Warhammer 40,000 6th Edition - Speculation and Concerns

I've been seeing a lot of chat going around recently about the possibility of Warhammer 40,000 (40K) 6th Edition coming out in the Summer. Now I've never really known what to believe about the rumours I hear about Games Workshop, because of what I know of the company and their methods I'm pretty sure most of it is just speculation. But, GW can't go for a year these days without some big release in the summer to keep their shareholders happy, and with much of 2011 being given over to some expansions to Warhammer Fantasy (not universally well-received) and Dreadfleet (I've not heard kind things said about this game from anyone other than the GW staff so far,) this year will have to be massive for them. And what could be more massive than a re-vamp of their most popular game?

I'm approaching these rumours with... some trepidation, if I'm honest. While I've been doing the hobby on and off for 13 years now, this is the first time I'll have been involved long enough to sit from one game cycle to another; that is to say play one edition of a game long enough to care if they change it to another. 40K 5th Edition came out literally 2 weeks after I started working for GW back in July 2008, and I never really played 4th so while I was aware of the changes to the rules, I didn't really appreciate how it would affect the dynamic of the game. I certainly will this time around, which brings me on to my main issue: what's wrong with the version we've got now?

Actually thinking about it there are certain areas of the game that could benefit from some attention. Here are the three changes I think should be made in 6th edition 40K:

You won't see this lot going to ground...

1) 'Go to ground' They either need to change this rule or remove it completely, because right now it's useless. Quite frankly for how often I see it used I wouldn't be surprised if even the regular gamers didn't know what it was, and I'm pretty sure I only knew because I was a member of staff and I had to. How it works is when your unit gets shot at, after the opponent has rolled to wound but before you take your armour save, you can choose to 'go to ground,' where you lie your models down on the floor and they get a 1+ bonus to their cover save, and if they don't have one they gain a 6+ cover save. All well and good, until you realise that they have to spend the following turn getting up, which means they can do NOTHING for all of your turn. With the game presumed to last 5 turns, that means your unit will be useless for 1/5 of the game. And for how much difference it usually makes, it's probably better to take the extra wounds and at least get some action out of your unit next turn.

How the rule might work a little better is if the unit CAN act in a limited manner the following turn. For example, if they want to either move or assault, or both, they have to do it as though they were moving through difficult terrain. If they want to shoot, they count as having moved, whether they have or not - so you couldn't fire heavy weapons, or a rapid fire weapon past 12''. This would ensure that they could get the benefit of an improved cover save and provide an incentive to keep them alive in the first place. I've never had the opportunity to playtest such a thing but I think it might be something for them to think about for the new edition of 40K.

2) 'Sweeping Advance' This rule has caused some controversy over the time I've been playing 40K. For the way the rule works in 5th edition, I think it works better than 4th, but there's still a way to go. In 4th edition, the loser of a close combat would take a leadership check, and there may be some modifications to this but I can't quite remember what they are now. If the unit passed, they stayed in the combat, no problem. If they failed, they would have to run 2D6'' away from their opponents. The opponents would usually then have the option of chasing them down 2D6'' or consolidating D3''. If they went with the former and rolled equal to or over the losing side's roll, they would catch the running squad and wipe them out to a man/ork/whatever. It now works a little differently in 5th, where this time if the losing squad fails their leadership test which is modified down by however much they lost the combat by, both players roll a D6 and add their initiative. If the losing side comes up with the higher result, they run off 2D6'' as before. If the winning side has the higher result, the losing side is completely wiped out. Either way, the winning side then get to consolidate D6''.

Now in some ways I like this rule, and in some ways I don't. For a start, I like that the sweeping advance rule is now based on Initiative rather than a random number on 2D6, because a hulking, stupid Ork should be easier to catch off-guard than a quick, nimble Eldar Dire Avenger. I like the fact that the winning side is no longer obliged to chase after their opponents in order to wipe them out, because that would mean they'd end up alone and unsupported ahead of their own lines. And consolidation is better now that it's D6'', because let's be honest in a game like 40K where are you going to go with D3''?

Could one of these guys take out 20 Orks? It's possible...

On the other hand there is the same problem Sweeping Advance has had since at least 3rd edition - it is perfectly possible for your 1 remaining model to completely wipe out a much larger number of models on the other side, as long as they win combat. Now, 40K doesn't purport to be all that realistic, but the idea of 1 Space Marine being able to wipe out an enitre squad of Tau to a man because he won combat and got a higher initiative roll just doesn't have that cinematic level of believability that makes the rest of the game so good to play with your imagination. Unfortunately I can't really see a way around it. Well, I guess they could change it a little bit so that the losing side takes damage relative to the amount of models left in the winning side, say, D3 unsaveable wounds per model on the winning side. But that would make the Sweeping Advance rule a lot more complex than it needs to be. So, it'll be interesting to see what, if anything, GW does with this.

3) The Starter Box: This is a bit of a funny one, and partly a reaction to the fact that I've been branching out from GW and started playing some board games and role playing games as well as wargames. Basically, what I'd like to see from the starter box is a 'Game in a Box,' that is to say that if the boxed set to 40K - currently Assault on Black Reach - is the only thing you ever buy from Games Workshop, you could still put it together and get some games in without ever having to buy expansions, or extra models, or nothing like that, which would make it a board game as well as a war game. Reason is basically it might be a little easier to get people to drop the £100+ that GW are charging for their starter bundle these days (core game, hobby starter set, can of black spray paint) if they don't then have to feel obliged to spend another £3/400 on armies/books/terrain/campaign materials/transport before it's actually going to be any good.

Not a bad set of models, but what are they fighting over?

Now looking at what they've got at the moment, GW are not all that far away from it. In the AoBR, you get 2 reasonably balanced armies, one obviously the good guys and one obviously the bad guys, that work differently enough so that you could have a different experience for playing as the other side from time to time. You get all the stuff that you need to play them - a mini-rulebook that nonetheless has all the rules, a guide to the set, some dice, templates and measuring sticks although you do make life very difficult for yourself if you don't at least invest in some extra dice. What you don't get is any scenery. Now I know scenery isn't quite as exciting as models, but it's also not an ideal situation to play the game straight out of the box if there are no buildings to occupy, no walls to duck behind, no objectives to capture. So basically, everything that's in the starter box now, with some scenery, please.

Will GW fix this for 6th edition? There's no reason why not. When questioned about the apparently high price of the boxes and the models, I can remember my former manager telling customers that they put them up at the price it costs GW to make them. If that is true and they are now selling for £60 a core boxed set that they once sold for £40, that gives them another £20's worth of tinkering to do with the boxed set that will make it a more complete experience than it is now. Of course, this is a sweeping generalisation, and I know that it's not even close to being that simple for GW, but it is a change I would like to see and they will have to work very hard to convince me that they don't have the capacity to make it.

So those are my 3 tweaks to the game that I'd put in for 6th Edition. As you can see, it's all minor, niggly stuff that I could actually sort out myself with a couple of 'house rules.' And therein lies my main concern, which is how much change are GW going to make that will warrant a new edition of the game?

If they release a game that's fundamentally similar to 5th edition but with a few tweaks to the rules, as I have described, then their currently existing fan base will find it a bit harsh to spend the £45-50 they're charging for their new rulebooks when all they actually need is a PDF updating their old ones. And since the game has not changed all that significantly since 3rd edition - you still do the same things to move, shoot and assault, the wound tables are always the same, the stat lines are always the same - that seems to be a likely course of action for GW at this point. But will it really be enough for a new edition?

The book might be impressive, but was the game any good?

However, we all know how maverick GW have been over the last couple of years, so what if they actually do go ahead and change the game completely? That's a truly terrifying prospect, since I've not heard many kind things said about the new edition of Warhammer Fantasy either, to the point where many of the 'veterans' refuse to play it, and that game saw some significant changes almost to the point where it was a completely different game. It would be horrible for the same thing to happen to 40K, since it's been an integral part of my imagination for the last 13 years. By the way I never played WHF 8th so I'm going to reserve my judgement on the game until I've actually played it. That is, if I can find anyone to play. I struggle enough with 40K and Lord of the Rings!

Of course, with GW, it's all about the recruitment. They've realised that they've got competition now, and where in the past veterans would hang on to them for life, now they'll be lucky to keep someone coming into the store for 3 years. That's how long it takes for most people to work out that everything they enjoy about the hobby, be it the painting, the gaming, the background, the modelling, whatever - everything they enjoy, they can get elsewhere, probably for higher quality if they know where to look and almost certainly for less money. So GW may still be the biggest players in town, but if they ever were the only players they're certainly not anymore, and the only way they are going to keep their business ticking over is to act like what they are; a way in to what has now become a much larger town. They have to keep a constant influx of new hobbyists coming into the shops to replace the ever-growing number of people who abandon it. So all the decisions they make are not to please veterans, it's to get more people in to it.

Thing is, I can't quite see how a new edition of 40K is going to help them with this. For someone wandering into Games Workshop for the first time wondering what the hell it all is, the concept of editions, 40K, or even wargaming, will probably be alien to them. What are they going to care what edition it is, or how the rules have changed? Sure, the release day will probably raise some eyebrows and entice a few more people into the shop to have a look, but how will it help them to recruit beyond that?

So, to sum all that up in an open message to Games Workshop: I hope you know what you're doing guys, I really do.