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.

WRT DE, I'll believe it when I see it on the shelf. I think if you ask both of the Squat players out there, they heard similar empty promises.

And 40k isn't WFB - Dwarves do OK in WFB, but not in 40k.

I believe GW is now moving to Army Book lists only, so tough luck, CD players.

But this is why DE are going to soldier on with their Codex in neglect. Better than being cancelled, I guess.

Kroot Mercs had a full Chapter Approved / Compiliation list.

Personally I want them to scrap the game and start from a blank sheet of paper. This constant tinkering just gets irritating. When will the grasp the nettle and realise that the basic game is a clunker?

Osbad wrote:Personally I want them to scrap the game and start from a blank sheet of paper. This constant tinkering just gets irritating. When will the grasp the nettle and realise that the basic game is a clunker?

Andy Chambers basically tried to do that when it was time to change from 3rd to 4th. Now he's no longer with the company. I suspect that there's a lesson there for future GW employees who might contemplate rocking the boat.

Asmodai wrote:On the other hand, GW is adding Daemon armies to both core games, so I'd expect Ork and Dark Eldar length waits before they come around to Sisters of Battle or Wood Elves again.

Jervis made the point at Adepticon 2007 that they won't let a 10-year wait between codeci happen again. From his comments, it sounds like the studio is taking a more business-like approach to releases. No more 'variant' lists that aren't fully supported (and may not even have models available). All armies get "regular" updates; Jervis this may not mean that in five years the Codeci will be released in the same order, but it'll be close (for example it might not be Chaos Marines, Orks, Daemons but instead be Orks, Daemons, Chaos Marines). Jervis seemed pretty embarrased that the studio let orks go as long as they did. Personally, I think there will be a LatD type codex at some point as a 'new' army for 40k, it's too much a part of the fluff and they seem to be going back to fluff. Rumors are that GW is "currently working on dark eldar." Whether that means working on sculpts, or just background fluff and concept art (probably the later and not the former) isn't completely known. I also wouldn't be surprised to see Sisters get their book and at a later time the Inquisition getting its own.

It sounds like we'll see Daemons, Space Marines, Space Wolves, Dark Eldar, and Necrons by the end of 2009 (any maybe something will sneak in there too) with Fifth Edition and Codex: Planetstrike also being released.

Jervis also said that they'd have regular FAQ updates starting 6 months ago.

What he says and what GW does are very different things. GW has promised more regular updates for books before and not followed through (e.g. when 3rd and 4th were released). It's silly to assume that they'd keep to their word this time around.

I understand he's embarrassed and I think he honestly wants to release the Codexes in a regular schedule. He doesn't make those decisions though. That would be consistent with his attempt to 'standardize' the game somewhat (fewer variant lists, clearer Codexes with less options, etc.), but the final say goes to the bean-counters. In three years when it's a choice between updating the Inquisition or doing another Marine release, I'm pretty sure what will happen.

Regarding DE I think it is certain that GW must be working on new models because:

1. That is where they make their money.
2. Moulds wear out and need replacing.
3. A new codex will help them sell new models to DE fans who already have complete armies.

Seems odd that they couldn't follow through with the FAQs though. It's not like you need the same turn-around as a printed product.

I think that most of the rumored new rules sound like they accomplish one of three things:
1. Encourage more tactical play (running is especially good in that regard, as it's very difficult to get to maneuver infantry in the current edition).
2. Clear up unnecessarily complicated rules (mixed armour/toughness, torrent of fire, casualty removal).
3. Speed up gameplay.

Some of the rules sound like rubbish, of course, but I think that overall it sounds like the game will be more fun and interesting, which is good enough for me.

I've read through the leaked pdf, not suprising that I like some of it and hate some of it. It's pretty much par for the course. Though my mech tau list is pretty much screwed. My orks should do well.

How on earth do these rules speed up gameplay?

Kilkrazy wrote:Regarding DE I think it is certain that GW must be working on new models because:
1. That is where they make their money.
2. Moulds wear out and need replacing.
3. A new codex will help them sell new models to DE fans who already have complete armies.

1. Selling a handful of models to 2 guys *LOSES* money.
2. When you don't need to make more than a couple models a year, on average, the molds will last practically forever.
3. Warming over the same-old won't do anything.

dietrich wrote:It sounds like we'll see Daemons, Space Marines, Space Wolves, Dark Eldar, and Necrons by the end of 2009 (any maybe something will sneak in there too) with Fifth Edition and Codex: Planetstrike also being released.

That sounds like too much for 1 year, especially as there is usually a lull before the new edition releases. I'd bank on a maximum of 4 Codices + the new edition & Planetstrike. So:

Based on rumors, these are givens:
- Daemons (winter)
- Planetstrike (summer)
- 5th Edition (fall)

With a new Edition, we get:
- Space Marines (fall)

And as Necrons close out each edition:
- Necrons (spring)

I won't believe anything said about DE until I see preview Codex PDF or a NEW range of models.

But yeah, we'll see Woofs before DE.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

I won't believe anything said about DE until I see preview Codex PDF or a NEW range of models.

I will bet you any amount of money. I know it for a fact because I have spoken with someone who may or may not be responsible for re-designing the entire army.

Dark Eldar are coming. It is just a matter of when.



But anyway, back on topic:


Part of me loves the idea of only Troops being able to score just because it really shakes up how people build armies. You can go for flashy toys that do your damage but if you don't have a solid core of troops you're going to have a hard time winning any games.

But the reality is, anytime a rule is based on a force organization selection it ultimately fails simply because different armies have their strengths in different parts of the FOC. This is exactly why blanket comp scoring systems in tournaments never worked right. When you forced people to take X% of their points in Troops (for example) some races could bring fantastic playable forces made up mainly of troops while other races really struggled with an army made up of their weakest units.

So ultimately I really hope the alter or abandon the idea just because it will give such a serious edge to armies that have strong troops choices, while other armies like your Tau or your Eldar are going to have a really hard time bringing Troops choices that can do anything except get mowed down.

People don't play DE becuase of their current state.

Give them some cheesy new rules and some sexy models and people will be lining up to buy them

The DE Concept and Fluff aren't bad, their practically freakin Space Dark Elves, except Dark Elves are actually cooler becuase they have better models and rules

Nurglitch wrote:Seems odd that they couldn't follow through with the FAQs though. It's not like you need the same turn-around as a printed product.

GW don't care about FAQs because most of their players don't need them and the tournament players get them from individual tournaments.

On the face of it that statement seems to be false since Mr. Johnson made a public statement to the contrary.

Whatever Mr Johnson says, GW does not put out timely, detailed and accurate FAQs.

If it's important, and they really care, and it is easy and cheap (which it is) why don't they do it?

That is the mystery isn't it? Might be a case of right hands and left hands. It might be important to the bottom line, and the head of the Design Studio might care, and it may be cheap and easy for the Web Team, but co-ordinating all of these things such that supply meets demand might be a touch more difficult than anyone unfamiliar with GW's corporate structure might initially imagine.

Dont like it at all. My battlewagon is now useless when it moves (hmm, what to fire, rokkit launcha, big shoota or zzap gun?)

Lootas now have to place themselves somewhere dangerous, and for IG basalisks will SUCK

Played a game with the leaked rules. Liked it a lot.

Everything aside from wound allocation sped the game up a lot.

Deployment was faster, assault resolution was faster (and crazy brutal), LOS was greatly simplified, and vehicles didn't automatically spend the entire game shaken.

Blast weapon changes suck for BS4+ users, BS3 will probably see it as about equally effective, BS2 blasts are loving life.

Objectives were simple to understand and didn't involve whipping out the calculator unless you tie on them.

No more forced escalation! No more forced escalation! Wooo!

Screening was a concern, until we started rolling the saves, and as soon as one hole opened up in the screening line (you don't necessarily get to choose where the hole opens), the guys behind are suddenly available targets. This isn't 3rd ed screening where a wall of guys 1" spaced will block LOS to everything behind it. If you can draw a line of sight to one model, you can shoot at and damage the entire squad he is with.

Overall good. It's different, slightly faster, and more intuitive.

I find it hilarious that the person who has actually tried out these rules finds them to be "Overall good" whereas those relying on their prejudices often do not.

Moz isn't the only guy to use the "leaked" playtest / preview rules and like them.

That said, one man's trash means someone else will be disappointed that his mono-dimensional WAAC army loses badly under the new rules.

"WAAC army"

Huh?

Win At All Costs

JohnHwangDD: Then please, relate your experiences so that they may speak against those of Moz.

Huh? I have no major problems with the new rules.

Ah, so you thought I was saying only Moz had tried the rules and enjoyed them. Makes sense. I'm looking forward to trying them out this weekend.

Nurglitch wrote:JohnHwangDD: Then please, relate your experiences so that they may speak against those of Moz.

Seriously!

Don't you guys realize you're part of the same Hive Fleet?

I voted Yay. The rules clear up a few things, and seem slightly tighter. The elimination of mandatory area terrain will probably be replaced by voluntary designation of area terrain. The game in general seems more dynamic, for lack of a better word, with infantry running, scouts flanking, and deepstrikers bopping all over the map. Tanks become pillboxes while transports got less awful. A few things that were universally considered subpar (snipers, bikes, footslogging assault units, and Troops selections in general) got better.

If properly supported with FAQs (both to the main rules and codices) this edition could be a really good thing.

Is it just me, or do these rules seem like they would work better for smaller games? Is 1500 the new 1850?

Tanks don't have to be pillboxes though. Only if you imagine that they have to shoot with everything every turn. Grav-tanks, particularly Eldar ones, will remain quite mobile.

A Leman Russ that moves 12" one turn and remains still to shoot the next will usually be more effective than one that grinds forward 6" for two turns and shoots at worse effect.