Very very impressed with the warhammer40000.com website. Superb artwork, quite navigable, good info for new and existing players (albeit some rehashed), like the FAQ doc (at least their being darn honest) and some exciting ideas seem to be in the works.
That image. Clearly Deathguard on the right....but I'm having a hard time identifying the Chapter on the left. Doesn't seem blue enough for Ultramarines?
That image. Clearly Deathguard on the right....but I'm having a hard time identifying the Chapter on the left. Doesn't seem blue enough for Ultramarines?
New rules set is sounding 'from zero' - so many of people's current issues may well be dealt with - from Nids needing an update, to Maureens having bent formations.
Definitely going to be an interesting launch!
My sole concern at the moment is a specific piece of wording, that 'low-cost' army books will be available at launch. Simply because by evidence of omission, it may be we don't get AoS free scrolls. Which is a shame,
That image. Clearly Deathguard on the right....but I'm having a hard time identifying the Chapter on the left. Doesn't seem blue enough for Ultramarines?
Blue with Red highlights is Imperial Fist.
Looks way more like Raven guard IMO
Actually, my error as I edited. Blue with Red shoulder pads lines are Crimson Fist.
JohnnyHell wrote: streetsamurai, do you even like anything GW does? You hate AOS, you pre-hate Nu40K... c'maaaan dude.
Just set him on ignore like I did, makes reading Dakka more pleasurable.
Oh, and +1 for the Boosh.
While not 100% pleasant (which shouldn't, this is a forum and we've got the right of saying things how we like as long as we don't break forums) he does provide valid criticisms on due occassion.
He maaay be kneejerking a bit here but I think we are a bit saturated with power armor in 40k, so he's not really out of the line in his comments.
streetsamurai wrote: So far, there is nothing to dislike as current 40k turned into a joke with all the formations and additional rules. Unfortunately, I don't really have trust in the current rule writers and I expect a ridiculously shallow and boring game a la AOS (which is pretty much the checkers of wargaming, no matter what 3 or 4 delusionned fans spew). After all, while I really like SWA, it is pretty much a direct copy of Necromunda. The only difference is the campaign rules: they are terrible, and really shows the mentality of the design studio (lesser is better).
Still, I'll give a chance to the runner, as we say in french, and sincerly hope that GW will prove me wrong.
This is pretty much my view. Not expecting anything great, but the fact that they're dumping the current garbage that 7E has turned into and will not try and carry anything over directly makes me more optimistic than I would have otherwise been.
Not sure what 8E will look like, but I sure won't miss 7E.
JohnnyHell wrote: streetsamurai, do you even like anything GW does? You hate AOS, you pre-hate Nu40K... c'maaaan dude.
Just set him on ignore like I did, makes reading Dakka more pleasurable.
Oh, and +1 for the Boosh.
While not 100% pleasant (which shouldn't, this is a forum and we've got the right of saying things how we like as long as we don't break forums) he does provide valid criticisms on due occassion.
He maaay be kneejerking a bit here but I think we are a bit saturated with power armor in 40k, so he's not really out of the line in his comments.
They're just incessant, add nothing to the thread, are often off-topic and rarely moderated. Maybe Ignore might be an idea.
JohnnyHell wrote: streetsamurai, do you even like anything GW does? You hate AOS, you pre-hate Nu40K... c'maaaan dude.
That's a weird thing to say, as I clearly said that I was willing to give it a try. I'm cautiously pessimistic about it, since there is a lot of indications that they might head toward a direction that I don't like, but calling it hate is a huge stretch.
JohnnyHell wrote: streetsamurai, do you even like anything GW does? You hate AOS, you pre-hate Nu40K... c'maaaan dude.
Just set him on ignore like I did, makes reading Dakka more pleasurable.
Oh, and +1 for the Boosh.
While not 100% pleasant (which shouldn't, this is a forum and we've got the right of saying things how we like as long as we don't break forums) he does provide valid criticisms on due occassion.
He maaay be kneejerking a bit here but I think we are a bit saturated with power armor in 40k, so he's not really out of the line in his comments.
They're just incessant, add nothing to the thread, are often off-topic and rarely moderated. Maybe Ignore might be an idea.
If you're having a problems dealing with persons that have different opinions than you, that's more on you than on me.
Discussing other users and whether or not you feel like responding to them - just go ahead and ignore anyone you want to, either figuratively or literally.
Just don't feel like the thread needs to be updated about it!
Looks great. Truthfully I'm glad for one main reason I think the described reboot will make it easier for new players. The new web site is a great place for new players.
I think for those of us familiar with war gaming and the Warhammer worlds in particular we forget just how complex the worlds and rules have become. When you grow with them you don't notice it too much but a new player runs the risk of being swamped and overwhelmed. Setting rules and background out in a simple starter friendly way has to be applauded. Especially when it's backed up with the complexity we already have. New players are what it's all about.
When it comes to gwmoaners. I'm always mindful on Dakka there are more than a few out there who have would benefit financially from gw performing poorly. Their worst years saw quite an industry grow on the back of gws old attitude and game problems.
streetsamurai wrote: cautiously pessimistic about it, since there is a lot of indications that they might head toward a direction that I don't like, but calling it hate is a huge stretch
Pretty sure that's where you lost 'em. I've had plenty of times where I've been cautious, or even optimistic with a "but" that fanboys have jumped on me for all the hate. If you're questioning it, that means it's not perfect, which is not okay.
streetsamurai wrote: cautiously pessimistic about it, since there is a lot of indications that they might head toward a direction that I don't like, but calling it hate is a huge stretch
Pretty sure that's where you lost 'em. I've had plenty of times where I've been cautious, or even optimistic with a "but" that fanboys have jumped on me for all the hate. If you're questioning it, that means it's not perfect, which is not okay.
lol, it does seems that for qite a few of them, nothing less than blind unconditional adoration is akin to hate.
Come on peeps, there have been white knights and haters since the interwebz was born in relation to GW.
Expressing differing opinions in a constructive way is what makes the forum interesting.
The rules in our current range of Warhammer 40,000 codexes aren’t compatible with the new edition of Warhammer 40,000.
The Eldar codex is no more.
Ding Dong, the B- is dead.
And nothing of value was lost
Seeing the current Eldar, Space Marine, and Necron books go the way of the Dinosaurs is getting me more excited for this edition than any other changes suggested
Yea I can't wait to see every faction as playable. Death to grav, death to eldar, death to tau MC spam etc etc. I will be so greatful to see an ork army again, if I told myself in early 5th ed that I'd hit myself lol.
Any date set for release yet? I just bought into two new armies (Nids and GK) and am a little frustrated - I bought models specifically for certain builds and rules, and now my purchase is put into doubt before even opening up the boxes. I put the blame on me as much as GW for invalidating every single codex to date, as maybe I should have waited, but it's still frustrating.
Pretty excited for this, have been sitting out since 5th and though I have heavily debated dipping my toe into AoS this seems like it will be similar enough to try out instead.
A quick thought on a "General's Handbook" type release.
Keep in mind that, during the transitional period from the initial release of Age of Sigmar to the current iteration, stuff like the General's Handbook were released in order to address the major issue of a lack of a point system in the game. Battletomes were re-released for major factions as, since Disciples of Tzeentch, battletomes have changed to better fit the new direction.
Hopefully, with the release of this new 40k edition, the general's handbook equivalent won't be necessary as GW will understand that points should go with the relevant battletome/codex, which has been the case.
I'm thinking, new starter box will be Ultramarines and Death Guard. There's new fluff of Mortarion attacking Ultramar, the new models are coming out, Roboute just got released...
Retrogamer0001 wrote: Any date set for release yet? I just bought into two new armies (Nids and GK) and am a little frustrated - I bought models specifically for certain builds and rules, and now my purchase is put into doubt before even opening up the boxes. I put the blame on me as much as GW for invalidating every single codex to date, as maybe I should have waited, but it's still frustrating.
If it's any consolation, your nids are probably about to become a lot more playable. That's the advantage of working on every army at once. Better balance.
I have heard a bit of rumor that vehicle AV values are going away and replaced with toughness, making vehicles more durable overall along with the ability to assault from vehicles like rhinos again. Anyone else such ideas floating about?
Jambles wrote: I'm thinking, new starter box will be Ultramarines and Death Guard. There's new fluff of Mortarion attacking Ultramar, the new models are coming out, Roboute just got released...
source to the fluff of Mortarion attacking Ultramar?
Also I have a picture where in reflection on this bell you can see a new starter box using super x-ray device - but that is top-secret tech.
So I guess it's kinda confirmed Ultramarines-Death Guard starter set.
WarOne wrote: I have heard a bit of rumor that vehicle AV values are going away and replaced with toughness, making vehicles more durable overall along with the ability to assault from vehicles like rhinos again. Anyone else such ideas floating about?
Second half (assaulting) I believe has been officially suggested, first half is pure conjecture based on the pattern of AOS. I'm a fan of the concept, but I don't think there's anything even tentatively official to support the idea.
You'd have to be a complete moron to go out and buy anything for any faction until they release the new edition and army rules.
Gw should be taking a sizable hit until then, hope they thought about that since they openly said all books will be invalidated with the new system. In other words, stupid people come buy stuff and assemble things that may not be great lol
Stagnant in releases. Please don't put words in other people's mouths when arguing with them. I, in no way spoke of sales nor them affecting release schedule. I said that in the period you compared there were not as many releases as in the previous period. Nothing else. I believe and see that there were less releases in the period you mention for 40k than for AoS.
But that simply might be because they are running to different production schedules (I.e. 40k is still working to a Codex routine (so one book for a complete army) vs the AoS routine which is drip feeding small amount of units in one book, then another for the background, and another for the campaigns and so on. You are asserting that the 40k releases were stagnant comparatively but you don't actually know that...the style of game may just be that less releases are more likely because each supplement covers more ground. We only have 1.75 years of data and that is what we can only compare to). The number of pages is irrelevant. If GW takes the same approach as AoS then we are likely to see the same thing. If you are only interested in matched play (and nothing else) then yes it is likely to be much cheaper because the basic rules will be free and, if it follows the same method as AoS, the rules for the units will be free. But that only works for those that only like the match play. We already know GW doesn't really want or cater for these people. They want the (fanatical?) hobbyists who love the whole setting, background and so on. For these people getting into the whole 'new' setting is going to cost vastly more than the 40k if you compare between the two setting styles over the last two years or so. It's not an insane strategy - small amounts of money frequently psychologically is a lot less noticeable than large amounts of money every so often.
Pariah-Miniatures wrote: You'd have to be a complete moron to go out and buy anything for any faction until they release the new edition and army rules.
Gw should be taking a sizable hit until then, hope they thought about that since they openly said all books will be invalidated with the new system. In other words, stupid people come buy stuff and assemble things that may not be great lol
I think it's safe to buy the core units like Tactical Squads, Crisis Suits Ork boyz etc etc. Just magnetize what you buy to future proof them
I am intrigued but cautious. I'm not too keen on the 'low cost' books that I first read, but thankfully it seems they're making the core rules free.
Now, if they could bring the cost of models down, I would be on board. Still think I'm going to sell all of the models that I have already collected though. Would like to start again and do it properly instead of impulse buying, provided of course, it's cheap enough to have as a hobby.
Retrogamer0001 wrote: Any date set for release yet? I just bought into two new armies (Nids and GK) and am a little frustrated - I bought models specifically for certain builds and rules, and now my purchase is put into doubt before even opening up the boxes. I put the blame on me as much as GW for invalidating every single codex to date, as maybe I should have waited, but it's still frustrating.
Your models will still be playable.... The nids literally can not get anything but better, greynights weren't super well off, but should probably be the same as they are now.
Gee-wiz guys, a flurry of activity on the 40K front. Sure am glad I didn't spend my money on any of those brand new Traitor Legions or Wrath of Magnus books, or even the Deathwatch as they'll only be valid for a few months.
To be fair, I stopped playing when edition 7.1 dropped, invalidating my big rule book a mere three months after I got it (and it had only been out for a few months before that!). Irritation aside, 'cheaper' codices, if indeed a thing exists and free rules would be the sort of thing that would get an incredibly Frikking NARKED OFF player like myself who HATES the constant invalidation of books (I have 5 armies to keep current) back into playing the game.
Having skipped all the codex releases since then, for me at least this change is a good one from my perspective and I don't feel robbed (it's a nice feeling for a change). Good on you GW, credit where credit is due.
I was kidding, you know? Not too big periods of time, though, are more manageable. But you seem to go a few comments behind, so I'll leave the final response for the time you actually catch on with everything, specially the fact that you don't seem to understand that GW works on price brackets. A book is actually more expensive in euros than in pounds in quite a signifiant fashion.That you don't know shows YOU are the one with the weak grasp. And yes, 14+ has had less releases because it's been stagnant in that department. During the previous months to AoS kickstart it had a more intense release schedule, with months even going as far as releasing 2-3 books a month.
Sigh, you are still missing the point. It doesn't matter what the GW price differential between the £ and the Euro is. We are comparing costs across ranges therefore as long as you compare costs in the same currency then the proportional difference is the same regardless of what currency you are in (within about +/-10%) as it depends on what the currency exchange rate was at the time. For example a getting started set for space marines is £50 and Euro65 (a factor increase of 30%) and the Essentials set is £20 to Euro28 (a factor increase of 40%). As such you can quote your prices in Euros and me in £'s but when we talk about price comparisons between ranges but in the same currency then they are roughly the same with only a relatively negligible difference. So to reiterate it doesn't matter what currency you are talking about.
So I'm assuming you work in the GW design studio then to know that it is stagnant? I repeat this is conjecture, all you can do is compare actual facts. Anything else and you are just placing a bias onto the issue.
Pariah-Miniatures wrote: You'd have to be a complete moron to go out and buy anything for any faction until they release the new edition and army rules.
Gw should be taking a sizable hit until then, hope they thought about that since they openly said all books will be invalidated with the new system. In other words, stupid people come buy stuff and assemble things that may not be great lol
That really depends on why you play the game. If it is relatively competitive then yes it's a risk. But people might play also for just fun, social gathering, painting, background, or to feed to their dog (!). In that case there's no reason not to if you enjoy the game. In fact you might want to because like AoS you might find some models/ranges are discontinued. For example I could speculate that the Armageddon box set had included units that might get discontinued and an clearance of an excess back log was the intended plan. Hence we may see that the basic Ork grunts/space marine scouts might be discontinued. It's all guess work, but for those that want those armies it might be worth stocking up just in case (because like Brets and TK in WFB they now cost a fortune on ebay).
So were getting Death Guard in a starter set rather than as a solo release? Lame, as that suggests fixed poses and having to buy/ split starters to get the new models.
Azreal13 wrote: Seriously, why don't you guys take this borderline off topic wall of text exchange to PMs?
Well it does have relevance because it all feeds back to an initial starting point as to what the style of releases might be under new 40k and whether that might harm certain groups of players over others. So matched play with free rules may be cheaper for those that only like that style only but those interested in background and campaigns may see a huge bloat in books and rules (and the associated cost) similar to what has happened with AoS. The problem is you can't really have these conversations as one whole on a forum so can look like a bit disjointed unless seen altogether.
Jambles wrote:I actually called it! Three grand alliances, Imperium, Chaos, Xenos... TBF, maybe it's just for navigation purposes on the website, though? No clear indicator it's gonna be in the rules.
I'm not gonna say it won't happen, but there is a <1% chance the Necrons will be teaming up with the Eldar, whom they've technically been at war with for roughly 60 million years. Same goes for the Tyranids: an existential threat so great the Silent King actually returned to the galaxy to help fight it.
kronk wrote:
Draccan wrote: Oh and changing 40k scale is a dealbreaker in my book...
Sure you can play with your old miniatures, but what happens when you want new unit types and new models?
Changing the scale to invalidate 20+ years of space marine models is just............... [no words]
I have two words. Bull gak.
They have been steadily increasing for 20+ years. Where have you been?
Left to right:
1. Assault on Black Reach starter set (5th edition)
2. Space Marines vs Tyranid box set (3rd edition?)
3. Old metal marine (3rd edition)
4. Death Watch Marine (7th edition)
5. Space Marines vs Tyranid box set (3rd edition?)
6. Dark Vengeance Chaos Marine (7th edition)
Which one is the right and proper scale that is being "invalidated"? 3rd edition was invalidated with the 4th edition Tactical Squad box. That was "invalidated" with Death Watch. And so on.
Not denying that scale creep is a thing, but you may want to put a second red line along the bases of those models. They are definitely not at the same level.
DanceOfSlaanesh wrote: If everything in that picture is in the starter set, that would be the most amazing starter set ever.
I doubt the scenery or the table is included.
It looks perhaps an Assault squad, tactical squad, something in the background which I assume might be a devastator squad and a hero. For Nurgle some mutant cultists, a blobby monster of some type, plague marries and perhaps some flying thing (similar to a plague drone maybe?)
Cryonicleech wrote: Hopefully, with the release of this new 40k edition, the general's handbook equivalent won't be necessary as GW will understand that points should go with the relevant battletome/codex, which has been the case.
I guess it depends on how they implement it, but if they put the points in the battletomes/codexes then they will need to update those individual books to tweak points costs or add anything new. If the points are all kept in a single book then it can be updated yearly without having to mess with the existing stuff. Of course, they could offer free updates to the battletomes, or put points on the warscrolls themselves, or any number of other things.
It would be interesting if they launched the new edition of 40k as sort of an open beta. They could release free core rules and free compendiums for existing armies that include initial points values, and then after six months or so of players trying things out release a GHB with tweaked points costs and start slowly releasing updated battletomes to replace the compendiums. If they were upfront about what they were doing I don't think it would be a bad thing.
Damn still can't believe those marines are real. So stoked, it's perfect. I won't be replacing my whole marine armies but I will definitely be using these fellas in my mixed Imperium army. Finally give that visual representation of a small band of super soldiers who tower over their mortal allies.
Man I wish we had a clearer image of that obvious starter box in play, although I wonder if either that's not all the Nurgle stuff there or they are super strong as there appears to be a load of marines considering how much Nurgle peeps are there.
DanceOfSlaanesh wrote: If everything in that picture is in the starter set, that would be the most amazing starter set ever.
I doubt the scenery or the table is included.
It looks perhaps an Assault squad, tactical squad, something in the background which I assume might be a devastator squad and a hero. For Nurgle some mutant cultists, a blobby monster of some type, plague marries and perhaps some flying thing (similar to a plague drone maybe?)
Ya not scenery. The close up of the nurgle stuff is really nice so it seems the model quality is really high.
Ha! I knew the leaked marine pic was not a conversion! Have any of the people who were adamant that it was not genuine because they could do it in ten minutes and shins were obvious sculpted because different colours and whatnot commented yet?
In any case, the models look good, I just hope the fluff isn't stupid.
Complete rules reboot is a welcome thing. Your codices will always be invalidated in few years at most, so it is silly to cry about it now. This gives them chance to get rid of some silly relics like AV and otherwise update the mechanics more radically. Of course there is no guarantee that the new rules will be any good, but I remain cautiously optimistic.
As always, what worries me most is the story progression, I just hope they won't utterly ruin the setting.
The AoSfication of 40k is happening. Everything they are talking about is a port from AoS or a throwback to 2nd edition. I have nothing but trepidation for wants to come.
My biggest fear is that they will curb stomp all over the fluff to justify some stupid stormcast equivalents into the setting.
I think it's really telling that forgeworld are sticking with 7th edition rules. Is this because they didn't want to invalidate all their books, or because they have had a good look at 8th edition and don't want to be onboard for the train wreck to come?
It would be interesting if they launched the new edition of 40k as sort of an open beta. They could release free core rules and free compendiums for existing armies that include initial points values, and then after six months or so of players trying things out release a GHB with tweaked points costs and start slowly releasing updated battletomes to replace the compendiums. If they were upfront about what they were doing I don't think it would be a bad thing.
This is probably more likely now. One of the improvements GW have made is being more open about the changes and not denying there is a new edition on its way. They've also stated they will be talking about the new rules mechanics in the coming months.
The current 40k is a bloated mess, but GWs ability to make really engaging games in recent years has dwindled (the more popular ones being based on older games) and hence like AoS it becomes a large, simplified dice-fest as they massively swing the other way. That might or might not be a good or bad thing depending on what style of game you like. It will be interesting to see what they do with "Necromunda relocated to Armaggedon" because that game potentially does conflict with a fast skirmish game it looks like 40k will become.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tamereth wrote: The AoSfication of 40k is happening. Everything they are talking about is a port from AoS or a throwback to 2nd edition. I have nothing but trepidation for wants to come.
My biggest fear is that they will curb stomp all over the fluff to justify some stupid stormcast equivalents into the setting.
I think it's really telling that forgeworld are sticking with 7th edition rules. Is this because they didn't want to invalidate all their books, or because they have had a good look at 8th edition and don't want to be onboard for the train wreck to come?
HH may change, the FAQ on this was vague. It stated "for the moment" in the FAQ which is a bit weird. Perhaps there is an internal argument going on that hasn't yet resolved itself. The Forgeworld books are expensive and more collector items and there are a lot of them; I can imagine a lot of people might become rather peeved if they nuke them.
Tamereth wrote: The AoSfication of 40k is happening. Everything they are talking about is a port from AoS or a throwback to 2nd edition. I have nothing but trepidation for wants to come.
My biggest fear is that they will curb stomp all over the fluff to justify some stupid stormcast equivalents into the setting.
I think it's really telling that forgeworld are sticking with 7th edition rules. Is this because they didn't want to invalidate all their books, or because they have had a good look at 8th edition and don't want to be onboard for the train wreck to come?
Fair enough to be wary about the future. But, seriously, 7th Ed. is garbage at the moment. The core rules are fine, maybe, but the current army imbalance and rules bloat makes the game unenjoyable.
Hmmm... personally, another Chaos Marines vs Space Marines starter set after two editions of this is a little boring, but... well. If it brings some great sculpts like Lord Kranon in the Dark Vengeance box it can only be a good thing.
Tamereth wrote: My biggest fear is that they will curb stomp all over the fluff to justify some stupid stormcast equivalents into the setting.
Surely you're not being serious here?
Tamereth wrote: Is this because they didn't want to invalidate all their books, or because they have had a good look at 8th edition and don't want to be onboard for the train wreck to come?
Crimson wrote: Ha! I knew the leaked marine pic was not a conversion! Have any of the people who were adamant that it was not genuine because they could do it in ten minutes and shins were obvious sculpted because different colours and whatnot commented yet?.
Not that I've seen.
I don't consider myself a petty individual, but I did seriously consider going back over the old thread and weeding out the worst offenders to be held to account, but most of the discussion was honestly argued and one side just happened to be wrong.
For the snarky gakbags, I'll just enjoy the sweet, sweet vindication.
The. Ingest worry I have is FW rules getting updated and posted online for 8th.
This is great news but could be a clusterfek since FW has discontinued so many models it is likely they either don't include the discontinued items or if they do we have a bunch of super powerful impossible to find models. There has been many times I simply didn't purchase a forgeworld model because the book is still on 5th ed rules and then sales have tanked and FW discontinued the model. I really hope that if they update many FW items they reissue them as well and I don't see that happening.
Also the obsolete retailer list ONLY shows codex NOT the campaign or supplement books. So things like traitors hate which contain few to no dataslates are still valid. I suspect most formations, relic lists, warlord traits, and detachments to stay valid.
Well that's pretty much all non terrain 40k plans on hold for a few months at least. I still cant quite believe there making changes substantial enough to invalidate all the codex's after all these years of tweaking and tinkering at the edges. Fingers and toes crossed its for the better.
How FW handle this with there HH line will be interesting. Will they move on to 8th with the next black book and new versions of the red books? If so what about the existing black books, stay as they are or a rerelease to update them to 8th? Or could FW stick with a version of 7th with a HH core rules red book?
I really wish I had Deckard's enhance machine to use on that tabletop picture The "assault marines" do look to have the new curved flight bases, but they also look bigger then usual jump pack guys. With them having a flight stand could they be a new unit?
Crimson wrote: Ha! I knew the leaked marine pic was not a conversion! Have any of the people who were adamant that it was not genuine because they could do it in ten minutes and shins were obvious sculpted because different colours and whatnot commented yet?.
Not that I've seen.
I don't consider myself a petty individual, but I did seriously consider going back over the old thread and weeding out the worst offenders to be held to account, but most of the discussion was honestly argued and one side just happened to be wrong.
For the snarky gakbags, I'll just enjoy the sweet, sweet vindication.
Well there was one guy who was adamant that it was ProCreate or similar, using some amazingly intricate arguments to prove his point and refusing to even acknowledge the possibility that it was real... even back then I was sort of rubbing my hands together for when the reveal would come.
How many of you remember 3rd edition? It was brutally streamlined, but by 7th ed they were back to a bloated mess again. I'm very much on the fence about this.
I really wish I had Deckard's enhance machine to use on that tabletop picture The "assault marines" do look to have the new curved flight bases, but they also look bigger then usual jump pack guys. With them having a flight stand could they be a new unit?
Well as long as they don't try and rename them to something silly like Spaze Mawines
warpcrafter wrote: How many of you remember 3rd edition? It was brutally streamlined, but by 7th ed they were back to a bloated mess again. I'm very much on the fence about this.
I was kidding, you know? Not too big periods of time, though, are more manageable. But you seem to go a few comments behind, so I'll leave the final response for the time you actually catch on with everything, specially the fact that you don't seem to understand that GW works on price brackets. A book is actually more expensive in euros than in pounds in quite a signifiant fashion.That you don't know shows YOU are the one with the weak grasp. And yes, 14+ has had less releases because it's been stagnant in that department. During the previous months to AoS kickstart it had a more intense release schedule, with months even going as far as releasing 2-3 books a month.
Sigh, you are still missing the point. It doesn't matter what the GW price differential between the £ and the Euro is. We are comparing costs across ranges therefore as long as you compare costs in the same currency then the proportional difference is the same regardless of what currency you are in (within about +/-10%) as it depends on what the currency exchange rate was at the time. For example a getting started set for space marines is £50 and Euro65 (a factor increase of 30%) and the Essentials set is £20 to Euro28 (a factor increase of 40%). As such you can quote your prices in Euros and me in £'s but when we talk about price comparisons between ranges but in the same currency then they are roughly the same with only a relatively negligible difference. So to reiterate it doesn't matter what currency you are talking about.
So I'm assuming you work in the GW design studio then to know that it is stagnant? I repeat this is conjecture, all you can do is compare actual facts. Anything else and you are just placing a bias onto the issue.
Give up there is a small sub sect of the AoS fan base who could give scientologists a run for there money. They feel that AoS is perfection and that any faults are a reflection of non believers hate. They feel that all other games should also be like the perfection that is AoS and that any difference is a divergence of the true faith to be shouted down.
How FW handle this with there HH line will be interesting
the GWFAQ say 30k will stick with 7th edi core rules
It doesn't say that at all it states:-
A few of you might be wondering how the new edition of Warhammer 40,000 affects Forge World’s Horus Heresy rules and army lists. Well, for the moment, it won’t! You can carry on using the existing Warhammer 40,000 ruleset for your Horus Heresy games
Note the bit that says "for the moment" that implies things won't change immediately but that is consideration for it in the future.
warpcrafter wrote: How many of you remember 3rd edition? It was brutally streamlined, but by 7th ed they were back to a bloated mess again. I'm very much on the fence about this.
3th into 4th was a good time for 40k rules. If we get a few years of good gaming until the bloat hits again I'd be happy with that
Jambles wrote: I'm thinking, new starter box will be Ultramarines and Death Guard. There's new fluff of Mortarion attacking Ultramar, the new models are coming out, Roboute just got released...
source to the fluff of Mortarion attacking Ultramar?
I read that in a summary that was posted here on Dakka of the new Hand of Darkness audio dramas.
Give up there is a small sub sect of the AoS fan base who could give scientologists a run for there money. They feel that AoS is perfection and that any faults are a reflection of non believers hate. They feel that all other games should also be like the perfection that is AoS and that any difference is a divergence of the true faith to be shouted down.
I'm pretty stubborn I'm afraid when it comes to statements not really based on facts (or some weird interpretation), which is both a curse and a blessing at times.
I was kidding, you know? Not too big periods of time, though, are more manageable. But you seem to go a few comments behind, so I'll leave the final response for the time you actually catch on with everything, specially the fact that you don't seem to understand that GW works on price brackets. A book is actually more expensive in euros than in pounds in quite a signifiant fashion.That you don't know shows YOU are the one with the weak grasp. And yes, 14+ has had less releases because it's been stagnant in that department. During the previous months to AoS kickstart it had a more intense release schedule, with months even going as far as releasing 2-3 books a month.
Sigh, you are still missing the point. It doesn't matter what the GW price differential between the £ and the Euro is. We are comparing costs across ranges therefore as long as you compare costs in the same currency then the proportional difference is the same regardless of what currency you are in (within about +/-10%) as it depends on what the currency exchange rate was at the time. For example a getting started set for space marines is £50 and Euro65 (a factor increase of 30%) and the Essentials set is £20 to Euro28 (a factor increase of 40%). As such you can quote your prices in Euros and me in £'s but when we talk about price comparisons between ranges but in the same currency then they are roughly the same with only a relatively negligible difference. So to reiterate it doesn't matter what currency you are talking about.
So I'm assuming you work in the GW design studio then to know that it is stagnant? I repeat this is conjecture, all you can do is compare actual facts. Anything else and you are just placing a bias onto the issue.
Give up there is a small sub sect of the AoS fan base who could give scientologists a run for there money. They feel that AoS is perfection and that any faults are a reflection of non believers hate. They feel that all other games should also be like the perfection that is AoS and that any difference is a divergence of the true faith to be shouted down.
Or maybe they're enjoying playing a game that's undergone a lot of changes in a short space of time, and the problem is with the rabid anti-AOS crowd who seem hell bent on disregarding any and all improvement in their weirdly desperate attempt to tear it down?
I've never so much rolled a single dice in a game of AOS, I've got no dog in this fight, but it strikes me that extreme views in either camp aren't conducive to mature debate and aren't representative of reality from either perspective.
Very happy that they're taking the bloated mess of a ruleset out back and putting a bullet in it. A shame about people's investment in the codices, but it's the only way and we've known a new edition was right around the corner for awhile, and there's no way to kill off the awful morass that 3rd eventually grew into without doing it.
I might be able to actually start playing regularly again!
How FW handle this with there HH line will be interesting
the GWFAQ say 30k will stick with 7th edi core rules
It doesn't say that at all it states:-
A few of you might be wondering how the new edition of Warhammer 40,000 affects Forge World’s Horus Heresy rules and army lists. Well, for the moment, it won’t! You can carry on using the existing Warhammer 40,000 ruleset for your Horus Heresy games
Note the bit that says "for the moment" that implies things won't change immediately but that is consideration for it in the future.
It'll simply be a volume of work problem. Not enough time to rework and repoint every 40k unit and every 30k unit - so focusing on 40k and getting round to 30k in a year makes perfect sense.
How FW handle this with there HH line will be interesting
the GWFAQ say 30k will stick with 7th edi core rules
It doesn't say that at all it states:-
A few of you might be wondering how the new edition of Warhammer 40,000 affects Forge World’s Horus Heresy rules and army lists. Well, for the moment, it won’t! You can carry on using the existing Warhammer 40,000 ruleset for your Horus Heresy games
Note the bit that says "for the moment" that implies things won't change immediately but that is consideration for it in the future.
It'll simply be a volume of work problem. Not enough time to rework and repoint every 40k unit and every 30k unit - so focusing on 40k and getting round to 30k in a year makes perfect sense.
it can also mean that FW will bring out their own 30k Core Rule Book (which is what some rumours said a while ago)
Give up there is a small sub sect of the AoS fan base who could give scientologists a run for there money. They feel that AoS is perfection and that any faults are a reflection of non believers hate. They feel that all other games should also be like the perfection that is AoS and that any difference is a divergence of the true faith to be shouted down.
I'm pretty stubborn I'm afraid when it comes to statements not really based on facts (or some weird interpretation), which is both a curse and a blessing at times.
Like yours?
Look, you wanna do the same period? Do the period of 7th edition's launch until the 1.75 years mark or whatever you want. That way you're not really doing apples and oranges.
Otherwise I think we don't really have much to say.
How FW handle this with there HH line will be interesting
the GWFAQ say 30k will stick with 7th edi core rules
It doesn't say that at all it states:-
A few of you might be wondering how the new edition of Warhammer 40,000 affects Forge World’s Horus Heresy rules and army lists. Well, for the moment, it won’t! You can carry on using the existing Warhammer 40,000 ruleset for your Horus Heresy games
Note the bit that says "for the moment" that implies things won't change immediately but that is consideration for it in the future.
It'll simply be a volume of work problem. Not enough time to rework and repoint every 40k unit and every 30k unit - so focusing on 40k and getting round to 30k in a year makes perfect sense.
it can also mean that FW will bring out their own 30k Core Rule Book (which is what some rumours said a while ago)
Rumors also had plenty of hogwash in them. Me thinks it will just be temporary, which is why they actually delayed fires of cyraxis.
It'll simply be a volume of work problem. Not enough time to rework and repoint every 40k unit and every 30k unit - so focusing on 40k and getting round to 30k in a year makes perfect sense.
Quite possibly, but there are other possibilities too. It could be a hedging of bets thing that *if* a large section of the community do reject the new rules then they may just switch to HH and hence they keep the expenditure. HH could then quietly include aliens and all may be well for GW. Alternatively there could be a massive hand bag fight internally over the issue and this is the way GW are saying we're in round 3 and there are no knockouts yet, please come back later.
MaxT wrote: It'll simply be a volume of work problem. Not enough time to rework and repoint every 40k unit and every 30k unit - so focusing on 40k and getting round to 30k in a year makes perfect sense.
Hopefully FW's rules guys have been busy getting IA16, 8th ed compatible.
Yeah, but no. It'll be as MaxT says. A 'large section of the community' rejected AoS and they still increased sales. This will be a success and they know it. Better rules (can't be worse) plus the kind of knocking-it-out-of-the-park sculpts they've produced of late will bring a wedge of cash. New Marine models will sell like hot cakes.
Let's not pretend that AOS is some huge succes. They needed two years to get where WHFB was historically in the ICV2 sales chart (before the last few disastreous years of its existence), and that was only done because of some major tweaking (to their credit) and extreme release schedule.
But to be honest, rules doesn't mean much when it comes to GW. They are so in advance when it comes to plastic minis compared to their competitors, that even if they release a turd of a ruleset, people will still buy the minis. Hell, as much as a despise the rules for AOS, ithe last few releases are so good that I'm actuallly thinking about buildging an army.
Look, you wanna do the same period? Do the period of 7th edition's launch until the 1.75 years mark or whatever you want. That way you're not really doing apples and oranges.
Otherwise I think we don't really have much to say.
OK whatever I want, hmm how about between 13th March 1911 and 24th Jan 1986? Can you come back when you have this information?
streetsamurai wrote: Let's not pretend that AOS is some huge succes. They needed two years to get where WHFB was historically in the ICV2 sales chart (before the last few disastreous years of its existence), and that was only done because of some extreme tweaking (to their credit) and release schedule
Let's not also forget that during the period they covered there was no major release (no release at all actually) And that we have had this argument before so we aren't really going to bring anything productive on this, so I think it's time to drop this because ICV2 isn't reliable, it's used as political ammo and yada yada. Frankly we bring AoS too much often
Look, you wanna do the same period? Do the period of 7th edition's launch until the 1.75 years mark or whatever you want. That way you're not really doing apples and oranges.
Otherwise I think we don't really have much to say.
OK whatever I want, hmm how about between 13th March 1911 and 24th Jan 1986? Can you come back when you have this information?
Man, you know, you didn't make a single point but the attempt was funny.
streetsamurai wrote: Let's not pretend that AOS is some huge succes. They needed two years to get where WHFB was historically in the ICV2 sales chart (before the last few disastreous years of its existence), and that was only done because of some major tweaking (to their credit) and extreme release schedule.
GW has stated that AoS is selling quite better that WHFB in many years. Those charts aren't base on hard data, and they don't provide even sales number, just relatively relation between sales of different lines. They can be lower in that ranking and selling more because this is an expansive market.
But, as I said many times, the only that should be concerned about the sales of GW's game lines should be GW's themselves. When we fans discuss about it to me seems more like "Oh look hoooow bigger my games sales are, hmmm yeah! Suck it luzers! LOL!" or "Lol nobody play your game omg lol zucker!" I'm just happy to play the games I like and buy the miniatures I like. Nothing stays forever, so I just enjoy it when I can.
NuMarines will sell like Ice-creams in a hot summer day.
If someone wan't to believe otherwise is ok. Still exist people that defend the earth is flat.
Whirlwind wrote: Quite possibly, but there are other possibilities too. It could be a hedging of bets thing that *if* a large section of the community do reject the new rules then they may just switch to HH and hence they keep the expenditure. HH could then quietly include aliens and all may be well for GW. Alternatively there could be a massive hand bag fight internally over the issue and this is the way GW are saying we're in round 3 and there are no knockouts yet, please come back later.
Hedge their bets? If the last 30 years have proved nothing, it is that 40K players will put up with bad rules just to push their cool space fantasy miniatures around. You make it sound like 7th Ed was the pinnacle of wargaming rules. It was just the last (and to most, familiar) set of rules.*
Haven't played since 3rd and haven't played regularly since Rogue Trader. Have a table full of stuff prepping for SWA. Bought a Start Collecting Tau box and numerous other 'cool' stuff from GW in the decades since I last played a game. 8th looks to be the version that sucks me (and people like me) back in.
Iain.
* When John Lennon was asked if Ringo was the best drummer ever, Lennon responded he wasn't even the best drummer in the Beatles. Even on this thread there are many people calling 7th Ed a dumpster fire, not that it is. There was 6 versions of 40K before the current one. This too has happened before, six times.
So I was looking at the half Death guard, half loyalist Marine artwork on the GW site. The helm looks a lot like MK4 but some of the details are different, and it has a raised collar. New Marines/MK X armour or artistic licence?
warpcrafter wrote: How many of you remember 3rd edition? It was brutally streamlined, but by 7th ed they were back to a bloated mess again. I'm very much on the fence about this.
Yeah, I remember amost 20 years ago.
Not sure what the point you're making is?
This
I was 13 when third Ed came out. Ffs it was over 20 years ago. What's the point! Things changed in 20yrs! Ffs even monopoly changed from 20yrs ago! Thimble you will be missed...
streetsamurai wrote: Let's not pretend that AOS is some huge succes. They needed two years to get where WHFB was historically in the ICV2 sales chart (before the last few disastreous years of its existence), and that was only done because of some major tweaking (to their credit) and extreme release schedule.
GW has stated that AoS is selling quite better that WHFB in many years. Those charts aren't base on hard data, and they don't provide even sales number, just relatively relation between sales of different lines. They can be lower in that ranking and selling more because this is an expansive market.
But, as I said many times, the only that should be concerned about the sales of GW's game lines should be GW's themselves. When we fans discuss about it to me seems more like "Oh look hoooow bigger my games sales are, hmmm yeah! Suck it luzers! LOL!" or "Lol nobody play your game omg lol zucker!" I'm just happy to play the games I like and buy the miniatures I like. Nothing stays forever, so I just enjoy it when I can.
NuMarines will sell like Ice-creams in a hot summer day.
If someone wan't to believe otherwise is ok. Still exist people that defend the earth is flat.
Yeah, but as I said before, that doesnt means much since they releases 2 main boxes (AOS starter set and WHQ) and these are always great sellers.
Anyway, back on topic. yes I do think that these numarines will selle very well
Man, you know, you didn't make a single point but the attempt was funny.
Maybe I did? Anyway I've already provided reasons and the period you should consider and why in previous posts, barring the argument was derailing the whole topic (which wasn't really the point) and it was being deemed an attack on AoS which it wasn't really. Rather just highlighting that for some people (those interested in more than the match play) that comparisons would indicate there will be a glut of additional books whether that be Codexs/campaign books/background books and that this is likely to cost the average person more overall (which is not a surprise as GW are a business after all and they are in the business of increasing sales in monetary terms). However it does appear to have rattled bone cages.
Whirlwind wrote: Quite possibly, but there are other possibilities too. It could be a hedging of bets thing that *if* a large section of the community do reject the new rules then they may just switch to HH and hence they keep the expenditure. HH could then quietly include aliens and all may be well for GW. Alternatively there could be a massive hand bag fight internally over the issue and this is the way GW are saying we're in round 3 and there are no knockouts yet, please come back later.
Hedge their bets? If the last 30 years have proved nothing, it is that 40K players will put up with bad rules just to push their cool space fantasy miniatures around. You make it sound like 7th Ed was the pinnacle of wargaming rules. It was just the last (and to most, familiar) set of rules.*
Haven't played since 3rd and haven't played regularly since Rogue Trader. Have a table full of stuff prepping for SWA. Bought a Start Collecting Tau box and numerous other 'cool' stuff from GW in the decades since I last played a game. 8th looks to be the version that sucks me (and people like me) back in.
Erm... I think you are missing the point. When GW swapped over from WFB to AoS there was a strong suggestion from polls, gaming clubs and such like that a significant fraction of the existing fan base of WFB largely abandoned AoS (for whatever reason) which had a big impact on GW sales by volume (which hasn't really recovered, albeit sales by value have but that's another discussion). Some of this is likely to be because those people enjoyed rank and file based games (and they probably scratched the skirmish itch with 40k). If 40k 8th is along the same lines as AoS which it appears it could be then the streamlined, mass dice rolling, more limited strategic options might not be for some people. This hence runs the risk that people that don't like the change will move elsewhere (lets say Gates of Antares). GW will want to avoid this same issue happening again. By keeping 30k they actually keep a mechanism where those that don't like the new style of gameplay have a GW outlet in 30k. This 'hedges their bets' that people won't then leave GW but just switch to 30k. If it doesn't happen then they can quietly switch 30k to the new style 40k with little angst. If large numbers switch then they keep the players and FW keeps the old 7th edition (which people are less against because FW have kept some of the bloat more under control).
Honestly, I hadn't enjoyed a single GW game since 'Warmaster' so I was generally appalled when I first heard about 'Age of Sigmar*' but then was quite pleasantly surprised at how playable and just basically more 'fun' it was than anything since 'Mordheim.'
If they take certain steps in that direction with the new '40k,' I imagine i might actually enjoy the game again (for the first time since 4th.)
.
(*To be clear, I do still hate the changes to the setting that they made but they've already stated that '40k' won't be going through a similar upheaval so I'm left being relatively optimistic.)
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also! there's so much irony in seeing people complain that they're MAKING 40K JUST LIKE AOS when one of the biggest criticisms of 'AoS,' in the beginning was THEY'RE MAKING AOS JUST LIKE 40K.
Also! there's so much irony in seeing people complain that they're MAKING 40K JUST LIKE AOS when one of the biggest criticisms of 'AoS,' in the beginning was THEY'RE MAKING AOS JUST LIKE 40K.
I think the criticism was that they were making Fantasy gak.
Whirlwind wrote: When GW swapped over from WFB to AoS there was a strong suggestion from polls, gaming clubs and such like that a significant fraction of the existing fan base of WFB largely abandoned AoS (for whatever reason) which had a big impact on GW sales by volume (which hasn't really recovered, albeit sales by value have but that's another discussion)..
Got any sources for that claim that amount to better than "Trust me guys, I'm seriously." ?
Whirlwind wrote: When GW swapped over from WFB to AoS there was a strong suggestion from polls, gaming clubs and such like that a significant fraction of the existing fan base of WFB largely abandoned AoS (for whatever reason) which had a big impact on GW sales by volume (which hasn't really recovered, albeit sales by value have but that's another discussion)..
Got any sources for that claim that amount to better than "Trust me guys, I'm seriously." ?
Dunno where he's getting it.
My own anecdotal evidence is that I've seen more players coming into AoS from 40k and outside the hobby than the old WHFB crew leaving. And even then, we've had a portion of them return to play, round or square bases be damned.
joseph_curwen wrote: Honestly, I hadn't enjoyed a single GW game since 'Warmaster' so I was generally appalled when I first heard about 'Age of Sigmar*' but then was quite pleasantly surprised at how playable and just basically more 'fun' it was than anything since 'Mordheim.'
If they take certain steps in that direction with the new '40k,' I imagine i might actually enjoy the game again (for the first time since 4th.)
Different games appeal to different people. WFB was a rank and file that was pushed to skirmish so there was always going to be a lot of blow back. There will be less for 40k because it is still a skirmish game and it is bloated to the rafters. WFB wasn't that bad and wasn't really any worse than 3rd edition because there more complicated rules in that set that got dropped later on); it was mainly scrapped because of sales and how expensive it was to build even a basic unit. 40k has much less of this issue as with fire teams and Necromunda you can still play small games that aren't too expensive to get into overall.
I too mourn the loss of Warmaster though!
The lore for WFB was getting silly way before AoS and there was a lot of "A waves an EPIC wand and casts and EPIC spell and billions of another race suddenly die but tomorrow there are more of them". I always appreciated the lore when it was a bit less individual hero epicness based (for example I still remember the a background piece in the 6th rulebook where a grizzled veteran recalled how he got some scars) and I think that added to the 'realism' of the setting and that there were 'real' people/monsters/creatures you were sending to their doom.
40k has long gone the route of epic epicness and I don't really find it engaging that much anymore (as it simply comes down to flavour of month beating last weeks flavour of the month in some spectacular style etc).
Whirlwind wrote: When GW swapped over from WFB to AoS there was a strong suggestion from polls, gaming clubs and such like that a significant fraction of the existing fan base of WFB largely abandoned AoS (for whatever reason) which had a big impact on GW sales by volume (which hasn't really recovered, albeit sales by value have but that's another discussion)..
Got any sources for that claim that amount to better than "Trust me guys, I'm seriously." ?
40k has long gone the route of epic epicness and I don't really find it engaging that much anymore (as it simply comes down to flavour of month beating last weeks flavour of the month in some spectacular style etc).
This is pretty much what 6E and 7E became to me. You can see it through the art and photo's too. Look at codex photo's of mini's from 2E through 4E and they're usually fairly well spaced out, generally made to look like a unit holding a piece of ground or something, usually with some sort of setting specific hand crafted terrain, while newer photo's look like grand parades of armies clashing in tight middle ages rank combat (even with automatic weapons and blast weapons at hand) amongst exclusively GW Ruins terrain.
Indeed. I know a company won't ever shout "We're screwed" but they have shareholders and can't lie repeatedly to them, and have been saying "we grew sales" quite a lot. Even if they sold them to fewer people as everyone apparently rage quit after End Times. They seem to have built a thriving new system, and are about to bolster their sales of their top earner. Good times in Nottingham. Seems the only narrative some folk want to forge is of a dwindling, incompetent GW when the last 18 months has shown quite the reverse.
Whirlwind wrote: When GW swapped over from WFB to AoSthere was a strong suggestion from polls, gaming clubs and such like that a significant fraction of the existing fan base of WFB largely abandoned AoS (for whatever reason) which had a big impact on GW sales by volume (which hasn't really recovered, albeit sales by value have but that's another discussion)..
Got any sources for that claim that amount to better than "Trust me guys, I'm seriously." ?
Which bit?
Hows about any of it? You spouted a lot of gak, you can have your pick and backup any of it with something better than an anecdote?
JohnnyHell wrote: Indeed. I know a company won't ever shout "We're screwed" but they have shareholders and can't lie repeatedly to them, and have been saying "we grew sales" quite a lot. Even if they sold them to fewer people as everyone apparently rage quit after End Times. They seem to have built a thriving new system, and are about to bolster their sales of their top earner. Good times in Nottingham. Seems the only narrative some folk want to forge is of a dwindling, incompetent GW when the last 18 months has shown quite the reverse.
That's not quite true when you look at relative sales by volume. For the most part sales is done by value. I did a bit of a detailed analysis of the last financial return a while ago but in summary. At constant currency at the end of AoS year there was big drop in sales and profit was largely bolstered by TW:W franchise, Vermintide and Mordheim games to name a few. IIRC correctly it was about 20-30% drop in total sales. As most other things were equal it was constant currency these are largely attributed to decline in sales by volume. The last financial forecast saw a large jump in sales by value, however once you looked at it in constant currency terms (i.e. ignoring the UKs populace's desire to trash the £) then sales were no where near as robust and showed only a modest increase (about 10% IIRC). As such by volume GW haven't recovered but sales by value have but that's largely due to exports and despite the tanking £ keeping prices the same for everyone (ergo they get more UK £'s for each $ or Euro).
It is unlikely that GW will want to see the same issues as AoS brought them (they've pretty much acknowledged the issues in the 40kFAQ) so hence it is not beyond the possibilities that they will want to protect against it some what. It may be that they are doing this keeping 30K as it is "just in case". It may be that "40k lite" is a roaring success and they can bring forward 30k into the 40k ruleset, but it could be deemed financially prudent to give existing players that don't like the changes another *GW* outlet.
Man, you know, you didn't make a single point but the attempt was funny.
Maybe I did?
Maybe you didn't...
And at which point I said it was an attack at AoS?
Anyways, this is an actual comparison:
Spoiler:
Publications during 7th edition's first 21 months. (lowest value, so soft cover)
BRB 65 euros
codex orks 33 euros
supplement WAAAGH! Ghazghull 26 euros
codex space wolves 33 euros
Supplement champions of fenris 33 euros
sanctus reach: red WAAAGH! 39 euros
sanctus reach: hour of the wolf. 39 euros
codex grey knights. 39 euros
codex dark eldar 39 euros
haemunculus covens supplement 33 euros
codex blood angels. 33 euros
shield of baal leviathan 59,99 euros
shield of baal exterminatus. 52 euros
codex necrons 33 euros
codex harlequins 39 euros
codex khorne daemonkin 39 euros
codex skitarii 26 euros
codex eldar craftworlds 39 euros
codex imperial knights 33 euros
codex cult mechanicus 26 euros
codex space marines 39 euros
codex dark angels 39 euros
codex tau empire 33 euros
mont'ka campaign 52 euros
kauyon campaign 52 euros
warzone fenris curse of the wulfen 55 euros
A total of 26 publications clocking in at 788 euros for knowing about all the events of the seventh edition. And this doesn't account for codex astra militarum and daemons, which were also needed for kauyon and curse of the wulfen and sanctus reach. In that case it would be 854 euros (and I must have added someting too much in addition back then... maybe.). The two mini-campaign supplements that complemented damocles are also absent due to not being available anymore. And let's remember this doesn't acount forgeword.
Spoiler:
Publications during Age of Sigmar's 21 months of lifespan.
Warhammer age of sigmar 60 euros.
Realmgate wars:
-Quest for Ghal Maraz: 60 euros
-Balance of Power: 52 euros.
-God Beasts. 50 euros
-Allgates 46 euros.
-General's handbook 20 euros.
-Grand Alliance: Chaos 26 euros
-Grand Alliance: Destruction. 14 euros!
-Grand Alliance: Death 13 euros!
-Grand Alliance: Order. 28 euros
-Dominion of Chaos. 20 euros
-Chaos Dreadhold 19,5 euros
-Everchosen 39 euros.
-Fyreslayers: 33 euros
- Pestilens 21 euros
-Seraphon 33 euros
- Ironjawz 28 euros
- Flesh Eater Courts 20 euros
-Sylvaneth. 33 euros
-Beastclaw raiders. 20 euros
-Bonesplitterz. 20 euros
-Disciples of Tzeentch 20 euros
-Stormcast Eternals MK II 25 euros
-Blades of Khorne 25 euros
-Kharadron Overlords 25 euros.
750 euros. across 25 publications.
Age of Sigmar suffered from starting books that were too expensive (yes they were). Later books were cheaper. If we went from the last year by and compared 40k with AoS then we've got a much different picture:
40k had...
Codex chaos daemons enhanced edition (didn't know of its existance) 39 euros.
Angel's of death 28 euros.
Skyes of Death 46 euros. (don't know why but thought these two had been released in 2015)
Genestealer cults 33 euros
Deathwatch 33 euros
Waagh! Ghazzghull re-release (not counting this one)
Black-Legion re-release 28 euros
Crimson Slaughter re-release 28 euros. (they were so disappointing I had forgotten about all of them)
Traitor's hate 39 euros
Angel's blade 39 euros
Wrath of magnus 55 euros
Traitor legions 25 euros
Imperial Agents. 25 euros
The gathering storm 120 euros.
All clocking 538 euros
A year of the same period... 538 versus 338.
When people say Age of Sigmar is cheaper they are refering to THIS. The first books were very expensive but since Ironjawz they've gotten a lot cheaper and this is what people talk about mainly.
In fact, your claim of that Age of Sigmar was 50% more expensive falls flat once you factor in the warzone damocles and fenris first parts, components of the period you went and did. All clocking in at 730 euros. I didn't know that 750 was 50% more than 730.
JohnnyHell wrote: Indeed. I know a company won't ever shout "We're screwed" but they have shareholders and can't lie repeatedly to them, and have been saying "we grew sales" quite a lot. Even if they sold them to fewer people as everyone apparently rage quit after End Times. They seem to have built a thriving new system, and are about to bolster their sales of their top earner. Good times in Nottingham. Seems the only narrative some folk want to forge is of a dwindling, incompetent GW when the last 18 months has shown quite the reverse.
That's not quite true when you look at relative sales by volume. For the most part sales is done by value. I did a bit of a detailed analysis of the last financial return a while ago but in summary. At constant currency at the end of AoS year there was big drop in sales and profit was largely bolstered by TW:W franchise, Vermintide and Mordheim games to name a few. IIRC correctly it was about 20-30% drop in total sales. As most other things were equal it was constant currency these are largely attributed to decline in sales by volume. The last financial forecast saw a large jump in sales by value, however once you looked at it in constant currency terms (i.e. ignoring the UKs populace's desire to trash the £) then sales were no where near as robust and showed only a modest increase (about 10% IIRC). As such by volume GW haven't recovered but sales by value have but that's largely due to exports and despite the tanking £ keeping prices the same for everyone (ergo they get more UK £'s for each $ or Euro).
It is unlikely that GW will want to see the same issues as AoS brought them (they've pretty much acknowledged the issues in the 40kFAQ) so hence it is not beyond the possibilities that they will want to protect against it some what. It may be that they are doing this keeping 30K as it is "just in case". It may be that "40k lite" is a roaring success and they can bring forward 30k into the 40k ruleset, but it could be deemed financially prudent to give existing players that don't like the changes another *GW* outlet.
So aside from explaining international business to an ecommerce professional (thanks), you do agree that GW are not dwindling or incompetent? Cos that was the point of my post.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
streetsamurai wrote: I don't think that 30k is nearly big enough to be a safety valve in case 40k 8th edition falter.
Totally agree, and GW is too monolithic to consider a 'back door'. You simply can't roll back an edition, so it won't be a consideration. Likely they just didn't tell the bloody FW guys in time to do anything, or they didn't fancy it.
Whirlwind wrote: When GW swapped over from WFB to AoSthere was a strong suggestion from polls, gaming clubs and such like that a significant fraction of the existing fan base of WFB largely abandoned AoS (for whatever reason) which had a big impact on GW sales by volume (which hasn't really recovered, albeit sales by value have but that's another discussion)..
Got any sources for that claim that amount to better than "Trust me guys, I'm seriously." ?
Which bit?
Hows about any of it? You spouted a lot of gak, you can have your pick and backup any of it with something better than an anecdote?
Well I've done the financial bit already, you can look up the financial reports yourself if you want.
The polls were from numerous forums like Warseer etc. Anecdotal
Posts numbers in AoS and Warhammer forums took a significant decrease in numbers after AoS's release
Gaming clubs were my own (and others I've heard about) and so on
Increases for KoW and 9th age
Most of this is anecdotal but that there were consistent changes after the introduction of AoS would imply that the effect was real.
This really isn't the topic of conversation for here though and it is not an attack on AoS though I gather it can be a touchy subject for a 'few'.
All I'm trying to highlight is that GW might be trying to protect against similar issues they had with the AoS launch in case they misjudged the mood for changes to 40k and that's why they haven't committed 30k to being converted yet.
Whirlwind wrote: Quite possibly, but there are other possibilities too. It could be a hedging of bets thing that *if* a large section of the community do reject the new rules then they may just switch to HH and hence they keep the expenditure. HH could then quietly include aliens and all may be well for GW. Alternatively there could be a massive hand bag fight internally over the issue and this is the way GW are saying we're in round 3 and there are no knockouts yet, please come back later.
Hedge their bets? If the last 30 years have proved nothing, it is that 40K players will put up with bad rules just to push their cool space fantasy miniatures around. You make it sound like 7th Ed was the pinnacle of wargaming rules. It was just the last (and to most, familiar) set of rules.*
Haven't played since 3rd and haven't played regularly since Rogue Trader. Have a table full of stuff prepping for SWA. Bought a Start Collecting Tau box and numerous other 'cool' stuff from GW in the decades since I last played a game. 8th looks to be the version that sucks me (and people like me) back in.
Iain.
* When John Lennon was asked if Ringo was the best drummer ever, Lennon responded he wasn't even the best drummer in the Beatles. Even on this thread there are many people calling 7th Ed a dumpster fire, not that it is. There was 6 versions of 40K before the current one. This too has happened before, six times.
Yup. Right here. My group has been on the bench since 4th edition. Too many changes, too many dumb rules, too many special rules, too many heavy handed nerfs, too much power creep.
The ork players loved it until 5th, as did the Tyranid players.
The crap non Eldar players have gotten in 7th makes you want to hit GWHQ with a MOAB. Too many random charts, too many random rolls. You don't know how far you can run, how hard it will be to use powers, if you can use powers ta ll, too many LOS games, True LOS is just bad. Oh, I can see his bolt gun tip, I can shoot his squad! Hell, even the way wounds and saves are allocated is just bad.
yes, AOS this game, hit it hard. Make it fun. Rogue Trader was great, but it was a tiny skirmish game. At least 2nd and 3rd had character. 5-7th has been an abomination on gaming.
I've read the financial reports and the investor packs - they don't say any of what you've suggested. If I missed something please feel free to share the exact quotes.
Overall this whole thing is great news. The entire community I have access to has burst into raucous discussion.
Dakka, reddit, 4chan, facebook, everywhere people are talking and excited, and the people who are nay saying are almost completely drowned out.
JohnnyHell wrote: Indeed. I know a company won't ever shout "We're screwed" but they have shareholders and can't lie repeatedly to them, and have been saying "we grew sales" quite a lot. Even if they sold them to fewer people as everyone apparently rage quit after End Times. They seem to have built a thriving new system, and are about to bolster their sales of their top earner. Good times in Nottingham. Seems the only narrative some folk want to forge is of a dwindling, incompetent GW when the last 18 months has shown quite the reverse.
That's not quite true when you look at relative sales by volume. For the most part sales is done by value. I did a bit of a detailed analysis of the last financial return a while ago but in summary. At constant currency at the end of AoS year there was big drop in sales and profit was largely bolstered by TW:W franchise, Vermintide and Mordheim games to name a few. IIRC correctly it was about 20-30% drop in total sales. As most other things were equal it was constant currency these are largely attributed to decline in sales by volume. The last financial forecast saw a large jump in sales by value, however once you looked at it in constant currency terms (i.e. ignoring the UKs populace's desire to trash the £) then sales were no where near as robust and showed only a modest increase (about 10% IIRC). As such by volume GW haven't recovered but sales by value have but that's largely due to exports and despite the tanking £ keeping prices the same for everyone (ergo they get more UK £'s for each $ or Euro).
It is unlikely that GW will want to see the same issues as AoS brought them (they've pretty much acknowledged the issues in the 40kFAQ) so hence it is not beyond the possibilities that they will want to protect against it some what. It may be that they are doing this keeping 30K as it is "just in case". It may be that "40k lite" is a roaring success and they can bring forward 30k into the 40k ruleset, but it could be deemed financially prudent to give existing players that don't like the changes another *GW* outlet.
Ah you mean, the badly done analysis you did?
Also, this is from last year's half year report:
Spoiler:
Sales
Reported sales fell by 2.2% to £55.3 million for the period. On a constant currency basis, sales were
up by 0.7% from £56.5 million to £56.9 million; split by channel this comprised: retail £23.0 million
(2014: £23.4 million), trade £22.3 million (2014: £22.0 million) and mail order £11.6 million (2014:
£11.1 million).
Retail
This channel showed growth in non-core retail but was offset by declines in our core retail business.
However on a constant currency basis sales were broadly in line with last year. We opened, including
relocations, 22 one man store format stores and three multi man format stores in the period. We also
started our trial of four multi man format stores in high footfall locations; Sydney, Munich, Paris and
Copenhagen. After closing 13 stores, our net total number of stores at the end of the period is 430.
The key priority is store manager recruitment. On 9 November 2015, I appointed an expert in
recruitment to my management team. This person will ensure we have a constant supply of retail store
managers and trade recruiters and account developers. She will also work with me to review our
global people strategy.
Trade
All key territories were broadly in line with last year. In the period, our net number of trade outlets
increased by 61 accounts.
To broaden our core trade product reach, in the period, we have designed a small new product range
and are at present actively signing up distribution agents to sell this product into North America. We
continue to work on other product formats to optimise other opportunities.
Mail order
Sales in our online shops were up 5.3%.
Full year.
Spoiler:
Retail sales fell by 1.3 % in the year (-0.4% at constant currency). Our underlying performance was -4.4%, which was mostly offset by the
contribution from 33 net new stores and our new visitor centre delivering 100% growth.
Our underlying performance in our own stores to January 2016 wasn’t good enough. I made some changes in our in-country retail support
structure to address the decline. Our flat management structure did not support the complexity of managing 149 stores across 14 countries
in Continental Europe. In January 2016 we moved to a country based solution. We now have four territory managers;
Germany/Scandinavia, Netherlands, France and Spain/Italy. We are also piloting five training stores in North America. These training stores
are run as profitable stores. To reduce travel time and cost we now send our new recruits for their initial training to one of these stores.
We are launching a new skills based training programme at our August 2016 global retail workshops.
Trade
Sales increased by 0.1% during the year (-0.7% at constant currency). Our new trade team for accounts in the UK and Continental Europe
has settled in well and made some progress in the year. Sales in North America were broadly in line with last year. We have also updated
our trade product range in June 2016 to ensure we provide our stockist accounts with our best sellers.
Mail order
Sales fell by 1.8% (-1.6% at constant currency). Sales of our Forge World range grew by 28% offset by a 12% decline in our Citadel range. In
the first half of 2016/17 we will be making a change to our home page; removing complexity and adding a deeper introduction to our
worlds. We are committed to continuous investment in our web store shopping experience.
During the year we successfully migrated our web data centre to a new location in North America
So that makes a global -2.7 decrease in sales at constant currency and factoring everything for 2015-2016 as a whole. Twenty percent decrease in sales is a made up value. Only holding up the argument of the citadel reduction once you remember that the 2014-2015 period was when a lot of new kits and books for 40k were released (skitarii, cult mechanicus, new eldar codex, necrons got updates), in addition to the end times events,
streetsamurai wrote: I don't think that 30k is nearly big enough to be a safety valve in case 40k 8th edition falter.
I agree.
I think Forgeworld are hedging their bets. If this new version of the game takes off they will convert over to it, if not they will release their own core rulebook based on 6th/7th which is compatable with the existing HH books.
But if 8th flops not enough people will switch over to 30K to keep GW afloat. And that's the big gamble GW are taking. If this flops like AoS did on arrival then they are in for some very rough times financially.
Whirlwind wrote: Quite possibly, but there are other possibilities too. It could be a hedging of bets thing that *if* a large section of the community do reject the new rules then they may just switch to HH and hence they keep the expenditure. HH could then quietly include aliens and all may be well for GW. Alternatively there could be a massive hand bag fight internally over the issue and this is the way GW are saying we're in round 3 and there are no knockouts yet, please come back later.
Hedge their bets? If the last 30 years have proved nothing, it is that 40K players will put up with bad rules just to push their cool space fantasy miniatures around. You make it sound like 7th Ed was the pinnacle of wargaming rules. It was just the last (and to most, familiar) set of rules.*
Haven't played since 3rd and haven't played regularly since Rogue Trader. Have a table full of stuff prepping for SWA. Bought a Start Collecting Tau box and numerous other 'cool' stuff from GW in the decades since I last played a game. 8th looks to be the version that sucks me (and people like me) back in.
Iain.
* When John Lennon was asked if Ringo was the best drummer ever, Lennon responded he wasn't even the best drummer in the Beatles. Even on this thread there are many people calling 7th Ed a dumpster fire, not that it is. There was 6 versions of 40K before the current one. This too has happened before, six times.
And people keep giving them their money. Blind obedience is all some people know.
I'm still trying to see how people think this is going to "flop like AoS" when they're basically taking the parts people like about what AoS has become and leaving out the stuff that people didn't.
I'll be honest. I haven't enjoyed GW for the past 10-15 years, but I don't think 40K can flop. I think sales could drop off a bit, or people could throw a fit and leave...but 40K is always going to attract people.
I mean...people play 7th edition. It's terrible, but loads of people play it. As long as they don't kill the fluff and people can still buy Space Marines, I can't see 40K going anywhere (drastically).
Elbows wrote: I'll be honest. I haven't enjoyed GW for the past 10-15 years, but I don't think 40K can flop. I think sales could drop off a bit, or people could throw a fit and leave...but 40K is always going to attract people.
I mean...people play 7th edition. It's terrible, but loads of people play it. As long as they don't kill the fluff and people can still buy Space Marines, I can't see 40K going anywhere (drastically).
Not only that, but there was a poll in 40K Discussion a while back, and a high number of respondents answered that if 8th was gak they'd still likely keep playing.
You can't buy that sort of loyalty, even if it left me shaking my head.
It makes sense for GW to try and snare more people by doing their best to make 8th a good game, but it doesn't seem a prerequisite for it to succeed.
So, regarding the disappearance of Khorne Daemonkin. I highly doubt they'll disappear. As they are yes, but I highly think that down the road the World Eaters are going to get a share of plastic love, alongside the rest of traitor legions. At the end of the day, they'll rework marine/daemon relations and deals and it will be more or less the same as the defunct faction under a different name.
LightKing wrote: So i assume the Nu-Marines are a result of the Imperium having access to Roboute's gene-seed again along with Cawl's new machinations?
For all we know this could well be Guilliman instaurating a deathwatch equivalent and give them all new-toys. Would like the concept, to be honest, if they add some twist to it.
So aside from explaining international business to an ecommerce professional (thanks), you do agree that GW are not dwindling or incompetent? Cos that was the point of my post.
I'm slightly confused, When did I ever say they were? In fact in some ways you could argue the opposite because if they are intending to see how things go and try and capture those that might leave with 30k then surely that shows competence and not repeating prior mistakes?
All I was trying to highlight that there may numerous reasons why GW aren't changing 30k to 40k rules immediately of which one the idea of even the possibility of the idea some people might not like the changes seems to have stirred up a hornets nest to put it mildly and politely and as requested by the mods I'll leave it there.
There's been a lot of chatter about templates going away. That image "screams" starter box, but who knows. Definitely another bit of suggestive evidence that templates might not make the cut.
It feels after so long that GW are at least trying to listen to us, and try to make the game... fun.
I knew coming back into the hobby after 15 years was a good thing!
LightKing wrote: So i assume the Nu-Marines are a result of the Imperium having access to Roboute's gene-seed again along with Cawl's new machinations?
As a wise man once said "to assume it to make an ASS out of U and ME".
I don't think anything is changing with the geneseed, it will be purely an armour change. One that may not even be acknowledged.
It feels after so long that GW are at least trying to listen to us, and try to make the game... fun.
I knew coming back into the hobby after 15 years was a good thing!
Wait for an actual release before getting excited there
streetsamurai wrote: I don't think that 30k is nearly big enough to be a safety valve in case 40k 8th edition falter.
I agree.
I think Forgeworld are hedging their bets. If this new version of the game takes off they will convert over to it, if not they will release their own core rulebook based on 6th/7th which is compatable with the existing HH books.
But if 8th flops not enough people will switch over to 30K to keep GW afloat. And that's the big gamble GW are taking. If this flops like AoS did on arrival then they are in for some very rough times financially.
I think your giving Forgeworld far too much credit, they're just slow at writing rules as the eternally delayed Fires of Cyraxis showes.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
thenewgozoku wrote: What was that about leman Russ and legions on that video;
It's all sound snippets from the preview videos for the Gathering Storm campaign and Wrath of Magnus, there wasn't actually anything new being said.
streetsamurai wrote: I don't think that 30k is nearly big enough to be a safety valve in case 40k 8th edition falter.
I agree.
I think Forgeworld are hedging their bets. If this new version of the game takes off they will convert over to it, if not they will release their own core rulebook based on 6th/7th which is compatable with the existing HH books.
But if 8th flops not enough people will switch over to 30K to keep GW afloat. And that's the big gamble GW are taking. If this flops like AoS did on arrival then they are in for some very rough times financially.
I think your giving Forgeworld far too much credit, they're just slow at writing rules as the eternally delayed Fires of Cyraxis showes.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
thenewgozoku wrote: What was that about leman Russ and legions on that video;
It's all sound snippets from the preview videos for the Gathering Storm campaign and Wrath of Magnus, there wasn't actually anything new being said.
Inferno would have been rushed out to get it out long enough before 8th ed so that it wasn't entirely wasted. Fires of Cyraxes was probably to close and got put on the rewrite heap due to 8th ed, possibly even scrapped altogether (unlikely).
LightKing wrote: So i assume the Nu-Marines are a result of the Imperium having access to Roboute's gene-seed again along with Cawl's new machinations?
As a wise man once said "to assume it to make an ASS out of U and ME".
I don't think anything is changing with the geneseed, it will be purely an armour change. One that may not even be acknowledged.
Didn't Hastings chip in to say "it's not just the armour that's changing"?
Basically that stockists have been warned they will not be refunded for a list of items becoming obsolete, and templates are on there.
Makes sense, no templates in AoS. Templates have become near useless these days between cover, scatter, and the inherent spacing increases of bases for unit cohesion. If they're taking the true "unit" approach to combat, then templates don't make sense any longer.
LightKing wrote: So i assume the Nu-Marines are a result of the Imperium having access to Roboute's gene-seed again along with Cawl's new machinations?
As a wise man once said "to assume it to make an ASS out of U and ME".
I don't think anything is changing with the geneseed, it will be purely an armour change. One that may not even be acknowledged.
Didn't Hastings chip in to say "it's not just the armour that's changing"?
If they are more than a new armour mark, the colours and chapter/unit makings make it fairly clear that there closely tied to the existing(Ultra) Marines. Hopefully there background is something more interesting than Astares V2.
Unfortunately that is what they last said a month or 2 ago, and I seriously doubt it would change in that short time.
One of my main dislikes of AoS as a whole is the morale system... but then I also dislike how 99% of the time it might as well not exist in 40k too so swings and roundabouts.
rollawaythestone wrote: Massively excited. I'm glad they had the courage to break the Codex cycle and start fresh. There is no other way to achieve more reasonable balance between factions than design them all together in parallel. It's a painful bandaid to pull as we all have new books that won't be used for rules, but it's a potentially awesome step if it leads to more balance between armies.
Could not agree more. I left during 6th after playing exclusively 40k since 1997. I could no longer keep up with what I perceived as bloat and confusion. I have never played AoS but I believe a streamlining of the game and abandoning of codexes will be a good step. I cannot figure out a realistic solution to such a problem outside of a comprehensive overhaul l.
RoboDragon wrote: Skitarii seem to have been rolled into ad mech on the new website. Would absolutely love to see this faction expanded, hopefully its in the pipeline.
Excellent. It's how they should be.
@ Matt.Kingsley
If it makes morale more important in the game then I'm all in favour of it.
I am liking what I am seeing, so far I can't think of a single negative thing to say. GW have finally realized they need to scrap the rules and listen to community feedback, I am sure it hurts having your rulebooks made invalid, but the health of the game needed it. Plus the fun jabs at themselves show they don't take themselves so seriously anymore. Having a website dedicated to 40k that isn't a store is awesome and continues in the right direction that GW have been going lately. There is a pretty good chance I'll be picking up 40k again if the changes come even close to my expectations. The fact that Skitarii have been rolled into Admech means they have a good chance of being the army I build.
Warhammer 40,000: Active War Zones wrote: The fortress world of Cadia Prime--once the keystone of the Imperium's defense against the Chaos hordes of the Eye of Terror--was smashed into submission by Abaddon the Despoiler. Its ruined remains still lie at the heart of the Cadian Sector, a talismanic prize that the Imperium would dearly love to reclaim.
Awwwww yeah, sonny jim.
Round two. Ring the bell.
Ding-ding.
BTW:
Spoiler:
Anyone seen this art before?
Because that looks like Cawl, with the Cadian 8th's Regimental Standard...
Love it. As for the rules system as a whole including codexes, it was only ever going to have a chance if they scrapped the whole system and wrote new points values and rules. It needed to be quietly taken out to the woods and shot.
However... I'm not that naive to think that i won't be paying for rules in the future, or dealing with those formations that give rules advantages if you buy x of such and such model. But i can maybe hope for some equality between the armies or at least a shakeup. I just love it when people go out and buy crap because it's 'competitive' and then it goes out of style overnight.
As for the Nu-Marines... bring it on, i hope they're roughly in scale with Dark Vengeance chosen. To those that doubt vehicles will increase in size... go take a look at the original model for a Land Raider. They want a completely new world, it's all following the model of what they're doing in AOS.
I just realized that this is timed perfectly to coincide with Dawn of War 3. A smart move on GW's part for once. Particularly creating an actual website that helps people understand the lore, universe, and factions, and isn't just one big webcart.
rollawaythestone wrote: I just realized that this is timed perfectly to coincide with Dawn of War 3. A smart move on GW's part for once. Particularly creating an actual website that helps people understand the lore, universe, and factions, and isn't just one big webcart.
To be fair, they had all that when Dawn of War 1 came out. GW's website circa 2003-2007 or so was actually pretty good on that sort of thing. Whoever was in charge of that whole dismantling should never be allowed near IT or marketing operations ever again.
Generally, from most tales of ex employees, the internal corporate part of GW has always been something of a complete shitshow outside of the plastics design and manufacturing stuff.
Go get a refund, as you are entitled to as a consumer.
How so? The codexes are no less fit for purpose than they were before this announcement. The fact that a new edition doesn't continue to use existing books doesn't mean that you can't continue to use them for the ruleset for which they were actually written.
joseph_curwen wrote: ... one of the biggest criticisms of 'AoS,' in the beginning was THEY'RE MAKING AOS JUST LIKE 40K.
That was never one of the biggest criticisms of AoS. I don't think I ever heard anyone make that claim at all. The biggest criticisms of AoS were to do with the lack of points, the stupid rules, Sigmarines, the apparent scale creep, and the killing off WHFB in favour of a completely different game.
So far, we've been told that 8th edition is keeping points costs, we have no evidence one way or another regarding whether or not we'll need to pretend to be the Lord of the Dance in order to successfully cast Pavane of Slaanesh, we've been shown up-scaled Marines on their way, and that FAQ tells us that the game is still 'recognisably still Warhammer 40,000'... which may mean that it plays similarly to the current game, and may just mean that it has Space Marines in it.
So, a bit of a mixed bag, really. All we can really say for sure that they've learnt from the AoS release is that their customers want points costs.
"So, a bit of a mixed bag, really. All we can really say for sure that they've learnt from the AoS release is that their customers want points costs. "
GW wrote the FAQ, I mean come on, they aren't going to intentionally say anything bad about the new system right? So we are taking their word in all their answers. Ultimately units/armies will be less and less supported as new models come out and I am sure there will be rules imported from AoS that folks don't like, especially those that don't care for AoS. GW's response though is its going to be awesome- which it should be, they want to sell us on their new system and take our money.
There are datasheets available for every miniature that Games Workshop releases, which will give you an idea of how each unit works on the battlefield.
Then, the Red Whippy Stick was no longer in the box...
Then, came a day without Templates...
Are you telling me that we may someday have a starter box without useless or redundant plastic crap, filled only with spectacular miniatures? What has the world come to?
I still have mixed feelings. I'm glad GW for once decided to actually announce a new edition rather than just going quiet for several months then surprising us. I'm glad they are making a brand new edition rather than just another revision of 3rd edition.
I'm worried about the "bespoke rules", AoS style morale system and in general this feeling like Age of SigmarGuilliman: 40,000.
joseph_curwen wrote: ... one of the biggest criticisms of 'AoS,' in the beginning was THEY'RE MAKING AOS JUST LIKE 40K.
That was never one of the biggest criticisms of AoS. I don't think I ever heard anyone make that claim at all.
I made the criticism that they were killing a game that had a style unique from 40k and thus more likely to appeal to people who don't love 40k already and replacing it with a system that is more likely to appeal to people who already like or would have liked 40k.
Though I never said they were making AoS "just like" 40k. There's a distinction between what I think is a game that is likely to appeal to a similar audience and a game that is "just like" another game.
I have the tendency to get just about every codex I can get. Missed the bandwagon on stuff like Sanctus Reach and Baal, them not being full codices and my interests floating elsewhere at the time, but I do have Traitor's Hate, Traitor Legions, Wrath of Magnus, the three Gathering Storms, Imperial Agents, etc. Then this anouncement made them all into just fluff-books, what rules there are in them will be invalidated in days, weeks, months, but "soon" anyways. Do I feel miffed? No, I still have great fluff-books. But yes, I would have loved for a little more mileage there on the rules parts. I know I can always stick to 7th (6th, 5th, heck, I even have the original Rogue Trader at home, and not some anniversary reprint if I want to go back an edition or seven...). However, I chose to buy them anyways, and I have seen a few edition changes already, so this didn't come as a surprise. To say I will now suddenly turn my back to a hobby I have had for quite a few years... Nah. Too much fun still to be had. I am currently working on a Tyranid force. Perhaps this new edition might have them hit the table and Schmataghlap knows even win a round or two.
Like Tzeentch, I am not a die-hard conservative man. Unlike it, I can be utilizing my own version of the Stubborn special rule from time to time. This doesn't stop me from acknowledging that sometimes change is good. If the bloat can be cut, the rules streamlined, even through some part of AoSsification, and I can still have a fun game with friends, bring it on! Right now I have played more games of AoS than I ever did Fantasy Battles. When Warhammer 40K gets a complete overhaul, maybe adressing a couple of balance issues at the same time, I might even see a tournament again, while now avoiding them like the newest Nurglish Plague because of the generally WAAC attitudes of most (not all, I know) players there. At least in those that I have seen, and where the fun was absolutely manhandled out of there. Besides, free Core rules online. What's not to like about that? You can get 'em, test 'em, and like or dislike 'em. And then choose whether or not you would spend extra money on GW, or bring all that hard earned cash to different companies.
Not sure about the Nu-Marines. Honestly, I don't even know what they are. There is this image floating around, to which the maker admitted it to be a conversion, yet the Marine shown has quite a few uncanny similarities with what we see in the newer image, where some bigger-looking Space Marines are being painted. Interestingly, though, there is also a box of Devastators near there, them looking like the current size and adding, perhaps erroneously so, the assumption the parts are still interchangeable. For all I know, these 'new' Marines might just be 'old' Marines who just learned how to stand straight, as opposed to the spread-legs-pose most Marines have now. This besides some actual scale increase over the years. My guess is to just wait and see. They might indeed be a completely new unit with bigger Marines under the influence of some Guilliman Juice. It does, however, have another effect.
With the questions raised about a possible new size for Space Marines in general (more like the true-scale Marines), I know of at least three people who are now waiting for a release, or at least a statement with solid info, before buying any more boxes of 'old' Marines. They wanted to start collecting, building and painting a Space Marines force, from a small Armageddon force to an entire Battle Company. Like me, they are now holding back a bit. While three people, four including myself, holding back buying Space Marines a bit isn't going to plummet GW sales to the negative numbers, can the same be said if all of a sudden 400, or 4.000 people do so, or (gasp) maybe even 40.000 people? The same goes for Death Guard. I have a ton of parts (some GW, some FW, some Spellcrow) in the basement, to build a (Traitor Legions style) Death Guard force. Will the new Death Guard Plage Marines fit into that, size-wise? Wait and see, but also holding back any purchases until I have a bit more clarity. I know the missus enjoys that train of thought, though. And it allows me to focus more on building and painting what I already have, like every box of Tyranids I find in the basement... However, in this I also limit myself to a lot of the more basic troops, stuff one can expect not to change too much. But even then, not knowing how stuff will work in the new edition causes me to hold back building everything. Imagine what happens (youtube will likely show us) if all of a sudden Grav weapons are dumbed down to what is now effectively a slightly stringer Boltgun? I know of quite a few Space Marine players who suddenly converted all their Devastators to have Grav Cannons, their bikers to carry Gravguns, and their Sergeants to have a Grav Pistol. And they didn't use magnets to make all those options fully interchangeable.
Some time ago, just before the first rumours started to appear about a new edition of WH40K, I began work on a Word document which I titled "Warhammer 41.000" and looking back I noticed I made that into a mish-mash of current edition rules, a bit of Rogue Trader stuff (vehicles with Toughness and armour saves, etc.) and one or two things I came up with myself. I never finished it, and right now I doubt I will, waiting for the new rules to become available. Like me, others have started their own versions, or left for different pastures, some greener, some more disappointing. Good for them, good for me, good for you. I like to think there isn't a better game, just a different game. In the end, a lot of this is dependent on your vision, your expectations, and through those your opinion of a game. I appreciate how a lot of people agree to disagree and show a healthy dose of respect for other people's opinions, even if those differ from their own. People can and do like AoS. They are not dumb for it, nor are they better 'because they moved on'. They just enjoy a different game/new version. The same will be applicable to the new edition of WH40K. It will be new, if will be different. Some will like it, some don't already.
Anybody else notice how the GW webstore has a separate section in the WH40K area labeled as "Dawn Of War III" ? Of course, it shows all manner of models likely available in DOW III, but I just noticed that.
Though it seems slightly off-topic, I noticed somewhere in this thread that the 'dumb kiddies rules' (own interpretation) were removed in AoS. I also noticed that the warscrolls PDF's on the GW webstore were not updated, so using those one still has to pretend to be riding a horse, and even speak to it to gain several bonuses for Marius, or to compare beards and such to strengthen Dwarves. Fortunately, and more on topic, I haven't noticed anything about that in the new WH40K and the soon to be available rules for all current models. Of course, this might still be the case, as there is too little information to ascertain 'silly rules'. Also, I could half-heartedly assume such 'silly rules' to slip into the warscrolls/dataslates for the Orks army, given their more hillarious and less-than-serious treatement in previous installments of the game. We'll just wait and see, and hope their still being there in AoS isn't an indication they will be there in the new WH40K.
joseph_curwen wrote: ... one of the biggest criticisms of 'AoS,' in the beginning was THEY'RE MAKING AOS JUST LIKE 40K.
That was never one of the biggest criticisms of AoS.
Yes, it was - well, let's slightly rephrase it: the actual complaint was, "they're making WHFB just like 40k." (This criticism was leveled by WHFB players, while complaints about the lack of points and the "prance around like you're mad" type rules came from 40k players as well and thus were all the louder on Dakka Dakka.) In truth, GW totally threw out WHFB in favor of a version of 40k that had been evolving since the end of 5E - that's what AoS is ... and 8E seems like it will be the natural continuation of that same line of development, with the lessons of AoS all baked in.
There are datasheets available for every miniature that Games Workshop releases, which will give you an idea of how each unit works on the battlefield.
So, "Warscrolls" confirmed to Warhammer40k.
I mean, Datasheets is what they call the current format for individual unit rules anyway, so it really doesn't indicate anything.
That said if they are going the AoS route then I wouldn't be surprised if units got free rules online sans points.
They could still be keeping the codex system long term but in the short term release rules, a la Ravening Hordes back in, ummm, was it 6th edition WHFB? They released free rules for everything but then slowly replaced them with regular Codices/Army books.
I'm kind of 50/50 on whether I want free rules, GHB or codices. I prefer codices, but with GW's poor rules writing the Codex system means if you get a crappy codex you're stuck with it for agggges, and if you get multiple bad codices one after another it makes you hate the world.
I like the Battletome/GHB regime - you can get a cool hardcover army book with cool scenarios, fluff, and art while the cheap GHB is accessible and makes for more agile rules development.
"Agile rules development" is not something I really find appealing except in the situation where the first stab at the rules is terrible (or in 40k's case, the first 7 stabs at the rules).
Expensive scenario books like AoS has don't appeal to me at all.
It's going to be free rules, with free unit datasheets. The Codex will be full of well written fluff and new artwork, with some cool battalions and formations. Welcome to AoS, it's awesome.
And those that want to take their ball home in tears because 40k is using ideas from AoS, fantastic, enjoy community supported 7th and bitter moaning.
Yeah considering how bad AoS was for me, and how it killed the game I WANTED to play. I dunno. Feels like going in for a tonsillectomy that's going to be performed rectally. And that's the nicest and cleanest way I can describe my dread.
Pariah-Miniatures wrote: You'd have to be a complete moron to go out and buy anything for any faction until they release the new edition and army rules.
Gw should be taking a sizable hit until then, hope they thought about that since they openly said all books will be invalidated with the new system. In other words, stupid people come buy stuff and assemble things that may not be great lol
Darn, I guess my Eldar project will be postponed. Good by, cheesy tournament list.
I am extremely happy they didn't change 30k, I just ordered Inferno. Also bigger marines/CSM will be awesome, as Im currently trying to GS legs to make the CSM taller. Their nearly a head shorter than BoP legs, and nearly TWO heads shorter than the new Rubricae (the best marines GW makes).
Lord Xcapobl wrote: The same will be applicable to the new edition of WH40K. It will be new, if will be different. Some will like it, some don't already.
Look at the "stat line" in AoS. Dollars to dougnuts say the 40k unit stat line gets changed to something nearly identical to that.
This is exactly what 40k needs. The current mess is basically unplayable, with obvious horrible balance, a million codexes to keep up with, lots of stupid rules that just makes the game take even more time than before +++
New marines look great, wonder if I should sell all my old marines now?
Illumini wrote: New marines look great, wonder if I should sell all my old marines now?
I'd wait to see them side by side before making any decisions. If the scale isn't "that" different then selling and rebuying may be an expensive waste of effort. Also, it'll take a decade or more for the entire range to be properly updated, if that is even the intent.
Illumini wrote: This is exactly what 40k needs. The current mess is basically unplayable, with obvious horrible balance, a million codexes to keep up with, lots of stupid rules that just makes the game take even more time than before +++
New marines look great, wonder if I should sell all my old marines now?
Only if you are absolutely sure that the new Marines are a full army in their own right and not part of a re-organised Space Marine army.
Then again, could be a good idea to get the best prices now before there is a glut in the second hand market for Marines.
I've not been a customer of GW's for six years and they're finally getting me back. It was pretty much a direct result of their actual communication with their customers. Their sharing of ideas from Age of Sigmar that are likely to appear in the new 40k got me taking a closer look at Age of Sigmar and GW's current approach to their customers and their games. The end result is that I liked what I saw and will finally be a GW customer again.
From their site:
Active war zones: Ultramar, Damocles Baal, Armageddon, Fenris, Cadia
Do you think these will become the analogues to the realms in Age of Sigmar? That the rules will say things like
"First you should decide in which of the six active warzones the battle will take place. For example, you might decide that your battle will take place on Cadia. Sometimes you’ll need to know this in order to use certain abilities. If you can’t agree on the warzone, roll a dice, and whoever rolls highest decides."
That's copied text out of the Age of Sigmar rules with a simple replacement of realms with warzones and realm of fire with Cadia. Think we'll see that much of an analogue?
(Yawn)
40k's been boring for me as a rule set for a while. I really hope they deliver on their promise for interesting new mechanics (movement value and reworked combat initiative won't do it though sorry...).
The Nu-cast marine-ternals equivalent () are what they are - a new SM model range for new players to get on the 40k boat (I guess really old ones could get the refreshment too). I doubt that most of the current players with a SM force will go even for the long process of replacement much less for a sudden whole sale replacement.
Coming to think about it, it may be possible that only several kits are released, you know in the manner of recent AoS releases where and army consists of 3 new kits with weapon options... in which case everyone wins as they'd be easy to integrate in existing armies.
The whole new GW business is dust in the eyes - don't expect matters to change for they cannot change fundamentally. You'll still be buying premium citadel figures at premium prices prices are still and will go up mind you), certain units will be undercosted and will dominate tournaments and thus the more casual net listers, once per year you'll be shedding 20 quid for the general's handbook and if you were buying your own codices you still will (5 quid cheaper perhaps). What has changed apparently is that a select few gamers in England will be easing up the design studio's work and will be moulding the rules through their communities and facebook's requests (all warped through their personal prisms ofcourse). I'm not saying it is bad or something - an expanded team of QAs and assistant designers is a good thing IMO. Advertisements have gone from release day site banners to early sneak peak video previews and painting videos. The company, its goals and for the most part price politics remain the same only this time the new edition's advertisement campaign is much, better.
What else can I say? New edition of the same old game, heroic music and trailers, all gamers are holding their breath, the old company you all loved is returning triumphant - GW's PR team has gotten us all by the balls
AllSeeingSkink wrote: They could still be keeping the codex system long term but in the short term release rules, a la Ravening Hordes back in, ummm, was it 6th edition WHFB? They released free rules for everything but then slowly replaced them with regular Codices/Army books.
I'm kind of 50/50 on whether I want free rules, GHB or codices. I prefer codices, but with GW's poor rules writing the Codex system means if you get a crappy codex you're stuck with it for agggges, and if you get multiple bad codices one after another it makes you hate the world.
Well, AoS has all three.
For those who just want to play, the Warscrolls are free - and it seems a decent bet 40k will do the same.
For those who want a bit of background with their battle, you've got the Battle Tomes - which contain all the rules for that army.
And the Battle Tomes are still being developed as they go. The earliest ones have been replaced - Stormcast Eternals and Khorne Bloodbound, with more comprehensive volumes.
And the Warscrolls are easily updated for purposes of balance. But I guess for many GHB2 is going to be the real test, because it's promising to tweak the balance where needed, including points adjustment.
For me, it's worked out pretty well for AoS, but of course other opinions are available (just be aware there's those weighing in who've never actually played AoS. They're pretty evident to someone that has played it). So in theory, the days of 'look it's been six years. Please just update my Nids' are gone - and importantly it's all so far been based on player feedback.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: "Agile rules development" is not something I really find appealing except in the situation where the first stab at the rules is terrible (or in 40k's case, the first 7 stabs at the rules).
Expensive scenario books like AoS has don't appeal to me at all.
40k already has expensive scenario books, the difference is that in 40k they contain vital info that you need to play a certain army, while in AoS they only have narrative scenarios and battalions which means you won't buy them if you only play Matched Play.
(*To be clear, I do still hate the changes to the setting that they made but they've already stated that '40k' won't be going through a similar upheaval so I'm left being relatively optimistic.)
Will it not? I'm unconvinced. I think the lesson GW took from the End Times/AoS launch debacle was "boil the frog slowly and it won't notice until it's too late", not "don't boil the frog at all they don't like it" - GW will want to take 40K in a similar direction fluffwise as they have AoS, because it enables them to have a much more convenient(for them) release model: release small, self-contained new minifactions and let them sink or swim without affecting anything. They'll do it over a longer period than End Times, and they won't literally blow up reality itself at the end, but the result will be the same - a lighter, less grim, more fluid ongoing soap opera narrative with the focus on an ever-changing core cast of Big Damn Heroes(all of which will be available to buy as HUEG plastic kids, natch). The Eldar changes are just the beginning I think, they'll be going through each wider faction and making changes to remove the sense of impending doom that permeated 40K as a setting until all the factions are simultaneously resurgent in their own ways and a new status quo is established that they can change at-will without having to care about thirty years of material foreshadowing an apocalypse.
frozenwastes wrote: I've not been a customer of GW's for six years and they're finally getting me back. It was pretty much a direct result of their actual communication with their customers. Their sharing of ideas from Age of Sigmar that are likely to appear in the new 40k got me taking a closer look at Age of Sigmar and GW's current approach to their customers and their games. The end result is that I liked what I saw and will finally be a GW customer again.
From their site:
Active war zones: Ultramar, Damocles Baal, Armageddon, Fenris, Cadia
Do you think these will become the analogues to the realms in Age of Sigmar? That the rules will say things like
"First you should decide in which of the six active warzones the battle will take place. For example, you might decide that your battle will take place on Cadia. Sometimes you’ll need to know this in order to use certain abilities. If you can’t agree on the warzone, roll a dice, and whoever rolls highest decides."
That's copied text out of the Age of Sigmar rules with a simple replacement of realms with warzones and realm of fire with Cadia. Think we'll see that much of an analogue?
Imperium, Chaos, Xenos - grand alliances?
Doubt it, those are just the Warzones from the pre-existing campaign supplements
AllSeeingSkink wrote: "Agile rules development" is not something I really find appealing except in the situation where the first stab at the rules is terrible (or in 40k's case, the first 7 stabs at the rules).
Expensive scenario books like AoS has don't appeal to me at all.
40k already has expensive scenario books, the difference is that in 40k they contain vital info that you need to play a certain army, while in AoS they only have narrative scenarios and battalions which means you won't buy them if you only play Matched Play.
as matched play is the only reason to look at AoS at all, the Battledomes are vital the same way as the campaign books
and for 8th, the Handbook and Nu-Codices will be also vital
Um really guys/gals. You really believe that GW is just gonna hand over all the rules and rules/points systems to ALL the 40 armies in production for free on a website?? You either have wishful thinking or drinking the koolaid GW wants you drink. First off YES look at AOS Age of Sigmar. GW learned real fast that it needed a point system for a game the was falling faster the then Hindenberg . Then suddenly army books started rolling out. So the first things released will be basic rules to introduce 40K . Then more rules PER ARMY. Then if you want to play with "YOUR" whole army you'll have to buy the NEW AND IMPROVED codex as they are released ONCE AGAIN!!!
GW just isn't going to "GIVE" you army list and points for every model they produced. All the time and money to pay the people working on the game system alone needs to be paid. And all the stock holders want their money too. And eventually they will release ALL the "RULES" to the game. And don't be surprised that will be a 50.00 book. ONLY the introductory rules will be free.
Bottom line GW is always and will always be about making money and finding ways of getting it out of your hands. No matter how they do it. And I promise you there will be an FAQ with in 6 months of the release of the majority of the game.
All I can say to you people praiseing this new release is either your too new, too blind to whats going on, or you work for them(GW) and just trying to pump this new 8th edition for all its work.
I have played 40k since rogue trader. I weathered rules changes after rules changes for years. I played GW Epic Space Marines, I owned most everything for the game. GW changed the rules and the game died. I played ManOwar. GW just quit supporting it all together.I also played many many other GW games over the years that just died off. Then I got into WH Fantasy. All the while still playing and enduring GWs constant rules changes for 40k.After AOS release I dropped WHF completely. And I do mean EVERYTHING. And now I'm about to have several hundreds of dollars worth of useless rules and codex books sitting in my library. Some books were just bought as recently as this year. I knew GW was gonna release 8th edition, But I didn't think they would go to this extreme with what they learned from the ABORTION called AOS. But, it looks like GW may finally cut their own throats. Remember all current tournys through out the USA are based on current point systems and most people have built their armies using those tourney rules. Think how many people ran out and bought new vehicles for their armies due to the formations in the codexs. Are these gone too???
If this is the case are the tourney managers gonna jump up and totally change their rules, or are they just gonna stick to 7th edition until GW works out all the bugs that will definitely come with a brand new rules system. And the spring/ summer time is when most tournies will be run. AND we all know how "PLAY TESTED" 40k rules are. FAQs are gonna be out within 6 months. Also Are the new rules gonna cover EVERY army currently released; I mean since our current codexs will now be useless according to GW. Do you all realize how generic this game will be. And then suddenly in a few months GW will start releasing codexs for 50.00 a pop once again. Just like they did for AOS. People of the world of 40K I feel GW is either gonna look like the Greatest show on earth. Or they may have just blown a big hole in the only part of the ship that hasent filled with water yet. GWs excuse was to make the game more affordable. Maybe they should have looked at the price of their minis first. And stuck with paper back codexs.
TO this day i'll never understand this company. Back in the day TSR and FASA were some of the big boys on the block. Look where they are now. Maybe GW is about to go the way of the dinosaur. Or become the goose that laid another golden egg. Only time will tell. But this maybe where I get off the ever turning merry go round called 40k. Good day.
Will it not? I'm unconvinced. I think the lesson GW took from the End Times/AoS launch debacle was "boil the frog slowly and it won't notice until it's too late", not "don't boil the frog at all they don't like it" - GW will want to take 40K in a similar direction fluffwise as they have AoS, because it enables them to have a much more convenient(for them) release model: release small, self-contained new minifactions and let them sink or swim without affecting anything. They'll do it over a longer period than End Times, and they won't literally blow up reality itself at the end, but the result will be the same - a lighter, less grim, more fluid ongoing soap opera narrative with the focus on an ever-changing core cast of Big Damn Heroes(all of which will be available to buy as HUEG plastic kids, natch). The Eldar changes are just the beginning I think, they'll be going through each wider faction and making changes to remove the sense of impending doom that permeated 40K as a setting until all the factions are simultaneously resurgent in their own ways and a new status quo is established that they can change at-will without having to care about thirty years of material foreshadowing an apocalypse.
Agreed - very much my own speculation on how things will go on. It will probably drag on for years (meanwhile the PR team will be working its weight in gold) and when it's done the consumer base will be completely new and in compliance with the new tone. For me - sad, but natural
Will it not? I'm unconvinced. I think the lesson GW took from the End Times/AoS launch debacle was "boil the frog slowly and it won't notice until it's too late", not "don't boil the frog at all they don't like it" - GW will want to take 40K in a similar direction fluffwise as they have AoS, because it enables them to have a much more convenient(for them) release model: release small, self-contained new minifactions and let them sink or swim without affecting anything. They'll do it over a longer period than End Times, and they won't literally blow up reality itself at the end, but the result will be the same - a lighter, less grim, more fluid ongoing soap opera narrative with the focus on an ever-changing core cast of Big Damn Heroes(all of which will be available to buy as HUEG plastic kids, natch). The Eldar changes are just the beginning I think, they'll be going through each wider faction and making changes to remove the sense of impending doom that permeated 40K as a setting until all the factions are simultaneously resurgent in their own ways and a new status quo is established that they can change at-will without having to care about thirty years of material foreshadowing an apocalypse.
Agreed - very much my own speculation on how things will go on. It will probably drag on for years (meanwhile the PR team will be working its weight in gold) and when it's done the consumer base will be completely new and in compliance with the new tone. For me - sad, but natural
I don't think it's natural at all, just inevitable. Frankly as long as they just left 40K(the setting) as-is rather than End Times'ing it I'd rather they just commit fully to the AoS-style and make an entirely different setting that meets their new needs as a company. I do quite enjoy seeing people praise GW as couragous or forward thinking for this move when the reality is it's based pretty firmly in risk-aversion and a desire to wheedle as many sales as possible out of fans of the status quo before they walk away.
The whole new GW business is dust in the eyes - don't expect matters to change for they cannot change fundamentally.
The change just needs to be in ways that matter to people (crazy idea, I know). You can sell a premium product in a way people will respond negatively or you can do it in a way that people will like. You can have your legal team send threatening letters to fan sites or you can host their efforts on your community site like with scrollbuilder.com's integration into the warhammer community site. Those are fundamentally different approaches. Customer communication is a business fundamental.
The only thing that matters if they are the changes that people actually want. That the customers respond to positively. Though there is something actually fundamentally different about giving people the base rules and free unit stats to play in open gaming compared to charging for all the rules all the time. That goes beyond just PR, that's a real difference in terms of game content being given away for no money.
past 40k approach = high up front costs and paid downloadable content AoS appraoch = free rules and then optional premium purchases
40k is going freemium.
To some that will be a very scary statement. To others it will be exactly what they are looking for.
It is though, a very fundamental difference.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
the_nightlord wrote: Um really guys/gals. You really believe that GW is just gonna hand over all the rules and rules/points systems to ALL the 40 armies in production for free on a website??
No one said anything about points systems. In fact they specifically said the update books will be for money.
GW isn't going free with 40k, they're going freemium.
ONLY the introductory rules will be free.
Is anyone really saying otherwise? Does anyone who actually plays Age of Sigmar actually think otherwise? Is this an argument against a position no one is holding?
And I promise you there will be an FAQ with in 6 months of the release of the majority of the game.
Are FAQs good now or bad now? It's so hard to tell whether or not a company either answering questions or clarifying or ammending rules is good or bad these days.
too blind to whats going on
Why can't they see!? Why can't they just get my brilliant insight and open their eyes! They wouldn't like this if they knew what I do! If they only knew... if they only knew... You remind me of me.
But I didn't think they would go to this extreme with what they learned from the ABORTION called AOS.
GW has their internal sales data for Age of Sigmar. You don't. Maybe they did learn from Age of Sigmar. Maybe Age of Sigmar, despite your colourful metaphor, accomplished the goals GW had for it. It's also possible GW learned:
1) If you're going to drastically change the setting, do it in stages, not blow up the world all at once 2) In your launch of the new edition, don't make army lists that make a joke out of people's factions during a time of uncertainty about your new product 3) Have support for multiple ways to play rather than launching an edition that doesn't have the points value and matched play support that your customers want
The Age of Sigmar launch had some seriously major errors and they seem to have recovered from them and the game is working for them going forward. So much so that pretty much everything that was said about new 40k could be said about Age of Sigmar as it currently is. From the freemium approach to the rules to specific game mechanics like bravery/battleshock. AoS is working well enough for them as a product they want to bring the approach to 40k.
Automatically Appended Next Post: In many arguments in the past, I enjoyed holding the position of being a critic of GW. To the point where I've called their customers chumps and suckers-- for which I now apologize. I must admit it is refreshing to actually have a positive appraisal of what they are doing for once. It's almost surreal.
Old codex's are often worth holding on to for the background IMO. One of the things that does have me concerned in the 8th announcement is the mention of "handy low cost books" for all armies. Hopefully these will be a temporary measure and full sized books complete with plenty of fluff will be on there way.
Also just noticed that the Ynnari have there own faction listing on the new site. Will GW be doing more with the spooky Eldar than making them Craftworld/Harlie/Dark Eldar combo list?
I've seen on FB they are recommending contacting customer services for recently bought codexes. Has anyone done so? Curious if they would honour a refund.
I've had traitor legions for like.. 4 months? After waiting years for good chaos rules. Invalid after 6 months is harsh. And there's not much background in it, mostly rules.
Captyn_Bob wrote: I've seen on FB they are recommending contacting customer services for recently bought codexes. Has anyone done so? Curious if they would honour a refund.
I've had traitor legions for like.. 4 months? After waiting years for good chaos rules. Invalid after 6 months is harsh. And there's not much background in it, mostly rules.
They literally have to, if you purchased recently. And not even because of 8th edition.
They have to honour the refund, at least here in Australia. Just tell them you are contacting the ombudsman, and they will give you a refund, no questions asked. It's consumer laws.
Captyn_Bob wrote: I've seen on FB they are recommending contacting customer services for recently bought codexes. Has anyone done so? Curious if they would honour a refund.
I've had traitor legions for like.. 4 months? After waiting years for good chaos rules. Invalid after 6 months is harsh. And there's not much background in it, mostly rules.
They literally have to, if you purchased recently. And not even because of 8th edition.
They have to honour the refund, at least here in Australia. Just tell them you are contacting the ombudsman, and they will give you a refhnd, no questions asked. It's consumer laws.
Depends on the timeframe though, surely. 4 months is quite a while.
Captyn_Bob wrote: I've seen on FB they are recommending contacting customer services for recently bought codexes. Has anyone done so? Curious if they would honour a refund.
I've had traitor legions for like.. 4 months? After waiting years for good chaos rules. Invalid after 6 months is harsh. And there's not much background in it, mostly rules.
They literally have to, if you purchased recently. And not even because of 8th edition.
They have to honour the refund, at least here in Australia. Just tell them you are contacting the ombudsman, and they will give you a refhnd, no questions asked. It's consumer laws.
Depends on the timeframe though, surely. 4 months is quite a while.
Oh sorry, missed the 4 months. Yeah that is a stretch. More a reference to the people who purchased in last week
I think it is still too early for a fanbase freakout. We have been give some vital info, but everything is still up in the air for now. I think in a couple months we will have their exact plan and we can judge from there. Until then, keep playing 7th and prepare your final game before the change-over.
biggie_reg wrote: I think it is still too early for a fanbase freakout. We have been give some vital info, but everything is still up in the air for now. I think in a couple months we will have their exact plan and we can judge from there. Until then, keep playing 7th and prepare your final game before the change-over.
Yes, everyone does tend to freak out at the mention of change. And nothing is stopping people from still playing 7th edition if they hate 8th so badly.
Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote: GG games workshop, thanks to three edition in as many years, not forgetting all codices and obviously supplements, you basically robbed several millions of people! Enjoy your daylight robbery!
Seriously, I'm glad i stuck with 6th anyway, otherwise i would have had to sell my house and family to follow up...
Let's hope they'll manage to change their behavor or at least produce something worthwhile.
It's such a shame that you're being forced to play a new game, and that your old models and books spontaneously caught fire this morning. :(
This is the same mentality that makes developing new OS's fething impossible. "I REFUSE TO MOVE FROM XP BECAUSE I LIKE IT" -- Fine, then use it "OH NOEZ! I'VE BEEN HAXORED! MICRO$OFT SUX" ...sigh. I deal with that gak every god damn day.
Except so far from sounds of it more apt compare would be move from windows 10 to dos 6.22
For me, it's worked out pretty well for AoS, but of course other opinions are available (just be aware there's those weighing in who've never actually played AoS. They're pretty evident to someone that has played it). So in theory, the days of 'look it's been six years. Please just update my Nids' are gone - and importantly it's all so far been based on player feedback.
I'm not sure that's fully correct and is more of an urban myth than anything. I've never found anyone with an opinion on AoS that hadn't at least tried it when it came out. I think a fairer representation would be that there are people commenting on it that only play it infrequently or only played a few times on release (and hence don't have a full understanding of the current rules). But then that's not really a surprise. After all I play Badminton but don't like Tennis, they are fundamentally the same but I find badminton more subtle than tennis so I rarely play it (I still know I don't like it though even though I may not be completely up to date with the current details of the rules). I think comments like these don't actually help some of the frothing madness that goes on when ever AoS is critically reviewed from either side. Personally I'm not a fan of AoS because it is too simplified and that I find it does not challenge the brain cells enough (but that is me and if other people enjoy it then it's all good) and *I* fear that 40k is going the same way (but I agree currently it is a bloated mess and needs streamlining). However I do understand why GW might be doing this. When I grew up, computers were rare and limited to things like a BBC and hence as child/teenager there was vastly more time to read rules, talk about with them with friends, play the games over a weekend at your friends house and so on. Today there are vastly more distractions and spending an afternoon reading a lot of rules and trying to understand how they synergise is unlikely to appeal to a large number of older children/teenagers/young adults (trying to get them to read any book is hard enough!) when there are so many other distractions available that simply weren't available in the 80's and early 90's (or were only limited to the very wealthy). Therefore GW simplifying the rules to "you can read them in half an hour" does make sense because it allows quick understanding/games in an hour or so and favours their current target audience.
It does look like that at least the core rules are going to be effectively the same as AoS given the information we have (I assume the 'rulebook' will expand on things like vehicles, flyers, bikes etc). It's interesting to note that if the picture was of the new box set that there are no vehicles/bikes/walkers etc that there have been in previous sets. That would favour the idea that the core rules might only have information on infantry (and perhaps monstrous creatures).
My main concern is that I'm wondering just how sustainable two games that are almost identical are. I don't think 40k will have to worry and isn't likely to have the same blowback as for WFB - it is still going to be a skirmish game, but if they are fundamentally the same game then I'd question why people would start AoS instead when there is a larger gaming group of 40k players to join. There's a risk that the two games cannibalise off each other.
Captyn_Bob wrote: I've seen on FB they are recommending contacting customer services for recently bought codexes. Has anyone done so? Curious if they would honour a refund.
I've had traitor legions for like.. 4 months? After waiting years for good chaos rules. Invalid after 6 months is harsh. And there's not much background in it, mostly rules.
I'm a glass half full person.
Depending on an individual's gaming circumstances, the rules section of any codex, army book, sourcebook from any company only becomes truly invalid in official competitions or, in the case of GW, their stores.
I still know people who play 40K 2nd Ed. Blood Bowl never went away. I can't find anyone willing to indulge my GorkaMorka fixation but I'm sure there are people out there who still like the rolling table scenario.
I get your point if there wasn't much background in the books you mention but some players may not want to switch to 8th Ed. Try to find or build a new community.
Old codex's are often worth holding on to for the background IMO. One of the things that does have me concerned in the 8th announcement is the mention of "handy low cost books" for all armies. Hopefully these will be a temporary measure and full sized books complete with plenty of fluff will be on there way.
Also just noticed that the Ynnari have there own faction listing on the new site. Will GW be doing more with the spooky Eldar than making them Craftworld/Harlie/Dark Eldar combo list?
I think you can expect more smaller factions and groups than there have been in the past. In some ways this has been happening for a while Genestealer Codex/Harlequins and so on where there are relatively few units per book compared to the old Codexes where you have all the army at once. So Tyranids might be broken down into different tendrils some concentrating on big gribblies, some on horde and so on. I think you should expect that some armies as a whole will be retired though and some units might disappear as they streamline things to fit into the new world. For example I wonder whether how many of the aspect warriors might survive (though it might not be impossible to see a faction based off one of the shrines). I'm suspicious that DE has an independent faction might disappear in time and become merged and so on.
Old codex's are often worth holding on to for the background IMO. One of the things that does have me concerned in the 8th announcement is the mention of "handy low cost books" for all armies. Hopefully these will be a temporary measure and full sized books complete with plenty of fluff will be on there way.
Also just noticed that the Ynnari have there own faction listing on the new site. Will GW be doing more with the spooky Eldar than making them Craftworld/Harlie/Dark Eldar combo list?
I've been buying up to date codex for years and haven't played since 5th! They are always good to have for the fluff and the artwork. With the timeline moving forward it will be nice to get a book with substantive advances.
I think they definitely will be doing more with Ynnari- Jes was talking about a richer visual style for eldar and one of the reasons driving the plot forward is it lets them bring more brand new stuff out rather than doing a slightly better/plastic version of existing models [which must get boring for the designers] which are in competition with their past incarnations.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: "Agile rules development" is not something I really find appealing except in the situation where the first stab at the rules is terrible (or in 40k's case, the first 7 stabs at the rules).
Expensive scenario books like AoS has don't appeal to me at all.
40k already has expensive scenario books, the difference is that in 40k they contain vital info that you need to play a certain army, while in AoS they only have narrative scenarios and battalions which means you won't buy them if you only play Matched Play.
as matched play is the only reason to look at AoS at all, the Battledomes are vital the same way as the campaign books
and for 8th, the Handbook and Nu-Codices will be also vital
I don't really understand what you're saying, but the Battletomes and campaign books are complete opposites. 40k has Matched Play content in both codexes and campaign books. AoS only has Matched play content in Battletomes, not in campaign books.
My main concern is that I'm wondering just how sustainable two games that are almost identical are.
Isn't that the whole Geedubmahordes plan?
A game that players can buy anything GW produce to play against anyone else that plays GW. Complaints that some of the later AoS releases could have been 40k based means it will all mesh nicely together.
As for frozenwastes comment on "freemium". I always thought that was company speak for "pay to win". Just like nu40k will. It's free, but if you buy this book with this OP formation, you can buy more of our models and win.
Rippy wrote: And nothing is stopping people from still playing 7th edition if they hate 8th so badly.
Well, other than the fact that 7th ed is rubbish.
That's the disappointment, for me. I didn't want a new game... I wanted them to fix 40K. And this, so far, is sounding like a new game.
Yeah, the thing we have here is 3 groups of people....
1. Existing 7th edition fans who are ranging from excited to scared.
2. AoS fans who are jizzing their panties over the idea of 40k becoming like AoS.
3. Old 40k fans who don't like 7th and have been desperately waiting for 40k to be fixed but may or may not think AoS'ing 40k is actually a good option.
A free ruleset is always welcome, but ultimately, the key question will be: is it any good?
AOS rules were free, but AOS turned out to be the biggest load of horsegak I'd ever had the misfortune of playing. Some of the models were quite good, though.
Still, at least I gave it a go before making a judgement.
I would advise everybody else to do the same with these new free rules and reserve judgement until you've played a game.
As for frozenwastes comment on "freemium". I always thought that was company speak for "pay to win". Just like nu40k will. It's free, but if you buy this book with this OP formation, you can buy more of our models and win.
That is the current state of the game competitively. Ditching all formations or introducing formations that you pay points for, like in AoS, would be a huge step forward for competitive play. Competitive play should be about balanced forces, because then it is about who is the better general, not who got 700 points of free stuff through using a formation.
My main concern is that I'm wondering just how sustainable two games that are almost identical are.
Isn't that the whole Geedubmahordes plan?
A game that players can buy anything GW produce to play against anyone else that plays GW. Complaints that some of the later AoS releases could have been 40k based means it will all mesh nicely together.
I think its more likely that the plan to produce one core ruleset that applies to both games (which was highlighted by quite a few people back at the early stages of the rumours of AoS) has been in the works for sometime and has always been in the plan (so makes me question just how much feedback they've listened to if this was the plan all along). I'm assuming the thinking is that with the same core ruleset it is easier for people to pick up the models for both games and that two core games was hindering people crossing over and picking up models from both games.
The risk of course with this strategy is that this doesn't happen and gamers see no reason to get into the other game because it is the same and introduces nothing above what they are already playing. It could backfire; one game or the other becomes the default choice and the other one becomes a niche choice that you only play if you happen to like those particular models. For example there is anecdotal evidence from people playing AoS that some 40k players moved across. If this was because the 40k rules were a mess but they preferentially prefer space fantasy then the introduction of the same rules for 40k may just mean these people switch straight back to 40k now it has been 'fixed' from their perspective if they are comfortable with how AoS plays (but would prefer to play with tanks and guns rather than magic/archaic tech etc).
The FAQ gives me hope that the rules won't be dumbed down to the point of AoS simplicity, which has about as much tactical nuance as Hungry Hippo. Interesting that 40K could end up as the tactical choice after Fantasy held that title for so long.
tyrannosaurus wrote: The FAQ gives me hope that the rules won't be dumbed down to the point of AoS simplicity, which has about as much tactical nuance as Hungry Hippo. Interesting that 40K could end up as the tactical choice after Fantasy held that title for so long.
It's statements like this that make it seem like people speak out on a game they've never played. I honestly don't see how AoS is less tactical than 40K, maybe less tactical than WHFB, and certainly differently tactical from 40K. Comparing it to hungry hippo or whatever children's game they can come up with just reeks of glanced at the four pages of rules maybe played a game or two before GHB and then said "f it".
The risk of course with this strategy is that this doesn't happen and gamers see no reason to get into the other game because it is the same and introduces nothing above what they are already playing. It could backfire; one game or the other becomes the default choice and the other one becomes a niche choice that you only play if you happen to like those particular models. For example there is anecdotal evidence from people playing AoS that some 40k players moved across. If this was because the 40k rules were a mess but they preferentially prefer space fantasy then the introduction of the same rules for 40k may just mean these people switch straight back to 40k now it has been 'fixed' from their perspective if they are comfortable with how AoS plays (but would prefer to play with tanks and guns rather than magic/archaic tech etc).
But maybe if GW had access to their own sales details, maybe they'd seen a drop off in 40k sales and an increase in AoS sales and realised it was just this transference anyway. /silly speculation
I imagine most of the 40k players, despite many complaining about AoS, will be more than happy in a few months with the new rules and defending it as the perfect system and denouncing any heathen who speaks against it. Pretty much like it is with AoS now. I'm all for a new ruleset. Having played 30+ different mini games, and playing about 10 rulesets currently, I still find the latest incarnation of 40k the worst ruleset I've ever come across. Such a shame as GW have produced some really good looking 40k stuff in the year or two since the all time low of the Taurox.
thenewgozoku wrote: In AoS all the complex rules are on the units witch i would prefer to be USR to save time.
Gods, no, that means you have to carry around an extra bible just for those. AoS uses the same idea as skirmish games, with rules on unit's cards. It's much easier to carry around 10 or less sheets of paper with rules or actual proper cards (search around, they already created some) with the rules than the BRB.
It's statements like this that make it seem like people speak out on a game they've never played. I honestly don't see how AoS is less tactical than 40K, maybe less tactical than WHFB, and certainly differently tactical from 40K. Comparing it to hungry hippo or whatever children's game they can come up with just reeks of glanced at the four pages of rules maybe played a game or two before GHB and then said "f it".
Didn't even get that far. Much better games out there to play, so little time. Anyway, I still think Hungry Hippo is a fair comparison given that AoS deliberately dumbed down the rules to appeal to a younger audience, also shown by the ever larger and more over-designed models and being able to take all the toys and fluff be damned. In regards to 40K I was expressing my hopes that the ruleset would be made up of cherrypicked rules from earlier editions and retained a tactical element rather than being completely gutted.
Gods, no, that means you have to carry around an extra bible just for those. AoS uses the same idea as skirmish games, with rules on unit's cards. It's much easier to carry around 10 or less sheets of paper with rules or actual proper cards (search around, they already created some) with the rules than the BRB.
Taking the rulebook to the game really isn't a particular chore. It's just a book.
Ideally, most units should have few enough special rules that you would rarely have to look them up anyway. 40k has gone too far the other way already, with each successive edition adding extra unnecessary special rules, and going down the warscroll route and having the ability to create bespoke rules for every individual unit is going to result in an even bigger mess.
It's statements like this that make it seem like people speak out on a game they've never played. I honestly don't see how AoS is less tactical than 40K, maybe less tactical than WHFB, and certainly differently tactical from 40K. Comparing it to hungry hippo or whatever children's game they can come up with just reeks of glanced at the four pages of rules maybe played a game or two before GHB and then said "f it".
Anyway, I still think Hungry Hippo is a fair comparison given that AoS deliberately dumbed down the rules to appeal to a younger audience, also shown by the ever larger and more over-designed models and being able to take all the toys and fluff be damned.
So how about you go and educate yourself rather than keep on with this misconception?
Thanks; I've actually watched a fair few games just to confirm what I thought from reading the rules and, yes, I was right, it's an absolute abortion of a game. Hopefully 40K doesn't go down that route.
So how about you go and educate yourself rather than keep on with this misconception?
Thanks; I've actually watched a fair few games just to confirm what I thought from reading the rules and, yes, I was right, it's an absolute abortion of a game. Hopefully 40K doesn't go down that route.
Putting on my veteran hat here, but the most fundamental question for 40k (that's never been answered IMO) is this:
what kind of game does this new 40k want to be?
Does it want to be a skirmish game with 40-50 models per side and say, 1-3 vehicles?
or
an all action mega battle with titans, flyers, and all sorts of bells and whistles?
For me, and this had been a problem since 2nd edition IMO, 40k fails on both accounts because it tries to be all things to all men and falls flat on its face.
There's nothing worse than painting and assembling 20 guardsmen, and all the time that entails, only to have to remove them after 30 seconds when a Tau Mega battle suit of doom glances over at them.
It's very disheartening. That's not to say that guardsmen, normal humans after all, should be invincible and not be outclassed by tougher aliens or space marines.
But Titans and giant alien beasts belong to epic, not a skirmish game. At least in a skirmish game, the guardsmen can be competitive.
Who knows, maybe I'll be proved wrong and this new edition will get it 'right' but given GW's track record for bigger and better over the years, I expect another fudge between skirmish and epic...
It's statements like this that make it seem like people speak out on a game they've never played. I honestly don't see how AoS is less tactical than 40K, maybe less tactical than WHFB, and certainly differently tactical from 40K. Comparing it to hungry hippo or whatever children's game they can come up with just reeks of glanced at the four pages of rules maybe played a game or two before GHB and then said "f it".
Anyway, I still think Hungry Hippo is a fair comparison given that AoS deliberately dumbed down the rules to appeal to a younger audience, also shown by the ever larger and more over-designed models and being able to take all the toys and fluff be damned.
So how about you go and educate yourself rather than keep on with this misconception?
I'm not sure how watching someone play a game is going to help (or spend hours watching someone jabbering on about it)? As I mentioned earlier if you don't like Tennis but do like Badminton then you aren't suddenly going to change an opinion on it if the Tennis rules get tweaked here and there but fundamentally the rules are the same because it is more the fundamentals that determine the general mindset of a game. It's all a personal opinion, some things people will like, others won't (else things would be very boring?). I'll quite happily say that I don't really appreciate AoS because I find it lacks an ability to engage my brain - for whatever reason I can see any links between units relatively easily; whether that is because I spent hours when I was (much) younger looking over larger rulesets and how things might integrate is a possibility. Hence AoS for me is the game of last resort and usually I've drifted off after a 2-3 rounds and watching other peoples games of 40k or whatever and just let my opponent get on with it. But that's just me and other people have their own different perceptions. The issue will be for some people that they prefer not to have 40K go the AoS route even if they wish that some of the bloat in 40k currently is removed - for such people the concern is that the new 40k will become this simple *from their perspective*. However I'm less concerned because the thing that I learnt from WFB to AoS is that it allowed me to expand my horizons into other games that WFB had been filling. So I'm now collecting Dropfleet, All Quiet on the Martian Front, Gates of Antares, Armada and Xwing which I never really did before they cancelled WFB. This in some ways has enriched my gaming experience (the only thing I'm really missing is a type of mass ranked battle game but I can still play any of the WFB editions as the need arises) so I in some ways see the introduction of AoS as a positive experience and if 40k goes the same way then it's likely, for me, it will still be a positive experience, probably just not in the way GW would like.
I am optimistic about this announcement so far. Unlike AoS, I actually like the models and fluff of 40K it's just the game rules themselves that have been holding me back. Really, 7th edition is borderline unplayable right now for me.
The one huge miss though is the 3 ways to play. What a great opportunity for them to create 2 or 3 different systems for smaller or larger games, and instead they went the almost useless AoS route on this one. As long as 40K continues to use the same rules no matter the scale of the game it's never going to be as good as it could be.
Deserve AoS the hate?
Yes up to a point, because the stuff you get for free is not the same game as with the rules you can buy.
So people who just know the free stuff have their opinion build on a different game as those that bought the books and played it
There us no way to change that problem if the secound group tells the first group that the game is fine and you don't need to buy stuff.
Now the question is will it be the same with 40k that the free rules are bad and you need to buy books to get the actual game
and it will get the same problem, as those who just know the free stuff and think the game is bad will run into the hate of those who think the rules you can buy are perfect but still tell you that you don't need them
I have played AoS, of course because without testing them you cannot say anything about
But I already played a fantasy Skirmish and AoS does not add anything special to make it worth switching
But therefore I know, everyone who tell me that you don't need to buy rules for the game is talking bs is the free rules are just bad
dosiere wrote: I am optimistic about this announcement so far. Unlike AoS, I actually like the models and fluff of 40K it's just the game rules themselves that have been holding me back. Really, 7th edition is borderline unplayable right now for me.
The one huge miss though is the 3 ways to play. What a great opportunity for them to create 2 or 3 different systems for smaller or larger games, and instead they went the almost useless AoS route on this one. As long as 40K continues to use the same rules no matter the scale of the game it's never going to be as good as it could be.
Exactly. Good post.
I don't expect a normal human in flak armour and armed only with a lasgun, to go toe to toe with super-human space marines or tough alien beasts or robots.
But a 20 man unit, with some heavy weapon and a commander, should at the least, be semi-competitive for a few turns. That's not too much to ask for in any game.
Years ago, I played Brettonians and enjoyed fielding the peasant models because they were very characterful. Again, I wasn't expecting them to go head to head with a bloodthirster, but if you buy and field a unit for any game system, there should be some return on that for the money spent and the time spent on assembling and painting them.
Again, that's not too much to ask from a game, and hopefully, this new edition will get the balance right.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
kodos wrote: People here are talking about different thinks
Deserve AoS the hate?
Yes up to a point, because the stuff you get for free is not the same game as with the rules you can buy.
So people who just know the free stuff have their opinion build on a different game as those that bought the books and played it
There us no way to change that problem if the secound group tells the first group that the game is fine and you don't need to buy stuff.
Now the question is will it be the same with 40k that the free rules are bad and you need to buy books to get the actual game
and it will get the same problem, as those who just know the free stuff and think the game is bad will run into the hate of those who think the rules you can buy are perfect but still tell you that you don't need them
I have played AoS, of course because without testing them you cannot say anything about
But I already played a fantasy Skirmish and AoS does not add anything special to make it worth switching
But therefore I know, everyone who tell me that you don't need to buy rules for the game is talking bs is the free rules are just bad
Like I said on the AOS release thread a couple of years ago, when I buy a new car, I don't expect to have to turn up with a steering wheel and engine
If rules are free, then they should contain what you need. I have zero problem with a company saying 'you want our rules, then buy the book. Fair enough. But the free rules were pitched as the only thing you needed back then. There was no mention of having to buy a few more books to get the extra stuff you needed. It felt like a deception at the time if I'm being honest.
GW should come down on one side or another. Trying to go 50/50 just creates a mess IMO.
Like I said on the AOS release thread a couple of years ago, when I buy a new car, I don't expect to have to turn up with a steering wheel and engine
If rules are free, then they should contain what you need. I have zero problem with a company saying 'you want our rules, then buy the book. Fair enough. But the free rules were pitched as the only thing you needed back then. There was no mention of having to buy a few more books to get the extra stuff you needed. It felt like a deception at the time if I'm being honest.
GW should come down on one side or another. Trying to go 50/50 just creates a mess IMO.
Yes, I feel like this is a huge part of what made AoS feel like GW was just punching all of us fantasy players in the gut. If they'd just done what they've been doing for the last year or so from the beginning and they'd been upfront about it it wouldn't have been such a crap parade. That is why I feel pretty comfortable with what is happening with 40K now 'cause it feels like GW actually has learned from their mistakes and actually want to do something good. Like if they release bare-bones rules for free but are clear that if you want things like points and scenarios you have to buy the rulebook which is what you would have done anyway.
tyrannosaurus wrote: The FAQ gives me hope that the rules won't be dumbed down to the point of AoS simplicity, which has about as much tactical nuance as Hungry Hippo. Interesting that 40K could end up as the tactical choice after Fantasy held that title for so long.
AoS is tactically more in depth than 40k. You are confusing complicated combat resolution and dice rolling for no reason with skill/tactics.
And 40k is seemingly using different rules from AoS - because we've been told it's likely to be 'charging units strike first', which is very different from AoS, where learning how to pick your fights is a significant challenge.
But hey. He's already confirmed he's barely played the game, so we'll just have to assume he's talking out his 'arris.
The core rules of AOS do not change with the GHB.
The warscrolls that define a unit in AOS do not change with the GHB.
The game is the same if you have the GHB or do not have the GHB.
Therefore yes the free version of the rules are the same.
The difference is the GHB has scenarios and put points on things. Points are one way to play. They are not the only play. I realize for some people, they think that they are the only way to play - but indeed they are not.
Ifyou want to play *with points* then yes you have to shell out that $25 for the GHB. I'll do that any day over the $100 giant tome from hell that you have to memorize.
I'm not into memorizing giant tomes of rules and needing a law degree to play a game anymore. I'd rather just play the game.
USRs all bundled into a huge tome, no thanks. I'm glad thats gone. I'm glad thats being burned in the fire. I much prefer the rules on cards in front of me for the units that I choose to take.
I got tired of having to have my nose in the rulebook in every game because either I misinterpreted or forgot one of the dozens of convoluted exceptions, or my opponent did and we had to spend time to see what was right.
So how about you go and educate yourself rather than keep on with this misconception?
Thanks; I've actually watched a fair few games just to confirm what I thought from reading the rules and, yes, I was right, it's an absolute abortion of a game. Hopefully 40K doesn't go down that route.
auticus wrote: The core rules of AOS do not change with the GHB.
The warscrolls that define a unit in AOS do not change with the GHB.
The game is the same if you have the GHB or do not have the GHB.
of course they call it houserules and say you don't need to use them
I have never seen an AoS game that ignore bases instead of using the GHB rules, to use them fir measuring
and this alone makes it a complete different game and than we are talking about summoning etc.
thenewgozoku wrote: In AoS all the complex rules are on the units witch i would prefer to be USR to save time.
Gods, no, that means you have to carry around an extra bible just for those. AoS uses the same idea as skirmish games, with rules on unit's cards. It's much easier to carry around 10 or less sheets of paper with rules or actual proper cards (search around, they already created some) with the rules than the BRB.
You can have a finite set of USR and still have them all in the units' individual description. I tend to prefer that over a "special snowflake rules for every unit so now I have to learn all my stuff plus all the stuff of my opponents to be able to make informed decisions" approach greatly, thank you very much.
So how about you go and educate yourself rather than keep on with this misconception?
Thanks; I've actually watched a fair few games just to confirm what I thought from reading the rules and, yes, I was right, it's an absolute abortion of a game. Hopefully 40K doesn't go down that route.
You might as well be holding a sign that says CONFIRMATION BIAS. It's objectively better than 40k 7th. Simplicity does not equate to something being a children's game, this was covered on dakka in 2015.
This has many people who had moved on from 40k (myself included) back and hopeful.
and this alone makes it a complete different game and than we are talking about summoning etc.
No argument. But it was said that this was NEEDED to play the game.
When no - no its not needed. It is a set of house rules. If its universally adopted set of house rules, thats great but its still a set of house rules.
And not everyone uses the matched play rules for summoning. I know a lot of people that do not or have their own version of summoning restrictions.
What AOS' release did do was shatter the assumption that everyone must use the same rules. It made official the concept of optional rules, much like old RPGs back in the day did (ex: D&D's Unearthed Arcana).
The CORE rules remain the same regardless. The optional stuff about summoning etc apply only to one format.
THe only one real universal house rule i've noted are bases, and you hardly need to buy the $25 GHB to use base to base contact.
thenewgozoku wrote: In AoS all the complex rules are on the units witch i would prefer to be USR to save time.
Gods, no, that means you have to carry around an extra bible just for those. AoS uses the same idea as skirmish games, with rules on unit's cards. It's much easier to carry around 10 or less sheets of paper with rules or actual proper cards (search around, they already created some) with the rules than the BRB.
You can have a finite set of USR and still have them all in the units' individual description. I tend to prefer that over a "special snowflake rules for every unit so now I have to learn all my stuff plus all the stuff of my opponents to be able to make informed decisions" approach greatly, thank you very much.
Personally I'm of the opinion that special rules should be, well, special. Leave them for units that actually have something unique about them rather than handing them out to every unit in the game (or multiple to every unit in the game).
Though I agree with the idea of having a finite set of special rules that are printed both in the rulebook somewhere and also in the unit's description. Likewise you can have weapon lists in the rulebook, but still have the weapon stats on the unit's datasheet so you don't have to go flipping through multiple books.
auticus wrote: The core rules of AOS do not change with the GHB.
The warscrolls that define a unit in AOS do not change with the GHB.
The game is the same if you have the GHB or do not have the GHB.
Therefore yes the free version of the rules are the same.
The difference is the GHB has scenarios and put points on things. Points are one way to play. They are not the only play. I realize for some people, they think that they are the only way to play - but indeed they are not.
Ifyou want to play *with points* then yes you have to shell out that $25 for the GHB. I'll do that any day over the $100 giant tome from hell that you have to memorize.
I'm not into memorizing giant tomes of rules and needing a law degree to play a game anymore. I'd rather just play the game.
USRs all bundled into a huge tome, no thanks. I'm glad thats gone. I'm glad thats being burned in the fire. I much prefer the rules on cards in front of me for the units that I choose to take.
I got tired of having to have my nose in the rulebook in every game because either I misinterpreted or forgot one of the dozens of convoluted exceptions, or my opponent did and we had to spend time to see what was right.
Bring on the new 40k. Maybe I'll play it again.
If these warscrolls are so good for the game, why haven't they got the points on? Making people buy a book that they can change a few numbers in each year is a bigger scam than re-releasing a codex every 4 years.
Warscrolls/datasheets should have *all* the info on. Books can have the fluff, painting guides and new scenarios. Surely that would make more sense. If points change, update the warscroll pdf on the webpage as it's needed.
Surely having people spend 'book money' on extra models is more profit making.
auticus wrote: The core rules of AOS do not change with the GHB.
The warscrolls that define a unit in AOS do not change with the GHB.
The game is the same if you have the GHB or do not have the GHB.
Therefore yes the free version of the rules are the same.
The difference is the GHB has scenarios and put points on things. Points are one way to play. They are not the only play. I realize for some people, they think that they are the only way to play - but indeed they are not.
Ifyou want to play *with points* then yes you have to shell out that $25 for the GHB. I'll do that any day over the $100 giant tome from hell that you have to memorize.
I'm not into memorizing giant tomes of rules and needing a law degree to play a game anymore. I'd rather just play the game.
USRs all bundled into a huge tome, no thanks. I'm glad thats gone. I'm glad thats being burned in the fire. I much prefer the rules on cards in front of me for the units that I choose to take.
I got tired of having to have my nose in the rulebook in every game because either I misinterpreted or forgot one of the dozens of convoluted exceptions, or my opponent did and we had to spend time to see what was right.
Bring on the new 40k. Maybe I'll play it again.
If these warscrolls are so good for the game, why haven't they got the points on? Making people buy a book that they can change a few numbers in each year is a bigger scam than re-releasing a codex every 4 years.
Warscrolls/datasheets should have *all* the info on. Books can have the fluff, painting guides and new scenarios. Surely that would make more sense. If points change, update the warscroll pdf on the webpage as it's needed.
Surely having people spend 'book money' on extra models is more profit making.
If these warscrolls are so good for the game, why haven't they got the points on? Making people buy a book that they can change a few numbers in each year is a bigger scam than re-releasing a codex every 4 years.
Warscrolls/datasheets should have *all* the info on. Books can have the fluff, painting guides and new scenarios. Surely that would make more sense. If points change, update the warscroll pdf on the webpage as it's needed.
Surely having people spend 'book money' on extra models is more profit making.
Points are not on warscrolls because that would make it impractical to change a large portion of them at once.
Oh, and the points are free on GW's scrollbuilder.com, which I've already pointed out several times in this thread. But i guess you were too busy making hyperbolic statements to notice.
and this alone makes it a complete different game and than we are talking about summoning etc.
No argument. But it was said that this was NEEDED to play the game.
When no - no its not needed. It is a set of house rules. If its universally adopted set of house rules, thats great but its still a set of house rules.
And not everyone uses the matched play rules for summoning. I know a lot of people that do not or have their own version of summoning restrictions.
What AOS' release did do was shatter the assumption that everyone must use the same rules. It made official the concept of optional rules, much like old RPGs back in the day did (ex: D&D's Unearthed Arcana).
The CORE rules remain the same regardless. The optional stuff about summoning etc apply only to one format.
THe only one real universal house rule i've noted are bases, and you hardly need to buy the $25 GHB to use base to base contact.
you also don't need to buy the 40k rules as everyone can tell you what your marines can do...
but more seriously the if people are argue that AoS is bad, and others still claim that you don't need to buy, than you cannot argue against it because the game is bad
and using your own set of house rules is no argument, as the main advantage of GW games is that you can play them everywhere because all are using the same rules.
is soon as each club has their own rules, there is no reason anymore to play GW games at all, as using rules just for your local group, you can use everything better out there
and if you want to play tournaments or events, each having their own rules, you can also go to other game events because building an army and use it on every event is not possible if each use different rules.
thats why the Handbook sold so well, because one unique source if house rules brings the advantage over other games back
and that is also the reason why 40k is not the main game here any more, as tournaments have their own rules and especially here they have restrictions so that only hardcore players like them
Whirlwind wrote: However I'm less concerned because the thing that I learnt from WFB to AoS is that it allowed me to expand my horizons into other games that WFB had been filling. So I'm now collecting Dropfleet, All Quiet on the Martian Front, Gates of Antares, Armada and Xwing which I never really did before they cancelled WFB. This in some ways has enriched my gaming experience (the only thing I'm really missing is a type of mass ranked battle game but I can still play any of the WFB editions as the need arises) so I in some ways see the introduction of AoS as a positive experience and if 40k goes the same way then it's likely, for me, it will still be a positive experience, probably just not in the way GW would like.
How is Gates of Antares?
Have you given Kings of War a go for your mass battle rank and flank game itch? It plays better than it reads and I would highly recommend it.
Back on topic. It's important to note that different games provide different experiences and focus on different aspects (exciting, being balanced, being casual, etc) and therefore appeal to different players. There is noting wrong with avoiding a game because it is not to your taste, deciding and shouting that it's a bad game because of that is not cool.
The current Warhammers seem to be more focused on epic battles starring your mini's (think idea is form an interview?) than being serious test of one player's mind against the other (not say no skill is involved), which can be good fun for a certain kind of player.
Which is one of the reasons I think 40k 8th will be received better than AoS (in addition to better marketing, customer interaction and having testes ideas already) is that 40k is already largely such a game, so it will be much less of a shock as the type of player it appeals to will not change (one might say it will be "recognisably still Warhammer 40,000")
As AOS was released we got the Warscroll and most of them are also still valid.
And you don't have to buy the Generals Handbook, as it only gives you the points and some Houserules.
You can get the points everywhere on the internet.
40k is and was a different story. You need to buy the rulebook, without it you don't know most of the rules, not how far your models move, on which modifier they shoot or how to resolve close combat.
Also old Fantasy was also heavily Houseruled by tournaments and nobody played a different game if they showed up.
tyrannosaurus wrote: The FAQ gives me hope that the rules won't be dumbed down to the point of AoS simplicity, which has about as much tactical nuance as Hungry Hippo. Interesting that 40K could end up as the tactical choice after Fantasy held that title for so long.
AoS is tactically more in depth than 40k. You are confusing complicated combat resolution and dice rolling for no reason with skill/tactics.
This argument seems to be rather people meaning different things when they say tactics or strategies. Comparing AoS to say, Bolt Action, I'd say is a good place to start. In Bolt Action, I always feel like there are meaningful and game -state changing choices to make throughout every round, irrespective of my list or the way dice are rolled. Between the order dice, the available actions, careful use of terrain, and the pinning system there are lots of decisions to be made and consequences to consider every round in Bolt Action. I don't feel this way during a game of AoS usually, and here is why:
After a game of Bolt Action, I often think to myself "I should have gone to cover in round 3 with that unit rather than risk that dash over open ground, or I should have been more patient/aggressive advancing up the right flank there, why did I not use my machine gun team to cover my tank advancing using an ambush dice that round, I could have stopped that panzerfaust team if I had just done x, why didn't I use my officer on my first activation to activate that unit as well instead of my tank..." etc...
After a game of AoS, I think things like "man, if only I had won that random roll for initiative on turn 2, I need to use formation x next time, if only I had rolled better for that charge distance with my knights, I can't believe II only rolled 1 wound with my cannon that round, etc...."
It's not to say you aren't making decisions in both games, but the way AoS is designed (from the way units interact and the small amount of things during the game that actually change the way the game is played like the almost nonexistant terrain rules) most of those choices come down to inititatve rolls, charge distances, and pre-game synergies made during the list building phase.
Both games can be fun, but I can't bring myself to say AoS is full of interesting tactical choices along the same lines of a game like Bolt Action, WFB, 40K (sometimes), etc... Doesn't make AoS a bad game, in fact it doesn't even have to be a negative. One of the reasons I have come to enjoy AoS finally is that I can just admire the models, roll some dice, and not have to navigate my way through five rulebooks/codexes, a forty page FAQ, how 5 different special rules interact with each other to create an illogical outcome, etc...
My hope is that this new edition of 40K manages to capture the more casual play of AoS while still making it feel like a sci-fi wargame of meaningful decisions, which I know a copy-paste of the current AoS rules would not do for me.
My main concern is that I'm wondering just how sustainable two games that are almost identical are. I don't think 40k will have to worry and isn't likely to have the same blowback as for WFB - it is still going to be a skirmish game, but if they are fundamentally the same game then I'd question why people would start AoS instead when there is a larger gaming group of 40k players to join. There's a risk that the two games cannibalise off each other.
40k started as an expansion of the already existing WFB and it's still here, 30 years later (and, let's face it, the rules for both had always been more similar than different.)
thenewgozoku wrote: In AoS all the complex rules are on the units witch i would prefer to be USR to save time.
Gods, no, that means you have to carry around an extra bible just for those. AoS uses the same idea as skirmish games, with rules on unit's cards. It's much easier to carry around 10 or less sheets of paper with rules or actual proper cards (search around, they already created some) with the rules than the BRB.
You can have a finite set of USR and still have them all in the units' individual description. I tend to prefer that over a "special snowflake rules for every unit so now I have to learn all my stuff plus all the stuff of my opponents to be able to make informed decisions" approach greatly, thank you very much.
Personally I'm of the opinion that special rules should be, well, special. Leave them for units that actually have something unique about them rather than handing them out to every unit in the game (or multiple to every unit in the game).
Though I agree with the idea of having a finite set of special rules that are printed both in the rulebook somewhere and also in the unit's description. Likewise you can have weapon lists in the rulebook, but still have the weapon stats on the unit's datasheet so you don't have to go flipping through multiple books.
Oh, I agree. The amount of special rules on units for the current edition looks simply stupid, IMHO. Most core units should have enough with stats & equipment to be defined, with maybe a general army rule, while leaving special rules for, you know, special units.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: Personally I'm of the opinion that special rules should be, well, special. Leave them for units that actually have something unique about them rather than handing them out to every unit in the game (or multiple to every unit in the game).
Though I agree with the idea of having a finite set of special rules that are printed both in the rulebook somewhere and also in the unit's description. Likewise you can have weapon lists in the rulebook, but still have the weapon stats on the unit's datasheet so you don't have to go flipping through multiple books.
THIS. The basic statline should be built to cover most things you need to know. Special Rules to be actually special.
Some good points made here. I would be over the moon if 40k went down the route of Bolt Action (a game I really want to get into asap). Think about the weapons too. In bolt action you have a profile for a pistol, rifle, sub-machine gun etc. Everyone is using the same weapons, so you can't get more balanced than that. Now obviously 40k can't exactly do that on account of the variety of weaponry it has, but it might be able to do something close to it. But at this point I'm just speculating.
I don't understand why GW thinks someone will not spend more than thirty minutes to read the rules
but will spend hours assembling and painting their miniatures..
Are all the miniatures going to two piece models that are snap fit? Don't want the customer
base spending to much time with their new hobby... Just seems like two different ideas mixed.
When I first got into GWs games.. I wanted a big massive rule book, proving that I could do things
that was difficult.. but thinking every customer has an attention of a gnat may end up hurting them.
Look at how well Shadow Wars sold and the rules are actually seem quite long compared to AoS but I feel it makes for a better game.
tyrannosaurus wrote: The FAQ gives me hope that the rules won't be dumbed down to the point of AoS simplicity, which has about as much tactical nuance as Hungry Hippo. Interesting that 40K could end up as the tactical choice after Fantasy held that title for so long.
It's statements like this that make it seem like people speak out on a game they've never played. I honestly don't see how AoS is less tactical than 40K, maybe less tactical than WHFB, and certainly differently tactical from 40K. Comparing it to hungry hippo or whatever children's game they can come up with just reeks of glanced at the four pages of rules maybe played a game or two before GHB and then said "f it".
Sorry, I didn't know I needed to eat dog gak to know it tastes bad...
Future War Cultist wrote: Some good points made here. I would be over the moon if 40k went down the route of Bolt Action (a game I really want to get into asap). Think about the weapons too. In bolt action you have a profile for a pistol, rifle, sub-machine gun etc. Everyone is using the same weapons, so you can't get more balanced than that. Now obviously 40k can't exactly do that on account of the variety of weaponry it has, but it might be able to do something close to it. But at this point I'm just speculating.
If I were you, I'd be ordering a Bolt Action rulebook right now.
Bloody good game, and the authors' track records speak for themselves.
And on the plus side, there is no copyright on WW2 stuff, so there are a ton of companies out there making the minis at competitive prices, and Warlords' own range is pretty good as well.
Points are not on warscrolls because that would make it impractical to change a large portion of them at once.
Oh, and the points are free on GW's scrollbuilder.com, which I've already pointed out several times in this thread. But i guess you were too busy making hyperbolic statements to notice.
Wow, You guys really are too predictable. I make a comment on how I personally would like something to be in nu40k, and you guys take it as a slur about AoS and get all defensive.
Even Lord Kragan's one line comment giving out a useful piece of information to me, came across as an offensive dig.
My thoughts still stand... if I'm army building, I want to have my warscrolls in front of me. I want to see what the stats/abilities are and how many points they're worth. I don't want to keep opening another book, or going up to my computer to open a webpage, just to look up points. It's not about me being cheap and wanting stuff for free. As it happens, I like the system of having a core hardback rulebook with basic (get you by) stats at the back, and a single army book with all the details in. Also, last week I managed to get my hands on the Genestealer Cults hardback. I haven't had a game of 40k for 2 years,. but I still buy models now and again and get some of the books for the info. Nor will I complain my GSC book is out of date within 2 months of me buying it. The fluff and pics were all I wanted it for and I'll still have them.
I have no problems with AoS or your love of it. Yes, it's introduction killed off my WFB armies as they were, but it made me play other games and try other models/manufacturerers. The AoSifying of Fantasy openened my eyes to a whole world of much better games. If nu40k happens to be in that category of good games, I'll be back playing it and buying more stuff.
Points are not on warscrolls because that would make it impractical to change a large portion of them at once.
Oh, and the points are free on GW's scrollbuilder.com, which I've already pointed out several times in this thread. But i guess you were too busy making hyperbolic statements to notice.
Wow, You guys really are too predictable. I make a comment on how I personally would like something to be in nu40k, and you guys take it as a slur about AoS and get all defensive.
Even Lord Kragan's one line comment giving out a useful piece of information to me, came across as an offensive dig.
Well, it's not my fault if you have a skin too thin to bear people pointing things up an actually valid point.
As I said yesterday, for every poster calling AOS an abortion, there's another with a stick up their behind who will jump down your throats at even the slightest perceived criticism.
This needs to stop, it drags things off topic and buries any meaningful discussion.
Azreal13 wrote: As I said yesterday, for every poster calling AOS an abortion, there's another with a stick up their behind who will jump down your throats at even the slightest perceived criticism.
This needs to stop, it drags things off topic and buries any meaningful discussion.
The thing is that there's barely any meat to make meaningful distinction: everything that really deserved being talked about was done so in the first 4-5 pages and then it degraded into a massive bickering-fest between fans and detractors.
tyrannosaurus wrote: The FAQ gives me hope that the rules won't be dumbed down to the point of AoS simplicity, which has about as much tactical nuance as Hungry Hippo. Interesting that 40K could end up as the tactical choice after Fantasy held that title for so long.
It's statements like this that make it seem like people speak out on a game they've never played. I honestly don't see how AoS is less tactical than 40K, maybe less tactical than WHFB, and certainly differently tactical from 40K. Comparing it to hungry hippo or whatever children's game they can come up with just reeks of glanced at the four pages of rules maybe played a game or two before GHB and then said "f it".
Sorry, I didn't know I needed to eat dog gak to know it tastes bad...
Bloody good game, and the authors' track records speak for themselves.
And on the plus side, there is no copyright on WW2 stuff, so there are a ton of companies out there making the minis at competitive prices, and Warlords' own range is pretty good as well.
I just got stung for new glasses but I will definitely pick it up soon.
On a side note has a potential release date come forward, I was sure I recall someone raising a holiday ban for GW staff in June, but can't find it on the boards?
Morathi's Darkest Sin wrote: On a side note has a potential release date come forward, I was sure I recall someone raising a holiday ban for GW staff in June, but can't find it on the boards?
Yes. Weeks 3-10 of june if memory serves right. Which makes me wonder what will be going on this may.
For me the positives of having the points seperate to the warscrolls far outweighs any negatives. Surely you can appreciate having the points seperate and all in one book means GW can rebalance every faction at once without needing to re-edit every single Warscroll (which would also make pages and pages of your Battletome out-of-date too).
This is something WHFB never had, instead armies would be stuck with the same points values for years and even across editions. I like the new system much better.
Azreal13 wrote: As I said yesterday, for every poster calling AOS an abortion, there's another with a stick up their behind who will jump down your throats at even the slightest perceived criticism.
This needs to stop, it drags things off topic and buries any meaningful discussion.
The thing is that there's barely any meat to make meaningful distinction: everything that really deserved being talked about was done so in the first 4-5 pages and then it degraded into a massive bickering-fest between fans and detractors.
Then the solution is to say nothing, let the thread drop off the front page and then re-engage when there's something new. Not bicker about the merits of AOS, which has been the subject of 3 in thread warnings that I've seen.
Yeah I don't want to turn it into a debate about the merits of AoS. The only thing is, I haven't heard any news or rumors either, so all I have to offer is speculation and wish listing.
For me the positives of having the points seperate to the warscrolls far outweighs any negatives. Surely you can appreciate having the points seperate and all in one book means GW can rebalance every faction at once without needing to re-edit every single Warscroll (which would also make pages and pages of your Battletome out-of-date too).
This is something WHFB never had, instead armies would be stuck with the same points values for years and even across editions. I like the new system much better.
Quite clearly it works ok for you and I don't have experience of AoS with points. I just thought editing a number on a pdf and uploading it over an old version would be less hassle than reprinting an entire book for GW. Cheaper for us as well.
Surely GW is better off with us spending £30 on figures than £30 on a book. The profit margins on a sprue of plastic has to be significantly higher than on a book.
BTW that AoS army builder looks nice. Let's hope nuGW keep it free and not on some subsciption service like they would have done a few years ago.
is dead.
yes yes yes, 1000 x yes! 
Not sure about the Nu-Marines. Honestly, I don't even know what they are. There is this image floating around, to which the maker admitted it to be a conversion, yet the Marine shown has quite a few uncanny similarities with what we see in the newer image, where some bigger-looking Space Marines are being painted. Interestingly, though, there is also a box of Devastators near there, them looking like the current size and adding, perhaps erroneously so, the assumption the parts are still interchangeable. For all I know, these 'new' Marines might just be 'old' Marines who just learned how to stand straight, as opposed to the spread-legs-pose most Marines have now. This besides some actual scale increase over the years. My guess is to just wait and see. They might indeed be a completely new unit with bigger Marines under the influence of some Guilliman Juice. It does, however, have another effect.
