Tuesday, 26 June 2012

6th Edition Facts

Hi all,

Angryman here.  I was looking on The Bell of Lost Souls last night and came accross this article

6th Edition rule book

It appears that some people have got a copy of the new rule book and are hosting a Q & A session.  The author of the post was kind enought to begin the post with a summary of some of the new rules.

On a differant note, I was looking through the tinterweb for fluff (as I usually do when I'm bored) and I came accross a Rogue Trader era article about Illiyan Nastase - Chief Librarian Astropath of the Ultramarines so thought I'd share

Illiyan Nastase

As usual, all comments welcome


  1. Oddly most of America has got their rulebook before any of ours are even shipped... I am dreading the Royal Mail buggering it all up and us not getting our Rulebooks until sometime next week if we are lucky.

  2. same here, the pre-ordered rule books will be posted today (fri 29th june) so hopefully, if royal mail are on the ball, we will get the rulebook tomorrow, i dont want to have to wait until next week!!!

  3. I'm not planning on buying the new rule book for a while if at all, might wait till the starter set is released depending what's in it and how much. So I'll be sticking with good ol' 5th ed or jumping back in time and playing 2nd ed with Adam :D

  4. 40k 2nd Edition:

    In the grim darkness of the far future...there is an evocative, characterful ruleset that contains actual tactical choices and generally has a feeling of being written with common sense in mind.

    40k 6th Edition:

    "It's been 4 years, we need to tweak this shit ruleset so we can charge £45 for another book"

    "What about adding fighter bombers to a game played on a 6ft by 4ft table?"

    "You'll go far, my boy, you'll go far."

  5. You can throw grenades again. And now use then against MC's and run away from something you can't hurt! They sound like good common sense additions to me.

  6. Had to look up what MC means, lol.

    As far as I'm aware you can use 1 grenade per turn from a squad sergeant or something like that. So the tiniest step in the right direction. But other than that (and happy to be corrected) you've still got the absurd rule where a heavy or special weapon in a squad has to fire at the same target as the rest, where cover grants a blanket 'cover save' instead of a more realistic to hit modifier, and where a weapon has the same chance of hitting a target at long range as at close range. Not to mention the fact that unit stats have been dumbed down to the point that all races have the same basic 6 inch movement rate, supposedly in the name of simplification. But all that means is that extra rules have to be added to differentiate between faster and slower troop types which actually further complicates the rules. I mean, how much does it slow the game down having to remember that humans move 4", eldar move 5" and genestealers move 6" etc? I can still remember that after 15 years.

    Then you've got the vehicle rules where if you move you can't fire as many or any weapons. The whole point of a tank is that you've got a mobile fire platform yet they're practically reduced to move and fire weapons. Supposedly the new rules allow you to fire more weapons but using 'snap fire' (might be wrong) but not necessarily all. Do these tanks have a crew member for each weapon like an actual tank or is the Imperium undergoing some sort of cuts so a tank that needs 4 crewmembers has to make do with 2 or 3? If it's the former then surely every gun should be able to fire unless it's some sort of heavy artillery or assault gun (earthshaker or demolisher). If a penalty needs to be added then do it as a to hit modifier but don't do a severe BS reduction from 3 to 1 needing a 6 to hit. Are the crews of the 41st millenium trained? If so we can assume a vehicle crew should be reasonably comfortable at shooting on the move. Forcing players to choose between firing effectively with everything or else moving and firing effectively with one weapon and ineffectively with the rest is not a realistic tactical decision. It is an arbitrary tactical decision in the context of the game that has no grounding in reality.

    I'm sure I'll be wrong in odd rules here and there but I think the gist of my point is right - that from 3rd edition onwards the rules have not been grounded in the 'realism' that 2nd edition displayed in order to facilitate a 'streamlined' system that allows larger games and increases miniature sales. And I know that it's a sci-fi game and so it isn't going to be hyper realistic but some principles are incredibly simple and need to be reflected in the game - it is harder to hit a target at an extreme long range than a short range, that a target in cover is harder to hit but if hit it is just vulnerable to the ammunition used as if it were stood in the ocean, that a missile launcher can fire at a tank when the rest of the squad fires at another target, etc. These sort of things are not needless complications but the most basic of principles that need to be reflected in the rules. If these things aren't properly addressed with an overhaul, then any new tweaks to a new addition are less steps in the right direction than gloss attempting to cover up a fundementally flawed ruleset.

  7. i think the changes in the rules are increase model sales, after all GW is a model selling company, if it doesnt sell then it cannot function. the changes to the rules in teh recent editions are to dumb down and simplify things so that younger people (school kids who want to spend mum and dads money) can play the game. the current rules changes bring it more inline with WHFB thus making it easier for people to change between games and ultimately increase sales. This is also true for the allies rules, if you have a guard army then you can now take eldar, marines, tau etc in your army.

    from a gaming point of view more and more rules and changes to rules between editions is annoying, strange and sometimes downright stupid but how can you release rulebooks if you dont change rules.

    Its a fineline between staying in business / making a profit and keeping the game enjoyable for people to buy your models. I think this is one of the reasons for the horus heresy books, the branching out into computer games and even the crappy film they produced. It gets people caught up in the background (which is one of the things i love about the hobby) so they will want to play the game and thus spend all their hard earned cash (or mum and dads). the rules changes will never make everyone happy and the price rises are abhorrent but ultimately its to keep themselves in business.

  8. I'm going on a 40k selling spree :D marines, chaos daemons & chaos space marines. Need to sort through it all first. Too much stuff n starting to play other games more regularly and few more systems to try out soon.

  9. Nice post, Ste, it's good to see a bit of a debate forming and I think we are in a agreement on a lot of points though probably in disagreement over what these indicate about the company and the effect they have on the games.

    I think one of the first points for me is as to whether or not Games Workshop is a model-selling company. I'm probably going to sound like I'm splitting hairs here but despite what they them selves say they are not a 'model soldier company'. Wargames Foundry are a toy soldier company, Tamiya is a model company, Games workshop is a multimedia entertainment company whose primary income comes from selling models that are accessories to their own line of games, but also derives substantial income from licensing it's popular intellectual property to third party companies. In their last full year report, royalties amounted to over a quarter of their £9.1m profits. But most of their income does come from the selling of their games and their game accessories. Yet their business model is based on their average customer playing for a little under two years. Now, if that is their main area of business and they have decided that the only way to keep themselves in business is to publish inferior rulesets that maximise sales of plastic models that are increasing in price way above the level of inflation, it shows real mismanagement on their part and a dangerous lack of imagination (which I'll drone on about in a bit). Also, they have one of the most recognizable and popular home entertainment brands out there yet supposedly have to keep increasing their prices substantially to stay in business. Increasing prices may lead to an increased profit per item sold in the short term, but it is not necessarily the best way to drive sales in the long term and is probably harmful.

    If their aim is to maximise sales of their models and they recognise the best way to do this is to create rules that require lots of them to play why aren't they taking this to its full potential? Why aren't they creating other rulesets that encourage these larger games and sales, as well as creating rules that focus on more detailed, realistic rules. It really isn't a fine line between making an enjoyable game and staying in business. Making a profit should be DRIVEN by creating popular enjoyable games that appeal to a variety of demographics. It most definitely should not be seen as a balancing act BETWEEN the two. And why limit yourself to the one market? What sort of entertainment company limits itself to one group of people who want one thing? For example, Nintendo don't say 'well, our platform games and accessories are most profitable so we'll just focus on producing them' they actively seek out other markets to sell to because even if they are less profitable they are still profitable and bring more people to the brand, and GW is most definitely a brand. Honestly, if some 'suits' from a really big home entertainment company moved to GW and saw just how little money was being made from such an established brand with such potential they'd die laughing. GW need to stop looking for a certain type/types of customer and try to appeal to a broad range of them. They also need to stop swallowing their own corporate propaganda. They may call themselves 'the Hobby' but the hobbies they are part of are gaming and wargaming. When they lose older, long term gamers, those gamers aren't leaving the hobby they are leaving 'the hobby'. Their gaming budget is still there but it is going elsewhere - to competitors or to buying their own products not from them or 3rd party retailers but off of ebay. The love for the background stays and they will buy some of the novels but their free cash goes elsewhere. The need to be thinking not just 'how can we get little timmy's mum or Jimmy fanboy to keep buying' but 'how do we get these other people to keep buying either the same or different products than us'.

  10. [Can't believe I went so far over the character limit! When I start waffling I really do waffle, suppose I must really be sick of GW at the minute]

    Also, we need to get away from this idea of defending GW or trying to look at it from their point of view when we criticise products. We are customers, not fans or financial analysts. If I buy a car and I come to an opinion on it, I do it based on the car and the car alone. If I buy a computer game and come to an opinion on it, I do based on the computer game and the computer game alone. I don't say 'well, I need to consider the company's profitability and need to sell more units', I look at it from my point of view as I'm buying a product. If I'm criticing rules then I should do it based on the rules and the rules alone. And 40k 5th and 6th edition is a small battle ruleset designed for gamers using 28mm miniatures, primarily on a 6ft by 4ft table.

    James, if you want to sell that OOP Predator give me a price or just stop leading me on and breaking my poor little heartses. I'm getting sick of your Eric Cartman's 'Cartmanland' you can't have it sales technique! ;)

  11. Mr One removes soapbox. Replace with plinth and calls a press conference. Adam the common sense voice aginst the corporate tyranny!!!

  12. mild mannored adam by day and rantman by night, fight the corporations, they are all corporationy!!!