So yes people, I have just spotted this from 40k Radio guys, who posted this on their FB page :
The big 40k rumor is: This summer GW will release 7th edition 40k , and 9th edition Fantasy has been shelved, for now.
They claim the source is the same whose recent information has been quite reliable :
All right before all of you blow us up step back and take a deep breath. This is from the source that have us pictures of the Space Marines and the Codex a month early. Also gave us pics of the Dark Elves which we described accurately a month early. Also gave us the info on the Sentinels of Terra. He also let us know that Nids were in January NOT December like so many other rumors sites predicted. So yeah he has been very accurate with the info he has given us. They way it was explained to us is that 7th Edition will be made to include the new Escalation and Stronghold rules. I would also not be surprised to see the Dataslates added to the main rule book.
Yes this is a rumor at this stage so take it with a grain of salt. But then again everything out source has said has come true. Only time will tell. Have a Merry Christmas with your families and don't let this put a knot in your undies.
6th edition would be only 2 years old at the time. If this is true, should we only expect a debugged V6.1 ruleset, along with Escalation added-in and Stronghold replacing current fortification section ?
From Bell of Lost souls, Larry Vela (January 27th).
____________________________
Launch Window - @September
Rules Summary : Updated Mini-rulebook contains FAQs, minor tweaks and clarifications, and much of Stronghold Assault rolled into a new shiny package.
Miniatures included: @70
Armies:
Blood Angels (plastic quick assembly)
- Assault Marine Squad
- Tactical Marine Squad
- Death Company Squad
- Captain (kitted out for assault)
- Chaplain
- Sanguinary Priest (limited edition, similar to the Dark Vengeance mini was)
This was described as simply an updated Warhammer 40,000 Starter Set and specifically "NOT 7th Edition."
____________________________________________________________________________________
2014 march 31th :
The Dark Vengence starter box may be removed from the stores in following days.
According to a Faeit212 source, this appears to be the case at least in Netherlands :
So these rumors of a new edition (7th or patched V6.5) appear to be more than a vaporous idea.
There is still no "confirmation" of the new starter box content.
40k 7th edition and the new starter kit Beachhead Stygia. It is small kit, with only five scouts, five blood angels, a commander with jump pack, five meganobs, 10 armoured ork shootas including a nob with two-handed axe and 10 gretchins. There are some destroyed columns, destroyed gothic stone walls and a three-piece stone bridge carried by gargoyles. It has a 96 page book, but only about the half is used for rules including three scenarios. Expert rules like all vehicle-related stuff are omitted completely. There are a handful of dice, a ruler, but no blast markers.
At the same time, there will be a new starter painting kit with 10 snapfit miniatures that will bring the tactical marines from the starter box to a full squad size and gives the ork player 5 additional boyz. It has a 48 page booklet with additional scenarios and hobby guides, brushes, basing sand and glue.
________________________________________________
I disagree, but that's just my opinion. Personally, I don't enjoy many of the changes that I have taken place recently. I still like playing with my armies, but....let's put it this way, I spent all my holiday money on Malifaux.
If this is true, I'm also assuming (which may be wrong) that this new edition will out before all the codices have been updated?
Hmm, interesting. I expect that it will only be minor fixes, and with the new books stuck in, at least in part. If that is the case, I expect a great amount of backlash from those who have already bought the books.
I'll wait to hear more on this, but it does seem a little unlikely, abandoning the game that desperately needs a fix (And that is losing players to Kings of War left and right) in favour of one that is doing pretty well as is. Then again, this is GW.
Ravajaxe wrote: So yes guys, I have just spotted this from 40k Radio guys, who posted this on their FB page :
The big 40k rumor is: This summer GW will release 7th edition 40k , and 9th edition Fantasy has been shelved, for now.
They claim the source is the same whose recent information has been quite reliable :
All right before all of you blow us up step back and take a deep breath. This is from the source that have us pictures of the Space Marines and the Codex a month early. Also gave us pics of the Dark Elves which we described accurately a month early. Also gave us the info on the Sentinels of Terra. He also let us know that Nids were in January NOT December like so many other rumors sites predicted. So yeah he has been very accurate with the info he has given us. They way it was explained to us is that 7th Edition will be made to include the new Escalation and Stronghold rules. I would also not be surprised to see the Dataslates added to the main rule book.
Yes this is a rumor at this stage so take it with a grain of salt. But then again everything out source has said has come true. Only time will tell. Have a Merry Christmas with your families and don't let this put a knot in your undies.
6th edition would be only 2 years old at the time. If this is true, should we only expect a debugged V6.1 ruleset, along with Escalation added-in and Stronghold replacing current fortification section ?
If an edition is considered "broken" then a revamp usually has to be rushed out as soon as possible. Of course, that assumes GW actually does listen to its fan base.
The change from Dungeons and Dragons 3.0 to 3.5 was only 3 years. The difference between editions was added depth and combat tweaks.
If GW is thinking of faster release times, this pretty much falls in line with how fast the release schedule of codices has occurred. Once the last few books in 6th are updated, I wouldn't be surprised to see a 7th edition roll around not too long afterwards.
I'm surprised what it means for Fantasy. This is pure speculation of course but seems like GW is really focusing on 40K and leaving Fantasy become a specialist game. Back in the day these games were neck and neck and many a times Fantasy was more popular than 40K.
As far as stronghold and escalation getting integrated in the main rules goes I'm fine with it. It changes very little as those who want to ban official rules and army list extensions can do it whether the rules are printed in one book or several.
Like I said in another thread if the games are officially becoming bigger and everyone uses dozens of flyers and superheavies, I want GW to change the size of the battlefield. It should for example scale with the points values. I find it ridiculous that so large armies with artillery, bombers and superheavy vehicles stare eachother down on supermarket parking lots. They could just sell the tables themselves as they already have the realm of battle product going.
Even if this is true I seriously doubt it's because they want to clean up the edition and bring it back to a sane level like it was in 4th-5th edition.. I honestly do not believe they have any rule designers currently employed at the company any longer.
I sense it would be a money grab to add in even more absurd time wasting rules.
I don't even care about editions that much, can't get any worse than 5th was. I'd buy a new edition every year if it came with a new awesome starter set.
This fits with what I've heard too, however it's coming out earlier than I was told (if true).
What I was told is that IF there was a new 7th ed it would be out after all the codex's are out, I was told this was to allow for a flat reboot and put all armies on an equal footing in regards to the core rules, doubt its true but it's what I was told
I doubt this would be 7th edition, so much as a compilation release. GW have such a boner for selling as many digital releases as possible lately I can see them releasing a consolidated rulebook that includes certain expansions.
Plus with the pace of recent and upcoming codexes/supplements or expansions, I doubt they have anyone free to write new rules to the extent of a new edition.
If this is true my money says it's a repackage rather than a new release.
Its just a misunderstanding on 40k radio's part. The new edition of the rulebook is just a compilation of the 6th rules with escalation and stronghold assault meshed together and updated with the FAQ and errata.
Call it an upgrade rather than a brand new completely different edition of the rules.
cyberjonesy wrote: Its just a misunderstanding on 40k radio's part. The new edition of the rulebook is just a compilation of the 6th rules with escalation and stronghold assault meshed together and updated with the FAQ and errata.
Call it an upgrade rather than a brand new completely different edition of the rules.
How will they handle the price of this new book, I wonder? Combine the cost of the supplements and the BrB, or will the BrB be the same price?
I'd much rather have a new edition** that a compilation/cleanup of the current edition. It would take more than a simple editorial pass to make the current rules more than the pile of gal they are.
** Assuming they are written from the ground up, streamlined, play tested and proofread. Wishful thinking, I know.
In my opinion 6th is pretty spot on to be honest, the only things I could really ask for in 7th would be:
A more fluff-true and indepth allies chart (tau-marines are battle brothers but tau-guard arent, why? and allowing for genestealer cults and traitor guard)
More allies options, ie battle brothers can ride in transports, if some armies ally then certain bonuses or limitations apply, ie traitor guard may select marks or icons, but are limited in tank availability, genestealer cults may only select foot soliders and 0-1 vehicle with armour over 33 all facings, etc
Roll in updated rules for planetstrike and cities of death, including scenarios and strategems
Roll in rules for killteam and combat patrol
Include stronghold assault and escalation but nerf D-weapons somewhat and remove AV15
Give buildings hull points
Xenos fortifications, webway gates, ork watchtowers/forts, chaos shrines, tau turrets, necron obelisks etc
less random psychic powers and a bit more balance to the disciplines, ie improve telekinesis and iron out divination
a rerollable invun can never be better than a 4+
Thats all I can think of really
heres a thought though, what if they changed an allies relationship that suddenly makes your collection illegal to field? ....oh gw...
As it happens I heard a rumour from a chap at GWHQ not long back, he said that the 6th Ed will be bundled with all the updated codex in one bumper pack, after they are all updated later this year.
Maybe thats what this release is hinting at ?
Automatically Appended Next Post: The Mrs informs me that he did in fact say "all the other books" not all the other codex's, seems ive been told !
Like some others, I too think that this will be just a 6th Edition + book. Most probably it will be the 6th >Rulebook + Stronghold Assault and Escalation + An updated wording on the Rules incooperating the Erratas + some Glitch fixes. So it that is true why should I bother to buy Stonghold Assault and Esclation? Coming to think why should I bother to buy anything at all? Well nevermind.
would be happy if true...they souped up shooting too much and made assault inferior...
they need to fix a few things,
I like random charges
I do not like no charge from reserves
I do not like no charge out of a vehicle that has not moved
If shooting is going to remain king then its time to bring back consolidation into other units...you want your tau in range to help with overwatch then Im gonna run into the next unit (as if people used fire warriors and not just riptide spam...)
Some would say that Assault's leadership drop is an issue...it probably is, time to bring in BSBs and use a warlord's leadership in range to help make troops stick around...if thats too much like fantasy then go back to 4th edition rules...
smash attacks need to be toned down to 1 smash attack, no one is out there smashing twice but hulk...
Bring back Modifiers to everything...terminator armor used to be 3+ on 2d6 but different weapons had modifiers...
Bring back Movement values
Okay you toned down vehicles, now fix shooting them even more, its harder to shoot a moving vehicle, its even harder to shoot one going super fast, use modifiers to fix this...A DE raider should be much harder to hit when its moving flat out than a land raider...
The removal of cover saves (which I've never been a fan of, even when they first came in) in favour of a return to To Hit modifiers would be awesome, and add a whole load of depth back in to the game IMO.
My money is on 6.1 I would say we will get updated 6th ed with all the errata and faq built into the book, stronghold, escalation, and death from the skies.
If it's a update then you'll be able to keep your 6th edition (and add stronghold and escalation if you've not already go them)
or buy the big bumper 6.1 book with them all in one volume
if this is real
(especially thinking of the strong rumours of a Fantasy re-boot with combined army lists which if this latest rumour is true were wrong or have been shelved)
Maybe this means we'll get useable tracked tanks again
Very odd indeed if this is true, GW typically waits at least 4 years between editions, only 2 years would be very odd indeed.
That said, the current state of the game could merit it. We've got a huge mess of a ruleset right now. While GW has finally learned to accelerate releases so that Codex books are released at a reasonable pace, we've also got a glut of E-book material that feels like it's being slung out just for it's own sake, a lot of it garbage. On top of that, we've got two very big supplements that change the game in fundamental ways with the Stronghold assault and Escalation. This is all of course in addition to very confused 6E ruleset that can't quite decide what it wants to be, as we've got elements of skirmish/rpg scale systems in a game often played with hundreds of models.
Here's looking to 7th hopefully. I won't shed many tears for 6th edition if it proves to be true.
Some people are saying 6.1. Wouldn't it really be 3.4?
3rd edition is 3.0
4th edition is 3.1
5th edition is 3.2
6th edition is 3.3
So yes it really would be 3.4 because each edition, is really not a change like 2nd edition to 3rd edition is a REAL change. Everything after 3rd edition was just basically tweaks.
Seriously now, I don't think it will be 7th edition. I think it will be a complitation or an All-In-One book updated to the current FAQ.
I've never understood why a new starter has to necessarily be tied to a new edition of the rules.
Old players are going to buy in to a new box if you've got enough shiny in there, regardless of what edition or condition the rulebook is like.
Assuming that this elusive creature called a "new player" still exists in the wild, is a new box really what puts them over the edge and take the plunge into the game?
Although the focus is on 40k, what about the potential impact on WHFB?
Does this mean that GW are going to rein back support - I do not see how they could drop it completely but hey I thought that about Epic all those years ago.
Anyone know what the take up for WHFB is now by new players is? Could it be that the new kids on the block like Kings of War are having an impact and getting GW to take notice.
Could be a real kick in the nether regions for the long suffering WHFB who have had to play second fiddle to 40k for so long and even taken the brunt of the impacts of the LOTR and now Hobbit license agreements
cyberjonesy wrote: Its just a misunderstanding on 40k radio's part. The new edition of the rulebook is just a compilation of the 6th rules with escalation and stronghold assault meshed together and updated with the FAQ and errata.
Call it an upgrade rather than a brand new completely different edition of the rules.
Possible.
I'd consider a 6.1 extra-special-super-limited-all-in-one-book something they would do.
Plus some 1-click bundles.
Is it a digital release or in print?
GW split the Escalation release in two halves: an "international" english one and the rest later in april. ( WD december, page 23 ). To merge BRB and escalation in Summer ......sounds like we should have a 1st of April Escalation release over here.... thanks GW.
cyberjonesy wrote: Its just a misunderstanding on 40k radio's part. The new edition of the rulebook is just a compilation of the 6th rules with escalation and stronghold assault meshed together and updated with the FAQ and errata.
Call it an upgrade rather than a brand new completely different edition of the rules.
Possible.
I'd consider a 6.1 extra-special-super-limited-all-in-one-book something they would do.
Plus some 1-click bundles.
Is it a digital release or in print?
GW split the Escalation release in two halves: an "international" english one and the rest later in april. ( WD december, page 23 ). To merge BRB and escalation in Summer ......sounds like we should have a 1st of April Escalation release over here.... thanks GW.
April Fools Escalation Release...well played Kirby, well played.
nkelsch wrote: Maybe we will see a revised ally matrix or even allies made 'optional' and not part of the core game? Allies are broken and unbalanced at the moment.
Would just make 90% of the forces Daemon instead of either Daemon or Eldar. :-P
There are other fundamental mechanics that need revisited like rerolling non-armor saves(Cover, and Invuln).
Also the way Fortification rules are represented, and the working of Interceptor into more units/weapons/models to balance out flyer spam....which would require a small rework to make flyers more survivable(perhaps not the Helldrake...).
They garter this attention only because GW is so inept.
To be fair, we keep indulging GW in its lingerie of horrors from Matt Ward all the way to its money gouging tactics.
I think you mean menagerie,
At least I hope you do...
Auto-Correct rocks it makes for the most entertaining messages,one question why does it almost always changes it with something way innapproprate or embarresing ?
They garter this attention only because GW is so inept.
To be fair, we keep indulging GW in its lingerie of horrors from Matt Ward all the way to its money gouging tactics.
I think you mean menagerie,
At least I hope you do...
Auto-Correct rocks it makes for the most entertaining messages,one question why does it almost always changes it with something way innapproprate or embarresing ?
Because Skynet. First embaressing corrections. Then it "misinterprets" a benign statement as "nuke *insert country here*"
They garter this attention only because GW is so inept.
To be fair, we keep indulging GW in its lingerie of horrors from Matt Ward all the way to its money gouging tactics.
I think you mean menagerie,
At least I hope you do...
Auto-Correct rocks it makes for the most entertaining messages,one question why does it almost always changes it with something way innapproprate or embarresing ?
Considering he said 'garter' instead of 'garner', I think 'lingerie' fits the theme.
an anonymous source on Faeit 212 (solid source) wrote: The next edition of 40k will be called 7th, not 6.5 when it drops, but as far as rules go it will be less of a jump than 5th to 6th.
The key areas being updated: Interceptor, sky fire, fortifications, lords of war, allies and data slates.
As for its release it'll probably be September not "the summer."
It's not finished yet, still being tested so anything can happen.
The thought behind this edition is to make the game less alpha strike explosive and more "competitive" at all points values (even when including Lords of War), but D weapons outside of apocalypse may see alternate rules.
pretre wrote: via an anonymous source on Faeit 212 (solid source)
The next edition of 40k will be called 7th, not 6.5 when it drops, but as far as rules go it will be less of a jump than 5th to 6th.
The key areas being updated:
Interceptor, sky fire, fortifications, lords of war, allies and data slates.
As for its release it'll probably be September not "the summer."
It's not finished yet, still being tested so anything can happen.
The thought behind this edition is to make the game less alpha strike explosive and more "competitive" at all points values (even when including Lords of War), but D weapons outside of apocalypse may see alternate rules.
urion wrote: Everyone wants a new edition till it comes out. Then they want a new edition.
I don't want a new ed. I want 5th back. I was looking forward to 6th's release, got the book, recoiled in horror, and died a little inside.
You and...nobody else.
Unless a person is incapable of playing a game that requires thought, there are none who want to go back to un-killable transports with lists made up of nothing but:
5 dudes + tank
5 dudes + tank
5 dudes + tank
5 dudes + tank
5 dudes + tank
5 dudes + tank
No thank you. Good Lord that edition was a scar on the game.
Yeah, we really need to go back to un-killable transports with lists made up of nothing but:
5 dudes + tank
5 dudes + tank
5 dudes + tank
5 dudes + tank
5 dudes + tank
5 dudes + tank
You forgot an important part of that list:
6 dudes (5 Missile Launchers) + Tank.
6 dudes (5 Missile Launchers) + Tank.
6 dudes (5 Missile Launchers) + Tank.
pretre wrote: Well it's Natfka so it really is more likely that it is fake than true.
More likely that the specifics he posted are not true at least. Remember, 40k Radio is batting just about perfect with the only faults being stuff they withheld to get people to listen to their show.
One way or another this will be interesting to watch unfold I think.
Yeah, we really need to go back to un-killable transports with lists made up of nothing but:
5 dudes + tank
5 dudes + tank
5 dudes + tank
5 dudes + tank
5 dudes + tank
5 dudes + tank
You forgot an important part of that list:
6 dudes (5 Missile Launchers) + Tank.
6 dudes (5 Missile Launchers) + Tank.
6 dudes (5 Missile Launchers) + Tank.
lol. Ah yes. Because 5th edition had so much "variety", some went with lots of meltaguns instead of missile launchers. That could throw things off, let me tell you.
For my money, I'm betting on 're-release of 6th with a bunch of stuff included in the main rulebook'.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
brassangel wrote: lol. Ah yes. Because 5th edition had so much "variety", some went with lots of meltaguns instead of missile launchers. That could throw things off, let me tell you.
I loved me some 5th but 6th is better, imo. So yeah, we're on the same page. My razorspam wolves are sad though.
urion wrote: Everyone wants a new edition till it comes out. Then they want a new edition.
I don't want a new ed. I want 5th back. I was looking forward to 6th's release, got the book, recoiled in horror, and died a little inside.
You and...nobody else.
Unless a person is incapable of playing a game that requires thought, there are none who want to go back to un-killable transports with lists made up of nothing but:
5 dudes + tank
5 dudes + tank
5 dudes + tank
5 dudes + tank
5 dudes + tank
5 dudes + tank
No thank you. Good Lord that edition was a scar on the game.
I agree the tanks were too unkillable in that edition. Since I have been playing since Rogue trade, 3rd Edition REALLY pissed me off by making oversimplified, then have progressively liked editions since. I liked 5th, but I like 6th better. I like bringing more individuality to the game, challenges, allies, special rules, bringing back variance to codexes - like giving powers back to exarchs for Eldar, making Nids viable again - guess we will see what the new codex holds. I personally hope that this is a revamp or clean up of 6th as I am not quite ready to say goodbye to it and would love for once since 2nd edition to see everyone have a current codex...
urion wrote: Everyone wants a new edition till it comes out. Then they want a new edition.
I don't want a new ed. I want 5th back. I was looking forward to 6th's release, got the book, recoiled in horror, and died a little inside.
You and...nobody else.
Unless a person is incapable of playing a game that requires thought, there are none who want to go back to un-killable transports with lists made up of nothing but:
5 dudes + tank
5 dudes + tank
5 dudes + tank
5 dudes + tank
5 dudes + tank
5 dudes + tank
No thank you. Good Lord that edition was a scar on the game.
Have you seen some of the Eldar lists lately?
The only difference with 6th is that the tracked tanks armies can't do this, the Skimmer armies can.
Leo_the_Rat wrote: Sisters of Battle didn't get a new codex till just recently. Witchhunters was more of a Inquistion with sisters thrown in a la daemonhunters.
Debatable. They had several army lists that were very good during that time period though. The black book list, the Chapter Approved (WD) list and C:WH. I would argue that the Chapter Approved list was probably the best we've ever had. That's a bit OT though. They did have a book, as did every other army, during 3rd.
urion wrote: Everyone wants a new edition till it comes out. Then they want a new edition.
I don't want a new ed. I want 5th back. I was looking forward to 6th's release, got the book, recoiled in horror, and died a little inside.
Unless a person is incapable of playing a game that requires thought, there are none who want to go back to un-killable transports with lists made up of nothing but:
5 dudes + tank
5 dudes + tank
5 dudes + tank
5 dudes + tank
5 dudes + tank
5 dudes + tank
No thank you. Good Lord that edition was a scar on the game.
I never used transports...
I just liked the lack of random. And that I could make a DP kill stuff reliably. And with EW.
:/
Eiluj The Farseer wrote: Since I have been playing since Rogue trade, 3rd Edition REALLY pissed me off by making oversimplified, then have progressively liked editions since.
3rd was the result of GW trying to break into the competitive scene. The whole thing was basically rushed out the door and they've been trying to fix it ever since.
I have a small reason to be optimistic with this, as, while execution has been a little erratic, the last year or so has seen an increased release schedule, bundle purchases with an inclusive discount, supplements with expanded options for sub-factions, and the disappearance of arbitrary, blanket price rises, albeit without the disappearance of the slightly grabby pricing behaviour it was associated with.
These are all things that GW have been persistently, roundly and vocally criticised either for not doing, or not doing any more.
The one remaining criticism I have of GW in general (rather than the specific daft bits that crop up) is I don't find 40K all that fun anymore, and I feel that 6th has descended into a pantomime clusterfeth where all the toys in the toy box have been thrown at "the problem child" (those pesky customers who keep insisting that 40K isn't all that good a game) in an order to keep it quiet.
If the changes I mentioned are a response to criticism, then there is hope that this could be too.
Perhaps that "vocal, Internet minority" isn't so much of a minority after all.
Bring it I say. Just be sure to roll all Marines into one book, and give refunds to anybody who bought the BRB, Escal, or Stronghold. Or simply let them trade in. Remember those poor saps who bought DftS only to buy a Codex with the same rules immediately after?
d3m01iti0n wrote: Bring it I say. Just be sure to roll all Marines into one book, and give refunds to anybody who bought the BRB, Escal, or Stronghold. Or simply let them trade in. Remember those poor saps who bought DftS only to buy a Codex with the same rules immediately after?
Yeah, good luck with that. You want a free kitten too?
I am not buying this rumor. Natfka does not have the best track record (everything is a sure thing until it is not). If this is anything (and it may just be smoke) my guess is that this will be a digital only version of the 6th edition rule book with all the supplemental rule sets and FAQs rolled into one master rule set. Perhaps there might be some dataslate like changes to the overall rule set. But I see it more of some simple housekeeping and not a major shift in the game.
Stock price is falling, profits are stagnant, and cost-cutting measures are hitting the bone - of course there is going to be a new edition!
And probably a even newer edition shortly afterwards, closely followed by whatever the janitor thinks is a great new unit that would increase sales.
If assaults becomes 6+D6".
If you can assault when disembarking from a transport if immobile the same turn.
If Furious Charge gives again +1Init.
If Power Axes was just a -1Init or Specialist weapon.
Slayer le boucher wrote: If assaults becomes 6+D6".
If you can assault when disembarking from a transport if immobile the same turn.
If Furious Charge gives again +1Init.
If Power Axes was just a -1Init or Specialist weapon.
Then it would be interessting.
If not, i'm not interested.
Now that is an edition I would like to play in. One less count of random Bs, power axes ftw, furious charge ftw, Rhino assault ftw!
Slayer le boucher wrote: If assaults becomes 6+D6".
If you can assault when disembarking from a transport if immobile the same turn.
If Furious Charge gives again +1Init.
If Power Axes was just a -1Init or Specialist weapon.
Then it would be interessting.
If not, i'm not interested.
As a tau and DA player I must say I agree with all but the furious charge. (to many orks in my area)
Stock price is falling, profits are stagnant, and cost-cutting measures are hitting the bone - of course there is going to be a new edition!
And probably a even newer edition shortly afterwards, closely followed by whatever the janitor thinks is a great new unit that would increase sales.
Stock price is falling, profits are stagnant, and cost-cutting measures are hitting the bone - of course there is going to be a new edition!
And probably a even newer edition shortly afterwards, closely followed by whatever the janitor thinks is a great new unit that would increase sales.
"Profits are stagnant". I love how people say that but both GW's Revenue and Net Profits are higher for their FY 2013 than 2012.
As for stock prices, since when are those indicative of how a company is actually doing? It's a measure of investor confidence, not the actual company's abilities. And when you look at the last year it looks like there was a bit of an investor boom there for a bit that inflated stock prices a little too quickly and they're tapering off a bit from that.
Slayer le boucher wrote: If assaults becomes 6+D6".
If you can assault when disembarking from a transport if immobile the same turn.
If Furious Charge gives again +1Init.
If Power Axes was just a -1Init or Specialist weapon.
I believe it. GW will release a continue bitz of high-fluff (which in 40k isn't hard to write at all, any preschooler can do it) low-content codex's/expansions that aren't even physical copies to reduce overhead. The constant bombardment of required updates is a new way to drain the customers as people slow down buying their models due to cost.
Super Warhammer 40,000 2 Turbo Alpha EX+ Gold Champion Edition is slated for release yesterday. Now you can use your 40k models in Skylanders Giants! and your current rules have been nulified. The new book also features a prisma-chromatic holo-foil cover and comes poly-bagged with a collector card of photo booth nudes of Tom Kirby. $120 for the ppb version. If you buy this, you get the new limited White dwarf model for $50 featuring the famous white dwarf enjoying a day at the beach in a precarious and embbarasing pose wearing a speedo being pulled down by a flesh hound puppy.
40k is dead. Long live 40k. I will continue to enjoy the IP and the hobby despite GW. I will not be buying a new edition. Long live piracy against companies like this.
Harriticus wrote: I believe it. GW will release a continue bitz of high-fluff (which in 40k isn't hard to write at all, any preschooler can do it) low-content codex's/expansions that aren't even physical copies to reduce overhead. The constant bombardment of required updates is a new way to drain the customers as people slow down buying their models due to cost.
That strategy worked great for them with Iron Hands players(those few of us that were left). Some have begun repurposing their armies for Heresy-era games, many more are struggling to maintain any enthusiasm for the game or company at all, quite a few have already walked away. And I think there was one guy who was inexplicably happy they retconned the chapter to bits. If they keep up the ratio of 1 decent to several average to one fanbase-destroyingly-abysmal with the current pace of supplement releases, they should have successfully driven off quite a few more people even before this 6.1/6.5/7th edition malarkey.
EYEofTERROR wrote: Super Warhammer 40,000 2 Turbo Alpha EX+ Gold Champion Edition is slated for release yesterday. Now you can use your 40k models in Skylanders Giants! and your current rules have been nulified. The new book also features a prisma-chromatic holo-foil cover and comes poly-bagged with a collector card of photo booth nudes of Tom Kirby. $120 for the ppb version. If you buy this, you get the new limited White dwarf model for $50 featuring the famous white dwarf enjoying a day at the beach in a precarious and embbarasing pose wearing a speedo being pulled down by a flesh hound puppy.
40k is dead. Long live 40k. I will continue to enjoy the IP and the hobby despite GW. I will not be buying a new edition. Long live piracy against companies like this.
This all sounds about correct - I'm thinking they just want to release a new special limited edition version
Let's face they've cocked up assault based army in this edition as well as how flyers interact with the current game. I do believe it will be more like 6.5 than a true 7th edition. I don't believe that 6th is bad it's just needs a bit more polish.
PastelAvenger wrote: Let's face they've cocked up assault based army in this edition as well as how flyers interact with the current game. I do believe it will be more like 6.5 than a true 7th edition. I don't believe that 6th is bad it's just needs a bit more polish.
PastelAvenger wrote: Let's face they've cocked up assault based army in this edition as well as how flyers interact with the current game. I do believe it will be more like 6.5 than a true 7th edition. I don't believe that 6th is bad it's just needs a bit more polish.
And a good trimming.
Yes a lot of rules bloating needs to be cut from the edition too
I honestly wouldn't mind a tweak to 6th; they introduced a number of new mechanics which could use some adjusting, but a whole new edition is a bit much to consider at this point.
There are, however, some codexes which could use a ".5" treatment; Chaos in particular. Codex Heldrake and Cultists isn't terribly interesting, and my local group includes a lot of Chaos players with very limited enthusiasm for their armies anymore, especially as more and more armies get updated and blow them out of the water.
For general rules, there are some things I'd like looked at:
Challenges. They're completely asinine in 40k, make no logical sense, and instead of "Forging a narrative," they seem shoehorned in, only making sense for specific models/characters, not as a game-wide system. I'd like to see an incentive to challenge, with risks/rewards based on the outcome, but do not make it mandatory or punish armies for not accepting them.
Vehicles. Tracked vehicles are ludicrously easy to kill if they've got anything less than AV14 and in cover, whereas skimmers enjoy excellent durability in a variety of manners, especially since most skimmers can buff their saves through basic unit upgrades. Dreadnoughts, well, let's not talk about those. Any close combat vehicle is suicide. An easy tweak would be to differentiate skimmers and conventional tanks via HPs; skimmers have less, but get their saves, tanks have more, but have to rely on positioning or thicker armour.
As for dreadnoughts, honestly, since GW has decided to make all post-Chaos walkers MCs, dreadnoughts either need to become their own unit type, or folded into MCs; the hullpoint system just makes them laughably easy to kill. A 10 man guardsmen squad with krak grenades will kill anything shy of a Contemptor or Ironclad handidly in CC.
Allies. The ally matrix is a load of crap, if you ask me. Most of the "Battle Brothers" have no justification, an have resulted in enormously broken combos. Why on earth would Eldar and Tau work together? There's no fluff justification, nor for Eldar and Dark Eldar to be BB. There needs to be a lot more allies of convenience on that chart, and a number of things demoted to desperate allies or come the apocalypse.
Lastly, cover. At the start of the edition, cover was fine; a few things were demoted in saves, infantry in ruins had to rely on TLOS rather than just being "in-terrain" (as much as some TFGs locally struggle with that), vehicles got saves easier (which they need, given HPs), and all was well. Now, however, Eldar and Tau in particular have added so many ways to massively buff or remove cover entirely. Daemons as well, to a point. What I've noticed now (and these problems are from codexes, rather than the BRB) is that armies either have 2+ or 3+ cover saves by default, or their cover is ignored entirely in some capacity.
Sometimes, it feels like armies are either Terminators or Kroot in terms of durability with so many buff/debuff/rule ignoring builds becoming the norm. Psychic and pseudo-psychic buffs have gotten out of control, and enabled some serious powergaming which is all to easy to abuse, and needs to be reigned in.
"7th Edition" already has got to be more than the market will bear, but I wouldn't be surprised to see a sort of 6th ed definitive edition that includes all the supplementary stuff and a big FAQ.
If we get 7th ed so soon, I will definitely sit it out. I'm not in this to buy a BRB every damn year. Plenty of mileage in 6th yet for me. Thank god I mostly play at home with friends.
urion wrote: Everyone wants a new edition till it comes out. Then they want a new edition.
I don't want a new ed. I want 5th back. I was looking forward to 6th's release, got the book, recoiled in horror, and died a little inside.
Unless a person is incapable of playing a game that requires thought, there are none who want to go back to un-killable transports with lists made up of nothing but:
5 dudes + tank
5 dudes + tank
5 dudes + tank
5 dudes + tank
5 dudes + tank
5 dudes + tank
No thank you. Good Lord that edition was a scar on the game.
I never used transports...
I just liked the lack of random. And that I could make a DP kill stuff reliably. And with EW.
:/
So you had to change the way you played one unit and that was it for you? In a universe of incredible technology and massive guns, monsters should be relatively easy to shoot down. I say this as a Tyranids player, so those using DP's can cram it with walnuts.
The "random" in 40k doesn't disable a strategy though. In WHFB, for example, the random can literally win or lose the game with one roll. Build a list reliant on magic, roll bad during the phase, and you're screwed. Relying on cavalry charges, fail to reach combat, and you're screwed. Good roll on the Yell and Bawl and watch a 200 point Giant take out a 900 point Ancient Dragon. Or have a single Purple Sun kill 1100 points of Ogres in a turn. I've even seen Mulg the Ancient win a game of Warmachine on turn 1 because of randomness.
40k random isn't anywhere near that. In fact, the only "random" is charge distance (mitigated by things like fleet, pre-measuring, and high movement rates to ensure closing in on targets quickly), and rolling on a few tables. Very few of the Traits and Psychic Powers are totally useless, however, and even if they are, it won't hinder your ability to win the game.
5th may have been less random, but it also didn't require any thought, and was way too predictable. Nobody had to think outside the box to put Grey Hunters in a Rhino. The one unit could literally handle any situation in the game, and any moron could point them at the enemy and get the job done. That's not good design.
It scores well with players in a majority of tests and surveys when there's some element of surprise to the micro portions of a game.
MajorStoffer wrote:I honestly wouldn't mind a tweak to 6th; they introduced a number of new mechanics which could use some adjusting, but a whole new edition is a bit much to consider at this point.
There are, however, some codexes which could use a ".5" treatment; Chaos in particular. Codex Heldrake and Cultists isn't terribly interesting, and my local group includes a lot of Chaos players with very limited enthusiasm for their armies anymore, especially as more and more armies get updated and blow them out of the water.
For general rules, there are some things I'd like looked at:
Challenges. They're completely asinine in 40k, make no logical sense, and instead of "Forging a narrative," they seem shoehorned in, only making sense for specific models/characters, not as a game-wide system. I'd like to see an incentive to challenge, with risks/rewards based on the outcome, but do not make it mandatory or punish armies for not accepting them.
Vehicles. Tracked vehicles are ludicrously easy to kill if they've got anything less than AV14 and in cover, whereas skimmers enjoy excellent durability in a variety of manners, especially since most skimmers can buff their saves through basic unit upgrades. Dreadnoughts, well, let's not talk about those. Any close combat vehicle is suicide. An easy tweak would be to differentiate skimmers and conventional tanks via HPs; skimmers have less, but get their saves, tanks have more, but have to rely on positioning or thicker armour.
As for dreadnoughts, honestly, since GW has decided to make all post-Chaos walkers MCs, dreadnoughts either need to become their own unit type, or folded into MCs; the hullpoint system just makes them laughably easy to kill. A 10 man guardsmen squad with krak grenades will kill anything shy of a Contemptor or Ironclad handidly in CC.
Allies. The ally matrix is a load of crap, if you ask me. Most of the "Battle Brothers" have no justification, an have resulted in enormously broken combos. Why on earth would Eldar and Tau work together? There's no fluff justification, nor for Eldar and Dark Eldar to be BB. There needs to be a lot more allies of convenience on that chart, and a number of things demoted to desperate allies or come the apocalypse.
Lastly, cover. At the start of the edition, cover was fine; a few things were demoted in saves, infantry in ruins had to rely on TLOS rather than just being "in-terrain" (as much as some TFGs locally struggle with that), vehicles got saves easier (which they need, given HPs), and all was well. Now, however, Eldar and Tau in particular have added so many ways to massively buff or remove cover entirely. Daemons as well, to a point. What I've noticed now (and these problems are from codexes, rather than the BRB) is that armies either have 2+ or 3+ cover saves by default, or their cover is ignored entirely in some capacity.
Sometimes, it feels like armies are either Terminators or Kroot in terms of durability with so many buff/debuff/rule ignoring builds becoming the norm. Psychic and pseudo-psychic buffs have gotten out of control, and enabled some serious powergaming which is all to easy to abuse, and needs to be reigned in.
This is a good post, but you are basically complaining that armies have lots of options, and some of them are powerful. As I said earlier, giving people frequent releases and new toys, as well as access to powerful combinations and units often leads to a more satisfied customer base. It's more fun when you can do crazy powerful things, especially when EVERY army gains access to some of them.
If all of the uber-stuff only belonged to Chaos, for example, then sure, it would be bad (see Space Wolves and Grey Knights during their reign(s) of terror in that horrible, horrible 5th edition); but every army is getting powerful stuff. Sure, it's more "fun" than anything, but that's what a game is about. People like to do crazy powerful things. That's a part of what happens in Magic: the Gathering with each new set released - and yet it's the most popular tournament game in existence.
Too much balance between units across the board means boring, predictable games, with everyone essentially playing the same style.
Are the rules getting a little bloated? Yes, I do feel as though GW has gotten a tad zealous with the digital and supplemental content. But I'm not giving up on assault-based armies becoming viable with Tyranids around the corner, and Orks sure to follow a few months later. We still have a chance to see what gets done with them. Hell, if GW continues we may even see a Khorne/World Eaters Supplement.
If GW can bring assault armies back into the competitive fold, this edition will be in a very good place.
What we do know is, sales were down, and the player-base fled to other games during 5th edition. Now GW has seen a growth in profit, a growth in sales volume, and is becoming more recognized outside of the general gaming community since 6th edition dropped.
It's a lot of fun to play - not perfect, but no system is - and I want to see what Tyranids and Orks bring to the table.
Again, I expect it to be more of a tweak to fold in the FAQ's and SA & Escal rules instead of a whole new edition. Didn't we have a rumor late in 5th/early 6th that there would be multiple starter sets? Perhaps GW is going to update the rule book every 2 years or so to accommodate the new content and then release a new starter set with it. Just a guess.
A starter with different army options would be fine so I don't have to EBay everything in the box except for the 10% of it that I need.
SM are the pin up boys of GW, I understand that, but seriously if GW want to sell more boxes it would help if people could get sets for stuff that actually want / need.
I actually like 6th ED for the most part but some of the rules are just ridiculous...
> Better CC, challenges are BS, 20 guys are not going to stand there and watch their leader get squished, challenges should only be allowed to be issued when there are only a couple of other units around. > The CC to hit modifiers are absolute BS. > I would prefer a "to hit" modifier than "cover saves", seriously, if I hit the guy in the first place, and wounded him, how the hell can you bullet magically hit a wall... <- common sense prevails? > Inability to CC out of outflank, Dark Eldar Webways is ridiculous (however I can understand not assaulting from deep strike and drop pods as you have to get out the damn vehicle first. > Someone mentioned being able to assault out of a none moving none assault vehicle. I dont use any of these vehicles but I would have to agree. > Instant Death needs looking at. > Strength D weapons need toning down a touch, not too much as I understand why they are as good as they are. > Look out sir, one of the most idiotic rules I have ever seen. I can understand 1 guy jumping in front but 10 of them? I think not... Also how the hell would someone "look out sir" from a blast template, I am pretty sure the guy would be too busy already being blown up to worry about protecting the guy with the medals. > ATSKNF - Yeah right, if they run away (on the basis they are scared / have fear) and get caught they should die like everyone else. > AP2 S8 - S10 LARGE BLASTS, yeah right. > Dont get me started on psychic tests, especially when they need to hit assuming you didnt perils, and seriously how can a none psychic unit deny the witch after all that...
I could go on, there are a number of rules that really cheese me off.
You would think I hate playing this game but I love it, have done for 15 years...! Just wish some of the rules got improved a little.
So last month I got back into 40k after a 20 year hiatus. Bought 4500 points of CSM, Lord of Skulls, a bunch of terrain and fortifications.... also picked up 6th edition rulebook, the mini 6th ed. rulebook, Escalation rulebook, Stronghold Assault rulebook, and the CSM codex. didn't these literally just come out? I know Escalation did.
This does not please me.
So now I have ~6 months of relevancy? I should be just about done painting.
So if GW has no regard for its customers, I can play that game too. I'll just be purchasing models from GW knockoff sites from now on.
Shingen wrote: A starter with different army options would be fine so I don't have to EBay everything in the box except for the 10% of it that I need.
SM are the pin up boys of GW, I understand that, but seriously if GW want to sell more boxes it would help if people could get sets for stuff that actually want / need.
Because games like Warmachine provide starter sets for every Faction vs. Faction combination?
That's not an easy task. I imagine GW wants it to sell, and it will sell more if Marines are included in there somewhere. That's all there is to it. People who don't play either army have purchased the sets. Space Marines were made the "pin up boys" because of the customers, not GW. They've simply elected to milk that cow as long as people crave it.
sand.zzz wrote: So last month I got back into 40k after a 20 year hiatus. Bought 4500 points of CSM, Lord of Skulls, a bunch of terrain and fortifications.... also picked up 6th edition rulebook, the mini 6th ed. rulebook, Escalation rulebook, Stronghold Assault rulebook, and the CSM codex. didn't these literally just come out? I know Escalation did.
This does not please me.
So now I have ~6 months of relevancy? I should be just about done painting.
So if GW has no regard for its customers, I can play that game too. I'll just be purchasing models from GW knockoff sites from now on.
1.) That's not their fault you did all of that.
2.) Couldn't anyone say that if they bought something late and the edition lasted 10 years too? Furthermore, there's nothing that says what you purchased will become obsolete or unusable.
3.) It's all just rumors right now. Don't go drawing rage-quit conclusions when we don't know anything.
Because games like Warmachine provide starter sets for every Faction vs. Faction combination?
No, not exactly.
1 Starter set for total newbies with SM and something else in is okay. However for the players among us who don't collect such drab models some more specific box sets with only 1 army in would be good. I would happily buy a Tyranid and Dark Eldar one just for the models and pay twice as much than I would have to with a starter boxset with some gakky marines in that will never get used.
I don't believe this "it'll be just rolling the FAQs into the main rulebook" bit at all. Like GW would ever do something like that. "Yeah we're just going to compile all this stuff into one book so new players don't have to buy 10 books and can instead buy this one, and the rest of you don't need to buy anything". Now that's wishlisting if anything on this forum has ever been.
I firmly believe that if we get a new main rulebook at all, it will once again change the game just like every new edition always has. Change provokes a shift in the metagame and list building and sparks new interest in the game and all in all boosts sales.
So if GW has no regard for its customers, I can play that game too. I'll just be purchasing models from GW knockoff sites from now on.
Forgive me if I don't cry for you. Game companies do that stuff all the time and there's absolutely nothing wrong with it. There's probably more people who want constant change than those who want their 'investment' to be the hip game everyone's playing for a decade. Many PC titles that cost 70 and nowadays with DLCs even up to 120 bucks have a lifespan of less than two years. You can keep playing the old game all you want but you've no rights to complain if some other people want to play the new one.
That said, I firmly encourage you to buy from the sites that gives you the biggest discounts.
Eh, I think 7th, if its true (which I doubt) will be 6.5th edition. Here's the book with supplements added in, and some changes to a few rules. Maybe even update the Psychic powers. But, I'd expect that the basic rules and what is/isn't good will be exactly the same.
This rumor came from 40K radio, who, if I'm not mistaken, received a C&D from GW legal not that long ago. Sounds more like someone in GW legal parsed out specifically bad information to track down who was slipping info to 40K radio.
jifel wrote: Eh, I think 7th, if its true (which I doubt) will be 6.5th edition. Here's the book with supplements added in, and some changes to a few rules. Maybe even update the Psychic powers. But, I'd expect that the basic rules and what is/isn't good will be exactly the same.
They do that with every new edition. Some stuff changes for the better, some for the worse. The actual core rules change very little normally. Movement, rolling to hit, etc. You can literally take a 40K player from a 10 year hiatus and he will learn to play the most current edition in 15 minutes.
I hope its true, regardless of whether it is 7th or just 6.5. I want changes to assault to make it better, more hull points to make them more survivable (I like the hull points idea, its just no vehicle has enough), and all walkers (especially dreads) either need a massive retooling or GW just needs to say Please don't bypass the language filter like this. Thanks. Reds8n and make them MCs like they've been doing with similar units recently.
Escalation was released december 2013. If GW is planning to amend it 6 months after release.. sorry but that's just bush league. I'm not drawing ragequit conclusions, just saying that if they wanna go full 'eff you' to their customers by giving us s 6 month window to use hardbound rulebooks, then I will be happy to say 'eff you' right back by supporting knock off model companies.
I have no issue with new editions, amending rules, spending money... but when escalation is already being replaced.. the fcking ink is still wet ffs.
I hope this isn't the case, its not ok to abuse/take advantage of customers is all I'm saying.
Well frak.
I bought the big 6th ed. rulebook for 60 euro when it came out, got only a few games due to the fact nobody seems to play 40k in my damned country and now im gonna have to buy a new rulebook in a few months. Emperor damn gw.
I guess 7th edition will make an Ueber expensive large tank/robot/thingie a mandatory choice for an army!
And it will come in a superdeluxe metal case 200 different cover version for the cheap price of 2000$!
Considering not all the armies will be updated by the point this rumor points to, i say its a rulebook tweek, and bundling all the expansions and supplements (read Escalation & SHA). It doesn't make sense at all, even from an unlikely POV that they would go half-way into a new edition cycle, and completely scrap it.
I think it might go to tweek the rules to buff the non-eldar tau and daemons armies like orks, IG, SOB, DA etc. so that they get sale increases from supposed buffs. At least that's how I would do that. Not sure if GW has that much common sense.
azreal13 wrote: The removal of cover saves (which I've never been a fan of, even when they first came in) in favour of a return to To Hit modifiers would be awesome, and add a whole load of depth back in to the game IMO.
And put us back in 2nd Ed where you spend most of your opponent's turn just removing models. Cover Saves, however artificial, give you something to do during your opponent's turn, and allow you to save your troops (in a way). They need to stay.
pretre wrote: Yeah, good luck with that. You want a free kitten too?
No need to be a dick about it pretre. Another massive and super-expensive hard-back book right after someone's bought the current super-expensive hard-back book and both its expensive hard-back expansions? I think people have a right to go "No. Feth that noise." After only two years it's the gaming equivalent of a baint'n'switch.
Therion wrote: Game companies do that stuff all the time and there's absolutely nothing wrong with it.
Yeah, but barely two years after the last new edition? I've never seen a game company do that before.
Well, Activision has released a new Call of Duty every single year since 2006, and the new one pretty much entirely replaces the old one as far as online gaming is concerned. Someone probably plays the older games casually, but hey, we can play the older versions of Warhammer casually too.
Therion wrote: Game companies do that stuff all the time and there's absolutely nothing wrong with it.
Yeah, but barely two years after the last new edition? I've never seen a game company do that before.
Well, Activision has released a new Call of Duty every single year since 2006, and the new one pretty much entirely replaces the old one as far as online gaming is concerned. Someone probably plays the older games casually, but hey, we can play the older versions of Warhammer casually too.
Video Gaming is very different than tabletop gaming, you can make a new video game each year and almost guarantee you'll keep making more and more money cause they don't support the old game servers as long anymore, heck, Halo:Reach probably isn't supported on XBL anymore, and it's only 3 years old...
6th ed is broken n crap n stuff and rules are needed!
*GW plan to release a new updated version of 6th*
GW is just gouging us for money!
Sometimes I hate all you people...
I think it's an awesome idea personally put all those FAQ's and extra rules into the BRB and maybe add a couple of extra tweaks to help with balance. We will be better off for it..
Therion wrote: Game companies do that stuff all the time and there's absolutely nothing wrong with it.
Yeah, but barely two years after the last new edition? I've never seen a game company do that before.
Closest is D&D between 3 and 3.5.
Which is funny that you mention that, because back when "3.5" came out I thought it was a pointless money grab. My dad was similarly unimpressed and whenever we all played D&D after that we just went back to 2nd edition because he knew that one better, and I guess he wasn't a big fan of the "dungeonpunk" art style of 3rd anyway.
That and I don't really consider 3.5 a new edition anyway. From what I can tell it was mostly the same as 3rd, but with a few "balance tweaks"...which even to this day I don't see much point in, since we're talking about a co-operative RPG and not a competitive game. Balance doesn't seem important to me since I doubt any DM worth his salt would let everyone in the party be the same class because it was "OP" and would likely police that gak himself if one or more characters started getting too powerful. Then again I suppose you can't do that if you play in a more "organized' way like living D&D or whatever the hell it's called.
Therion wrote: Many PC titles that cost 70 and nowadays with DLCs even up to 120 bucks have a lifespan of less than two years. You can keep playing the old game all you want but you've no rights to complain if some other people want to play the new one.
You're confusing two different things:
1. Annualised games like Call of Duty and... well Assassin's Creed I guess. 2. DLC.
The greater majority of games don't cost that much nor do they have a "life span". Sequels take roughly 3-5 years to come out (more if you're Blizzard, and forever if you're Valve), and that never "invalidates" the old game (not like a new rule set does), especially games with heavy single-player emphasis. It's a terrible comparison to make and one that doesn't work at all.
Therion wrote: Game companies do that stuff all the time and there's absolutely nothing wrong with it.
Yeah, but barely two years after the last new edition? I've never seen a game company do that before.
Well, Activision has released a new Call of Duty every single year since 2006, and the new one pretty much entirely replaces the old one as far as online gaming is concerned. Someone probably plays the older games casually, but hey, we can play the older versions of Warhammer casually too.
Video Gaming is very different than tabletop gaming, you can make a new video game each year and almost guarantee you'll keep making more and more money cause they don't support the old game servers as long anymore, heck, Halo:Reach probably isn't supported on XBL anymore, and it's only 3 years old...
That's exactly what I said. A game that together with all the DLCs might cost 120 dollars will still get replaced in a year or two max. You're saying it's different because the customers who buy video games are sheep and just accept it without protest, but the customers who buy GW's products aren't sheep and wouldn't buy the new version of the rules?
I'm betting even if the new edition is a complete revolution of the rules system it will garner more positive reactions than negative from the community and customers.
azreal13 wrote: The removal of cover saves (which I've never been a fan of, even when they first came in) in favour of a return to To Hit modifiers would be awesome, and add a whole load of depth back in to the game IMO.
And put us back in 2nd Ed where you spend most of your opponent's turn just removing models. Cover Saves, however artificial, give you something to do during your opponent's turn, and allow you to save your troops (in a way). They need to stay.
Yep, rather do that, and have cover function as a method of reducing incoming fire, rather than the total irrelevance cover can be if your models already have a half decent save. (Although with the arrival of our Taudar overlords, it's moot in a good number of games regardless!)
But I'm sure a middle ground could be found, hell, we're all basically wish listing at this point anyway, so I'd like 7th be based on alternate unit activation using I to determine selection order, and for overwatch to function as it does now, but you need to forego your own shooting in order to activate it (even with my rosiest glasses on, for it to work as in 2nd would be ridiculous)
Therion wrote: That's exactly what I said. A game that together with all the DLCs might cost 120 dollars will still get replaced in a year or two max. You're saying it's different because the customers who buy video games are sheep and just accept it without protest, but the customers who buy GW's products aren't sheep and wouldn't buy the new version of the rules?
Games don't get "replaced", and most of them don't cost anywhere near as much as you say they do.
You're making an absolutely terrible comparison that simply doesn't apply hwere.
Therion wrote: Many PC titles that cost 70 and nowadays with DLCs even up to 120 bucks have a lifespan of less than two years. You can keep playing the old game all you want but you've no rights to complain if some other people want to play the new one.
You're confusing two different things:
1. Annualised games like Call of Duty and... well Assassin's Creed I guess.
2. DLC.
The greater majority of games don't cost that much nor do they have a "life span". Sequels take roughly 3-5 years to come out, and that never invalidates the old game, especially games with heavy single-player emphasis. It's a terrible comparison to make and one that doesn't work at all.
What an awful post. Games like Assassin's Creed don't have the replayability of Warhammer 40K. Well, maybe to someone it does, who am I to say? A game is a game. Saying it has a life span is of course theoretical and you know it. I know people who play Quake 1 competitively still. Granted it's about 100 players worldwide. Yet people have called that game dead about a decade. I'm fine with that.
GW isn't invalidating your rules or your models. Everything you have bought with money can be played with as long as you and the products live. So why exactly are you complaining about the fact that a game company releases a new version of its game? Because someone else might want to play that game instead of the one you have? Then you desperately claw to arguments that this is acceptable in every other gaming scene exceptyour game. Good one.
sand.zzz wrote: Escalation was released december 2013. If GW is planning to amend it 6 months after release.. sorry but that's just bush league. I'm not drawing ragequit conclusions, just saying that if they wanna go full 'eff you' to their customers by giving us s 6 month window to use hardbound rulebooks, then I will be happy to say 'eff you' right back by supporting knock off model companies.
If you want to throw a hissy fit, at least read the rumour first. It's not a 6 month window. The 6th edition rulebook has been out for 18 months now. The rumour is late 2014, which gives it roughly 2 and a half years. It's not GW's fault you got into the edition 18 months late, and you getting in late doesn't make it their fault you don't get to use your books as long as other people.
Though I agree, late 2014 is very early for a new edition. Personally, I haven't bought Escalation or Stronghold Assault, so I won't mind paying for a new rulebook if there's rules tweaks as well. If it's just 6th edition with those and the Errata bundled in, I'll go on not buying it.
Seriously, we've got no solid information. This is a rumour. Rumours from reliable mongers sometimes do not happen. Just go play 40k with your remarkable complete collection (seriously, at 4500pts + Lord of Skulls, you won't need to buy anything at all anymore), and wait to see what actually does happen.
Your comparison is terrible. Games don't get "replaced". It's not even close to the same thing as getting a new set of rules for a miniature game. Comparing a new rules edition to annualised games (of which there aren't as many as you're making it out to be - most games don't have 2-3 dedicated studios pumping out new editions of the same game every year).
Your comparison is terrible. Games don't get "replaced". It's not even close to the same thing as getting a new set of rules for a miniature game. Comparing a new rules edition to annualised games (of which there aren't as many as you're making it out to be - most games don't have 2-3 dedicated studios pumping out new editions of the same game every year).
You'll repeat a terrible post again? Why would you do something like that?
You have yet to provide any reasons why a new miniature game should be treated differently than a new video game in this discussion. You're even arguing against yourself. Games don't get replaced.
EA and Activision pump games out as fast as they can. So there aren't many studios capable of that? How many miniature games companies are there like GW then? What do you think these companies might have in common in their markets? Many would say they are replacing and repackaging the old crap in new gift wraps in order to make money, but you don't believe in games getting replaced so let's not use that. Open your Warhammer 2nd edition book and go play.
Your comparison is terrible. Games don't get "replaced". It's not even close to the same thing as getting a new set of rules for a miniature game. Comparing a new rules edition to annualised games (of which there aren't as many as you're making it out to be - most games don't have 2-3 dedicated studios pumping out new editions of the same game every year).
You'll repeat a terrible post again? Why would you do something like that?
You have yet to provide any reasons why a new miniature game should be treated differently than a new video game in this discussion. You're even arguing against yourself. Games don't get replaced.
EA and Activision pump games out as fast as they can. So there aren't many studios capable of that? How many miniature games companies are there like GW then? What do you think these companies might have in common in their markets? Many would say they are replacing and repackaging the old crap in new gift wraps in order to make money, but you don't believe in games getting replaced so let's not use that. Open your Warhammer 2nd edition book and go play.
Well, culture is certainly one reason. Videogames have been annualised since EA did it with their sport franchise titles way back on the 8 bit consoles. Traditionally, wargames haven't has that same sort of life cycle, and, in GW's recent history especially, those players wishing to stay near the top of the competition curve generally need to make a further investment in more stuff. If that life cycle, and associated expenditure suddenly accelerates, you can expect people to have a problem with it. Just like videogamers go apoplectic when something goes not to their liking in an update or new edition.
Your comparison is terrible. Games don't get "replaced". It's not even close to the same thing as getting a new set of rules for a miniature game. Comparing a new rules edition to annualised games (of which there aren't as many as you're making it out to be - most games don't have 2-3 dedicated studios pumping out new editions of the same game every year).
You'll repeat a terrible post again? Why would you do something like that?
You have yet to provide any reasons why a new miniature game should be treated differently than a new video game in this discussion. You're even arguing against yourself. Games don't get replaced.
EA and Activision pump games out as fast as they can. So there aren't many studios capable of that? How many miniature games companies are there like GW then? What do you think these companies might have in common in their markets? Many would say they are replacing and repackaging the old crap in new gift wraps in order to make money, but you don't believe in games getting replaced so let's not use that. Open your Warhammer 2nd edition book and go play.
Weren't you the one who originally said games get "replaced" all the time???
Your comparison is terrible. Games don't get "replaced". It's not even close to the same thing as getting a new set of rules for a miniature game. Comparing a new rules edition to annualised games (of which there aren't as many as you're making it out to be - most games don't have 2-3 dedicated studios pumping out new editions of the same game every year).
You'll repeat a terrible post again? Why would you do something like that?
You have yet to provide any reasons why a new miniature game should be treated differently than a new video game in this discussion. You're even arguing against yourself. Games don't get replaced.
EA and Activision pump games out as fast as they can. So there aren't many studios capable of that? How many miniature games companies are there like GW then? What do you think these companies might have in common in their markets? Many would say they are replacing and repackaging the old crap in new gift wraps in order to make money, but you don't believe in games getting replaced so let's not use that. Open your Warhammer 2nd edition book and go play.
Well, culture is certainly one reason. Videogames have been annualised since EA did it with their sport franchise titles way back on the 8 bit consoles. Traditionally, wargames haven't has that same sort of life cycle, and, in GW's recent history especially, those players wishing to stay near the top of the competition curve generally need to make a further investment in more stuff. If that life cycle, and associated expenditure suddenly accelerates, you can expect people to have a problem with it. Just like videogamers go apoplectic when something goes not to their liking in an update or new edition.
I agree completely and I everyone has the right to be upset about anything they want. What I'm saying is that I'm used to games companies behaving in this way, and that seeing GW slowly change the way they sell their games comes as no surprise. Noone here can deny that a lot hasn't changed in the past year. GW's experimenting with microtransaction rules packages even which while common to the video gaming industry is quite new to miniature gaming. In addition to all the change regarding dataslates and new rules supplements like escalation, they're using the digital channel to vastly accelerate the pace of releasing new army lists to the game. I think they released like four codex books a year during the 4th edition. I wonder what the amount was this year? Fifteen?
Weren't you the one who originally said games get "replaced" all the time???
It's arguing about semantics. Yes, I do believe games get replaced (In the sense that the community en masse moves on to the new game. Physically of course nothing gets replaced and your product is still available for your enjoyment), but HBMC doesn't, so I told him to go play 2nd edition instead of whining about the 7th coming too quickly.
Yeah, and EA and Activision are both looked down on or mocked heavily for precisely those reasons. I don't think it's a good idea for GW to emulate that behavior, because not only is GW's customer base much smaller, but GW's updates require you to spend much, much more than $60 a year, and people aren't going to be cool with that. If everyone had to buy a new console every time a new CoD game came out for example I almost guarantee you they wouldn't have anywhere near the same amount of success with that franchise.
...Traditionally, wargames haven't has that same sort of life cycle, and, in GW's recent history especially, those players wishing to stay near the top of the competition curve generally need to make a further investment in more stuff. If that life cycle, and associated expenditure suddenly accelerates, you can expect people to have a problem with it.
If I were wearing my tinfoil hat, I might think that GW was purposefully doing this to drive the competitive gamers further away. But that would be crazy talk, and way too organized for GW.
Back in reality land, we continue to froth and foam about a RUMOR that is incredibly unlikely based on GWs track record. With only two years in, and books just having been printed, why would they consolidate them at this point, UNLESS they were just pulling the rulebook, escalation, and stronghold into a "collector's edition" of 40k, and charging a premium. Now that I can envision.
Sidstyler wrote: Yeah, and EA and Activision are both looked down on or mocked heavily for precisely those reasons.
I know, and despite all the mocking their games are wildly popular and generate a ton of profit. GW is mocked on a daily basis at every message board I know of and they too are still profitable. I guess they're trying to make those profits even bigger? Who would have thought?
pretre wrote: Yeah, good luck with that. You want a free kitten too?
No need to be a dick about it pretre. Another massive and super-expensive hard-back book right after someone's bought the current super-expensive hard-back book and both its expensive hard-back expansions? I think people have a right to go "No. Feth that noise." After only two years it's the gaming equivalent of a baint'n'switch.
Whoa, down boy. I thought I was being nice. Let me remind you that he was writing an obviously silly post (quoted below) asking for the a bunch of things that obviously wouldn't happen.
Do I think that rereleasing 40k / a new edition is premature? Yes. I also don't think it is true.
Do I think a collected book cleaning up some bits and including all of the 'expansions' is premature? Nah, I think that's fine.
Was the 'just the rules' 40k rulebook a cash grab? No, people bought it if they wanted it, which will probably be the same thing when this RUMORED book comes out (if it does).
Bring it I say. Just be sure to roll all Marines into one book, and give refunds to anybody who bought the BRB, Escal, or Stronghold. Or simply let them trade in. Remember those poor saps who bought DftS only to buy a Codex with the same rules immediately after?
I'm afraid I don't give this rumor much credence simply because this edition is far too young. Maybe a book that has a lot of the expansions rolled up into it, maybe just that. But if they DO actually release another edition already I'd be shocked as it just feels far too early.
Breotan wrote: If this is an updated 6th edition, my iTunes version better get updated automatically. And Cypher better find his way into my Dark Angels codex, too.
I thought Cypher wasn't allowed to be taken by Dark Angels?
After a moment's thought: if they produce miniatures as high quality and as much of a bargain as Dark Vengeance, then I'll buy at least a couple of boxes (like DV).
Breotan wrote: If this is an updated 6th edition, my iTunes version better get updated automatically. And Cypher better find his way into my Dark Angels codex, too.
I thought Cypher wasn't allowed to be taken by Dark Angels?
He isn't but that's the most logical place to put him.
Does anyone else believe they actually figured out a revamp of fantasy would do nothing to bring the game back, since the costs are too crazy anyway. So if they repackage 40k they might still get the sales to come close to the previous years sales.
Breotan wrote: If this is an updated 6th edition, my iTunes version better get updated automatically. And Cypher better find his way into my Dark Angels codex, too.
I thought Cypher wasn't allowed to be taken by Dark Angels?
He isn't but that's the most logical place to put him.
Personally, wouldn't Chaos Space Marines be the most logical place to put him? considering he was a character in the old Chaos book?
If you want to throw a hissy fit, at least read the rumour first. It's not a 6 month window. The 6th edition rulebook has been out for 18 months now. The rumour is late 2014, which gives it roughly 2 and a half years. It's not GW's fault you got into the edition 18 months late, and you getting in late doesn't make it their fault you don't get to use your books as long as other people.
Though I agree, late 2014 is very early for a new edition.
lol..
Read my post again bro. I said Escalation came out this month. Not 6th edition rulebook. But with 7600+ posts in 3 years on this board, its a good bet you make a habit of insulting, arguing, trolling etc. not sure why I'm even bothering to respond to your post, in which you insulted me for a remark I didn't even make.
pretre wrote: Do I think that rereleasing 40k / a new edition is premature? Yes. I also don't think it is true.
Do I think a collected book cleaning up some bits and including all of the 'expansions' is premature? Nah, I think that's fine.
We agree on both. I don't think this'll happen (a whole new edition that is - a collated book I can see happening) and I think a collated rulebook that contains Escalation and Stronghold Assault is a good idea, just as long as it's those rules put into the rulebook, not a totally new rule set. It also makes sense form a practical business standpoint.
Which is better:
1. Three full-colour hardback books that have to be interdependently printed, shipped and stocked?
2. One full-colour hardback book?
Having one SKU to achieve the same result as three can't be a bad thing.
If you want to throw a hissy fit, at least read the rumour first. It's not a 6 month window. The 6th edition rulebook has been out for 18 months now. The rumour is late 2014, which gives it roughly 2 and a half years. It's not GW's fault you got into the edition 18 months late, and you getting in late doesn't make it their fault you don't get to use your books as long as other people.
Though I agree, late 2014 is very early for a new edition.
lol..
Read my post again bro. I said Escalation came out this month. Not 6th edition rulebook. But with 7600+ posts in 3 years on this board, its a good bet you make a habit of insulting, arguing, trolling etc. not sure why I'm even bothering to respond to your post, in which you insulted me for a remark I didn't even make.
You said 'rulebooks'
by giving us s 6 month window to use hardbound rulebooks
So I assumed you were talking about the rulebook. Escalation is a supplement. My reading comprehension is fine, you are just not very clear when ranting.
If you want to throw a hissy fit, at least read the rumour first. It's not a 6 month window. The 6th edition rulebook has been out for 18 months now. The rumour is late 2014, which gives it roughly 2 and a half years. It's not GW's fault you got into the edition 18 months late, and you getting in late doesn't make it their fault you don't get to use your books as long as other people.
Though I agree, late 2014 is very early for a new edition.
lol..
Read my post again bro. I said Escalation came out this month. Not 6th edition rulebook. But with 7600+ posts in 3 years on this board, its a good bet you make a habit of insulting, arguing, trolling etc. not sure why I'm even bothering to respond to your post, in which you insulted me for a remark I didn't even make.
You said 'rulebooks'
by giving us s 6 month window to use hardbound rulebooks
So I assumed you were talking about the rulebook. Escalation is a supplement. My reading comprehension is fine, you are just not very clear when ranting.
I mentioned several books, two of which were just released. You chose to ignore that fact, and respond as if I'd only been talking about 6th ed., because otherwise you'd have nothing to flame. Best part is, in your last statement you agree with the remark you were flaming me for. which I never even said.
So yea, 7600+ posts in three years. thanks for illustrating my point.
Breotan wrote: If this is an updated 6th edition, my iTunes version better get updated automatically. And Cypher better find his way into my Dark Angels codex, too.
I thought Cypher wasn't allowed to be taken by Dark Angels?
He isn't but that's the most logical place to put him.
Personally, wouldn't Chaos Space Marines be the most logical place to put him? considering he was a character in the old Chaos book?
Look at who he can ally with. Also, his fluff is exclusively DA related. The screenshots of his eBook clearly state that Chaos want him as badly as the DA so I'm thinking he really doesn't belong in CSM.
Peredyne wrote: This rumor came from 40K radio, who, if I'm not mistaken, received a C&D from GW legal not that long ago. Sounds more like someone in GW legal parsed out specifically bad information to track down who was slipping info to 40K radio.
It's possible, but then again maybe not. They got C&D about the Space Marine stuff they had up, not everything they had IIRC.
Honestly an updated 6.5 edition branded as 7th really does fit into what GW would do in my mind. It's basically monetizing a lot of large errattas, or maybe they've finally dropped the need to keep carrying 3rd edition's corpse around and redid it from the ground up. We'll have to wait and see what, if anything, comes of this.
Peredyne wrote: This rumor came from 40K radio, who, if I'm not mistaken, received a C&D from GW legal not that long ago. Sounds more like someone in GW legal parsed out specifically bad information to track down who was slipping info to 40K radio.
It's possible, but then again maybe not. They got C&D about the Space Marine stuff they had up, not everything they had IIRC.
Honestly an updated 6.5 edition branded as 7th really does fit into what GW would do in my mind. It's basically monetizing a lot of large errattas, or maybe they've finally dropped the need to keep carrying 3rd edition's corpse around and redid it from the ground up. We'll have to wait and see what, if anything, comes of this.
And more to the point, if the new cycle of editions is every 2-3 years, with revamps of every codex finished within that 3 year time span, how much are we looking at from a purchasing standpoint just to keep up to date on all book releases and edition changes instituted at a much quicker pace now more so than ever?
I can absolutely see this happening. In fact, I think at this point it might even be necessary.
We have so many supplements to the BRB now that it makes sense for them to be incorporated into the BRB at some point rather than having to whip out 3 or 4 books every time you want to refer to a specific rule in your game.
- "I'll just whip out out my BRB to look that up. Wait, it's not in here, must be in one of the others... I'll check... Wait, it's not this one either, I'll have to get the other one out..." And ten minutes go by while you try to figure out which book and section it's in.
If GW can make a bit more money out of it's customer base by centralising the rules in one book (even after making you buy 3 or 4 of them already) then that's obviously what they're going to do.
The hobbit as a game has been a disaster for GW, it's simply not generating the revenue LotR did. This means there is a great big hole in their financial forecasting.
To keep the shareholders happy you need a sticking plaster.
A big revamp of fantasy may be in the works but would be difficult to rush out, plus does not have as big a market appeal as 40k.
So you combine existing 6th ed with stronghold and escalation into one book, make very few rule changes but sufficient to make it a 'compulsory purchase' and slap it out on the market. This is a quick, dirty easy to create edition which would provide a financial shot in the arm and if marketed as essentially 6.5 they could return to their regular cycle in two years time once all the codexes are updated.
I have no inside info but that would make sense to me, min effort max profit.
I've not bought Escalation or Stronghold so if an updated version of the rules with those and the flyers stuff that came out a while back is released I would probably get it. An entire new edition? To be fair I play 40k because it involves hanging out with my mates and I can afford to buy new toys if I want to. So yeah, I would probably get that too.
What I really want though is a new ork codex. Please?
I don't like it much either - it's a sucky one-line rumour and people are getting pretty anxious about it, which is manifesting as some upset-sounding posts. It's a better contribution than restating one of the same two positions we've heard all night.
I don't like it much either - it's a sucky one-line rumour and people are getting pretty anxious about it, which is manifesting as some upset-sounding posts. It's a better contribution than restating one of the same two positions we've heard all night.
The anxiety feeds itself. We're a community whose voice bounces off their walls and yet not a gosh darn reply from inside their HQ has manifested itself insofar that perhaps at store or face book monitor there are people willing enough to insert their opinion on the matter.
But those who make the decisions at GW fail to realize that they're going to price themselves out of their own market the more they hike prices up, the more that they add more supplements and additions to the game, and the more competition willing to fight them in the arena for the hearts and minds of their customers; customers they're more than willing to listen from in order to make their games better (not be beholden to them but listen and respond).
My hope is that the reason why 6th Edition was so poorly written and implimented...with clunky rules that obviously weren't tested to any real degree...was because another portion of their better rules writers were working on a complete rework of the game that is 7th Edition.
It would be one way to explain the terribad rules 6th has obviously forced out....
....although it was more likely just GW being the feth-tards they are.
Farseer Faenyin wrote: My hope is that the reason why 6th Edition was so poorly written and implimented...with clunky rules that obviously weren't tested to any real degree...was because another portion of their better rules writers were working on a complete rework of the game that is 7th Edition.
It would be one way to explain the terribad rules 6th has obviously forced out....
....although it was more likely just GW being the feth-tards they are.
No, GW does test things, but not extensively nor to the degree of trying to break the game that the community does. Just because it doesn't meet the standards of what we think it should be doesn't mean they don't test.
Farseer Faenyin wrote: My hope is that the reason why 6th Edition was so poorly written and implimented...with clunky rules that obviously weren't tested to any real degree...was because another portion of their better rules writers were working on a complete rework of the game that is 7th Edition.
It would be one way to explain the terribad rules 6th has obviously forced out....
....although it was more likely just GW being the feth-tards they are.
No, GW does test things, but not extensively nor to the degree of trying to break the game that the community does. Just because it doesn't meet the standards of what we think it should be doesn't mean they don't test.
So in other words, "not tested to any real degree", which is what he said.
I just don't see the importance in making the distinction. Whether you say "GW doesn't test" or "GW sucks at testing" it kinda gets the same point across, that their testing (or lack thereof) is ineffectual.
its not a 7th Edition its just going to be a deluxe collectors 6th edition version that is a v2 with all the corrections and clarifications from the FAQs + integration of Escalation and Stronghold rules just like the new CSM collector edition that was released before xmas.
There will be a White Dwarf insert with the Rules replacements for the old 6th ed rulebook followed by a D/L PDF of it. Just rules no missions and fluff and a re release of the 6th Ed rule book the month following with the new rules replacing the older fortification rules. So its not WH40K 7th Ed its really just going to be WH40K 6th Ed v2 or Reloaded.
Really not wishing here, could be orks VS guard. Now I am wishing.
Plz yes. I could do with a £40 - £50 box of cheapo IG and Orks. I'd get a booster for my Landsharks, and then be able to trade the Orks with my orky friend who also has some IG.
REDEATH, do you have a source, or are you also speculating? Because a lot of people have said the same thing already. It's very plausible.
The only counterargument seems to be that rolling the books into one would reduce the return GW can make on the other books - which isn't exactly an airtight way of thinking. For one thing, if they put all the supplementary stuff in the BRB, competitive players will either need to buy the supplements or buy the new BRB anyway, so one way or another GW wouldn't really lose out. They'd stand to have less uptake of the new stuff if they left it as supplementary.
bring back good honest CC and stop the stupid turtling up that seems to be the name of the game atm :(
if they do a 7th and its actually balanced across the board peeps would embrace it with arms wind open (apart from probably the ones that are never happy)
But I cant see it happening. My money would be on a deluxe rulebook if the rumour has any basis in reality anyways
Lutharr101 wrote: if they do a 7th and its actually balanced across the board peeps would embrace it with arms wind open (apart from probably the ones that are never happy)
That's pretty unfair. A lot of people have expressed ITT why they wouldn't be too happy if a whole new edition was released already. Why don't you read some of their posts before writing them all off as "people who are never happy"?
Lutharr101 wrote: if they do a 7th and its actually balanced across the board peeps would embrace it with arms wind open (apart from probably the ones that are never happy)
That's pretty unfair. A lot of people have expressed ITT why they wouldn't be too happy if a whole new edition was released already. Why don't you read some of their posts before writing them all off as "people who are never happy"?
I'd be quite pissed at GW if they moved right on up to 7th. Partly because players who joined recently, and were told that the rulebook cycle would leave them with a good 4 years left in 6th, would have been wallet-punched by GW.
But, after the initial rage, I'd do a sneaky-sneaky for those 7th -ed rules.
I'm not going to reward GW for a failing to be competent.
A new boxed set could keep things interesting. Dark Vengeance is the worst boxed set of 40k yet. Unless you play as The Fallen, then it's a damn fine army box. The minis are nice, just very specifically Dark Angels and not any space marine chapter. So right there you cut your sales by...i don't know...90%. Looking at my ltd Rogue Trader poster gets me thinking that a Space Marines (Crimson Fists) vs Orks with the OG 40k image on the cover would be sickening. Maybe this will be the mythical "Inquisition" boxed set. Inquisitors vs Daemons box would be awesome. Or Ordo Xenos vs Genestealer Cult could be cool. Before I get excited tho....none of this is happening. Revamped Uber BRB sounds right. Escalation and Siege will not be included. I predict the new book to be $100 and the core book will be released a few months later for $75.
Perhaps this rumour has been planted by GW to smoke out the person leaking information? GW has kept a tight lid on their info and the leaks must be chaffing someone in management pretty hard.
I think it is interesting that some people think that GW is 1) interested in fixing problems that players perceive and that 2) the design studio is actually capable of fixing the huge morass of rules that 40k has become.
Formosa wrote: What I was told is that IF there was a new 7th ed it would be out after all the codex's are out, I was told this was to allow for a flat reboot and put all armies on an equal footing in regards to the core rules, doubt its true but it's what I was told
Sounds like it could be a "special edition bundle" Like the C:SM "Ultima Edition" and that CSM bundle, could just be one big rule book with all the new rule sets in with one obscne price tag which they'll justify with "Original Artwork" and added fluff
I don't like it much either - it's a sucky one-line rumour and people are getting pretty anxious about it, which is manifesting as some upset-sounding posts. It's a better contribution than restating one of the same two positions we've heard all night.
The anxiety feeds itself. We're a community whose voice bounces off their walls and yet not a gosh darn reply from inside their HQ has manifested itself insofar that perhaps at store or face book monitor there are people willing enough to insert their opinion on the matter.
But those who make the decisions at GW fail to realize that they're going to price themselves out of their own market the more they hike prices up, the more that they add more supplements and additions to the game, and the more competition willing to fight them in the arena for the hearts and minds of their customers; customers they're more than willing to listen from in order to make their games better (not be beholden to them but listen and respond).
People said that 20 years ago. Then 15 years ago. Then 10 years ago. Still today they say it, yet their player base is bigger now than it was during any of those stretches. Even during the LotR "bubble" from 2001-2003.
Model for model, GW isn't even the most expensive company in the genre. The start-up cost is ridiculous for swarm armies like Skaven or Tyranids, but there are ways into the game which aren't terrible. Some of these new bundles are pretty good as well.
Anyway, I'm still willing to bet this is just another starter deal like Dark Vengeance, with perhaps an updated book.
As to the lack of close combat in this edition: we really can't conclude that it's dead. Tyranids and Orks still have their books on the way, which could tip a few scales and shake up the meta. To a lesser extent, Space Wolves and Blood Angels, as well as a potential supplement for Khorne/World Eaters could all be on the way soon too. Their codices will have as much bearing on the success of CC-based armies as the BRB ever could.
People said that 20 years ago. Then 15 years ago. Then 10 years ago. Still today they say it, yet their player base is bigger now than it was during any of those stretches. Even during the LotR "bubble" from 2001-2003.
Citation needed. Revenue is flat, more or less, when adjusted for inflation, prices have increased. That isn't an indication of more players than ever buying models to my eye.
Anecdotally, just under two years ago my local club was de facto GW exclusive, it now probably at best takes up 50% of tables each week, for a while this year it was a bit of a challenge to get a pick up game, things have swung back a little bit now, as we've got some new guys started in the last few weeks, but one wonders how long before their heads are turned by other systems, like others before them.
Model for model, GW isn't even the most expensive company in the genre. The start-up cost is ridiculous for swarm armies like Skaven or Tyranids, but there are ways into the game which aren't terrible. Some of these new bundles are pretty good as well.
Anyway, I'm still willing to bet this is just another starter deal like Dark Vengeance, with perhaps an updated book.
This is just one of those arguments where people twist the facts to suit their agenda, model to model is a really poor comparison when games require wildly different numbers of models to play a standard game.
As to the lack of close combat in this edition: we really can't conclude that it's dead. Tyranids and Orks still have their books on the way, which could tip a few scales and shake up the meta. Their codices will have as much bearing on the success of CC-based armies as the BRB ever could.
I'm interested to see your ideas that will allow Nids or Orks to overcome the shooting power of Taudar without utterly breaking the game?
Doubt that will happen- I mean, IG, Orks, DE, Necrons lack an actual 6th ed codex, and while that didn't stop GW in the past, you will simply have the normal problem of having 1-2 codex build around 7th ed rules while the rest would now be 'lacking' thanks to different rules and all that jazz.
As to the lack of close combat in this edition: we really can't conclude that it's dead. Tyranids and Orks still have their books on the way, which could tip a few scales and shake up the meta. Their codices will have as much bearing on the success of CC-based armies as the BRB ever could.
I'm interested to see your ideas that will allow Nids or Orks to overcome the shooting power of Taudar without utterly breaking the game?
Improved Fear that forces a leadership test to deny overwatch or something similar? Venomthropes make a grenade and Night Fighting cloud(Yeah, I know-black sun filters)? One or two units that assault after deepstriking(that deny a unit overwatch)? Heck, just being able to tie up a Riptide for a turn wouldn't be too bad.
On topic- I'm going to bandwagon on the repackaged 6th, they may even pull a DnD 3.5 and update a few things. Heck, I would probably buy it just so I wouldn't have to keep looking at the errata...
brassangel wrote: People said that 20 years ago. Then 15 years ago. Then 10 years ago. Still today they say it, yet their player base is bigger now than it was during any of those stretches. Even during the LotR "bubble" from 2001-2003.
Source please. I suspect it's purely anecdotal and limited to within a 10ft radius of yourself.
If this isn't just a cleaned up rulebook its all sorts of bad. Even if 7th is the best ever, it shows that GW is willing to invalidate your armies at an ever increasing rate.
brassangel wrote: People said that 20 years ago. Then 15 years ago. Then 10 years ago. Still today they say it, yet their player base is bigger now than it was during any of those stretches. Even during the LotR "bubble" from 2001-2003.
Source please. I suspect it's purely anecdotal and limited to within a 10ft radius of yourself.
edit3: Apparently Warboss was referring to the player base part of brassangel's statement so the rest of my post doesn't make a lot of sense.
Your original quote:
But those who make the decisions at GW fail to realize that they're going to price themselves out of their own market the more they hike prices up, the more that they add more supplements and additions to the game, and the more competition willing to fight them in the arena for the hearts and minds of their customers; customers they're more than willing to listen from in order to make their games better (not be beholden to them but listen and respond).
edit: Moral of the story: People have been complaining about GW's prices and proclaiming that this is the last straw for nigh on as far as google goes back.
edit2: From 1996:
"Speaking from the standpoint of a fairly long-term player - I feel thoroughly abused by Games Workshop. I've invested a hell of a lot in my armies and am loath to just drop all of that to play another system. Nor would I like to just freeze my armies and rules as they are. So I'm caught in the continuing price rise. Eventually I'll reach breaking point and bail out. Games Workshop is marketting very well, doing their job as a company very well. But I think it sucks."
Pretre, you missed my point entirely. I was asking for the source of his data that "their player base is bigger now than it was during any of those stretches". I'm curious where he gets the exact insider knowledge of the size of the GW playerbase to make a claim like that.
warboss wrote: Pretre, you missed my point entirely. I was asking for the source of his data that "their player base is bigger now than it was during any of those stretches". I'm curious where he gets the exact insider knowledge of the size of the GW playerbase to make a claim like that.
Bah. That's what you get for not cropping your quotes.
No worries. I'm fully aware that people have been complaining about GW prices likely as long as GW has been selling products. I want him to list his source(s) for the exact size of the player base "during those stretches" which is why I included the time periods he stated to know the size of the GW player base.
warboss wrote: No worries. I'm fully aware that people have been complaining about GW prices likely as long as GW has been selling products. I want him to list his source(s) for the exact size of the player base "during those stretches" which is why I included the time periods he stated to know the size of the GW player base.
People said that 20 years ago. Then 15 years ago. Then 10 years ago. Still today they say it, yet their player base is bigger now than it was during any of those stretches. Even during the LotR "bubble" from 2001-2003.
Citation needed. Revenue is flat, more or less, when adjusted for inflation, prices have increased. That isn't an indication of more players than ever buying models to my eye.
Anecdotally, just under two years ago my local club was de facto GW exclusive, it now probably at best takes up 50% of tables each week, for a while this year it was a bit of a challenge to get a pick up game, things have swung back a little bit now, as we've got some new guys started in the last few weeks, but one wonders how long before their heads are turned by other systems, like others before them.
Going over time, I'm thinking the pure volume of sales might indicate a growth from 20 years ago...
Spoiler:
My sources are Games Workshop's annual reports- http://investor.games-workshop.com/. Specifically this one-http://investor.games-workshop.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/gw_year_end_07.pdf )
This chart represent sales over time. Of course Sales=/= # of Players, but I'm going on the assumption that if you're selling more, you have more players.
The chart seems to indicate that over 20 years ago you had few sales, which grew by quite a bit up until 04, where a dip started. I'm just going to use common sense and say that the same number of people from '91 didn't just start buying £120,000 more product in '04.
Ouch, was ninja'd with better data too... Not to mention completely missing what he was talking about.
Spoiler:
[spoiler]
warboss wrote:
brassangel wrote: People said that 20 years ago. Then 15 years ago. Then 10 years ago. Still today they say it, yet their player base is bigger now than it was during any of those stretches. Even during the LotR "bubble" from 2001-2003.
Source please. I suspect it's purely anecdotal and limited to within a 10ft radius of yourself.
My googlling has failed me beyond that. People have been discussing GW pricing themselves out of business for at least 8-9 years, so it's definitely nothing new. How far back is GW's online presence anyway?
Whether or not the pricing on this new rulebook(which itself is still a rumor) will be exorbitant or not would depend on if they reprint all the fluff from the Core, Stonghold, and Escalation(if there IS any in the last two-I haven't really been interested in either). If it's just rules, it may be the same as the rulebook is now, but with less filler. Not saying that the corebook isn't already overpriced mind, but it may not rise beyond the current price.
Agreed. The only sources I know of are the subjective ICV2 quarterly polls (which don't give any hard numbers). WOTC did a very expensive study of the gaming community/retail market over a decade ago according to a gaming business seminar Lisa Stevens of Paizo (formerly of WOTC) gave at Origins last time I went but I don't know of any similar such thing (let alone one that has been secretly repeated over and over for decades) on GW's part.
The only hard data from GW we get is the semiannual (or is it annual?) investor report that seems to indicate flat or declining player base (flat sales despite price increase = less units sold).
warboss wrote: The only hard data from GW we get is the semiannual (or is it annual?) investor report that seems to indicate flat or declining player base (flat sales despite price increase = less units sold).
I think that flat sales despite price increase just means less units sold. That doesn't mean that the player base is declining. Just that they sold less units. Keep in mind that playing the game doesn't require a lot of purchases year after year. Add in the strong secondary market and you have a big problem figuring out how many people are playing just based on GW data.
SpaceMonk wrote: In my opinion it is 7th edition rumors 2 years early...
In two years time, it wouldn't have been a rumour though, but a simple extrapolation from past patterns into the future. Just like those "Ork Codex, Imperial Guard Codex, etc. soon"-"rumours.
Doesn't take "sources" to make guess-work based on recurring regularities. It does, however, take "sources" for predictions that break with such regularities.
SpaceMonk wrote: In my opinion it is 7th edition rumors 2 years early...
In two years time, it wouldn't have been a rumour though, but a simple extrapolation from past patterns into the future. Just like those "Ork Codex, Imperial Guard Codex, etc. soon"-"rumours.
Doesn't take "sources" to make guess-work based on recurring regularities. It does, however, take "sources" for predictions that break with such regularities.
Yep agreed. You just clarified what I was thinking
It seems poor judgement business wise, apart from the 'fleecing the customers' angle it also relegates fantasy even further down the pecking order, which seems to me to be the opposite of what they should be doing, if anything at all drastically needs an overhaul it is certainly fantasy.
However, its also from a reliable source, so who knows.
If true, the problems I see in it -2 years and your fancy double price limited edition rulebook is suddenly worthless, never mind the limited edition codexes they are still putting out there -£150 for the current space marine one that will be out of date inside 12 months? Thats sure to annoy the playerbase who lap that limited stuff up. But mainly it smacks of panic , a company not in control with a plan going forward, that doesnt bode well at all.
I'm not a fan of 6th, but I sure hope this rumour turns out false.
Those people giving those rumors on 7th are hilarious.
Not hilarious in the way that they are wrong. No, I'm not questioning their reliability or their information.. Just the way they are trying to say how GW actually cares about things being too powerful.
Interceptor? Really? THAT'S what they think is too powerful? In fact, I'm pretty sure GW doesn't care what's powerful and the last thing they would do is tone something down intentionally.
I'm under the impression that anything that gets nerfed or boosted is simply a coincidence.
Interceptor/skyfire change isn`t necessarily because it is overpowered, it can be because of that strange link between skyfire and interceptor, which is just poor rules-writing. So if it is a patched 6th ed (and they are certainly learning from the video game industry - we now have micro transactions and bundles, so why not start patching as well? They have patched their digital releases already), it could be an example of poor rules being patched.
I would think that if this is true, we would also be looking at a digital version of the rulebook.
A digital rulebook could do away with the edition-problem in its entirety, just keep patching it.
Off-topic but since it was brought up and people might actually want to know what's really happening with GW...
Pretre's chart is a bit old and even it shows a declining trend. I own GW stock so I have to take more than a cursory look at the financials each 1/2 and full year when reports are released; based upon me putting my prognosticator's hat on, I tanked slightly more than have my holdings in GW in October and was actually correct in doing so this time (there was this little bio-tech stock that burned me once..ick.)
What's happened until now.
Over the past 10 years GW's done a very good job of "trimming the fat" which has made them an attractive stock. The cut out a great deal of overhead costs, greatly reduced debt and explored other revenue streams (licensing). Within the past 8 months though, they've gone very rapidly from a "buy" to a "sell", skipping "hold" status entirely.
I won't bore you all with why it's not a good idea to buy GW stock right now but will address the conversation that was brought up earlier, volume of sales.
The quickest, dirtiest way to get this information is on the financials, page 43, Inventories. Simply compare the amount of raw materials purchased by the company for the year, the work in progress numbers and the amount of finished goods for resale (called resale here because of the resale of the raw materials as a finished good) and you get the following:
Comparing 2012 and 2013:
- GW spent 68.73% less, year on year on raw materials.
- I'll ignore work in progress as this will vary depending on what's being manufactured at the time that the financials are written but you have to admit, that's nearly half from the previous year.
- GW created 5.31% less goods in FY2013 than they did in FY2012.
I don't know where the person who made the statement that they're bigger now than they've ever been got their information but it's just wrong. GW is shrinking. They've shrunk as a company by cutting themselves to the bone and closing everything that could be closed and they've shrunk production wise (5.3%).
Next. Look at the "Trade and other receivables" section on page 43. Just go through and compare these numbers and realize that they represent actual orders for product from "trade partners" (i.e. FLGSs or warehousers). Trade receivables is a U.K. term, in the U.S. we call this "Accounts receivable". Also bear in mind that these numbers are prior to the big push by GW corporate for kits to go to direct sales only. I'll be interested to what this looks like at the next annual report.
So, my not expert opinion. Doom and gloom? No. GW declining, yes. Pushing 5% less product is a HUGE concern for an international business and GW can't get any leaner.
Another interesting side note is that until recently the majority of GW stocks were owned by several group buyers, the largest of which was Phoenix group which held upwards of 20% of GW stock at one time; since May-June of this year, they have divested themselves of the majority of their stock and are now down to around 5.9% and falling. Nomad is now the biggest stock owner at 9.8% but they own less now than May-June of this year as well. In fact look at the shareholder statistics currently and compare with a year ago and it's a scary picture. Large brokerages owning stock usually means stock price stability as they follow rules when they divest but when the majority of the company is owned by small shareholders like me, it only takes one big scare to ruin a company's stock value.
The institutional investors didn't take Wells leaving very well and now appear to have little faith in Kirby's ability to run the company. (my opinion)
I will gladly buy new edition if it means that at least some of the issues with the current edition get fixed. However, I'm not interested in some sort of super-special compiled 6+Escalation edition.
Crimson wrote: I will gladly buy new edition if it means that at least some of the issues with the current edition get fixed. However, I'm not interested in some sort of super-special compiled 6+Escalation edition.
Well pistols in the shooting phase while you're in combat is interesting, especially when you consider that every single space marine has a bolt pistol.
Hush now, doomsayer; everything is fine, There Are No Tanks In Baghdad, our Glorious Leader Kirby will yet show us to the Promised Land, nothing emerges from the Holy Gob of Kirby but Great News and ever shall it be.
And pretre, every time this discussion comes up someone invariably digs up examples of people complaining about prices in the past, and it's invariably a total red herring as it in no way refutes the reality that sales are declining, as the company's own financials show. Now, if you want to argue that the declining sales has nothing to do with pricing, or is just one factor out of many, feel free(on the latter I'd agree), but don't pretend people complaining or pointing out flaws when times were good invalidates the current reality; a few economists out there complained about the financial system and predicted crashes and long-term stagnation years before '08, and people of certain political persuasions opined that such outcomes were inevitable back in the 80's when the initial deregulation took place - they were dismissed out of hand, and right up until the crash came people used them as examples of why the criticisms of the day must be flawed, afterall, if people were "moaning" about financial regulation in the 80's, and we had decades of growth since then, obviously they were completely wrong and so was anyone presenting a similar view in the present. Now, I'm not arguing that some forum post from 1996 is actually a prescient foretelling of GW's imminent downfall, but neither does the fact such posts exist negate current analyses of GW's situation.
pretre wrote: edit: Moral of the story: People have been complaining about GW's prices and proclaiming that this is the last straw for nigh on as far as google goes back.
And for a lot of people, it was. I'd hazard an estimate that there are damn few 90s veterans still active in the hobby. I have no doubt a lot of those old boycott criers and complainers were in earnest and lived up to their word.
Ravenous D wrote: Well pistols in the shooting phase while you're in combat is interesting, especially when you consider that every single space marine has a bolt pistol.
Marines finally getting to hit at S4 ! That would be a revelation. It's more about character with plasma pistols, and… seraphims ! More inferno pistols ! Or maybe D3 auto hits for hand flamers !
However, I don't see plasma pistols just becoming better than most non-shooting assault weapon, that wouldn't make sense. Maybe you won't be able to make more pistols attack than the number of shots your pistol can make.
pretre wrote: edit: Moral of the story: People have been complaining about GW's prices and proclaiming that this is the last straw for nigh on as far as google goes back.
And for a lot of people, it was. I'd hazard an estimate that there are damn few 90s veterans still active in the hobby. I have no doubt a lot of those old boycott criers and complainers were in earnest and lived up to their word.
Entirely anecdotal, but in my experience I couldn't agree more. At my previous gaming group only 3 other people played 40k, and they were all under the age of 21 [except me, but I was out of the hobby for years]. All of the experienced blokes had nothing but contempt for GW and were in the process of selling off all of their [usually pretty amazing] GW armies to spend on WarmaHorde, to the point where, when a couple of the younger ones left for university it was impossible for me to get a game.
At the club that plays up the road from me [since I moved] more people play X-Wing than 40k [although the bloke running the club keeps trying to push it as he's a big Sisters fan].
Slayer le boucher wrote: About the pistols, rumour has it that the model exchange the +1A fir two ccw with One attack resolved with the pistol S and AP.
In this case the two plasma pistols in Zerker squads fianly become interesting.
That would be sensible. It would also finally make sense for plasma pistols to cost as much as they do.
EDIT: Of course that would make Terminators even more useless, if that is possible.
Slayer le boucher wrote: About the pistols, rumour has it that the model exchange the +1A fir two ccw with One attack resolved with the pistol S and AP.
In this case the two plasma pistols in Zerker squads fianly become interesting.
And now that very high price for a pair of inferno pistols would be worth it !
“Inferno pistols, more powerful than an eviscerator, takes only one hand, strike at normal I” .
...Traditionally, wargames haven't has that same sort of life cycle, and, in GW's recent history especially, those players wishing to stay near the top of the competition curve generally need to make a further investment in more stuff. If that life cycle, and associated expenditure suddenly accelerates, you can expect people to have a problem with it.
If I were wearing my tinfoil hat, I might think that GW was purposefully doing this to drive the competitive gamers further away. But that would be crazy talk, and way too organized for GW.
Back in reality land, we continue to froth and foam about a RUMOR that is incredibly unlikely based on GWs track record. With only two years in, and books just having been printed, why would they consolidate them at this point, UNLESS they were just pulling the rulebook, escalation, and stronghold into a "collector's edition" of 40k, and charging a premium. Now that I can envision.
The reason this rumor is getting traction is because a segment of the player base is already frothing and foaming over how unsuitable they believe 6th is for a certain style of play. If I was going to invent a rumor it'd be exactly down his path.
Personally I think it's probably hogwash, if we're talking about something beyond an extensive errata and FAQ. GW had many of the 6th edition codices etc written when 6th was released. There's NO reason to think that 6th is anything other than *exactly* what they intended. It's not some horrible mistake in their eyes. But clearly some people will never accept this.
Would be could if plasma pistols weren`t total garbage anymore, cool piece of gear, but it has always been incredibly bad. I believe the pancake rules allowed you to shoot pistols in close combat as an extra attack with the pistol`s stats.
That rumor is quite unexpected, but when you think about it and seeing what they did recently, that's quite possible. Especially if it's just an "update" taking into account what they made in all those "DLC" and "pseudo supplements". I would believe it more if it talked about a digital product only (or at least at first).
That doesn't mean we need that to play our models. In fact, it's quite different from video games, where you need a lot of skills to make one. So, paying for DLC here can be quite frustrating, it's understandable, but it's not like everyone can do this.
Making rules for Warhammer? That's not the case. Every player is able to do that. You just need some paper, something to write and a few friends to play with. You don't need a studio of "old glory" people who are just able to take what they did in the past and think that "rolling plenty of dices is fun! I SAID IT IS FUN, GOT IT?!". So paying for those "GW DLC" (which is, in my point of view, not really a fitting nickname, but well...it's easy to remember) is just choosing the easy way. And the "hard way" is not that hard compared to skills you need to have to "modify" a video game.
And maybe that's intended from the very beginning. That's how the Studio was meant to be: having new ways to play and cheering on creativity rather than always having the same boring things (like you can experience in some of "dull" competitive games).
About playtesting, I think the games we have in our clubs or tournaments are good enough to be "approved playtest" - at least, as much as they do playtest in the Studio right now. Of course they do that...it's just they play the game so much in their own point of view that they are completely unable to think of "other" ways. That's why their rules wording is horrible; because they don't see it as important or because they just don't see where is the matter 'cause it's all clear in their head.
So there is no reason "their" experience is better than "our" experience. As players.
Talking about marketing is another story. It just has nothing to do with game rules.
So, it's more like a good time for "house rules", to me. That's a good way to say to GW "make better rules or we just don't buy your crap rules anymore". And it's constructive, too!
pretre wrote: edit: Moral of the story: People have been complaining about GW's prices and proclaiming that this is the last straw for nigh on as far as google goes back.
And for a lot of people, it was. I'd hazard an estimate that there are damn few 90s veterans still active in the hobby. I have no doubt a lot of those old boycott criers and complainers were in earnest and lived up to their word.
Entirely anecdotal, but in my experience I couldn't agree more. At my previous gaming group only 3 other people played 40k, and they were all under the age of 21 [except me, but I was out of the hobby for years]. All of the experienced blokes had nothing but contempt for GW and were in the process of selling off all of their [usually pretty amazing] GW armies to spend on WarmaHorde, to the point where, when a couple of the younger ones left for university it was impossible for me to get a game.
At the club that plays up the road from me [since I moved] more people play X-Wing than 40k [although the bloke running the club keeps trying to push it as he's a big Sisters fan].
Sad really, and makes me concerned for the hobby.
Why be concerned for the hobby? It sounds like people are just switching gaming systems, so there'll still be plenty of wargaming going on.
With that said, I'm taking this rumor with a huge pile of salt. Skipping an edition of Fantasy to cut an edition of 40K short? I know a lot of tournament folks are really unhappy with 6th, but it seems like GW is abandoning the tournament scene almost entirely. I also think it would imply very bad things for WHFB if they skip an edition, but maybe that's just me.
Its a recent opinion of the future of GW written by a former CIO of an international retailer. Yes, its only one persons opinion but so is every single post in this thread.
Dissect and criticize as you will, but he more than likely speaks from a more experienced position than any of us.
...Traditionally, wargames haven't has that same sort of life cycle, and, in GW's recent history especially, those players wishing to stay near the top of the competition curve generally need to make a further investment in more stuff. If that life cycle, and associated expenditure suddenly accelerates, you can expect people to have a problem with it.
If I were wearing my tinfoil hat, I might think that GW was purposefully doing this to drive the competitive gamers further away. But that would be crazy talk, and way too organized for GW.
Back in reality land, we continue to froth and foam about a RUMOR that is incredibly unlikely based on GWs track record. With only two years in, and books just having been printed, why would they consolidate them at this point, UNLESS they were just pulling the rulebook, escalation, and stronghold into a "collector's edition" of 40k, and charging a premium. Now that I can envision.
The reason this rumor is getting traction is because a segment of the player base is already frothing and foaming over how unsuitable they believe 6th is for a certain style of play. If I was going to invent a rumor it'd be exactly down his path.
Personally I think it's probably hogwash, if we're talking about something beyond an extensive errata and FAQ. GW had many of the 6th edition codices etc written when 6th was released. There's NO reason to think that 6th is anything other than *exactly* what they intended. It's not some horrible mistake in their eyes. But clearly some people will never accept this.
Speaking for myself, I'm certainly not frothing and foaming about 6th, but then I consider playing 40K in it's current state competitively somewhat akin to racing a delivery van in Formula 1.
But, I do have a long history in the game, and I am just not finding 6th much fun to play. By my own frame of reference it doesn't seem I'm unique either. Consequently, rather than any sort of specific boycott, I'm merely spending the few hours a week I have to game playing other things. I'm still working in my 40K armies, but not at the rate I was, and I sure as hell am not buying anything aside from the odd pot of paint.
So in that sense, making the assumption I'm not some sort of super special snowflake and others have reacted to 6th the same way, this edition is an abject failure in its key objective (attracting new players and keeping old ones interested, and therefore buying) regardless of whether it is exactly what they intended.
Now I'm not so arrogant to assume I'm in any way in GWs key demographic, and of course there will be those that continue to buy because they'll accept any old gak GW wants to feed them and smile like its the finest chocolate they've ever tasted, those that are in areas where it is essentially "40K or nothing" and the great uninformed who apparently continue to buy direct at full retail because they somehow don't think to look online to buy, despite everyone shopping online for everything else these days. (I will mention I am aware these are sweeping generalisations, but please, nobody reading this feel obliged to point out some specific example my statement doesn't cover, I know, thanks for caring! ) But if enough feel the way I do, then GW will feel compelled to act, as a loss of enthusiasm in the player base is what could kill GW the deadest the quickest.
We've seen some reactions to what the "Internet minority" have been most vocal about, and this rumour landed around the same time as the one regarding organised play. It isn't impossible to believe this could be another reaction to criticism, or it all could be just a big ole coinkidink, time will tell. For now, I'm quite happy to let myself think this is a possibility, as the alternative is another two years of the pantomime clusterfeth that is what we have right now.
new edition should get rid of allies, and fix the vehicle rules. modifers to hit moving vehicles should be the biggest one. leave everything else the same.. but get rid of this broken gak allies.
DarthSpader wrote: new edition should get rid of allies, and fix the vehicle rules. modifers to hit moving vehicles should be the biggest one. leave everything else the same.. but get rid of this broken gak allies.
They won't do that. They need the sales, and the Allies made people more interested in buying more models.
DarthSpader wrote: new edition should get rid of allies, and fix the vehicle rules. modifers to hit moving vehicles should be the biggest one. leave everything else the same.. but get rid of this broken gak allies.
See, I don't think allies should be removed. I really enjoy it as a mechanic and it lets me play with the models I have from multiple armies. The issue, I think, are supplements being allies with the base book. Change that and things will be a bit better.
DarthSpader wrote: new edition should get rid of allies, and fix the vehicle rules. modifers to hit moving vehicles should be the biggest one. leave everything else the same.. but get rid of this broken gak allies.
See, I don't think allies should be removed. I really enjoy it as a mechanic and it lets me play with the models I have from multiple armies. The issue, I think, are supplements being allies with the base book. Change that and things will be a bit better.
Do IA forces count as supplements?
If not, then I'll agree with you, because I recently decided to make 750 pts of ABG (3 LRBT's, 1 Vendetta, 1 IG squad in Chimera) to ally with my SM friend for some pickup games.
I can say that if this happens I will no longer support this hobby. I am *just* returning after a three year hiatus, am already cringing at the frequency they swap their paint line (making it a guessing game to blend colours as much as anything), and just dropped a bunch of money on books and models. It would be a slap in the face and a real show of nepotism, and further a real embarassment for the franchise, to rush out a new global rules edition to the 40k universe so quickly. Here's hoping the best (but fully expecting the worst).
DarthSpader wrote: new edition should get rid of allies, and fix the vehicle rules. modifers to hit moving vehicles should be the biggest one. leave everything else the same.. but get rid of this broken gak allies.
They should just drop the interactions enabled by the "Battle Brothers" level of alliance. I'm all for coalitions showing up but some of the combos you can pull with ICs and Psychic buffs are OTT.
DarthSpader wrote: new edition should get rid of allies, and fix the vehicle rules. modifers to hit moving vehicles should be the biggest one. leave everything else the same.. but get rid of this broken gak allies.
They should just drop the interactions enabled by the "Battle Brothers" level of alliance. I'm all for coalitions showing up but some of the combos you can pull with ICs and Psychic buffs are OTT.
This. The Battle Brothers shenanigans is really the biggest reasons allies are so OP right now. Remove it and it wouldn't much of a problem for me.
Its a recent opinion of the future of GW written by a former CIO of an international retailer. Yes, its only one persons opinion but so is every single post in this thread.
Dissect and criticize as you will, but he more than likely speaks from a more experienced position than any of us.
What he fails to address is how many of the solutions to problems they solved were ones they themselves created.
Its a recent opinion of the future of GW written by a former CIO of an international retailer. Yes, its only one persons opinion but so is every single post in this thread.
Dissect and criticize as you will, but he more than likely speaks from a more experienced position than any of us.
What he fails to address is how many of the solutions to problems they solved were ones they themselves created.
The solutions they used were created by them, or the problems they solved were created by them? I can't quite understand what you mean.
I thought that it is quite obvious that they created, and continue to create, their own problems... overzealous IP protection, sales channel strangulation, virtually no internet presence, and a focus on profits above all else - all of which the writer has addressed.
The series is interesting for me because it is written from both sides at once - a business minded fan boy. Usually all we hear is either the butthurt cries of rules wishlisting (look no further than this very thread...) or from investment savvy types who only throw dice in casinos. Its refreshing to hear someone who genuinely likes and uses the product but with the business acumen to critique with some authority.
DarthSpader wrote: new edition should get rid of allies, and fix the vehicle rules. modifers to hit moving vehicles should be the biggest one. leave everything else the same.. but get rid of this broken gak allies.
See, I don't think allies should be removed. I really enjoy it as a mechanic and it lets me play with the models I have from multiple armies. The issue, I think, are supplements being allies with the base book. Change that and things will be a bit better.
Do IA forces count as supplements?
If not, then I'll agree with you, because I recently decided to make 750 pts of ABG (3 LRBT's, 1 Vendetta, 1 IG squad in Chimera) to ally with my SM friend for some pickup games.
I don't consider IA forces to be supplements because they differ so much from the parent codex. A krieg, ABG or Elysian list has different options from a standard IG list, but a Farsight enclave list is almost identical to a Tau empire list.
Its a recent opinion of the future of GW written by a former CIO of an international retailer. Yes, its only one persons opinion but so is every single post in this thread.
Dissect and criticize as you will, but he more than likely speaks from a more experienced position than any of us.
Thanks for sharing that. A good read if meandering and completely in alignment with what I wrote. Its nice to see someone else with a somewhat similar background sees things in much the same way as myself.
DarthSpader wrote: new edition should get rid of allies, and fix the vehicle rules. modifers to hit moving vehicles should be the biggest one. leave everything else the same.. but get rid of this broken gak allies.
They should just drop the interactions enabled by the "Battle Brothers" level of alliance. I'm all for coalitions showing up but some of the combos you can pull with ICs and Psychic buffs are OTT.
This. The Battle Brothers shenanigans is really the biggest reasons allies are so OP right now. Remove it and it wouldn't much of a problem for me.
I think what should be done is rewriting the allies matrix and maybe add a fourth level of alliance.
Have the levels be something like this:
Eternal alliance: the allies are treated as being pulled from the same codex as the parent army and all models share special rules.
Battle Brothers: IC's can attach to units but they do not share psychic powers of special rules.
Allies of Convenience, Desperate Allies and Come the Apocalypse alliance levels remain unchanged.
Its a recent opinion of the future of GW written by a former CIO of an international retailer. Yes, its only one persons opinion but so is every single post in this thread.
Dissect and criticize as you will, but he more than likely speaks from a more experienced position than any of us.
What he fails to address is how many of the solutions to problems they solved were ones they themselves created.
The solutions they used were created by them, or the problems they solved were created by them? I can't quite understand what you mean.
I thought that it is quite obvious that they created, and continue to create, their own problems... overzealous IP protection, sales channel strangulation, virtually no internet presence, and a focus on profits above all else - all of which the writer has addressed.
The series is interesting for me because it is written from both sides at once - a business minded fan boy. Usually all we hear is either the butthurt cries of rules wishlisting (look no further than this very thread...) or from investment savvy types who only throw dice in casinos. Its refreshing to hear someone who genuinely likes and uses the product but with the business acumen to critique with some authority.
Sorry, that was unclear wasn't it. I meant they created their main problems, ones that go way back pre internet. I agree with the article in regards in terms of what they've had to do, but it's all firefighting.
...Traditionally, wargames haven't has that same sort of life cycle, and, in GW's recent history especially, those players wishing to stay near the top of the competition curve generally need to make a further investment in more stuff. If that life cycle, and associated expenditure suddenly accelerates, you can expect people to have a problem with it.
If I were wearing my tinfoil hat, I might think that GW was purposefully doing this to drive the competitive gamers further away. But that would be crazy talk, and way too organized for GW.
Back in reality land, we continue to froth and foam about a RUMOR that is incredibly unlikely based on GWs track record. With only two years in, and books just having been printed, why would they consolidate them at this point, UNLESS they were just pulling the rulebook, escalation, and stronghold into a "collector's edition" of 40k, and charging a premium. Now that I can envision.
The reason this rumor is getting traction is because a segment of the player base is already frothing and foaming over how unsuitable they believe 6th is for a certain style of play. If I was going to invent a rumor it'd be exactly down his path.
Personally I think it's probably hogwash, if we're talking about something beyond an extensive errata and FAQ. GW had many of the 6th edition codices etc written when 6th was released. There's NO reason to think that 6th is anything other than *exactly* what they intended. It's not some horrible mistake in their eyes. But clearly some people will never accept this.
Speaking for myself, I'm certainly not frothing and foaming about 6th, but then I consider playing 40K in it's current state competitively somewhat akin to racing a delivery van in Formula 1.
But, I do have a long history in the game, and I am just not finding 6th much fun to play. By my own frame of reference it doesn't seem I'm unique either. Consequently, rather than any sort of specific boycott, I'm merely spending the few hours a week I have to game playing other things. I'm still working in my 40K armies, but not at the rate I was, and I sure as hell am not buying anything aside from the odd pot of paint.
So in that sense, making the assumption I'm not some sort of super special snowflake and others have reacted to 6th the same way, this edition is an abject failure in its key objective (attracting new players and keeping old ones interested, and therefore buying) regardless of whether it is exactly what they intended.
Now I'm not so arrogant to assume I'm in any way in GWs key demographic, and of course there will be those that continue to buy because they'll accept any old gak GW wants to feed them and smile like its the finest chocolate they've ever tasted, those that are in areas where it is essentially "40K or nothing" and the great uninformed who apparently continue to buy direct at full retail because they somehow don't think to look online to buy, despite everyone shopping online for everything else these days. (I will mention I am aware these are sweeping generalisations, but please, nobody reading this feel obliged to point out some specific example my statement doesn't cover, I know, thanks for caring! ) But if enough feel the way I do, then GW will feel compelled to act, as a loss of enthusiasm in the player base is what could kill GW the deadest the quickest.
We've seen some reactions to what the "Internet minority" have been most vocal about, and this rumour landed around the same time as the one regarding organised play. It isn't impossible to believe this could be another reaction to criticism, or it all could be just a big ole coinkidink, time will tell. For now, I'm quite happy to let myself think this is a possibility, as the alternative is another two years of the pantomime clusterfeth that is what we have right now.
Just to be completely clear, I'm not saying that all criticism of 6th is coming from one type of customer. I've heard different criticisms of it from various types of players. I just think a rumor about "fixing" 6th will get a lot of traction in certain segments given just how much bandwidth has been devoted to that exact topic the past couple months. It seems very opportunistic and yet another example of someone chasing page views/listeners/etc.
It could be real and an example of GW being sensitive to its customers. But knowing its history...I'm doubtful. My suspicion is that if this has any legs, it's really about extensive FAQs and errata on the way and not a new edition. Perhaps it's even tied to their digital strategy and this is but one of a series of (yearly?) updates intended to push us all into buying the digital rulebook.
Personally, I think there are great things going on in 40K...provided that one truly embraces that it's not tournament-focused and has become more of a basement/gentleman's game again. Furthermore, I don't think it's the disaster that some make it out to be at the tournament level, and that if organizers and players give it more of a chance, they'll probably find that a few reasonable tweaks will find it all pretty playable.
Cripes, I attended GWGTs in the days of 2nd edition. That ruleset was a hot mess and patched to death, but they still got it to work for tournaments.
If there is a 7th edition this coming summer, I'm done. After playing since Rogue Trader I will be officially out. Bought too many books here lately, the mini- rule book, several codices, the latest books Stronghold, and Escalade. That will put me over the edge. Bad rules or not, they've never been perfect.
I've hardly played 6th, but the rules are a mess and the factions out of balance to the nth degree. I'd welcome a much improved, better tested 7th edition, but I'm not holding my breath it'll be worth the price tag I know will be on the book.
I've hardly played 6th, but the rules are a mess and the factions out of balance to the nth degree. I'd welcome a much improved, better tested 7th edition, but I'm not holding my breath it'll be worth the price tag I know will be on the book.
Probably £75 base for 7th ed core rulebook, £150 for limited edition version, £200+ for super-platinum-uber-gold-special-limited-edition BRB.
£150 for a starter set that includes a paperback rulebook, and about £75 worth of models. With a total production cost of ~£25.
DarthSpader wrote: new edition should get rid of allies, and fix the vehicle rules. modifers to hit moving vehicles should be the biggest one. leave everything else the same.. but get rid of this broken gak allies.
What the new edition needs is real and indepth playtesting. rather than whatever utterly hopeless mehod that they use now. Ever since 3rd edition the basic rules have stayed the same aside from tiny little 'fixes' and modifications; none of which have improved the game to any meaningful degree and result in certain elements becoming dominiant (currently its flyers). The game is stale and it has some fundamental flaws that have been there ever since the demise of 2nd ed, GW has also never been very good at producing a balanced ruleset, no more so than now.
40K's real problem as a wargame is that its rules are loose, badly worded and freqently broken, rigourous play testing would remove all that. Ideally GW would release a public alpha and then a beta version before a finalised release version in order to reach the largest player base that they can. Of course this isn't going to happen.
I wouldn't be that suprised if this rumour turns out to be true, GW has made enough strange decisions in the past and 40k is a far larger seller than fantasy (although its current edition is terrible).
40K's real problem as a wargame is that its rules are loose, badly worded and freqently broken, rigourous play testing would remove all that. Ideally GW would release a public alpha and then a beta version before a finalised release version in order to reach the largest player base that they can. Of course this isn't going to happen.
Just to underline this point, I was reading through the new SM book earlier, and I noticed that Pedro Kantor's rules refer specifically to Crimson Fists. The issue being that Crimson Fists don't exist as an entity in the rules (they use Imperial Fists CT) which means that, while there is an obvious interpretation (your blue marines with red bits) there is no strict RAW definition of what consists of a Crimson Fist.
Not going to break the game, but a good example of the sort of needless nonsense that blurs the rules and could be easily be fixed with a little more thought and effort without re-writing the whole game from the ground up.
7th Edition... LOL... I cant even afford 6th Edition or find players!
I personally am not sure I want to spend anymore on GW. Been doing it since 1990. I find Bolt Action, X-wing, warmachine, and more importantly spending time with my family a lot more worthwhile than 40k and Fantasy. The cost of the rules alone (Rule set, all the codex... one for every army you have, and supplements) are keeping me from really getting into 6th edition 40k aside from the rules from Dark Vengence and my Chaos Marine Codex... i really dont want to spend 50 bucks a pop on a codex even if hard back or digital. I have far too many armies for 40k and fantasy and I have the rules for the previous editions... some editions i never got to play that much... cause of real life.
I enjoy Bolt Action because you dont have to constantly refer to codex, rules, look for erata (although i know they do have it like GW stuff). It seems more time on table than with nose in book type thing at least so far and X-wing is the same. I am new to warmachine and not sure i really want to get into it that much but i do have some interest in it mainly cause it is most popular in my area at local game store.... and having a army in it good for a pick up game.
On side note i am having fun with Star Wars Edge of the Empire and some of the new 40kRPGs and WFB RPG systems are pretty cool by Fantasy Flight Games. Maybe GW should let Fantasy Flight do 40k and Fantasy rules and they just stick with their model making....
With all that being said... I am thinking of staying 5th Edition with my armies and use Chaos Marines for any 6th Edition games i might have to play... but i really dont see a point in paying 500 dollars plus or minus to get rules, codex, supplements just to possibly play my 40k and fantasy armies. I can put that money towards a lot better things.
AegisGrimm wrote: All I know is that it's gonna be one hell of an expensive rulebook, just so you can get one that's not a mess of additional Eratta and FAQ's..
Spacewolfoddballz wrote: The cost of the rules alone (Rule set, all the codex... one for every army you have, and supplements) are keeping me from really getting into 6th edition 40k aside from the rules from Dark Vengence and my Chaos Marine Codex... i really dont want to spend 50 bucks a pop on a codex even if hard back or digital.
Most serious gamers no longer buy all of the GW rules. Core rulebook and codex only, basically what you need for a tournament.
And yet these gamers have all of the GW rules, including all FW books. It is a glorious thing, and a great way to give thanks back to GW.
Spacewolfoddballz wrote: The cost of the rules alone (Rule set, all the codex... one for every army you have, and supplements) are keeping me from really getting into 6th edition 40k aside from the rules from Dark Vengence and my Chaos Marine Codex... i really dont want to spend 50 bucks a pop on a codex even if hard back or digital.
Most serious gamers no longer buy all of the GW rules. Core rulebook and codex only, basically what you need for a tournament.
And yet these gamers have all of the GW rules, including all FW books. It is a glorious thing, and a great way to give thanks back to GW.
Could this tie into the rumors of GW overhauling their website next year as well? Rumors have already been floating around of GW discontinuing Finecast, moving that production to Forgeworld, and fully incorporating Forgeworld into the GW main website with a complete redo of the online store around Q2 in 2014.
Given GW's increased focus on digital releases (along with the iPad version containing a list builder), could it be that GW's new website will make a big push for digital releases, giving us all the codices and all the rules for digital release (much like WotC did with D&D's online tools). I can easily see GW trying to create a sort of "master app" for mobile devices that allows you to buy various plugins like the rulebook, individual codices, supplements, and even a list builder (and such an app would give them even greater control over the digital distribution of their publications).
Spacewolfoddballz wrote: The cost of the rules alone (Rule set, all the codex... one for every army you have, and supplements) are keeping me from really getting into 6th edition 40k aside from the rules from Dark Vengence and my Chaos Marine Codex... i really dont want to spend 50 bucks a pop on a codex even if hard back or digital.
Most serious gamers no longer buy all of the GW rules. Core rulebook and codex only, basically what you need for a tournament.
And yet these gamers have all of the GW rules, including all FW books. It is a glorious thing, and a great way to give thanks back to GW.
What? You contradicted yourself there.
I could be wrong, but I suspect that he may be talking about the thing that mods don't like us to talk about. That seems to be the most logical explanation.
Tannhauser42 wrote: Could this tie into the rumors of GW overhauling their website next year as well? Rumors have already been floating around of GW discontinuing Finecast, moving that production to Forgeworld, and fully incorporating Forgeworld into the GW main website with a complete redo of the online store around Q2 in 2014.
Given GW's increased focus on digital releases (along with the iPad version containing a list builder), could it be that GW's new website will make a big push for digital releases, giving us all the codices and all the rules for digital release (much like WotC did with D&D's online tools). I can easily see GW trying to create a sort of "master app" for mobile devices that allows you to buy various plugins like the rulebook, individual codices, supplements, and even a list builder (and such an app would give them even greater control over the digital distribution of their publications).
I think that might be beyond rumour now, as much as I acknowledge the fact that Red Shirts are often poorly informed, I mentioned the website thing to our local guy, and far from denying it or pleading ignorance, he seemed quite excited about it, as it means he will be able to sell Forgeworld in store (through the terminal, but it's an option he doesn't have now)
The guy he replaced went on to Nottingham as part of the web team, and I'm fairly sure they have communication still, in some form or another, so this one does have some pedigree behind it.
I've hardly played 6th, but the rules are a mess and the factions out of balance to the nth degree. I'd welcome a much improved, better tested 7th edition, but I'm not holding my breath it'll be worth the price tag I know will be on the book.
Probably £75 base for 7th ed core rulebook, £150 for limited edition version, £200+ for super-platinum-uber-gold-special-limited-edition BRB.
£150 for a starter set that includes a paperback rulebook, and about £75 worth of models. With a total production cost of ~£25.
This!
Don't forget the rule changes which require to adjust army lists (at least for competitive play).
pretre wrote: The pistol thing is just recycle from the pancake hoax.
You could fire pistols in hth prior to 3rd edition. I wouldn't go so far to imply it was original to pancake. I could see it happening, but I am seriously doubtful they will update 40k until 2016.
Palindrome wrote: The game is stale and it has some fundamental flaws that have been there ever since the demise of 2nd ed, GW has also never been very good at producing a balanced ruleset, no more so than now.
It still amazes me GW has stuck with the moronic AP system for so long, it's an inherently unbalanced save system which they've persisted with generation after generation.
Palindrome wrote: The game is stale and it has some fundamental flaws that have been there ever since the demise of 2nd ed, GW has also never been very good at producing a balanced ruleset, no more so than now.
It still amazes me GW has stuck with the moronic AP system for so long, it's an inherently unbalanced save system which they've persisted with generation after generation.
The issue with armour is that save modifiers don't really work well in a d6 system either (as a veteran of 2nd, everything but TDA was largely irrelevant a lot of the time)
The only fix I've been able to conceive is allowing some sort of immunity, so for instance Terminator's ignore wounds from AP5 or worse weapons, AP4 forces a save, AP2 ignores the armour save, but in an already bloated and over complicated system, I haven't been able to refine it into something I'd consider elegant enough to work well.
The issue with armour is that save modifiers don't really work well in a d6 system either (as a veteran of 2nd, everything but TDA was largely irrelevant a lot of the time)
I remember that, but it would work if modifiers were kept small enough.
AP -, 6 and 5 --> 0 AP 4-------------> -1 AP 3 and 2----> -2 AP 1 ------------> -3
(Then terminators could have 1+ save, unmodified, it would work like 2+, but allow 4+ re-roll on a failure.)
You're crediting GW with the ability to show restraint in the face of "Waaagh, 'splosions, Die, Die, Die!!1!" there Crimson, I just can't see that happening, sadly...
The issue with armour is that save modifiers don't really work well in a d6 system either (as a veteran of 2nd, everything but TDA was largely irrelevant a lot of the time)
I actually meant the strict IGOUGO turn structure (I really miss real overwatch) rather than the AP system. I much prefer more dynamic turns or even something like FoW's defensive fire.
One option for a proper AP system is a weapon specific modifier (ranging from 0 to -4) small arms don't have one while heavy AT weapons have -4. That would allow some uncertainly while keeping saves meaningful. Of course it won't be as 'realistic' but since when was that even remotely important in 40k.
azreal13 wrote: The issue with armour is that save modifiers don't really work well in a d6 system either (as a veteran of 2nd, everything but TDA was largely irrelevant a lot of the time).
One of the biggest shocks for me in my first demo game of 3rd Ed was the concept of Marines being able to take their 3+ save. That just never happened in 2nd Ed.
A new edition so that pistols can be used in CC? Sounds interesting
Out of interest, how many times has that rule been reversed but then re-instated? You could use pistols in CC in 1st/2nd, couldn't in 3rd, could in 4th, couldn't in 5/6th (have I got that right?)
On a separate note I have just had a look through this thread and now wish that I hadn't; other than the 'I want to make a WFB army out of paper miniatures as I can't afford to play otherwise, would you please let me?' thread, has to be the most depressing thing I have read on Dakka all year. Seriously, it's like looking in through the window of the Betty Ford clinic in between all of the crying and wailing of "I just can't take any more, I can't afford it, but I gotta have it!" Presumably the demographic is pretty similar in terms of cost when comparing the BF clinic to keeping on top of all of these new rule/expansion releases
azreal13 wrote: The issue with armour is that save modifiers don't really work well in a d6 system either (as a veteran of 2nd, everything but TDA was largely irrelevant a lot of the time).
One of the biggest shocks for me in my first demo game of 3rd Ed was the concept of Marines being able to take their 3+ save. That just never happened in 2nd Ed.
My marines used to get hit by autoguns all the time
Why can't GW just do what Privateer Press does? Come out with the army books with your basic units for each army, then release expansion books with any new units for each army.
Well, assuming you get the initial core units right, it eliminates power creep to a large extent, means nobody waits years for an update, means you can easily stay up to date with other factions developments if you're interested in playing competitively and makes it much easier to cater to less well supported factions without trying to pull a whole army book and models out of your arse.
While I'm not a huge fan of Warmahordes as a whole (no axe to grind, just not my thang) I do quite like the way they update. I do see there's an argument for paying for stuff you don't need, but then the Warmahordes books are cheaper than Codexes with a lot more content, so that mitigates it a bit.
BrookM wrote: I'd rather not buy a new book every month for just one or two new units.
More like about every 9 months to a year with about 8-10 new units (Don't look at Colossals! ). Plus PP advance the storyline, which is a nice tangential point into buying those books.
But knowing GW it would be monthly using that method.
Not to mention if you use their apps, they auto-update to include new unit cards for sets that you've purchased (Cryx for me) instead of the GW, DLC approach.
And for a lot of people, it was. I'd hazard an estimate that there are damn few 90s veterans still active in the hobby. I have no doubt a lot of those old boycott criers and complainers were in earnest and lived up to their word.
And for a lot of people, it was. I'd hazard an estimate that there are damn few 90s veterans still active in the hobby. I have no doubt a lot of those old boycott criers and complainers were in earnest and lived up to their word.
1993
I believe it was 1995 for me. I remember at least I had Necromunda in 7th grade.
And for a lot of people, it was. I'd hazard an estimate that there are damn few 90s veterans still active in the hobby. I have no doubt a lot of those old boycott criers and complainers were in earnest and lived up to their word.
1993
I believe it was 1995 for me. I remember at least I had Necromunda in 7th grade.
1994 for me. Same as my brother. One of my friends started about the same time and another in 1997, one of my brothers friends in 1995. All of us are still kicking about in 40k.
And for a lot of people, it was. I'd hazard an estimate that there are damn few 90s veterans still active in the hobby. I have no doubt a lot of those old boycott criers and complainers were in earnest and lived up to their word.
1993
I believe it was 1995 for me. I remember at least I had Necromunda in 7th grade.
1994 for me. Same as my brother. One of my friends started about the same time and another in 1997, one of my brothers friends in 1995. All of us are still kicking about in 40k.
2008~ish for me. The 4th ed ork codex was brand new when I started.
A new edition would be... interesting. Really, if it fixed the big issues in six that would work with me.
I for one do like 6th and hope they improve the edition. Please GW don't return to the craptastic 5ed system. 5th really killed off most of the vet players in my area. 40k went from a core playing base of 30 regulars to 10 in a short time because of the abortion know as 5th.
Yay, another edition! Can't wait to read how Games Workshop continues to apply repeated and concentrated force for the express purpose of causing damage to an equine that no longer qualifies as being alive.
I get to rebuy C:SM not one year after I just got it for a princely sum of $50. So exciting Games Workshop! I love plonking half a hundred down on books. It'll be cinematic since I'll get to be like the Imperium itself: Making futile efforts and expending resources I really can't afford to waste in order to wage war.
And the truly funderful part will be when they make Tau/Eldar/Demons crappy and buff the crap out of MEQ codices again.
Transporthammer didn't appeal to a lot of people, I imagine.
Except I played Crons in 5th edition even before they got re-done and never had an issue with dealing with Transporthammer players. 10 Rhinos, or units with 2++ re-rollable saves......I wonder which one is worse
If I was going to invent a rumor it'd be exactly down his path.
) But if enough feel the way I do, then 
