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?