What will happen with the next Meta change....

This might be the 64 million dollar question, but what changes can we expect when the Meta changes......

Is it something that is dependant on rules changes (6th ed), or perhaps something that is depandant on the most recent codex releases (GK, DE, BA for example)

I'm a 1 year rookie 40k player, so I've only known the current army list styles - expect mech but can my question even be answered or is it a case of, we'll see it when we see it.

Meta changes don't cause changes - changes cause meta changes.

If the rules change in a way that makes MSU and/or mech spam not as competitive there will be a dramatic meta change.

If a codex comes out that is super capable of killing the top armies in some way that requires fielding a different type of army to beat it then the meta will change.

But you kind of need to sit and wait to see what the changes specifically are before you can guess what the meta reaction will be.

As thor said, there is no way to know. From the rumors flying around they are trying to pull units out of vehicles and make it lists more balanced MSU- footslogging. We will have to see ofc, and our tactics will change accordingly.

*I* predict foot armies with good save (Death Wing) or "gimmicks" saves (like Ork Bikers with permanent 4+ cover, 4+ armour, basically inv in shooting phase. Also, us) should get better.

Recent books indicate that.

This is why I've been stockpiling Warriors

It's worth menioning some of new weapons (like our despair orb, some things in Necron book, if I'm correct also GK and BT) that are clearly AI have AP1. Typo?

I want to believe DE Codex (and later books) is 5.5 ed book that should be playable in 6th ed with little or none changes via FAQ.

Also Lances *seem* to cost way too much, hopefully we would either get discount OR firepower "refund", like "glance=pen" (that IMHO would fit "lance" but wouldn't be beardy)

Local_Ork wrote:

It's worth menioning some of new weapons (like our despair orb, some things in Necron book, if I'm correct also GK and BT) that are clearly AI have AP1. Typo?

Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.

I doubt it may be "Matt Tard" flick. He write rules poorly... but not poor rules.
Phil did that too.

I'm just guessing right now, but this looks like pattern...

Also, there are rumors that books are playtested in 1.5-0.5 year period before release so I'm guessing rulebook take a little more (it need to work with all books AND it need to be printed in larger quantities, including starter sets etc). DE playtest phase seem to be in the same time as early 6th ed playtest phase. That's why I think this is possible that our book was made with 6th ed in mind...

Maybe, I just remember similar hopes for 5th and not many codices were really 'pre-worked' for it at all.

I really do.

We can say for sure after release and first wave of FAQs.

So, after release *and* the first wave of FAQs? So...about...oh, a year or two after release, yeah

Nids were model example of that how poor FAQ can snap neck of already handicapped puppy.

I guess if the rules would be loophole free (doubt it) then we could give 99% accurate predictions with release.

But with current state, when designers literally give You plot device in form of "stop bitching, roll the die!" rule instead of either FAQuing or writing rules propertly (like thy should in the first place)...

I hope You understand why I'm caution.

Luckily I'm not a tournament player so if 6th edition is garbage, I'll just keep playing 5th

Quote :

can snap neck of already handicapped puppy.

Ouchies, sad...

I think that, for example with the rise in GK's out there there should be a rise in DE players that can give them a good fight!

We will see what 6th brings, for now... make sure you have enough AT and AI... and thats it.

If the meta shifts away from AV spam, or new rules making AV less popular, we really wouldn't have to change our builds all that much. A few DL's and Blasters, but maybe we'd find ourselves fielding more Dissies.....

We'd still keep our AV, but maybe Haemie/Wyches may become the standard troops combo, making them more resilient to inadvertant fire

Thor665 wrote:

Maybe, I just remember similar hopes for 5th and not many codices were really 'pre-worked' for it at all.

lol I remember them trying to say orks, CSM, and Daemons were made for 5th... yah... tell that to those books now

Touché.

Tho Orks are basically DE v 0.9* and chaos... CSM book is just lol bad (in their book anything that is close to chaos suck, so good lists look like gimpy marines, what the hell?) while Daemons... actually I've never played nor made list (read part of codex once), so can't say what's wrong with them. Maybe lack of mech like Nids?
I don't know any Daemon player myself so I'll hold my horses.

Spoiler:

Daemons suffer by...wow, let's see;

Being slow.
Having limited anti-mech tools in an edition all about mech.
Counting on limited quality invulnerable saves on low model count units and are supposed to be "tough to kill".

@Shadow - I actually think the Ork Dex legitimately did have 5th edition work in it (it did have specific word choices for 5th at the very least even if you don't think the overall design concept was there), the other two...yeah, not so much. That's why I poo-poo on the idea the DE dex was written for 6th - no way.

I hope they do a massive overhaul of some of the basic rules, like the damage table on vehicles, the to hit chart in CC, instant wounds stuff like that. Unlikly to happen but it would be nice to see them steer the rules to make a little bit of sense, I mean whats up with a Wraithlord hitting a Guardsman with St10 but not hurting him?
I reckon though that they might change FnP looking at the Necron Codex, they might make it a 5+ but you still get it from Ap2 or double your toughness weapons?
There are also other clues in some of the newer codexes, ways things are written like the Necron ones, some in the DE and some in the GK, can't remember any off the top of my head but I think they might move some rules around.

Thor665 wrote:

@Shadow - I actually think the Ork Dex legitimately did have 5th edition work in it (it did have specific word choices for 5th at the very least even if you don't think the overall design concept was there), the other two...yeah, not so much. That's why I poo-poo on the idea the DE dex was written for 6th - no way.

I will admit they had the concept in mind, like Waaagh giving you fleet and the cheapness of trucks and battlewagons, but I guess my biggest complaint is their lack of long range AT in such a mech happy rulebook. I guess though that GW knew not what it was doing when it changed the damage chart so drastically, but come on... all it would take is a few playtests to figure it out... especially if they had a rough draft of the C:SM lying around.

CSM was a big "we are sorry" for the 3rd ed book, so that is understandable... but again I remember myself thinking "Why would I want to fleet with a defiler???" But then again I was just looking for ways to make fun of the book since it was such a big nerfbat.

Daemons are in the same boat as Orks. Bolt is not a good range AT option... Why did that even make it by the drawing board as their ownly choice. What was GW thinking... that MCs would be able to handle AT duty??? What type of thinking is that