I find it very hard to believe considering there's no sign of a 'war hammer', something that has appeared in some form or another on the front of almost every recent rulebook.
Yeah, it may well be the DA codex which also means hardcover codices are confirmed for the future. I don't mind paying the hardback price for the main ruleset so much (would prefer a soft cover) but a codex too? We'll know in a few days anyway.
ColdSadHungry wrote:Yeah, it may well be the DA codex which also means hardcover codices are confirmed for the future. I don't mind paying the hardback price for the main ruleset so much (would prefer a soft cover) but a codex too? We'll know in a few days anyway.
Hardback codex would seem logical.
They do that to WHFB too.
If hardback, expect full colour too.
I'm pretty confident that's the real deal. It's new art clearly in GW's style, they've had Marines in the rulebook cover before and Dark Angels are rumoured to be in the starter box set.
lord_blackfang wrote:Looks kind of thin to be 440 pages. But it also can't be a Codex since it doesn't have the army name on the front. Colour me confused.
We're only really getting 2 dimensions on it. Everything else appears to be an artifact of the lighting.
Horrible cover, it should stay with the theme of a Warhammer at the front and refrain from the use of any particular faction. Now it's just Space Marines 40,000.
lord_blackfang wrote:Looks kind of thin to be 440 pages. But it also can't be a Codex since it doesn't have the army name on the front. Colour me confused.
We're only really getting 2 dimensions on it. Everything else appears to be an artifact of the lighting.
But given the angle and expected thickness, the edge should be visible on the bottom. Unless it's an empty cover.
Harriticus wrote:Horrible cover, it should stay with the theme of a Warhammer at the front and refrain from the use of any particular faction. Now it's just Space Marines 40,000.
Looks like a really cool cover to me! This is a start of a good birthday haha I also really like the fact that it has no borders, kind of like the RT rulebook.
GUYS!! ive just realised in the past few white dwarfs the sides do not have the random background quote but instead they have had pictures of inquisitors, so maybe they're trying to tell us something
Maybe I am just cranky this morning, but I am getting tired of people yelling "this has always been" when they have no clue what they are talking about.
"GW has always had a warhammer on the rulebook!!!!"
"Ultramarines have always been the poster boys for Space Marines!!!!"
Now this cranky old man is getting ready for some soccer, I might be in a better mood if my team wins today...
d-usa wrote:Maybe I am just cranky this morning, but I am getting tired of people yelling "this has always been" when they have no clue what they are talking about.
"GW has always had a warhammer on the rulebook!!!!"
"Ultramarines have always been the poster boys for Space Marines!!!!"
Now this cranky old man is getting ready for some soccer, I might be in a better mood if my team wins today...
They've already got their pitchforks out. No point trying to stop them with facts or precedence.
Plus the colors, red, black and white, those are black templars, look at the Sword Brethren Squad on the GW website, they're the same as the guy in the middle.
It doesn't look like a codex, nor a white dwarf. And it looks like it's hard covered (you can tell by having a look at the spine) , so i'd go with rulebook.
It doesn't have to be a hammer on the front, it hasn't always been that.
Any chance anyone can post a bigger picture so we can really have a good look at it? The marine at the front definitely looks like a Dark Angel, regardless of the colour of the robes of the main figure! Also if it was meant to be Templars shouldn't there be white on the shoulder pads?
If it is real, it could imply a leap forward in the fluff. Dark Angels in the ascendant anyone?
d-usa wrote:I remember when Ork dreads were cardboard, those were the days.
OG Represent!
This game is TLOS?
*turns cardboard dread sideways...*
Its a genuine GW model so its tournament legal
I don't see how people are somehow thinking that this is a fake. If it is someone went to a lot of trouble to make some very detailed fan art and have it hard bound.
So obviously someone has a BRB, why haven't we seen any more snapshots of the back cover/quick reference/etc? Can someone who posts with the op on heresy or wherever clear that one up?
Apparently some people take this way more seriously than I do...
Yes. Yes they do. I have, in all seriousness, seen people (on Warseer) complain that seeing a Codex cover "spoiled" on the forum has ruined their enjoyment of looking forward to getting the book. Don't ask me why these people look at rumour threads and then complain about spoilers, though.
Apparently some people take this way more seriously than I do...
I read someone else in the last 6th ed rumour thread ask whether a spoiler alert could be put into the thread title if there was a leaked picture of the cover so I did that. Just trying to be a conscientious member of the forums, that's all
To all those saying that the marines on the cover are Black Templars: why would a Templar have tactical squad markings, a red bolter, and dark shoulder pads?
VIth legion wrote:To all those saying that the marines on the cover are Black Templars: why would a Templar have tactical squad markings, a red bolter, and dark shoulder pads?
Imperial Monkey wrote:Its more likely to be the rulebook since it has the catchphrase at the bottom: "In the grim darkness of the far future there is only war."
I'm sorry but you misread, it says "In the grim darkness of the far future of three weeks ahead, there are only Space Marines".
Apparently some people take this way more seriously than I do...
Yes. Yes they do. I have, in all seriousness, seen people (on Warseer) complain that seeing a Codex cover "spoiled" on the forum has ruined their enjoyment of looking forward to getting the book. Don't ask me why these people look at rumour threads and then complain about spoilers, though.
They're flying rodent gak insane, but they exist.
Well, seeing the cover art of the Blood Angels codex tends to have that effect on anyone, really.
VIth legion wrote:To all those saying that the marines on the cover are Black Templars: why would a Templar have tactical squad markings, a red bolter, and dark shoulder pads?
lord_blackfang wrote:Yes. Yes they do. I have, in all seriousness, seen people (on Warseer) complain that seeing a Codex cover "spoiled" on the forum has ruined their enjoyment of looking forward to getting the book. Don't ask me why these people look at rumour threads and then complain about spoilers, though.
I remember when we thought the WD spines meant a Dark Angels codex.
Because, you know, surely a Space Marine wouldn't mean a new rulebook. There's more to 40k then space marines....
Here's to removing all xenos and making IG/SoB retinue choices for 7th! In Marinehammer 40,000, there is only the pwning of Chaos Space Marines, because at least they used to be Space Marines.
Harriticus wrote:I remember when we thought the WD spines meant a Dark Angels codex.
Because, you know, surely a Space Marine wouldn't mean a new rulebook. There's more to 40k then space marines....
Here's to removing all xenos and making IG/SoB retinue choices for 7th! In Marinehammer 40,000, there is only the pwning of Chaos Space Marines, because at least they used to be Space Marines.
This crap is really getting tiresome.
People who have no earthly clue what the hell they are talking about, who act like there is some sudden shift in the way GW is marketing their game.
1st, 2nd, 3rd all had Space Marines on the cover. The chapter changed, but it was always Space Marines.
It is nothing new. It is nothing unusual. So if you want to bitch and moan about some 'new development' then please be sure to pick some 'new development' that has not been around since the very first rulebook was published 25 years ago.
Harriticus wrote:I remember when we thought the WD spines meant a Dark Angels codex.
Because, you know, surely a Space Marine wouldn't mean a new rulebook. There's more to 40k then space marines....
Here's to removing all xenos and making IG/SoB retinue choices for 7th! In Marinehammer 40,000, there is only the pwning of Chaos Space Marines, because at least they used to be Space Marines.
This crap is really getting tiresome.
People who have no earthly clue what the hell they are talking about, who act like there is some sudden shift in the way GW is marketing their game.
1st, 2nd, 3rd all had Space Marines on the cover. The chapter changed, but it was always Space Marines.
It is nothing new. It is nothing unusual. So if you want to bitch and moan about some 'new development' then please be sure to pick some 'new development' that has not been around since the very first rulebook was published 25 years ago.
[/rant]
The world is full of people who have no clue what they are talking about, but will talk as if they are the world's foremost expert on the subject. This forum just seems to have a much higher percentage, especially in regards to anything GW related. No point getting worked up over it.
Could I at least beat everybody that complains about GW starting to put Space Marines on the cover with all previous editions of the rulebook featuring Space Marines on the cover?
You beat them in a sense, but then you will inevitably get dragged down by "u mad?" comments in a wave of unending wave of pure, unbridled idiocy.
Then you rise from the ashes, and from all across the vastness of the internet they will gather to proclaim you "White Knight" and all knowledge you possess will mean nothing in the face of entitled nerds who believe this game was made specifically for them. Which it obviously was, and GW is changing it now because they hate us.
1st Ed: Crimson Fists
2nd Ed Crimson Fists (BA on wargear and Codex imperialis)
3rd Ed Black Templars
4th Ed no marines
5th Ed no marines
So marines on the cover would actually be a return to the norm for GW.
For what its worth i dont hate the new cover, i think its ok. I think it will look a little odd on the shelf however. Anyway i dont really care, its the stuff inside i want to see...
1st Ed: Crimson Fists
2nd Ed Crimson Fists (BA on wargear and Codex imperialis)
3rd Ed Black Templars
4th Ed no marines
5th Ed no marines
So marines on the cover would actually be a return to the norm for GW.
For what its worth i dont hate the new cover, i think its ok. I think it will look a little odd on the shelf however. Anyway i dont really care, its the stuff inside i want to see...
Yes, 5th ed did too have marines on the cover. In the background there is a monochrome woodcut with marines on the left and Orks on the right. WAAAAAAAAAAAAGGGGHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!
NoBaconz4You wrote:I find it very hard to believe considering there's no sign of a 'war hammer', something that has appeared in some form or another on the front of almost every recent rulebook.
Cadaver wrote:You beat them in a sense, but then you will inevitably get dragged down by "u mad?" comments in a wave of unending wave of pure, unbridled idiocy.
Then you rise from the ashes, and from all across the vastness of the internet they will gather to proclaim you "White Knight" and all knowledge you possess will mean nothing in the face of entitled nerds who believe this game was made specifically for them. Which it obviously was, and GW is changing it now because they hate us.
Ahhh! Can you grind that axe somewhere else. The noise is deafening.
1st Ed: Crimson Fists
2nd Ed Crimson Fists (BA on wargear and Codex imperialis)
3rd Ed Black Templars
4th Ed no marines
5th Ed no marines
So marines on the cover would actually be a return to the norm for GW.
For what its worth i dont hate the new cover, i think its ok. I think it will look a little odd on the shelf however. Anyway i dont really care, its the stuff inside i want to see...
Yes, 5th ed did too have marines on the cover. In the background there is a monochrome woodcut with marines on the left and Orks on the right. WAAAAAAAAAAAAGGGGHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!
So it does, i never noticed that before. But then i also only just noticed that the background of 4th ed is that old John Blanche picture..
Realy I almost want to see the back cover of the book more. I want to see if their is any pitchers that will hint at what is in the next starter box/confirm DA vs. Chaos.
I like how Dark Angles are the worst kept secret that they will be in the new starter box, But their hasn't been nearly as much confirmation in regards to Chaos being in the box. Even at this point.
Cadaver wrote:You beat them in a sense, but then you will inevitably get dragged down by "u mad?" comments in a wave of unending wave of pure, unbridled idiocy.
Then you rise from the ashes, and from all across the vastness of the internet they will gather to proclaim you "White Knight" and all knowledge you possess will mean nothing in the face of entitled nerds who believe this game was made specifically for them. Which it obviously was, and GW is changing it now because they hate us.
Ahhh! Can you grind that axe somewhere else. The noise is deafening.
Touch a nerve?
If you couldn't tell I was be facetious. I'm not going to waste my time taking this stuff seriously because it's pretty obvious what the level of debate there is to be had here. Between every 3rd comment repeatedly proving people won't let their lack of knowledge about something as basic as what has been on the cover of previously rulebooks get in the way of some GW bashing.
I just realized reading threw this and other threads their are some people who are already judging 6th ed based on this cover. LITTERLY judging a book by it's cover. This makes me lawl.
Lockark wrote:I just realized reading threw this and other threads their are some people who are already judging 6th ed based on this cover. LITTERLY judging a book by it's cover. This makes me lawl.
Well if those inconsiderate good-fer-nuthin’ rumour-mongers (that are ruining the HHHobby) hadn’t spoiled the whole book (and the 6th Ed release) by taking a blurry photo of the front cover, we wouldn’t have this problem, would we?
Lockark wrote:I just realized reading threw this and other threads their are some people who are already judging 6th ed based on this cover. LITTERLY judging a book by it's cover. This makes me lawl.
The reason is is that GW gives us very little to actually criticize beforehand. We have nothing concrete to actually critique at this point since all we've seen released is a non-information teaser trailer on youtube and a slightly fuzzy cover shot to what could be the 6th edition rulebook.
So yeah, if there was any judgement for anything, we have exactly two pieces of information to judge 6th edition with...AND we're less than two weeks away from launch.
1st Ed: Crimson Fists
2nd Ed Crimson Fists (BA on wargear and Codex imperialis)
3rd Ed Black Templars
4th Ed no marines
5th Ed no marines
So marines on the cover would actually be a return to the norm for GW.
For what its worth i dont hate the new cover, i think its ok. I think it will look a little odd on the shelf however. Anyway i dont really care, its the stuff inside i want to see...
Yes, 5th ed did too have marines on the cover. In the background there is a monochrome woodcut with marines on the left and Orks on the right. WAAAAAAAAAAAAGGGGHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!
So it does, i never noticed that before. But then i also only just noticed that the background of 4th ed is that old John Blanche picture..
Okay I normally am not like this but the picture on the 4th edition book is by a dude named Wil Rees haha
It's all good though, they both did weird stuff so it's easy to get them confused
For those wondering what I'm talking about, look at this picture and then at your 4th edition 40k rulebook if you still have it
Harriticus wrote:I remember when we thought the WD spines meant a Dark Angels codex.
Because, you know, surely a Space Marine wouldn't mean a new rulebook. There's more to 40k then space marines....
Here's to removing all xenos and making IG/SoB retinue choices for 7th! In Marinehammer 40,000, there is only the pwning of Chaos Space Marines, because at least they used to be Space Marines.
wth. Last time I check, Necrons had a nice makeover in the past 6 months and are insanely good now. Dark Eldar are amazing in-game and Ork's continue to get tons of love, the Bommers are incredible and orks can be pretty awesome in the right hands.
That being said, dude...the main characters in the 40K universe are Space Marines....they are us to a degree, the entire universe is told through their eyes. From the black library, through to the codices. Do you really think that the Tau called one of their vehicles a "Hammerhead"? no..that's an earth term relating to an earth Shark...the entire universe is seen through the imperiums eyes, hence...Space Marines are the main players and always will be.
That being said, first look at the cover...looks kinda blah...but the more I look at it, the more I like it....I'm excited...
Meh, was hardly into 40k over the 2nd/3rd/4th periods but I became attracted to the game through the lore, and looking at the way lore evolved through the editions I always felt beyond 3rd edition (which saw more non-Imperial factions) it was proper to represent the rulebook with the warhammer seen on 4th and 5th.
Plus I don't see why because past editions had Marines on them, that makes it okay. If I wasn't a little annoying kid but rather my present little annoying adult state back when 3rd and 2nd eds were out I'd have complained about Marines there too. GW has been stupid with the fantastic universe they've created for quite some time, though it was at its best at 3rd Edition before a decline again.
Man, you are trying really hard to make this stick.
Is there even a punchline behind it, or is it a more-or-less arbitrary neologism? I love it when people take GW to task, but it's always better when there's some wit underpinning the gibes.
Harriticus wrote:Plus I don't see why because past editions had Marines on them, that makes it okay.
Make it ok?
It doesn't make it 'ok' or 'not ok' because it doesn't matter. It's a cover FFS!
Altruizine wrote:Man, you are trying really hard to make this stick.
I don't need 'make' anything 'stick'. It's already stuck. I didn't invent it (I believe that honour goes to Kill Krazy) and I'm not the only one saying it.
For the uninitiated, what exactly does "HHHobby" mean? I saw it come up awhile ago and now I see it everywhere.
Also, on topic: I really wish GW would start listing the edition number on all its books. Just a pet peeve. Nothing much to say about this "leak" however. If that's the final cover, so be it - I'm more interested about what's inside the book.
"HHHobby" was a term coined by KilKrazy (I believe) to disparagingly refer to what GW calls "The Games Workshop Hobby", which is term they coined to try to make people think that GW games are somehow part of an entirely different hobby than other tabletop wargames ("Sure, you could play Malifaux, but that's not part of The Hobby!"). Haters and Black Knights have now adopted it.
RatBot wrote:"HHHobby" was a term coined by KilKrazy (I believe) to disparagingly refer to what GW calls "The Games Workshop Hobby", which is term they coined to try to make people think that GW games are somehow part of an entirely different hobby than other tabletop wargames ("Sure, you could play Malifaux, but that's not part of The Hobby!"). Haters and Black Knights have now adopted it.
So is it an acronym, or does it have a punchline, or anything like that? Or is it arbitrary?
I hope it doesn't sound like I expect you to personally answer that, btw, since you seem to be a helpful bystander rather than an actual practitioner of the wordplay in question. But if one of those dudes could answer I'd be obliged.
Reivax26 wrote:So its a Dark Angel? Don't really know why that would be such a crazy thing as they are the next loyalist group in line for a codex.
All I want is for the stuff inside the book to actually fix the stuff that's broken with the game.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA really though, best wishes to you.
Altruizine wrote:
RatBot wrote:"HHHobby" was a term coined by KilKrazy (I believe) to disparagingly refer to what GW calls "The Games Workshop Hobby", which is term they coined to try to make people think that GW games are somehow part of an entirely different hobby than other tabletop wargames ("Sure, you could play Malifaux, but that's not part of The Hobby!"). Haters and Black Knights have now adopted it.
So is it an acronym, or does it have a punchline, or anything like that? Or is it arbitrary?
I've always interpreted it as something of an overly aggressive first-syllable drawl, akin to a game show announcer.
I thought that could be it, but the capitalization is at odds with that interpretation (since "Hhhobby" would be a better textual representation of that imagined enunciation).
Every time I look at that cover art, I see a Black Templar painting that's been photoshopped into a Dark Angels painting. Something like that happened once before on the forums, IIRC (Imperial Fists & Black Templars or something).
RatBot wrote:"HHHobby" was a term coined by KilKrazy (I believe) to disparagingly refer to what GW calls "The Games Workshop Hobby", which is term they coined to try to make people think that GW games are somehow part of an entirely different hobby than other tabletop wargames ("Sure, you could play Malifaux, but that's not part of The Hobby!"). Haters and Black Knights have now adopted it.
So is it an acronym, or does it have a punchline, or anything like that? Or is it arbitrary?
I hope it doesn't sound like I expect you to personally answer that, btw, since you seem to be a helpful bystander rather than an actual practitioner of the wordplay in question. But if one of those dudes could answer I'd be obliged.
I believe it was a reference to a character sketch on a comedy show. I can't remember the name of it unfortunately, it's got one of the guys from the show 'Big Train' doing a mock-TV show about different types of hobby. Basically he's a bit of a nerdy lunatic, and uses the word 'hobby' about 100 times. Sorry I can't be more specific, perhaps someone else remembers the name?
Agamemnon2 wrote:That was Blood Angels to Imperial Fists. This one's not photoshopped, however. If it were, you'd be able to find the original somewhere. End of story.
Yep. It dosn't look photoshoped to me in those areas. There is something odd going on just under the 40k logo. That might be the word CODEX removed or (more likely) noise from using a cheap camara or mobile phone to take the photo.
DiabolicAl wrote:IN THE GRIM DARKNESS OF THE FAR FUTURE THERE IS ONLY WAR... how can you not know that? Really?
Its been the grimdark motto for over 15 years.....
I knew that, but writing out the whole thing would have not reinforced my point, at all. It was more of a joke than actual seriousness, so if I upset you, I am sorry.
Hope that's not 6ed rulebook anyway I do not mind the image or that it is Dark angels ... but think it's a pretty lame picture to have on the entire rulebook ..should be something for everyone, not a marine chapter (how dont even have a proper dex when it comes out
Lies. 3rd edition didn't actually have a cover. The first print run had binding issues and they all fell off the first time you opened your book. In GW's defense, they realized the problem and mailed out replacements.
Who cares what the cover looks like, I'll be glad it it stays on the book!
All I want is for the stuff inside the book to actually fix the stuff that's broken with the game.
As much as I agree...I also realize its not going to happen.
They are going to make some changes, how much we dont know yet. However, to fix EVERYTHING thats broken with the game would require a complete rewrite of the entire game and all the codexes. Why?...because the biggest problem with the game is lack of balance. IMO this stems from a lack of a construction system...which assigns stats with set points value. Instead GW simply makes up stats, characters, etc and assigns them random points values.
I like the cover and the artwork looks gorgeous. It's a departure from the style of 4th and 5th but cool nonetheless. For those that think the cover should illustrate the conflict of multiple factions, I feel your pain, but, 40kis the story of mankind and the Imperium (i.e., Space Marines).
Mad4Minis wrote:However, to fix EVERYTHING thats broken with the game would require a complete rewrite of the entire game and all the codexes. Why?...because the biggest problem with the game is lack of balance. IMO this stems from a lack of a construction system...which assigns stats with set points value. Instead GW simply makes up stats, characters, etc and assigns them random points values.
I agree with your assessment of the problem (and indeed that the only solution would be a rewrite from the ground upwards), but it's worth pointing out that a construction system (which the game had back in the days of Rogue Trader, and which still largely informed points values in 2nd Ed.) has its own problems, since it can't in isolation account for synergies between choices. Both editions allowed for horrendously unbalanced armies (Orks and Chaos in RT, Eldar and Tyranids in 2E) despite calculating points values from a supposedly-absolute basis.
I'd be fascinated to know, if anybody could enlighten me, how the GW studio assign points values nowadays - whether they work from some kind of mathematical model and then adjust values after playtesting, or whether it's degenerated into writers making their best guesses (and then, arguably, shaving a few points off to make the newest codex more competitive - see the Space Wolves and Grey Knights codices by way of example).
More likely a DA dex and the title will be nicely embossed on the spine
... And come on people, save your nerd rage for release ;-) annoys me when people write books off before they have even seen or read them... Get over yourself or go play war machine ;-)
CptCortez128 wrote:More likely a DA dex and the title will be nicely embossed on the spine
... And come on people, save your nerd rage for release ;-) annoys me when people write books off before they have even seen or read them... Get over yourself or go play war machine ;-)
Liam
But I can tell from the light glare and the leather jacket in the background that this will be the worst edition ever!
I'd assume that a requirement of being a super spy is a shaky hand, poor focus and a low res camera? That said the cover doesn't look too objectionable, I'm not blown away by it at any rate but it looks 40Kish and I enjoy marines so... eh.
I don't often spend alot of time staring at my current rulebooks cover though so as long as the rules are sound I'll be happy.
RatBot wrote:"HHHobby" was a term coined by KilKrazy (I believe) to disparagingly refer to what GW calls "The Games Workshop Hobby", which is term they coined to try to make people think that GW games are somehow part of an entirely different hobby than other tabletop wargames ("Sure, you could play Malifaux, but that's not part of The Hobby!"). Haters and Black Knights have now adopted it.
So is it an acronym, or does it have a punchline, or anything like that? Or is it arbitrary?
I hope it doesn't sound like I expect you to personally answer that, btw, since you seem to be a helpful bystander rather than an actual practitioner of the wordplay in question. But if one of those dudes could answer I'd be obliged.
I believe it was a reference to a character sketch on a comedy show. I can't remember the name of it unfortunately, it's got one of the guys from the show 'Big Train' doing a mock-TV show about different types of hobby. Basically he's a bit of a nerdy lunatic, and uses the word 'hobby' about 100 times. Sorry I can't be more specific, perhaps someone else remembers the name?
it was from "fist of fun" with the hhhobby master simon quinlank who's hhhobys included train ignoreing / old person collecting / antique smashing . and of course dont forget your flask of weak lemon drink !
It is now confirmed that the retail sales managers have see the new rule book.
Can anyone get confirmation from them that the leaked picture is real?
Trade sales managers not retail sales managers.
Trade sales are the guys who deal with the independents.
My mistake, thank you. Post corrected.
Hope you didn't think I was jumping on you for it; just wanted to make sure people don't start mobbing their local shop managers with accusations of lying.
It is now confirmed that the retail sales managers have see the new rule book.
Can anyone get confirmation from them that the leaked picture is real?
Trade sales managers not retail sales managers.
Trade sales are the guys who deal with the independents.
My mistake, thank you. Post corrected.
Hope you didn't think I was jumping on you for it; just wanted to make sure people don't start mobbing their local shop managers with accusations of lying.
No worries, and you make an excellent point. I can picture the teeming masses rushing the counter screaming and yelling to sate their curiosity.
3rd Edition had Black Templars in the starter set, and the front cover of both the set and the rulebook was Black Templars.
Seeing as the rumours about Dark Angels being in the starter set popped up a while back (before we saw the book cover), and now a book cover has been leaked with Dark Angels on the front (in a very similar style to 3rd), you can bet your arse that this is the 6th Edition rulebook. There's not even any point in deliberating over it anymore.
d-usa wrote:Maybe I am just cranky this morning, but I am getting tired of people yelling "this has always been" when they have no clue what they are talking about.
"GW has always had a warhammer on the rulebook!!!!"
"Ultramarines have always been the poster boys for Space Marines!!!!"
Now this cranky old man is getting ready for some soccer, I might be in a better mood if my team wins today...
What purpose did this post provide, I am just curious. The 40k rulebooks of old depicted scenes of space marines for the first 3 books, the warhammer thing is new only for the last 2 editions, anyone who says otherwise is nuts.
d-usa wrote:Maybe I am just cranky this morning, but I am getting tired of people yelling "this has always been" when they have no clue what they are talking about.
"GW has always had a warhammer on the rulebook!!!!"
"Ultramarines have always been the poster boys for Space Marines!!!!"
Now this cranky old man is getting ready for some soccer, I might be in a better mood if my team wins today...
What purpose did this post provide, I am just curious. The 40k rulebooks of old depicted scenes of space marines for the first 3 books, the warhammer thing is new only for the last 2 editions, anyone who says otherwise is nuts.
It provided the exact same purpose as your post. To point out that "GW is getting more SM focused" is not some new development.
So, just as a thought... would it not be possible that what we're looking at is a WIP of the Dark Angels codex? I mean, it follows the 'cool dude posing surrounded by other cool posing dudes' method of other recent codices.
Also, remembering GW's target market - 10-18 year old boys - wouldn't it make more sense to continue using the hammer?
infinite_array wrote:
Also, remembering GW's target market - 10-18 year old boys - wouldn't it make more sense to continue using the hammer?
Do boys have a strange attraction to hammers during puberty? I know I got all the way through highschool without any explicit desire to use a hammer.
Facetiousness aside, I don't know exactly what you're getting at here.
Right, sorry. Should've explained there more.
What I meant was, the continued use of a similar image. If the person who GW wants to keep buying their stuff has only been in the game for 2 editions at most, and only 1 edition being more likely, why make a switch to a different cover? 6th, 7th, and 8th Editions of Fantasy, and 4th and 5th Editions of 40k have used the Hammer motif. To them, Fantasy and 40k is instantly recognizable by the hammer on the cover, so why change it now?
Well the Sales guy confirmed the photo is the actual BRB for 6th edition and allies are in for 6th edition to our store.
In other news, this is just GW strategy to get people talking and excited/anticipated for 6th edition. We are all playing right into their hands. Masterful work GW, now shut up and take my money.
Oh, oh! Allies. Ok, here's my theory on that. We've seen a few people say that thanks to GW's prices, they've seen a drop in the amount of players who buy 2nd and 3rd and 4th armies.
But allies are the solution to that. It'll be like Mercenaries and Minions in Warmachine/Hordes. You'll pick up a unit here and there, and the next thing you'll know, hey, you only need to spend another $100 or so and you'll have a whole new army!
Denkstrum wrote:In other news, this is just GW strategy to get people talking and excited/anticipated for 6th edition. We are all playing right into their hands. Masterful work GW, now shut up and take my money.
Never attribute to competence that which can be... and so on and so forth.
infinite_array wrote:Oh, oh! Allies. Ok, here's my theory on that. We've seen a few people say that thanks to GW's prices, they've seen a drop in the amount of players who buy 2nd and 3rd and 4th armies.
But allies are the solution to that. It'll be like Mercenaries and Minions in Warmachine/Hordes. You'll pick up a unit here and there, and the next thing you'll know, hey, you only need to spend another $100 or so and you'll have a whole new army!
Or you know. It's just the 40k verstion of the allie rules for Fantsey. As in rules for 2vs.2 games.
infinite_array wrote:Oh, oh! Allies. Ok, here's my theory on that. We've seen a few people say that thanks to GW's prices, they've seen a drop in the amount of players who buy 2nd and 3rd and 4th armies.
But allies are the solution to that. It'll be like Mercenaries and Minions in Warmachine/Hordes. You'll pick up a unit here and there, and the next thing you'll know, hey, you only need to spend another $100 or so and you'll have a whole new army!
Or you know. It's just the 40k verstion of the allie rules for Fantsey. As in rules for 2vs.2 games.
redcapscorner wrote:
I'm a store owner, and I just got off the phone with my GW rep. The GW sales team in the US has had a chance to look through the 6th edition books at this point, and he was able to confirm the following for me. None of this stuff is terribly specific, because he wants this Saturday's White Dwarf to have the big reveals:
3) Allies are 100% in, and not just for team games. There are definitely, without a doubt, rules that allow you to use models in your list from allied factions. Again, he wasn't specific, but he mentioned that you still needed minimum one HQ and two troops from your book, but beyond that allies are an option.
infinite_array wrote:Oh, oh! Allies. Ok, here's my theory on that. We've seen a few people say that thanks to GW's prices, they've seen a drop in the amount of players who buy 2nd and 3rd and 4th armies.
But allies are the solution to that. It'll be like Mercenaries and Minions in Warmachine/Hordes. You'll pick up a unit here and there, and the next thing you'll know, hey, you only need to spend another $100 or so and you'll have a whole new army!
Or you know. It's just the 40k verstion of the allie rules for Fantsey. As in rules for 2vs.2 games.
What exactly are those? The guys that Igame with at my FLGS never use the rules for allies.
infinite_array wrote:Oh, oh! Allies. Ok, here's my theory on that. We've seen a few people say that thanks to GW's prices, they've seen a drop in the amount of players who buy 2nd and 3rd and 4th armies.
But allies are the solution to that. It'll be like Mercenaries and Minions in Warmachine/Hordes. You'll pick up a unit here and there, and the next thing you'll know, hey, you only need to spend another $100 or so and you'll have a whole new army!
Or you know. It's just the 40k verstion of the allie rules for Fantsey. As in rules for 2vs.2 games.
redcapscorner wrote:
I'm a store owner, and I just got off the phone with my GW rep. The GW sales team in the US has had a chance to look through the 6th edition books at this point, and he was able to confirm the following for me. None of this stuff is terribly specific, because he wants this Saturday's White Dwarf to have the big reveals:
3) Allies are 100% in, and not just for team games. There are definitely, without a doubt, rules that allow you to use models in your list from allied factions. Again, he wasn't specific, but he mentioned that you still needed minimum one HQ and two troops from your book, but beyond that allies are an option.
That's all!
Soooo... yeah.
This however contradicts earlier information from someone who also said to have seen the actual book, so I will just wait until I see it myself.
I wouldn't mind it being true as long as they make it very specific as to who can be ally to who, and rule out non-sensemaking combos.
E.g. Marines & Guard & GK can be allies (duh), and Eldar can be allies with Guard, but Orks can't be allies with GK and Tyranids can't be allies with anybody, etc. Otherwise it would make for quite a lot of stupid Imo.
I had thought/heard/hoped that the ally rules were indeed an addition to the normal game rules...
....I wonder now somewhat if the ally rules are the "get out clause" with regards to armies like Necrons or Dark Eldar getting access to the new psychic powers and rules perhaps ?
reds8n wrote: I had thought/heard/hoped that the ally rules were indeed an addition to the normal game rules...
....I wonder now somewhat if the ally rules are the "get out clause" with regards to armies like Necrons or Dark Eldar getting access to the new psychic powers and rules perhaps ?
What strikes me most is that we are 11 days away from the new release, and not one person has had the appropriately sized testicles to leak more information on this yet!
If you are reading this and you have a copy, come on what are you waiting for?! Do you want to die old and decrepit, clinging to a loved ones hand and passing away with barely a whimper ?! Or, do you want to go out with a fire in your eyes, and song in your heart?! In a blaze of glory that will make you a hero to thousands, and the tales of your passing told to children born a hundred years hence?!
spaceXjam wrote:confirmed that this is not the cover for the standard Warhammer 40,000 6th Edition
Gotta love bs comments such as these.
An other confirmation via Warseer; from people who have seen the WD:
The leaked photo of the cover is correct, that is the new cover of the normal hardback rulebook. The collectors edition looks *******' sweet though, with amazing artwork and brass doodads, etc etc. The skull measuring tape is pretty cool too, and the munitorum dice come in a lasgun charge pack case, and are also pretty nicely designed. The special edition templates follow the Fantasy example of being somewhat visually-related to the game, except instead of faux-gold framing, they're faux-steel framed, with coruscating arcs of blue psychic fire spoking out from the middle of each (or the narrow end of the flame template)
Damit. I was going to wait for the mini rule book or the iPad edition, but now I want the collectors edition.
I'm not interested in the templates (silver bits of plastic? I'll pass thank you) or the measuring tape (I'm happy with the one I have, but I may pick one up if mine brakes at some point). The dice sound usefull and I may pick up some if they are when I have a few pounds spare but I now NEED the limited edition rule book. If it is anything like the warhammer one it will be a lovely object to own. Never mind that I can't carry it anywhere and it is to large to be of any use.
reds8n wrote: I had thought/heard/hoped that the ally rules were indeed an addition to the normal game rules...
....I wonder now somewhat if the ally rules are the "get out clause" with regards to armies like Necrons or Dark Eldar getting access to the new psychic powers and rules perhaps ?
I'm not so sure about that. Dwarves in Fantasy dont get magic and they've had nothing special. Every other race is waiting for their book to get done so they get their cards. Some races have had magic cards because they were so close to the release of 8th ed Fantasy. The Beastmen and Skaven and high elves all got cards. Beastmen cos they were so close to release and Skaven and Elve cos they were in the big box. It seems like a lot of cards for 40k though. The initial fantasy set covers the 8 schools of magic which a number of races have access to bits of so it's a universal base. I'm wondering if they are going to have similar in 40k or if they are going to do all the existing ones from the codices in one big pack.
Allies in Fantasy relate to how you can join two forces together and they can or cant use each others generals / standard bearers or characters joining units and leadership tests. Ive not seen them as a way to compensate for magic or lack of it. From what I've read and heard it's not used much in Fantasy and I can't see why it would be a big deal for 40k.
74 bucks for the new RB? god i dont think anyone at my 40k club will buy it. I am, but i already have 50$ saved from collecting change. and im going to go get a bunch of money from collecting cans.
Crazyterran wrote:The 5th Edition Rulebook had Marines on the cover. In fact, it's the same damn picture as on the Black Reach Box, with a Hammer put overtop of it.
Crazyterran wrote:The 5th Edition Rulebook had Marines on the cover. In fact, it's the same damn picture as on the Black Reach Box, with a Hammer put overtop of it.
Small one is red with the hammer.
And in the red part are a bunch of Ultramarines fighting Orks...
Crazyterran wrote:The 5th Edition Rulebook had Marines on the cover. In fact, it's the same damn picture as on the Black Reach Box, with a Hammer put overtop of it.
Small one is red with the hammer.
And in the red part are a bunch of Ultramarines fighting Orks...
I can live with subtle images, but an upfront Space Marine?
HELL, the Overlord on my Necron codex takes less space than that worthless tin can!
Noisy_Marine wrote:Kinda funny that they are letting CSM ally with demons after splitting the armies. ISN'T IT?!
Funny they got rid of the Witch Hunter Codex so SoB can't ally with anyone no more. If Tyranids was made with 6th edition in mind, why bother getting rid of the last codex that had ally rules? GW say they don't care about Tourniments so bother wasting resources to just bring it back again?
abhus wrote:I bet this is not the BGB, but why didn´t the person snapping pictures, snap a picture of the insides, i´m curious about that.
Because GW told them not too. This is all from GW to get us talking about it. Just like how that video site guys what ever there name is, the ones 2 brit guys who talk so boooooring, say "we can't say who out source is", is GW giving it to them.
This is GW way of being a stripper. Slowly peeling away, or giving out "leaks" to us. Since we think it's non GW sources giving out the info, we talk about it even more.
abhus wrote:I bet this is not the BGB, but why didn´t the person snapping pictures, snap a picture of the insides, i´m curious about that.
Because GW told them not too. This is all from GW to get us talking about it. Just like how that video site guys what ever there name is, the ones 2 brit guys who talk so boooooring, say "we can't say who out source is", is GW giving it to them.
This is GW way of being a stripper. Slowly peeling away, or giving out "leaks" to us. Since we think it's non GW sources giving out the info, we talk about it even more.
Either that, or the photographer managed to smuggle in a Cold War relic spy cam, and only had a couple seconds to snap a picture of the cover. A couple dead drops later, and the microfilm landed in the lap of the photo's publisher, who then made this poor digital copy from said microfilm...
spaceXjam wrote:confirmed that this is not the cover for the standard Warhammer 40,000 6th Edition
We have a few people who say that it has been confirmed, when they called in.
And then you come in with one line and say that it's not.
Someone's trolling, and somehow, I doubt it's the people who are saying it is confirmed.
some australian stores received their rulebook copy early. i guess GW thought it would take longer to send out here. i was in there the other day and all the employees were talking about it i tryed to ask if i could see it and they kept teasing me and then to shock me the guy went in this little closet thing and pulled at a big book that was obviously 6th edition to tease me for a few seconds then put it back in the room. it was not the picture that is on the cover of this book in this photo.
spaceXjam wrote:
some australian stores received their rulebook copy early. i guess GW thought it would take longer to send out here. i was in there the other day and all the employees were talking about it i tryed to ask if i could see it and they kept teasing me and then to shock me the guy went in this little closet thing and pulled at a big book that was obviously 6th edition to tease me for a few seconds then put it back in the room. it was not the picture that is on the cover of this book in this photo.
spaceXjam wrote:
some australian stores received their rulebook copy early. i guess GW thought it would take longer to send out here. i was in there the other day and all the employees were talking about it i tryed to ask if i could see it and they kept teasing me and then to shock me the guy went in this little closet thing and pulled at a big book that was obviously 6th edition to tease me for a few seconds then put it back in the room. it was not the picture that is on the cover of this book in this photo.
spaceXjam wrote:
some australian stores received their rulebook copy early. i guess GW thought it would take longer to send out here. i was in there the other day and all the employees were talking about it i tryed to ask if i could see it and they kept teasing me and then to shock me the guy went in this little closet thing and pulled at a big book that was obviously 6th edition to tease me for a few seconds then put it back in the room. it was not the picture that is on the cover of this book in this photo.
Care to describe what was on the cover?
i guess it was fake. see i mean above
I added the collectors edition shot as well--was it that one (see last picture above)?
ShumaGorath wrote:Chaos demons have zero psychic powers. Well that seems off.
The lack of additional Ork powers threw me off--of course this is in addition to their normal powers--so perhaps they are saying Orks are just their own psyker style onto themselves...
/Malfred is probably drooling over the man purse gamers edition
Oh my...Very tempted for a collector's edition, will wait to see what the prices here in NZ will be before I buy though, the current 8th fantasy retails here for $146!!!
The dice are meh, but i'm very interested in a set of battlefield objective dice and vehicle damage dice - those will have to wait until July 27 though.
Overall i'm very excited. I cannot wait to get my copy of the book when it drops. Until then, those who have a copy spill away, I want to hear all about 6th edition up to and until i'm reading it for myself in 10 days!
tuiman wrote:Was refering more to the ap1, 2, 3 thing, dont think I've seen that mentioned anywhere in reference to vehicles but tell me what it means if you do know? Please.
I don't know what it means. I'm just saying that it is a confirmation that it was too early to worry about a rumored rule about hull points when we don't know all the rules yet.
tuiman wrote:Was refering more to the ap1, 2, 3 thing, dont think I've seen that mentioned anywhere in reference to vehicles but tell me what it means if you do know? Please.
Sounds like it means better APs will do better against vehicles? Definitely a plus for the game.
tuiman wrote:Was refering more to the ap1, 2, 3 thing, dont think I've seen that mentioned anywhere in reference to vehicles but tell me what it means if you do know? Please.
I don't know what it means. I'm just saying that it is a confirmation that it was too early to worry about a rumored rule about hull points when we don't know all the rules yet.
I apolagize sir, I thought you were having a go at me , now I totally understand your post
As, I said, they all look quite good, just waiting to see how the NZ price will be
now going by this we can only ASSUME that AP 1 damage chart will be more punishing (1-2-weapon destroyed, 3-4 wrecks, 5-6 explodes?) And AP 3+ table is less punishing (1-3 shaken, 4-stunned, 5-weapon destroyed, 6-wrecked??)
All speculation, but i could see it that way. any rulebook holders want to confirm/deny?
I want that Gamer's Edition. Templates are pretty cool, too.
Absolutely hating that servo skull tape measure the more I look at it. When it was rumoured before, I thought the idea sounded cool, but right now it looks cheap and nasty...
now going by this we can only ASSUME that AP 1 damage chart will be more punishing (1-2-weapon destroyed, 3-4 wrecks, 5-6 explodes?) And AP 3+ table is less punishing (1-3 shaken, 4-stunned, 5-weapon destroyed, 6-wrecked??)
All speculation, but i could see it that way. any rulebook holders want to confirm/deny?
Wow, that actually sounds pretty cool and more realistic to, I would be very happy to have a go if those are the rules
now going by this we can only ASSUME that AP 1 damage chart will be more punishing (1-2-weapon destroyed, 3-4 wrecks, 5-6 explodes?) And AP 3+ table is less punishing (1-3 shaken, 4-stunned, 5-weapon destroyed, 6-wrecked??)
All speculation, but i could see it that way. any rulebook holders want to confirm/deny?
I would assume it would only add a +1 or -1 to results of explosion.
Im wondering if the Collectors edition will be really worth it. Wasn't the Fantasy 8th Edition Collectors rulebook cover considerably better than the normal counterpart? The collectors edition here literally looks like a picture swap.
now going by this we can only ASSUME that AP 1 damage chart will be more punishing (1-2-weapon destroyed, 3-4 wrecks, 5-6 explodes?) And AP 3+ table is less punishing (1-3 shaken, 4-stunned, 5-weapon destroyed, 6-wrecked??)
All speculation, but i could see it that way. any rulebook holders want to confirm/deny?
I would assume it would only add a +1 or -1 to results of explosion.
tetrisphreak wrote: These too, have merit in my opinion (and a fair shake easier to remember too!) now we wait....
I only think AP1 would be a little closer to my chart because on yours a Railgun would be a guaranteed wreck on any open top vehicle.
See my avatar? Now explain to me why that isn't a great idea!? hahaha.
As a semi-lobbying move, in the Tau's behalf, the railgun is a magnetically accelerated slug designed to do one thing - punch big holes in armor. A pen auto-wrecking an open topped vehicle (after a flicker field fail, we all know who uses the most open topped vehicles in 40K presently), SHOULD by fluff wreck or explode it. /lobbying over
I think the more important question here is we have damage table for AP123 weapons right? What about AP4? Will AP123 be the only thing that can hurt a vehicle? I would assume though that AP123 will be the only thing capable of wrecking a vehicle.
Dantalian wrote:I think the more important question here is we have damage table for AP123 weapons right? What about AP4? Will AP123 be the only thing that can hurt a vehicle? I would assume though that AP123 will be the only thing capable of wrecking a vehicle.
I think there will be a chart for AP1, AP2, AP3/4/5/6, and maybe one for AP- aswell.
crazyK wrote:I feel bad for Eldar. They only have access to two lores while space marines and IG get four.
Seriously. I will grant that the schools assigned to eldar are appropriate. Why IG should be able to navigate the warp better than the "Master Psychers" I hope is because there is some cool codex specific lore. The schools I'm not too against although rolling for random powers will make me pick up a different army. Not out of spite or any delusion that GW will care that there rules cause me to forsake an army I've loved. I just hate the mechanic. All that moaning aside I'll need to learn the rules and wait to how the game plays out before I whine too much more. Until then I will pray to the game design fairies for something fun.
Dantalian wrote:I think the more important question here is we have damage table for AP123 weapons right? What about AP4? Will AP123 be the only thing that can hurt a vehicle? I would assume though that AP123 will be the only thing capable of wrecking a vehicle.
I think there will be a chart for AP1, AP2, AP3/4/5/6, and maybe one for AP- aswell.
In the description, it only has dice for Ap1,2,3 though...not that Im saying the others won't exist, just that if they did, would they not have dice for them as well.
If it is only AP3 or higher, vehicles just got a whole lot better
tetrisphreak wrote:As a semi-lobbying move, in the Tau's behalf, the railgun is a magnetically accelerated slug designed to do one thing - punch big holes in armor. A pen auto-wrecking an open topped vehicle (after a flicker field fail, we all know who uses the most open topped vehicles in 40K presently), SHOULD by fluff wreck or explode it. /lobbying over
Actually a hyper velocity slug would probably act much like a sabot round against light armoured vehicles and punch straight through one side and out the other with minimal chance of actually hitting something important. You use HEAT rounds to kill light armour. Either way I can live with Railguns blasting AV10 skimmers out of the sky in game, its pretty close to auto dead at the moment anyway (3+ to kill).
Dantalian wrote:I think the more important question here is we have damage table for AP123 weapons right? What about AP4? Will AP123 be the only thing that can hurt a vehicle? I would assume though that AP123 will be the only thing capable of wrecking a vehicle.
A HUGE amount of rebalancing will be in order if AP4-6 can't hurt a vehicle at ALL. More likely AP4-6 have their own chart, AP4 through to AP- covers all the suppression type light anti tank weapons (S6 spam, S7 spam etc) and I would be fine with them only being able to wreck a vehicle.
Have we heard anything about immobilised results at all? It would boggle the mind if they completely remove immobilised as a result (vehicles having tracks taken out is incredibly common in armoured warfare) so I'm assuming for the moment that it has been combined with weapon destroyed. That would mean essentially you end up with a chart that is something like 1-2 temporary loss of function, 3-4 permanant loss of function, 5-6 dead, which is adjusted up and down slightly for different weapons, which I can live with.
Can anyone blow up the image of the psyker cards so they are readable? Eldar not getting any offensive powers is annoying but ok, I'm guessing Warlocks won't be able to buy powers (until the next book hopefully) since they aren't ICs and they are the ones who would be taking the damage dealing ones (Seers focus on support). Hopefully there is a race specific thing built in so that Eldar get some form of buff in this area anyway (Loremaster type ability maybe). Also Daemons not getting any powers is pretty weird, they should get the offensive based ones at very least.
Dantalian wrote:I think the more important question here is we have damage table for AP123 weapons right? What about AP4? Will AP123 be the only thing that can hurt a vehicle? I would assume though that AP123 will be the only thing capable of wrecking a vehicle.
Dantalian wrote:I think the more important question here is we have damage table for AP123 weapons right? What about AP4? Will AP123 be the only thing that can hurt a vehicle? I would assume though that AP123 will be the only thing capable of wrecking a vehicle.
I think there will be a chart for AP1, AP2, AP3/4/5/6, and maybe one for AP- aswell.
In the description, it only has dice for Ap1,2,3 though...not that Im saying the others won't exist, just that if they did, would they not have dice for them as well.
If it is only AP3 or higher, vehicles just got a whole lot better
I hope i can kill vehicles with AP4/5/6, I have autocannons coming out of my ears!
One for AP- would work, i shouldn't be able to kill a vehicle with a shotgun!
As pretty as the Collector's edition is, I picked up the Collector's book for 4th edition... and that turned out to be my least favourite edition of the game so far.
So rather than tempt fate, I think I'll stick with one of the more sensible versions
Can anyone make out from the photographed picture what's so special about the collector's edition to require a virtual doubling of the price? Is it gold-plated? Are the pages actually some kind of flexible metal*? It can't just be a fancy slip cover and a few fabric bookmarks?
H.B.M.C. wrote:Can anyone make out from the photographed picture what's so special about the collector's edition to require a virtual doubling of the price? Is it gold-plated? Are the pages actually some kind of flexible metal*? It can't just be a fancy slip cover and a few fabric bookmarks?
Thats what I was just trying to figure out. After zooming into the picture I think it says that the box it comes in may be leather but the book itself just looks like a different picture. And all I can see is that the pages are made out of a high quality parchement. I am hoping there is more to it than that because of that Price tag
porkuslime wrote:Looks like the picture on the right half of the Collectors Edition internal cover is also the spinal picture on this years White Dwarf.
Am I right? I can't quite tell.
-Porkuslime
It is. Or at least it soooooo close that it beggars the question: why make two very similar pictures of a helmetless Dark Angel with a plasmagun?
H.B.M.C. wrote:Can anyone make out from the photographed picture what's so special about the collector's edition to require a virtual doubling of the price? Is it gold-plated? Are the pages actually some kind of flexible metal*? It can't just be a fancy slip cover and a few fabric bookmarks?
If it follows the collectors editions from previous editions, higher quality parchment paper, additional material, and gold leaf on the page outline. Collectors editions have normally been twice the standard edition price. Picked up the 6th ed collectors edition for WHFB. Liked it a lot, but could never bring it to a store for fear of damaging it. After 6th passed, sits on a shelf. High priced shiny thing. Like any other "limited edition" special trinket/car/clothes, priced to create the air of exclusivity.
I hope the vehicle pen/damage thing doesn't mean referencing too many tables. Seems like it might get overly complex. I like that at this point it's fairly easy to memorize the tables; if there is a separate one for each AP, that could be a mess.
I like that Necrons don't have psykers. I dislike that they don't have something like Pariahs anymore; psykers are their ancient enemies, they shouldn't have innate resistance to psychic powers or anything like that, but should have something specifically to hunt them down. 3" range Gloom Prisms are not the answer.
H.B.M.C. wrote:Can anyone make out from the photographed picture what's so special about the collector's edition to require a virtual doubling of the price? Is it gold-plated? Are the pages actually some kind of flexible metal*? It can't just be a fancy slip cover and a few fabric bookmarks?
If it follows the collectors editions from previous editions, higher quality parchment paper, additional material, and gold leaf on the page outline. Collectors editions have normally been twice the standard edition price. Picked up the 6th ed collectors edition for WHFB. Liked it a lot, but could never bring it to a store for fear of damaging it. After 6th passed, sits on a shelf. High priced shiny thing. Like any other "limited edition" special trinket/car/clothes, priced to create the air of exclusivity.
Play the same crap game as the rest of us, but have the satisfaction of paying more to do it!
Nightbringer's Chosen wrote:I hope the vehicle pen/damage thing doesn't mean referencing too many tables. Seems like it might get overly complex. I like that at this point it's fairly easy to memorize the tables; if there is a separate one for each AP, that could be a mess.
If the "special" dice work the way I think they might then it may simply be one table, with a AP2 add +1 to the roll, AP1 add +2 to the roll. Or something like that.
spaceXjam wrote:
some australian stores received their rulebook copy early. i guess GW thought it would take longer to send out here. i was in there the other day and all the employees were talking about it i tryed to ask if i could see it and they kept teasing me and then to shock me the guy went in this little closet thing and pulled at a big book that was obviously 6th edition to tease me for a few seconds then put it back in the room. it was not the picture that is on the cover of this book in this photo.
Care to describe what was on the cover?
i guess it was fake. see i mean above
I added the collectors edition shot as well--was it that one (see last picture above)?
yes that limited edition one was the one they had in store!
thank you for these pictures how did you get them?
I must say I don't care much for the new knickknacks nor for any of the big books. I'll rely on scans until the starter comes out.
I do kind of want to go back through the thread and name and shame all the know-it-alls who said GW wouldn't possibly put a Space Marine on the cover...
Text from the add for the Collector's Edition: When the officers of the Imperial Guard pray to the Emperor for salvation, it is for the intervention of his Angels of Death that they beseech him. The Warhammer 40,000 Collector's Edition represents a sacred artifact, a reliquary of the Space Marines over which they invoke the Emperor's divine blessing. Its leatherette exterior features a debossed design of an iron halo and Imperial aquila. Two panels open either side to reveal four gold gilt embossed arched faces, within which are depicted four great heroes of the Space Marines. A secret panel pops open at the top of the reliquary, revealing access to a premium edition of the Warhammer 40,000 rulebook. The pages of this hardback rulebook are made from the very highest quality parchment paper, making it an even greater tome to possess. The Warhammer 40,000 Collector's Edition is strictly limited to 4000 individually numbered copies worldwide, so don't miss out on this great opportunity to own a genuine artefact from the 41'st Millenium.
Text from the Gamer's Edition: The Warhammer 40,000 gamer's Edition represents a Munitorium Officer's kit as if it came straight out of the 41'st Millenium . The Gamer's Edition bundle consists of a versitile brown leatherette singal satchel, a Warhammer 40,000 rulebook, and a limited edition set of 12 red Munitorium Dice that are only available in this set and come with a power pack tin. The satchel is large enough to carry the rulebook along with any accompanying Codexes and Munitorium Templates, but also features three internal pouches. each designed to fit a Lasgun power pack tin. Two 4mm thick metal pin badges are also included (one representing the Imperial Aquila and the other the eight-pointed Chaos star), one of which can be fitted above the satchel's wooden toggle so that you may proudly declare your allegiance for or against the Emperor. The Warhammer 40,000 Gamer's Edition is only available to order from the website and is strictly limited in numbers, so don't miss out.
Red Corsair wrote:If AP 4+ can't hurt armor then GK just got laughably crappy.
Oh, how I would laugh, and laugh, and laugh, and laugh, and laugh, and laugh, were that to be the case. I doubt it, but it would be one hell of a metagame shift.
Red Corsair wrote:If AP 4+ can't hurt armor then GK just got laughably crappy.
Oh, how I would laugh, and laugh, and laugh, and laugh, and laugh, and laugh, were that to be the case. I doubt it, but it would be one hell of a metagame shift.
No so much, when you consider the ally thing... That would make inquisitorial henchmans/allied veterans with melta-guns and dreadnoughts with multi-melta a must for the army...
Red Corsair wrote:If AP 4+ can't hurt armor then GK just got laughably crappy.
Oh, how I would laugh, and laugh, and laugh, and laugh, and laugh, and laugh, were that to be the case. I doubt it, but it would be one hell of a metagame shift.
No so much, when you consider the ally thing... That would make inquisitorial henchmans/allied veterans with melta-guns and dreadnoughts with multi-melta a must for the army...
Yeah just add some vendetta's or something, soon solve that
H.B.M.C. wrote:Can anyone make out from the photographed picture what's so special about the collector's edition to require a virtual doubling of the price? Is it gold-plated? Are the pages actually some kind of flexible metal*? It can't just be a fancy slip cover and a few fabric bookmarks?
*Cookie for the reference.
Meh, how often do you see a "Collector's Edition" of ANYTHING that offers substantial value.
Their chief appeal is usually scarcity, and they're generally aimed at people who like to manifest their media allegiances via physical expression.
Aye Anung, so my guess is looking at the psyker rule we'll have a 40K Storm of Chaos book next year, that will give us Chaos powers, update Ork, Tyranid and Eldar powers, and perhaps add something to Necrons, Dark Eldar?
Seems odd to only grant a new powerful option to around half the armies otherwise.