Squidbot wrote: Nothing concrete. Rulebook "No longer available", and that's all we know for certain. People feel personally offended.
Oh, internet, don't ever change.
Squidbot wrote: Nothing concrete. Rulebook "No longer available", and that's all we know for certain. People feel personally offended.
Oh, internet, don't ever change.
So anyone else getting a shovel and burying all expectations and assuming the worst so if thus turns out even a little better than what they assumed they feel like they came out ahead?
I would direct folks to the Jervis Johnson article in the latest WD to see a possible trajectory for 7th edition. He writes about a design change set wherein armies compete for specific objectives as opposed to single objectives both armies fight over.
If you read his articles and the other designer articles over the last months, you can see where this is headed.
I leave you with this nugget of Jervis Johnson design insight:
"“Just decide on which scenario or mission you are going to play normally, but then sit down with your opponent before deploying, and come up with a background story explaining why the battle is taking place.”
This done, replace the victory conditions with a set of objectives for each side based on the background you have come up with, and then proceed to set up your armies and fight the battle. At the end of the game, discuss who has won with your opponent – if you can’t agree, then the battle is clearly a draw! I think (and hope) that you will be surprised how much difference this small change can make to the way that the game feels and plays.”
ClockworkZion wrote: So anyone else getting a shovel and burying all expectations and assuming the worst so if thus turns out even a little better than what they assumed they feel like they came out ahead?
Because I am.
I buried my care. Either the new rules are just terribad, and I'll keep on playing Warmachine most of the time, or they are an improvement, and then I will play my Sisters of Battle again. Really, not putting all my eggs in the same basket was an awesome idea.
From a business point to view it makes great sense. Sales are dropping and the best way to boost sales is make its customer base all buy a new rulebook.
We really need to stop thinking about how it affects the gamers, GW's MO has always been how to make money, and there are enough fanboys buying up all the collector edition proves their point well enough.
Will there be a backlash from gamers? I hardly doubt it, especially if the new ruleset (doesn't matter if it is 6.1, 6.5, 6 sp1 or 7th) is a improvement to the enjoyment of the game (notice I did not use the word 'balanced'). If you still have any involment with 40K, you will buy this book.
I don't need to feel bad for those who purchased the 6th collector ed or the recent mini rulebook. I assumed you know what you are in for when you started the GW hobby.
And I salute all the fanboys that supports GW and its decisions with money.
As for myself I welcome a change to the core rules to make the game more enjoyable. I will not be purchasing a new ruleset on day one however. The internet and FLGS feedback will determine if I should continue on with 40K or switch to a new system. As a consumer I now have the choice in the market to decide where which products gets my hobby money.
(Yes I'm still bitter about paying $59.50CAD for my DA codex that contains spelling errors and basic omissiond / contracditions on my units)
ClockworkZion wrote: So anyone else getting a shovel and burying all expectations and assuming the worst so if thus turns out even a little better than what they assumed they feel like they came out ahead?
Because I am.
I buried my care. Either the new rules are just terribad, and I'll keep on playing Warmachine most of the time, or they are an improvement, and then I will play my Sisters of Battle again. Really, not putting all my eggs in the same basket was an awesome idea.
Fair enough. I've started work on a Flesh Tearers Battle Company for Apoc because even if the core rules aren't that good Apoc will still be fun (it's fun now despite the rules for instance, mostly because we have a good group to play with locally).
YakManDoo wrote: “Just decide on which scenario or mission you are going to play normally, but then sit down with your opponent before deploying, and come up with a background story explaining why the battle is taking place.
This done, replace the victory conditions with a set of objectives for each side based on the background you have come up with, and then proceed to set up your armies and fight the battle. At the end of the game, discuss who has won with your opponent – if you can’t agree, then the battle is clearly a draw! I think (and hope) that you will be surprised how much difference this small change can make to the way that the game feels and plays.”
Yeah. That sounds like a completely practical thing to do for a pickup game against someone you don't know.
YakManDoo wrote: I would direct folks to the Jervis Johnson article in the latest WD to see a possible trajectory for 7th edition. He writes about a design change set wherein armies compete for specific objectives as opposed to single objectives both armies fight over.
If you read his articles and the other designer articles over the last months, you can see where this is headed.
I leave you with this nugget of Jervis Johnson design insight:
"“Just decide on which scenario or mission you are going to play normally, but then sit down with your opponent before deploying, and come up with a background story explaining why the battle is taking place.”
This done, replace the victory conditions with a set of objectives for each side based on the background you have come up with, and then proceed to set up your armies and fight the battle. At the end of the game, discuss who has won with your opponent – if you can’t agree, then the battle is clearly a draw! I think (and hope) that you will be surprised how much difference this small change can make to the way that the game feels and plays.”
3rd Edition codexes used to list reasons why two armies would fight (Sisters of instance would fight Eldar because as far as the Sisters are concerned Eldar are a "xenos race of heretical witches" ) so the narrative idea isn't new. The idea of armies having objectives that they need to complete to win is a cool on that's been done before too, and I wouldn't mind seeing it becoming a staple of the game honestly. It'd spice things up a bit at least.
YakManDoo wrote: “Just decide on which scenario or mission you are going to play normally, but then sit down with your opponent before deploying, and come up with a background story explaining why the battle is taking place.
This done, replace the victory conditions with a set of objectives for each side based on the background you have come up with, and then proceed to set up your armies and fight the battle. At the end of the game, discuss who has won with your opponent – if you can’t agree, then the battle is clearly a draw! I think (and hope) that you will be surprised how much difference this small change can make to the way that the game feels and plays.”
Yeah. That sounds like a completely practical thing to do for a pickup game against someone you don't know.
I assume the intent is doing it with friends you do know.
YakManDoo wrote: I would direct folks to the Jervis Johnson article in the latest WD to see a possible trajectory for 7th edition. He writes about a design change set wherein armies compete for specific objectives as opposed to single objectives both armies fight over.
If you read his articles and the other designer articles over the last months, you can see where this is headed.
I leave you with this nugget of Jervis Johnson design insight:
"“Just decide on which scenario or mission you are going to play normally, but then sit down with your opponent before deploying, and come up with a background story explaining why the battle is taking place.” This done, replace the victory conditions with a set of objectives for each side based on the background you have come up with, and then proceed to set up your armies and fight the battle. At the end of the game, discuss who has won with your opponent – if you can’t agree, then the battle is clearly a draw! I think (and hope) that you will be surprised how much difference this small change can make to the way that the game feels and plays.”
Actually... I always liked how in 2nd edition each army had their own objectives, unknown to their opponent, via the Mission Cards. Maybe your goal was to get into your opponent's deployment zone, while his goal was straight up kill as many units as possible. It worked really well IMO and added a lot to the strategy of the game.
If something like that were to come back I think it would be a good thing.
Of course then you had things like Tyranid Attack which was literally "If you have any models left on the table, you win. Otherwise, the Tyranid player wins". In fact I still can remember one game I played with my brother (me as Space Marines, him as Tyranids) in I think '97 or '98 that literally came down to a failed save at the very end of the game that gave him the win, if I had just rolled one higher on the die I would have had a single model left and won.
YakManDoo wrote: “Just decide on which scenario or mission you are going to play normally, but then sit down with your opponent before deploying, and come up with a background story explaining why the battle is taking place.
This done, replace the victory conditions with a set of objectives for each side based on the background you have come up with, and then proceed to set up your armies and fight the battle. At the end of the game, discuss who has won with your opponent – if you can’t agree, then the battle is clearly a draw! I think (and hope) that you will be surprised how much difference this small change can make to the way that the game feels and plays.”
Yeah. That sounds like a completely practical thing to do for a pickup game against someone you don't know.
Oh poppy cock, nobody actually does that!
The enlightened in the UK all play in clubs, spiritual successors to the frontier adventure clubs.
What the tribal colonies do with their free time is trivial and uninteresting.
"Just decide on which scenario or mission you are going to play normally, but then sit down with your opponent before deploying, and come up with a background story explaining why the battle is taking place. This done, replace the victory conditions with a set of objectives for each side based on the background you have come up with, and then proceed to set up your armies and fight the battle. At the end of the game, discuss who has won with your opponent – if you can’t agree, then the battle is clearly a draw! I think (and hope) that you will be surprised how much difference this small change can make to the way that the game feels and plays.”
ClockworkZion wrote: I've started work on a Flesh Tearers Battle Company for Apoc
Space marines . So many space marines .
So many angry Space Marines who will die horribly to the first D-template that wanders their way.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
H.B.M.C. wrote: "Just decide on which scenario or mission you are going to play normally, but then sit down with your opponent before deploying, and come up with a background story explaining why the battle is taking place. This done, replace the victory conditions with a set of objectives for each side based on the background you have come up with, and then proceed to set up your armies and fight the battle. At the end of the game, discuss who has won with your opponent – if you can’t agree, then the battle is clearly a draw! I think (and hope) that you will be surprised how much difference this small change can make to the way that the game feels and plays.”
THIS IS WHAT JERVIS ACTUALLY BELIEVES! Hopefully someone gets the reference...
South Park's Scientology episode.
And I thought we all knew by now that Jervis was the nutter on the design team. The one who probably used words like "cinematic" all the time and insists that "the Most Important Rule" not be removed from the game.
H.B.M.C. wrote: "Just decide on which scenario or mission you are going to play normally, but then sit down with your opponent before deploying, and come up with a background story explaining why the battle is taking place. This done, replace the victory conditions with a set of objectives for each side based on the background you have come up with, and then proceed to set up your armies and fight the battle. At the end of the game, discuss who has won with your opponent – if you can’t agree, then the battle is clearly a draw! I think (and hope) that you will be surprised how much difference this small change can make to the way that the game feels and plays.”
THIS IS WHAT JERVIS ACTUALLY BELIEVES!
Hopefully someone gets the reference...
Oh quite.
You know you have to buy a ticket on the GW Airline FineFlight to get the Super Ultra-Limited Edition Codex, where the Real Truth is revealed.
Actually... I always liked how in 2nd edition each army had their own objectives, unknown to their opponent, via the Mission Cards. Maybe your goal was to get into your opponent's deployment zone, while his goal was straight up kill as many units as possible. It worked really well IMO and added a lot to the strategy of the game.
If something like that were to come back I think it would be a good thing.
Technically it is back, and has been for about 6 months.
RoninXiC wrote: Btw, I honestly doubt that GW will manage to come up with a proper, balanced, fair, fun, simple yet complex (not complicated!) ruleset
without
AN OPEN BETA and LOTS OF OUTSIDE PLAYTESTING.
Privateer Press did this some years ago before they released their MK2 of Warmachine. It did the system SOOOOO good to have thousends of people having their eyes on an early draft. Sure, some things slipped through and are not 100% balanced. But imagine what could've happened without any form of open discussion.
GW needs open and long time playtesting.
I think that is what we've just witnessed. 6th edition was an open beta with lots of playtesting. Many things worked well (basic game mechanics, shooting, moral, Terrain, Line of Sight), some didn't (allies, FOC, Consolidation, Overwatch, Psychic powers) Now they are ready to release the revised version. They are calling it 7th.
azreal13 wrote: A significant issue, and I personally have my doubts.
In the midst of all this though, the question I havent seen asked is a simple one.
What does this mean for Fantasy, it's been bumped off it's cycle to release a new 40K. That doesnt really bode well long term.
Fantasy is still one. One of the stated reasons for 7th edition 40k is to make 40k and Fantasy play more similar so that someone who plays one can easily take up the other.
Actually... I always liked how in 2nd edition each army had their own objectives, unknown to their opponent, via the Mission Cards. Maybe your goal was to get into your opponent's deployment zone, while his goal was straight up kill as many units as possible. It worked really well IMO and added a lot to the strategy of the game.
I started 40k with 5th so I never experienced this feature of 2nd. Let me tell you that this is a hell of a great idea! I'm tempted to figure out a way to introduce this in my friendly games.
As for 7th, I am in the bandwagon of those who think it will be minor updates to 6th edition.
But even with minor changes, it can have major impacts on the game. If they make minor modifications to the allies charts, psychic powers, skyfire and snapfire we could have a a very different game.
The only major change I would appreciate in 6th (which it would seem that I am in the minority that really likes this edition) would be to be able to assault out of a larger selection of vehicles or do something that would make assault a more important part of the game.
Wish listing, if this was the case newer books like Knights wouldn't have included a matrix. At least one would think.
I think it'd be fine if allies were made "Opponent's Permission" only, versus "Oh hey I'm taking Taudar with an Inquisitor along for the lulz" on any random game. Of course that might prevent people using models they bought in a game (*GASP!*) so still unlikely.
I never understood why Rhinos were not considered assault vehicles in the first place...
But yeah, 6th edition being the Vista to the upcoming 7th edition Win7 sounds promising. Unless GW makes you pawn your organs to pay for all the new books, codices and slates you'll still need.
But yeah, 6th edition being the Vista to the upcoming 7th edition Win7 sounds promising. Unless GW makes you pawn your organs to pay for all the new books, codices and slates you'll still need.
Hey GW reads forums aswell you know, don't even suggest it in jest. I like my kidneys.
Doesn’t the SM siege assault vanguard list already have the army specific objective rule? I’d not mind seeing more of that kind of thing. I seem to recall previous editions having odd VP things as well. Like apothocaries collecting the Chapter’s Due from the slain, or SoB getting points for killing psykers. I’d like to see games be more then just “try to table your opponent, and get someone on the objectives last turn”
If this is in fact a full new edition, I will be torqued off at GW. 2 years is too soon. Not irritated enough to stop playing, mind you, but mad. If it’s just a 6.5 reprint, I’ll be less angry. As I have stronghold and the apoc book (but not escalation) I’d probably just muddle though with what I have for a few years until the true 7th comes out.
I’ll not be picking up a big rulebook anyway. Tired of lugging around the old monster, want something slim. And how often do I need to pay for the same fluff? Wether I pick up the new starter (assuming it has a full rules small book) or wait for a slimline hardcover depends on the starter contents.
Boycott needs to be NOW! (or this will continue to happen)
.
$75 Main/Big Rule Book obsolete in less than two years (6e 23rd of June, 2012)
Wow, just wow.
.
No "new" FaQs for months, no older FaQs on the "new" website. Now the excuse will be that GW was gearing up for the change.
No rules Support, ever.
Massive flooding of multiple Rule Books with huge issues attached to each.
Constantly making "current" purchased publications obsolete with a release of another purchased publication.
No Battle Bunkers, No tables in GW stores.(where we used to go to see what "fair" House Rules were being used by a large majority, rather than relying on non GW Tournaments).
GW Stock in the toilet.
.
All of which We will have to Pay For. .
Boycott Now
Wish listing, if this was the case newer books like Knights wouldn't have included a matrix. At least one would think.
I think it'd be fine if allies were made "Opponent's Permission" only, versus "Oh hey I'm taking Taudar with an Inquisitor along for the lulz" on any random game. Of course that might prevent people using models they bought in a game (*GASP!*) so still unlikely.
the game needs LESS of things like that.
it really flat out defeats the purpose, and is unnecessary, because you can house rule anything you want out. so just leave everything legal. less dramas, more options,
things like allies, BB needs toning down.
SHV, needs StrD weapons sorted out.
why just flat out remove them and not just fix the problems.?
Hopefully they fix them rather than just dump things, though lets be honest, they wont be, after already adding escalation to the game a couple of months back its here to stay, same as allies, just be hoping they fix them to be a bit more sensible
But yeah, 6th edition being the Vista to the upcoming 7th edition Win7 sounds promising.
Of course it sounds promising, what kind of lunatic would take offence to being forced to pay the highest cost in the miniature wargaming market for a set of "trial" rules, only to have the privilege of paying the exact same amount or even more for the "finished" product after two years! Anyone that objects to that is clearly unreasonable and I would never wan't to forge a narrative with such a person anyway!
rexscarlet wrote: Boycott needs to be NOW! (or this will continue to happen)
.
$75 Main/Big Rule Book obsolete in less than two years (6e 23rd of June, 2012)
Wow, just wow.
.
No "new" FaQs for months, no older FaQs on the "new" website. Now the excuse will be that GW was gearing up for the change.
No rules Support, ever.
Massive flooding of multiple Rule Books with huge issues attached to each.
Constantly making "current" purchased publications obsolete with a release of another purchased publication.
No Battle Bunkers, No tables in GW stores.(where we used to go to see what "fair" House Rules were being used by a large majority, rather than relying on non GW Tournaments).
GW Stock in the toilet.
.
All of which We will have to Pay For. .
Boycott Now
YakManDoo wrote:I would direct folks to the Jervis Johnson article in the latest WD to see a possible trajectory for 7th edition. He writes about a design change set wherein armies compete for specific objectives as opposed to single objectives both armies fight over.
That's a big knock back to 2nd edition mission cards. As are the rumors for a psychic phase. I wonder if we'll see the reintroduction of strategy cards as well; I hope not. Strategy cards were fun, but awful for fair / balanced game play. They could swing the game from a loss to a win, make the game horribly one sided or devastate your army before game turn one even began.
I'm quite angry that GW would release a new edition so soon. 6th edition hasn't even been around for a full 2 years. I sincerely hope that 7th edition is so incredible and solid that it sticks around for 6+ years to make up for the short life span of 6th.
The rapid release schedule has put me off quite a bit, it's too much, too quickly. If GW can't get their gak together and this becomes a regular thing; rapid releases combined with a new edition every two years... I fear my days in this hobby are numbered.
It would be great if people just stopped forcing themselves into following any new crap Games Workshop releases, and instead just played the editions and codeci (or even alternative systems) they liked the best.
Anyways, I'm looking forward to the new Starter set (though I'm afraid the price will be same even with same amount of models). New rules, not so much! GW is really jumping the shark with their relese schedules.
rexscarlet wrote: Boycott needs to be NOW! (or this will continue to happen)
.
I was wondering when the voice of reason would show up!
Thank you, sir! No more waiting!
.
Yeah, RIGHT?
That the FLGS stand for it is what really amazes me...
Why wouldn't they? Selling the rulebook is going to make them money too. The only real potential problem for them is if GW doesn't buy back the old rulebook.
.
There are plenty of places to get "it" besides GW.
.
There is no rule against cutting off the back binding, copying for personal use, spiral binding the original, and selling spiral bound original.
.
Not to mention all the Beardy ways...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Why wouldn't they? Selling the rulebook is going to make them money too. The only real potential problem for them is if GW doesn't buy back the old rulebook.
.
There is no buyback program for FLGS, maybe for the distributor, you would have to ask one?
.
so solid business practice in your opinion?
rexscarlet wrote: There are plenty of places to get "it" besides GW.
None of the "free" versions are exactly legal or are supported by the forums due to them being related to an act often associated with the Jolly Roger.
rexscarlet wrote: There is no rule against cutting off the back binding, copying for personal use, spiral binding the original, and selling spiral bound original.
Sounds like a legal gray area honestly and still requires the initial investment in the rulebook (which will likely be hardcover meaning you'll probably spend more than you'll make doing this).
Said ways which won't be available for day 1 review. Sorry, but I'm going to need the actual book in my hands no later than the 31st if I'm going to review it (since GW doesn't do review copies) and I'll likely not finish writing the review until the next day just because of the length and potential scope of changes.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
rexscarlet wrote: There is no buyback program for FLGS, maybe for the distributor, you would have to ask one?
Do you have evidence of this or is this an assumption?
Only potential issue I see is a lack of a buy-back program. Otherwise FLGS are going to making money off this too and (from a business standpoint, not a player one) won't have a reasons to complain (outside of the potential lack of a buy-back or the new books being given at a discount or some kind of compensation).
I told my kids that 7th is likely coming out in a month. There response "I'm still trying to get the rules straight and they are changing them again? grr..."
Said ways which won't be available for day 1 review. Sorry, but I'm going to need the actual book in my hands no later than the 31st if I'm going to review it (since GW doesn't do review copies) and I'll likely not finish writing the review until the next day just because of the length and potential scope of changes.
.
Got it, I see you have a website, so no worries, controversy gets clicks, solutions do not, so you will continue to support a company that gets you clicks.
.
So, is there a law against sharing the cost of a book and then sharing said book, nope.
Cut binding, scan/copy multiple times, Spiral bind original, sell original, up-up-and-away!
Petty theft is CA USA is under $800.
.
drops mike...
That's a big knock back to 2nd edition mission cards. As are the rumors for a psychic phase. I wonder if we'll see the reintroduction of strategy cards as well; I hope not. Strategy cards were fun, but awful for fair / balanced game play. They could swing the game from a loss to a win, make the game horribly one sided or devastate your army before game turn one even began.
I still have the White Dwarf where Andy Chambers basically states "What was I thinking?" and advises ripping up Virus Outbreak.
So hard core and edgy! It's mic, not mike. Mike is a person. Unless you have superhuman strength or enjoy piggy back rides...
Anyway, I went to a sci-fi convention in Houston, and during the costume contest, 3 people dropped the mic. The 3rd one broke it and no one else got to use the mic after that. Don't be selfish. Don't drop the mic!
it really flat out defeats the purpose, and is unnecessary, because you can house rule anything you want out. so just leave everything legal. less dramas, more options,
things like allies, BB needs toning down. SHV, needs StrD weapons sorted out. why just flat out remove them and not just fix the problems.?
Hopefully they fix them rather than just dump things, though lets be honest, they wont be, after already adding escalation to the game a couple of months back its here to stay, same as allies, just be hoping they fix them to be a bit more sensible
You don't seem to understand that it's easier to loosen restrictions than to add them in. If things like allies are optional, it's easier for the casual/narrative people to add them to games than it is for the competitive players to get rid of them if they are "core". That's why there needs to be solid core rules and everything else (flyers, escalation, allies, strongholds, etc.) as OPTIONAL extras; little or no hassle to add them in for friendly narrative games, but tournaments and competitive gamers can safely ignore them instead of having to house-rule them away.
Also, natfka is now reporting a new starter set containing Astra Militarum vs. Eldar. I guess he can't make up his mind. So it's either Orks vs. BA for 40k, Orks vs. BA for a revised Epic (yeah, right) or now AM vs. Eldar (which I call BS on, there's never been a starter set that didn't have Space Marines)
Kosake wrote: So, we have 10 pages of doomsaying, speculation, premature ragequits and panic based on the fact that the core book is currently unavailable..? Good thing thing that 40k radio actually said that a new edition will be coming shortly, otherwise this would seem a bit silly.
It's a news and rumor thread in a news and rumor forum discussing some news and rumors. Yet, you show up to throw derision. That seems a pointless exercise.
I love to give GW my money for their great models. I love their IP. However, I do not understand why they continue to commit design suicide. If this Jervis article is indeed the trajectory of 7th, which I definitely assume that it is, then they are effectively killing the way I have to play the game. I play pick up games at the store with people I know casually. I don't have a community of friends who play this game. I have a group of acquaintances that shifts from week to week. I need a reliable ruleset that arbitrates the relationship peacefully as I do not have enough of a relationship to arbitrate the ruleset peacefully. Jervis, stop living in the late 70s. Just stop. You are killing your company by assuming the world games like you do. (I do recognize the inherent irony of my post doing exactly what I accuse Jervis of doing.)
The current state of the rules for 40k is abysmal.
I sorted out all my files for 40k, and what a chore it was with the rules spread between codices, imperial armour, data slates , supplements and expansions.
This is over 50 books. Even if we take a very conservative average of £20 per book (considering the high prices of rulebooks and codices, alongside the cheaper data slates) all of the rules will cost you in the region of £1000.
£1000 for the rules to a game. Let that sink in. (alongside the threat of deforestation).
Couple this with poor writing and day 1 FAQs and you have an overpriced product with questionable quality. Also attempting to find and obtain all the most up to date rules is often a game in itself.
I find it disgraceful that this has become the state of the GW-Consumer relationship.
I hope 7th edition will change this, and bring more unified and complete rules, covered by a proofreader of decent quality, without the desire to blatantly milk the fanbase of their cash. But I'm not holding my breath.
I won't be getting the new rulebook for these reasons. But I'll get the rules nontheless.
YakManDoo wrote: I love to give GW my money for their great models. I love their IP. However, I do not understand why they continue to commit design suicide. If this Jervis article is indeed the trajectory of 7th, which I definitely assume that it is, then they are effectively killing the way I have to play the game. I play pick up games at the store with people I know casually. I don't have a community of friends who play this game. I have a group of acquaintances that shifts from week to week. I need a reliable ruleset that arbitrates the relationship peacefully as I do not have enough of a relationship to arbitrate the ruleset peacefully. Jervis, stop living in the late 70s. Just stop. You are killing your company by assuming the world games like you do. (I do recognize the inherent irony of my post doing exactly what I accuse Jervis of doing.)
The difference being that it's easier for clubs to discuss things than it is for pickup games and/or tournaments, but GW doesn't seem to care about that and instead pushes the "one true way" when they should focus on making a game that's balanced and concise enough for pickup games and tournaments BUT allow for options to help clubs and narrative/casual gamers. So this "talk with your opponent about the mission" thing works well as an optional extra if you choose to use it, not as a "default" rule that affects everyone. The intelligent thing to do in that case would be to have an extra section of optional rules for "enhancing the narrative" that competitive/tournament/pickup game players can ignore rather than just try to force everyone to play the way GW does.
A smart game designer would first write rules that are intended to be played in a tournament (i.e. balanced and concise) and then add in options for campaign/narrative/cinematic/non-tournament play that loosen up the normally-restrictive rules. GW, however, does the opposite - they write loose rules with the unstated assumption that everyone only plays campaign/narrative/cinematic/non-competitive games, so rules are written either only for that style of play or require discussion beforehand, and feth anyone else. They're operating, like most everything else they do, at a complete 180 to how they should be doing things.
rexscarlet wrote: Got it, I see you have a website, so no worries, controversy gets clicks, solutions do not, so you will continue to support a company that gets you clicks.
Actually, I'm supporting a company who makes the game I enjoy playing and am using that support to try and make use of the fact I'm going to buy the books anyways to try and make things less of a blind purchase for others. Codex prices being what they are I would have probably stopped buying all of them a year ago but since I started covering them I kind of needed to keep buying them.
Most I get from my FLGS though so really I'm supporting my local hobby store more than GW (since the FLGS is going to order the codexes anyways).
Also, I'm just one of many people who write for that blog, but since I am one of the people there a bit more into 40k I took up doing the reviews for them because I saw a niche that wasn't being filled. I pay for the books out of pocket and am not paid for my work. We're just not "big" enough for me to feel I warrant pay for my articles. So basically the clicks don't matter to me.
loki old fart wrote:Do GW still have the quality of staff to turn this around??
No, but the staff certainly has the right attitude now
H.B.M.C. wrote:Yeah. That sounds like a completely practical thing to do for a pickup game against someone you don't know.
Well, Jervis is realistic enough to assume, that with 7th edition, you will know every remaining player within 100 miles for years
Also:
anonymous source on faeit212, translated wrote:New item has come up in inventory, in a black box: imperial guard vs eldar. Not all stores got it, but it is there. Systems were updated last year on inventory, so this is new. I would say no to blood angels and orks with this later in the year.
There is nothing bad about copying a successful strategy, especially if it is well liked by the customers.
GW is desperate. They're copying Privateer press's advancing story line as books are released.
GW might be desperate but they aren't willing to acknowledge the major issues (i.e. lack of rules balance, pushing some factions to the exclusivity of others, constantly-increasing prices for a constantly-expanding size game).
There is nothing bad about copying a successful strategy, especially if it is well liked by the customers.
GW is desperate. They're copying Privateer press's advancing story line as books are released.
?? Granted I don't buy any digital releases or not-optional cuz we want to sell MOAR supplements like escalation but at least in the codex books I buy the story line since 3rd edition has advanced less in years than I have while playing it. Did I miss some major development? Or is my sarcasm detector set too low?
IG vs Eldar as a starter? That's awesome! I doubt there will be a wave serpent in the box. But for one, it's not SM vs something (which makes it doubtful, actually). Two, the starter is the perfect place for a bunch of plastic models that arent available elsewhere- Eldar could see some jetbikes and some aspect warriors, maybe an autarch and warlock in plastic. IG would get cheap models to expand their numbers.
Imagine a box that was say an Autarch, a warlock, 12 guardians, 5 swooping hawks, and 3 jetbikes vs 20 guard, a command squad with a commissar and psyker, 3 missile launchers, and a sentinel.
A smart game designer would first write rules that are intended to be played in a tournament (i.e. balanced and concise) and then add in options for campaign/narrative/cinematic/non-tournament play that loosen up the normally-restrictive rules. GW, however, does the opposite - they write loose rules with the unstated assumption that everyone only plays campaign/narrative/cinematic/non-competitive games, so rules are written either only for that style of play or require discussion beforehand, and feth anyone else. They're operating, like most everything else they do, at a complete 180 to how they should be doing things.
A smart game designer would create a game that anyone could play against anyone else and still have an enjoyable time without having to debate what things mean.
I could go into any game store and play Axis and Allies (any version), X-wing, and many others against just about anyone that walks through the door and have a good time. Heck, I could go in and play a game of Zombiecide with just about anyone, that game is highly mutable and changes every time that you play it, it also requires lots of teamwork and cooperation among players but there's not a lot of dispute on what the rules are.
While we don't have any specific rumors of the role of dedicated transports in the new FOC, I would assume that if they are so thoroughly addressing other FOC abuses, they will also include something to address dedicated transport spam.
At the very least, a new core ruleset will force them to FAQ Eldar, and they could take that opportunity to make the Serpent Shield a One-Shot-Only weapon, as it is in the fluff.
The meta is changing, the current crop of OP Spam lists and deathstars are going away, it would be a shame is Wave Serpent Spam and Necron Flying circus were left unaddressed.
rexscarlet wrote: Boycott needs to be NOW! (or this will continue to happen)
.
$75 Main/Big Rule Book obsolete in less than two years (6e 23rd of June, 2012)
Wow, just wow.
.
No "new" FaQs for months, no older FaQs on the "new" website. Now the excuse will be that GW was gearing up for the change.
No rules Support, ever.
Massive flooding of multiple Rule Books with huge issues attached to each.
Constantly making "current" purchased publications obsolete with a release of another purchased publication.
No Battle Bunkers, No tables in GW stores.(where we used to go to see what "fair" House Rules were being used by a large majority, rather than relying on non GW Tournaments).
GW Stock in the toilet.
.
All of which We will have to Pay For. .
Boycott Now
No thanks, you have fun with that. Let us know if you sell off your models.
it really flat out defeats the purpose, and is unnecessary, because you can house rule anything you want out. so just leave everything legal. less dramas, more options,
things like allies, BB needs toning down.
SHV, needs StrD weapons sorted out.
why just flat out remove them and not just fix the problems.?
Hopefully they fix them rather than just dump things, though lets be honest, they wont be, after already adding escalation to the game a couple of months back its here to stay, same as allies, just be hoping they fix them to be a bit more sensible
You don't seem to understand that it's easier to loosen restrictions than to add them in. If things like allies are optional, it's easier for the casual/narrative people to add them to games than it is for the competitive players to get rid of them if they are "core". That's why there needs to be solid core rules and everything else (flyers, escalation, allies, strongholds, etc.) as OPTIONAL extras; little or no hassle to add them in for friendly narrative games, but tournaments and competitive gamers can safely ignore them instead of having to house-rule them away.
Also, natfka is now reporting a new starter set containing Astra Militarum vs. Eldar. I guess he can't make up his mind. So it's either Orks vs. BA for 40k, Orks vs. BA for a revised Epic (yeah, right) or now AM vs. Eldar (which I call BS on, there's never been a starter set that didn't have Space Marines)
and how is it easier to loosen rather than tighten? if everywhere expects everything all the time, then all those shiny models GW wants to sell it can sell, rather than the current atmosphere of oh your taking that out, nah wont play you, or those rubbish excuses of no FW, allow it all and let individuals decice what they dont want, also TO's house rule the hell out of things anyway.
and im very sorry but as someone who like to field things, if something like allies becomes optional, when you play a PUG that means jo blogs can do a big nahh cant use that.
and something from when i play tournaments, comments like minimise the game, is NOT a good thing. otherwise it will become a very basic SvPvR situation, variety is good and i think every one of those things you listed belongs in 40k,
Kosake wrote: So, we have 10 pages of doomsaying, speculation, premature ragequits and panic based on the fact that the core book is currently unavailable..? Good thing thing that 40k radio actually said that a new edition will be coming shortly, otherwise this would seem a bit silly.
It's a news and rumor thread in a news and rumor forum discussing some news and rumors. Yet, you show up to throw derision. That seems a pointless exercise.
Don't get me wrong, I hope for some decent rules as much as the next guy, I'll just be laughing my ass off when they put the regular 6th ed BRB back in, because the new printed stock did finally arrive.
Don't think there will be a huge change this time round (if it happens) as forgeworld has a great cash cow in the Horus heresy and making £70 books obsolete every two years will kill the project long before it's complete.
For instance seventh invalidating £210 worth of books
Then 8th invalidating £420 worth of books
Etc etc
It would be dead before they got to terra.
Forgeworld has been the pearl in the snotty grey oyster of GW of late. They would have to be very desperate to destroy that.
wufai wrote: From a business point to view it makes great sense. Sales are dropping and the best way to boost sales is make its customer base all buy a new rulebook.
Actually, not necessarily.
If sales are dropping because of dissatisfaction with the product, then you need to fix the product. In that case doing a massive fix to the rules and releasing a new rule book could potentially stop or slow the defections. However if the changes go too far, as in if Jervis has any more to do with it, then it's likely to cause an even higher defection rate.
However, If sales are dropping because of pricing issues - then releasing a new rule book will likely increase the defections. After all, if every customer needs to spend an extra $75 or so in order to continue playing and they were already on the fence then you've just given them the excuse to change game systems.
From a risk management perspective, if I was leading GW, I wouldn't have taken this approach. Instead, I would have focused on FAQ'ing things while watching various web sites for what problems people were having. YMDC is a good area, not because of some of the arguing and debate that occurs but rather just what questions are being asked and how often. For example, cover saves come up A LOT. So that's an area that needs to be better worded or reworked. When I had a solid enough set of FAQs that addressed a broad range of issues THEN I'd release an update to the main rule book as the risk then is very minor.
Oh for gods sake, Like GW doesn't make enough money out of me? I'll inevitably end up buying it, but I certainly hope this is just an update to 6th and not a new edition entirely....
Be quite annoyed that I just bought my '6th edition Tyranids Codex'
ascended_mike wrote: Oh for gods sake, Like GW doesn't make enough money out of me? I'll inevitably end up buying it, but I certainly hope this is just an update to 6th and not a new edition entirely....
Be quite annoyed that I just bought my '6th edition Tyranids Codex'
A new edition doesn't mean a new codex for Nids to immediately follow.
Kosake wrote: So, we have 10 pages of doomsaying, speculation, premature ragequits and panic based on the fact that the core book is currently unavailable..? Good thing thing that 40k radio actually said that a new edition will be coming shortly, otherwise this would seem a bit silly.
It's a news and rumor thread in a news and rumor forum discussing some news and rumors. Yet, you show up to throw derision. That seems a pointless exercise.
Don't get me wrong, I hope for some decent rules as much as the next guy, I'll just be laughing my ass off when they put the regular 6th ed BRB back in, because the new printed stock did finally arrive.
Then why did they instruct stores to pull existing stock off of the shelves?
Kosake wrote: So, we have 10 pages of doomsaying, speculation, premature ragequits and panic based on the fact that the core book is currently unavailable..? Good thing thing that 40k radio actually said that a new edition will be coming shortly, otherwise this would seem a bit silly.
It's a news and rumor thread in a news and rumor forum discussing some news and rumors. Yet, you show up to throw derision. That seems a pointless exercise.
Don't get me wrong, I hope for some decent rules as much as the next guy, I'll just be laughing my ass off when they put the regular 6th ed BRB back in, because the new printed stock did finally arrive.
Then why did they instruct stores to pull existing stock off of the shelves?
Kosake wrote: So, we have 10 pages of doomsaying, speculation, premature ragequits and panic based on the fact that the core book is currently unavailable..? Good thing thing that 40k radio actually said that a new edition will be coming shortly, otherwise this would seem a bit silly.
It's a news and rumor thread in a news and rumor forum discussing some news and rumors. Yet, you show up to throw derision. That seems a pointless exercise.
Don't get me wrong, I hope for some decent rules as much as the next guy, I'll just be laughing my ass off when they put the regular 6th ed BRB back in, because the new printed stock did finally arrive.
Then why did they instruct stores to pull existing stock off of the shelves?
To troll the internet?
That would be the only other reason. Just for spite.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Just as an aside. There are no markings on the BRB's denoting which edition they are. If a new book comes out, if there are any changes at all it will be the seventh edition printed.
I mean any changes, punctuation, pictures, foreward, anything.
You can call it what ever you want. six and a half, 6.5, Edition 6-2.0, Clarabelle. But it would be the Seventh Edition in print.
Kosake wrote: So, we have 10 pages of doomsaying, speculation, premature ragequits and panic based on the fact that the core book is currently unavailable..? Good thing thing that 40k radio actually said that a new edition will be coming shortly, otherwise this would seem a bit silly.
It's a news and rumor thread in a news and rumor forum discussing some news and rumors. Yet, you show up to throw derision. That seems a pointless exercise.
Don't get me wrong, I hope for some decent rules as much as the next guy, I'll just be laughing my ass off when they put the regular 6th ed BRB back in, because the new printed stock did finally arrive.
Then why did they instruct stores to pull existing stock off of the shelves?
To troll the internet?
That would be the only other reason. Just for spite.
It's just a big "marketing" move that requires absolutely no cash on the part of GW to perform. Have the stores put a bunch of somewhat unrelated boxes on a table. Make a nebulous "last chance" statement and Presto: everyone on the internet talks about it, articles are written, etc. All of the publicity encourages people to go into the stores while so of them actually buy stuff.
If everything sells then the "last chance" statement works out. If it doesn't, then you just put it back on the shelf while quietly saying that new stock came in after all... Brilliant if you ask me.
Just as an aside. There are no markings on the BRB's denoting which edition they are. If a new book comes out, if there are any changes at all it will be the seventh edition printed.
I mean any changes, punctuation, pictures, foreward, anything.
You can call it what ever you want. six and a half, 6.5, Edition 6-2.0. But it would be the Seventh Edition in print.
I think you're conflating "edition" with "printing". If the exact same book comes out it will be 6th edition, second printing or whatever. See http://www.booklibris.com/BLFirstEditionID.htm
One thought, if GW were more customer facing, had some form of formal public facing way to take all feedback, do we think we would have so many forums moaning about their inability to seem to care for the customer?
The amount of moaning and negative posting surely has to be a result of their inability to connect with their fanbase/customers.
ClockworkZion wrote: If we're talking about Flying Circus Lists then the Nids and Daemons need to be addressed too.
Both are already addressed.
The core of tyranid flying circus is the Flyrant. You can only have one flyrant until you get to 1850 total points for the game. At that point level you can only have 2 Crones and a Harpy, but not 3 crones. Essentially Tyranid 5 FMC's become unlocked at 1850, with only 3 FMC's available in smaller games.
The Skyblight is another way to unlock more FMCs for tyranids, but it is a very expensive formation. Clocking in at 800 points. That means it is not available until you are playing a 3250 point game.
I'm not quite as familiar with Demon Flying Circus. I think it has Fateweaver, and the Lord of Change. That adds up to 530 and doesn't come available until 2250 points.
Kosake wrote: I never understood why Rhinos were not considered assault vehicles in the first place...
But yeah, 6th edition being the Vista to the upcoming 7th edition Win7 sounds promising. Unless GW makes you pawn your organs to pay for all the new books, codices and slates you'll still need.
Well, I don't know about models but I have been known to sell plasma at the plasma bank to pay for paint. Blood for the Blood God = Paint for the Paint God
Automatically Appended Next Post: As a matter of fact I am waiting in line to do that right now.
ClockworkZion wrote: If we're talking about Flying Circus Lists then the Nids and Daemons need to be addressed too.
Both are already addressed.
The core of tyranid flying circus is the Flyrant. You can only have one flyrant until you get to 1850 total points for the game. At that point level you can only have 2 Crones and a Harpy, but not 3 crones. Essentially Tyranid 5 FMC's become unlocked at 1850, with only 3 FMC's available in smaller games.
The Skyblight is another way to unlock more FMCs for tyranids, but it is a very expensive formation. Clocking in at 800 points. That means it is not available until you are playing a 3250 point game.
I'm not quite as familiar with Demon Flying Circus. I think it has Fateweaver, and the Lord of Change. That adds up to 530 and doesn't come available until 2250 points.
What in the world are you talking about here? 40K doesn't use a percentage based system and you can get either of those formations into MUCH smaller games. Or are you saying that they will be addressed in the new edition IF they go to percentage based like WHFB?
ClockworkZion wrote: If we're talking about Flying Circus Lists then the Nids and Daemons need to be addressed too.
Both are already addressed.
The core of tyranid flying circus is the Flyrant. You can only have one flyrant until you get to 1850 total points for the game. At that point level you can only have 2 Crones and a Harpy, but not 3 crones. Essentially Tyranid 5 FMC's become unlocked at 1850, with only 3 FMC's available in smaller games.
The Skyblight is another way to unlock more FMCs for tyranids, but it is a very expensive formation. Clocking in at 800 points. That means it is not available until you are playing a 3250 point game.
I'm not quite as familiar with Demon Flying Circus. I think it has Fateweaver, and the Lord of Change. That adds up to 530 and doesn't come available until 2250 points.
where are you getting these restrictions from?????
rexscarlet wrote: Boycott needs to be NOW! (or this will continue to happen)
.
$75 Main/Big Rule Book obsolete in less than two years (6e 23rd of June, 2012)
Wow, just wow.
.
No "new" FaQs for months, no older FaQs on the "new" website. Now the excuse will be that GW was gearing up for the change.
No rules Support, ever.
Massive flooding of multiple Rule Books with huge issues attached to each.
Constantly making "current" purchased publications obsolete with a release of another purchased publication.
No Battle Bunkers, No tables in GW stores.(where we used to go to see what "fair" House Rules were being used by a large majority, rather than relying on non GW Tournaments).
GW Stock in the toilet.
.
All of which We will have to Pay For. .
Boycott Now
You appear to be new to this... WELCOME TO WARGAMING!!!
This hasn't been a slow decline for some.
For some of us, we have been gaming for 20+ years and the decline of GW, for some, has been happening for ten years or more.
Kosake wrote: So, we have 10 pages of doomsaying, speculation, premature ragequits and panic based on the fact that the core book is currently unavailable..? Good thing thing that 40k radio actually said that a new edition will be coming shortly, otherwise this would seem a bit silly.
It's a news and rumor thread in a news and rumor forum discussing some news and rumors. Yet, you show up to throw derision. That seems a pointless exercise.
Don't get me wrong, I hope for some decent rules as much as the next guy, I'll just be laughing my ass off when they put the regular 6th ed BRB back in, because the new printed stock did finally arrive.
Then why did they instruct stores to pull existing stock off of the shelves?
To troll the internet?
That would be the only other reason. Just for spite.
It's just a big "marketing" move that requires absolutely no cash on the part of GW to perform. Have the stores put a bunch of somewhat unrelated boxes on a table. Make a nebulous "last chance" statement and Presto: everyone on the internet talks about it, articles are written, etc. All of the publicity encourages people to go into the stores while so of them actually buy stuff.
If everything sells then the "last chance" statement works out. If it doesn't, then you just put it back on the shelf while quietly saying that new stock came in after all... Brilliant if you ask me.
Just as an aside. There are no markings on the BRB's denoting which edition they are. If a new book comes out, if there are any changes at all it will be the seventh edition printed.
I mean any changes, punctuation, pictures, foreward, anything.
You can call it what ever you want. six and a half, 6.5, Edition 6-2.0. But it would be the Seventh Edition in print.
I think you're conflating "edition" with "printing". If the exact same book comes out it will be 6th edition, second printing or whatever. See http://www.booklibris.com/BLFirstEditionID.htm
Two things.
First: While that may not be the worst marketing ploy ever (new coke) it would be the worst marketing ploy since "new coke". It doesn't increase demand. They've already met the needs of those that play with the rule book. Everyone that needs one already has one. That only prevents new customers from buying their product for a month, who then have a month to spend that money elsewhere and may lose interest. Plus, it's the main rule book, not a limited release, literally everyone would know that there would only be a "last chance" if the company was going out of business.
That ploy defies reason, logic and marketing 101.
Second: Did you notice that in the quote from me that you gave. Actually says that "If a new book comes out, if there are any changes at all it will be the seventh edition printed." Right before you go into explaining that if no changes are made then it's not a different edition. On that note however, there is no way of knowing what printing any of them are as they don't list those numbers either. So unless they label it as 6.5 and they make changes, it will be the 7th edition.
Edit: If you wanted to be super picky, the small trade paperback versions are different editions.
If you look across the Internet there is a LOT of moaning and negativity. Not just at GW, but aimed at pretty much every single company on the planet.
You can easily find things like people "rage quitting" pretty much anything. Just read this linked post. The feelings in that post could easily be transcribed over here with a few edits to substitute in Ward, xyz Codex, tournament players or whatever.
I don't really think that the amount of negativity has much to do with whether a company has it's own forums/public face or not. Normally rational and well adjusted adults argue, post extremely negative things and generally act like spoiled children all over the 'net. Last year my sister in law "rage quit" netflix because they didn't have some obscure movie from the 60s online. A week later she "rage quit" some shampoo company because an ingredient changed in her favorite one. It's kinda funny when you think about it.
Ultimately the hard part is sorting through real problems vs someone just being cranky. That takes a lot of patience and time which some companies, like GW, don't want to bother with.
You appear to be new to this... WELCOME TO WARGAMING!!!
This hasn't been a slow decline for some.
For some of us, we have been gaming for 20+ years and the decline of GW, for some, has been happening for ten years or more.
What?
Not a single company besides GW has ever released a new ruleset this quickly AND priced it twice or three times as expensive as the comparable products.
No one minds a new ruleset every 5-10 years. Those things keep games interesting. But GW does not make stuff better, they screw everything up with every new release.
If you look across the Internet there is a LOT of moaning and negativity. Not just at GW, but aimed at pretty much every single company on the planet.
You can easily find things like people "rage quitting" pretty much anything. Just read this linked post. The feelings in that post could easily be transcribed over here with a few edits to substitute in Ward, xyz Codex, tournament players or whatever.
I don't really think that the amount of negativity has much to do with whether a company has it's own forums/public face or not. Normally rational and well adjusted adults argue, post extremely negative things and generally act like spoiled children all over the 'net. Last year my sister in law "rage quit" netflix because they didn't have some obscure movie from the 60s online. A week later she "rage quit" some shampoo company because an ingredient changed in her favorite one. It's kinda funny when you think about it.
Ultimately the hard part is sorting through real problems vs someone just being cranky. That takes a lot of patience and time which some companies, like GW, don't want to bother with.
So, she quit using a service that didn't meet her demands and quit using a product that no longer met her needs? That is funny.
First: While that may not be the worst marketing ploy ever (new coke) it would be the worst marketing ploy since "new coke". It doesn't increase demand. They've already met the needs of those that play with the rule book. Everyone that needs one already has one. That only prevents new customers from buying their product for a month, who then have a month to spend that money elsewhere and may lose interest. Plus, it's the main rule book, not a limited release, literally everyone would know that there would only be a "last chance" if the company was going out of business.
That ploy defies reason, logic and marketing 101.
Second: Did you notice that in the quote from me that you gave. Actually says that "If a new book comes out, if there are any changes at all it will be the seventh edition printed." Right before you go into explaining that if no changes are made then it's not a different edition. On that note however, there is no way of knowing what printing any of them are as they don't list those numbers either. So unless they label it as 6.5 and they make changes, it will be the 7th edition.
Edit: If you wanted to be super picky, the small trade paperback versions are different editions.
On the first item... Yes, it would defy all reason, logic and marketing. Which, from what I've seen defines GW's behavior over the past couple of years. That said, it was meant entirely tongue in cheek. I don't actually think for a moment that even GW would do something so silly.... at least I hope they wouldn't.
On the second, you are absolutely correct in that I completely and totally misread what you posted. So feel free to ignore my entirely ignorant post.
ClockworkZion wrote: If we're talking about Flying Circus Lists then the Nids and Daemons need to be addressed too.
Both are already addressed.
The core of tyranid flying circus is the Flyrant. You can only have one flyrant until you get to 1850 total points for the game. At that point level you can only have 2 Crones and a Harpy, but not 3 crones. Essentially Tyranid 5 FMC's become unlocked at 1850, with only 3 FMC's available in smaller games.
The Skyblight is another way to unlock more FMCs for tyranids, but it is a very expensive formation. Clocking in at 800 points. That means it is not available until you are playing a 3250 point game.
I'm not quite as familiar with Demon Flying Circus. I think it has Fateweaver, and the Lord of Change. That adds up to 530 and doesn't come available until 2250 points.
What in the world are you talking about here? 40K doesn't use a percentage based system and you can get either of those formations into MUCH smaller games. Or are you saying that they will be addressed in the new edition IF they go to percentage based like WHFB?
ausYenLoWang wrote:
where are you getting these restrictions from?????
edit: ninjad a third time tonight
Part of the rumor for the revision (not calling it a new edition) is that there will be a percentage based comp system ala WHFB (25% HQ, 50% Troops etc.). I actually agree with this sort of change, it would go a decent way to clearing the broken lists we have currently (like the Flying Circus tag883 discussed).
My only problem with it would be that I am on a limited budget, I just started playing 8 weeks ago, and I would have to buy 2 rulebooks (my GW store says that if my daughter wants to play a game at the same time as me she needs her own book)
Kosake wrote: I never understood why Rhinos were not considered assault vehicles in the first place...
The 3rd edition BA Rhino Rush still lives in many dreams and nightmares
How is this any different than the ork battle wagon/truck rushes today, or 5th edition? I don't understand why it's easier to assault from an open top vehicle then thru a door?
GW has lost the plot. Go bust already and make room for companies that actually care about the rules they put out.
This isn't a marketing scheme anymore, it's pure exploitation of a dwindling consumer base. I wouldn't be surprised if the new rulebook turns out to be a one-time release limited to 1000 copies worldwide, because that's about the number of players 40K is going to have left soon.
joemarra052075 wrote: My only problem with it would be that I am on a limited budget, I just started playing 8 weeks ago, and I would have to buy 2 rulebooks (my GW store says that if my daughter wants to play a game at the same time as me she needs her own book)
GW's problem in a nutshell. Turn down a sale because you don't want to buy two.
joemarra052075 wrote: My only problem with it would be that I am on a limited budget, I just started playing 8 weeks ago, and I would have to buy 2 rulebooks (my GW store says that if my daughter wants to play a game at the same time as me she needs her own book)
The store manager must be a jerk then. Play elsewhere.
joemarra052075 wrote: My only problem with it would be that I am on a limited budget, I just started playing 8 weeks ago, and I would have to buy 2 rulebooks (my GW store says that if my daughter wants to play a game at the same time as me she needs her own book)
The store manager must be a jerk then. Play elsewhere.
Kosake wrote: I never understood why Rhinos were not considered assault vehicles in the first place...
The 3rd edition BA Rhino Rush still lives in many dreams and nightmares
How is this any different than the ork battle wagon/truck rushes today, or 5th edition? I don't understand why it's easier to assault from an open top vehicle then thru a door?
You obviously didn't play 3rd edition.
On Turn 1, Blood Angels could drive across the board, assault you, kill the unit they assaulted and then consolidate into a fresh assault to be protected from shooting on your turn. And there wasn't a damn thing you could do about it. That's a lot different than ork BW / trukk rush.
Kosake wrote: I never understood why Rhinos were not considered assault vehicles in the first place...
The 3rd edition BA Rhino Rush still lives in many dreams and nightmares
How is this any different than the ork battle wagon/truck rushes today, or 5th edition? I don't understand why it's easier to assault from an open top vehicle then thru a door?
You obviously didn't play 3rd edition.
On Turn 1, Blood Angels could drive across the board, assault you, kill the unit they assaulted and then consolidate into a fresh assault to be protected from shooting on your turn. And there wasn't a damn thing you could do about it. That's a lot different than ork BW / trukk rush.
Only if they "failed" (lol, failed. That thing was a massive advantage) their black rage test.
ascended_mike wrote: Oh for gods sake, Like GW doesn't make enough money out of me? I'll inevitably end up buying it, but I certainly hope this is just an update to 6th and not a new edition entirely....
Be quite annoyed that I just bought my '6th edition Tyranids Codex'
A new edition doesn't mean a new codex for Nids to immediately follow.
No, I know.
But I was hoping the codex would exist within the current edition for at least another year or two...
I was already playing with an outdated one.
I’ve seen GW do a number of things over the last 30. Some of them evil and stupid and other things that make me go WOW!! That was nice of them.
I’ve seen them print rules in the White Dwarf magazines and real rule books and then change their minds 6 months later with a new rule book. The first time was with the 1.5 rules with the vehicle templates and you used the dice to shift where you targeted, then 6 months later 2nd Edition came out. Or the last time with the WD and the powerful deamon Flamer rules only to be undone with 6th Edition. Why did they do that? These were the reasons I stopped playing 40K during the 90’s and 2000’s and only came back due to the Horus Heresy novels.
I won't say anything about Finecasts, except that I'm glad that is over with.
I am so glad that I didn't invest my time into 6th and my warmachine is thanking me. I did buy three codexs and the mini rule book to see if I wanted to jump in. Oh hell no, to many GW sharks wanting to give me pain and a slow death to my wallet with new books in what seems every month. F that.
I can understand everyone being miffed that this edition isn't even two years old yet, but look at Mantic and Dreadball. 4 updates in what, 12 months?!
Ok I'm being flippant, but let's see what it actually has rather than forecasting doom and gloom. Not everyone will be happy, though, let's brace ourselves!
I'm half tempted to box up my 6th ed rule book and chuck it in the post without postage. I've used it three times. That'll learn 'em!
Kosake wrote: I never understood why Rhinos were not considered assault vehicles in the first place...
The 3rd edition BA Rhino Rush still lives in many dreams and nightmares
How is this any different than the ork battle wagon/truck rushes today, or 5th edition? I don't understand why it's easier to assault from an open top vehicle then thru a door?
You obviously didn't play 3rd edition.
On Turn 1, Blood Angels could drive across the board, assault you, kill the unit they assaulted and then consolidate into a fresh assault to be protected from shooting on your turn. And there wasn't a damn thing you could do about it. That's a lot different than ork BW / trukk rush.
You are right, I didn't play 3rd Edition. I have to assume the Orks and any other army could do this rush? As long as they had vehicles back then. I've heard of the constant assualt moves from a few friends.
I just don't understand why jumping out an open top vehiclle is easier than running out a door? But their are a few things in 40k that don't make sense. Vehicles can't Overwatch Fire, but Imperial Guard vehicles can now light a fire barrel on the outside of their vehicles and can release it to burn close combat troops attack their vehicles. Does that make any sense?
joemarra052075 wrote: My only problem with it would be that I am on a limited budget, I just started playing 8 weeks ago, and I would have to buy 2 rulebooks (my GW store says that if my daughter wants to play a game at the same time as me she needs her own book)
Ahahahaha!!!!
THIS!
I REALLY wish I had a store manager say that to me... I REALLY do!
The proper response:
"Let me get this straight, my other family member or ANY person playing the game in your store must have the rulebook on them, each and every one?"
"Please consider what you will say next to prevent me from leaving and never coming back as well as telling everyone I know about this incident."
"What is your name again? I plan on confirming with your head office that this is corporate policy for GW stores."
I would be so happy if they brought back mission cards like in 2nd edition.
I can easily imagine this happening because then everyone would have to buy a pack of mission cards to go with their new pack of psychic cards and their pack of random FOC cards and their pack of narrative event cards etc...
I might try this starter set if it's cheap because I want to play Orks if I start 40k. I especially like the idea of being able to expand it a bit with the painting set. But if GW thinks they can charge $100 for this without including full rules and templates they can do something other than sell me overpriced minis.
joemarra052075 wrote: She lets us share if just one is playing. she only wants two if we are playing at the same time.
How are you sharing if only one person is playing? Does she require that every game have two BRB's present? What if two guys come in with a single BRB and two different codexes and armies? Something about this doesn't pass the smell test.
Boredflak1066 wrote: You are right, I didn't play 3rd Edition. I have to assume the Orks and any other army could do this rush? As long as they had vehicles back then. I've heard of the constant assualt moves from a few friends.
Nope, other armies couldn't really do it. It had to do with turbo-boosting engines and some of the BA special rules.
So just on a "how much stuff released" perspective you could argue that 6th isn't leaving too soon. And it's interesting that in 2 years we got the same number of codexes in 6th that we got in 4-5 years with 5th. I wonder if GW is basing the launch of a new edition on the amount of stuff they've released and not the amount of time between the editions.
On a timeline though 2 years still really feels short regardless of how much stuff came out, but I don't think this edition has been short changed on content at least.
joemarra052075 wrote: My only problem with it would be that I am on a limited budget, I just started playing 8 weeks ago, and I would have to buy 2 rulebooks (my GW store says that if my daughter wants to play a game at the same time as me she needs her own book)
Ahahahaha!!!!
THIS!
I REALLY wish I had a store manager say that to me... I REALLY do!
The proper response:
"Let me get this straight, my other family member or ANY person playing the game in your store must have the rulebook on them, each and every one?"
"Please consider what you will say next to prevent me from leaving and never coming back as well as telling everyone I know about this incident."
"What is your name again? I plan on confirming with your head office that this is corporate policy for GW stores."
What if instead of saying "homina, homina, homina" they tell you to "get the feth out of my store if you don't like it"?
joemarra052075 wrote: My only problem with it would be that I am on a limited budget, I just started playing 8 weeks ago, and I would have to buy 2 rulebooks (my GW store says that if my daughter wants to play a game at the same time as me she needs her own book)
Ahahahaha!!!! THIS! I REALLY wish I had a store manager say that to me... I REALLY do!
The proper response:
"Let me get this straight, my other family member or ANY person playing the game in your store must have the rulebook on them, each and every one?" "Please consider what you will say next to prevent me from leaving and never coming back as well as telling everyone I know about this incident." "What is your name again? I plan on confirming with your head office that this is corporate policy for GW stores."
What if instead of saying "homina, homina, homina" they tell you to "get the feth out of my store if you don't like it"?
That seems to be the typical GW business response to any complaints... don't like it, don't play. Eventually though you won't have anyone to play if you have that attitude.
I now imagine a deserted/ransacked GW store while the "Rains of Castamere" plays and said manager commits suicide in the back room before GW corporate shuts them down.
joemarra052075 wrote: She does strongly encourage everyone to have their own so they can learn the rules.
You can use ePub on your phone. Since it's pretty unwieldy to use, then share the actual book. If they give you a problem, just show them your, obviously legal, ePub version on your phone and your rulebook.
monders wrote: I can understand everyone being miffed that this edition isn't even two years old yet, but look at Mantic and Dreadball. 4 updates in what, 12 months?!
Ok I'm being flippant, but let's see what it actually has rather than forecasting doom and gloom. Not everyone will be happy, though, let's brace ourselves!
I'm half tempted to box up my 6th ed rule book and chuck it in the post without postage. I've used it three times. That'll learn 'em!
Genuine question, but were these simply expansions or a complete overhaul of the game itself?
gorgon wrote: What if instead of saying "homina, homina, homina" they tell you to "get the feth out of my store if you don't like it"?
Ah, good question!
Glad you paid attention to the details as "homina", it is a corporate store not "theirs" or a franchise.
Swearing at customers would be even better, I have managed in separate incidents to get five people fired who were acting like bullies... I do not let things like that pass.
I actually smile when people get all unreasonable like that, I have other hobbies too...
Kosake wrote: I never understood why Rhinos were not considered assault vehicles in the first place...
The 3rd edition BA Rhino Rush still lives in many dreams and nightmares
How is this any different than the ork battle wagon/truck rushes today, or 5th edition? I don't understand why it's easier to assault from an open top vehicle then thru a door?
You obviously didn't play 3rd edition.
On Turn 1, Blood Angels could drive across the board, assault you, kill the unit they assaulted and then consolidate into a fresh assault to be protected from shooting on your turn. And there wasn't a damn thing you could do about it. That's a lot different than ork BW / trukk rush.
pretre wrote: You obviously didn't play 3rd edition.
On Turn 1, Blood Angels could drive across the board, assault you, kill the unit they assaulted and then consolidate into a fresh assault to be protected from shooting on your turn. And there wasn't a damn thing you could do about it. That's a lot different than ork BW / trukk rush.
Wasn't a consolidate move only 3" in 3rd?
Sounds about right. It's been a while. Try to keep all your units 3" apart while trying to stay as far away from your opponent as possible though...
Usually it meant you had to have assault screeners to prevent consolidation and give them something to eat.
Kosake wrote: I never understood why Rhinos were not considered assault vehicles in the first place...
The 3rd edition BA Rhino Rush still lives in many dreams and nightmares
How is this any different than the ork battle wagon/truck rushes today, or 5th edition? I don't understand why it's easier to assault from an open top vehicle then thru a door?
You obviously didn't play 3rd edition.
On Turn 1, Blood Angels could drive across the board, assault you, kill the unit they assaulted and then consolidate into a fresh assault to be protected from shooting on your turn. And there wasn't a damn thing you could do about it. That's a lot different than ork BW / trukk rush.
Wasn't a consolidate move only 3" in 3rd?
12" move, 6" overcharged engines, 1-6" from failed black rage test, 2" disembark. 21" to 26" across the board in one turn.
Remember access points didn't exist at that point in the game, so it was 2" disembark from any point of the Rhino.
Okay I whipped this up. This is what I think our end result will be at some point:
(Sung to the tune of "The Rains of Castamere")
And who are you, those proud men said, to play our game this way?
The game's not meant for tournaments
or playing in that way
Just play the game the way we want
and then you'll be okay
Forget things like a balanced game
and pay the price we say
And so they spoke, and so they spoke
And kept the game this way
But now the rains weep o'er their stores, with no one there to play
Yes now the rains weep o'er their stores, and not a soul to play
monders wrote: I can understand everyone being miffed that this edition isn't even two years old yet, but look at Mantic and Dreadball. 4 updates in what, 12 months?!
Ok I'm being flippant, but let's see what it actually has rather than forecasting doom and gloom. Not everyone will be happy, though, let's brace ourselves!
I'm half tempted to box up my 6th ed rule book and chuck it in the post without postage. I've used it three times. That'll learn 'em!
Genuine question, but were these simply expansions or a complete overhaul of the game itself?
If he's talking about the Seasons, then they're additional books that introduced new rules and teams into the game.
WayneTheGame wrote: Okay I whipped this up. This is what I think our end result will be at some point:
(Sung to the tune of "The Rains of Castamere")
And who are you, those proud men said, to play our game this way?
The game's not meant for tournaments
or playing in that way
Just play the game the way we want
and then you'll be okay
Forget things like a balanced game
and pay the price we say
And so they spoke, and so they spoke
And kept the game this way
But now the rains weep o'er their stores, with no one there to play
Yes now the rains weep o'er their stores, and not a soul to play
joemarra052075 wrote: She does strongly encourage everyone to have their own so they can learn the rules.
Response: My daughter can borrow mine any time, I do not read it 24-7.
But this is not your mom here, this is a store manager = supplier for your hobby and does not have the right to "encourage" your wallet to fork over money you cannot afford to lose.
I dislike people who want-need our money trying to sound like they have a say in how it is spent.
I am glad the person is willing to help with painting tips but remember that is part of the job description, from the other comments I would gather this person is not your "friend".
So a new rulebook is in the works and I am sure you can find some way to share an "epub" and stick it on a phone as pointed out and then it would be none of her business.
WayneTheGame wrote: Okay I whipped this up. This is what I think our end result will be at some point:
(Sung to the tune of "The Rains of Castamere")
And who are you, those proud men said, to play our game this way?
The game's not meant for tournaments
or playing in that way
Just play the game the way we want
and then you'll be okay
Forget things like a balanced game
and pay the price we say
And so they spoke, and so they spoke
And kept the game this way
But now the rains weep o'er their stores, with no one there to play
Yes now the rains weep o'er their stores, and not a soul to play
WayneTheGame wrote: Okay I whipped this up. This is what I think our end result will be at some point:
(Sung to the tune of "The Rains of Castamere")
And who are you, those proud men said, to play our game this way?
The game's not meant for tournaments
or playing in that way
Just play the game the way we want
and then you'll be okay
Forget things like a balanced game
and pay the price we say
And so they spoke, and so they spoke
And kept the game this way
But now the rains weep o'er their stores, with no one there to play
Yes now the rains weep o'er their stores, and not a soul to play
Here's the Sigur Ros version to go with it!
Quite brilliant Wayne, I think you've won the thread
joemarra052075 wrote: Yeah. Never made much sense to me that she had to have her own.
It's an extra $75 (or whatever it is) in the till and an extra core rulebook sale for the figures.
Spoiler:
Doesn't stop it from being a cash grabbing dick move though.
Pretty much this. She needs to sell stuff to keep her job (because the GW Corporate Sales department is fething asinine and will fire you the same month they hire you for not meeting target figures, even if you're taking over a horribly tanking store and have done stuff to make it better) and thus has created a rule to help that along. Still a dick move in a lot of ways, but one caused by GW Corporate being even bigger dicks.
joemarra052075 wrote: On the other hand if they put out a new box set I will probably get that. Just, sheesh...8 weeks in and new rules.
I recall people needing to buy a second rulebook because 6th dropped the day after they got their 5th edition rulebook. GW used to be a LOT worse about this. At least pulling the rulebook a month out is a much less dickish way to do it.
gorgon wrote: What if instead of saying "homina, homina, homina" they tell you to "get the feth out of my store if you don't like it"?
Ah, good question!
Glad you paid attention to the details as "homina", it is a corporate store not "theirs" or a franchise.
Swearing at customers would be even better, I have managed in separate incidents to get five people fired who were acting like bullies... I do not let things like that pass.
I actually smile when people get all unreasonable like that, I have other hobbies too...
I know that you think that speaks well of you, but it really doesn't.
quickfuze wrote: What in the world are you talking about here? 40K doesn't use a percentage based system and you can get either of those formations into MUCH smaller games. Or are you saying that they will be addressed in the new edition IF they go to percentage based like WHFB?
**** Note, "Sweep Attack" is a new thing, and not the same thing as a sweeping advance. Movement: Run: D6 or 2D6 for Flying Monstrous Creatures that are Swooping. Consolidations: 2D6 pick one, but you only consolidate on your turn. You can charge with your consolidation move. Opponent can overwatch. You only get to fight once per turn, so if you consolidate into a new combat you don’t get to fight, unless your fist combat didn’t fight (opponent flees). Retreats: 6 + D6 Charge: 2D6, not affected by difficult terrain. Move through Difficult: 2D6 pick one. Charge through Difficult: 2D6 (The same, but -2 iniative).
Reserves: Coming in from Reserves: If there is no enemy in 24” of a particular table edge, units from reserve that use this edge to enter the table can march an additional 12” Flyers have the “Patient Hunter” special rule which means they can choose to stay in ongoing reserves.
Assault: Flee: You can chose to immediately lose combat after Hammer of Wrath, before any blows are struck. Iniative roll off as if you had lost combat. If you win, you do a normal Retreat. If you lose, the unit is destroyed. It happens before pile-ins. Overwatch: Must win or tie an iniative roll off to overwatch. Cannot overwatch if Gone to Ground or Pinned. Charge through Cover: -2 to initiative unless assault grenades or unit being assaulted has Gone to Ground or been Pinned. Initiative: All models strike at their common Initiative unless they are in a Challenge, or are using Unwieldy weapons like power fists. If a unit has 3 Power Fists, and 2 Chainswords they all strike at Initiative 1. Hammer of Wrath: Counts as part of combat resolution. Assaulting Vehicles and Buildings: If the vehicle doesn’t have a WS (walker), then you Sweep Attack them rather than Assault them.
Psychic Powers: Most happen at the end of the movement phase rather than the start. You have to roll for Warp charges like fantasy (complexity 4?) Psychic powers do not require line of sight.
Unit Types: Jump Infantry: Can use jump packs in all phases. If In difficult, and you use Jump pack, must take dangerous terrain test. Jump Packs in assault give HOW but not Rerolls. Chariots: can Sweep Attack Bikes: can Sweep Attack Vehicles: D6 S6 Hammer of Wrath and have Sweep Attack which seems to replace Tank Shock. Walkers do D6 S:Unit Hammer of Wrath. “Death or Glory” against vehicle sweep attacks mean all models in unit Snapshoot at rear armor, or all models within 3” do CC attacks against rear armor. Must take fear test or WS:1. If they fail to stop the vehicle, then they take 2D6 S6 Hammer of Wrath. Only get cover saves against other vehicles. Light Walkers: Only do 1 Hammer of Wrath. I’m thinking Killa Kans, Scout Sentinal, War Walkers. Swarms: Take D3 wounds to Template weapons (flamers).
Special Rules: Fleet add an extra D6, and can discard a D6 in all random moves. No Rerolls. Move through cover, and you ignore the effects of Difficult Terrain (6” move, no iniative penalty for assault), but not Dangerous. Shrouded: -2 to BS Stealth: +1 to Cover Fearless: Cannot chose to Flee Preferred Enemy: +1 to hit for both Melee and Shooting. Bulky: gives Hammer of Wrath. Hit and Run: Gives Sweep Attack, cannot leave combat. Sweep Attack: Close combat attack in the movement phase can only hit ground targets, and can be hit back. Pause during movement, cannot be within 1”. Any model within 3” can attack, and then finish movement. No Pile-ins allowed. Can be part of a Run Move. You can still shoot after a Sweep Attack. Does include Hammer of Wrath. Vector Strike: D6 S:Unit AP:- auto hits. Hits Rear Armor. Swooping must pass within 3” of model being vector strike (no longer have to pass over). Does not count as shooting a weapon. All hits are precision hits. Look Out Sir: On a 2+ the next closest model takes the wounds. Only 1 Look Out Sir roll for all allocated wounds. Look Out Sir is available to all models with special weapons. Regeneration: 4+ to recover a wound. Grants Feel No Pain.
Other Rules: Snapshooting: -3 BS. High BS: No Rerolls for BS > 6. 1 always misses, 6 always hits.
FOC: HQ: 0-25%, must have 1 warlord Elite: 0-25% Troops: 20-75% Fast Attack: 0-25% Heavy Support: 0-25% Secondary Detachments: 0-25%, it includes Allies, Fortifications, Formations, Lords of War and can also include units from your primary codex. You can have 3, but must pick one after rolling for game, deployment and first turn. The player who wins first turn must select first. See example below. Allies: Allies are part of the Secondary Detachment, but count in Primary FOC. They do not have a troop or HQ limit, and you must have only 1 ally per Secondary detachment, but you can take formations from other allies. Fortifications: Fortifications are part of the Secondary Detachment. Formations: Formations are part of the Secondary Detachment, and don’t count in the Primary FOC. Lords of War: If one player brings a Lord of war and the other player does not, the first player must declare his Secondary Detachment first, and the opponent has a chance to bring fourth Secondary Detachment. Any Heavy Support in this special Secondary Detachment do not count against the Heavy Support Limit.
Secondary Option 3 (250/250): Troops (200/390/750) 15 HGaunts – 75 Heavy Support (215/250) TFex - 175
I was not involved in the original chat, nor do I have any additional information beyond what is included in that chat. I do not have proof that any of the information in the chat is legit, but it rings true to me, because it is not presented in a way that someone would present false rumors, it is highly detailed, and it is focused on fantasy instead of 40k.
The single change that most excites me is the percentage FOC, because it is such an elegant solution to so many of the problems in the current meta of 40k (Spam Lists, Deathstars, Allies, Escalation, and Fortifications).
WayneTheGame wrote: Okay I whipped this up. This is what I think our end result will be at some point:
(Sung to the tune of "The Rains of Castamere")
And who are you, those proud men said, to play our game this way?
The game's not meant for tournaments
or playing in that way
Just play the game the way we want
and then you'll be okay
Forget things like a balanced game
and pay the price we say
And so they spoke, and so they spoke
And kept the game this way
But now the rains weep o'er their stores, with no one there to play
Yes now the rains weep o'er their stores, and not a soul to play
Strangly these lyrics fit almost perfectly into "rest ye merry gentlemen"
YakManDoo wrote: I leave you with this nugget of Jervis Johnson design insight:
"“Just decide on which scenario or mission you are going to play normally, but then sit down with your opponent before deploying, and come up with a background story explaining why the battle is taking place.”
This done, replace the victory conditions with a set of objectives for each side based on the background you have come up with, and then proceed to set up your armies and fight the battle. At the end of the game, discuss who has won with your opponent – if you can’t agree, then the battle is clearly a draw! I think (and hope) that you will be surprised how much difference this small change can make to the way that the game feels and plays.”
In the grim darkness of the far future, there is only discussion amongst friends...
I'm looking forwards to 8th edition, where we'll just put all our models on the table, come up with a background story explaining why they would fight, and then talk about all the cool things that would happen in that battle, and then talk about whether Superman could beat Iron Man, and then talk about how cool it would be if Iron Man was in 40K, and then discuss whether Iron Man would have beaten either of our armies, and then decide that Iron Man is the winner and pack up and go home!
No need for those pesky 'rules' getting in the way of having fun.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
paqman wrote: I started 40k with 5th so I never experienced this feature of 2nd. Let me tell you that this is a hell of a great idea! I'm tempted to figure out a way to introduce this in my friendly games..
I made up a bunch of Mission Cards in 5th edition based loosely on the 2nd ed cards. As with in 2nd, you basically just shuffle the cards and deal one out to each player before the game.
I had always intended to update them to 6th ed and get them back online, but at this point it seems sensible to wait and see what this month brings...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ausYenLoWang wrote: and im very sorry but as someone who like to field things, if something like allies becomes optional, when you play a PUG that means jo blogs can do a big nahh cant use that.
I'm looking forwards to 8th edition, where we'll just put all our models on the table, come up with a background story explaining why they would fight, and then talk about all the cool things that would happen in that battle, and then talk about whether Superman could beat Iron Man, and then talk about how cool it would be if Iron Man was in 40K, and then discuss whether Iron Man would have beaten either of our armies, and then decide that Iron Man is the winner and pack up and go home!
This is actually scarily similar to how most of my 40k games go. You should give it a try, it's awesome.
Also, I'd be fine with army-specific objectives, it works great in Deadzone.
I am going to read your review to learn if I want to get the new rules. One way or another. Likely another.
Which was the reason I started writing them: because I kept seeing people complain they were tired of buying stuff blind.
See, that is why you need to start Warmachine. So I can also get reviews on Warmachine stuff !
(Kidding, actually it is quite easy to get an idea of the profile of a model on the internet, and all the books are available at my FLGS to skim through before buying them)
insaniak wrote: In the grim darkness of the far future, there is only discussion amongst friends...
I'm looking forwards to 8th edition, where we'll just put all our models on the table, come up with a background story explaining why they would fight, and then talk about all the cool things that would happen in that battle, and then talk about whether Superman could beat Iron Man, and then talk about how cool it would be if Iron Man was in 40K, and then discuss whether Iron Man would have beaten either of our armies, and then decide that Iron Man is the winner and pack up and go home!
No need for those pesky 'rules' getting in the way of having fun.
So, I'm curious. Does this mean that 40k ceases to be a wargame? If this is Jervis' design philosophy which governs and guides the tabletop experience, there is no real wargame here. This is in fact a role playing game with nice models.
I'm looking forwards to 8th edition, where we'll just put all our models on the table, come up with a background story explaining why they would fight, and then talk about all the cool things that would happen in that battle, and then talk about whether Superman could beat Iron Man, and then talk about how cool it would be if Iron Man was in 40K, and then discuss whether Iron Man would have beaten either of our armies, and then decide that Iron Man is the winner and pack up and go home!
I am going to read your review to learn if I want to get the new rules. One way or another. Likely another.
Which was the reason I started writing them: because I kept seeing people complain they were tired of buying stuff blind.
See, that is why you need to start Warmachine. So I can also get reviews on Warmachine stuff !
(Kidding, actually it is quite easy to get an idea of the profile of a model on the internet, and all the books are available at my FLGS to skim through before buying them)
He's said in the past he didn't like the aesthetics of Warmachine and the fact in his area I guess most of them are disgruntled 40k players so were rather vehement about how much 40k sucks and how much better Warmachine is. At least Clockwork seems to recognized that 40k has issues, although he seems overall happy with it. More than what can be said about some others here who seem to think 40k can do no wrong.
I am going to read your review to learn if I want to get the new rules. One way or another. Likely another.
Which was the reason I started writing them: because I kept seeing people complain they were tired of buying stuff blind.
See, that is why you need to start Warmachine. So I can also get reviews on Warmachine stuff !
(Kidding, actually it is quite easy to get an idea of the profile of a model on the internet, and all the books are available at my FLGS to skim through before buying them)
He's said in the past he didn't like the aesthetics of Warmachine and the fact in his area I guess most of them are disgruntled 40k players so were rather vehement about how much 40k sucks and how much better Warmachine is. At least Clockwork seems to recognized that 40k has issues, although he seems overall happy with it. More than what can be said about some others here who seem to think 40k can do no wrong.
Actually locally the majority of the Warmachine players also play 40k and/or Fantasy. It's mostly the W/H players I've run into online who are disgruntled and try badgering me into playing.
And yes 40k has issues. I was actually planning on taking every major grievance about the codexes I could find and send them into the rules team during the interim period between finals and my summer classes because I really do want the game to get better even if it means throwing rocks with notes tied to them through the window on GW's Ivory Tower to do it. Previously I'd sent in a twenty page document of suggested changes with notes for the Sisters codex to Phil Kelly, believe me I'm crazy enough to do something to that scale again.
I probably should get more candy to send, but not chocolate this time so it doesn't melt.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I'll still be doing the big thick packet of proposed changes to GW just sans core rules if we do get a new edition.
Herzlos wrote: I agree; this does seem like a cash grab (it's not even 2 years since the last one, and it's been a consisten 4-year cycle since starting), especially since it launches the weekend before the financial year.
I seem to remember that 6th edition was supposed to herald the beginning of a longer edition cycle...
This is actually fantastic news, if it's true. I'm loving 8th edition Fantasy now, so more years of that would be great. I've no major qualms with 6th ed. 40k, but an overhaul would indeed be nice.
I just had a thought.
Wasn't the 6th edition BRB released in July of 2012? That would be the fiscal year that directly precedes the current fiscal year that we are in. It's a little confusing because their fiscal year doesn't jibe with the calendar year, but trust me that's what they did. They will have put out the 7th ed. rule book in the year following the year that saw the release of 6th.
So there may be some credence to the thought that GW just may release new BRB's annually. Releasing editions of core rule books in concurrent years is not a good sign.
gorgon wrote: What if instead of saying "homina, homina, homina" they tell you to "get the feth out of my store if you don't like it"?
Ah, good question!
Glad you paid attention to the details as "homina", it is a corporate store not "theirs" or a franchise.
Swearing at customers would be even better, I have managed in separate incidents to get five people fired who were acting like bullies... I do not let things like that pass.
I actually smile when people get all unreasonable like that, I have other hobbies too...
I know that you think that speaks well of you, but it really doesn't.
You would be surprised the damage people in the wrong position "of power" can do.
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. - Edmund Burke" Been on this round planet for a while and found through experience that turning the other cheek gets it slapped too and then they are thinking of slapping others... make it stop.
I hold people accountable for their actions, those five people were nasty pieces of work and were fired on the merits of their actions so think a little further.
So how does this not speak well of me?
Say one person I helped get rid of, they fired over 10 people because it gave them the giggles to do it? Felt pretty good about that one.
Abuse of authority without the maturity and responsibility to care for those who report to you or your customers is not only reprehensible but short sighted.
So GW has a responsibility to it's shareholders to pay them but they in turn need to ensure the supply of money is guaranteed so they have to provide to customer needs to get their money. The need of this one manager to meet quotas are preventing her from seeing the needs of her customers to create a relaxed "leisure" environment rather than this farce.
It then falls to the bunch of us who genuinely care to be the ambassadors for this hobby try to clean up the mess of business decisions with little regard to customer.
There is nothing bad about copying a successful strategy, especially if it is well liked by the customers.
GW is desperate. They're copying Privateer press's advancing story line as books are released.
?? Granted I don't buy any digital releases or not-optional cuz we want to sell MOAR supplements like escalation but at least in the codex books I buy the story line since 3rd edition has advanced less in years than I have while playing it. Did I miss some major development? Or is my sarcasm detector set too low?
Neither, I believe that GW is copying PP style of advancing story lines as books come out. Copying something that works rather then producing something that works. Its neither sarcasm or anything else. I doubt that GW will do it as well as PP can because the story in 40k CANT advance.
Really, at this point I don't know what is coming: only thing is sure that new rulebook will be out, but no idea what it contains. So I'll reserve my judgement and possible outrage until facts are out.
If it's (as I suspect) merely updated 6th edition rulebook with Escalation etc rules thrown in, then meh.
If it's "6.5th edition" with worst bugs of 6th edition fixed but old rulebooks still compatible, then yay!
If it is truly all-new 7th edition with new set of bugs and imbalances, then boo!
The question that keeps popping into my mind is why do we have to guess what's coming up. Does GW not have faith in their products? If they do then why hide everything? Why not show a little transparency. Other game companies will tell you what's coming up months in advance. So why not GW?
Solo wrote: The question that keeps popping into my mind is why do we have to guess what's coming up. Does GW not have faith in their products? If they do then why hide everything? Why not show a little transparency. Other game companies will tell you what's coming up months in advance. So why not GW?
Got to sell them products before they become worthless. Can't let you know that your purchase won't be worth dirt in two months, because then you wouldn't buy it!
As "buying GW models" is the hobby as opposed to actually playing games with them the new rules for 7th edition will contain the following:
Each unopened box of GW models you place next to the table with a valid GW receipt earns you +10VP at the end of the game (+20VP if they belong to a different army than the one you are playing) (+30VP if they are for Fantasy) (+100VP if they are LoTR or Hobbit).
If you actually opened and built the models but still have a valid GW receipt then you get +1VP per box. (+2/ + 3 +10VP as per the categories above). Why are you actually playing with the models?
If your opponent can prove you bought the models 2nd hand then you roll 2D6 + 10 and remove that many eBayed models at the start of the battle.
Honestly I dont find the price of the books to be that bad. I get some much more enjoyment per dollar from my GW books than I do anything else really. It is worth it to me even if it only lasts for one year and then they update it. But then again I am also going all digital and have no problem with the subscription model as long as there is something actually coming from it.
I mean I have spent 2-3 times the cost of a Rulebook on a book I barely used. Honestly I cant wait to get the digital version of this book now that I am going all digital.
I think they may not want to say anything early because of how it affects people like me. I hear that a new edition/update or whatever is coming out in a month or two I stop buying things so I can see what comes of the update. I don't want to go out and buy a new unity only to find it worthless due to new rules.
So it's in GW's best interest to keep things quiet so that people like me continue to buy things for the next month or two instead of holding off to see what the new edition brings.
MrFlutterPie wrote: I think they may not want to say anything early because of how it affects people like me. I hear that a new edition/update or whatever is coming out in a month or two I stop buying things so I can see what comes of the update. I don't want to go out and buy a new unity only to find it worthless due to new rules.
So it's in GW's best interest to keep things quiet so that people like me continue to buy things for the next month or two instead of holding off to see what the new edition brings.
Just my two teef.
By "people like you" I assume you mean "reasonable consumers".
Leth wrote: Honestly I dont find the price of the books to be that bad. I get some much more enjoyment per dollar from my GW books than I do anything else really. It is worth it to me even if it only lasts for one year and then they update it. But then again I am also going all digital and have no problem with the subscription model as long as there is something actually coming from it.
I mean I have spent 2-3 times the cost of a Rulebook on a book I barely used. Honestly I cant wait to get the digital version of this book now that I am going all digital.
Totally agree with you. I spend thousands of dollars each years on models. Buying a rule book every two years is certainly not the most expensive part of this hobby and I am the kind of guy who likes change for the fun of it. With that said, I like the base rules for 6th edition. I just don't like what they did with the allies matrix,some codexes and the formations/dataslates supplements.
On the other hands, i would be ok with a rule set that doesn't change often if they just play tested their stuff and made all codexes viable with every units balanced and usable. From MPOV instead of forcing a new BRB in the throats of all of the player base. If they just made that they would sell a gak load of models instead of rule books.
Loopstah wrote: As "buying GW models" is the hobby as opposed to actually playing games with them the new rules for 7th edition will contain the following:
Each unopened box of GW models you place next to the table with a valid GW receipt earns you +10VP at the end of the game (+20VP if they belong to a different army than the one you are playing) (+30VP if they are for Fantasy) (+100VP if they are LoTR or Hobbit).
If you actually opened and built the models but still have a valid GW receipt then you get +1VP per box. (+2/ + 3 +10VP as per the categories above). Why are you actually playing with the models?
If your opponent can prove you bought the models 2nd hand then you roll 2D6 + 10 and remove that many eBayed models at the start of the battle.
On one hand I'm looking forward to new rules. Mainly because I'm happy to throw disposable cash at them to get a consolidated rule book, and at the same time drink in the seething this will produce amongst the naysayers and local negative Nellies (grimtuff, love ya man)
But as a tau player, it's potentially a big nerf to my main army.
I think overall I'll welcome it for the lolz, I can always play more bloodbowl
Solo wrote: The question that keeps popping into my mind is why do we have to guess what's coming up. Does GW not have faith in their products? If they do then why hide everything? Why not show a little transparency. Other game companies will tell you what's coming up months in advance. So why not GW?
Because after extensive beta-testing, GW still has to sort out all the excellent suggestions by the community
the community at large does a lot of grumbling>
I enjoy the game. Sure it has problems but its still fun for me. I have not played a mini's game that holds quite the same appeal for me. I just hope that they improve the rules set.
ausYenLoWang wrote: and im very sorry but as someone who like to field things, if something like allies becomes optional, when you play a PUG that means jo blogs can do a big nahh cant use that.
Er... they can do that now.
Nobody is ever obligated to play against you.
yes but it limits the piss poor excuses that they can come up with. if you flat out dont wnat to play me fine, just done make up some terrible arbitary excuse, and tahts what the whole NO fw, No escalation, etc etc thing is
quickfuze wrote: What in the world are you talking about here? 40K doesn't use a percentage based system and you can get either of those formations into MUCH smaller games. Or are you saying that they will be addressed in the new edition IF they go to percentage based like WHFB?
**** Note, "Sweep Attack" is a new thing, and not the same thing as a sweeping advance. Movement: Run: D6 or 2D6 for Flying Monstrous Creatures that are Swooping. Consolidations: 2D6 pick one, but you only consolidate on your turn. You can charge with your consolidation move. Opponent can overwatch. You only get to fight once per turn, so if you consolidate into a new combat you don’t get to fight, unless your fist combat didn’t fight (opponent flees). Retreats: 6 + D6 Charge: 2D6, not affected by difficult terrain. Move through Difficult: 2D6 pick one. Charge through Difficult: 2D6 (The same, but -2 iniative).
Reserves: Coming in from Reserves: If there is no enemy in 24” of a particular table edge, units from reserve that use this edge to enter the table can march an additional 12” Flyers have the “Patient Hunter” special rule which means they can choose to stay in ongoing reserves.
Assault: Flee: You can chose to immediately lose combat after Hammer of Wrath, before any blows are struck. Iniative roll off as if you had lost combat. If you win, you do a normal Retreat. If you lose, the unit is destroyed. It happens before pile-ins. Overwatch: Must win or tie an iniative roll off to overwatch. Cannot overwatch if Gone to Ground or Pinned. Charge through Cover: -2 to initiative unless assault grenades or unit being assaulted has Gone to Ground or been Pinned. Initiative: All models strike at their common Initiative unless they are in a Challenge, or are using Unwieldy weapons like power fists. If a unit has 3 Power Fists, and 2 Chainswords they all strike at Initiative 1. Hammer of Wrath: Counts as part of combat resolution. Assaulting Vehicles and Buildings: If the vehicle doesn’t have a WS (walker), then you Sweep Attack them rather than Assault them.
Psychic Powers: Most happen at the end of the movement phase rather than the start. You have to roll for Warp charges like fantasy (complexity 4?) Psychic powers do not require line of sight.
Unit Types: Jump Infantry: Can use jump packs in all phases. If In difficult, and you use Jump pack, must take dangerous terrain test. Jump Packs in assault give HOW but not Rerolls. Chariots: can Sweep Attack Bikes: can Sweep Attack Vehicles: D6 S6 Hammer of Wrath and have Sweep Attack which seems to replace Tank Shock. Walkers do D6 S:Unit Hammer of Wrath. “Death or Glory” against vehicle sweep attacks mean all models in unit Snapshoot at rear armor, or all models within 3” do CC attacks against rear armor. Must take fear test or WS:1. If they fail to stop the vehicle, then they take 2D6 S6 Hammer of Wrath. Only get cover saves against other vehicles. Light Walkers: Only do 1 Hammer of Wrath. I’m thinking Killa Kans, Scout Sentinal, War Walkers. Swarms: Take D3 wounds to Template weapons (flamers).
Special Rules: Fleet add an extra D6, and can discard a D6 in all random moves. No Rerolls. Move through cover, and you ignore the effects of Difficult Terrain (6” move, no iniative penalty for assault), but not Dangerous. Shrouded: -2 to BS Stealth: +1 to Cover Fearless: Cannot chose to Flee Preferred Enemy: +1 to hit for both Melee and Shooting. Bulky: gives Hammer of Wrath. Hit and Run: Gives Sweep Attack, cannot leave combat. Sweep Attack: Close combat attack in the movement phase can only hit ground targets, and can be hit back. Pause during movement, cannot be within 1”. Any model within 3” can attack, and then finish movement. No Pile-ins allowed. Can be part of a Run Move. You can still shoot after a Sweep Attack. Does include Hammer of Wrath. Vector Strike: D6 S:Unit AP:- auto hits. Hits Rear Armor. Swooping must pass within 3” of model being vector strike (no longer have to pass over). Does not count as shooting a weapon. All hits are precision hits. Look Out Sir: On a 2+ the next closest model takes the wounds. Only 1 Look Out Sir roll for all allocated wounds. Look Out Sir is available to all models with special weapons. Regeneration: 4+ to recover a wound. Grants Feel No Pain.
Other Rules: Snapshooting: -3 BS. High BS: No Rerolls for BS > 6. 1 always misses, 6 always hits.
FOC: HQ: 0-25%, must have 1 warlord Elite: 0-25% Troops: 20-75% Fast Attack: 0-25% Heavy Support: 0-25% Secondary Detachments: 0-25%, it includes Allies, Fortifications, Formations, Lords of War and can also include units from your primary codex. You can have 3, but must pick one after rolling for game, deployment and first turn. The player who wins first turn must select first. See example below. Allies: Allies are part of the Secondary Detachment, but count in Primary FOC. They do not have a troop or HQ limit, and you must have only 1 ally per Secondary detachment, but you can take formations from other allies. Fortifications: Fortifications are part of the Secondary Detachment. Formations: Formations are part of the Secondary Detachment, and don’t count in the Primary FOC. Lords of War: If one player brings a Lord of war and the other player does not, the first player must declare his Secondary Detachment first, and the opponent has a chance to bring fourth Secondary Detachment. Any Heavy Support in this special Secondary Detachment do not count against the Heavy Support Limit.
Secondary Option 3 (250/250): Troops (200/390/750) 15 HGaunts – 75 Heavy Support (215/250) TFex - 175
I was not involved in the original chat, nor do I have any additional information beyond what is included in that chat. I do not have proof that any of the information in the chat is legit, but it rings true to me, because it is not presented in a way that someone would present false rumors, it is highly detailed, and it is focused on fantasy instead of 40k.
The single change that most excites me is the percentage FOC, because it is such an elegant solution to so many of the problems in the current meta of 40k (Spam Lists, Deathstars, Allies, Escalation, and Fortifications).
% based FOC in 40k wont happen for a reason, it would invalidate the big kits they sell for the game and WANT to be selling in multiples... this isnt fantasy in this regard, unless you want a min game points increase where you end up with as many models as fantasy on the table, because the average games of fantasy i see is 2000-2500 points, you dont get the 600 point games or any of that stuff..
I'll be rolling Warmachine, Malifaux, and Infinity until this is sorted out and settled down.
I will give a secret hope to a new Blood Angels codex this year. As an ex-Wolf player... BA has the coolest special characters and who doesn't love a fast vindicator?
GW talks about the upcoming new edition of their biggest and most profitable product line, Warhammer 40,000:
*crickets chirping* *tumbleweed rolls buy*
Literally almost any other company on Earth talks about their upcoming new release for their most profitable product line:
"It's amazing! You won't believe how great it is! Check out all this cool new stuff you'll be able to do! Stay tuned for even more previews. This is going to be great!!!"
ausYenLoWang wrote: yes but it limits the piss poor excuses that they can come up with. if you flat out dont wnat to play me fine, just done make up some terrible arbitary excuse, and tahts what the whole NO fw, No escalation, etc etc thing is
What if their reason for not wanting to play you is that they don't want to play against forgeworld stuff, or use Escalation?
ausYenLoWang wrote: yes but it limits the piss poor excuses that they can come up with. if you flat out dont wnat to play me fine, just done make up some terrible arbitary excuse, and tahts what the whole NO fw, No escalation, etc etc thing is
What if their reason for not wanting to play you is that they don't want to play against forgeworld stuff, or use Escalation?
yeeeaaahh just those 2 examples? be legit about it, not give me the ohh its not legal, its not allowed the brb doesnt say you can take them and all those bs arguments, give me that kind of nonsense and ill happily drop any FW from my list, and just as happily put 3 drakes on the table...
to deny a game because of perfectly legal models or lists just because you suddenly see them etc is for me being a cad, iv played games unexpectedly against trip wraithknights, triptide, and a nice tiggy death star. adapt and overcome.
if you come to play a fun not heavily competitive game, then the chaos FW stuff is not broken at all, but hey ill be planning on that and wont usually write it into my list. do i now write my thunderhawk or warhound into all my lists because they are legal? nope, my decimator dread, nope. but do i want the option to take them without someone having a sulk that they exist... YES, do i want to be able to field the thousands of dollars of models without the ragequit attitude that i have seen from people who want to bury their head in the sand i sure do want to use them. the thing is, abusing the base codecies and allies is usually much more detrimental to the game than the use of FW, or escalation.
can i write nice soft fluffy lists, sure i have a 2k points thousand sons list i can field, i can go iron warriors, or death guard, or emporers children. and these are the kinds of armies i normally run, decent and fun to play. though i can abuse the rules if i want.
edit: the end result is you can refuse a game for any reason you want. i just think the attitude and excuses some people use smacks of poor sportsmanship. i think that to deny a game because the list opposite you is perfectly legal is being a bit of a cad, because ANY discussions before the game you should have already said what you are comfortable playing against or NOT playing against, and once models come out of boxes... you see their list and go naaaahh not interested now.. bit of a weak effort i think.
also i see people who say i dont want to play against W X Y or Z and then pull out hard counters to what they leave you the options to field. stacking the game in their favour, when you do the righty by them and go with what they are happy to play against, and just have them pull that kind of stunt.
H.B.M.C. wrote: GW talks about the upcoming new edition of their biggest and most profitable product line, Warhammer 40,000:
*crickets chirping*
*tumbleweed rolls buy*
Literally almost any other company on Earth talks about their upcoming new release for their most profitable product line:
"It's amazing! You won't believe how great it is! Check out all this cool new stuff you'll be able to do! Stay tuned for even more previews. This is going to be great!!!"
Maybe they think that if they don't tell anyone that new stuff is coming until the last minute they'll pleasantly surprise people and score impulse buys? I mean, it's not like you'd get more sales by drumming up hype and allowing customers to get the funds together to buy your expensive gak.
H.B.M.C. wrote: GW talks about the upcoming new edition of their biggest and most profitable product line, Warhammer 40,000:
*crickets chirping*
*tumbleweed rolls buy*
Literally almost any other company on Earth talks about their upcoming new release for their most profitable product line:
"It's amazing! You won't believe how great it is! Check out all this cool new stuff you'll be able to do! Stay tuned for even more previews. This is going to be great!!!"
Maybe they think that if they don't tell anyone that new stuff is coming until the last minute they'll pleasantly surprise people and score impulse buys? I mean, it's not like you'd get more sales by drumming up hype and allowing customers to get the funds together to buy your expensive gak.
That's exactly it.
GW doesn't tell us anything because if you knew your army of choice was 3 months off, or a new edition was soon, you wouldn't waste your time with projects that can be invalidated.
I can hardly stand it. I do enjoy the boxed sets they come up with, simple little rule book, and recently, some great figures! As for me if this new box set is BA's and Orks then it will be perfect for me.
Really sad to see so many blokes upset with the rules, I hope this new book will be the best 40k rules yet. One can hope.
I used to despise Hero Hammer or the first edition I think it was, a single hero/commander could wipe out whole squads, if Dakka had been around then I would have been the loudest 40k rule set hater!
To counter bad rules I've actually gotten absorbed into building the kits and getting better at painting.
Great thread, I enjoyed readin it all. I confirmed the rules as unavailable so fingers crossed! We really do need a great set of rules for these great models and figures!
H.B.M.C. wrote: GW talks about the upcoming new edition of their biggest and most profitable product line, Warhammer 40,000:
*crickets chirping*
*tumbleweed rolls buy*
Literally almost any other company on Earth talks about their upcoming new release for their most profitable product line:
"It's amazing! You won't believe how great it is! Check out all this cool new stuff you'll be able to do! Stay tuned for even more previews. This is going to be great!!!"
Maybe they think that if they don't tell anyone that new stuff is coming until the last minute they'll pleasantly surprise people and score impulse buys? I mean, it's not like you'd get more sales by drumming up hype and allowing customers to get the funds together to buy your expensive gak.
That's exactly it.
GW doesn't tell us anything because if you knew your army of choice was 3 months off, or a new edition was soon, you wouldn't waste your time with projects that can be invalidated.
ill be honest here, i was looking at buying in some allies for my csm, tossing up between tau or IG. and well... not making any purchases till the new book is out. and it owuldbe the same with a 3 month lead time.
IF they came out and said that they were making tweaks to it all and that nothing would be invalidated i wouldnt be hesitating but we know GW... and all the effort i put into my CSM to have them magnetized to the 9's will probably prove to be a really good thing...
Yeah... now that we know they're working on a new Star Wars movie, everyone's going to be totally too bored with it to go see it by the time it's released...
The best way to get people excited about something is to make sure they don't know it exists.
Yeah... now that we know they're working on a new Star Wars movie, everyone's going to be totally too bored with it to go see it by the time it's released...
The best way to get people excited about something is to make sure they don't know it exists.
haha i spoke to carrie fisher last year, amusingly she was told to lay off the booze or they would un-cast her. and this was june last year... the other recastings came up as well. id love to know how much work hammils gonna be putting in
star wars as a franchise though... its HUGE. this weekend we have the May the 4th movie marathons of the 6 movies. its a self feeding machine, that not even episode 1 could wreck. and a good laugh was JJ abrams was told that if he wrecks these movies, he will forever be called "Jar Jar" lol
H.B.M.C. wrote: GW talks about the upcoming new edition of their biggest and most profitable product line, Warhammer 40,000:
*crickets chirping*
*tumbleweed rolls buy*
Literally almost any other company on Earth talks about their upcoming new release for their most profitable product line:
"It's amazing! You won't believe how great it is! Check out all this cool new stuff you'll be able to do! Stay tuned for even more previews. This is going to be great!!!"
GW has two very, very bizarre aspects to it that I've yet to encounter in any other company in the world:
A.) Advertisement/publicity is bad
B.) The internet is an unimportant passing fad and social media is a hindrance. This is especially interesting because they're getting more dedicated to pursue this policy as the years roll by, not less.
Now Point A is interesting because even going back to ancient Rome people understood the value of advertisements and publicity (there were advertisements for eating establishments written on the walls of Pompeii), yet GW seems to refute this. However Point B is literally the exact opposite of what every single company in the world has concluded in the last 15 years.
I mean I get the greed, the lawsuits, the war on the fans, the incompetence, the price hikes, etc.., I don't agree with it but I can wrap my head around why they do it. But these two things right here, I can't for the love of me understand why they've decided to make this core parts of their strategy.
The personification of their "wtf are they thinking" thing with regards to their desire to avoid publicity/social media is they don't list their youtube channel. This above all else is most perplexing to me. You don't want a random youtuber to see your products...really? Though I suspect in a few years, they'll do away with even their pitiful inactive youtube channel.
Yeah... now that we know they're working on a new Star Wars movie, everyone's going to be totally too bored with it to go see it by the time it's released...
The best way to get people excited about something is to make sure they don't know it exists.
haha i spoke to carrie fisher last year, amusingly she was told to lay off the booze or they would un-cast her. and this was june last year... the other recastings came up as well. id love to know how much work hammils gonna be putting in
star wars as a franchise though... its HUGE. this weekend we have the May the 4th movie marathons of the 6 movies. its a self feeding machine, that not even episode 1 could wreck. and a good laugh was JJ abrams was told that if he wrecks these movies, he will forever be called "Jar Jar" lol
Very quick OT; do yourself a favour, try out the "Machete" viewing order; Ep IV > Ep V > Ep II > Ep III > EpVI. I was skeptical but it's much better than watching in either release or narrative-chronological order, and as it turns out, the atrocious Episode 1 is entirely unnecessary considering all the important characters are reintroduced in Ep II, plus when you're marathon-watching the series I think having the gap between V and VI increases the impact of the end of the former and the start of the latter, compared to seeing them back-to-back.
TheCustomLime wrote: Maybe they think that if they don't tell anyone that new stuff is coming until the last minute they'll pleasantly surprise people and score impulse buys? I mean, it's not like you'd get more sales by drumming up hype and allowing customers to get the funds together to buy your expensive gak.
Impulse buys? How big's the proportion of the population that has such low impulse controll and such high numbers on their bank accounts and is into wargaming?
monders wrote: I can understand everyone being miffed that this edition isn't even two years old yet, but look at Mantic and Dreadball. 4 updates in what, 12 months?!
Ok I'm being flippant, but let's see what it actually has rather than forecasting doom and gloom. Not everyone will be happy, though, let's brace ourselves!
I'm half tempted to box up my 6th ed rule book and chuck it in the post without postage. I've used it three times. That'll learn 'em!
Genuine question, but were these simply expansions or a complete overhaul of the game itself?
They were rules expansions, to the best of my knowledge. Except Ultimate, which I believe is a completely different game (£39.99). But at a tenner a pop for the PDF rules, and £15 for the Azure Forest expansion, it's not a modest outlay to have the full set over a year...
Like I said though, I was merely being flippant. I'm a fan of both systems. I just don't play enough of either.
The whole "impulse buy" argument is pretty moot, Apple/Microsoft/etc. don't do it and announce their products well in advance despite the constant overhaul of products (and ironically, similar prices)
Wargaming has it's own example, this weekend Corvus Belli used their biggest tournament to announce that later this year they were going to release third edition Infinity.
Plenty of warning, plenty of excitement, and they are still releasing product every month in the meantime. Of course, it does help that the rules are free and you don't need to purchase the big books to play if you do not want to, but I have yet to see anyone suggest Corvus Belli are just after more money by doing it - and to be fair although the games been out for a number of years in it's current form the last major expansion was 18 months or so ago.
Its all about attitude, GW's stinks, hence they get a poor reception.
Wargaming has it's own example, this weekend Corvus Belli used their biggest tournament to announce that later this year they were going to release third edition Infinity.
Well. Had a look at the Infinity news thread. Not even 30 posts in over 3 days, after the posting of the Infinity 3rd Ed. trailer.
And most of that just general, not-even-Infinity-related GenCon brabble. Not a single person there even bothered speculating/wishlisting/complaining how Rule X or Rule Y may or may not change. I don't think anyone even made a new thread on it yet in the Infinity sub-forum (compared to a 5-page thread in the 40K forum on the new edition, just a day old, maybe two).
Not even the crickets bother chirping for Infinity 3rd.
ausYenLoWang wrote: yes but it limits the piss poor excuses that they can come up with. if you flat out dont wnat to play me fine, just done make up some terrible arbitary excuse, and tahts what the whole NO fw, No escalation, etc etc thing is
What if their reason for not wanting to play you is that they don't want to play against forgeworld stuff, or use Escalation?
yeeeaaahh just those 2 examples? be legit about it, not give me the ohh its not legal, its not allowed the brb doesnt say you can take them and all those bs arguments, give me that kind of nonsense and ill happily drop any FW from my list, and just as happily put 3 drakes on the table...
to deny a game because of perfectly legal models or lists just because you suddenly see them etc is for me being a cad, iv played games unexpectedly against trip wraithknights, triptide, and a nice tiggy death star. adapt and overcome.
if you come to play a fun not heavily competitive game, then the chaos FW stuff is not broken at all, but hey ill be planning on that and wont usually write it into my list. do i now write my thunderhawk or warhound into all my lists because they are legal? nope, my decimator dread, nope. but do i want the option to take them without someone having a sulk that they exist... YES, do i want to be able to field the thousands of dollars of models without the ragequit attitude that i have seen from people who want to bury their head in the sand i sure do want to use them. the thing is, abusing the base codecies and allies is usually much more detrimental to the game than the use of FW, or escalation.
can i write nice soft fluffy lists, sure i have a 2k points thousand sons list i can field, i can go iron warriors, or death guard, or emporers children. and these are the kinds of armies i normally run, decent and fun to play. though i can abuse the rules if i want.
edit: the end result is you can refuse a game for any reason you want. i just think the attitude and excuses some people use smacks of poor sportsmanship. i think that to deny a game because the list opposite you is perfectly legal is being a bit of a cad, because ANY discussions before the game you should have already said what you are comfortable playing against or NOT playing against, and once models come out of boxes... you see their list and go naaaahh not interested now.. bit of a weak effort i think.
also i see people who say i dont want to play against W X Y or Z and then pull out hard counters to what they leave you the options to field. stacking the game in their favour, when you do the righty by them and go with what they are happy to play against, and just have them pull that kind of stunt.
Plenty of people want to play skirmish 40K (like they did for the last 5 editions), and not Escalation/Stronghold/Forgeworld. It's a pretty reasonable request.
I personally don't have any problem with Forgeworld, as it's no more broken than the rest of regular 40K. But I've no interest in putting my guard infantry up against Superheavies or Titans where my only strategy can be hiding and putting things back in the case. I've also no interest in spending the kind of money required to compete on an even playing field with $120 models. I can get into entire other games for less.
Zweischneid wrote: Well. Had a look at the Infinity news thread. Not even 30 posts in over 3 days, after the posting of the Infinity 3rd Ed. trailer.
And most of that just general, not-even-Infinity-related GenCon brabble. Not a single person there even bothered speculating/wishlisting/complaining how Rule X or Rule Y may or may not change. I don't think anyone even made a new thread on it yet in the Infinity sub-forum (compared to a 5-page thread in the 40K forum on the new edition, just a day old, maybe two).
Not even the crickets bother chirping for Infinity 3rd.
Funny thing--if something has an official forum, people tend to discuss it in the official forum. If it doesn't, people will discuss it more on independent forums. Shocking.
Zweischneid wrote: Well. Had a look at the Infinity news thread. Not even 30 posts in over 3 days, after the posting of the Infinity 3rd Ed. trailer.
And most of that just general, not-even-Infinity-related GenCon brabble. Not a single person there even bothered speculating/wishlisting/complaining how Rule X or Rule Y may or may not change. I don't think anyone even made a new thread on it yet in the Infinity sub-forum (compared to a 5-page thread in the 40K forum on the new edition, just a day old, maybe two).
Not even the crickets bother chirping for Infinity 3rd.
Funny thing--if something has an official forum, people tend to discuss it in the official forum. If it doesn't, people will discuss it more on independent forums. Shocking.
Lol, Even the official Infinity 3rd thread on the official Infinity Forum is shorter than the not-yet-announced 40K 7th thread on just Dakka News & Rumours.
And that doesn't obviously include the equally frenzied discussions on Warseer, B&C, Natfka, BOLS, whathaveyou.
Well, if you release information freely and communicate with the community, there is less demand for speculation, doomsaying and discussions on company policies. If anything, the bloated, hate-fueled mega-threads are a sign that 40k is worse of than Infinity.
ausYenLoWang wrote: yes but it limits the piss poor excuses that they can come up with. if you flat out dont wnat to play me fine, just done make up some terrible arbitary excuse, and tahts what the whole NO fw, No escalation, etc etc thing is
What if their reason for not wanting to play you is that they don't want to play against forgeworld stuff, or use Escalation?
yeeeaaahh just those 2 examples? be legit about it, not give me the ohh its not legal, its not allowed the brb doesnt say you can take them and all those bs arguments, give me that kind of nonsense and ill happily drop any FW from my list, and just as happily put 3 drakes on the table...
to deny a game because of perfectly legal models or lists just because you suddenly see them etc is for me being a cad, iv played games unexpectedly against trip wraithknights, triptide, and a nice tiggy death star. adapt and overcome.
if you come to play a fun not heavily competitive game, then the chaos FW stuff is not broken at all, but hey ill be planning on that and wont usually write it into my list. do i now write my thunderhawk or warhound into all my lists because they are legal? nope, my decimator dread, nope. but do i want the option to take them without someone having a sulk that they exist... YES, do i want to be able to field the thousands of dollars of models without the ragequit attitude that i have seen from people who want to bury their head in the sand i sure do want to use them. the thing is, abusing the base codecies and allies is usually much more detrimental to the game than the use of FW, or escalation.
can i write nice soft fluffy lists, sure i have a 2k points thousand sons list i can field, i can go iron warriors, or death guard, or emporers children. and these are the kinds of armies i normally run, decent and fun to play. though i can abuse the rules if i want.
edit: the end result is you can refuse a game for any reason you want. i just think the attitude and excuses some people use smacks of poor sportsmanship. i think that to deny a game because the list opposite you is perfectly legal is being a bit of a cad, because ANY discussions before the game you should have already said what you are comfortable playing against or NOT playing against, and once models come out of boxes... you see their list and go naaaahh not interested now.. bit of a weak effort i think.
also i see people who say i dont want to play against W X Y or Z and then pull out hard counters to what they leave you the options to field. stacking the game in their favour, when you do the righty by them and go with what they are happy to play against, and just have them pull that kind of stunt.
Plenty of people want to play skirmish 40K (like they did for the last 5 editions), and not Escalation/Stronghold/Forgeworld. It's a pretty reasonable request.
I personally don't have any problem with Forgeworld, as it's no more broken than the rest of regular 40K. But I've no interest in putting my guard infantry up against Superheavies or Titans where my only strategy can be hiding and putting things back in the case. I've also no interest in spending the kind of money required to compete on an even playing field with $120 models. I can get into entire other games for less.
to be fair $ in model price does NOT equate to output. 83$ for 3 mutilators. same money for a dreadnaught,
if you want say a warhound thats $800 same would go for a thunderhawk so i dare say theyd be pretty damn rare sights.
if your guard cant play objectives i think your in trouble, i mean you get some of the largest units of troops the best artillery etc etc, in fact, your 50 man guard blob against a warhound... in shooting goes like this, each template can hit say 4-5 guys, so at best 20 hit, you SHOULD on average roll 3 1's so 17 die, now it would take 3.5 turns shooting to wipe them out... oh and the warhound costs as much as 2 or 3 of these units... you can flat swarm it under with bodies if needed.
now another money statement, i realise your not in aus, but what we get for 110$ a model, valks, stormaravens, heldrakes, etc etc, alot of the big kits are priced at that point. if i was starting a new army today i can tell you now, it would be guard all the way, they are sneeky nasty evil bastards with some truly excellent options. though recent army lists are showing that those expensive models arent putting bodies on the table to get you anywhere.
we all know 40k is not a cheap hobby to get into and that there are many cheaper options, but for most people in the hobby i dare say that we arent buying models instead of eating.
as to people who want to play skirmishes/kill team etc, great i have no issue with that, BUT in that case the basis of SHV etc dont even play a part, you just cant field them at 500 pts... so their inclusion in the base rules shouldnt be a problem.
Sure tyoull get power gamers going oooh 1000 pts i can take a lord, 2x10 cultists and my warhound, and you can... probably get some other things in there as well... but how many gaming clubs have actually seen this? your more likely to run into the base codex shenanigans like say, 2-3 riptides, wraithknights, heldrakes or any of the other base codex shenanigans.
if my opponent dropped a well done superheavy down, and i mean the real thing, nicely painted and modeled, great id be impressed and awed by the model, if it was a shoe box with toilet rolls for arms, no that goes off the table.
Kosake wrote: Well, if you release information freely and communicate with the community, there is less demand for speculation, doomsaying and discussions on company policies. If anything, the bloated, hate-fueled mega-threads are a sign that 40k is worse of than Infinity.
The fact that they are hateful is partly a dakka-specific phenomenon, as fans get shouted out by the haters (some of who have been on Dakka spewing hatred for literally (not figuratively) years, some since before 5th, much less 6th,... but still they are unable to let go of GW).
But yes, it seems that GW's secrecy policy seems to have the paradoxical effect that the news of their new game dominates all the wargaming-airwaves, even before the official announcement.
Will be interesting to see how, after both 40K 7th and Infinity 3rd are released, the quantity of coverage will be across blogs, youtube and forums in terms of listbuilding, battle-reports, tactics and general reviews.
It's a bit like the 2009 movie seasons. Everyone praises the Hurt Locker, and it wins Oscars for Best Picture and Best Director, but hardly managed to break even, despite a minuscule budget. The masses still rather went to watch Avatar, and more people talk about that movie today.
Kosake wrote: Well, if you release information freely and communicate with the community, there is less demand for speculation, doomsaying and discussions on company policies. If anything, the bloated, hate-fueled mega-threads are a sign that 40k is worse of than Infinity.
The fact that they are hateful is partly a dakka-specific phenomenon, as fans get shouted out by the haters (some of who have been on Dakka spewing hatred for literally (not figuratively) years, some since before 5th, much less 6th,... but still they are unable to let go of GW).
But yes, it seems that GW's secrecy policy seems to have the paradoxical effect that the news of their new game dominates all the wargaming-airwaves, even before the official announcement.
Will be interesting to see how, after both 40K 7th and Infinity 3rd are released, the quantity of coverage will be across blogs, youtube and forums in terms of listbuilding, battle-reports, tactics and general reviews.
It's a bit like the 2009 movie seasons. Everyone praises the Hurt Locker, and it wins Oscars for Best Picture and Best Director, but hardly managed to break even, despite a minuscule budget. The masses still rather went to watch Avatar, and more people talk about that movie today.
Yes, but at what price?
Most of the feedback I see for games like Infinity and WarMachine is pretty positive. Even Mantic (whose figures are, if possible, of even worse quality than FineCast it seems) get mostly positive feedback and have run several highly successful Kickstarter campaigns.
Games Workshop rumours, on the other hand, tends to lead to nothing more than an endless list of snarks, sarcastic remarks, moaning about the inevitable price-hike, and wishlisting. Hardly the kind of publicity that a company should be looking for.
It's a bit like the 2009 movie seasons. Everyone praises the Hurt Locker, and it wins Oscars for Best Picture and Best Director, but hardly managed to break even, despite a minuscule budget. The masses still rather went to watch Avatar, and more people talk about that movie today.
Which just shows that the better product doesn't necessary have to be the more popular one. 40k survives by the fact that it's the one most widely known and the alternatives are mostly known only to people who are allready in the wargaming hobby (thanks to 40k).
Most of the feedback I see for games like Infinity and WarMachine is pretty positive. Even Mantic (whose figures are, if possible, of even worse quality than FineCast it seems) get mostly positive feedback and have run several highly successful Kickstarter campaigns.
Games Workshop rumours, on the other hand, tends to lead to nothing more than an endless list of snarks, sarcastic remarks, moaning about the inevitable price-hike, and wishlisting. Hardly the kind of publicity that a company should be looking for.
Still a question of scale.
Games Workshop, in their last, devastating financial had 60.5 GBP millions in 26 weeks. That's 2.25 GBP millions a week. That is 2 Deadzone Kickstarters every single week, after week, after week, 52 weeks a year. And that is GW at it's lowest.
Zweischneid wrote: Well. Had a look at the Infinity news thread. Not even 30 posts in over 3 days, after the posting of the Infinity 3rd Ed. trailer.
And most of that just general, not-even-Infinity-related GenCon brabble. Not a single person there even bothered speculating/wishlisting/complaining how Rule X or Rule Y may or may not change. I don't think anyone even made a new thread on it yet in the Infinity sub-forum (compared to a 5-page thread in the 40K forum on the new edition, just a day old, maybe two).
Not even the crickets bother chirping for Infinity 3rd.
Funny thing--if something has an official forum, people tend to discuss it in the official forum. If it doesn't, people will discuss it more on independent forums. Shocking.
Lol, Even the official Infinity 3rd thread on the official Infinity Forum is shorter than the not-yet-announced 40K 7th thread on just Dakka News & Rumours.
And that doesn't obviously include the equally frenzied discussions on Warseer, B&C, Natfka, BOLS, whathaveyou.
I don't actually play Infinity, but could at least part of the reasons for how quiet it is be because the Infinity playerbase don't have the same number of issues with their current rules that the 40k playerbase does? Obviously, 40k dwarfs infinity, and expecting the sizes of the conversations to be comparable would be stupid, but a combo of smaller playerbase, more satisfied playerbase, official forums and communication from the producers would likely cause a far smaller amount of speculation.
Zweischneid wrote: Well. Had a look at the Infinity news thread. Not even 30 posts in over 3 days, after the posting of the Infinity 3rd Ed. trailer.
And most of that just general, not-even-Infinity-related GenCon brabble. Not a single person there even bothered speculating/wishlisting/complaining how Rule X or Rule Y may or may not change. I don't think anyone even made a new thread on it yet in the Infinity sub-forum (compared to a 5-page thread in the 40K forum on the new edition, just a day old, maybe two).
Not even the crickets bother chirping for Infinity 3rd.
Funny thing--if something has an official forum, people tend to discuss it in the official forum. If it doesn't, people will discuss it more on independent forums. Shocking.
Lol, Even the official Infinity 3rd thread on the official Infinity Forum is shorter than the not-yet-announced 40K 7th thread on just Dakka News & Rumours.
And that doesn't obviously include the equally frenzied discussions on Warseer, B&C, Natfka, BOLS, whathaveyou.
I don't actually play Infinity, but could at least part of the reasons for how quiet it is be because the Infinity playerbase don't have the same number of issues with their current rules that the 40k playerbase does? Obviously, 40k dwarfs infinity, and expecting the sizes of the conversations to be comparable would be stupid, but a combo of smaller playerbase, more satisfied playerbase, official forums and communication from the producers would likely cause a far smaller amount of speculation.
Well, if the symptom of contentment and satisfaction among wargamers is silence, how do you know that the majority of the 40K playerbase isn't equally content and satisfied, but (like the quietly happy Infinity fans), also silent?
If the negative tone of 40K discussions is representative of how the whole playerbase feels, the happy and satisfied playerbase of a different game should be expressing that in positive discussions on the game itself (instead of trolling discussions on games-not-their-own-choice)?
And if the Infinity playerbase is so much smaller, maybe they are doing the marketing for their game wrong?
joemarra052075 wrote:My only problem with it would be that I am on a limited budget, I just started playing 8 weeks ago, and I would have to buy 2 rulebooks (my GW store says that if my daughter wants to play a game at the same time as me she needs her own book)
Most of the feedback I see for games like Infinity and WarMachine is pretty positive. Even Mantic (whose figures are, if possible, of even worse quality than FineCast it seems) get mostly positive feedback and have run several highly successful Kickstarter campaigns.
Games Workshop rumours, on the other hand, tends to lead to nothing more than an endless list of snarks, sarcastic remarks, moaning about the inevitable price-hike, and wishlisting. Hardly the kind of publicity that a company should be looking for.
Still a question of scale.
Games Workshop, in their last, devastating financial had 60.5 GBP millions in 26 weeks. That's 2.25 GBP millions a week. That is 2 Deadzone Kickstarters every single week, after week, after week, 52 weeks a year. And that is GW at it's lowest.
And of those two companies, which is going from strength to strength and which is going downhill fast?
Zweischneid wrote: Well. Had a look at the Infinity news thread. Not even 30 posts in over 3 days, after the posting of the Infinity 3rd Ed. trailer.
And most of that just general, not-even-Infinity-related GenCon brabble. Not a single person there even bothered speculating/wishlisting/complaining how Rule X or Rule Y may or may not change. I don't think anyone even made a new thread on it yet in the Infinity sub-forum (compared to a 5-page thread in the 40K forum on the new edition, just a day old, maybe two).
Not even the crickets bother chirping for Infinity 3rd.
Funny thing--if something has an official forum, people tend to discuss it in the official forum. If it doesn't, people will discuss it more on independent forums. Shocking.
Lol, Even the official Infinity 3rd thread on the official Infinity Forum is shorter than the not-yet-announced 40K 7th thread on just Dakka News & Rumours.
And that doesn't obviously include the equally frenzied discussions on Warseer, B&C, Natfka, BOLS, whathaveyou.
I don't actually play Infinity, but could at least part of the reasons for how quiet it is be because the Infinity playerbase don't have the same number of issues with their current rules that the 40k playerbase does? Obviously, 40k dwarfs infinity, and expecting the sizes of the conversations to be comparable would be stupid, but a combo of smaller playerbase, more satisfied playerbase, official forums and communication from the producers would likely cause a far smaller amount of speculation.
Well, if the symptom of contentment and satisfaction among wargamers is silence, how do you know that the majority of the 40K playerbase isn't equally content and satisfied, but (like the quietly happy Infinity fans), also silent?
If the negative tone of 40K discussions is representative of how the whole playerbase feels, the happy and satisfied playerbase of a different game should be expressing that in positive discussions on the game itself (instead of trolling discussions on games-not-their-own-choice)?
We know that it's representative - it's right there in the numbers.
If the majority of players were happy, then Games Workshop would be doing fine. But they're not. In fact, in an environment where the business, as a whole, is growing, Games Workshop is shrinking rapidly. I'd say that's a good indication that the customers are voting with their wallets.
We know that it's representative - it's right there in the numbers.
If the majority of players were happy, then Games Workshop would be doing fine. But they're not. In fact, in an environment where the business, as a whole, is growing, Games Workshop is shrinking rapidly. I'd say that's a good indication that the customers are voting with their wallets.
I was just told that comparing numbers between, say, Infinity and Games Workshop wasn't valid?
Are we allowed to use numbers to gauge relative popularity or not?
And the business as a whole is not growing. The report this came from specifically said that tabletop-gaming is growing, drawn most of all by MtG, other CCGs, board games, etc.., but that the subsection of miniature wargaming (with the imprecise numbers we have) is rapidly shrinking as a whole.
People appear to be falling out of love with (tedious-to-assemble-and-paint) miniatures in general, favouring cards with pretty art or wooden meeples.
Well, if the symptom of contentment and satisfaction among wargamers is silence, how do you know that the majority of the 40K playerbase isn't equally content and satisfied, but (like the quietly happy Infinity fans), also silent?
If the negative tone of 40K discussions is representative of how the whole playerbase feels, the happy and satisfied playerbase of a different game should be expressing that in positive discussions on the game itself (instead of trolling discussions on games-not-their-own-choice)?
So, beyond the strawman and ridiculous conflation of popularity with quality, what point are you trying to prove here.
As it was my initial post you responded to, I wanted to ask what the quantity of discourse on the subject has to do with the point I made. And that point was, I thought , a fairly simple one. Other wargaming companies can announce major changes in advance, keep their customers happy and presumably, given they keep doing it, retain profit margins at the same time.
Thus the idea that GW cannot act in any way but secretly to maintain revenues and customer interest is provably false.
How many people talk about or play each game has no bearing on that supposition at all.
GW is not shrinking rapidly. that sound like the dramatisation from a fox news broadcast...
and id be rather happy with a business that makes a couple of mil a week, sure it could and probably SHOULD be better.
now i know this isnt a fGW financials thread, but there is someting i do see everytime that id love an answer to and never will... how much money/units sold etc is infinity and PP etc doing? GW HAS to release those numbers but they are private business and dont need to, they could be cruising along just like GW, but the GW hate means they have to be doing soooo much better, right, riight?
Zweischneid wrote: That nobody has been able to prove, beyond personal bias, that Infinity-fans (as a whole) are happier than 40K-fans (as a whole).
Which is completely irrelevant to this thread. If you really want to discuss the comparative happiness of players from different games, feel free to start a thread about it in Discussions.
ausYenLoWang wrote: GW is not shrinking rapidly. that sound like the dramatisation from a fox news broadcast...
and id be rather happy with a business that makes a couple of mil a week, sure it could and probably SHOULD be better.
now i know this isnt a fGW financials thread, but there is someting i do see everytime that id love an answer to and never will... how much money/units sold etc is infinity and PP etc doing? GW HAS to release those numbers but they are private business and dont need to, they could be cruising along just like GW, but the GW hate means they have to be doing soooo much better, right, riight?
CB has directly reported double digit growth in the past years, there are several threads about this. Also you have reports from retailers and distributers that state that sales from PP are also growing. Both of these also seem to confirm the anecdotal evidence that many players have of GW players numbers diminishing and leaving 40k and WHFB for other systems.
Also, GW last financial report had a 10% drop in sales volume and a close to 30% drop in profits. I don't know about you, but that seems pretty significant to me.
But ultimately, as players, the finances of each company should be pretty pointless to our enjoyment of the games. Why should I care that GW's sales are down? I don't care. What I do care is that WHFB / 40k tournaments that were sold out in previous editions are now almost always cancelled because the stores can't get 4 people to attend them... But you still get people saying that the current editions are the best ever for both games!
I have heard more indications that indeed:
1.) New edition is coming end of the month
2.) 6th edition rulebook and starter box are OOP 3.) New starter will be BA vs. Orks.
4.) Escalation and stronghold are included in the new rulebook.
ausYenLoWang wrote: GW is not shrinking rapidly. that sound like the dramatisation from a fox news broadcast...
and id be rather happy with a business that makes a couple of mil a week, sure it could and probably SHOULD be better.
now i know this isnt a fGW financials thread, but there is someting i do see everytime that id love an answer to and never will... how much money/units sold etc is infinity and PP etc doing? GW HAS to release those numbers but they are private business and dont need to, they could be cruising along just like GW, but the GW hate means they have to be doing soooo much better, right, riight?
Games Workshop is a PLC which means that legally they do have to release numbers. PP and CB are not.
GW might well be making a few £m per week, but their costs are also a few £m per week. Their profit in the last 6 months of 2012 was £0.4m per week, and in 2013 this has dropped to £0.3m per week.
People are of course forgetting the difference between "losing money" and "not making as much money", but the drop in profits is stark and supports the point that they are shrinking rapidly.
Did anyone see the rumor that the new starter will be IG v. Eldar? It almost makes sense. IG are the last army of 6th and the teaser poster has a big ol' commissar on it.
TheCustomLime wrote: Maybe they think that if they don't tell anyone that new stuff is coming until the last minute they'll pleasantly surprise people and score impulse buys? I mean, it's not like you'd get more sales by drumming up hype and allowing customers to get the funds together to buy your expensive gak.
Impulse buys? How big's the proportion of the population that has such low impulse controll and such high numbers on their bank accounts and is into wargaming?
*Raises hand*
Sadly I have that low control when it comes to my money. I'm currently sitting on a nice, full time, income and waaaaay too quick to let go of my spare cash. It would seem I am the perfect customer for GW.
Ironically they are not putting out anything I actually want to spend my money on....
ausYenLoWang wrote:GW is not shrinking rapidly. that sound like the dramatisation from a fox news broadcast...
What do you call no longer printing nearly as much product in multiple languages? Or closing HQs in outside markets as important as North America? Or moving over 1,000 SKUs to direct only?
Kroothawk wrote: I have heard more indications that indeed:
1.) New edition is coming end of the month
2.) 6th edition rulebook and starter box are OOP 3.) New starter will be BA vs. Orks.
4.) Escalation and stronghold are included in the new rulebook.
All of which confirm my worst fears
Do you know if that means they are no longer optional (ask opponent first)? Or are they (hopefully) just slapped on in an appendix/advanced section?
Kroothawk wrote: I have heard more indications that indeed:
1.) New edition is coming end of the month
2.) 6th edition rulebook and starter box are OOP 3.) New starter will be BA vs. Orks.
4.) Escalation and stronghold are included in the new rulebook.
All of which confirm my worst fears
Number 4 is a slap in the face to anyone who purchased either of those books that were launched less than a year ago, IF the new edition is a change big enough to render existing books useless.
Even GW must realise this, which to me suggests the differences will be few, and the rules will be largely a consolidation of the jumble of releases from the last 18 months or so.
Kroothawk wrote: I have heard more indications that indeed:
1.) New edition is coming end of the month
2.) 6th edition rulebook and starter box are OOP 3.) New starter will be BA vs. Orks.
4.) Escalation and stronghold are included in the new rulebook.
All of which confirm my worst fears
Number 4 is a slap in the face to anyone who purchased either of those books that were launched less than a year ago, IF the new edition is a change big enough to render existing books useless.
Even GW must realise this, which to me suggests the differences will be few, and the rules will be largely a consolidation of the jumble of releases from the last 18 months or so.
I doubt it'll change them at all. It likely doesn't even include all of the supplements, so you may need to buy them separately anyway.
What it does is change the default game to include this stuff. So gaming goes from "want to play standard 40k?" to "want to play 40k but without all those things that used to be optional?"
Casual player here. A taudar player managed to infiltrate my flgs and began wrecking people's armies. Worse still mono nurgle and heldrake spam is running rampant and making games boring to play.
Orks I think will be next if there is a box to go with the new rules, then probably a marine one, then cron update with a few plastic characters instead of FC.
Bronzefists42 wrote: Casual player here. A taudar player managed to infiltrate my flgs and began wrecking people's armies. Worse still mono nurgle and heldrake spam is running rampant and making games boring to play.
Mono Nurgle and Heldrake Spam?
Is that STILL a thing?
We haven't seen that army since last summer in my Meta when every player found a way to beat it.
I am so glad I decided to hold off on buying Escalation and Stronghold if the rumors are true that they are going to be incorporated into the new edition.
Not gonna lie I impulse buy a lot of things. It is my disposable income budget as in spending it doesnt matter in the long run as long as I get my value out of it.
Just bought a Wyvern last night with no regrets. Same with some transparent airbrush paints.
For major life decisions? Nope smart about that stuff.
But for my fun stuff? Heck yea.
Anyway I am guessing that stronghold wont be all the fortifications but rather the updating of the building rules from stronghold. Same with escalation in that all the rules will be in but none of the units so the people who bought the books will still get stuff separate. So people will have access to the general rules. Even if LOW are in the main book TO's will still ban them, and you can request to not play them. Same as now.
Number 4 is a slap in the face to anyone who purchased either of those books that were launched less than a year ago, IF the new edition is a change big enough to render existing books useless.
Even GW must realise this, which to me suggests the differences will be few, and the rules will be largely a consolidation of the jumble of releases from the last 18 months or so.
Ye, I agree. I am pretty sure it is just going to be a consolidation of the current rules, Escalation, Stronghold assault (And possibly death from the skies). When 5th and 6th were released we had lots of events plans, supposed leaked rules and stuff like that. This time we have nothing, which makes me think that there is not a huge change. At most some tidying up of things.
Do you know if that means they are no longer optional (ask opponent first)? Or are they (hopefully) just slapped on in an appendix/advanced section?
They never were optional any more than any of the Codexes. No one can make you play against, for example Tau, but that doesn't mean it is optional.
On a side note both versions of the rules, the full rule book and the mini one, have now gone to "No Longer Available" int he UK. Yesterday they were just marked as out of stock.
The new rulebook is not a 7th edition of the game, but a re-issue of 6th edition which has the FAQs incorporated in it, and some minor tweaks across the board. Some of you may remember when they did something similar during 3rd edition, where they totally overhauled the assault phase, but the edition itself was left alone from that point. Same idea here-- they're folding in the changes in Stronghold Assault into the main rulebook, and quantifying superheavy units and D weapons in the main rules. But that's about it.
I just bought the digital ipad edition of the rules (which is apparently v2 now) a fortnight ago. IF (and it's certainly an 'if') this is just a rules consolidation so to speak, will the digital rules edition AUTOMATICALLY update, or will it have to be another purchase again?
Surely if they don't auto-update then it completely goes against what GW was saying about auto-updating faq's/rules etc??
Either way, annoying to say the least. :/
fwiw... I doubt it's the emergence of 7th. Not with shiny new dexes and a mere 2yr gap between editions...
If it's just a rehash of old rules, you should be OK. You'll have them already merged into your iBook.
But for any new rules, expect to buy it again.
Fingers crossed it's the former then, and not the latter.
Though like someone mentioned above, if it includes escalation and stronghold, then that's quite a bit of extra content for free, as opposed to rehashed rules (unless it was the rules and not the stats - which basically the ibook version is).
I'd be happy with this if so (not so much if i'd bought the hardcover which the majority have done).
H.B.M.C. wrote: GW talks about the upcoming new edition of their biggest and most profitable product line, Warhammer 40,000:
*crickets chirping* *tumbleweed rolls buy*
Literally almost any other company on Earth talks about their upcoming new release for their most profitable product line:
"It's amazing! You won't believe how great it is! Check out all this cool new stuff you'll be able to do! Stay tuned for even more previews. This is going to be great!!!"
GW has two very, very bizarre aspects to it that I've yet to encounter in any other company in the world:
A.) Advertisement/publicity is bad
B.) The internet is an unimportant passing fad and social media is a hindrance. This is especially interesting because they're getting more dedicated to pursue this policy as the years roll by, not less.
Now Point A is interesting because even going back to ancient Rome people understood the value of advertisements and publicity (there were advertisements for eating establishments written on the walls of Pompeii), yet GW seems to refute this. However Point B is literally the exact opposite of what every single company in the world has concluded in the last 15 years.
I mean I get the greed, the lawsuits, the war on the fans, the incompetence, the price hikes, etc.., I don't agree with it but I can wrap my head around why they do it. But these two things right here, I can't for the love of me understand why they've decided to make this core parts of their strategy.
The personification of their "wtf are they thinking" thing with regards to their desire to avoid publicity/social media is they don't list their youtube channel. This above all else is most perplexing to me. You don't want a random youtuber to see your products...really? Though I suspect in a few years, they'll do away with even their pitiful inactive youtube channel.
Now, people know my stance on GW generally. But I will throw in a counterpoint to what you have here. I work in a business in which we eschew traditional advertising. My company doesn't do traditional advertising because we don't get the type of customers we want that way. Most of our business comes from repeat customers and referrals. Those contacts produce good work. Now, we actually do a crap-ton of promotional work designed to maintain relationships with existing clients and remind people that we exist. Much of that goes through social media and the internet though: Blog, newsletter, LinkedIn, emails, etc.
I don't think GW has that sort of business, but they might have convinced themselves that they do. The problem we have is that we are a high end firm in a market that clients usually don't understand very well. Consequently, people who contact us without a referral are often a waste of time. One of the most annoying things to hear on the phone is, "Wait, did you say $14,000 or $40,000?" That means we'll never work with that client because if they think it is possible to do a project for $14,000, they aren't looking for the services we provide.
It seems to me that GW feels that its business comes mostly through through repeat customers and word of mouth. In fact, I believe Alan Merrett testified to that in the Chapterhouse case. Only this is really weird because these days word of mouth travels most effectively through the internet and social media.
If it's just a rehash of old rules, you should be OK. You'll have them already merged into your iBook.
But for any new rules, expect to buy it again.
Fingers crossed it's the former then, and not the latter.
Though like someone mentioned above, if it includes escalation and stronghold, then that's quite a bit of extra content for free, as opposed to rehashed rules (unless it was the rules and not the stats - which basically the ibook version is).
I'd be happy with this if so (not so much if i'd bought the hardcover which the majority have done).
You're assuming that this new book will cost the same as the old one. Since the new Codexes are 50% more expensive than the old ones, I'm not holding my breath.
If it's just a rehash of old rules, you should be OK. You'll have them already merged into your iBook.
But for any new rules, expect to buy it again.
Fingers crossed it's the former then, and not the latter.
Though like someone mentioned above, if it includes escalation and stronghold, then that's quite a bit of extra content for free, as opposed to rehashed rules (unless it was the rules and not the stats - which basically the ibook version is).
I'd be happy with this if so (not so much if i'd bought the hardcover which the majority have done).
Stronghold assault and Esculation are still for sale thow. If this is true I think the rule changes thows two books brought in would be brought into the main book, but you still need said books for the unit entries.
I know in my area Stronghold assault has been accepted as a update to the game, the gameing community has rejected Esculation as anything but a suplement like planet strike that you and a opponent agree to before playing. (Even the local GW stores gave up trying to sell it as anything other then that.) Even most casual players just don't want to play agiest super heavies and D Weapons.
By doing this, GW is probly trying to legitimize Esculation to it's gameing audience who has mostly rejected it. I know well Stronghold assault flew off the shelf, Esculation gathered dust.
Personally i would almost perfer just a new edition. 6th ed has felt like a mess to me these last two years.
Edit:
You know. If this dose turn out to be a editon change, it's kinda abit of ackword timeing.... They just shipped HH book 3 a few days ago, so most people will be getting thows books when this new edition gose up for pre-order. XD
Zweischneid wrote: Well. Had a look at the Infinity news thread. Not even 30 posts in over 3 days, after the posting of the Infinity 3rd Ed. trailer.
And most of that just general, not-even-Infinity-related GenCon brabble. Not a single person there even bothered speculating/wishlisting/complaining how Rule X or Rule Y may or may not change. I don't think anyone even made a new thread on it yet in the Infinity sub-forum (compared to a 5-page thread in the 40K forum on the new edition, just a day old, maybe two).
Not even the crickets bother chirping for Infinity 3rd.
People generally seem happy with the Infinity rules. Each supplement apparently makes the game better so people seem to trust that they don't need to worry about how rule X or Y may or may not change. They're happy they're getting new stuff and they focus on the upcoming minis that they also like. In your book that is a bad thing? Also, the company has 50% or more annual growth in sales for several years compared with GW's recent shrinkage and years long plateua prior to that when adjusted for price increases. Don't worry, eventually the crickets will turn into a swarm of locust. I don't play the game nor have I bought anything but the attitude there is a hell of a lot more optimistic than most games and it is backed up by products and numbers.
The new rulebook is not a 7th edition of the game, but a re-issue of 6th edition which has the FAQs incorporated in it, and some minor tweaks across the board. Some of you may remember when they did something similar during 3rd edition, where they totally overhauled the assault phase, but the edition itself was left alone from that point. Same idea here-- they're folding in the changes in Stronghold Assault into the main rulebook, and quantifying superheavy units and D weapons in the main rules. But that's about it.
With all due respect, that's just a flat out lie. The guy is misremembering.
They never did such a thing with 3rd ed. 3rd got to a point where so many rules were changed in so many places I remember people joking the only relevant parts of the rulebook remaining were the WS/BS tables. Nothing was ever rolled together in one book. The trail assault rules, which this quote is referring to were only ever compiled in Chapter Approved annuals after appearing in WD. Never in a reissue of the basic rules.
Zweischneid wrote: Well. Had a look at the Infinity news thread. Not even 30 posts in over 3 days, after the posting of the Infinity 3rd Ed. trailer.
And most of that just general, not-even-Infinity-related GenCon brabble. Not a single person there even bothered speculating/wishlisting/complaining how Rule X or Rule Y may or may not change. I don't think anyone even made a new thread on it yet in the Infinity sub-forum (compared to a 5-page thread in the 40K forum on the new edition, just a day old, maybe two).
Not even the crickets bother chirping for Infinity 3rd.
What can I say?. I'm excited about Infinity's 3rd edition... And terrified of 40k's 7th. Letting the finished product do the talking is a viable strategy when you count with a satisfied customer base that trusts you to provide them with a flawless product. In that case, a degree of secrecy might increase the buzz and hype around your release. This tactic worked well with early 2000s' GW, but due to their recent PR blunders, it's not working anymore. Uncertainty, fears and rumors stir the waters before each release. Instead of generating hype, they are getting rejection.
Frankly, I'm getting tired of GW's impregnable veil of secrecy.
The new rulebook is not a 7th edition of the game, but a re-issue of 6th edition which has the FAQs incorporated in it, and some minor tweaks across the board. Some of you may remember when they did something similar during 3rd edition, where they totally overhauled the assault phase, but the edition itself was left alone from that point. Same idea here-- they're folding in the changes in Stronghold Assault into the main rulebook, and quantifying superheavy units and D weapons in the main rules. But that's about it.
With all due respect, that's just a flat out lie.
They never did such a thing with 3rd ed. 3rd got to a point where so many rules were changed in so many places I remember people joking the only relevant parts of the rulebook remaining were the WS/BS tables. Nothing was ever rolled together in one book. The trail assault rules, which this quote is referring to were only ever compiled in Chapter Approved annuals. Never in a reissue of the basic rules.
And in all due respect (which is almost never used to convey actual respect in my experience), I believe the statement is referencing the actual amount of substance of the update during 3rd not the way it was done. Small changes, only this time put into the core book itself.
If it's just a rehash of old rules, you should be OK. You'll have them already merged into your iBook.
But for any new rules, expect to buy it again.
Fingers crossed it's the former then, and not the latter.
Though like someone mentioned above, if it includes escalation and stronghold, then that's quite a bit of extra content for free, as opposed to rehashed rules (unless it was the rules and not the stats - which basically the ibook version is).
I'd be happy with this if so (not so much if i'd bought the hardcover which the majority have done).
IIRC when the stormtalon was released, the 5th ed. digital SM codex was updated to include it. So there is some precedent for getting real upgrades for free. That said, the 6th ed SM codex was a separate purchase.
I’m not sure what the time cutoff is for “returns” of digital products, but if you don’t get a free upgrade to the new rules, it might be worth looking into.
krazynadechukr wrote: It's called 7th edition, over 500 pages, escalation is in it, it's $99.99 usd, and new templates are also coming out along side it.
krazynadechukr wrote: It's called 7th edition, over 500 pages, escalation is in it, it's $99.99 usd, and new templates are also coming out along side it.
Following up on this week's report of GW ramping up for 7th Edition in May, here's the latest batch of little morsels of what type of rollout we will see:
-The initial rulebook is said to be another "telephone book" in the 500pp+ size. So look for something on par with what 6th looks like.
- It would appear to be the standard 40K edition rollout pattern we have seen from GW time and again. Look for the rulebook to rollout first next month to entice all the existing players, with the updated starter boxed set later in the summer to double-dip the mini collectors and get the latest and greatest into the hands of new players. August was the last reported date for that.
- Look for all the standard accessories to get new fancy incarnations such as the plastic templates, cards, play markers.
- The only word on rules so far is to look for Escalation to get merged into the core ruleset.
Immediately after 40K 7th is released, Orks are hot on their heels.
Shandara wrote: Those read like someone just rehashing already known rumors with easy to predict stuff.
Seriously, that's most of BoLS rumors. It's rare they bring anything else out unless it's posted by someone in their forums. I'm pretty sure they have no sources to call their own.
Alpharius wrote: I'm looking forward to reading GW's rationale behind another rulebook release so soon after 6th was launched...
Depends on what the rulebook does. If the information passed to me is correct it's a re-tweaking of the rules on a fairly small scale and a roll-up of FAQs and the rules for the expansions (and likely only the rules and not the statlines) into the main book. If some of the other information is correct then it's a full new edition. We'll know for sure here within a month for sure.
Alpharius wrote: I'm looking forward to reading GW's rationale behind another rulebook release so soon after 6th was launched...
You won't get it since there pretty much aren't any avenues left by which GW communicate with its fans and its players any more. To go back to the 3rd Ed/4th Ed example that was raised earlier, there are some parallels however the key point to be taken was that in Chapter Approved where the new assault rules were first debuted and trialled, Andy Chambers specifically said it was due to feedback he had received from the community and from fans (same as the change to Terminator armour, giving it an Inv save - again, came about after discussion with the community).
Since Chapter Approved went for a Burton there pretty much is no real way that GW can communicate with the community (assuming the game designers don't browse gaming forums for feedback). Even if they did listen, there is still no way that they would communicate the reason for change back to us. can you imagine today's GW holding up their hands and admitting that the reason for a new edition or overhaul of certain rules was because they got it wrong? I can't.
Alpharius wrote: I'm looking forward to reading GW's rationale behind another rulebook release so soon after 6th was launched...
You won't get it since there pretty much aren't any avenues left by which GW communicate with its fans and its players any more. To go back to the 3rd Ed/4th Ed example that was raised earlier, there are some parallels however the key point to be taken was that in Chapter Approved where the new assault rules were first debuted and trialled, Andy Chambers specifically said it was due to feedback he had received from the community and from fans (same as the change to Terminator armour, giving it an Inv save - again, came about after discussion with the community).
Since Chapter Approved went for a Burton there pretty much is no real way that GW can communicate with the community (assuming the game designers don't browse gaming forums for feedback). Even if they did listen, there is still no way that they would communicate the reason for change back to us. can you imagine today's GW holding up their hands and admitting that the reason for a new edition or overhaul of certain rules was because they got it wrong? I can't.
I assume we'll see something that talks about the new release in some capacity in the WD and on the blog and if it's a "whole new edition" or just a re-tooling. But explicitly stating why? Not too likely, that is for sure.
Since there are e-books and i-books that can be updated. That will be the determining factor on what this Edition will be called. If the digital customers will have to purchase an entirely new book as well, then there is no way that anyone could call this an update. It would be an entirely new edition of the rules.
I also would not be surprised if there were a new template added to the package or changes in the size of existing templates. We can probably expect a package with a 10' template, since that is in the AM codex, just to get those sales from the AM crowd. If they change the size of any of the other templates however, that would do two things: 1. Make all existing templates invalid and cause more sales. 2. Kick any secondary makers of templates right in the teeth by invalidating their current product and production facilities.
Idolator wrote: Since there are e-books and i-books that can be updated. That will be the determining factor on what this Edition will be called. If the digital customers will have to purchase an entirely new book as well, then there is no way that anyone could call this an update. It would be an entirely new edition of the rules.
I also would not be surprised if there were a new template added to the package or changes in the size of existing templates. We can probably expect a package with a 10' template, since that is in the AM codex, just to get those sales from the AM crowd. If they change the size of any of the other templates however, that would do two things: 1. Make all existing templates invalid and cause more sales. 2. Kick any secondary makers of templates right in the teeth by invalidating their current product and production facilities.
Well kick them in the teeth until GW's inevitable "limited release" of the new templates runs out. I ended up getting Vortex Markers and the large blue Apoc Templates from e-Bay just because GW isn't selling them anymore.
Alpharius wrote: I'm looking forward to reading GW's rationale behind another rulebook release so soon after 6th was launched...
I don't think Ive bought more then a starter box rulebook for the past 3 editions, simply because of this. New releases of Rulebooks seem to be a source of revenue, not a way to correct problems with their games. I just don't feel like spending that kind of money for a rulebook thats going to have errata one month later that I will have to d/l print and stick in my "new" rulebook.
Look at the DA codex. That should have been an embarrassment to GW. I don't even think the ink was dry on the books from the printers and GW had up a download pdf for errata.
Idolator wrote: Since there are e-books and i-books that can be updated.
But will they be updated? GW could easily not update and just release a new rule book hoping to generate more revenue. The question I have is, if this is just a consolidation of existing rules, do we really need to buy the new rule book?
Idolator wrote: Since there are e-books and i-books that can be updated. That will be the determining factor on what this Edition will be called. If the digital customers will have to purchase an entirely new book as well, then there is no way that anyone could call this an update. It would be an entirely new edition of the rules.
I also would not be surprised if there were a new template added to the package or changes in the size of existing templates. We can probably expect a package with a 10' template, since that is in the AM codex, just to get those sales from the AM crowd. If they change the size of any of the other templates however, that would do two things: 1. Make all existing templates invalid and cause more sales. 2. Kick any secondary makers of templates right in the teeth by invalidating their current product and production facilities.
Well kick them in the teeth until GW's inevitable "limited release" of the new templates runs out. I ended up getting Vortex Markers and the large blue Apoc Templates from e-Bay just because GW isn't selling them anymore.
Making a seller in a secondary market change their manufacturing process would still be a kick in the teeth.
Idolator wrote: Since there are e-books and i-books that can be updated.
But will they be updated? GW could easily not update and just release a new rule book hoping to generate more revenue. The question I have is, if this is just a consolidation of existing rules, do we really need to buy the new rule book?
That's the crux of the whole statement. If you have to buy a new e-book, then it's a new edition.
Idolator wrote: Since there are e-books and i-books that can be updated.
But will they be updated? GW could easily not update and just release a new rule book hoping to generate more revenue. The question I have is, if this is just a consolidation of existing rules, do we really need to buy the new rule book?
This is a very good point. I've not heard much updating occurring in anyGW digital products excluding inconsistencies between the digital and print media.
I think at this point hoping that GW will be updating their digital products goes in the same vein as hoping GW will lower prices.
Idolator wrote: Since there are e-books and i-books that can be updated. That will be the determining factor on what this Edition will be called. If the digital customers will have to purchase an entirely new book as well, then there is no way that anyone could call this an update. It would be an entirely new edition of the rules.
I also would not be surprised if there were a new template added to the package or changes in the size of existing templates. We can probably expect a package with a 10' template, since that is in the AM codex, just to get those sales from the AM crowd. If they change the size of any of the other templates however, that would do two things: 1. Make all existing templates invalid and cause more sales. 2. Kick any secondary makers of templates right in the teeth by invalidating their current product and production facilities.
Well kick them in the teeth until GW's inevitable "limited release" of the new templates runs out. I ended up getting Vortex Markers and the large blue Apoc Templates from e-Bay just because GW isn't selling them anymore.
Making a seller in a secondary market change their manufacturing process would still be a kick in the teeth.
Idolator wrote: Since there are e-books and i-books that can be updated.
But will they be updated? GW could easily not update and just release a new rule book hoping to generate more revenue. The question I have is, if this is just a consolidation of existing rules, do we really need to buy the new rule book?
That's the crux of the whole statement. If you have to buy a new e-book, then it's a new edition.
It's less "change the whole process" and more "change the molds they're using". Even if all the new templates were hexagons it's only require a change in molds not everything for them to catch up.
Alpharius wrote: I'm looking forward to reading GW's rationale behind another rulebook release so soon after 6th was launched...
1.) A flood of Codex and armybook releases including Space Marines has not been enough to keep revenue flat, so we force everyone to buy a new rulebook in the last week of our financial year. Let's not think about what we have to do next year to keep revenue flat.
2.) How dare you not to accept Apocalypse units in standard games! We will teach you! And charge 100$ for this!
ClockworkZion wrote: If the information passed to me is correct it's a re-tweaking of the rules on a fairly small scale and a roll-up of FAQs and the rules for the expansions (and likely only the rules and not the statlines) into the main book.
Minimum copy-paste effort with 33% price hike sounds realistic
Alpharius wrote: I'm looking forward to reading GW's rationale behind another rulebook release so soon after 6th was launched...
1.) A flood of Codex and armybook releases including Space Marines has not been enough to keep revenue flat, so we force everyone to buy a new rulebook in the last week of our financial year. Let's not think about what we have to do next year to keep revenue flat.
2.) How dare you not to accept Apocalypse units in standard games! We will teach you! And charge 100$ for this!
Could be this, just to increase uptake of large models. And skin us for more money.
Alpharius wrote: I'm looking forward to reading GW's rationale behind another rulebook release so soon after 6th was launched...
1.) A flood of Codex and armybook releases including Space Marines has not been enough to keep revenue flat, so we force everyone to buy a new rulebook in the last week of our financial year. Let's not think about what we have to do next year to keep revenue flat.
2.) How dare you not to accept Apocalypse units in standard games! We will teach you! And charge 100$ for this!
Could be this, just to increase uptake of large models. And skin us for more money.
Well and these big models just further devalue the small models.
They become less effective in a game where their firepower is contributes proportionally less to the overall game. You're still paying $40 for that squad of Space Marines, but their worth has diminished.
I don't know, maybe I just don't like big games, but I fail to see how making Apocalypse-size units available in all games of 40k is a good thing.
It's less "change the whole process" and more "change the molds they're using". Even if all the new templates were hexagons it's only require a change in molds not everything for them to catch up.
pretre wrote: Or Kroot could just be going off on GW again.
Still angry that I picked a correct rumour from faeit212 while statistically it is practically impossible?
Or is it just your daily "make a personal insult to Kroothawk" routine?
pretre wrote: Or Kroot could just be going off on GW again.
Still angry that I picked a correct rumour from faeit212 while statistically it is practically impossible?
Or is it just your daily "make a personal insult to Kroothawk" routine?
To be fair, though. Who doesn't make daily personal insults to Kroothawk? I know I do.
I don't post them though. I write them on my walls with a sharpie (sometimes poo). Just a few more square feet and my living room is finished. Then on to the foyer.
pretre wrote: Or Kroot could just be going off on GW again.
Still angry that I picked a correct rumour from faeit212 while statistically it is practically impossible?
Or is it just your daily "make a personal insult to Kroothawk" routine?
To be fair, though. Who doesn't make daily personal insults to Kroothawk? I know I do.
I don't post them though. I write them on my walls with a sharpie (sometimes poo). Just a few more square feet and my living room is finished. Then on to the foyer.
That made me chuckle.
And is it an insult when describing a pattern of behavior that always has Kroot predicting the most cynical possible reasons for things? I swear sometimes he keeps a list of these things he thinks is up in his free time (most of which are tied with ringing the doom bell for GW) just so he always has a cynical statement handy.
pretre wrote: Or Kroot could just be going off on GW again.
Still angry that I picked a correct rumour from faeit212 while statistically it is practically impossible?
Or is it just your daily "make a personal insult to Kroothawk" routine?
To be fair, though. Who doesn't make daily personal insults to Kroothawk? I know I do.
I don't post them though. I write them on my walls with a sharpie (sometimes poo). Just a few more square feet and my living room is finished. Then on to the foyer.
That made me chuckle.
And is it an insult when describing a pattern of behavior that always has Kroot predicting the most cynical possible reasons for things? I swear sometimes he keeps a list of these things he thinks is up in his free time (most of which are tied with ringing the doom bell for GW) just so he always has a cynical statement handy.
Hang on, did you read that as insulting. It's not. It's just a bit of fun. Who was it insulting to? I was just being goofy and lampooning both sides.
Did not see this posted.
“There is no peace” written in French.
“24 may 2014”. If you were unable to figure this one out yourself… well, it was not all that difficult, really, was it ?
They've also been told to continue selling Dark Vengeance, but once the new BRB drops they have to put a sticker on the box that says the rules inside aren't current.
Any indications DV box will get a reduction in price so?
So, Commissar Badass from what is apparently a White Dwarf Daily in French (because wold elf pieces displayed on the left right page of the second image), heralding MOAR WAAAAAR!
Nice.
pretre wrote: Or Kroot could just be going off on GW again.
Still angry that I picked a correct rumour from faeit212 while statistically it is practically impossible?
Or is it just your daily "make a personal insult to Kroothawk" routine?
To be fair, though. Who doesn't make daily personal insults to Kroothawk? I know I do.
I don't post them though. I write them on my walls with a sharpie (sometimes poo). Just a few more square feet and my living room is finished. Then on to the foyer.
That made me chuckle.
And is it an insult when describing a pattern of behavior that always has Kroot predicting the most cynical possible reasons for things? I swear sometimes he keeps a list of these things he thinks is up in his free time (most of which are tied with ringing the doom bell for GW) just so he always has a cynical statement handy.
Hang on, did you read that as insulting. It's not. It's just a bit of fun. Who was it insulting to? I was just being goofy and lampooning both sides.
The "insulting" part was more in reference to Kroot's post. And no I wasn't being "super cereal".
pretre wrote: Or Kroot could just be going off on GW again.
Still angry that I picked a correct rumour from faeit212 while statistically it is practically impossible?
Or is it just your daily "make a personal insult to Kroothawk" routine?
To be fair, though. Who doesn't make daily personal insults to Kroothawk? I know I do.
I don't post them though. I write them on my walls with a sharpie (sometimes poo). Just a few more square feet and my living room is finished. Then on to the foyer.
That made me chuckle.
And is it an insult when describing a pattern of behavior that always has Kroot predicting the most cynical possible reasons for things? I swear sometimes he keeps a list of these things he thinks is up in his free time (most of which are tied with ringing the doom bell for GW) just so he always has a cynical statement handy.
Kroot is entitled to any commentary he pleases. For years he has and he still does us all a service by bringing us rumors. He used to be more objective sure, but can you blame him for being a bit jaded by GW?
I swear it's always the same group sniping others.
Red Corsair wrote: Kroot is entitled to any commentary he pleases. For years he has and he still does us all a service by bringing us rumors. He used to be more objective sure, but can you blame him for being a bit jaded by GW?
I swear it's always the same group sniping others.
Red Corsair wrote: Kroot is entitled to any commentary he pleases. For years he has and he still does us all a service by bringing us rumors. He used to be more objective sure, but can you blame him for being a bit jaded by GW?
I swear it's always the same group sniping others.
We appreciate the job he does, but don't appreciate the relentless cynicism. We have the right to that. In fact, the service he provides is the only reason he hasn't hit the ignore list long before now.
So basically they are going to repackage like they did for 3.5?
There was a reason I didn't play 4th ed and it looks like I may not being playing/buying an "updated" set of rules that is basically going to be FAQ's to the current rules - except you have to pay for them all over again.
They've also been told to continue selling Dark Vengeance, but once the new BRB drops they have to put a sticker on the box that says the rules inside aren't current.
Any indications DV box will get a reduction in price so?
None whatsoever. Black Reach wasn't reduced when 6th Ed dropped (and was still actively upsold), because "look at all the models you get". The only discount you'll see is on the 2nd hand market or from FLGS's getting rid of stock.
Uriels_Flame wrote: So basically they are going to repackage like they did for 3.5?
There was a reason I didn't play 4th ed and it looks like I may not being playing/buying an "updated" set of rules that is basically going to be FAQ's to the current rules - except you have to pay for them all over again.
Uriels_Flame wrote: So basically they are going to repackage like they did for 3.5?
There was a reason I didn't play 4th ed and it looks like I may not being playing/buying an "updated" set of rules that is basically going to be FAQ's to the current rules - except you have to pay for them all over again.
3.5 wasn't a repackage. Unless you mean D&D 3.5.
That's a pointless argument to have fellows. GW doesn't label their printings as different editions, so you'll just be arguing over what you personally want to call them.
Uriels_Flame wrote: So basically they are going to repackage like they did for 3.5?
There was a reason I didn't play 4th ed and it looks like I may not being playing/buying an "updated" set of rules that is basically going to be FAQ's to the current rules - except you have to pay for them all over again.
3.5 wasn't a repackage. Unless you mean D&D 3.5.
That's a pointless argument to have fellows. GW doesn't label their printings as different editions, so you'll just be arguing over what you personally want to call them.
Except 3.5 was a thing. It didn't include a new rulebook, it was purely white dwarf and chapter approved.
Uriels_Flame wrote: So basically they are going to repackage like they did for 3.5?
There was a reason I didn't play 4th ed and it looks like I may not being playing/buying an "updated" set of rules that is basically going to be FAQ's to the current rules - except you have to pay for them all over again.
3.5 wasn't a repackage. Unless you mean D&D 3.5.
That's a pointless argument to have fellows. GW doesn't label their printings as different editions, so you'll just be arguing over what you personally want to call them.
Except 3.5 was a thing. It didn't include a new rulebook, it was purely white dwarf and chapter approved.
This. And from what I've been told (and I am always am willing to be wrong) it's basically the same scope as that.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: So, Commissar Badass from what is apparently a White Dwarf Daily in French (because wold elf pieces displayed on the left right page of the second image), heralding MOAR WAAAAAR!
Nice.
Uhh...I don't think that's from a White Dwarf daily(or the weekly print version). It looks like something that came in someone's order, because those are the instructions for building a Treeman as Durthu.
Kanluwen wrote: Uhh...I don't think that's from a White Dwarf daily(or the weekly print version). It looks like something that came in someone's order, because those are the instructions for building a Treeman as Durthu.
Ooops, I indeed meant weekly. Are you sure the WDW does not include some pictures of the independent pieces of the treeman kit ? Also it seems to me those pictures include the staff from the ancient treeman.
Kanluwen wrote: Uhh...I don't think that's from a White Dwarf daily(or the weekly print version). It looks like something that came in someone's order, because those are the instructions for building a Treeman as Durthu.
Ooops, I indeed meant weekly. Are you sure the WDW does not include some pictures of the independent pieces of the treeman kit ? Also it seems to me those pictures include the staff from the ancient treeman.
None of the kits thus far have been shown off in that detail in the WDW.
Kanluwen wrote: Uhh...I don't think that's from a White Dwarf daily(or the weekly print version). It looks like something that came in someone's order, because those are the instructions for building a Treeman as Durthu.
Ooops, I indeed meant weekly. Are you sure the WDW does not include some pictures of the independent pieces of the treeman kit ? Also it seems to me those pictures include the staff from the ancient treeman.
White Dwarf doesn't generally contain pictures of the parts breakdown like that, and if they had it would have been in this past WDW not another issue.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: Yeah, but AFAIK, no instruction manual for a WFB kit has ever contained teaser material concerning a new edition of 40k either.
It is a bit of an enigma on where it came from, that's for sure. I highly doubt it's a hoax though.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: Yeah, but AFAIK, no instruction manual for a WFB kit has ever contained teaser material concerning a new edition of 40k either.
Nobody is saying that the instruction manual contained it...
The Commissar print is a double sided thing. It looks to be a poster, which is something that they have included in mail order boxes before. In order for someone to have had a Treeman kit now(the kit would only just be hitting GW shops either yesterday or today), they probably would have preordered it via GW direct and had it shipped to their home address.
Except 3.5 was a thing. It didn't include a new rulebook, it was purely white dwarf and chapter approved.
What exactly was 3.5E, and how was it different from a FAQ?
From what little I know: mostly an update to the assault rules published in the WD and later the collective Chapter Approved.
I vaguely remember updated vehicle rules too. Mostly I remember that was when "Assault Vehicle" was introduced and you couldn't just charge out of a Rhino.
The information below must be taken as rumor, since we just cannot verify that these are from official sources. It looks very much like we will be calling this 6.5. Just to understand where these are coming from, GW managers have been in meetings in the UK, and this is where I am assuming that the information is being spread from. Hard to tell at this moment though, and the next few weeks will show us more of what is coming.
via an source over on Talkwargaming- Thanks for the heads up Zion
The new rulebook is not a 7th edition of the game, but a re-issue of 6th edition which has the FAQs incorporated in it, and some minor tweaks across the board. Some of you may remember when they did something similar during 3rd edition, where they totally overhauled the assault phase, but the edition itself was left alone from that point. Same idea here-- they're folding in the changes in Stronghold Assault into the main rulebook, and quantifying superheavy units and D weapons in the main rules. But that's about it.
via an anonymous source here at Faeit 212
My brother just got in from GW and the manager said the rulebooks were just getting errata tweaks put in them and would be re-released alongside something else. So just a 6.5 rather than a 7th edition
Before we take up the pitchforks and torches, let's wait and see what's being offered here.
I want to see what changes are being offered, if they right some of the wrongs I believe are present in 6th, or really are just doing some minor repackaging and asking another $70 for what are essentially FAQs.
I'm quite happy to tear them a new one online if I think GW's out of order, but lets hear the verdict before we march them to the scaffold eh? One of those factors, for me, will be whether I can obtain that rulebook readily for about $20 as I did with the 6th ed boxed set rules.
So, hold fast and keep calm and let's see what's happening.
(Kronk is willing to take a wait and see, approach. Besides, my FW Horus Heresy Book 3 Collectors set should ship tomorrow and I will have plenty to read and distract myself soon!)
I'm ready to play a new edition of 40k, I will actually be let down if this rulebook is 90% identical to the current one. Hopefully as the weeks lead up to pre release the white dwarfs will explain roughly what's changing in the game.
Wishful thinking on my part, but there you have it.
And where is this $99 price point I keep seeing coming from? Actual rumors or just cynical speculation?
I say this now, I've been open to the idea of 7th ever since it was first mooted as a rumour, as it would at least be interesting to have a load of different broken from the stuff we currently have.
But if the $ price tag translates as correct and into £ (around £60 at current exchange) I'm pirating it. There is no way I can justify that, and due to the conditions I play under I can't realistically stick with a previous edition.
Not trying to justify it, not wishing to debate the legalities or moralities of it, merely stating my position.
. So many space marines 
