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.

 BlaxicanX wrote:

 Sidstyler wrote:
What was wrong with 5th?

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

So if I understand correctly from all the responses, 5th would have been just fine if they slightly tweaked the vehicle rules a bit?

I don't see how that justifies this kind of reaction, personally:

 battlematt wrote:
Please GW don't return to the craptastic 5ed system. 5th really killed off most of the vet players in my area. 40k went from a core playing base of 30 regulars to 10 in a short time because of the abortion know as 5th.

"Vehicles are slightly too good" = "abortion of a rules system"?

Honest question... i see a lot of comments both on dakka and other sites about "who wants another 85.00 huge book !? "

... am i alone that i love the big rule book ? I read it when i'm bored, the fluff, the model gallery, etc., ... i read it when my GF watches her vapid HGTV shows...

I like them. I'll be bummed out if they don't keep producing them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 -Loki- wrote:

 AegisGrimm wrote:

 3orangewhips wrote:

 Agamemnon2 wrote:

And for a lot of people, it was. I'd hazard an estimate that there are damn few 90s veterans still active in the hobby. I have no doubt a lot of those old boycott criers and complainers were in earnest and lived up to their word.

1993

I believe it was 1995 for me. I remember at least I had Necromunda in 7th grade.

1994 for me. Same as my brother. One of my friends started about the same time and another in 1997, one of my brothers friends in 1995. All of us are still kicking about in 40k.

1995 here, though with a short stint off in college for about 2 years that i played a game only every couple of months or so.

... which is nuts, i literally for the first time realized i've been tabletop gaming for almost 20 fething years.

 Sidstyler wrote:


"Vehicles are slightly too good" = "abortion of a rules system"?

Its just internet talk. I'm sure most of the people deriding GW and the 40k rules - spend enough free time on the hobby that you'd never guess they hated it so much.

 Haight wrote:
Honest question... i see a lot of comments both on dakka and other sites about "who wants another 85.00 huge book !? "

... am i alone that i love the big rule book ? I read it when i'm bored, the fluff, the model gallery, etc., ... i read it when my GF watches her vapid HGTV shows...

I like them. I'll be bummed out if they don't keep producing them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 -Loki- wrote:

 AegisGrimm wrote:

 3orangewhips wrote:

 Agamemnon2 wrote:

And for a lot of people, it was. I'd hazard an estimate that there are damn few 90s veterans still active in the hobby. I have no doubt a lot of those old boycott criers and complainers were in earnest and lived up to their word.

1993

I believe it was 1995 for me. I remember at least I had Necromunda in 7th grade.

1994 for me. Same as my brother. One of my friends started about the same time and another in 1997, one of my brothers friends in 1995. All of us are still kicking about in 40k.

1995 here, though with a short stint off in college for about 2 years that i played a game only every couple of months or so.

... which is nuts, i literally for the first time realized i've been tabletop gaming for almost 20 fething years.

Rogue Trader something like 1992. Had to take a break from like 2002 until 2012 however, just too damn busy.

- J

 necrondog99 wrote:

 Haight wrote:
Honest question... i see a lot of comments both on dakka and other sites about "who wants another 85.00 huge book !? "

... am i alone that i love the big rule book ? I read it when i'm bored, the fluff, the model gallery, etc., ... i read it when my GF watches her vapid HGTV shows...

I like them. I'll be bummed out if they don't keep producing them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 -Loki- wrote:

 AegisGrimm wrote:

 3orangewhips wrote:

 Agamemnon2 wrote:

And for a lot of people, it was. I'd hazard an estimate that there are damn few 90s veterans still active in the hobby. I have no doubt a lot of those old boycott criers and complainers were in earnest and lived up to their word.

1993

I believe it was 1995 for me. I remember at least I had Necromunda in 7th grade.

1994 for me. Same as my brother. One of my friends started about the same time and another in 1997, one of my brothers friends in 1995. All of us are still kicking about in 40k.

1995 here, though with a short stint off in college for about 2 years that i played a game only every couple of months or so.

... which is nuts, i literally for the first time realized i've been tabletop gaming for almost 20 fething years.

Rogue Trader something like 1992. Had to take a break from like 2002 until 2012 however, just too damn busy.

- J

1989 for me.

Honestly I have not played a game in a year now. I'm just getting back into the swing of things and I'm unsure if I would want this huge rule book.

 ShatteredBlade wrote:
Honestly I have not played a game in a year now. I'm just getting back into the swing of things and I'm unsure if I would want this huge rule book.

I can get that, though for me, its probably the single item with the most ROI is the main rulebook for any game. I read them constantly. I probably have more hours logged reading rule books, codexes, armybooks, etc etc., than i have modeling or painting or playing. Hell, possibly all of those three put together, possibly, when i used to play WM/H competitively.

85.00 for a main rule book is a lot, but when i think that i will literally get dozens - if not hundreds - of hours of reading enjoyment out of them, the ROI seems pretty small. Also the fact that you can get it for 20% off in a lot of places pads the blow.

But yeah, it is a big chunk of change, that i totally get.

 Haight wrote:

 ShatteredBlade wrote:
Honestly I have not played a game in a year now. I'm just getting back into the swing of things and I'm unsure if I would want this huge rule book.

I can get that, though for me, its probably the single item with the most ROI is the main rulebook for any game. I read them constantly. I probably have more hours logged reading rule books, codexes, armybooks, etc etc., than i have modeling or painting or playing. Hell, possibly all of those three put together, possibly, when i used to play WM/H competitively.

85.00 for a main rule book is a lot, but when i think that i will literally get dozens - if not hundreds - of hours of reading enjoyment out of them, the ROI seems pretty small. Also the fact that you can get it for 20% off in a lot of places pads the blow.

But yeah, it is a big chunk of change, that i totally get.

Guess it depends on whether you like the fluff or not... if not the rule book is quite overpriced.

The problem is that this Rumor does not make sense. GW may be incompetent buffoons when it comes to making business but they aren't dumb enough to do something like this.

I hope....

 Bronzefists42 wrote:
The problem is that this Rumor does not make sense. GW may be incompetent buffoons when it comes to making business but they aren't dumb enough to do something like this.

I hope....

I think you'd need to qualify "doesn't make sense"

If 6th is unpopular, and people have started playing, and more importantly buying, less, then a new edition in order to try and fix things ASAP makes sense.

If they need or want to modify the structure of the game to support some other agenda (eg to manipulate the player base's buying behaviour to better dovetail with new production methods) then it makes sense.

If they want to consolidate a number of expansions into one volume in order to make a higher margin and keep the number of SKUs lower, it makes sense.

There's multiple, valid business reasons that this could be possible, and the only one thing that really undermines it is them not wanting some people on the Internet to get butthurt over a new book a bit too soon.

 azreal13 wrote:

 Bronzefists42 wrote:
The problem is that this Rumor does not make sense. GW may be incompetent buffoons when it comes to making business but they aren't dumb enough to do something like this.

I hope....

I think you'd need to qualify "doesn't make sense"

If 6th is unpopular, and people have started playing, and more importantly buying, less, then a new edition in order to try and fix things ASAP makes sense.

If they need or want to modify the structure of the game to support some other agenda (eg to manipulate the player base's buying behaviour to better dovetail with new production methods) then it makes sense.

If they want to consolidate a number of expansions into one volume in order to make a higher margin and keep the number of SKUs lower, it makes sense.

There's multiple, valid business reasons that this could be possible, and the only one thing that really undermines it is them not wanting some people on the Internet to get butthurt over a new book a bit too soon.

At this point I'm pretty GW can do whatever they want and some people will pay full retail for it without question.

If it's 7th I think everyone needs to take a good hard look at what the hobby is to them, because if GW is willing to invalidate what you own without a care, then maybe its time to put the boots to them.

I was explaining this to a friend earlier today that 40k is becoming a house of cards, supplements on top of dataslates on top of formations that all can be pushed over at anytime with the possibility of never coming back. If it is 7th, and we as a community support it without question then it will just encourage GW to ditch editions whenever they feel like leaving some armies in the dust or invalidating an army that you didn't even finish. There is a point where you have to say enough is enough.

I guess that depends on what constitutes "your 40K"

I'm pretty sure my armies won't be invalidated, as I have a broad collection of units (one of my armies is SM which helps with flexibility) because I tend to collect what I fancy painting or gaming with, draw up a list game by game and experiment a lot.

If I had a set, focused list, I guess I'd be more vulnerable to edition changes, and I would sympathise with people who felt hard done by because of that, but an edition change doesn't fill me with dread, in fact I'm keen for the new challenges and variety it would bring.

Huh, so this is what if feels like to defend GW.

 azreal13 wrote:

 Bronzefists42 wrote:
The problem is that this Rumor does not make sense. GW may be incompetent buffoons when it comes to making business but they aren't dumb enough to do something like this.

I hope....

I think you'd need to qualify "doesn't make sense"

If 6th is unpopular, and people have started playing, and more importantly buying, less, then a new edition in order to try and fix things ASAP makes sense.

If they need or want to modify the structure of the game to support some other agenda (eg to manipulate the player base's buying behaviour to better dovetail with new production methods) then it makes sense.

If they want to consolidate a number of expansions into one volume in order to make a higher margin and keep the number of SKUs lower, it makes sense.

There's multiple, valid business reasons that this could be possible, and the only one thing that really undermines it is them not wanting some people on the Internet to get butthurt over a new book a bit too soon.

Well they just released the SM codex and GW would never dare harm their precious poster child And you do make a good point though, this does seem very GW. Also I am saying if this is 7th Ed not 6th ed and pals compiled and slightly altered.

 Noir Eternal wrote:

 BlaxicanX wrote:

 Sidstyler wrote:
What was wrong with 5th?

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

Except I played Crons in 5th edition even before they got re-done and never had an issue with dealing with Transporthammer players. 10 Rhinos, or units with 2++ re-rollable saves......I wonder which one is worse

I didn't say people couldn't deal with it.

I said it didn't appeal to people.

Basically, it was boring as hell to play and even more boring to watch.

Broken deathstars is a poor counter-point because deathstars aren't "the meta", like transport hammer was. Every army in 5th edition that had transports used the MSU+Transport build. Only two 6th edition factions even have powerful deathstars.

 BlaxicanX wrote:
Only two 6th edition factions even have powerful deathstars.

Which two, in your opinion?

 Noir Eternal wrote:
Except I played Crons in 5th edition even before they got re-done and never had an issue with dealing with Transporthammer players.

You mean your army where virtually every gun glanced on a 6+ had no problems with vehicles?

Shocking.

 Bronzefists42 wrote:
The problem is that this Rumor does not make sense. GW may be incompetent buffoons when it comes to making business but they aren't dumb enough to do something like this.

I hope....

They have an amazing record for incompetent buffoons. If you purchased GW stock 10 years ago, youre up about 750% today.
So perhaps you don't understand things as well as you think you do.

sand.zzz wrote:

 Bronzefists42 wrote:
The problem is that this Rumor does not make sense. GW may be incompetent buffoons when it comes to making business but they aren't dumb enough to do something like this.

I hope....

They have an amazing record for incompetent buffoons. If you purchased GW stock 10 years ago, youre up about 750% today.
So perhaps you don't understand things as well as you think you do.

I really don't think you understand things as well as you think you do if you think that GW are in a good position financially.

 jonolikespie wrote:
I really don't think you understand things as well as you think you do if you think that GW are in a good position financially.

I may not be as tenured as a lot of the rest of you, seeing as I really only got into GW/40k around 2006ish, however the one constant was people screaming "GW are fething themselves into a corner and out of business by doing X".

I am far from a fan of a lot of their business choices (generic Australian feels) and figure that eventually there is going to be an adapt-or-die situation.
However I don't think it is going to be the sudden round-the-corner sort of timeframe I keep hearing.
People still willing to buy their man-dollies at higher prices = Money in their pocket. Until the very last moment when everyone has jumped ship with their golden parachutes GW is going to GW.

I'm no business-ologist but as long as the share prices are high, isn't that the one defining factor of success for a publicly traded company?
Sure it might screw up in the future if things are that bad but that is Future-GWs problem.

1993

 3orangewhips wrote:

 Agamemnon2 wrote:

And for a lot of people, it was. I'd hazard an estimate that there are damn few 90s veterans still active in the hobby. I have no doubt a lot of those old boycott criers and complainers were in earnest and lived up to their word.

1993

1987. I quit for 20 years because second edition models were such gak.

 SpaceMonk wrote:
1993

October of 1994 at the rise of 2nd edition (former Battletech player that got sucked into it); bought the boxed set and sold off the orks and gretchen, then bought some older eldar off a friend and the rest is history. Have owned/played every army except for Necrons, Orks and Daemons. Got into their specialist games soon-after with Blood Bowl in 98 and BFG in 99.

I did the tourney circuit back in 99-2001 (plus some occasional ones in 05-08 and Adepticon) so I feel I've ran the full gauntlet of this hobby from its changes back then.

I've only played a few games of 6th edition with my Marines and Eldar, but I find the rapid-fire releases a bit too-little-too late for me. If they had taken this approach, say 5-10 years ago, I would have been eating it up. However, the older I get, I have found I have little time or energy to keep-up with this kind of escalation. I've sold-off all but 3 of my armies as I find concentrating on these is much easier for me, but still, the resources required to keep-up is not something I want to spend at this time.

I have started to get into other games that require far-less resources and I've found them a breath of fresh air. Not that I dislike 40k, far from it....I kind of feel that the game is "passing me by" so-to-speak?

I dunno....just my background in a nutshell, but maybe this rumored 7th edition is a consolidated project, or maybe it's not. I think us vets know better than to second-guess GW as they're liable to do anything, no matter how head-scratchingly weird it might be. Emperor knows we've seen enough from them to know better.....

 Vain wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:
I really don't think you understand things as well as you think you do if you think that GW are in a good position financially.

I may not be as tenured as a lot of the rest of you, seeing as I really only got into GW/40k around 2006ish, however the one constant was people screaming "GW are fething themselves into a corner and out of business by doing X".

I am far from a fan of a lot of their business choices (generic Australian feels) and figure that eventually there is going to be an adapt-or-die situation.
However I don't think it is going to be the sudden round-the-corner sort of timeframe I keep hearing.
People still willing to buy their man-dollies at higher prices = Money in their pocket. Until the very last moment when everyone has jumped ship with their golden parachutes GW is going to GW.

I'm no business-ologist but as long as the share prices are high, isn't that the one defining factor of success for a publicly traded company?
Sure it might screw up in the future if things are that bad but that is Future-GWs problem.

There is a LOT of evidence that GW are cutting costs left and right to keep their profits level, they are also selling less product at a higher mark up (not sure if it was this thread or another but someone calculated 5.31% less inventory moved last year) which means their customer base is shrinking (not a good thing when the biggest thing going for them is that 40k is the default game in most areas, people play it because people play it).
They are showing no growth at all, in fact they seem to be pulling away from non English markets, while their competitors are expanding rapidly, meaning that even if they are nor shrinking their market share is.

It's all well and good to point at forum posts from 10 years ago and stock prices and say the company hasn't gone bankrupt and that it the stock price is up and that that means they are doing well, but it's simply not taking into account enough information to make that call.

Also, yes their stock prince is up from 10 years ago but have a look at this, it's a mess.

If you follow the pattern we are about to plummet again.

Then while the last 6 months might not be the best indicator it does imply a downward trend and a lot of the big investor groups that controlled the company a year or two ago started selling at the start of this year.

Eh. New rules would be good as far as i am concerned. I know some players like sixth edition, But not me. So I say please be true!

As someone that hasn't built an army around a couple of units spammed, I'd welcome change. Would be pretty funny to see those WAAC players crying into their spamfests.

Slight tweeks to make Assault better, and more tactical options would be sweet, although I think the former is more likely

 jonolikespie wrote:

If you follow the pattern we are about to plummet again.

Spoiler:

Then while the last 6 months might not be the best indicator it does imply a downward trend and a lot of the big investor groups that controlled the company a year or two ago started selling at the start of this year.

That's not a huge variance. The company is pursuing new lines of business (selling supplements to existing products, digital releases, etc) which all involve capital expenditures. From what I can tell, they have invested a lot in new production and that affects cash on hand and other items that go into a stock price. They are detailing all this in earnings calls about their financial performance, and the stock price is affected as people wait and see if their investments / gambles prove fruitful.

The actions of the investment houses that own the majority of stock don't really have a huge impact on prices themselves. It's been the departure of key executives who are tied to those investment houses that people notice.

I don't see a weak company in these charts, I see a company trying to grow. It will be very interesting to see how they deliver on their areas of capital expenditure, and whether or not they are able to start earning again off their IP in potentially more profitable markets (such as video games - the new Space Hulk game leaves a lot to be desired.)

I don't understand what people want.

They complain that 6th is a horrible mess.
They don't want a new edition.

Does not compute.

I can explain that: personally, I don't hate 6th, it's different but it's not so bad as to be worth scrapping and forking out for another book over. So I hope I compute. Can you point out the people who've said both that they don't want another book and that they hate 6th?

In fact, the people that are saying they do want a new edition all seem to cite the fact that they hate 6th as their reason for wanting it. Which makes total sense.

But yes, if *everyone* had said they hate 6th and then that same group of people had said they don't want a new edition, you'd be right

 Crimson wrote:
I don't understand what people want.

They complain that 6th is a horrible mess.
They don't want a new edition.

Does not compute.

You're right, its almost like those are entirely different opinions coming from different groups of people! Its totally incomprehensible!

I don't hate 6th. I dislike how fragile vehicles are and dislike the core function of the game that allows the other guy to eliminate 300-500 points of my army before I can even have a turn, but that's been systemic since 3rd.