Official WarSeer Warhammer 40,000 6th Edition discussion thread

[Carlosophy]

If GW were working on a 'standardised' ruleset that could just be errata'd every so often then the current fake/leaked ruleset would be a terrible start. By continually adding new material to such an in-depth ruleset we will end up with the 2E problem all over again.

A standardised rule model would need to be much leaner, almost 3.5E (3E + TAR + Tank rejig) in specification. Depth (Cityfight, Apoc etc) can then be added via supplemental material and the community. The 6E we have scales poorly at smaller points, has too many charts, too many pointless additions (EV, Actions) and takes too long to set up the game.

[Son of Perturabo]

Surely the idea of a standardised core set of rules isn't entirely incompatible with continued rule updates in the form of new editions. As I see it the idea of a core set of rules would be that any changes they made wouldn't be as sweeping as they have been in the past. Editions would be less frequent and would likely be based around a combination of including updates from all the FAQs and erratas into the rulebook as well as making any necessary tweeks and larger changes to the rules. This format would also mean that they could ensure that all the Codexes are up to date for any given edition, rather than the current situation we have where certain armies are really out of date- Dark Angels spring to mind most strongly.

Anyway, on to 6th ed rumours. The only one I have heard recently is that "Preferred Enemy" will be expanded to shooting attacks. If true Necron Destroyers make abit more sense.

[madprophet]

I seriously doubt GW will go this route, but it seems to me that the approach of Flames of War might work for Warhammer/40k. Start with a basic rules book that covers all the basics of movement, shooting, cover, range, charges, universal special rules, etc.

Then put all the magic rules/psycher rules in a supplement, all the flyer rules, all the vehicles rules, etc. into supplements. You could sell at least as many rules books. Not to mention army/faction books, setting books, campaign supplements, etc. for both systems.

On a more on-topic note, has there been any clarification on what will be in the starter and when we might see it? One set of rumors is that it will be loyalist marines vs. chaos marines while another batch says marines vs. eldar.

[Spell_of_Destruction]

GW have always insisted figures first books second. The rulesbooks are there to support / underpin the figures to help create a story around the figures. GW have consistently stated they are a miniature figure manufacturer and they want their figures to be the best. Their books are there to support this.

I hear this time and time again and it confuses me (I'm not saying that you're wrong). I don't know many people who buy minis just because they are 'cool minis'. That may be one motivational factor but my anecdotal experience is that the vast majority of people who collect want to play the game.

Both should be a key element of the product. GW invests huge amounts of money and effort into producing excellent minis. Producing decent and relatively balanced rules to accompany them should be the easy part.

All the arguments I hear - "It's designed for kids", "This is their business model", "They make older codeces crap because they want you to buy more minis" are just excuses.

[The Dude]

Surely the idea of a standardised core set of rules isn't entirely incompatible with continued rule updates in the form of new editions. As I see it the idea of a core set of rules would be that any changes they made wouldn't be as sweeping as they have been in the past.

As far as I can see, edition changes between 3rd and 5th have been far from sweeping. 2nd to 3rd was sweeping. If this PDF is true, that will be sweeping. Fiddling with the rules for assault and transports is what I'd call tweaking and falls within the model being put forward; ie one main set of rules altered occasionally with errata and eventually re-edited and re-released (what's that? A new edition?)

[Lexington]

As far as I can see, edition changes between 3rd and 5th have been far from sweeping.

You know, I remember the exact same thing being said when (fairly accurate) rumors of 5th Edition started rolling in. "3rd to 4th was just a tweak! This is huge stuff! Crazy! It'll never happen!" This sort of thing always looks much less drastic in hindsight, as I imagine these rules eventually will as well.

[BigDuke6]

the one big change I'd like to see is that tanks with sponsons can have these fire at different targets. just my 2 cents dudes

[Rated_lexxx]

I have been thinking which armies will be brought down a notch or 2 in terms of power level. I am not talking about making them underpowered, but if most of the new armies were made with 6th in mind that there power level will be brought in line.

Like GKs. There are pretty busted right now, but could that be because they were made with the rule changes coming in 6th

[VanirX]

Way too soon for 6th edition to come out. 5th edition is doing just fine from what I understand.

[Sildani]

Ah, no. Sixth Edition IS coming out this summer. No-one quite knows what it changes, though, and if anyone does know they aren't telling. The only sure thing is the "leaked" 6th Ed PDF isn't it.

[Maxis Lithium]

Didn't Harry (Pie for the Pie Gods!) say that he believed rapid fire weapons may be able to fire twice at maximum distance? I know that's not in the 'leaked' document, and it's the only thing I believe from the rumors running about. If I'm wrong and that wasn't Harry that posted it, then I am wrong.

[RandomThoughts]

the one big change I'd like to see is that tanks with sponsons can have these fire at different targets. just my 2 cents dudes

I'd rather see infantry squads being able to split fire - especially with mixed weapons, say Lasguns / Boltguns and a Missile Launcher / Lascannon.

[omegoku]

Split fire should have been in the rules since at least 3rd Edition! It is just silly that the 9 guys with bolters have to stand and cheer on the one guy with the missile launcher.
A simple rule would be
Unit declares its primary target
Unit declares it wants to split fire
Take Ld test, if failed, whole unit fires at primary target
If Ld Pass, declare secondary target, declare which models in unit are firing at secondary unit
Check LoS and range for each model, any model without LoS or out of range of their declared target misses
Resolve fire against primary target, then secondary as normal

I think Vehicles should be able to split fire too, makes no sense that the defensive sponsons are trying to aim at the same target as the lascannon, or even at the same target as the other sponson! Each vehicle weapon may fire at different unit.


Fingers crossed GW agree!

[Ereshkigal]

I really hope not. 2 Reasons:
1) What about long fangs?
2) The lenght of a game will double. I don't want to play 6 hours straight just because ppl will always split fire with everything.

[The Dude]

I really hope not. 2 Reasons:
1) What about long fangs?
2) The lenght of a game will double. I don't want to play 6 hours straight just because ppl will always split fire with everything.

1) Long fangs Automatically pass and can fire at multiple targets, not just 2

2) Really? Double?

6 Hours was at the extreme end of 2nd Edition, and that had more complex shooting, assault, consolidation, out of turn actions and an entire extra phase for psychic powers which was like a mini card game The most it would do would be couple of extra minutes overall.

Not every unit has weapons you'd want to split (or decent enough Ld to bother trying ) or will always be in a position to do so (moving heavies etc).

I think it's a solid idea and one I have considered myself.

[Eldoriath]

Tau do this all the time already anyway... Beside that they don't need any Ld check.

[The Dude]

Tau do this all the time already anyway... Beside that they don't need any Ld check.

Yet another thing that would make Tau unique.

The system works

Of course, this is now moving into wishlisting/rules development territory

[Ereshkigal]

1) Long fangs Automatically pass and can fire at multiple targets, not just 2

never seen sw fire to more than 2 targets anyway

2) Really? Double?

yes... you underestimate the thinking time.
"Should i split or not? Let me see the odds... if i fire everything there, hitting at 5+ and wounding at 2+ (lootas) i should kill like 4 marines, but if i split then..."

[Eldoriath]

Sorry, the remark was just a point that splitting fire already is happening, and even in 4th ed when we had target priority the game didn't take 6 hours to play.

[Ereshkigal]

No? Right now a game lasts for more than 4 hours...
1 hour = setting up the tabletop, unpacking the miniatures, choosing the mission
2,5 hours = deploy and actual game
Half an hour = post game duties (packing and bragging :P)

Put in there the split fire on everything and you gain at least 1 hour of extra thinking and dice rolling. 5-6 hours to play a game (1850 pts)