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.

TechMarine1 wrote:
Why can't GW just do what Privateer Press does? Come out with the army books with your basic units for each army, then release expansion books with any new units for each army.

I'd rather they did was Target Games or Rackham did, which was to die away. :-P

 Captain Fantastic wrote:
7th edition CSM when?

Sometime in 8th edition. But don't worry, that'll be out about 6-8 months after 7th ed.

 BlaxicanX wrote:

 Sidstyler wrote:
What was wrong with 5th?

Transporthammer didn't appeal to a lot of people, I imagine.

Which could have easily been remedied* by just adding in the current hull point system. But, no. We get a load of other unnecessary gak for 40k's unilateral development. 5th was excellent IMO and only needed a few tweaks, not the unnecessary change for the sake of change wound allocation and random charges for example.




*Frankly this was never as bad as the Internet claimed it to be. In casual environments I have never come across these "parking lot" armies that were apparently so prevalent in 5th.

1996. I stayed away during 2nd Edition but got in when they had Necromunda/3rd Edition. My God, has it really been that long?

 Grimtuff wrote:

 BlaxicanX wrote:

 Sidstyler wrote:
What was wrong with 5th?

Transporthammer didn't appeal to a lot of people, I imagine.

Which could have easily been remedied* by just adding in the current hull point system. But, no. We get a load of other unnecessary gak for 40k's unilateral development. 5th was excellent IMO and only needed a few tweaks, not the unnecessary change for the sake of change wound allocation and random charges for example.




*Frankly this was never as bad as the Internet claimed it to be. In casual environments I have never come across these "parking lot" armies that were apparently so prevalent in 5th.

Sadly I did, playing my 1 of each leman russ + 2 vets in chimeras + commisar lord list against Mephiston, 6 lasplas razorbacks and 6 5 man assault squads with 1 melta and a powerfist each every club meet is what drove me away from the game.
And this was supposed to be casual play too

 Agamemnon2 wrote:

I'd rather they did was Target Games or Rackham did, which was to die away. :-P

In fairness Target didn't die, they just changed their name to Paradox development studio (and then to Paradox Interactive) and moved away from miniature wargaming. They are more succesful now than they ever have been and they make really good games.

I used to love playing against parking lot lists with my Deathwing. Sure, they'd take out a few termies en route in, but once my power fists and chainfists started swinging, the battlefield looked more like a junkheap than a parking lot. :p

5th was reasonably balanced, despite having some army builds that were more effective than others. You could create a genuine TAC list at 1500-2000 pts. Sure, it'd have good and bad matchups, but player skill was still essential. Not sure that most armies can do a genuine TAC list in 6th.

Anyway. 7th. I don't believe it right now, 'cos the Natfka "solid source" claimed that it "The next edition of 40k will be called 7th, not 6.5 when it drops, but as far as rules go it will be less of a jump than 5th to 6th.". Given that GW didn't call 6th edition anything in particular (it's just the Warhammer 40,000 rulebook), why would they call 7th, 7th?

Can't tell you the exact year I started, but I do still have my second edition boxed game and Dark Millenium and all the cards that were in it.

I don't think anything nafka says should be included in this rumour, hes just piggy backing off something reliable to get hits.

The original rumour comes from a source thats been completely correct on everything as far as I am aware, and whilst that doesnt make it seem any less an insane idea to me, it does mean its something to be taken a bit more seriously.

I cant see it achieving anything other than destroying the one seemingly booming market they have created the last 18 months, the special edition books at 100%+ increased prices. (who will continue to pay that for 2 years use - 5th edition limited rulebook can be bought on ebay for £10 now, for instance, its not just use, but the value of the things that disapear when superceded)

Started in 1991.....still playing and have been fine with every edition.

Started in 92, always liked historical or fantasy more than 40k. The whole vortex grenade thing was off to me.

Not sure why people find the idea that GW could cut their rules cycle down to 2 years improbable. It's clear GW found out that words can be profitable. I'm not convinced it's a good way of making money for GW specifically, but that won't change the fact we'll be seeing a lot more written material, on much shorter cycles.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Farseer Faenyin wrote:
My hope is that the reason why 6th Edition was so poorly written and implimented...with clunky rules that obviously weren't tested to any real degree...was because another portion of their better rules writers were working on a complete rework of the game that is 7th Edition.

It would be one way to explain the terribad rules 6th has obviously forced out....

....although it was more likely just GW being the feth-tards they are.

No, GW does test things, but not extensively nor to the degree of trying to break the game that the community does. Just because it doesn't meet the standards of what we think it should be doesn't mean they don't test.

Hence me putting down 'to any real degree'.

But units that don't work on paper like the Chariot are far worse than oversights in the last edition. This is why I feel it was passed over more than in prior editions.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:
The issue with armour is that save modifiers don't really work well in a d6 system either (as a veteran of 2nd, everything but TDA was largely irrelevant a lot of the time).

One of the biggest shocks for me in my first demo game of 3rd Ed was the concept of Marines being able to take their 3+ save. That just never happened in 2nd Ed.

Yeah, Tac squads went from being jokes to hard as nails just that quick.

Of course, that declined steadily with time as they've kept the same durability, while heavy and special weapons have proliferated and gotten deadlier.

Spoke with someone in the loop yesterday, when I told him
about the 7th edition rumors he laughed. His exact words were "you don't bite the hand that feeds you". He did, however, add that a consolidated rulebook is likely. But no new starter boxes, and no books on deck that would make 6th edition/SHA/Escalation obsolete.

sand.zzz wrote:
Spoke with a long time GW employee yesterday, when I told him
about the 7th edition rumors he laughed. His exact words were "you don't bite the hand that feeds you". He did, however, add that a consolidated rulebook is likely. But no new starter boxes, and no books on deck that would make 6th edition/SHA/Escalation obsolete.

He wouldn't be in any position to know more than us at this point, and as for not biting anything? That's a laugh!

 azreal13 wrote:

sand.zzz wrote:
Spoke with a long time GW employee yesterday, when I told him
about the 7th edition rumors he laughed. His exact words were "you don't bite the hand that feeds you". He did, however, add that a consolidated rulebook is likely. But no new starter boxes, and no books on deck that would make 6th edition/SHA/Escalation obsolete.

He wouldn't be in any position to know more than us at this point, and as for not biting anything? That's a laugh!

Well I give a bit more credence to his words that I do internet speculations. No offense meant.

None taken, I'm no rumourmonger.

But consider the provenance of this rumour (it was originally attributed to the same guy who provided all the Space Marine and Dark Elf release info to them by 40KRadio) and compare that to the likelihood of your guy being even more "in the know."

I'm not saying its wrong, while I like the idea of a new edition that we can all dream will make 40K awesome and fix everyone's problems with it, I think a 6th Ed Revised is probably the more likely outcome at this point.

Well, a totally new edition would overexert the community. Although, a compilation comtaining all the recent supplements and datasleets would be fine.

 Ian Sturrock wrote:

Anyway. 7th. I don't believe it right now, 'cos the Natfka "solid source" claimed that it "The next edition of 40k will be called 7th, not 6.5 when it drops, but as far as rules go it will be less of a jump than 5th to 6th.". Given that GW didn't call 6th edition anything in particular (it's just the Warhammer 40,000 rulebook), why would they call 7th, 7th?

I'm with you.

I feel like most of his rumors are just people piggybacking off of other rumors or guessing. 40kradio has a great record, so now people are making up stuff assuming that they are right again.

I'm glad someone pointed this out.

I think it's just going to be a big compilation of the rules they've vomited out lately. Maybe slight updates to some mechanics.

Of course all the 40K rumours said was 7th, soon

It's us (wishing?) speculating that it will actually be 6.x and just a revised version of what's out now

Given G\W's money grab tendencies and the accelerated code cycle, I think it's plausible that GW will try to dump out a 7th ed.

With this reasoning:
"Well, they seem to be buying all of these new codexes really quickly, and they're buying all of these dataslates and supplements and WD mags... It seems to me that they all want more rules faster.
So we need to cobble together a new rulebook ASAP as quickly as possible, and then sell it for as much as possible! They'll love that!! Oh, and the price will go up, but the content will go down, because that's what our customers love!"

I started in I think 92 or 93. I kinda hope this rumor isn't true.. it just seems too fast. But time flies when you're old.

I got the fancy special edition bible for 6th edition, and I haven't played a single game since :( Just no time anymore.

 Selym wrote:
Given G\W's money grab tendencies and the accelerated code cycle, I think it's plausible that GW will try to dump out a 7th ed.

With this reasoning:
"Well, they seem to be buying all of these new codexes really quickly, and they're buying all of these dataslates and supplements and WD mags... It seems to me that they all want more rules faster.
So we need to cobble together a new rulebook ASAP as quickly as possible, and then sell it for as much as possible! They'll love that!! Oh, and the price will go up, but the content will go down, because that's what our customers love!"

And lets make assault overpowered and shooting nerfed so bad tau and eldar will suck!They'll have to buy a new codex to win!And we shall half boxes and TRIPLE prices.That way models mean more to the player and everyone wins!Lets put ward in charge of a new grey knights codex with nobody editing it or keeping an eye on him!And lets put centurions inside a dreadknight!

Started collecting in 96, started playing just a few months before 3rd Armaggedon Campaign.

Like said before, 5th wasn't that bad, the only big beefs i had with it is the ridiculous Wound allocation system, and vehicles resiliency was a bit Toooo far for some of them.

the problem is that GW can't balance things for sh*t, in place of just making something like"...each time a vehicle is shaken/stunned, put a marker next to it, if the vehicle gets xx markers, reroll the damage dice" or "the ennemy player gets a +1 on the damage chart vs that vehicle".

because the Hp systeme makes them really too fragile compared to the Hardcore to dent from 5th.

Da krimson barun wrote:

 Selym wrote:
Given G\W's money grab tendencies and the accelerated code cycle, I think it's plausible that GW will try to dump out a 7th ed.

With this reasoning:
"Well, they seem to be buying all of these new codexes really quickly, and they're buying all of these dataslates and supplements and WD mags... It seems to me that they all want more rules faster.
So we need to cobble together a new rulebook ASAP as quickly as possible, and then sell it for as much as possible! They'll love that!! Oh, and the price will go up, but the content will go down, because that's what our customers love!"

And lets make assault overpowered and shooting nerfed so bad tau and eldar will suck!They'll have to buy a new codex to win!And we shall half boxes and TRIPLE prices.That way models mean more to the player and everyone wins!Lets put ward in charge of a new grey knights codex with nobody editing it or keeping an eye on him!And lets put centurions inside a dreadknight!

"And the next edition comes with a free kick to the nuts! No wait! What am I saying? We'll make them pay for the kick to the nuts! And they will!"

See, any idiot can do what you're doing. It isn't big or clever. It doesn't add to the discussion.

 Slayer le boucher wrote:
Started collecting in 96, started playing just a few months before 3rd Armaggedon Campaign.

Like said before, 5th wasn't that bad, the only big beefs i had with it is the ridiculous Wound allocation system, and vehicles resiliency was a bit Toooo far for some of them.

the problem is that GW can't balance things for sh*t, in place of just making something like"...each time a vehicle is shaken/stunned, put a marker next to it, if the vehicle gets xx markers, reroll the damage dice" or "the ennemy player gets a +1 on the damage chart vs that vehicle".

because the Hp systeme makes them really too fragile compared to the Hardcore to dent from 5th.

5th had some wonky wound allocation, but 6th is just atrocious. Love seeing the artillery snipers in action and one guy tanking wounds for a 50 man guard blob.

On-topic: I'd love to see a 7th edition with radically different rules, but I think at best we will see a re-release bundle with updates, etc.

 His Master's Voice wrote:
Not sure why people find the idea that GW could cut their rules cycle down to 2 years improbable. It's clear GW found out that words can be profitable. I'm not convinced it's a good way of making money for GW specifically, but that won't change the fact we'll be seeing a lot more written material, on much shorter cycles.

This pretty much. GW is using every trick it has to maintain a positive report to shareholders. Price hikes have more or less run their course of effectiveness, so now it's book bombardment. They discovered how cheap and simple it is to make army books and expansions, especially if it's a digital-only release. Only reason this may come out.

Lots of speculation based on a negative view of GW. Your opinion of how they do business doesn't equate to accurate forecasts on new ruleset releases. Over the past 10 years - if you look at the changes GW made to production, global recession, losses to internet resales, knock-offs, various other storms, etc.. - you can see how they could justify price increases on products.

Dramatically reducing a rules cycle is a whole different endeavor. They likely haven't even sold enough Escalation/SHA books, (or even printed enough) to break even. So not only would they be alienating the playerbase by making brand new books obsolete, but also losing any chance at turning a profit on those books. Shooting themselves in both feet.

I know a lot of you dislike GW, greed, bad rules, etc. But a new edition this year would be a bad decision on many levels. Dont confuse your own distaste with GW for the ability to forecast their strategy. 7th edition makes little to no sense right now. Especially when a consolidated 6th edition would require far less work, cost as much (or more), and still leave their expansion books in a relevant place regarding sales.

sand.zzz wrote:

But a new edition this year would be a bad decision on many levels.

Agreed , but its a step a company may make to balance the books maybe ?

sand.zzz wrote:
Lots of speculation based on a negative view of GW. Your opinion of how they do business doesn't equate to accurate forecasts on new ruleset releases. Over the past 10 years - if you look at the changes GW made to production, global recession, losses to internet resales, knock-offs, various other storms, etc.. - you can see how they could justify price increases on products.

Dramatically reducing a rules cycle is a whole different endeavor. They likely haven't even sold enough Escalation/SHA books, (or even printed enough) to break even. So not only would they be alienating the playerbase by making brand new books obsolete, but also losing any chance at turning a profit on those books. Shooting themselves in both feet.

I know a lot of you dislike GW, greed, bad rules, etc. But a new edition this year would be a bad decision on many levels. Dont confuse your own distaste with GW for the ability to forecast their strategy. 7th edition makes little to no sense right now. Especially when a consolidated 6th edition would require far less work, cost as much (or more), and still leave their expansion books in a relevant place regarding sales.

There's decades of GW's history to take our "estimates" from. We're getting rather good at it, imo.