregard the current economy, as it may be threat, but that was discussed in a different place.)

pookie
03-02-2009, 16:43
I'm happy with fifth edition, but would like a new starter set or some such later. (Lets disregard the current economy, as it may be threat, but that was discussed in a different place.)

So Assault on Black reach didnt count as a starter set? or am i missing your point?

Ravenous
03-02-2009, 16:44
As Warhammer is a "living game" it makes its money by constantly updating it, and from whats been said it looks like we are in for a new edition every 4 years without the need to update all of the codex's like in previous editions.

Lord Inquisitor
03-02-2009, 16:49
I don't feel that 5th ed is in any way an ideal system, so I would expect and welcome a new edition. The game is practically screaming out for an overwatch mechanic, the vehicle rules still aren't quite right just yet and there are many other niggles that could be improved upon.

The game should evolve and continue. It will probably be the case that each successive generation will be less of a dramatic change - between 6th and 7th ed Fantasy there wasn't much of a difference, but 7th was still an improvment. Which isn't to say Fantasy is perfect either, and there are many things I would change about that too.

incarna
03-02-2009, 17:07
It is widely considered that Fantasy is “finished” or near finished, perhaps requiring but one more iteration before being a balanced comprehensive rules set. I feel that 40k is slowly starting to get there as well. I believe 5th was a “transition” rules set released with the intention of overhauling the rules for balance then, releasing every subsequent codex within 5th, and THEN releasing a 6th ed where the rules will be even better… that, I would guess, is around 4 years away if not more.

It certainly doesn’t hurt GW’s pocket books that players must purchase all the literature for an edition and then purchase new literature when a new edition comes out either.

Rydmend
03-02-2009, 17:07
Leadership as it stands is a joke, most units are either leadership 9 or 10 or allow rerolls or allow auto pass or fail or totally negate taking the test all together.

I think the WS chart and close combat in general is kind of crappy, a WS 10 greater daemon would hit a WS 1 model on a 3+? That just seems lame considering BS give a bonus the higher it gets. I mean a guardsman gets the same chance to hit low WS models as a greater daemon.

Also, the fact that mixed assaults with fearless models of different T values can transfer wounds is a little crazy in my opinion. So a hive tyrant and 5 hormagaunts are in combat against some marines and the marines just direct all attacks at the gaunts killing all 5 gaunts and since they lost combat by 5 those wounds get tranfered to the T6 tyrant? very dumb.

Just little things like that make the game frustrating sometimes, so I would say no, it is not a finished system at this point.

the1stpip
03-02-2009, 17:24
Overwatch will not come back as an universal rule. 40k is now about movement and fluidity. Overwatch promotes sitting back and waiting for something to move.

I loved the old overwatch rules, but we have moved on since then.

I don't think they will stop making new rulebooks. They are a massive income for the company.

Reaver83
03-02-2009, 17:25
I hope they keep 5th for a few years, and that 6th is made after 3-4 years of feedback, and prsy it's sensible changes not double nerfs

The_Outsider
03-02-2009, 17:27
The biggest shift in 40k wasn't the core rules, it was the shift in design philosphy for the codices - with a much longer development cycle a much greater balance can be achieved due to much more thorough playtesting.

The core rules aren't bad and still need work, but they aren't the root (or core :P ) of the problem.

ozzyboy
03-02-2009, 18:02
Yea, so many of you guys aren't happy with the new rules, and see room for improvement. Would you consider it rough by WFB's standards?

Col. Dash
03-02-2009, 18:09
The game rules will remain imperfect and highly flawed until they get rid of the congo line rule of hand to hand(which 4th fixed after 3rd and then the ****** brought it back for 5th) and when the designers differentiate troops in hand to hand using sticks they picked up off the ground, bare hands, giant q-tips, and whirring chainswords. Once they get that right, then they can start thinking about finalizing the rules. Shooting is ok except for the cover save thing, they should put it back to 5+ or make a -1 to hit in the first place. An initiative based overwatch would help. If a unit is on overwatch and wants to fire, then it should have to roll an initiative test to see if it reacts fast enough, other games have something similar and it works just fine.

ozzyboy
03-02-2009, 18:49
Well, i hadn't realized there was so many issues.

ReveredChaplainDrake
03-02-2009, 18:50
Personally I'm very happy with 5th edition rules. The problem is a lot of army-specific stuff needs to change to be compatible. For example, the wounds-carry-over-from-Gaunt-to-Tyrant issue for Tyranids is claimed by some to be a problem, but Tyranids generally have a problem with the newer game mechanics like No Retreat and Kill Points and stuff like that. Orks adapt considerably better because they were designed for it, and were the core rules manipulated more favorably for Tyranids, Orks would get massive boosts. In the end, it's easier to put on shoes than to carpet the world.

From what I've heard about overwatch, it seems that a better system would be the staggered offense. Chaos Daemons illustrate very well how to do this effectively. They all Deep Strike in, they get either a run or a shot off, and then the opponent can respond. Since Daemons are a fightier army than a shootier one, the enemy can react before the brunt of the Daemons' assault hits them, which is why Daemons aren't generally seen as being overpowered in 40k. So, in order to cure stuff like outflankers wrecking shooty armies by denying any firepower coming at them, how about fixing Outflank so that units can't assault when they show up?

Lord Inquisitor
03-02-2009, 18:52
Yea, so many of you guys aren't happy with the new rules, and see room for improvement. Would you consider it rough by WFB's standards?

WFB is hardly polished. Clipping remains as a constant irritation - any game system that sort of recommends you fudge it as a mechanic has room for improvement. I can think of five ways to permanently end the clipping menace off the top of my head. Terrain is a mess - it's either effectively impassable for most troops and completely ignored by the rest, and the actual benefits of terrain are negated by the large number of auto-hitting attacks (e.g. magic missiles). The Challenge system seems to be designed to allow large monsters to avoid being attacked by units and fails miserably in its intended goal.

Warhammer is burdened by long-standing issues that have been issues so long that people don't seem to see the problem, such as with challenges or clipping.

40K, on the other hand, in some ways is a more elegant system. While I'm not suggesting its the better game system - for all its horrible flaws, I love Fantasy - many aspects are superior. Terrain in particular has an important and dynamic part of the game while it is usually sidelined in Fantasy - most people regard terrain as a hill in their deployment zone to set up cannons on.

Both systems could do with a serious shake-up to break some of the bad things that people are so used to they don't seem to mind.

Colonial Rifle
03-02-2009, 19:14
There better be a 6th Edition as 5th has lot of problems with it - in many ways a step backwards from 4th. Although, on the face of it, 5th is a clear-up and refinement of 4th, the devil is in the detail and too many sweeping changes to cover saves and mission objectives have completely unbalanced the game.

The current designers lacked the guile and ability to make a better edition. The perfect example of this is Kill points = just epic, epic fail. A poor concept turned disasterous by witless, broad sweeping execution.

I don't know much about WHFB, but the latest edition doesn't seem too different from the last. It's the over-powered army books that is ruining WHFB.

AUN'SHI
03-02-2009, 19:30
These rules are fine. maybe a few tiny things here and there.

As for leadership, it's pretty good.. Maybe cause I play tau where my normal ld is 7/8, the Aun makes me re-roll but why would I use an Aun. And if the ld rule was any worse your get things running off the battle feild off the first turn.

The WS ruleing is also fine and I hope they keep this. The reason for this is because you don't want power houses to run the game. For example a blood thirster should not be able to hit anything on an anything but it woudl be way to powerful. Most probably cost much more.

I like the new cover rules makes the game less warmarine and more warhammer. God job in that light.

Ubermensch Commander
03-02-2009, 19:47
I doubt GW will stop producing new editions so long as they can keep making money from them and there is still interest in the game. Each edition has its own little pros and cons, and many peple disagree on what these are. What grinds one person's gears, is to another person a much needed balance or entertaining rule.
As for predicting GW next move...*shrug* I am no pocket Nostradomus and I have not spoken the GW development crew so I cannot say.

maelstrom66669
03-02-2009, 20:00
Im fine with new editions, as long as they wait a few years to do it. Im not all about buyin new books all the time. As for rules changing, im fine with that too, because its not like their changing just for me, if your particular army gets nerfed that sucks, its the same way in MMO's but carrying on about it and acting like your ideas are best only makes you look foolish. If you can make a better game, with cool plastic models, for the same price or cheaper, and have it available here, ill be glad to play it. But until that happens, ill stick with GW...

Lame Duck
03-02-2009, 20:23
They'll never settle on one edition, (even if they did get it *perfect*) because each new edition means a definite inflow of cash.

But even then, they'll never get it *perfect* because with each edition they (intentionaly?) overfix issues, or rather than just tweaking it they have to make it different enough to force players to buy a new rule book, rather than use the old one.

starlight
03-02-2009, 20:38
As long as GW wants to sell models, we'll get new editions. :p

megatrons2nd
03-02-2009, 22:27
4 years division between editions? I would rather them spend more time on the armies between editions of rules and widen the time between editions. Sure everyone needs to buy a new core book eventually. I just updated this past month do to finances. As a "living" game the expansion of forces would be more realistic. 40K is more of a "reboot" game. There is very seldom a new race added to the game and you hear the same story over and over again with each new codex. It appears to me that the "living" game is little more than a "zombie" when it comes to the progress of the universe. The rules changes always feel like they are someones arbitrary changes just because they didn't like something.

Don't get me wrong I enjoy the game, but it never seems to go anywhere.

the1stpip
03-02-2009, 22:30
I actually rather like 5th ed.

The only rule that annoys me is the terrain rule (including the 4+ cover save). I much preferred the 4th ed rules for terrain blocking LOS.

Otherwise, KPs are a pain, but I am getting used to it, everybody is in the same boat, and it makes me think more when I design a list.

I think 5th is a great improvement over 4th, and once the codexes roll out for the nerfed armies (you know who you are) it will be all round a much better game.

I only hope they don't have a problem with newer codexes being far too powerful compared to the older ones, like WFB has.

Gorbad Ironclaw
03-02-2009, 22:32
It is widely considered that Fantasy is “finished” or near finished, perhaps requiring but one more iteration before being a balanced comprehensive rules set.


Widely considered by who? Warhammer does, IMO, have much bigger issues with the core rulesystem than 40k does and needs a new edition (that will actually change stuff) much more than 40k does.

Warboss Antoni
04-02-2009, 02:27
I don't like fifth. They tried to streamline it, but kinda ruined it ( kill points, the current vehicles rules, only USRs, etc. ). However, the balance of the codexs ( even Grey Knights aren't as bad of a match up as like Beasts of Chaos vs Daemons ), and that they don't break the game with every book makes it a very fun game. I think they could just work on the 6th ed book after they release all 5th codexes and errata/update.

Born Again
04-02-2009, 05:38
I like the 5th Edition ruleset. Ok, it's not 100% perfect, but I have no major problem with it that I think needs fixing sooner rather than later. GW, as a company that needs money, will always redo the rules... but I would much prefer them to redo all the codecies, then look at something like either a new race (as in entirely new, Demiurg, Hrud, AdMech or whatever) as well as a few more expansions on current armies (the rumoured chaos legion books, or feral orks or something) first. I would much rather see them than changing rules that work just fine as is.

alphastealer
04-02-2009, 08:26
Overall I am content with 5th edition. I think a lot of the minor gripes can be sorted on a new codex basis, ie: tyranids lack of armour penetration = change venom cannon from 'glance only' to AP-.

I also agree that the WS chart is a bit outdated and not always representative of the models in combat. I would suggest that if you are double or more your oppoenents WS then you get prefered enemy.
A 2+ to hit is a bit much but a 3+ reroll is almost as good. It is the reason that I always play feeder tendrils on my genestealers.

The 4+ standard cover save for all situations is also too generic. It means all shooting in the game will never be more than 50% effective.

I also do not like the spilling over of wounds in cc between multiple units when you lose combat. The gaunts and carnifex scenario comes to mind. I would fix this by saying that wounds could only carry over if attacks were allocated to all units involved in the combat in that turn, otherwise they can only be allocated to the unit targeted and if they are wiped out completely then any extra benefits are lost.

Kill points are just retarded. It also makes it very difficult to blend a victory point and kill point system for tournaments that doesn't favour small yet powerful armies, like nidzilla or double lash blit or nob bikers or mech eldar, mech marines. Any horde based army is going to give away extra points like it was christmas.

I like the idea of overwatch but feel it should have a small penalty, ie: -1 to BS.

A lot of minor things could be easily fixed with good errata, but for some reason that hardly ever happens.

The big thing for me is for GW to hurry up and get all their codexes up to date and for each army to have a codex that is based on the current edition rulebook otherwise there will always be issues and over/underpowered armies.

That would be my challenge to GW. Don't even talk about 6th ed until all armies have a 5th ed codex!

09Project
04-02-2009, 08:40
6th Edition will appear, what somewhere around 2012ish? But as was said we now into evolution of rule books, no more big changes such as 2nd to 3rd.

Overall though, 5th is good, as a basis it plays very well I think.

Don't personally feel the game needs Overwatch to come back, if it does at any point I would like to hope it is well thought out exactly what way it does.

Simple change I would like is a return to movement values. Try playing with them again, it makes a very interesting game and does balance out shooty/CC armies in tests that have been tried.

the1stpip
04-02-2009, 08:52
Actually, 3+ with a re-roll (1 in 9 miss) is better than a 2+ to hit (1 in 6 miss).

Hellebore
04-02-2009, 08:55
Biggest fix should be changing IGOUGO to something like the LotR system.

Overwatch is practically pointless in a system where reaction happens within the turn. It's only important in a game that insists your entire army gets to do EVERYTHING before mine.


A psychology section that consists of more than 'Fearless' and 'mostly fearless' would also give the game a much needed boost.

EDIT: The cover save for everyone and their dog, to me, indicates the game has some serious design problems. I like AP in general (because it reflects weapon penetrative ability in the real world) but it was obviously causing ALOT of problems if they needed to give almost everything on the table a cover save to ignore it. The 5th edition of 40k reduces the point of AP quite dramatically by having such a massive amount of cover saves available. But instead of changing AP mechanics, they added a fairly poor patch.

Hellebore