TechMarine1 wrote: 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.
I'd rather they did was Target Games or Rackham did, which was to die away. :-P
Transporthammer didn't appeal to a lot of people, I imagine.
Which could have easily been remedied* by just adding in the current hull point system. But, no. We get a load of other unnecessary gak for 40k's unilateral development. 5th was excellent IMO and only needed a few tweaks, not the unnecessary change for the sake of change wound allocation and random charges for example.
*Frankly this was never as bad as the Internet claimed it to be. In casual environments I have never come across these "parking lot" armies that were apparently so prevalent in 5th.
Transporthammer didn't appeal to a lot of people, I imagine.
Which could have easily been remedied* by just adding in the current hull point system. But, no. We get a load of other unnecessary gak for 40k's unilateral development. 5th was excellent IMO and only needed a few tweaks, not the unnecessary change for the sake of change wound allocation and random charges for example.
*Frankly this was never as bad as the Internet claimed it to be. In casual environments I have never come across these "parking lot" armies that were apparently so prevalent in 5th.
Sadly I did, playing my 1 of each leman russ + 2 vets in chimeras + commisar lord list against Mephiston, 6 lasplas razorbacks and 6 5 man assault squads with 1 melta and a powerfist each every club meet is what drove me away from the game.
And this was supposed to be casual play too
I'd rather they did was Target Games or Rackham did, which was to die away. :-P
In fairness Target didn't die, they just changed their name to Paradox development studio (and then to Paradox Interactive) and moved away from miniature wargaming. They are more succesful now than they ever have been and they make really good games.
I used to love playing against parking lot lists with my Deathwing. Sure, they'd take out a few termies en route in, but once my power fists and chainfists started swinging, the battlefield looked more like a junkheap than a parking lot. :p
5th was reasonably balanced, despite having some army builds that were more effective than others. You could create a genuine TAC list at 1500-2000 pts. Sure, it'd have good and bad matchups, but player skill was still essential. Not sure that most armies can do a genuine TAC list in 6th.
Anyway. 7th. I don't believe it right now, 'cos the Natfka "solid source" claimed that it "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.". Given that GW didn't call 6th edition anything in particular (it's just the Warhammer 40,000 rulebook), why would they call 7th, 7th?
Can't tell you the exact year I started, but I do still have my second edition boxed game and Dark Millenium and all the cards that were in it.
I don't think anything nafka says should be included in this rumour, hes just piggy backing off something reliable to get hits.
The original rumour comes from a source thats been completely correct on everything as far as I am aware, and whilst that doesnt make it seem any less an insane idea to me, it does mean its something to be taken a bit more seriously.
I cant see it achieving anything other than destroying the one seemingly booming market they have created the last 18 months, the special edition books at 100%+ increased prices. (who will continue to pay that for 2 years use - 5th edition limited rulebook can be bought on ebay for £10 now, for instance, its not just use, but the value of the things that disapear when superceded)
Not sure why people find the idea that GW could cut their rules cycle down to 2 years improbable. It's clear GW found out that words can be profitable. I'm not convinced it's a good way of making money for GW specifically, but that won't change the fact we'll be seeing a lot more written material, on much shorter cycles.
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.
Hence me putting down 'to any real degree'.
But units that don't work on paper like the Chariot are far worse than oversights in the last edition. This is why I feel it was passed over more than in prior editions.
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.
Yeah, Tac squads went from being jokes to hard as nails just that quick.
Of course, that declined steadily with time as they've kept the same durability, while heavy and special weapons have proliferated and gotten deadlier.
Spoke with someone in the loop yesterday, when I told him
about the 7th edition rumors he laughed. His exact words were "you don't bite the hand that feeds you". He did, however, add that a consolidated rulebook is likely. But no new starter boxes, and no books on deck that would make 6th edition/SHA/Escalation obsolete.
sand.zzz wrote: Spoke with a long time GW employee yesterday, when I told him
about the 7th edition rumors he laughed. His exact words were "you don't bite the hand that feeds you". He did, however, add that a consolidated rulebook is likely. But no new starter boxes, and no books on deck that would make 6th edition/SHA/Escalation obsolete.
He wouldn't be in any position to know more than us at this point, and as for not biting anything? That's a laugh!
sand.zzz wrote: Spoke with a long time GW employee yesterday, when I told him
about the 7th edition rumors he laughed. His exact words were "you don't bite the hand that feeds you". He did, however, add that a consolidated rulebook is likely. But no new starter boxes, and no books on deck that would make 6th edition/SHA/Escalation obsolete.
He wouldn't be in any position to know more than us at this point, and as for not biting anything? That's a laugh!
Well I give a bit more credence to his words that I do internet speculations. No offense meant.
But consider the provenance of this rumour (it was originally attributed to the same guy who provided all the Space Marine and Dark Elf release info to them by 40KRadio) and compare that to the likelihood of your guy being even more "in the know."
I'm not saying its wrong, while I like the idea of a new edition that we can all dream will make 40K awesome and fix everyone's problems with it, I think a 6th Ed Revised is probably the more likely outcome at this point.
Anyway. 7th. I don't believe it right now, 'cos the Natfka "solid source" claimed that it "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.". Given that GW didn't call 6th edition anything in particular (it's just the Warhammer 40,000 rulebook), why would they call 7th, 7th?
I'm with you.
I feel like most of his rumors are just people piggybacking off of other rumors or guessing. 40kradio has a great record, so now people are making up stuff assuming that they are right again.
I'm glad someone pointed this out.
I think it's just going to be a big compilation of the rules they've vomited out lately. Maybe slight updates to some mechanics.
Given G\W's money grab tendencies and the accelerated code cycle, I think it's plausible that GW will try to dump out a 7th ed.
With this reasoning:
"Well, they seem to be buying all of these new codexes really quickly, and they're buying all of these dataslates and supplements and WD mags... It seems to me that they all want more rules faster.
So we need to cobble together a new rulebook ASAP as quickly as possible, and then sell it for as much as possible! They'll love that!! Oh, and the price will go up, but the content will go down, because that's what our customers love!"
Selym wrote: Given G\W's money grab tendencies and the accelerated code cycle, I think it's plausible that GW will try to dump out a 7th ed.
With this reasoning:
"Well, they seem to be buying all of these new codexes really quickly, and they're buying all of these dataslates and supplements and WD mags... It seems to me that they all want more rules faster.
So we need to cobble together a new rulebook ASAP as quickly as possible, and then sell it for as much as possible! They'll love that!! Oh, and the price will go up, but the content will go down, because that's what our customers love!"
And lets make assault overpowered and shooting nerfed so bad tau and eldar will suck!They'll have to buy a new codex to win!And we shall half boxes and TRIPLE prices.That way models mean more to the player and everyone wins!Lets put ward in charge of a new grey knights codex with nobody editing it or keeping an eye on him!And lets put centurions inside a dreadknight!
Started collecting in 96, started playing just a few months before 3rd Armaggedon Campaign.
Like said before, 5th wasn't that bad, the only big beefs i had with it is the ridiculous Wound allocation system, and vehicles resiliency was a bit Toooo far for some of them.
the problem is that GW can't balance things for sh*t, in place of just making something like"...each time a vehicle is shaken/stunned, put a marker next to it, if the vehicle gets xx markers, reroll the damage dice" or "the ennemy player gets a +1 on the damage chart vs that vehicle".
because the Hp systeme makes them really too fragile compared to the Hardcore to dent from 5th.
Selym wrote: Given G\W's money grab tendencies and the accelerated code cycle, I think it's plausible that GW will try to dump out a 7th ed.
With this reasoning: "Well, they seem to be buying all of these new codexes really quickly, and they're buying all of these dataslates and supplements and WD mags... It seems to me that they all want more rules faster. So we need to cobble together a new rulebook ASAP as quickly as possible, and then sell it for as much as possible! They'll love that!! Oh, and the price will go up, but the content will go down, because that's what our customers love!"
And lets make assault overpowered and shooting nerfed so bad tau and eldar will suck!They'll have to buy a new codex to win!And we shall half boxes and TRIPLE prices.That way models mean more to the player and everyone wins!Lets put ward in charge of a new grey knights codex with nobody editing it or keeping an eye on him!And lets put centurions inside a dreadknight!
"And the next edition comes with a free kick to the nuts! No wait! What am I saying? We'll make them pay for the kick to the nuts! And they will!"
See, any idiot can do what you're doing. It isn't big or clever. It doesn't add to the discussion.
Slayer le boucher wrote: Started collecting in 96, started playing just a few months before 3rd Armaggedon Campaign.
Like said before, 5th wasn't that bad, the only big beefs i had with it is the ridiculous Wound allocation system, and vehicles resiliency was a bit Toooo far for some of them.
the problem is that GW can't balance things for sh*t, in place of just making something like"...each time a vehicle is shaken/stunned, put a marker next to it, if the vehicle gets xx markers, reroll the damage dice" or "the ennemy player gets a +1 on the damage chart vs that vehicle".
because the Hp systeme makes them really too fragile compared to the Hardcore to dent from 5th.
5th had some wonky wound allocation, but 6th is just atrocious. Love seeing the artillery snipers in action and one guy tanking wounds for a 50 man guard blob.
On-topic: I'd love to see a 7th edition with radically different rules, but I think at best we will see a re-release bundle with updates, etc.
His Master's Voice wrote: Not sure why people find the idea that GW could cut their rules cycle down to 2 years improbable. It's clear GW found out that words can be profitable. I'm not convinced it's a good way of making money for GW specifically, but that won't change the fact we'll be seeing a lot more written material, on much shorter cycles.
This pretty much. GW is using every trick it has to maintain a positive report to shareholders. Price hikes have more or less run their course of effectiveness, so now it's book bombardment. They discovered how cheap and simple it is to make army books and expansions, especially if it's a digital-only release. Only reason this may come out.
Lots of speculation based on a negative view of GW. Your opinion of how they do business doesn't equate to accurate forecasts on new ruleset releases. Over the past 10 years - if you look at the changes GW made to production, global recession, losses to internet resales, knock-offs, various other storms, etc.. - you can see how they could justify price increases on products.
Dramatically reducing a rules cycle is a whole different endeavor. They likely haven't even sold enough Escalation/SHA books, (or even printed enough) to break even. So not only would they be alienating the playerbase by making brand new books obsolete, but also losing any chance at turning a profit on those books. Shooting themselves in both feet.
I know a lot of you dislike GW, greed, bad rules, etc. But a new edition this year would be a bad decision on many levels. Dont confuse your own distaste with GW for the ability to forecast their strategy. 7th edition makes little to no sense right now. Especially when a consolidated 6th edition would require far less work, cost as much (or more), and still leave their expansion books in a relevant place regarding sales.
sand.zzz wrote: Lots of speculation based on a negative view of GW. Your opinion of how they do business doesn't equate to accurate forecasts on new ruleset releases. Over the past 10 years - if you look at the changes GW made to production, global recession, losses to internet resales, knock-offs, various other storms, etc.. - you can see how they could justify price increases on products.
Dramatically reducing a rules cycle is a whole different endeavor. They likely haven't even sold enough Escalation/SHA books, (or even printed enough) to break even. So not only would they be alienating the playerbase by making brand new books obsolete, but also losing any chance at turning a profit on those books. Shooting themselves in both feet.
I know a lot of you dislike GW, greed, bad rules, etc. But a new edition this year would be a bad decision on many levels. Dont confuse your own distaste with GW for the ability to forecast their strategy. 7th edition makes little to no sense right now. Especially when a consolidated 6th edition would require far less work, cost as much (or more), and still leave their expansion books in a relevant place regarding sales.
There's decades of GW's history to take our "estimates" from. We're getting rather good at it, imo.
Transporthammer didn't appeal to a lot of people, I imagine.
So if I understand correctly from all the responses, 5th would have been just fine if they slightly tweaked the vehicle rules a bit?
I don't see how that justifies this kind of reaction, personally:
battlematt wrote: 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.
"Vehicles are slightly too good" = "abortion of a rules system"?
Honest question... i see a lot of comments both on dakka and other sites about "who wants another 85.00 huge book !? "
... am i alone that i love the big rule book ? I read it when i'm bored, the fluff, the model gallery, etc., ... i read it when my GF watches her vapid HGTV shows...
I like them. I'll be bummed out if they don't keep producing them.
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.
1995 here, though with a short stint off in college for about 2 years that i played a game only every couple of months or so.
... which is nuts, i literally for the first time realized i've been tabletop gaming for almost 20 fething years.
"Vehicles are slightly too good" = "abortion of a rules system"?
Its just internet talk. I'm sure most of the people deriding GW and the 40k rules - spend enough free time on the hobby that you'd never guess they hated it so much.
Haight wrote: Honest question... i see a lot of comments both on dakka and other sites about "who wants another 85.00 huge book !? "
... am i alone that i love the big rule book ? I read it when i'm bored, the fluff, the model gallery, etc., ... i read it when my GF watches her vapid HGTV shows...
I like them. I'll be bummed out if they don't keep producing them.
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.
1995 here, though with a short stint off in college for about 2 years that i played a game only every couple of months or so.
... which is nuts, i literally for the first time realized i've been tabletop gaming for almost 20 fething years.
Rogue Trader something like 1992. Had to take a break from like 2002 until 2012 however, just too damn busy.
Haight wrote: Honest question... i see a lot of comments both on dakka and other sites about "who wants another 85.00 huge book !? "
... am i alone that i love the big rule book ? I read it when i'm bored, the fluff, the model gallery, etc., ... i read it when my GF watches her vapid HGTV shows...
I like them. I'll be bummed out if they don't keep producing them.
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.
1995 here, though with a short stint off in college for about 2 years that i played a game only every couple of months or so.
... which is nuts, i literally for the first time realized i've been tabletop gaming for almost 20 fething years.
Rogue Trader something like 1992. Had to take a break from like 2002 until 2012 however, just too damn busy.
ShatteredBlade wrote: Honestly I have not played a game in a year now. I'm just getting back into the swing of things and I'm unsure if I would want this huge rule book.
I can get that, though for me, its probably the single item with the most ROI is the main rulebook for any game. I read them constantly. I probably have more hours logged reading rule books, codexes, armybooks, etc etc., than i have modeling or painting or playing. Hell, possibly all of those three put together, possibly, when i used to play WM/H competitively.
85.00 for a main rule book is a lot, but when i think that i will literally get dozens - if not hundreds - of hours of reading enjoyment out of them, the ROI seems pretty small. Also the fact that you can get it for 20% off in a lot of places pads the blow.
But yeah, it is a big chunk of change, that i totally get.
ShatteredBlade wrote: Honestly I have not played a game in a year now. I'm just getting back into the swing of things and I'm unsure if I would want this huge rule book.
I can get that, though for me, its probably the single item with the most ROI is the main rulebook for any game. I read them constantly. I probably have more hours logged reading rule books, codexes, armybooks, etc etc., than i have modeling or painting or playing. Hell, possibly all of those three put together, possibly, when i used to play WM/H competitively.
85.00 for a main rule book is a lot, but when i think that i will literally get dozens - if not hundreds - of hours of reading enjoyment out of them, the ROI seems pretty small. Also the fact that you can get it for 20% off in a lot of places pads the blow.
But yeah, it is a big chunk of change, that i totally get.
Guess it depends on whether you like the fluff or not... if not the rule book is quite overpriced.
The problem is that this Rumor does not make sense. GW may be incompetent buffoons when it comes to making business but they aren't dumb enough to do something like this.
Bronzefists42 wrote: The problem is that this Rumor does not make sense. GW may be incompetent buffoons when it comes to making business but they aren't dumb enough to do something like this.
I hope....
I think you'd need to qualify "doesn't make sense"
If 6th is unpopular, and people have started playing, and more importantly buying, less, then a new edition in order to try and fix things ASAP makes sense.
If they need or want to modify the structure of the game to support some other agenda (eg to manipulate the player base's buying behaviour to better dovetail with new production methods) then it makes sense.
If they want to consolidate a number of expansions into one volume in order to make a higher margin and keep the number of SKUs lower, it makes sense.
There's multiple, valid business reasons that this could be possible, and the only one thing that really undermines it is them not wanting some people on the Internet to get butthurt over a new book a bit too soon.
Bronzefists42 wrote: The problem is that this Rumor does not make sense. GW may be incompetent buffoons when it comes to making business but they aren't dumb enough to do something like this.
I hope....
I think you'd need to qualify "doesn't make sense"
If 6th is unpopular, and people have started playing, and more importantly buying, less, then a new edition in order to try and fix things ASAP makes sense.
If they need or want to modify the structure of the game to support some other agenda (eg to manipulate the player base's buying behaviour to better dovetail with new production methods) then it makes sense.
If they want to consolidate a number of expansions into one volume in order to make a higher margin and keep the number of SKUs lower, it makes sense.
There's multiple, valid business reasons that this could be possible, and the only one thing that really undermines it is them not wanting some people on the Internet to get butthurt over a new book a bit too soon.
At this point I'm pretty GW can do whatever they want and some people will pay full retail for it without question.
If it's 7th I think everyone needs to take a good hard look at what the hobby is to them, because if GW is willing to invalidate what you own without a care, then maybe its time to put the boots to them.
I was explaining this to a friend earlier today that 40k is becoming a house of cards, supplements on top of dataslates on top of formations that all can be pushed over at anytime with the possibility of never coming back. If it is 7th, and we as a community support it without question then it will just encourage GW to ditch editions whenever they feel like leaving some armies in the dust or invalidating an army that you didn't even finish. There is a point where you have to say enough is enough.
I guess that depends on what constitutes "your 40K"
I'm pretty sure my armies won't be invalidated, as I have a broad collection of units (one of my armies is SM which helps with flexibility) because I tend to collect what I fancy painting or gaming with, draw up a list game by game and experiment a lot.
If I had a set, focused list, I guess I'd be more vulnerable to edition changes, and I would sympathise with people who felt hard done by because of that, but an edition change doesn't fill me with dread, in fact I'm keen for the new challenges and variety it would bring.
Bronzefists42 wrote: The problem is that this Rumor does not make sense. GW may be incompetent buffoons when it comes to making business but they aren't dumb enough to do something like this.
I hope....
I think you'd need to qualify "doesn't make sense"
If 6th is unpopular, and people have started playing, and more importantly buying, less, then a new edition in order to try and fix things ASAP makes sense.
If they need or want to modify the structure of the game to support some other agenda (eg to manipulate the player base's buying behaviour to better dovetail with new production methods) then it makes sense.
If they want to consolidate a number of expansions into one volume in order to make a higher margin and keep the number of SKUs lower, it makes sense.
There's multiple, valid business reasons that this could be possible, and the only one thing that really undermines it is them not wanting some people on the Internet to get butthurt over a new book a bit too soon.
Well they just released the SM codex and GW would never dare harm their precious poster child And you do make a good point though, this does seem very GW. Also I am saying if this is 7th Ed not 6th ed and pals compiled and slightly altered.
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
I didn't say people couldn't deal with it.
I said it didn't appeal to people.
Basically, it was boring as hell to play and even more boring to watch.
Broken deathstars is a poor counter-point because deathstars aren't "the meta", like transport hammer was. Every army in 5th edition that had transports used the MSU+Transport build. Only two 6th edition factions even have powerful deathstars.
Noir Eternal wrote: Except I played Crons in 5th edition even before they got re-done and never had an issue with dealing with Transporthammer players.
You mean your army where virtually every gun glanced on a 6+ had no problems with vehicles?
Bronzefists42 wrote: The problem is that this Rumor does not make sense. GW may be incompetent buffoons when it comes to making business but they aren't dumb enough to do something like this.
I hope....
They have an amazing record for incompetent buffoons. If you purchased GW stock 10 years ago, youre up about 750% today.
So perhaps you don't understand things as well as you think you do.
Bronzefists42 wrote: The problem is that this Rumor does not make sense. GW may be incompetent buffoons when it comes to making business but they aren't dumb enough to do something like this.
I hope....
They have an amazing record for incompetent buffoons. If you purchased GW stock 10 years ago, youre up about 750% today.
So perhaps you don't understand things as well as you think you do.
I really don't think you understand things as well as you think you do if you think that GW are in a good position financially.
jonolikespie wrote: I really don't think you understand things as well as you think you do if you think that GW are in a good position financially.
I may not be as tenured as a lot of the rest of you, seeing as I really only got into GW/40k around 2006ish, however the one constant was people screaming "GW are fething themselves into a corner and out of business by doing X".
I am far from a fan of a lot of their business choices (generic Australian feels) and figure that eventually there is going to be an adapt-or-die situation.
However I don't think it is going to be the sudden round-the-corner sort of timeframe I keep hearing.
People still willing to buy their man-dollies at higher prices = Money in their pocket. Until the very last moment when everyone has jumped ship with their golden parachutes GW is going to GW.
I'm no business-ologist but as long as the share prices are high, isn't that the one defining factor of success for a publicly traded company?
Sure it might screw up in the future if things are that bad but that is Future-GWs problem.
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
1987. I quit for 20 years because second edition models were such gak.
October of 1994 at the rise of 2nd edition (former Battletech player that got sucked into it); bought the boxed set and sold off the orks and gretchen, then bought some older eldar off a friend and the rest is history. Have owned/played every army except for Necrons, Orks and Daemons. Got into their specialist games soon-after with Blood Bowl in 98 and BFG in 99.
I did the tourney circuit back in 99-2001 (plus some occasional ones in 05-08 and Adepticon) so I feel I've ran the full gauntlet of this hobby from its changes back then.
I've only played a few games of 6th edition with my Marines and Eldar, but I find the rapid-fire releases a bit too-little-too late for me. If they had taken this approach, say 5-10 years ago, I would have been eating it up. However, the older I get, I have found I have little time or energy to keep-up with this kind of escalation. I've sold-off all but 3 of my armies as I find concentrating on these is much easier for me, but still, the resources required to keep-up is not something I want to spend at this time.
I have started to get into other games that require far-less resources and I've found them a breath of fresh air. Not that I dislike 40k, far from it....I kind of feel that the game is "passing me by" so-to-speak?
I dunno....just my background in a nutshell, but maybe this rumored 7th edition is a consolidated project, or maybe it's not. I think us vets know better than to second-guess GW as they're liable to do anything, no matter how head-scratchingly weird it might be. Emperor knows we've seen enough from them to know better.....
jonolikespie wrote: I really don't think you understand things as well as you think you do if you think that GW are in a good position financially.
I may not be as tenured as a lot of the rest of you, seeing as I really only got into GW/40k around 2006ish, however the one constant was people screaming "GW are fething themselves into a corner and out of business by doing X".
I am far from a fan of a lot of their business choices (generic Australian feels) and figure that eventually there is going to be an adapt-or-die situation.
However I don't think it is going to be the sudden round-the-corner sort of timeframe I keep hearing.
People still willing to buy their man-dollies at higher prices = Money in their pocket. Until the very last moment when everyone has jumped ship with their golden parachutes GW is going to GW.
I'm no business-ologist but as long as the share prices are high, isn't that the one defining factor of success for a publicly traded company?
Sure it might screw up in the future if things are that bad but that is Future-GWs problem.
There is a LOT of evidence that GW are cutting costs left and right to keep their profits level, they are also selling less product at a higher mark up (not sure if it was this thread or another but someone calculated 5.31% less inventory moved last year) which means their customer base is shrinking (not a good thing when the biggest thing going for them is that 40k is the default game in most areas, people play it because people play it).
They are showing no growth at all, in fact they seem to be pulling away from non English markets, while their competitors are expanding rapidly, meaning that even if they are nor shrinking their market share is.
It's all well and good to point at forum posts from 10 years ago and stock prices and say the company hasn't gone bankrupt and that it the stock price is up and that that means they are doing well, but it's simply not taking into account enough information to make that call.
Also, yes their stock prince is up from 10 years ago but have a look at this, it's a mess.
Spoiler:
If you follow the pattern we are about to plummet again.
Spoiler:
Then while the last 6 months might not be the best indicator it does imply a downward trend and a lot of the big investor groups that controlled the company a year or two ago started selling at the start of this year.
As someone that hasn't built an army around a couple of units spammed, I'd welcome change. Would be pretty funny to see those WAAC players crying into their spamfests.
Slight tweeks to make Assault better, and more tactical options would be sweet, although I think the former is more likely
If you follow the pattern we are about to plummet again.
Spoiler:
Then while the last 6 months might not be the best indicator it does imply a downward trend and a lot of the big investor groups that controlled the company a year or two ago started selling at the start of this year.
That's not a huge variance. The company is pursuing new lines of business (selling supplements to existing products, digital releases, etc) which all involve capital expenditures. From what I can tell, they have invested a lot in new production and that affects cash on hand and other items that go into a stock price. They are detailing all this in earnings calls about their financial performance, and the stock price is affected as people wait and see if their investments / gambles prove fruitful.
The actions of the investment houses that own the majority of stock don't really have a huge impact on prices themselves. It's been the departure of key executives who are tied to those investment houses that people notice.
I don't see a weak company in these charts, I see a company trying to grow. It will be very interesting to see how they deliver on their areas of capital expenditure, and whether or not they are able to start earning again off their IP in potentially more profitable markets (such as video games - the new Space Hulk game leaves a lot to be desired.)
I can explain that: personally, I don't hate 6th, it's different but it's not so bad as to be worth scrapping and forking out for another book over. So I hope I compute. Can you point out the people who've said both that they don't want another book and that they hate 6th?
In fact, the people that are saying they do want a new edition all seem to cite the fact that they hate 6th as their reason for wanting it. Which makes total sense.
But yes, if *everyone* had said they hate 6th and then that same group of people had said they don't want a new edition, you'd be right
I don't hate 6th. I dislike how fragile vehicles are and dislike the core function of the game that allows the other guy to eliminate 300-500 points of my army before I can even have a turn, but that's been systemic since 3rd.
I'd love them to be brave and modernise the game from the ground up.
Alternate activations, or a system like Infinity, or something new that takes the game beyond igougo, which was fine when you had 30 or so models in 2nd, but makes the game drag a bit as they have pushed and pushed for ever higher model counts.
I'm not totally against 6th, its OK, but my group mostly play a home modified 2nd edition anyway, I would hate to be playing 6th in pick up games with the vast amount of new rules in various books and even digital only releases out there, its just impossible to keep track of and must be a nightmare for tournament organisers.
Agreed. The game rules are, and have always been, so clunky, counter-intuitive, and unclear, that they're not really very good for anything, and that only becomes more pronounced when you try to make the game support bigger armies and endless supplements each with the New Hawtness.
I'd love to see a radical redesign that keeps the spirit of each army, is *closer* to the spirit of most or all of the fluff, and lets you play fun, tense, exciting, balanced games in an hour or two. It's absolutely doable, but GW don't seem to want to do it.
Imo, "If" there is a different BRB in Sep '14... it will be a consolidation/clean-up the mess they've made by releasing too many modifications of the core rules.
Also, (also imo) GW has painted themselves into a corner as to any further "core rule changes" that will drive sales.
*Note- I said "core rule changes". To me this excludes codex and supplement changes, GW still has a good sales driver in these type of rule releases. It is the base rules in the BRB that they have run out of room.
My point here is that GW has taken a squad battle game with squad battle scaled models and have systematically expanded the game until there are no places left for which the game could grow into.
I mean we have had:
Squadhammer/Infantryhammer, Herohammer, Assaulthammer, Artilleryhammer, Tankhammer, Shoothammer, Flyhammer, Allyhammer, MChammer , ect, ect...
Each style was designed to expand the game which would then expand sales as players were forced to buy new models just to keep their armies playable/competitive.
Honestly, Without a major overhaul of the basic system, I just do not see where a base ruleset could go to drive sales.
Now as to my wishlist for a core rule revision, hmmm..
A) Take flyers out of the game and give them their own seperate mechanic/system. Such a system could tie into the base game as a pre-game skirmish but in game I liked flyers as a non model attacks similar to orbital strike and deep strike.
Hmm.. maybe just put a rule in that makes a flyer take a stall test (4+stalls) If it remains on the board for more than 1 turn and that any flying transports that disembark models are skimmers for the next game turn.
B)Get rid of Kill Points and bring back Victory Points. 40k was a futuristic sci-fantasy "wargame". Kill Points changed that by removing one of the key aspects that any wargamers should know. All wars are fought on a budget.
If people insist on keeping KP's then make unit gain a KP for every 50 points they cost and have the unit give up a KP for every 50 pts in unit losses. For Vehicles maybe their HP's would equal a KP.
C) Allies Matrix- Needs heavy rework. Get rid of simplistic mirror chart. (Looking at the Imperium her) Let some armies be battle brothers if one army is in charge but AoC if the other leads. This change would really help the chaos factions(LatD)
D) I'm a longtime Tau player and even I feel assault should be 6+d6 or at least 6+d3. And assaulting out of transports that haven't moved needs to comeback.
Actually, I'd like to see "assault out of any transport that was stationary or moved at combat speed" but model shootong overwatch get BS bonus unless vehicle is an assault or open topped type.
I would love to see a good 40k ruleset, I really would. I have 0 faith in GW making it, in fact I don't believe they would even try but since we are wishlisting here the 1 thing I'd like to see change the most is this:
I want the game to decide what scale it is.
If they want it to be a skirmish game great, cut the number of models needed and remove artillery and fliers. They have no place on a battlefield at that scale, aircraft should be crossing the board in seconds, not turns and artillery shouldn't be able to fire at something only 50 meters in front of it.
If they want it to be a mass battle game (which I suspect is what they were going for) great. But remove the crap like wound allocation and challenges. Make everything measured from the unit champions, make all the other models in their squads effectively wound counters for that 1 unit champion because a squad should not be 10 guys in a large scale battle game, a squad should be treated as 1 unit.
jonolikespie wrote: I would love to see a good 40k ruleset, I really would. I have 0 faith in GW making it, in fact I don't believe they would even try but since we are wishlisting here the 1 thing I'd like to see change the most is this:
I want the game to decide what scale it is.
If they want it to be a skirmish game great, cut the number of models needed and remove artillery and fliers. They have no place on a battlefield at that scale, aircraft should be crossing the board in seconds, not turns and artillery shouldn't be able to fire at something only 50 meters in front of it.
If they want it to be a mass battle game (which I suspect is what they were going for) great. But remove the crap like wound allocation and challenges. Make everything measured from the unit champions, make all the other models in their squads effectively wound counters for that 1 unit champion because a squad should not be 10 guys in a large scale battle game, a squad should be treated as 1 unit.
I'd actually want to see variable scales in 40k.
First a skirmish scale ruleset for about 0-750 pts (Or <20 models per side). This is you herohammer.
Then a tactical battle (such as most 40k games should be) for about 1,000-2,000 pts. No air support, some sort of "combined arms" allies.
And then a Large Battle ruleset, geared for 1,500-3,500 pts, allowing for allies, air support etc, while not bothering with fiddly crap like challenges etc.
And finally an Apocalypse ruleset for 3k+.
NoggintheNog wrote: I'd love them to be brave and modernise the game from the ground up.
Alternate activations, or a system like Infinity, or something new that takes the game beyond igougo, which was fine when you had 30 or so models in 2nd, but makes the game drag a bit as they have pushed and pushed for ever higher model counts.
I'm not totally against 6th, its OK, but my group mostly play a home modified 2nd edition anyway, I would hate to be playing 6th in pick up games with the vast amount of new rules in various books and even digital only releases out there, its just impossible to keep track of and must be a nightmare for tournament organisers.
I've always felt 40k went from a good larger skirmish-scale game in 2nd edition to a bad army-scale game 3rd edition onwards. I don't know why but I started a Tyranid army years ago (4th edition maybe), I played one game and decided moving anything more than 40 individual models per turn is silly and should really be relegated to regimental games like Fantasy. I haven't played with that Tyranid army again since then.
jonolikespie wrote: I would love to see a good 40k ruleset, I really would. I have 0 faith in GW making it, in fact I don't believe they would even try but since we are wishlisting here the 1 thing I'd like to see change the most is this:
I want the game to decide what scale it is.
If they want it to be a skirmish game great, cut the number of models needed and remove artillery and fliers. They have no place on a battlefield at that scale, aircraft should be crossing the board in seconds, not turns and artillery shouldn't be able to fire at something only 50 meters in front of it.
If they want it to be a mass battle game (which I suspect is what they were going for) great. But remove the crap like wound allocation and challenges. Make everything measured from the unit champions, make all the other models in their squads effectively wound counters for that 1 unit champion because a squad should not be 10 guys in a large scale battle game, a squad should be treated as 1 unit.
jonolikespie wrote: I would love to see a good 40k ruleset, I really would. I have 0 faith in GW making it, in fact I don't believe they would even try but since we are wishlisting here the 1 thing I'd like to see change the most is this:
I want the game to decide what scale it is.
If they want it to be a skirmish game great, cut the number of models needed and remove artillery and fliers. They have no place on a battlefield at that scale, aircraft should be crossing the board in seconds, not turns and artillery shouldn't be able to fire at something only 50 meters in front of it.
If they want it to be a mass battle game (which I suspect is what they were going for) great. But remove the crap like wound allocation and challenges. Make everything measured from the unit champions, make all the other models in their squads effectively wound counters for that 1 unit champion because a squad should not be 10 guys in a large scale battle game, a squad should be treated as 1 unit.
As far as I can tell, GW are actively trying to create a system that does not use rules. Like, at all. We're moving closer and closer to a hardcore RPG game every edition. Armies? Pah, use Allies and mix-n-match everything. FOC? Merely a suggestion. Forging a narrative is more important!
My point here is that GW has taken a squad battle game with squad battle scaled models and have systematically expanded the game until there are no places left for which the game could grow into.
,
Captain Avatar
Very much this. If this rumoured "7th edition" tries to compile Core, Escalation, Dataslates etc. fine. They have reached what in the scientific community would be called the "Theory of Everything". The only problem is that the fundamental core is based on a decades old mechanic that simply breaks down in larger games.
I can not escape a mental image of adding modern upgrades like parking radars and CD- players to a 80´s Volvo. Sure you can do that but what is the point?
MadmanMSU wrote: As far as I can tell, GW are actively trying to create a system that does not use rules. Like, at all. We're moving closer and closer to a hardcore RPG game every edition. Armies? Pah, use Allies and mix-n-match everything. FOC? Merely a suggestion. Forging a narrative is more important!
The rules are a framework for a mutually enjoyable game rather than an absolute - that's been the case for a long time, it's nothing new.
MadmanMSU wrote: As far as I can tell, GW are actively trying to create a system that does not use rules. Like, at all. We're moving closer and closer to a hardcore RPG game every edition. Armies? Pah, use Allies and mix-n-match everything. FOC? Merely a suggestion. Forging a narrative is more important!
The rules are a framework for a mutually enjoyable game rather than an absolute - that's been the case for a long time, it's nothing new.
But while individual definitions of what "fun" is when playing 40K exist, and while people still look to play the game outside of small established groups with pre-existing friendships and a shared approach to how the game is played, this is a flawed concept and a recipe for the situation we find ourselves in.
One of the biggest myths that Games Workshop has perpetuated is that a looser rule set equals more fun. It's a ridiculous mindset and a game with tight but simple rules can be just fine. Players that REALLY want to have goofy crazy stuff happen should make their own houserules to supplement a tight and well balanced core, not the other way around where tournaments have tons of different ideas on what a comp score is because it's so subjective and the base is wonky.
Oh, I'm not saying it's perfect, far from it, I just don't grok to the idea that GW are just now deciding that a finely-honed tournament-friendly and sharp rule set isn't their thing and they'd rather make something looser. It's not new, it's been their philosophy (more or less) all along.
I would be okay with a 6e rerelease. By that I mean a new book BRB that doesn't change anything - thus rendering it's purchase optional - but just combines/merges all the recent releases we've seen such as Escalation, Stronghold Assault and the dataslates into one massive set of rules.
If however we were talking a whole new edition (as it would appear we are) I'm not okay with this. Having to buy a new book only 2 years after I bought the last one is stupid. It wouldn't change much about codex releases it would just mean those being updated to 6e would instead be updated to 7th, so I wouldn't be too worried about having to go out and buy a new Tau or SM codex anytime soon.
Aaaand I'm out.
Yeah sorry I wasn't trying to be combative. I just hear people talk about "fun" when I've seen tons of GW games come down to nebulous decisions where both players are "right" but one side has to win out and it's often a coin flip from the judge (I've been in that position as both the judge and the player). That just isn't fun unless you REALLY don't care about winning at all and that sort of player is in the minority. Other systems work just fine where if you go down the rules correctly it's clear how something should be handled and if it isn't errata fixes it quickly.
Brother Payne wrote: I would be okay with a 6e rerelease. By that I mean a new book BRB that doesn't change anything - thus rendering it's purchase optional - but just combines/merges all the recent releases we've seen such as Escalation, Stronghold Assault and the dataslates into one massive set of rules.
If however we were talking a whole new edition (as it would appear we are) I'm not okay with this. Having to buy a new book only 2 years after I bought the last one is stupid. It wouldn't change much about codex releases it would just mean those being updated to 6e would instead be updated to 7th, so I wouldn't be too worried about having to go out and buy a new Tau or SM codex anytime soon.
Aaaand I'm out.
I have mixed feelings. Partly I agree with you about a 7th ed rulebook, but I kinda feel that the CSM codex got royally screwed in this ed. So here's hoping for eith er a brighter future for our codex, or a nerfhammer for Taudar.
Bull0 wrote: Oh, I'm not saying it's perfect, far from it, I just don't grok to the idea that GW are just now deciding that a finely-honed tournament-friendly and sharp rule set isn't their thing and they'd rather make something looser. It's not new, it's been their philosophy (more or less) all along.
Could've made that clearer, sorry.
Care to provide quotes on these policies? Because the editions prior to WHFB's 8th and 40K's 6th (well, late 5th really), all had fairly large and officially supported world wide tournament scenes. It wasn't until 8th ed WHFB came about that GW decided that they were only a beer and pretzels game company and so could ditch any semblance of balance and actual tactical rules on their games...
PhantomViper wrote: Because the editions prior to WHFB's 8th and 40K's 6th (well, late 5th really), all had fairly large and officially supported world wide tournament scenes..
People wanted to play 40k/WFB in a competitive environment, so they did. GW just went along. Then, like many other companies that deal with a large audience, they realized the so called "casual" customers make up the bulk of their purchasing base and threw everything they could at that group.
Short-sighted and stupid? Yeah, probably. A reversal of some previous policy? Nah.
Bull0 wrote: Oh, I'm not saying it's perfect, far from it, I just don't grok to the idea that GW are just now deciding that a finely-honed tournament-friendly and sharp rule set isn't their thing and they'd rather make something looser. It's not new, it's been their philosophy (more or less) all along.
Could've made that clearer, sorry.
Care to provide quotes on these policies? Because the editions prior to WHFB's 8th and 40K's 6th (well, late 5th really), all had fairly large and officially supported world wide tournament scenes. It wasn't until 8th ed WHFB came about that GW decided that they were only a beer and pretzels game company and so could ditch any semblance of balance and actual tactical rules on their games...
I didn't use the word policy, I used the word philosophy. As in a design philosophy, as in go read the books and tell me seriously that you believe prior to 6th ed 40k was designed to be balanced. Alessio did have a brief stab at it, it wasn't to GW's taste, it didn't last.
His Master's Voice wrote: It's not like Alessio was the first. Chambers wanted a cleaner, more interactive set of rules too. And then we was not working for GW any more.
Yeah, and Gav Thorpe. And none of these people are allowed anywhere near the rules anymore. But yeah, none of this is new.
Bull0 wrote: Oh, I'm not saying it's perfect, far from it, I just don't grok to the idea that GW are just now deciding that a finely-honed tournament-friendly and sharp rule set isn't their thing and they'd rather make something looser. It's not new, it's been their philosophy (more or less) all along.
Could've made that clearer, sorry.
Care to provide quotes on these policies? Because the editions prior to WHFB's 8th and 40K's 6th (well, late 5th really), all had fairly large and officially supported world wide tournament scenes. It wasn't until 8th ed WHFB came about that GW decided that they were only a beer and pretzels game company and so could ditch any semblance of balance and actual tactical rules on their games...
I didn't use the word policy, I used the word philosophy. As in a design philosophy, as in go read the books and tell me seriously that you believe prior to 6th ed 40k was designed to be balanced. Alessio did have a brief stab at it, it wasn't to GW's taste, it didn't last.
I have read the books as I've been playing since 96. And while previous editions (of both games), were far from perfect, it wasn't until this latest batch that the notion of balance was completely thrown out the window. The fact that the lead designers of previous editions strived to achieve a cleaner and more balanced set of rules also gives credence that this philosophy that you talk about only came into effect in more recent times (and resulting in all those guys leaving the company for greener pastures).
That is a far cry from stating that they never cared about balance or tight rules in their games.
Actually it's just a speeding up of what GW has always done
release new models (which is what makes them the money) which people do want with rules that have been tested, but not to destruction
then thry tried to balance things out afterwards either by FAQs (rare that they make major changes this way),
or by releasing a new set of models with rules that rock/paper/scissors the old one problem
the fact that their codex release schedule is way up means we're seeing more issues closer together.
If we got a book then nothing more of 4-5 months there'd be moans about the new op stuff but then folk would settle down and figure out how to deal with it,
with a new codex almos every month we get 'the sky is falling' up to the release from a lot of the existing players based on rumours, followed by 'OMG this is so broken' from the rest of the factions players once it's released, but there's no time for things to settle down before the same thing happens again.
(that's not to say some stuff isn't genuinely broken like strength D popping up in normal games),
PhantomViper wrote: That is a far cry from stating that they never cared about balance or tight rules in their games.
Stop putting words in my mouth, daddio. Also, the line about "previous designers striving for more balanced and cleaner rules" - yeah, like I said, a handful of them did, in a small bubble, around 3rd ed I guess? And that's it, in the long history of 40k. And where are they now? I'm sorry, but your assertion that up until 6th ed the game was designed around balance and clean rules and it's all gone out of the window now is crap. Now, if you want to argue that things have gotten more excessive in recent years - no argument. That's definitely the case. That isn't what you're saying though.
I have to agree, WH40k has never even from its Rogue Trader days been a balanced gaming system. How could it be with the core rules being changed as soon as the new army list/models comes out, which then needs the next list to buff that race or perhaps nerf some other ability. The time lag between these new mini rule changes produces a even more pronounced effect.
Then from 3rd there has been the fundamental change from skirmish to massed battles but with no real change to the core mechanics. Cynically I would contend the rules are not the priority anymore apart from a thin device to gouge out more cash for the extra models required.
Alessio has written a clean system for Mantic that allows for reasonably quick to handling of massed battles, which to be fair keep rules to a minimum and you actually enjoy playing a game. Could 40k go the same route unlikely as there is a core fanbase that decry any changes to their fave races stat lines and carefully worked out tactics such as they are on a table which is edge to edge figures.
What will 7th be, probably more of the same , soon to be accompanied by new FAQ's , changes to core rules when the next codex comes out. The only new thing here is only likely to be it will have an option to load it digitally onto your iPad or Kindle
Bronzefists42 wrote: The problem is that this Rumor does not make sense. GW may be incompetent buffoons when it comes to making business but they aren't dumb enough to do something like this.
I hope....
They have an amazing record for incompetent buffoons. If you purchased GW stock 10 years ago, youre up about 750% today.
So perhaps you don't understand things as well as you think you do.
I really don't think you understand things as well as you think you do if you think that GW are in a good position financially.
Please explain that statement. GW has fumbled through their fight with internet discount resales (successfully so however). They have streamlined every department sans the creative people - which they have doubled in size over the past 3 years. A ~5% decrease in sales is significant, but when you consider the whole picture, it does not spell doom. In fact, removing Wells and expanding the creative dept. (which aredirectly related to one another btw, Wells did not want to expand, while board members saw it as investing in the future). So yea, outlook looks good. Big shareholders sells cuz Wells left, nothing to see here.
Relatviely flat revenues for several years yet steadily increasing prices (well above inflation) over the same period (and well before) spell one thing: steadily declining sales. Not an issue in the short term, in the long term however.......
I ws amazed to find out that GW apparently has over 100 employees in their 'creative department' when their output is so uncreative.
Bronzefists42 wrote: The problem is that this Rumor does not make sense. GW may be incompetent buffoons when it comes to making business but they aren't dumb enough to do something like this.
I hope....
They have an amazing record for incompetent buffoons. If you purchased GW stock 10 years ago, youre up about 750% today.
So perhaps you don't understand things as well as you think you do.
I really don't think you understand things as well as you think you do if you think that GW are in a good position financially.
Please explain that statement. GW has fumbled through their fight with internet discount resales (successfully so however). They have streamlined every department sans the creative people - which they have doubled in size over the past 3 years. A ~5% decrease in sales is significant, but when you consider the whole picture, it does not spell doom. In fact, removing Wells and expanding the creative dept. (which aredirectly related to one another btw, Wells did not want to expand, while board members saw it as investing in the future). So yea, outlook looks good. Big shareholders sells cuz Wells left, nothing to see here.
An extensive analysis from someone who knows what they're talking about. Wells left because he knew what was coming.
Anyway, perhaps the best thing GW could do is make this "7th Edition" basically just a revision of 6th with all the new rules, errata, and FAQ incorporated into it, and then spend a year or so working on an all new edition of the game from the ground up with all new rules and codexes. Wishlisting, sadly.
Bronzefists42 wrote: The problem is that this Rumor does not make sense. GW may be incompetent buffoons when it comes to making business but they aren't dumb enough to do something like this.
I hope....
They have an amazing record for incompetent buffoons. If you purchased GW stock 10 years ago, youre up about 750% today.
So perhaps you don't understand things as well as you think you do.
I really don't think you understand things as well as you think you do if you think that GW are in a good position financially.
Please explain that statement. GW has fumbled through their fight with internet discount resales (successfully so however). They have streamlined every department sans the creative people - which they have doubled in size over the past 3 years. A ~5% decrease in sales is significant, but when you consider the whole picture, it does not spell doom. In fact, removing Wells and expanding the creative dept. (which aredirectly related to one another btw, Wells did not want to expand, while board members saw it as investing in the future). So yea, outlook looks good. Big shareholders sells cuz Wells left, nothing to see here.
An extensive analysis from someone who knows what they're talking about. Wells left because he knew what was coming.
Anyway, perhaps the best thing GW could do is make this "7th Edition" basically just a revision of 6th with all the new rules, errata, and FAQ incorporated into it, and then spend a year or so working on an all new edition of the game from the ground up with all new rules and codexes. Wishlisting, sadly.
That was a really interesting & comprehensive (but very long!) article. The bit about Games Day in particular made very sad reading (I had no idea it was that lacking), and completely know where he is coming from with the 'black snow' analogy.
An extensive analysis from someone who knows what they're talking about. Wells left because he knew what was coming.
Anyway, perhaps the best thing GW could do is make this "7th Edition" basically just a revision of 6th with all the new rules, errata, and FAQ incorporated into it, and then spend a year or so working on an all new edition of the game from the ground up with all new rules and codexes. Wishlisting, sadly.
Fully agree. Also, because of your avatar, I read all your posts in Kyle Maclachlan's voice, which is wonderfully therapeutic. (Sorry, you must be sick of hearing that).
wilycoyote wrote: I have to agree, WH40k has never even from its Rogue Trader days been a balanced gaming system. How could it be with the core rules being changed as soon as the new army list/models comes out, which then needs the next list to buff that race or perhaps nerf some other ability. The time lag between these new mini rule changes produces a even more pronounced effect.
The way to alleviate that would be to update the rules for every army at once, and produce a steady stream of releases for all factions, rather than the "feast and famine" method.
I don't buy the rumour that there will be a full new 40k edition in 2014. I find the following two options most likely:
1.) It is just a mole-hunt to catch the 40k radio source.
2.) It is a cheap copy-paste job with a few tweaks to lure the completist. Plus a 50$ dustjacket or cardboard slipcase. Including escalation makes sense to force anyone to deal with those Apocalypse units in regular games.
GW gve up Hobbit and metal. They will give up Finecast. If they give up Fantasy as well and make a desperate new 40k edition, what will be left?
Given the latest releases, a new edition would only make the latest 30% more expensive 2 sprue kits must-buys (esp. the Apocalypse-sized ones and flyers) or increase the total of models you need. Escalation killed my last hope for getting a more or less balanced game from GW. Still I don't think, we will see a full 7th 40k edition this year.
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.
Mantic did that with Kings of War:
First ruleset September 2010, revised edition less than 2 years later, kickstarter end June 2012.
Their other major game system, Warpath, was released 2011, revised rules 2012 and seems to have another kickstarter revised edition 2014.
Mantic did that with Kings of War:
First ruleset September 2010, revised edition less than 2 years later, kickstarter end June 2012.
Their other major game system, Warpath, was released 2011, revised rules 2012 and seems to have another kickstarter revised edition 2014.
And those rulesets were both free. Kings of War, as I understand it, has been stable since they released an actual book you pay for, despite them still keeping the rules themselves freely available on the website as well.
In the UK at least, some people paid over £80 for the latest 40K ruleset just 18 months ago. If GW want to carry on with limited editions and the ridiculous prices they get for them, negating those books within 24 months is NOT a good idea for sustainability.
Hell,the £150 space marine codex is the big promotion this christmas, imagine paying that and needing a completely new book in 10 months time.
NoggintheNog wrote: In the UK at least, some people paid over £80 for the latest 40K ruleset just 18 months ago.
It's £45.00 for the book or £61.50 for the starter box. Why £80 ?
Hell,the £150 space marine codex is the big promotion this christmas, imagine paying that and needing a completely new book in 10 months time.
Well, they have something to look forward to Xmas 2014
The limited edition Rulebook was £85.
I get you think people are silly to pay those prices, so do I, but its possibly the only expanding market GW have managed to create in recent years, that of limited edition books. I cannot stress the insanity of a management decision that would in a stroke negate that avenue of revenue and with it annoy a section of the consumer base that has to be amongst the most loyal there is.Limited edition books are bought because they are special, if they stop being special (and indeed worth anything) inside a year, that market is severely damaged, probably beyond repair.
Mantic did that with Kings of War:
First ruleset September 2010, revised edition less than 2 years later, kickstarter end June 2012.
Their other major game system, Warpath, was released 2011, revised rules 2012 and seems to have another kickstarter revised edition 2014.
And those rulesets were both free. Kings of War, as I understand it, has been stable since they released an actual book you pay for, despite them still keeping the rules themselves freely available on the website as well.
In the UK at least, some people paid over £80 for the latest 40K ruleset just 18 months ago. If GW want to carry on with limited editions and the ridiculous prices they get for them, negating those books within 24 months is NOT a good idea for sustainability.
Hell,the £150 space marine codex is the big promotion this christmas, imagine paying that and needing a completely new book in 10 months time.
Not only were they free but KoW was still in the Beta phase untill the ruleset was released for Retail and Warpaths first ruleset was an alpha ruleset and they are currently in the Beta phase and due for rerail release via KS later this year. Say what you want about Mantics Minis but there rulesets IMO are solid as they tend to listen to fans feedback about rules, just see what happened with the ball launch rules for Dredball, players weren't happy with the launch rules so there was a proposed change fans weren't happy with them so they were changed again for the
better.
I would like to see GW release system change. Instead of there current release I would like to see something more akin to Privateers Press' system.
I like the idea of a new and cleaned up rulebook, but I fear for all the crap they are going to throw into it to drive the price up. I severely doubt that we will get lucky enough to get a book that is "just" the rules for 40K. I wouldn't be surprised if they threw the latest two supplements in with the rules, and priced the thing at $100 US.
wilycoyote wrote: I have to agree, WH40k has never even from its Rogue Trader days been a balanced gaming system. How could it be with the core rules being changed as soon as the new army list/models comes out, which then needs the next list to buff that race or perhaps nerf some other ability. The time lag between these new mini rule changes produces a even more pronounced effect.
The way to alleviate that would be to update the rules for every army at once, and produce a steady stream of releases for all factions, rather than the "feast and famine" method.
Remembering that at its core Rogue Trader is somewhere between a tabletop game and RPG. It needed mutual co-operation between players to produce a balanced and fun game, but was massively open ended. 2nd and then 3rd edition (even more so) moved towards a tabletop wargame.
I've got no doubt at all that GW could balance WFB/40k perfectly if they wanted to. But, purchasing pennies need to be pushed towards the latest and greatest, at the expense of what people already have in their collection, and one way to accomplish this is with gradual codex-creep of some units and nerfing of others. It's on record that the codex writers have their hands tied by the sales department, in terms of what direction they take and ultimately what rules they write.
So I don't think GW are 'incapable' of producing a balanced 7th edition, or any other game, but it would represent a departure from a purposeful strategy that has been in place for some time now. Of course from a business perspective this makes 100% sense, as a way of practically guaranteeing sales of new miniatures if the players are to have games with their peers - the fans lose out of course, but then I think it's quite obvious that the interests of the fans are firmly relegated behind those of the shareholders, and while people keep throwing down the $ why should they change that policy?
Not sure it makes 100% business sense in the long term. It's one of the problems of the shareholder model though -- dividends and rising share prices RIGHT NOW are more important than the long-term health of the company. So, better to accept the churn of customers than try to keep customers happy in the long term with a balanced game that supports repeated play for decades.
what seems a reliable source (40K radio who have recently had a reliable early pipeline into GW) have said there will be a 7th edition of 40K 'soon' (well before 4 years of 6th is up)
additional speculation (with nothing as solid as the original 40K radio statement) as follows
the sky is falling
GW is going downhill and will sell up 'soon'
maybe it will be 6.x just adding in FAQs and maybe Escalation and/or Stonghold instead of a real 7th
does this mean Fantasy is being dropped as it should be the next rule book to be updated?
maybe GW is feeding some fake news to suspected 40K radio sources and this is all nonsense intended to let them fire a 'traitor'
what seems a reliable source (40K radio who have recently had a reliable early pipeline into GW) have said there will be a 7th edition of 40K 'soon' (well before 4 years of 6th is up)
additional speculation (with nothing as solid as the original 40K radio statement) as follows
the sky is falling
GW is going downhill and will sell up 'soon'
maybe it will be 6.x just adding in FAQs and maybe Escalation and/or Stonghold instead of a real 7th
does this mean Fantasy is being dropped as it should be the next rule book to be updated?
maybe GW is feeding some fake news to suspected 40K radio sources and this is all nonsense intended to let them fire a 'traitor'
have I missed any ?
I feel the only thing that makes sense is that this is a mousetrap for leakers.
I feel the only thing that makes sense is that this is a mousetrap for leakers.
Not sure how that makes the most sense? 40k radio seems to have access to printers, what with them having a full codex and multiple high quality photos of stuff for the SM and DE releases respectively. I very much doubt anyone at the design studio (the only other place you could get stuff like that) would just leak the whole codex, they're not morons and probably want to keep their jobs.
So if it's the printers, how do you control leak that kind of info to a third party without broadcasting "we're gonna get you, you goddamn rat" bright as day?
If anything, the leak most likely comes from someone with access to printing schedules, which I'm sure are set way ahead for orders that big.
Walk into GW drop more cash on books! More late nights learning their intracacies, tweaking my armies, some extra modelling... Only to find your favourite models have been nerfed and the new ones have gone up in price... I dare say when I see the new Australian prices I will punch a hole in a wall and curl up into a ball and cry.
RaisedFist wrote: Walk into GW drop more cash on books! More late nights learning their intracacies, tweaking my armies, some extra modelling... Only to find your favourite models have been nerfed and the new ones have gone up in price... I dare say when I see the new Australian prices I will punch a hole in a wall and curl up into a ball and cry.
Please be untrue or PDF 6.1 update
I pray to the emprah that this is false as no matter what it is it will be bad
Bonzefists42 wrote:
I feel the only thing that makes sense is that this is a mousetrap for leakers.
There is another alternative.
Have any of you considered that GW floated this rumour in order to gauge customer base reaction/attitude?
Maybe to see what the customer/addicts are willing to accept in terms of the next new expensive book.
Seriously, go back and read this entire thread and you will find that most would accept a $100-$150 US (6.5 version of the BRB) that includes the expansions and faq updates.
Heck, GW could even claim that it is a deal in that it costs less than the 3 books do separately.
I don't think I've seen anyone say they'd be happy to pay that much for a rulebook?
I've seen people who are annoyed throwing made up prices about and I've seen people who are dissatisfied with 6th expressing positive hopes for a possible 7th.
Haven't noticed one person saying both.
Let's be honest, a new, non limited edition is going to be ~$75-80 in all likelihood, and anyone claiming otherwise is just going a bit hyperbolic.
Bonzefists42 wrote:
I feel the only thing that makes sense is that this is a mousetrap for leakers.
There is another alternative.
Have any of you considered that GW floated this rumour in order to gauge customer base reaction/attitude?
Maybe to see what the customer/addicts are willing to accept in terms of the next new expensive book.
Seriously, go back and read this entire thread and you will find that most would accept a $100-$150 US (6.5 version of the BRB) that includes the expansions and faq updates.
Heck, GW could even claim that it is a deal in that it costs less than the 3 books do separately.
Later
Captain Avatar
Edit for spacing
As far as I am aware the only evidence we have (buried somewhere in the chapterhouse lawsuit thread) points to GW not doing any market research beyond where they open their stores.
Floating a rumour on the interwebs is a new and risky move for a company who are currently playing it very very safe.
Also GW don't consider any of us their target demographic.
Bonzefists42 wrote:
I feel the only thing that makes sense is that this is a mousetrap for leakers.
There is another alternative.
Have any of you considered that GW floated this rumour in order to gauge customer base reaction/attitude?
Maybe to see what the customer/addicts are willing to accept in terms of the next new expensive book.
Seriously, go back and read this entire thread and you will find that most would accept a $100-$150 US (6.5 version of the BRB) that includes the expansions and faq updates.
Heck, GW could even claim that it is a deal in that it costs less than the 3 books do separately.
Later
Captain Avatar
azreal13 wrote:I don't think I've seen anyone say they'd be happy to pay that much for a rulebook?
-snip-
Let's be honest, a new, non limited edition is going to be ~$75-80 in all likelihood, and anyone claiming otherwise is just going a bit hyperbolic.
"Happy"? Your word not mine. I said accept as in when costs in excess of $100 no one has really argued the thought.
In corporate research that means accept.
As to your accusation that mentioning such a price point is "a bit hyperbolic"....
My first Tau codex was around $15. The next was $25. The Tau were skipped over in 5th ed when prices for an average codex was $33.
The came 6th with the, "now proven true", rumours of supplements. I and others.predicted that GW would release mono-build army books that encourage purchases of the supplements. Basically that we would have to buy 2-3 books just to get the variety that had ben in previous releases.
Sure enough we got a mono-build easy button boring army book that cost $50. Then the supplements came along and also cost $50 for 2 pages of rules.
Point I'm making is that the book prices have gone from $15 for a complete faction to $100. A $150 if you include the third book for kroot that will be released at some point. That is a 1000% increase in about a decades time.
Now apply that rate of price increase to the 6th ed BRB's $75 price tag and there is nothing hyperbolic in a $100-$150 guess at the cost of a 6.5 compilation that includes corrections and the new supplements.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
jonolikespie wrote:
As far as I am aware the only evidence we have (buried somewhere in the chapterhouse lawsuit thread) points to GW not doing any market research beyond where they open their stores.
Floating a rumour on the interwebs is a new and risky move for a company who are currently playing it very very safe.
Also GW don't consider any of us their target demographic.
A)What risk?
B) GW is a publicly traded company that produces products for a limited market. The items they make, in many cases, have a substantial initial cost.
I don't know of many savvy investors that would buy such a companies stock if they "were not" doing market research.
Saying GW doesn't do market research is like claiming that no corporation has ever put a bunch of interns online to create a whisper campaign for an upcoming product release.
C) GW doesn't consider us their target demographic? Source please.
Seriously, Sit back and watch/read long enough and you will see that GW over the years has made moves that clearly indicate that they have somebody browsing the forums and have made changes to address certain issues that only long time players would have.
Imo, GW uses us as beta testers for a product that will always need beta testing. This is due to GW's constant implementation of new rule additions that are inadequately play-tested.
jonolikespie wrote:
As far as I am aware the only evidence we have (buried somewhere in the chapterhouse lawsuit thread) points to GW not doing any market research beyond where they open their stores.
Floating a rumour on the interwebs is a new and risky move for a company who are currently playing it very very safe.
Also GW don't consider any of us their target demographic.
A)What risk?
Putting time and money into something that would be shaped by a vocal minority.
Hell, putting time and money into anything that isn't guaranteed to sell more space marines at this point is considered a risk to GW management.
GW have cut costs to the bone in the last year, they are not going to go out and spend money on anything that is new and untested.
Captain Avatar wrote: B) GW is a publicly traded company that produces products for a limited market. The items they make, in many cases, have a substantial initial cost.
I don't know of many savvy investors that would buy such a companies stock if they "were not" doing market research.
Saying GW doesn't do market research is like claiming that no corporation has ever put a bunch of interns online to create a whisper campaign for an upcoming product release.
As I said I am sure there was some evidence that points that way buried in the Chapterhouse thread but I am not going to go looking for it. It was something along the lines of them being asked for market research and them having absolutely nothing to show.
Lack of hard evidence doesn't completely shoot down the idea though, there is still no evidence that they have ever tried posting here other than when a 3rd party tried recruiting for them and a whisper campagin flies in the face of their 'You'll know when we decide to tell you' approach to things.
Oh, and it seems that the people who owned the majority of the shares as of a year ago have sold a lot of those shares.
Captain Avatar wrote: C) GW doesn't consider us their target demographic? Source please.
They have gone on about how they are selling toys to kids for years now. Their target demographic is 12 year olds who thye bring into the 'GW hobby', get an initial buy in purchase out of them, a Christmas and Birthday and then the kid forgets about the hobby.
The majority of the people who buy their product, according to GW, never play a game. They are simply 'collecting'.
This should not be news to anyone, this is common knowledge. GWbrag about this stuff.
Captain Avatar wrote: Seriously, Sit back and watch/read long enough and you will see that GW over the years has made moves that clearly indicate that they have somebody browsing the forums and have made changes to address certain issues that only long time players would have.
Imo, GW uses us as beta testers for a product that will always need beta testing. This is due to GW's constant implementation of new rule additions that are inadequately play-tested.
Except that they actually fired their outside beta testers and moved everything in house shortly before deciding to push 'narrative' gaming hard. And they have shut down all forms of communicating with GW themselves, which is not an act of a company interested in outside opinions.
PhantomViper wrote: That is a far cry from stating that they never cared about balance or tight rules in their games.
Stop putting words in my mouth, daddio. Also, the line about "previous designers striving for more balanced and cleaner rules" - yeah, like I said, a handful of them did, in a small bubble, around 3rd ed I guess? And that's it, in the long history of 40k. And where are they now? I'm sorry, but your assertion that up until 6th ed the game was designed around balance and clean rules and it's all gone out of the window now is crap. Now, if you want to argue that things have gotten more excessive in recent years - no argument. That's definitely the case. That isn't what you're saying though.
Same to you kiddo. I never said that the game was designed around balance and clean rules, try quoting my entire post next time if you can't remember it all... In fact what I said was exactly:
PhantomViper wrote: And while previous editions (of both games), were far from perfect, it wasn't until this latest batch that the notion of balance was completely thrown out the window.
Yes, I agree with you that the game was never perfectly balanced or even came close to it, but in previous editions the imbalance could be somewhat corrected by player tactics. In 6th edition, the extreme randomness of every decision that goes on in the table, coupled with the ability to max-min even more of a list because of the introduction of allies means that no amount of player skill can compensate for the game's failures regarding balance.
I'm not a kid, I'm 27. Not that it matters. And I wasn't even quoting that line, I was quoting this one, can YOU remember what you posted?:
PhantomViper wrote:
The fact that the lead designers of previous editions strived to achieve a cleaner and more balanced set of rules also gives credence that this philosophy that you talk about only came into effect in more recent times (and resulting in all those guys leaving the company for greener pastures).
But I guess when you said the designers "strived to achieve a cleaner and more balanced set of rules", you didn't mean that the game was designed around balance and clean rules! Just that that was what the designers were working on very hard, "designing", if you will... nope, doesn't make any sense, you've lost me.
I feel the only thing that makes sense is that this is a mousetrap for leakers.
I don't believe this for a second. If they wanted to do something like that, they would not use this sort of rumour for it. This is a rumour that will make a big part of their customer base uneasy, they might even stop buying 6th edition stuff as they wait the new edition to arrive.
Seriously, Sit back and watch/read long enough and you will see that GW over the years has made moves that clearly indicate that they have somebody browsing the forums and have made changes to address certain issues that only long time players would have.
Imo, GW uses us as beta testers for a product that will always need beta testing. This is due to GW's constant implementation of new rule additions that are inadequately play-tested.
Yeah then they must have skipped the bazillion tons of metric cube of threads about how CSM sucked monkey balls then...
Something like a search-engine criteria " if you want to ignore posts with ""Chaos Space Marines"", check this box"...
Seriously, Sit back and watch/read long enough and you will see that GW over the years has made moves that clearly indicate that they have somebody browsing the forums and have made changes to address certain issues that only long time players would have.
Imo, GW uses us as beta testers for a product that will always need beta testing. This is due to GW's constant implementation of new rule additions that are inadequately play-tested.
Yeah then they must have skipped the bazillion tons of metric cube of threads about how CSM sucked monkey balls then...
Something like a search-engine criteria " if you want to ignore posts with ""Chaos Space Marines"", check this box"...
It's more subtle than that but I have noticed certain things, like in some of the "leaks" when people totally slate the models based on one image another, clearer image from a different angle magically materialises...
Bull0 wrote: I'm not a kid, I'm 27. Not that it matters. And I wasn't even quoting that line, I was quoting this one, can YOU remember what you posted?:
I'm also not your dad but you found it within yourself to call me "daddio". Also, at 27 you are practically a kid to me...
PhantomViper wrote:
The fact that the lead designers of previous editions strived to achieve a cleaner and more balanced set of rules also gives credence that this philosophy that you talk about only came into effect in more recent times (and resulting in all those guys leaving the company for greener pastures).
But I guess when you said the designers "strived to achieve a cleaner and more balanced set of rules", you didn't mean that the game was designed around balance and clean rules! Just that that was what the designers were working on very hard, "designing", if you will... nope, doesn't make any sense, you've lost me.
The point is that a truly clean style of rules needs an almost "technical manual" approach to rules writing and we only started seeing those with the advent of Warmachine in 2003 (or at least I did, I'm not discounting the possibility that other rules sets existed in the same style before), and GW rules never adopted this philosophy, so while the lead designers might try to write clearer rules, the format that they adopted for it wasn't ideal and still lead to misinterpretations. But there was a very real a noticeable cleaning of rules going from 3rd to 4th edition 40K and from 5th to 6th edition WHFB, for example.
As for balance, I distinctly recall from interviews of the time the designers stating that this or that decision was made because of balance. The one such occasion that immediately springs to my mind was when the price of a basic guardsman was raised 1 point in 4th edition (I think??) because Andy Chambers found that IG horde-style armies would be too powerful otherwise.
Also in days of yore, GW actually had a team of external play testers that tested their codices and rules for them, again leading credence that once upon a time they actually cared about balance and good rules. Those are also gone and have not been replaced, leaving people to believe that they don't care about balance any more...
"Daddio" is just a slang term, I wasn't physically calling you Dad. That'd be weird.
You've moderated your thesis far enough away from the original one I had a problem with that I'm happy to leave it now. Yes, things have gotten worse recently, yes, in the past people who were more balance-minded worked in game design at GW, no, the current crop don't seem to care very much about balance at all.
From what we know of the lead times on such projects, the design team would have needed to start working on this "new edition" as soon as they finished the last one, i.e. before it was even published, right? I find that hard to believe.
Probably just a cleaned up version of the current ruleset, possibly incorporating the latest expansions, then. Which won't change anything that's currently right or wrong with 40k.
i'm with the '6.5 rolled into one book' crowd. Gw wouldn't cut the time between new versions like that, it'd piss off too many people. If i were a cynic i'd say that 40k radio knew this and exaggerated it to a full new edition to generate publicity.
xruslanx wrote: i'm with the '6.5 rolled into one book' crowd. Gw wouldn't cut the time between new versions like that, it'd piss off too many people. If i were a cynic i'd say that 40k radio knew this and exaggerated it to a full new edition to generate publicity.
Kind of like when they emplaced embargos and destroyed every single online store over night?
xruslanx wrote: i'm with the '6.5 rolled into one book' crowd. Gw wouldn't cut the time between new versions like that, it'd piss off too many people. If i were a cynic i'd say that 40k radio knew this and exaggerated it to a full new edition to generate publicity.
Kind of like when they emplaced embargos and destroyed every single online store over night?
The embargo I remember, destroying every single online store overnight I do not.
Did someone get a bottle of hyperbole for Christmas?
I feel the only thing that makes sense is that this is a mousetrap for leakers.
I don't believe this for a second. If they wanted to do something like that, they would not use this sort of rumour for it. This is a rumour that will make a big part of their customer base uneasy, they might even stop buying 6th edition stuff as they wait the new edition to arrive.
We are looking at GW here. They're smart enough to see it could work as a mousetrap but could never think ahead like that or so it seems...
depends how high up their source is. It'd be easy to route out a leak from say, a small group of designers. But if it's a play tester it'd be one of a group of hundreds of people, since there isn't anything in the rumour to act as a control variable - an actual release month, say. So i think it's unlikely to be a deliberate leak
xruslanx wrote: i'm with the '6.5 rolled into one book' crowd. Gw wouldn't cut the time between new versions like that, it'd piss off too many people. If i were a cynic i'd say that 40k radio knew this and exaggerated it to a full new edition to generate publicity.
Kind of like when they emplaced embargos and destroyed every single online store over night?
The embargo I remember, destroying every single online store overnight I do not.
Did someone get a bottle of hyperbole for Christmas?
No, you just don't live in North America. Trade laws in the EU prohibit GW from effectively banning online sales there. In Canada and the US they don't, so GW forbade people from using online shopping carts there. If you want to order GW from a retailer such as the War Store or Miniature market, you can only do so via phone; no emails allowed or they violate their trade account terms.
Now, it's not illegal, obviously or they wouldn't be able to do it. However, "legal" and "just" or "fair" have never been equivalent terms.
carmachu wrote: Until orks get a codex, 6th or 6.5 is unplayable for me right now.
With escalation rules you can just start bringing a stompa carrying some loota mobs with as many meks as you can pack into it to every game, which should go a little way toward evening things up.
Krinsath wrote: If you want to order GW from a retailer such as the War Store or Miniature market, you can only do so via phone; no emails allowed or they violate their trade account terms.
They used to do email all the time. That's how they send you the price spreadsheet. You then fill out the form with what you want and they send you an invoice (again via email) which you set up payment for (CC or Debit usually). Or, yes, you could just call them.
I guess my earlier statement was a bit rash... like the sour grapes... My hobby interest has been vested since Rogue Trader. I personally disliked Hero Hammer the most, but I played. This latest version I haven't played but 6 times, or there about, with plans to get a table at home in the recreation room soon to play. I have a serious interest in 40K, the novels, the models, so I spoke rashly about the prospect of a 2014 rule change...
I guess I'll just watch what happens.
carmachu wrote: Until orks get a codex, 6th or 6.5 is unplayable for me right now.
With escalation rules you can just start bringing a stompa carrying some loota mobs with as many meks as you can pack into it to every game, which should go a little way toward evening things up.
It is the next step in the "pay to win" strategy sell rules one needs to win, sell codices one needs to win to sell the miniatures one needs to win. In a limited edition... where is my nipplefree shirt.
Krinsath wrote: If you want to order GW from a retailer such as the War Store or Miniature market, you can only do so via phone; no emails allowed or they violate their trade account terms.
They used to do email all the time. That's how they send you the price spreadsheet. You then fill out the form with what you want and they send you an invoice (again via email) which you set up payment for (CC or Debit usually). Or, yes, you could just call them.
Obtaining a price list (which you can do via email) != placing an order. If you look at both of their sites right this second, the only means they show to actually place an order involves picking up a telephone. I dimly recall this not always being the case, and I would be mildly surprised if they aren't willing to take an order over email from an existing customer. However, the official policy presented to any new customer is if you want GW product without going to a store you have to pick up the phone during business hours or order it from GW.
However, that's a bit of a side-topic. It does illustrate that GW cares not one iota about pissing off customers nor independent retailers if it means their own bottom-line can be moved forward a tick in the short-term. Of course, things like that have a way of catching up to you in the long-term, but I don't know that anyone at GW particularly cares either.
carmachu wrote: Until orks get a codex, 6th or 6.5 is unplayable for me right now.
With escalation rules you can just start bringing a stompa carrying some loota mobs with as many meks as you can pack into it to every game, which should go a little way toward evening things up.
Not interested. I want to play ork boyz or kans. Being told "go use a stompa" or "go battle wagon up" or "use shootas and lootas." means I have tons of models laying around that will get no use and need a new $100+ model.
xruslanx wrote: i'm with the '6.5 rolled into one book' crowd. Gw wouldn't cut the time between new versions like that, it'd piss off too many people. If i were a cynic i'd say that 40k radio knew this and exaggerated it to a full new edition to generate publicity.
Kind of like when they emplaced embargos and destroyed every single online store over night?
The embargo I remember, destroying every single online store overnight I do not.
Did someone get a bottle of hyperbole for Christmas?
You mean when they changed the trade account agreements forbidding them from selling online or out of their countries, it was a big deal.
Allod wrote: From what we know of the lead times on such projects, the design team would have needed to start working on this "new edition" as soon as they finished the last one, i.e. before it was even published, right? I find that hard to believe.
Probably just a cleaned up version of the current ruleset, possibly incorporating the latest expansions, then. Which won't change anything that's currently right or wrong with 40k.
Exactly. If true, this isn't a traditional "new edition" but more of an update.
Allod wrote: From what we know of the lead times on such projects, the design team would have needed to start working on this "new edition" as soon as they finished the last one, i.e. before it was even published, right? I find that hard to believe.
Starting development on the next iteration of a product before you launch the "current" edition is nothing new.
If it is going to make the game more assault friendly and not do a complete revision (unlikely) then I'd be happy.
But, in all likelihood, if this happens it is probably going to be just 6th ed coming together with the digital releases (escalation, kill team, etc) and probably multiplayer rules?
carmachu wrote: Until orks get a codex, 6th or 6.5 is unplayable for me right now.
With escalation rules you can just start bringing a stompa carrying some loota mobs with as many meks as you can pack into it to every game, which should go a little way toward evening things up.
Not interested. I want to play ork boyz or kans. Being told "go use a stompa" or "go battle wagon up" or "use shootas and lootas." means I have tons of models laying around that will get no use and need a new $100+ model.
No thanks.
Sounds like..most every army out there now cept Tau!
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.
If the new book is 6.1, I'll not bother with it. If it is 7.0, I'll either go for a starter set w/mini book, or I'll do a sneaky-sneaky.
Yeah, if it is a new battle-box set I'll definetly skip the that big pile of garbage that is the full rulebook and get a battlebox with a ton of minis to assemble and forget about .
At this point, the only thing that I really want to see is an advancement in the timeline. Maybe even have the Emperor die and the Imperium splinter into several pocket empires.
TechMarine1 wrote: At this point, the only thing that I really want to see is an advancement in the timeline. Maybe even have the Emperor die and the Imperium splinter into several pocket empires.
That does NOT require a new edition.
Save it for fan fiction. Even GW is smart enough not to kill the goose that laid the golden egg.
TechMarine1 wrote: At this point, the only thing that I really want to see is an advancement in the timeline. Maybe even have the Emperor die and the Imperium splinter into several pocket empires.
Why? I mean, how would that change the game at all? I hear this "advance the timeline" all the time and so far, no one was able to tell me what that would change, save for a few paragraphs of fluff.
TechMarine1 wrote: At this point, the only thing that I really want to see is an advancement in the timeline. Maybe even have the Emperor die and the Imperium splinter into several pocket empires.
Why? I mean, how would that change the game at all? I hear this "advance the timeline" all the time and so far, no one was able to tell me what that would change, save for a few paragraphs of fluff.
"Advancing the timeline" = "changing the setting". An Imperium segmented in a way that some posters want would completely change the dymanic of 40k, imo one of the strongpoints of the setting is the idea of the Imperium itself - a corpse-God kept alive by the sacrifices of millions of people every day, and an Imperium that just doesn't give a damn.
You could argue in favour of advancing the timeline without actually changing anything drastic I suppose. I would be favour of that, but then the problem with nerdy hobbies like ours is that people tend to get very upset over minor changes to the background. I'm sure there are parts of the fluff that, if they were changed, would piss me right off. If it affected the army I collect it could even stop me spending money, and we wouldn't want that now would we?
TechMarine1 wrote: At this point, the only thing that I really want to see is an advancement in the timeline. Maybe even have the Emperor die and the Imperium splinter into several pocket empires.
Why? I mean, how would that change the game at all? I hear this "advance the timeline" all the time and so far, no one was able to tell me what that would change, save for a few paragraphs of fluff.
"Advancing the timeline" = "changing the setting". An Imperium segmented in a way that some posters want would completely change the dymanic of 40k, imo one of the strongpoints of the setting is the idea of the Imperium itself - a corpse-God kept alive by the sacrifices of millions of people every day, and an Imperium that just doesn't give a damn.
You could argue in favour of advancing the timeline without actually changing anything drastic I suppose. I would be favour of that, but then the problem with nerdy hobbies like ours is that people tend to get very upset over minor changes to the background. I'm sure there are parts of the fluff that, if they were changed, would piss me right off. If it affected the army I collect it could even stop me spending money, and we wouldn't want that now would we?
You mean like how, in the new edition, the Emperor told Guilliman that he would have to protect the Tau because of their resistance to Chaos?
I've long wondered why players can't pick some part of the 10,000 years after the heresy, and say that they are playing a force from maybe 35m.
When you stop and realize how much has happened in our own lonely planet in just the last 1000 years, just extrapolate that out to a setting with thousands if not millions of planets that are in the 40k setting.
You could have 10,000 years of timeline that never encounter any of the key characters or events from the published setting.
Look at Dan Abnett's Novel setting, completely independent of the main story, and actually set hundreds of years in the past.
Or the Calixis Sector of the RPGs. Plenty of ways to play 40k, and have a new story, if you want to.
carmachu wrote: Until orks get a codex, 6th or 6.5 is unplayable for me right now.
With escalation rules you can just start bringing a stompa carrying some loota mobs with as many meks as you can pack into it to every game, which should go a little way toward evening things up.
Not interested. I want to play ork boyz or kans. Being told "go use a stompa" or "go battle wagon up" or "use shootas and lootas." means I have tons of models laying around that will get no use and need a new $100+ model.
No thanks.
It was meant as kind of a joke, showing how new rules being released (in this case escalation) drive sales of big shiny and expensive models just so players can keep pace with each other.
TechMarine1 wrote: You mean like how, in the new edition, the Emperor told Guilliman that he would have to protect the Tau because of their resistance to Chaos?
Did he actually say that? I think that is completely false, because the tau had not even evolved yet. They got discovered 789.M35, 5,789 years after the Horus Heresy, and then they were just equivalent to cavemen, and no one knew anything about them. That is unless Empy had some really good seer abilities, but I'm sure he didn't because he had no idea about the HH before it started.
I wonder if factions besides SPEHSS MEHREENS will be used in the next starter (even if this will be e6.1, there has to be a 7th eventually)
IIRC, Space Marines of some sort have been in each pack since at least 4th, well before I even started 40k or LotR, but what about something like just xenos vs. xenos? Daemons? Guard? Sisters??
KommissarKiln wrote: I wonder if factions besides SPEHSS MEHREENS will be used in the next starter (even if this will be e6.1, there has to be a 7th eventually)
IIRC, Space Marines of some sort have been in each pack since at least 4th, well before I even started 40k or LotR, but what about something like just xenos vs. xenos? Daemons? Guard? Sisters??
Or are starters some sort of pro-SM propaganda?
Well, the UM codex was supposed to be designed to be easy on new players, so it makes sense to have SM in the starter, I suppose. Though they did rather screw over any new players who wanted to be Chaos in this ed...
KommissarKiln wrote: I wonder if factions besides SPEHSS MEHREENS will be used in the next starter (even if this will be e6.1, there has to be a 7th eventually)
IIRC, Space Marines of some sort have been in each pack since at least 4th, well before I even started 40k or LotR, but what about something like just xenos vs. xenos? Daemons? Guard? Sisters??
Or are starters some sort of pro-SM propaganda?
Why would they use anything other than the most popular army in the starter? No other army really even comes close to the popularity of space marines. Sisters Vs Demons? Might as well not even make a starter set :p I imagine 40k could survive if you remove EVERY other army besides space marines (IE Horus Heresy).. yet the game couldn't survive if you simply remove space marines.
KommissarKiln wrote: I wonder if factions besides SPEHSS MEHREENS will be used in the next starter (even if this will be e6.1, there has to be a 7th eventually)
IIRC, Space Marines of some sort have been in each pack since at least 4th, well before I even started 40k or LotR, but what about something like just xenos vs. xenos? Daemons? Guard? Sisters??
Or are starters some sort of pro-SM propaganda?
Why would they use anything other than the most popular army in the starter? No other army really even comes close to the popularity of space marines. Sisters Vs Demons? Might as well not even make a starter set :p I imagine 40k could survive if you remove EVERY other army besides space marines (IE Horus Heresy).. yet the game couldn't survive if you simply remove space marines.
If that happened, I'd be off making my own molds of current 40k models. Possibly. Or I'd be too lazy...
KommissarKiln wrote: I wonder if factions besides SPEHSS MEHREENS will be used in the next starter (even if this will be e6.1, there has to be a 7th eventually)
IIRC, Space Marines of some sort have been in each pack since at least 4th, well before I even started 40k or LotR, but what about something like just xenos vs. xenos? Daemons? Guard? Sisters??
Or are starters some sort of pro-SM propaganda?
Why would they use anything other than the most popular army in the starter? No other army really even comes close to the popularity of space marines. Sisters Vs Demons? Might as well not even make a starter set :p I imagine 40k could survive if you remove EVERY other army besides space marines (IE Horus Heresy).. yet the game couldn't survive if you simply remove space marines.
Well, they don't have to have SM in every set. They could still do Imperium vs. chaos of some sort, or they could do imperium v alien. There are two other imperial forces available other than SM.
KommissarKiln wrote: I wonder if factions besides SPEHSS MEHREENS will be used in the next starter (even if this will be e6.1, there has to be a 7th eventually)
IIRC, Space Marines of some sort have been in each pack since at least 4th, well before I even started 40k or LotR, but what about something like just xenos vs. xenos? Daemons? Guard? Sisters??
KommissarKiln wrote: I wonder if factions besides SPEHSS MEHREENS will be used in the next starter (even if this will be e6.1, there has to be a 7th eventually)
Other space marines, just like in the current starter. They'll do dark angels vs space wolves. Or blood angels versus grey knight. Or vanilla marines versus vanilla marines. The only important thing is to put MOAR SPEHSS MEHREENS !
Tau vs. Tyranids with 'tides and taranchala-like t'ings! Tremendous turmoil as two sides tussle for total control! Tracking systems vs termites! Terminator tearing terrors! Truly tremendous tank-like suits! I'm running out of Ts!
Well, saying that thread has chilled out last weeks is an understatement, however latest discussions were about which armies were going to fit in the next starter box, and here are some fresh news.
From Bell of Lost souls, Larry Vela :
____________________________
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."
____________________________________________________________________________________
I also have to say that I like the switch to 'Ard Boyz in the box. I know they're not necessarily the greatest thing for competitive play, but when introducing new players to the game having one side that gets 0 saves vs a side that ignores 2/3 wounds just makes for an awfully unbalanced game. This should help even things up and make the game a bit more appealing to both new players.
I'd be more inclined to believe the rumour if it pegged the box as featuring a chapter that doesn't already have its own range. Unless they make the box ludicrously expensive(and hence defeat the object of it(and I mean ludicrously expensive by GW standards)), or make it limited edition(just as daft), eBay will end up flooded with cheap snap-fit Blood Angels - who's going to fork over £20 for five Death Company when you can pick them up for £5 Buy It Now, maybe cheaper if you get it at auction.
Even if there is no new FAQ added, the amount of current corrections deserves an updated book. That is not saying that I feel the current state of the rules is OK right now, I'm not.
For example, Monstrous creatures should get cover rules aligned to those of vehicles (à la 5th edition) and not aligned on infantry. That would not stop the current MC craziness, but it will help a bit.
So no proper 7th edition, but an update : V6.1 or more ? We will have to scrutinize the "minor tweaks" in this version, to see if there is a real willingness to correct some of the bugs in V6 ruleset. But I'm not optimistic.
They have seen that putting rules for aegis and existing fortifications in the V6 BRB certainly boosted their sales a lot.
Now, there are additional fortifications thanks to "Stronghold Assault" supplement, but you have to buy the supplement to play with them. And many gaming circles don't put many credit to something felt as optional, sometimes "too big" and so on.
So, to help sell those new fortifications kits, they update the BRB in order to insert their rules in it. Plain & simple, right ?
We may see adapted rules for the orkish barricades, why not ?
I sincerely, sincerely doubt they'll be doing a new starter box so soon. I can sort of buy the idea that GW's putting out a 6.5 edition with lots of fixes, but the idea of them scrapping Dark Vengeance, a set that cost them a lot to make (seriously, the guys tooling the sprues for that kit deserve a medal) is preposterous so soon after releasing it.. That set would barely be 2 years old at the time this supposed new set replaced it, which makes no sense whatsoever. Tooling plastic molds is really expensive.
Forget the rumour, look at the source. Larry Vela, at time of writing, has a worse than 50/50 hit rate, and his accuracy has been getting increasingly worse (Nids were not good for his track record.)
This is likely no more than a logical extrapolation of existing rumour, rather than any sort of inside info.
Brother SRM wrote: I sincerely, sincerely doubt they'll be doing a new starter box so soon. I can sort of buy the idea that GW's putting out a 6.5 edition with lots of fixes, but the idea of them scrapping Dark Vengeance, a set that cost them a lot to make (seriously, the guys tooling the sprues for that kit deserve a medal) is preposterous so soon after releasing it.. That set would barely be 2 years old at the time this supposed new set replaced it, which makes no sense whatsoever. Tooling plastic molds is really expensive.
Aye but, Space Hulk. I don't believe the rumour myself, but the obvious irrationality of making detailed, popular plastic kits and then just putting the expensive moulds in a drawer somewhere after a short time hasn't stopped GW from doing it before.
So Orks staying in fortifications rather than running forward to insert choppa inside skull ? Strange.
Also, marines in the starter box is not a good thing. Expected, usual, and totally credible as a rumor, but not a good thing still !
Kilkrazy wrote: I have always wanted a Space Marines versus Space Marines starter set.
You mean Dark Vengeance ?
[edit]Dark Vengeance is space marines against spiky space marines with cannon-fodder. Do you just want the same without the spikes and cannon-fodder ?[/edit]
Ravajaxe wrote: Well, saying that thread has chilled out last weeks is an understatement, however latest discussions were about which armies were going to fit in the next starter box, and here are some fresh news.
From Bell of Lost souls, Larry Vela :
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)
Ravajaxe wrote: Well, saying that thread has chilled out last weeks is an understatement, however latest discussions were about which armies were going to fit in the next starter box, and here are some fresh news.
From Bell of Lost souls, Larry Vela :
* snip * (...)
This was described as simply an updated Warhammer 40,000 Starter Set and specifically "NOT 7th Edition."
Given this last statement of yours (which I have highlighted ) don't you think you should update the title of the thread?
I.e. "Revised rulebook and new starter set for 40k in summer"... rather than "7th edition".
No everything below my introduction was Larry Vela's input. I realise I should put some quote mark.
It may not be seen as 7th edition from a certain point of view, but on the other hand, it has all the characteristics we have witnessed as of a new edition :
new starter box, new rulebook, updated rules. I mean update from 3th to 4th was not huge, but it was a new edition.
Anyway, GW does not clearly puts edition number anymore in evidence (apart from FAQ titles).
There was a " IV " mark distinguishable on the skull in front of V4 BRB cover.
This is not the case anymore on current BRB.
Yes, I've had folks ask me if I am from there before . Didn't occur to me not living in the new england area, but if someone had "MD" in their name I might wonder if they were from Maryland
Thanks for the explanation on the rumor, guys, although it is sounding more and more like simply a rerelease with a tweak rather than a new edition... hopefully GW does not bill it as the latter to try to require everyone to update their rulebooks
An "organic living ruleset" is something I could get behind. A steady changing game updated gradually with minor tweaks and such to invigorate the game at regular intervals. I love 6th edition, but I think everyone has a bunch of things they'd like to see changed. Minor rules tweaks would be great for the life of the game. The rumoured nerf to Interceptor, for instance, is needed.
We will see, but they should at least make available a mini-rulebook like the hardback one, cheaper @ 30 £ / 38 € on release, not months after.
This, and the softback mini BRB are much better products to carry around, than the 1.7 kg paving stone we have been offered 2 summers ago !
(edit for imperial unit users : 3.75 pounds, yes that's the insane V6 BRB weight).
Ravajaxe wrote: Well, saying that thread has chilled out last weeks is an understatement, however latest discussions were about which armies were going to fit in the next starter box, and here are some fresh news.
From Bell of Lost souls, Larry Vela :
____________________________
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."
____________________________________________________________________________________
Now there is some new flow in the rumormill.
Why hello there!
My friend has been slowly falling out of 40k, but if new orks came out, might be enough to keep him around.
Brother SRM wrote: I sincerely, sincerely doubt they'll be doing a new starter box so soon. I can sort of buy the idea that GW's putting out a 6.5 edition with lots of fixes, but the idea of them scrapping Dark Vengeance, a set that cost them a lot to make (seriously, the guys tooling the sprues for that kit deserve a medal) is preposterous so soon after releasing it.. That set would barely be 2 years old at the time this supposed new set replaced it, which makes no sense whatsoever. Tooling plastic molds is really expensive.
I don't think the injection mold tooling for a new starter set would really be anymore work than the combined tooling for a new codex/army book release, and they're putting those out basically every month now. I could see GW thinking a new starter set would be a good way to kick-start sales, especially if it covers 2 armies that are updated around the same time.
IMO, the oddest thing about this rumour isn't the new box, it's the choice of Blood Angels. It's pretty likely that Orks will get a new codex by this summer, and I'd much sooner expect to see a starter set in Sept containing Space Wolves, followed by their release a month or two later.
Even with the fortification I find it hard to believe that the 'elite' army gets three squads and three characters while the 'horde' army gets two squads and two characters, unless we are talking three 5-man squads versus a full-size 'ard boyz mob and meganobz.
tgjensen wrote: Even with the fortification I find it hard to believe that the 'elite' army gets three squads and three characters while the 'horde' army gets two squads and two characters, unless we are talking three 5-man squads versus a full-size 'ard boyz mob and meganobz.
Ten tac marines and five assault and death company marines wouldn't be too far fetched though, seeing as that gives the BA roughly 23 models (including the priest) against roughly 37 models on the ork side.
40K Radio said the release would just be the rulebook and could be out before the summer. Given that their accuracy is more than twice as good as Larry Vela's, I know who I believe.
Please don't be true, please don't be true. I do NOT want to shill out $100 just for a Sanguinary Priest and some BA, but if the model looks good enough...
KommissarKiln wrote: I wonder if factions besides SPEHSS MEHREENS will be used in the next starter (even if this will be e6.1, there has to be a 7th eventually)
IIRC, Space Marines of some sort have been in each pack since at least 4th, well before I even started 40k or LotR, but what about something like just xenos vs. xenos? Daemons? Guard? Sisters??
Or are starters some sort of pro-SM propaganda?
Yes. Some sort of SM propaganda.
They have been in all of the boxes since the 2d edition boxed set. Each of the major chapters has had a chance at bat, some better earners then others.
Back in the RT era days, Space marines had the "Battle of the Farm" at the back of the book with the orks. You were as well, able to pick up a starter box of around 20-30 marines and a boss, or use the chits in the book to start with, and/ or the boxed ork set, and go at it. Back in the base set of a sheet like necromunda, where each guy was pretty much a unit of his own. ( Boxed set was pretty extensive back in the day. One box had like 20-30 marines, pluse all of the fixes. The orks had a metal set with the base warboss, Thrugg Bullneck and his Raiders.)
Thrugg was a Pain in the !@#, by the way.
I'm all Ork all the time, so more boyz is good boyz, say I. trimmed a bit of the fat, so its about time to add in a few more, if the price is right.
We might have to wait for the "Big Sale" to see anything of substance, though. They are not really doing much in the way of "New" for the game, and are just plodding along.
Pretty bad if you think about it. Heck even a revamp of the old school "Battle of the Farm" would have been something to "WOW the Masses" with.
Between the transformer Chaos stuff, and the over detailed Dark Angels and the excessive gak in between, the game has lost its audience.
pretre wrote: Really? You want Battle of the Farm back. Yeck.
Sort of. I'd like to see a revamp, and something along the lines of the campaign from the 6th edition game. They almost got it right, but then started going off the deep end with the excess.
For What it's worth, RT was a lark of a book. The stuff in there was overly detailed to the point of RPG realms.
I'm not going to say that doing that would be the best idea, but it sure as heck would be better then what is going on now.
A small scale pick up game, with a couple of figures, and some scenerios that add on as you move forward, such as with 4-5th.
6th was OTT-"Give me your firstborn children!!" realm of shockingly bad selections for introductory armies. New players? You want to give a new player chaos, and ... DARK ANGELS.
This was supposed to be an "Introduction", so a base couple squad on squad was acceptable. It is just when little timmy has to go back down to the shops and sell a gak load of his organs for the clank to buy a couple of additional models.... They pretty much shoot themselves in the face.
The old school base "Battle of the Farm" was supposed to be a mini "Rourkes Drift" thing. It wasn't that bad, considering it was new at the time.
Do something like that today with 5 marines, and a10 man squads of cultists, and crank them out for 20 bucks a pop. Instant hit.
Then you could crank out the same sorts of 20 bucks a pop sets with some IG and Nids. 10 man squad and a LT Vs 10 gaunts, and a warrior. Tau, 10 vs 10 Necrons.
Make a couple of different sets with the pretty battle pic on the fornt, ala the BL books.
pretre wrote: Really? You want Battle of the Farm back. Yeck.
I'm not old enough to remember that, but it sure does sound awesome ! We could hide behind cows to get cover ! Or go to the barn to do very close combat . Beside, it really gives the battle a sense of purpose : only the winner will get to have eggs for breakfast !
pretre wrote: Really? You want Battle of the Farm back. Yeck.
I'm not old enough to remember that, but it sure does sound awesome ! We could hide behind cows to get cover ! Or go to the barn to do very close combat . Beside, it really gives the battle a sense of purpose : only the winner will get to have eggs for breakfast !
Some updates on 7th edition: 1) It will purely be a book release. 2) It could be released as early as May.
On the Chaos Space Marine Releases. 1) Look for the stuff to be released beginning of summer. 2) Crimson Slaughter(CSM in the DV starter) might receive a Supplement as well.
Kilkrazy wrote: I have always wanted a Space Marines versus Space Marines starter set.
Well, I hear the Space Wolves and Dark Angels don't exactly get along... make it happen, GW.
would prefer Sisters Vs. Flesh Tearers...
Also the DA vs Wolves is more of an honor thing from the days when their primarchs had a #$%k measuring contest and the lion laughed at russes genetically enhanced baby #$%k russ then punched him and is reported to have said, its not the size that matters its how you use it...he then went out and got the biggest chain axe and bolter available in the armory
If it's just a book release, the cynical part of me is wondering if they will bother updating the book in all of the current starter sets already sitting on shelves, or if they will just continue to sell them as is and let people find out there is an updated book later...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Yodhrin wrote: I'd be more inclined to believe the rumour if it pegged the box as featuring a chapter that doesn't already have its own range. Unless they make the box ludicrously expensive(and hence defeat the object of it(and I mean ludicrously expensive by GW standards)), or make it limited edition(just as daft), eBay will end up flooded with cheap snap-fit Blood Angels - who's going to fork over £20 for five Death Company when you can pick them up for £5 Buy It Now, maybe cheaper if you get it at auction.
How would that be any different to the starter sets from the last several editions...?
Kilkrazy wrote: I have always wanted a Space Marines versus Space Marines starter set.
Well, I hear the Space Wolves and Dark Angels don't exactly get along... make it happen, GW.
would prefer Sisters Vs. Flesh Tearers...
Also the DA vs Wolves is more of an honor thing from the days when their primarchs had a #$%k measuring contest and the lion laughed at russes genetically enhanced baby #$%k russ then punched him and is reported to have said, its not the size that matters its how you use it...he then went out and got the biggest chain axe and bolter available in the armory
Seeing how Russ and his losers, I mean wolves, are a bunch of babies, I approve of this post.
If you just bought it for the fluff, what's the loss? The fluff will still exist with little to no change.
So, is 40k Radio standing by the new rules book as being a distinct 7th Edition, rather than, essentially, 6th ed with the FAQs included? That is, according to their rumor, if I bought the digital edition of the rules today, it would be invalidated and not updated with the release of this new book?
I think it's novel how the rumours were initially YES IT'S 7TH EDITION and now they're NO IT'S DEFINITELY NOT 7TH EDITION...
It's almost as if the forum backlash is tempering the rumours...
Anyway, I was excited to read this and if it's true, I'll be all over it - can never have enough blood angels and orks - but it sounds a little fan-servicey to me. Blood angels vs orks feels like some proper 3rd ed nostalgia baiting. I'm pretty skeptical.
If that starter set did actually happen I'd be looking to get at least one of the Ork sets of minis for the fortifications alone (to speculate - a Rok, given past Ork rumours?) even tho I don't really need the rest of it with the stuff I have. Unfortunately it sounds like bunkum. :(
Like others have said would believe an updated rulebook coming out way before a new starter set given how recent DV is.
Symbio Joe wrote: Wow, we are so close to play 2nd Edition again that even the starter set goes back there.
Except - this being a BoLS rumour - it probably isn't
40K Radio directly contradicts it, saying 7th is a book-only release.
Some updates on 7th edition: 1) It will purely be a book release. 2) It could be released as early as May.
On the Chaos Space Marine Releases. 1) Look for the stuff to be released beginning of summer. 2) Crimson Slaughter(CSM in the DV starter) might receive a Supplement as well.
If the dakka rumour accuracy stuff is worth anything, I'd go with 40K Radio. Crimson Slaughter Supplement makes no sense of DV is pulled.
Symbio Joe wrote: Wow, we are so close to play 2nd Edition again that even the starter set goes back there.
Except - this being a BoLS rumour - it probably isn't
40K Radio directly contradicts it, saying 7th is a book-only release.
Some updates on 7th edition: 1) It will purely be a book release. 2) It could be released as early as May.
On the Chaos Space Marine Releases. 1) Look for the stuff to be released beginning of summer. 2) Crimson Slaughter(CSM in the DV starter) might receive a Supplement as well.
If the dakka rumour accuracy stuff is worth anything, I'd go with 40K Radio. Crimson Slaughter Supplement makes no sense of DV is pulled.
Is there some Blog somewhere with better rumors, or rumor tracking?
Symbio Joe wrote: Wow, we are so close to play 2nd Edition again that even the starter set goes back there.
Except - this being a BoLS rumour - it probably isn't
40K Radio directly contradicts it, saying 7th is a book-only release.
Some updates on 7th edition: 1) It will purely be a book release. 2) It could be released as early as May.
On the Chaos Space Marine Releases. 1) Look for the stuff to be released beginning of summer. 2) Crimson Slaughter(CSM in the DV starter) might receive a Supplement as well.
If the dakka rumour accuracy stuff is worth anything, I'd go with 40K Radio. Crimson Slaughter Supplement makes no sense of DV is pulled.
Is there some Blog somewhere with better rumors, or rumor tracking?
Not that I know off.
Going by Dakka's rumour tracking as the world leader in this field, how'd you judge a 40K Radio and a BoLS rumour going toe-to-toe?
To save pretre the trouble for once (THANKS for doing this, by the way!!)
Larry Vela aka Big Red - Total rumors: (70 TRUE) / (83 FALSE) / (6 PARTIALLY TRUE/VAGUE)
Spoiler:
Starter Rumors - Jan 2014
Launch Window - @September PENDING Rules Summary : Updated Mini-rulebook contains FAQs, minor tweaks and clarifications, and much of Stronghold Assault rolled into a new shiny package. PENDING Miniatures included: @70 PENDING
Armies:
Blood Angels (plastic quick assembly) PENDING - Assault Marine Squad PENDING - Tactical Marine Squad PENDING - Death Company Squad PENDING - Captain (kitted out for assault) PENDING - Chaplain PENDING - Sanguinary Priest (limited edition, similar to the Dark Vengeance mini was) PENDING
This was described as simply an updated Warhammer 40,000 Starter Set and specifically "NOT 7th Edition." PENDING
Release Rumors - Jan 2014
via Larry Vela on Bols There are conflicting details of exact kits involved, but the meat of the rumors are that the 100% linking of miniature releases to the currently released Codex/Army Book are coming to an end. In a return to the days of many years past we can look for independent minis being released that will be sprinkled around the various factions all during 2014. PENDING
Maybe it was the realization that people don't like to wait 6 years for new minis for their armies, or maybe GW REALLY, REALLY wants out of Finecast but here are the details we got:
- A range of 30-40 minis are planned PENDING - These are split across 40k and WFB PENDING - None of these are named characters (which will remain small batch runs in resin of some type) PENDING - All of these are currently Finecast or originally metal kits PENDING - Most will be single minis redone as plastic clampacks (mainly HQs), while some may be smaller kits. Large kits and vehicles will wait till their faction books come around. PENDING - Released roughly 3 per month, probably tied into the new weekly release schedule. PENDING
Commonly named culprits are:
Major Daemons PENDING Harlequins PENDING Runepriests PENDING Cryptek PENDING Sanguinary Priest PENDING Chaos Lord PENDING etc...
Chaos Rumors - Jan 2014
via Larry Vela on Bols Sources have told us that many of the quick assembly minis in the Dark Vengeance set are getting the full treatment and arriving as fully-optioned multi-part plastic kits. The following are on the way:
-Helbrute with all the weapon options PENDING -Chaos Cultist set with options for Plague Zombies PENDING -Chaos Lord in clampack format said to be bits compatible with the existing CSM range. PENDING -Chaos Chosen with buckets of god-specific bits including 5 heads per god. PENDING -Obliterators/Mutilators combo-kit PENDING -Chaos Havocs with all new visual designs for certain weapons. PENDING
Half of these will ship very soon, the other half closer to Summer. PENDING
Dwarf Rumors - Jan 2014
Dwarfs - February (I'd bet on February 8th) PENDING
The Kits:
Plastic Tunneling Vehicle PENDING Plastic infantry heavy armor unit kit (dual-build) PENDING Plastic infantry light armor unit kit (dual-build) PENDING
Plastic War Altar PENDING Plastic New VERY large gun/cannon PENDING Plastic Beefier Gyrocopter PENDING
Clampack Lord PENDING
IG Rumors - Dec 2013
New plastic tank based heavily on the Heresy-era Malcador. Large kit outsizes the Land Raider (way smaller than a Baneblade) Multiple variants in the kit. PENDING
Updated Basilisk returns. Gun assembly is more rearward with armored skirts replacing the delicate railing. An overall more up-armored appearance. PENDING
A NEW dogfighter flyer arrives, that is NOT an existing known model. PENDING
New Plastic Stormtrooper/Veteran kit will build a minimum sized unit. Kit includes a TON of optional bits to individualize your squad as well as bits to dress up existing Cadian ranges. PENDING
Tyranids TRUE Imperial Guard PENDING Orks PENDING Space Wolves PENDING Dark Eldar PENDING ------------------ the "if they can fit them in line"
Blood Angels PENDING Necrons PENDING Grey Knights PENDING
Don't forget to have these Warhammer Fantasy titles interspersed in there throughout the year as well:
Tyranid Rumors - Dec 2013
We rate this set of rumors possible, coming from mixed sources.
Release Basics
The total release contains 9 new kits, 3 clamshells. ZERO Finecast. FALSE
At least 1 new unit per FOC category. FALSE
Tyranids may ally with themselves. Their ally FOC is as follows: 1HQ and 2 Troops default, plus optional 1 Elites, 1-2 troop, 1 Fast Attack, 1 Heavy Support. FALSE
Biomorphs are in a seperate codex section in categories, with various Tyranid creatures having access to different categories. Biomorph categories are:
- Basic biomorphs FALSE - Rare biomorphs FALSE - Psychic-Leader biomorphs FALSE - Unique biomorphs (only 1 each per army) FALSE
Units Rumors
Ymgarl Genestealers retain their ability to assault out of their hidden location. FALSE
Lictors only allow snap shots plus gain a hefty cover save when they are unveiled. FALSE
Raveners and Hormagaunts are Beasts. FALSE
Hormagaunts come equipped with Fleet by default. TRUE Genestealers gain an A, and WS bonus. FALSE
Carnifex gains a T bonus, and may take virtually every biomorph in the codex (bringing back all those plastic bits from the kit into use.) FALSE
Trygon Primes move to HQ. FALSE
Venomthropes and Lictors are purchased in broods of 1-3 per FOC slot, but deploy and operate independently on battlefield. TRUE
New dedicated Transport big bug. May purchase a twinlinked set of heavy weapons, Transport capacity of 20 small bugs. Counts as an opened top vehicle for assault purposes. FALSE
Another "new" big bug is a direct import from EPIC with it's name unchanged. TRUE
Trygon & Raveners digital dataslate from GW Digital the same month as the codex release with a formation allowing Raveners to assault out of the Trygon's Deep Strike tunnel. FALSE
Tyranid Warriors available in both HQ (Tyranid Prime)and Troops. TRUE
- HQ Warriors function as the Prime's retinue, and do not deploy separately. FALSE - Prime + Retinue may deploy in a Mycetic Spore. FALSE
Troops Warriors are mostly unchanged. TRUE Updated Biomorphs. TRUE Adrenal Glands is much improved. TRUE Warriors cheaper in points. (75pts base for unit). FALSE
Harpy-Eirnye FALSE
- Arm design is similar to the Forgeworld Harridan. TRUE - Wings attach to the body via 2 sets of arm slots. TRUE - Back 2 pairs are for the wings. TRUE - First pair of arms is reserved for various weaponry/gribblies. TRUE
Tyranid Rumors - Dec 2013
via Larry Vela on Bell of Lost Souls
Author: Adam Troke FALSE
MINIS
New Tyranid plastic kits:
Warrior - Shrike: 3 model kit. FALSE HiveGuard - Tyrantguard: 3 model kit. New weapon option for Hiveguard, Full lash whip-sword-claw-talon bits for Tyrant guard. TRUE Pyrovore - Biovore - Hellevore: 1 model plastic kit. 3 plastic spore mines included. FALSE Harpy - Eriyne: 1 model plastic kit. FALSE Mycetic Spore: 1 model plastic kit. FALSE Tyranid Prime: 1 model plastic kit. FALSE
RULES
Termagant TRUE Troops FOC Unit size up to 30
Cost: 4pt PENDING Default comes with Fleshborer
Release Schedule - Nov 2013
December/January: Tyranids DUPLICATE Q1-14: Dwarfs, Imperial Guard DUPLICATE Q2-14: Wood Elves, Orks PENDING Q3-14: WFB 9th, Bretonnians, Space Wolves PENDING Q4-14: Dark Eldar, ??? PENDING
You should treat each quarter as less reliable than the one preceding it. Q4 would certainly allow 1-2 more releases. Based on this list the following armybooks/codeces would still be left un-updated for both systems:
If you throw in one of those two WFB books leftover into Q4, and it's almost entirely updated by end of 2014!
Finecast - Nov 2013
Latest reports coming in from multiple sources:
Lots going on behind the scenes at GW - Look for a public announcement in Q2 of 2014 regarding Finecast: PENDING
-GW Proper gets out of Finecast entirely. PENDING -Forgeworld will take control of all remaining Finecast character models. PENDING -These character models will be the only non-plastics in GW's line until they are replaced. PENDING -These character models will be moved over to plastic (and GW control) in time with plastic clampack resculpts. PENDING -There are internal tests taking place to cast some existing Forgeworld resin kits in a new plastic material. PENDING
It looks like the resin material is on its way out, and GW is sprinting as fast as it can to replace any Finecast non character kits from their entire range - leaving them as a 100% plastic manufacturer. PENDING
Tyranid Rumors - Nov 2013
via BigRed over on Bell of Lost Souls Lounge
"Rippers are getting a small box like the nurglings. 3 bases. Wings included for sky slashers. Different mouth parts for weapon options." FALSE
Tyranid Rumors - Nov 2013
via Big Red on Bols Lounge
"The Dominar embodies Tyranid Hive Mind completely. Within its shadow, lesser creatures bow in servitude, and larger Tyranids find greater access to the warp. It's armored shell protects it from the most powerful weaponry. Any enemy foolish enough to close with it will find no mercy, as it's claws and teeth rip through flesh and armor plating with ease, and within its massive body lie all manner of symbiotic organisms willing to defend their host. FALSE The Karkanos is a lumbering, living fortress. Upon it's back, smaller Tyranids will gather for protection, waiting for the opportune moment to strike at their foes. Bristling with weapons, it can decimate foes as they close, while it's passengers target other enemies. FALSE
This multi-part plastic boxed set contains 84 components with which to build one Tyranid Dominar or one Karkanos. This kit contains all the weapon options available to the either creature including cluster spines, heavy venom cannons, brain leech devourers, and acid spray. This kit contains one Large Oval base. It is supplied unpainted and requires assembly - we recommend using Citadel Plastic Glue and Citadel Paints." FALSE
"The dominar has a 18" synapse range and Shadow in the Warp range, and increases the psyker level of all Tyranid Psykers within 6" by 1 level. Also has It will Not Die, psychic Monstrosity, IC(c) and can take most Tyranid Biomorphs. It's bigger than the Tyrranofex model, wider with a taller stance, huge head with a massive brain under a wide plate, large mouth like the trygons. It has three rows of vents along the back plates, but the back plates come up behind the head like a turtle, offering protection." FALSE
" the Karkanos looks like a crab. It has a wide flat body, the back plate is sunk in and has a ridge around the outer edges. It's front set of arms can hold a few weapon options like venom cannons or devourers or can take claws or talons. Transport capacity is identical to the spore, but it cannot carry MCs. It is a dedicated transport option for the walking troops: warriors, Genestealers, hormigaunts, Termagants. Open top. Has special rules to handle being a MC and transport...not a vehicle. It's probably one of the most expensive dedicated transports in the game. Can be taken in heavy section solo." FALSE
Tyranids and Tyranid Hunters - Oct 2013
via Bigred over on the Bols Lounge
Tyranids
-Tyranids kick off 2014 DUPLICATE -An emphasis on making EVERY unit in the codex viable this time around FALSE -The army rules and theme are focused on adaptability of unit abilities and inter-unit synergy FALSE -Emphasis on model releases will be to get out all the missing models in the previous codex FALSE -Look for a small number of highly specialized new units to shore up 6th edition deficiencies in the army PENDING -A new unseen big bug kit is among these TRUE
Tyranid-hunters
-Ultramarine Tyranic War Veteran Supplemental codex is the next supplemental book coming, to tie into the release and to provide worthy foes for the hive-fleets. TRUE -BOTH digital and physical versions out in Q1 2014 PENDING
Tyranid Rumors - August 2013
-Altered FOC to help counter the lack of Allies. 3 HQ, 4 Elite, 6 Troop, 4 Fast, 4Heavy. Purchasing the 3rd HQ choice unlocks the extra Elite, Fast, and Heavy slots. FALSE - Termagants – Gain Fleet. New 10 unit box. Includes options for Spike rifles and Strangleweb. Curled tails. No rippers on sprues. FALSE - "BIG BUG" – Larger than Tervigon sized HQ unit. Oval base, hunched over, but wider. Has 18” synapse. Psyker 4. Prime version: Grants FNP and Counter Attack to Nids in 12.” Stats like Tervigon, except 2A. SitWFALSE Two new Tyranid psychic powers lists. One list is destructive powers, one is augmentive powers. FALSE - Tervigon – Upgrade options for Termagant spawns to give them full options, but they are quite pricy. FALSE - Tyrant Guard and Hive Guard -Dual-build plastic kit. 3 models. All options for either unit. DUPLICATE - Lictors – small point increase, gain new “Surprise!” rule (all shots against Lictors the turn after they appear are snap shots).TRUE DeathLeaper now an upgrade character. FALSE
Eldar Rumors - June 2013
The two fighters in the Crimson Hunter/Hemlock box was one AND there was a larger bomber that was sighted by sources. Its possible this bomber is being held for either a second Eldar wave, or Apocalypse. In anycase that bomber didn't ship in the codex-release wave. PENDING
Here is an artist mockup put together with help from folks 'in the know'. PENDING Bomber Pic
The things you will notice compared to the fighter are:
-Lengthier fuselage
-Wider wingspan without the forward curving wings of the fighters
-Dual closely mounted engines per wing (4 engines in total)
-Dual cockpits (pilot and gunner)
-Probably bombs underslung as well
"Pulsar Lance" Primary fire mode: 36" S:8 AP2 Heavy 2, Lance FALSE
Overcharge mode (weapon may not fire next turn) 48" S:10 AP1 Heavy 1, Blast, Lance FALSE
Chaos - June 2012
- Codex author is Phil Kelly TRUE - Chaos Cultists are available in blob squads into the thirties... TRUE - Certain Named Characters grant various USRs and other special rules to Cultists when selected.TRUE -The "flying dragon thingy" is coming. It is a flyer and one of two entirely new units added to the codex. TRUE -The second new unit is said to be a Chaos answer to the Grey Knight Dreadknight. TRUE -The Chaos Dreadnought is indeed still there (take a breath people), but gets a new name, and a rules overhaul. TRUE -Hardcover book (just like Fantasy army books) TRUE
Releases - Oct 2011
Sisters in WD Summer 2011 TRUE Necrons in November TRUE Chaos Legions in March 2012 WRONG DATEFALSE 6th Ed in Summer TRUE
Lores in 40k - May 2012
4+ Lores, TRUE Default power + roll for powers, Casting costs,TRUE some race specific lores TRUE
Tau Rumors - March 2011
- FOC swap for Crisis Suits FALSE -New Close Combat Battlesuit FALSE -New Ethereal named character TRUE -Ethereals will get upgraded to be the "leader" role in the Tau Empire army. (so not the best BS, or WS, but other interesting army-support tricks) TRUE -New deepstriking Dropship (an Orca-ish platform on par with the IG valkyrie) FALSE -Up-gunned Drone variants (specific anti-tank and anti-heavy infantry options) which can be attached to almost every TAU unit in the codex TRUE
Dwarf and Wood Elf - Nov 2013
Dwarfs
February Release PENDING New Plastic Lord PENDING New Grudgethrower PENDING New Trollslayers PENDING New Hammerers PENDING New Ironbreakers PENDING More...
"Big Kit" is the Orc Crusher - a large machine. PENDING
Wood Elves
May Release PENDING The final army book of 8th Edition PENDING New Glade Guard PENDING New Way Watchers PENDING New War Dancers PENDING New Dryads PENDING New Treemen PENDING New War Eagles PENDING New units... TOO VAGUE
Thunderhawk - Nov 2013
-Plastic Thunderhawk - 2014 PENDING -Not an exact duplication of Forgeworld's kit due to the need to streamline for a limited number of sprues and boxing size limitations. PENDING -Additional weapon hardpoints and weapon options compared to the Forgeworld kit. Look for weapon hardpoints and options from other Space Marine flyer kits for clues. PENDING -Multiple T-Hawk sub-variants can be built from the kit. ~editor's note: Forgeworld only offers the "standard" and "transport" versions, unless this is referring to things like Marine, Grey Knight, Inquisition, CSM variants...The Thunderhawk and other(s) plastic Apocalypse kit will be the featured new models in the 2014 Apocalypse Supplement. PENDING
Tyranid Rumors - Nov 2013
Look for a return of many biomorphs in a big way, led by available model options. PENDING Several plastic models had access to many biomorphs with modeling options in 4th, and those parts are currently cosmetic.
The feeling is that the biomorph options were curtailed much too strongly in the current book and if there is a modeling option for it in a plastic kit, it will have rules in the next codex. I'm looking at you Carnifex (and others)! PENDING
Ork Rumors It looks like we have a good idea of what the first half of 2014 is looking like.
Orks in June, after Imperial Guard PENDING Ork models focus on updates/removal of metal and finecast models. PENDING
Gutrippa returns as a reimagined halftrack with a Kannon and a nasty spike filled front, and a AAA Flakkwagon alternative build. PENDING
Buggy kit PENDING Flashgitz/Tankbustas combo-kit PENDING Meganob kit (Warboss bit included) PENDING Big Gunz/Suppagunz combo-kit PENDING Deffkoptas PENDING Plastic cybork parts are included in one of those kits. PENDING
Last but not least... there is mixed chatter out there about... da CyBoar! PENDING
Tyranid Rumors - Nov 2013
Unique Tyranid creatures are unique per detachment. For for example 2 Dooms, 2 Swarmlords, etc... at 2k, representing a very rare breed but something that each HiveFleet knows how to create in extremis. PARTIALLY TRUE
IG Rumors - Oct 2013
Codex Imperial Guard launches in March 2014 PENDING Look for many refreshes in the codex rules. TOO VAGUE Expanded command system with the return of Doctrines PENDING The missing IG tanks will be released:
-Griffon/Collosus/Medusa artillery kit PENDING Stormtroopers released PENDING Veterans released PENDING -These two infantry kits include many, many optional bits to build command squads and even penal troops. PENDING New centerpiece kit is a Horus Heresy era tank. PENDING
Tyranid Rumors - Oct 2013
Zoanthropes
-Multipart plastic kit makes 3 models. FALSE -Flying bases. FALSE -3 base bodies in the kit, 2 tails are coiled, one is curling slightly forward. FALSE -Back plates and chests are identical for the three. These are wider and slightly taller than the current model. The base tail piece has 2 tiny claws that go on, but are not normal Tyranid ball sockets. The torso has 4 arm sockets. For these models the claw arms are similar to hormagaunt claws, but shorter. Kit contains a dozen arms, most are retracted, four are extended out. All are small atrophied limbs compared to other Tyranids. Two rows of back-vents. FALSE - Multipart heads. There are separate pieces per head to make the mouths have more dimension. One has its tongue out, curling to the side. One closed mouth, one mouth is wide open. The head plate is wider and has a spiked ridge. The brains are exposed, no eyes. FALSE -Tail loses the current model's spiked end. FALSE -Slightly larger than the current model. FALSE -Fundamentally an evolutionary kit from the current Zoanthrope to meet the requirements of injected plastic production. FALSE
Tyranid Rumors - Oct 2013
Hivefleet (Big Bugs - not real title 2014) PENDING Focuses on Monstrous Creatures. Book adds variant rules for deployment and FOC changes for units like the Carnifex, letting you take them in both Heavy and Elites, plus the ability to operate independently. Hivefleet balances this with some prohibited units, and the inability to go first in any mission.
Hivefleet (Fast Bugs - not real title ???) PENDING Focuses on high speed fast-moving bugs. FOC changes to emphasize these units such as Gargoyles as Troops, new abilities and special rules for Ravenors, while Gants get minor enhancements as well. This hivefleet is balanced by prohibiting "traditional" walking Monstrous Creatures. A new flying HQ unit is included.
Genestealer Cult (???) PENDING The first "hybrid supplement" - this book will be a combined book for IG and Tyranids. It allows both codices to ally, but heavily restricts units selections on both. Look for smaller "infiltration bugs" such as Genestealers, Broodlords, Lictors and such from the Tyranid side while the Guard are very heavily restricted on units and heavy equipment. The list's HQ must include a psyker warlord from either the IG or Tyranid units allowed. A new psychic power list is included.
The Possible stuff:
IG Regiment Doctrines: Each Regiment (Cadian, Catachan, etc...)has doctrines, similar to SM Chapter tactics. Examples listed were: PENDING Cadians - may issue 2 orders to a unit PENDING Catachans - Move-thru-cover, and Jungle Fighter (???) PENDING
Thunderbolt flyer: Very heavy armor, but cannot jink. PENDING
The Salt-mine
Imperial Robots - 2 new robots, requiring an Admech handler/enginseer. PENDING
Knight Paladin - Taller than riptide, not as tall as Wraithknight. Vanquisher cannon and Uber-chainsword are standard load out. May upgrade to Punisher Cannon, Uber-Fist with Inferno Flamers PENDING
Tyranid Rumors - Sep 2013
Karkinos: all you zodiac lovers will appreciate the reference. It is not known what form this Classical Greek monster will take in the new Tyranid codex, only that it is coming. FALSE Monstrous Creature Broods may not deploy in multiple Mycetic Spores. ~YIKES!!! TRUE
HQ Trygon option. FALSE
Parasite is now a Shrike upgrade character, and moves out of the HQ section. FALSE
Tyranid Prime can now be purchased in Warrior, Shrike or Ravener forms. FALSE
Many classic biomorphs have returned as upgrade options for most units. FALSE
Many units can now run twice or run-assault. ~ nice countpoint to Battle Focus FALSE
New unit that is static but extends synapse range. Can take some weapons and has cc ability if attacked. FALSE
5 new units in the Tyranid Codex:
-New flyer (Erinye) FALSE -Mycetic Spore combo-kit alternative build (Mycetic Hive Node) FALSE -Entirely new Monstrous Creature (the "Big Bug) DUPLICATE -New elite character (Crawling Plague - Named Venomthrope) FALSE -Another one... (Genethrope) FALSE
Tyranids - August 2013
They rain down from the Hiveships, gelatenous bags of vile ichor and malevolence. Here's the latest word on the Mycetic Spore said to arriving with the upcoming Tyranids.
-Mycetic Spore is coming with the new Tyranid release DUPLICATE -Plastic combo-kit that makes the Spore and another large bug. FALSE -It is an enormous creature, with an immense abdomen/transport sac, that spills over the sides of a standard oval base. FALSE -It has tiny vestigial arms similar to a Zoanthropes, and a head with a tentacle ringed maw. FALSE -The giant abdomen/sac looks swollen, and has internal protuberances looking like Tyranid creatures are stretching the skin from within, about to rip their way out... ~EWWWWW!!! FALSE -It has forward arms options that can be upgraded for various biomorph/weapon options. FALSE -The secondary creature build option replaces the abdomen/sac with something entirely different. FALSE
Tyranid Rumors - August 2013
-Tyranids are after Space Marines DUPLICATE -Look for them before the end of the year FALSE New Minis:
- Tyranid Prime (finecast) FALSE - Harpy. Roughly size of the heldrake. Pretty much looks like the picture in prior codex. TRUE - Doom of Malantai (clamshell package) FALSE - Parasite of Mordrax (clamshell package) FALSE - Termagant sprues recut for more options (some chatter says Genestealers) FALSE - Mycetic Spore DUPLICATE - New "Big Bug" kit (Because every army needs one!) DUPLICATE New Rules:
- Pyrovore gains Torrent and a steep points reduction. FALSE - Hiveguard gain Skyfire FALSE
BT Dreadknight - July 2013
A large kit design was reported as follows:
- a fully enclosed "dreadknight" FALSE - wielding a large crusader shield and mace FALSE - upper body mounted assault cannon FALSE
Dark Elf Rumors - July 2013
Look for many new Dark Elf models on launch, focusing on those "that needed it" *hint, hint*
I would assume "that need it" means:
Executioners TRUE Black Guard TRUE Witch Elves TRUE Cauldron of Blood TRUE Chariot TRUE Warriors/Crossbowmen TRUE
And I saved the best for last:
Morathi FALSE
GW prioritizes metal ugly models for updates before ugly plastic ones, so the talk of new Executioners/Black Guard and Witches would make sense. SPECULATION
The Dark Reaper Exarch regains a classic weapon option from the days of yore. HINT, HINT - it involves skulls and chain. FALSE
Aspect Warriors are moving to plastic using the "combo-unit" dual-build format GW has moved to of late. We'll leave it up to you to guess which aspects could be paired off into combo-kit boxes with differing heads/weapon options. FALSE
The new Eldar flyer is quite curved in nature, with sweeping lines all about. A real head turner. TOO VAGUE
The new Eldar "big kit" is a wraith construct that shares numerous design cues with the current War Walker - but much larger. A "virtual" beast... TRUE
Eldar keep thier distance from Tau from an overall design theme. They will be the masters of maneuver and outright speed. Look for multiple options and units types for jetbikes including up-armored and even faster versions. Jetbikes as a family may well become the staple hallmark of the army. They will come in multiple flavors with both anti-personnel and anti-armor types.PARTIALLY TRUE
FOC wise, look for a whole lot of jumping about of units between the HEAVY SUPPORT, FAST ATTACK, and ELITES slots. There will be difficult player decisions to be made in those areas. FALSE
Apocalypse Release - April 2013
The Eldar flyer is being shifted to go with their codex two months down the pipe DUPLICATE
Apocalypse 2.0 Release - July according to the rumored GW 2013 Master Schedule DUPLICATE
Dark Eldar Voidraven Bomber PENDING Imperial Guard Hydra / Hydra-variant (hinted as toting Lascannons) FALSE Imperial Guard Colossus/Bombard FALSE
The dual-build Imperial / Chaos "Titanish-thingy" (bigger than a Baneblade - smaller than a Warhound). FALSE
Ork Rumors - March - 2013
Mek Tank – Sporting a giant Shokk Attack Gun, firing Bomb Squigs. Tank can purchase a KFF. PENDING
Flashgits - Their Snazz guns roll for random range each turn (12+3d6). On a triple 1 they overheat like Gets Hot. The unit may purchase upgrades like +1 BS, +1A, blast, rapid fire, skyfire, ans others, several are mutually exclusive. PENDING
Boys - cheaper! PENDING
Meks - Look for ability to field an increased number of Deffdreads and Kanns than currently. PENDING
Stormboyz - Gain a "Rocket boost" attack that can target flyers. They must move 18” and if they pass a flyer they each get 2 attacks on it as if assaulting a vehicle. Move as infantry during their next turn. Looks like the designers played a lot of THQ's Space Marine! PENDING
Buggys / Trakks - May tank shock if they are upgraded with spiked plates/wheels. PENDING
Ork Rumors - March 2013
NEW HQs "Grot Boss" Grot with a stateline of a Ork Boy, but higher BS. Equipped with a nice kustom-mega-shoota as an option. Can also get a Buggy or take a Killa-kan as a transport/upgrade PENDING
"Da Crew" An HQ unit of even bigger Nobs. They have odd LoS modifications, One Nob must be nominated as "Da Boss", and if Da Boss is killed, one of Da Crew is promoted. This interacts in some new way with "Kill the Warlord" victory conditions, and is effectively an entire "warlord unit". PENDING
NEW UNITS Grot Whirlybird: Rotored transport: Capacity 20 Grots. They get dumped on the battlefield roughly from the Whirlybird taking a mandatory DT test, and cause mayhem if they fall atop another unit. PENDING
Grots Buggys: Similar to Nob Bikers, but are buggies with Grots on the back and Orks behind the wheel! Drive-by attacks. Highly likely this will be an "alternate unit" for a buggy combo-unit box. PENDING
Eldar - March 2013
-New Eldar "large tank" is being worked on (not the same as the new falcon variant) FALSE -Guardian/Storm Guardian combo plastic box FALSE -Guardian jetbikes/Shining Spear combo box FALSE
Chaos Daemons Look for dual 40K/WFB Chaos Daemons army book-codexes in Feb/March. DUPLICATE They should be in the March White Dwarf, and hit the street end of February DUPLICATE
- All four Greater Daemon plastic kits with named options FALSE - Plastic Furies, dual-option kit with "Flesh Terrors" FALSE - Plastic Khorne Chariot, herald, dual kit with a cannon, pulled by Bloodcrushers DUPLICATE - Plastic Tzeentch Chariot, herald, dual kit with "flame-beast" pulled by screamers, ( 40k: a Skimmer) TRUE - Plastic Nurgle Palanquin, (chariot), carried by Nurglings, (combines with Nurgle GD kit for named character model - Ku'gath) FALSE - Nurgle Plague-flies jetbikes/monsterous cavalry (40K-Elites, WFB-Rares) DUPLICATE - New Daemon-engine, bipedal with atypical porportions, uses ectoplasmic weaponry of CSMs, has numerous options for CC or Ranged loadout. (40K- Heavy, WFB-Special) FALSE - New Daemon flying MC. (40K-Fast Attack-flyer, WFB-Rare) FALSE Rules
- Daemon Princes with Wings will move slots in 40K. FALSE - Look for across the board points increases in the codex/army book. FALSE
Chaos Daemons Jan 2013
It is believed to be a Q1 release. DUPLICATE There is conflicting chatter as to whether the Codex is coming as well, or whether it is a miniatures-only wave with White Dwarf rules like we say in Q4-12. SPECULATION
BloodThirster DUPLICATE Great Unclean One, DUPLICATE New Nurgle "jetbikes" - Described as GIANT FLIES with Plaguebearer Riders!!! TRUE Khornate Chariot with dual-build options. [TRUE -Option 1: Transport (holds a big squad of daemons, opened top) FALSE -Option 2: Cannon Variant (autocannon equivalent blast template, medium range) TRUE
Release Mark 2 - Dec 2012
Q1
Late-December-January: Dark Angels TRUE February-March: Chaos Daemons (still LOTS of chatter of a synchronized release of 40k/WFB Daemons books like Games Workshop did last time) TRUE March: 40K Miniatures Wave ALPHA (see below) FALSE Another Hobbit release wave is in this quarter as well. TRUE
Q2
April: Warhammer Fantasy Armybook DUPLICATE May: Tau Empire DUPLICATE June: 40K Miniatures Wave BETA (see below) FALSE
40K Miniatures waves are said to be:
Ork wave: with buggy, wartrack, updated Battlewagon, coptas, flashgitz, and tankbustas FALSE Flyer wave: with: Eldar, Tau, Tyranid, Dark Eldar kits PARTIALLY TRUE The order of those two waves is in contention, but both keep coming up in chatter.
Release Schedule JAN: Dark Angels DUPLICATE FEB: Daemons DUPLICATE MAR: Wave month (hobbit, warriors of chaos, 40k) DUPLICATE APR: High Elves TRUE MAY: Tau FALSE JUN: Summer wave (40k, supplement book for 40k) FALSE JUL: Lizardmen FALSE AUG: Mystery Box FALSE SEP: Wave month DUPLICATE NOV: Eldar FALSE
Knight Rumors - Jan 2014
As you may have seen on other sites Febraury is all about the Dwarfs. So for you fans of the short and bearded get pumped. March will see the release of Imperial Knights. This year is shaping up to be a good one. PENDING We believe it will be release through the new WD format. The week of the Release, you will get the rules in the WD. PENDING they said it was for ALL imperial armies. PENDING
40k Release - Dec 2013
The big 40k rumor is: This summer GW will release 7th edition 40k , and 9th edition Fantasy has been shelved, for now. PENDING 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. PENDING
Release Schedule - Oct 2013
First 5 months of releases for 2014
Jan – ‘Nids DUPLICATE Feb – can’t recall at the moment (Might be Hobbit related)
Mar – Dwarfs PENDING Apr – Imperial Guard PENDING May – Wood Elves PENDING
Release Schedule - Sep 2013
People, Tyranids are not pushed back, they have always been slated for January.
Oct: Dark Elves TRUE Nov: Holiday Releases(boxed army type stuff) PARTIALLY TRUE Dec: Hobbit TRUE Jan: Tyranids TRUE Feb: Dwarfs PENDING March: IGPENDING
Dark Elf Rumors - Sep 2013
- Warlocks appear to have one hand weapon TRUE - The new chariot crew is armed with spears and what looks to be a large crossbow or bolt thrower on the chariot. TRUE - The new Warriors look quite different to me. But then again I am a big geek that notices stuff like that. They have cloaks that come down their back and all the helmets don't cover the eyes any more. TRUE - The warlocks are bare chested, and the weapons look mundane...aka not glowing. They look like large jagged daggers. They are held in reverse grips which looks pretty slick. The warlock champions eyes are glowing which IMO hints at some magical abilities. md as far as the warriors go I think a big difference will be the size of them. Look at the size difference between Isle of Blood Lothern Sea Guard and the normal High Elves spearman. TRUE - (Hydra) It looks bigger and beefier. Like we said Dark Elves are setting the bar for the best range of models in WHFB. TRUE - The cloaks hang down from underneath the shoulder armor and cover the back of the chain mail. It definitely is new for them but it looks really cool. The Druchii warriors also have shoulder armor. It makes them look simply awesome. The skull embossed on their shields looks great too. Yes the Hydra does have 2 handlers. TRUE - The Warriors, Black Guard, and Dark Riders all have cloaks. None of them appear to have face coverings. The Executioners appear to have skull faced helms. The theme to me appears to be a more sinister version of their High Elf bretheren. The plate armor has very spiked and jagged edges. The style will still fit well with the Shades and Reaper but next to these new models they will look very dated. TRUE -The Kraken has 5 heads/fanged maws. The have spines and scales with smooth neck and belly flesh. Scales are painted a Dark Grey with the softer flesh painted blue. Looks awesome. TRUE -The pictures we have of the Witch Elves has them with two hand weapons. TRUE -Black Guard look very stalwart with large halberds and high helms with 3 spikes on each side with a flowing plume on top. Their armor is black trimmed in gold and they have dark purple cloaks. The unit champion is holding a sword by the hilt with the blade planted in the ground. Musician is a drummer. TRUE -The executioners have what look like skull helms, and their armor is a brighter silver than the Black Guard. Their tunics are red in color and the Draiches are all held on the left hand side of their bodies (their left our right). They look very cool ranked up. TRUE - The Dark Riders are very cool looking. Sleek looking horses with only a bit of armor. All of the Riders are hunched over in the saddle to give the illusion of speeding fast cav. The helmets appear to be open faced and they are armed with spears in the picture I have, once again that doesn't mean they wont get crossbows (in the pictures we have they are in the back ground behind the Warlocks). TRUE - The Kraken doesn't have tentacles, it has four legs with webbed appendages ending in claws and it also has a tail. TRUE - The Cauldron of Blood/Blood Throne look very cool. If you are a fan of the newer larger models GW has been putting out for WHFB you will really dig it. It is a bit toned down compared to the Empire Celestial Hurricanum/Luminark of Hysh and has blades and hooks on it to make it very sinister and Dark Elf. TRUE - Execs use swords (phew!). TRUE - Black Guards look "amazing", with bulkier shoulders and tall helmets with plumes, so I guess pretty much like they look now (in that respect at least). TRUE - The Cauldron has six wheels and two staircases leading up to the platform with the big statue of Khaine. It is not pulled by anything, so maybe (my assumption it will be used like the Screaming Bell? Three Witch Elves on it, lots of spikes and blades. TRUE - The Witch Elves have loincloths and bras (obviously) and look "vicious". TRUE - On the Throne, there is something that looks like half-Witch Elf, half Medusa, with snakes as hair. TRUE - The new Hydra is beefier than the current one. DUPLICATE - And the WEs on the Throne use spears. TRUE - Warlocks are bare-chested, with long flowing hair, painted white. They seem to have black eyes (or no eyes), except for the champion, whose eyes are glowing. Dark Riders are cloaked (of course), and hunched over in the saddle, in order to present a low profile. TRUE
Dark Elves - Sep 2013
NEW RUMORS for Warhammer Fantasy! My "source" has sent me pictures of the new Dark Elf release. The Dark Elves will be out in October with a slew of new models:
1) NEW Plastic Dark Elf Warrior Box(Makes Spearmen, swordsmen, & crossbowmen) TRUE 2) NEW PLastic Dark Riders/Warlocks TRUE 3) NEW Plastic Blackguard/Executioners TRUE 4) NEW Plastic Coldone Chariot/Scroungerunner(Pulled by horses) TRUE 5) NEW Plastic Cauldron of Blood/Blood Throne(This model is AMAZING) TRUE 6) NEW Plastic Hydra/Kraken TRUE 7) NEW Plastic Witch Elf box TRUE
Space Marines - August 2013
"Centurions: The guys are a heavy support choice. They're a marine cased in heavy armor with powerfist with lascannons under slung on one pic and heavy bolters on the other. Think of a heavier terminator armor that a marine straps into. I think this is where Chaos Oblits came from. They look to be on 40mm and I'm really starting to dig these models. TRUE
Plastic Chaplain: Like other plastic HQ's that have come out. He is armed with a Crozius and bolt pistol. He has ornate armor and he is in a dynamic pose. TRUE
Plastic Librarian: Same as above regarding previous HQ releases. He is helmetless and he's armed with a staff. He also has a wicked cherub flying off his pack pack. I really like this model. TRUE
The Hunter: I believe this will be anti-air rhino. Its a cross between Vindicator Heavy Armor and a whirlwind style weapon mounted on the back. It comes with two cannons that have three barrels. TRUE
Vanguard Plastic: I saw two separate pics one armed with TH/SS and one with a pair of Lighting claws, finally. Same Marine bodies just with some new iconography to freshen up the models. TRUE
From what I have seen so far the Marine release is going to be huge for GW. Sorry about no pics but I promised."
The ratios aren't even close (40k radio's is much better) but 40k radio is pretty new to this and it remains to be seen if they will continue to be accurate. Comparing them to someone who has proven to be worse than a coin-flip, though... I know which one I'm going with
Thank you Pretre! I do appreciate the tracking of rumor mongering.
Honestly I just check BoLS posts on my phone at work and think about all the pot stirring going on at Dakka and it entertains me for hours. With a small side note of wanting more Ork models for cheap. I am sure I can farm out (I made a funny) those pesky angels or file off the insignias and turn them into Fists.
That would be an incitive to release the content of DV in their own kits, like the CSM rumours of late.
Kroothawk wrote: Dwarfs in February or March, IG in March or April, 40k Radio always gets a TRUE BTW posting rumours is also a mostly thankless task.
Well personnaly i don't post about rumors to get thanks, thats calling "Attention Seeker" i do it because i like that information circulate and reach the poeple who has interest in it.
insaniak wrote: If it's just a book release, the cynical part of me is wondering if they will bother updating the book in all of the current starter sets already sitting on shelves, or if they will just continue to sell them as is and let people find out there is an updated book later...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Yodhrin wrote: I'd be more inclined to believe the rumour if it pegged the box as featuring a chapter that doesn't already have its own range. Unless they make the box ludicrously expensive(and hence defeat the object of it(and I mean ludicrously expensive by GW standards)), or make it limited edition(just as daft), eBay will end up flooded with cheap snap-fit Blood Angels - who's going to fork over £20 for five Death Company when you can pick them up for £5 Buy It Now, maybe cheaper if you get it at auction.
How would that be any different to the starter sets from the last several editions...?
Why do you think Dark Vengeance featured a specific chapter that didn't have many models, and Chaos models with a new(actually a bit retro) aesthetic, and in the proportions it did? I'd wager a big reason is they didn't want a repeat of AoBR/IoB where people were using eBay to put together armies almost entirely composed of the starter set minis because they were so cheap compared to the existing models for those armies. So why, with their next starter set, would they pack it full of stuff that will directly compete with the still-fairly-new Blood Angels plastics? Why would they provide people with a way to acquire huge mobs of cheap Orks with a new codex release on the horizon?
The rumour would be slightly more plausible if it stated the box would include either monopose Death Company or chapter-specific Tactical and/or Assault squads, but both? You're killing any incentive people have to buy the normal Marine plastics or the Death Co. box. If they included one or the other, you'd still get people buying at least the DC box(for DC), or both(to make tac/assault with chapter-specific bitz from the DC box). I think GW is going to do everything they possibly can to avoid stuff in the starter set competing with models from their existing range.
Why do you think Dark Vengeance featured a specific chapter that didn't have many models, and Chaos models with a new(actually a bit retro) aesthetic, and in the proportions it did? I'd wager a big reason is they didn't want a repeat of AoBR/IoB where people were using eBay to put together armies almost entirely composed of the starter set minis because they were so cheap compared to the existing models for those armies. So why, with their next starter set, would they pack it full of stuff that will directly compete with the still-fairly-new Blood Angels plastics? Why would they provide people with a way to acquire huge mobs of cheap Orks with a new codex release on the horizon?
The rumour would be slightly more plausible if it stated the box would include either monopose Death Company or chapter-specific Tactical and/or Assault squads, but both? You're killing any incentive people have to buy the normal Marine plastics or the Death Co. box. If they included one or the other, you'd still get people buying at least the DC box(for DC), or both(to make tac/assault with chapter-specific bitz from the DC box). I think GW is going to do everything they possibly can to avoid stuff in the starter set competing with models from their existing range.
True that. Managed to source 3 sets of the AoBR Orks between eBay & mates and it was a damn good lot for kicking off my army. GW might not have liked it but when you make a starter set, it obviously has to be less expensive per model (hesitate to use the term loss-leader) compared to the rest of the range so it goes with the territory when you have experienced and savvy gamers in the 21st century. All they can do is, as you say, limit it via army & unit choices.
Taking everything into account, there's probably more chance of a Braincrusha being released for Orks in 40k than this starter set coming to pass.
People will always do that with value-rich(er?) starter sets, though.
When starting Space Marines, all I had was the AoBR starter, and when Dark Vengeance came out, I snipped off some Dark Angels iconography, and boom... essentially doubled the Space Marines I owned. :-p
GW can't go too far out of their way to make a less appealing starter set, or all they're left with is a less appealing starter set. :-p
What they should do is embrace the notion that people will do that, and make AoBR-esque starter armies for every basic force in the game, and then choose two (or rather choose one since undoubtedly the starter set would have Marines) for each starter set.
Basically if I wanted to I should be able to pick up two "starter army" boxes with stripped-down rules included and have the basics needed to play with a friend, without needing to buy a boxed starter set that might not include the army I want.
Let's say that a friend and I want to play out a 40k battle involving, for example, Necrons and IG. A starter box with Orks and Blood Angles does nothing for us. So instead, we go to the FLGS and buy a Necron Starter Force and an Imperial Guard Starter Force, let's assume for around $75 or so, that includes a lightweight rulebook and army list for the figures it has, and let's assume each box has the basics: 1 HQ, 2x Troops, and let's say a tank or walker or similar (some cool "centerpiece" model) that comes to around 500-600 points in a legal army; ideally it should be some kind of snap-fit type of deal since it's meant for new players.
That's the kind of deal they should be milking the crap out of, so you buy one of those to start, then buy a battleforce (which could do for a bit of an overhaul instead of usually having crappy choices) and you have a reasonable army.
NewTruthNeomaxim wrote: People will always do that with value-rich(er?) starter sets, though.
When starting Space Marines, all I had was the AoBR starter, and when Dark Vengeance came out, I snipped off some Dark Angels iconography, and boom... essentially doubled the Space Marines I owned. :-p
GW can't go too far out of their way to make a less appealing starter set, or all they're left with is a less appealing starter set. :-p
Indeed so, that's where they need to be sneaky about army & unit choices for them to, from their perspective, limit the damage somewhat. A balancing act between making it a credible purchase and hurting sales of other minis.
Dunno if it is such a bright Idea, but then again maybe it has its merits: Make Starter Packs for EVERY faction and add the Army Codex into the bundle.
Advantage: You get the stuff you need from the start and mass-buying starter kits would be toned down due to the increased cost since the Codex is included.
May be not a bad policy for GW, though ebaying starter stuff is something I rather like as a player.
Yodhrin wrote: . So why, with their next starter set, would they pack it full of stuff that will directly compete with the still-fairly-new Blood Angels plastics? Why would they provide people with a way to acquire huge mobs of cheap Orks with a new codex release on the horizon?
One simple reason: because it's potentially more money in GW's pocket. Were it not for the masses of Orks to be had from AoBR, I would never have started an Ork army, thus depriving GW of the money I spent. Were it not for the masses of Dark Angels from DV, I would never have built a Ravenwing and Deathwing armies, so that's more money GW got from me. Were it not for all of my leftover Space Marines from AoBR and the Chaos from DV, I would never have built my Chaos army. Again, more money GW got from me because of the starter sets providing lots of cheap models to form the core of an army. I still had to buy the Codexes and other models to fill out these armies, which I never would have bought otherwise.
I agree with this. It is a strange thing to do ( but this is GW, so who knows ). But to release 6.5 ( with FAQ's and Stronghold Assault and Escalation built in ) with another ( rumoured ) starter box as well, its just money, money, money all the way for GW.
Let's say that a friend and I want to play out a 40k battle involving, for example, Necrons and IG. A starter box with Orks and Blood Angles does nothing for us. So instead, we go to the FLGS and buy a Necron Starter Force and an Imperial Guard Starter Force, let's assume for around $75 or so, that includes a lightweight rulebook and army list for the figures it has, and let's assume each box has the basics: 1 HQ, 2x Troops, and let's say a tank or walker or similar (some cool "centerpiece" model) that comes to around 500-600 points in a legal army; ideally it should be some kind of snap-fit type of deal since it's meant for new players....
So you are saying that GW should do what Hawk, Malifaux, Privateer Press, and every other GROWING games company is doing with their model releases?!?! Heresy!
On the other side of things, I'd be really excited if GW did go in that direction. Also, a new starter every 2 years would be great... I'm inordinately excited about a Blood Angels/Ork starter set.
RiTides wrote:To save pretre the trouble for once (THANKS for doing this, by the way!!)
Alpharius wrote:Thanks Pretre for what is, largely, a thankless task.
Until now, of course - so... thanks!
BunkerBob wrote:Thank you Pretre! I do appreciate the tracking of rumor mongering.
Kroothawk wrote:Dwarfs in February or March, IG in March or April, 40k Radio always gets a TRUE BTW posting rumours is also a mostly thankless task.
No prob guys! And, as I have mentioned before, 40kradio is feeling the pull of the darkside. They've got a bunch of hedging bet rumors for release dates and have been going nut-deep on this 7th edition stuff.
And we still wub you anyway, Kroot. Part of why I started the tracker was so that 'honest' rumor mongers got the credit and thanks they deserve.
pretre wrote: And we still wub you anyway, Kroot. Part of why I started the tracker was so that 'honest' rumor mongers got the credit and thanks they deserve.
That's the point: You tend to call some rumour mongers dishonest and full of crap, when their latest set of rumours is from a bad source. But your tracking just says what is right and what is wrong, not why. Some people lie of course, some people just got info before Tom Kirby changed plans in a panic reaction. E.g.maybe the pancake rules were leaked by staff to show that they are still able to do good rules, if the management would let them.
We live in times where Hastings stopped to post rumours and even Harry's sources mostly dried up. And GW sealed most leaks. So good rumours are rare. Let's not discourage the few honest ones by calling them names when they get one batch wrong.
WayneTheGame wrote: What they should do is embrace the notion that people will do that, and make AoBR-esque starter armies for every basic force in the game, and then choose two (or rather choose one since undoubtedly the starter set would have Marines) for each starter set.
Basically if I wanted to I should be able to pick up two "starter army" boxes with stripped-down rules included and have the basics needed to play with a friend, without needing to buy a boxed starter set that might not include the army I want.
Let's say that a friend and I want to play out a 40k battle involving, for example, Necrons and IG. A starter box with Orks and Blood Angles does nothing for us. So instead, we go to the FLGS and buy a Necron Starter Force and an Imperial Guard Starter Force, let's assume for around $75 or so, that includes a lightweight rulebook and army list for the figures it has, and let's assume each box has the basics: 1 HQ, 2x Troops, and let's say a tank or walker or similar (some cool "centerpiece" model) that comes to around 500-600 points in a legal army; ideally it should be some kind of snap-fit type of deal since it's meant for new players.
That's the kind of deal they should be milking the crap out of, so you buy one of those to start, then buy a battleforce (which could do for a bit of an overhaul instead of usually having crappy choices) and you have a reasonable army.
That's probably their idea with the paint sets, to be honest. A few paints, a brush and a basic number of models to get you started, or even Dark Vengeance so you've someone to play with.
I know Infinity do starter sets, Warlord do it for Bolt Action (FANTASTIC GAME!) Maybe provide a link to the rules so you can download them, otherwise that's a lot of money wasted of rules only a handful of people will use. Apple used to include install CDs but stopped, and the packaging got smaller to reduce costs
pretre wrote: And we still wub you anyway, Kroot. Part of why I started the tracker was so that 'honest' rumor mongers got the credit and thanks they deserve.
That's the point: You tend to call some rumour mongers dishonest and full of crap, when their latest set of rumours is from a bad source. But your tracking just says what is right and what is wrong, not why. Some people lie of course, some people just got info before Tom Kirby changed plans in a panic reaction. E.g.maybe the pancake rules were leaked by staff to show that they are still able to do good rules, if the management would let them.
We live in times where Hastings stopped to post rumours and even Harry's sources mostly dried up. And GW sealed most leaks. So good rumours are rare. Let's not discourage the few honest ones by calling them names when they get one batch wrong.
+1
On the matter, I think the " false " is a bit harsh on some rumours, a more toned down mention, like partially false may be applied on some lines. For example, we have been told of a December release for tyranids, which has been marked as false, while the release date on beginning of january was very close. So it's that false.
Kroothawk wrote: That's the point: You tend to call some rumour mongers dishonest and full of crap, when their latest set of rumours is from a bad source. But your tracking just says what is right and what is wrong, not why. Some people lie of course, some people just got info before Tom Kirby changed plans in a panic reaction. E.g.maybe the pancake rules were leaked by staff to show that they are still able to do good rules, if the management would let them.
That's because some rumor mongers are dishonest or full of crap. That's amply proved by the tracking.
We live in times where Hastings stopped to post rumours and even Harry's sources mostly dried up. And GW sealed most leaks. So good rumours are rare. Let's not discourage the few honest ones by calling them names when they get one batch wrong.
And I rarely call names, but I do tell it like it is. It is quite clear that a number of mongers are either making things up for clicks or have monumentally bad BS filters.
Either way, we can feel free to discuss tracking and my behavior more over in the tracking thread, if you'd like.
By the end of 2016 the edition you're playing will be obsolite before the end of the game!
We'll be mourning the goold old days of 108th edition as we try to play out turns 3 and 4 using 109th!
Then turn 5 using 110th!
Agreed, I think that discussion belongs in another thread!
Regardless of any motivations assigned to the numbers, just seeing whether someone's source is reliable is very useful. I don't really care what their motivations are... I just want to know if what they say is likely to be true (or at least, likely at the current moment / given the current statistics).
To get relate back to / get back on topic here, Larry Vela's record indicates to me that the starter set he espouses is quite unlikely, since it directly contradicts 40k radio's rumor of "Rules Only", and 40k radio is batting almost 1000 right now.
By the end of 2016 the edition you're playing will be obsolite before the end of the game!
We'll be mourning the goold old days of 108th edition as we try to play out turns 3 and 4 using 109th!
Then turn 5 using 110th!
pretre wrote: And I rarely call names, but I do tell it like it is. It is quite clear that a number of mongers are either making things up for clicks or have monumentally bad BS filters.
You called Larry Vela from BOLS full of crap, which I think is unjustified even with his complete miss in the latest set of rumours. He posted rumours long before you started tracking, and not all were bad.
BTW don't forget to give 40k radio a FALSE whenever IG and Dwarfs are released, because they predicted two different dates
pretre wrote: And I rarely call names, but I do tell it like it is. It is quite clear that a number of mongers are either making things up for clicks or have monumentally bad BS filters.
You called Larry Vela from BOLS full of crap, which I think is unjustified even with his complete miss in the latest set of rumours. He posted rumours long before you started tracking, and not all were bad.
BTW don't forget to give 40k radio a FALSE whenever IG and Dwarfs are released, because they predicted two different dates
Again, this is OT, but...
Link to that? Here's what I did say about Larry. "even then, I doubt it. He pinned himself on some pretty out there crap. " I've also said that Natfka 'puts out so much crap that...' but never said either one was full of crap, that I am aware of. Google concurs.
And I always give one false when someone does that, as you should know if you follow the tracker.
Symbio Joe wrote: Wow, we are so close to play 2nd Edition again that even the starter set goes back there.
You clearly have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. The only real similarities between 2nd and 6th is that they both use D6, they both use inches and they are both called Warhammer.
Symbio Joe wrote: Wow, we are so close to play 2nd Edition again that even the starter set goes back there.
You clearly have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. The only real similarities between 2nd and 6th is that they both use D6, they both use inches and they are both called Warhammer.
I'd also toss in "Encourages unbalanced forces instead of fluffy armies", albeit in a different fashion as I recall 2nd edition being closer to Herohammer (aka 5th edition) WHFB with godlike characters stomping over everything. Nowadays instead of an uber-character it's 3x Riptides and allies, but same broken garbage without a ton of extra rules (although I miss the Mission Cards)
I agree with this. It is a strange thing to do ( but this is GW, so who knows ). But to release 6.5 ( with FAQ's and Stronghold Assault and Escalation built in ) with another ( rumoured ) starter box as well, its just money, money, money all the way for GW.
Unless enough people don't buy it, of course.
Also why include two rulebooks that ATM you have to buy separately.
Except, if they increased the price to reflect the "greater value" of the new ruleset!!
Kroothawk wrote: You called Larry Vela from BOLS full of crap, which I think is unjustified even with his complete miss in the latest set of rumours.
Again, this is OT, but...
Link to that? Here's what I did say about Larry. "even then, I doubt it. He pinned himself on some pretty out there crap. " I've also said that Natfka 'puts out so much crap that...' but never said either one was full of crap, that I am aware of. Google concurs..
I have just spotted on BOLS a strange thing, on the latest schedule : Escalation rulebook is due out for 8th of february, in French. Until now, it was only available in English in my country, while stronghold assault was translated at launch.
If escalation rules are rumoured to be soon fused into a unique-rulebook-to-rule-them-all, why releasing a 49.5 $ product next month, that would soon be obsolete ?
So Escalation might not be part of this future 7th edition BRB.
Yodhrin wrote: Why do you think Dark Vengeance featured a specific chapter that didn't have many models, and Chaos models with a new(actually a bit retro) aesthetic, and in the proportions it did?
Because those were the first two 6th edition codex releases, and both featured a fairly extensive overhaul of their aesthetic and model design?
I'd wager a big reason is they didn't want a repeat of AoBR/IoB where people were using eBay to put together armies almost entirely composed of the starter set minis because they were so cheap compared to the existing models for those armies.
Which would have worked if not for those two codexes being the first ones out, and seeing a whole new range of models released that GW were presumably wanting people to buy...
eBay was still flooded with start set models, so if this was their intention it was a bit of a failure.
So why, with their next starter set, would they pack it full of stuff that will directly compete with the still-fairly-new Blood Angels plastics? Why would they provide people with a way to acquire huge mobs of cheap Orks with a new codex release on the horizon?
Because that sells more starter sets, and then they can say what a wonderful success those sets are?
Because having a starter set coming out concurrently with a new codex lets them sell people both the starter set and the codex, and if they're really persuasive, a bunch of new models as well?
Because GW really don't pay a great deal of attention to the second hand market, because we're all in the hobby of 'buying Citadel Miniatures' and will buy the new stuff anyway, no matter what is on eBay?
Do you have any evidence that the DV sets floating around on eBay actually hurt the sales of the new Dark Angels plastics that came out at more or less the same time?
pretre wrote: And I rarely call names, but I do tell it like it is. It is quite clear that a number of mongers are either making things up for clicks or have monumentally bad BS filters.
You called Larry Vela from BOLS full of crap, which I think is unjustified even with his complete miss in the latest set of rumours. He posted rumours long before you started tracking, and not all were bad.
BTW don't forget to give 40k radio a FALSE whenever IG and Dwarfs are released, because they predicted two different dates
You seem very eager to bring 40K Radio down
Either way. The current rumour accuracy tracking is great, and I would not recommend to change a thing.
Still, you shouldn't let the methodology of the thing blind yourself to the purpose this tool was developed for.
At the end of the day, a "true" or "false" on an army book a month this way or that way (though it should be recorded meticulously) doesn't have nearly as much weight as a "true" or "false" on predicting a 7th Edition of 40K 2 years early, when nobody else did, and long before anything went to printers (i.e. the ~1-2 month window most rumours start to flow), or, similarly, predicting a "40K skirmish game" that went nowhere.
The Rumour Accuracy Tracking is a tool. A very good tool, but still only a tool. Don't let it blind you to the real thing
Zweischneid wrote: Either way. The current rumour accuracy tracking is great, and I would not recommend to change a thing.
Still, you shouldn't let the methodology of the thing blind yourself to the purpose this tool was developed for.
At the end of the day, a "true" or "false" on an army book a month this way or that way (though it should be recorded meticulously) doesn't have nearly as much weight as a "true" or "false" on predicting a 7th Edition of 40K 2 years early, when nobody else did, and long before anything went to printers (i.e. the ~1-2 month window most rumours start to flow), or, similarly, predicting a "40K skirmish game" that went nowhere.
The Rumour Accuracy Tracking is a tool. A very good tool, but still only a tool. Don't let it blind you to the real thing
I would love to be able to 'weight' rumors as to when they were said but haven't figured out a good method. As it is though, timing of the rumor doesn't seem to affect overall accuracy. Harry and Hastings usually predict way out and have great ratings. Natfka is all over the place for timing and is all over the place for rating.
Either way. The current rumour accuracy tracking is great, and I would not recommend to change a thing.
Still, you shouldn't let the methodology of the thing blind yourself to the purpose this tool was developed for.
At the end of the day, a "true" or "false" on an army book a month this way or that way (though it should be recorded meticulously) doesn't have nearly as much weight as a "true" or "false" on predicting a 7th Edition of 40K 2 years early, when nobody else did, and long before anything went to printers (i.e. the ~1-2 month window most rumours start to flow), or, similarly, predicting a "40K skirmish game" that went nowhere.
The Rumour Accuracy Tracking is a tool. A very good tool, but still only a tool. Don't let it blind you to the real thing
Kroot is equal opportunity on bringing people down.
On your point, however, I would love to be able to 'weight' rumors as to when they were said but haven't figured out a good method. As it is though, timing of the rumor doesn't seem to affect overall accuracy. Harry and Hastings usually predict way out and have great ratings. Natfka is all over the place for timing and is all over the place for rating.
Well, I wouldn't start weighting rumours. Trying to develop a fair method would probably be near impossible.
There is, however, a certain "pile-in" effect with lots of rumours. One person breaks the "news" (7th Edition from 40K Radio recently, Inquisitor Skirmish from BoK, etc..), and suddenly everyone has something to say about it. Could be sources feeling more "secure" to come out with info after the "big break" is done. Could just be people "wish-listing" along.
And I don't think there is the kind of "gotcha" effect for giving anyone a "false" for being off by a month, like there would be for .. say ... 40K Radio if 7th Edition or Knight Titans never appear, or for BoLS, if the Blood Angels vs. Orks box never appears.
Just the way it is. Stickmonkey clearly (deservedly?) suffered a lot more for the "Summer of Flyers" than anyone ever did for "ups, missed the Codex by a month":
Zweischneid wrote: Well, I wouldn't start weighting rumours. Trying to develop a fair method would probably be near impossible.
There is, however, a certain "pile-in" effect with lots of rumours. One person breaks the "news" (7th Edition from 40K Radio recently, Inquisitor Skirmish from BoK, etc..), and suddenly everyone has something to say about it. Could be sources feeling more "secure" to come out with info after the "big break" is done. Could just be people "wish-listing" along.
And I don't think there is the kind of "gotcha" effect for giving anyone a "false" for being off by a month, like there would be for .. say ... 40K Radio if 7th Edition or Knight Titans never appear, or for BoLS, if the Blood Angels vs. Orks box never appears.
Yeah, piling on is pretty hilarious and generally hurts the person who piles on. The inquisitor rumor from BOK was a great example, as were the silly Nid rumors with the Dominar or whatever from BOLS. We'll see on this 7th edition thing if it is similar.
The saddest thing about this thread is the casual acceptance by the userbase of GWS reaching the nadir of rules-writing: specifically that Games Workshop now realizes it's more profitable for them to write lousy rules because they can then sell a x.5 version to patch it with the FAQ's they released for free.
Yodhrin wrote: . So why, with their next starter set, would they pack it full of stuff that will directly compete with the still-fairly-new Blood Angels plastics? Why would they provide people with a way to acquire huge mobs of cheap Orks with a new codex release on the horizon?
One simple reason: because it's potentially more money in GW's pocket. Were it not for the masses of Orks to be had from AoBR, I would never have started an Ork army, thus depriving GW of the money I spent. Were it not for the masses of Dark Angels from DV, I would never have built a Ravenwing and Deathwing armies, so that's more money GW got from me. Were it not for all of my leftover Space Marines from AoBR and the Chaos from DV, I would never have built my Chaos army. Again, more money GW got from me because of the starter sets providing lots of cheap models to form the core of an army. I still had to buy the Codexes and other models to fill out these armies, which I never would have bought otherwise.
We're talking about a company which stopped supporting and eventually scrapped several popular games which had valuable customer recruitment and retention effects, at least in part, because they believed they were "competing" with the core games and that every gang or warband a customer bought meant one less squad or regiment would be sold. I'm not even remotely convinced that GW's current corporate culture is capable of recognising concepts like loss-leaders, or luring people into starting new forces by making it easy for them. The starter sets exist to give staff an easy sell to Wee Timmy's parents when they wander in believing they've found a videogame store to dump the kid in while they go for a coffee, the last thing GW want is whatever base of repeat customers they have left building cheap armies out of their contents.
Yodhrin wrote: [...at least in part, because they believed they were "competing" with the core games and that every gang or warband a customer bought meant one less squad or regiment would be sold..
That's not actually quite right.
It's not a one-for-one deal. A customer who buys Necromunda is never going to need to buy as many models as the customer who gets into 40K, simply because you don't need as many models for the game. So if GW are going to spend time encouraging you to start one of their games, it's in their better interests to encourage you towards 40K instead of Necromunda... that way they can selll you an army instead of 10 guys.
That's only ever been fan supposition though. I don't think GW have ever publicly given an actual reason for Specialist Games being scrapped.
Being snarky probably because Kirby lost the Bloodbowl in-house campaign too many times. It doesn't make any sense but at this stage of the game what GW policy does?
What is sad though, is that this 7th edition would mean that Orkz would not have, and had, an edition for 3 editions or so. This is rather quite saddening to my Green Eyes and Ears...
(Forgive me if someone already "whined" about this matter, I have a hard time reading 20 pages of information to see if one sentence was uttered out of... lotz.)
Well, regardless. My mentioning of "would be" is pretty flexible anyhow. Sorry for missing the repeated sentences, but I will just pretend that "7th edition" will be some hip cool slang for "Update to 6th edition" that I invented.
Da Kommizzar wrote: What is sad though, is that this 7th edition would mean that Orkz would not have, and had, an edition for 3 editions or so. This is rather quite saddening to my Green Eyes and Ears...
But not really anything new. If Orks have to wait until 7th edition proper (2016) for a new Codex, they'll still beat the time it took them to be updated last time (9 years!)
By the end of 2016 the edition you're playing will be obsolite before the end of the game!
We'll be mourning the goold old days of 108th edition as we try to play out turns 3 and 4 using 109th!
Then turn 5 using 110th!
Yodhrin wrote: [...at least in part, because they believed they were "competing" with the core games and that every gang or warband a customer bought meant one less squad or regiment would be sold..
That's not actually quite right.
It's not a one-for-one deal. A customer who buys Necromunda is never going to need to buy as many models as the customer who gets into 40K, simply because you don't need as many models for the game. So if GW are going to spend time encouraging you to start one of their games, it's in their better interests to encourage you towards 40K instead of Necromunda... that way they can selll you an army instead of 10 guys.
Well, if the player decides that Warhammer 40K isn't what he's interested in and instead starts up Infinity or Deadzone or Warmachine or whatever, then there's not much profit in it for GW, is there?
It just makes me mad that i have to get another brb to be able to play because the rules i got will be outdate. y don't they just faqthe rule book instead of charging me another 80. I feel sorry for any one get in to this game as they are get ripped off
Well, we don't know yet, if there will be heavy changes in this BRB. Supposedly, current FAQ would be included, and a little tweaks here and there.
If true, that means we could handle the shift using the old rulebook and a small printed listing of changes, be it GW official, or a fan-made recollection. No big deal in that case.
Or they could just call it a second printing. Wizards did this with Star Wars Saga Basic book. The second printing incorporated errata to the first printing and everyone was happy.
Slayer le boucher wrote: Specialy since its been repeated multiple times that THIS WILL NOT BE A 7TH EDITION.
Only an updated 6th Ed rulebook, with some tweaks and addition of Stronghold assault.
As far as I know, 40K Radio - who broke the original rumour - are sticking with 7th.
So presumably (afaik) it's a new edition as much as 4th, 5th or 6th was a "new" edition (though not a genuine reboot in the sense of 2nd to 3rd).
Of course, if you wanna see it as an "update", just as 6th was just 5th Edition with some tweaks and the addition of Death from the Skies, it'd be hard to argue against that, technically.
Yodhrin wrote: [...at least in part, because they believed they were "competing" with the core games and that every gang or warband a customer bought meant one less squad or regiment would be sold..
That's not actually quite right.
It's not a one-for-one deal. A customer who buys Necromunda is never going to need to buy as many models as the customer who gets into 40K, simply because you don't need as many models for the game. So if GW are going to spend time encouraging you to start one of their games, it's in their better interests to encourage you towards 40K instead of Necromunda... that way they can selll you an army instead of 10 guys.
Well, if the player decides that Warhammer 40K isn't what he's interested in and instead starts up Infinity or Deadzone or Warmachine or whatever, then there's not much profit in it for GW, is there?
Most people don't know those games exist, especially if they're new to the hobby and walking into a GW store.
kronk wrote: I like 6th edition. A lot. I don't like the supplements Stronghold Assault and Escalation, but those could be ignored.
Rolling them into the 6th edition rulebook makes me a sad panda.
I do recall a rumor stating that their goal was to allow more of "fielding miniatures you've bought in games of 40k" so that doesn't bode well for limiting the nonsense from things like Escalation.
Well, if the player decides that Warhammer 40K isn't what he's interested in and instead starts up Infinity or Deadzone or Warmachine or whatever, then there's not much profit in it for GW, is there?
Right.
I think it's funny that GW stopped supporting specialists games and then these new companies start up based around smaller skirmish games.
GW probably didn't realize how much those specialist games mattered. A lot of people would kitbash to get their mordheim gang/ bb team, or they would buy multiple teams/warbands since they were so much cheaper.
Kroot is equal opportunity on bringing people down.
Well, I don't want to bring any rumour monger down. But concerning the release schedule, 40k Radio is just repeating Hastings' prediction from more than a year ago, trying to guess the correct month, giving several options. That's why this list is basically in the Dakka rumour roundup since before 40k radio made their guesses.
They had a good SM Codex leak early, that's what gave them their reputation. This leak should be closed by now. So don't expect wonders from them in the future.
Kroot is equal opportunity on bringing people down.
Well, I don't want to bring any rumour monger down. But concerning the release schedule, 40k Radio is just repeating Hastings' prediction from more than a year ago, trying to guess the correct month, giving several options. That's why this list is basically in the Dakka rumour roundup since before 40k radio made their guesses.
They had a good SM Codex leak early, that's what gave them their reputation. This leak should be closed by now. So don't expect wonders from them in the future.
Do you really think they "repeat" Hastings? They might simply have a similar schedule. If it is (more or less) correct, it's not surprising that there are similarities.
Either way, 40K Radio has at least 3 very specific, very unique rumours out atm
- Imperial Knights in March
- Imperial Guard renamed into "Astra Militarum"
- 40K 7th Edition
All allegedly in the first half of this year.
By July this year, they'll be the gods of 40K rumours or the laughingstock of the internet.
It's not a one-for-one deal. A customer who buys Necromunda is never going to need to buy as many models as the customer who gets into 40K, simply because you don't need as many models for the game. So if GW are going to spend time encouraging you to start one of their games, it's in their better interests to encourage you towards 40K instead of Necromunda... that way they can selll you an army instead of 10 guys.
Well, if the player decides that Warhammer 40K isn't what he's interested in and instead starts up Infinity or Deadzone or Warmachine or whatever, then there's not much profit in it for GW, is there?
Most people don't know those games exist, especially if they're new to the hobby and walking into a GW store.
That isn't the way most people get introduced to miniature wargaming, since most people live places where there isn't a GW store anywhere near them. My country, for example, has ONE. People getting into the hobby by walking into a GW store is something that almost exclusively happens in the UK, and with reduced opening hours for the shops there, I expect it's happening less there as well. A business plan based on nabbing wannabe skirmish gamers that randomly walk into your store and convincing them to play 40K instead simply cannot work in the vast majority of places.
Either way, 40K Radio has at least 3 very specific, very unique rumours out atm
....
- Imperial Guard renamed into "Astra Militarum"...
Oh come on, what the feth? That's got to be bs? Are they saying Imperial Guard isn't copyrightable so let's give them the
language ! name we can think of instead?
Either way, 40K Radio has at least 3 very specific, very unique rumours out atm
....
- Imperial Guard renamed into "Astra Militarum"...
Oh come on, what the feth? That's got to be bs? Are they saying Imperial Guard isn't copyrightable so let's give them the worst name we can think of instead?
Sure, they'd take out a few termies en route in, but once my power fists and chainfists started swinging, the battlefield looked more like a junkheap than a parking lot. :p
?
