Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Agamemnon2 wrote:

 pretre wrote:
edit: Moral of the story: People have been complaining about GW's prices and proclaiming that this is the last straw for nigh on as far as google goes back.

And for a lot of people, it was. I'd hazard an estimate that there are damn few 90s veterans still active in the hobby. I have no doubt a lot of those old boycott criers and complainers were in earnest and lived up to their word.

Entirely anecdotal, but in my experience I couldn't agree more. At my previous gaming group only 3 other people played 40k, and they were all under the age of 21 [except me, but I was out of the hobby for years]. All of the experienced blokes had nothing but contempt for GW and were in the process of selling off all of their [usually pretty amazing] GW armies to spend on WarmaHorde, to the point where, when a couple of the younger ones left for university it was impossible for me to get a game.

At the club that plays up the road from me [since I moved] more people play X-Wing than 40k [although the bloke running the club keeps trying to push it as he's a big Sisters fan].

Sad really, and makes me concerned for the hobby.

So really it is probably just 6.5?

 SickSix wrote:
So really it is probably just 6.5?

Yup.

*sad face*

About the pistols, rumour has it that the model exchange the +1A fir two ccw with One attack resolved with the pistol S and AP.

In this case the two plasma pistols in Zerker squads fianly become interesting.

 Slayer le boucher wrote:
About the pistols, rumour has it that the model exchange the +1A fir two ccw with One attack resolved with the pistol S and AP.

In this case the two plasma pistols in Zerker squads fianly become interesting.

That would be sensible. It would also finally make sense for plasma pistols to cost as much as they do.

EDIT: Of course that would make Terminators even more useless, if that is possible.

 Slayer le boucher wrote:
About the pistols, rumour has it that the model exchange the +1A fir two ccw with One attack resolved with the pistol S and AP.

In this case the two plasma pistols in Zerker squads fianly become interesting.

And now that very high price for a pair of inferno pistols would be worth it !
“Inferno pistols, more powerful than an eviscerator, takes only one hand, strike at normal I” .

 Cruentus wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:


...Traditionally, wargames haven't has that same sort of life cycle, and, in GW's recent history especially, those players wishing to stay near the top of the competition curve generally need to make a further investment in more stuff. If that life cycle, and associated expenditure suddenly accelerates, you can expect people to have a problem with it.

If I were wearing my tinfoil hat, I might think that GW was purposefully doing this to drive the competitive gamers further away. But that would be crazy talk, and way too organized for GW.

Back in reality land, we continue to froth and foam about a RUMOR that is incredibly unlikely based on GWs track record. With only two years in, and books just having been printed, why would they consolidate them at this point, UNLESS they were just pulling the rulebook, escalation, and stronghold into a "collector's edition" of 40k, and charging a premium. Now that I can envision.

The reason this rumor is getting traction is because a segment of the player base is already frothing and foaming over how unsuitable they believe 6th is for a certain style of play. If I was going to invent a rumor it'd be exactly down his path.

Personally I think it's probably hogwash, if we're talking about something beyond an extensive errata and FAQ. GW had many of the 6th edition codices etc written when 6th was released. There's NO reason to think that 6th is anything other than *exactly* what they intended. It's not some horrible mistake in their eyes. But clearly some people will never accept this.

Would be could if plasma pistols weren`t total garbage anymore, cool piece of gear, but it has always been incredibly bad. I believe the pancake rules allowed you to shoot pistols in close combat as an extra attack with the pistol`s stats.

That rumor is quite unexpected, but when you think about it and seeing what they did recently, that's quite possible. Especially if it's just an "update" taking into account what they made in all those "DLC" and "pseudo supplements". I would believe it more if it talked about a digital product only (or at least at first).

That doesn't mean we need that to play our models. In fact, it's quite different from video games, where you need a lot of skills to make one. So, paying for DLC here can be quite frustrating, it's understandable, but it's not like everyone can do this.

Making rules for Warhammer? That's not the case. Every player is able to do that. You just need some paper, something to write and a few friends to play with. You don't need a studio of "old glory" people who are just able to take what they did in the past and think that "rolling plenty of dices is fun! I SAID IT IS FUN, GOT IT?!". So paying for those "GW DLC" (which is, in my point of view, not really a fitting nickname, but well...it's easy to remember) is just choosing the easy way. And the "hard way" is not that hard compared to skills you need to have to "modify" a video game.

And maybe that's intended from the very beginning. That's how the Studio was meant to be: having new ways to play and cheering on creativity rather than always having the same boring things (like you can experience in some of "dull" competitive games).

About playtesting, I think the games we have in our clubs or tournaments are good enough to be "approved playtest" - at least, as much as they do playtest in the Studio right now. Of course they do that...it's just they play the game so much in their own point of view that they are completely unable to think of "other" ways. That's why their rules wording is horrible; because they don't see it as important or because they just don't see where is the matter 'cause it's all clear in their head.

So there is no reason "their" experience is better than "our" experience. As players.

Talking about marketing is another story. It just has nothing to do with game rules.

So, it's more like a good time for "house rules", to me. That's a good way to say to GW "make better rules or we just don't buy your crap rules anymore". And it's constructive, too!

 tyrannosaurus wrote:

 Agamemnon2 wrote:

 pretre wrote:
edit: Moral of the story: People have been complaining about GW's prices and proclaiming that this is the last straw for nigh on as far as google goes back.

And for a lot of people, it was. I'd hazard an estimate that there are damn few 90s veterans still active in the hobby. I have no doubt a lot of those old boycott criers and complainers were in earnest and lived up to their word.

Entirely anecdotal, but in my experience I couldn't agree more. At my previous gaming group only 3 other people played 40k, and they were all under the age of 21 [except me, but I was out of the hobby for years]. All of the experienced blokes had nothing but contempt for GW and were in the process of selling off all of their [usually pretty amazing] GW armies to spend on WarmaHorde, to the point where, when a couple of the younger ones left for university it was impossible for me to get a game.

At the club that plays up the road from me [since I moved] more people play X-Wing than 40k [although the bloke running the club keeps trying to push it as he's a big Sisters fan].

Sad really, and makes me concerned for the hobby.

Why be concerned for the hobby? It sounds like people are just switching gaming systems, so there'll still be plenty of wargaming going on.

With that said, I'm taking this rumor with a huge pile of salt. Skipping an edition of Fantasy to cut an edition of 40K short? I know a lot of tournament folks are really unhappy with 6th, but it seems like GW is abandoning the tournament scene almost entirely. I also think it would imply very bad things for WHFB if they skip an edition, but maybe that's just me.

 agnosto wrote:
Off-topic but since it was brought up and people might actually want to know what's really happening with GW...

Read this: http://masterminis.blogspot.de/2013/08/the-future-of-games-days-games-workshop.html

Its a recent opinion of the future of GW written by a former CIO of an international retailer. Yes, its only one persons opinion but so is every single post in this thread.
Dissect and criticize as you will, but he more than likely speaks from a more experienced position than any of us.

 gorgon wrote:

 Cruentus wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:


...Traditionally, wargames haven't has that same sort of life cycle, and, in GW's recent history especially, those players wishing to stay near the top of the competition curve generally need to make a further investment in more stuff. If that life cycle, and associated expenditure suddenly accelerates, you can expect people to have a problem with it.

If I were wearing my tinfoil hat, I might think that GW was purposefully doing this to drive the competitive gamers further away. But that would be crazy talk, and way too organized for GW.

Back in reality land, we continue to froth and foam about a RUMOR that is incredibly unlikely based on GWs track record. With only two years in, and books just having been printed, why would they consolidate them at this point, UNLESS they were just pulling the rulebook, escalation, and stronghold into a "collector's edition" of 40k, and charging a premium. Now that I can envision.

The reason this rumor is getting traction is because a segment of the player base is already frothing and foaming over how unsuitable they believe 6th is for a certain style of play. If I was going to invent a rumor it'd be exactly down his path.

Personally I think it's probably hogwash, if we're talking about something beyond an extensive errata and FAQ. GW had many of the 6th edition codices etc written when 6th was released. There's NO reason to think that 6th is anything other than *exactly* what they intended. It's not some horrible mistake in their eyes. But clearly some people will never accept this.

Speaking for myself, I'm certainly not frothing and foaming about 6th, but then I consider playing 40K in it's current state competitively somewhat akin to racing a delivery van in Formula 1.

But, I do have a long history in the game, and I am just not finding 6th much fun to play. By my own frame of reference it doesn't seem I'm unique either. Consequently, rather than any sort of specific boycott, I'm merely spending the few hours a week I have to game playing other things. I'm still working in my 40K armies, but not at the rate I was, and I sure as hell am not buying anything aside from the odd pot of paint.

So in that sense, making the assumption I'm not some sort of super special snowflake and others have reacted to 6th the same way, this edition is an abject failure in its key objective (attracting new players and keeping old ones interested, and therefore buying) regardless of whether it is exactly what they intended.

Now I'm not so arrogant to assume I'm in any way in GWs key demographic, and of course there will be those that continue to buy because they'll accept any old gak GW wants to feed them and smile like its the finest chocolate they've ever tasted, those that are in areas where it is essentially "40K or nothing" and the great uninformed who apparently continue to buy direct at full retail because they somehow don't think to look online to buy, despite everyone shopping online for everything else these days. (I will mention I am aware these are sweeping generalisations, but please, nobody reading this feel obliged to point out some specific example my statement doesn't cover, I know, thanks for caring! ) But if enough feel the way I do, then GW will feel compelled to act, as a loss of enthusiasm in the player base is what could kill GW the deadest the quickest.

We've seen some reactions to what the "Internet minority" have been most vocal about, and this rumour landed around the same time as the one regarding organised play. It isn't impossible to believe this could be another reaction to criticism, or it all could be just a big ole coinkidink, time will tell. For now, I'm quite happy to let myself think this is a possibility, as the alternative is another two years of the pantomime clusterfeth that is what we have right now.

Quite frankly if they do fix it then they are making progress. Instead of people moaning about it they should embrace it.

GW despite what people think are a business, it wouldn't make financial sense to change something that isn't broken.

new edition should get rid of allies, and fix the vehicle rules. modifers to hit moving vehicles should be the biggest one. leave everything else the same.. but get rid of this broken gak allies.

 DarthSpader wrote:
new edition should get rid of allies, and fix the vehicle rules. modifers to hit moving vehicles should be the biggest one. leave everything else the same.. but get rid of this broken gak allies.

They won't do that. They need the sales, and the Allies made people more interested in buying more models.

 DarthSpader wrote:
new edition should get rid of allies, and fix the vehicle rules. modifers to hit moving vehicles should be the biggest one. leave everything else the same.. but get rid of this broken gak allies.

See, I don't think allies should be removed. I really enjoy it as a mechanic and it lets me play with the models I have from multiple armies. The issue, I think, are supplements being allies with the base book. Change that and things will be a bit better.

 Happygrunt wrote:

 DarthSpader wrote:
new edition should get rid of allies, and fix the vehicle rules. modifers to hit moving vehicles should be the biggest one. leave everything else the same.. but get rid of this broken gak allies.

See, I don't think allies should be removed. I really enjoy it as a mechanic and it lets me play with the models I have from multiple armies. The issue, I think, are supplements being allies with the base book. Change that and things will be a bit better.

Do IA forces count as supplements?

If not, then I'll agree with you, because I recently decided to make 750 pts of ABG (3 LRBT's, 1 Vendetta, 1 IG squad in Chimera) to ally with my SM friend for some pickup games.

I can say that if this happens I will no longer support this hobby. I am *just* returning after a three year hiatus, am already cringing at the frequency they swap their paint line (making it a guessing game to blend colours as much as anything), and just dropped a bunch of money on books and models. It would be a slap in the face and a real show of nepotism, and further a real embarassment for the franchise, to rush out a new global rules edition to the 40k universe so quickly. Here's hoping the best (but fully expecting the worst).

 DarthSpader wrote:
new edition should get rid of allies, and fix the vehicle rules. modifers to hit moving vehicles should be the biggest one. leave everything else the same.. but get rid of this broken gak allies.

They should just drop the interactions enabled by the "Battle Brothers" level of alliance. I'm all for coalitions showing up but some of the combos you can pull with ICs and Psychic buffs are OTT.

 Eldarain wrote:

 DarthSpader wrote:
new edition should get rid of allies, and fix the vehicle rules. modifers to hit moving vehicles should be the biggest one. leave everything else the same.. but get rid of this broken gak allies.

They should just drop the interactions enabled by the "Battle Brothers" level of alliance. I'm all for coalitions showing up but some of the combos you can pull with ICs and Psychic buffs are OTT.

This. The Battle Brothers shenanigans is really the biggest reasons allies are so OP right now. Remove it and it wouldn't much of a problem for me.

Alabaster.clown wrote:

 agnosto wrote:
Off-topic but since it was brought up and people might actually want to know what's really happening with GW...

Read this: http://masterminis.blogspot.de/2013/08/the-future-of-games-days-games-workshop.html

Its a recent opinion of the future of GW written by a former CIO of an international retailer. Yes, its only one persons opinion but so is every single post in this thread.
Dissect and criticize as you will, but he more than likely speaks from a more experienced position than any of us.

What he fails to address is how many of the solutions to problems they solved were ones they themselves created.

Joyboozer wrote:

Alabaster.clown wrote:

 agnosto wrote:
Off-topic but since it was brought up and people might actually want to know what's really happening with GW...

Read this: http://masterminis.blogspot.de/2013/08/the-future-of-games-days-games-workshop.html

Its a recent opinion of the future of GW written by a former CIO of an international retailer. Yes, its only one persons opinion but so is every single post in this thread.
Dissect and criticize as you will, but he more than likely speaks from a more experienced position than any of us.

What he fails to address is how many of the solutions to problems they solved were ones they themselves created.

The solutions they used were created by them, or the problems they solved were created by them? I can't quite understand what you mean.

I thought that it is quite obvious that they created, and continue to create, their own problems... overzealous IP protection, sales channel strangulation, virtually no internet presence, and a focus on profits above all else - all of which the writer has addressed.

The series is interesting for me because it is written from both sides at once - a business minded fan boy. Usually all we hear is either the butthurt cries of rules wishlisting (look no further than this very thread...) or from investment savvy types who only throw dice in casinos. Its refreshing to hear someone who genuinely likes and uses the product but with the business acumen to critique with some authority.

 Selym wrote:

 Happygrunt wrote:

 DarthSpader wrote:
new edition should get rid of allies, and fix the vehicle rules. modifers to hit moving vehicles should be the biggest one. leave everything else the same.. but get rid of this broken gak allies.

See, I don't think allies should be removed. I really enjoy it as a mechanic and it lets me play with the models I have from multiple armies. The issue, I think, are supplements being allies with the base book. Change that and things will be a bit better.

Do IA forces count as supplements?

If not, then I'll agree with you, because I recently decided to make 750 pts of ABG (3 LRBT's, 1 Vendetta, 1 IG squad in Chimera) to ally with my SM friend for some pickup games.

I don't consider IA forces to be supplements because they differ so much from the parent codex. A krieg, ABG or Elysian list has different options from a standard IG list, but a Farsight enclave list is almost identical to a Tau empire list.

Alabaster.clown wrote:

 agnosto wrote:
Off-topic but since it was brought up and people might actually want to know what's really happening with GW...

Read this: http://masterminis.blogspot.de/2013/08/the-future-of-games-days-games-workshop.html

Its a recent opinion of the future of GW written by a former CIO of an international retailer. Yes, its only one persons opinion but so is every single post in this thread.
Dissect and criticize as you will, but he more than likely speaks from a more experienced position than any of us.

Thanks for sharing that. A good read if meandering and completely in alignment with what I wrote. Its nice to see someone else with a somewhat similar background sees things in much the same way as myself.

 Ferrum_Sanguinis wrote:

 Eldarain wrote:

 DarthSpader wrote:
new edition should get rid of allies, and fix the vehicle rules. modifers to hit moving vehicles should be the biggest one. leave everything else the same.. but get rid of this broken gak allies.

They should just drop the interactions enabled by the "Battle Brothers" level of alliance. I'm all for coalitions showing up but some of the combos you can pull with ICs and Psychic buffs are OTT.

This. The Battle Brothers shenanigans is really the biggest reasons allies are so OP right now. Remove it and it wouldn't much of a problem for me.

I think what should be done is rewriting the allies matrix and maybe add a fourth level of alliance.

Have the levels be something like this:
Eternal alliance: the allies are treated as being pulled from the same codex as the parent army and all models share special rules.

Battle Brothers: IC's can attach to units but they do not share psychic powers of special rules.

Allies of Convenience, Desperate Allies and Come the Apocalypse alliance levels remain unchanged.

Alabaster.clown wrote:

Joyboozer wrote:

Alabaster.clown wrote:

 agnosto wrote:
Off-topic but since it was brought up and people might actually want to know what's really happening with GW...

Read this: http://masterminis.blogspot.de/2013/08/the-future-of-games-days-games-workshop.html

Its a recent opinion of the future of GW written by a former CIO of an international retailer. Yes, its only one persons opinion but so is every single post in this thread.
Dissect and criticize as you will, but he more than likely speaks from a more experienced position than any of us.

What he fails to address is how many of the solutions to problems they solved were ones they themselves created.

The solutions they used were created by them, or the problems they solved were created by them? I can't quite understand what you mean.

I thought that it is quite obvious that they created, and continue to create, their own problems... overzealous IP protection, sales channel strangulation, virtually no internet presence, and a focus on profits above all else - all of which the writer has addressed.

The series is interesting for me because it is written from both sides at once - a business minded fan boy. Usually all we hear is either the butthurt cries of rules wishlisting (look no further than this very thread...) or from investment savvy types who only throw dice in casinos. Its refreshing to hear someone who genuinely likes and uses the product but with the business acumen to critique with some authority.

Sorry, that was unclear wasn't it. I meant they created their main problems, ones that go way back pre internet. I agree with the article in regards in terms of what they've had to do, but it's all firefighting.

 azreal13 wrote:

 gorgon wrote:

 Cruentus wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:


...Traditionally, wargames haven't has that same sort of life cycle, and, in GW's recent history especially, those players wishing to stay near the top of the competition curve generally need to make a further investment in more stuff. If that life cycle, and associated expenditure suddenly accelerates, you can expect people to have a problem with it.

If I were wearing my tinfoil hat, I might think that GW was purposefully doing this to drive the competitive gamers further away. But that would be crazy talk, and way too organized for GW.

Back in reality land, we continue to froth and foam about a RUMOR that is incredibly unlikely based on GWs track record. With only two years in, and books just having been printed, why would they consolidate them at this point, UNLESS they were just pulling the rulebook, escalation, and stronghold into a "collector's edition" of 40k, and charging a premium. Now that I can envision.

The reason this rumor is getting traction is because a segment of the player base is already frothing and foaming over how unsuitable they believe 6th is for a certain style of play. If I was going to invent a rumor it'd be exactly down his path.

Personally I think it's probably hogwash, if we're talking about something beyond an extensive errata and FAQ. GW had many of the 6th edition codices etc written when 6th was released. There's NO reason to think that 6th is anything other than *exactly* what they intended. It's not some horrible mistake in their eyes. But clearly some people will never accept this.

Speaking for myself, I'm certainly not frothing and foaming about 6th, but then I consider playing 40K in it's current state competitively somewhat akin to racing a delivery van in Formula 1.

But, I do have a long history in the game, and I am just not finding 6th much fun to play. By my own frame of reference it doesn't seem I'm unique either. Consequently, rather than any sort of specific boycott, I'm merely spending the few hours a week I have to game playing other things. I'm still working in my 40K armies, but not at the rate I was, and I sure as hell am not buying anything aside from the odd pot of paint.

So in that sense, making the assumption I'm not some sort of super special snowflake and others have reacted to 6th the same way, this edition is an abject failure in its key objective (attracting new players and keeping old ones interested, and therefore buying) regardless of whether it is exactly what they intended.

Now I'm not so arrogant to assume I'm in any way in GWs key demographic, and of course there will be those that continue to buy because they'll accept any old gak GW wants to feed them and smile like its the finest chocolate they've ever tasted, those that are in areas where it is essentially "40K or nothing" and the great uninformed who apparently continue to buy direct at full retail because they somehow don't think to look online to buy, despite everyone shopping online for everything else these days. (I will mention I am aware these are sweeping generalisations, but please, nobody reading this feel obliged to point out some specific example my statement doesn't cover, I know, thanks for caring! ) But if enough feel the way I do, then GW will feel compelled to act, as a loss of enthusiasm in the player base is what could kill GW the deadest the quickest.

We've seen some reactions to what the "Internet minority" have been most vocal about, and this rumour landed around the same time as the one regarding organised play. It isn't impossible to believe this could be another reaction to criticism, or it all could be just a big ole coinkidink, time will tell. For now, I'm quite happy to let myself think this is a possibility, as the alternative is another two years of the pantomime clusterfeth that is what we have right now.

Just to be completely clear, I'm not saying that all criticism of 6th is coming from one type of customer. I've heard different criticisms of it from various types of players. I just think a rumor about "fixing" 6th will get a lot of traction in certain segments given just how much bandwidth has been devoted to that exact topic the past couple months. It seems very opportunistic and yet another example of someone chasing page views/listeners/etc.

It could be real and an example of GW being sensitive to its customers. But knowing its history...I'm doubtful. My suspicion is that if this has any legs, it's really about extensive FAQs and errata on the way and not a new edition. Perhaps it's even tied to their digital strategy and this is but one of a series of (yearly?) updates intended to push us all into buying the digital rulebook.

Personally, I think there are great things going on in 40K...provided that one truly embraces that it's not tournament-focused and has become more of a basement/gentleman's game again. Furthermore, I don't think it's the disaster that some make it out to be at the tournament level, and that if organizers and players give it more of a chance, they'll probably find that a few reasonable tweaks will find it all pretty playable.

Cripes, I attended GW GTs in the days of 2nd edition. That ruleset was a hot mess and patched to death, but they still got it to work for tournaments.

If there is a 7th edition this coming summer, I'm done. After playing since Rogue Trader I will be officially out. Bought too many books here lately, the mini- rule book, several codices, the latest books Stronghold, and Escalade. That will put me over the edge. Bad rules or not, they've never been perfect.

Sisters of Battle will now be okay in close combat since they all have bolt pistols. I like this rumor.

If there's a 7th edition. We'll skip it. Then play 8th after hasbro owns 40k.