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.

I thought JJ wanted to stream line 40k so that his son could play it? How will it making easier if you use Fantasy rules, some kids now a days need a computer to do easy math.

Modifiers for the grieivouness of a loss?
I wonder if Fearlessness will have any new drawbacks, given the increased vulnerability of non-fearless units to lost assault. With rending downgraded and Leadership becoming more powerful, Plague Marines are going to be getting more useful than they already are.

On a separate note:

Walkers should totally be allowed to score when taken as troops. They're maneuverable in cover like infantry, able to change their profile easier than other vehicles, etc. The idea that only human-sized units can score is ridiculous. I guess if TMCs are out then walkers are too, but I don't like it much.

I don't see why any military forces should not be able to hold an objective in terms of realism, but it's different in the game.

It is a game mechanism for the use of the designer to manipulate the players' behaviour by making some units more or less desireable.

The problem is simply that there is imbalance in the points values Restricting the scoring units to a very small selection of the total army list biases results more strongly against armies with weak/over-costed troops.

Thanks Viperion. Unless 40k starts forming ranks for assault kinda hard to see any way to make a substantive change. Seems pretty similar to me. I guess I will just be waiting til 5th comes out.

sebster wrote:And it’s a big mistake to assume that the poor sales of the last few years are the result of GW’s rules changes. 40k has never had particularly good rules, and sold pretty well. But what they have been in the past is a lot cheaper and the only fish in the tank. There’s also the LotR thing, and some natural level of sales reduction in the newer US market. There are a lot of possible reasons that people aren’t buying new stuff...

I'll second that. A lot of GW's sales hits are due to near constant price hikes, draconian IP enforcement, GW personally killing Internet sales in the US, poor customer service to the independent retailers, GW renting MALL SPACE of all things for their retail stores... the list goes on.

Pissing off the loyal long time customers is in no way restricted to rules sets. Yes the rules suck in some aspects but it's the least of the reason for sales declines IMHO.

ptlangley wrote:Thanks Viperion. Unless 40k starts forming ranks for assault kinda hard to see any way to make a substantive change. Seems pretty similar to me. I guess I will just be waiting til 5th comes out.

Or they could just use the current outnumbering mechanic, and apply that to combat resolution; +1 for twice as many models, +2 for three times and all that.

Iron_Wolves wrote:I thought JJ wanted to stream line 40k so that his son could play it? How will it making easier if you use Fantasy rules, some kids now a days need a computer to do easy math.

No, not really.

He realized 40k had become quite insular, and most publications assumed the audience had a lot of knowledge already, knowledge new publications should contain. He used the example of his son him asking which model gun represented which gun in the rules, as there were no pictures in the Marine codex showing which one related to which.

At the same time the codices are being designed with new priorities. The old style of piling in as much cool stuff regardless of how it fits has gone, and has been replaced by more streamlined codices, limiting options to encourage games based more around the preferred playing style of maneuver and unit synergy.

Whether or not this has been successful is another argument (I’d say it’s made some good steps, but created few new problems along the way), but it really, really has nothing to do with making the game simple enough for young kids to play. This is particularly clear when you look at the tactical ability needed to play with the dominant lists of 3rd ed, static shooting Iron Warriors or marine SAFH, and compare them to 3 falcon elder or nidzilla, which are very powerful but can easily come apart in the hands of moderately skilled players.

I don't know that if GW dropped LotR we'd necessarily see
them apply that labor to 40k and WHFB. They'd just fire
people.

If LOTR loses more money than the contract is worth, they'll
drop it. Right now, they seem to pull their weight comparatively.

to my understanding, LotR sells much better in the UK and austrailia then most other countries. I'd be suprised to say the least if it's enough to pull LotR out for 10 more years...

I'd be willing to bet it becomes the next specialist game.

The LoTR licence will have a time limit. GW may not be able to publish it as a specialist game.


The release of The Hobbit should give the game a new lease of life but cannot be expected for 2-3 years.

Kilkrazy wrote:The LoTR licence will have a time limit. GW may not be able to publish it as a specialist game.


The release of The Hobbit should give the game a new lease of life but cannot be expected for 2-3 years.

The license was recently repurchased for another 3 or so years.

That will tide them over to the release of the first Hobbit movie at least. They probably need another licence for The Hobbit.

oh look, it seems to have already come out!