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.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:


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

An extensive analysis from someone who knows what they're talking about. Wells left because he knew what was coming.

Anyway, perhaps the best thing GW could do is make this "7th Edition" basically just a revision of 6th with all the new rules, errata, and FAQ incorporated into it, and then spend a year or so working on an all new edition of the game from the ground up with all new rules and codexes. Wishlisting, sadly.

Fully agree. Also, because of your avatar, I read all your posts in Kyle Maclachlan's voice, which is wonderfully therapeutic. (Sorry, you must be sick of hearing that).

wilycoyote wrote:
I have to agree, WH40k has never even from its Rogue Trader days been a balanced gaming system. How could it be with the core rules being changed as soon as the new army list/models comes out, which then needs the next list to buff that race or perhaps nerf some other ability. The time lag between these new mini rule changes produces a even more pronounced effect.

The way to alleviate that would be to update the rules for every army at once, and produce a steady stream of releases for all factions, rather than the "feast and famine" method.

I don't buy the rumour that there will be a full new 40k edition in 2014. I find the following two options most likely:

1.) It is just a mole-hunt to catch the 40k radio source.
2.) It is a cheap copy-paste job with a few tweaks to lure the completist. Plus a 50$ dustjacket or cardboard slipcase. Including escalation makes sense to force anyone to deal with those Apocalypse units in regular games.

GW gve up Hobbit and metal. They will give up Finecast. If they give up Fantasy as well and make a desperate new 40k edition, what will be left?
Given the latest releases, a new edition would only make the latest 30% more expensive 2 sprue kits must-buys (esp. the Apocalypse-sized ones and flyers) or increase the total of models you need. Escalation killed my last hope for getting a more or less balanced game from GW. Still I don't think, we will see a full 7th 40k edition this year.

 Sidstyler wrote:

 Therion wrote:
Game companies do that stuff all the time and there's absolutely nothing wrong with it.

Yeah, but barely two years after the last new edition? I've never seen a game company do that before.

Mantic did that with Kings of War:
First ruleset September 2010, revised edition less than 2 years later, kickstarter end June 2012.
Their other major game system, Warpath, was released 2011, revised rules 2012 and seems to have another kickstarter revised edition 2014.

 Kroothawk wrote:

Mantic did that with Kings of War:
First ruleset September 2010, revised edition less than 2 years later, kickstarter end June 2012.
Their other major game system, Warpath, was released 2011, revised rules 2012 and seems to have another kickstarter revised edition 2014.

And those rulesets were both free. Kings of War, as I understand it, has been stable since they released an actual book you pay for, despite them still keeping the rules themselves freely available on the website as well.

In the UK at least, some people paid over £80 for the latest 40K ruleset just 18 months ago. If GW want to carry on with limited editions and the ridiculous prices they get for them, negating those books within 24 months is NOT a good idea for sustainability.

Hell,the £150 space marine codex is the big promotion this christmas, imagine paying that and needing a completely new book in 10 months time.

NoggintheNog wrote:
In the UK at least, some people paid over £80 for the latest 40K ruleset just 18 months ago.

It's £45.00 for the book or £61.50 for the starter box. Why £80 ?

Hell,the £150 space marine codex is the big promotion this christmas, imagine paying that and needing a completely new book in 10 months time.

Well, they have something to look forward to Xmas 2014

 Kroothawk wrote:

NoggintheNog wrote:
In the UK at least, some people paid over £80 for the latest 40K ruleset just 18 months ago.

It's £45.00 for the book or £61.50 for the starter box. Why £80 ?

Hell,the £150 space marine codex is the big promotion this christmas, imagine paying that and needing a completely new book in 10 months time.

Well, they have something to look forward to Xmas 2014

The limited edition Rulebook was £85.

I get you think people are silly to pay those prices, so do I, but its possibly the only expanding market GW have managed to create in recent years, that of limited edition books. I cannot stress the insanity of a management decision that would in a stroke negate that avenue of revenue and with it annoy a section of the consumer base that has to be amongst the most loyal there is.Limited edition books are bought because they are special, if they stop being special (and indeed worth anything) inside a year, that market is severely damaged, probably beyond repair.

NoggintheNog wrote:

 Kroothawk wrote:

Mantic did that with Kings of War:
First ruleset September 2010, revised edition less than 2 years later, kickstarter end June 2012.
Their other major game system, Warpath, was released 2011, revised rules 2012 and seems to have another kickstarter revised edition 2014.

And those rulesets were both free. Kings of War, as I understand it, has been stable since they released an actual book you pay for, despite them still keeping the rules themselves freely available on the website as well.

In the UK at least, some people paid over £80 for the latest 40K ruleset just 18 months ago. If GW want to carry on with limited editions and the ridiculous prices they get for them, negating those books within 24 months is NOT a good idea for sustainability.

Hell,the £150 space marine codex is the big promotion this christmas, imagine paying that and needing a completely new book in 10 months time.

Not only were they free but KoW was still in the Beta phase untill the ruleset was released for Retail and Warpaths first ruleset was an alpha ruleset and they are currently in the Beta phase and due for rerail release via KS later this year. Say what you want about Mantics Minis but there rulesets IMO are solid as they tend to listen to fans feedback about rules, just see what happened with the ball launch rules for Dredball, players weren't happy with the launch rules so there was a proposed change fans weren't happy with them so they were changed again for the
better.

I would like to see GW release system change. Instead of there current release I would like to see something more akin to Privateers Press' system.

I like the idea of a new and cleaned up rulebook, but I fear for all the crap they are going to throw into it to drive the price up. I severely doubt that we will get lucky enough to get a book that is "just" the rules for 40K. I wouldn't be surprised if they threw the latest two supplements in with the rules, and priced the thing at $100 US.

 Elemental wrote:

wilycoyote wrote:
I have to agree, WH40k has never even from its Rogue Trader days been a balanced gaming system. How could it be with the core rules being changed as soon as the new army list/models comes out, which then needs the next list to buff that race or perhaps nerf some other ability. The time lag between these new mini rule changes produces a even more pronounced effect.

The way to alleviate that would be to update the rules for every army at once, and produce a steady stream of releases for all factions, rather than the "feast and famine" method.

Remembering that at its core Rogue Trader is somewhere between a tabletop game and RPG. It needed mutual co-operation between players to produce a balanced and fun game, but was massively open ended. 2nd and then 3rd edition (even more so) moved towards a tabletop wargame.

I've got no doubt at all that GW could balance WFB/40k perfectly if they wanted to. But, purchasing pennies need to be pushed towards the latest and greatest, at the expense of what people already have in their collection, and one way to accomplish this is with gradual codex-creep of some units and nerfing of others. It's on record that the codex writers have their hands tied by the sales department, in terms of what direction they take and ultimately what rules they write.

So I don't think GW are 'incapable' of producing a balanced 7th edition, or any other game, but it would represent a departure from a purposeful strategy that has been in place for some time now. Of course from a business perspective this makes 100% sense, as a way of practically guaranteeing sales of new miniatures if the players are to have games with their peers - the fans lose out of course, but then I think it's quite obvious that the interests of the fans are firmly relegated behind those of the shareholders, and while people keep throwing down the $ why should they change that policy?

Not sure it makes 100% business sense in the long term. It's one of the problems of the shareholder model though -- dividends and rising share prices RIGHT NOW are more important than the long-term health of the company. So, better to accept the churn of customers than try to keep customers happy in the long term with a balanced game that supports repeated play for decades.

So where are we at on this one?

Not sure I understand the question?

 3orangewhips wrote:
So where are we at on this one?

what seems a reliable source (40K radio who have recently had a reliable early pipeline into GW) have said there will be a 7th edition of 40K 'soon' (well before 4 years of 6th is up)

additional speculation (with nothing as solid as the original 40K radio statement) as follows

the sky is falling

GW is going downhill and will sell up 'soon'

maybe it will be 6.x just adding in FAQs and maybe Escalation and/or Stonghold instead of a real 7th

does this mean Fantasy is being dropped as it should be the next rule book to be updated?

maybe GW is feeding some fake news to suspected 40K radio sources and this is all nonsense intended to let them fire a 'traitor'


have I missed any ?

 OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote:

 3orangewhips wrote:
So where are we at on this one?

what seems a reliable source (40K radio who have recently had a reliable early pipeline into GW) have said there will be a 7th edition of 40K 'soon' (well before 4 years of 6th is up)

additional speculation (with nothing as solid as the original 40K radio statement) as follows

the sky is falling

GW is going downhill and will sell up 'soon'

maybe it will be 6.x just adding in FAQs and maybe Escalation and/or Stonghold instead of a real 7th

does this mean Fantasy is being dropped as it should be the next rule book to be updated?

maybe GW is feeding some fake news to suspected 40K radio sources and this is all nonsense intended to let them fire a 'traitor'


have I missed any ?

I feel the only thing that makes sense is that this is a mousetrap for leakers.

Bronzefists42 wrote:

I feel the only thing that makes sense is that this is a mousetrap for leakers.

Not sure how that makes the most sense? 40k radio seems to have access to printers, what with them having a full codex and multiple high quality photos of stuff for the SM and DE releases respectively. I very much doubt anyone at the design studio (the only other place you could get stuff like that) would just leak the whole codex, they're not morons and probably want to keep their jobs.

So if it's the printers, how do you control leak that kind of info to a third party without broadcasting "we're gonna get you, you goddamn rat" bright as day?

If anything, the leak most likely comes from someone with access to printing schedules, which I'm sure are set way ahead for orders that big.

Walk into GW drop more cash on books! More late nights learning their intracacies, tweaking my armies, some extra modelling... Only to find your favourite models have been nerfed and the new ones have gone up in price... I dare say when I see the new Australian prices I will punch a hole in a wall and curl up into a ball and cry.

Please be untrue or PDF 6.1 update

RaisedFist wrote:
Walk into GW drop more cash on books! More late nights learning their intracacies, tweaking my armies, some extra modelling... Only to find your favourite models have been nerfed and the new ones have gone up in price... I dare say when I see the new Australian prices I will punch a hole in a wall and curl up into a ball and cry.

Please be untrue or PDF 6.1 update

I pray to the emprah that this is false as no matter what it is it will be bad

Bonzefists42 wrote:
I feel the only thing that makes sense is that this is a mousetrap for leakers.

There is another alternative.

Have any of you considered that GW floated this rumour in order to gauge customer base reaction/attitude?

Maybe to see what the customer/addicts are willing to accept in terms of the next new expensive book.

Seriously, go back and read this entire thread and you will find that most would accept a $100-$150 US (6.5 version of the BRB) that includes the expansions and faq updates.

Heck, GW could even claim that it is a deal in that it costs less than the 3 books do separately.

Later
Captain Avatar

Edit for spacing

I don't think I've seen anyone say they'd be happy to pay that much for a rulebook?

I've seen people who are annoyed throwing made up prices about and I've seen people who are dissatisfied with 6th expressing positive hopes for a possible 7th.

Haven't noticed one person saying both.

Let's be honest, a new, non limited edition is going to be ~$75-80 in all likelihood, and anyone claiming otherwise is just going a bit hyperbolic.

 Captain Avatar wrote:

Bonzefists42 wrote:
I feel the only thing that makes sense is that this is a mousetrap for leakers.

There is another alternative.

Have any of you considered that GW floated this rumour in order to gauge customer base reaction/attitude?

Maybe to see what the customer/addicts are willing to accept in terms of the next new expensive book.

Seriously, go back and read this entire thread and you will find that most would accept a $100-$150 US (6.5 version of the BRB) that includes the expansions and faq updates.

Heck, GW could even claim that it is a deal in that it costs less than the 3 books do separately.

Later
Captain Avatar

Edit for spacing

As far as I am aware the only evidence we have (buried somewhere in the chapterhouse lawsuit thread) points to GW not doing any market research beyond where they open their stores.
Floating a rumour on the interwebs is a new and risky move for a company who are currently playing it very very safe.
Also GW don't consider any of us their target demographic.

Captain Avatar wrote:

Bonzefists42 wrote:
I feel the only thing that makes sense is that this is a mousetrap for leakers.

There is another alternative.

Have any of you considered that GW floated this rumour in order to gauge customer base reaction/attitude?

Maybe to see what the customer/addicts are willing to accept in terms of the next new expensive book.

Seriously, go back and read this entire thread and you will find that most would accept a $100-$150 US (6.5 version of the BRB) that includes the expansions and faq updates.

Heck, GW could even claim that it is a deal in that it costs less than the 3 books do separately.

Later
Captain Avatar

azreal13 wrote:I don't think I've seen anyone say they'd be happy to pay that much for a rulebook?

-snip-

Let's be honest, a new, non limited edition is going to be ~$75-80 in all likelihood, and anyone claiming otherwise is just going a bit hyperbolic.

"Happy"? Your word not mine. I said accept as in when costs in excess of $100 no one has really argued the thought.
In corporate research that means accept.

As to your accusation that mentioning such a price point is "a bit hyperbolic"....

My first Tau codex was around $15. The next was $25. The Tau were skipped over in 5th ed when prices for an average codex was $33.

The came 6th with the, "now proven true", rumours of supplements. I and others.predicted that GW would release mono-build army books that encourage purchases of the supplements. Basically that we would have to buy 2-3 books just to get the variety that had ben in previous releases.

Sure enough we got a mono-build easy button boring army book that cost $50. Then the supplements came along and also cost $50 for 2 pages of rules.

Point I'm making is that the book prices have gone from $15 for a complete faction to $100. A $150 if you include the third book for kroot that will be released at some point. That is a 1000% increase in about a decades time.

Now apply that rate of price increase to the 6th ed BRB's $75 price tag and there is nothing hyperbolic in a $100-$150 guess at the cost of a 6.5 compilation that includes corrections and the new supplements.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

jonolikespie wrote:

As far as I am aware the only evidence we have (buried somewhere in the chapterhouse lawsuit thread) points to GW not doing any market research beyond where they open their stores.
Floating a rumour on the interwebs is a new and risky move for a company who are currently playing it very very safe.
Also GW don't consider any of us their target demographic.

A)What risk?

B) GW is a publicly traded company that produces products for a limited market. The items they make, in many cases, have a substantial initial cost.
I don't know of many savvy investors that would buy such a companies stock if they "were not" doing market research.

Saying GW doesn't do market research is like claiming that no corporation has ever put a bunch of interns online to create a whisper campaign for an upcoming product release.

C) GW doesn't consider us their target demographic? Source please.

Seriously, Sit back and watch/read long enough and you will see that GW over the years has made moves that clearly indicate that they have somebody browsing the forums and have made changes to address certain issues that only long time players would have.

Imo, GW uses us as beta testers for a product that will always need beta testing. This is due to GW's constant implementation of new rule additions that are inadequately play-tested.

 Captain Avatar wrote:

jonolikespie wrote:
As far as I am aware the only evidence we have (buried somewhere in the chapterhouse lawsuit thread) points to GW not doing any market research beyond where they open their stores.
Floating a rumour on the interwebs is a new and risky move for a company who are currently playing it very very safe.
Also GW don't consider any of us their target demographic.

A)What risk?

Putting time and money into something that would be shaped by a vocal minority.
Hell, putting time and money into anything that isn't guaranteed to sell more space marines at this point is considered a risk to GW management.

GW have cut costs to the bone in the last year, they are not going to go out and spend money on anything that is new and untested.

 Captain Avatar wrote:
B) GW is a publicly traded company that produces products for a limited market. The items they make, in many cases, have a substantial initial cost.
I don't know of many savvy investors that would buy such a companies stock if they "were not" doing market research.

Saying GW doesn't do market research is like claiming that no corporation has ever put a bunch of interns online to create a whisper campaign for an upcoming product release.

As I said I am sure there was some evidence that points that way buried in the Chapterhouse thread but I am not going to go looking for it. It was something along the lines of them being asked for market research and them having absolutely nothing to show.
Lack of hard evidence doesn't completely shoot down the idea though, there is still no evidence that they have ever tried posting here other than when a 3rd party tried recruiting for them and a whisper campagin flies in the face of their 'You'll know when we decide to tell you' approach to things.

Oh, and it seems that the people who owned the majority of the shares as of a year ago have sold a lot of those shares.

 Captain Avatar wrote:
C) GW doesn't consider us their target demographic? Source please.

They have gone on about how they are selling toys to kids for years now. Their target demographic is 12 year olds who thye bring into the 'GW hobby', get an initial buy in purchase out of them, a Christmas and Birthday and then the kid forgets about the hobby.
The majority of the people who buy their product, according to GW, never play a game. They are simply 'collecting'.
This should not be news to anyone, this is common knowledge. GW brag about this stuff.

 Captain Avatar wrote:
Seriously, Sit back and watch/read long enough and you will see that GW over the years has made moves that clearly indicate that they have somebody browsing the forums and have made changes to address certain issues that only long time players would have.

Imo, GW uses us as beta testers for a product that will always need beta testing. This is due to GW's constant implementation of new rule additions that are inadequately play-tested.

Except that they actually fired their outside beta testers and moved everything in house shortly before deciding to push 'narrative' gaming hard. And they have shut down all forms of communicating with GW themselves, which is not an act of a company interested in outside opinions.

 Bull0 wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:
That is a far cry from stating that they never cared about balance or tight rules in their games.

Stop putting words in my mouth, daddio. Also, the line about "previous designers striving for more balanced and cleaner rules" - yeah, like I said, a handful of them did, in a small bubble, around 3rd ed I guess? And that's it, in the long history of 40k. And where are they now? I'm sorry, but your assertion that up until 6th ed the game was designed around balance and clean rules and it's all gone out of the window now is crap. Now, if you want to argue that things have gotten more excessive in recent years - no argument. That's definitely the case. That isn't what you're saying though.

Same to you kiddo. I never said that the game was designed around balance and clean rules, try quoting my entire post next time if you can't remember it all... In fact what I said was exactly:

PhantomViper wrote:
And while previous editions (of both games), were far from perfect, it wasn't until this latest batch that the notion of balance was completely thrown out the window.

Yes, I agree with you that the game was never perfectly balanced or even came close to it, but in previous editions the imbalance could be somewhat corrected by player tactics. In 6th edition, the extreme randomness of every decision that goes on in the table, coupled with the ability to max-min even more of a list because of the introduction of allies means that no amount of player skill can compensate for the game's failures regarding balance.

I'm not a kid, I'm 27. Not that it matters. And I wasn't even quoting that line, I was quoting this one, can YOU remember what you posted?:

PhantomViper wrote:
The fact that the lead designers of previous editions strived to achieve a cleaner and more balanced set of rules also gives credence that this philosophy that you talk about only came into effect in more recent times (and resulting in all those guys leaving the company for greener pastures).

But I guess when you said the designers "strived to achieve a cleaner and more balanced set of rules", you didn't mean that the game was designed around balance and clean rules! Just that that was what the designers were working on very hard, "designing", if you will... nope, doesn't make any sense, you've lost me.

I really hope the "mousetrap" theory is incorrect, the thought of GW deliberately baiting it's fans just to catch a leak is disgusting.

Bronzefists42 wrote:

I feel the only thing that makes sense is that this is a mousetrap for leakers.

I don't believe this for a second. If they wanted to do something like that, they would not use this sort of rumour for it. This is a rumour that will make a big part of their customer base uneasy, they might even stop buying 6th edition stuff as they wait the new edition to arrive.

 Captain Avatar wrote:


Seriously, Sit back and watch/read long enough and you will see that GW over the years has made moves that clearly indicate that they have somebody browsing the forums and have made changes to address certain issues that only long time players would have.

Imo, GW uses us as beta testers for a product that will always need beta testing. This is due to GW's constant implementation of new rule additions that are inadequately play-tested.

Yeah then they must have skipped the bazillion tons of metric cube of threads about how CSM sucked monkey balls then...

Something like a search-engine criteria " if you want to ignore posts with ""Chaos Space Marines"", check this box"...

 Slayer le boucher wrote:

 Captain Avatar wrote:


Seriously, Sit back and watch/read long enough and you will see that GW over the years has made moves that clearly indicate that they have somebody browsing the forums and have made changes to address certain issues that only long time players would have.

Imo, GW uses us as beta testers for a product that will always need beta testing. This is due to GW's constant implementation of new rule additions that are inadequately play-tested.

Yeah then they must have skipped the bazillion tons of metric cube of threads about how CSM sucked monkey balls then...

Something like a search-engine criteria " if you want to ignore posts with ""Chaos Space Marines"", check this box"...

It's more subtle than that but I have noticed certain things, like in some of the "leaks" when people totally slate the models based on one image another, clearer image from a different angle magically materialises...

 Bull0 wrote:
I'm not a kid, I'm 27. Not that it matters. And I wasn't even quoting that line, I was quoting this one, can YOU remember what you posted?:

I'm also not your dad but you found it within yourself to call me "daddio". Also, at 27 you are practically a kid to me...

 Bull0 wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:
The fact that the lead designers of previous editions strived to achieve a cleaner and more balanced set of rules also gives credence that this philosophy that you talk about only came into effect in more recent times (and resulting in all those guys leaving the company for greener pastures).

But I guess when you said the designers "strived to achieve a cleaner and more balanced set of rules", you didn't mean that the game was designed around balance and clean rules! Just that that was what the designers were working on very hard, "designing", if you will... nope, doesn't make any sense, you've lost me.

The point is that a truly clean style of rules needs an almost "technical manual" approach to rules writing and we only started seeing those with the advent of Warmachine in 2003 (or at least I did, I'm not discounting the possibility that other rules sets existed in the same style before), and GW rules never adopted this philosophy, so while the lead designers might try to write clearer rules, the format that they adopted for it wasn't ideal and still lead to misinterpretations. But there was a very real a noticeable cleaning of rules going from 3rd to 4th edition 40K and from 5th to 6th edition WHFB, for example.

As for balance, I distinctly recall from interviews of the time the designers stating that this or that decision was made because of balance. The one such occasion that immediately springs to my mind was when the price of a basic guardsman was raised 1 point in 4th edition (I think??) because Andy Chambers found that IG horde-style armies would be too powerful otherwise.

Also in days of yore, GW actually had a team of external play testers that tested their codices and rules for them, again leading credence that once upon a time they actually cared about balance and good rules. Those are also gone and have not been replaced, leaving people to believe that they don't care about balance any more...

"Daddio" is just a slang term, I wasn't physically calling you Dad. That'd be weird.

You've moderated your thesis far enough away from the original one I had a problem with that I'm happy to leave it now. Yes, things have gotten worse recently, yes, in the past people who were more balance-minded worked in game design at GW, no, the current crop don't seem to care very much about balance at all.