azreal13 wrote: There is no way I can justify that, and due to the conditions I play under I can't realistically stick with a previous edition.
This is the same situation I will be in if this comes to pass.
My previous LE 6th copy will have lasted half the time of a regular rulebook lifespan AND that new rulebook will cost about $30 more than the previous edition!
But I can't worry too much, I'm sure an Ultra-LE version of 6.5 will be right around the corner!!!
Hoping this isn't true as this would be what I consider a worst-case scenario.
That commissar Poster is in the middle of the new white dwarf.
(local toy shop seems to put white dwarf out for sale on whichever day it's delivered!)
Doesn't really confirm anything, but something is happening on the 24th.
Except 3.5 was a thing. It didn't include a new rulebook, it was purely white dwarf and chapter approved.
What exactly was 3.5E, and how was it different from a FAQ?
From what little I know: mostly an update to the assault rules published in the WD and later the collective Chapter Approved.
And the vehicle fire and access point rules.
Extensive FAQs to the point of ridiculousness.
Plus loads of other minor things spread across Chapter Approved.
As I said earlier. Several people round here joked that by 3rd ed's. end the only things still usable out of the basic rulebook were the WS and BS tables.
ClockworkZion wrote: Are we or are we not panicking? Guess I should get my towel just in case I suppose.
Regardless, looks like some collaboration of what I said this morning occurred. Spiffy.
Me, I'm sticking with what I have until the new boxed game arrives, I'd buy it for Blood Angels anyway (if that turns out true) and use the rules from there if they are still in it - and I cannot see the small book being removed.
Except 3.5 was a thing. It didn't include a new rulebook, it was purely white dwarf and chapter approved.
What exactly was 3.5E, and how was it different from a FAQ?
From what little I know: mostly an update to the assault rules published in the WD and later the collective Chapter Approved.
And the vehicle fire and access point rules.
Extensive FAQs to the point of ridiculousness.
Plus loads of other minor things spread across Chapter Approved.
As I said earlier. Several people round here joked that by 3rd ed's. end the only things still usable out of the basic rulebook were the WS and BS tables.
Looks like basically the same scope (or less) but inside the rulebook this time.
ClockworkZion wrote: Are we or are we not panicking? Guess I should get my towel just in case I suppose.
Regardless, looks like some collaboration of what I said this morning occurred. Spiffy.
Panicking about this?
Not in the slightest.
Am I very concerned that half of my current annual income is under threat, and consequently very price sensitive? Absolutely.
Am I a bit worried about the fact my car has it's annual road worthiness test tomorrow and may need cash spending in repairs and maintainence? A little bit.
But panicking about a company theoretically charging a ludicrously high % over its competitors for a similar product, which in turn is rumoured to be yet another cynical attempt to manipulate it's customers into spending yet more cash?
Not one bit, just stating my position should it come to pass.
ClockworkZion wrote: Are we or are we not panicking? Guess I should get my towel just in case I suppose.
Regardless, looks like some collaboration of what I said this morning occurred. Spiffy.
Panicking about this?
Not in the slightest.
Am I very concerned that half of my current annual income is under threat, and consequently very price sensitive? Absolutely.
Am I a bit worried about the fact my car has it's annual road worthiness test tomorrow and may need cash spending in repairs and maintainence? A little bit.
But panicking about a company theoretically charging a ludicrously high % over its competitors for a similar product, which in turn is rumoured to be yet another cynical attempt to manipulate it's customers into spending yet more cash?
Not one bit, just stating my position should it come to pass.
I think ClockworkZion was talking about the previous exchange of memes and not about your post in particular.
Maybe, but "panic" and "sky is falling" are used almost as often as "hate" in an effort to undermine either legitimate concern or criticism, and I was kind of contextualising how relatively minor this will be in most people's lives, but that by no means removes their right to voice concern based in the information available.
If they don't mitigate that concern with the fact that it is only rumour at this point, well more fool them.
azreal13 wrote: Maybe, but "panic" and "sky is falling" are used almost as often as "hate" in an effort to undermine either legitimate concern or criticism, and I was kind of contextualising how relatively minor this will be in most people's lives, but that by no means removes their right to voice concern based in the information available.
If they don't mitigate that concern with the fact that it is only rumour at this point, well more fool them.
"Panic" and "Don't Panic" are words on the cover (there is a point in the series were it changes from the latter to the former when the company that makes the book comes under new ownership IIRC) of the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy in the books hence the towel reference. It felt fitting with the memes.
azreal13 wrote: Maybe, but "panic" and "sky is falling" are used almost as often as "hate" in an effort to undermine either legitimate concern or criticism, and I was kind of contextualising how relatively minor this will be in most people's lives, but that by no means removes their right to voice concern based in the information available.
If they don't mitigate that concern with the fact that it is only rumour at this point, well more fool them.
"Panic" and "Don't Panic" are words on the cover (there is a point in the series were it changes from the latter to the former when the company that makes the book comes under new ownership IIRC) of the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy in the books hence the towel reference. It felt fitting with the memes.
Oh, I got the reference, it's just that certain words come with other connotations here on Dakka/t'internet and that's one of them.
Man, about 6 months ago, my gaming group created T-shirts with the tag line of "Ain't nobody got time for peace". They've stolen our slogan and 'grimdark-ed' it!
Eesh, good thing I haven't bought any books lately. On the plus side (for me,) maybe this'll mean a glut of books getting dumped for uber-cheap, so I can grab up a bunch for pictures and fluff (which is the only reason I get them!)
azreal13 wrote: Maybe, but "panic" and "sky is falling" are used almost as often as "hate" in an effort to undermine either legitimate concern or criticism, and I was kind of contextualising how relatively minor this will be in most people's lives, but that by no means removes their right to voice concern based in the information available.
If they don't mitigate that concern with the fact that it is only rumour at this point, well more fool them.
"Panic" and "Don't Panic" are words on the cover (there is a point in the series were it changes from the latter to the former when the company that makes the book comes under new ownership IIRC) of the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy in the books hence the towel reference. It felt fitting with the memes.
Oh, I got the reference, it's just that certain words come with other connotations here on Dakka/t'internet and that's one of them.
Fair enough. I just wanted to kill ambiguity at this point (along with any humor it had).
Well, there seems to be a lot more folks with disposable income than I and I would almost guarantee there will be a LE of 6.5 rules - and it will sell out...
Instead of spending money on product, why not put that money collectively towards buying stock in the company? Push out Kirby and appoint yourself as head
Uriels_Flame wrote: Instead of spending money on product, why not put that money collectively towards buying stock in the company? Push out Kirby and appoint yourself as head
Uriels_Flame wrote: Well, there seems to be a lot more folks with disposable income than I and I would almost guarantee there will be a LE of 6.5 rules - and it will sell out...
Instead of spending money on product, why not put that money collectively towards buying stock in the company? Push out Kirby and appoint yourself as head
Uriels_Flame wrote: Instead of spending money on product, why not put that money collectively towards buying stock in the company? Push out Kirby and appoint yourself as head
Isn't this a bingo square? Did I win?
No, we all lose because this idea was brought up. There are 32 Million Shares of GW stock "issued" right now. To have enough control over the company to boot Kirby you'd need in excess of half of it (so 16,320,000 to have 51% control of the company) which would cost at least 9,343,200,000 GBP.
And while you're trying to get all that together they could just split the stocks requiring you to need even more shares to gain control of the company.
In short: buying enough shares to control a company is something only people like Bill Gates can pull off in a single day.
"The British pound sterling is symbolized by the pound sign (£) and is nicknamed "quid." Because stocks are traded in pence (the British term for pennies), investors may see stock prices listed as pence sterling - GBX, or GBp. "
"The British pound sterling is symbolized by the pound sign (£) and is nicknamed "quid." Because stocks are traded in pence (the British term for pennies), investors may see stock prices listed as pence sterling - GBX, or GBp. "
Right, but that's not listed on the actual stock exchange sites that actually LIST the prices, but on basically an investment reference site. I'm not accepting responsibility on this one.
No, we all lose because this idea was brought up. There are 32 Million Shares of GW stock "issued" right now. To have enough control over the company to boot Kirby you'd need in excess of half of it (so 16,320,000 to have 51% control of the company) which would cost at least 9,343,200,000 GBP.
And while you're trying to get all that together they could just split the stocks requiring you to need even more shares to gain control of the company.
In short: buying enough shares to control a company is something only people like Bill Gates can pull off in a single day.
You don't truly need to hold that much stock to effect change. You only need enough to have a member on the board of directors. A 11% ownership of stock is currently the largest investor. You only need to shift enough votes to remove him from the position. If another investor were to control 10% of the stock (but about only half of that would be required) they would be able to exert a large amount of influence, especially if it was known that said investor would dump his stock if changes weren't made. None of the other investors would want to see 1/10 of of a companies stock flood the market and cause a huge drop in value. It could spark a massive sell off because those that aren't on the board wouldn't know what was happening, just that someone "in the know" was bailing out of the company at an accelerated rate. Leading to the larger investors losing a substantial amount.
No, we all lose because this idea was brought up. There are 32 Million Shares of GW stock "issued" right now. To have enough control over the company to boot Kirby you'd need in excess of half of it (so 16,320,000 to have 51% control of the company) which would cost at least 9,343,200,000 GBP.
And while you're trying to get all that together they could just split the stocks requiring you to need even more shares to gain control of the company.
In short: buying enough shares to control a company is something only people like Bill Gates can pull off in a single day.
You don't truly need to hold that much stock to effect change. You only need enough to have a member on the board of directors. A 11% ownership of stock is currently the largest investor. You only need to shift enough votes to remove him from the position. If another investor were to control 10% of the stock (but about only half of that would be required) they would be able to exert a large amount of influence, especially if it was known that said investor would dump his stock if changes weren't made. None of the other investors would want to see 1/10 of of a companies stock flood the market and cause a huge drop in value. It could spark a massive sell off because those that aren't on the board wouldn't know what was happening, just that someone "in the know" was bailing out of the company at an accelerated rate. Leading to the larger investors losing a substantial amount.
It's complicated.
11% = 3,520,000 Shares or ~20,134,400GBP.
Basically you might want to start playing the Powerball to have enough money to try and get that much control.
No, we all lose because this idea was brought up. There are 32 Million Shares of GW stock "issued" right now. To have enough control over the company to boot Kirby you'd need in excess of half of it (so 16,320,000 to have 51% control of the company) which would cost at least 9,343,200,000 GBP.
And while you're trying to get all that together they could just split the stocks requiring you to need even more shares to gain control of the company.
In short: buying enough shares to control a company is something only people like Bill Gates can pull off in a single day.
You don't truly need to hold that much stock to effect change. You only need enough to have a member on the board of directors. A 11% ownership of stock is currently the largest investor. You only need to shift enough votes to remove him from the position. If another investor were to control 10% of the stock (but about only half of that would be required) they would be able to exert a large amount of influence, especially if it was known that said investor would dump his stock if changes weren't made. None of the other investors would want to see 1/10 of of a companies stock flood the market and cause a huge drop in value. It could spark a massive sell off because those that aren't on the board wouldn't know what was happening, just that someone "in the know" was bailing out of the company at an accelerated rate. Leading to the larger investors losing a substantial amount.
It's complicated.
11% = 3,520,000 Shares or ~20,134,400GBP.
Basically you might want to start playing the Powerball to have enough money to try and get that much control.
32,000,000 Shares in the company x 11% = 3,520,000 Shares to have 11% of the company. 3,520,000 x 5.72GBP (current share price) = 20,134,400 GBP to buy that many shares assuming no change in stock prices while you do it.
"The British pound sterling is symbolized by the pound sign (£) and is nicknamed "quid." Because stocks are traded in pence (the British term for pennies), investors may see stock prices listed as pence sterling - GBX, or GBp. "
Right, but that's not listed on the actual stock exchange sites that actually LIST the prices, but on basically an investment reference site. I'm not accepting responsibility on this one.
Heaven forfend that people who look at these things know a bit about what they're looking at!
Frankly, that your figures calculating GW's worth was in the billions on a company who's turnover barely exceeds£ 100m didn't tip you off suggests you're crunching numbers without really considering the results.
But, meh, it's all been done to death before anyway, back to topic...
Heaven forfend that people who look at these things know a bit about what they're looking at!
I apologize for not knowing that a different country's stock market used cents instead of pounds (the US uses dollars not cents, hence the confusion, I don't own stock in the UK).
Above is the poster that is coming in the next White Dwarf and that are already being shown at GW store locations. The picture above was revealed on facebook for the Liverpool GW Store. Not only that but we are now getting some reports on the contents of the book from more than one person.
The information below must be taken as rumor, since we just cannot verify that these are from official sources. It looks very much like we will be calling this 6.5. Just to understand where these are coming from, GW managers have been in meetings in the UK, and this is where I am assuming that the information is being spread from. Hard to tell at this moment though, and the next few weeks will show us more of what is coming.
via an source over on Talkwargaming- Thanks for the heads up Zion
The new rulebook is not a 7th edition of the game, but a re-issue of 6th edition which has the FAQs incorporated in it, and some minor tweaks across the board. Some of you may remember when they did something similar during 3rd edition, where they totally overhauled the assault phase, but the edition itself was left alone from that point. Same idea here-- they're folding in the changes in Stronghold Assault into the main rulebook, and quantifying superheavy units and D weapons in the main rules. But that's about it.
via an anonymous source here at Faeit 212
My brother just got in from GW and the manager said the rulebooks were just getting errata tweaks put in them and would be re-released alongside something else. So just a 6.5 rather than a 7th edition
Could the "something else" from the second source be the black box Eldar and IG that we have been talking about?
More info saying it is just bringing everything together, so as long as you have your current rules and the FAQs your good to go. No need for a new book.
32,000,000 Shares in the company x 11% = 3,520,000 Shares to have 11% of the company. 3,520,000 x 5.72GBP (current share price) = 20,134,400 GBP to buy that many shares assuming no change in stock prices while you do it.
Above is the poster that is coming in the next White Dwarf and that are already being shown at GW store locations. The picture above was revealed on facebook for the Liverpool GW Store. Not only that but we are now getting some reports on the contents of the book from more than one person.
The information below must be taken as rumor, since we just cannot verify that these are from official sources. It looks very much like we will be calling this 6.5. Just to understand where these are coming from, GW managers have been in meetings in the UK, and this is where I am assuming that the information is being spread from. Hard to tell at this moment though, and the next few weeks will show us more of what is coming.
via an source over on Talkwargaming- Thanks for the heads up Zion
The new rulebook is not a 7th edition of the game, but a re-issue of 6th edition which has the FAQs incorporated in it, and some minor tweaks across the board. Some of you may remember when they did something similar during 3rd edition, where they totally overhauled the assault phase, but the edition itself was left alone from that point. Same idea here-- they're folding in the changes in Stronghold Assault into the main rulebook, and quantifying superheavy units and D weapons in the main rules. But that's about it.
via an anonymous source here at Faeit 212
My brother just got in from GW and the manager said the rulebooks were just getting errata tweaks put in them and would be re-released alongside something else. So just a 6.5 rather than a 7th edition
Could the "something else" from the second source be the black box Eldar and IG that we have been talking about?
More info saying it is just bringing everything together, so as long as you have your current rules and the FAQs your good to go. No need for a new book.
Lol, you realise you're quoting a rumour from a guy who has already posted the rumour himself int his thread?
Automatically Appended Next Post: For the record, I've had a GW 'source' tell me that it was definitely a bona fide 7th.
I am ambivalent on the quality of this info, but just to balance out those claiming the opposite.
32,000,000 Shares in the company x 11% = 3,520,000 Shares to have 11% of the company. 3,520,000 x 5.72GBP (current share price) = 20,134,400 GBP to buy that many shares assuming no change in stock prices while you do it.
Then your original numbers were WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYY off. The companies value isn't 9 billiion, nor is it 90 million (which is what your calculated number would have been had you had the decimal point in the right place) It's roughly 183 million.
Eleven percent of 183 is around 20.
Edit: I know not on topic. I was writing and looking it up before the MOD posted.
Above is the poster that is coming in the next White Dwarf and that are already being shown at GW store locations. The picture above was revealed on facebook for the Liverpool GW Store. Not only that but we are now getting some reports on the contents of the book from more than one person.
The information below must be taken as rumor, since we just cannot verify that these are from official sources. It looks very much like we will be calling this 6.5. Just to understand where these are coming from, GW managers have been in meetings in the UK, and this is where I am assuming that the information is being spread from. Hard to tell at this moment though, and the next few weeks will show us more of what is coming.
via an source over on Talkwargaming- Thanks for the heads up Zion
The new rulebook is not a 7th edition of the game, but a re-issue of 6th edition which has the FAQs incorporated in it, and some minor tweaks across the board. Some of you may remember when they did something similar during 3rd edition, where they totally overhauled the assault phase, but the edition itself was left alone from that point. Same idea here-- they're folding in the changes in Stronghold Assault into the main rulebook, and quantifying superheavy units and D weapons in the main rules. But that's about it.
via an anonymous source here at Faeit 212
My brother just got in from GW and the manager said the rulebooks were just getting errata tweaks put in them and would be re-released alongside something else. So just a 6.5 rather than a 7th edition
Could the "something else" from the second source be the black box Eldar and IG that we have been talking about?
More info saying it is just bringing everything together, so as long as you have your current rules and the FAQs your good to go. No need for a new book.
Lol, you realise you're quoting a rumour from a guy who has already posted the rumour himself int his thread?
Automatically Appended Next Post: For the record, I've had a GW 'source' tell me that it was definitely a bona fide 7th.
I am ambivalent on the quality of this info, but just to balance out those claiming the opposite.
The rumor from Natfka contains a second source saying the same as I did though so it's not completely wasted.
And my info comes from a GW distributor (through a third party I know well) talking about the "new" product. Soooo we have GW vs GW then. Let's have them fight it out in the Thunderdome!
So, I haven't read the whole thread, so apologies if this has already been discussed, but...
Might this 6.5 release be why we stopped seeing FAQs? If the team who SHOULD have been doing FAQs have been writing this, we might see more than just the already-released FAQs rolled into the new book, but the answers to questions that we've been begging them for over the past year as well. I don't mean to give too much credit to GWs design team, but I am starting to feel optimistic about this new rule book and I'm ready to believe that it'll be the tightest rule set that 40k has ever had.
Not really. We have internet guy vs internet guy. Their sources are really irrelevant.
My chap was recently ex-GW when he told me, which has me 50/50 on whether it was feth them, I don't care anymore, or just devilment on his part and he really knew nothing.
Equally, I have no cause to doubt his honesty, but I'm not sure he was in a position to really know much in the first place. But I believe he knew guys who were.
Not really. We have internet guy vs internet guy. Their sources are really irrelevant.
My chap was recently ex-GW when he told me, which has me 50/50 on whether it was feth them, I don't care anymore, or just devilment on his part and he really knew nothing.
Equally, I have no cause to doubt his honesty, but I'm not sure he was in a position to really know much in the first place. But I believe he knew guys who were.
Hence my ambivalence!
Fair enough. I'm always willing to be wrong so I have no skin in this game either.
Not really. We have internet guy vs internet guy. Their sources are really irrelevant.
My chap was recently ex-GW when he told me, which has me 50/50 on whether it was feth them, I don't care anymore, or just devilment on his part and he really knew nothing.
Equally, I have no cause to doubt his honesty, but I'm not sure he was in a position to really know much in the first place. But I believe he knew guys who were.
Hence my ambivalence!
The point is that I could say that Tom Kirby told me that it is actually a combined Fantasy/40k ruleset called 'There is Only War' and is no edition number. It doesn't make my statement any more or less reliable. It is still just a statement from an Internet Guy (one with a horrible rumor tracker record too).
tomjoad wrote: So, I haven't read the whole thread, so apologies if this has already been discussed, but...
Might this 6.5 release be why we stopped seeing FAQs? If the team who SHOULD have been doing FAQs have been writing this, we might see more than just the already-released FAQs rolled into the new book, but the answers to questions that we've been begging them for over the past year as well. I don't mean to give too much credit to GWs design team, but I am starting to feel optimistic about this new rule book and I'm ready to believe that it'll be the tightest rule set that 40k has ever had.
So what, we pointed out a number of contradictions in the rules, needed clarifications, or other imbalances and GW says:
Hey, thanks guys! We dealt with your concerns and "errors" you found, and everything is nice and neat!
It'll just be $100 to get those clarifications. I mean, it's not like this stuff was wrong in the first place!
Sorry, not trying to be snotty but I just don't see a lot of good in GW taking all the FAQs and effectively charging us for their mistakes
tomjoad wrote: So, I haven't read the whole thread, so apologies if this has already been discussed, but...
Might this 6.5 release be why we stopped seeing FAQs? If the team who SHOULD have been doing FAQs have been writing this, we might see more than just the already-released FAQs rolled into the new book, but the answers to questions that we've been begging them for over the past year as well. I don't mean to give too much credit to GWs design team, but I am starting to feel optimistic about this new rule book and I'm ready to believe that it'll be the tightest rule set that 40k has ever had.
So what, we pointed out a number of contradictions in the rules, needed clarifications, or other imbalances and GW says:
Hey, thanks guys! We dealt with your concerns and "errors" you found, and everything is nice and neat!
It'll just be $100 to get those clarifications. I mean, it's not like this stuff was wrong in the first place!
Sorry, not trying to be snotty but I just don't see a lot of good in GW taking all the FAQs and effectively charging us for their mistakes
azreal13 wrote: Fair point, but with 3 years and thousands of posts under my belt, I think I probably rate slightly above "Internet guy" in terms of my honesty?
Counterpoint: Larry Vela's been around for years and has thousands of posts under his belt.
azreal13 wrote: Fair point, but with 3 years and thousands of posts under my belt, I think I probably rate slightly above "Internet guy" in terms of my honesty?
I'll concede, this might have been the most elaborate troll ever, but I'm not exactly the "signed up yesterday, only made one post" type am I?
You at least rate "totally bodacious internet dude".
tomjoad wrote: So, I haven't read the whole thread, so apologies if this has already been discussed, but...
Might this 6.5 release be why we stopped seeing FAQs? If the team who SHOULD have been doing FAQs have been writing this, we might see more than just the already-released FAQs rolled into the new book, but the answers to questions that we've been begging them for over the past year as well. I don't mean to give too much credit to GWs design team, but I am starting to feel optimistic about this new rule book and I'm ready to believe that it'll be the tightest rule set that 40k has ever had.
So what, we pointed out a number of contradictions in the rules, needed clarifications, or other imbalances and GW says:
Hey, thanks guys! We dealt with your concerns and "errors" you found, and everything is nice and neat!
It'll just be $100 to get those clarifications. I mean, it's not like this stuff was wrong in the first place!
Sorry, not trying to be snotty but I just don't see a lot of good in GW taking all the FAQs and effectively charging us for their mistakes
And you're going to buy it. So am I. So what?
I am seriously considering not buying this release. That is really surprising to me, I bought the 6th LE and everything, I've been a big fan of 40k since 3rd edition.
But this (possible) release...I just don't know if I can support this direction 40k is going in. Maybe I will really have to play with just my 6th copy, or maybe I'll have to quit.
It's not a sob story, I just honestly don't see myself picking this book up, especially if it will only last 2 years like the last.
tomjoad wrote: So, I haven't read the whole thread, so apologies if this has already been discussed, but...
Might this 6.5 release be why we stopped seeing FAQs? If the team who SHOULD have been doing FAQs have been writing this, we might see more than just the already-released FAQs rolled into the new book, but the answers to questions that we've been begging them for over the past year as well. I don't mean to give too much credit to GWs design team, but I am starting to feel optimistic about this new rule book and I'm ready to believe that it'll be the tightest rule set that 40k has ever had.
azreal13 wrote: Fair point, but with 3 years and thousands of posts under my belt, I think I probably rate slightly above "Internet guy" in terms of my honesty?
Counterpoint: Larry Vela's been around for years and has thousands of posts under his belt.
Larry Vela also actively rumourmongers on his own behalf (and continues to do so relentlessly, despite an increasingly poor record) whereas I'm merely passing info and even actively highlighting reasons which might undermine the credibility of the info I'm presenting!
Accolade wrote: I am seriously considering not buying this release. That is really surprising to me, I bought the 6th LE and everything, I've been a big fan of 40k since 3rd edition.
If GW does this right (and assuming it's not a new full edition) you won't need to buy it, just slip an errata into your rulebook. Big "ifs" I know, but it's still a possibility.
I'll be covering the new book once it drops regardless so people can get an idea of what's in it before they drop their money.
azreal13 wrote: Fair point, but with 3 years and thousands of posts under my belt, I think I probably rate slightly above "Internet guy" in terms of my honesty?
Counterpoint: Larry Vela's been around for years and has thousands of posts under his belt.
Larry Vela also actively rumourmongers on his own behalf (and continues to do so relentlessly, despite an increasingly poor record) whereas I'm merely passing info and even actively highlighting reasons which might undermine the credibility of the info I'm presenting!
True, although there is functionally no difference between 'actively rumormongering on his own behalf' and saying 'a little birdy/kirby/GW employee' told me for the people on the other side of the screen. If there was, Vela could just put 'GW CEO said so' at the end of all his posts.
Automatically Appended Next Post: via Mistwarden on Faeit 212
I want to put some weight behind a possible date for the new starter set, September.
Why? Because GW wants and needs to balance the levels of sales ever year per month.
For example last two September was DV box set and then SM codex, both sold lots, so if there is a new box, it will be in September to help balance the books.
And balanced books keep the stock holders happy.
via Stickmonkey on Faeit 212
Take this with lots of salt, but I’ve had a lot of chatter over the last 3 or so months that Epic scale 40k was getting a re-release later this year, and the armies most often cited in the box were Eldar and IG. There is also the blurb of a “mini” game in the most recent white dwarf. I’m not saying this is anything definitive, but it seems like it could fit with the snippets of info I’ve heard.
Accolade wrote: I just don't know if I can support this direction 40k is going in.
Might want to wait to find out what direction it is going in before deciding not to support it because of what direction it is going in.
Right, I keep writing "possible" on these posts but then I miss some; obviously the rumors could be wrong and this release will be something worth the $75-$100 price tag (I'm sure it won't be less than $75 ).
GW could definitely surprise me!
And for what it's worth, I hope it's the good kind of surprise.
Accolade wrote: I am seriously considering not buying this release. That is really surprising to me, I bought the 6th LE and everything, I've been a big fan of 40k since 3rd edition.
If GW does this right (and assuming it's not a new full edition) you won't need to buy it, just slip an errata into your rulebook. Big "ifs" I know, but it's still a possibility.
I'll be covering the new book once it drops regardless so people can get an idea of what's in it before they drop their money.
Yeah, I do have some hope for that. I just hope that if the ruleset does include Stronghold Assault and Escalation, that people keep playing without superheavies and such, because I have little interest there.
Accolade wrote: I am seriously considering not buying this release. That is really surprising to me, I bought the 6th LE and everything, I've been a big fan of 40k since 3rd edition.
If GW does this right (and assuming it's not a new full edition) you won't need to buy it, just slip an errata into your rulebook. Big "ifs" I know, but it's still a possibility.
I'll be covering the new book once it drops regardless so people can get an idea of what's in it before they drop their money.
I really wish GW would speak up immediately. I want to buy the iBooks version of the rules, but since I don't know if they'll be updated or invalidated, I'm waiting. See, GW's trash communications strategy (which is the only thing I actually hate about them) is costing them sales!
azreal13 wrote: Fair point, but with 3 years and thousands of posts under my belt, I think I probably rate slightly above "Internet guy" in terms of my honesty?
Counterpoint: Larry Vela's been around for years and has thousands of posts under his belt.
Larry Vela also actively rumourmongers on his own behalf (and continues to do so relentlessly, despite an increasingly poor record) whereas I'm merely passing info and even actively highlighting reasons which might undermine the credibility of the info I'm presenting!
True, although there is functionally no difference between 'actively rumormongering on his own behalf' and saying 'a little birdy/kirby/GW employee' told me for the people on the other side of the screen. If there was, Vela could just put 'GW CEO said so' at the end of all his posts.
.
He could, but I haven't, in fact, I've done the exact opposite. I'm also tired and in a bad mood and a bit touchy about the tacit implication that I'm lying/making stuff up, when I've never posted in a fashion that would make that in the least likely.
tomjoad wrote: I really wish GW would speak up immediately. I want to buy the iBooks version of the rules, but since I don't know if they'll be updated or invalidated, I'm waiting. See, GW's trash communications strategy (which is the only thing I actually hate about them) is costing them sales!
They lost selling me Apoc Templates because of their limited release strategy so don't feel too bad.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Accolade wrote: I'm looking forward to the review Clockwork!
I'll be giving it my best! The 'fun' part will be playing "what changed" with two rulebooks open!
To try and redirect the thread, or at least my involvement in it, back in track, the ramifications of that poster, and it's teaser qualities, this far out from release could be quite significant in terms of traditional GW approach?
I mean, we're over 3 weeks away, they didn't do this with 6th IIRC.
azreal13 wrote: To try and redirect the thread, or at least my involvement in it, back in track, the ramifications of that poster, and it's teaser qualities, this far out from release could be quite significant in terms of traditional GW approach?
I mean, we're over 3 weeks away, they didn't do this with 6th IIRC.
They did do it with the paint though. GW likes to do stuff like this "occasionally".
I wonder how mad we'll all be if the 24th turns out to be Epic instead.
azreal13 wrote: To try and redirect the thread, or at least my involvement in it, back in track, the ramifications of that poster, and it's teaser qualities, this far out from release could be quite significant in terms of traditional GW approach?
I mean, we're over 3 weeks away, they didn't do this with 6th IIRC.
They did do it with the paint though. GW likes to do stuff like this "occasionally".
I wonder how mad we'll all be if the 24th turns out to be Epic instead.
Speak for yourself!
That is now my new "Best Case" scenario for this release!
EDIT:....unless you meant EPIC 40K....then I'm terrified
azreal13 wrote: To try and redirect the thread, or at least my involvement in it, back in track, the ramifications of that poster, and it's teaser qualities, this far out from release could be quite significant in terms of traditional GW approach?
I mean, we're over 3 weeks away, they didn't do this with 6th IIRC.
They did do it with the paint though. GW likes to do stuff like this "occasionally".
I wonder how mad we'll all be if the 24th turns out to be Epic instead.
Speak for yourself!
That is now my new "Best Case" scenario for this release!
EDIT:....unless you meant EPIC 40K....then I'm terrified
Epic 40k, which was rumored to be coming in 10mm.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Davor wrote: So, who is going to buy the Limited Edition of the rule book?
I might if it's really pretty. Or comes with a Chainsword.
I was fooled because I expected 6th to last as long as the minimum lifespan of all other 40k editions: 4 years.
Most scenarios regarding 6.5/7 will result in me being unable to play without the new book. So in the somewhat unlikely scenario that I purchase the next edition (if it ends up being what the rumors suggest), I certainly won't buy another LE copy because that copy will again most likely be obsolete in two years.
Of course, if rumors are true then 6.5 is $30 more than 6th was, so its cost is even closer to the LE 6th I got...
I got the last one, and it's a lovely keepsake. I'm very mildly annoyed that the rules are going to be out of date so quickly but I almost never used it for gaming anyway, just to fawn over occasionally, so if I'm being realistic it's no real loss. If they really don't do a softback one in the starter box (I still don't put any faith in the starter box rumours) then that'll be more worrisome, because £25 per year for my basic 40k rulebook feels a bit gougey
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ClockworkZion wrote: I wonder how mad we'll all be if the 24th turns out to be Epic instead.
Possibly because it was incredibly expensive and there is the distinct possibility you've got less than 2 years of use out of it?
I wouldn't even have considered "time usable as a current rulebook" to be a metric in deciding the value of a limited edition to the buyer. But sure, if that was a factor for someone I can understand the disappointment.
Well tickle me intrigued if nothing else. It would be good if this was a 6.5 fix kind of release rather than 7th ed. For one I'm really loving 6th, second two years does seem too short for an edition and three it means GW might actually be willing to listen and respond to user feedback. Sucks that they're gonna make us pay for it but hey, it's a start right? Right?!
Accolade wrote: I just don't know if I can support this direction 40k is going in.
Might want to wait to find out what direction it is going in before deciding not to support it because of what direction it is going in.
Right, I keep writing "possible" on these posts but then I miss some; obviously the rumors could be wrong and this release will be something worth the $75-$100 price tag (I'm sure it won't be less than $75 ).
GW could definitely surprise me!
And for what it's worth, I hope it's the good kind of surprise.
Just wanted to throw in something my Memphis GW source clued me in on.
Apparently (as we all know) there is a "new" rulebook coming out, and it is a corrected/updated version of 6th (not being referred to as either 6.5 or 7th, but unofficially as "Revised 6th" at hq in Memphis), with escalation and strong added in the book, amongst other books/supps, d weapons, and some other stuff. 673 pages, $99.99. New cover. There will be new templates and starter box, plus other items. For GW, they want this to be the same big fanfare of a new (40k reawakening) release, new rules, for newcomers, but keep current players (happy?).
For those who have 6th, and the other books, there's going to be a faq pdf so you can use current books still, apparently. This will be good for another 3 to 4 years.
So I'm being told... (same guy who told me of website change, scions, and astra name/codex...).
Feth me, aren't they aware that most gamers aren't fit enough to carry their own snacks?!
For clarity, that's 50% thicker than the current BRB.
You see the size of the average wargamer? Now GW gets a lot of deserved but there outstanding commitment to customer fitness had never failed to impress me.
[Anyway I've never really seen anyone carry a full sized GW rulebook instead of the mini version]
7th Edition Rumors - Apr 2014 Just wanted to throw in something my Memphis GW source clued me in on.
Apparently (as we all know) there is a "new" rulebook coming out, and it is a corrected/updated version of 6th (not being referred to as either 6.5 or 7th, but unofficially as "Revised 6th" at hq in Memphis), with escalation and strong added in the book, amongst other books/supps, d weapons, and some other stuff. 673 pages, $99.99. New cover. There will be new templates and starter box, plus other items. For GW, they want this to be the same big fanfare of a new (40k reawakening) release, new rules, for newcomers, but keep current players (happy?).
For those who have 6th, and the other books, there's going to be a faq pdf so you can use current books still, apparently. This will be good for another 3 to 4 years.
So I'm being told... (same guy who told me of website change, scions, and astra name/codex...).
The new codexes are similar to how, say a Blood Angels Codex, or Space Wolves one is. Meaning, several entries refer you to have the Space Marine Codex to use that unit.
Like the SM codex, there is a dedicated transport section. In AT, the Taurox info is there, but the Chimera & Valkyrie are also there, but reference you to use the AM codex.
The AM codex is the same, where in Elites there is a small blurb you can choose Scions, but reference the AT codex, and also the AM codex had a dedicated transport section and Taurox is mentioned as an option but "use the AT codex for this choice." FALSE
He also was the one that told me that the Valkyrie (1-3) has the Vendetta options now (and can still transport), and the Vendetta is no longer an actual seperate fast choice (by name at least)...Freeing up a fast slot... FALSE
Again, not sure if he saw, or was told, this info.
He told me the GW website change was coming, the FW/BL stuff would be in GW April 7th, FALSE he told me that finecast is phasing out the stock & replacing with FW formula,FALSE that the twitter & facebook (GW) was going, all months ago...And much more...
Forgeworld Rumors - Feb 2014 Not sure if this was covered, but as many might know the GW Memphis location closed it's production side (everything is made in uk) a while back, and the huge open area is set up for forgeworld and black library stuff. GW stores received new computer and register programs this week which are being installed in March. Fw and bl will merge with GW website, and everything will be ordered through GW main site. At least we will save time and shipping costs by having it go to a local store! FALSE
krazynadechukr wrote: Just wanted to throw in something my Memphis GW source clued me in on.
Apparently (as we all know) there is a "new" rulebook coming out, and it is a corrected/updated version of 6th (not being referred to as either 6.5 or 7th, but unofficially as "Revised 6th" at hq in Memphis), with escalation and strong added in the book, amongst other books/supps, d weapons, and some other stuff. 673 pages, $99.99. New cover. There will be new templates and starter box, plus other items. For GW, they want this to be the same big fanfare of a new (40k reawakening) release, new rules, for newcomers, but keep current players (happy?).
For those who have 6th, and the other books, there's going to be a faq pdf so you can use current books still, apparently. This will be good for another 3 to 4 years.
So I'm being told... (same guy who told me of website change, scions, and astra name/codex...).
tetrisphreak wrote: I'm ready to play a new edition of 40k, I will actually be let down if this rulebook is 90% identical to the current one. Hopefully as the weeks lead up to pre release the white dwarfs will explain roughly what's changing in the game.
Wishful thinking on my part, but there you have it.
Even 10% difference would be gigantic. Consider a single rule change, 99.99% the same book:
The FOC is replaced with percentages. Instead of 0-3 it becomes <= 25%.
That would have a gigantic effect on the actual game. I wouldn't ever have to worry about Ovesa-star, seer-star, beast-star, or Deamon Flying Circus at 1850. 50% of net lists are now illegal, and suddenly 40k is scalable again (for the first time?) with 1250 point games working as well as 2000 point games.
A few small tweaks (consolidation, overwatch, allies, FOC, Reserves, and Psychic powers) could leave the majority of the rules the same, and still have dramatic effect on actual game-play.
So wait all they're doing is consolidating around 3 books into one? No FAQs, no tweaks a la 3.5? Just "here's the same gak as before in a bigger book with a higher price tag that you likely don't need to buy if you already have the other books"?
WayneTheGame wrote: So wait all they're doing is consolidating around 3 books into one? No FAQs, no tweaks a la 3.5? Just "here's the same gak as before in a bigger book with a higher price tag that you likely don't need to buy if you already have the other books"?
WayneTheGame wrote: So wait all they're doing is consolidating around 3 books into one? No FAQs, no tweaks a la 3.5? Just "here's the same gak as before in a bigger book with a higher price tag that you likely don't need to buy if you already have the other books"?
WayneTheGame wrote: So wait all they're doing is consolidating around 3 books into one? No FAQs, no tweaks a la 3.5? Just "here's the same gak as before in a bigger book with a higher price tag that you likely don't need to buy if you already have the other books"?
WayneTheGame wrote: So wait all they're doing is consolidating around 3 books into one? No FAQs, no tweaks a la 3.5? Just "here's the same gak as before in a bigger book with a higher price tag that you likely don't need to buy if you already have the other books"?
WayneTheGame wrote: So wait all they're doing is consolidating around 3 books into one? No FAQs, no tweaks a la 3.5? Just "here's the same gak as before in a bigger book with a higher price tag that you likely don't need to buy if you already have the other books"?
I'm guessing that's GW's idea on this release.
No. That's Krazynadechukr's idea for this release. Someone with a 0% accuracy in the past.
WayneTheGame wrote: So wait all they're doing is consolidating around 3 books into one? No FAQs, no tweaks a la 3.5? Just "here's the same gak as before in a bigger book with a higher price tag that you likely don't need to buy if you already have the other books"?
No, no. They corrected the grammatical errors and typos.
WayneTheGame wrote: So wait all they're doing is consolidating around 3 books into one? No FAQs, no tweaks a la 3.5? Just "here's the same gak as before in a bigger book with a higher price tag that you likely don't need to buy if you already have the other books"?
CASH GRAB
Except the part I just put in bold. If it is just a roll-up then you don't need to buy anything negating the "cash grab".
1.) They want to sell this book to every 40k gamer, making it a must have, not just a free FAQ or digital update. So it must be something different from the previous 75$ book they sold, something new everyone wants. This is easiest if they call it a new edition.
2.) 2 years is a really short time to develop something new, esp. given the flood of new Codices and armybooks that have been done at the same time. I seriously doubt GW has a new set of rules up their sleeves (well, except pancake edition, but that will never happen). Limited edition Codices and Codex MT, Codex AS, Codex Inquisition, etc have shown that current GW has no problem with selling blown up nothingness for a luxury price. GW has also shown that the current team has problems with inventing new stuff that doesn't break game balance. All this makes a slightly polished copy-paste job most likely, because it is easy to do and it is what GW has done many times lately. But then again it is difficult to call it a new edition.
Now let's try to see this from the perspective of a GW manager who has no interest iin and no idea of the game.
1.) For some unknown reason, GW has absolutely no interest to expand the customer base. No advertising, no social media, no marketing, sales staff reduced so no more introductory games, gaming instore reduced, advertising mag (WD) no more available in newspaper stores. So every growth in profit has to be made from the existing shrinking customer base.
2.) Best profit can be made by plastic kits in larger numbers, esp. when one kit consists of 3-4 sprues and sells for 100+ $ . Filling 3-4 sprues is less work and cheaper if it is for just one large model instead of 20-30 small ones. Sadly, large models sell less if labelled Apocalypse, because then everyone assumes they are not balanced for normal games (and they are right). Solution: Make rules that classify those big models as for standard games. It worked like a charm for Dreadknights (step 1: 54$), Riptides (step 2: 85$, sold out for a short time), Wraithknights (step 3: 115 $) and Imperial Knights (step 4: 140$). BTW same with terrain that has standard rules compared to terrain that hasn't: Imagine Aegis sales without having it in the rulebook. Customers still reluctant to buy Stompas, Tesseract Vaults and Skulldozers, even when Escalation was officially included into standard games. But nobody bought the book voluntarily. Now is the time to force everyone to buy the Escalation rules for the rest of the high profit big kits and the Stronghold rules for the 50+ $ terrain models, because they are an unwanted addition to the general rules. From a business perspective, this has worked in the past, people bought crazy stuff. So why shouldn't it work again?
So for a GW manager, copy-pasting Escalation and Stronghold rules into the main rulebook might seem like the perfect solution to provide something advertised as a must have while produced with minimal effort, supporting a continued flood of cheaply produced 100+ $ kits.
Now let's try to see it from a gamer perspective:
1.) Big rulebook is less than 2 years old and costs 75$. Not everyone bought it on release, some even bought the small limited edition less than a year old. Some bought Escalation, some Stronghold (already a copy-paste job of planetfall), many didn't because they didn't want to. All of them will feel betrayed, if the new book is advertised as a must. As it shatters the remaining faith that a 50-75$ book will last a sufficient time.
2.) A game is only a game if the outcome is not predestinied from the start. If there is some kind of suspense who will win. Some call it game balance, that is important not only for the tournament scene, but casual gaming as well. 90-100% of all armies consist of small to medium sized models, costing hundreds or thousands of dollars. Once in a while, it is okay to include the big Godzillas in the game just for fun, but then the rest of the army usually doesn't count. Forcing those Godzillas down your throat in standard games, invalidated most existing armies, giving them the by-stander roles. Again, long time gamers will feel betrayed. They might have tried with dreadknights, even with Riptides, Wraithknights or Imperial Knights, but eventually found out that basically the number of Godzillas decides the games. No fun. Certainly not the second or third time you experience this. People were always aware that Apocalypse units are no fun in standard games, more and more people realize that Riptides, Wraithknights and Imperial Knights are just Apocalypse units in disguise. So gamers will never accept full access to Apocalypse units in standard games.
We are currently at this exact limit, where GW managers try to prepare the market for a second wave of Apocalypse kits and bundles, and a gaming scene that wont follow. Gamers might still buy some plastic titans just for modelling purposes, but not in big numbers as necessary for justifying such a plastic kit. I doubt that fixing D weapons will solve this.
That is why I think, that the new edition will fail, because GW managers unfamiliar with the game are not aware of the limits that gamers are unwilling to cross.
if DV is indeed going away and a new book is coming out, even if it is a rehash, I can't imagine a scenario without a "starter box".
Good luck getting anyone in the game with "well first you buy the rulebook for $60+ USD, then you buy an army deal for $170-250 USD and then you might need to buy an HQ or a troops choice or something to make your army legal."
Good luck negotiating that one with mom and dad little Timmy.
I'm still not convinced that this will just be the FAQ rolled in with the Escalation/Stronghold rules. I think there will be a large number of minor rules tweaks along with it (and hopefully more than a few clarifications). I still feel this is going to be a lot like the 3rd edition jump to 4th edition, same basic rule set, but a few tweaks to certain mechanics and some clarifications. I don't believe GW will refer to it as 6.5 even if the bulk of the rules remain the same.
I may be reaching, but I can't be the only one that noticed all of the recent AA options in the more recent codex releases have either lost or were never given Interceptor. One of the older rumors floating around was that Interceptor was either going to be removed completely or significantly re-written to remove the "shoot during your opponents' movement phase" piece. If that turns out to be true (again, reaching here), I have a hard time believing that will be the only special rule modified with the new edition.
1.) They want to sell this book to every 40k gamer, making it a must have, not just a free FAQ or digital update. So it must be something different from the previous 75$ book they sold, something new everyone wants. This is easiest if they call it a new edition.
2.) 2 years is a really short time to develop something new, esp. given the flood of new Codices and armybooks that have been done at the same time. I seriously doubt GW has a new set of rules up their sleeves (well, except pancake edition, but that will never happen). Limited edition Codices and Codex MT, Codex AS, Codex Inquisition, etc have shown that current GW has no problem with selling blown up nothingness for a luxury price. GW has also shown that the current team has problems with inventing new stuff that doesn't break game balance. All this makes a slightly polished copy-paste job most likely, because it is easy to do and it is what GW has done many times lately. But then again it is difficult to call it a new edition.
Now let's try to see this from the perspective of a GW manager who has no interest iin and no idea of the game.
1.) For some unknown reason, GW has absolutely no interest to expand the customer base. No advertising, no social media, no marketing, sales staff reduced so no more introductory games, gaming instore reduced, advertising mag (WD) no more available in newspaper stores. So every growth in profit has to be made from the existing shrinking customer base.
2.) Best profit can be made by plastic kits in larger numbers, esp. when one kit consists of 3-4 sprues and sells for 100+ $ . Filling 3-4 sprues is less work and cheaper if it is for just one large model instead of 20-30 small ones. Sadly, large models sell less if labelled Apocalypse, because then everyone assumes they are not balanced for normal games (and they are right). Solution: Make rules that classify those big models as for standard games. It worked like a charm for Dreadknights (step 1: 54$), Riptides (step 2: 85$, sold out for a short time), Wraithknights (step 3: 115 $) and Imperial Knights (step 4: 140$). BTW same with terrain that has standard rules compared to terrain that hasn't: Imagine Aegis sales without having it in the rulebook. Customers still reluctant to buy Stompas, Tesseract Vaults and Skulldozers, even when Escalation was officially included into standard games. But nobody bought the book voluntarily. Now is the time to force everyone to buy the Escalation rules for the rest of the high profit big kits and the Stronghold rules for the 50+ $ terrain models, because they are an unwanted addition to the general rules. From a business perspective, this has worked in the past, people bought crazy stuff. So why shouldn't it work again?
So for a GW manager, copy-pasting Escalation and Stronghold rules into the main rulebook might seem like the perfect solution to provide something advertised as a must have while produced with minimal effort, supporting a continued flood of cheaply produced 100+ $ kits.
Now let's try to see it from a gamer perspective:
1.) Big rulebook is less than 2 years old and costs 75$. Not everyone bought it on release, some even bought the small limited edition less than a year old. Some bought Escalation, some Stronghold (already a copy-paste job of planetfall), many didn't because they didn't want to. All of them will feel betrayed, if the new book is advertised as a must. As it shatters the remaining faith that a 50-75$ book will last a sufficient time.
2.) A game is only a game if the outcome is not predestinied from the start. If there is some kind of suspense who will win. Some call it game balance, that is important not only for the tournament scene, but casual gaming as well. 90-100% of all armies consist of small to medium sized models, costing hundreds or thousands of dollars. Once in a while, it is okay to include the big Godzillas in the game just for fun, but then the rest of the army usually doesn't count. Forcing those Godzillas down your throat in standard games, invalidated most existing armies, giving them the by-stander roles. Again, long time gamers will feel betrayed. They might have tried with dreadknights, even with Riptides, Wraithknights or Imperial Knights, but eventually found out that basically the number of Godzillas decides the games. No fun. Certainly not the second or third time you experience this. People were always aware that Apocalypse units are no fun in standard games, more and more people realize that Riptides, Wraithknights and Imperial Knights are just Apocalypse units in disguise. So gamers will never accept full access to Apocalypse units in standard games.
We are currently at this exact limit, where GW managers try to prepare the market for a second wave of Apocalypse kits and bundles, and a gaming scene that wont follow. Gamers might still buy some plastic titans just for modelling purposes, but not in big numbers as necessary for justifying such a plastic kit. I doubt that fixing D weapons will solve this.
That is why I think, that the new edition will fail, because GW managers unfamiliar with the game are not aware of the limits that gamers are unwilling to cross.
I hope you are wrong and that GW isn't taking this perspective of the game its players, but your argument is convincing--especially given the last 24 months of releases.
I honestly don't think that two years is too short of a time, for a company to be capable of making substantive changes to a set of rules that is only 113 pages long and contains large amounts of unneeded information, graphics and pictures. None of the rule sets that I've ever seen are truly new, they're all just tweeks to already established rules or a furtherance of other rules.
Even if they were to have started from the ground up and changed all the mechanics and game play, two years is a long time. Two people can make two more, entirely new people in that time. They've got decades of rule writing experience and a huge database to fall back on. Heck, in a single week, any one of us on this forum could make edits and additions to the rules as they are and the outcome would look exceedingly different than what we currently have.
My sister in law works in the printing department and has seen parts of the new rule book. She has limited gameplay experience but does know the rules from watching countless games. One thing she did notice is that "Prescience" is no longer the Primaris Power in Divination. It has move to number five and now cost two warp charges to cast.
Okay so all I'm getting is we really don't know. In the past month or two I've heard that it's:
1) 7th edition 2) 6.5 edition but not 7th 3) 6th edition with Escalation+Stronghold Assault included, and nothing else not even FAQs 4) New BA vs. Orks box 4a) Above new box has stripped down incomplete rulebook forcing buying the $99 rulebook to actually play 5) New 10mm Epic (ha!) is BA vs. Orks 6) Astra Militarum vs. Eldar box
usually from the same sources (natfka, BOLS) with nothing to back it up (at last natfka has anonymous sources, BOLS seems to just steal the news from there and repost it as their own).
Now if it's going to have WHFB-style percentages, then it's at the least "6.5" and at most "7th", because that's a major change. Same if they "fix" assault. But if it's just Escalation and Stronghold Assault in the main book, then it's just a repackaged 6.0
So really nobody knows, and there's a ton of likely false rumors floating around.
Ok - I heard it from one of my old friends who used to be a Outrider and GW store manager that 'Ard Boys was coming back with the release of 6.5 rulebook.
Uriels_Flame wrote: Ok - I heard it from one of my old friends who used to be a Outrider and GW store manager that 'Ard Boys was coming back with the release of 6.5 rulebook.
How on earth would % limits work with Escalation? Imagine you had a 25% limitation and then imagine a Transcendent C'Tan that comes in at 640-ish points at the very least. You're almost into Apocalypse territory right there. But since it's GW, they would just make an exception to Lords of War.
Sigvatr wrote: How on earth would % limits work with Escalation? Imagine you had a 25% limitation and then imagine a Transcendent C'Tan that comes in at 640-ish points at the very least. You're almost into Apocalypse territory right there. But since it's GW, they would just make an exception to Lords of War.
Sounds like Escalation working how it should have to begin with to me.
Idolator wrote: Does anyone remember what was on the promo poster from the last BRB release? This time it's that commissar.
I was just wondering. If the promo poster before the release of 6th ed. had a Dark Angel on it? It would be a good indicator of what will be on the cover of the book and a further indicator of what will be in the starter set.
Sigvatr wrote: How on earth would % limits work with Escalation? Imagine you had a 25% limitation and then imagine a Transcendent C'Tan that comes in at 640-ish points at the very least. You're almost into Apocalypse territory right there. But since it's GW, they would just make an exception to Lords of War.
That's how the forgeworld hh lord of war choices work right now.
Idolator wrote: Does anyone remember what was on the promo poster from the last BRB release? This time it's that commissar.
I was just wondering. If the promo poster before the release of 6th ed. had a Dark Angel on it? It would be a good indicator of what will be on the cover of the book and a further indicator of what will be in the starter set.
Took some digging but this is all I could come up with:
Sigvatr wrote: How on earth would % limits work with Escalation? Imagine you had a 25% limitation and then imagine a Transcendent C'Tan that comes in at 640-ish points at the very least. You're almost into Apocalypse territory right there. But since it's GW, they would just make an exception to Lords of War.
Sounds like Escalation working how it should have to begin with to me.
The entire point of Escalation was to let you use Apo stuff in 40k games - else you could just play Apo right away...unless I'm mistaken.
Idolator wrote: Does anyone remember what was on the promo poster from the last BRB release? This time it's that commissar.
I was just wondering. If the promo poster before the release of 6th ed. had a Dark Angel on it? It would be a good indicator of what will be on the cover of the book and a further indicator of what will be in the starter set.
Took some digging but this is all I could come up with:
Sigvatr wrote: How on earth would % limits work with Escalation? Imagine you had a 25% limitation and then imagine a Transcendent C'Tan that comes in at 640-ish points at the very least. You're almost into Apocalypse territory right there. But since it's GW, they would just make an exception to Lords of War.
Sounds like Escalation working how it should have to begin with to me.
The entire point of Escalation was to let you use Apo stuff in 40k games - else you could just play Apo right away...unless I'm mistaken.
I thought Escalation was specifically Lords of War, and Apoc was Apoc.
But yeah, % would be supported just because it'd keep bullgak like fielding a Revenant Titan in a normal game away from everyone.
Sigvatr wrote: How on earth would % limits work with Escalation? Imagine you had a 25% limitation and then imagine a Transcendent C'Tan that comes in at 640-ish points at the very least. You're almost into Apocalypse territory right there. But since it's GW, they would just make an exception to Lords of War.
Sounds like Escalation working how it should have to begin with to me.
The entire point of Escalation was to let you use Apo stuff in 40k games - else you could just play Apo right away...unless I'm mistaken.
I thought Escalation was specifically Lords of War, and Apoc was Apoc.
But yeah, % would be supported just because it'd keep bullgak like fielding a Revenant Titan in a normal game away from everyone.
I think the point of the percentage system is to take several games (40k, Stronghold Assault, Escalation, maybe Apocalypse, maybe Kill team), and turn them into one scalable game. If you are playing a 1500 point game, you don't have to worry about Lords of War. If you want to play Lords of War, you just have to play them in 3,000-4,000 point games.
Consider for instance the FOC change between 1999 and 2000 points. Double FOC? That isn't very elegant, and it isn't as scalable as they would like it to be. Then consider the mockery of FOC that comes from allies, inquisition, Imperial Knights, and formations. By adding a percentage cap for these things, order is restored to the game, and the insane combos, and extra spammy stuff is relegated to larger games where it belongs, and where things like Lords of War are there to counter it.
Shingen wrote: Considering all D Weapons will be banned from tournaments, as will super heavies and titans I cant see how much of a narrative will be getting forged.
As long as they fix some of the rules I am quite happy to ignore Games Workshop as I have done for the last few years.
Shingen wrote: Considering all D Weapons will be banned from tournaments, as will super heavies and titans I cant see how much of a narrative will be getting forged.
As long as they fix some of the rules I am quite happy to ignore Games Workshop as I have done for the last few years.
azreal13 wrote: Maybe, but "panic" and "sky is falling" are used almost as often as "hate" in an effort to undermine either legitimate concern or criticism, and I was kind of contextualising how relatively minor this will be in most people's lives, but that by no means removes their right to voice concern based in the information available.
Exactly. What's more pressing: GW doing a quick new edition to pad their quarterly reports, or the fact that in two months time my current job won't exist any more and I'll have to start looking for a new one?
I would be more interested to see how they are going to rectify this with those who have purchased the rulebook online.
Sounds like they could do the update and send it out as such, but I seriously doubt this occurs.
GW will get a strongly worded email if digital editions don't get a free update (which will have the similar effect of a grot against a titan i think).
For those of you who purchased the digital edition of the rules when it first came out, did it auto-update to version 2 when THAT was released? Because that would suggest a pretty big indicator of gw updating for free as opposed to asking for more cash...
I would be more interested to see how they are going to rectify this with those who have purchased the rulebook online.
Sounds like they could do the update and send it out as such, but I seriously doubt this occurs.
GW will get a strongly worded email if digital editions don't get a free update (which will have the similar effect of a grot against a titan i think).
For those of you who purchased the digital edition of the rules when it first came out, did it auto-update to version 2 when THAT was released? Because that would suggest a pretty big indicator of gw updating for free as opposed to asking for more cash...
Don't email, send physical letters. An email is easy to ignore. A mountain of envelopes on your desk, less so.
Just noticed that you're in Australia, though. So might not be economically viable.
Feth me, aren't they aware that most gamers aren't fit enough to carry their own snacks?!
For clarity, that's 50% thicker than the current BRB.
The current BRB(read: the big hardback version at least) is 452 pages.
The numbers given though don't really add up. If it's "The rulebook plus Stronghold Assault and Escalation", depending on how big the FAQs are...it comes out to a flat 596 pages for simply the main rulebook(452 pages), Stronghold Assault(48 pages), and Escalation(96 pages).
That leaves 77 pages unaccounted for, if Krazynadechucker is right.
Feth me, aren't they aware that most gamers aren't fit enough to carry their own snacks?!
For clarity, that's 50% thicker than the current BRB.
The current BRB(read: the big hardback version at least) is 452 pages.
The numbers given though don't really add up. If it's "The rulebook plus Stronghold Assault and Escalation", depending on how big the FAQs are...it comes out to a flat 596 pages for simply the main rulebook(452 pages), Stronghold Assault(48 pages), and Escalation(96 pages).
That leaves 77 pages unaccounted for, if Krazynadechucker is right.
If he's right I'm guessing the "hobby" section gets expanded and they basically through in a "how to build and paint models for dummies" thing in there with the basics.
I'm not sure if it's been mentioned, but I just had a look at the Black Library website to see when the main rulebook had last been updated and it's no longer available to purchase there either. Which means I didn't find out when it was updated, because they put that on the product page for some reason instead of in the downloads section.
H.B.M.C. wrote: But if they put a "how to paint an army" section into the rulebook then they can't sell you and overpriced iPad "how to paint an army" thing later on!
I meant more of a generic "how to paint models" thing than a "how to paint X army".
Automatically Appended Next Post: Or for the more cynical approach: since buying stuff is "the hobby", it'll be 77 pages of different things you can buy, ways you can buy them and a user agreement that says you consent to buy GW models upon their release, every release by purchasing, reading, touching or otherwise being in the same hemisphere as the book.
Feth me, aren't they aware that most gamers aren't fit enough to carry their own snacks?!
For clarity, that's 50% thicker than the current BRB.
The current BRB(read: the big hardback version at least) is 452 pages.
The numbers given though don't really add up. If it's "The rulebook plus Stronghold Assault and Escalation", depending on how big the FAQs are...it comes out to a flat 596 pages for simply the main rulebook(452 pages), Stronghold Assault(48 pages), and Escalation(96 pages).
That leaves 77 pages unaccounted for, if Krazynadechucker is right.
You sure?
GW Website wrote:With 440 full-colour pages, this hardback Rulebook is packed with rich background and contains all the rules for fighting pulse-pounding tabletop battles.
Either way, it's an awfully big leap to take the word of an apparently self-confessed troll, whose track record for his "Memphis contact" is currently running at a stunning 0% accuracy
Frankly though, this is physically infeasible as much as anything, unless they really have convinced themselves that the people they're making the game for never leave their home and travel anywhere to play a game.
Feth me, aren't they aware that most gamers aren't fit enough to carry their own snacks?!
For clarity, that's 50% thicker than the current BRB.
The current BRB(read: the big hardback version at least) is 452 pages.
The numbers given though don't really add up. If it's "The rulebook plus Stronghold Assault and Escalation", depending on how big the FAQs are...it comes out to a flat 596 pages for simply the main rulebook(452 pages), Stronghold Assault(48 pages), and Escalation(96 pages).
That leaves 77 pages unaccounted for, if Krazynadechucker is right.
You sure?
GW Website wrote:With 440 full-colour pages, this hardback Rulebook is packed with rich background and contains all the rules for fighting pulse-pounding tabletop battles.
Heh...
GW Website for the US wrote:With 452 full-colour pages, this hardback Rulebook is packed with rich background and contains all the rules for fighting pulse-pounding tabletop battles.
Although I did just crack open my full sized rulebook and it's 432 pages...
GW Website for the US wrote:With 452 full-colour pages, this hardback Rulebook is packed with rich background and contains all the rules for fighting pulse-pounding tabletop battles.
Although I did just crack open my full sized rulebook and it's 432 pages...
There's 19 pages at the front which aren't included in page numbers used for the section entitled "The Rules" onwards.
So let me get this straight currently it is rumored it is a minor update with a few tweeks in it and re-wording. They are also going to release a FREE pdf addressing all of the changes for people who already own it. As a result it will probably be auto updated in the e-books. They are consolidating the rules but not the units thus not invalidating the stronghold and escalation purchase but giving people the rules they need to play against it.
So you are not forced to buy anything and getting a update that should help people.
I am failing to see what there is to complain about here?
I have my doubts as to the free update to e-books. If they were going to update them then there would be no reason to remove the main rulebook from sale.
A Town Called Malus wrote: I have my doubts as to the free update to e-books. If they were going to update them then there would be no reason to remove the main rulebook from sale.
Unless the new cover rumor is true. But yes, it feels pretty suspicious to me.
A Town Called Malus wrote: I have my doubts as to the free update to e-books. If they were going to update them then there would be no reason to remove the main rulebook from sale.
Unless the new cover rumor is true. But yes, it feels pretty suspicious to me.
Who cares about a cover on an e-book? Couldn't that also just be part of the update anyway?
A Town Called Malus wrote: I have my doubts as to the free update to e-books. If they were going to update them then there would be no reason to remove the main rulebook from sale.
Unless the new cover rumor is true. But yes, it feels pretty suspicious to me.
Who cares about a cover on an e-book? Couldn't that also just be part of the update anyway?
This is GW we're talking about. When do they do anything in a way that makes sense?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Seriously, I don't know why GW does half of what it does and I don't expect what they do to make sense when logic is involved.
Removing the book doesn't prevent a free update, but it does make it a lot less likely.
I have my doubts as to the free update to e-books. If they were going to update them then there would be no reason to remove the main rulebook from sale.
Indeed. I had hopes of free-updates until I saw this and double-checked it myself. Unless they have absolute numpties in IT there shouldn't be a need to draw the ibook from sale just for an update. Could be wrong, and I hope I am. Even if they left escalation and stronghold material out, and just updated the rulebook then i'd be happy with that.
krazynadechukr wrote: Also the new rulebook is going to have revised rules for
Interceptor, sky fire, fortifications, lords of war, allies and data slates.
A Town Called Malus wrote: The revised rules is that everyone is battle brothers with everyone else. So now there's nothing to get in the way of you forging that narrative
A Town Called Malus wrote: The revised rules is that everyone is battle brothers with everyone else. So now there's nothing to get in the way of you forging that narrative
Except for Tyranids, obviously.
Well that goes without saying. I didn't think I needed to tell everyone that the Tyranid codex is so strong that it just wouldn't be fair if they could take allies.
I'm pretty sure that GW books (and other companies' books in a similar format) always have a multiple of 16 for their page count. That just seems to be how their printers work.
I wonder if it's possible that they will split the rules away from the background and hobby material? I've heard that in the past the GW management were very reluctant to publish pure rules books because (a) rules need a lot more work to produce than background and (b) they didn't like the idea of catering to 'people who only care about the rules'. On the other hand, they have to grasp that making the established player base pay for the same old material as they got in the last book after only two years is cheeky even by their standards.
Also the new rulebook is going to have revised rules for
Interceptor, sky fire, fortifications, lords of war, allies and data slates.
Only a Sith deals in absolutes. You must be a Sith.
Guess it makes me one as well though. Hmm...
I wonder if it's possible that they will split the rules away from the background and hobby material? I've heard that in the past the GW management were very reluctant to publish pure rules books because (a) rules need a lot more work to produce than background and (b) they didn't like the idea of catering to 'people who only care about the rules'. On the other hand, they have to grasp that making the established player base pay for the same old material as they got in the last book after only two years is cheeky even by their standards
This is what the digital rulebook is... just rules.
Regardless of anything this is going to be one of the longest months ever.
I have a GT that weekend with another one a month later. I am guessing it will be old rules for the first GT then the next GT will use the new rules.....It is going to be SUPER hard to not read the new rules during the first GT
I highly doubt percentages, that would be too restrictive on what you can take and do. They have been going out of their way to prevent limitations on what you can take.
It has been all about giving you the options and I like it more that way.
A friend of mine that is a friend of the second cousin of Kirby's next door neighbour's gardener sent me a leak of the Forge The Narrative rules
Forge the Narrative(TM) wrote:Tournaments(TM) are banned. If you are a True HHHobbyist(TM) and attend one, return your army to the nearest Hobby Center(TM) for destruction. Go to GW's webpage and order every army available and then start playing by yourself, that way you will never lose and your Narratives(TM) will be more epic-grimdark(TM)
See! Pure genious, with a rule like this all complains about balance will be over. Who needs gaming with other people to enjoy the HHHobby.
Leth wrote: I highly doubt percentages, that would be too restrictive on what you can take and do. They have been going out of their way to prevent limitations on what you can take.
It has been all about giving you the options and I like it more that way.
I'm completely new, and i don't know gak. Im only working on the old cadian battle force i got off ebay right now.
I want to make my army only use valkyries/vendettas, veterans, heavy weapons teams, and sentinals. Would that means that i now am almost required to get tanks even if they go against my fluff and what i want to do with my army?
Leth wrote: I highly doubt percentages, that would be too restrictive on what you can take and do. They have been going out of their way to prevent limitations on what you can take.
It has been all about giving you the options and I like it more that way.
I'm completely new, and i don't know gak. Im only working on the old cadian battle force i got off ebay right now.
I want to make my army only use valkyries/vendettas, veterans, heavy weapons teams, and sentinals. Would that means that i now am almost required to get tanks even if they go against my fluff and what i want to do with my army?
No. The percentage system means you have a min and max ammount of points and can spend in each unit.
So no more then 25% of your army can be heavy support units. So at 2000 points you can't buy more then 500 points of heavy support for example.
If it's true troops will be a mandatory 40% of your points, that means at 2000 points ATLEAST 800 points of your army must be invested in troops for example.
Man, I'm praying that this percentages system rumor is false. I know people keep saying it would kill the deathstar meta, but I hate that system.
As ridiculously imperfect as GWs point system is, it's still a points system based on general utility/power. Things that aren't very useful or powerful cost fewer points, things that are more useful/powerful cost more. It's NOT a rarity system. Units that might be very rare according to the background aren't more expensive, unless they are more useful/powerful.
Then, this percentage system comes along and knocks that out of whack. Orks, for example, have very inexpensive common troops. There shouldn't be any need to force the ork player to overequip them, or take nobs as troops, or field craptons of them, so that he can field some elites, heavy support, and fast attack.
The 'rarity' of units in 40K was represented by the force org chart, with a limited number of elite/heavy/fast attack choices available and a more generous allowance of troops. There wasn't (and doesn't need to be) any presupposition that the troops composed the majority of the heavy lifting of the army, but mandating them to compose 40%+ of the points means just that. Same with Imperial Guard. I don't see a problem with a guard army of two troops slots and a bunch of tanks. It seems fluffy and appropriate, but it gets killed just like some Eldar/Dark Eldar deathstar with this percentage system.
In addition, though the math is trivially easy to do, it's another damn step. The force org chart is simple to follow and simple to verify. Can you easily eyeball somebody's composition percentage? Probably not. Can you count and make sure they have two troops and no more than 3 heavy slots? Bet so.
I know that the deathstar/riptide/revenant problems are real and need addressing, but I think they need addressing in a more intelligent, creative way than percentage allowances. A more nuanced allies chart, better rules for allied forces, and clearer ways to coordinate and communicate Escalation/Apocalypse games would all help.
IMO a percentage based system is better, but a good % base system will NOT be more restrictive and NOT stop deathstars. The way to kill deathstars is to not make them in the first place, lol.
The sort of % system I'm thinking of isn't there to restrict armies so much as it's to allow armies that have cheaper FA/Elites/HS to take more of their special and rare things as they are cheaper and more plentiful.
I spent way too much money on my astra army (2 Hq & 2 troops (400 pts), 3 elite, 2 heavy, 1 fast). A % system would cause me to quit. I'm at 2k, and not buying any more minis. GW better not do the whf % system. That'd do it for me... (Btw, all dkok & fw model army)
Anpu42 wrote: My issue with the % system is it does nothing about Deathstars, just look at WHF.
It also disproportionately affects different armies. Say a minimum 40% troops, or 800 points for a 2K list. A Grey Knight Draigo+Paladinstar would fit that easily, and be 11 models. Orks would need 8 trukk boy squads, or 4 full mobs of 30 boys to meet the requirement.
First up - Percentage FOC limits (like in Warhammer Fantasy):
40%+ Troops
10%-30% HQ (single character HQ Warlords can break this limit)
<20% Elite
<25% Fast
<25% Heavy
<25% Lords of War
<20% Fortifications...can take multiple fortifications
<25% Allies, Secondary Detachments, or Allied Army Formations
<50% Primary Army Formations
+++We consider this set average reliability+++
The HQ and Troops breakdowns going that way are new. Rest sounds about the same as expected/wishlisted.
My guess is that the Troops percentage is actually 20%+, and 40% is a typo.
I'm also dubious about Lords of War and fortifications having a specific FOC slot, because, based on the chatlogs, they do not occupy a FOC, and instead count as part of the Secondary Detachments. Here is the specific quote:
Secondary units count towards the sec percentage AND the FoC %. Sec units that are not part of a FoC like fortifications, lord of wars , formations and knights only count against the secondary percentage. You can take allies only from one regular list. There are no other limitations.
The Primary Army Formations section, though could be legit without contradicting anything in the logs. I hope it isn't the case, because blowing up Deamon Flying Circus while still allowing Tyranids to run 7-9 FMCs via skyblight at 1850 seems wrong.
Anpu42 wrote: My issue with the % system is it does nothing about Deathstars, just look at WHF.
It also disproportionately affects different armies. Say a minimum 40% troops, or 800 points for a 2K list. A Grey Knight Draigo+Paladinstar would fit that easily, and be 11 models. Orks would need 8 trukk boy squads, or 4 full mobs of 30 boys to meet the requirement.
To say nothing of how many gaunts Nid players would need...
But then, if this means that people must make troops the back bone of their armies instead of just meatshields/ a points tax / FoC bare minimum requirement (looking at you SM Tacticals) then I'm all for it.
Ferrum_Sanguinis wrote: I hope to God the Prescience rumor is true, not just for balance but to see all the butthurt "I'm quitting 40k FOREVA!" reactions it would get here.
I really agree, Prescience is way too good to be a primaris power. The only reason you take Divination is to get it and everyone who takes Divination does. It makes armies that can take it way too powerful.
40%+ Troops 10%-30% HQ (single character HQ Warlords can break this limit) <20% Elite <25% Fast <25% Heavy <25% Lords of War <20% Fortifications...can take multiple fortifications <25% Allies, Secondary Detachments, or Allied Army Formations <50% Primary Army Formations
At 2000pts this would mean: HQ: 200-600pts Troops: 800 pts Elite: 400pts Fast: 500pts Heavy: 500pts Lords of War: 500pts Fortifications: 400pts Allies, 2nd Detachment or Allied Formations: 500pts Primary Army Formation: 1000pts
This seem a bit restrictive but it would limit spam then again I'm one of those people who liked themed armies and this really limits that. I love walkers, my favourite unit type in the game and as a collector of Orks (amongst all other armies) I really love the Killa-Kan and Deff dreads. Sure walkers suck but I love the idea of them. 15 Killa-Kans walking against you is both funny and fluffy in an all grot army with grot tanks and megatanks. I don't think that's possible with this percentage system. Then again what a percentage system does it invalidate any vehicle squadron as there'd be no reason to put units in squadrons (there are no benefits to squadrons, only negatives). For 500pts you could get 10 Killa-Kans at 2k pts, all solo walkers. Might not be so bad and they'd be more survivable than 3 squadrons of 3.
So if a percentage system makes vehicle squadrons useless (unless they add some squadron rules that make them good) you better hope for some good formations as that seems to be replacing squadrons. Lets hope for some really good Killa-Kan formations
Ferrum_Sanguinis wrote: I hope to God the Prescience rumor is true, not just for balance but to see all the butthurt "I'm quitting 40k FOREVA!" reactions it would get here.
I really agree, Prescience is way too good to be a primaris power. The only reason you take Divination is to get it and everyone who takes Divination does. It makes armies that can take it way too powerful.
40%+ Troops
10%-30% HQ (single character HQ Warlords can break this limit)
<20% Elite
<25% Fast
<25% Heavy
<25% Lords of War
<20% Fortifications...can take multiple fortifications
<25% Allies, Secondary Detachments, or Allied Army Formations
<50% Primary Army Formations
At 2000pts this would mean:
HQ: 200-600pts
Troops: 800 pts
Elite: 400pts
Fast: 500pts
Heavy: 500pts
Lords of War: 500pts
Fortifications: 400pts
Allies, 2nd Detachment or Allied Formations: 500pts
Primary Army Formation: 1000pts
This seem a bit restrictive but it would limit spam then again I'm one of those people who liked themed armies and this really limits that.
I love walkers, my favourite unit type in the game and as a collector of Orks (amongst all other armies) I really love the Killa-Kan and Deff dreads. Sure walkers suck but I love the idea of them.
15 Killa-Kans walking against you is both funny and fluffy in an all grot army with grot tanks and megatanks. I don't think that's possible with this percentage system.
Then again what a percentage system does it invalidate any vehicle squadron as there'd be no reason to put units in squadrons (there are no benefits to squadrons, only negatives).
For 500pts you could get 10 Killa-Kans at 2k pts, all solo walkers. Might not be so bad and they'd be more survivable than 3 squadrons of 3.
So if a percentage system makes vehicle squadrons useless (unless they add some squadron rules that make them good) you better hope for some good formations as that seems to be replacing squadrons.
Lets hope for some really good Killa-Kan formations
Looking at GW's recent dataslates and other codex formations that may be their point entirely: To limit unit spam by forcing those that want to do so (either for a themed list of for tourney play) only able to do so with a very specific formations.
But then, I think I'm giving them far too much credit...
I guess squadrons could be good if each vehicle got like +1 hull point for being in a squadron or if you could distribute the damage to any model of your choice but the latter seems less likely as that would mess with how wounds are allocated. There are many ways to make squadrons worth taking but with the current rules in a % based system they wouldn't be.
Didn't squadrons ignore shaken and stunned in some edition or am I thinking of something else?
On a % based system they could make themed HQs. Like Big Mek allows you to take +20% Heavy support as long as it's vehicles or walkers.
MadCowCrazy wrote: I guess squadrons could be good if each vehicle got like +1 hull point for being in a squadron or if you could distribute the damage to any model of your choice but the latter seems less likely as that would mess with how wounds are allocated.
There are many ways to make squadrons worth taking but with the current rules in a % based system they wouldn't be.
Didn't squadrons ignore shaken and stunned in some edition or am I thinking of something else?
Fifth was ignore shaken and stunned but immobilised becomes destroyed.
Anpu42 wrote: My issue with the % system is it does nothing about Deathstars, just look at WHF.
It also disproportionately affects different armies. Say a minimum 40% troops, or 800 points for a 2K list. A Grey Knight Draigo+Paladinstar would fit that easily, and be 11 models. Orks would need 8 trukk boy squads, or 4 full mobs of 30 boys to meet the requirement.
To say nothing of how many gaunts Nid players would need...
But then, if this means that people must make troops the back bone of their armies instead of just meatshields/ a points tax / FoC bare minimum requirement (looking at you SM Tacticals) then I'm all for it.
Implying Eldar and Farsight Enclave won't just giggle as they hop around in their skimmers of death or Tau opt for having troop battlesuits or kroot spam.
It would be nice to see the average game size go from 1500-2000 to 2000-2500, more variety and suddenly taking less than optimal choice won't ruin your chances at winning
I've seen other forums use a system called "hell-banning" for problem users. Basically they can continue to post, but so long as the ban remains in place no one except themselves and mods can see those posts.
Can we start using hell-bans on people who insist on posting rumours when they have no reliable record for doing so? The amount of people trying to attach faeces to the walls with constant bombardment is getting irritating.
Unless they speed up the game play somehow, I don't fancy games bigger than 1500pts being standard (we can get that done in a club night allowing for set up and tidy away - 2500 would be a challenge)
Herzlos wrote: Unless they speed up the game play somehow, I don't fancy games bigger than 1500pts being standard (we can get that done in a club night allowing for set up and tidy away - 2500 would be a challenge)
Basically this. The biggest difference between fantasy and 40k is that 40k's hordes and units are all individual. In Fantasy, despite being capable of fielding vastly more models, they are all in the boxy formations so it's vastly easier to move about. 40k however continuously gets bogged down. Have you ever played against a green tide, footguard, or other equivalent armies? They can make it a tie simply by taking forever to finish a turn!
Perfect Organism wrote: I'm pretty sure that GW books (and other companies' books in a similar format) always have a multiple of 16 for their page count. That just seems to be how their printers work.
I wonder if it's possible that they will split the rules away from the background and hobby material? I've heard that in the past the GW management were very reluctant to publish pure rules books because (a) rules need a lot more work to produce than background and (b) they didn't like the idea of catering to 'people who only care about the rules'. On the other hand, they have to grasp that making the established player base pay for the same old material as they got in the last book after only two years is cheeky even by their standards.
Splitting the BRB into 3 (rules, fluff, hobby) available separately or in a bundle would be EPIC. So they'll never do it.
Why? Everyone would buy the rules, some folk would buy the fluff (it's the same fluff as in the previous 4 BRB's, so available almost free) and almost no-one would buy the hobby book (because if you're aware enough of the hobby to drop £50 on a book, you don't need anything in it).
Keeping it together means they get to sell it as a 500+ page book to make it sound like better value for money even though 400 of those pages are essentially filler.
Herzlos wrote: Unless they speed up the game play somehow, I don't fancy games bigger than 1500pts being standard (we can get that done in a club night allowing for set up and tidy away - 2500 would be a challenge)
Basically this. The biggest difference between fantasy and 40k is that 40k's hordes and units are all individual. In Fantasy, despite being capable of fielding vastly more models, they are all in the boxy formations so it's vastly easier to move about. 40k however continuously gets bogged down. Have you ever played against a green tide, footguard, or other equivalent armies? They can make it a tie simply by taking forever to finish a turn!
those are called obnoxious players, you can play all the horde armies fast.. there is no need to be SLOOOOOWWWWWWWW about it... what makes those armies faster, runs in the movement phase... not being a douche and intentionally taking forever.. if i played someone who was up to that shenanigans they wouldnt get a second game.
Perfect Organism wrote: I'm pretty sure that GW books (and other companies' books in a similar format) always have a multiple of 16 for their page count. That just seems to be how their printers work.
I wonder if it's possible that they will split the rules away from the background and hobby material? I've heard that in the past the GW management were very reluctant to publish pure rules books because (a) rules need a lot more work to produce than background and (b) they didn't like the idea of catering to 'people who only care about the rules'. On the other hand, they have to grasp that making the established player base pay for the same old material as they got in the last book after only two years is cheeky even by their standards.
Splitting the BRB into 3 (rules, fluff, hobby) available separately or in a bundle would be EPIC. So they'll never do it.
Why? Everyone would buy the rules, some folk would buy the fluff (it's the same fluff as in the previous 4 BRB's, so available almost free) and almost no-one would buy the hobby book (because if you're aware enough of the hobby to drop £50 on a book, you don't need anything in it).
Keeping it together means they get to sell it as a 500+ page book to make it sound like better value for money even though 400 of those pages are essentially filler.
Um, they already sell a book of just the rules for 6th, so there is no reason to think they won't do it for whatever is coming now.
On a vaguely related note, it seems all of the digital rule books have now gone from the website. I can't check if they are still available for sale on iBooks or now.
Perfect Organism wrote: I'm pretty sure that GW books (and other companies' books in a similar format) always have a multiple of 16 for their page count. That just seems to be how their printers work.
I wonder if it's possible that they will split the rules away from the background and hobby material? I've heard that in the past the GW management were very reluctant to publish pure rules books because (a) rules need a lot more work to produce than background and (b) they didn't like the idea of catering to 'people who only care about the rules'. On the other hand, they have to grasp that making the established player base pay for the same old material as they got in the last book after only two years is cheeky even by their standards.
Splitting the BRB into 3 (rules, fluff, hobby) available separately or in a bundle would be EPIC. So they'll never do it.
Why? Everyone would buy the rules, some folk would buy the fluff (it's the same fluff as in the previous 4 BRB's, so available almost free) and almost no-one would buy the hobby book (because if you're aware enough of the hobby to drop £50 on a book, you don't need anything in it).
Keeping it together means they get to sell it as a 500+ page book to make it sound like better value for money even though 400 of those pages are essentially filler.
Um, they already sell a book of just the rules for 6th, so there is no reason to think they won't do it for whatever is coming now.
On a vaguely related note, it seems all of the digital rule books have now gone from the website. I can't check if they are still available for sale on iBooks or now.
They do, but it only came out about 18 months after the edition change rendering it essentially useless. If there's something like that available shortly after launch then I'll get it (thought I'd rather it wasn't a collectors edition).
If indeed these rumours are true about a percentage based system - it will invalidate my three forces.
I run a 2.5K - 5K Sternguard Drop Podding army that is small and full of elites. It also matches the theme and the fluff as they are Deathwatch and are supposed to be the best of the best with special ammunition and toys. Suddenly, this would be illegal and it also tears the fluff and new one and so makes a Deathwatch army unviable. Around 80% of the list comprises of Elites and HQs. This would require me to spend a hell of a lot of money to make viable under a % based system, with the majority of my current models never seeing use.
I run a 2.5K - 3K Thousand Sons army that uses Thousand Sons as the core units. 50% of the points are sunk into Thousand Sons cult marines. Again, this becomes unviable and tears the fluff a new one as now the Thousand Sons army will instead be 'Chaos Space Marines with a couple of Rubricae'. This would require me to spend a lot of money to make valid under a % based system.
I run a 1K Dark Eldar list that has a lot of Trueborn - if large . This list Is easier than the others to modify, but again it invalidates the current set-up and would require me to spend even more money to make playable under a % system.
The list I was part way through building with Orks would now be unviable as it's too Heavy support Heavy and the Plague Marines was mostly HQ and Elite with some cultists.
I will not be buying more models from Games Workshop in order to make my armies 'legal' under a % system. I will not be using the 7th Edition rules either. I will continue with 6th Edition / previous edition rules and GW will have lost a customer due to GW stuffing up everything their customers have built using the GW rule system. Will GW care? No. Do I care, yes - hence my decision. I'm thankfully in a club where other plays will likely not bother with 7th edition should these rumours come true.
And that's the point really - if clubs are willing to boycott 7th Ed (IF the rumours of a % system are true) then I hope enough people do it and the book sinks. There are some parts of the game that really shouldn't be fiddled with. Using Fantasy as a model to base 40K is daft as everything is costed differently. If they release a % system, then they would have to re-release the SM, CSM, Nid, Eldar and Tau codices to make them function under Fantasy % rules.
I'll hold off my final decision until I see the rule set obviously, but with the reasonable accuracy with some of the recent rumours coming out I'm actually disappointed should this be the new direction
WayneTheGame wrote: Wouldn't percentages A) force buying more models and B) encourage even larger games to field LoW choices, thus having more of A?
Seems right up GWs alley.
True, but GW has been pushing for more troops since 5th edition hit and made only troops scoring units. I remember much wailing and gnashing of teeth about that then; "my terminators/battlesuits/etc." can't score objectives anymore!! Plus pushing Lords of War to larger games helps out people who don't want to face super heavies in a 1500 pt. game. It also helps helps keep Helturkey and other powerful unit spam down, as it would mean you could only fit in two rather than three units in a 2000 pt. game for most of those. Honestly, I'll have to wait and see how it's all implemented but I think I like the idea of a percentage based system.
WayneTheGame wrote: Wouldn't percentages A) force buying more models and B) encourage even larger games to field LoW choices, thus having more of A?
Seems right up GWs alley.
True, but GW has been pushing for more troops since 5th edition hit and made only troops scoring units. I remember much wailing and gnashing of teeth about that then; "my terminators/battlesuits/etc." can't score objectives anymore!! Plus pushing Lords of War to larger games helps out people who don't want to face super heavies in a 1500 pt. game. It also helps helps keep Helturkey and other powerful unit spam down, as it would mean you could only fit in two rather than three units in a 2000 pt. game for most of those. Honestly, I'll have to wait and see how it's all implemented but I think I like the idea of a percentage based system.
Absolutely agree. It solves the problem of massive amounts of forced redundancy in armies. 'Grats, you brought a Knights army! 90% of the guns in a balanced list can do nothing to you. BALANCE LOL etc. etc.
Everyone always cries about the massive unbalance in 40k, especially compared to fantasy. And even in fantasy, you still get deathstars- with no forced percentages, the problem is a pandemic in 40k, with entire armies existing around a single unit hogging 90% of the points. Force everyone to have their points spread out and you can balance the game much more easily.
The game could be balanced within the Force Chart using better points values and by reducing the effect of Allies, Formations, etc.
If GW cannot -- or do not want to -- manage that by points, why should they be expected to manage it by percentages? Just for a start, percentages depend on points values.
The Primary Army Formations section, though could be legit without contradicting anything in the logs. I hope it isn't the case, because blowing up Deamon Flying Circus while still allowing Tyranids to run 7-9 FMCs via skyblight at 1850 seems wrong.
I don't think that would be possible. I don't have my codex with me right now, but 230 of flyrant + 180 gargs + the 3 FMC should go over the allowed 925 in formations. Even if it doesn't if you put that and your 800 points of troops, that means no more points for other flyrants or any FMC. So at best they can fit 4 flyers.
IF there is a percentage-based army composition system coming, then get ready for a whole swathe of armies with a "ELITE percentage can be up to 40%" or some other variation.
I can't see GW killing off the SM Drop-pod army. There's crazy and then there's madness.
Accolade wrote: IF there is a percentage-based army composition system coming, then get ready for a whole swathe of armies with a "ELITE percentage can be up to 40%" or some other variation.
I can't see GW killing off the SM Drop-pod army. There's crazy and then there's madness.
Uh, you do understand this is GW?
Taurox anyone?
I'm going to guess the SM will be getting a new shiny transport that costs about the same as a rhino/drop pod but they will raise the cost of said rhino/drop pod so the new shiny looks like a bargain.
All the while with a big smile on their face while flipping you off behind their back.
Kilkrazy wrote: The game could be balanced within the Force Chart using better points values and by reducing the effect of Allies, Formations, etc.
If GW cannot -- or do not want to -- manage that by points, why should they be expected to manage it by percentages? Just for a start, percentages depend on points values.
It would be the easiest way, if they wanted to throw a bone to all the players who have apparently stopped/cut back their spending. GW's does like the path of least resistance these days.
The only significant problem list/unit that I can think of right now that wouldn't be mitigated at least partially by percentages is Waveserpent spam, which would need something else to fix it, or they may just wish to leave an "easy mode" army in the mix for those who have no desire to think while playing a game.
Accolade wrote: IF there is a percentage-based army composition system coming, then get ready for a whole swathe of armies with a "ELITE percentage can be up to 40%" or some other variation.
I can't see GW killing off the SM Drop-pod army. There's crazy and then there's madness.
I could see them creating formations that alter a percentage based chart. And that might work out alright, especially if different formations called for a reduction in another sections' percentage. IE: giving Nids access to more heavy support if elites get less than the standard amount.
BigRed wrote:As with all of rumors, the overall trends are more important than the details. I would be surprised if the exact percentages were exactly matching in the final rulebook. More important is simply the overall switchover to a WFB style percentage system, which would be a big deal for the game.
To quote the internet: "lol, wut."
Who posts rumors and then posts that the major details of the rumor are probably wrong, but then basically say that those same details "don't matter"?
Also I love how they posted earlier in the day that no big changes were coming then posted the percent thing.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I'm chalking up that entire rumor to massive click bait at this point.
"We'll completely revamp our most popular game system to make it more like our less popular game system!"
"We'll make many large, expensive models, but dissuade our customers from buying multiples of them by stopping them from using more than one in regular games!"
Am I the only one who thinks it's completely and utterly unrealistic that any reasonably sane company would do something like that?
Thud wrote: "We'll completely revamp our most popular game system to make it more like our less popular game system!"
"We'll make many large, expensive models, but dissuade our customers from buying multiples of them by stopping them from using more than one in regular games!"
Am I the only one who thinks it's completely and utterly unrealistic that any reasonably sane company would do something like that?
In other words; percentages confirmed.
You mean completely revamp our most broken rules system to make it more like our better constructed rules system?
Making 40K more follow the list creation system of WHFB is a HUGE step in the right direction, now if they would get rid of the allies chart...we might have a useable game system again. Well actually you can keep the allies chart, just don't allow them to interact with each other (i.e. IC only join native codex and buffs only affect native units)
H.B.M.C. wrote: Yeah but it's Taco Bell. They tend to post everything that comes their way.
Comparing the two is an insult to Taco Bell. At least Taco Bell actually serves a purpose (namely selling drunks and stoners cheap knock-off Mexican food at 2am).
Thud wrote: "We'll completely revamp our most popular game system to make it more like our less popular game system!"
"We'll make many large, expensive models, but dissuade our customers from buying multiples of them by stopping them from using more than one in regular games!"
Am I the only one who thinks it's completely and utterly unrealistic that any reasonably sane company would do something like that?
In other words; percentages confirmed.
You mean completely revamp our most broken rules system to make it more like our better constructed rules system?
Making 40K more follow the list creation system of WHFB is a HUGE step in the right direction, now if they would get rid of the allies chart...we might have a useable game system again. Well actually you can keep the allies chart, just don't allow them to interact with each other (i.e. IC only join native codex and buffs only affect native units)
I think allies need to be revisited, but a % cap and revising the chart and the interaction rules will go a long way to fixing it, no need to scrap it entirely.
Thud wrote: "We'll completely revamp our most popular game system to make it more like our less popular game system!"
"We'll make many large, expensive models, but dissuade our customers from buying multiples of them by stopping them from using more than one in regular games!"
Am I the only one who thinks it's completely and utterly unrealistic that any reasonably sane company would do something like that?
In other words; percentages confirmed.
You mean completely revamp our most broken rules system to make it more like our better constructed rules system?
Making 40K more follow the list creation system of WHFB is a HUGE step in the right direction, now if they would get rid of the allies chart...we might have a useable game system again. Well actually you can keep the allies chart, just don't allow them to interact with each other (i.e. IC only join native codex and buffs only affect native units)
I think allies need to be revisited, but a % cap and revising the chart and the interaction rules will go a long way to fixing it, no need to scrap it entirely.
You both are looking at this as if Allies isnt working.
As far as GW is concerned it is. Escalation, allies, everything is geared towards putting every model you own on the table. It is not an accident. It is by design. And that is precisely why percentage based systems, at least one that wont let someone take a knight in a 1500 point game, is absolutely guaranteed to be rubbish.
Gw don't want you to take one knight in a 1500 point game. They want you to take two. They will not be restricting the use of models in any way shape or form, it goes against the last 2 years of design philosophy, if anything, they will relax the rules.
So I was thinking about the fact GW pulled the digital codex and the rumors of a free update and I had a thought: it might be related to a price increase on the new digital codex. It makes sense honestly that if they're giving out free updates to the existing customers but are raising prices that they don't want everyone jumping in to get the cheaper codex and lose potential sales on the updated codex.
It's just a theory based on the idea that GWis giving us a free update for owners of the older books of course, so it can still be wrong, but if the free update is true then I think that's what is going to happen.
via a must remain anonymous source on Faeit 212
FoC removed, percentages added.
Players have a "sideboard" of up to X number of selections (2-5, bracketed on points, so 1k or less games you have 2 sideboards, at 3k+ you have 5).
Sideboards can't be more than 25% of the total, or can be none at all.
They are referred to as "Secondary Detachments."
They are used for anything from allies to just additional things from your own codex.
If they are allies, then they require an HQ and a troop, and are still bound by the 25% of total.
Both players are expected to have sideboards.
Sideboarding is now a part of the game, done before deployment but in order of turn priority. So the person going first, picks their sideboard first after learning what race their opponent is playing, and seeing 75% of their army (and the available sideboards).
The person going second then picks their sideboard, after their opponent has selected, but before either side deploys.
----------------------------
Other tweeks include assaulting as a form of sweeping advance/consolidation.
The option to flee, in response to being charged (after overwatching) but there is the potential to be swept and the unit charging can (if they have the movement and sweep you) just hit a different unit provided it's in the same rough direction as the unit they swept.
The main thing I wanted to touch on is sideboards, % based army building, battle brothers being removed and units being able to lock themselves into combat to combat, but simultaneously enemy generals having another tool to avoid combat to counter act this.
Thud wrote: "We'll completely revamp our most popular game system to make it more like our less popular game system!"
"We'll make many large, expensive models, but dissuade our customers from buying multiples of them by stopping them from using more than one in regular games!"
Am I the only one who thinks it's completely and utterly unrealistic that any reasonably sane company would do something like that?
In other words; percentages confirmed.
You mean completely revamp our most broken rules system to make it more like our better constructed rules system?
Making 40K more follow the list creation system of WHFB is a HUGE step in the right direction, now if they would get rid of the allies chart...we might have a useable game system again. Well actually you can keep the allies chart, just don't allow them to interact with each other (i.e. IC only join native codex and buffs only affect native units)
I think allies need to be revisited, but a % cap and revising the chart and the interaction rules will go a long way to fixing it, no need to scrap it entirely.
You both are looking at this as if Allies isnt working.
As far as GW is concerned it is. Escalation, allies, everything is geared towards putting every model you own on the table. It is not an accident. It is by design. And that is precisely why percentage based systems, at least one that wont let someone take a knight in a 1500 point game, is absolutely guaranteed to be rubbish.
Gw don't want you to take one knight in a 1500 point game. They want you to take two. They will not be restricting the use of models in any way shape or form, it goes against the last 2 years of design philosophy, if anything, they will relax the rules.
Perhaps, I don't have the benefit of the view from the top of their ivory tower, but speaking from a personal viewpoint, I haven't, and don't intend to, use allies because I don't play in a hardcore competitive environment, and nobody, even the biggest WAAC player in the group, has really used them outside of a little experimentation when 6th first landed.
If the taint of allies being a bit of a douche, WAAC move, rather than something to do to make a fluffy varied list and allow a bit of divergence in my mini collection could be removed, I'd be more inclined to buy some more models.
Dont people realise that % will not only lead to GW's best models selling less. i.e 2 basic riptides with an IA is more than 20% of an 1850 list and even more at 1750. Why would they put that cap on the sales of some of their most popular and expensive minitures?
Secondly if people cant spam elites and heavy etc they will just spam troops. If troops are 40%+ imagain the amout of nightscyths with 5 man necron warrior units you will be able to field while anti air units such as riptides with EWO, VT and HBC, quad guns, punisher squadrons etc will be limited to 1 or 2 per amy. %'s are stupid.
Dropping battle brothers on the other hand makes some sense.
The whole sideboard concept is exceeding my RDA on salt. While very GW from a selling miniature POV, it is also very game-y and goes against the grain for forging a narrative.
Nevelon wrote: The whole sideboard concept is exceeding my RDA on salt. While very GW from a selling miniature POV, it is also very game-y and goes against the grain for forging a narrative.
Having a 25% chunk of your army you could swap out as you wish makes pick up games easier though. And it fits into the concept that an army wouldn't go fight someone without brining the tools to actually deal with them (anti-tank for fighting enemy armor or flamers for fighting Orks) so I could see a "Forge the Narrative" spin available there too.
You both are looking at this as if Allies isnt working.
As far as GW is concerned it is. Escalation, allies, everything is geared towards putting every model you own on the table. It is not an accident. It is by design. And that is precisely why percentage based systems, at least one that wont let someone take a knight in a 1500 point game, is absolutely guaranteed to be rubbish.
Gw don't want you to take one knight in a 1500 point game. They want you to take two. They will not be restricting the use of models in any way shape or form, it goes against the last 2 years of design philosophy, if anything, they will relax the rules.
I think this assessment is probably spot on. The mantra definitely seems to be: "MORE!"
Thud wrote: "We'll completely revamp our most popular game system to make it more like our less popular game system!"
"We'll make many large, expensive models, but dissuade our customers from buying multiples of them by stopping them from using more than one in regular games!"
Am I the only one who thinks it's completely and utterly unrealistic that any reasonably sane company would do something like that?
In other words; percentages confirmed.
You mean completely revamp our most broken rules system to make it more like our better constructed rules system?
Making 40K more follow the list creation system of WHFB is a HUGE step in the right direction, now if they would get rid of the allies chart...we might have a useable game system again. Well actually you can keep the allies chart, just don't allow them to interact with each other (i.e. IC only join native codex and buffs only affect native units)
I think allies need to be revisited, but a % cap and revising the chart and the interaction rules will go a long way to fixing it, no need to scrap it entirely.
I think percentage caps alone would be a majorly positive change for the game. It wouldn't create "balance", but it'd rein in a lot of the extreme builds you see. Players and armies would adjust...which of course means more sales for GW. It would however probably mean fewer large kits sold, as others have said. So I'm not sure how plausible that approach is.
Now, I thought the sideboards rumor was highly plausible in terms of intent. That'd drive sales like a MFer. Think of all those 1850/2000 pt builds that'd need another several hundred points worth of stuff. Of course, I think sideboards add extra complexity that'd turn GW off. So ultimately I think the execution makes the idea implausible.
I'm not a GW hater, but I also think it helps to follow the money with regard to their decision-making. That leaves me mixed as to whether percentage caps and other allies restrictions are plausible changes.
Well what GW really wants is you to spend more money. That might be at the expense of the more popular big models, but again the main thing is getting more income.
Having a 40% minimum on troops might just do that, especially with horde-style armies.
For instance, with 1500pts. of IG if I filled my 40% Troops core with platoons, I need about 5 IFS, 2 PCS, and a couple of vehicles (let's say Chimeras).
So I buy (at GW retail): - Two armored fist squads (to save money): $120 - A weapon weapon box (somehow I just need one): $40 - 4 boxes of Cadian shock troops: $120
That's in the realm of 600 points (if I'm pimping the squads out) for $280. From there I can go get big units, but I think in some cases the these can be more efficient in points cost per dollar.
And of course this example differs for other armies, but I see 40% Troop minimum benefiting GW the same way it does in fantasy: forcing you to buy more models to make a legal force.
Personally, I would like to see more Troops- the armies of Gundam-Tau and FMCs don't interest me as much; it looks less like a battle and more like a small skirmish army from another game manhandling army men from another.
Sideboarding is now a part of the game, done before deployment but in order of turn priority. So the person going first, picks their sideboard first after learning what race their opponent is playing, and seeing 75% of their army (and the available sideboards).
...
That's an interesting mechanic, and a pretty decent way to get people to overbuy by at least 25% (unless you only have 1 sideboard).
There are already a few systems where your list isn't set until deployment (Malifaux lets you hire your crew once you know your opponents master and the missions) but it's on a completely different scale - my Malifaux crew has ~7 models in it, so my regular crew + a huge variety of alternatives is probably still less than 15 minis and will fit in a half-tray skirmish case. Sideboards in 40K are potentially another couple of squads or a squad + vehicle (normal games in my local meta are 1500pt, so that's 375/sideboard), or more than my entire Malifaux case, on top of my core selection.
So I'm not sure how well it'll be received; I suspect in my local scene most people will just bring a single sideboard and essentially ignore it.
Percentages is the one thing I adore about current WHFB, and was sad that 6th didn't have it. I would love to see it in 7th.
As for the side board thing. I was a huge tournament player in 5th, but 6th and allies realy killed my mojo for tournies. The accerated release scedual didn't help things, because new content was comeing out so fast just didn't have the money to keep ontop of such a rapidly changeing meta.
Haveing Side board detachments would get me interested in playing in tournments agien in all honesty. Because then I am able to better focus my collection into a balenced core army, and a handfull of specalized detachments to choose from. I won't feel like I'm failing around anymore when writeing my army lists to coupe with whatever crazy new addition GW has brought into the game.
Personally, Side boards to me sounds like it will be to good to be true.
As for people complaining that a % system, I find that is actully encourages more varitiy in unit choice then the old slot system. Right now at 2000 points, at 2000 points right now I could spam 3 helldrakes. Then ally with a CSM for a 4th.
What a boreing army.
with the % system, at 2000 points 2 heldrakes would be the max i could take.
Adding in a "sideboard" function helps players bring lists that are better prepared for their opponent's lists. A TAC list is a thing of 5th edition - with flyers, escalation, deathstars, tanks, MC's, hordes.... there's almost no way a single list can have tools to handle every possible threat. A sideboard feature would be nice so i could plant some hive guard and zoanthropes in one, in case i see lots of transports, and biovores & exocrines in the other, in case i need more blast weapons.
For those who don't like the idea of sideboarding -- Just build a list with 1 sideboard of the stuff you'd take anyway. Or if the rules don't allow it, just take 2 identical sideboards and use your existing 2000 point list.
It's all speculation, I don't know if %'s are the way to go but it would certainly alter lists you see played on the table.
Also, I think the FOC chart that used to be in codices hasn't been in any 6th edition codex. Maybe Imperial Knights & Inquisition, but they had to add an FOC Slot to function.
via a must remain anonymous source on Faeit 212
FoC removed, percentages added.
Players have a "sideboard" of up to X number of selections (2-5, bracketed on points, so 1k or less games you have 2 sideboards, at 3k+ you have 5).
Sideboards can't be more than 25% of the total, or can be none at all.
They are referred to as "Secondary Detachments."
They are used for anything from allies to just additional things from your own codex.
If they are allies, then they require an HQ and a troop, and are still bound by the 25% of total.
Both players are expected to have sideboards.
Sideboarding is now a part of the game, done before deployment but in order of turn priority. So the person going first, picks their sideboard first after learning what race their opponent is playing, and seeing 75% of their army (and the available sideboards).
The person going second then picks their sideboard, after their opponent has selected, but before either side deploys.
----------------------------
Other tweeks include assaulting as a form of sweeping advance/consolidation.
The option to flee, in response to being charged (after overwatching) but there is the potential to be swept and the unit charging can (if they have the movement and sweep you) just hit a different unit provided it's in the same rough direction as the unit they swept.
The main thing I wanted to touch on is sideboards, % based army building, battle brothers being removed and units being able to lock themselves into combat to combat, but simultaneously enemy generals having another tool to avoid combat to counter act this.
I don't buy any of that. Sideboards and the FOC going... Na. I do not buy it at all. It sounds like wishlisting and we know Nafka will post anything that comes his way. I do not buy any of that at all, and it goes against many of the other things we have heard.
Messy0 wrote: Dont people realise that % will not only lead to GW's best models selling less. i.e 2 basic riptides with an IA is more than 20% of an 1850 list and even more at 1750. Why would they put that cap on the sales of some of their most popular and expensive minitures?
Percentage FOCs can make a lot of sense depending on the exact figures, and could really help boost sales for armies with crowded low-cost slots (like Tyranid Elites, with lots of £15 models worth 40-50pts each).
It really comes down to what the limits for each slot are. A big cause for imbalance in 2E was the up to 50% HQ slot, resulting in tooled up 'herohammer' characters, so HQ would likely be more balanced with a 25% limit. On the other hand, Elites, Fast Attack and Heavy Support would all likely work best at 0-50%. I could certainly see 50% being realistic for the HS slot, traditionally full of expensive units.
I don't buy any of that. Sideboards and the FOC going... Na. I do not buy it at all. It sounds like wishlisting and we know Nafka will post anything that comes his way. I do not buy any of that at all, and it goes against many of the other things we have heard.
Percentages doesn't go against what we've heard and Sideboards were a thing that popped up in that massive rumor dump we saw early/mid-April.
Messy0 wrote: Dont people realise that % will not only lead to GW's best models selling less. i.e 2 basic riptides with an IA is more than 20% of an 1850 list and even more at 1750. Why would they put that cap on the sales of some of their most popular and expensive minitures?
Percentage FOCs can make a lot of sense depending on the exact figures, and could really help boost sales for armies with crowded low-cost slots (like Tyranid Elites, with lots of £15 models worth 40-50pts each).
It really comes down to what the limits for each slot are. A big cause for imbalance in 2E was the up to 50% HQ slot, resulting in tooled up 'herohammer' characters, so HQ would likely be more balanced with a 25% limit. On the other hand, Elites, Fast Attack and Heavy Support would all likely work best at 0-50%. I could certainly see 50% being realistic for the HS slot, traditionally full of expensive units.
I totally agree. I dont mind percentages if they get it right . They really need to get the balance for each slot right. 30% elite or 40% heavy i could like with or simply make it minimum 40% or 50% troop and let you split the rest how you want. That will still stop people taking 2 minimum fire warrior squads and spending the rest on riptides and skyrays. or 2 min jetbike units and the rest on wraithknights and seer councils.
%s doesn't totally remove these daft OP power gamer builds.
2200 points allows for 3 Tau riptides with upgrades
1500 points allows for 2 Tau riptides with upgrades
Lower points will mean less OP units yes, but they will still have a huge impact on the game.
The concentration of OP units will still be the same per match level. I believe it's more a problem of poor Stat/Ability writing rather than poor main rules where this is concerned
Sigvatr wrote: Don't buy that sideboard thing. It's way too complicated and GW has repeatedly shown that they want the game to be easier to pick up, not harder.
I think it just sounds more complicated than it actually is. Definitely isn't that much more complicated than the concept of percentages.
I'm not putting money on any of the rumors at this point, but when it comes to GW I also don't rule things out for being "unlikely" as GW has surprised us with stuff we didn't expect in the past.
The Primary Army Formations section, though could be legit without contradicting anything in the logs. I hope it isn't the case, because blowing up Deamon Flying Circus while still allowing Tyranids to run 7-9 FMCs via skyblight at 1850 seems wrong.
I don't think that would be possible. I don't have my codex with me right now, but 230 of flyrant + 180 gargs + the 3 FMC should go over the allowed 925 in formations. Even if it doesn't if you put that and your 800 points of troops, that means no more points for other flyrants or any FMC. So at best they can fit 4 flyers.
You are right. 5 Flyers at 1850.
Wulfmar wrote: %s doesn't totally remove these daft OP power gamer builds.
2200 points allows for 3 Tau riptides with upgrades
1500 points allows for 2 Tau riptides with upgrades
Check your math. Base Riptide is 180 points.
20% of 1500 is 300 points. 300 < 2 x 180. 2 un-upgraded riptides fit in 1850.
20% of 2200 is 440 points. 440 < 3 x 180. 3 un-upgraded riptides fit in 2700
Thud wrote: "We'll completely revamp our most popular game system to make it more like our less popular game system!"
"We'll make many large, expensive models, but dissuade our customers from buying multiples of them by stopping them from using more than one in regular games!"
Am I the only one who thinks it's completely and utterly unrealistic that any reasonably sane company would do something like that?
In other words; percentages confirmed.
Agreed. GW does NOTHING these days that makes sense business wise. Know what they have told me as a retailer? "Look at the poster in WD that says May 24th on the back". That's it. Won't even fething admit that 6th edition is on the way. The week before I asked about it, told nothing on the horizon, and re-ordered starter sets. Starter sets that the next week they took out of their stores and advise me not to sell. (Won't be eating them, one of their multiple personalities is generous and will probably credit me on them.)
I've been begging for information. Something confirmed that will let me plan a launch event for the new edition. Demo games, food, all night ironman painting, etc. The things i used to do when I'd order 100-200 of a new edition. Can't do that kind of stuff with a weeks notice. Hell, if I even put up the rumors from Dakka on my website with a 'wink wink, nudge nudge' to get pre-orders in, I"d be violating their current terms of sale.
So I don't know about 6th edition, no such beast. No planning for non existant product launch. And they wonder why # of units sold per product is going down.............
The Primary Army Formations section, though could be legit without contradicting anything in the logs. I hope it isn't the case, because blowing up Deamon Flying Circus while still allowing Tyranids to run 7-9 FMCs via skyblight at 1850 seems wrong.
I don't think that would be possible. I don't have my codex with me right now, but 230 of flyrant + 180 gargs + the 3 FMC should go over the allowed 925 in formations. Even if it doesn't if you put that and your 800 points of troops, that means no more points for other flyrants or any FMC. So at best they can fit 4 flyers.
You are right. 5 Flyers at 1850.
Wulfmar wrote: %s doesn't totally remove these daft OP power gamer builds.
2200 points allows for 3 Tau riptides with upgrades
1500 points allows for 2 Tau riptides with upgrades
Check your math. Base Riptide is 180 points.
20% of 1500 is 300 points. 300 < 2 x 180. 2 un-upgraded riptides fit in 1850.
20% of 2200 is 440 points. 440 < 3 x 180. 3 un-upgraded riptides fit in 2700
tag is right.
185 is 10% of 1850
Max 2 riptides with IA at 1850 max. No other upgrades. While at the same time people will be able to spam asmany Jetbikes, Noise marines, Nightscyths, Crisis suits (enclave), wave serpents! and other OP troop choices as they want.
Given the huge imbalance between troop choices in differnt armies this will just create a different flavor of spam one i think noone will like the taste of.
Kilkrazy wrote: The game could be balanced within the Force Chart using better points values and by reducing the effect of Allies, Formations, etc.
If GW cannot -- or do not want to -- manage that by points, why should they be expected to manage it by percentages? Just for a start, percentages depend on points values.
It would be the easiest way, if they wanted to throw a bone to all the players who have apparently stopped/cut back their spending. GW's does like the path of least resistance these days.
The only significant problem list/unit that I can think of right now that wouldn't be mitigated at least partially by percentages is Waveserpent spam, which would need something else to fix it, or they may just wish to leave an "easy mode" army in the mix for those who have no desire to think while playing a game.
I think a "starter army" list for each codex would be a good idea for new players and GW shops alike.
In fact, rather than percentages, I advocate GW writing relatively specific and limited lists in each codex, which prevent players from changing more than X% (say 10-20%) of the unit selections. For instance, the IG could have a generic starter army list, an armoured corps list, a veteran legion list, and so on.
There are various things about percentages, though, that make me think it won't be the universal panacea a lot of people hope for.
The game got damaged by incorrect points values in the first place, and percentages will use those same values, which is a basic problem.
The game has become broken (arguably, because not all would agree on this) by allies, formations and superheavy units. If you add a new fix rather than directly addressing the thing that caused the problem, there is a chance of unexpected side effects.
In 40K terms, this means there would be unexpected winners and losers from percentages. In 4th and 5th edition, for example, Tau players used to complain bitterly about percentage based lists because Fire Warriors were so crappy that what was supposed to make the game fairer just made it worse. In the current meta, there will be winners such as Knight Titan armies and Tyranids, who can put MCs in their Troops slots.
I don't know how well percentages work in WHFB. We need some experienced players to come and tell us. Even then, the structure of WHFB is rather different to 40K, so the same thing may not work for both games.
On the plus side, percentages allow GW to change all of the codexes at once without reprinting them because you just need a rule in the main rulebook.
Honestly, if percentages come in and they remove the casualties from the front, over watch OR random charge, I'll come back. Seriously. Those two changes and I'll be back. Preferably the removal from front.
timetowaste85 wrote: Honestly, if percentages come in and they remove the casualties from the front, over watch OR random charge, I'll come back. Seriously. Those two changes and I'll be back. Preferably the removal from front.
Removal from the front is why my Orks have been gathering dust the last two years. I hate that rule with a passion.
Leth wrote: I highly doubt percentages, that would be too restrictive on what you can take and do. They have been going out of their way to prevent limitations on what you can take.
It has been all about giving you the options and I like it more that way.
I'm completely new, and i don't know gak. Im only working on the old cadian battle force i got off ebay right now.
I want to make my army only use valkyries/vendettas, veterans, heavy weapons teams, and sentinals. Would that means that i now am almost required to get tanks even if they go against my fluff and what i want to do with my army?
No. The percentage system means you have a min and max ammount of points and can spend in each unit.
So no more then 25% of your army can be heavy support units. So at 2000 points you can't buy more then 500 points of heavy support for example.
If it's true troops will be a mandatory 40% of your points, that means at 2000 points ATLEAST 800 points of your army must be invested in troops for example.
If that's true I'm going to have to seriously re-think my choice of armies. I've played Daemons for the last three years and I've almost never taken more than the minimum required troops. I dislike horde-ish armies, and being forced to take 800 points of Daemon troops (which aren't that good) would have me thinking of switching armies or even just not playing for a while.
Leth wrote: I highly doubt percentages, that would be too restrictive on what you can take and do. They have been going out of their way to prevent limitations on what you can take.
It has been all about giving you the options and I like it more that way.
I'm completely new, and i don't know gak. Im only working on the old cadian battle force i got off ebay right now.
I want to make my army only use valkyries/vendettas, veterans, heavy weapons teams, and sentinals. Would that means that i now am almost required to get tanks even if they go against my fluff and what i want to do with my army?
No. The percentage system means you have a min and max ammount of points and can spend in each unit.
So no more then 25% of your army can be heavy support units. So at 2000 points you can't buy more then 500 points of heavy support for example.
If it's true troops will be a mandatory 40% of your points, that means at 2000 points ATLEAST 800 points of your army must be invested in troops for example.
If that's true I'm going to have to seriously re-think my choice of armies. I've played Daemons for the last three years and I've almost never taken more than the minimum required troops. I dislike horde-ish armies, and being forced to take 800 points of Daemon troops (which aren't that good) would have me thinking of switching armies or even just not playing for a while.
In all honesty, if it's true I highly dought it will be 40% troops min.
In fantsey it's:
25% max on Lords
25% Max on Heros
25% min on Core
50% max on Specail (No more then 3 of the same unit choice*)
25% max on Rare. (No more then 3 of the same units choice.*)
*(Double this for every 3000 points you are playing)
So to me the equivalent in 40k would be:
25% max on HQ's
25% min on Troops
50% max on elites (No more then 3 of the same units choice.*)
25% max on Fast Attack (No more then 3 of the same units choice.*)
25% Max on Heavy Support (No more then 3 of the same units choice.*)
*(Double this for every 2000 points you are playing)
Um... guys who are talking about "fewer large kits being sold" like it would affect GW's bottom line? Let me explain something to you.
While it skews with stuff like a Wraithknight versus Guardians in an Eldar army, typically the number of boxes of models you'd need to buy for Troops to equal the points you're no longer bringing in vehicles will see you spending as much as or more than you would for the large models.
Also, since part of their business model is to make veteran players buy more stuff as often as possible, it makes sense to shift the dynamic of the game once again in order to convince people to buy a lot of new models. If you went big model heavy, well, they've already got that money and now you can spend more buying Troops.
Percentages aren't a horrible thing. I'd just be surprised if they actually went back to using them. Yes, BACK to. For you folks who weren't around for it, 2nd edition had percentages. And allies, too, so no, they're not a "new" thing in 6th edition. Percentages also work well in WFB, and people can still take plenty of large models, especially as the game size increases (i.e. I've seen a 3000 point Chaos Warriors list with Lord on Manticore, three Chimeras, and a Hellcannon or two).
Mr Morden wrote: Percentage based systems seems unlikely - plus if troops includes dedicated transports................better for some armies than others.
I would assume Dedicated Transport would be in the percentage slot for the unit it was bought with.
So a landraider for a termy squad would eat into elites, or a Rhino on a tac squad would contribute to your troops.
I can't think of how that would benafit other armies then more untill you know what the %'s are.
A couple of related questions Lockark, since you're more familiar with Fantasy than I am. How are allies handled in Fantasy? I know there's a chart, but how do their points figure into your army's total? Also, are there equivalents to the various other FOC bits in Fantasy? Things like the Lords of War, Fortifications, Formations, etc.
MrGiggles wrote: A couple of related questions Lockark, since you're more familiar with Fantasy than I am. How are allies handled in Fantasy? I know there's a chart, but how do their points figure into your army's total? Also, are there equivalents to the various other FOC bits in Fantasy? Things like the Lords of War, Fortifications, Formations, etc.
The Fantsey Ally system is meant for 2v2 games. Nothing like the 40k one.
Fortifications is... Kinda? Their is a magic item you can buy on your lord to summon a building at the start of the game called a "folding fortress" or something. Beastmen have a heard stone teriran bit they can pay points for to can throw down at the start of the game also. Agien a item you buy on a lord if I remember right.
They put formations in Fantsey, and they are terrible to take as far as I was aware. Best to pretend they never happened.
Their is nothing like Lord of War, but their are big monsters. *Shrugs*
undertow wrote: If that's true I'm going to have to seriously re-think my choice of armies. I've played Daemons for the last three years and I've almost never taken more than the minimum required troops. I dislike horde-ish armies, and being forced to take 800 points of Daemon troops (which aren't that good) would have me thinking of switching armies or even just not playing for a while.
I think I might enjoy playing that way... Right now I don't do it because the way the game plays means I need big scary stuff to deal with my opponent's big scary stuff. But if they couldn't bring as much, then it wouldn't be so bad bringing more troops, especially if there's no limit of 6 units. Every Tzeentch Horrors unit is a psyker, you can throw out spells left and right. Plaguebearers are tough buggers that could hold objectives. Bloodletters shred Marines (especially if they get to charge). There's some good stuff you can do with them, and assuming you don't roll pathetic like I do, the 5+ inv. save for everyone is pretty decent in keeping them alive (sure, not as awesome as 3+ armor, just eh, better than 5+ armor or 6+ armor). It's worth at least trying before you throw it out the window.
Agreed. GW does NOTHING these days that makes sense business wise. Know what they have told me as a retailer? "Look at the poster in WD that says May 24th on the back". That's it. Won't even fething admit that 6th edition is on the way. The week before I asked about it, told nothing on the horizon, and re-ordered starter sets. Starter sets that the next week they took out of their stores and advise me not to sell. (Won't be eating them, one of their multiple personalities is generous and will probably credit me on them.)
I've been begging for information. Something confirmed that will let me plan a launch event for the new edition. Demo games, food, all night ironman painting, etc. The things i used to do when I'd order 100-200 of a new edition. Can't do that kind of stuff with a weeks notice. Hell, if I even put up the rumors from Dakka on my website with a 'wink wink, nudge nudge' to get pre-orders in, I"d be violating their current terms of sale.
So I don't know about 6th edition, no such beast. No planning for non existant product launch. And they wonder why # of units sold per product is going down.............
And that is why they are struggling. It's a pretty tragic state of affairs when they seem to hindering people trying to make them money. No wonder you get so frustrated by them!
Seeing as % went over like an airplane made out of bricks for WFB due to the massive amounts of models people need to play a game anymore, I just can't see GW doing the same for 40k. I honestly expect WFB to go more FOC based instead.
ErikSetzer wrote: Um... guys who are talking about "fewer large kits being sold" like it would affect GW's bottom line? Let me explain something to you.
While it skews with stuff like a Wraithknight versus Guardians in an Eldar army, typically the number of boxes of models you'd need to buy for Troops to equal the points you're no longer bringing in vehicles will see you spending as much as or more than you would for the large models.
Also, since part of their business model is to make veteran players buy more stuff as often as possible, it makes sense to shift the dynamic of the game once again in order to convince people to buy a lot of new models. If you went big model heavy, well, they've already got that money and now you can spend more buying Troops.
Percentages aren't a horrible thing. I'd just be surprised if they actually went back to using them. Yes, BACK to. For you folks who weren't around for it, 2nd edition had percentages. And allies, too, so no, they're not a "new" thing in 6th edition. Percentages also work well in WFB, and people can still take plenty of large models, especially as the game size increases (i.e. I've seen a 3000 point Chaos Warriors list with Lord on Manticore, three Chimeras, and a Hellcannon or two).
It *might* balance out, but we can't really know either way.
Thinking about it, I will say this...going to a percentage system and presumably encouraging more basic troops sales might fit with an earlier rumor. Namely, that their next big push on the minis front will be recuts and redos for the older troop boxes.
For instance, what would be a better way to follow the 6.5/7.0/whatever release than with the long-awaited proper cultist kit and a new chosen/CSM kit? *Especially* with the Dark Vengeance box disappearing.
Doesn't really make the rumor more credible, but some pieces could fall into place if it's true. *shrug*
mikhaila wrote: Agreed. GW does NOTHING these days that makes sense business wise. Know what they have told me as a retailer? "Look at the poster in WD that says May 24th on the back". That's it. Won't even fething admit that 6th edition is on the way. The week before I asked about it, told nothing on the horizon, and re-ordered starter sets. Starter sets that the next week they took out of their stores and advise me not to sell. (Won't be eating them, one of their multiple personalities is generous and will probably credit me on them.)
I've been begging for information. Something confirmed that will let me plan a launch event for the new edition. Demo games, food, all night ironman painting, etc. The things i used to do when I'd order 100-200 of a new edition. Can't do that kind of stuff with a weeks notice. Hell, if I even put up the rumors from Dakka on my website with a 'wink wink, nudge nudge' to get pre-orders in, I"d be violating their current terms of sale.
So I don't know about 6th edition, no such beast. No planning for non existant product launch. And they wonder why # of units sold per product is going down.............
And people complain when I make negative comments on GW management
Loopstah wrote: As "buying GW models" is the hobby as opposed to actually playing games with them the new rules for 7th edition will contain the following:
Each unopened box of GW models you place next to the table with a valid GW receipt earns you +10VP at the end of the game (+20VP if they belong to a different army than the one you are playing) (+30VP if they are for Fantasy) (+100VP if they are LoTR or Hobbit).
If you actually opened and built the models but still have a valid GW receipt then you get +1VP per box. (+2/ + 3 +10VP as per the categories above). Why are you actually playing with the models?
If your opponent can prove you bought the models 2nd hand then you roll 2D6 + 10 and remove that many eBayed models at the start of the battle.
Those GW receipt must be burned on the Alter of GW to gain VP. won't want people buying a bunch of boxes and then return to the store after the game or complain box contents are defective.
mikhaila wrote: Agreed. GW does NOTHING these days that makes sense business wise. Know what they have told me as a retailer? "Look at the poster in WD that says May 24th on the back". That's it. Won't even fething admit that 6th edition is on the way. The week before I asked about it, told nothing on the horizon, and re-ordered starter sets. Starter sets that the next week they took out of their stores and advise me not to sell. (Won't be eating them, one of their multiple personalities is generous and will probably credit me on them.)
I've been begging for information. Something confirmed that will let me plan a launch event for the new edition. Demo games, food, all night ironman painting, etc. The things i used to do when I'd order 100-200 of a new edition. Can't do that kind of stuff with a weeks notice. Hell, if I even put up the rumors from Dakka on my website with a 'wink wink, nudge nudge' to get pre-orders in, I"d be violating their current terms of sale.
So I don't know about 6th edition, no such beast. No planning for non existant product launch. And they wonder why # of units sold per product is going down.............
And people complain when I make negative comments on GW management
I personally enjoy your criticisms of GW, but is that really a fair shot to level at mikhaila? His complaints about GW's business practices have an inherent legitimacy because those practices have an effect on his livelihood. Your complaints are like most of ours, which are gripes of frustration from fans about a game. We are entitled to our frustration, but we aren't losing much if GW does a boneheaded thing. mikhaila potentially can and does lose money when GW does something stupid. Not really the same thing at all in my opinion.
To broadly address those making the point that percentages = fewer big models sold! therefore GW won't do it, I'd throw this out as a counterpoint.
Sales have fallen, up until Xmas at least, we currently do not know if the subsequent period has been better or worse. The "interim interim" statement certainly tells us it hasn't been hugely better, or they'd likely have said.
Therefore, while not necessarily the only choice, might one way of addressing the falling sales be focusing on making the main game more playable, with the aim of attracting new and returning players and encouraging those still playing to invest more? Certainly a % based force org would be one way of moving things in that direction, it certainly seems to have had a relatively positive reaction here, at least in theory.
Of course, I'm sure "buy moar plastic" will be the direction taken, but making the game more playable, and more popular, would certainly be one way of generating more cash.
undertow wrote: If that's true I'm going to have to seriously re-think my choice of armies. I've played Daemons for the last three years and I've almost never taken more than the minimum required troops. I dislike horde-ish armies, and being forced to take 800 points of Daemon troops (which aren't that good) would have me thinking of switching armies or even just not playing for a while.
I think I might enjoy playing that way... Right now I don't do it because the way the game plays means I need big scary stuff to deal with my opponent's big scary stuff. But if they couldn't bring as much, then it wouldn't be so bad bringing more troops, especially if there's no limit of 6 units. Every Tzeentch Horrors unit is a psyker, you can throw out spells left and right. Plaguebearers are tough buggers that could hold objectives. Bloodletters shred Marines (especially if they get to charge). There's some good stuff you can do with them, and assuming you don't roll pathetic like I do, the 5+ inv. save for everyone is pretty decent in keeping them alive (sure, not as awesome as 3+ armor, just eh, better than 5+ armor or 6+ armor). It's worth at least trying before you throw it out the window.
I own about 30 Pink Horrors, 10 Plaguebearers, 10 Daemonettes and 20 Bloodletters. That's not enough to run a 2000 point list even if I use all of them, which I wouldn't because Bloodletters are (IMO of course) horrible. All of those troops are 650 points, and granted I could swell that a bit by upgrading a model to a squad leader type and buying some Daemonic Rewards. Even if the limit is 25% I'm just not interested in fielding that many Daemon troops.
A switch to a percentage system, like many sweeping changes will disproportionately hurt some armies that have sub-par troops and will benefit others that have either amazing troops, options to make other unit types troops, or good dedicated transports that will swell up their troop point total. If there are problems with the game as it's currently played, those specific problems should be fixed instead of tacking on another rule system that will kill some power builds while creating new ones.
Percentage systems do not work to create balance, they never have. I play far more fantasy than I do 40k. You still have so many armys that are far more viable at a competitive level because the units they can take are just so much more effective than what competing armies can. Instead of seeing a few riptides maybe you'll see a sea of skaven slaves that for such a low point cost is going to tie up just about anything. I keep seeing so many people in this thread saying that if you have to take more troops that 40k would be so much better! No, in 40k troops imo are some of the most poorly balanced units across all of the codexes. Forcing you to take more of a bad unit against someones good unit doesn't fix anything.
ZOMG! GeeDubya posted a 40k pic! This proves Half Life 3 is coming soon! Is there some hidden meaning in the Aquilla that I'm missing because GW uses that icon probably dozens of times each month in their various communications.
Tacohunter wrote: Percentage systems do not work to create balance, they never have. I play far more fantasy than I do 40k. You still have so many armys that are far more viable at a competitive level because the units they can take are just so much more effective than what competing armies can. Instead of seeing a few riptides maybe you'll see a sea of skaven slaves that for such a low point cost is going to tie up just about anything. I keep seeing so many people in this thread saying that if you have to take more troops that 40k would be so much better! No, in 40k troops imo are some of the most poorly balanced units across all of the codexes. Forcing you to take more of a bad unit against someones good unit doesn't fix anything.
40k needs to be rebuilt from the ground up.
Agreed, but at this point it isn't going to happen, and percentages would help balance. I don't think anyone sees it as a panacea, but it would be a step in the right direction.
That's speaking as a Flying Circus Daemon player most of the time. Sure, it will hurt some players more than others, but if you do collect your armies the "GW way" (ie have a collection of models rather than a 'list') you're most likely going to be ok with perhaps a few tweaks. This is something I don't actually disagree with, I've always felt the 'right' way to collect an army is to choose a faction that really speaks to you and spend time and effort into growing it, rather than just picking whatever is most efficacious at the time and buying whatever is best from that army.
Now, I'm not saying that people shouldn't approach army building with that approach, people must do whatever they feel they need to to get the most from their hobby time and money, but one has to acknowledge that it isn't the way GW want people to be buying armies, they want them to be buying large and extensive collections, and this could be a way of encouraging/rewarding this approach.
Every edition change requires you to buy something new to keep your army up to date. Things change, we follow. 6th was flyers and MCs. 5th was mech spam, etc. If the percentage thing is true, 7th might be a return to mass troops.
GW wants us to buy stuff every time a new book comes out. I’d doubt any rumor that would imply I could play my army as-is, unchanged.
Well, not me and my army personally. I play a TAC Ultramarine army with a little bit of everything. If it gets to the point where I can’t field my army, GW will have shot themselves in the foot in a mind-breakingly epic fashion.
ZOMG! GeeDubya posted a 40k pic! This proves Half Life 3 is coming soon! Is there some hidden meaning in the Aquilla that I'm missing because GW uses that icon probably dozens of times each month in their various communications.
It's like the sign of the Illuminati.. that icon is watching you!
ZOMG! GeeDubya posted a 40k pic! This proves Half Life 3 is coming soon! Is there some hidden meaning in the Aquilla that I'm missing because GW uses that icon probably dozens of times each month in their various communications.
Haha... I was thinking the same thing. The Aquilla proves nothing.
Think i'm going to stick with 6/6.5 update rumours. A brand-spanking new edition with new FOC within such a short time-frame seems way out of whack, even for GW, especially half-way through updating 5th-6th codicies. They can still make money updating the rulebook with escalation/stronghold plus the errata/faq's/dataslates/fluff/etc.
I can still see the Dark Vengeance kit on the GW oz website as well. Not that this means much but you would think if a new BA/Ork or AM/E boxset was incoming they would be pulled or no longer available alongside the rulebook. That and I queried a stockist i used last week (before i even heard the rumours) who was happily ordering in new DV boxsets as i was looking to finally pick one up.
All in all, I think it'll be more a question of whether we are paying for updates for those who already have bought 6th (ie, all of us) or we get the updates for free as pdf/digital update.
Lords of War wrote:A new Realm of Battle board will be released with 7th edition. This board will have a "40k/City" theme and will be 6' x 4' with a travel bag like the current Realm of Battle Board.
Lords of War wrote:Is calling BS on the whole "percentages" for your forces in 40K.
