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.
curran12 wrote: Apologies for being out of the loop, as I usually am, but is there any confirmation that it is actually a new edition? I was under the impression that it was more going to be a conglomeration of supplements into one book, or is that woefully out of date information?
It is very likely that this is the case.
And if that is the case, I will be upset since I don't play the expansions and do not enjoy the idea of having superheavies shoehorned into the main game. Plus the idea of again having to pay upwards of $75 only two years after the release of 6th, etc. etc. etc.
Why? Nothing would have changed, as the expansions are all legal in normal games as is. Seems like getting mad at nothing to me.
But I'm glad to hear that what I thought was still true, and that most of this is all just so much hot air and bluster.
I don't like the idea because I'm essentially being...encouraged... to pay another $70 to stay current with 40k. That compounded with the fact that it has only been two years since 6th edition came out.
Yes, Stronghold Assault and Escalation are considered to be core to the main rules (as opposed to other expansions like Cities of Death), but a lot of people don't necessarily like the idea of superheavies being always allowed in games and don't buy these books (because again, you're spending like $140 just in core rules).
If it is 6.5, then the playing fee for this edition effectively becomes $140 unless of course you're just joining up when 6.5 would come out.
I just think the whole thing screams of GW trying to snatch any money they can from me at this point, so I'm a bit annoyed (maybe mad was too strong a word).
But, if it proves to be a consolidation, you do not need those books. If the core rules remain, and the only change is the addition of supplemental material, why get the new book?
Sorry, but this whole thing just reminds me why I get exasperated with the online wargaming community. There is never any voice of calm, and it -guarantees- more histrionics and upset talk. This thread shows that there is absolutely no happy situation:
If it proves to be nothing more than a rules consolidation, people are upset for "raaa cash grab" even though it is an unnecessary purchase.
If it proves to be a rules tweak, people are upset for "raaa cash grab" as well as the limited scope of rules changes.
If it proves to be a rules overhaul, I think you know where this is going.
Am I the crazy in not letting this get to me until I actually have information other than the hot air of the internet to go by?
I think you're putting a lot of emotion to my posts that simply aren't there. I'm not fuming, biting at the bit over this upcoming release. But I do think it is completely fair that I find the idea of a new core rulebook at half the lifespan of the previous editions to be a disreputable thing.
Regarding the scenarios you gave:
If it's a rules consolidation, then I imagine people are going to be playing with the expansions because they are in the core rule book they just bought. So I will need to purchase 6.5 to stay current with what others are playing. Sure, maybe a lot of people will stick with 6th, or will ignore the new portions of 6.5 (but then why buy it?), but I don't really see that happening unfortunately.
If it is a rules tweak, then this seems the most indicative of GW's future plans: to release a Call-of-Duty-equse rulebook update every couple of years my making minor changes and expecting people to buy them (and hey, it works well for them).
If it is a rules overhaul, then this could potentially be a good thing. I would have wished they had put more effort into the 6th release since the books cost such a premium amount, but it would be the only option where they put genuine effort into the release, so there is a perceived value (at least from my perspective) there.
They could always have waited for the natural lifespan of the rulebook to have completed before making the update. If it is 6.5 then it does little to change the issues people have with 6, so why bother releasing it?
I think you're right in that GW has little positive options in this scenario. I think they sort of dug themselves into a whole with this release, and more long-term planning could have prevented complaints.
EDIT: and to clarify, the "Sky is Falling!" stuff obviously isn't helpful, I'm not defending that.
I apologize. I didn't mean to single you out in that, I meant it more as a whole. I mean, just look at this thread, or the hilarious "stop GW" thread in Dakka Discussion right now. This is all just so much over what is currently a vague something that is more rumor than substance.
curran12 wrote: Apologies for being out of the loop, as I usually am, but is there any confirmation that it is actually a new edition? I was under the impression that it was more going to be a conglomeration of supplements into one book, or is that woefully out of date information?
It is very likely that this is the case.
And if that is the case, I will be upset since I don't play the expansions and do not enjoy the idea of having superheavies shoehorned into the main game. Plus the idea of again having to pay upwards of $75 only two years after the release of 6th, etc. etc. etc.
Why? Nothing would have changed, as the expansions are all legal in normal games as is. Seems like getting mad at nothing to me.
But I'm glad to hear that what I thought was still true, and that most of this is all just so much hot air and bluster.
I don't like the idea because I'm essentially being...encouraged... to pay another $70 to stay current with 40k. That compounded with the fact that it has only been two years since 6th edition came out.
Yes, Stronghold Assault and Escalation are considered to be core to the main rules (as opposed to other expansions like Cities of Death), but a lot of people don't necessarily like the idea of superheavies being always allowed in games and don't buy these books (because again, you're spending like $140 just in core rules).
If it is 6.5, then the playing fee for this edition effectively becomes $140 unless of course you're just joining up when 6.5 would come out.
I just think the whole thing screams of GW trying to snatch any money they can from me at this point, so I'm a bit annoyed (maybe mad was too strong a word).
But, if it proves to be a consolidation, you do not need those books. If the core rules remain, and the only change is the addition of supplemental material, why get the new book?
Sorry, but this whole thing just reminds me why I get exasperated with the online wargaming community. There is never any voice of calm, and it -guarantees- more histrionics and upset talk. This thread shows that there is absolutely no happy situation:
If it proves to be nothing more than a rules consolidation, people are upset for "raaa cash grab" even though it is an unnecessary purchase.
If it proves to be a rules tweak, people are upset for "raaa cash grab" as well as the limited scope of rules changes.
If it proves to be a rules overhaul, I think you know where this is going.
Am I the crazy in not letting this get to me until I actually have information other than the hot air of the internet to go by?
I think you're putting a lot of emotion to my posts that simply aren't there. I'm not fuming, biting at the bit over this upcoming release. But I do think it is completely fair that I find the idea of a new core rulebook at half the lifespan of the previous editions to be a disreputable thing.
Regarding the scenarios you gave:
If it's a rules consolidation, then I imagine people are going to be playing with the expansions because they are in the core rule book they just bought. So I will need to purchase 6.5 to stay current with what others are playing. Sure, maybe a lot of people will stick with 6th, or will ignore the new portions of 6.5 (but then why buy it?), but I don't really see that happening unfortunately.
If it is a rules tweak, then this seems the most indicative of GW's future plans: to release a Call-of-Duty-equse rulebook update every couple of years my making minor changes and expecting people to buy them (and hey, it works well for them).
If it is a rules overhaul, then this could potentially be a good thing. I would have wished they had put more effort into the 6th release since the books cost such a premium amount, but it would be the only option where they put genuine effort into the release, so there is a perceived value (at least from my perspective) there.
They could always have waited for the natural lifespan of the rulebook to have completed before making the update. If it is 6.5 then it does little to change the issues people have with 6, so why bother releasing it?
I think you're right in that GW has little positive options in this scenario. I think they sort of dug themselves into a whole with this release, and more long-term planning could have prevented complaints.
EDIT: and to clarify, the "Sky is Falling!" stuff obviously isn't helpful, I'm not defending that.
I apologize. I didn't mean to single you out in that, I meant it more as a whole. I mean, just look at this thread, or the hilarious "stop GW" thread in Dakka Discussion right now. This is all just so much over what is currently a vague something that is more rumor than substance.
No worries, I was just trying to explain my own opinion on the matter.
And I agree entirely on the "Stop GW" thread (and others like it). The poster in there thinks any dissenting opinions are Pro-Sri Lankan telemarketers or something!
is it a 0 or a - ? though in BRB page 3 explains what a 0 means... it means you cannot shoot, are auto hit in CC, and cant take leadership test, (explanation mine)
and cannot be modified beyond those, its in the BRB...page 2 has how modifiying stats goes
It's a 0, Spore Mines have a (-)
yeah i checked the book and got the page references it means the same thing, a dead stat that cant be used for anything.
questionably can a 0 be increased? i dont think it can though
Much like the last few editions, I expect we'll get some random changes, the most obvious stuff will get hammered. We'll get a whole bunch of random changes nobody asked for resulting in unwarranted nerfs and buffs to various things for no real reason that will leave people scratching their heads. We'll get some really wonky solutions to some minor problems.
Overall it'll probably be a whole lot of "the same, but different".
EDIT: I'm just really really hoping they get rid of Hull Points or drop the vehicle damage chart and give vehicles saves already.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/04/29 16:41:50
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
I would like Weapon Skill to actually matter. Right now it is the least important stat. The range of two-hit rolls should expand up to 2+ and 6+ and the advantage of a higher WS should be linear. A Space Marine should have difficulty hitting a genestealer and it should be nearly impossible for a firewarror.
sing your life wrote: I sure it will be the 6th edition expansions put into the new book, but hopefully they will fix said expansions.
Well, Stronghold is an excellent expansion. Fixed a lot of the problems in the 6th Ed book and is reasonably priced. Also added some ways of dealing with crazy stuff without being too crazy itself. (Besides Void Shield Generators having well intentioned but poorly written rules)
we will see.. i just hope CC will get a little buff so it makes the game more exciting than it is now. I hate to play against 'hide in the corner,ignore all cover and shoot em up' armies atm.
something like give fleet back the move, run, charge option.
Dakka is the ork word for shooting, but the ork concept of shooting is saturation fire. Just as there is no such thing as a "miss" in a target-rich environment, there is no such thing as a "dodge" in a bullet rich one
I expect a few important/solid changes that would immeasurably help the game, only to be destroyed by something else being insistantly bundled into the game that isn't necessary nor narrative(eg...vehicle/wound fixes and flyers in 6th).
Farseer Faenyin 7,100 pts Yme-Loc Eldar(Apoc Included) / 5,700 pts (Non-Apoc) Record for 6th Edition- Eldar: 25-4-2
Record for 7th Edition -
Eldar: 0-0-0 (Yes, I feel it is that bad)
Battlefleet Gothic: 2,750 pts of Craftworld Eldar
X-wing(Focusing on Imperials): CR90, 6 TIE Fighters, 4 TIE Interceptors, TIE Bomber, TIE Advanced, 4 X-wings, 3 A-wings, 3 B-wings, Y-wing, Z-95
Battletech: Battlion and Command Lance of 3025 Mechs(painted as 21st Rim Worlds)
sing your life wrote: I sure it will be the 6th edition expansions put into the new book, but hopefully they will fix said expansions.
Well, Stronghold is an excellent expansion. Fixed a lot of the problems in the 6th Ed book and is reasonably priced. Also added some ways of dealing with crazy stuff without being too crazy itself. (Besides Void Shield Generators having well intentioned but poorly written rules)
Escalation is full of huge OP models.
OT: I like hull points, but it isn't as good as the old vehicle damage chart.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/04/29 16:40:48
AdeptSister wrote: I would like Weapon Skill to actually matter. Right now it is the least important stat. The range of two-hit rolls should expand up to 2+ and 6+ and the advantage of a higher WS should be linear. A Space Marine should have difficulty hitting a genestealer and it should be nearly impossible for a firewarror.
As someone who plays Tau and is currently building a Dark Eldar Wych Cult with Lelith, I agree.
Weapon Skill isn't important enough.
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
There is always a chance that GW are making new rules for the game because the feedback they've been getting is they have written bad/unclear rules and are alienating their fans.
More likely though they're re-writing the rules because they messed up with assault so badly they can't sell assault units and armies (I.e. Nids) so easily and need to retro fit the rules so that these armies go back up a bit so they can sell more models.
Much as I'd like it to be the former I think its motivated by the latter.
I think it'll be assault tweaks and some minor changes in order to level off the assault to shooting disparity. The reason is obvious, they're going to release blood angels, orks and grey knights at some point. If they don't blood angels (space marines) might not sell for the first time in history.
Although I have a possible alternative theory. Before 6th dropped there was a 'leaked' rulebook with a completely different rules. Maybe that is the 7th rules and was pushed back using 6th as a bed to play test more.
Who knows.
1 thing is for sure it will be for the purposes of making something better so they can sell more and I would put money on it being assault in large.
sing your life wrote: I sure it will be the 6th edition expansions put into the new book, but hopefully they will fix said expansions.
Well, Stronghold is an excellent expansion. Fixed a lot of the problems in the 6th Ed book and is reasonably priced. Also added some ways of dealing with crazy stuff without being too crazy itself. (Besides Void Shield Generators having well intentioned but poorly written rules)
Escalation is full of huge OP models.
Yes, Escalation is.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/04/29 16:45:33
Ravenous D wrote: 40K is like a beloved grandparent that is slowly falling into dementia and the rest of the family is in denial about how bad it is.
squidhills wrote: GW is scared of girls. Why do you think they have so much trouble sculpting attractive female models? Because girls have cooties and the staff at GW don't like looking at them for too long because it makes them feel funny in their naughty place.
I'm going to mirror the general sentiment that there won't be a WHOLE lot of change other than rolling stuff in.
I won't say no changes other than that, though. The general trend for rules upgrades is always to add two or three big differences that don't work very well, and to clean up the big changes that they introduced last time that didn't work very well to make them reasonably playable.
Also, because we're talking about core rules, big changes can come from small mechanics. For example, the change to wound allocation made a massive difference to huge swaths of armies, and that was one change to one rule.
I could easily see the same thing happening where they make one small change to how transports work and suddenly the whole mech world gets put on its head, for example.
What those little changes will be, though, are hard to protect. You know, because they're little.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/04/29 16:46:14
7th edition is coming, and all today in many places, current rulebooks for 6th edition are being taken off the shelves and sent back to GW. Yes, thats right.... you heard correctly. A lot is going on today.
Please remember that this is a rumor. A pre-order date of May 24th would put the release at May 31st. Whether its a release on the 24th or release on the 31st, things are getting exciting around here.
Here is a clarification and update from the anonymous source below.
I think the pre order date for the new rule book is the 24th. So sale on the week after. Most shops should have a poster with a commissar on it in there shops. And the date 24th war is coming or something in those lines.
via Faeit 212
so will Orks release before 7th or after?
I'm guessing after, since May is frolicking Woof Elf month
I swear to god if they change the formatting/layout again from the Ork codex onward, I'm going to flip a table.
I'm still pissed that they didnt bother updating the other armies (Orks, BA, SW, GK, Necrons, DE and technically SoB - at the current cycle, all of these would have given us at least 1 more year of 6th with the odd WHFB update and/or supplement thrown in before 7th ed) before hardly being able to contain themselves and releasing 7th. Like.....than you sooooo much, GW.
This message was edited 6 times. Last update was at 2014/04/29 17:38:16
Ravenous D wrote: 40K is like a beloved grandparent that is slowly falling into dementia and the rest of the family is in denial about how bad it is.
squidhills wrote: GW is scared of girls. Why do you think they have so much trouble sculpting attractive female models? Because girls have cooties and the staff at GW don't like looking at them for too long because it makes them feel funny in their naughty place.
Nerf Destroyer weapons, or make them limited to Close Combat or Apocalypse. For less than 1000 points, no army should be able to wipe any 2 units off the board, every turn, with impunity.
If 7th formalizes the inclusion of lords of war - I wouldn't be surprised for them to include the revised Str D weapon rules that forgeworld put out in their latest heresy book.
*Destroyer weapons count as being Strength 10 and have the Instant Death, Sunder and Ignores Cover special rules. In addition, successful invulnerable saves taken against hits from Destroyer Weapons must be re-rolled.
*Each unsaved wound from a destroyer weapon inflicts d3+1 wounds. Each penetrating hit from a destroyer weapon causes d3+1 hull points / rolls once on the appropriate vehicle damage chart..
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/04/29 18:00:39
vyslav wrote: If 7th formalizes the inclusion of lords of war - I wouldn't be surprised for them to include the revised Str D weapon rules that forgeworld put out in their latest heresy book.
*Destroyer weapons count as being Strength 10 and have the Instant Death, Sunder and Ignores Cover special rules. In addition, successful invulnerable saves taken against hits from Destroyer Weapons must be re-rolled.
*Each unsaved wound from a destroyer weapon inflicts d3+1 wounds. Each penetrating hit from a destroyer weapon causes d3+1 hull points / rolls once on the appropriate vehicle damage chart..
if the wounds were to be taken on a model by model basis, instead of wound soaking from the front, i can wekk go with that
vyslav wrote: If 7th formalizes the inclusion of lords of war - I wouldn't be surprised for them to include the revised Str D weapon rules that forgeworld put out in their latest heresy book.
*Destroyer weapons count as being Strength 10 and have the Instant Death, Sunder and Ignores Cover special rules. In addition, successful invulnerable saves taken against hits from Destroyer Weapons must be re-rolled.
*Each unsaved wound from a destroyer weapon inflicts d3+1 wounds. Each penetrating hit from a destroyer weapon causes d3+1 hull points / rolls once on the appropriate vehicle damage chart..
if the wounds were to be taken on a model by model basis, instead of wound soaking from the front, i can wekk go with that
Most people I know would too. I have a strong feeling that we may end up adopting it locally regardless just because it's a much more interesting and fair set up (since you have to actually roll to wound or penetrate armour meaning that you can inflict less wounds or fail to pen instead of getting to do so automatically).
vyslav wrote: If 7th formalizes the inclusion of lords of war - I wouldn't be surprised for them to include the revised Str D weapon rules that forgeworld put out in their latest heresy book.
*Destroyer weapons count as being Strength 10 and have the Instant Death, Sunder and Ignores Cover special rules. In addition, successful invulnerable saves taken against hits from Destroyer Weapons must be re-rolled.
*Each unsaved wound from a destroyer weapon inflicts d3+1 wounds. Each penetrating hit from a destroyer weapon causes d3+1 hull points / rolls once on the appropriate vehicle damage chart..
if the wounds were to be taken on a model by model basis, instead of wound soaking from the front, i can wekk go with that
Most people I know would too. I have a strong feeling that we may end up adopting it locally regardless just because it's a much more interesting and fair set up (since you have to actually roll to wound or penetrate armour meaning that you can inflict less wounds or fail to pen instead of getting to do so automatically).
I hate it because of how insanely durable my Raveners, Shrikes, Carnifexes, and Paladins would get...I see much abuse in that idea.
vyslav wrote: If 7th formalizes the inclusion of lords of war - I wouldn't be surprised for them to include the revised Str D weapon rules that forgeworld put out in their latest heresy book.
*Destroyer weapons count as being Strength 10 and have the Instant Death, Sunder and Ignores Cover special rules. In addition, successful invulnerable saves taken against hits from Destroyer Weapons must be re-rolled.
*Each unsaved wound from a destroyer weapon inflicts d3+1 wounds. Each penetrating hit from a destroyer weapon causes d3+1 hull points / rolls once on the appropriate vehicle damage chart..
So what this means is that 2++ rerollable deathstars will still be able to win any tournament because D weapons don't ignore invul saves. To top it off screamerstar can just assault the titan and go to town with it. I think they need to take on they can take invul saves at a -2 penalty with a maximum of 6+. this way you can still have your invulnerable save but the D weapons puts much more pressure on the unit causing the invul save to be worse then printed. This would make 2++ rerollable into a 4++ with no rerolls due to the canceling nature of D weapons causing them to reroll success and them being alowed to reroll failure (if thats how it works anyways)
vyslav wrote: If 7th formalizes the inclusion of lords of war - I wouldn't be surprised for them to include the revised Str D weapon rules that forgeworld put out in their latest heresy book.
*Destroyer weapons count as being Strength 10 and have the Instant Death, Sunder and Ignores Cover special rules. In addition, successful invulnerable saves taken against hits from Destroyer Weapons must be re-rolled.
*Each unsaved wound from a destroyer weapon inflicts d3+1 wounds. Each penetrating hit from a destroyer weapon causes d3+1 hull points / rolls once on the appropriate vehicle damage chart..
if the wounds were to be taken on a model by model basis, instead of wound soaking from the front, i can wekk go with that
Most people I know would too. I have a strong feeling that we may end up adopting it locally regardless just because it's a much more interesting and fair set up (since you have to actually roll to wound or penetrate armour meaning that you can inflict less wounds or fail to pen instead of getting to do so automatically).
I hate it because of how insanely durable my Raveners, Shrikes, Carnifexes, and Paladins would get...I see much abuse in that idea.
A Reaver's S : D weapons are still going to inflict instant death on all of those and gank your heirophant with multiple wounds per shots while shrugging off it's biocannons in return.
Midnightdeathblade wrote: Think of a daemon incursion like a fart you don't quite trust... you could either toot a little puff of air, bellow a great effluvium, or utterly sh*t your pants and cry as it floods down your leg.
ductvader wrote: I hate it because of how insanely durable my Raveners, Shrikes, Carnifexes, and Paladins would get...I see much abuse in that idea.
A Reaver's S : D weapons are still going to inflict instant death on all of those and gank your heirophant with multiple wounds per shots while shrugging off it's biocannons in return.
Ooph, good thing I've never played against either of them/don't ever see myself playing against those.
And why the whole comment about heirophants? (Got a personal vendetta against them?)
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/04/29 18:28:23
20,000 Pts 
6000+ Pts
8000 points fully painted
hive fleet belphegor 3500 points
1k sons killteam
Farseer Faenyin 
7,100 pts Yme-Loc Eldar(Apoc Included) / 5,700 pts (Non-Apoc) 
2000 l 
2000 l 
2000 l 
1500 l 
1000 l 
1000 l 
Blood Ravens (using Ravenguard CT) 1500 l 
1500 l
