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.

Sad Panda wrote:
New edition won't arrive in 2016.

But they will (and kinda already do) move the story forward.

Well, they wouldn't want to risk leaving out us fluff gamers, everyone should be given an equal chance to see their favourite aspect of the game destroyed.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
"Datasheets"

This. Free datasheets to download, main army selection through formations (no individual points values on models or wargear). BRB updated with FAQ, but no major rules changes. No more codexes, but rather campaign books with datasheets and formations is what I forsee.

Sad Panda wrote:
New edition won't arrive in 2016.

But they will (and kinda already do) move the story forward.

Is that all you have on the subject? Just curious. Like dying.
Please save me Panda

Let's hope they've realised that bringing out a new edition without revising all the codices doesn't work wonders for selling those armies without a new codex.

I don't feel 40k's rules are that complicated.

The real problem is that the balance is so out. It feels a bit like 7th edition Fantasy, where the good armies were ludicrously good and killed off the game.

There have always been tiers but the gulf between the top (Eldar, SM, Necrons, Tau) and bottom tier (CSM, Orks, Tyranids, DE) seems greater than ever before. If you play a bottom tier codex against a top tier codex it often feels like you are just the other side of a turkey shoot, which isn't fun.

If they bring in the next edition, I sure as hell hope, they kill off as many USRs as possible. Aside from the fact, that the core mechanic is slow (ugoigo, roll to hit, roll to would, roll to save), the various USRs are a plague of nurgelite proportions...
"Hey, these dudes have rage, they re-roll assaults!
- No, i think that was hatred.
- No, no, I'm sure that was rampage!
- That is attacking more often in a melee with more enemies than own models.
- So, still what do these guys have...? I'm sure they had something...

Tyel wrote:
I don't feel 40k's rules are that complicated.

They aren't hugely complicated, but theres far far too many of them spread out in different places and conveying very minor differences. And for all that bloat, they actually provide very little in game choice "Move, attack from distance, attack close up" being about it.

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:
I have just one thing to say...

EXALTED!!! lol



As others have said they have to go back to 40k being a skirmish game and leave all the other crap to expansions IE if I feel like playing apoc I can choose to do so as opposed to have it forced upon players. Formations should have always stayed in apoc where they belong.

The one thing I liked about age of sigmar is how all the core rules fit on two pages. Their great in that respect. But no force org and no points just made the whole game fall apart. When ever I see people try to play a pick up game of it, then spend more time trying to make two balanced forces then they do playing the game.

Getting two Warhammer players to argue about balance before every game was a terrible idea.

Thanks, Sad Panda

As mentioned earlier by someone else, it is just websites amplifying comments from non-reliable sources to have a 'scoop'. And the hysteria seems to find its victims.

There is Battle for Vedros for an easier start ino the game

They need to League of Assassins the gak out of 40K. Burn it to its core and start again without all this endless formations and special rules on top of special rules on top of special rules nonsense, with updated Codices that are the same but with a few extra formations, and people needing 16 different books to a single army.

The madness has to end.

 Crimson Devil wrote:
So that GW's course correction some have been praising was apparently so they could realign and hit the iceberg head on this time....

I don't know why but I really love this metaphor.

Median Trace wrote:
The rules bloat makes the game take way too long. There has to be some middle-ground between 40k as it is now and AoS.

Agreed. AoS with points etc. [mayby something like that in the upcoming AoS book] is the way to go. Let people play what they want [from single squad to apocalypse].

Sad Panda wrote:
But they will (and kinda already do) move the story forward.

Sorry Panda but I don't believe you here. 40K's story does not move forward. They just slot things into the years between 30k and 40k and claim that it was always there.

I mean just look at the new Marine flyer. It's fluff claims it's the backbone of Astartes airpower, yet we've never heard of it until a month ago. Was it always there, just off camera?

40K is a setting, not a story.

 Lockark wrote:
The one thing I liked about age of sigmar is how all the core rules fit on two pages. Their great in that respect. But no force org and no points just made the whole game fall apart. When ever I see people try to play a pick up game of it, then spend more time trying to make two balanced forces then they do playing the game.

Getting two Warhammer players to argue about balance before every game was a terrible idea.

Then again if you move most of the rules to unit entries you would get 40k rulebook thinned down quite a bit...

Which then results in either crapload of unique rules for units or multiplying same rule into multiple places(which could lead to case of smoke launchers working differently for dark angels because...reasons.)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Sad Panda wrote:
But they will (and kinda already do) move the story forward.

Sorry Panda but I don't believe you here. 40K's story does not move forward. They just slot things into the years between 30k and 40k and claim that it was always there.

I mean just look at the new Marine flyer. It's fluff claims it's the backbone of Astartes airpower, yet we've never heard of it until a month ago. Was it always there, just off camera?

40K is a setting, not a story.

Uhm. They said same about FB as well...Look how it turned.

And look at the recent stuff that's been coming. Tau thing is changing. Fenris just got bombarded by Dark Angels...Don't think that was in past.

Better to accept that GW decided they can move things forward.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Sad Panda wrote:
But they will (and kinda already do) move the story forward.

Sorry Panda but I don't believe you here. 40K's story does not move forward. They just slot things into the years between 30k and 40k and claim that it was always there.

You should read the fluff of the last 2 campaign books, the storyline is moving forward

If GW was moving it forward, it'd be M.42 now. This stuff with Fenris and the Tau, is just getting pushed into 999.M41.

That's what Sad Panda says, doesnt he? The timeline is going to be continued, story moves on.

Edit: In upcoming products

A lot of people are talking about a more balanced and streamlined version of 40k.

Well, it's already here and it's called Maelstrom's Edge!

Epic 40k suppression style rules, alternate unit activation and balanced gameplay = me never wanting to play 40k again for as long as I live.

Is there space marines in that?

The original rumor quote was clearly not about fluff moving forward.
"more streamlined, easier to pick".
But the fact that the story probably will take a jump with the second part of the Fenris campaign late this year, might tie in with some rules change.
I must say though, with all the formations and campaign rules, there is no quick fix to the present state.
So, my conclusion is that Sad Panda probably is more reliable than the original rumor.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
A lot of people are talking about a more balanced and streamlined version of 40k.

Well, it's already here and it's called Maelstrom's Edge!

Epic 40k suppression style rules, alternate unit activation and balanced gameplay = me never wanting to play 40k again for as long as I live.

Oh great, how did they balace my wraith knights in ME? Id love to use them again.

 Fenrir Kitsune wrote:
Is there space marines in that?

There is the non-union Mexican equivalent


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Fayric wrote:
The original rumor quote was clearly not about fluff moving forward.
"more streamlined, easier to pick".
But the fact that the story probably will take a jump with the second part of the Fenris campaign late this year, might tie in with some rules change.
I must say though, with all the formations and campaign rules, there is no quick fix to the present state.
So, my conclusion is that Sad Panda probably is more reliable than the original rumor.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
A lot of people are talking about a more balanced and streamlined version of 40k.

Well, it's already here and it's called Maelstrom's Edge!

Epic 40k suppression style rules, alternate unit activation and balanced gameplay = me never wanting to play 40k again for as long as I live.

Oh great, how did they balace my wraith knights in ME? Id love to use them again.

Clearly, I wasn't being clear enough when I clearly offered a clear alternative to a clearly different sci-fi skirmish game.

"Don't like X? Just play Y!" isn't a valid line of thinking for most people.

I like 40K. Another game having better rules doesn't matter, because I don't play 40K for the rules I play it for the setting. I'm sure Warmahordes is a better game, but I don't like the setting (other than the odd thing here and there), so I don't play it.

I hear good things about Heavy Gear, but I like the BattleTech story, and the 'Mechs, so I play that rather than Heavy Gear, no matter how good Heavy Gear may or may not be.

 Wolf_in_Human_Shape wrote:

 EnTyme wrote:
I don't anticipate a full 8th Edition any time soon, not after the backlash of how short-lived 6th Edition was. A full rules update with FAQs and Errata would be likely (and welcome) as we officially move into Warhammer 40,000 7.5

I see the logic in your skepticism, but at the same time they may see 8th edition as an opportunity to monetize the FAQ/errata-fest going on right now. That wouldn't surprise me, either. As pissed as I was with the 6th to 7th transition, I still bought the 7th ed rulebooks, and would probably do the same with 8th.

*edit*

It may not necessarily be a bad thing (other than the cost, which does suck) if they're changing the game in meaningful ways for the better, beyond the recent FAQ stuff.

The question for GW is whether they can make a new edition in a way that will keeep the current players and bring back people like me who abandoned the game in 6th/7th edition for various combinations of reasons (expense, multiplication of unwanted rules, etc.)

I think it can be done from the angle of actually reorganising all the rules, but there probably will be a timing issue if GW can all the expensive 7th edition books so soon.

Personally I am hoping for an Age of Emporer rule set up, completely revising many aspects of the game, and releasing much of the current core material (flyers, fortresses, etc.) as optional supplements.

A lot of people have justifiable concerns about where this new edition of 40k is heading and as a result, they may decide to look elsewhere for a new game.

As somebody who has played 40k over the years and enjoyed it, and who has played Maelstrom's Edge, and enjoyed it, I'm offering up Maelstrom's Edge as an excellent alternative to 40k.

Naturally, of course, my opinion being only that, an opinion, my fellow dakka members are free to take it or leave it as they see fit.

If there is a new edition coming I hope they remove a lot of randomness from the game. No longer rolling for Warlord traits, psycik powers, random tables. Cange the CSM boon table to a shorter variand like the fantsy one. Remove all thouse d3, d6 and other random gak from weapon profiles.Make the Assault range less random, fix issues with psycik poers like Invisibility. Add stuff like, say, overwatching drops your initiative to 1 or having to take a leadership check to overwatch to help assault-orientated units. And make te game less shooty, cos right now my orks feel like bringing a knife to a gun fight.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
If GW was moving it forward, it'd be M.42 now. This stuff with Fenris and the Tau, is just getting pushed into 999.M41.

So? It's still forward from what was before. Or when did Fenris's bombing get mentioned before?

You can't deny bombing of Fenris isn't new advancement...

tneva82 wrote:

 Lockark wrote:
The one thing I liked about age of sigmar is how all the core rules fit on two pages. Their great in that respect. But no force org and no points just made the whole game fall apart. When ever I see people try to play a pick up game of it, then spend more time trying to make two balanced forces then they do playing the game.

Getting two Warhammer players to argue about balance before every game was a terrible idea.

Then again if you move most of the rules to unit entries you would get 40k rulebook thinned down quite a bit...

Which then results in either crapload of unique rules for units or multiplying same rule into multiple places(which could lead to case of smoke launchers working differently for dark angels because...reasons.)

Exactly. People whine about long list of USR's, and sure there are one or two which are largely superfluous and/or annoying (Soul Blaze...), however they forget that in the past, there were actually much more special rules in the game as many units, characters and wargear had their own, unique rules. Nowadays they have been reduced a great deal in exchange of larger list of corebook special rules.

I am quite happy with the state of 40k core rules, with maybe Vehicle damage being the one which most needs the update. It is the codex design which is out of whack, with all the formations insanity and ever-more powerful psykers and Psychic powers.

Not sure if we urgently need new rules if they are going to do detailed FAQs complete with a public review. I'd rather they took their time and thought about what they'd like to do, what the player base will accept, and come up with a polished product.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
A lot of people are talking about a more balanced and streamlined version of 40k.

Well, it's already here and it's called Maelstrom's Edge!

I would call it Warpath.....

Backfire wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Lockark wrote:
The one thing I liked about age of sigmar is how all the core rules fit on two pages. Their great in that respect. But no force org and no points just made the whole game fall apart. When ever I see people try to play a pick up game of it, then spend more time trying to make two balanced forces then they do playing the game.

Getting two Warhammer players to argue about balance before every game was a terrible idea.

Then again if you move most of the rules to unit entries you would get 40k rulebook thinned down quite a bit...

Which then results in either crapload of unique rules for units or multiplying same rule into multiple places(which could lead to case of smoke launchers working differently for dark angels because...reasons.)

Exactly. People whine about long list of USR's, and sure there are one or two which are largely superfluous and/or annoying (Soul Blaze...), however they forget that in the past, there were actually much more special rules in the game as many units, characters and wargear had their own, unique rules. Nowadays they have been reduced a great deal in exchange of larger list of corebook special rules.

I am quite happy with the state of 40k core rules, with maybe Vehicle damage being the one which most needs the update. It is the codex design which is out of whack, with all the formations insanity and ever-more powerful psykers and Psychic powers.

There were a lot more special rules in 1st and 2nd edition. Then it was all rationalised for 3rd edition. 4th and 5th editions developed and expanded on 3rd, partly through optional supplements. Then in 6th/7th the structure became more like 1st/2d again, lots more special rules, lots more psychic, lots more options coded into the core game.

The thing is, 3rd/4th/5th were the most popular and successful editions, judged by sales value. Things have fallen off during 6th/7th.

I think the problem is partly the codexes like you say, and also just the sheer expense of rulebooks.