PDA

View Full Version : 6th or 3.X?



wyvirn
04-07-2012, 04:43
Have we finally stepped out of the reach of 3rd edition? I've heard the last last 2 editions referred to as 3.5 or 3.75 so some other continuation of 3rd edition. With 6th though, I think it's more than a few rules tweaks and is actually it's own more complex game (take that as your will). From different types of power weapons to random charges, I think this is a whole different beast. Thoughts?

VendableFall
04-07-2012, 04:46
i think (starting from 2nd when i started) it has gone

2nd
3rd
3.1
3.2
6th

i havnt played a game of 6th yet but have spent many hours digesting the rulebook, and i am immensly pleased with it so far, well done GW!

Charistoph
04-07-2012, 05:02
I'd say it's more 8.5 IN SPACE!!! than a version of 3rd. Some things are stupid (axes Unwieldy?, no Nids Allies), but it is a lot more nailed down (from what I've seen) than what we've had before. It also feels more like a competitor to Iron Kingdoms than 5th did.

Personally, I would have swapped the Hull Points/Vehicle Damage Chart concepts between Glancing and Penetrating and Axes would be -1 I instead of a cheap Fist, but that can all be Erratad or House Ruled, and we may see such changes in 7th/6.5.

ForgottenLore
04-07-2012, 05:35
With 6th though, I think it's more than a few rules tweaks and is actually it's own more complex game (take that as your will).

No, I disagree. I have been describing 6e as "Major Tweaks". They changed a lot of the surface details, and did so in significant ways, but the core mechanics of the game are still the same - turn structure, stats, basic mechanics, all the fundamental stuff is still basically the same. They didn't just slap a fresh coat of paint on it like they did with 5e, but neither did they rebuild the house from the foundations up. Instead they installed siding, replaced the windows and put on a new roof (which is probably extending the metaphor way too far) but it is still the same structure.

T10
04-07-2012, 06:43
The core mechanics are so close to 3rd edition that I agree it can be said these last two versions are improvements rarher than entirely new editions:

1.0 - Rogue Trader
2.0 - Second edition
2.0.1 - Necromunda
3.0 - Third edition
3.1 - Fifth edition
3.2 - Sixth edition

I'm not complaining. Fifth edition was a great improvement over third ('xcept I think there would have been room for an armour save modifier of some sort) and I didn't really see any major flaws with it. From what I can tell, sixth edition aims to iron out the minor wrinkles and also swaps out guess-work (range estimation) for luck (random charge range: this looks to be a huge change).

MiyamatoMusashi
04-07-2012, 07:48
It's definitely still a 3.x. It's the shootiest version of 3rd Edition yet, but it's still recognisably 3rd Edition at its core.

murgel2006
04-07-2012, 11:09
even thou I loved 2nd and hated 3rd I still have to agree 6th is a 3rd ed incarnation.
It has teh potential to be the best so far and is much much more to my liking than anything before.
But the final judgement will be the codices they produce for this one.

Minsc
04-07-2012, 11:23
I like 6th Ed., but it feels more like 5.5 than an actual new edition.
So I guess that makes it a part of the 3.X genre.

Eldoriath
04-07-2012, 15:51
Well, seeing how extended the changes to 6th are compared to 3rd I'd like to call it a new edition completely. Sure, we still got move, shoot assault. But if that is so important, have there really been any new edition of fantasy since... I don't know, but like 4th/5th?

Hull points are new.
Running is (semi) new.
Throwing grenades is new.
Assault rules are new.
Allies are new.
Impact attacks are new.
Flyers are new.
Flying monstrous creatures are new.
Skyfire is new.

Really, there are so many new things that aren't tweaked, and the things that remain are mostly tweaked. Infantry movement in the movement phase has remained the same though.

lanrak
04-07-2012, 18:37
Hi Eldorath.

Hull points are just additional vehicle rules V3 , because we cant use a unified damage resolution mechanic.(Still WHFB game mechanics,)
Running been around for RT-2nd ed and 5th ed, not new at all.
Throwing greanades like Rt and 2nd ed, not new.
Assault rules are just another re hash of WHFB assault game mechanics.
Allies rules were there in 2nd ed.
Impact hits were there in RT and 2nd ed.
Flyers have new models, YAY!!!
Flying monsters have been in WHFB for ever.
Skyfire??

IF GW game devs were allowd to do a complete re write they could make massive improvments in the rule set.(If SGs are anything to go by.)
EG far less pages of rules and far more game play /game balance.

THAT would be a new edition .NOT another WHFB mutation.

Scammel
04-07-2012, 18:46
It's 3.X in the same way that the human race is monkey.X - it's evolved over time, with major and minor tweaks resulting in a different beast, but it's only ever been tweaks, not enough to completely distance itself from the original animal.

AndrewGPaul
04-07-2012, 19:12
Hi Eldorath.

Hull points are just additional vehicle rules V3 , because we cant use a unified damage resolution mechanic.(Still WHFB game mechanics,)

What's that got to do with Warhammer? Apart from anything else, Warhammer does use pretty much the same rules for vehicles (e.g. the Steam Tank) as it does for its Monstrous Creature equivalents. In addition, there were experimental rules for 2nd edition which treated vehicles exactly the same as other multi-Wound models (everything from a Greater Daemon to a Space Marine officer) with the reasonable exception of movement. Since 2nd edition cleaved much closer to the contemporary Warhammer rules than 6th edition does to 8th, it's clearly not the provenance of the core mechanics that's the cause of the vehicle rules.

Nymie_the_Pooh
04-07-2012, 19:19
It's not as much of a change going from second to third, but the changes have the most impact since then. I doubt we will see an edition where the core is mucked with as long as 40K continues to be the breadwinner of Games Workshop. The game drew a bigger audience with third. I don't know if it's the rules so much as it was simply getting more exposure as I knew people that left when third came out, but the fact remains that more people did play with the newer system and it's a bit silly to pluck all of the feathers off the the golden goose if they don't have to.

Ronin_eX
04-07-2012, 19:27
In a lot of ways many of the changes harken back to RT and 2nd rather than sticking along the lines of 3rd. I think part of the reason I like this set is it feel more like 2.5E than it does like a 3E sub-edition. Sure it has some 3rd hallmarks in there (unified damage chart, streamlined assault compared to 2nd Edition, instant death instead of a wound-die, no ASM system, cover handled with a save, unified special rules, unit-type system instead of M stat, only one save) but several of those things are things that should have happened when updating 2nd in the first place (namely assault, one save and special rules codification). At the same time I also see a lot of WFB creeping back in.

But looking over it we have Overwatch in as a charge reaction (a hybrid of RT/2nd and WFB), grenade tossing is back in (RT/2nd but my god it feels streamlined now, I love it), melee weapons are varied and treated differently depending on what they are (RT/2nd influence), squads no longer bugger up the heavy weapon if only a few of them move (RT/2nd treated each member as a separate guy rather than a homogenous blob), all weapons can fire out to maximum range again (the change to Rapid Fire is huge and makes weapons feel like they did in RT/2nd again), vehicles basically have wounds again (early RT! though they still don't have a tougness stat... on the other hand, this is also kind of like the Epic: Armageddon system, now MCs just need critical hit charts), impact hits are in the game (WFB influence), Allies (RT/2nd), the psychic system (2nd and WFB), vehicle move and fire at a penalty to hit (RT/2nd), and probably a few others I'm forgetting. And of course one of the biggest (but oddly unsung) changes is heavy weapons can move and fire in this edition (sure, it's snapfire, but this is a huge change regardless).

Basically the game has a lot of chunks from older editions. It feels like the newest iteration of the game since 3rd and it seems to mix the streamlining attempts of the 3E-era systems with some of the influence of RT/2nd/WFB. As someone who plays a lot of 2nd it kind of reads like a love-letter to that era. But with that said it is still a lot like 3rd as well. This, oddly, makes it very different than either game-styles and on those merits I actually think that this is one of the first truly new editions since 3rd Edition hit. It is more than just a few minor tweaks and it is informed by more than just one previous edition. So I say that 6th Edition is well and truly 6th Edition. This isn't an edition that could have been handled by a small errata document like (at least in my opinion) 4th and 5th could have been. There were a lot of radical changes in this edition and to this somewhat jaded grognard it was nice to see.

Eldoriath
04-07-2012, 19:28
@lanrak
I'm sorry, I thought we were talking about 6th ed being different from 3rd ed in the sense of being a whole new edition and not just an update to 3rd ed.

So what if they take in things from 2nd edition? 2nd edition is separated from 3rd, so if 6th uses elements of 2nd it should hold true that 6th is a new edition properly as well. And remember, I compared to 3rd edition, not 1st (rogue trader) or 2nd edition. Compared to 3rd edition I'd say 6th edition is a whole new edition and not just minor tweaks of 3rd edition. Many new rules/concepts not present in 3rd edition as said. If they have occured elsewhere before, so be it.

AM1640
04-07-2012, 20:11
From your descriptions of 6ed I may get back into playing 40K. I left when 3ed came out. I understand why new editions have to come out, otherwise the game would become stale and there would be no sales. Embrace the changes or don't play.

BooTMGSG
04-07-2012, 20:33
Theres a fair bit of 2E peaking through, but a lot of 3rd. Rather than 3.X its more 2+3 edition. So sixth edition is actually fifth edition (or second and a half edition).

Ronin_eX
04-07-2012, 20:42
Theres a fair bit of 2E peaking through, but a lot of 3rd. Rather than 3.X its more 2+3 edition. So sixth edition is actually fifth edition (or second and a half edition).

Definitely, average them. It is 2.5 edition! (appropriate since it seems like a half-way point between 2nd and 3rd :p )

Mojaco
04-07-2012, 21:26
By now, 6th is as far removed from 3rd as 3rd was from 2nd, so in that light I'd call it a real new edition. But it took 2 evolutionary steps in between, so it is very close to 5th in many regards.

In other words, it's time to stop the 3.X stuff, but it's no revolution either. And 40k could've used a revolution imo. It feels a bit like patchwork, which only seems to fix one issue I had with 40k; you could glance/penetrate vehicles forever if you didn't roll high enough. 6th has a nice and pretty fix imo, but all other changes I really didn't see the need for, and are just added/changed for the sake of having a new edition. It doesn't look like the fresh wind I was hoping for.

de Selby
04-07-2012, 21:38
It doesn't seem quite as different as Pancake edition was. It remains compatible with codices from 5th and 4th. There are a lot of extra things bolted on and some big changes like allies but overall I think it's part of the evolution of 3rd, 4th and 5th, not a clean break like 2nd/3rd.

wyvirn
04-07-2012, 23:46
I think it is a huge leap forward, similar to 7th to 8th edition of Fantasy. You can still find the remnants of 3rd edition, but I don't they will ever completely scour all of the foundation without making a completely new game. I see it as using what worked before and refining it a little, but also adding a large amount of new stuff that may or may not work (Random Objectives, Flyer/Skyfire relationship, etc). I feel it's worthy of it's own edition.

Thoth62
05-07-2012, 00:35
Having not seen it myself, it sounds like an effort was made not only to reflect and make changes based on previous editions, like overwatch, throwing grenades (2nd), and obviously mechanics from 3rd onwards, but they also made an effort to freshen things up with some new concepts to the base ruleset, like flyers, and skyfire. I think it shows a lot of guts (for lack of a better term) on GW's part to 'learn' from the past, and also move forward. I approve, and I can't wait until I'm able to have my first game (Sadly, it won't be until September :cries:)

bad dice
05-07-2012, 00:50
even thou I loved 2nd and hated 3rd I still have to agree 6th is a 3rd ed incarnation.
It has teh potential to be the best so far and is much much more to my liking than anything before.
But the final judgement will be the codices they produce for this one.

You know why it is 3.2 and not 6th ( well it is 6th but you know)
Because gw learned form 2th to 3th edition switch.

Like you I loved 2nd and disliked 3th. I liked 4th and 5th tough.
And by the thime 5th rolled around I started to realise why I hated 3th. They had changed to much.

That is the problem whit new editions;
change to much and ppl will hate it, because they don't recognize the game any more.
change to little and ppl will call it a cash in.

I really like 6th even if it ain't that large a change

They kept it close enough for me to roll into it whit ease and still know what is going on.
They changed enough to make it interesting. By nerfing transports and introducing new unit types and more interesting rules for old ones.

It's a new dawn in a familiar city if you don't mind the metaphor.
And I like it.