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.

filbert wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

Tau codex, which launched at £12 in 2006 is now £20 before it even gets into hard back with extra pages for 6th edition. (This edition is only 64 pages, a lot of them recycled from the 3rd edition codex.)

It's nuts, frankly. The same Tau codex, albeit updated for 6th, will probably be upwards of £25, maybe more. I mean, I like the production values on the new rulebook and all the artwork is spiffing, it really is but it gets to a point where all the nice, glossy pages and finery can not dress up the fact that I am paying through the nose for a book.

For a book the size of a copy of FHM, but five times more expensive and with less original content.

If they made the codex 100,000 pages long and cost £10,000, would it be a good buy? [/rhetorical]

Spellbound wrote:Tyranids need a way to kill daemon princes!

Because all their own monstrous creatures with more wounds and toughness aren't good enough! Instead they let people use grenades in cc so now when I charge a squad of marines, instead of facing 10 S4 attacks I now face 10 S6 attacks! Hooray!

I have thought since my first couple 6th games that the new edition was not as competitive as 5th and was designed to make the game "wild and crazy, where anything can happen!" I see now that was truly their intention all along. I'm not sure I can get behind that, but I'll try to adapt.

It is competitive in a different way. Although charge ranges are random, most everything else has been semi standardized. Checking ranges, rules are pretty standardized in the main rule book. Things like slow and purposeful no longer random. Night fight is now fixed. Wound removal is pretty fixed. Things of this nature. Adds a much more tactical and nuanced approach to how you fight in some cases.

Leth wrote:

Spellbound wrote:Tyranids need a way to kill daemon princes!

Because all their own monstrous creatures with more wounds and toughness aren't good enough! Instead they let people use grenades in cc so now when I charge a squad of marines, instead of facing 10 S4 attacks I now face 10 S6 attacks! Hooray!

I have thought since my first couple 6th games that the new edition was not as competitive as 5th and was designed to make the game "wild and crazy, where anything can happen!" I see now that was truly their intention all along. I'm not sure I can get behind that, but I'll try to adapt.

It is competitive in a different way. Although charge ranges are random, most everything else has been semi standardized. Checking ranges, rules are pretty standardized in the main rule book. Things like slow and purposeful no longer random. Night fight is now fixed. Wound removal is pretty fixed. Things of this nature. Adds a much more tactical and nuanced approach to how you fight in some cases.

Which is offset by incredibly noncompetitive missions, overpowering or downright useless random general traits, overpowering or downright useless random psychic powers, night fight randomly in every mission, doubled force org charts, and cherry picking overpowered units via allies. Anything can be a competitive thing, that's in the nature of games. This ruleset is a much worse competitive game than it has been previously and that's clearly GWs intention. They don't seem to want to engage in the market for competitive games.

Kroothawk wrote:

natfka wrote:Faeit 212 Exclusive: 40k Design Studio Open Day
Saturday, July 14, 2012
Q5. Did you consider moving the timeline on?

Not for this edition. They like the idea that the Imperium of man is ‘at the brink’. They don’t see the current epoch as being at a dead end and therefore, do not need to change it. They did not rule out the prospect of changing this in the future however. One good point that Matt made was that it has moved on anyway since 2nd and 3rd as we now have Tau, Dark Eldar, Sisters and Necrons.

Interesting, though not overly surprising, that Mr Ward doesn't know the history of the game...

- Sisters were 2nd edition
- Necrons were first introduced, with a limited army list, in second edition
- Dark Eldar were in the 3rd ed starter set
- Tau debuted during 3rd edition.

There have been some hefty evolutions for Necrons and DE in their latest books, but if his point was that the game has moved on since 2nd & 3rd ed due to these races, he really needs to do his research before making statements...

Dysartes wrote:

Kroothawk wrote:

natfka wrote:Faeit 212 Exclusive: 40k Design Studio Open Day
Saturday, July 14, 2012
Q5. Did you consider moving the timeline on?

Not for this edition. They like the idea that the Imperium of man is ‘at the brink’. They don’t see the current epoch as being at a dead end and therefore, do not need to change it. They did not rule out the prospect of changing this in the future however. One good point that Matt made was that it has moved on anyway since 2nd and 3rd as we now have Tau, Dark Eldar, Sisters and Necrons.

Interesting, though not overly surprising, that Mr Ward doesn't know the history of the game...

Interesting, though not overly surprising, that people jump on Ward.

The statement is "since 2nd and 3rd".

Deldar, Sisters and Neccies were in 3rd edition as well as Tau.

Kilkrazy wrote:For a book the size of a copy of FHM, but five times more expensive and with less original content.

If they made the codex 100,000 pages long and cost £10,000, would it be a good buy? [/rhetorical]

So you're comparing a crappy men's magazine that is probably at least 1/3 ads, printed on crappy paper and stapled together to a book that is (arguably) 100% content, printed on thicker (better) paper and properly bound? Really?

Yes, and I think FHM is better value.

I spent 10 years in the magazine publishing trade and I know whereof I speak.

I would have gone for "surely you must have known that something wasn't right with the Grey Knights codex while you were playtesting it. Even casual players can tell it was off the wall crazy."

That's actually a rephrase of what I was originally going to put down...

You know, I think it would be perfectly alright for them to bring back a little "wild and crazy"...if the game didn't cost so fething much. I don't know why anyone at GW doesn't understand this, but when I'm being asked to invest damn near $1000 for just one army and all the necessary items to play the game with, the game better be fething balanced. You simply can't have situations like this where some armies just aren't viable at all, like Tyranids, Sisters, and Daemons (and for no apparent reason, other than the writer's whim it would seem), when every army is equally as expensive. You can't sell this as a "beer and pretzels" game, not even if it cost half as much as it did, and tell people they just shouldn't take it seriously when everything about the game, including the fluff itself, says I really should be. This game is a serious investment of cash, and it's not worth it if the game feels so random and pointless that I might as well not even be there for all the control I have over the outcome. More random and zany isn't where this game needs to be going, unless GW plans on drastically reducing the cost of their models and making the game one of the cheapest to play, then it will be acceptable.

But yeah, all rulebooks will be hardcover and cost too damn much, no surprises there...and with the new allies rules you'll have to buy more than just the one for your army now, especially if you're playing xenos. I also find it funny how they promise to update everyone for 6th...when they said the same gak for 5th edition and didn't deliver...but then at the same damn event admit that they can't update everyone because that's not what the suits want, they want to push useless expansions and other bs we don't need to try and make more money first.

Kanluwen wrote:

Dysartes wrote:

Kroothawk wrote:

natfka wrote:Faeit 212 Exclusive: 40k Design Studio Open Day
Saturday, July 14, 2012
Q5. Did you consider moving the timeline on?

Not for this edition. They like the idea that the Imperium of man is ‘at the brink’. They don’t see the current epoch as being at a dead end and therefore, do not need to change it. They did not rule out the prospect of changing this in the future however. One good point that Matt made was that it has moved on anyway since 2nd and 3rd as we now have Tau, Dark Eldar, Sisters and Necrons.

Interesting, though not overly surprising, that Mr Ward doesn't know the history of the game...

Interesting, though not overly surprising, that people jump on Ward.

The statement is "since 2nd and 3rd".

Yes, yes it was - and all four armies have been around, with a codex of some description, since the end of that window. Not seeing how you're contradicting my point here, Kan - care to elaborate?

Those four armies have far expanded what they were since 2nd. The only similarity between the 2nd edition Necron Raiders and the 5th edition Necron codex is the name only.

Compel wrote:"surely you must have known that something wasn't right with the Grey Knights codex while you were playtesting it. Even casual players can tell it was off the wall crazy."

Mat Ward wrote: "I don't know what you're talking about. I thought an army that had two wounds had alot going for it. And don't call me Shirley. Next question."

Grey knights look like they were built for 6th edition, alot of the things that made them crazy are pretty balanced out from what I have seen so far this edition.

ShumaGorath wrote: Which is offset by incredibly noncompetitive missions, overpowering or downright useless random general traits, overpowering or downright useless random psychic powers, night fight randomly in every mission, doubled force org charts, and cherry picking overpowered units via allies. Anything can be a competitive thing, that's in the nature of games. This ruleset is a much worse competitive game than it has been previously and that's clearly GWs intention. They don't seem to want to engage in the market for competitive games.

Missions people at tournaments have usually(in my experience) created their own anyway so that is moot. Random general traits have also been easily addressed in the competitive scene. Night fight is not the boogyman that it was in 5th edition, most people pretty much ignore the double charts, or rather I have not seen it come up yet. Cherry picking is severely limited for most armies and then if you do you are limiting your armies synergies as they for the most part don't work together.

GW usually has made it clear they have not designed it for tournament super competitive play. The tournament community has usually found ways to make it more competitive to their liking such as controlling some of the random factors, it really is not that hard. Also now that GW has completely pulled out of the tournament market we are given free reign in what modifications you want to have. My group personally does not use mysterious terrain right now as we are focusing on learning the basic rules first. We also haven't done double force org charts, cause we really have not found it to be a benefit.

Random psychic powers are a 100% option to take right now, even then the ability to mitigate your risk is pretty good. Especially with how power selection is determined.

Now these are all personal opinions of mine, and I build lists with the units I want to use and try to make them work (I ran all infantry guard in the 4th edition book. I was not going for the win very often let me tell you)

I think once we get out of the 5th edition mindset and army lists and look at it from the perspective of 6th edition, I am not as worried about it. I think NOVA(I am looking forward to going) will be a real eye opener for what kind of direction we can expect armies to go.

I have had a bunch of knee jerk reactions to the rules until I tried them out and found that some other rule makes it either good/bad. I thought Gauss was going to be the god amongst men until I realized that with the new edition we are not going to see as many vehicles on the table. Heck I look forward to running my all infantry marines again(here to hoping Devastators get a price fix sometime soon)

I am excited, a lot of people I know are enjoying the rules and a few players have come out of retirement to try it and have liked it so far. That is a small group and I am sure others have had opposite results.

Dysartes wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:

Dysartes wrote:

Kroothawk wrote:

natfka wrote:Faeit 212 Exclusive: 40k Design Studio Open Day
Saturday, July 14, 2012
Q5. Did you consider moving the timeline on?

Not for this edition. They like the idea that the Imperium of man is ‘at the brink’. They don’t see the current epoch as being at a dead end and therefore, do not need to change it. They did not rule out the prospect of changing this in the future however. One good point that Matt made was that it has moved on anyway since 2nd and 3rd as we now have Tau, Dark Eldar, Sisters and Necrons.

Interesting, though not overly surprising, that Mr Ward doesn't know the history of the game...

Interesting, though not overly surprising, that people jump on Ward.

The statement is "since 2nd and 3rd".

Yes, yes it was - and all four armies have been around, with a codex of some description, since the end of that window. Not seeing how you're contradicting my point here, Kan - care to elaborate?

You insinuated that "Ward doesn't know the history of the game", yet there's nothing to suggest that.

MasterSlowPoke wrote:Those four armies have far expanded what they were since 2nd. The only similarity between the 2nd edition Necron Raiders and the 5th edition Necron codex is the name only.

I don't think that excuses them. It's not like the numerous SM codexes, and IG have been vastly modified to take a lot of their time.

Once again, one questions what a Design Staff of 80 people have been doing for the past six years.

Kanluwen wrote:

Dysartes wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:

Dysartes wrote:

Kroothawk wrote:

natfka wrote:Faeit 212 Exclusive: 40k Design Studio Open Day
Saturday, July 14, 2012
Q5. Did you consider moving the timeline on?

Not for this edition. They like the idea that the Imperium of man is ‘at the brink’. They don’t see the current epoch as being at a dead end and therefore, do not need to change it. They did not rule out the prospect of changing this in the future however. One good point that Matt made was that it has moved on anyway since 2nd and 3rd as we now have Tau, Dark Eldar, Sisters and Necrons.

Interesting, though not overly surprising, that Mr Ward doesn't know the history of the game...

Interesting, though not overly surprising, that people jump on Ward.

The statement is "since 2nd and 3rd".

Yes, yes it was - and all four armies have been around, with a codex of some description, since the end of that window. Not seeing how you're contradicting my point here, Kan - care to elaborate?

You insinuated that "Ward doesn't know the history of the game", yet there's nothing to suggest that.

Mat Ward says they've moved on since 2nd and 3rd editions since 'we now have Tau, Dark Eldar, Sisters and Necrons' yet we've had all of those races since 2nd and 3rd - what exactly are you missing here Kan, aside from a chance to leap to GW's defense blindly, of course!

[Edited for spelling - twice!]

Dysartes wrote:Interesting, though not overly surprising, that Mr Ward doesn't know the history of the game...

- Sisters were 2nd edition
- Necrons were first introduced, with a limited army list, in second edition
- Dark Eldar were in the 3rd ed starter set
- Tau debuted during 3rd edition.

There have been some hefty evolutions for Necrons and DE in their latest books, but if his point was that the game has moved on since 2nd & 3rd ed due to these races, he really needs to do his research before making statements...

Plus none of these things are examples of the fluff 'moving on'. They're examples of retroactive continuity. The 40K universe didn't "move on" and introduce the Tau. Instead they were written as having always been there. Ditto for the DE. And the Necrons.

This isn't progress in the story, it's simply adding more elements to the existing story.

Alpharius wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:

Dysartes wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:

Dysartes wrote:

Kroothawk wrote:

natfka wrote:Faeit 212 Exclusive: 40k Design Studio Open Day
Saturday, July 14, 2012
Q5. Did you consider moving the timeline on?

Not for this edition. They like the idea that the Imperium of man is ‘at the brink’. They don’t see the current epoch as being at a dead end and therefore, do not need to change it. They did not rule out the prospect of changing this in the future however. One good point that Matt made was that it has moved on anyway since 2nd and 3rd as we now have Tau, Dark Eldar, Sisters and Necrons.

Interesting, though not overly surprising, that Mr Ward doesn't know the history of the game...

Interesting, though not overly surprising, that people jump on Ward.

The statement is "since 2nd and 3rd".

Yes, yes it was - and all four armies have been around, with a codex of some description, since the end of that window. Not seeing how you're contradicting my point here, Kan - care to elaborate?

You insinuated that "Ward doesn't know the history of the game", yet there's nothing to suggest that.

Mat Ward says they've moved on since 2nd and 3rd editions since 'we now have Tau, Dark Eldar, Sisters and Necrons' yet we've had all of those races since 2nd and 3rd - what exactly are you missing here Kan

Absolutely nothing.
What you're clearly missing, however, is that Dysartes posted what--to me at the time-- read as a dig at an author who gets nothing but vitriol flung his way for various ridiculous reasons(no different than what was done to Casey Hudson for daring to make a Mass Effect 3 ending which the fanbase didn't like) ranging from "He writes overpowered books!" to "I don't like how he portrayed X, Y, or Z". If that wasn't Dysartes' intent, then I will certainly take this time to apologize for jumping on his case. I grow weary of seeing this constant Ward hate in every freakin' thread where the man's name is mentioned--and even in some where he isn't! It's silly, it's overdone, and people need to move on.

And before anyone accuses me of hypocrisy:
I know I'm a hypocrite for my vitriol towards Cruddace.

But let's be fair. "Hot-Shot Lasguns" is a far bigger atrocity to the background than Draigo!

Kilkrazy wrote:I don't think that excuses them. It's not like the numerous SM codexes, and IG have been vastly modified to take a lot of their time.

Once again, one questions what a Design Staff of 80 people have been doing for the past six years.

The Necrons were basically just random models without fluff in 2nd edition, their third edition book greatly expanded the history of the universe, and the 5th edition book finally got around to talking about the Necrons themselves. There's a huge amount of growth in expanding the breadth of the universe there. Same thing with the Dark Eldar, introduced in 3rd with about 150 words written about them altogether, and vastly expanded later. Tau didn't even exist until most of the way through 3rd (and are sure to get some big fluff expansion soon to explain why they have Ultrafriends now), and I don't really know too much about the Sisters.

MasterSlowPoke wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:I don't think that excuses them. It's not like the numerous SM codexes, and IG have been vastly modified to take a lot of their time.

Once again, one questions what a Design Staff of 80 people have been doing for the past six years.

The Necrons were basically just random models without fluff in 2nd edition, their third edition book greatly expanded the history of the universe, and the 5th edition book finally got around to talking about the Necrons themselves. There's a huge amount of growth in expanding the breadth of the universe there. Same thing with the Dark Eldar, introduced in 3rd with about 150 words written about them altogether, and vastly expanded later. Tau didn't even exist until most of the way through 3rd (and are sure to get some big fluff expansion soon to explain why they have Ultrafriends now), and I don't really know too much about the Sisters.

Any of these backgrounds I could have done over the span of any given November I didn't have anything better to do. In fact probably all of them.

As for Tau, they came out in 2001, nearly halfway through 3rd. So only "most" in the way that 51% of a thing is "most" of it. Technically correct ("The best kind of correct!") but somewhat misleading. And a fluff explaination for why UM and Tau are BFFs now? Oh, I await THAT with baited breath, I can assure you... I'll enjoy reading that as much as I enjoyed watching Eowyn get saved by Aragorn in the cinematic bumbling of the Battle of the Pelennor.

They want fun? Make Nids allies to Imperial guard, and bring Genecult back.

1hadhq wrote:Q 3 and Q 5 =

I'd like to see them succeed speeding up the release and us having so many parts of the new edition before we enter 7th.

The team wanted to make Psykers more akin to Wizards in WHFB.

Thanks. Now, where are all these bound monsters to unleash ....

Well, on the one hand, I don't see how it would make sense, "Fluff-wise," to integrate monsters (or whatever the analogue for the GRIMDARK Sci-Fi setting of 40K) into the game like Storm of Magic did, I do really like some of the models released for SoM. With the exception of the Manticore, which was just pants (although the 2 riders are both ACE) all the other big beasties are pretty cool. And the big scary army-specific monsters like Arachnorak and the OK Mammoth-looking beast - all really cool models that, if I was a Fantasy player, I would like an excuse to use.

Who knows if something like that is in the pipeline for 40K, but it would be a way to open a bunch of new models up to marketing to numerous armies, not only to one specific army for each crature (or whatever).

Hot-shot lasgun = hellgun damnit!

Noisy_Marine wrote:Hot-shot lasgun = hellgun damnit!

Hot-shot lasgun is actually the original name. New players often get turned around by things like this, the new necron fluff, salamanders skin tone, etc.

Kanluwen wrote:What you're clearly missing, however, is that Dysartes posted what--to me at the time-- read as a dig at an author who gets nothing but vitriol flung his way for various ridiculous reasons(no different than what was done to Casey Hudson for daring to make a Mass Effect 3 ending which the fanbase didn't like) ranging from "He writes overpowered books!" to "I don't like how he portrayed X, Y, or Z". If that wasn't Dysartes' intent, then I will certainly take this time to apologize for jumping on his case. I grow weary of seeing this constant Ward hate in every freakin' thread where the man's name is mentioned--and even in some where he isn't! It's silly, it's overdone, and people need to move on.

Guess, you still don't get it.
If the report tells the truth, Mat Ward stated that editions 4+ differ from editions 2+3 in that they had Tau, Necrons, Dark Eldar and Sororitas. Dysartes just stated the fact that Mat Ward then is not familiar with the history of 40k, as Necrons and Sororitas were introduced in 2nd edition, Dark Eldar and Tau in 3rd edition (some of them with even earlier roots: Evil robots and Pirate Eldar). Whether or not you like Mat Ward, his statement is wrong.

Whoa. Now I'm confused. Oh well, I think hellgun sounds better. And Litanies of Hate sounds better than Liturgies of Battle, but maybe that's just me.

Kroothawk wrote:Guess, you still don't get it.
If the report tells the truth, Mat Ward stated that editions 4+ differ from editions 2+3 in that they had Tau, Necrons, Dark Eldar and Sororitas. Dysartes just stated the fact that Mat Ward then is not familiar with the history of 40k, as Necrons and Sororitas were introduced in 2nd edition, Dark Eldar and Tau in 3rd edition (some of them with even earlier roots: Evil robots and Pirate Eldar). Whether or not you like Mat Ward, his statement is wrong.

The statement was in reference to the storyline, which those races have definitely changed. The idea that Ward isn't familiar with the Necron history, considering he wrote the only other Necron book, is insane.

Necrons had fluff and an army list in second edition. They were a mysterious threat, but many of the elements of "modern" necrons were there- the phase out, the living metal, the self repair, the scarabs eating tanks, the destroyers and so on. Sisters had models and fluff in second edition. Tau were a mid third edition release. Ward's statement is incorrect as presented- though I am sure it could be a poorly worded interpretation of what he's actually said.

NAVARRO wrote:They want fun? Make Nids allies to Imperial guard, and bring Genecult back.

this x1000.