Brother SRM wrote:
I sincerely don't believe it, really. Given the lead time for development, printing, and so on, this would mean they were writing 7th edition by the time 6th edition was hitting the shelves.

Unless it really is just a re-release of 6th with FAQ amendments included in the rules and rolling Escalation into the book.

Which would actually make some sense.
The tone in this thread seems to have shifted to "It's definitely a god damn new edition!" in the last few days. Have new rumours emerged?

Either way I'm holding off on buying any 6th edition rules at all (having just tentatively stepped back in to 40k).

 plastictrees wrote:
Which would actually make some sense.
The tone in this thread seems to have shifted to "It's definitely a god damn new edition!" in the last few days. Have new rumours emerged?

Either way I'm holding off on buying any 6th edition rules at all (having just tentatively stepped back in to 40k).

40K Radio, who can do no wrong rumour wise recently, have it as a bona fide 7th edition for launch in May. That's what has shifted the tone.

Thanks, must have missed that while spinning in my chair and squealing at the sight of the Knight and Infinity Geckos.

 puma713 wrote:

 Brother SRM wrote:
I sincerely don't believe it, really. Given the lead time for development, printing, and so on, this would mean they were writing 7th edition by the time 6th edition was hitting the shelves.

Unless it really is just a re-release of 6th with FAQ amendments included in the rules and rolling Escalation into the book.

Yeah, I'd believe that, but anything more than that would be baffling to me. Back in late 3rd/4th edition, they released second edition printings of a number of codices containing some FAQ and errata and fixes and the like, so there's definitely precedent, just not recently.

 Kosake wrote:
This would mean orks wouldn't get an update for 2 editions. Did any other faction ever jump two whole editions without a new codex?

Sororitas got not a single new miniature since 3rd edition.
Wood Elves still have a 6th edition armybook, with 8th edition out 4 years.

If GW managers really do a new 40k edition after less than 2 years, the company deserves a new logo:

Kroothawk, you made my day ^^

 Kroothawk wrote:

 Kosake wrote:
This would mean orks wouldn't get an update for 2 editions. Did any other faction ever jump two whole editions without a new codex?

Sororitas got not a single new miniature since 3rd edition.
Wood Elves still have a 6th edition armybook, with 8th edition out 4 years.

If GW managers really do a new 40k edition after less than 2 years, the company deserves a new logo:

Nice Your C&D will be arriving shortly.

Kroothawk, well done. Money making is GW's primay motive and now they are paniking.

 wuestenfux wrote:
Kroothawk, well done. Money making is GW's primay motive and now they are paniking.

Yes. You have succesfully explained Kroothawk's joke.

Still thinking that it's going to be a 6.1 personally, which is neither news nor a rumour.

 plastictrees wrote:

 wuestenfux wrote:
Kroothawk, well done. Money making is GW's primay motive and now they are paniking.

Yes. You have succesfully explained Kroothawk's joke.

Still thinking that it's going to be a 6.1 personally, which is neither news nor a rumour.

I yhink even if they call it 7th it will be more like a 6.1, like D&D 2nd was more like a 1.5

So let me guess:

Take 6th, add in superheavies and expanded fortification/bunker assault rules, buff close combat, add more standard missions, remove IC tanking wounds mechanic, fix challenges and boom you got 7th.

 Sir Arun wrote:
So let me guess:

Take 6th, add in superheavies and expanded fortification/bunker assault rules, buff close combat, add more standard missions, remove IC tanking wounds mechanic, fix challenges and boom you got 7th.

Nah, that doesn't actually sound too bad!

 Sir Arun wrote:
So let me guess:

Take 6th, add in superheavies and expanded fortification/bunker assault rules and boom you got 7th.

Fixed to reflect the most possible outcome .

 Sir Arun wrote:
So let me guess:

Take 6th, add in superheavies and expanded fortification/bunker assault rules, buff close combat, add more standard missions, remove IC tanking wounds mechanic, fix challenges and boom you got 7th.

That's probably closer to the truth.

 Sir Arun wrote:
So let me guess:

Take 6th, add in superheavies and expanded fortification/bunker assault rules, buff close combat, add more standard missions, remove IC tanking wounds mechanic, fix challenges and boom you got 7th.

It's not like any edition change after 2nd edition has been much more complicated than that. A few minor tweaks here and there that might push the focus of the game a bit towards a specific playstyle. 6th didn't add anything to the game except flyers, allies and fortifications, all of which were bad for balance but also giving a lot more options for players. In a non-competitive environment there isn't a problem. Like you said, 7th will most likely just add superheavies and even more fortifications. It'll again be bad for balance, and even better for those who just want to have a good time. And as a tournament player I'm not saying a competitive game wouldn't be having a good time. I'm using the GW definition of good time, which is taking a random collection of models with few or no synergies whatsoever and playing drunk against your best buddy. It's not that bad.

 Therion wrote:
. It'll again be bad for balance, and even better for those who just want to have a good time. .

Making the game less balanced isn't 'better' for those just playing casually. It's worse, because it increases the odds of your casual list getting brutally stomped by another casual list that just happens to include something wildly unbalanced.


That's why the current direction of the game is so baffling - Balance benefits everybody. This apparent attack on tournament play that GW are currently on, by seeing just how massively crazy they can make the game, is just cutting off their nose to spite their face.

 plastictrees wrote:
Which would actually make some sense.
The tone in this thread seems to have shifted to "It's definitely a god damn new edition!" in the last few days. Have new rumours emerged?

As said, it was always 7th Edition with 40K Radio, who broke the original rumour. The rest was just BOLS noise.

That said, what is a "proper" new Edition of 40K these days? It's not like the changes from 4th to 5th or 5th to 6th were any more massive than "assimilate expansion, tweak some rules, add more USR".

I don't think any rumour has ever claimed it was a "proper" new edition breaking all ties in the sense that the new editions of 1st to 2nd or 2nd to 3rd have been.

 insaniak wrote:

 Therion wrote:
. It'll again be bad for balance, and even better for those who just want to have a good time. .

Making the game less balanced isn't 'better' for those just playing casually. It's worse, because it increases the odds of your casual list getting brutally stomped by another casual list that just happens to include something wildly unbalanced.


That's why the current direction of the game is so baffling - Balance benefits everybody. This apparent attack on tournament play that GW are currently on, by seeing just how massively crazy they can make the game, is just cutting off their nose to spite their face.

What you said only holds true only in general. It's not true in GW games. Despite what people try to claim every edition, the game is horribly imbalanced and has been for well over a decade. It's imbalanced to the point of being impossible to be taken seriously. When a game is impossible to be taken seriously, adding more variety to it, no matter how imbalanced, can't be a bad thing anymore. You don't fix 40K by not adding superheavies and new fortifications. You fix it by deleting all of your codices and rulebooks, firing every single one of your game designers and hiring some competitive people and giving them a year or two to work on a better product. Since you can agree that won't happen, I'm satisfied with just some more variety. I don't really blame GW anymore for creating imbalanced stuff, and I think going wild is much better than desperately trying to maintain the poor illusion that your game is all serious, when it never has been and the points costs of everything are all over the place. They don't have the realistic option to start afresh with every codex, expansion, rulebook and supplement invalidated, so they'll just push the game even further into anarchy land with dozens of legal army lists and crazy games.

A few reasons very specific to miniature gaming exist why a lot of players would rather opt to just keep the current state of horrible imbalance and impossibility to be taken seriously, instead of wanting new imbalanced stuff. One of them is that new models cost money, and they rather keep the old bad game than spend 500 additional dollars to play the new bad game. For me, the only excuse to play games as bad as 40K is that atleast new radical stuff keeps getting introduced to it that keeps changing the landscape.

I would consider the changes 6th did to 5th's meta far more drastic than what 5th did to 4th's meta.

My wishlist, but I'm sure little to none of this would actually be addressed:

-4th Edition terrain rules, but add something for height requirements (IE: titans hiding behind tiny ruins)
-size categories for models
-heavily restrict the allies chart
-fix the silly mission/terrain set up rules
-wound allocation
-modify D weapons for non Apoc style games; I want to see the big cool models on the table, but folks are so panicked by Stronghold/Escalation, a lot of folks just refuses to even play it

 Sir Arun wrote:
So let me guess:

Take 6th, add in superheavies and expanded fortification/bunker assault rules, buff close combat, add more standard missions, remove IC tanking wounds mechanic, fix challenges and boom you got 7th.

Also remove battle brothers.

That would be awesome if they did all the above!

bodazoka wrote:

 Sir Arun wrote:
So let me guess:

Take 6th, add in superheavies and expanded fortification/bunker assault rules, buff close combat, add more standard missions, remove IC tanking wounds mechanic, fix challenges and boom you got 7th.

Also remove battle brothers.

That would be awesome if they did all the above!

Indeed. 40k's problem right now is that it is becoming more and more like MTG and devolving into insane builds that ruin the tournament (and oftentimes even FLGS) scene. GW prodding you to buy stuff you otherwise NEVER would have simply because the combo you can build is uber-awesome is a filthy, but efficient marketing strategy that I absolutely despise.

Now that Imperial Knights will join the fray and superheavies are just itching to get auto-included in the near future, I am sad to see how 40k is losing its original flair and simply become a GIB US UR MONIEZ FOR MOAR DAKKA fest.

At least 5th ed 40k had the decency to reserve this madness for Apoc scale battles, complete with their own hardcover rulebook.

Ever since the Riptide was released have things been going downhill. I've read many battlereports and its funny how in most of them the Riptide is still standing by the end of the game, nevermind lists that are rocking two or more. A unit that is more or less guaranteed to last an entire battle is usually an auto-include, isnt it? There are plenty of multi-wound MCs in 40k but most of them are either 3+ armor save or have no invuln. When one MC is 2+ and rocks a 3++ inv. you know somethings not right. Of course some people say the whole downhill thing began when GW decided to introduce Flyers into the game, others say it began ever since Mat Ward's Grey Knights codex was released (and with it the dreadknight), some go even further back and say deepstriking Blood Angel Land Raiders started the entire power creep, but either way 40k has been going on an ever increasing power level trip. Only Grav weaponry has now started to pose a serious threat to any and all multi-wound MCs deciding to stick around till endgame, but Grav Cents can be easily outmaneuvered/out-LoS'd and grav bikers lack the punch unless fielded en masse, which brings us back to the grav gun biker command squad and tanking IH CM and deathstar units.

Especially as there's now a lot of "One Shot" action going on.

There's very little 'fun' to be had in that...

 Sir Arun wrote:
I would consider the changes 6th did to 5th's meta far more drastic than what 5th did to 4th's meta.

Agreed. 4th to 5th seemed like a streamlining of the rules to make the game quicker and easier to maneuver. 6th felt like a new game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Alpharius wrote:
Especially as there's now a lot of "One Shot" action going on.

There's very little 'fun' to be had in that...

And randomness. I know that I certainly don't speak for anyone but myself, but I hate randomness. The more randomness in basic rules that you add to a layered and structured game like 40k, the less fun it is. I know that they were aiming for more fun through randomness, but where you might think it adds a sense of luck to the game, it adds imbalance. Why should I destroy your psyker warlord on turn 1 simply because I am running daemons? Why should some of the most powerful psykers in the universe not be able to summon the powers they want at will?

 puma713 wrote:


And randomness. I know that I certainly don't speak for anyone but myself, but I hate randomness. The more randomness in basic rules that you add to a layered and structured game like 40k, the less fun it is. I know that they were aiming for more fun through randomness, but where you might think it adds a sense of luck to the game, it adds imbalance. Why should I destroy your psyker warlord on turn 1 simply because I am running daemons? Why should some of the most powerful psykers in the universe not be able to summon the powers they want at will?

It's very hard to argue against randomness when the main part of the game involves random rolls to hit, wound and save.

Luckily, in 7th you will randomly roll for your forces, like back in Rogue Trader days. And just to make sure you maximize your purchasing, GW will also include tables to randomly roll which army you will play come game time.

 Stormonu wrote:

 puma713 wrote:


And randomness. I know that I certainly don't speak for anyone but myself, but I hate randomness. The more randomness in basic rules that you add to a layered and structured game like 40k, the less fun it is. I know that they were aiming for more fun through randomness, but where you might think it adds a sense of luck to the game, it adds imbalance. Why should I destroy your psyker warlord on turn 1 simply because I am running daemons? Why should some of the most powerful psykers in the universe not be able to summon the powers they want at will?

It's very hard to argue against randomness when the main part of the game involves random rolls to hit, wound and save.

Randomness in rolls to hit, wound and save are what make the game what it is - that is not what I am talking about. That randomness has been present since the game's inception. Me randomly rolling an 11 on 2d6 to destroy your most powerful psyker and giving me First Blood and Slay the Warlord before the game has even gotten underway - that is not fun nor fair to either side. Albeit an extreme example, but a more accurate example of what I am referring to.

I'd love to see "levels" of rules, personally.

Level 1 takes out flyers and certain units (like Riptides, Imperial Knights, and Wraithknights), level 2 puts them in, level 3 adds in Formations and Super Heavyies, and Level 4 is anything goes.

Pipe dream, but hey.

 puma713 wrote:

 Stormonu wrote:

 puma713 wrote:


And randomness. I know that I certainly don't speak for anyone but myself, but I hate randomness. The more randomness in basic rules that you add to a layered and structured game like 40k, the less fun it is. I know that they were aiming for more fun through randomness, but where you might think it adds a sense of luck to the game, it adds imbalance. Why should I destroy your psyker warlord on turn 1 simply because I am running daemons? Why should some of the most powerful psykers in the universe not be able to summon the powers they want at will?

It's very hard to argue against randomness when the main part of the game involves random rolls to hit, wound and save.

Randomness in rolls to hit, wound and save are what make the game what it is - that is not what I am talking about. That randomness has been present since the game's inception. Me randomly rolling an 11 on 2d6 to destroy your most powerful psyker and giving me First Blood and Slay the Warlord before the game has even gotten underway - that is not fun nor fair to either side. Albeit an extreme example, but a more accurate example of what I am referring to.

Speak for yourself, I think that's hilarious and very fun. I love it when things that aren't supposed to happen do happen - it's what makes the games epic and memorable. Randomness at times COULD be really annoying but honestly if you're taking something that is built on being random (like a SAG) then you have no room to complain.

 ntdars wrote:

Speak for yourself, I think that's hilarious and very fun. I love it when things that aren't supposed to happen do happen - it's what makes the games epic and memorable. Randomness at times COULD be really annoying but honestly if you're taking something that is built on being random (like a SAG) then you have no room to complain.

 puma713 wrote:

I know that I certainly don't speak for anyone but myself, but I hate randomness.

Do you at least read the page you're on? Or just the last post?

 Stormonu wrote:
It's very hard to argue against randomness when the main part of the game involves random rolls to hit, wound and save..

It's really not.

There are places where randomness is appropriate. Rolling to try to kill someone is one of those.

But having, say, a Warlord chart where you have an equal chance of rolling something interesting but not too gamebreaking, something insanely powerful, or an ability that you character already has.. that's bad game design.

If you're going to have random things that affect the game like that, then each of the possibilities should be more or less equal in value. Rolling for random Warlord Traits and Psychic Powers, as they currently stand, leaves us in a situation where you might as well also randomly determine the points limit for each army, because the result of those random rolls can drastically alter the effectiveness of your army.


(Having said that, given the way 6th ed is going, it wouldn't at all surprise me if GW decide to introduce a random modifier to your army list before the game starts, to represent combat attrition or the vagaries of wartime match-ups in a 'cinematic' way.)

 insaniak wrote:

 Stormonu wrote:
It's very hard to argue against randomness when the main part of the game involves random rolls to hit, wound and save..

It's really not.

There are places where randomness is appropriate. Rolling to try to kill someone is one of those.

But having, say, a Warlord chart where you have an equal chance of rolling something interesting but not too gamebreaking, something insanely powerful, or an ability that you character already has.. that's bad game design.

If you're going to have random things that affect the game like that, then each of the possibilities should be more or less equal in value. Rolling for random Warlord Traits and Psychic Powers, as they currently stand, leaves us in a situation where you might as well also randomly determine the points limit for each army, because the result of those random rolls can drastically alter the effectiveness of your army.


(Having said that, given the way 6th ed is going, it wouldn't at all surprise me if GW decide to introduce a random modifier to your army list before the game starts, to represent combat attrition or the vagaries of wartime match-ups in a 'cinematic' way.)

This, this, and this.

There always needs to be a degree of dice rolling for things like morale tests or shooting effectiveness. You shouldn't be rolling to see if your warlord's head explodes before the match even starts with no way to counter it.

 insaniak wrote:

 Therion wrote:
. It'll again be bad for balance, and even better for those who just want to have a good time. .

Making the game less balanced isn't 'better' for those just playing casually. It's worse, because it increases the odds of your casual list getting brutally stomped by another casual list that just happens to include something wildly unbalanced.


That's why the current direction of the game is so baffling - Balance benefits everybody. This apparent attack on tournament play that GW are currently on, by seeing just how massively crazy they can make the game, is just cutting off their nose to spite their face.

Exactly. This idea that balance is only important in tournaments is nonsense. If you're gaming with just a few close friends you can do whatever you want, but if you're ever going to play in a wider group or somewhere with pick-up play then balance is key. I'm not bothered about winning a game, but I'd like to start the game feeling like there's a reasonable chance of making my objects rather than realising that it's a foregone conclusion because my opponent (whom I may never have played before) brings out some broken unit I don't have any counter to.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Therion wrote:
What you said only holds true only in general. It's not true in GW games. Despite what people try to claim every edition, the game is horribly imbalanced and has been for well over a decade. It's imbalanced to the point of being impossible to be taken seriously. When a game is impossible to be taken seriously, adding more variety to it, no matter how imbalanced, can't be a bad thing anymore. You don't fix 40K by not adding superheavies and new fortifications. You fix it by deleting all of your codices and rulebooks, firing every single one of your game designers and hiring some competitive people and giving them a year or two to work on a better product. Since you can agree that won't happen, I'm satisfied with just some more variety. I don't really blame GW anymore for creating imbalanced stuff, and I think going wild is much better than desperately trying to maintain the poor illusion that your game is all serious, when it never has been and the points costs of everything are all over the place. They don't have the realistic option to start afresh with every codex, expansion, rulebook and supplement invalidated, so they'll just push the game even further into anarchy land with dozens of legal army lists and crazy games.

A few reasons very specific to miniature gaming exist why a lot of players would rather opt to just keep the current state of horrible imbalance and impossibility to be taken seriously, instead of wanting new imbalanced stuff. One of them is that new models cost money, and they rather keep the old bad game than spend 500 additional dollars to play the new bad game. For me, the only excuse to play games as bad as 40K is that atleast new radical stuff keeps getting introduced to it that keeps changing the landscape.

It's definitely got problems, but that doesn't excuse making them even worse or not trying to improve things at all. I dare say it could do with a ground-up re-write though.

Assuming Lords of War makes it into the main rule book I'm quite interested in how this is going to affect pick up games.

Tournaments can of course ban whatever they like and everybody knows that upfront so can plan around it so I do not see this having a major impact on them.

However if it is part of the main rule book it is not so easy to say you do not want to play with something upfront for a pick up game. I really hope GW make Lords of War scale based on the total points value being played as it is in FW's 30k rule books. This means if you want to avoid Lords of War you play one point under that limit as you can do now with the double FOC.

Forcing people to play against things they don't want to is not good for the long term health of the game as if you are unhappy why play?

I'd like to see every extra book/dataslate/codex etc you pick stuff from after the first cost points (100-200 each)

Since allies are basically being taken to plug holes in your main forces capabilities the ability to do so should cost you

It would also cut down on the crazy mixed forces the formations now allow

 azreal13 wrote:
My feelings really depend on the motivation.

It's very easy to be cyncial with GW, but the fact is it appears that they are no longer making money the way they were. If 6th has really seen a decline in sales of product, everything hinges on whether 7th is a cynical cash grab or a genuine attempt to redirect their trajectory.

There are signs that the message is getting through, even if the execution of some of their ideas has been a little clumsy.

I'll remain neutral until we have some more idea of what is actually going to change, hell, they might make the most playable and fun edition of 40K ever completely by accident!

In one sense everything that GW does is a "cynical cash grab". They are a grown-up's toy company whose products are pure luxury and offer few redeeming features. History, strategy, tactics, DIY construction and related hobby skills, are all better served by other companies.

Obviously people like the fluff and the models, and why not? If that's your bag, fair play to you.

The rules, well, IMO they are going downhill.

The Ally rules were clearly a mistake from a gameplay point of view. Ditto the Flyer and Super-heavy rules. If they all were left as options it would be all right but they won't be, because GW's method is to write the rules to promote sales of kits. Thus I have low expectations of 6.5 or 7th edition.

I have no issue with the inclusion of allies, super heavies or flyers in the regular game... It's the implementation of them that I don't like.

Battle Brothers should have not made it past playtesting. Including units from more than one army is fine, but they should be distinct components on the table, not sharing each other's rules.

And if you're going to include super heavy models, or models that can only be harmed by certain types of weaponry, then every army needs ready access to options that can successfully counter such things, without having to specifically tailor a list to them. Skyfire should have been added as an optional weapon mode for all missile launchers, pintle weapons and skimmers, and something akin to the old 'lucky shot' rules from the 3rd(? maybe 4th) ed Armoured Company rules is needed to balance out big vehicles for those armies that struggle against armour.

 insaniak wrote:
I have no issue with the inclusion of allies, super heavies or flyers in the regular game... It's the implementation of them that I don't like.

Battle Brothers should have not made it past playtesting. Including units from more than one army is fine, but they should be distinct components on the table, not sharing each other's rules.

And if you're going to include super heavy models, or models that can only be harmed by certain types of weaponry, then every army needs ready access to options that can successfully counter such things, without having to specifically tailor a list to them. Skyfire should have been added as an optional weapon mode for all missile launchers, pintle weapons and skimmers, and something akin to the old 'lucky shot' rules from the 3rd(? maybe 4th) ed Armoured Company rules is needed to balance out big vehicles for those armies that struggle against armour.

The implementation has always been the problem and thats because of the way GW playtests. They don't spam units, they don't use 'broken' combos, and they wonder, amazed, when people actually do in the game. Its the old 'the way GW intended' the game to be played, versus how people 'actually' play.

GW has never listened to that feedback, or if they do you see the wild swings and roundabouts as things go from useful to useless to useful (rhino rush, min/max squads, assault - 3rd, TAR, now, etc).

For myself, I don't like the use of Lords of War and superheavies in 40k. They don't look right on the table, tend to use up a lot of table space, and suspend my disbelief in the game (such as I'm able to maintain). Couple that with being unable to keep up with the releases - I went from buying every codex and supplement to barely buying the codexes for the armies I do play.

 Therion wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 Therion wrote:
. It'll again be bad for balance, and even better for those who just want to have a good time. .

Making the game less balanced isn't 'better' for those just playing casually. It's worse, because it increases the odds of your casual list getting brutally stomped by another casual list that just happens to include something wildly unbalanced.


That's why the current direction of the game is so baffling - Balance benefits everybody. This apparent attack on tournament play that GW are currently on, by seeing just how massively crazy they can make the game, is just cutting off their nose to spite their face.

What you said only holds true only in general. It's not true in GW games. Despite what people try to claim every edition, the game is horribly imbalanced and has been for well over a decade. It's imbalanced to the point of being impossible to be taken seriously. When a game is impossible to be taken seriously, adding more variety to it, no matter how imbalanced, can't be a bad thing anymore. You don't fix 40K by not adding superheavies and new fortifications. You fix it by deleting all of your codices and rulebooks, firing every single one of your game designers and hiring some competitive people and giving them a year or two to work on a better product. Since you can agree that won't happen, I'm satisfied with just some more variety. I don't really blame GW anymore for creating imbalanced stuff, and I think going wild is much better than desperately trying to maintain the poor illusion that your game is all serious, when it never has been and the points costs of everything are all over the place. They don't have the realistic option to start afresh with every codex, expansion, rulebook and supplement invalidated, so they'll just push the game even further into anarchy land with dozens of legal army lists and crazy games.

A few reasons very specific to miniature gaming exist why a lot of players would rather opt to just keep the current state of horrible imbalance and impossibility to be taken seriously, instead of wanting new imbalanced stuff. One of them is that new models cost money, and they rather keep the old bad game than spend 500 additional dollars to play the new bad game. For me, the only excuse to play games as bad as 40K is that atleast new radical stuff keeps getting introduced to it that keeps changing the landscape.

Therion, I think you, the design studio and I are in a similar place. Acceptance.

At this point, I'd rather see some richness and craziness in the ruleset than a blander, more streamlined game in the name of balance that isn't really balanced anyway. (See 3rd ed., 4th ed., 5th ed.) If I can't have balance, drop the pretense and open the floodgates. Bring back the sub-armies like Iyanden, etc. Bring back Legion of the Damned as a playable army. Give me rules for Epic-type vehicles. And then let me decide if I want to use them or not. Hell, give me back my Genestealer Cult rules (are you listening, GW?).

"It is what it is" is a somewhat nonsensical statement, but one that I think applies in this case. Warhammer 40K is what it is, and it always has been. IMO, the reason some of you folks feel like you're beating your heads against a wall is because you haven't accepted this simple truth.

If you can get past that, I think some of you will see that it's actually a pretty good time in the hobby...lots of nice kits and far more exploration of the 40K universe in terms of fluff and rules than we've had in a long time. For structured and tournament play...yeah, sure, it's a bit of a mess. But it always has been...the difference now is only a matter of degree.

Ultimately, people still seem to stick to the GW rules.


Look at the thread on the GW Knights.

A lot of the people over there are excited about the GW Knights, looking to add some to their collection. Fair enough, it's a GW release that seems to hit the sweet spot of many people.

But...

Almost as many people say they are excited about the Knights, but will use DreamForge Leviathans, PP Colossals, etc.. as actual models. In short, there's a fair share of people thrilled about the rules (as in, I get to play this in 40K, not necessarily the specific point-values, combat-stats, etc..), even if they don't plan on buying the model.

Inversely, I don't think I saw a single comment along the lines of "awesome model, I'll be using it to proxy a Warmachine Colossal or with the DreamForge rules, because GW's game is crap).

In short, people seem to be excited about playing the new Knight model in 40K or excited about playing a 3rd party model in 40K. Nobody really is into it for the model, but with another ("superiour") game. The consumer "signal" that sends to GW is pretty clear-cut, no?

So, is this actually going to be called 7th edition? Or is it literally an update to 6th? I ask because if it is an update then the digital book should be updated. Otherwise we have to purchase a new rulebook.

 Zweischneid wrote:
Ultimately, people still seem to stick to the GW rules.


Look at the thread on the GW Knights.

A lot of the people over there are excited about the GW Knights, looking to add some to their collection. Fair enough, it's a GW release that seems to hit the sweet spot of many people.

But...

Almost as many people say they are excited about the Knights, but will use DreamForge Leviathans, PP Colossals, etc.. as actual models. In short, there's a fair share of people thrilled about the rules (as in, I get to play this in 40K, not necessarily the specific point-values, combat-stats, etc..), even if they don't plan on buying the model.

Inversely, I don't think I saw a single comment along the lines of "awesome model, I'll be using it to proxy a Warmachine Colossal or with the DreamForge rules, because GW's game is crap).

In short, people seem to be excited about playing the new Knight model in 40K or excited about playing a 3rd party model in 40K. Nobody really is into it for the model, but with another ("superiour") game. The consumer "signal" that sends to GW is pretty clear-cut, no?

I don't believe Dreamforge have rules?

My experience is that people who play other games are happier to use official models as they want to support their chosen system. It's the same logic as to why it is near impossible to find anyone offering recasts of non-GW models, goodwill breeds loyalty.

Many people will buy an awesome model such as the Knight, with no intention of ever playing it.

Some people will buy one under the misapprehension that they will ever find an opponent willing to let them field it.

Participating in anything does not preclude a person from having an opinion on how it could be better. Nobody is under any obligation to be a rabid, unthinking fanboy just because they use a product made by a company.

Some people live in communities where 40K is the only outlet for them to indulge their hobby and interests.

40K is the most popular system in the world, that doesn't mean it is the best or can't be improved.

 azreal13 wrote:


I don't believe Dreamforge have rules?

Yeah they do.

 azreal13 wrote:

My experience is that people who play other games are happier to use official models as they want to support their chosen system. It's the same logic as to why it is near impossible to find anyone offering recasts of non-GW models, goodwill breeds loyalty.

There's a fairly dedicated "Deazone 40K" project(-community) right here on Dakka.

 azreal13 wrote:

Many people will buy an awesome model such as the Knight, with no intention of ever playing it.

Fair enough. And lots of people bought the DF Leviathan just for painting too.

Still, there appears to be (simply judging from the forum-discussion, ill-advised as it may be) a sizable group of people who will sink money into DF because (!) there are now GW rules for it, but wouldn't have bought a DF Leviathan, if GW never made Knight rules. That means there are people out there who buy Dreamforge (Puppet Wars, etc.., rather than GW), paint it with ... say ... Vallejo (rather than Citadel paints), read non-BL fiction, yet remain rooted in the 40K-hobby solely by the rules (which the internet has marked out as the allegedly "weakest spot" in GW's overall offering).

If people who already "moved away" from GW for paints, miniatures and background-fiction, yet "stick with" GW for (solely?) the rules, these rules must have an intrinsic appeal in and by themselves, as these clearly aren't the (mythical?) "uninformed customers" who don't have a clue that anything beyond GW exists.

 gorgon wrote:
Therion, I think you, the design studio and I are in a similar place. Acceptance.

At this point, I'd rather see some richness and craziness in the ruleset than a blander, more streamlined game in the name of balance that isn't really balanced anyway. (See 3rd ed., 4th ed., 5th ed.) If I can't have balance, drop the pretense and open the floodgates. Bring back the sub-armies like Iyanden, etc. Bring back Legion of the Damned as a playable army. Give me rules for Epic-type vehicles. And then let me decide if I want to use them or not. Hell, give me back my Genestealer Cult rules (are you listening, GW?).

"It is what it is" is a somewhat nonsensical statement, but one that I think applies in this case. Warhammer 40K is what it is, and it always has been. IMO, the reason some of you folks feel like you're beating your heads against a wall is because you haven't accepted this simple truth.

If you can get past that, I think some of you will see that it's actually a pretty good time in the hobby...lots of nice kits and far more exploration of the 40K universe in terms of fluff and rules than we've had in a long time. For structured and tournament play...yeah, sure, it's a bit of a mess. But it always has been...the difference now is only a matter of degree.

It is what it is, but it's not what it was.

People keep saying there are problems for tournaments. Not really. When Grey Knights ruled late 5th, you'd see things like 16 out of the top 20 armies in Adepticon being Grey Knights. Now? Well, now you see Eldar, Tau, Dark Eldar, Space Marines, Necrons, Daemons, and alliances between them at the top. But not just that, you see different builds from those armies too. Tournaments are fine. In fact, they're better than ever.

But casual games? If you went up against one of those transport spam GK armies with your left field super casual army, you'd lose. Sure. But you could at least participate. Unless you'd actively tried to make your army useless, you would kill a decent amount of Rhinos and small squads. But now? You can't play casual armies against Screamerstars, Seer Councils, O'Vesastars, or, worse, Revenant Titans. There's just no point. It's not even a game. It's just dumb.

There's no way you can bring a Revenant to a casual game. Because, for it to even be a game the other player would have to tailor his list to face it. And that tailored list? It's a safe bet it's gonna look a lot like a competitive list. And if you don't tailor? Both players are going to have a bad time.

Casual and competitive games share the same problem: you can't bring certain units. In competitive games, because they suck, and in casual games, because they are too good. And the problem is a result of incompetent game design.

 Zweischneid wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:


I don't believe Dreamforge have rules?

Yeah they do.

 azreal13 wrote:

My experience is that people who play other games are happier to use official models as they want to support their chosen system. It's the same logic as to why it is near impossible to find anyone offering recasts of non-GW models, goodwill breeds loyalty.

There's a fairly dedicated "Deazone 40K" project(-community) right here on Dakka.

 azreal13 wrote:

Many people will buy an awesome model such as the Knight, with no intention of ever playing it.

Fair enough. And lots of people bought the DF Leviathan just for painting too.

Still, there appears to be (simply judging from the forum-discussion, ill-advised as it may be) a sizable group of people who will sink money into DF because (!) there are now GW rules for it, but wouldn't have bought a DF Leviathan, if GW never made Knight rules. That means there are people out there who buy Dreamforge (Puppet Wars, etc.., rather than GW), paint it with ... say ... Vallejo (rather than Citadel paints), read non-BL fiction, yet remain rooted in the 40K-hobby solely by the rules (which the internet has marked out as the allegedly "weakest spot" in GW's overall offering).

If people who already "moved away" from GW for paints, miniatures and background-fiction, yet "stick with" GW for (solely?) the rules, these rules must have an intrinsic appeal in and by themselves, as these clearly aren't the (mythical?) "uninformed customers" who don't have a clue that anything beyond GW exists.

Yeah, they're people like me.

People who have a fairly significant philosophical clash with how GW go about their business, find that their models are frequently poor value or unattractive, but a number of the games they would like to try are simply a no go because there aren't opponents.

People who like to reward companies that are making good value or spectacular sculpts with their business, but really need a vehicle in terms of rules to justify the outlay.

You seem to be asserting that people are sticking with GW rules for their quality, when I will tell you in no uncertain terms it is purely for their ubiquity (or perhaps out of ignorance if they've been inducted into wargaming by GW, go read some comments on Bow or something! there are people out there who really don't know what's going on, uninformed/uninterested customers do exist)

I will, ultimately, buy a Knight because I think it is an awesome looking thing and I specifically enjoy working in larger models, and, in this instance, I feel I should reward GW with my business, because they've done it right (via a discounter of course, I'm not loopy.)

The issue is, there are already dozens of purchases I've made or plan to make that weren't with GW because of all the things I thought they got wrong. The only thing I have little choice in continuing to purchase, if I wish to be able to get in regular games at my club, are the rules. Even then, compared to two years ago when it started as essentially a GW club, there are a lot more options on any given week, so I might be able to keep playing regular games without needing a GW option if they continue to feth up as they have been.

Sure, there may be customers who aren't aware of other games/companies than GW. I simply think that if you know what a DreamForge Leviathan is, possibly own one, you're likely aware of other games as well.

The self-perpetuation of GW's ubiquity is surely one factor, but I doubt it can explain all of it.

Quite the opposite, I've seen quite a few clubs (or sub-groups within clubs) go back to GW after a flash-in-the-pan-few-weeks of Warmachine/Infinity/DZC/whatever left them disillusioned about the "fun" to be had with these alternative games (and with sizable investments of non-GW miniatures, rules and expansions gathering dust somewhere).

It amuses me how you're addressing fewer and fewer of my points with each reply!

Ubiquity explains it ALL. People play 40K because people play 40K, and so on and so on.

That stranglehold will take time to break, but everything I see, both first hand and from other sources, suggests it is happening, bit by bit.

7th, should it happen, really could define GWs future, the Knight is a perfect example of how many people are apparently still willing to buy into GW stuff if its good, their financial report is a perfect example of what happens if they keep on their current path.

Thud wrote:

 gorgon wrote:
Therion, I think you, the design studio and I are in a similar place. Acceptance.

At this point, I'd rather see some richness and craziness in the ruleset than a blander, more streamlined game in the name of balance that isn't really balanced anyway. (See 3rd ed., 4th ed., 5th ed.) If I can't have balance, drop the pretense and open the floodgates. Bring back the sub-armies like Iyanden, etc. Bring back Legion of the Damned as a playable army. Give me rules for Epic-type vehicles. And then let me decide if I want to use them or not. Hell, give me back my Genestealer Cult rules (are you listening, GW?).

"It is what it is" is a somewhat nonsensical statement, but one that I think applies in this case. Warhammer 40K is what it is, and it always has been. IMO, the reason some of you folks feel like you're beating your heads against a wall is because you haven't accepted this simple truth.

If you can get past that, I think some of you will see that it's actually a pretty good time in the hobby...lots of nice kits and far more exploration of the 40K universe in terms of fluff and rules than we've had in a long time. For structured and tournament play...yeah, sure, it's a bit of a mess. But it always has been...the difference now is only a matter of degree.

It is what it is, but it's not what it was.

People keep saying there are problems for tournaments. Not really. When Grey Knights ruled late 5th, you'd see things like 16 out of the top 20 armies in Adepticon being Grey Knights. Now? Well, now you see Eldar, Tau, Dark Eldar, Space Marines, Necrons, Daemons, and alliances between them at the top. But not just that, you see different builds from those armies too. Tournaments are fine. In fact, they're better than ever.

But casual games? If you went up against one of those transport spam GK armies with your left field super casual army, you'd lose. Sure. But you could at least participate. Unless you'd actively tried to make your army useless, you would kill a decent amount of Rhinos and small squads. But now? You can't play casual armies against Screamerstars, Seer Councils, O'Vesastars, or, worse, Revenant Titans. There's just no point. It's not even a game. It's just dumb.

There's no way you can bring a Revenant to a casual game. Because, for it to even be a game the other player would have to tailor his list to face it. And that tailored list? It's a safe bet it's gonna look a lot like a competitive list. And if you don't tailor? Both players are going to have a bad time.

Casual and competitive games share the same problem: you can't bring certain units. In competitive games, because they suck, and in casual games, because they are too good. And the problem is a result of incompetent game design.

You have far more control regarding your matchup in a casual game than in a tournament, so I'm not sure your point makes sense. If it's a friend, you tell him not to bring the seerstar if you're not bringing a similar beatstick. If it's someone you just met at a store, etc., you make the same suggestion, and/or decide whether you accept or decline the game. Additionally, in a casual setting you can at least build your army to face a given beatstick. In a tournament, you end up with your TAC list against the same beatstick.

Therion is correct...past editions had plenty of imbalance. People just forget that they completely stopped bringing most transports to 4th edition games, or most infantry on foot to 5th edition games, etc. Player adaptations to rulesets and the corresponding decisions about their army builds created the illusion of balance in those editions. Bring many 4th edition-style armies to a 5th edition game, or vice versa, and that illusion would be immediately dispelled.

Now, does it all reflect incompetent game design? Perhaps, although I also recognize that the designers don't have the option of blowing things up. Or limiting changes to fine-tuning. The business demands are many and contradictory (i.e. shake things up each edition to encourage more sales, yet simultaneously keep the rules backwards-compatible with old codicies so players aren't left hanging and forced to leave en masse) and don't lend themselves to creating a well-balanced game. At all.

GW being a public multinational with many business pressures means those constraints aren't going to change, so worrying even less about balance and leaving it to the players to sort out might be the most honest approach from the studio that we've had in a while. I get the frustration, but at some point you have to accept and move on. *shrug*

 azreal13 wrote:
It amuses me how you're addressing fewer and fewer of my points with each reply!

Ubiquity explains it ALL. People play 40K because people play 40K, and so on and so on.

Amuses me how you are not even addressing a single one of my points ever.

How could ubiquity explain whole groups and clubs going back to 40K or Fantasy after/in spite of the investment made into other systems?

 gorgon wrote:

You have far more control regarding your matchup in a casual game than in a tournament, so I'm not sure your point makes sense. If it's a friend, you tell him not to bring the seerstar if you're not bringing a similar beatstick.

And what if your opponent tells you to bring something that can beat his beatstick? it isn't like you have more right to tell people what to bring than anyone else. And remember, the "Please don't play this powerful unit because my army sucks even though it can be better." line is dangerously close to the so-called "victim card" that is easily one of the most d*ckish things you can have in an argument.

Wonder what would happen if they put in some kind of diversity rule?

"Every time you choose a unit after the first in your Elite, Fast Attack, Heavy, or HQ, you lose 1 victory point if it replicates a previous pick. Thus, if you pick a unit of Fire Dragons, then pick another unit of Fire Dragons even if armed different, you suffer this point loss."

Then come out and say, "This is a harsh rule, but we have found over the years that playtesting balanced forces doesn't prepare the game for those who simply spam one thing over and over. To encourage diversity, we have enacted this penalty. We think your games will generally be more enjoyable."

So, you can gamble and still go for "Broken Thing Spam", but if you do, you suffer for it. Kind of a built-in handicap rule.

(Obviously, there are soem holes even in this, such as troops spam, but, you gotta start somewhere.)

 Zweischneid wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:
It amuses me how you're addressing fewer and fewer of my points with each reply!

Ubiquity explains it ALL. People play 40K because people play 40K, and so on and so on.

Amuses me how you are not even addressing a single one of my points ever.

How could ubiquity explain whole groups and clubs going back to 40K or Fantasy after/in spite of the investment made into other systems?

Proof? Because GW's ever declining sales certainly doesn't corroborate any of this and the overwhelming majority of anecdotal evidence out there actively supports that the exact opposite is happening...

 Zweischneid wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:
It amuses me how you're addressing fewer and fewer of my points with each reply!

Ubiquity explains it ALL. People play 40K because people play 40K, and so on and so on.

Amuses me how you are not even addressing a single one of my points ever.

How could ubiquity explain whole groups and clubs going back to 40K or Fantasy after/in spite of the investment made into other systems?

How exactly do you expect me to refute your opinion and anecdotal evidence, except with my own opinion and anecdotal evidence, leading to the sort of circular, thread killing argument you seem so fond of inciting?

I've never experienced what you're suggesting, at least not since around 20 years ago when there were no established alternatives. That doesn't mean you're wrong in your local area, but it sure as hell doesn't make you right either.

PhantomViper wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:
It amuses me how you're addressing fewer and fewer of my points with each reply!

Ubiquity explains it ALL. People play 40K because people play 40K, and so on and so on.

Amuses me how you are not even addressing a single one of my points ever.

How could ubiquity explain whole groups and clubs going back to 40K or Fantasy after/in spite of the investment made into other systems?

Proof? Because GW's ever declining sales certainly doesn't corroborate any of this and the overwhelming majority of anecdotal evidence out there actively supports that the exact opposite is happening...

Possible? Sure.

Proof? No.

There are two observations: (1) GW customers are not happy with GW (especially their rules) (2) GW sales are declining (for reasons other than customer-happiness according to Tom Kirby).

Of course, they could be related, but they don't necessarily must be. Correlation does not imply causation. At least it doesn't prove it, and most companies performance is not affected by customer satisfaction. Of course, GW could be an exception, and there are good reasons to believe it is. But I wouldn't quite call it "proven".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 azreal13 wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:
It amuses me how you're addressing fewer and fewer of my points with each reply!

Ubiquity explains it ALL. People play 40K because people play 40K, and so on and so on.

Amuses me how you are not even addressing a single one of my points ever.

How could ubiquity explain whole groups and clubs going back to 40K or Fantasy after/in spite of the investment made into other systems?

How exactly do you expect me to refute your opinion and anecdotal evidence, except with my own opinion and anecdotal evidence, leading to the sort of circular, thread killing argument you seem so fond of inciting?

I've never experienced what you're suggesting, at least not since around 20 years ago when there were no established alternatives. That doesn't mean you're wrong in your local area, but it sure as hell doesn't make you right either.

I don't need to be right, nor try to be. I simple dispute that you must be right based on your own anecdotal evidence, which lead you to conclude that "ubiquity must explain everything".

All it takes is the insight that your own anecdotal experiences might not be typical, or might not explain the entire phenomenon, even if they are typcial.

It's the difference between the hypothesis of "all Swans are white" and the counterfactual. I only "need" one anecdotal evidence that goes against your claim of "ubiquity must explain everything" to disprove it, just as I only need one Black Swan to disprove the claim of "all Swans are white".

It has nothing to do with my own experience, it is a matter of historical record that market incumbents are incredibly difficult to shift unless they do something really wrong or someone comes up with something utterly game changing.

Neither of these things have happened yet, so GW's ubiquity remains it's strongest asset in maintaining market share.

Can we save this for the latest 'GW shareprice' thread?

 AtoMaki wrote:

 gorgon wrote:

You have far more control regarding your matchup in a casual game than in a tournament, so I'm not sure your point makes sense. If it's a friend, you tell him not to bring the seerstar if you're not bringing a similar beatstick.

And what if your opponent tells you to bring something that can beat his beatstick? it isn't like you have more right to tell people what to bring than anyone else. And remember, the "Please don't play this powerful unit because my army sucks even though it can be better." line is dangerously close to the so-called "victim card" that is easily one of the most d*ckish things you can have in an argument.

Then you either bring the counter to his beatstick, renegotiate, or don't play. All gaming is a social contract, even tournaments where you agree to play by the TOs house rules.

6th edition just requires more of that negotiation at the LGS 'pick up' level, and more work at the tournament level than there has been in the past.

 pretre wrote:
Can we save this for the latest 'GW shareprice' thread?

We, or at least, I, are discussing the number of players, not the financials, it just so happens that the two are inextricably linked.

 AtoMaki wrote:

 gorgon wrote:

You have far more control regarding your matchup in a casual game than in a tournament, so I'm not sure your point makes sense. If it's a friend, you tell him not to bring the seerstar if you're not bringing a similar beatstick.

And what if your opponent tells you to bring something that can beat his beatstick? it isn't like you have more right to tell people what to bring than anyone else. And remember, the "Please don't play this powerful unit because my army sucks even though it can be better." line is dangerously close to the so-called "victim card" that is easily one of the most d*ckish things you can have in an argument.

I think you really need to step back and consider what you're saying here.

OBVIOUSLY, you and your opponent have the ability and right to make any agreements you can regarding the parameters of a casual game. That can include army composition, use of supplemental rules, and even basic rules. That's what makes it a casual game and not a tournament.

Edit: You're not claiming that your best friend who left his Riptides at home is a d*ck for asking if you could keep the seerstar in your case so you can have a more competitive game, are you? And you're not claiming that you have the moral high ground if you're unwilling to budge on that matter, are you?

Just checking.

Wakshaani wrote:
Wonder what would happen if they put in some kind of diversity rule?

"Every time you choose a unit after the first in your Elite, Fast Attack, Heavy, or HQ, you lose 1 victory point if it replicates a previous pick. Thus, if you pick a unit of Fire Dragons, then pick another unit of Fire Dragons even if armed different, you suffer this point loss."

The most fluffy Space Marine army has two Assault Squads, two Devastator Squads and six Tactical Squads - that's the makeup of a Company after all, and arguably the basis for the entire Force Organisation Chart. A ruleset that punishes people for playing themed armies regardless of whether their choices are unbalanced would be rather poor.

Wakshaani wrote:
Wonder what would happen if they put in some kind of diversity rule?

"Every time you choose a unit after the first in your Elite, Fast Attack, Heavy, or HQ, you lose 1 victory point if it replicates a previous pick. Thus, if you pick a unit of Fire Dragons, then pick another unit of Fire Dragons even if armed different, you suffer this point loss."

Then come out and say, "This is a harsh rule, but we have found over the years that playtesting balanced forces doesn't prepare the game for those who simply spam one thing over and over. To encourage diversity, we have enacted this penalty. We think your games will generally be more enjoyable."

So, you can gamble and still go for "Broken Thing Spam", but if you do, you suffer for it. Kind of a built-in handicap rule.

(Obviously, there are soem holes even in this, such as troops spam, but, you gotta start somewhere.)

I like that idea, on the face of it at least.

Could see some problems with it tho. Take Nobz. They can be built as Footsloggers, in a transport (Trukk or BW) or on Bikes. You can take another unit as a troop choice with a Warboss. How would you handle units like that? Allow multiples/different builds or force the penalty again?

Just concerned that it would perhaps have some unfortunate consequences in standardising army and unit builds to avoid the penalty. Encouraging diversity is good, just think you need to be careful re side-effects.

Or pay a points premium for duplicates.

+20pts for the 2nd choice, +40pts for a third within one organisation chart.

Just look to Warmachine and their theme lists. They give you extra bonuses for selecting units that would commonly fight together for fluff reasons.

They don't break the game, in fact I believe most aren't as strong as lists with units selected solely on merit, but it is a nice way to encourage more diverse list building.

I like that idea. If you want to play triptide, you can only play it in a certain formation that restricts, say crisis suits etc.

Want to play trip centurions, you can't take sternguard...

Want to play maxed serpents, you can't take jetbikes.

 AlexHolker wrote:

Wakshaani wrote:
Wonder what would happen if they put in some kind of diversity rule?

"Every time you choose a unit after the first in your Elite, Fast Attack, Heavy, or HQ, you lose 1 victory point if it replicates a previous pick. Thus, if you pick a unit of Fire Dragons, then pick another unit of Fire Dragons even if armed different, you suffer this point loss."

The most fluffy Space Marine army has two Assault Squads, two Devastator Squads and six Tactical Squads - that's the makeup of a Company after all, and arguably the basis for the entire Force Organisation Chart. A ruleset that punishes people for playing themed armies regardless of whether their choices are unbalanced would be rather poor.

But it is not the Rules Set that Punishes the Fluffy Players, it just allows it. I feel luck that my group is not in the so called “Competitive Environment”. As a group we encourage “Fluffy”, “Themed” and even “Silly” list.
One of our players chose to play Salamander because thought Vulcan was just a cool model. The rules neither encourage nor discourage how we play other than what we are required to take.
It has been this way for us since 1st edition and will be that way with the 101st Edition.

 AtoMaki wrote:
And what if your opponent tells you to bring something that can beat his beatstick?

We will say no, and he will not get a game against us.

 AtoMaki wrote:
And remember, the "Please don't play this powerful unit because my army sucks even though it can be better." line is dangerously close to the so-called "victim card" that is easily one of the most d*ckish things you can have in an argument.

Uh ? How could my Sisters of Battle army get so much better ? By not being a Sisters of Battle army ?

Wakshaani wrote:
Wonder what would happen if they put in some kind of diversity rule?

"Every time you choose a unit after the first in your Elite, Fast Attack, Heavy, or HQ, you lose 1 victory point if it replicates a previous pick. Thus, if you pick a unit of Fire Dragons, then pick another unit of Fire Dragons even if armed different, you suffer this point loss."

So, for taking a 4-melta dominion squad and a 4-flamers dominion squad, I loose 1 victory point, even though they fulfill a completely different role ? Not every codex got a huge unit diversity. And it will hit fluffy (non-optimized) theme list very strongly !

 azreal13 wrote:
Just look to Warmachine and their theme lists. They give you extra bonuses for selecting units that would commonly fight together for fluff reasons.

Warmachine has FA which prevents spamming, but will not work directly in 40k because 40k has units with many options, unlike Warmachine. And beside, Warmachine is not really focused on fluff…

 azreal13 wrote:
Just look to Warmachine and their theme lists. They give you extra bonuses for selecting units that would commonly fight together for fluff reasons.

They don't break the game, in fact I believe most aren't as strong as lists with units selected solely on merit, but it is a nice way to encourage more diverse list building.

yeah, and 40K is actually moving in that direction with formations, now they just need to really bring them into play, and avoid the FOC breaking shinnagens. or maybe GW's thinking that breaking the FOC is part of the charm of fluffy formations

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

We will say no, and he will not get a game against us.

Us? What is this royal plural?

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

Uh? How could my Sisters of Battle army get so much better ? By not being a Sisters of Battle army?

And this how the sh*tty codex designs spoil the fun even in non-tourney games. Someone has to sacrifice his fun: your opponent BY not bringing his favorite army full with beatsticks or you by fielding your SoB army against overwhelming odds. And there is good no solution, because you both have the same right to bring whatever you want - beatstick or not - and none of you can tell the other what to take.

That's why the game should be balanced on a competitive level. The equality in power would eliminate pre-game disputes on army lists as well as encourage diversity as you could take whatever you want without the fear that your selection worth trash on the tabletop.

I'd bet you its just going to work out some of the bugs that are in 6th edition, along with add in the full Escalation and Stronghold Assault rules. IMO if GW is smart, they will release a small update for 6th edition that is what 7th edition would be fixing. This would then mean that players that already have Escalation and/or Stronghold Assault only have to buy this small upgrade to the rules instead of buy a like $75 book that just repeats what they already have. I would buy this small addition just because it would make it so I don't waste that much money, but knowing GW the're going to just want to rack up as much cash as possible. Also, I think it would be smart if some FW models were also added in. I'm not totally sure in what way, shape, or form, but its something that I think needs to and will happen. Especially since FW is already a fancy candy coated GW.

Maybe they'll change the rules for Skyshield Landing Pads so that:

1. They can be destroyed.
2. You can't start non-skimmer tanks and artillery on top of them, because that's simply idiotic.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Maybe they'll change the rules for Skyshield Landing Pads so that:

1. They can be destroyed.
2. You can't start non-skimmer tanks and artillery on top of them, because that's simply idiotic.

Take your logic and get out!

 Ferrum_Sanguinis wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Maybe they'll change the rules for Skyshield Landing Pads so that:

1. They can be destroyed.
2. You can't start non-skimmer tanks and artillery on top of them, because that's simply idiotic.

Take your logic and get out!

Why?

He's kidding.

 AtoMaki wrote:
Us? What is this royal plural?

I play a faction whose symbol is a fleur-de-lys, and I have a particle in my family name. Hence royal plural .

 AtoMaki wrote:
And this how the sh*tty codex designs spoil the fun even in non-tourney games.

Yeah, that is obvious.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Maybe they'll change the rules for Skyshield Landing Pads so that:

1. They can be destroyed.
2. You can't start non-skimmer tanks and artillery on top of them, because that's simply idiotic.

Agreed on the first point. As for the second, it's not like there are aerial transports designed to carry vehicles that could easily drop them on a landing pad.

 MajorWesJanson wrote:
As for the second, it's not like there are aerial transports designed to carry vehicles that could easily drop them on a landing pad.

So they land their transport tank or battle tank on the landing pad, rather than on the ground where it can go on to move around? And this makes sense to you?

No. (Non-skimmer) Tanks on Landing Pads is daft, and just because they can do something doesn't mean that they would.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

So they land their transport tank or battle tank on the landing pad, rather than on the ground where it can go on to move around?

I seem to recall a ramp off the pad, but I may be misremembering... and actually it makes a lot of sense. You don't drop a vehicle in a hot LZ if you can avoid it in real life. You land it someplace near by, preferably a landing area where it can be dropped off without testing to see how well the suspension works.

 BaronIveagh wrote:
I seem to recall a ramp off the pad, but I may be misremembering...

You are. The only way on or off the Skyshield without flying is through the man-sized hatches and ladders on the legs.

You land it someplace near by, preferably a landing area where it can be dropped off without testing to see how well the suspension works.

...where it then sits for the duration of the battle due to not having any way off that landing zone... or drives off the edge of the pad and drops around 20 feet to the ground.

.

 insaniak wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:
I seem to recall a ramp off the pad, but I may be misremembering...

You are. The only way on or off the Skyshield without flying is through the man-sized hatches and ladders on the legs.

You land it someplace near by, preferably a landing area where it can be dropped off without testing to see how well the suspension works.

...where it then sits for the duration of the battle due to not having any way off that landing zone... or drives off the edge of the pad and drops around 20 feet to the ground.

.

What about Blood Angels and thier Drop Raiders?

No one ever accused the Blood Angels of being smart.

 Anpu42 wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:
I seem to recall a ramp off the pad, but I may be misremembering...

You are. The only way on or off the Skyshield without flying is through the man-sized hatches and ladders on the legs.

You land it someplace near by, preferably a landing area where it can be dropped off without testing to see how well the suspension works.

...where it then sits for the duration of the battle due to not having any way off that landing zone... or drives off the edge of the pad and drops around 20 feet to the ground.

.

What about Blood Angels and thier Drop Raiders?

Fluffwise, Deepstriking Land Raiders are supposed to have been dropped off by a thunderhawk like that scene in Attack of the Clones. Not kicked out of a ship in orbit (though GIJoe did that once, and it was awesome!)

 insaniak wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:
I seem to recall a ramp off the pad, but I may be misremembering...

You are. The only way on or off the Skyshield without flying is through the man-sized hatches and ladders on the legs.

You land it someplace near by, preferably a landing area where it can be dropped off without testing to see how well the suspension works.

...where it then sits for the duration of the battle due to not having any way off that landing zone... or drives off the edge of the pad and drops around 20 feet to the ground.

.

Just model dirt ramps on one side and paint general lee on the side of that Baal predator... Yeeeeehaaaaw!

If my landing pad was in the middle of a hotly contested area, and it is possible that I could lose the area and the landing pad, I'd drop a tank on top of it, firstly for elevated fire support, secondly so it is harder for the enemy to take out in CQC and thirdly, it is asset denial, the enemy can't use the pad themselves if there is a tank in the way, they also would have to clear the wreck if they destroyed the tank on top of it, giving the original owners time to stage a counter attack before the enemy reinforces the position more.

On the subject of landing pads, I'd love to see a clarification that clearly states that only models standing on the pad gain the ++ save, not units with only one or two models on it, while the rest is conga-lining towards you.

Unless this has been fixed in the meantime, in which case, /ignore.

endlesswaltz123 wrote:
If my landing pad was in the middle of a hotly contested area, and it is possible that I could lose the area and the landing pad, I'd drop a tank on top of it, firstly for elevated fire support, secondly so it is harder for the enemy to take out in CQC and thirdly, it is asset denial, the enemy can't use the pad themselves if there is a tank in the way, they also would have to clear the wreck if they destroyed the tank on top of it, giving the original owners time to stage a counter attack before the enemy reinforces the position more.

Sorry, what?

You would drop the tank beside it so that it can retreat if needed. And you would rig the platform to explode if you were to lose the area. In no reality would you drop one of your own tank in a trap.

endlesswaltz123 wrote:
If my landing pad was in the middle of a hotly contested area, and it is possible that I could lose the area and the landing pad, I'd drop a tank on top of it, firstly for elevated fire support, secondly so it is harder for the enemy to take out in CQC and thirdly, it is asset denial, the enemy can't use the pad themselves if there is a tank in the way, they also would have to clear the wreck if they destroyed the tank on top of it, giving the original owners time to stage a counter attack before the enemy reinforces the position more.

Are you seriously using (flawed) logic to win an argument in a tabletop game such as WH40K?

It totally depends on the platform and the tank. If it's a lemun russ you can just throw them away. Also, if the landing platform is the only one in the area, and you know that your tactics hinge on having it available, you aren't going to blow it up.

It's 40k, you can use mental, wasteful throwaway tactics, the general doesn't care about the crew, or the tank if the landing platform is the important asset.

 Seb wrote:

endlesswaltz123 wrote:
If my landing pad was in the middle of a hotly contested area, and it is possible that I could lose the area and the landing pad, I'd drop a tank on top of it, firstly for elevated fire support, secondly so it is harder for the enemy to take out in CQC and thirdly, it is asset denial, the enemy can't use the pad themselves if there is a tank in the way, they also would have to clear the wreck if they destroyed the tank on top of it, giving the original owners time to stage a counter attack before the enemy reinforces the position more.

Sorry, what?

You would drop the tank beside it so that it can retreat if needed. And you would rig the platform to explode if you were to lose the area. In no reality would you drop one of your own tank in a trap.

To be fair, in 'reality' there would be some way on and off the pad other than the ladders... otherwise it would be useless for anything other than passenger transport.

 insaniak wrote:

You are. The only way on or off the Skyshield without flying is through the man-sized hatches and ladders on the legs.

Was confusing it with this:

 Anpu42 wrote:
What about Blood Angels and thier Drop Raiders?

What about them?

Their Deep Strike rule represents something like a Thunderhawk Lander swooping in, letting go, and blasting away again. The Thunderhawk wouldn't land a tank - especially a transport vehicle - on top of a landing pad that it can't get down from!

I wonder how they would deploy a Land Raider by airdrop tbh. I know the odd tech to deploy armor from aircraft without the "landing" bit inbetween but only with comparatively light APCs, not huge-ass tankdozers of flaming destruction.

 Kosake wrote:
I wonder how they would deploy a Land Raider by airdrop tbh. I know the odd tech to deploy armor from aircraft without the "landing" bit inbetween but only with comparatively light APCs, not huge-ass tankdozers of flaming destruction.

Yeah, but that would require the whole thing to land. Ain't that much space everywhere on the field, though you probably won't try to deploy a raider right into dense ruins... or would they...?

Don't they just drop their vehicles routinely? On account of Space Marines just being that much tougher than normal people.

Can we have a new thread or an updated OP please. I don't want to read 34 pages to get to the actual info.

 Orlanth wrote:
Can we have a new thread or an updated OP please. I don't want to read 34 pages to get to the actual info.

Agreed.
Don't mind people going off in tangents in discussions, so long as the important info is easy to find.
(it's really frustrating when the OP of a popular thread doesn't keep the first post updated with the most pertinent information)

 Kosake wrote:
Yeah, but that would require the whole thing to land. Ain't that much space everywhere on the field, though you probably won't try to deploy a raider right into dense ruins... or would they...?

They would. IIRC the Thunderhead Transporter drops its cargo without actually landing. They just fly over the designated landing zone, release the clamps and gravity will do the rest.

We're wandering a bit off topic here, aren't we?

 Alpharius wrote:
We're wandering a bit off topic here, aren't we?

Haven't we for the better part of 34 pages?

 Brother SRM wrote:

 Alpharius wrote:
We're wandering a bit off topic here, aren't we?

Haven't we for the better part of 34 pages?

Just rename the thread to "the official pass-the-time-until-7th-ed.-hits-the-shelves-thread". I for one would be for a sticky locked update overview where one of the mods keeps the infos updated while speculation, wishlisting and off-topic banter is dropped here. Just my 2cts.

 Kosake wrote:

 Brother SRM wrote:

 Alpharius wrote:
We're wandering a bit off topic here, aren't we?

Haven't we for the better part of 34 pages?

Just rename the thread to "the official pass-the-time-until-7th-ed.-hits-the-shelves-thread". I for one would be for a sticky locked update overview where one of the mods keeps the infos updated while speculation, wishlisting and off-topic banter is dropped here. Just my 2cts.

How do we make this happen?

 Kosake wrote:
I wonder how they would deploy a Land Raider by airdrop tbh. I know the odd tech to deploy armor from aircraft without the "landing" bit inbetween but only with comparatively light APCs, not huge-ass tankdozers of flaming destruction.

38,000 years in the future. Granted I'd expect soldiers to remotely control robots with nuclear megaton death lasers shooting out from their eyes and not be running at each other with chainsaws instead but.... again... 38,000 years in the future. There is plenty of time to find a viable solution between now and the fictional then.

 warboss wrote:

 Kosake wrote:
I wonder how they would deploy a Land Raider by airdrop tbh. I know the odd tech to deploy armor from aircraft without the "landing" bit inbetween but only with comparatively light APCs, not huge-ass tankdozers of flaming destruction.

38,000 years in the future. Granted I'd expect soldiers to remotely control robots with nuclear megaton death lasers shooting out from their eyes and not be running at each other with chainsaws instead but.... again... 38,000 years in the future. There is plenty of time to find a viable solution between now and the fictional then.

Well, they did do that 18,000 years in the future. Then the robots rebelled. Then the warp came along. So by 30K they are picking up the pieces, then the Heresy hits, and they are left with less pieces. It's the quote about WW IV being fought with Sticks and Stones writ large.

lol idk, lets just ask the thread owner! Not all of this robot nonsense.

 MajorWesJanson wrote:

 warboss wrote:

 Kosake wrote:
I wonder how they would deploy a Land Raider by airdrop tbh. I know the odd tech to deploy armor from aircraft without the "landing" bit inbetween but only with comparatively light APCs, not huge-ass tankdozers of flaming destruction.

38,000 years in the future. Granted I'd expect soldiers to remotely control robots with nuclear megaton death lasers shooting out from their eyes and not be running at each other with chainsaws instead but.... again... 38,000 years in the future. There is plenty of time to find a viable solution between now and the fictional then.

Well, they did do that 18,000 years in the future. Then the robots rebelled. Then the warp came along. So by 30K they are picking up the pieces, then the Heresy hits, and they are left with less pieces. It's the quote about WW IV being fought with Sticks and Stones writ large.

Agree.

Remember that humans were hunter-gatherers for over 100,000 years.

Time can - and will - pass quickly when your children end up living just the way you did (namely just like your parents).

Just to add to the thread, a fairly well informed French source (Cheque Varan) put on the forum Warhammer-forum.com that the 7th edition rulebook was "with the printer".

[edit]http://www.warhammer-forum.com/index.php?showtopic=212395&view=findpost&p=2521180 here for the original post if you want to improve your froggie reading skills

 JeffVimes wrote:
Just to add to the thread, a fairly well informed French source (Cheque Varan) put on the forum Warhammer-forum.com that the 7th edition rulebook was "with the printer".

[edit]http://www.warhammer-forum.com/index.php?showtopic=212395&view=findpost&p=2521180 here for the original post if you want to improve your froggie reding skills

Well, that sounds promising. Though I'd be biting large chunks out of my ass right now if I had bought the 6th ed book. 124 USD is the current GW price I see. Not anouncing the new edition and making people buy the core book at the full price right untill 7th hits the shelves seems like a bad buisness practice to me.

Translated by google
Yes and no ! Assuming that ES emerge in May , after all, why not y ' figos that were made , there was no rules and setting prod ( however I doubt the book of 40K rules is at this very moment in the printer, if it was the case of ES is not too ) short ! Let ! It would mean nothing that changes the game of what has been said for the V9 . The idea is to streamline the range and not support those that are not enough butter ( 1% or less of sales, in the case of HB and RTD but I do not know the numbers of ES that said, to for comparison the success of WHB are the CV 8% , it is behind EN, chaos , HL ), so we can also say that this is the ultimate test before shelved , and tests they have done recently , they had to demonstrate that lower the cost of some boxes did not sell more, should buy iN ...
Information that I bring are more recent but they all involve former GW rather well placed and disgusted by what the box prepared , they are the ones who reported the discussions about a possible stop WHB because it was discussed this is not the preferred option but must keep in mind that if an outright stoppage of play has been discussed , the future of an army or even anecdotal fluff are next to it .

And in french
Oui et non! En admettant que les ES ressortent en mai, après tout pourquoi pas y'a des figos qui ont été faites, il manquait des règles et une mise en prod (ceci dit j'en doute le livre de règles 40K est en ce moment même chez l'imprimeur, si c'était le cas des ES on le saurait aussi), bref! Admettons! Cela signifierait en rien qu'on change la donne de ce qui a été dit pour la V9. L'idée c'est de rationaliser les gammes et pas soutenir celles qui font pas assez de beurre (1% ou moins des ventes, c'est le cas des HB et des RDT mais je connais pas les chiffres des ES ceci dit, à titre de comparaison le succès de WHB ce sont les CV avec 8%, on trouve derrière EN, chaos,HL), donc on peut aussi se dire qu'il s'agit de l'ultime test avant mise au placard, et des tests ils en ont fait récemment, ils ont eu la démonstration que baisser le coût de certaines boîtes ne les faisait pas vendre plus, fallait acheter des EN...
Les infos que je rapporte sont plus toutes récentes mais elles impliquent des anciens de GW, plutôt bien placés et écoeurés par ce que la boîte préparait, ce sont eux qui avaient rapporté les discussions quant à un possible arrêt de WHB parce que cela a été discuté, c'est pas l'option retenue mais faut bien garder à l'esprit que si un arrêt pur et simple du jeu ait pu être discuté, l'avenir d'une armée ou même le fluff sont très anecdotiques à côté de ça.

Your part in orange is wrongly translated. He says "However I doubt it [that the rules for wood elves are in prod for a may release] as the 40k rulebook is in the printer at the moment and if it would have also been the case for the Elves one we would have known"

Source: French is my mother tongue...

 JeffVimes wrote:
Your part in orange is wrongly translated. He says "However I doubt it [that the rules for wood elves are in prod for a may release] as the 40k rulebook is in the printer at the moment and if it would have also been the case for the Elves one we would have known"

Source: French is my mother tongue...

Seconded. And I have a French flag next to my pseudo !

 JeffVimes wrote:
Your part in orange is wrongly translated. He says "However I doubt it [that the rules for wood elves are in prod for a may release] as the 40k rulebook is in the printer at the moment and if it would have also been the case for the Elves one we would have known"

Source: French is my mother tongue...

Which is why I posted it in french as well. I don't trust google translator.

7th in the printing stage is good news

Except for all those people who bought sixth recently.

 BaronIveagh wrote:
Except for all those people who bought sixth recently.

Had I bought 6th the week before 7th I would be happy to have never had to suffer through the mess it is honestly. Knowing what I know now having endured this much of that edition I'd gladly have payed double for an even slightly better edition. Lets hope 7th isn't WORSE!

 BaronIveagh wrote:
Except for all those people who bought sixth recently.

Ironically in relative rulebook support terms, *everybody* bought sixth recently.

We'll know that 7th is coming in the next month if there are big double-page spreads and adverts for the 6th edition box set and rule book in White Dwarf.

I'm only half joking, they did this with 6th edition.

 Bull0 wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:
Except for all those people who bought sixth recently.

Ironically in relative rulebook support terms, *everybody* bought sixth recently.

I got the fat book a few weeks ago... Hopefully it isn't totally obsolete so soon...

 Red Corsair wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:
Except for all those people who bought sixth recently.

Had I bought 6th the week before 7th I would be happy to have never had to suffer through the mess it is honestly. Knowing what I know now having endured this much of that edition I'd gladly have payed double for an even slightly better edition. Lets hope 7th isn't WORSE!

Agreed on all counts.

I bought DV so at least I got something else for my money.

Its really funny because I bet some of us who bought 6th late last year or even this year and actually decided to paint some miniatures before playing, will probably not even get a game in before 7th pops up. Especially those for whom real life gets in the way of wargaming...An edition with a shelf life of 2 years is just plain wrong. What if 7th edition also only has a shelf life of 2 years before 40k 8th edition, the one that supposedly "fixes all problems", is released?

Given GW's accelerated codex release schedule, and given them switching over to weekly WDs, this isnt too far fetched a thought.

I bought one of the limited edition copies of the 6th edition rulebook, with thicker parchment page and a corner embossed in gold with its unique number out of the 4000 printed. I protected it and kept from making a mess of it, using the DV copy for rule purposes, while the encased LE copy sat like a holy tomb in my library.

Seems so foolish and vain now, to see that book go from something of value to nearly worthless...and it will, too, since most of the fluff will be repeated and there will be a *new* LE 7th edition, most likely covered in gold, surrounded by "BUY WHILE SUPPLIES LAST!"

6th edition Limited Edition...I feel so very used...

 Accolade wrote:
I bought one of the limited edition copies of the 6th edition rulebook, with thicker parchment page and a corner embossed in gold with its unique number out of the 4000 printed. I protected it and kept from making a mess of it, using the DV copy for rule purposes, while the encased LE copy sat like a holy tomb in my library.

Seems so foolish and vain now, to see that book go from something of value to nearly worthless...and it will, too, since most of the fluff will be repeated and there will be a *new* LE 7th edition, most likely covered in gold, surrounded by "BUY WHILE SUPPLIES LAST!":

I feel your pain... In a moment of weakness, I bought the Limited Editon 4th edition rulebook (it was soo pretty... :( ). Turned out to be a little ironic... the rulebook I spent the most on was for the edition of the game that I disliked the most...

Based on some sources and other chatter, I maintain that 6th is basically a living edition. We will get updates and new starter boxes, but probably no more numerical monikers.

As long as we see some of the following things, I'll be tickled:

-Battle Brothers are completely eliminated. Allies are a neat addition to the game, but the rules/penalties for Allies of Convenience are more than enough to grant people options, without blatantly devastating combos. Speaking of which, no more allying with one's self, unless this is granted to Tyranids as well. Seriously, GW, that would be an FAQ fix that doesn't invalidate the codex.

-Something must be done to assist assault-based armies. Not overcompensation, just throw them some sort of a bone: assault from reserves, run + assault for some unit types, sweeping into another combat (without gaining a charge bonus), or eliminate the stupid assaulting into cover thing that makes them go last after already taking two rounds of shooting and a full round of Overwatch. Shooting should be the primary mode of fighting in 40k, as it's the future, but GW did give us assault-based armies. Make them viable. 5th edition was supposedly assault-friendly, yet the tournament scene was dominated by Dual Lash Prince + 9 Obliterators, then IG Leafblower, then Long Fangs spam, then Coteaz + robot monkeys with lasers.

-Eliminate re-rolls for saves. We already have cover, armor, invulnerable saves, Feel No Pain, It Will Not Die, healing psychic powers, and Regeneration. Enough with granting already unkillable units a mulligan if they should take a single freaking wound. (Obviously this takes the edge off of a few death stars, without making them totally worthless to field.)

 brassangel wrote:
-Something must be done to assist assault-based armies. Not overcompensation, just throw them some sort of a bone: assault from reserves, run + assault for some unit types, sweeping into another combat (without gaining a charge bonus), or eliminate the stupid assaulting into cover thing that makes them go last after already taking two rounds of shooting and a full round of Overwatch. Shooting should be the primary mode of fighting in 40k, as it's the future, but GW did give us assault-based armies. Make them viable. 5th edition was supposedly assault-friendly, yet the tournament scene was dominated by Dual Lash Prince + 9 Obliterators, then IG Leafblower, then Long Fangs spam, then Coteaz + robot monkeys with lasers.

I would really, really like to see a return of charging units striking first. The extra attack is all well and good, but it's not much use to low-initiative armies when their assault units get wiped out before they even get to swing.

 insaniak wrote:

I would really, really like to see a return of charging units striking first. The extra attack is all well and good, but it's not much use to low-initiative armies when their assault units get wiped out before they even get to swing.

That would completely invalidate the whole concept of assault grenades.

I think the fact that units can overwatch... should allow units to assault from reserve.

 whembly wrote:
I think the fact that units can overwatch... should allow units to assault from reserve.

Overwatch is a fething joke. Units should be able to assault from reserves regardless of it. That and not being able to assault out of stationary transports are probably the only really glaring things I'd change about 6th.

 Sir Arun wrote:
That would completely invalidate the whole concept of assault grenades.

In their current form, yes.


Easily fixed by changing Assault Grenades to granting the unit something akin to a Hammer of Wrath attack, just using the grenade's Strength and AP.

 brassangel wrote:
Based on some sources and other chatter, I maintain that 6th is basically a living edition. We will get updates and new starter boxes, but probably no more numerical monikers.

As long as we see some of the following things, I'll be tickled:

-Battle Brothers are completely eliminated. Allies are a neat addition to the game, but the rules/penalties for Allies of Convenience are more than enough to grant people options, without blatantly devastating combos. Speaking of which, no more allying with one's self, unless this is granted to Tyranids as well. Seriously, GW, that would be an FAQ fix that doesn't invalidate the codex.

For once, I hope GW doesn't listen to people(by which I mean to imply that I normally wish they would, not that they actually do). Allies are fantastic from the perspective of fluffy gaming, and getting rid of them isn't going to suddenly turn 40K into a balanced tournament ruleset the ruthlessly competitive types will just cheesemonger another way, so why take away the options Allies provide? OK, so certain specific combos become less effective, that happens every year when GW release an imbalanced codex or a new edition of the rules; give them a few weeks and there'll be a new power list to complain about.

 insaniak wrote:
I would really, really like to see a return of charging units striking first.

Return? When was that ever part of 40K?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Return? When was that ever part of 40K?

It would appear that it wasn't. I'm possibly getting senile.

Am I thinking of WHFB?



Either way, I still wants it. The 2nd ed assault rules at least allowed low initiative models to fight...

 Yodhrin wrote:
Allies are fantastic from the perspective of fluffy gaming, and getting rid of them isn't going to suddenly turn 40K into a balanced tournament ruleset the ruthlessly competitive types will just cheesemonger another way, so why take away the options Allies provide?

Fluffy allies? Haven't seen any yet although I don't play very often. I've only seen the power combos of some sort lifted off the internet or units that plug holes for armies with a glaring weakness (like adding in a close combat unit or two to Tau or IG that has no relation to "fluff"... why buy ogryns when you can get assault units that are much better pt for pt from allies? Psychicly weak army like Tau? Throw in a farseer and suddenly you got table wide protection with the old codex). I franky hope allies become an alternative to a second force org in 2000pt games and up instead of standard at all games. I also hope they truly cut back significantly on who is considered a battle brother. Marines disregard guardsmen as unreliable and inferior and IG hold marines in awe or fear them but suddenly they're bro-fisting across every battlefield? Tau and eldar have almost nothing in common yet suddenly they're brothers from another non-human mother? I see both the theoretical and practical reasons why GW introduced allies but in the end they're just a cheese tool for the majority of people I see. I do see the value in having them but I think just like with escalation and stronghold that allies should be reserved for "bigger" games of 2001+ pts.

 warboss wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:
Allies are fantastic from the perspective of fluffy gaming, and getting rid of them isn't going to suddenly turn 40K into a balanced tournament ruleset the ruthlessly competitive types will just cheesemonger another way, so why take away the options Allies provide?

Fluffy allies? Haven't seen any yet although I don't play very often. I've only seen the power combos of some sort lifted off the internet or units that plug holes for armies with a glaring weakness (like adding in a close combat unit or two to Tau or IG that has no relation to "fluff"... why buy ogryns when you can get assault units that are much better pt for pt from allies? Psychicly weak army like Tau? Throw in a farseer and suddenly you got table wide protection with the old codex). I franky hope allies become an alternative to a second force org in 2000pt games and up instead of standard at all games. I also hope they truly cut back significantly on who is considered a battle brother. Marines disregard guardsmen as unreliable and inferior and IG hold marines in awe or fear them but suddenly they're bro-fisting across every battlefield? Tau and eldar have almost nothing in common yet suddenly they're brothers from another non-human mother? I see both the theoretical and practical reasons why GW introduced allies but in the end they're just a cheese tool for the majority of people I see. I do see the value in having them but I think just like with escalation and stronghold that allies should be reserved for "bigger" games of 2001+ pts.

It's true. As long as allies exist, designing codices is pretty much impossible unless the first special rule is "Cannot ally with anyone". Any intended weakness to balance the obvious strengths will just be avoided by players by going dual or triple codex.

 insaniak wrote:
Am I thinking of WHFB?

That was/is part of Fantasy. I think. Maybe.

 insaniak wrote:
Either way, I still wants it. The 2nd ed assault rules at least allowed low initiative models to fight...

Initiative didn't matter in 2nd Ed. Weapon Skill was king, and then attacks. Higher Weapon Skills could mean you could win combat if you rolled a 2 or higher. Initiative only mattered if you drew, which was rare.

 Yodhrin wrote:
Allies are fantastic from the perspective of fluffy gaming

I've never understood this reasoning to keep the allies rule. If allies are fluffy, why do you need a rule telling you you're allowed to take them, just ask your opponent and take them. I had heaps of allied games with friends before the allies rules existed.

Allies, IMO, should be a house rule. By default they do not exist, but if you want them, discuss it with your opponent and decide what are fluffy and/or fair allies to take.

I personally like taking my IG alongside my SW, which is a pretty understandable alliance. However for the sake of having a better core game, I'd rather the core rules didn't have allies and if I want to take them as allies, I just ask my opponent first... kind of like I did before 6th edition, lol.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Initiative didn't matter in 2nd Ed. Weapon Skill was king, and then attacks. Higher Weapon Skills could mean you could win combat if you rolled a 2 or higher. Initiative only mattered if you drew, which was rare.

I wouldn't say "rare", but less common.

I liked the 2nd edition combat system other than the fact it was purely a skirmish based system and inappropriate for any game of large size. Most my 2nd edition armies were only 30-40 models tops, and it wasn't uncommon to play a game with only 20-30 models per side.

Ugh. I just hope the get deep-striking units and the like the ability to assault back. Overwatch is penalty enough as it is.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
Am I thinking of WHFB?

That was/is part of Fantasy. I think. Maybe.

Was a WHFB rule up until 8th edition made it initiative order.

Just another of the many, many, many reasons why 8th ed WHFB is a really bad game...

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:
Allies are fantastic from the perspective of fluffy gaming

I've never understood this reasoning to keep the allies rule. If allies are fluffy, why do you need a rule telling you you're allowed to take them, just ask your opponent and take them. I had heaps of allied games with friends before the allies rules existed.

Allies, IMO, should be a house rule. By default they do not exist, but if you want them, discuss it with your opponent and decide what are fluffy and/or fair allies to take.

What AllSeeingSkink said. I could see ally rules being an optional guideline, like in the WHFB rulebook, just to give you something to work off IF you want to incorporate them into a casual game, but as core mechanic, they suck.

I have frequently played with or against allies pre-6th edition (houseruled) and initially tought they were a neat addition, but it turned out horrible.

In retrospective, I hated pretty much everything about 6th edition (not that 5th was perfect, but IMO all the "fixes" just made the game less enjoyable on the whole) and would be happy if 7th really was a new game instead of an update to 6th.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
I liked the 2nd edition combat system other than the fact it was purely a skirmish based system and inappropriate for any game of large size. Most my 2nd edition armies were only 30-40 models tops, and it wasn't uncommon to play a game with only 20-30 models per side.

It didn't even work in 2nd Ed. The scale was too big. Working out combat when a unit of 10 charged a unit of 10 took forever.

That combat system worked in Necromunda.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
It didn't even work in 2nd Ed. The scale was too big. Working out combat when a unit of 10 charged a unit of 10 took forever.

That combat system worked in Necromunda.

Yeah, for anything other than 1 or 2 models either side fighting each other, the 2nd ed combat rules were just painful. I was certainly by no means asking for them back... The only part of it that I liked was the fact that a charging model didn't lose its opportunity to fight just because his opponent had a higher initiative.

I wouldn't hold out much hope for 7th. Allies, escalation, stronghold assault is a cash cow GW will not want to give up.
Too much investment in molds etc.

Hopefully they will restrict Lords of War choices to games of 2000 points or more like 30k.

That would suddenly balance a lot of the worst problems with 6th now.

Knowing GW it wouldn't surprise me that once they've sold enough big kits to nerf them into the ground or make them unusable.

 Accolade wrote:
I bought one of the limited edition copies of the 6th edition rulebook, with thicker parchment page and a corner embossed in gold with its unique number out of the 4000 printed. I protected it and kept from making a mess of it, using the DV copy for rule purposes, while the encased LE copy sat like a holy tomb in my library.

Seems so foolish and vain now, to see that book go from something of value to nearly worthless...and it will, too, since most of the fluff will be repeated and there will be a *new* LE 7th edition, most likely covered in gold, surrounded by "BUY WHILE SUPPLIES LAST!"

6th edition Limited Edition...I feel so very used...

I also bought that book, and it's very pretty. I won't buy a LE 7th ed, but I think I made that decision when I bought LE 6th ed, tbh. Even if this is an exception and they go back to 4 year life cycle books, I'd rather pay £45ish for my rulebook than £100odd. It's nice to have one pretty one to keep nice somewhere and look at when I'm old. That isn't going to go away.

If you bought it to sell it (hence the comments about it now being "worthless") then I feel bad for you, but that was a crummy idea. If it's "worthless" because you won't be able to use it to game with once 7th is out, you already said you use your paperback copy for gaming, as does everyone else because the LE book is so huge and impractical. So generally, I'm not seeing the angst. The LE books are keepsakes, if you think they'll be worthless once they're out of date then very very very do not buy them because they're not worth it.

If I'd just bought in at the £45 level only to learn we might be getting a new book this summer, I'd be pretty fethed off. That's a crappy place to be, and I feel bad for anyone in that position. It's an eternal dilemma; what are GW meant to do, stop selling the book when the new one's on the way? Some kind of trade-up deal where if you bought your 6th ed rulebook in the six months preceding the new edition's release, you get the new one at a discount, or something, might work. Guess that's not really GW's style though.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
I liked the 2nd edition combat system other than the fact it was purely a skirmish based system and inappropriate for any game of large size. Most my 2nd edition armies were only 30-40 models tops, and it wasn't uncommon to play a game with only 20-30 models per side.

It didn't even work in 2nd Ed. The scale was too big. Working out combat when a unit of 10 charged a unit of 10 took forever.

That combat system worked in Necromunda.

Maybe I was just more patient in my early teens, lol, it didn't bother me until I played against tyranids who had a ton of termagaunts and an ork army that was pretty hordish.

Who would ever buy a 75 US$ rulebook from them again, when GW can't even promise that it will last 2 years.
That would be a Rackham-level loss of confidence in the company, and we know where that led to.

BTW I just learned that FW changed almost all unit rules from the 2 year old book Imperial Armour 11 (£42).

 Bull0 wrote:
If you bought it to sell it (hence the comments about it now being "worthless") then I feel bad for you, but that was a crummy idea. If it's "worthless" because you won't be able to use it to game with once 7th is out, you already said you use your paperback copy for gaming, as does everyone else because the LE book is so huge and impractical. So generally, I'm not seeing the angst. The LE books are keepsakes, if you think they'll be worthless once they're out of date then very very very do not buy them because they're not worth it.

Just because you don't intend to sell it doesn't mean that it doesn't have some sort of value. I imagine a lot of people justify having collections of expensive LE books on the basis that should they no longer be interested they'll be able to recover most of their costs (like you can with pretty much any LE GW item that isn't tied to a release)

 Kroothawk wrote:
Who would ever buy a 75 US$ rulebook from them again, when GW can't even promise that it will last 2 years.
That would be a Rackham-level loss of confidence in the company, and we know where that led to.

By the sounds of it quite a lot of people are welcoming it and are going to buy it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Herzlos wrote:
Just because you don't intend to sell it doesn't mean that it doesn't have some sort of value. I imagine a lot of people justify having collections of expensive LE books on the basis that should they no longer be interested they'll be able to recover most of their costs (like you can with pretty much any LE GW item that isn't tied to a release)

If you're buying it thinking that one day you can sell it, how is that different to buying it to sell it and what difference does that make to my point that if you're buying it thinking one day you can sell it, that's a bad idea, because rulebooks simply don't hold their value well?

 Bull0 wrote:
By the sounds of it quite a lot of people are welcoming it and are going to buy it.

I suspect that will largely depend on what is actually in it.

 insaniak wrote:

 Bull0 wrote:
By the sounds of it quite a lot of people are welcoming it and are going to buy it.

I suspect that will largely depend on what is actually in it.

Well of course, but Kroot's point was that the 2 year life cycle is a complete dealbreaker. Which if this thread is anything to go by is very much not the case. That's what I meant there

Assaulting after deep strike never existed in prior 40k editions, save for the old Vanguard Vets rules.

 Bull0 wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 Bull0 wrote:
By the sounds of it quite a lot of people are welcoming it and are going to buy it.

I suspect that will largely depend on what is actually in it.

Well of course, but Kroot's point was that the 2 year life cycle is a complete dealbreaker. Which if this thread is anything to go by is very much not the case. That's what I meant there

I should imagine that if the reality of that '2 year life cycle' means not only replacing the £45 book, but the £30 codex and so on and so on, the response would be very different indeed.

At the moment, people are happy the game may be moving on from 6th. If moving on from 6th is more of the same but with additional cost, it won't go down well.

I'd rather just see them tone down the uber rules: Flyers, superheavies, allies, etc. Limit LoW to 2k+, I personally would get rid of fortifications too (limit them rather, out of normal games) as it seems rather silly that you can buy your own fortifications without it being a specific scenario.

Assault does need to be better but I don't think any of us want a return to assault-dominated 3rd edition.

The one thing I've maintained since I started looking at 6th edition is that most of the additional rules don't belong in competitive/pick-up games, and weren't needed for fluff/narrative/campaign games. If we were playing a campaign where my army is sieging yours in a Hive World, do we really need there to be "official" rules for bunkers and fortifications? People were always coming up with their own rules for those things, because they were largely dependent on the specific scenario and narrative anyways. Would the game be better off without those things, thereby removing them from pick-up games (which is the most common way to play, in the US at least) where you're at the mercy of whatever your opponent turns up with?

NoggintheNog wrote:

 Bull0 wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 Bull0 wrote:
By the sounds of it quite a lot of people are welcoming it and are going to buy it.

I suspect that will largely depend on what is actually in it.

Well of course, but Kroot's point was that the 2 year life cycle is a complete dealbreaker. Which if this thread is anything to go by is very much not the case. That's what I meant there

I should imagine that if the reality of that '2 year life cycle' means not only replacing the £45 book, but the £30 codex and so on and so on, the response would be very different indeed.

At the moment, people are happy the game may be moving on from 6th. If moving on from 6th is more of the same but with additional cost, it won't go down well.

Yep. I get that. We just said that. I'm not meaning to say the thing is already sold, people, I was just arguing with Kroot who said it was already dead and buried because of the short life cycle which is patently untrue.

 Brother SRM wrote:

 whembly wrote:
I think the fact that units can overwatch... should allow units to assault from reserve.

Overwatch is a fething joke. Units should be able to assault from reserves regardless of it. That and not being able to assault out of stationary transports are probably the only really glaring things I'd change about 6th.

It's actully the fact wounds are removed from the front rank that hurts the most for any assault based army that is't wearing power armour.

Overwatch is just the iceing on the cake.

 Lockark wrote:

It's actully the fact wounds are removed from the front rank that hurts the most for any assault based army that is't wearing power armour.
Overwatch is just the iceing on the cake.

Man, the whole wounds removed from the front thing can feth off completely. I don't go in for the "6th is too complicated and random" "I hate mysterious objectives" stuff but that particular change is horrible. Look at my cowardly sergeant hiding at the back of his squad. I feel heroic.

Well there still is lookout, sir, and ICs happen to pass these on a 2+

Sergeants aren't ICs.

@BullO: my issue is that I was reasonably expecting the book to be of playing value for FOUR years, the typical lifespan of a 40k codex. That is part of the perceived value in buying the limited edition, that I would have a copy of the rules that people could "ohh" and "ahh" at (which they did when I first picked up the book) and I could break it out for special occasions. I used the small copy for some games because I wanted to take care of the LE copy; I *expected* it to last. Maybe that was foolish on my part, hence I feel like I've been duped into buying a high-end product whose value was vastly over-inflated.

My plan was not really to sell it; indeed, I may have purchased a LE 7th edition if I had gotten the same value of any previous LE book. Instead, 6th will go down as the shortest edition of 40k (to my knowledge), and I will be expected to fork out more money for a brand new book. This time however I will wait a while to see what the consensus on the edition is, so as not to make that same mistake again.

Yeah, fair enough, that would be anyone's complaint with 6th ed whether they bought the LE or the normal book. I agree, it's a bit of a rip. Just where you specified LE and the "value" I inferred you meant in terms of resale value.

 Accolade wrote:
@BullO: my issue is that I was reasonably expecting the book to be of playing value for FOUR years, the typical lifespan of a 40k codex. That is part of the perceived value in buying the limited edition, that I would have a copy of the rules that people could "ohh" and "ahh" at (which they did when I first picked up the book) and I could break it out for special occasions. I used the small copy for some games because I wanted to take care of the LE copy; I *expected* it to last. Maybe that was foolish on my part, hence I feel like I've been duped into buying a high-end product whose value was vastly over-inflated.

My plan was not really to sell it; indeed, I may have purchased a LE 7th edition if I had gotten the same value of any previous LE book. Instead, 6th will go down as the shortest edition of 40k (to my knowledge), and I will be expected to fork out more money for a brand new book. This time however I will wait a while to see what the consensus on the edition is, so as not to make that same mistake again.

This is 40k , everything is over priced

 Sir Arun wrote:
Assaulting after deep strike never existed in prior 40k editions, save for the old Vanguard Vets rules.

And Tyranid Seeding Swarm if you rolled a HIT on the scatter dice, but now I'm being intentionally obscure.

Old 4th Edition CSM Codex "generic" Daemons could assault after Deepstrike, no?

Boss Zagstruk with a unit of Storm Boyz can still assault after deep striking.

the previous Nid dex: Ymgarl Genestealers kinda deep struck then could move and assault.

 Zweischneid wrote:
Old 4th Edition CSM Codex "generic" Daemons could assault after Deepstrike, no?

Yep. The old Chaos Bikers jetbiking up, summoning deamonettes, then charging my grey knights and killing them before they even shot hehe.

 Bull0 wrote:

NoggintheNog wrote:

 Bull0 wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 Bull0 wrote:
By the sounds of it quite a lot of people are welcoming it and are going to buy it.

I suspect that will largely depend on what is actually in it.

Well of course, but Kroot's point was that the 2 year life cycle is a complete dealbreaker. Which if this thread is anything to go by is very much not the case. That's what I meant there

I should imagine that if the reality of that '2 year life cycle' means not only replacing the £45 book, but the £30 codex and so on and so on, the response would be very different indeed.

At the moment, people are happy the game may be moving on from 6th. If moving on from 6th is more of the same but with additional cost, it won't go down well.

Yep. I get that. We just said that. I'm not meaning to say the thing is already sold, people, I was just arguing with Kroot who said it was already dead and buried because of the short life cycle which is patently untrue.

How can you claim it is untrue though? Evidence?

I think despite this thread which contains the usual 10-15 suspects, that just maybe the larger market WILL be impacted negatively by this accelerated cycle. Heck I've known gamers over the years who were tired of the 4 year cycle.

Red Corsair - my argument was in this thread, people have said they're welcoming the book. More people than have said they aren't. That's how I can say it isn't true. Because it obviously isn't, it's there in front of you. The 2 year cycle isn't a dealbreaker, clearly, because there are a load of people ITT that say it isn't. It doesn't get easier than that.

snip.

Reds8n

Whether people will accept faster cycle dramatically depends on the quality of the output. If there are significant changes that do improve the game every time, the community will go with it, pretty sure.

If on the other hand GW is just substituting one flavor of crap with another this will not go down well. I'm sure as hell not spending ~ 80 € for a new rulebook every two years if I get the same mess in a different form. I think most players will then stick to one version or the other and just ignore the new rulebooks untill something changes. As this requires a few editions more to be produced first, I would venture a guess that it would be the 8th or 9th ed that will mark the grave of 40k, unless GW cleans up the mess and lives to see players return to the tables.

Thank you for attention to Rule No.1!!

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Thank you for attention to Rule No.1!!

Rule #1 has something to do with sexy Asian girls? Neat.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

.
What is that ?
Video game “booth babe” ?

I think she must be a general, with all those stars. Or she lost a fight with a box of stick-on stars. Either way, the message is clear.

 Sir Arun wrote:
Assaulting after deep strike never existed in prior 40k editions, save for the old Vanguard Vets rules.

Planetstrike comes to mind.

One star sneaked into her hear. Oh, those sneaky bastard stars !
Maybe the stars are actually giving in control of her, and the star in her hear is there to whisper her commands. Like “Use that plastic gun to kill Matt Ward” or “Die your nails black”.

I would be sort of okay with a new edition of the core ruleset if they actually improve the clarity of the rules and balance shooting vs. assault a little better.

If they just release a "new" book with additonal USR's and a few uneeded rule changes with no overall improvement to the gameplay (like 6th edition), then I will be mad and most likely go back to playing 5th edition once every month or two and spend my money on something like Flames of War or Malifaux instead.

 Kroothawk wrote:
Who would ever buy a 75 US$ rulebook from them again, when GW can't even promise that it will last 2 years.
That would be a Rackham-level loss of confidence in the company, and we know where that led to.

BTW I just learned that FW changed almost all unit rules from the 2 year old book Imperial Armour 11 (£42).

I believe some units in the IA2 Marines 2nd edition book were just updated only months earlier in the IA Apocalypse 2E book (contemptor maybe?).

Could someone post a summary? The OP doesn't look updated, and still ends with this question:

 Ravajaxe wrote:
6th edition would be only 2 years old at the time. If this is true, should we only expect a debugged V6.1 ruleset, along with Escalation added-in and Stronghold replacing current fortification section ?

Has there been more information revealed by rumormongers, or is everybody still in the dark atm?

The only "new" info from the past couple weeks is about 2-3 pages back from a rumormonger in France who said the new books are at the printer. Other than that, it's just been a discussion about the previous rumors of escalation/stronghold/etc being folded into the core rules. The rest is just hopes, dreams, and wishlisting (with some mudslinging in between).

AAAWWWW the pic is broken for me..

I think a lot of problems could be removed by having the core rules and a lot of bolt ons. You agree to use Allies, Mysterious Terrain/Objectives. Dataslates, LoW, etc and then play, that way you wouldn't be 'forced' to play against something you hated, you would know what your getting in to. I just talk to the person I'm playing but judging by the amount of complaining not many people are able to do that.

Removal of BB from Allies, buff to assault (6+D6 charge range?, charging from reserve/stationary vehicles (as has already been mentioned) would make a good change too.

 Bull0 wrote:
Yep. I get that. We just said that. I'm not meaning to say the thing is already sold, people, I was just arguing with Kroot who said it was already dead and buried because of the short life cycle which is patently untrue.

Guess we will have to see who is right then. Only thing we know ATM is that the escalation of book releases coincidenced with a 10% decline of revenue (not adjusted for inflation), not a growth. And the current team obviously doesn't show any interest in game balance.

I sincerely hope that 7th edition wont be like what 3rd edition was to 2nd edition, i.e. stripping the game off all its complexity and starting from scratch with an oversimplified ruleset that robbed a lot of fun from the game

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
One star sneaked into her hear. Oh, those sneaky bastard stars !
Maybe the stars are actually giving in control of her, and the star in her hear is there to whisper her commands. Like “Use that plastic gun to kill Matt Ward” or “Die your nails black”.

This guy is the bomb.

Die your nails black. That's awesome. Sig'd

 Sir Arun wrote:
I sincerely hope that 7th edition wont be like what 3rd edition was to 2nd edition, i.e. stripping the game off all its complexity and starting from scratch with an oversimplified ruleset that robbed a lot of fun from the game

At this stage starting from scratch may well be the only thing that can save 40k.

 Sir Arun wrote:
I sincerely hope that 7th edition wont be like what 3rd edition was to 2nd edition, i.e. stripping the game off all its complexity and starting from scratch with an oversimplified ruleset that robbed a lot of fun from the game

I hope it's exactly like that because I think most of the complexity in the game at the moment is unnecessary bloat rather than genuine depth.

 Bull0 wrote:

 Lockark wrote:

It's actully the fact wounds are removed from the front rank that hurts the most for any assault based army that is't wearing power armour.
Overwatch is just the iceing on the cake.

Man, the whole wounds removed from the front thing can feth off completely. I don't go in for the "6th is too complicated and random" "I hate mysterious objectives" stuff but that particular change is horrible. Look at my cowardly sergeant hiding at the back of his squad. I feel heroic.

I wouldn't mind the randomness if it wasn't for wounds off the front. =/

walking places on foot as orks has been suicide for me in 6th, since by the time you get anywhere you have lost all your srgs. and special weapons you needed to be effective at doing anything. I legit feel 6th has been a broken edition.

Basically we are getting debugged 6th edition, with hopefully all the Escalation and Stronghold rules, and please all the Dataslates, and all the races renamed to their pseudo-latin titles to avoid more Chapterhouse madness.

Zweischneid wrote:

 Sir Arun wrote:
Assaulting after deep strike never existed in prior 40k editions, save for the old Vanguard Vets rules.

Old 4th Edition CSM Codex "generic" Daemons could assault after Deepstrike, no?

Technically it was not Deep striking, but Summoning.

Major differences, since wargears and powers that affected DS units din't affect Summoned Deamons, and also the fact that if you din't have any Icon on the table when the Deamons would come from reserves, they couldn't be deployed.

Had an adversary rage quit the game when he saw my 8 Bloodletters be Summoned, scatter, then assault and kill a whole Termi sqaud, he called me a cheater because DSing units could'nt assault, when on to show him the Summonings rules and explain to him the difference, packed his army and left the room.

The only time in my life that i saw someone ragequit when playing Vs Chaos...

 Allod wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:
Allies are fantastic from the perspective of fluffy gaming

I've never understood this reasoning to keep the allies rule. If allies are fluffy, why do you need a rule telling you you're allowed to take them, just ask your opponent and take them. I had heaps of allied games with friends before the allies rules existed.

Allies, IMO, should be a house rule. By default they do not exist, but if you want them, discuss it with your opponent and decide what are fluffy and/or fair allies to take.

What AllSeeingSkink said. I could see ally rules being an optional guideline, like in the WHFB rulebook, just to give you something to work off IF you want to incorporate them into a casual game, but as core mechanic, they suck.

I have frequently played with or against allies pre-6th edition (houseruled) and initially tought they were a neat addition, but it turned out horrible.

In retrospective, I hated pretty much everything about 6th edition (not that 5th was perfect, but IMO all the "fixes" just made the game less enjoyable on the whole) and would be happy if 7th really was a new game instead of an update to 6th.

Maybe GW was studying market trends and found that they had milked the 'allies' as much as they could (the market that didn't have Riptides have made their purchases, and the market that had Tau, Eldar, Chaos, Orks have supplemented their armies with another). Now, they're going to pull allies from 7th, leaving people with an army and a fraction of another army, forcing them to fill out their former allies into a second army, doubling their profits!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
I hope it's exactly like that because I think most of the complexity in the game at the moment is unnecessary bloat rather than genuine depth.

That is a great way to put it: bloated. That is the perfect adjective for 6th Edition, imo.

 puma713 wrote:
Now, they're going to pull allies from 7th, leaving people with an army and a fraction of another army, forcing them to fill out their former allies into a second army, doubling their profits!

I saw that coming the minute allies were confirmed for 6th. I'll be very surprised if it doesn't happen because it's just so perfectly greedy and dickish for them not to do it.

 Sidstyler wrote:

 puma713 wrote:
Now, they're going to pull allies from 7th, leaving people with an army and a fraction of another army, forcing them to fill out their former allies into a second army, doubling their profits!

I saw that coming the minute allies were confirmed for 6th. I'll be very surprised if it doesn't happen because it's just so perfectly greedy and dickish for them not to do it.

On the other hand, the only purpose of the ally system as it is seems to be to create additional demand for new kits ("Ally with Tau to get this Riptide!"), so I fear they already decided that this route is more profitable than forcing people to stick with their chosen army.

What I'd love to know is whether they really started penning 7th edition before the ink on 6th was dry or wrote 7th as an unprecedented rush-job in response to some development they didn't anticate. Either would say much about the current mindset at GW.

 Sidstyler wrote:

 puma713 wrote:
Now, they're going to pull allies from 7th, leaving people with an army and a fraction of another army, forcing them to fill out their former allies into a second army, doubling their profits!

I saw that coming the minute allies were confirmed for 6th. I'll be very surprised if it doesn't happen because it's just so perfectly greedy and dickish for them not to do it.

And the best part is that they can bring Allies back to next edition, and thus continue milking the system indefinitely

 Therion wrote:

 warboss wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:
Allies are fantastic from the perspective of fluffy gaming, and getting rid of them isn't going to suddenly turn 40K into a balanced tournament ruleset the ruthlessly competitive types will just cheesemonger another way, so why take away the options Allies provide?

Fluffy allies? Haven't seen any yet although I don't play very often. I've only seen the power combos of some sort lifted off the internet or units that plug holes for armies with a glaring weakness (like adding in a close combat unit or two to Tau or IG that has no relation to "fluff"... why buy ogryns when you can get assault units that are much better pt for pt from allies? Psychicly weak army like Tau? Throw in a farseer and suddenly you got table wide protection with the old codex). I franky hope allies become an alternative to a second force org in 2000pt games and up instead of standard at all games. I also hope they truly cut back significantly on who is considered a battle brother. Marines disregard guardsmen as unreliable and inferior and IG hold marines in awe or fear them but suddenly they're bro-fisting across every battlefield? Tau and eldar have almost nothing in common yet suddenly they're brothers from another non-human mother? I see both the theoretical and practical reasons why GW introduced allies but in the end they're just a cheese tool for the majority of people I see. I do see the value in having them but I think just like with escalation and stronghold that allies should be reserved for "bigger" games of 2001+ pts.

It's true. As long as allies exist, designing codices is pretty much impossible unless the first special rule is "Cannot ally with anyone". Any intended weakness to balance the obvious strengths will just be avoided by players by going dual or triple codex.

And before those same players would just have avoided those codices which strove for balance and continued to use/waited for the inevitable release/s in every edition which were demonstrably superior on the table, or they'd ignore the "intended weakness" and build ludicrously boring but extremely effective armies around the strengths. If there are no Taudar or Eldarcrons or whatever then we'll just go back to seeing endless waves of Chimeltavets and Long Fang-spam.

You can't stop the cheesemongers unless GW undertake to transform 40K into a tightly-balanced, heavily-playtested set of rules, which we know they're not going to do any time soon, so why advocate for something which merely changes the flavour of cheese you're forced to endure, but takes away a lot of options for those players who do enjoy fluffy combos? I like being able to show up at a club or store and not have to spend part of my increasingly limited time to actually play games bartering a gentleman's agreement, just so I can put some of my armies on the table, not to mention that in my own anecdotal experience a lot of the daft resistance I used to get for "counts as" has melted away now that Allies have made such things commonplace.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:
Allies are fantastic from the perspective of fluffy gaming

I've never understood this reasoning to keep the allies rule. If allies are fluffy, why do you need a rule telling you you're allowed to take them, just ask your opponent and take them. I had heaps of allied games with friends before the allies rules existed.

Allies, IMO, should be a house rule. By default they do not exist, but if you want them, discuss it with your opponent and decide what are fluffy and/or fair allies to take.

I personally like taking my IG alongside my SW, which is a pretty understandable alliance. However for the sake of having a better core game, I'd rather the core rules didn't have allies and if I want to take them as allies, I just ask my opponent first... kind of like I did before 6th edition, lol.

As I already stated above; not everyone gets to game in a house with their mates, and not everyone enjoys spending a big chunk of their limited play time justifying their army's existence to random opponents and then haggling over specifics. Allies eliminate that nonsense, with no downsides which were not already inherent to 40K.

I'm inclined to agree; take allies away and people will only complain that win-at-all-costs gamers are doing something else they disapprove of. It's a lot easier than admitting you've been fairly beaten.

I think keeping allies in their current form just because things like the Leafblower and Grey Knights spam armies always existed is throwing out the baby with the bathwater, but I understand that you cannot expect to only meet reasonable people when you are dependant on pick-up games with strangers. And I'm all for fielding Traitor Guard with Chaos Marines, or Genestealer Cults (which ironically still is impossile), or Tau with Gue'vesa allies.

My issue with the ally system of 6th is that nine out of ten people seem to use it to cheese out their army AND drop a pile on the fluff while they do it. Thankfully I rarely do pick-up games with strangers, but if I had to, I would feel my enjoyment of the game assaulted on two fronts, which is a bit naff.

These days, with digital mini-codices, I'd much prefer to have all "fluffy" combos supplied with a mini-dex instead of catch-all ally rules.

 Allod wrote:

These days, with digital mini-codices, I'd much prefer to have all "fluffy" combos supplied with a mini-dex instead of catch-all ally rules.

Well, the problem is that with mini-dexes, you'll only ever be able to play the stuff GW pre-chewed for you Warmachine style. "Catch-all" ally are by default superiour, because they allow people to step outside the example-fluff provided by GW and be creative on their own. That's pretty much a must-have if you want to keep the creative and imaginative people and not have the 40K-community devolve into mindless PP-style fluff-sheep.

 Zweischneid wrote:

 Allod wrote:

These days, with digital mini-codices, I'd much prefer to have all "fluffy" combos supplied with a mini-dex instead of catch-all ally rules.

Well, the problem is that with mini-dexes, you'll only ever be able to play the stuff GW pre-chewed for you Warmachine style. "Catch-all" ally are by default superiour, because they allow people to step outside the example-fluff provided by GW and be creative on their own. That's pretty much a must-have if you want to keep the creative and imaginative people and not have the 40K-community devolve into mindless PP-style fluff-sheep.

Talking of fluff sheep, How are you today

 Zweischneid wrote:
not have the 40K-community devolve into mindless PP-style fluff-sheep.

Uh ? What is that ? Fluff-sheep ?

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:
not have the 40K-community devolve into mindless PP-style fluff-sheep.

Uh ? What is that ? Fluff-sheep ?

People simply re-bleating the prefab fluff they get drip-fed straight from the company... ya know, those without that brains to be creative themselves, test the boundaries and forge their own narratives.

 Zweischneid wrote:
Well, the problem is that with mini-dexes, you'll only ever be able to play the stuff GW pre-chewed for you Warmachine style.
<snip>
[...] keep the creative and imaginative people and not have the 40K-community devolve into mindless PP-style fluff-sheep.

You mean like from third to sixth edition, 1998-2012? Those 14 years that drove away the creative and imaginative people and made the 40k-community devolve into PP-style fluff-sheep?

Sorry, I don't buy it.

 Zweischneid wrote:
"Catch-all" ally are by default superiour, because they allow people to step outside the example-fluff provided by GW and be creative on their own.

They are superior if you want maximum flexibility for fielding your models in pick-up games. Fair enough, but I wouldn't call that "default". There's plenty of other fields where these rules do more harm than good at the moment.

As one of those "creative and imaginative people" who always had more counts-as stuff than models straight out of the box, I have personally come to the conclusion that it probably was for the best to throw out ally rules with 3rd edition (or, for the same reason, Dogs of War in WHFB, although I loved and used them) because they tend to sabotage the "game" aspect of the hobby.

This thread seems to have captured all of the vocal anti-GW crowd. Please don't make the assumption that the majority of 40k players don't like 6th edition.

I personally much prefer it to 5th, particularly in terms of wound allocation, flyers, hull points, pre-measured range, etc. etc. I also think, from a casual player's perspective, that allies are brilliant. I now have a fluffy, themed Sisters force allied with Inquisition.

Finally, I'm also a big fan of Escalation, which lets me field my Warhound Titan in non-Apoc games without having to beg, or allow it to be nerfed into the ground through house rules.

If 7th leads to a rulebook with all of the FAQs included, along with supplements, packaged in a cool new starter set, then I, for one, am happy.

It's not even about that, from my perspective; I like the fluff as it's presented(mostly, my 10th Legion bionic gauntlet is now permanently jammed in place flipping GW the bird), but there are many parts of the fluff, even just the fairly mainstream and well-detailed Imperial parts of it, which you simply can't explore properly on the tabletop when limited to a single official Codex.

Would I prefer it if I could rely on getting a game with homebrew rules, either amalgams of existing units from different codices or completely fan-written material? Definitely, but I can't, in fact I can virtually guarantee the opposite outside of my own "gaming group" who now live all over the place and can only get together once or twice a year. Allies mean my Mechanicus and Dark Mechanicus can be more than just "red Imperial Guard" and "Chaos Marines with cogs on", they allow people to create interesting Radical Inquisitorial armies, they allow Arbites to see the table more completely even than you could manage with the old Codex:Witch Hunters, they let people put together minor Xenos factions that are only alluded to in 40K or which have come out of the Heresy-era material in recent years. I and others can do all that without once having to deal with someone whinging about "bu-bu-bu-but it's not official!" or spending twenty minutes haggling over some minor point of WYSIWYG; it's brilliant.

If the price of that flexibility(and while it may technically be possible to have as much flexibility or near to it AND tight balanced rules in a general sense, in the context of 40K and the GW of the day's attitudes it is not) is giving the powergaming types a few new ways of putting together ridiculously unbalanced lists which will tear fluff and casual players apart than they had before, well who cares? Take those away and as I said, you get exactly the same problem but everybody has less options and variety available.

 Bull0 wrote:
It's a lot easier than admitting you've been fairly beaten.

Getting beaten fairly can be suprisingly uncommon in a game as fundamentally broken as 40k.

 Zweischneid wrote:
People simply re-bleating the prefab fluff they get drip-fed straight from the company... ya know, those without that brains to be creative themselves, test the boundaries and forge their own narratives.

I have to agree with this statement. How lame are people for liking fluff written by other people?

For the same reason, I look down on anyone who reads novels instead of writing their own. So you read Lord of the Rings? Pffft! Tolkien-sheep! Real fantasy fans write their own interminable, convoluted sagas!

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:
not have the 40K-community devolve into mindless PP-style fluff-sheep.

Uh ? What is that ? Fluff-sheep ?

Fluffy sheep. Sheep with lots of wool on them, as opposed to shorn sheep, which are less fluffy but much more pissed.

 tyrannosaurus wrote:
If 7th leads to a rulebook with all of the FAQs included, along with supplements, packaged in a cool new starter set, then I, for one, am happy.

That would be a more useful thing if the FAQs were in any way comprehensive.

2 years and we still have no idea how to draw LOS with Artillery, just to pluck an example out of the ether.

 insaniak wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:
People simply re-bleating the prefab fluff they get drip-fed straight from the company... ya know, those without that brains to be creative themselves, test the boundaries and forge their own narratives.

I have to agree with this statement. How lame are people for liking fluff written by other people?

For the same reason, I look down on anyone who reads novels instead of writing their own. So you read Lord of the Rings? Pffft! Tolkien-sheep! Real fantasy fans write their own interminable, convoluted sagas!

Tolkien totally stole his stuff from WFB...

 insaniak wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:
People simply re-bleating the prefab fluff they get drip-fed straight from the company... ya know, those without that brains to be creative themselves, test the boundaries and forge their own narratives.

I have to agree with this statement. How lame are people for liking fluff written by other people?

For the same reason, I look down on anyone who reads novels instead of writing their own. So you read Lord of the Rings? Pffft! Tolkien-sheep! Real fantasy fans write their own interminable, convoluted sagas!

There's a difference between enjoying other people's work and copying it.

Sure you can like Tolkien.

But yes, if you write a book yourself, you shouldn't just copy Tolkien (or, at least, it would be considered bad taste in most fields).

Similarly, you can like and enjoy GW/PP studio armies/background.

But if you start building your own army, you might want to do something more than blatant copycatting.

Blatant copying? So... I can't make an Ultramarine army? I should come up with my own force rather than being a sheep and following the written fluff? That's what you're arguing here? I mean really, trust Zwei to think of a new way to attack the community. First it's bleating about WAAC players, now he's attacking people who like the fluff - how dare people like the fluff!

Gotta get them clicks!!!

 Zweischneid wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:
People simply re-bleating the prefab fluff they get drip-fed straight from the company... ya know, those without that brains to be creative themselves, test the boundaries and forge their own narratives.

I have to agree with this statement. How lame are people for liking fluff written by other people?

For the same reason, I look down on anyone who reads novels instead of writing their own. So you read Lord of the Rings? Pffft! Tolkien-sheep! Real fantasy fans write their own interminable, convoluted sagas!

There's a difference between enjoying other people's work and copying it.

Sure you can like Tolkien.

But yes, if you write a book yourself, you shouldn't just copy Tolkien (or, at least, it would be considered bad taste in most fields).

Similarly, you can like and enjoy GW/PP studio armies/background.

But if you start building your own army, you might want to do something more than blatant copycatting.

Oh wow, I almost choked on a spoon when I read that. The sheer irony of trying to tell people they shouldn't copy other people's stuff while defending GW

 jonolikespie wrote:


Oh wow, I almost choked on a spoon when I read that. The sheer irony of trying to tell people they shouldn't copy other people's stuff while defending GW

I am not defending GW. They've clearly moved away from promoting creativity nearly as much as PP.

 Zweischneid wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:


Oh wow, I almost choked on a spoon when I read that. The sheer irony of trying to tell people they shouldn't copy other people's stuff while defending GW

I am not defending GW. They've clearly moved away from promoting creativity nearly as much as PP.

Have you ever read into the iron kingdoms? You know, guts n gears, the gavyn Kyle files? How about the iron kingdoms rpg material? Whether it's the d20 material, or the new ikrpg, trust me, pp do a great job on creating a vibrant, gritty, characterful world with thousands of years of history, immense depth and great characters. There are very few 'direct ports' of typical fantasy archetypes.Everything has a bit of a twist to it.

Sure, pp are stricter about conversions than gw, but even there, look at their no quarter magazine. Painting competitions, themed diorama competitions, conversion challenges (yes, they do these too!) , gaming puzzles and so on. And there are some awesome conversions out there. Rico stormwall, storm scorpion, and the baby mammoth (all googleable!) pop into my mind. Heck, in the most recent nq (I think!) I read an article of a poster who had converted a pirate themed Horluk doomshaper, with plans for an army to follow.

Fine. All the army leaders are 'names'. But there is nothing stopping you creating your one regiment/batallion and telling its story. Don't get so shortsighted. Beyond that, you've got theme lists. There are any number if ways to 'anchor' your army in the setting In a very stylish and accurate way. There are any number of ways to place your own footprint in the game. But I'm sure you'll happily ignore this, and keep spouting nonsense as though it's fact.

Creativity? They have it in spades. As do we in the community. Trust you to be blind and ignorant to it though.

 Zweischneid wrote:
People simply re-bleating the prefab fluff they get drip-fed straight from the company... ya know, those without that brains to be creative themselves, test the boundaries and forge their own narratives.

I have no idea what “test the boundaries” is supposed to mean here. Really. As for the rest of the message, the only way that I can see which would make Warmachine/Horde players less likely to write their own fluff than 40k players is the lack of generic Warcasters/Warlocks. But since my 40k faction only allows for one extremely, massively lame generic HQ, and one special character which is just bad/passable and therefore always get picked instead, in every game, I do not feel such a difference. I actually have more specific, creative fluff for my Horde army (Captain Gunnbjorn having recruited rebellious young trollkins into the “1rst Infantry Regiment of the United Kriels of Immoren” with guns all over the place, and a bad attitude. Cartoony mix of action-movie U.S. army and rebellious young) than I do for my 40k army (which is just some random Minor Order, which only originality is on the paint job, because they are all blacks (so very few 40k black models), with blond hair).

Actually I think all the codecies “Color marines” are much bigger offenders against promoting writing a creative fluff for one's army than having pre-set alliances. How can you make any original army within such a restricting canvas as those very very specific chapters ? And giving chapter-specific traits instead of generic traits with some preset traits for official chapters is just one more way of encouraging people to just follow GW fluff rather than write their own chapter.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Sir Arun wrote:
I sincerely hope that 7th edition wont be like what 3rd edition was to 2nd edition, i.e. stripping the game off all its complexity and starting from scratch with an oversimplified ruleset that robbed a lot of fun from the game

I hope it's exactly like that because I think most of the complexity in the game at the moment is unnecessary bloat rather than genuine depth.

I disagree, although I acknowledge the fact that many of the rules now are overly cumbersome and the idea of introducing super heavies into the standard game is just a little weird but hey that being said I appreciate a complex game system one that you have to reference the rule book and study it. I honestly believe if they dumb it down too far that it will kill the game just like in my opinion Dungeons and Dragons died for me when it went from 3.5 to 4.0

 Yodhrin wrote:
It's not even about that, from my perspective; I like the fluff as it's presented(mostly, my 10th Legion bionic gauntlet is now permanently jammed in place flipping GW the bird), but there are many parts of the fluff, even just the fairly mainstream and well-detailed Imperial parts of it, which you simply can't explore properly on the tabletop when limited to a single official Codex.

Would I prefer it if I could rely on getting a game with homebrew rules, either amalgams of existing units from different codices or completely fan-written material? Definitely, but I can't, in fact I can virtually guarantee the opposite outside of my own "gaming group" who now live all over the place and can only get together once or twice a year. Allies mean my Mechanicus and Dark Mechanicus can be more than just "red Imperial Guard" and "Chaos Marines with cogs on", they allow people to create interesting Radical Inquisitorial armies, they allow Arbites to see the table more completely even than you could manage with the old Codex:Witch Hunters, they let people put together minor Xenos factions that are only alluded to in 40K or which have come out of the Heresy-era material in recent years. I and others can do all that without once having to deal with someone whinging about "bu-bu-bu-but it's not official!" or spending twenty minutes haggling over some minor point of WYSIWYG; it's brilliant.

If the price of that flexibility(and while it may technically be possible to have as much flexibility or near to it AND tight balanced rules in a general sense, in the context of 40K and the GW of the day's attitudes it is not) is giving the powergaming types a few new ways of putting together ridiculously unbalanced lists which will tear fluff and casual players apart than they had before, well who cares? Take those away and as I said, you get exactly the same problem but everybody has less options and variety available.

This... this is how I feel, expressed with a clarity and patience that you all know I don't possess.

 Yodhrin wrote:
It's not even about that, from my perspective; I like the fluff as it's presented(mostly, my 10th Legion bionic gauntlet is now permanently jammed in place flipping GW the bird), but there are many parts of the fluff, even just the fairly mainstream and well-detailed Imperial parts of it, which you simply can't explore properly on the tabletop when limited to a single official Codex.

Would I prefer it if I could rely on getting a game with homebrew rules, either amalgams of existing units from different codices or completely fan-written material? Definitely, but I can't, in fact I can virtually guarantee the opposite outside of my own "gaming group" who now live all over the place and can only get together once or twice a year. Allies mean my Mechanicus and Dark Mechanicus can be more than just "red Imperial Guard" and "Chaos Marines with cogs on", they allow people to create interesting Radical Inquisitorial armies, they allow Arbites to see the table more completely even than you could manage with the old Codex:Witch Hunters, they let people put together minor Xenos factions that are only alluded to in 40K or which have come out of the Heresy-era material in recent years. I and others can do all that without once having to deal with someone whinging about "bu-bu-bu-but it's not official!" or spending twenty minutes haggling over some minor point of WYSIWYG; it's brilliant.

If the price of that flexibility(and while it may technically be possible to have as much flexibility or near to it AND tight balanced rules in a general sense, in the context of 40K and the GW of the day's attitudes it is not) is giving the powergaming types a few new ways of putting together ridiculously unbalanced lists which will tear fluff and casual players apart than they had before, well who cares? Take those away and as I said, you get exactly the same problem but everybody has less options and variety available.

If the allies rules were in any way shape or form balanced, you might have a point.

But they're not. When you have armies that cant really ally with anyone else, and other armies that can ally with half the game, and yet another army that literally can NOT ally with anyone, then you dont have a good rule. You have a pile of gamebreaking crap that says "Oh you play Tyranids? Well frell you and the horse you rode in on!"

Before Allies there was a perfectly viable way to mix and match forces: Apocalypse. Apocalypse allowed you to field whatever you wanted, in whatever combination, and have a decent rules framework to play in. Not every Apoc game had to be 10 million points, despite what everyone seemed to think.

Instead, we have a pile of crap allies rules that allow certain armies to play, other armies to dabble and Tyranids get frelled.

Dunno about you, but I consider that a gak set of rules.

 streamdragon wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:
It's not even about that, from my perspective; I like the fluff as it's presented(mostly, my 10th Legion bionic gauntlet is now permanently jammed in place flipping GW the bird), but there are many parts of the fluff, even just the fairly mainstream and well-detailed Imperial parts of it, which you simply can't explore properly on the tabletop when limited to a single official Codex.

Would I prefer it if I could rely on getting a game with homebrew rules, either amalgams of existing units from different codices or completely fan-written material? Definitely, but I can't, in fact I can virtually guarantee the opposite outside of my own "gaming group" who now live all over the place and can only get together once or twice a year. Allies mean my Mechanicus and Dark Mechanicus can be more than just "red Imperial Guard" and "Chaos Marines with cogs on", they allow people to create interesting Radical Inquisitorial armies, they allow Arbites to see the table more completely even than you could manage with the old Codex:Witch Hunters, they let people put together minor Xenos factions that are only alluded to in 40K or which have come out of the Heresy-era material in recent years. I and others can do all that without once having to deal with someone whinging about "bu-bu-bu-but it's not official!" or spending twenty minutes haggling over some minor point of WYSIWYG; it's brilliant.

If the price of that flexibility(and while it may technically be possible to have as much flexibility or near to it AND tight balanced rules in a general sense, in the context of 40K and the GW of the day's attitudes it is not) is giving the powergaming types a few new ways of putting together ridiculously unbalanced lists which will tear fluff and casual players apart than they had before, well who cares? Take those away and as I said, you get exactly the same problem but everybody has less options and variety available.

If the allies rules were in any way shape or form balanced, you might have a point.

But they're not. When you have armies that cant really ally with anyone else, and other armies that can ally with half the game, and yet another army that literally can NOT ally with anyone, then you dont have a good rule. You have a pile of gamebreaking crap that says "Oh you play Tyranids? Well frell you and the horse you rode in on!"

Before Allies there was a perfectly viable way to mix and match forces: Apocalypse. Apocalypse allowed you to field whatever you wanted, in whatever combination, and have a decent rules framework to play in. Not every Apoc game had to be 10 million points, despite what everyone seemed to think.

Instead, we have a pile of crap allies rules that allow certain armies to play, other armies to dabble and Tyranids get frelled.

Dunno about you, but I consider that a gak set of rules.

And I've made it fairly clear I don't. Are they crap for 'nids? Sure, but if that's the argument what you're essentially saying is "I don't get any cool toys, so everyone else should lose theirs too!". Nothing about 40K is in any way, shape, or form balanced and, perhaps excepting short periods in 3rd and 4th editions, it's never even come close. So again, it becomes a choice between more options, or less options without significantly changing how imbalanced the game is - or is your contention that removing Allies in and of itself would make Tyranids viable?

As for Apocalypse, my experience was very much in line with what you acknowledge right there in the post is what "everyone seemed to think" - that it was for massive battles, or special arranged-in-advance narrative battles, and since the entire reason that I like the Allies rules is that it lets me field the armies I want to field at normal points levels without having to endure a bloody UN Summit before every game to negotiate the terms, Apocalypse rules in a context where virtually everyone would have to be "talked into" using them for normal points level games is self-evidently not fit for purpose.

 Yodhrin wrote:

the armies I want to field at normal points levels without having to endure a bloody UN Summit before every game to negotiate the terms

I'd just like to point out that the presence or absence of Allies has no effect on this occurrence in the broader sense. Sure, with Allies you don't have to argue about fielding two different forces and how they will interact with one another, but the serious imbalances inherent to the systems (which you yourself have already acknowledged) means that many games against strangers will require this same inane level of negotiation. For example...

"This is a 2000pt game, but no double force-org"
"Five Riptides is too OP, this is a casual game"
"Seerstar is boring to play against"
"Don't bring your buff-mander, please"
"I don't allow FW"
"FW is okay, but no super-heavies"
"Fortifications are a no-no"
"I'd like a competitive game, can we leave out mysterious objectives/terrain?"
"No escalation"
"Only wimps use dataslates"

These kinds of conditions and qualifications come from both casual and competitive players alike. Ultimately, one needs to negotiate these kinds of things quite often before a game, so your argument that Allies are justified because they eliminate one element of negotiation does not hold much water in my opinion. I'm not actually against Allies (nor do I necessarily disagree that they are good for the game - I actually like the flexibility), but I don't think your reasoning really stacks up all that well.

I'm still studying the 6th edition rule book! As a new player i feel this would suck lol.

Play Group - "Ok Blay, time to relearn everything you just scrutinized for the past few months!"
Me - "FacePalm"

Blaylokk wrote:
I'm still studying the 6th edition rule book! As a new player i feel this would suck lol.

Play Group - "Ok Blay, time to relearn everything you just scrutinized for the past few months!"
Me - "FacePalm"

This would be highly unlikely.

Most of the fundamental mechanics have remained unchanged since the days of RT, or 2nd Ed at least. To hit and to wound are fundamentally similar for instance.

Sure you'd have to learn what was different, but you wouldn't need to start over.

Now imagine 20 years and multiple editions down the line, my issue isn't necessarily remembering the rules, it's remembering them from the correct version!

Well that's a relief .. lol

 azreal13 wrote:
Most of the fundamental mechanics have remained unchanged since the days of RT, or 2nd Ed at least. To hit and to wound are fundamentally similar for instance.

Sure you'd have to learn what was different, but you wouldn't need to start over.

Now imagine 20 years and multiple editions down the line, my issue isn't necessarily remembering the rules, it's remembering them from the correct version!

Did you forget how 6th edition changed a crapton of rules when the game transitioned from 5th?

melee weapons having AP values, mysterious terrain and objectives, challenges, hull points, flyers, CC-AT nerf for MCs, HoW, allies matrix, overwatch, FMCs, wound allocation, fully random psychic powers section, warlord traits, secondary objectives, 'our weapons are useless',...

...to me it was like a new game.

The transition from 4th to 5th on the other hand was a lot easier to comprehend. 1 vehicle damage table (with modifiers) instead of 2; run, go to ground, redone blast rules, ramming, and of course the rending nerf. cant remember anything else, lol

 Sir Arun wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:
Most of the fundamental mechanics have remained unchanged since the days of RT, or 2nd Ed at least. To hit and to wound are fundamentally similar for instance.

Sure you'd have to learn what was different, but you wouldn't need to start over.

Now imagine 20 years and multiple editions down the line, my issue isn't necessarily remembering the rules, it's remembering them from the correct version!

Did you forget how 6th edition changed a crapton of rules when the game transitioned from 5th?

melee weapons having AP values, mysterious terrain and objectives, challenges, hull points, flyers, CC-AT nerf for MCs, HoW, allies matrix, overwatch, FMCs, wound allocation, fully random psychic powers section, warlord traits, secondary objectives, 'our weapons are useless',...

...to me it was like a new game.

The transition from 4th to 5th on the other hand was a lot easier to comprehend. 1 vehicle damage table (with modifiers) instead of 2; run, go to ground, redone blast rules, ramming, and of course the rending nerf. cant remember anything else, lol

What...you mean.....some stuff changed?!!!!!!

Quick, fetch me my astonished hat!



I am not an Alzheimer's patient, I did not forget anything, I was merely trying to assure a new player that all his carefully accumulated knowledge wasn't necessarily going to go out of the window with a new edition. Thanks for undermining my attempt.

Nah Az, quite a bit changed. The transition from 5th to 6th wasn't as big as, say, 2nd to 3rd, but a lot did change, and heaps of (needless and over-complicated) rules were added.

Agreed, but a lot didn't, or at least didn't change beyond the scope of "oh ok, we do it that way now"

But again, the degree that things changed/didn't change wasn't my objective with my original post.

Ally rules didn't even need to be in the game in the first place, since you could just apply allies for purposes of the scenario/campaign/narrative you were playing if you were going that route, and if you were going the competitive route then outside of maybe a few handfuls of army concepts there wasn't a need for allies in the rules. Same with most of the other OP garbage that GW added: The people who would likely use them for benign purposes didn't need rules outlining how to do it, and the everybody else didn't need them at all.

No man this can't be happening man. I just started getting good at 6th ed man! THEY CAN'T TAKE THAT FROM ME MAN!

 Xca|iber wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:

the armies I want to field at normal points levels without having to endure a bloody UN Summit before every game to negotiate the terms

I'd just like to point out that the presence or absence of Allies has no effect on this occurrence in the broader sense. Sure, with Allies you don't have to argue about fielding two different forces and how they will interact with one another, but the serious imbalances inherent to the systems (which you yourself have already acknowledged) means that many games against strangers will require this same inane level of negotiation. For example...

"This is a 2000pt game, but no double force-org"
"Five Riptides is too OP, this is a casual game"
"Seerstar is boring to play against"
"Don't bring your buff-mander, please"
"I don't allow FW"
"FW is okay, but no super-heavies"
"Fortifications are a no-no"
"I'd like a competitive game, can we leave out mysterious objectives/terrain?"
"No escalation"
"Only wimps use dataslates"

These kinds of conditions and qualifications come from both casual and competitive players alike. Ultimately, one needs to negotiate these kinds of things quite often before a game, so your argument that Allies are justified because they eliminate one element of negotiation does not hold much water in my opinion. I'm not actually against Allies (nor do I necessarily disagree that they are good for the game - I actually like the flexibility), but I don't think your reasoning really stacks up all that well.

My reasoning stacks up fine, providing you don't falsely attribute equal weight and likelihood to every potential disagreement happening before every game. It also stacks up fine providing you acknowledge that those objections all have different levels of validity and so even if they do come up, are not all equally likely to be long and contentious arguments. If I go to any particular club or store on a game night, the odds are fairly good that I will find one person who is not averse to Forgeworld, Allies, Escalation, Fortifications or whatever combination of them and other things my army includes, because there is not near-universal opposition to those things.

You can not, in my experience, expect to get the same reaction if you show up at any particular club or store and ask people to play against homebrew and house-ruled lists. "My army uses a Destroyer Tank Hunter, here's a copy of the rules, is that cool?" is not going to be as likely to result in objections or contentious debating as "Here is my army list representing Dark Mechanicus, I know it's an 1850 game and we're not playing Apocalypse, but I've chosen units from a couple of different Codices, is that cool?" or "Here is my Adeptus Arbites Punitive Battalion army list, it's based on a fan Codex I wrote myself/found online, is that cool?", and that distinction is so obvious as to be self-evident.

WayneTheGame wrote:
Ally rules didn't even need to be in the game in the first place, since you could just apply allies for purposes of the scenario/campaign/narrative you were playing if you were going that route, and if you were going the competitive route then outside of maybe a few handfuls of army concepts there wasn't a need for allies in the rules. Same with most of the other OP garbage that GW added: The people who would likely use them for benign purposes didn't need rules outlining how to do it, and the everybody else didn't need them at all.

If you play with a regular group who you know. There is a great bloody chasm between "narrative campaign gaming at a mate's house" and "cut-throat tournament gaming" in which exists a massive population of players who play pick-up games with people they either don't know or who are just very casual acquaintances from the local store/club, and some of us *shock-horror* are fluff gamers who use Allies rules for "benign purposes", and are extremely grateful for them because they allow us to get a game in without dealing with petty objections.

My only beef with Allies is that a few doesn't make sens...

Because in the Fluff ONE TIME in some drastic circumstances, Crons and BA fought along side by side, they are now Allies...

A one time thing becomes the excuse for being able to do it always, now i admit that i never saw a Cron/BA army myself...

The most ridiculous is Taudar, everyone knows that, not really because of the fluff or anything, but more because How broken what you can with them is...

And seeing that Eldars are shaddy people, they really shouldn't have end up BB's with Tau's, AoC's at best!.

Now a lot of Imperial alliances, makes sens, and its amongst the only ones that does...

And then...we have Chaos...BB that can't join each other, there was ONE faction in the whole game that would end up with something has strange and stupid has this, and it was of Course Chaos...

Also something i don't get is that Tau's and Orks can ally with each other..., i mean wasn't they supposed to be Mortal ennemies?

Now a few of those alliance even if weird, give some modeling opportunities, like Crons with Chaos, if you want to make a Dark Mech allied detachement, with Chaos Androids like in RT.

Or Mutants ala Lost and the Damned with Chaos+Orks.

But the Allies matrix need some reworks in the end.

 Sir Arun wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:
Most of the fundamental mechanics have remained unchanged since the days of RT, or 2nd Ed at least. To hit and to wound are fundamentally similar for instance.

Sure you'd have to learn what was different, but you wouldn't need to start over.

Now imagine 20 years and multiple editions down the line, my issue isn't necessarily remembering the rules, it's remembering them from the correct version!

Did you forget how 6th edition changed a crapton of rules when the game transitioned from 5th?

melee weapons having AP values, mysterious terrain and objectives, challenges, hull points, flyers, CC-AT nerf for MCs, HoW, allies matrix, overwatch, FMCs, wound allocation, fully random psychic powers section, warlord traits, secondary objectives, 'our weapons are useless',...

...to me it was like a new game.

The transition from 4th to 5th on the other hand was a lot easier to comprehend. 1 vehicle damage table (with modifiers) instead of 2; run, go to ground, redone blast rules, ramming, and of course the rending nerf. cant remember anything else, lol

The small transitions and alteration aside, I think the point being made is that fundamental mechanics have not changed at all throughout the course of the game. Models have wounds to determine how long they live, they fire with their BS, combat foes based on WS, go in I order, compare S and T values, or armour values when necessary, etc. The way in which a certain mechanic is used or expanded upon can change (i.e, giving vehicles wounds with hull points, altering which value you need for a given mechanic, psyker levels, etc.)

Some of the few new mechanics that were actually added this edition:
- How to interact with flyers, an entirely new breed of vehicle.
- How to treat psyker abilities, powers, and the targeting of them.

Many other things that are, indeed, "new" merely alter an old mechanic, instead of introducing something entirely new and fresh. Throwing a grenade is just another ranged weapon, only moving 6" before disembarking is just a new way to disembark, passing a feel no pain on a 5+ instead of a 4+ is just a new statistic, etc. etc.

Had they started making rules like units no longer have to maintain coherency, weapons can be picked up from fallen enemies and used by your troops, vehicles can be stolen and piloted, forrests can be burned to the ground, buildings can be erected mid-battle, etc., those would account for entirely new mechanics, instead of just a rehashing of the old ones.

tyrannosaurus wrote:This thread seems to have captured all of the vocal anti-GW crowd. Please don't make the assumption that the majority of 40k players don't like 6th edition.

It is not posters in this thread leading to assumptions about the majority of the player base disliking 6th ed. It is the plummeting sales of 6th ed and its projected future when you look at what is happening in Warhammer Fantasy 8th ed.

Porting fantasies more disliked features and then adding even more random bloat just killed the game for a great number of players.

tyrannosaurus wrote:I personally much prefer it to 5th, particularly in terms of wound allocation, flyers, hull points, pre-measured range, etc. etc. I also think, from a casual player's perspective, that allies are brilliant. I now have a fluffy, themed Sisters force allied with Inquisition.

Good for you, though you might want to avoid blanket statements where you claim to speak for all casual gamers.

As a casual gamer myself your list of what you like about 6th ed has only one item I agree with. Wounds from the front...everything else like fliers, hull points, pre-measured range and allies are complete rules bloat rubbish. For me, these rules do not add to the game being more immersive. Rather they detract from the experience by creating situations that cause a suspension of disbelief.

Hull points add more book keeping hassle to a game that already pushes the limit on amount of record keeping one is normally willing to do for a "casual" game.

Flyers that "circle" a 48 yrd x 72 yrd "active" battlefield at supersonic speeds requires more than a casual amount of imagination to ignore the "wow, I'm playing one stupid game" logic alarm in my head.

Imo, pre-measuring moves the game away from immersing one in tactical game play. Instead it creates a detached moment where one consciously decides to abandon the battle plan in order to gain advantage for the win. For me, pre-measure is a competition based rule.

Slayer le boucher wrote:
The most ridiculous is Taudar, everyone knows that, not really because of the fluff or anything, but more because How broken what you can with them is...

While I agree with your overall theme that allies either need a major rework or just should be tossed, Tau and eldar are one of the few ally groupings that makes sense. This is due to the fluff always alluding to a connection between these races.

The problem with Taudar alliances being unbalanced and ridiculously powerful just illustrates how little thought GW put into how these books would work together.

Both Tau and Eldar were released after 6th and GW's lack of design coordination is for me the most damning reason of why the allies matrix should just go away.

Let us, the players work out alliances in our casual games. By codifying allies in the rules GW catered to the waac rules lawyers. Leave them out of the rules and there is nothing for the waac rules lawyers to exploit.