Summary:
- The leaked 6th edition rules are legit
- They want to get rid of edition cycle by releasing a core rule set valid for a long time
- These core set will be updated by FAQ's, erratas and supplements
- allows for expansions (30k, 41k?) and concentration on model making
(Thanks to Drachii for finding this and Reecius himself for posting them in another 6th edition thread )
So, we heard a doozy of a rumor today that I wanted to share with the community.
A source of ours who knows people who knows people, etc. often shares tidbits of juicy rumors. Today he and I were talking about 6th ed and whether or not the leaked rules were legit.
He told me that a friend of his who works for GW not only confirmed that this rule-set was legit, but that it was the culmination of a master plan, so to speak, that has been in the works for years.
Apparently, GW game design has wanted to get away from the edition cycle they’ve been in for the past 3 editions, and want to move towards a core rule set that they can rely on for a long period of time, updating with FAQ’s and Erratas as needed. They want to avoid sweeping changes that leave certain armies in the dust, and therefore with lagging sales.
This would allow them to focus on the model line to a greater degree, and to expand the game into different directions. They would be able to explore the game story both forwards and backwards, and a Warhammer 30K supplement was mentioned (which we’ve been hearing about multiple times). He also mentioned the possibility of progressing the story-line, which we have also been hearing from multiple sources.
The following are my thoughts on that information.
Forgeworld is already fleshing out the backstory with all of their preheresy and heresy era kits. It is not much of a stretch of the imagination to see FW doing a supplement for this period much as they did with the Badab War books, or at least making the models (Primarchs, anyone?).
This would allow GW to keep all books current, and to focus on the models, updating books as they need to.
Is this true? Who can say. Do I want it to be true? Yeah! It is criminal that GW has not made a game supplement for the most exciting part of the game background (Horus Heresy) and who wouldn’t want to use Primarchs and the Emperor and Horus in games? That would be awesome. Who wouldn’t want to see the story advance? That would be awesome, too!
And a lot of what we see in books that don’t make sense now, in the context of the new 6th ed rules we think are real, start to make sense. Maybe that is a case of fitting the system to the existing rules, or perhaps it was all part of a master plan. Who knows? Time will tell what we actually get, but all I can say is that I am very excited for what is to come.
What do you all think about this rumor? Would you like to see these things come true?
They're at least taking a cue from other growing companies and sticking with a single solid ruleset and not neglecting armies for years at a time.
They originally had balance-tweaks to armies with Chapter Approved articles and books, but they abandoned that in 4thEd. They outright gave Terminators a 5+ save for free because they felt they were underpowered.
This is good news for the game that we all want to love again.
Sorry Kroot I do not think any of that is true,because it makes too much damn sense. :p
Kidding aside I hope that is true,it would mean great things for the models.
Oh wow, I really, really hope that this is true! It's a massive shift in GW's policies though, so I'll believe it when I see it unfold, but all this 6th ed goodness is making me giddy!
This sounds too good to be true.
Which is why I don't believe it. Such a model would make sense in the long term, but would be lacking in short term profits. And that's not how Wells and Kirby fly.
Let's look at it from a purely sales-based point of view.
If what Kroot says is true, there will be "one book to rule them all" so to speak. This will be a one off purchase. BUT, it will allow them to sell and to concentrate on models. Without having to pay a team to design the next Edition, they can spend the money on advertising and making and designing models.
This seems like a decent sales tactic, and I can see this being true.
If they are moving to some sort of living rulebook with frequent updates, I certainly hope that they'll make it available for free download online in some basic fashion with less art (similar to the mini book that came with AOBR).
warboss wrote:If they are moving to some sort of living rulebook with frequent updates, I certainly hope that they'll make it available for free download online in some basic fashion with less art (similar to the mini book that came with AOBR).
As great as that would be, I just cannot see GW ever doing that.
DeadlySquirrel wrote:Let's look at it from a purely sales-based point of view.
If what Kroot says is true, there will be "one book to rule them all" so to speak. This will be a one off purchase. BUT, it will allow them to sell and to concentrate on models. Without having to pay a team to design the next Edition, they can spend the money on advertising and making and designing models.
This seems like a decent sales tactic, and I can see this being true.
Cheers, Kroot.
Wait, so there won't be codices? I hope that's not the case. I like having a codex.
warboss wrote:If they are moving to some sort of living rulebook with frequent updates, I certainly hope that they'll make it available for free download online in some basic fashion with less art (similar to the mini book that came with AOBR).
As great as that would be, I just cannot see GW ever doing that.
With an 8 year lifespan that might give them time enough to actually update all the codex armies. They might even be able to create further armies and incorporate them with resources not being diverted towards creating a new ruleset over and over.
They could also save money by doing the downloadable core set for a nominal charge, but having the hardback premium version for those not wanting to print them out themselves. With how convenient tablets are now maybe just an app for the one book to rule them all.
And there could be a fluff free version for all the Ward hatred.
One of the reasons I can still see this happening even with my doubts, is because the multiplayer options (or at least it will make them actually viable in a three player sense) and apocalypse styled rules themed into the main ruleset will allow them to up the 'average' points per game and allow for larger and better models in 40K.
Hence getting us all buying extra models for our armies, just like what has begun to happen in Fantasy since 8th.
I can't see them actually advancing the story. I think that would be a huge mistake. A lot of the allure of the game is the mystery. They know their limitations as writers and they exploit them for their benefit with the use of mystery. If the storyline was more resolved I think it would be a lot less fulfilling.
I also have a hard time believing that they have this kind of grand over-arching strategy given how poor their planning usually is and how aggressive their release schedule has been.
I do hope that if this is true they streamline the rules significantly so that play can be faster and more accessible to new players.
Smegmalicious wrote:I can't see them actually advancing the story. I think that would be a huge mistake. A lot of the allure of the game is the mystery. They know their limitations as writers and they exploit them for their benefit with the use of mystery. If the storyline was more resolved I think it would be a lot less fulfilling.
I also have a hard time believing that they have this kind of grand over-arching strategy given how poor their planning usually is and how aggressive their release schedule has been.
I do hope that if this is true they streamline the rules significantly so that play can be faster and more accessible to new players.
Gw has always had a grand, over-arching strategy. I like to call it " bilk the nerds of all their cash". So far, it hasn't worked on me because..oh..wait..it has
This seems kinda wishlisty to me, expecially the "progressing the storyline" part. The setting isn't really meant to be a story, but a backdrop for people to make their own stories by playing the game.
I also thought when this 'advancing storyline' stuff has come up of late. Its been less, lets jump 50yrs and make large sweeping changes to the background, and more, lets put Chaos back on top as the big bad and really ramp up how much of a threat it is.
Looking at the changes to the Necron fluff, I have to say.. I can believe it, as Necrons aren't the bogeymen in the night they where previously. I have to ask why make that change, unless there are plans in motion to really put Chaos back at the forefront of the villians parade.
Summary:
- The leaked 6th edition rules are legit
- They want to get rid of edition cycle by releasing a core rule set valid for a long time
- These core set will be updated by FAQ's, erratas and supplements
- allows for expansions (30k, 41k?) and concentration on model making
Summary:
- The leaked 6th edition rules are legit - No - they are not
- They want to get rid of edition cycle by releasing a core rule set valid for a long time - Cant see that happening
- These core set will be updated by FAQ's, erratas and supplements - Dont make me laugh !
- allows for expansions (30k, 41k?) and concentration on model making - Dont care
Summary:
- The leaked 6th edition rules are legit
- They want to get rid of edition cycle by releasing a core rule set valid for a long time
- These core set will be updated by FAQ's, erratas and supplements
- allows for expansions (30k, 41k?) and concentration on model making
Summary:
- The leaked 6th edition rules are legit - No - they are not
- They want to get rid of edition cycle by releasing a core rule set valid for a long time - Cant see that happening
- These core set will be updated by FAQ's, erratas and supplements - Dont make me laugh !
- allows for expansions (30k, 41k?) and concentration on model making - Dont care
Kroothawk wrote:Yet, 5th edition did ... a bit (e.g. failing golden throne).
Well, a bit I have no problem with, but usually when people talk about the storyline it's normally something like "Who wins Armageddon" or "Do the Primarchs come back?"
warboss wrote:If they are moving to some sort of living rulebook with frequent updates, I certainly hope that they'll make it available for free download online in some basic fashion with less art (similar to the mini book that came with AOBR).
As great as that would be, I just cannot see GW ever doing that.
Am I the only one that likes the big hardcover books?
warboss wrote:If they are moving to some sort of living rulebook with frequent updates, I certainly hope that they'll make it available for free download online in some basic fashion with less art (similar to the mini book that came with AOBR).
As great as that would be, I just cannot see GW ever doing that.
Am I the only one that likes the big hardcover books?
I think they are great! I cannot wait til we get full color hardback Codices!
Summary:
- The leaked 6th edition rules are legit
- They want to get rid of edition cycle by releasing a core rule set valid for a long time
- These core set will be updated by FAQ's, erratas and supplements
- allows for expansions (30k, 41k?) and concentration on model making
Summary:
- The leaked 6th edition rules are legit - No - they are not
- They want to get rid of edition cycle by releasing a core rule set valid for a long time - Cant see that happening
- These core set will be updated by FAQ's, erratas and supplements - Dont make me laugh !
- allows for expansions (30k, 41k?) and concentration on model making - Dont care
warboss wrote:If they are moving to some sort of living rulebook with frequent updates, I certainly hope that they'll make it available for free download online in some basic fashion with less art (similar to the mini book that came with AOBR).
As great as that would be, I just cannot see GW ever doing that.
Am I the only one that likes the big hardcover books?
I've gotten both the 4th and 5th edition hardcover books and like them but they're simply not very convienent to take to the store. The aobr one fits nicely in my carrying case with the codex. My point though with the downloadable free version is that they could update it regularly without pissing off their player base with yearly rules purchases. In 3rd edition, they started to update stuff yearly and it became a bit of a pain to bring multiple annuals plus the full size rulebook to use the trial assault rules and trial vehicle rules and vdr... etc. In this increasingly digital world, it'd be nice to have a free option that you can just put on your cellphone/tablet/netbook/whatever.
Just for clarification: It is the summary of the rumours in that article.
Nobody is forced to believe any rumour.
But if we see a Cerebore preorder in two weeks, it will be hard to argue that some random fans were lucky in predicting this.
I really don't think GW has its gak together enough to have this kind of long term plan. This all sounds like acts of opportunism based on sales rather than any concerted long term effort.
Kroothawk wrote:
Summary:
- The leaked 6th edition rules are legit
- They want to get rid of edition cycle by releasing a core rule set valid for a long time
- These core set will be updated by FAQ's, erratas and supplements
- allows for expansions (30k, 41k?) and concentration on model making
I can't see this happening. Change is what drives sales. I suspect that few would deny that producing new minis is central to GWs business. All of the new army books and codicies have had lots of new units, this is a way they can get money out of veterans who already have lots of minis. The same can be said about new rules. The changes in the gameplay increase interest and are required purchases even for veterans who have everything.
CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Wait, so there won't be codices? I hope that's not the case. I like having a codex.
They're saying one book to rule them all as far as having rules for really big games, cityfight games, and so on. Same as it is now - codex releases won't be affected.
spaceelf wrote:
I can't see this happening. Change is what drives sales. I suspect that few would deny that producing new minis is central to GWs business. All of the new army books and codicies have had lots of new units, this is a way they can get money out of veterans who already have lots of minis. The same can be said about new rules. The changes in the gameplay increase interest and are required purchases even for veterans who have everything.
Release rules for new units in WD. WD sells because of this, models sell because they're cool. They've been doing this a bit lately.
The big problem with this is that it directly goes against the established GW 'cycle' method, i.e. constantly update rules purely for economic reasons. I don't think that this is very efficient but GW are a very conservative company and don't like to change. Its always possible that GW have finally noticed their ever declining sales figures and actually attempted to do something about it of course.
I would be very impressed if GW actually did change its stance and I think it is highly unlikely. In addition the source of this rumour is more than a little unreliable.
CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Wait, so there won't be codices? I hope that's not the case. I like having a codex.
They're saying one book to rule them all as far as having rules for really big games, cityfight games, and so on. Same as it is now - codex releases won't be affected.
spaceelf wrote:
I can't see this happening. Change is what drives sales. I suspect that few would deny that producing new minis is central to GWs business. All of the new army books and codicies have had lots of new units, this is a way they can get money out of veterans who already have lots of minis. The same can be said about new rules. The changes in the gameplay increase interest and are required purchases even for veterans who have everything.
Release rules for new units in WD. WD sells because of this, models sell because they're cool. They've been doing this a bit lately.
So all the rules for planetstrike, CoD and Apoc will be in one book, but every army can still get their own codex then?
Yeah, I can live with that.
Ah , the Interwebs label-attaching machine is up and running .
Sure , cards on table I dislike Corporate GW , doesnt mean I knee jerk hate all they do , I still play some of their games and even buy things occasionally , I just call them on things as I find them .
I apologise for the melodramatics, but these rumours are a geek's wet dream!
GW and master plan in the same sentence - don't make me laugh!
Why would GW change? This is a company that charges £18 for 10 cadian shock troops when not long ago you got 20 for this price.
Their current set up makes cash, so why would they change this?
And finally, GW listen to fans?? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA you get the general idea
CthuluIsSpy wrote:
So all the rules for planetstrike, CoD and Apoc will be in one book, but every army can still get their own codex then?
Yeah, I can live with that.
Reading through it, the leaked rules consolidate bits of all of those into one rulebook. I'm sure they'll still be viable to play out of though, but yeah, codices are going to continue as usual.
A)
- we had rumors which looked so close to this leak its maybe a WIP set released before completion and different states got leaked.
- this leak would include everything in 1 book. Allows to scale up from small games to epic, even multiplayer.
- GW isn't renown for honesty , aka not-space-hulk...
B)
- it could be something that was passed on to save it from the bin. Maybe it was the plan once...
- everything in 1 book removes all these not-so-cheap add-ons.
- the faq that came with this leak, isn't consistent, drop pods for example.
- the faq adds rules like rail to psychic shooting like JoTWW and Bloodlance and to the eldar vibro cannon but nothing about Tau weapons gaining this in their profile.
- the faq lists weapons with a "G" in their profile.....when was this dropped again?
Thus nothing is confirmed yet. A wip set of rules can work nicely too. But a "master-plan" ?
IF desperate and grabbing the straw of WH30k is a plan, then yes "master" plan....
To advance the plot?
Step forward over the cliff if they choose the wrong author.
You can bet on one thing though, if this rumour is true and they want to bring out a rulebook that lasts 8 years, then said rulebook will probably cost £150!!!! Hey, it's GW
Summary:
- The leaked 6th edition rules are legit
- They want to get rid of edition cycle by releasing a core rule set valid for a long time
If true, its about f'ing time they figured this out. Completely new rules edition every 4-5 years is dumb, especially if they can't get all of the codexes updated by the time the next edition comes out.
The big problem before now is that 3rd - 5th editions were not developed enough to be viable as a long lived rules set and I think they knew it. It looks like this 6th edition may finally be viable for long term use and GW may actually be listening to the players. Hard to believe, I know, but the the past couple of years' sales trends should be making them wake up and take notice that things are sliding downhill and need remedial action.
There seems to have been a shakeup in the game design studio as these rules seem a lot more coherent (once rewritten) than previous sets.
I don't believe that about the "rules cycles". It seems clear that GW are happy to reinvent the game and rewrite the books continuously as a means to get everyone to regularly buy the game again and for them to invalidate old models and make new ones.
Otherwise you will have people buying a book and models and hardly purchasing anything over the next 8 years because the game remains largely static.
Branderic wrote:GW: 6th edition will allow us to release erratas and FAQs on a more frequent basis because BUY 6th EDITION.
GW could release as many FAQs a day as they realistically wanted. What keeps them from doing so is a stated business decision to avoid confusing players, not some sort of inability to use indesign.
If this rumour is true then I’ll have to agree that the restructure is probably a case of GW taking a cue from the growing success of other companies. Heck, the 6th Ed proposal sounds identical to how PP runs WM/H right now:
• Long life rule set? Check
• Updates via errata? Check
• Expansion Books? Check
• Advancing Storyline? Check
It would be interesting if the HH expansion rumour pans out as it means GW would be using their “get of out jail free” card. That being said, the primarch models would most likely be in finecast (which would suck lol).
Kroothawk wrote:Just for clarification: It is the summary of the rumours in that article.
Nobody is forced to believe any rumour.
But if we see a Cerebore preorder in two weeks, it will be hard to argue that some random fans were lucky in predicting this.
This is why GW has such a strict secrecy policy now. So come February there will be no Tyranid/Necron release to prove these rumours fasle.
I can't find the post but someone menitoned how GW lied about Space Hulk, so yeah, GW can't be trusted in anything. GW clearly said the Mystery Box was NOT Space Hulk. WE all know how that turned out eh?
Branderic wrote:GW: 6th edition will allow us to release erratas and FAQs on a more frequent basis because BUY 6th EDITION.
GW could release as many FAQs a day as they realistically wanted. What keeps them from doing so is a stated business decision to avoid confusing players, not some sort of inability to use indesign.
In addition PDFs are cheaper and easier to put out than printed material. Makes some sense.
They could even charge us for the damned FAQs and Errata by shoving them into White Dwarf. But for God's sake, I hope they actually care about the game balance aspect enough to do it.
Hear, hear! If White Dwarf actually possessed regular content to add to and/or augment the game of 40K I would either subscribe or purchase issues regularly. I will not, however, pay $9 USD for a games workshop advertisement with no real content.
I would say putting back “real content” in White Dwarf would be impossible for GW. Remember the rumour late last year about GW planning to put “real content” back into White Dwarf. That pretty much lasted 2 issues and consisted of the Sisters codex spread over 2 issues and a Dreadfleet supplement (advertisement).
From what I gather, the rumour says that GW wants to increase their focus on model making which could be interpreted as a decreases focus on rules maintenance. There is the rumour of errata though but that could be interpreted as GW releasing rules errata to coincide with a new model release.
I could see a big rule book, with rules for things like Apocalypse driving up sales. I know I don't play Apoc any, but if it was included in the main ruleset, I might be more inclined.
I'd like it if we had one BRB that lasted a while, maybe long enough to get all the codexes updated!
candy.man wrote:I would say putting back “real content” in White Dwarf would be impossible for GW. Remember the rumour late last year about GW planning to put “real content” back into White Dwarf. That pretty much lasted 2 issues and consisted of the Sisters codex spread over 2 issues and a Dreadfleet supplement (advertisement).
And official rules for the Terrorgeist and Banshee and Wraith heroes for Vampire Counts, and the Civil War supplement for Fantasy, and Cygor, Ghorgon and Jabberslyth scrolls of binding for Storm of Magic.
There's pretty much been some kind of real content since they said they were going to do it.
candy.man wrote:I would say putting back “real content” in White Dwarf would be impossible for GW. Remember the rumour late last year about GW planning to put “real content” back into White Dwarf. That pretty much lasted 2 issues and consisted of the Sisters codex spread over 2 issues and a Dreadfleet supplement (advertisement).
And official rules for the Terrorgeist and Banshee and Wraith heroes for Vampire Counts, and the Civil War supplement for Fantasy, and Cygor, Ghorgon and Jabberslyth scrolls of binding for Storm of Magic.
There's pretty much been some kind of real content since they said they were going to do it.
And they also had some really cool scenario rules for a campaign of Black Templars and Necrons, plus battle missions for Sisters and Grey Knights. Not perfect, but it's a step in the right direction.
ShumaGorath wrote:I really don't think GW has its gak together enough to have this kind of long term plan. This all sounds like acts of opportunism based on sales rather than any concerted long term effort.
That and they change their ‘plan’ so often that even if this was the direction a year ago or even now there’s no guarantee that it’ll be the direction they take a year from now.
lord_blackfang wrote:Even if the core rules stay the same, I would still hope for a new starter with an updated rulebook (errata!) every few years.
Well, you could have the same sort of system that they have now (core rulebook and starter w/ mini rulebook), but every year or so they release an updated starter set (new models, etc.) that includes a FAQ-updated/tweaked mini rulebook and include updates/tweaks to future printings of the core rulebook. The plan being that gamers will buy new starter sets each year for the mini rulebook 'because we'd be silly to buy the core rulebook when we can get discounted models!', which should expose older gamers to new, pretty armies that they wouldn't have models for, which should result in a fair number of them starting new armies. Gamers are weak like that.
Walls wrote:This, albiet short thread, kinda summarizes the 6th ed banter.
People confirm it's real.
People confirm it's fake.
No one has an actual, legitimate, credible source of proof either way.
Ever heard of Occam's Razor?
We have a choice between two assumptions. The first assumption is that the new ruleset is a legitimate leak (we know sixth edition is coming; therefore, we also know that there will be various iterations of the new "rules-in-progress" in existence... and, as observers of human nature, we should know that sometimes individuals violate their sworn commitments and put confidential documents out into the public sphere).
Our second potential assumption is that the ruleset is an elaborate hoax that represents a gargantuan and fastidious effort on behalf of one or more mysterious individuals, who are also very clever, perceptive followers of the hobby.
I know which of those two possibilities sounds simpler to me. Therefore, it's quite reasonable to assume that the ruleset is genuine until we have some evidence that points to the alternative. Disliking the rules or having a "gut feeling" that they're "not GWey enough" isn't a worthwhile stance to hold.
However, by the same principle, it's a lot easier to believe that the anonymous source responsible for this thread is simply exaggerating what he knows, or fluffing up idealistic goals that may be floating around inside GW but are not actually reasonable for implementation.
-----------------------------
With all that pedantic junk out of the way, y personal opinion is that this new design philosophy could be excellent, but I have trouble imagining how it would actually work in practice. Like other people here I wonder how exactly they would foster sales without the monthly update system. I suppose maybe the plan would be to release new rules every time a kit is updated OR created from scratch? I'm also curious as to how they would launch the whole thing. Would they do a massive overhaul of all the Codexes at once, to be released early in the new edition? Or would they just depend on massive erratas to the currently-outdated books to get them 6th ed.-ready ASAP?
I want it to be true, and so i will believe it to be... a man can stick to its hope, right?
That is just epic amazing, just epic amazing...
Automatically Appended Next Post: Oh and i got an evidence the book was created by GW: when it talks about models, it talk about models made with resin and plastic... A veteran player would have talked about metal models too...
Walls wrote:This, albiet short thread, kinda summarizes the 6th ed banter.
People confirm it's real.
People confirm it's fake.
No one has an actual, legitimate, credible source of proof either way.
Ever heard of Occam's Razor?
We have a choice between two assumptions. The first assumption is that the new ruleset is a legitimate leak (we know sixth edition is coming; therefore, we also know that there will be various iterations of the new "rules-in-progress" in existence... and, as observers of human nature, we should know that sometimes individuals violate their sworn commitments and put confidential documents out into the public sphere).
Our second potential assumption is that the ruleset is an elaborate hoax that represents a gargantuan and fastidious effort on behalf of one or more mysterious individuals, who are also very clever, perceptive followers of the hobby.
I know which of those two possibilities sounds simpler to me. Therefore, it's quite reasonable to assume that the ruleset is genuine until we have some evidence that points to the alternative. Disliking the rules or having a "gut feeling" that they're "not GWey enough" isn't a worthwhile stance to hold.
However, by the same principle, it's a lot easier to believe that the anonymous source responsible for this thread is simply exaggerating what he knows, or fluffing up idealistic goals that may be floating around inside GW but are not actually reasonable for implementation.
-----------------------------
With all that pedantic junk out of the way, y personal opinion is that this new design philosophy could be excellent, but I have trouble imagining how it would actually work in practice. Like other people here I wonder how exactly they would foster sales without the monthly update system. I suppose maybe the plan would be to release new rules every time a kit is updated OR created from scratch? I'm also curious as to how they would launch the whole thing. Would they do a massive overhaul of all the Codexes at once, to be released early in the new edition? Or would they just depend on massive erratas to the currently-outdated books to get them 6th ed.-ready ASAP?
They re-did all the army lists en masse for 3rd edition in the rulebook when they had a dramatic overhaul of the rules set, it's not unreasonable to think they couldn't do it again. In fact, as earlier 6th Edition rumors mentioned, army lists would be in the rulebook itself. This makes a lot more sense when taking these new rumors into account.
Codexes aren't invalidated, but updates can come from multiple sources, while the core rules stay the same. Before anyone declare this unthinkable, this was common practice in days of old. Updates via White Dwarf were the norm, and now FAQs and Erratas can be made available online. Codexes will still flesh out background and provide the sales pushes needed for GW's business model of pushing the new shiny's, but in addition they can move past the release system of tying all model releases in with codexes or waves.
There was a rumor about a year or so back, and I forget the poster over at Warseer, but they talked about GW moving away from tying everything in with Codex and Armybook releases and there would be a wider variety of releases to keep interest up for all forces and allow designers to create what they thought was cool, modelwise. We've already seen this with WHFB, so it's not unreasonable to think it would happen for 40k as well.
Theduke07 wrote:Assault before shooting is the only thing I can' get behind. It's just...no.
It's just so streamlined because all movement occurs during one phase?
Which changes the dynamic of a lot of units, especially generalist ones. Making pretty much everything worse expect units that pretty much will always wipe, like FC Termies v Firewarriors.
You'd think that all the "sense-making" that GW is rumored to be doing with all these changes would throw up red flags for all the fans who have been in the hobby for a long time and have come to learn how GW functions.
However, if all this is true (including the rumored 6th Ed. rumors), I may have a couple armies that will need a good home.
Theduke07 wrote:Assault before shooting is the only thing I can' get behind. It's just...no.
It's just so streamlined because all movement occurs during one phase?
Which changes the dynamic of a lot of units, especially generalist ones. Making pretty much everything worse expect units that pretty much will always wipe, like FC Termies v Firewarriors.
Generalist units weren't particularly viable in fifth either. The game distilled into one where every unit in high tier armies had a specific role.
And they get worse. I'm talking stuff like Purifiers shooting storm bolters then charging in. Anyway it's just my opinion. If I wanted to get in sword fights first I'd play Fantasy.
Theduke07 wrote:And they get worse. I'm talking stuff like Purifiers shooting storm bolters then charging in. Anyway it's just my opinion. If I wanted to get in sword fights first I'd play Fantasy.
I'm not sure purifiers getting worse is the horse you want to saddle up on. They were significantly over powered before and will still be good in the new edition anyway (besides, if you didn't want fantasy why were you playing the knights with halbderds?). Units like tactical marines, plague marines, or shoota boyz got hit by this in a much more meaningful fashion. A lot of units that weren't great before will be much better, but likewise many units that were better before (or bad before) will get worse. Just look into your codex for what will get good again in the new edition (that'll be hard in GKs, everything was amazing).
Theduke07 wrote:I'm not even touching that one. I just pulled out a good generalist unit off the top of my head.
You picked one that is more than capable of wiping a unit in the assault and then proceeding to fire in the new edition though. Units with good firepower and the ability to decisively win combats in one round are actually better under these rules. Standard marine terminators will function similarly. The gray knights get nerfed in a bunch of small ways, but the phase swap doesn't really effect them all that much.
ShumaGorath wrote:Units with good firepower and the ability to decisively win combats in one round are actually better under these rules.
I think this is a good thing. I've been saying for years now - even back in 3rd - that units only ever do one thing and one thing well and that attempting to do multiple things just 'confuses the unit's role' (quite a common phrase back in my Guard days). It's great that these rules support diverse units.
puma713 wrote:You'd think that all the "sense-making" that GW is rumored to be doing with all these changes would throw up red flags for all the fans who have been in the hobby for a long time and have come to learn how GW functions.
Well, that would be terrible logic. In fact, it wouldn't be logic at all.
I'm assuming you wouldn't claim that GWintentionally did things that didn't make sense. If that is accurate then your central claim would be something like, "GW tried to do things that they thought made sense, but these things did not in fact make sense". Which in no way translates to "nothing GW can ever do can ever make sense". Given long enough, they will eventually do something that makes sense!
If not, they would be infallible at doing things that don't make sense, and we all know GW isn't infallible in any regard.
Don't think there will be much risk. These rules through a little tweaking, am sure will rock. This leak is the best thing for vets. We can get a jump and learn the rules early. Come launch day, there will be many players ready to help new players from the get go. Not really sure why they aren't embracing this?
riverhawks32 wrote:They won't change up their market strategy, 6th edition will not be radical because as GW has to say, their profits are up 40%. They won't take risks
Due to royalties, not any sustainable profit model.
Think about it this way: with these new 6th Ed. Rules, GW gets to move away from creating rules and just pump out models. After are, they are a miniatures company. They can cut out expensive rules writers and printing runs, and even create some new armies, because that will also allow for more models.
Story lines have to be advanced because the books sell, and Forgeworld needed to be incorporated because it is hugely profitable despite being small-scale by comparison, and the best way to expand that market is to remove its only real impediment: the fact that you can't use it in a force org chart.
And as to the short-term, GW gets a nice sales boost as everyone buys new models to update their armies, since diversity seems to be the names of the game under these new rules. Also, lots of previously useless units are hoot now, which will also give sales a quick boost.
There's plenty of evidence already mentioned that this leaked codex is supposedly real. Granted I don't 100% believe it, but it's certainly looking nice.
It's almost hard to believe there isn't some form on intelligent thought behind this leak if it is real, however, due to some of the changes/rules in the recent codexs.
Since it's the codex I've read the most...
Sisters of Battle (WD)
It seems like the sisters little codex could have very well been a deliberate attempt to write up a codex that could work in 5th and 6th, so they could test 6th rules with "older" units.
1. The sisters dex is in WD, and if they really want to they can post a Part 3 of 2 after 6th drops and add in any and all units they had to hold back to be sure that 6th edition wasn't alluded to.
2. The Sisters faith points, almost universally seen as a horrible change, are rolled for at the begining of "each movement phase" As opposed to the begin on your turn. Meaning a unit by unit style gameplay is freaking awesome with them as each unit individually would have d6 faith points. (and the supposed codex updates did not change this)
3. The SoB are given a universal 6++ save, which would be useful for testing out critical hits.
4. The sisters can temporarily gain a variety of special rules like relentless, so they can test out their changes with a single army.
5. The sisters have bolters to test out the new rapidfire rules, plus were given pistols and grenades for trying out CC. (and no longer being terrible at it)
6. Battle conclaves are now a mish-mash of armor groups, and the DCA is given a 5++ save from uncanny reflexes which is just the same save they'd have from the power swords. (cept also outside of CC)
7. The repentia had their leadership increased (from the old edition's 6) to deal with the effects of rage and can also test out the use of rigid saves and fleet.
8. The penitent engine is a walker, open-topped, squadroned and has heavy flamers. Which makes me wonder if battle frenzy triggers off of shooting the flamers in CC instead of attacking with the DCCW.
9. The battle sisters roll for their auto regroup at the beginning of the movement phase, which would prevent them from dieing if broken when they're unable to get outside 12" of an enemy unit.
10. The Dominions can now twin-link their flamers temporarily, which gives them a 9" range with a flamer for a shooting round.
11. Seraphim test hit and run and jump troops, have dual pistols to try those rules out, and though they lost 1 initiative from their old codex are now prime candidates to test out Alpha striking a unit tied up in combat with sisters (who are arguably great at surviving longer than they should)
12. Retributors can now be quite deadly even cruising around inside a rhino, thanks to relentless firepoints, even if it's only at 18" range that's all flamers need and melta are pretty close.
13. The exorcist could be drastically changed with the new MT rules with a codex update, having only a single weapon to fire. If it were say MT(2) it could fire twice rolling, or 4 times sitting still. Fixing it's dang randomness.
14. The immolator lost it's old codex ability to move 12" and fire it's TL heavy flamer. Which rather destroyed it's original purpose (although as a melta scout it's still pretty sweet) The new rules give that gun a 9" range. Which means in a single turn it can still light models on fire that were 15" away from it at the beginning of it's movement phase. 6" move, 9" flamer range.
15. I wonder if celestines sword, that also counts as an assault weapon, can now give itself an additional attack in CC. Hehe, not likely though.
Not only do the sisters pretty much gain all over the place, there's only one thing I've noticed so far that they failed to address. The Inferno pistol is not mentioned on the list of CC capable guns. Infernus, but not Inferno. Which might mean the same thing and is just a change in wording.
True, the sisters old tactics are drastically different but that's true of all armies since we don't shoot before we assault. SoB's prevelance for flamers, pistols, and such make them a perfect candidate for a shooty army that can assault if it needs to.
This seems too good to be true at this point. Could GW really have planned on making the sisters codex viable to a degree in 5th so that when 6th dropped they'd jump to being competitive? Or is it SOO good that some nerd must have felt bad for the sisters of battle and done everything he can in the leaked dex to make them a viable choice without just writing a codex update to make them better.
It's so much evidence, it's almost evidence against itself.
The other armies people have mentioned, Necrons in particular but GK to an extent, units that were seen as useless, or at least underpowered, become viable again thanks to these rules. Were they designed to mesh with 6th and still be capable of 5th somehow?
Eventually we will know. But this is GW we are talking about. Eventually we will be disappointed.
if they actually would put faqs, errata, updates, new units, actual content back into WD I think that would be a great way to maintain the rules and still allow them to make money buy getting people to buy WD. Man I remember when there was actually content in that mag. It was great. Before Mordheim came out there was full playtest rules in WD. Same with BFG, they had rules and counters to play with. They actually used to put new units in there, legion of the damned, chaos cultists (now nonexistent), emperors champ all were in WD first. I havent bought it in years but there was a time when I eagerly looked forward to it every month.
candy.man wrote:If this rumour is true then I’ll have to agree that the restructure is probably a case of GW taking a cue from the growing success of other companies. Heck, the 6th Ed proposal sounds identical to how PP runs WM/H right now:
• Long life rule set? Check
• Updates via errata? Check
• Expansion Books? Check
• Advancing Storyline? Check
It would be interesting if the HH expansion rumour pans out as it means GW would be using their “get of out jail free” card. That being said, the primarch models would most likely be in finecast (which would suck lol).
Haven't GW already started making expansion books like Storm of Magic, and more recent Blood in the Badlands? The latter being a campaign system that also "contains rules that can be used in any Warhammer game, form massive multi-player scenarios featuring new magic items and spells, rules for underground battles and a complete siege expansion"
If they've already started on this type of thing for Fantasy, it's really not hard to see it jumping over to 40k. Then again, one could argue that Imperial Armour fills this role already - each book has it's own campaigns, and some introduce new gameplay styles, like ship boarding game types.
This may partly explain why GW has recently really been pushing Forgeworld into the limelight - showcasing Forgeworld units in their news, as well as showcasing and advertising Forgeworld/Warhammer Forge books in their features and "what to buy" articles. Not to mention the push on Forgeworld's side to make their stuff a bit more "official".
A long enduring rule set would allow for more often codex updates. Good for us, of course, but great for GW.
"DE not selling well? Hmmm, three new models, and POW, new codex!"
It would certainly allow the creation of MORE new codex, like is currently done with the various Space Marine chapters.
Think of it, their own book for Death Corps, Farsight Enclaves, Thousand Suns, different Hive Fleets.
From a business perspective, it makes a lot of sense. Simply look at GW's competition, who have been gaining ground for some time. The argument that "GW would never do something that makes sense!" is as spiteful as it is ignorant. Business needs to change as the market demands. The recording industry has long refused change, and look where it's getting them.
The drastic change in the rules concerns the single largest complaint from long time players about the 3-4-5 evolution: the disappearance of depth.
This rumored new strategy simply makes sense from many perspectives. Let's hope it's at least halfway true.
I'm starting to wonder if they're going to start to follow the Privateer Press tactics of releasing new models and rules. Except GW would be " Hey, new Space Marine Terminator Type, they have two assault cannons! Oh, the rules are in the up coming white dwarf."
By changing the rules and making more diverse units viable, GW can indeed make money as people will buy previously undesirable models in order to access there abilities.
I see this as following wyrds format (I dont play any pp games so I don't know if they follow a similar format) of needing to have a large range of models to choose your force from, to deal with a given scenario/objective rather than the pre-planned army build that is the norm for a GW game.
Dynamix wrote:
Summary:
- The leaked 6th edition rules are legit - No - they are not
- They want to get rid of edition cycle by releasing a core rule set valid for a long time - Cant see that happening
- These core set will be updated by FAQ's, erratas and supplements - Dont make me laugh !
- allows for expansions (30k, 41k?) and concentration on model making - Dont care
Right. 3rd sentence, stop there. Releasing a new edition is something that generates a massive surge of interest (and therefore sales) every few years. Why on God's earth would they stop doing that? So there, at the very beginning, is a sentence that makes absolutely no sense in terms of GW's business model and its track record.
Besides which, as Biccat mentioned:
Question: How do the (hypothetical) 6th edition rules have any increased permanency above the 5th, 4th, or 3rd edition rules?
Couldn't GW achieve the same objective here by not publishing a 6th edition?
If 1, then why make such a drastic change with 6th edition? If the rules are supposedly getting better, why change to a new rules set?
1 can also be disproved by the staggering imbalance that has resulted in each edition as new codices are released that drastically change the meta.
If 2, then why would they stop with 6th edition? If a new edition brings in new players/sales, why not go with 7th, 8th, and 9th editions?
I really don't see any argument for GW to stop at 6th edition that wouldn't work for them stopping at 5th edition.
How would a new section of the rules be any more of a 'final edition' than any of the others that has come before it?
Finally. allows for expansions (30k, 41k?)
Some time ago, when the HH book series had just begun, there was apparently a discussion at HQ about creating a Warhammer 30,000 line. The decision was made not to do this, for whatever reason (confusing the customer, a split universe? Who knows). As such, the '30k sprue' that had been made was split, components from which have subsequently appeared in the AoBR box and Blood Angels amongst others. FW releases (under the guise of 'Badab War') have subsequently catered to the Pre-Heresy market.
This would mean a reversal of that supposedly executive level decision.
So, several strong indicators that this is a fake. I would love it not to be, but I think for something like this to happen, someone would have had to have kidnapped the entire management team of GWHQ and replace them with hobbyists.
Walls wrote:No one has an actual, legitimate, credible source of proof either way.
Welcome to the world of rumours
riverhawks32 wrote:They won't change up their market strategy, 6th edition will not be radical because as GW has to say, their profits are up 40%. They won't take risks
1.) They made radical changes with 8th edition Warhammer Fantasy, the most recent major rulebook.
2.) The changes are not that radical as they might look. The game feel stays the same.
3.) The profits do not come from the core business: The revenue from selling miniatures stays flat or is declining (considering the average 10% price hike each year, it is declining by 10% in sales every year). So a change of whatever they call market strategy might be advised.
The four year edition cycle allows GW to regularly tap their core audience for income, but at the price of retarding growth of the game's fanbase. By giving 6th edition an eight year cycle, they would give the game a period of stability and consistency that would make it easier to bring in (and more importantly keep) new blood, which could easily offset the income lost by skipping the release of a new edition at the four year mark.
I expect that Games Workshop will come up with a subscription service that grants access to expanded online content, like rules PDFs, alternative army lists, units and priority updates. We already see something comparable to this from WotC/Dungeons and Dragons, and it would allow Games Workshop to profit from previously free content while pushing a new support/distribution channel. They could also tie access to this subscription service to a person's White Dwarf subscription.
The need to generate sales by pushing through army and rules revisions can be mitigated by an expanded opportunity to release more new content. The release of Storm of Chaos drove sales in Warhammer Fantasy by producing a handful of new models in support of new lists that gave people new ways to play/use existing figures. Warhammer 40k is uniquely suited to releases like this thanks to the setting's multiple variations on a theme (Space Marine Chapters, Eldar Craftworlds, Chaos Legions, Tyranid Hive Fleets, etc).
This is all just my take on the situation. There don't seem to be many practical negatives at work in this new scheme, though. People seem to decry this possibility (with good reason) as being beyond Games Workshop's limited business sense, but I think it represents an acknowledgement by the company that their old ways aren't working. Right now the 40k brand is more visible than ever (thanks to some smart license deals that have paid dividends), but sales continue to slip. I've seen more people quit the GW hobby in the past two years than I did in the fifteen years before it, and that speaks to me that the company has pushed to the limit of wrong-headedness. A dramatic change doesn't surprise me, I've been expecting it for the past several months. What does surprise me is that (unlike with Warhammer Fantasy), I like so much of what I'm seeing from this change.
Summary:
- The leaked 6th edition rules are legit - No - they are not
- They want to get rid of edition cycle by releasing a core rule set valid for a long time - Cant see that happening
- These core set will be updated by FAQ's, erratas and supplements - Dont make me laugh !
- allows for expansions (30k, 41k?) and concentration on model making - Dont care
1. Of course they are not legit...they are an earlier (now obsolete) version...and we should believe 'the company' that said its current 'no marketing/no preview' policy is their voluntary response to Weta's concern they cannot keep secrets...if you believe that - woulld you like to buy a bridge?
2. Why can't this happen? Their rules books cost $40 to $60. They have priced themselves out of the market (where you can get paper editions ar $20-$30 and digitial editions at $15-$30)...we are buying rules manuals not coffee table books. A 'core' hard-cover edition would justify the pricing. Also consider GW's MOST successful division (CONSISTENTLT successful BTW)...FW. FW sells models (expensive resin models..hummm...see any commonality with failcaste and where GW core seems to be going) with high-quality story driven publications to support those high-priced (prfitable) models. Having a core book (hard cover expensive high-quality tomb) that is supported by stroy driven suppliments aligns with what FW does and it works...
3. You are confusing quality with quatity
4. Why is this important i.e. the rules are designed to appeal to a broad audience not just your personal tastes
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Palindrome wrote:The big problem with this is that it directly goes against the established GW 'cycle' method, i.e. constantly update rules purely for economic reasons. I don't think that this is very efficient but GW are a very conservative company and don't like to change. Its always possible that GW have finally noticed their ever declining sales figures and actually attempted to do something about it of course.
I would be very impressed if GW actually did change its stance and I think it is highly unlikely. In addition the source of this rumour is more than a little unreliable.
Possible but not probable.
The drivers are:
* GW's sales are declining because of price and competition
* Environmental changes - their over-priced (even with higher quality) books are getting slammed in the 'digital' age...the folks who can afford to buy the hard-cover manuals are the same ones who own eReaders, smart-phones, tablets, etc. These folks want digital editions not expensive paper-weights coffee table books. GW hired expensive consultatns to told them the obvious and they are slowly adapting the recommendations. Think we'll the market/space will be in 3-5 years not where it is today. This level of change has 3+ year horizons.
- A core book justifies the edition price, allows digitial derivitives, etc.
I am also standing in the 'legitimate leak' camp, and give some credence to OP as well. My reasons, in summary:
1. GW leaked a not-quite-finished 5th ed rulebook in exactly the same style as this, about the same time before the proper release. I therefore think (and hope!) the finished version of 6th will be broadly similar to this leaked copy.
2. I have a good friend whom, on his orientation days upon becoming a staff member, accidentally saw some things about 4 years before they were released. GW does think ahead; they've lasted nigh-on 30 years and are a large, successful business, that needs to adapt, and has done plenty of times in the past.
3. The move toward more mobile, larger, multi-player battles with giant expensive gribblies everywhere.
I personally don't like quite a few things that GW's done over the years - being a fan and all - but I don't think they're stupid. This leaked ruleset was a deliberate move to get thousands of free playtesters giving their opinions online, and test the waters with the fanbase. A more balanced game (to start with, at least) will encourage people to have more options in their armies, rather than 'lock in' to one list, and someone's point above about picking the right tools for the mission makes sense to me as well.
That's my tuppence anyway, and yes, it is an opinion with justifications, not fact
Howard A Treesong wrote:I don't believe that about the "rules cycles". It seems clear that GW are happy to reinvent the game and rewrite the books continuously as a means to get everyone to regularly buy the game again and for them to invalidate old models and make new ones.
Otherwise you will have people buying a book and models and hardly purchasing anything over the next 8 years because the game remains largely static.
Overall, looks like wishlisting.
This men speaks the TRUTH!
Those "rumours" are nothing more than the wishlist of someone that took a look at PP's business model and wished that GW would do the same...
Captain Roderick wrote:I am also standing in the 'legitimate leak' camp, and give some credence to OP as well. My reasons, in summary:
1. GW leaked a not-quite-finished 5th ed rulebook in exactly the same style as this, about the same time before the proper release. I therefore think (and hope!) the finished version of 6th will be broadly similar to this leaked copy.
2. I have a good friend whom, on his orientation days upon becoming a staff member, accidentally saw some things about 4 years before they were released. GW does think ahead; they've lasted nigh-on 30 years and are a large, successful business, that needs to adapt, and has done plenty of times in the past.
3. The move toward more mobile, larger, multi-player battles with giant expensive gribblies everywhere.
I personally don't like quite a few things that GW's done over the years - being a fan and all - but I don't think they're stupid. This leaked ruleset was a deliberate move to get thousands of free playtesters giving their opinions online, and test the waters with the fanbase. A more balanced game (to start with, at least) will encourage people to have more options in their armies, rather than 'lock in' to one list, and someone's point above about picking the right tools for the mission makes sense to me as well.
That's my tuppence anyway, and yes, it is an opinion with justifications, not fact
While I tend to agree that it's likely a leak, I do see some issues with a couple of the points above.
First, on the issue of style, presumably the putative "forgers" would know about the v5 "leak" and could use that to make their own work more realistic/believable. The style's just not really a solid reason to suggest it's legit per se.
Second, it's probably way too late in the game for GW to have leaked this to get unofficial play testing. If v6 is a summer release, they'd likely need to be well into production mode by January. It's highly unlikely that theyd be able to incorporate any insights gleamed by this "leak" into a printed rule book by summer. The timeline just doesn't work. Even WD is finalized several months in advance, much less something as massive as a complete rules rewrite
My sense would be that, most likely, this was a leak that GW didn't condone. There's the old saying that, if two people know something it's not a secret. There have to be a bunch of folks who could have access to the play test rules, and it only takes one person who's disgruntled, wants to share with a mate, or just makes a mistake. GWs had all kinds of trouble with leaks in the recent past, and -likely- none of them were deliberate. Don't see why that would change now.
cygnnus wrote:
Second, it's probably way too late in the game for GW to have leaked this to get unofficial play testing. If v6 is a summer release, they'd likely need to be well into production mode by January. It's highly unlikely that theyd be able to incorporate any insights gleamed by this "leak" into a printed rule book by summer. The timeline just doesn't work. Even WD is finalized several months in advance, much less something as massive as a complete rules rewrite
I don't think this is accurate. Maybe GW does do things this far in advance, but people keep saying they'd need to start producing by now or sooner to make the July 14th date, and I don't think that's accurate. It doesn't take that long to print up new rules books. They need to have a slot at the printers reserved by now, but they don't actually need to have the final version ready yet. They could probably start printing as late as late May and still make it, though late April is a more likely start, which means lockdown wouldn't need to happen until early April/late March. They might do things earlier, but they don't have to.
Not that I think this was an intentional leak. Even if it is legit, I doubt they would intentionally slip this to us. As a corporation, the leak probably caught them by surprise.
PhantomViper wrote:Those "rumours" are nothing more than the wishlist of someone that took a look at PP's business model and wished that GW would do the same...
You mean someone's who has a professional competence in gamedesign, lots and lots of time, lexical knowledge of GW material and maybe even insight into future releases?
Yeah, the document could be many things, but a mere wishlist?
cygnnus wrote:
Second, it's probably way too late in the game for GW to have leaked this to get unofficial play testing. If v6 is a summer release, they'd likely need to be well into production mode by January. It's highly unlikely that theyd be able to incorporate any insights gleamed by this "leak" into a printed rule book by summer. The timeline just doesn't work. Even WD is finalized several months in advance, much less something as massive as a complete rules rewrite
I don't think this is accurate. Maybe GW does do things this far in advance, but people keep saying they'd need to start producing by now or sooner to make the July 14th date, and I don't think that's accurate. It doesn't take that long to print up new rules books. They need to have a slot at the printers reserved by now, but they don't actually need to have the final version ready yet. They could probably start printing as late as late May and still make it, though late April is a more likely start, which means lockdown wouldn't need to happen until early April/late March. They might do things earlier, but they don't have to.
Not that I think this was an intentional leak. Even if it is legit, I doubt they would intentionally slip this to us. As a corporation, the leak probably caught them by surprise.
They wouldn't need the final version done now, but there's a lot that would need to be do be done to turn the "leak" into a finished product. Proofing, indexing (hah!), typesetting, getting the art together, getting the fluff together. Then they have to back out the printing, shipping and distribution for a world-wide release? None of which can really be started until you are at least very close to final with the rules. "Leaking" a document for blind testing this close to the production date makes no sense at all.
Not to try to argue from authority, but I've been involved in playtesting of rules for several companies over the years (both as a tester as well as running play test programs myself) blind testing,even with the interwebs to speed the process up, is not something you can really donthis late in the game.
Yeah... I'm comfortable saying its not at all likely that this "leak" was done to get blind testing of the rules done in time for the scheduled v6 release.
They wouldn't need the final version done now, but there's a lot that would need to be do be done to turn the "leak" into a finished product. Proofing, indexing (hah!), typesetting, getting the art together, getting the fluff together. Then they have to back out the printing, shipping and distribution for a world-wide release? None of which can really be started until you are at least very close to final with the rules. "Leaking" a document for blind testing this close to the production date makes no sense at all.
Not to try to argue from authority, but I've been involved in playtesting of rules for several companies over the years (both as a tester as well as running play test programs myself) blind testing,even with the interwebs to speed the process up, is not something you can really donthis late in the game.
Yeah... I'm comfortable saying its not at all likely that this "leak" was done to get blind testing of the rules done in time for the scheduled v6 release.
Valete,
JohnS
Well, assuming this is an intentional GW leak, this is probably the playtest version, and the ball will already be rolling on what's actually coming out as the formal rulebook, which is most likely already tweaked from the version we see. Fluff, proofing, indexing, typesetting, art, all of that can be done by now.
But releasing this a little in advance, at no cost or lost profits, to have the massive fanbase take a look over it, and get excited? If there's anything glaring unbalanced in there, it'll be all over the interwebs by mid-feb. You're probably right Cygnnus, but I still get the feel it's intentional, for what reason I'm unsure but I think given their current much tighter focus on secrecy, I doubt it was just a disgruntled playtester. Maybe they even released it themselves to pre-empt such an occurence?
I'm just rolling hard to the 'GW knows what it's doing' angle I suppose. I mean, if BL can plan the next 11 HH books by now:
Dan Abnett wrote:
The Motorway into Bristol.
Twatted By A Bloodthirster.
[rude word I really can't write here on a public blog] Attack.
C*ckblocked
Hammer In The Face.
Bastards Of Evil.
Fungus And Poo.
Traitor To The Traitors.
Wobbly Rum Baba In A Big Pond Of Chaos.
Khorne Worshipping Asshats.
Big Crystal B*ner.
Maybe the longer-running games design office can plan ahead to play their fans like ocarinas as well?
Does anyone else think the "new rules" are too granular, too all-encompassing, and too complex to be real? These books read more like a fandex than anything GW would produce.
It just seems to me that these rules are written solely for internet nutcases such as myself who think a more complex scheme of rules would make the game fairer. For example, the document takes a relatively simple rule such as instant death and expands it comprehensively to create a "fairer" result depending on a bunch of circumstances. Does the target have eternal warrior? Which tier? Does the attacker have instant death? Which tier? Is the defender's toughness 4 less than STR of attacker? 5? 6?
Another example is evasion, a ruleset which just seems completely unbelievable--has GW ever before messed with the games fundamental math to this extent? It adds another dimension to shooting, except it doesn't because dodgy type characters and extremely fast moving targets have always been give invulerable or cover saves to represent the difficulty in hitting them. Why would GW switch from one idiom to another when the existing rules have worked well? If they knew they'd introduce Evasion in 6th, why bother giving Wyches a "dodge" save?
I have a very difficult time believing this document is genuine.
erewego86 wrote:Does anyone else think the "new rules" are too granular, too all-encompassing, and too complex to be real? These books read more like a fandex than anything GW would produce.
It just seems to me that these rules are written solely for internet nutcases such as myself who think a more complex scheme of rules would make the game fairer. For example, the document takes a relatively simple rule such as instant death and expands it comprehensively to create a "fairer" result depending on a bunch of circumstances. Does the target have eternal warrior? Which tier? Does the attacker have instant death? Which tier? Is the defender's toughness 4 less than STR of attacker? 5? 6?
Another example is evasion, a ruleset which just seems completely unbelievable--has GW ever before messed with the games fundamental math to this extent? It adds another dimension to shooting, except it doesn't because dodgy type characters and extremely fast moving targets have always been give invulerable or cover saves to represent the difficulty in hitting them. Why would GW switch from one idiom to another when the existing rules have worked well? If they knew they'd introduce Evasion in 6th, why bother giving Wyches a "dodge" save?
I have a very difficult time believing this document is genuine.
At its core, evasion, is really just a "to hit" modifier which GW has used in the past for 40k, and still does in WHFB. Not to mention it's a common mechanic in just about every other tabletop wargame out there.
This "leaked" set of rules definitely looks more complex, but don't forget there is a reference to a (as of yet missing) set of "basic" rules.
Im remaining hopeful myself.
This strikes me as an early draft perhaps a proposed rule set..? IMHO we may see a 6th edition heavly based around this...while it is very wishlisty GW would have to be plain old blind to not see the competition nipping at their heels. The long term rule set makes alot of sense as well, like others stated it will give time to pump out models and codexes via e-releases and "premium" content add ons. Regardless if it is legit or not it would take hundreds of man hours to achieve the level of detail in these rules. Again also stated it is very hard to believe GW had nothing to do with this "Timely" leak, whether it be intentional or not. The level of thought put into this leak is on par to a high profile game design studio...if GW didnt write these rules they should seek out and hire who ever did. I look forward to see what happens in the next six months, also BOW may have several 6th ed related videos coming up.
Cheers hope to see this become a reality!
This thread is about the rumour about the master plan behind this.
The discussion about the validity of the leak itself has its place in the other thread:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/422519.page So please lets keep these things separate to avoid duplicity.
Of course you are free to state that you don't believe in a 6th edition and/or the leak and therefore don't believe these rumours based on it either, just keep the discussion of the leak itself elsewhere.
No offence to the OP but this is a bit too much of the "I overheard a guy saying his 3rd cousin on his mothers-side's girlsfriend talked to a GW employee who claimed the rules were legit" for me. GW ha s got its head so far up its own that it can see the inside of its brain. Consequentaly the day GW actually listens to its customers will be the day I take over the world
I think the leak was legit, but my conspiracy theory is it was leaked on purpose because they want to get people talking about the new version, all the while not saying there's a new version coming so all us interweb nerds that feel like we're in the know will start frothing at the mouth.
But I like the One rulebook to rule them all idea. I don't like getting a new version every few years. I have a hard enough time remembering rules as it is. Soon as I figure out my army, it's time to relearn everything and buy all the new models since they're the only ones that will work.
erewego86 wrote:Does anyone else think the "new rules" are too granular, too all-encompassing, and too complex to be real? These books read more like a fandex than anything GW would produce.
It just seems to me that these rules are written solely for internet nutcases such as myself who think a more complex scheme of rules would make the game fairer. For example, the document takes a relatively simple rule such as instant death and expands it comprehensively to create a "fairer" result depending on a bunch of circumstances. Does the target have eternal warrior? Which tier? Does the attacker have instant death? Which tier? Is the defender's toughness 4 less than STR of attacker? 5? 6?
Another example is evasion, a ruleset which just seems completely unbelievable--has GW ever before messed with the games fundamental math to this extent? It adds another dimension to shooting, except it doesn't because dodgy type characters and extremely fast moving targets have always been give invulerable or cover saves to represent the difficulty in hitting them. Why would GW switch from one idiom to another when the existing rules have worked well? If they knew they'd introduce Evasion in 6th, why bother giving Wyches a "dodge" save?
I have a very difficult time believing this document is genuine.
Yes.
I think it's pretty obviously a fandex, though I could, of course, be wrong. I suspect too many people are mistaking 'thinks just like the internet forum fanbase' for 'professional game design', and projecting collective hopes and wishes onto it. The departure from the path GW has taken over the past 15 years is so radical that it seems unlikely that they would do it now without substantial change in top-level management. Some believe this is one of Alessio Cavatore's original drafts, while forgetting that Alessio's design philosophy was more and more vanilla and generic, not more and more complex rules.
That said, it's certainly generating interest, so more power.
Rented Tritium wrote:The reason some of us say this looks like professional game design is because we play games other than 40k and it looks just like them.
This book reminds me a lot of the MTG comprehensive rules and that is a very very very good thing.
That may be the thing i love about them the most. They seem very clearly constructed rules with types, categories and restrictions. The beauty of that, is it gives them a framework for all new rules to written the same way. If they cover how those interact clearly enough, there is less confusion upon release of a new book.
Love or hate MTG, ts rules are the most comprehensive i've ever seen.
PhantomViper wrote:Those "rumours" are nothing more than the wishlist of someone that took a look at PP's business model and wished that GW would do the same...
You mean someone's who has a professional competence in gamedesign, lots and lots of time, lexical knowledge of GW material and maybe even insight into future releases?
Yeah, the document could be many things, but a mere wishlist?
No he is talking about the subject of this thread, the 'master plan'. Not the 'leaked' rulebook.
Rented Tritium wrote:The reason some of us say this looks like professional game design is because we play games other than 40k and it looks just like them.
Sure, and that's probably why it's, on the face, a pretty good ruleset.
But that's how fans write rules. It's how I'd write rules, and you, and most of us. Very few games out there are so obviously mishmashes of other rulesets by other companies, using their ideas or style.
Could be false, but IMO, lately GW has been doing a good job of slowly pulling their gigantic heads out of their asses, so me being the optimist that I am I think this sounds pretty legit.
I've been thinking that the "leaks" we've been seeing for a while have actually been on purpose. Why? GW has two broad types of customers: little Timmys who are the spontano-buyers, and us interwebs addicts who like to see, dream, plan ahead, whatevs.
The previous strategy of send black boxes, have pre-orders for several weeks, yadda yadda, misses both demographics. Timmys get bored, and webbites don't have enough time or enough special leaked info to get excited.
The way it is now, we interwebs trolls get "leaks", so we feel like we have super secret squirrel info and can plan our super awesums buying plans. Little Timmy can walk into the store on release and go, "Whoa OMG coolest thing EVAR! Mom buy it for me right NOWWWWWW!"
So anyway this falls right into that mentality. Completely deny these are the rules (cause they're NOT, see, they are a DRAFT tee hee). This gets us webbanauts all super duper excited. We talk amongst ourselves and plan it all out, teach ourselves the rules... and when the for reals version drops? We're all there waiting to buy because we've convinced ourselves of the awesomeness.
In the mean time, we are also training ourselves to teach Timmy how to play.
It is simple and brilliant, which is probably why GW is not doing it.
Edit: anyway this is sort of a "bigger plan behind leaks" concept.
More directly on topic, it is feasible that GW would want to try a different direction, i.e. core rules, with core and advanced, that stay put for a while, then focus on armies and models. Codex updates and model releases sell models, obviously. I've seen it said many times that GW says that they are a "model" company, not a "game" company. This really does match up with that concept.
Rented Tritium wrote:The reason some of us say this looks like professional game design is because we play games other than 40k and it looks just like them.
Sure, and that's probably why it's, on the face, a pretty good ruleset.
But that's how fans write rules. It's how I'd write rules, and you, and most of us. Very few games out there are so obviously mishmashes of other rulesets by other companies, using their ideas or style.
5th edition 40k is a mishmash of other rulesets by other companies using their ideas or style
I believe that all of this is plausible, but until release day we're not going to know for sure either way.
For me, I just hope that, when 6th Edition comes out:
a) I can still use all my slightly-crazy-but-legal units (like Biker Command Squads with Thunder Hammers, Storm Shields, and Plasma Guns),
b) 6th Edition is fun to play both casually and, perhaps to a lesser extent, competitively, and
c) There's still plenty of mystery, scope, and overall epicness in the 40K setting.
ShatteredBlade wrote:I'm starting to wonder if they're going to start to follow the Privateer Press tactics of releasing new models and rules. Except GW would be " Hey, new Space Marine Terminator Type, they have two assault cannons! Oh, the rules are in the up coming white dwarf."
What you forget is that they used to do this, it was called chapter approved. Every so often they would release some new models and print rules in the white dwarf, a couple i remember off hand were pathfinder Rail rifles, Gaunt's ghosts and Tyrannic War veterans, with WHFB they did similar, off hand examples are the priests of ulric and those two elf assasin dudes.
Obviously this wasnt very profitable as ~ 4th edition (forgive me as this was my non-wargaming phase, restarted last year) came out they stopped doing it.
Yeah perkustin, I believe it was right around the start of 4th that it ended. The problem with it was that they didn't promote it well and didn't make a big deal about the new stuff, so it languished. With competent marketing, adding new models randomly would be quite good.
Gymnogyps wrote:I've been thinking that the "leaks" we've been seeing for a while have actually been on purpose. Why? GW has two broad types of customers: little Timmys who are the spontano-buyers, and us interwebs addicts who like to see, dream, plan ahead, whatevs.
There's actually a third, larger type of customerbase they have - adults with disposeable income who don't sit on message boards all day, or interact with them at all. Like it or not, the people who inhabit message boards are not the majority of their customers, not even close.
I'm 31 ... and spend a good bit of time on the boards ... What are you trying to say loki?
You know in the south east tournament scene I rarely see any teens. I would say the average age is around 35. I think "little timmys" are the minority of Gdubs customer base.
Gymnogyps wrote:I've been thinking that the "leaks" we've been seeing for a while have actually been on purpose. Why? GW has two broad types of customers: little Timmys who are the spontano-buyers, and us interwebs addicts who like to see, dream, plan ahead, whatevs.
There's actually a third, larger type of customerbase they have - adults with disposeable income who don't sit on message boards all day, or interact with them at all. Like it or not, the people who inhabit message boards are not the majority of their customers, not even close.
Adults who don't read the internet honestly fall into the timmy group. They buy things in the shop when they see them. They don't know in advance what will be there. The purchasing mechanics are identical to the timmy group, so no, there is no 3rd group.
Gymnogyps wrote:I've been thinking that the "leaks" we've been seeing for a while have actually been on purpose. Why? GW has two broad types of customers: little Timmys who are the spontano-buyers, and us interwebs addicts who like to see, dream, plan ahead, whatevs.
There's actually a third, larger type of customerbase they have - adults with disposeable income who don't sit on message boards all day, or interact with them at all. Like it or not, the people who inhabit message boards are not the majority of their customers, not even close.
Adults who don't read the internet honestly fall into the timmy group. They buy things in the shop when they see them. They don't know in advance what will be there. The purchasing mechanics are identical to the timmy group, so no, there is no 3rd group.
That's a pretty broad brush you're using there. Out of everyone I know what plays wargames, I'm the only one that uses message boards.
My brother talks to FLGS and GW staff about products, and has good knowledge of hobby related stuff simply from being in the hobby for as long as I have, around 20 years.
I have another three friends who simply avoid message boards because, well, it really is a waste of time. They have other commitments. They still plan their lists in advance before buying things, they don't walk in and make impulse purchases every month like your 'timmy' example.
From talking to beople at my FLGS, most of them fall into this category as well. So simply throwing them in with your '12 year old who doesn't know any better' is pretty unfair. They simply do not sit on message boards debating the latest rumour or how GW is dooooooooooooooomed because of their current descision. They just, well, play it as a hobby.
And really, the only reason I sit on Dakka is because I have some free time at work. If I had no free time at work, I wouldn't be on Dakka.
Gymnogyps wrote:I've been thinking that the "leaks" we've been seeing for a while have actually been on purpose. Why? GW has two broad types of customers: little Timmys who are the spontano-buyers, and us interwebs addicts who like to see, dream, plan ahead, whatevs.
There's actually a third, larger type of customerbase they have - adults with disposeable income who don't sit on message boards all day, or interact with them at all. Like it or not, the people who inhabit message boards are not the majority of their customers, not even close.
Adults who don't read the internet honestly fall into the timmy group. They buy things in the shop when they see them. They don't know in advance what will be there. The purchasing mechanics are identical to the timmy group, so no, there is no 3rd group.
That's a pretty broad brush you're using there. Out of everyone I know what plays wargames, I'm the only one that uses message boards.
My brother talks to FLGS and GW staff about products, and has good knowledge of hobby related stuff simply from being in the hobby for as long as I have, around 20 years.
I have another three friends who simply avoid message boards because, well, it really is a waste of time. They have other commitments. They still plan their lists in advance before buying things, they don't walk in and make impulse purchases every month like your 'timmy' example.
From talking to beople at my FLGS, most of them fall into this category as well. So simply throwing them in with your '12 year old who doesn't know any better' is pretty unfair. They simply do not sit on message boards debating the latest rumour or how GW is dooooooooooooooomed because of their current descision. They just, well, play it as a hobby.
And really, the only reason I sit on Dakka is because I have some free time at work. If I had no free time at work, I wouldn't be on Dakka.
In terms of customer behavior, for the purposes of this discussion, they behave the same way. They come into a shop with limited to no information and they make their purchases.
There really are 2 categories of purchasing pattern. Instead of getting offended, you should go read the quote tree and understand what we're actually discussing.
Kroothawk wrote:Yet, 5th edition did ... a bit (e.g. failing golden throne).
Which would be epic to continue in 6th, and explain the fact that armies that AREN'T Imperial armies (like the new DE and Necrons) can actually can win battles now. The Golden Throne finally fails and the Astronomican dies out. THe larger psychic choirs (like the ones in the Ultramar Empire) could still keep things going to a degree, but the Imperium would suffer a major relapse and allow the expansion of...well...ever non-Imperium race, givign them a chance to shin and fight on more even grounds, thus letting non-Space Marine players feel like that their army-the one they've invested so much into-would actually be able to DO something worhtwhile in the grand scheme of things, unlike the way it's been (imperium loses, but exterminatuses the planet and wins anyways). Chaos resurfacing as the big-badguy, the Tyranids no longer being drawn to the Astronomican like a moth to a flame (and thus perhaps letting them "nest" in part of the galaxy?), the necron Dynasties would truly begin to make their mark, the Tau Emprie could expand and truly become a big-league player fluff-wise, and both varieties of Eldar attemptign to manipulate/make the best of the newfound madness.
Well, aside from the staggering assumption (based off an anonymous friend of a friend who works for GW... which is ALWAYS accurate) that this leak is remotely real, I think it is giving GW far too much credit to believe they are capable of such a scheme, much less a rules rewrite of this magnitude. They have proven this... never. They have prioritized cohesive rulebooks and technical writing... never. They have had a sustained ruleset and no lapses in codexes... never.
As much as I would like many of the proposed changes, the leap of faith is far too great to outweigh the sucker's bet that this is true. Sorry.
I see how Non-webbite adult gamers can be classified into the "Timmy" group but i feel like many of these adult gamers chat frequently around the game table with Forum using gamers, thus gleaning some of their insight a board user would have. I think Forum using Gamers often influence non forum using gamers , hyping them up making them plan, dream and etc....
In a way i dont think the Timmy group is so cut and dry...
Walls wrote:This, albiet short thread, kinda summarizes the 6th ed banter.
People confirm it's real.
People confirm it's fake.
No one has an actual, legitimate, credible source of proof either way.
Oh Warseer knows. They boasted that since they knew it was a fake they wouldn't let people talk about it, but now they will let people talk about it since everyone else is suppose to know it's fake. Just when I thought Warseer got better, they are so full of themselves.
It's not a deliberate leak. If it was, we could assume that the date on the document was not tampered with, yes? Because why would GW falsify that?
An if the date was not tampered with, it means that they would be deliberately leaking a version of playtest rules from May 2011, that doesn't include any of the work that has been done between then and now. If you're leaking something for feedback why would you select an outdated version? What benefit is there to collecting feedback on items that no longer exist?
erewego86 wrote:Does anyone else think the "new rules" are too granular, too all-encompassing, and too complex to be real? These books read more like a fandex than anything GW would produce.
It just seems to me that these rules are written solely for internet nutcases such as myself who think a more complex scheme of rules would make the game fairer. For example, the document takes a relatively simple rule such as instant death and expands it comprehensively to create a "fairer" result depending on a bunch of circumstances. Does the target have eternal warrior? Which tier? Does the attacker have instant death? Which tier? Is the defender's toughness 4 less than STR of attacker? 5? 6?
Another example is evasion, a ruleset which just seems completely unbelievable--has GW ever before messed with the games fundamental math to this extent? It adds another dimension to shooting, except it doesn't because dodgy type characters and extremely fast moving targets have always been give invulerable or cover saves to represent the difficulty in hitting them. Why would GW switch from one idiom to another when the existing rules have worked well? If they knew they'd introduce Evasion in 6th, why bother giving Wyches a "dodge" save?
I have a very difficult time believing this document is genuine.
This sort of argument is completely worthless, imo. You ever watch The Colbert Report? He's made an entire career out of satirizing political and cultural figures who depend on their "feeling" to make assumptions about the world or impactful decisions. Do you realize that your feeling about the quality/complexity of the history of GW rulesets is a fine-tuned personal opinion? And that you're assigning an immutable level of stability and predictability to GW by basically claiming that they will continue living up to your exact expectations forever and ever until the end of time?
If I had shown you the rules for 40K 5th edition in the middle of 40K 2nd edition's lifespan wouldn't you have said it was impossibly different and could never be real?
If I had told you about Finecast two years ago?
If I had told you at the height of WD's irrelevance/catalogue-ness that it would begin to start including actual rules and expansions again in the near future?
I had my 2nd game with the new rules tonight and I have to say - They're not bad. I lost horribly (50 to 13 vs Dark Eldar with 'nids) but honestly It was about half to do with my poor decisions in-game and the other half was the worst dice rolling i've ever done in a game session in the past 2 months. The mechanics of the game itself were cogent and responsive to the situation. Move speeds being enhanced for fleet units really makes them stand out for getting across the table on foot.
I was disheartened immediately after my tremendous loss but I plan on sticking with it and going forward with playtesting.
Also to note - placing the first objective can be a big deal. Since the deployment zone and objective placement are done first, You can effectively give yourself more objectives than the enemy from the start of the game forward.
Alot of people seem to assume a expansion book has to be 30k or 41k. Personally if GW dose it, I could see them putting out campaign books like they did for fantsey with "Blood in the bad lands." It could add new rules for units and terriean everyone could use.
(As opposed to a 30k book that only matters of Imperial and Chaos Players....)
Could even add new units for all the armies, so everyone will want to buy it to see what new stuff their army got.
I try to view the "6th ed rules" with restrained excitement. Their a very good rule set that seems to make both old and new players happy. Surprisingly solid if they are fake.
Walls wrote:This, albiet short thread, kinda summarizes the 6th ed banter.
People confirm it's real.
People confirm it's fake.
No one has an actual, legitimate, credible source of proof either way.
Oh Warseer knows. They boasted that since they knew it was a fake they wouldn't let people talk about it, but now they will let people talk about it since everyone else is suppose to know it's fake. Just when I thought Warseer got better, they are so full of themselves.
The official 'company line' (i.e. from GW) is that it's fake. There have been multiple sources on this.
However, they also said that about the 'secret box' (Hence all the 'it's not Space Hulk' jokes). Also, even though it might well be a fake, it might be something approaching what we will actually see when 6th edition appears. It is therefore worthy of discussion I think.
There was also the issue raised on BoLS that apparently this was written by someone who worked in GW Lenton, looking at the file history, which lends credence that it could be a semi-official publication. Either done at GW's behest, or a produced by a staff member off their own back. That would at least explain how it manages to tie in with rule elements that have only been shown in very recent codex releases.
I still can't follow the argument that these rules are too complex.
- There are basic rules mentioned for starters.
- We don't have the layout with boxes and all, facilitating readability.
- If played, the rules work and feel essentially like the old rules, only better.
I also can't follow the argument, that the rules are too complex for a professional team to do, so it must have been written by a random fan. Erm ... are you serious?
I can understand people saying, these rules work and the masterplan sounds reasonable, so it must be fake. But I don't follow that argument.
Davor wrote:Oh Warseer knows. They boasted that since they knew it was a fake they wouldn't let people talk about it, but now they will let people talk about it since everyone else is suppose to know it's fake. Just when I thought Warseer got better, they are so full of themselves.
When GW says it's 'fake', I have to wonder what their defenition of 'fake' is. Is it fake if it is not 100% accurate to the 6th edition that will be released?
I just find it hard to believe that someone would write a huge document that is as intricate and well designed as this one, and then also write up an accompanying FAQ for existing codices as a joke. Like they said on the podcast linked in this thread, it would be like writing a PhD thesis as a joke.
Also the argument that 'I hate GW, thus it is fake' is about as reasonable as 'unicorns exist because I saw one'. We get it, the internet hates GW. Move along.
The most important changes will be after 6th is released. If GW follow the ideas laid out in this rumour, than we will see a lot more campaign books (blood in the badlands) better quality codexes (hard back 8th edition books) and a rapid release of extremely game changing suppliments (storm of magic)
I would say look to 8th edition WHFB. does it seem like GW will be changing that ruleset in 3-4 years?
Just want to touch on the topic of this system being too complicated.
We (local group that meets at my house) played 3 games this past weekend after a few of us read through the book a couple times. All were 1k points switching up partners each time. The first game took a while to get through (probably 2ish hours) but then after that the second game only took over and hour and the third was even faster.
Point being, that the rules look daunting at first, but once you grasp them they are faster and more consistent than the 5th edition. Most of the play errors came from assuming rules from 5th still applied and I have a feeling that will be the major hurdle by most of the players who are used to 5th.
Here's a prediction. When the starter set(s) come out, they will be larger than what we've seen with Macrage and AoBR. The total cost will be closer to $200 than to $100, but you will see more models. I predict that it'll be at least 1000 point armies. If they are split (1 starter for each of the two armies) then the boxes will be in the area of battleforce cost, if not more.
I really hope these rules become reality. After looking at how they change armies for the better, it really would make 40k enter into a new golden age. These rules make seemingly unplayable units, playable again. That is a good thing. More diversity of usable units will make for more interesting army builds.
Anpu-adom wrote:Here's a prediction. When the starter set(s) come out, they will be larger than what we've seen with Macrage and AoBR. The total cost will be closer to $200 than to $100, but you will see more models. I predict that it'll be at least 1000 point armies. If they are split (1 starter for each of the two armies) then the boxes will be in the area of battleforce cost, if not more.
Doesn't sound to likely to me. Increasing the model count & price of the starter set are just further impediments to newcomers who actually want to use it as a starter set.
My starter set prediction is that the starter rulebook could consist of these mysterious "basic rules" and nothing more. GW has to have realized that they're hemorrhaging profits to the ebay resellers who hawk the mini rulebooks by themselves.
Anpu-adom wrote:Here's a prediction. When the starter set(s) come out, they will be larger than what we've seen with Macrage and AoBR. The total cost will be closer to $200 than to $100, but you will see more models. I predict that it'll be at least 1000 point armies. If they are split (1 starter for each of the two armies) then the boxes will be in the area of battleforce cost, if not more.
Battleforce cost, but not battleforce usage. I'd challenge anyone to make a 1000 pt list from a Battleforce.
Also, two 1000 point armies for less than $100 apiece? Not likely from GW.
Anpu-adom wrote:Here's a prediction. When the starter set(s) come out, they will be larger than what we've seen with Macrage and AoBR. The total cost will be closer to $200 than to $100, but you will see more models. I predict that it'll be at least 1000 point armies. If they are split (1 starter for each of the two armies) then the boxes will be in the area of battleforce cost, if not more.
Battleforce cost, but not battleforce usage. I'd challenge anyone to make a 1000 pt list from a Battleforce.
Also, two 1000 point armies for less than $100 apiece? Not likely from GW.
I'd forgotten that the starter box from GW now has a MSRP of close to $150 (maybe to cut back on those ebay sellers getting $25 for the mini-rule book and $50 for each of the armies). AOBR has 1000+ points WYSIWYG, and was about $100 when it came out.
It'll probably be 2 boxes, each in the area of 1000 points for $150 each. Keep in mind, the basic mission in the leak is designed for 1-3k armies. While I can see GW saying "Here... buy this box, which is unplayable without buying another $150 worth of models... have fun!" you aren't going to get old-timers to buy it like they bought AoBR.
40k will be going like fantasy... 1000 is the new 500, and most tournaments will be run at 2k or higher.
cyphertheory wrote:I would say look to 8th edition WHFB. does it seem like GW will be changing that ruleset in 3-4 years?
I'd think that they will follow a pattern of 'major rules revision, ~3 years later minor rules revision, ~3 years later minor rules revision, ~3 years later repeat'.
Altruizine wrote:It's not a deliberate leak. If it was, we could assume that the date on the document was not tampered with, yes? Because why would GW falsify that?
An if the date was not tampered with, it means that they would be deliberately leaking a version of playtest rules from May 2011, that doesn't include any of the work that has been done between then and now. If you're leaking something for feedback why would you select an outdated version? What benefit is there to collecting feedback on items that no longer exist?
erewego86 wrote:Does anyone else think the "new rules" are too granular, too all-encompassing, and too complex to be real? These books read more like a fandex than anything GW would produce.
It just seems to me that these rules are written solely for internet nutcases such as myself who think a more complex scheme of rules would make the game fairer. For example, the document takes a relatively simple rule such as instant death and expands it comprehensively to create a "fairer" result depending on a bunch of circumstances. Does the target have eternal warrior? Which tier? Does the attacker have instant death? Which tier? Is the defender's toughness 4 less than STR of attacker? 5? 6?
Another example is evasion, a ruleset which just seems completely unbelievable--has GW ever before messed with the games fundamental math to this extent? It adds another dimension to shooting, except it doesn't because dodgy type characters and extremely fast moving targets have always been give invulerable or cover saves to represent the difficulty in hitting them. Why would GW switch from one idiom to another when the existing rules have worked well? If they knew they'd introduce Evasion in 6th, why bother giving Wyches a "dodge" save?
I have a very difficult time believing this document is genuine.
This sort of argument is completely worthless, imo. You ever watch The Colbert Report? He's made an entire career out of satirizing political and cultural figures who depend on their "feeling" to make assumptions about the world or impactful decisions. Do you realize that your feeling about the quality/complexity of the history of GW rulesets is a fine-tuned personal opinion? And that you're assigning an immutable level of stability and predictability to GW by basically claiming that they will continue living up to your exact expectations forever and ever until the end of time?
If I had shown you the rules for 40K 5th edition in the middle of 40K 2nd edition's lifespan wouldn't you have said it was impossibly different and could never be real?
If I had told you about Finecast two years ago?
If I had told you at the height of WD's irrelevance/catalogue-ness that it would begin to start including actual rules and expansions again in the near future?
I would leak a draft version so that the purchase of a final version was still necessary. Following your logic they should leak the final draft and cost themselves money
Here is my problem with the 6th edition rules (if they are true).
I dont know what to think about assault before shooting. It seems like it could be effective and helpful for a lot of armies (tau ignore assault and orks and tyranids just jump into it) but what about the average marine or guard? they are just okay at either, so if they assault, they have to win combat in order to shoot. And I'll admit, sometimes as a space marine it takes more than one round of combat to win. Also, you have to assault the squad at its full strength. Flamers and the like are worthless. What you could originally fire (literally) into an enemy before an assault is useless! Same goes for the nice ability to shoot into a squad before assaulting it. They took out the ability to cripple the enemy with shooting then clean up with an assault. Now sure, assault seems rather nice with pistols being primary or secondary weapons, and weapons having an ap value rather than stating "no armour save" (because now chainswords have an ability again) but still, my main concern is the useless flamers and shooting. I'll definitely need to redesign my GK.
(Speaking of GK, when would I be able to use shrouding with my librarian if I go flat out in a stormraven?)
Oh, didnt see that part, I think I saw fire sweep, but I linked it to be a flyer doing a bombing run but with fire. Dont know why.
Anyway, flamers now have some more purpose, but more short range dont. But I LOVE pistols in assault. Using the pistol stats (depending on pistol) would be wonderful! (especially for pistols on guardsmen). Zeal pistols sound heavenly as a primary assault weapon.
Oh wow, what about a Vindicare assassin? He has an execticus pistol, it may become awesome.
If I had shown you the rules for 40K 5th edition in the middle of 40K 2nd edition's lifespan wouldn't you have said it was impossibly different and could never be real?
If I had told you about Finecast two years ago?
If I had told you at the height of WD's irrelevance/catalogue-ness that it would begin to start including actual rules and expansions again in the near future?
I wouldnt find any of these unbelievable - 2nd ed to 5th though ? - we are looking now at a major change in one ed - however I concede there was a major change from 2nd to 3rd - that would probably be a better example .
ShottyScotty wrote:Oh, didnt see that part, I think I saw fire sweep, but I linked it to be a flyer doing a bombing run but with fire. Dont know why.
Anyway, flamers now have some more purpose, but more short range dont. But I LOVE pistols in assault. Using the pistol stats (depending on pistol) would be wonderful! (especially for pistols on guardsmen). Zeal pistols sound heavenly as a primary assault weapon.
Oh wow, what about a Vindicare assassin? He has an execticus pistol, it may become awesome.
It will be interesting to see what the liquifier guns do in CC. I can see wracks doing much better in CC with 2 in each squad and a hammy holding a 3rd if they can get a good AP roll
I would leak a draft version so that the purchase of a final version was still necessary. Following your logic they should leak the final draft and cost themselves money
The only plausible reason for them to leak it would be for feedback. Seeking feedback implies a willingness and an intention to tweak the rules based on that feedback. Changing the rules would render the leaked version irrelevant.
And anyone who is capable of downloading the leak is probably equally capable of loading a torrent and downloading a full-colour scan of the official rulebook. It's not like the leak is openly available on GW's site.
I remember 2nd to 3rd was a pretty big change. I had to read the rulebook over and over to finally settle into it.
However, when I read these leaked 'rules', they really reminded me of 2nd edition. Things were a bit more complex then. The shift from 2nd to 3rd was a shift toward simplification.
The idea of a rulebook with some staying power is very appealing to me. I am just not convinced of the validity of the leaked rules. I refuse to believe until 6th edition actually gets here or the evidence becomes much more convincing.
Feldmarshal Goehring wrote:I remember 2nd to 3rd was a pretty big change. I had to read the rulebook over and over to finally settle into it.
However, when I read these leaked 'rules', they really reminded me of 2nd edition. Things were a bit more complex then. The shift from 2nd to 3rd was a shift toward simplification.
The idea of a rulebook with some staying power is very appealing to me. I am just not convinced of the validity of the leaked rules. I refuse to believe until 6th edition actually gets here or the evidence becomes much more convincing.
*edit: corrected spelling error
According to battle reports and tests people have done with the 6e rules, the game is streamlined so much just from the new movement rules that it makes up for the seemingly increased complexity.
Most of the "complexity" is just keywording things that already exist. People are scared of lots of keywords for some reason, even though they're a great way to clean up rules and make army lists evolve without constant reprinting.
The rules themselfs are much simpler and more exact than the 5th ed rules.
However, they leave much more space for extremely complex tactics that use every aspect of the game.
In my personal oppinion, that's how every game should be.
IPS wrote:The rules themselfs are much simpler and more exact than the 5th ed rules.
However, they leave much more space for extremely complex tactics that use every aspect of the game.
In my personal oppinion, that's how every game should be.
This.
It also seems like GW is trying to drive up FW sales by including their models in regular games.
Altruizine wrote:It's not a deliberate leak. If it was, we could assume that the date on the document was not tampered with, yes? Because why would GW falsify that?
An if the date was not tampered with, it means that they would be deliberately leaking a version of playtest rules from May 2011, that doesn't include any of the work that has been done between then and now. If you're leaking something for feedback why would you select an outdated version? What benefit is there to collecting feedback on items that no longer exist?
erewego86 wrote:Does anyone else think the "new rules" are too granular, too all-encompassing, and too complex to be real? These books read more like a fandex than anything GW would produce.
It just seems to me that these rules are written solely for internet nutcases such as myself who think a more complex scheme of rules would make the game fairer. For example, the document takes a relatively simple rule such as instant death and expands it comprehensively to create a "fairer" result depending on a bunch of circumstances. Does the target have eternal warrior? Which tier? Does the attacker have instant death? Which tier? Is the defender's toughness 4 less than STR of attacker? 5? 6?
Another example is evasion, a ruleset which just seems completely unbelievable--has GW ever before messed with the games fundamental math to this extent? It adds another dimension to shooting, except it doesn't because dodgy type characters and extremely fast moving targets have always been give invulerable or cover saves to represent the difficulty in hitting them. Why would GW switch from one idiom to another when the existing rules have worked well? If they knew they'd introduce Evasion in 6th, why bother giving Wyches a "dodge" save?
I have a very difficult time believing this document is genuine.
This sort of argument is completely worthless, imo. You ever watch The Colbert Report? He's made an entire career out of satirizing political and cultural figures who depend on their "feeling" to make assumptions about the world or impactful decisions. Do you realize that your feeling about the quality/complexity of the history of GW rulesets is a fine-tuned personal opinion? And that you're assigning an immutable level of stability and predictability to GW by basically claiming that they will continue living up to your exact expectations forever and ever until the end of time?
If I had shown you the rules for 40K 5th edition in the middle of 40K 2nd edition's lifespan wouldn't you have said it was impossibly different and could never be real?
If I had told you about Finecast two years ago?
If I had told you at the height of WD's irrelevance/catalogue-ness that it would begin to start including actual rules and expansions again in the near future?
Obviously we disagree and, out of respect for Kroothawk's post linking to the thread discussing validity, I will not respond to your arguments here except to say that I'd be thrilled if Stephen Colbert made fun of my "feelings" and "worthless arguments" BUT you are no Stephen Colbert.
I love this. As I have said on numerous threads in some form or another: I want this 6th Edition rule book to be legit, so badly that I am considering just using it anyways even if Games-Workshop doesn't release something close to it.
The leaked Rulebook is a far superior rule set to 5th edition 40k - and if it is better than 6th 40k, then why not play it??? The best part about this 6th Edition leak is that it is:
1. Awesomely Written
2. Can adapt to any new model or Codex until 7th edition comes out easily (which supports Kroot's ideas)
3. GW are you listening to us? We like this thing!!!
Kroot, I love the information you provided. A hearty thanks to you!
Perkustin wrote:Now i am questioning the legitimacy of the rules, as this is just a great big wish list.
Some of these claims are the things fans have been saying for about five or six years. This would mean GW has actually listened to fans.....
If you think about it, GW has been raising prices alot recently correct? SO to keep people happy they decided to listen to some ideas here and there, take other ideas and work on them so they can call them their own (they do this with models) This way they can keep their older fanbase, make new minitures for "expandable codices" so in order to make people buy more and more new minitures. This will allow GW to continue charging the prices they want while being able to cut a decent amount of costs on building new codices.
In the end they will be able to cut costs and make more money on their new models while they pop out supplement after supplement.
This would also allow GW to focus on older games such as BFG which we have been hearing rumors for some time now.
My favorite argument over the validity of the ruleset is that it is 'too good for GW'. We have come to expect a certain amount of disappointment from every GW release, and "Schrodinger's Ruleset" seems to be too good to be true.
It's george lucas syndrome. After Phantom Menace and Attack of the Clones, we knew for a fact that revenge of the sith was going to be a piece of crap; and in retrospect, find it hard to believe that the same person was responsible for A New Hope and Empire. Games Workshop has been giving us so much Jar Jar that we don't just lower our expectations, we find it impossible that Han Solo came out of the same pen.
The other day I opened a fortune cookie and the fortune said: "The eyes believe themselves; the ears believe other people"
I couldn't help but think about the leak of these rules.
On Topic
This ruleset is very good and if GW has moved to the same idea as what MTG has it will be a good business decision. MTG has had only 3 major revisions of their rules and that was in 1994, 1999, and 2009 edition. They are set to release their 13th edition of the core cardset this year.
Another benefit to moving into the MTG style of rules is that USRs, which are analogous to Keywords, make game design easier for them. It also makes the game easier to play for us. For example, in MTG 'Flying' is a keyword. They don't have to reprint the rules every time they create a card with 'Flying'. Everyone with experience in MTG knows what 'Flying' means going back 18 years. Imagine if Relentless, Rapid Fire, or Feel No Pain had that same power.
Hell the rules for MTG have been free the almost the entire life of MTG. You only ever had to buy the cards. Just think if GW moved to this model then all we'd ever have to buy would be the codexes and the models.
I hope that pancakes is real, and that these rumors are true, and that GW can still turn itself back into a thought-leader (rather than just an 800 pound gorilla) in the hobby, leveraging social networks and internet media to stay relevant in an increasingly challenging market segment.
The strongest argument I see in this thread to support a changing business model based on an 8-year edition cycle is the suggestion that a subscription model of electronic content delivery may be coming.
The subscription method makes gobs of money for IPs with devoted fan bases. World of Warcraft, Modern Warfare 3, etc. Hell, look at Xbox Live. Their biggest competitors are totally free to play online (PSnetwork, Wii) but XBox still nickel and dimes subscribers for 60 bucks a year and then makes a boatload of money on top of that from selling game content online.
GW would undoubtedly make money charging for some kind of subscription. Some of that money would come from veterans who don't buy as many (or any) models anymore. They need to be on a longer edition release cycle for that to work. Nobody is going to pay for content that's going to be useless in just a few years.
If games workshop did come out with a list building or an inventory program like army builder or battlescribe, I'm pretty sure I'd end up using it; especially if it kept my rules up to date with erratas and faqs.
Kroothawk wrote: BTW I heard "Comical Ali" got a new job
Damn he would fit right in with GW. "No the americans are not bombing baghdad ( huge explosion in the back ground) and their feet will never touch Iraqi soil."
Thanks for making me smile Kroot, I really needed this today.
OT, umm GW's masterplan, gw couldn't fine their backside with a mirror and a map.
junk wrote:If games workshop did come out with a list building or an inventory program like army builder or battlescribe, I'm pretty sure I'd end up using it; especially if it kept my rules up to date with erratas and faqs.
They actually had one a few years ago. It was quite expensive and ever got updated so eventually it got discontiued.
If there eyes are set on a long term rule set and awesome campaign supplements as stated. They could also start interactive online campaigns like they had a few years ago for 40k and last year for fantasy. It would be awesome to once again be part of a worldwide campaign....
Automatically Appended Next Post:
junk wrote:Right, I forgot the qualifier - *If was led to believe that games workshop actually had a quality control agenda*
Maybe they have been busy the past year simultaneously creating 6th ed+ new codexs+ Finecast....
Then again......
junk wrote:If games workshop did come out with a list building or an inventory program like army builder or battlescribe, I'm pretty sure I'd end up using it; especially if it kept my rules up to date with erratas and faqs.
I think that a subscription based model for the rules is the way to go.
I was really hoping from the moment I saw these rules that you were going to do exactly what you did. So thanks for that BatRep and I look forward to seeing more of them.
I still think that Vanilla Marines improved massively due to the leakset - I'd really love to see what salamanders can do with all the new rules about assault weapons and template weapons. It also seems like Legion of the Damned became a great choice, sternguard got even better, and guys like Shrike, Khan, and Kantor will all see new life in all new lists.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Oh, and, thanks for that batrep - By the way, great looking models, and as always, fantastic terrain.
junk wrote:I still think that Vanilla Marines improved massively due to the leakset - I'd really love to see what salamanders can do with all the new rules about assault weapons and template weapons. It also seems like Legion of the Damned became a great choice, sternguard got even better, and guys like Shrike, Khan, and Kantor will all see new life in all new lists.
That's a relief! I would hate to see the SM (and all off-shoots) suffer in any way.....
Be fair; the VSM book has taken a back seat to Vampires, Vikings, and Monochrome Marines... it's good to see everyone who hasn't dipped their space marines in adeptus battlegrey and/or blood red get back in the fight.
junk wrote:Be fair; the VSM book has taken a back seat to Vampires, Vikings, and Monochrome Marines... it's good to see everyone who hasn't dipped their space marines in adeptus battlegrey and/or blood red get back in the fight.
Maybe someone already suggested this in this topic, but we should call these unofficial rules 6th Edition, and call GW's release in the middle of this year 7th. So much simpler. ^_^
I thought since the initial password for the .rar file was pancake that they'd be called pancake edition.
Though the pun JUST hit me, if they turn out to be fake...
"The pancake is a lie."
I wonder, if they are real, does using the word pancake have any significance?
Granted it was the password on the 4shared account I downloaded it from, was that the first place it was available, or just another copy?
I can't believe I'm even considering debating the choice of password for signs of intelligence.
You know what, Change the names of the things you need to in this book, then start a website with a new gaming company startup page, and have this leak as your main rule book. Email Gw and point them to the website, and see if they send you a cease and de-sist and ask on what grounds. They aren't just going to make up BS and will have to ether concede the point that it's not there's, or that it's for something they created.
Ozeo wrote:They aren't just going to make up BS and will have to ether concede the point that it's not there's, or that it's for something they created.
Have you followed the Chapterhouse/Paulson lawsuit http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/355433.page ? They made up BS (accusing Paulson of things he obviously had no connection to) and even after a year have no intention to say, what exactly they are accusing Chapterhouse of.
otakutaylor wrote:I thought since the initial password for the .rar file was pancake that they'd be called pancake edition.
Though the pun JUST hit me, if they turn out to be fake...
"The pancake is a lie."
I wonder, if they are real, does using the word pancake have any significance?
Yes, but that would require someone making a Portal reference in two-thousand-and-fething-twelve which is in itself an impossible travesty. I think it's just a random word the uploader used, I wouldn't read into it.
Personally, I'm most excited about the new Reserve/Deep Strike/Infiltrate rules more than anything else.
Infiltrating Genestealers, Podding Carnifexen with MT(1), and the fixing of Pheromone Trail all add up to... me busting out my null deployment list again!
UsdiThunder wrote:
This ruleset is very good and if GW has moved to the same idea as what MTG has it will be a good business decision. MTG has had only 3 major revisions of their rules and that was in 1994, 1999, and 2009 edition. They are set to release their 13th edition of the core cardset this year.
Another benefit to moving into the MTG style of rules is that USRs, which are analogous to Keywords, make game design easier for them. It also makes the game easier to play for us. For example, in MTG 'Flying' is a keyword. They don't have to reprint the rules every time they create a card with 'Flying'. Everyone with experience in MTG knows what 'Flying' means going back 18 years. Imagine if Relentless, Rapid Fire, or Feel No Pain had that same power.
Hell the rules for MTG have been free the almost the entire life of MTG. You only ever had to buy the cards. Just think if GW moved to this model then all we'd ever have to buy would be the codexes and the models.
Funny eh, that GW says they are a Miniture company but still keep pushing, glues, paints, brushes etc... and rules. If the rules become free like Full Thrust now, and just concentrate on minis even with the high prices, I think people will still collecting more since they don't have to buy codicies it will feel cheaper and we will just buy more then. One reason why I don't but more is because I am not paying almost $50 (with taxes) for just a book when it can go to minis instead. So I don't bother collecting no more than 2 armies for myself.
The profit margins on items like brushes and hobby supplies can be huge. It is also an impulse buy that stores offer just as you checkout so you just buy em quick. They are a miniature company and usually do not make much money on the books from what I remember. Making a rule set that simply takes ammendments over the years allows them to spend time and effort where they make the most money....models and hobby supplies.
Anybody think that moving away from books and such might have something to do with the whole SOPA thing goin on in the U.S.?
I'm curious what book sale numbers are looking like with the rise of the internet pirate (argh, pirates). I certainly am not condoning the practice of stealing with the internet; however, in a future where it will become increasingly difficult for government to regulate the flow of information on the web, the intelligent business decision might be to move out ahead of the pirate curve, and to invest in creating a profitable business model in other aspects of the business.
CpatTom wrote:Anybody think that moving away from books and such might have something to do with the whole SOPA thing goin on in the U.S.?
I'm curious what book sale numbers are looking like with the rise of the internet pirate (argh, pirates). I certainly am not condoning the practice of stealing with the internet; however, in a future where it will become increasingly difficult for government to regulate the flow of information on the web, the intelligent business decision might be to move out ahead of the pirate curve, and to invest in creating a profitable business model in other aspects of the business.
Thoughts?
I don't think Pirating rulebooks or codices is a huge deal for GW. Sure, it happens, but the things that count (models, brushes, and paints) you can't pirate.
However, I do think that GW could go a bit more "online" and make their rulebooks and codices in pdf form. I have a pdf rulebook I got from who knows where (really, it's just been on my comp for a few years. I have no clue where I got it or how) that is insanely useful (need to look up a rule? search function, away!), yet the only pirated codices are scans that range from great to the blurriest text imaginable. I really think that GW would be helping not only themselves, but everyone who enjoys the hobby. No more lugging rulebooks around, if you have a device that can open and read .pdf files, you have your rulebook and codices. Heck, I'm willing to bet they could lower the price by a few dollars and still make loads of money, what with the $0 is costs to make a file into a .pdf.
I like this. It is going to keep everything updated like a patch in a video game that can be made in two months when GW sees trends with an op unit or tactic. Plus it is going to only make the models better if more time and investment is put into them to make them even better. Hopefully all armies will be up to date and will be able to not be out dated or forgotten.
hmmm this sounds like a decent plan, if it's true. I do like the leaked rules a lot, so I'm going to play a lot more 40K Games with "this" 6th than I did in all the other editions.
And if they keep the rules updated via WD Articles, than that's even a buy-argument for me...
Well can't wait for summer atm, this is just nervwracking
Talliostro wrote:hmmm this sounds like a decent plan, if it's true. I do like the leaked rules a lot, so I'm going to play a lot more 40K Games with "this" 6th than I did in all the other editions.
And if they keep the rules updated via WD Articles, than that's even a buy-argument for me...
Well can't wait for summer atm, this is just nervwracking
I agree, i almost dont even want to play anymore fifth...instead focusing on modelling and painting. Especially units that are super fluffy in the hope they are at least mediocre in 6th?! Rough riders!! WD is slowly improving.... releasing an E-version of this would be sweet, although i would still opt to buy the physical magazine because the nostalgia+novelty is worth it to me if they had actual content.
Talliostro wrote:hmmm this sounds like a decent plan, if it's true. I do like the leaked rules a lot, so I'm going to play a lot more 40K Games with "this" 6th than I did in all the other editions.
And if they keep the rules updated via WD Articles, than that's even a buy-argument for me...
Well can't wait for summer atm, this is just nervwracking
I really can see a subscription app model. Get your White Dwarf for $10 (honestly, probably $15... when does something go DOWN in price?) a month, and you get access to the digital version of the WD and the digital codices/ruling database app for your smartphone/tablet/computer. That'd protect their IP as good as anything because the actual files wouldn't be stored on your device, and pirates be limited to stitching together hundreds of screen shots (possible, but tedious). If it came with an army list creator, I'd be all over that package... and I don't have any type of smart phone!
The more batreps that I read of folks playtesting the leakset, the more that I believe it is a change for the better. Assuming they turn out to be real.
Even if they're not real, I love them and I'm pretty sure that these rules will become the standard among my regular group if 6e turns out to be a disappointment. Everyone I know who's tried them loves them; the games are so much faster with all movement combined into a single phase.
I haven't gotten to play them myself because I'm stuck in Tampa working, but I get regular phone calls from my friends every day with results and thoughts.
The first game they played was slow and confusing, and I was on video chat for the most part watching the progress and helping to clarify rules questions (my default role in the group seems to be moderator). Now that they have a few games handled, they're reporting in with 1.5 hour 2000 point battles, that just sound epic as hell.
ShatteredBlade wrote:I'm starting to wonder if they're going to start to follow the Privateer Press tactics of releasing new models and rules. Except GW would be " Hey, new Space Marine Terminator Type, they have two assault cannons! Oh, the rules are in the up coming white dwarf."
as longas one day i can have a terminat with two assult cannons and a cyclone i'm happy
junk wrote:Even if they're not real, I love them and I'm pretty sure that these rules will become the standard among my regular group if 6e turns out to be a disappointment. Everyone I know who's tried them loves them; the games are so much faster with all movement combined into a single phase.
How do you deal with Directed Hits influence on the game?
warboss wrote:If they are moving to some sort of living rulebook with frequent updates, I certainly hope that they'll make it available for free download online in some basic fashion with less art (similar to the mini book that came with AOBR).
If GW does go to this format I'm hoping that they go to a loose leaf binder thing, like the rules for Advanced Squad Leader or Star Fleet Battles, where we can replace the old pages that are changed with the new ones instead of having to buy an entirely new rule book.
From what I've discussed with them, directed hits have just become another factor of the game that needs to be considered. One of the players uses a few units of scout snipers and loves the hell out of the rule; but for the most part they report that directed hits don't come into play all the time.
Most armies can avoid the worst aspect of directed hits by either creating multiple armor groups within squads, or they might have access to 'shielding' units, or they can field a large volume of expendible units to intervene, or they predominantly run uniform squads where directed hits aren't as important.
Directed hits are really only valuable against differently equipped models within a squad that aren't differentiated into armor groups, cannot shield themselves in anyway, and are exposed to the firing unit without any intervening models.
That's not to say that it's an insignificant rule, but it's not a sky is falling worthy game aspect. It will occasionally suck for you, and it will occasionally be awesome for you, most of the time it will have limited significance.
junk wrote:From what I've discussed with them, directed hits have just become another factor of the game that needs to be considered. One of the players uses a few units of scout snipers and loves the hell out of the rule; but for the most part they report that directed hits don't come into play all the time.
Most armies can avoid the worst aspect of directed hits by either creating multiple armor groups within squads, or they might have access to 'shielding' units, or they can field a large volume of expendible units to intervene, or they predominantly run uniform squads where directed hits aren't as important.
Directed hits are really only valuable against differently equipped models within a squad that aren't differentiated into armor groups, cannot shield themselves in anyway, and are exposed to the firing unit without any intervening models.
That's not to say that it's an insignificant rule, but it's not a sky is falling worthy game aspect. It will occasionally suck for you, and it will occasionally be awesome for you, most of the time it will have limited significance.
One aspect I've paid attention to with the inclusion of Directed Hits was the necessity to give upgrade characters separate wargear to either give them in invulnerable save or different armor save from the rest of the squad. For example, a Necron lord with a scythe, Mindshackles, and an orb adds a lot of resilience and punch to a squad of warriors or Immortals but costs 90 points. To lose him in a volley of sniper fire can be a pretty big blow. To that end, in 6th it will be worth an extra 15 points to give him a sempiternal weave so that he won't die until his compatriots have all been assigned wounds first.
It's not game breaking but it is a factor to list building, for sure.
If this really is the case then they should use their brains and make both the BRB and future codex releases with ring bindings so you can print new stuff in WD and just slot it into the books.
CpatTom wrote:Anybody think that moving away from books and such might have something to do with the whole SOPA thing goin on in the U.S.?
I'm curious what book sale numbers are looking like with the rise of the internet pirate (argh, pirates). I certainly am not condoning the practice of stealing with the internet; however, in a future where it will become increasingly difficult for government to regulate the flow of information on the web, the intelligent business decision might be to move out ahead of the pirate curve, and to invest in creating a profitable business model in other aspects of the business.
Thoughts?
Pirating codices really can't be that big a deal. You need a hard copy for playing the game, and there's so much stuff spread out across the rulebooks/codex's it's impractical to scan each page and print it out.
CpatTom wrote:Anybody think that moving away from books and such might have something to do with the whole SOPA thing goin on in the U.S.?
I'm curious what book sale numbers are looking like with the rise of the internet pirate (argh, pirates). I certainly am not condoning the practice of stealing with the internet; however, in a future where it will become increasingly difficult for government to regulate the flow of information on the web, the intelligent business decision might be to move out ahead of the pirate curve, and to invest in creating a profitable business model in other aspects of the business.
Thoughts?
Pirating codices really can't be that big a deal. You need a hard copy for playing the game, and there's so much stuff spread out across the rulebooks/codex's it's impractical to scan each page and print it out.
I've seen it done. How much you spend in ink, paper, ect to print the book, vs just buying the damn thing is pretty debatable in all honesty..... Most people I know pirate the book as to read it/keep up to date with the newest rules. If their going to play, they buy the book proper.
MDizzle wrote:SOPA is going to Die in the senate bro.
Doesn't matter if it does or doesn't for GW. There will always be people pirating things one way or another. Regardless, it doesn't put a big enough dent in GW sales to really do much damage so it's a moot point. Personally I'n hoping SOPA dies a well deserved death, but I know it won't affect GW sales at all.
Apologies if anyone has already brought this up. I was thinking today that the reason that this ruleset is so advanced may be to future proof it; I mean why release a rulebook that may have to last a lot longer than usual and only release a minor upgrade of the previous? When you think about it rulebooks have not in the past taken great leaps forward, so perhaps the reasoning with this one is to have it still viable to play up to 7 or 8 years from now? I would expect a steep price increase for it(as WFB was) and I'd be disappointed if it didn't offer anything remotely new or majorly revamped.
After reading all the pros and cons on the validity of this 'leak' I'd say that it is genuine. GW realise that regardless of the leak, players will be frothing at the mouth to get the official book. If its not, at least players have got a ruleset that makes sense!
KarlPedder wrote:If this really is the case then they should use their brains and make both the BRB and future codex releases with ring bindings so you can print new stuff in WD and just slot it into the books.
This is something I've thought would be a great idea for years. It would mean they didn't have to update fluff, just expand upon it as the editions go on.
The only problem is when it comes to faqs, codecies, WD and expansions replacing pages of the BRB... how do you then keep the BRB up to date for those people just jumping in to the game? Do you have professionally printed FAQ packs for purchase in-store, or do you have them included with WD, or do you insist people print off their own replacement pages?
A model relying on WD publications would certainly make a WD subscription almost mandatory for competitive players, and fits with GW's policy of punishing their fan base for loving the game.
ShottyScotty wrote:Oh, didnt see that part, I think I saw fire sweep, but I linked it to be a flyer doing a bombing run but with fire. Dont know why.
Anyway, flamers now have some more purpose, but more short range dont. But I LOVE pistols in assault. Using the pistol stats (depending on pistol) would be wonderful! (especially for pistols on guardsmen). Zeal pistols sound heavenly as a primary assault weapon.
Oh wow, what about a Vindicare assassin? He has an execticus pistol, it may become awesome.
It will be interesting to see what the liquifier guns do in CC. I can see wracks doing much better in CC with 2 in each squad and a hammy holding a 3rd if they can get a good AP roll
CpatTom wrote:Anybody think that moving away from books and such might have something to do with the whole SOPA thing goin on in the U.S.?
I'm curious what book sale numbers are looking like with the rise of the internet pirate (argh, pirates). I certainly am not condoning the practice of stealing with the internet; however, in a future where it will become increasingly difficult for government to regulate the flow of information on the web, the intelligent business decision might be to move out ahead of the pirate curve, and to invest in creating a profitable business model in other aspects of the business.
Thoughts?
Pirating codices really can't be that big a deal. You need a hard copy for playing the game, and there's so much stuff spread out across the rulebooks/codex's it's impractical to scan each page and print it out.
I've seen it done. How much you spend in ink, paper, ect to print the book, vs just buying the damn thing is pretty debatable in all honesty..... Most people I know pirate the book as to read it/keep up to date with the newest rules. If their going to play, they buy the book proper.
That's pretty much what I do. Actual books for the BRB, expansions, and dexes I play, PDFs for everything else. I'm not spending a couple hundred dollars just to stay current on what I'm going to be up against.
junk wrote:A model relying on WD publications would certainly make a WD subscription almost mandatory for competitive players, and fits with GW's policy of punishing their fan base for loving the game.
If the WD stuff was regularly compiled and sold as a book like it used to be, that problem isn't as big of a deal.
Stop Online Piracy Act... it's a measure moving through the US Legislature. Places up to a 5 year prison sentence for illegally publishing the IP of others and distributing or manufacturing knock-off goods. Charges could also be brought against the owners of websites that link to such content, including advertisers and search engines, or provide payments to such websites, like Paypal. In the other chamber, we have PIPA (Protect IP Act) which basically does the same thing. Neither is gaining support after very vocal protests.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Rented Tritium wrote:
junk wrote:A model relying on WD publications would certainly make a WD subscription almost mandatory for competitive players, and fits with GW's policy of punishing their fan base for loving the game.
If the WD stuff was regularly compiled and sold as a book like it used to be, that problem isn't as big of a deal.
I'm telling you... digital subscriptions. WOn't it be so much easier when we will all have the latest updated downloaded to the chips in our brains?
Stop Online Piracy Act... it's a measure moving through the US Legislature. Places up to a 5 year prison sentence for illegally publishing the IP of others and distributing or manufacturing knock-off goods. Charges could also be brought against the owners of websites that link to such content, including advertisers and search engines, or provide payments to such websites, like Paypal. In the other chamber, we have PIPA (Protect IP Act) which basically does the same thing. Neither is gaining support after very vocal protests.
Thank you, will reread the posts now and see if it makes sense.
So how will this effect "homemade" rules then? I find it so fracking funny that Warseer claims that the "leak" is fake and they wouldn't let people talk about it untill now that it is "known" that it's fake but they have all these homemade rules and "house rules" on thier site. So will this mean they and even Dakka Dakka will have to take them all down then? Would that also mean we can't "quote" rules from the book now since that will be publishing thier IP then?
Davor wrote:
Thank you, will reread the posts now and see if it makes sense.
So how will this effect "homemade" rules then? I find it so fracking funny that Warseer claims that the "leak" is fake and they wouldn't let people talk about it untill now that it is "known" that it's fake but they have all these homemade rules and "house rules" on thier site. So will this mean they and even Dakka Dakka will have to take them all down then? Would that also mean we can't "quote" rules from the book now since that will be publishing thier IP then?
I took a law class a few years ago (it wasn't for future lawyers, just the people who get run over when lawyers get involved in things). The main point of the class was this: [b]You can't stop someone from suing you if they are willing to pay the lawyers.[b] Warseer is clearly afraid of GW. Beasts of War is being careful to tip-toe around GW as well, but they are doing it rather adroitly, not in the heavy-handed way Warseer is. Dakka's policy on publishing points is also out of respect for GW's IP. Could GW take offense of any of the things the community websites are doing and try to shut them down? Yes. Will they win in court? Well... their lawsuit against Chapterhouse is illustrative. Modern courts are designed to take a long time.
Like others have said... GW would have to sue where the website is housed, and that means the USA for Dakka. SOPA and PIPA aren't likely to pass, and aren't likely to take effect soon even if they do pass (plenty of legal challenges stand in the way of that too!). I don't think that there is too much to worry about for Warseer, BoW, or Dakka (or any other community site). As long as those posing as journalists continue to review and critique material, we'll have that legal ability as well.
Stop Online Piracy Act... it's a measure moving through the US Legislature. Places up to a 5 year prison sentence for illegally publishing the IP of others and distributing or manufacturing knock-off goods. Charges could also be brought against the owners of websites that link to such content, including advertisers and search engines, or provide payments to such websites, like Paypal. In the other chamber, we have PIPA (Protect IP Act) which basically does the same thing. Neither is gaining support after very vocal protests.
Thank you, will reread the posts now and see if it makes sense.
So how will this effect "homemade" rules then? I find it so fracking funny that Warseer claims that the "leak" is fake and they wouldn't let people talk about it untill now that it is "known" that it's fake but they have all these homemade rules and "house rules" on thier site. So will this mean they and even Dakka Dakka will have to take them all down then? Would that also mean we can't "quote" rules from the book now since that will be publishing thier IP then?
SOPA and PIPA have been dropped, but they were basically poorly-enforceable at best, likely to cause problems with legitimate services at worse. For example, a plausible scenario would be that a Copyright Holder (so, theoretically, nearly anyone. In reality, likely someone with some pull like a major studio, record label, etc.) could go after a service and that service could be black-listed without proof of infringement. So I'm a rep for a major studio, I see a video that looks too close to some IP of mine, I can call upa nd get YouTube shut down and worry about proving it later. Ugly. This may be the worst-case taken to extremes, though.
The blocking was apparently to be done at the DNS level, though. This means it would have been semi-effectual at best as there's a lot of ways around bad DNS. The simplest would be using an IP for a site which would mean that (as with many 'anti-piracy' laws) it would probably be annoying and stop a few bottom-tier 'consumers' but wouldn't do much to the serious copyright infringers (who are likely advanced enough to use a non-US DNS, edit a Hosts file, or otherwise get around things.
So, the big question is who would lose money from this? The answer is a lot of people. There's been some rumblings that a lot of big companies were considering moving hosting operations out of the US and this would be yet another incentive. To run a web host you need locations with good power (which is pretty common in the US compared to some countries), educated staff (again, the US is OK, probably not the best), good telecoms (We're mediocre), space (we're pretty good), and, most importantly, a telco-government relationship that is unlikely to start making demands to filter or otherwise mess with the hosted data.
Smaller ISPs would have had to upgrade to support the blacklist, which might have been the last straw for many.
Finally, as with many 'censorship' issues, the slippery-slope problem comes in. if today sites are black-listed for potentially hosting copyrighted material they shouldn't, who si to stop them being blacklisted tomorrow for hosting material that was reported as subversive or not-child-friendly.
If GW makes these changes then I'm all for it. I've only been playing for a few years, but I've seen some people lost interest in the game rather quickly because of the rules.
That is exactly what the current environment feels like with regard to the leakset! I got a real laugh out of that video (for the first 20 seconds or so)!
If these rumors are true, it would indicate that GW saw how much profit and popularity Privateer Press has been getting, and is turning 40k into that, which is a good thing.
warboss wrote:If they are moving to some sort of living rulebook with frequent updates, I certainly hope that they'll make it available for free download online in some basic fashion with less art (similar to the mini book that came with AOBR).
As great as that would be, I just cannot see GW ever doing that.
Am I the only one that likes the big hardcover books?
I think they are great! I cannot wait til we get full color hardback Codices!
Leth wrote:I like the hardcovers as well. The price is not bad either considering how long it is used for on a consistent basis
Um, not that good of a price. At the price they ask for the Fantasy ones I can get a book twice the size for a mere $5-10 more. Yes a 500 page book for $45-55 as compared to a 200 page book for $42 dollars. Now if the books were larger or actually a decent quality, the one I purchased is already breaking down and I only read the stupid thing since I was thinking of playing fantasy but decided not to. The cover is softer than other Hard backs that I own and has crimped and split. The other companies larger book is 2 years older and only has crimps in the corners, caused buy me dropping it which was not done to the fantasy book. The only option that would make me say it was worth tha added cost would be knocking $10-15 off the cover price.
BuFFo wrote:If these rumors are true, it would indicate that GW saw how much profit and popularity Privateer Press has been getting, and is turning 40k into that, which is a good thing.
Where I go to buy GW stuff, the guy told me that Warmachine has surpassed GW sales and is more popular than GW now. Hell I even bought a Hordes book once I found out how cheap it was and how cheap and good quality the minis are.
If 6th edition is more 5.5 then my money will be going to PP instead of GW then.
Not cheap compared to a candy bar, but when you compare the scale of the games you do spend less. 15 points worth of models in warmachine (which is about 2 warjacks and a caster, with maybe enough points for one infantry (small) squad) gives a game experience comparable to a 500-750 point WH40K game. The benchmark 25 point games are roughly equivalent to the 1500-1850 point range games. The $$ required to field a warmachine or hordes army in those point ranges is easily less than 1/2 what it costs to field a game of 40K with the same length of play and game experience.
GW has already stated that the leaked rules are fake and were written by a guy they FIRED for that hogwash. They were more convoluted and hard to use. Why do so many people insist they are real. From a business stand point , it does not make a lick of sense. Why are people still talking about something that will not see the light of day? You may as well talk about Santa Clause and the Easter bunny they are not real also.
Black Dragon wrote:GW has already stated that the leaked rules are fake and were written by a guy they FIRED for that hogwash. They were more convoluted and hard to use. Why do so many people insist they are real. From a business stand point , it does not make a lick of sense. Why are people still talking about something that will not see the light of day? You may as well talk about Santa Clause and the Easter bunny they are not real also.
Did they? Only thing I've seen as an actual statement was "that leaked thing isn't 6th edition" which is very similar to "the new awesome thing coming out is totally not Spacehulk." - One month later: JK, it totally is Spacehulk. - GW
Black Dragon wrote:GW has already stated that the leaked rules are fake and were written by a guy they FIRED for that hogwash. They were more convoluted and hard to use. Why do so many people insist they are real. From a business stand point , it does not make a lick of sense. Why are people still talking about something that will not see the light of day? You may as well talk about Santa Clause and the Easter bunny they are not real also.
I think it's because a lot of the test games people have done with them indicate they're actually fun and fast-moving... So, essentially, people want them to be real no matter the truth.
Regardless of whether they're real or not, it's a great ruleset and people have been enjoying it - if the ruleset was just mediocre or a few minor adjustments to 5e the conversation would be over. The fact that it's so elegant and at the same time so different, means there's a lot to talk about as people continually discover new applications for their armies.
It's really enticing to speculate that wow my legion of the damned, that I spent 18 hours painting, isn't useless because I can do this with them... or this build that I've always wanted to try might be viable now because .... or whatever.
Eventually the dust will settle, new 'best' builds will dominate the meta, and conversations will all go back to minor list tweaking and pointless rules arguments and who's your favorite primarch, and here's my idea for how to fix (break) my hive tyrant....
I don't know, I'm not one of those people; but I'd assume the ability to assault out of deep strike and fire rapid fire weapons is probably the reason.
Black Dragon wrote:GW has already stated that the leaked rules are fake and were written by a guy they FIRED for that hogwash. They were more convoluted and hard to use. Why do so many people insist they are real. From a business stand point , it does not make a lick of sense. Why are people still talking about something that will not see the light of day? You may as well talk about Santa Clause and the Easter bunny they are not real also.
As somewhat of a veteran, my glory days were back in 2nd edition and Herohammer, I have to say the change from 2nd to 3rd sets the precedent for change this radical (and, lets be fair, the gameplay change isn't that radical from 5th to 6th in a lot of cases it just represents some tightening up, some clarification and some consolidation. Along side a few big changes that one could expect in any edition change)
I rage quit 40k almost 15 years ago, as in the change from 2nd to 3rd my first game saw my Avatar gunned down by a bunch of Tac marines, fodder that until that point he had been completely unafraid of. I came back this year, with a few of doing a bit of painting with one eye on collecting a force (and am now about to start on my second army, that worked out well!) I am excited for 6th, if this is what it is, and I can see a couple of my gaming friends returning to 40k as their focus, friends who at the moment are slowly drfiting more and more towards Warmachine.
So, from a businesss stand point, you have old and cynical veterans reinvigourated and excited by the game again, and assuming the rumoured companion set of beginner rules pans out, you still have a game that younger players and beginners can pick up and start to play. Its a win/win. As with many others, my overriding sense of doom for these rules is that it seems too good to be true, and you know what they say about things that appear that way!
Black Dragon wrote:GW has already stated that the leaked rules are fake and were written by a guy they FIRED for that hogwash. They were more convoluted and hard to use. Why do so many people insist they are real. From a business stand point , it does not make a lick of sense. Why are people still talking about something that will not see the light of day? You may as well talk about Santa Clause and the Easter bunny they are not real also.
1.) GW made no such official statement.
2.) Do you see the irony in claiming that this ruleset was not written by a GW game developer and then confirming that they fired the GW game developer who has written this?
3.) GW officially said that the special box in 2010 will not be Space Hulk. But it turned out they lied. And most people were aware of that and still remember.
4.) Currently I think this is an early playtest version by GW. But even if not, it is a fine set of rules and the writer should be promoted instead of fired. Makes no sense otherwise, from a business stand point.
Black Dragon wrote:GW has already stated that the leaked rules are fake and were written by a guy they FIRED for that hogwash. They were more convoluted and hard to use. Why do so many people insist they are real. From a business stand point , it does not make a lick of sense. Why are people still talking about something that will not see the light of day? You may as well talk about Santa Clause and the Easter bunny they are not real also.
1.) GW made no such official statement.
2.) Do you see the irony in claiming that this ruleset was not written by a GW game developer and then confirming that they fired the GW game developer who has written this?
3.) GW officially said that the special box in 2010 will not be Space Hulk. But it turned out they lied. And most people were aware of that and still remember.
4.) Currently I think this is an early playtest version by GW. But even if not, it is a fine set of rules and the writer should be promoted instead of fired. Makes no sense otherwise, from a business stand point.
You forgot to mention the irony of him whining that people are still talking about this ruleset while he is doing the exact same thing. His post's lack of internal consistency and ignorance of GW's past action have actually reinvigorated the thread somewhat.
Black Dragon wrote:GW has already stated that the leaked rules are fake and were written by a guy they FIRED for that hogwash. They were more convoluted and hard to use. Why do so many people insist they are real. From a business stand point , it does not make a lick of sense. Why are people still talking about something that will not see the light of day? You may as well talk about Santa Clause and the Easter bunny they are not real also.
1.) GW made no such official statement.
2.) Do you see the irony in claiming that this ruleset was not written by a GW game developer and then confirming that they fired the GW game developer who has written this?
3.) GW officially said that the special box in 2010 will not be Space Hulk. But it turned out they lied. And most people were aware of that and still remember.
4.) Currently I think this is an early playtest version by GW. But even if not, it is a fine set of rules and the writer should be promoted instead of fired. Makes no sense otherwise, from a business stand point.
Occam's Razor says that the best theory is the simplest theory. The simplest explanation for the pancake rules is that it's a leak of a play-test document. Any other explanation requires a lot of mental gymnastics that aren't needed.
Who leaked it and why? Well... that is something completely different, and I doubt we'll know for sure.
Is GW under pressure from Mantic, Flames of War and Privateer Press to produce a tighter ruleset? Yes.
Is GW spending inordinate amounts of time producing rulebooks for 40k compared to producing models? Yes.
Is GW under pressure for releasing an underwhelming 8th edition for Fantasy? Yeppers.
Is GW under pressure to sell more models? Well, duh.
Does the pancake ruleset release some of the above pressures? You'd better believe it.
Under pressure? Don't like the internet fool you. GW still dominates. They're under 'pressure' in the same way Apple put PCs under pressure turning their 5 percent into 10 percent but PC still dominate.
Now tell me if GW did this, how much would it cost then? Instead of $100, I am sure that would be a $250 mini then.
Let's see. Ork killa kans are much larger, come with multiple options, and cost $7 less than those riders.
As for the throne, it's a fine model, and there is no close GW comparison, but the valkyrie is probably close ($29 less) and the stompa is probably larger ($4 more).
"The latest scuttle-bug is that a GW employee has been fired over the 6th edition leaked PDF. Now bear in mind, this is all alleged and we don’t have any names, but that is the word on the street.
So what does that mean?
It could be total BS, it could be true, until we have some more accurate reports we can’t be sure, but as always, we pass along what we hear to you all.
If this is true, it means GW is pissed and the leak was unintentional. Hopefully though, they see that the community reacted generally favorably to the rules and sees the value in getting player feedback from the community to avoid problems like they’ve had with 8th edition Fantasy which has been generally poorly accepted and has lost revenue since it was released.
We’ll keep our ears to the ground to try and validate this rumor, and will pass along anything we hear."
so it was all part of the plan? but employee got fired ?
loki old fart wrote:
so it was all part of the plan? but employee got fired ?
I believe the 'plan' part was theorized to be developing a solid rule set--that you refine rather than drastically change over the years (See Mk 1/2 WM). If the leak is indeed 6th Edition, GW would gain nothing from leaking them to the internet at this stage--other than bad press.
People like them and you confirm? Hype will be less when books are for sale--and players/gamers will see how raw the product is (perhaps even be turned off).
People don't like them and you confirm? You reduce sales (now) on what is an unfinished product (now).
If an employee did indeed get caught leaking NDA sensitive material, then yes--he should be fired.
Let’s not turn this thread into a PP vs GW thread. Those attempting to use the “GW is cheaper than PP” argument are setting themselves up for failure anyway (do a search in the Dakka Discussion or WM forums to find out why).
In regards to the actual topic, I’d say GW is under pressure for numerous reasons. Financially they’ve been on a steady decline for quite some time. Release wise, Deadfleet, Finecast and Fantasy 8th hasn’t generated as much success as GW would have liked. Competition wise, PP, Mantic, Infinity etc, are experiencing an exponential increase.
Sure GW is still top dog but for how long? To ignore the above factors wouldn’t be a smart business decision. Personally I think GW probably is aware of the above factors and most likely there is some sort of “master plan” with the rumoured 6th edition structural changes being a part of this.
I mean it’s not like GW’s “master plan” is to build an army of finecast tanks and invade France (but I wouldn’t put it past them).
Theduke07 wrote:Under pressure? Don't like the internet fool you. GW still dominates. They're under 'pressure' in the same way Apple put PCs under pressure turning their 5 percent into 10 percent but PC still dominate.
I don't know about you, but I call their 2nd half profits being completely based on a 1 time payment from a company that is going under 'pressure'.
As for the PC's/Apple thing... did you see some of the all-in-ones that hit the market after the iMac? How about the lines of super-slim laptops that came after the MacAir? I won't even mention iPod/Zune... PC's dominate because they have distributed manufacturing/marketing/sales (how many PC companies are there?). GW doesn't have that, (unless you count the counterfeiters in Russia and China).
Anpu-adom wrote: I don't know about you, but I call their 2nd half profits being completely based on a 1 time payment from a company that is going under 'pressure'.
As for the PC's/Apple thing... did you see some of the all-in-ones that hit the market after the iMac? How about the lines of super-slim laptops that came after the MacAir? I won't even mention iPod/Zune... PC's dominate because they have distributed manufacturing/marketing/sales (how many PC companies are there?). GW doesn't have that, (unless you count the counterfeiters in Russia and China).
+1 to this.
The PC vs Apple thing isn’t a Black and white as people seem to think. Apple is a single, self contained company whereas PC is a multi entity brand. Both target different demographics (Apple has a somewhat specialised niche market that they’ve been able to grow and thrive in).
loki old fart wrote:Same site same poster I believe
"The latest scuttle-bug is that a GW employee has been fired over the 6th edition leaked PDF. Now bear in mind, this is all alleged and we don’t have any names, but that is the word on the street.
I note that a lot of people are assuming that the fired GW employee was the writer of the rules, but that's not what the rumour specified, and I don't think that it's very likely that they would fire one of their development team. It's far more likely that the fired member of staff was the person that leaked the document, a playtester or one of the layout design team.
Actually, I can see them making one book to "rule them all" and just allow it to be built upon with updates and FAQ's so they can then focus on making and selling more miniatures.
riverhawks32 wrote:Actually, I can see them making one book to "rule them all" and just allow it to be built upon with updates and FAQ's so they can then focus on making and selling more miniatures.
That is what I thought at first. Unless GW has a change in philosphy, I don't see this happening. Seeing how they released 4 LotR books seperately for February, I don't see that GW wants the "one book to rule them all". So I don't think there will be a "rule them all book" for 40K. GW thinks they need to make money off everything. If they could, I would swear GW would charge us for the air we breathe in their stores.
riverhawks32 wrote:Actually, I can see them making one book to "rule them all" and just allow it to be built upon with updates and FAQ's so they can then focus on making and selling more miniatures.
That is what I thought at first. Unless GW has a change in philosphy, I don't see this happening. Seeing how they released 4 LotR books seperately for February, I don't see that GW wants the "one book to rule them all". So I don't think there will be a "rule them all book" for 40K. GW thinks they need to make money off everything. If they could, I would swear GW would charge us for the air we breathe in their stores.
shhhh they might hear you and start doing just that
riverhawks32 wrote:Actually, I can see them making one book to "rule them all" and just allow it to be built upon with updates and FAQ's so they can then focus on making and selling more miniatures.
That is what I thought at first. Unless GW has a change in philosphy, I don't see this happening. Seeing how they released 4 LotR books seperately for February, I don't see that GW wants the "one book to rule them all". So I don't think there will be a "rule them all book" for 40K. GW thinks they need to make money off everything. If they could, I would swear GW would charge us for the air we breathe in their stores.
shhhh they might hear you and start doing just that
Then they might charge us for walking around their store, fascilitating the need for a disc of tzeentch.
While the "one book to rule them all' is pretty enticing, GW wouldn't do it because tthey like chaarging $40-60 per book.
I swear people would collect more if the codicies were given away for free or in one book. I know before I lost my job, I would have collected 10 or more armies. Thing is, the idea of paying back then $30 for a book turned me off on them all. Now it's like almost $40-$50 for a codex or warbook or what ever they are called in Fantasy and LotR.
Why spend money on paper when it can go to minis. So first thing stopping me is buying the codex. Now I have no incentive to buy the minis.
Oh well. I guess GW thinks otherwise it's better to charge for everything. I still think free codicies would make more money on minis.
If they go through with this, they will make up their prfot losses incredibly quick. Risks need to be taken otherwise they will continue to die and be hated.Even dropping pices by 2-3 pound would be awesome to see, and would then allow us to see them prosper even more. The more they listen to the community, the better they will become.
How does $165 compare to $95? Or do I need to delete my cookies and view on the US site?
The Son Of Russ wrote:If they go through with this, they will make up their prfot losses incredibly quick. Risks need to be taken otherwise they will continue to die and be hated.Even dropping pices by 2-3 pound would be awesome to see, and would then allow us to see them prosper even more. The more they listen to the community, the better they will become.
Lifting the embargo and giving us fair pricing would be awesome to see considering they're making a 200,000 pound less here regardless, but alas, the yanks and the brits insist THEIR products are too pricey!
Instead we pay double GW's price (what people already consider expensive).
The Son Of Russ wrote:If they go through with this, they will make up their prfot losses incredibly quick. Risks need to be taken otherwise they will continue to die and be hated.Even dropping pices by 2-3 pound would be awesome to see, and would then allow us to see them prosper even more. The more they listen to the community, the better they will become.
I don't think you've seen their financial statements, and even then you need accounting (UK only) experience to understand what practises they used to come to their results, as even a straight up profit figure is deceptive to observe a change over time.
riverhawks32 wrote:Actually, I can see them making one book to "rule them all" and just allow it to be built upon with updates and FAQ's so they can then focus on making and selling more miniatures.
That is what I thought at first. Unless GW has a change in philosphy, I don't see this happening. Seeing how they released 4 LotR books seperately for February, I don't see that GW wants the "one book to rule them all". So I don't think there will be a "rule them all book" for 40K. GW thinks they need to make money off everything. If they could, I would swear GW would charge us for the air we breathe in their stores.
It's too sensible for them to do, seeing the rise of piracy and ebooks, releasing less codices (which people feel obligated to get) they release more minis (which they feel they should get) instead?
That being said the design philosophy of the book around faster games (by making everything deadlier) is right up their alley, if they can make it 50% faster (.75 of current speed), it will result in ~50% larger games, so around 50% more miniatures purchased. Not only this, people will begin to cater their armies to specific points regions more, and they might make more units that are better in the 1.5k-2k bracket but not so much 3k or 500 (I wouldn't mind seeing 2-2.5k becoming the new standard), so people will purchase a larger variety of miniatures due to the enhanced specialisation only available at the higher echelons.
loki old fart wrote:Same site same poster I believe
"The latest scuttle-bug is that a GW employee has been fired over the 6th edition leaked PDF. Now bear in mind, this is all alleged and we don’t have any names, but that is the word on the street.
So what does that mean?
It could be total BS, it could be true, until we have some more accurate reports we can’t be sure, but as always, we pass along what we hear to you all.
If this is true, it means GW is pissed and the leak was unintentional. Hopefully though, they see that the community reacted generally favorably to the rules and sees the value in getting player feedback from the community to avoid problems like they’ve had with 8th edition Fantasy which has been generally poorly accepted and has lost revenue since it was released.
We’ll keep our ears to the ground to try and validate this rumor, and will pass along anything we hear."
so it was all part of the plan? but employee got fired ?
My turn to put my hat in the arena. Have 7 pdf claiming to be various codex's, and rulesets from 4th edition onwards none have ever been valid or even close to it.
The main reason I have a pinch of salt with the 6th edition is the lack of fuss GW make over it. If it was real and leaked you'd see lawyers and police all over it, as a release this major would have a major fanacial impact on GW, and its their nature to attack using the law over minor infractions of their copyright.
Anyone who played 1st - 3rd edition rules will know the pain of carting articles and supplements to play the game, and I dont see GW going back to that, especially when int their article in the months WD bemoaning that style of play.
Think what everyone needs to do is relax, and accept its going to be 4 - 6 months until we see it, and unless you are at GWHQ no ones seeing it early.
Magnamaniac wrote:
Think what everyone needs to do is relax, and accept its going to be 4 - 6 months until we see it, and unless you are at GWHQ no ones seeing it early.
Magnamaniac wrote:
Think what everyone needs to do is relax, and accept its going to be 4 - 6 months until we see it, and unless you are at GWHQ no ones seeing it early.
I really can't see the assault phase before the shooting phase, it makes my eldars cry, what does my army that relies on troops working together first softening up a unit and then getting another unit to assault it have to do with the new ruleset, hopefully a new Codex will fix that and get us eldars in the good way again.
My friend plays eldar and actually likes most of the new changes. Sure you will have to play differently but eldar got a huge boost overall with the new rules. More units are even playable now.
Summary:
- The leaked 6th edition rules are legit
- They want to get rid of edition cycle by releasing a core rule set valid for a long time
- These core set will be updated by FAQ's, erratas and supplements
- allows for expansions (30k, 41k?) and concentration on model making
Summary:
- The leaked 6th edition rules are legit - No - they are not
- They want to get rid of edition cycle by releasing a core rule set valid for a long time - Cant see that happening
- These core set will be updated by FAQ's, erratas and supplements - Dont make me laugh !
- allows for expansions (30k, 41k?) and concentration on model making - Dont care
-Leaked - How do you know it is not?
- Cycle - Cant see it, but you never know what they are thinking
- FAQs - It would work to fix bugs that pop up
- Expansions - Good, you do not care, other people do. I would like to play Warhammer 30K, for a short time I had a World Eaters army in blue and white. But the fact you do not care, well doesnt matter.
)
WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGH!!!!!!!!! 
hope to see this become a reality!
that it can see the inside of its brain. Consequentaly the day 
