Do we actually need a 6th edition?

[Denzark]

I was looking at the Hrud rumour and this question occured to me - do we need a 6th edition?

Most rational debate agrees that this ed is one of the most streamlined, balanced(-ish) versions from GW with a mix of stuff, interesting odd bits to harken back to a la ramming, with latest codexes seemingly of a par - no one can say any one codex is unbeatable by all other codexes (although I may agree there are codexes that get beaten by the majority of current codexes - thats a another story).

Are sweeping changes needed? Arguably, no. Do things need fixing? Yes or we wouldn't debate endless rules queries and have faqs/errata. Hold that thought.

Now if you agree with the position that we don't need sweeping change and innovation - that with your pet hate faq'ed/errata-ed once and for all, its a pretty decent game, then we certainly don't need the sort of changes and endless tables discussed. To hit by shooting with a BS of 3 needs a 4+. Always has, always SHOULD do. There used to be modifiers (RT - -1 per 10" moved if I remember rightly) but we don't do modifiers, right, we streamline?

So why change at all? Now you will say it is a big profit vehicle. Let me break that down. GW looks at the teenies as the target audience. So the sweeping change if the rumour correct, making it more complicated, implies a change of target audience - not a clever profit move IF they actually agree with their own assertions that their current sales model is correct.

But they want to shift more books I hear you say. Would you buy 5th ed print run 2 if it had all the FAQs and erratas fixed, and the obvious questions we ask resolved? Most people would say, hell yes. If they released a new 5th ed with different fluff or art or whatever, a lot of collectors would go for it - one year you add killteam, the next some VDR, or some small change. We'd all go for it.

But what about the big box sets like Reach and Macragge? They could still do this, as often as they do now, or more often - change the armies or terrain or add in a campaign minidex. As long as the opportunity to get the foundations of an army at a knockdown price (supplemented by flogging the opposition on ebay) was still there, most of us would buy every iteration.

But if the rules didn't change the codexes wouldn't change to match the new rules you say. Really? Codexes could change with new units but playing 5th ed rules. As long as there was some different units or chracters, even if the fluff was steady, most of us would buy.

So, GW. Fix what is wrong with 5th. Bring out new edition rulebooks, with the fixes, but change the fluff or art or something. Add a new campaign or 2. Release big box sets with changing armies. You can keep current revenue flowing with less hasle on the rules design team, who can concentrate on advanced supplements or, Heaven forbid getting codexes up to date or (a new idea of tangent chaps) what about, follow the initial TWC/Storm Raven idea but bigger? You issued unit entries without models, howabout an entire codex? Get your thrud or knib in, release World Eaters Legion, and let us do the rest.

I'm sorry this is lengthy, but 6 sounds like change for change sake which is plop. What do you think?

[Drunkencorgimaster]

I like your idea. I'm old & stupid and it takes me forever to learn new sets of rules. There are a few rules I don't like, but on average I'd be happier putting up with them instead of learning a whole new set. I don't think GW will bite though.

[BrokenWing]

I want a 6th edition, I'm not a particularly big fan of 5th edition. I don't want 6th to re-invent the wheel, but I do want it to come out. Also, I want 6th Edition's book to be organized well, so I don't have to look in 12 different places to make sure the rule I just got done reading isn't ignored by something somewhere else. If 6th edition fixed 5th editions problems and was organized as well as the 8th Edition rulebook, I'd be really happy.

[Lord Azaghul]

I hope, I hope that GW learned their lesson from 7th to 8th fantasy. The edition shift did not fix ANY of the problems that were in the army books. I'm just holding out for 9th at this point.

I like 5th - its great. Only a few MINOR things COULD be fixed. The main issue with balance has more to do with each 'dex rather then an updated or new version of the core rule set.

Quite frankly i'd rather see them do that. Spend 1 year getting all the books aligned, drop updated/repointed 'dex out - which are intended to be more balanced - every month. Then spend the rest of the time working on new editons/models/expansions.

If the fix the books the rest will follow. If they don't - they are simply ruining their own game.

[Rev. Tiberius Jackhammer]

/Shrug

It's a matter of opinion. I look at the rumors for 6th and think "Hell yeah!"

Sure, they're more complicated, but they are not overcomplicated. They are simple to use - looking at a table printed in the back of the rulebook will never be a great hardship. They bring in some balance, add interesting, sensible quirks to the rules and can result in a more interesting battlefield, in the case of the strategems.

Certainly, there are those who dislike learning new rules etc., but from a selfish point of view, I'd rather not have the game stagnate for their sake.

[DarkLink]

No 6th edition doesn't make GW a lot of money.

[Blood Lord Soldado]

It does seem rather useless to change editions at this point.

GW has a strange vision for their gaming environment. Its a game that is designed to not really have a competitive purpose. People make it a competitive event, with RTT's and stuff, but if they wanted to make it a real competition game they are light years from that.

I will probably do like I did with 3rd and 4th editions and just play 2nd edition. Long live 5th!!!

[Necron2.0]

I'll be honest, and I mean no disrespect, but this is something of a silly question. We, the players, don't need another edition any more than D&D players needed fourth edition, or Star Wars RPGers needed Star Wars D20 (and especially not the massively dumbed down Star Wars Saga Edition). In every game system I've ever been involved with, changes do not benefit the players because if the game was truly bad enough to actually require changes, nobody would be playing the game in the first place. In most cases people learn to play with and enjoy the games as they are. Rules changes generally only minorly affect the methods of playing the game, but do nothing for the overall enjoyability of the game.

Businesses like GW, like WotC, like Catalyst Game Labs, like <insert name here> periodically change their rules for really just one reason, and it has nothing at all to do with the enjoyability of the game. They change it to force the fans to buy more products, in order to make money. That, as you all already know, is it.

[Wildeybeast]

I don't have any major gripes with the current edition, so no, I don't think we need a change. Particularly not when GW has yet to fulfill their claim that they would up date all the codexes before moving on to a new edition. However, I remember when 7th edition Warhammer was released, there was an article in WD with someone like Jervis saying it would be the last big change to the Warhammer rules, that they were really happy with the way it worked and any future rulebooks would just be minor tweaks and balances. Then they rolled out 8th.

So I guess the question of whether we need a new ruleset is utterly irrelevant to GW. Do they need to update all the codexes? Yes. Did they need to release a big new expansion when they have only managed to release two UTD army books in a year? No. They need to do a number of things in the opinions of many gamers, but they will do what a) they think will make money and b)what they think is cool. I've learned to accept the squig hopper-like approach to things that they have and be happy when they do something good and quietly bury my frustration when they do something bafflingly odd.

[Emerald Rose Widow]

I'll be honest, and I mean no disrespect, but this is something of a silly question. We, the players, don't need another edition any more than D&D players needed fourth edition, or Star Wars RPGers needed Star Wars D20 (and especially not the massively dumbed down Star Wars Saga Edition). In every game system I've ever been involved with, changes do not benefit the players because if the game was truly bad enough to actually require changes, nobody would be playing the game in the first place. In most cases people learn to play with and enjoy the games as they are. Rules changes generally only minorly affect the methods of playing the game, but do nothing for the overall enjoyability of the game.

Businesses like GW, like WotC, like Catalyst Game Labs, like <insert name here> periodically change their rules for really just one reason, and it has nothing at all to do with the enjoyability of the game. They change it to force the fans to buy more products, in order to make money. That, as you all already know, is it.



Other than the fact that I liked star wars saga edition (was better than the regular d20 in the same way that pathfinder is better than dnd 3.5 ((dont talk to me about that fourth edition garbage)) in my opinion at least), I have to agree with necron on this 100%. For the most part the changes of rules is just to push the product, and to sell more.

To be honest this isn't exactly a bad thing in my opinion though, it allows for fresh new looks on things, and as long as it isn't totally borked up like dnd 4th ed was, its not bad. In general it puts a fresh face on things in a similar way a new codex does an army, which keeps the game from stagnating. Sure some will hate it, and sure it isn't really needed, but if you think about it, new stuff will get many excited and will certainly make everything more interesting and vibrant.

Or they might bork it up like 4th edition dnd, we shall see.

[Mazelf]

imo? hellz no!

[Lord Inquisitor]

I'm really liking 5th right now. I feel like a new edition can only get more problems than fix, I think 5th is about as close to perfect as GW will ever be able to do it. I mean sure they can add some good stuff and fix some stuff but I bet the make a bigger mess than they clean up.

[BrokenWing]

I guess I'm missing something...what's so amazing about 5th edition?

[Lockark]

Their are no issues with 5th ed is self. Most of the issues are with the codexs.

Most of the rumoers make it sound like 6th ed is being written for the sole purpose of bringing things like Space Wolves down a level and bumping up other armies.

=/

[BuFFo]

Their are no issues with 5th ed is self. Most of the issues are with the codexs.

Most of the rumoers make it sound like 6th ed is being written for the sole purpose of bringing things like Space Wolves down a level and bumping up other armies.

=/

So 6th edition would raise Rhino costs back up to 50 points? And Chimeras back to 70 points?

Do that, and the game would be perfect.

[Mike X]

I'm not a big fan of 5th edition. I liked 4th edition. Our current edition has so many flaws and frustrations, but I'd rather see an updated version 5.5 than an almost entirely new set of rules (as rumored).

[Lockark]

So 6th edition would raise Rhino costs back up to 50 points? And Chimeras back to 70 points?

Do that, and the game would be perfect.


The 6th ed rumors make Floot Slogging Assault based armies alot stronger, and stops people from playing "Parking lot".

You can only fire 12" away out of a fire point max. Your relentless inside a transport to off set this, but 12" is still only 12". No more using chimeras and rhinos as moveable bunkers.

The rumored changes to Opened Topped also means Orks and Darkeldar can be a ridiculously shooty army, well not being nearly as fragile.

More or less instead of beating Rhinos and Chimieras with a nerf stick, they made everything eals just as good.

If the rumors are to be believed of course.

[BrokenWing]

My problems with 5th edition are in part the codex books (even close combat armies are just shooty vehicle armies by another name now) but also all the stupidly contradictory rules and the terrible layout of the rulebook. I *hate* arguing about True Line of Sight all the time, hate it.

[Denzark]

I'll be honest, and I mean no disrespect, but this is something of a silly question. We, the players, don't need another edition any more than D&D players needed fourth edition, or Star Wars RPGers needed Star Wars D20 (and especially not the massively dumbed down Star Wars Saga Edition). In every game system I've ever been involved with, changes do not benefit the players because if the game was truly bad enough to actually require changes, nobody would be playing the game in the first place. In most cases people learn to play with and enjoy the games as they are. Rules changes generally only minorly affect the methods of playing the game, but do nothing for the overall enjoyability of the game.

Businesses like GW, like WotC, like Catalyst Game Labs, like <insert name here> periodically change their rules for really just one reason, and it has nothing at all to do with the enjoyability of the game. They change it to force the fans to buy more products, in order to make money. That, as you all already know, is it.



As to NEEDING changes many may disagree with you there. The most fundamental changes - RT to 2ed (codexes versus tables, psychic phase, assault changes) and 2ed to 3ed were arguably necessary to bring a quasi RPG into a skirmish game, and a skirmish game into a decent sized army battle game. Result? More popular and accessible to younger players. No virus bombs killing off closely packed ork armies in 1 turn.

As to it being about purely making money, I have covered how they can make money still with minor changes and new print runs rather than a full change of rules.

[DarkLink]

So 6th edition would raise Rhino costs back up to 50 points? And Chimeras back to 70 points?

Do that, and the game would be perfect.

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.

[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.

[Melissia]

Not really, but it could be fun.

[newtoncain]

GW needs 6th edition: Publish or Perish:mad:

Many game companies operate this way, WotC (hasbro) most notably.:eek:

[DrLove42]

GW does publish though

But what its needs to publish are codexes first, rule books second

[Lord Azaghul]

GW does publish though

But what its needs to publish are codexes first, rule books second

Agreed. Its either this or the card system that other companies use.

GW used to include rules for models with the kit you bought, a return to that system would be a huge positive change, and enable more micro control of the game. IE fix the one or two units with out changing the whole army.

[TheRise]

Denzark, if they are called "tweaks" then they may as well call it 6th edition?

[Lexington]

Sure. I had high hopes for 5th Edition, and there's a lot of positive aspects to it, but the game is terribly stale at this point. It's a narrow, boring thing that's only seemingly balanced around tournament-esque "meta" conditions.

I welcome a 6th that's as big an overhaul as it's rumored to be, but it'd be even better if they pulled a 3rd Edition and simply wiped the slate clean and released new Codexes for everything.

[TheRise]

Btw if you have the new codex's then straight away a new rulebook it doesn't quite make snese, as your Codex woudl be outdated again. Whyt not wait till the new edition so your codex will be updated very quickly, and will be easier to play and last longer.

[DrLove42]

Chances are the codexes written close to rule book change, given these rumours even the sisters book, are written with the new rules in mind. They suffer at the tail end of one edition, because they're mostly wirtten for the next...

[Denzark]

Lexington I am surprised - the normal comment is that this is not balanced or tight enough in the slightest for tournament play unless you muddle through with some INAT FAQ that changes the main rules.

[Lexington]

Mm, well, "5th is very balanced" is something you hear a lot out of the competitive set - usually with qualifiers like "as long as you're using 5th Edition Codexes, or a single build from one of the older books," which strikes me as an adorable definition of the term.

[BrokenWing]

I have 0 problems with Balance in 5th edition and a million problems with rule wording and rulebook organization.

[Mauglum.]

Hi all.
In the list of things wrong with the 40k rules.
Alot of people appear to list symptoms.

But very few seem to have identified the core problem.

WH40k has never had a rule set written specificaly for it!
(Andy Chambers re-boot for 4th ed ,was rejected by corperte managment .)
It has ALWAYS used WHFB game mechanics and a lot of 'patches-bodges.'

Which means the core rules cover very little of the gameplay.
And GW have to add USRs,Vehicle rules, and codex special rules to cover the gamepaly.

So the devs have to work on '4 sets of rules' , that may or may not cause synergistic issues with , or cause limited obsilesance with other rules.

This slows down the process of development and realeases .

Not to mention the amount of extra difficulty caused when trying to ballance things to stuff that has not been developed yet!

Other rule sets that use more apropriate game mechannics/resolution methods , seem to be able to relase stuff much quicker and with provable levels of balance.

Becuase the core rules cover everything, its much easier to develop and balance the game , and its armies.

Therfore a complete re-write with the current gameplay in mind would yeild the best results for all concerned IMO.

[BuFFo]

If 6th edition changes the game as much as 3rd did, and we would all get an army book reboot, I would be all for that.

Other than that, 5th edition is pretty decent. Just fix imperial vehicles, and 5th edition would be perfect.

[Mauglum.]

Buffo.
I agree. 5th ed has taken the 3rd ed rule set about as far as it can go.(Barring a few MINOR tweeks here and there.)

A complete re-write would allow the devs to cover all the current gameplay in a much more straighforward way. (Everything in the rules book of about 30 to 40 pages maximum.)
Which would allow them to revisit and realase the new Codexes alot quicker.:D

[Grenadier]

I could go on all day complaining about the rulebook or a particular codex. We all have our gripes with them.

Games Workshop in recent years has steadily been losing my love. It seems to me the whole thing now is about profit more than it is a quality game. And I think its having an affect on the game's quality. Everyone has "newest army fever." Everyone wants Space Marines. It's all about the flash and not the substance.

As far as rulebooks go I begrudgingly liked 4th edition but I'm not fan of 5th edition except that it makes vehicles more survivable. I have other gripes as well but won't go into it.

Here's something I would love to see happen:

GW adopts the "if it ain't broke don't fix it" mantra. Instead of creating an all new rulebook with radical changes just continue streamlining the rules. Simplify them. And instead of implementing major changes to a rule book go with more stuff like expansions such as Apocalypse or Planetstrike. Keep the core rule system the same but streamline it. Address the ambiguities. And then if any GW guy has some big idea instead of making a new rule book make an expansion. Treat these as alternative ways to play the game.

Also:

Make the codexes and rulebooks something you can download. Even better: make it so you can have it all in a single program. Codexes and the rulebook. This way you can download the rulebook in the form of a computer program. Need to look something up? The program can let you use a search bar and your result comes as a pop up. Also, within the program players could opt to download whatever codex they want into it. GW can charge for the downloadable codex. And maybe make a feature so you can do your army list within the program electronically, saving you many tedious hours of writing crap down and punching in points on a calculator. You could simply click on a unit, number of men in the unit, wargear, upgrades etc. Everything from the rulebook, codex, updates, even the army list will be electronic and interactive. Truly streamlining the game.

But best of all: the rulebook program can receive updates. Which will automatically plug in as need be. No more looking for the latest list of corrections or FAQs. Even these could be added to the program. As long as you have the program and an internet connection you will be good to go.

But wait, what about during the game? Well, for players who have an Ipad maybe they can make an app for that.

[Mauglum.]

Grenadier.
You do realise the real problem is because GW plc ..'.. just continue streamlining the rules'.

They try to re- write the rules to make them easier to explain.
But in doing so write the rules in an exclusive way.(Eg rules for specific types of models, rather than include ALL unit types.)
So they need to write MORE rules to cover the elements excluded by the re-writing of the new rules.:eek:

Eg'
Everything has a Movment value .The model may move up to this value in inches during the movment phase.
(Models may move up to twice this amount , but may not shoot in the shooting phase.)
Difficult terrain halves movement values,(rounding up.)
Verry difficult terrain quaters movment values ,( rounding up.)

This has been 'simplified' to;-
Everything moves 6".(Apart from the things that dont!)
Models moving through difficult terrain move the highest D6 valuel of 2 D6 rolled in inches.(Or pick highest from 1/3D6)
Dangerous terrain kills the model on the roll of 1.(Or it doesnt sometimes!)

And now needs the following EXTRA rules to cover the exluded features.
USRs.
Fleet.
Move through cover.
Skilled rider.
Slow and purposefull
Turbo boosters.

Vehilce rules.
Walker.
Tank.
Skimmer.
Fast.
Combat speed /Crusing speed

This doesnt include the ever changing Codex special rules:eek:

Writing a more well defined concise and intuitive rule set than the current 40k is SO easy to do.
Every other games company seem to have managed it! :D

Why are some people so against a new rule set?:confused:

[Chuck777]

I think every edition, no matter how good, has a certain amount of life held within it. I'd rather look back and remember the great times I had with an innovative and cool system, rather than look back and remember the last grueling whimpers of a desiccated and obtuse husk of an outdated rule system. Better we end it early I say.

Bring on 6th edition and its massive overhaul, I'm ready!

[CAPTAIN SPAGNOULO]

Do we need a 6th? No,not right now,considering about 35% of players haven't got to play 5th with a relevant codex yet.Will we have it forced on us anyway?No doubt.
Want to know how 6th will be different from 5th,go to your FLGS & run your finger across the boxes,the ones with the most dust will tell you all you need to know.

[HsojVvad]

Why do we need everyone updated to the 5th edtion codex? Where is it written that all codicies has to have an edtion with the current rules set?

The way people are talking about, since it's only small tweaks most people want, we should be able to play with 3rd edtion codicies for 6th edtion. If anything an Errat is all is needed to update the codex. That is the way it really should be done.

Seeing how that was done for Fantasy, it might happen for 40K to seeing how we are getting alot of FAQ updates now more than ever.

The only constant that is ever given, is that Space Marines will always have a new codex for every new rules edtion. That is just to make money, but is not really needed. So hopefully now, if 6th edtion comes out, there will be an Errata/FAQ for all codicies to be updated with the new rule set now.

[CAPTAIN SPAGNOULO]

Why do we need everyone updated to the 5th edtion codex? For the same reason the seal team didn't storm Bin Ladins' compound armed with muzzle loaders or why you don't go into an auto parts store & buy a 78 transmission for your 09 mustang.The fundamental structure has changed,a codex written when characters,monsterous creatures, & elites ruled the battlefield isn't going to have much to stop an 8 razorback mech army of today that wasn't even imagined then.But I don't think thats what people are truely upset about,I think its that GW went out of its way to give people the impression that all things were going to be made current,some time would pass, & allow them to see the game with all its moving parts & then develop a new edition.Its like saying we're going to rebuild a bigger,better poker game & then use a 38 card deck & a hand full of Uno cards to develop it.That coupled with the fact 40k has been around for 20 something years & has yet to put one coherent edition together is down right bizarre.

[Mauglum.]

Hi all.
This is why a complete re-write and ALL army lists updated and included in the 6th ed rule book, is the best option IMO.(As a FREE down load would be awsome!)

If the rules were not such a overcomplicated holistic abstraction, you could produce better balanced army lists and new unit stats much quicker!

The rules are instructions on how to play the game.
So should be clear concise instructions, ALL IN ONE PLACE!

Relase the minatures with source books with all the background narrative and art , painting and modelling guides etc.

Asthetic components released all together.

Functional elements all released together,