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.

Just because the fluff has an army doesn't mean it gets one, nor should it justify having on. For example word bearers army which has cultist, marines and deamons running around have not got the army they want, but you also cannot run a harlequin list as the former doesn't seem to GW as a good idea (no really what reason is there ) and the second because its such a niche army that they won't sell enough (and it would be quite powerful).
40k's fluff is the setting of the game if They based all the armies on the background they wouldn't have 50% of the armies being marines

KarlPedder wrote:Save that in 5th ed GW seem to have realized that if your going to have seperate rule books for variant SM armies having each one have a flavour that distinguishes them helps to justify their existance beyond an excuse to sell the same kits for multiple armies. How many times do you see folks saying that DA should be rolled into Codex SM because they aren't different enough to warrant their own codex? Or how often DA players lament that everything that made them unique has been given out to all the other SM armies. But thankfully GW seem to have as I say realized the mistake and begun to give each SM codex unique units, themes and playstyles thus allowing them to continue to sell the core SM units which is the primary purpose of multiple SM armies but now they actually provide a mechanical worth along with it.

GW learnt the wrong bloody lesson. Smothering the life out of the game by making every second codex more Space Marines? That is not fixing the problem. Fixing the problem would be exiling Mat Ward to Games Workshop Alice Springs and replacing him with someone who would do Space Marines right.

Pardon my interruption here, but I was looking for information on the changes/rules themselves.

I found this on Faeit 212-
http://natfka.blogspot.jp/2011/06/6th-edition-rules-in-detail.html
-and was wondering how little salt need be taken with it.

(or if there was a location that might have better information, I would be equally grateful)

Your source is from 27th June 2011, just saying

Kroothawk wrote:Your source is from 27th June 2011, just saying

Ah. Yes. It would help to look at post dates.

Regardless, where would one find the current "these are most likely what we'll be seeing this July" information be found?
(if in this thread, what page, as I don't quite like the idea of having to wade through hundreds of comments about "armies of nothing but Paladins")

oldone wrote:. . .you also cannot run a harlequin list as the former doesn't seem to GW as a good idea (no really what reason is there ) and the second because its such a niche army that they won't sell enough (and it would be quite powerful).

Actually in 2nd ed you could run an entire Harlequin army. You just couldn't use any "normal" Eldar troops/units.

skoffs wrote:Pardon my interruption here, but I was looking for information on the changes/rules themselves.

I found this on Faeit 212-
http://natfka.blogspot.jp/2011/06/6th-edition-rules-in-detail.html
-and was wondering how little salt need be taken with it.

(or if there was a location that might have better information, I would be equally grateful)

That's based on the 6th edition "pancake edition" rules which are either false or a very radical playtest version of 6th edition rules. It's still fairly up in the air.

evancich wrote:
I don't believe any leaks that don't have flying rules in them.

I think 6th will have:
1) More units and everybody in a transport

Actually, one of the best things about the leaked rulebook was that it forced units out of transports (at least the closed top variety) in order to hold objectives -- which are also scored every turn starting with turn 2. The game changes quite a bit when everything's not sitting in a metal box. Suddenly anti-infantry weaponry has targets, and there are actual fights over objectives instead of fights followed by late game dashes to objectives.

Edit -- Actually, I just remembered that the open-topped exemption was in those rumors from last June. The leakbook has no such exemption, so no embarked units may hold objectives in that ruleset.

Don't forget... 2012... the Maya... New troop for the Chaos...

Let's keep this discussion on-topic, please, and avoid the wishlisting.

Thank you.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:

oldone wrote:. . .you also cannot run a harlequin list as the former doesn't seem to GW as a good idea (no really what reason is there ) and the second because its such a niche army that they won't sell enough (and it would be quite powerful).

Actually in 2nd ed you could run an entire Harlequin army. You just couldn't use any "normal" Eldar troops/units.

Not to mention the third edition Harlequin codex.

Therion wrote:

I will also add that vehicles use "hull points" in 6th. If a vehicle has 3 hull points it will die after 3 shaken results, but it can still explode after 1 shot as normal.

...everything's going as scripted.

People use transports and tanks in their armies and probably don't need any new vehicle models anymore since they already have everything? NERF tanks to the max so we can sell everyone Descent of Angels armies and other full infantry forces!

No idea if it's been mentioned but this alone makes necron gauss weapons SO much more powerful against vehicles now (again?).

With all the "FOC is changing to a percentage based system" rumors, has anyone heard if/how this may affect HQ choices?
(eg. low point games restrict your to one HQ, the higher the point level, the more HQs you'd have access to?)

If it worked out to be something like "for every thousand points, you can take one extra HQ choice",
I wonder if that would work as an incentive for people to play larger games (thus driving sales).

Kevin949 wrote:

Therion wrote:

I will also add that vehicles use "hull points" in 6th. If a vehicle has 3 hull points it will die after 3 shaken results, but it can still explode after 1 shot as normal.

...everything's going as scripted.

People use transports and tanks in their armies and probably don't need any new vehicle models anymore since they already have everything? NERF tanks to the max so we can sell everyone Descent of Angels armies and other full infantry forces!

No idea if it's been mentioned but this alone makes necron gauss weapons SO much more powerful against vehicles now (again?).

Only if it's based on glances and pens rather than only pens.

I don't think changing the FOC to look like the WFB system is a good idea. If 50% of the pts go in the HQ/heroes section. You will have for a 2000 pts game a 500 pts lord, two or three captain/anything to go up to 500 pts and that leave 1000 pts (500 pts for troop, 500 for 5 termi in a land rider)

ShumaGorath wrote:
Games workshop is also a medium scale international company, not a collection of 1980s movie stereotypes of evil businessmen.

Are you sure? I always kindof pictured them to all look something like this:

Since we've gone beyond reporting rumors and are basically wishlisting:

I think the thing really missing from GW games is something that was a tactical factor in the Rome: Total War games. The type of the unit gave it bonuses/penalties against units of different types. Cavalry is weak to spearmen. Infantry are weak to missile fire. Missiles are weak to cavalry. Elephants are weak to flaming pigs. Artillery is weak to light cavalry. Etc. These aren't true rock-paper-scissors rules, because a sufficiently weakened spear unit can be broken by cavalry and run down. But you have to be really smart about how you overcome other units' weak points. And there are still units that are strong and weak relative to each other. Eastern Infantry may be strong against cavalry, but they are some of the weakest spearmen in the game can could concievably be run down by Praetorian Cavalry. But they still serve a purpose.

This sort of game design results in a bit of a learning curve, but it gives intermediate-to-high skill players strong incentives to balance their armies. The people who tend to take wildly imbalanced armies from what I've seen are either exceptionally novice players who don't get basic game concepts or exceptionally skilled players who know how to route gold/gold/gold Urban Cohorts with hordes of missile cavalry.

Maybe this requires more computation than the typical warhammer player wants. But I think there's a way to make it work. Perhaps it could be tied with leadership, since lord knows GW isn't bothering to use that attribute these days. Perhaps every unit could be assigned to several broad categories (I think the ones we have now work, though it might be useful to split infantry into light and heavy) and every unit suffers a leadership penalty from the unit it is weak to. Heavy infantry could be vulnerable to bikes and cavalry. Bikes and cavalry could be vulnerable to vehicles and monsterous creatures. Monsterous creatures could be vulnerable to artillery/heavy weapon teams. Artillery/heavy weapon teams could be vulnerable to light infantry. Light infantry can be vulnerable to heavy infantry. Or something like that. Every time a unit is attacked by a unit type they are strong against, they get a temporary plus-shift on the leadership table*. Every time a unit is attacked by a unit they are weak against, they suffer a temporary minus-shift on the leadership table (and if they fail a leadership test, they remain in that state). This way all units have at least some kind of achilles heel and all units can serve at least some minor purpose.

*Oh yeah, there should be a leadership table. Because it's ridiculous that you can have entire armies that the player never needs to even think about if they run away or not. Something like BROKEN! <-> Shaken <-> Gone to ground <-> Steady (default) <-> confident <-> stubborn <-> Unbreakable. Instead of just giving every army a high leadership, GW could distinguish armies that give them special rules for shifting leadership under certain conditions. You could say that for Tyrannids being under the hive mind influence shifts a unit upward two categories but losing hive mind influence shifts it down two categories. Other armies could be altered by swapping out categories on the chart. So for example Blood Angels and Orks perhaps don't have a stubborn category- When any BA or ork unit reaches this category they count as impetuous instead. Perhaps raiding armies like White Scars and Dark Eldar could swap "gone to ground" with "withdrawl" where the unit must immediately retreat a certain distance from the nearest enemy at full speed, but then automatically reverts to steady if they reach a certain distance from the enemy with the turn or something.

I know none of these changes will ever happen. But they would be key IMHO in elevating GW games from essentially kids games to real strategy games.

ShumaGorath wrote:
Games workshop is also a medium scale international company, not a collection of 1980s movie stereotypes of evil businessmen.

This is so wrong, all companies are the 1980s "stereotypes" of evil businessmen. In fact i'd go further than that and say they arn't even stereotypes they are just about accurate.

So I can guaranteeing that GW will change the meta to push up sales, I repeat guaranteed. They have done this for every version since the game got really popular in 3rd.

Mostly they will try to get people to switch armies by changing the flavor of the month unit, that unit is almost certainly what will be new out which will be fliers. They will also try to nerf what is popular in the competitive scene likely death star. I cannot stress these enough.

JOHIRA wrote:I know none of these changes will ever happen. But they would be key IMHO in elevating GW games from essentially kids games to real strategy games.

40k will never be a very strategic game. The rules are there to create a "cinematic" experience and tell a story with the models. This is all GW intends to accomplish with the ruleset. Besides, 40k is a ridiculous universe. Albiet an awesome one as well, but ridiculous none-the-less. I don't want realism getting in the way too much when I'm playing an army of millenia-old zombie plague knights armed with rapid-firing grenade launchers and chainsaw swords.

I don't want a combat simulator, I want a fun game.

ceorron wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:
Games workshop is also a medium scale international company, not a collection of 1980s movie stereotypes of evil businessmen.

This is so wrong, all companies are the 1980s "stereotypes" of evil businessmen. In fact i'd go further than that and say they arn't even stereotypes they are just about accurate.

So I can guaranteeing that GW will change the meta to push up sales, I repeat guaranteed. They have done this for every version since the game got really popular in 3rd.

Mostly they will try to get people to switch armies by changing the flavor of the month unit, that unit is almost certainly what will be new out which will be fliers. They will also try to nerf what is popular in the competitive scene likely death star. I cannot stress these enough.

They've been nerfing death stars and making infantry more viable for three editions. Codexes break this game, not rulebooks. GW is in a cycle of patching problems generated by bad codex design by releasing new editions that soft balance. Transports weren't insanely popular until the IG codex released and made foot infantry a liability, while itself having the most undercosted transport in the game. Fifth edition didn't cause boxhammer, codexes did. Pretend that GW is some sort of vampire shaped effigy all you want, but all it does is taint your opinions. Their codex power scale isn't even linear, pretending that all GW does is overpower every new codex is ignoring dark eldar, tyranids, necrons, and blood angels to focus simply on the power 3. That's not how it works though, when you do that people who aren't burning pictures of matt ward in their backyards start to note the inconsistency.

I agree codexs are breaking game balance in a bad way, this is a similar thing but in reverse.

If that is the case, ShumaGorath, why are we getting codex creep. Surely if GW wanted a balanced game they would playtest more thoroughly for game breaking units like paladin troops and spam list of all types and tone them down some before the codex comes out. They don't to sell more models.

GW wants you to feel you have the upper hand with a new unit to sell them. The 40k rulebook will then nerf somethings and boost others to try to get you to buy some new stuff. This is the truth of how they work in general.

They arn't evil for it, that was more zeal than truth tbh. If you buy units without the need for a competitive list then you are winning because you are buying for the models which is what you have bought.

Anything more on whats in the box set?


Whoever you are with that load of finerumor, just take it back and ask for a refund. They sounded like a load of gak to me.


GW isn't even evil. they are just a workshop without the games.


Thier curent malise is based on them not having games designers anymore, all they have left after the great purge is a couple of soda jerks, a metric gakton of ambulance chasers, and bean counters. Thier popularity is winding down, and unless they pull another magic trick out of thier hat, I see them closing more of those bang up one man stors to make up for that lost revinue to pay that Shareholder dividend with.

GW- go back to what worked, bring back some fun and a... you know.. game.

If that is the case, ShumaGorath, why are we getting codex creep. Surely if GW wanted a balanced game they would playtest more thoroughly for game breaking units like paladin troops and spam list of all types and tone them down some before the codex comes out. They don't to sell more models.

We're getting codex creep due to soft balancing being done in codex to maintain parity between old and new books. Orks were dramatically overpowered and were the only power book until IG came along. Then it skipped to wolves and then to GKs. Stating that there is linear power creep is ignoring the missed opportunities with dark eldar, the terrible nid codex, and the blood angel book that might as well not even exist in a game that also has GKs.

There is percieved power creep because these codexes are being made by idiots and this community is childish.

If you looked at GW sales volume you'd note that its been down precipitously year over year for half a decade. Pretending you have a little logical train of through by connecting "greed>overpowering new models>money!" only works when you don't bother to look at the world around you. I've looked at it, it's not what you describe in the picture you keep trying to draw.

GW wants you to feel you have the upper hand with a new unit to sell them.

I guess that's why everyone was scrambling to spam dreadknights and sanguinary guard huh? Thats why they waited years to release thundercav? Thats why they aren't releasing tomb spiders until AFTER all the conversions have been made? Thats why they still don't have a hydra flak tank? Thats why they don't make an autocanon conversion kit?

ShumaGorath wrote:

If that is the case, ShumaGorath, why are we getting codex creep. Surely if GW wanted a balanced game they would playtest more thoroughly for game breaking units like paladin troops and spam list of all types and tone them down some before the codex comes out. They don't to sell more models.

We're getting codex creep due to soft balancing being done in codex to maintain parity between old and new books. Orks were dramatically overpowered and were the only power book until IG came along. Then it skipped to wolves and then to GKs. Stating that there is linear power creep is ignoring the missed opportunities with dark eldar, the terrible nid codex, and the blood angel book that might as well not even exist in a game that also has GKs.

I agree if you look at the codexs that you list with the exception of Dark Eldar (that I would argue have as strong a codex as orks) the others have a well established model line(blood angels and nids). GW doesn't want old players it wants people to buy new armies full of brand new models. The other armies that you list (wolves, GKs and orks) had full overhauls of their miniature lines and GW needed them to be successful so they boosted their effectiveness to get you to buy the models. I hope you see this picture.

There is percieved power creep because these codexes are being made by idiots and this community is childish.

The codexs are not being made by idiots people just think they are idiots GW is great at looking a bit like idiots but they are not they know how to make money or they think they do.

If you looked at GW sales volume you'd note that its been down precipitously year over year for half a decade. Pretending you have a little logical train of through by connecting "greed>overpowering new models>money!" only works when you don't bother to look at the world around you. I've looked at it, it's not what you describe in the picture you keep trying to draw.

It has been down year on year but this is because they are alienating people for some of the very reasons I have brought up in this discussion with you. Also they seem incapable of attracting a new audience, really incapable. 40k and WFB just doesn't seem to be cutting it with the xbox generation there are exceptions tbh but they are not sticking with it.
People see that it is about making money and no longer about the game. While that's fine for people who like shiny models those who want a fun game are going to be left cold. As you say game balance has been sidelined over the years. In many ways our viewpoints are not so different. A fun game it can be, I understand why GW would rather sell to the painter or the beer and pretzels players. I think I would rather too.

GW wants you to feel you have the upper hand with a new unit to sell them.

I guess that's why everyone was scrambling to spam dreadknights and sanguinary guard huh? Thats why they waited years to release thundercav? Thats why they aren't releasing tomb spiders until AFTER all the conversions have been made? Thats why they still don't have a hydra flak tank? Thats why they don't make an autocanon conversion kit?

Yeah I would say that is exactly why really. They waited to release because they needed the models to be ready. I think they would have release thundercav at space wolf launch but were probably a bit skeptical that the community wouldn't take on them and think they are silly. Once a few conversions came out GW must have decided there was enough of an interest to go ahead and make them. I haven't seen any hydra conversions so would be worried that this unit may get swept unless the intro of fliers means a jump in the number of conversions.

Trying to rationalize this company is silly. Why are there rumors to begin with. Wouldn't the more intelligent proven method be to tell the community exactly what is being released and when. It's called marketing. I don't know how many times I have seen people spend there money or go on vacation or whatever just to see a new release nd say, well maybe next time when I have the money. GW is the most illogical amateur company, yet they stumble along existing just to prove Magoo syndrome is real.

ceorron wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

If that is the case, ShumaGorath, why are we getting codex creep. Surely if GW wanted a balanced game they would playtest more thoroughly for game breaking units like paladin troops and spam list of all types and tone them down some before the codex comes out. They don't to sell more models.

We're getting codex creep due to soft balancing being done in codex to maintain parity between old and new books. Orks were dramatically overpowered and were the only power book until IG came along. Then it skipped to wolves and then to GKs. Stating that there is linear power creep is ignoring the missed opportunities with dark eldar, the terrible nid codex, and the blood angel book that might as well not even exist in a game that also has GKs.

I agree if you look at the codexs that you list with the exception of Dark Eldar (that I would argue have as strong a codex as orks) the others have a well established model line(blood angels and nids). GW doesn't want old players it wants people to buy new armies full of brand new models. The other armies that you list (wolves, GKs and orks) had full overhauls of their miniature lines and GW needed them to be successful so they boosted their effectiveness to get you to buy the models. I hope you see this picture.

There is percieved power creep because these codexes are being made by idiots and this community is childish.

The codexs are not being made by idiots people just think they are idiots GW is great at looking a bit like idiots but they are not they know how to make money or they think they do.

If you looked at GW sales volume you'd note that its been down precipitously year over year for half a decade. Pretending you have a little logical train of through by connecting "greed>overpowering new models>money!" only works when you don't bother to look at the world around you. I've looked at it, it's not what you describe in the picture you keep trying to draw.

It has been down year on year but this is because they are alienating people for some of the very reasons I have brought up in this discussion with you. Also they seem incapable of attracting a new audience, really incapable. 40k and WFB just doesn't seem to be cutting it with the xbox generation there are exceptions tbh but they are not sticking with it.
People see that it is about making money and no longer about the game. While that's fine for people who like shiny models those who want a fun game are going to be left cold. As you say game balance has been sidelined over the years. In many ways our viewpoints are not so different. A fun game it can be, I understand why GW would rather sell to the painter or the beer and pretzels players. I think I would rather too.

GW wants you to feel you have the upper hand with a new unit to sell them.

I guess that's why everyone was scrambling to spam dreadknights and sanguinary guard huh? Thats why they waited years to release thundercav? Thats why they aren't releasing tomb spiders until AFTER all the conversions have been made? Thats why they still don't have a hydra flak tank? Thats why they don't make an autocanon conversion kit?

Yeah I would say that is exactly why really. They waited to release because they needed the models to be ready. I think they would have release thundercav at space wolf launch but were probably a bit skeptical that the community wouldn't take on them and think they are silly. Once a few conversions came out GW must have decided there was enough of an interest to go ahead and make them. I haven't seen any hydra conversions so would be worried that this unit may get swept unless the intro of fliers means a jump in the number of conversions.

I'm not even going to bother addressing the logical inconsistencies in this. You win, whatever.

I think you guys are speculating to much about the profitability of GW.

The world has been in a massive recession for the last 3-5 years depending on the country you are in. To say that GW's sales are down because of anything aside from the game being an expensive hobby that people pour their excess money into is going to hard to swallow to anyone that hasn't been living under a rock or isn't a millionaire.

Times are hard for people, that's why sales are down. Figuratively, everyone's sales are down. Are you going to tell me that the oil industry is not in tune with their user base because their prices have gone up as well.

It's fine and dandy to speculate on which rumors are true or false, but do not pretend that GW or 40k are going anywhere near out of business. They have shareholders that have millions invested and their stock is rock solid, unless there is some Enron stuff going on behind the scenes.

That being said, back to the rumors and less garbage about how GW is sales machine monstrosity.

I agree, I hate how these rumor threads degenerate to quickly.

Blood Lord Soldado wrote:I think you guys are speculating to much about the profitability of GW.

The world has been in a massive recession for the last 3-5 years depending on the country you are in. To say that GW's sales are down because of anything aside from the game being an expensive hobby that people pour their excess money into is going to hard to swallow to anyone that hasn't been living under a rock or isn't a millionaire.

Times are hard for people, that's why sales are down. Figuratively, everyone's sales are down. Are you going to tell me that the oil industry is not in tune with their user base because their prices have gone up as well.

It's fine and dandy to speculate on which rumors are true or false, but do not pretend that GW or 40k are going anywhere near out of business. They have shareholders that have millions invested and their stock is rock solid, unless there is some Enron stuff going on behind the scenes.

That being said, back to the rumors and less garbage about how GW is sales machine monstrosity.

Just to add a quick bit about this, GW's sales for 2010-11 were only down about 3% from the prior year and 2008-9 and 2009-10 both experienced significant growth from prior years (2010-11 was still hugely better than years before the growth spurt). So I'm thinking GW's sales are doing just fine considering the state of the world atm.

Elios Harg wrote:

Blood Lord Soldado wrote:I think you guys are speculating to much about the profitability of GW.

The world has been in a massive recession for the last 3-5 years depending on the country you are in. To say that GW's sales are down because of anything aside from the game being an expensive hobby that people pour their excess money into is going to hard to swallow to anyone that hasn't been living under a rock or isn't a millionaire.

Times are hard for people, that's why sales are down. Figuratively, everyone's sales are down. Are you going to tell me that the oil industry is not in tune with their user base because their prices have gone up as well.

It's fine and dandy to speculate on which rumors are true or false, but do not pretend that GW or 40k are going anywhere near out of business. They have shareholders that have millions invested and their stock is rock solid, unless there is some Enron stuff going on behind the scenes.

That being said, back to the rumors and less garbage about how GW is sales machine monstrosity.

That's profitability, sales volume has been down double digits year over year for years. The primary source of profitability has been revenue from videogame licensing. GW is not a company with a strong five year plan.

Just to add a quick bit about this, GW's sales for 2010-11 were only down about 3% from the prior year and 2008-9 and 2009-10 both experienced significant growth from prior years (2010-11 was still hugely better than years before the growth spurt). So I'm thinking GW's sales are doing just fine considering the state of the world atm.

That's profitability, sales volume has been down double digits year over year for years. The primary source of profitability the last few years has been revenue from videogame licensing. GW is not a company with a strong five year plan.