Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Some news:
- Phil Kelly not leaving GW, that rumour was false
- Design team aware of Tyranids needing a boost
- New Codices higher quality than 5th edition paperback ones
- Possibly more expansions in the next 4 years (one idea is relics from HH usable in the game)
- Flak Missiles are currently unavailable to all armies, but will come in future Codices
- Mat Ward is a nice fellow not deserving the flak he gets
Spoiler:
natfka wrote:Faeit 212 Exclusive: 40k Design Studio Open Day Saturday, July 14, 2012
Little did I know that when Scissorheart offered to do an exclusive report from the GW Headquarters in Nottingham, that we would receive such an in-depth and very well written report on the events and from personal conversations with the Design Team from GW. This is a lot for everyone to sink their teeth into, so lets get right to it.
Please do not forget to thank Scissorhands for such a great report on the days events in the comments.
via Scissorheart
Hi Natfka
As discussed a few weeks back, I attended the 40k Design Studio open day today. I've written up all my notes exclusively for you. I'm not sure if this is how you would like it presented but there's some fascinating tidbits of info in here! I've attached a pic too of my bro standing next to a life size Rhino!
Today, my brother and I attended the Warhammer World Design Studio open day at GWHQ in Nottingham UK. Throughout the day there were a number of seminars covering many aspects of the hobby, from painting, terrain building, flier demo’s, participation games, sculpting demo’s and most importantly (for me at least) a chance to chat with the key games designers about the new rules and the changes that have come to the game as a result. I was itching to get some insight into the thinking behind 6th Edition’s many features and I must say that I acquired far more information than I’d expected to during the course of the event. Here's a compilation of mine and my bro's notes
I’m a daily follower of Natfka’s blog and I promised him a few weeks back that I would give him an exclusive rundown of the day’s more interesting points so that I could share what I learnt with the community. So here we go.
The first seminar of the day was hosted by Jervis Johnson, Matt Ward and Jeremy Vetock and they took turns responding to a number of pre-defined questions before opening up to the audience. I was frantically making notes during the course of the seminar and I’ll summarise here what I wrote and how the guys answered
Q1. What were the key objectives of 6th Edition?
The ultimate goal of 6th edition according to Jervis was to tackle what both he and Matt described as ‘Associative and Disassociative’ rules and to add more realism to the game.
E.g. If a poisoned dagger had +1 WS in close combat, that would be deemed ‘dissacoiatve’ as it makes little sense. However, if it gave you a re-roll to wound, that would be ‘associative’ as it would capture the essence of a poisoned attack being made and potentially causing damage as a result of it being laced with some horrifying toxin.
Other examples of ‘associative’ rules included the abiltiy to throw grenades and the distinction between different power weapons. By making certain rules ‘associative’, the game adds more ‘weight’ to the feel of units on the table. Flyers crashing to the ground is another example of this, as is wound allocation in shooting (models vanishing from the front of units and not the back), Its all about realism.
Q2. Why include so much hobby and fluff info in the rulebook?
All three commented on the importance of seeing the hobby as a whole. A new player to 40k would grasp the broad depth of the hobby in one mighty tome. Again, Jervis mentioned the significance of adding ‘weight’ to the game and posited that all aspects were synonymous. In the opinion of the designers, the fluff adds an important aspect to the game as it puts the whole experience into context and provides a rich narrative for the tabletop game itself.
Q3. Why is the background of 40k so ‘Imperial centric’?
The designers consider the Imperium to be the largest empire of the 41st Millennium. The story really centres on the rise and fall of the Imperium and the Xeno Codex’s almost orbit this story. That’s pretty much the way its been written since Rogue Trader and there’s really no moving away from it as the central narrative to the 40k universe.
Q4. Why Hull Points?
According to Matt Ward, vehicles in previous editions didn’t seem to fit very well with the rest of the game system and made for odd and peculiar situations. He mentioned that there was little granularity to the vehicle rules compared to other unit types. The addition of Hull Points is therefore used to make vehicles more inclusive during a game and give them a continued presence even after having taken a few direct hits. Jervis said that it flattened out the extremes. Vehicles used to get obliterated in turn one or take damage that would render them ineffective for a turn or two which really didn’t flow too well. Hull Points therefore allow players to enjoy the attributes of their expensive vehicles without them vanishing off the table having done virtually nothing.
Q5. Did you consider moving the timeline on?
Not for this edition. They like the idea that the Imperium of man is ‘at the brink’. They don’t see the current epoch as being at a dead end and therefore, do not need to change it. They did not rule out the prospect of changing this in the future however. One good point that Matt made was that it has moved on anyway since 2nd and 3rd as we now have Tau, Dark Eldar, Sisters and Necrons.
Q6. Why allies and fortifications?
Jervis said that the old fluff in previous editions made many references to scenarios where different races forged alliances in various situations. He felt that later editions had polarised armies and made them rather restricted. They want to open up the game as a means to circumvent some of those restrictions and allow for more diverse tactics on the table. The fluff can now follow on and provide literature that encompasses those often tenuous alliances. Many alliances have obvious narrative value.
In terms of fortifications, Jervis considered these beautiful plastic kits as somewhat wasted given their aesthetic value on the table. Giving these kits rules and points values feeds into the ‘associative’ aspect of 6th edition. I do agree here as I often wished for rules regarding the 5 massive quad guns in my terrain box!
Q6. Why random charge distances?
This rule apparently came as a result of the ‘associative’ wound allocation and Overwatch rules. There are 2 aspects to this however. If your front line is going to take Snapfire hits, there needs to be some compensation for the front line going down and cutting your charge range. The random charge role helps a unit to get into combat regardless of having been whittled down at the front (provided you roll high enough), but it also adds a sense of realism in that battles are violent and chaotic – meaning that sometimes, for whatever reason, you just don’t make it far enough! Jervis acknowledged that some gamers don’t like having control removed, but argued that a swirling battle full of death, destruction and explosions wasn’t really an environment where controlled and predictable actions were likely! In his words, it adds ‘tension and drama’ to the game.
Q7. How difficult was it to add flyer rules into the game?
Matt Ward picked this one up. He said that it was relatively simple given that flyers were an extension to the revised vehicle rules. The team said that they had an idea of the mechanic due to Apocalypse but held off until 6th to fully include them. Seems as though they had been toying with the idea in 5th but the rest of the rules didn’t allow for it too well.
Q8. Why Challenges?
The team wanted to create the sense that characters were leading their troops into battle and not just skulking around at the back of units. It also gave lesser characters (i.e. SM sergeants) the opportunity to exhibit moments of heroics (leaping in to save their captain with one wound left from a rampaging Daemon Prince for example).
Q9. Why change the Psychic rules?
The team wanted to make Psykers more akin to Wizards in WHFB. They felt that a half page of rules in a codex simply didn’t do them justice, especially for the likes of special character psykers. Lets face it, a psyker firing d6 s4 AP- hits in the shooting phase is little more than a gun and therefore, a menial extension to the shooting rules. The team considered the random aspect of it more ‘associative’ given the dangerous and often unpredictable nature of warp manipulation.
Some extra tidbits:
· 6th Edition was actually finished 6 months ago
· They thought long and hard about using a points system similar to WHFB instead of FOC’s but it would have been to difficult as there was so much emphasis on FOC's in the Codex’s. New players would have found it too confusing.
· The reason that charges are not allowed on Deep Strike is to prevent the utter predictability of mega-hard units appearing anywhere and destroying whatever they want every game. There was a possible hint about Genestealers being able to do this at some point in the future!
· The new edition nerf’s some units and provides buff’s to others. The new Codex’s will rebalance incidents where this is too extreme.
· One guy complained that the new rules were adding unnecessary complexity (e.g loads of new universal special rules). Ward argued that it’s best to keep lots of the rules universal in the main rulebook. New codex’s can then have units with a variety of the SR’s and opponents will know exactly what to expect. He did caveat this though by saying that USR’s would still apply to certain characters in Codex’s.
I spoke to Matt Ward in person after the seminar and I really must emphasise that he’s a really nice, polite and engaging fellow who doesn't deserve the flak he gets from some members of the community. He deserves praise for his role in bringing us 6th edition. He explained that rule setting is always going to be ‘a moving target’ and what works for one person is going to upset another. He said that there were many things that were out of his hands because business decisions have to be taken into account when developing game systems and rules. A couple of key points that came out of that conversation:
· Flak Missiles are currently unavailable to all armies, but we’ll soon see them filtering through into the game.
· We can expect a new FAQ before the end of the summer.
· He spoke about Tyranids being a tad difficult to work with as they have (in the past) been a little one dimensional (i.e charge everyone into CC). He made a point about there being no vehicle rules in the Tyranid army and that its monsterous creatures need to be able to kill Daemon Princes so how do you balance it out? We shall see!
I spoke to Jervis for a long time about ‘associative and disassocaitive’ rules but I think I’ve covered that off.
Next I spoke to Phil Kelly (the dude) who again is a really sound guy (and by the way - he isn't leaving GW).
Phil said that there are currently 6 ‘projects’ on the go for 40k. I think he was referring to Codex’s. I asked him about Tyranids too and he said (rather excitedly) that he has ‘some really great ideas up his sleeve’ for the Nids. Sounds encouraging! It's worth noting that everyone I spoke to in the design team understands the need for Nids to get a boost.
He also shared his personal opinion on 5th edition and said (with the greatest of respect) that Alessio Cavorte seemed to want to make the game more competitive and simplified. He thought that this made the game a little to flat and generic in its function (which I personally agreed with). His words were that it ‘lost its craziness’. 6th has therefore moved to address this and give more feel and character to the units and the game as a whole. It does seem to be a consensus amongst GW staff that 2nd was a great edition in many ways (although obviously broken in others).
One other exciting thing that he mentioned was the release of expansions. He said that one example of an idea floating around is the introduction of relic’s which could be (for example) wargear from the Horus Heresry era, usable in today's battles. Possibly a new book or expansion but still just an idea at the moment.
Phil said that the quality of the new Codex’s far surpasses the paperback’s of 5th and beyond (I wonder how many are finished!?)
Lastly I spoke to Robin Cruddace. I asked him about GW’s release schedule and to my utter amazement, he said that they were aiming for some sort of release each month. Be it a codex or some sort of expansion. I would be surprised if this were true!
He said that there would most likely need to be a larger number of expansions between now and 4 years time so that you don’t reach a point where all codex’s for 6th are released with 2 years still to go before the next cycle. Take that how you will!
So there we have it folks. A very enjoyable day indeed – and most insightful!
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/07/15 12:14:13
Excellent report. We shall see if they can keep to it, but I would assume then they have used the last 6 mths to catch up and have a release schedule in place?
No madam, 40,000 is the year that this game is set in. Not how much it costs. Though you may have a point. - GW Fulchester The Gatling Guns have flamethrowers on them because this is 40k - DOW III
[DCM]
GW Public Relations Manager (Privateer Press Mole)
He explained that rule setting is always going to be ‘a moving target’ and what works for one person is going to upset another. He said that there were many things that were out of his hands because business decisions have to be taken into account when developing game systems and rules.
While we all know that GW is a business and businesses strive to make money, I think that's the first time that I've seen one of the designers admit that the suits influence rules.
Adepticon TT 2009---Best Heretical Force
Adepticon 2010---Best Appearance Warhammer Fantasy Warbands
Adepticon 2011---Best Team Display
Interesting that they commented on the weaknesses of Tyranids, but appear to have made no mention of Sisters et al.?
Cruddance's comments were also interesting IMHO, but didn't they say for 5th Edition that they wanted to update all Codices?
Interesting report all-round though, albeit nothing too spectacular or novel IMHO. I wouldn't have imagined Ward to not be a nice guy or deserving of the flak he gets. I do still believe he's prone to questionable rules and even more questionable fluff, particularly when his enthusiasm can seem so apparent.
AgeOfEgos wrote:
He explained that rule setting is always going to be ‘a moving target’ and what works for one person is going to upset another. He said that there were many things that were out of his hands because business decisions have to be taken into account when developing game systems and rules.
While we all know that GW is a business and businesses strive to make money, I think that's the first time that I've seen one of the designers admit that the suits influence rules.
Agreed. That comment jumped out at me also.
Da Boss wrote:Interesting comments about what they perceived to be the weaknesses of 5th edition. I can't say I agree with them on that.
I think I can understand what they were saying, but I think it's a good thing to have and a solid 'core' to the game, that can then be built upon. Personally, I feel 6th Edition appears to have gone too far in the other direction (of non-competitiveness)...
"It is the great irony of the Legiones Astartes: engineered to kill to achieve a victory of peace that they can then be no part of." - Roboute Guilliman
"As I recall, your face was tortured. Imagine that - the Master of the Wolves, his ferocity twisted into grief. And yet you still carried out your duty. You always did what was asked of you. So loyal. So tenacious. Truly you were the attack dog of the Emperor. You took no pleasure in what you did. I knew that then, and I know it now. But all things change, my brother. I'm not the same as I was, and you're... well, let us not mention where you are now." - Magnus the Red, to a statue of Leman Russ
This writeup makes the demonized people at Games Workshop actually sound human, in a way. A bit of a relief, in a way.
Regardless, saying one thing and doing another is still GW's trend. I just got an email yesterday that almost ironically overemphasized the industry-leading quality of Finecast. Meanwhile all these recent waves increase prices. Meanwhile my Tyranids cry, forever alone.
It's still comforting hearing that the designers are different than the businessmen in GW.
The centre of a massive brood chamber, heaving and pulsating.
All in all, I am pleased.
Squigsquasher, resident ban magnet, White Knight, and general fethwit.
buddha wrote: I've decided that these GW is dead/dying threads that pop up every-week must be followers and cultists of nurgle perpetuating the need for decay. I therefore declare that that such threads are heresy and subject to exterminatus. So says the Inquisition!
Some news:
-
-
- New Codices higher quality than 5th edition paperback ones
-
-
-
I wonder if this means that they will be going hardcover like the WFB army books ?
I was afraid they might but I still hope not. While I don't play many armies, I do like to read up on them all in case I play against them. I won't be doing that at the HC prices, tho.
"You never see toilets in the 41st Millennium - that's why everyone looks so angry all the time." - Fezman 1/28/13
Excellent report, thank you VERY Much for posting it up.
on this note:
Lastly I spoke to Robin Cruddace. I asked him about GW’s release schedule and to my utter amazement, he said that they were aiming for some sort of release each month. Be it a codex or some sort of expansion. I would be surprised if this were true!
Communication and context is always important as without more information we should not draw too much inference from this;
For example, he says
"What is the Gw Release schedule?"
Is robin thinking in his head 40k, Specialist, and Fantasy? or was the actual question asked "What is the GW warhammer 40k release schedule?"
Regardless of this point, it was an excellent list - I would have loved speaking to them myself, would have almost been worth the trip.
DavePak
"Remember, in life, the only thing you absolutely control is your own attitude - do not squander that power."
Fully Painted armies:
TAU: 10k Nids: 9600 Marines: 4000 Crons: 7600
Actor, Gamer, Comic, Corporate Nerd
Some news:
-
-
- New Codices higher quality than 5th edition paperback ones
-
-
-
I wonder if this means that they will be going hardcover like the WFB army books ?
I was afraid they might but I still hope not. While I don't play many armies, I do like to read up on them all in case I play against them. I won't be doing that at the HC prices, tho.
hmm. well.. you might be disappointed then.
I'm about 99% certain that the codices will be both full colour and hardback, at least that was certainly the impression I got from speaking to the studio team.
.. who were all, as ever, really great to talk to, they're all proper sound.
They know there's a few issues that still need FAQing and they're working on it. I had a list of..oohh.. 10 -12 ones which they looekd at and answered and most of those they had since discovered or were aware needed clarifying.
.. good news for BT players who haven't lost typhoons... Lilith's grenades, alas, do not ignore armour saves,
A lot of the work, book writing wise, is already done, they've really been working hard it would seem.
They do want to increase the speed at which the codices/army books -- for three systems -- are released.
The schedule mr Cruddace mentioned was in relation to all 3 systems.
New GW books is pretty sweet too, nice campaign at the back and some nice units/rules as well. The Contemptor-mortis pattern dreadnought looks pretty tasty, the Helios pattern tanks are now AA, the Avenger strike fighter is cool too -- it's a heavy choice for guard and SoB.
Had a great time -- few nice new/early BL releases too of course -- must have spent a couple of hours in total just chatting to the design studio guys. If you ever get the chance to attend something like this it's well worth it IMO.
EDIT : I mentioned how there'd been some changes to the digital versiosn of the necron and marine codices that weren't in the paper FAQ.. they will be added to that "soon". IIRC they said they hoped to have revised versions of the FAQS up within 1 month. Mr. Grant -- sorry if that's not your name ! -- has been handling the FAQs... I gather he's had a fair few emails ( ..some with interesting bonus content too t'would seem -- and has been making notes and getting ready.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/07/15 15:34:00
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
Morathi's Darkest Sin wrote:The Robin comment interests me the most... they can't actually be considering getting all the codexes done during 6th can they?
I'd love to see it, just can't quite believe it.
They would sell more. Tau players like me haven't bought any Tau codexes in 5th edition.
I don't see why it isn't do-able. Most of a codex is pretty much recycled from previously written material. The layout and printing costs aren't much.
It's pleasing to read that everyone realises the Tyranids need a boost. To be cynical, though, they should have known that before they released them and the following codexes that helped weaken them. What is the point of a large, expensive, top flight design studio?
I can confirm it was a great day and I felt like a lot of my questions were answered at the Q&A Presentations....
Talking to the guys after reveals that:
1) They are a very decent bunch of guys
2) Number of Codex's already done / at printers (not clear which)
3) Expansion opportunity for the future - i.e. Codex's having warlord traits, psychic powers relevant to the army
4) Mega Nobz most likely plastic next year
5) Main rule book FAQ out in August 12
6) Picking the bones out of Codex conversations - Chaos is done, Eldar currently being worked on
He also shared his personal opinion on 5th edition and said (with the greatest of respect) that Alessio Cavorte seemed to want to make the game more competitive and simplified. He thought that this made the game a little to flat and generic in its function (which I personally agreed with). His words were that it ‘lost its craziness’. 6th has therefore moved to address this and give more feel and character to the units and the game as a whole. It does seem to be a consensus amongst GW staff that 2nd was a great edition in many ways (although obviously broken in others).
Wait a minute, Alessio making the game competitive and simplified was a bad thing?!?
2nd ed took an entire day to set up and play. It was rife with silly herohammer garbage like a terminator librarian on combat drugs with a displacer field and other gak butchering half your army.
I think the crew are drunk on nostalgia.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
reds8n wrote:
They do want to increase the speed at which the codices/army books -- for three systems -- are released.
Are you referring to a new 3rd system or to the LoTRs stuff?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/07/15 16:03:22
MeanGreenStompa wrote:
2nd ed took an entire day to set up and play. It was rife with silly herohammer garbage like a terminator librarian on combat drugs with a displacer field and other gak butchering half your army.
He explained that rule setting is always going to be ‘a moving target’ and what works for one person is going to upset another. He said that there were many things that were out of his hands because business decisions have to be taken into account when developing game systems and rules.
While we all know that GW is a business and businesses strive to make money, I think that's the first time that I've seen one of the designers admit that the suits influence rules.
I've heard comments like this before, sometimes first hand but, to me this just reaffirms all of the data collected throughout the years dealing with this company. This also reaffirms why the rule set and the most recent codexs have been written in the matter to take advantage of the new codex in selling models only.
Business over balance of game play.
As far as the interview at the design studio. I only wished it was someone more prominent, and a more respected person doing the interview, than that site. It is still gives out decent information, once you remove the chaff of what has been reported. Maybe there will be more interviews from different sites for viewing in the near future. Now that I would be interested in seeing.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/07/15 16:15:47
Adam's Motto: Paint, Create, Play, but above all, have fun. -and for something silly below-
"We are the Ultramodrines, And We Shall Fear No Trolls. bear this USR with pride".
Also, how does one apply to be a member of the Ultramodrines? Are harsh trials involved, ones that would test my faith as a wargamer and resolve as a geek?
You must recite every rule of Dakka Dakka. BACKWARDS.
Interesting read. Always good to catch a glimpse into the minds at the design studio. An increase in production and release schedule is definitely welcomed when it comes to previously unreleased models missing from codex's.
MeanGreenStompa wrote:
2nd ed took an entire day to set up and play. It was rife with silly herohammer garbage like a terminator librarian on combat drugs with a displacer field and other gak butchering half your army.
It was pretty funny though.
And more fun than Blandhammer 40K 3rd edition - though to be fair it was the one time that GW was able to reset everyone's codex back to the beginning!
MeanGreenStompa wrote:
2nd ed took an entire day to set up and play. It was rife with silly herohammer garbage like a terminator librarian on combat drugs with a displacer field and other gak butchering half your army.
It was pretty funny though.
And more fun than Blandhammer 40K 3rd edition - though to be fair it was the one time that GW was able to reset everyone's codex back to the beginning!
I had a blast in 3rd edition except when games involved the two overpowered/broken codicies (Space Wolves and Chaos Marines 3.5.. the second version with customizable daemon princes). I'd say blandhammer might be a good name for using ONLY the armies in the back of the rulebook but not when referring to battles between two codex-available armies. Those of us who came into the game in 3rd generally found the 2nd edition books (that we universally bought for the fluff) an incomprehensible mess compared to the clarity we had in the then current early 3rd edition. To each his own I guess...
warboss wrote:
I had a blast in 3rd edition except when games involved the two overpowered/broken codicies (Space Wolves and Chaos Marines 3.5.. the second version with customizable daemon princes). I'd say blandhammer might be a good name for using ONLY the armies in the back of the rulebook but not when referring to battles between two codex-available armies. Those of us who came into the game in 3rd generally found the 2nd edition books (that we universally bought for the fluff) an incomprehensible mess compared to the clarity we had in the then current early 3rd edition. To each his own I guess...
I think the idea is that a balance can be found between the craziness of 2nd and the formality of 3rd - I think we're nearing that point in a couple more codex releases.
natfka wrote:Faeit 212 Exclusive: 40k Design Studio Open Day Saturday, July 14, 2012 Q1. What were the key objectives of 6th Edition?
The ultimate goal of 6th edition according to Jervis was to tackle what both he and Matt described as ‘Associative and Disassociative’ rules and to add more realism to the game.
E.g. If a poisoned dagger had +1 WS in close combat, that would be deemed ‘dissacoiatve’ as it makes little sense. However, if it gave you a re-roll to wound, that would be ‘associative’ as it would capture the essence of a poisoned attack being made and potentially causing damage as a result of it being laced with some horrifying toxin.
Other examples of ‘associative’ rules included the abiltiy to throw grenades and the distinction between different power weapons. By making certain rules ‘associative’, the game adds more ‘weight’ to the feel of units on the table. Flyers crashing to the ground is another example of this, as is wound allocation in shooting (models vanishing from the front of units and not the back), Its all about realism.
k, I buy that... I can agree with you there...
Q4. Why Hull Points?
According to Matt Ward, vehicles in previous editions didn’t seem to fit very well with the rest of the game system and made for odd and peculiar situations. He mentioned that there was little granularity to the vehicle rules compared to other unit types. The addition of Hull Points is therefore used to make vehicles more inclusive during a game and give them a continued presence even after having taken a few direct hits. Jervis said that it flattened out the extremes. Vehicles used to get obliterated in turn one or take damage that would render them ineffective for a turn or two which really didn’t flow too well. Hull Points therefore allow players to enjoy the attributes of their expensive vehicles without them vanishing off the table having done virtually nothing.
Still with you. Logical. An odd solution to the problem, but I haven't played with it enough yet to know if I agree with you there.
Q6. Why allies and fortifications?
Jervis said that the old fluff in previous editions made many references to scenarios where different races forged alliances in various situations. He felt that later editions had polarised armies and made them rather restricted. They want to open up the game as a means to circumvent some of those restrictions and allow for more diverse tactics on the table. The fluff can now follow on and provide literature that encompasses those often tenuous alliances. Many alliances have obvious narrative value.
In terms of fortifications, Jervis considered these beautiful plastic kits as somewhat wasted given their aesthetic value on the table. Giving these kits rules and points values feeds into the ‘associative’ aspect of 6th edition. I do agree here as I often wished for rules regarding the 5 massive quad guns in my terrain box!
I get you on the second one, but you totally lost me on the first. I mean, what you SAY is obvious, but how you DID it runs counter to this, as that whole allies matrix is unweildy, contradictory, and makes about as much sense as an autistic kid in a bowl of alphabet soup. Giving such a considered reason for the move, then making the move with no obvious signs of reasoning, balance, or adherance to fluff makes it a pointless mess.
Q6. Why random charge distances?
This rule apparently came as a result of the ‘associative’ wound allocation and Overwatch rules. There are 2 aspects to this however. If your front line is going to take Snapfire hits, there needs to be some compensation for the front line going down and cutting your charge range. The random charge role helps a unit to get into combat regardless of having been whittled down at the front (provided you roll high enough), but it also adds a sense of realism in that battles are violent and chaotic – meaning that sometimes, for whatever reason, you just don’t make it far enough! Jervis acknowledged that some gamers don’t like having control removed, but argued that a swirling battle full of death, destruction and explosions wasn’t really an environment where controlled and predictable actions were likely! In his words, it adds ‘tension and drama’ to the game.
It doesn't add "tension and drama." It removes an aspect of the game. If you want to add "a sense of realism in battles that are violent and chaotic" then why are not all movement values random? "Well, I was walking across that field, and I tripped over a rock. Cost my unit a few inches of movement because of it." If they honestly believe that random movement BENEFITS assault armies to make up for snapfire wounds, then that only cements my belief that these guys to not playtest this game and have no understanding of number theory. If they wanted assaulters to get in inspite of snapfire wounds, they would have found a better way of doing it. This is either a lie or a misunderstanding of a rule that they themselves created. It appears to be the latter. "Tension and Drama" are already created by snapfire. The randomness that can change your charge range? SNAP FIRE! If the target rolls high, your charge range gets reduced to below 6". If they roll poorly or average, your charge range stays at 6" You are introducing two sets of random variables where you once had none. Only one was needed to acheive the stated goal.
Q9. Why change the Psychic rules?
The team wanted to make Psykers more akin to Wizards in WHFB. They felt that a half page of rules in a codex simply didn’t do them justice, especially for the likes of special character psykers. Lets face it, a psyker firing d6 s4 AP- hits in the shooting phase is little more than a gun and therefore, a menial extension to the shooting rules. The team considered the random aspect of it more ‘associative’ given the dangerous and often unpredictable nature of warp manipulation.
I don't disagree for the most part. Psykers SHOULD be more than "just guns." I do however disagree with random "powers," as that makes them little more than "Wizards in WHFB." Random Wizard spells is an artifact of Dungeons and Dragons, where a wizard would have a whole spell book, but would memorize particular ones for a given day. Going off the assumption that your army is caught by surprise any time it is in a battle (a false and ludicrous assumption) you randomize your spells to figure out what your wizard was thinking about that morning. Naturally that goes counter to the realism that most armies don't just wander aimlessly around for no reason, but are usually manuvering to fight a particular enemy, making being "caught unprepared" to fight a particular force the exception rather than the norm. I digress.
Psykers are not mages. They either can weild a power or they can not. Why would they be spontaneously able to use one power but not another? That's all fine and good for chaos, but imperial psykers (especially Librarians) are trained to maintain control on their dark gift, lest their wandering mind be open for chaotic possession. Better ways to do this than just another RNG.
Some extra tidbits:
· 6th Edition was actually finished 6 months ago
So they still could have been advertising it to us, feeding us tidbits to get us foaming at the mouth... I see.
· The reason that charges are not allowed on Deep Strike is to prevent the utter predictability of mega-hard units appearing anywhere and destroying whatever they want every game. There was a possible hint about Genestealers being able to do this at some point in the future!
Which is also why they shortened the charges from vehicles and eliminated all other forms of assaulting from reserves such as WWP, outflanking, etc.? Deep strike is one thing, since you will start right there in charge range. Outflanking only starts in turn 2 at best, then has a 1/3 chance to come in on a bad side, and can be avoided. WWP is the same. Displace and avoid. Deepstrike can't be avoided. These are seperate things.
· The new edition nerf’s some units and provides buff’s to others. The new Codex’s will rebalance incidents where this is too extreme.
"Just like we did for Flayed Ones!"
Next I spoke to Phil Kelly (the dude) who again is a really sound guy (and by the way - he isn't leaving GW).
Phil said that there are currently 6 ‘projects’ on the go for 40k. I think he was referring to Codex’s. I asked him about Tyranids too and he said (rather excitedly) that he has ‘some really great ideas up his sleeve’ for the Nids. Sounds encouraging! It's worth noting that everyone I spoke to in the design team understands the need for Nids to get a boost.
So the idea that we've had that no company could survive by not having their releases planned and working monthes in advance is true, and this confirms that they continue to tell us nothing for their own inscrutable reasons.
He also shared his personal opinion on 5th edition and said (with the greatest of respect) that Alessio Cavorte seemed to want to make the game more competitive and simplified. He thought that this made the game a little to flat and generic in its function (which I personally agreed with). His words were that it ‘lost its craziness’. 6th has therefore moved to address this and give more feel and character to the units and the game as a whole. It does seem to be a consensus amongst GW staff that 2nd was a great edition in many ways (although obviously broken in others).
So the major redeeming factor of 5th ed is, at least in his view (and possibly GW's) it's worst quality? I suppose it explains why GW stopped supporting tournaments... but their honest solution to the game being "flat and generic" was to introduce a system where by every army bar one could take the exact same broken units to support them or cover glaring holes in their army books, functionally making every book the same and thereby further removing distinction between armies? Are they seriously not aware of how that sounds? The core rules SHOULD be flat and generic! It is up to the codecies to provide variation and flavor! That's the point of any core rules set: to provide a stable framework around which the game is played. You can't return to the spirit of a previous age. And with some, you should not even bother to try. They are best left in the past. All of the editions had their redeeming qualities, but the least balanced of them should not be the picture that you hold yourself against.
Lastly I spoke to Robin Cruddace. I asked him about GW’s release schedule and to my utter amazement, he said that they were aiming for some sort of release each month. Be it a codex or some sort of expansion. I would be surprised if this were true!
He said that there would most likely need to be a larger number of expansions between now and 4 years time so that you don’t reach a point where all codex’s for 6th are released with 2 years still to go before the next cycle.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
Heaven forbid all the rules should be current at the same time! OH NO! Then you might have to release additional rules and models in your hobby magazine and give people a reason to buy it! Let's focus on ACTUALLY releasing all your codecies for one edition. Then we can worry about what to do if there are gaps, hmm? Or here's an idea: release the expansions AFTER all of your codecies are out if you think (somehow) that your edition is stable enough (rules wise and fiscally) to keep it around instead of releasing a new edition just to promote sales. Then you can continue interest with new ways of playing via expansion or campaign rules. And hey! These could even have new rules for every army in them, allowing for more models to be sold. You might even focus on 2-4 armies at a time in these expansions or campaigns to prevent overload. If only GW had seen something like that before. Some template with a proven success record of generating new models (read: sales,) back story, rules, and modelling ideas. If only...
The Armageddon and Eye of Terror campaigns got me into this game. Storm of Chaos got me into Fantasy. Actual, solid campaign rules (especially ones to go with those handy and ingenious little map tiles) would keep me playing it. That goes double for WHFB, as campaign play is rediculously fun and better to hold interest than even tournies, as it blends the best of both worlds. It's where D+D dorks and competitive gamers can meet in the middle, carving out their own stories with a roll of the bones and a cunning plan.
Therion wrote:
6th edition lands on June 23rd!
Good news. This is the best time in the hobby. Full of promise. GW lets us down each time and we know it but secretly we're hoping that this is the edition that GW gives us a balanced game that can also be played competitively at tournaments. I'm loving it.
He also shared his personal opinion on 5th edition and said (with the greatest of respect) that Alessio Cavorte seemed to want to make the game more competitive and simplified. He thought that this made the game a little to flat and generic in its function (which I personally agreed with). His words were that it ‘lost its craziness’. 6th has therefore moved to address this and give more feel and character to the units and the game as a whole. It does seem to be a consensus amongst GW staff that 2nd was a great edition in many ways (although obviously broken in others).
Remember kids, having rules that are written in a way that leads to an actually playable game isn't zany enough. What we needed all along was to throw game balance to the wolves and have fist fights over how psychic hoods actually work. Matt Ward sounds like a great guy, get him the feth away from 40k. Apparently a nice guy is the last thing the game needs.
This rule apparently came as a result of the ‘associative’ wound allocation and Overwatch rules. There are 2 aspects to this however. If your front line is going to take Snapfire hits, there needs to be some compensation for the front line going down and cutting your charge range. The random charge role helps a unit to get into combat regardless of having been whittled down at the front (provided you roll high enough), but it also adds a sense of realism in that battles are violent and chaotic – meaning that sometimes, for whatever reason, you just don’t make it far enough! Jervis acknowledged that some gamers don’t like having control removed, but argued that a swirling battle full of death, destruction and explosions wasn’t really an environment where controlled and predictable actions were likely! In his words, it adds ‘tension and drama’ to the game.
Unless my unit is actually shot at that is dissasociative. You guys are awful at this.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2012/07/15 17:21:12
----------------
Do you remember that time that thing happened?
This is a bad thread and you should all feel bad
Because all their own monstrous creatures with more wounds and toughness aren't good enough! Instead they let people use grenades in cc so now when I charge a squad of marines, instead of facing 10 S4 attacks I now face 10 S6 attacks! Hooray!
I have thought since my first couple 6th games that the new edition was not as competitive as 5th and was designed to make the game "wild and crazy, where anything can happen!" I see now that was truly their intention all along. I'm not sure I can get behind that, but I'll try to adapt.
Kroothawk wrote:
- New Codices higher price than 5th edition paperback ones
That's how I read that one initially
Tau codex, which launched at £12 in 2006 is now £20 before it even gets into hard back with extra pages for 6th edition. (This edition is only 64 pages, a lot of them recycled from the 3rd edition codex.)
Tau codex, which launched at £12 in 2006 is now £20 before it even gets into hard back with extra pages for 6th edition. (This edition is only 64 pages, a lot of them recycled from the 3rd edition codex.)
It's nuts, frankly. The same Tau codex, albeit updated for 6th, will probably be upwards of £25, maybe more. I mean, I like the production values on the new rulebook and all the artwork is spiffing, it really is but it gets to a point where all the nice, glossy pages and finery can not dress up the fact that I am paying through the nose for a book.
When the new space marine book came out and we saw how thick it was, I was happy with its price. Most of the books after had similar amounts of content in them (though unfortunately still not as much), and overall I like them.
No madam, 40,000 is the year that this game is set in. Not how much it costs. Though you may have a point. - GW Fulchester 
The Gatling Guns have flamethrowers on them because this is 40k 
Now, where are all these bound monsters to unleash ....
-- must have spent a couple of hours in total just chatting to the design studio guys. If you ever get the chance to attend something like this it's well worth it 
-- has been handling the 
-and for something silly below-
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
