Possibilities of 6th Edition: The fantasy-40k Mirror Effect

Hey all, Kevin here again, and today I would like to throw out some thoughts on what we can expect in 6th Edition since it is a lot closer than we expect. More so I would like to talk about something discussed a lot in the old FLGS but not a lot online, the mirror effect between Fantasy and 40k.

It is a well known fact that GDubs likes to test out new rules between systems and, if they like them, start to incorporate them into the new rules sets for each new edition. We saw this a lot in the incorporation of True line of site as well as not guessing ranges anymore into fantasy....now there were many other rules changes so lets discuss the possibilities!

1. Interactive Terrain

Now a big new thing for fantasy was the change to a similar set of terrain rules for fantasy and 40k (in the that fact they didn't block LOS anymore). Now they also changed some pieces of terrain into "Magical Terrain pieces" that would have some kind of effect by rolling on a chart to find out to see what would happen. Now whether it was a venom thicket or they would reduce rank bonuses it was still a big change in the game. Now can this be Incorporated into 40k in a way at all? Now I could see it Sci-fi(ified?) by adding in different warp effected terrain pieces or mine fields. This could be cool and would add more flavor to a pretty dull battlefield. I could see this being ignored at tournaments although for a more basic and level playing field yet it is still a possibility.

2. Percentages instead of FOC

When the new fantasy edition hit one of the big changes was the way you made up your army, percentages became the way you could make up your army. Now could we see the FOC slashed in favor of a system like this? If you played your cards right more tank heavy armies or lesser HQ choice spam (like a LOT of Haemonculi) could then become possible. It would be interesting but also a lot of armies that rely a lot on maximizing a few choices could become non-viable(like spending a majority of points of TH/SS termies for your Shrike themed army). Yet again, just another thought

3. Pre-measuring

Now this was probably one of the biggest and most crucial aspects of the game changed. Really think about it....If pre-measuring was allowed in 40k the game would change as tournament play would become a lot more competitive in a chess tournament style. It had this effect on Fantasy as guessing ranges became a lost skill. It would also make decision making a lot easier but removes the risk of just going for it and hope you have the range.... Could we possibly see this in 6th?

There were many changes in Fantasy yet how would the community react if we saw these changes in 40k? I look to rules like this with a cautious demeanor as Iw ouldn't know how I would feel about some of these changes.... Now back to my Dark Eldar to prepare for the Colonial...more to come (XD)

So how would you feel about changes like the above to 40k? Is there any new rule you expect to see in 40k? Is there any other rule in fantasy you see incorperated into 40k? Please comment and lets get a discussion going!


Adam said...


Premeasuring is allowed in certain phases of 40K 5th edition.

Also, we used to have percentages back in 2nd edition and it really didn't work.

I agree that funky terrain will be ignored in tournaments. In fact, it will get ignored in my friendly games as well. There's too much going on already.

As for Real rules changes, I can only imagine further simplification to speed up play.

But how could the game actually be improved?

I really don't know. I'm quite happy with it so long as everyone gets a Codex update.

Darth Yoda said...

In Fantasy, pre-measuring became allowed, but they offset that by making everything based on a dice roll, so it balanced out in the end. I don't really see how they could make things in 40K more based on random dice rolls, but then they might just revamp certain things like they did with the Magic Phase. We'll see, I suppose.

pissclams said...

i sure hope these arent changes we will see. 5.5 would be better. 5th isnt perfect but its a huge step above 3rd and 4th.
Terrain rules from cities of death were brought in and added some interesting scenarios and actually a few clarifications.So im not a big fan of seeing other things added that really dont add much to the game.
-Lets streamline/clarify CC and clean up some wonky issues.
- add a simple flyer rule...yes these flyer bases need to be addressed.
- Bring back 40k in 40 min or combat patrol.
- Fix missions a bit.
- why not add in a tournament section or at least attempt to without being retarded ?
super heavies please leave in apoc.

Lets get the rest of the codexes up to 5th without creating a new set of rules that turn those new codexes into previous edition hold overs like DA ,CSM and Eldar.

Dayve220 said...

1) Interactive terrain would be welcome. Given that terrain doesn't slow you down too much and their isn't much incentive NOT to go get that cover save. Given that there is generally more terrain pieces on a 40k board than on a WFB board i'd be inclined to predict a more basic terrain table with things such as Ruins:Unstable (counts as dangreous), Forest:Carnivorous (D6 S3 hits) etc

2) As for percentages. Most players i know would hate that. Especially as some armies have very poor options for certain FOC slots. It'll also screw over alot of themed fluffy lists, which would be a bad thing IMO. The FOC chart has been around for so very long, and has become somewhat iconic, loosing it would be very bad IMO and i can see my local group using it anyway for casual games. It's easier to stomach in WFB where you would expect alot of core, less special and rare but how many armies in 40k perform well with a large abundance of troops? Many armies rely on their expensive elites or heavy choices to function.

3) Pre-measuring. I really hope that does not come to 40k. I was having this discussion with a friend of mine. In WFB its not so bad given the random charge ranges but what are you going to do in 40k 3+D6? an how will terrain effect that? 2D3 pick the highest + 2D6 pick the lowest? With most units having a 6" charge range it becomes alot harder to randomise it, a 6" charge compared to WFB is pathetically small. I'm also a huge hater of "babyfying" the game. A flat 1 KP per unit is a major hate of mine, is that 40pt unit of grotz really worth as much as that 10-man chaos terminator unit that can max out at 690 points? or Mephy? I'll agree theres some balancing on MSU and mech lists but a sliding KP scale would be much more suited to 40k i feel. Anyway... back to pre-measuring. How many times have you won a game because you've purposly placed a unit 12.5" away in order to lure an enemy unit or similar? IMO pre-measuring, while possibly enhancing WFB would detract from 40k (have you ever played LOTR with 2 combat armies? standing 7" apart refusing to move forward and give the enemy the charge?)

Dayve220 said...

Pissclams said "Super heavies please leave in apoc"

I really don't see that happening, selling BIG tanks with BIG guns is a money spinner GW simply cannot ignore forever. They will find a way to include super heavies, and it will suck, but it will make them money so they arn't really going to care. Afterall what better way to get new players into the game than by showing a tank/titan thats bigger than their baby brother with barrels bigger than their own pen** and we all know GW cares primarily for the initial sale rather than keeping the veteran happy.

Dalinair said...

I think all 3 of those features will likely make it into 6th ed, hopefully with victory points replacing awful kill points as well.

steveNspace said...

Personally I think KPs are great and add a new level of strategy. They really help in games vs. mech armies. Would you rather VPs vs mech? Only if I was getting full points for immobilised vehicles, otherwise no. I hardly play mech, so I guess I am biased here. And it's insanely stupid when tourneys don't count dedicated transports as KPs.

General Oadius said...

"I think all 3 of those features will likely make it into 6th ed, hopefully with victory points replacing awful kill points as well"

I for one think that the annihilation scenario is a must. War is not always waged for the gain of real estate, sometimes a matter of principle drives warriors against one another. This purer form of warfare must be accounted for in the 40,000 universe. Imperial armies tirelessly crusade against the Xenos and Chaos out of sheer hate or mandate and vice versa. Dark Eldar don't wont land...they want souls. Khorne fights for blood not for a nice Loft on 75th st.

Big Jim said...

Most of the changes to 8th ed WFB would be great in 40k and work just fine, despite what the detractors might say.

Percentages worked just fine for army building in 2nd and work just fine with 5th; I know because my group has been using them for 6 months. It will allow even more themed lists than the current force org chart.

Pre-measuring works fine in more than half of the miniature wargames out there. Flames of War is a good example of a competitive wargame that has pre-measuring and works extremely well. It will make the game more tactical.

Elemental_Elf said...

Premeasureing may or may not come into the game. It makes shooting easier but it will come at the expense of making charges random.

I think 6th Ed needs more standard missions and deployments. I could easily see Kill Points and Victory Points being included. Kill Points force you to kill as much as possible where as Victory Points force you to kill the highest points stuff.

Random terrain will definitely be included in the new edition (GW loves the cinematic aspect of the game) however, I think the effects will be more standardized and less powerful than the fantasy versions.

Fishboy said...

I hate the idea of this edition changing much outside of fixing what is wrong. I think adding flyers would be neat but pre measuring will slow down the game and really take a lot of fun out of it for me in "not knowing" if I will make it hehe.

Percentages could be very interesting and somethign I think most people and codex could adapt too depending on how it is done.

My question is why do you think 6th ed is so close? GW is trying to get all the codex's up to 5th standards so why would they release 6th as soon as they accomplish that?!?!

Melon Head said...

@fishboy, good question, I to do not think we will see 6th until 2013 or later. My reasoning is the time lines 40k esitions last avarages 5 years. Heres the time line
6 years later
1993-second edition
5 years later
1998- third edition
6 years later
2004- fourth edition
4 years later
2008- fifth edition.
Judging by that probably not goimg ro change a relativly well liked fifth edition too early, gamers did not love 4th edition and it needed change to keep us playing. However I dont know if any of these wfb mechanics will make it into 40k, time and popularity of those mechanics will tell, I would like to see kp's be made a better reflextion of the units destroyed, quite frankly the 5th edition vp's in the rear of the BRB is better in my opinion, eveeything else I will adapt as always.

Melon Head said...

Bah, disregard typos, im at work and typing from tiny phone keyboard

YsambartCourtin said...

Going with the WHFB feeds 40k theory, "Run" has already re-introduced a random movement rule without much controversy, and then WHFB followed it up with even more. The question would be about how it is implemented, rather that if. Race specific? Unit specific? A return to the movement profile? Race specific could be - Eldar, Dark Eldar - Always run 6. Marine/ CSM - two dice & choice for running. Human equiv - same, Necrons always run 3.

inquisitor_dunn said...

I would like to see kill points changed to a combination of vp and kill points. Maybe something like "for every 100pts a model is worth, it is worth 1 kill point. always round up."
A land raider would then be worth 3 kp.
A rhino would be 1 kp.
200 point assualt termies would be 2 kp.
Will have to test this to see how it plays out.

Precinct Omega said...

Other than interactive terrain rules - which are, as Kevin implied, easy enough to tweezer out from the game in toto - I don't see any of these predictions being definites in 40k6.

Pre-measuring might be introduced with a random assault range, but that would mean re-evaluating how combat is resolved.

Like others, I expect 40k6 to be more like 5.5, much as 4th was really 3.5. Things I would expect to see refined would include wound allocation, which is currently still confusing players. Things I'd like to see include more mission variety, and some better skirmish rules in an appendix.

Somnicide said...

You also forgot the random charge range which makes premeasuring (at least in fantasy) a lot less of a big deal.

Post a Comment