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.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 kronk wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
When did 6th edition come out?

Sixth Edition was released on the 23rd of June, 2012

Therefore if this rumour is true we clearly would be looking at a three year gap between editions.

It seems a bit too soon to me.

Two years, not three.

Maybe something like:
2012 - 6th release
2014 - halfway update/re-release
2016 - 7th release

One edition for the price of two!

 Yodhrin wrote:


Why do you think Dark Vengeance featured a specific chapter that didn't have many models, and Chaos models with a new(actually a bit retro) aesthetic, and in the proportions it did? I'd wager a big reason is they didn't want a repeat of AoBR/IoB where people were using eBay to put together armies almost entirely composed of the starter set minis because they were so cheap compared to the existing models for those armies. So why, with their next starter set, would they pack it full of stuff that will directly compete with the still-fairly-new Blood Angels plastics? Why would they provide people with a way to acquire huge mobs of cheap Orks with a new codex release on the horizon?

The rumour would be slightly more plausible if it stated the box would include either monopose Death Company or chapter-specific Tactical and/or Assault squads, but both? You're killing any incentive people have to buy the normal Marine plastics or the Death Co. box. If they included one or the other, you'd still get people buying at least the DC box(for DC), or both(to make tac/assault with chapter-specific bitz from the DC box). I think GW is going to do everything they possibly can to avoid stuff in the starter set competing with models from their existing range.

True that. Managed to source 3 sets of the AoBR Orks between eBay & mates and it was a damn good lot for kicking off my army. GW might not have liked it but when you make a starter set, it obviously has to be less expensive per model (hesitate to use the term loss-leader) compared to the rest of the range so it goes with the territory when you have experienced and savvy gamers in the 21st century. All they can do is, as you say, limit it via army & unit choices.

Taking everything into account, there's probably more chance of a Braincrusha being released for Orks in 40k than this starter set coming to pass.

People will always do that with value-rich(er?) starter sets, though.

When starting Space Marines, all I had was the AoBR starter, and when Dark Vengeance came out, I snipped off some Dark Angels iconography, and boom... essentially doubled the Space Marines I owned. :-p

GW can't go too far out of their way to make a less appealing starter set, or all they're left with is a less appealing starter set. :-p

What they should do is embrace the notion that people will do that, and make AoBR-esque starter armies for every basic force in the game, and then choose two (or rather choose one since undoubtedly the starter set would have Marines) for each starter set.

Basically if I wanted to I should be able to pick up two "starter army" boxes with stripped-down rules included and have the basics needed to play with a friend, without needing to buy a boxed starter set that might not include the army I want.

Let's say that a friend and I want to play out a 40k battle involving, for example, Necrons and IG. A starter box with Orks and Blood Angles does nothing for us. So instead, we go to the FLGS and buy a Necron Starter Force and an Imperial Guard Starter Force, let's assume for around $75 or so, that includes a lightweight rulebook and army list for the figures it has, and let's assume each box has the basics: 1 HQ, 2x Troops, and let's say a tank or walker or similar (some cool "centerpiece" model) that comes to around 500-600 points in a legal army; ideally it should be some kind of snap-fit type of deal since it's meant for new players.

That's the kind of deal they should be milking the crap out of, so you buy one of those to start, then buy a battleforce (which could do for a bit of an overhaul instead of usually having crappy choices) and you have a reasonable army.

NewTruthNeomaxim wrote:
People will always do that with value-rich(er?) starter sets, though.

When starting Space Marines, all I had was the AoBR starter, and when Dark Vengeance came out, I snipped off some Dark Angels iconography, and boom... essentially doubled the Space Marines I owned. :-p

GW can't go too far out of their way to make a less appealing starter set, or all they're left with is a less appealing starter set. :-p

Indeed so, that's where they need to be sneaky about army & unit choices for them to, from their perspective, limit the damage somewhat. A balancing act between making it a credible purchase and hurting sales of other minis.

Dunno if it is such a bright Idea, but then again maybe it has its merits: Make Starter Packs for EVERY faction and add the Army Codex into the bundle.
Advantage: You get the stuff you need from the start and mass-buying starter kits would be toned down due to the increased cost since the Codex is included.
May be not a bad policy for GW, though ebaying starter stuff is something I rather like as a player.

 Yodhrin wrote:
. So why, with their next starter set, would they pack it full of stuff that will directly compete with the still-fairly-new Blood Angels plastics? Why would they provide people with a way to acquire huge mobs of cheap Orks with a new codex release on the horizon?

One simple reason: because it's potentially more money in GW's pocket. Were it not for the masses of Orks to be had from AoBR, I would never have started an Ork army, thus depriving GW of the money I spent. Were it not for the masses of Dark Angels from DV, I would never have built a Ravenwing and Deathwing armies, so that's more money GW got from me. Were it not for all of my leftover Space Marines from AoBR and the Chaos from DV, I would never have built my Chaos army. Again, more money GW got from me because of the starter sets providing lots of cheap models to form the core of an army. I still had to buy the Codexes and other models to fill out these armies, which I never would have bought otherwise.

 Shandara wrote:
Maybe something like:
2012 - 6th release
2014 - halfway update/re-release
2016 - 7th release

I agree with this. It is a strange thing to do ( but this is GW, so who knows ). But to release 6.5 ( with FAQ's and Stronghold Assault and Escalation built in ) with another ( rumoured ) starter box as well, its just money, money, money all the way for GW.

WayneTheGame wrote:

Let's say that a friend and I want to play out a 40k battle involving, for example, Necrons and IG. A starter box with Orks and Blood Angles does nothing for us. So instead, we go to the FLGS and buy a Necron Starter Force and an Imperial Guard Starter Force, let's assume for around $75 or so, that includes a lightweight rulebook and army list for the figures it has, and let's assume each box has the basics: 1 HQ, 2x Troops, and let's say a tank or walker or similar (some cool "centerpiece" model) that comes to around 500-600 points in a legal army; ideally it should be some kind of snap-fit type of deal since it's meant for new players....

So you are saying that GW should do what Hawk, Malifaux, Privateer Press, and every other GROWING games company is doing with their model releases?!?! Heresy!

On the other side of things, I'd be really excited if GW did go in that direction. Also, a new starter every 2 years would be great... I'm inordinately excited about a Blood Angels/Ork starter set.

RiTides wrote:To save pretre the trouble for once (THANKS for doing this, by the way!!)

Alpharius wrote:Thanks Pretre for what is, largely, a thankless task.

Until now, of course - so... thanks!

BunkerBob wrote:Thank you Pretre! I do appreciate the tracking of rumor mongering.

Kroothawk wrote:Dwarfs in February or March, IG in March or April, 40k Radio always gets a TRUE
BTW posting rumours is also a mostly thankless task.

No prob guys! And, as I have mentioned before, 40kradio is feeling the pull of the darkside. They've got a bunch of hedging bet rumors for release dates and have been going nut-deep on this 7th edition stuff.

And we still wub you anyway, Kroot. Part of why I started the tracker was so that 'honest' rumor mongers got the credit and thanks they deserve.

 pretre wrote:
And we still wub you anyway, Kroot. Part of why I started the tracker was so that 'honest' rumor mongers got the credit and thanks they deserve.

That's the point: You tend to call some rumour mongers dishonest and full of crap, when their latest set of rumours is from a bad source. But your tracking just says what is right and what is wrong, not why. Some people lie of course, some people just got info before Tom Kirby changed plans in a panic reaction. E.g.maybe the pancake rules were leaked by staff to show that they are still able to do good rules, if the management would let them.

We live in times where Hastings stopped to post rumours and even Harry's sources mostly dried up. And GW sealed most leaks. So good rumours are rare. Let's not discourage the few honest ones by calling them names when they get one batch wrong.

WayneTheGame wrote:
What they should do is embrace the notion that people will do that, and make AoBR-esque starter armies for every basic force in the game, and then choose two (or rather choose one since undoubtedly the starter set would have Marines) for each starter set.

Basically if I wanted to I should be able to pick up two "starter army" boxes with stripped-down rules included and have the basics needed to play with a friend, without needing to buy a boxed starter set that might not include the army I want.

Let's say that a friend and I want to play out a 40k battle involving, for example, Necrons and IG. A starter box with Orks and Blood Angles does nothing for us. So instead, we go to the FLGS and buy a Necron Starter Force and an Imperial Guard Starter Force, let's assume for around $75 or so, that includes a lightweight rulebook and army list for the figures it has, and let's assume each box has the basics: 1 HQ, 2x Troops, and let's say a tank or walker or similar (some cool "centerpiece" model) that comes to around 500-600 points in a legal army; ideally it should be some kind of snap-fit type of deal since it's meant for new players.

That's the kind of deal they should be milking the crap out of, so you buy one of those to start, then buy a battleforce (which could do for a bit of an overhaul instead of usually having crappy choices) and you have a reasonable army.

That's probably their idea with the paint sets, to be honest. A few paints, a brush and a basic number of models to get you started, or even Dark Vengeance so you've someone to play with.


I know Infinity do starter sets, Warlord do it for Bolt Action (FANTASTIC GAME!) Maybe provide a link to the rules so you can download them, otherwise that's a lot of money wasted of rules only a handful of people will use. Apple used to include install CDs but stopped, and the packaging got smaller to reduce costs

 Kroothawk wrote:

 pretre wrote:
And we still wub you anyway, Kroot. Part of why I started the tracker was so that 'honest' rumor mongers got the credit and thanks they deserve.

That's the point: You tend to call some rumour mongers dishonest and full of crap, when their latest set of rumours is from a bad source. But your tracking just says what is right and what is wrong, not why. Some people lie of course, some people just got info before Tom Kirby changed plans in a panic reaction. E.g.maybe the pancake rules were leaked by staff to show that they are still able to do good rules, if the management would let them.

We live in times where Hastings stopped to post rumours and even Harry's sources mostly dried up. And GW sealed most leaks. So good rumours are rare. Let's not discourage the few honest ones by calling them names when they get one batch wrong.

+1

On the matter, I think the " false " is a bit harsh on some rumours, a more toned down mention, like partially false may be applied on some lines. For example, we have been told of a December release for tyranids, which has been marked as false, while the release date on beginning of january was very close. So it's that false.


what do you call pancake rules BTW ?

 Kroothawk wrote:
That's the point: You tend to call some rumour mongers dishonest and full of crap, when their latest set of rumours is from a bad source. But your tracking just says what is right and what is wrong, not why. Some people lie of course, some people just got info before Tom Kirby changed plans in a panic reaction. E.g.maybe the pancake rules were leaked by staff to show that they are still able to do good rules, if the management would let them.

That's because some rumor mongers are dishonest or full of crap. That's amply proved by the tracking.

We live in times where Hastings stopped to post rumours and even Harry's sources mostly dried up. And GW sealed most leaks. So good rumours are rare. Let's not discourage the few honest ones by calling them names when they get one batch wrong.

And I rarely call names, but I do tell it like it is. It is quite clear that a number of mongers are either making things up for clicks or have monumentally bad BS filters.

Either way, we can feel free to discuss tracking and my behavior more over in the tracking thread, if you'd like.

 Shandara wrote:
Maybe something like:
2012 - 6th release
2014 - halfway update/re-release
2016 - 7th release

No! no! You're missing the trend line!

2008 - 5th edition
2012 - 6th edition
2014 - 7th edition
2015 - 8th edition
2016 (January) - 9th edition
2016 (April) - 10th edition
2016 (Mid-June) - 11th edition

By the end of 2016 the edition you're playing will be obsolite before the end of the game!
We'll be mourning the goold old days of 108th edition as we try to play out turns 3 and 4 using 109th!
Then turn 5 using 110th!

Agreed, I think that discussion belongs in another thread!

Regardless of any motivations assigned to the numbers, just seeing whether someone's source is reliable is very useful. I don't really care what their motivations are... I just want to know if what they say is likely to be true (or at least, likely at the current moment / given the current statistics).

To get relate back to / get back on topic here, Larry Vela's record indicates to me that the starter set he espouses is quite unlikely, since it directly contradicts 40k radio's rumor of "Rules Only", and 40k radio is batting almost 1000 right now.

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:

 Shandara wrote:
Maybe something like:
2012 - 6th release
2014 - halfway update/re-release
2016 - 7th release

No! no! You're missing the trend line!

2008 - 5th edition
2012 - 6th edition
2014 - 7th edition
2015 - 8th edition
2016 (January) - 9th edition
2016 (April) - 10th edition
2016 (Mid-June) - 11th edition

By the end of 2016 the edition you're playing will be obsolite before the end of the game!
We'll be mourning the goold old days of 108th edition as we try to play out turns 3 and 4 using 109th!
Then turn 5 using 110th!

I love you so much sometimes!

BTW we need a slow clap orkmotocon.

 pretre wrote:
And I rarely call names, but I do tell it like it is. It is quite clear that a number of mongers are either making things up for clicks or have monumentally bad BS filters.

You called Larry Vela from BOLS full of crap, which I think is unjustified even with his complete miss in the latest set of rumours. He posted rumours long before you started tracking, and not all were bad.

BTW don't forget to give 40k radio a FALSE whenever IG and Dwarfs are released, because they predicted two different dates

 Kroothawk wrote:

 pretre wrote:
And I rarely call names, but I do tell it like it is. It is quite clear that a number of mongers are either making things up for clicks or have monumentally bad BS filters.

You called Larry Vela from BOLS full of crap, which I think is unjustified even with his complete miss in the latest set of rumours. He posted rumours long before you started tracking, and not all were bad.

BTW don't forget to give 40k radio a FALSE whenever IG and Dwarfs are released, because they predicted two different dates

Again, this is OT, but...

Link to that? Here's what I did say about Larry. "even then, I doubt it. He pinned himself on some pretty out there crap. " I've also said that Natfka 'puts out so much crap that...' but never said either one was full of crap, that I am aware of. Google concurs.

And I always give one false when someone does that, as you should know if you follow the tracker.

 Symbio Joe wrote:
Wow, we are so close to play 2nd Edition again that even the starter set goes back there.

You clearly have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. The only real similarities between 2nd and 6th is that they both use D6, they both use inches and they are both called Warhammer.

 Palindrome wrote:

 Symbio Joe wrote:
Wow, we are so close to play 2nd Edition again that even the starter set goes back there.

You clearly have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. The only real similarities between 2nd and 6th is that they both use D6, they both use inches and they are both called Warhammer.

I'd also toss in "Encourages unbalanced forces instead of fluffy armies", albeit in a different fashion as I recall 2nd edition being closer to Herohammer (aka 5th edition) WHFB with godlike characters stomping over everything. Nowadays instead of an uber-character it's 3x Riptides and allies, but same broken garbage without a ton of extra rules (although I miss the Mission Cards)

Pedro Kantor wrote:

 Shandara wrote:
Maybe something like:
2012 - 6th release
2014 - halfway update/re-release
2016 - 7th release

I agree with this. It is a strange thing to do ( but this is GW, so who knows ). But to release 6.5 ( with FAQ's and Stronghold Assault and Escalation built in ) with another ( rumoured ) starter box as well, its just money, money, money all the way for GW.

Unless enough people don't buy it, of course.

Also why include two rulebooks that ATM you have to buy separately.

Except, if they increased the price to reflect the "greater value" of the new ruleset!!

 pretre wrote:

 Kroothawk wrote:
You called Larry Vela from BOLS full of crap, which I think is unjustified even with his complete miss in the latest set of rumours.

Again, this is OT, but...

Link to that? Here's what I did say about Larry. "even then, I doubt it. He pinned himself on some pretty out there crap. " I've also said that Natfka 'puts out so much crap that...' but never said either one was full of crap, that I am aware of. Google concurs..

Here:

 pretre wrote:

 wuestenfux wrote:
With a new starter set, BA vs. Orks, can be expect a new BA and Ork codex this year?

If Vela wasn't full of gak? Probably. As it is...

Ahh, see full of gak is much different than full of crap.

I stand corrected!

I have just spotted on BOLS a strange thing, on the latest schedule : Escalation rulebook is due out for 8th of february, in French. Until now, it was only available in English in my country, while stronghold assault was translated at launch.
If escalation rules are rumoured to be soon fused into a unique-rulebook-to-rule-them-all, why releasing a 49.5 $ product next month, that would soon be obsolete ?
So Escalation might not be part of this future 7th edition BRB.

Or it's a plain old cash grab, hyuk hyuk hyuk.

 Yodhrin wrote:
Why do you think Dark Vengeance featured a specific chapter that didn't have many models, and Chaos models with a new(actually a bit retro) aesthetic, and in the proportions it did?

Because those were the first two 6th edition codex releases, and both featured a fairly extensive overhaul of their aesthetic and model design?

I'd wager a big reason is they didn't want a repeat of AoBR/IoB where people were using eBay to put together armies almost entirely composed of the starter set minis because they were so cheap compared to the existing models for those armies.

Which would have worked if not for those two codexes being the first ones out, and seeing a whole new range of models released that GW were presumably wanting people to buy...

eBay was still flooded with start set models, so if this was their intention it was a bit of a failure.

So why, with their next starter set, would they pack it full of stuff that will directly compete with the still-fairly-new Blood Angels plastics? Why would they provide people with a way to acquire huge mobs of cheap Orks with a new codex release on the horizon?

Because that sells more starter sets, and then they can say what a wonderful success those sets are?

Because having a starter set coming out concurrently with a new codex lets them sell people both the starter set and the codex, and if they're really persuasive, a bunch of new models as well?

Because GW really don't pay a great deal of attention to the second hand market, because we're all in the hobby of 'buying Citadel Miniatures' and will buy the new stuff anyway, no matter what is on eBay?


Do you have any evidence that the DV sets floating around on eBay actually hurt the sales of the new Dark Angels plastics that came out at more or less the same time?

 Kroothawk wrote:

 pretre wrote:
And I rarely call names, but I do tell it like it is. It is quite clear that a number of mongers are either making things up for clicks or have monumentally bad BS filters.

You called Larry Vela from BOLS full of crap, which I think is unjustified even with his complete miss in the latest set of rumours. He posted rumours long before you started tracking, and not all were bad.

BTW don't forget to give 40k radio a FALSE whenever IG and Dwarfs are released, because they predicted two different dates

You seem very eager to bring 40K Radio down

Either way. The current rumour accuracy tracking is great, and I would not recommend to change a thing.

Still, you shouldn't let the methodology of the thing blind yourself to the purpose this tool was developed for.

At the end of the day, a "true" or "false" on an army book a month this way or that way (though it should be recorded meticulously) doesn't have nearly as much weight as a "true" or "false" on predicting a 7th Edition of 40K 2 years early, when nobody else did, and long before anything went to printers (i.e. the ~1-2 month window most rumours start to flow), or, similarly, predicting a "40K skirmish game" that went nowhere.

The Rumour Accuracy Tracking is a tool. A very good tool, but still only a tool. Don't let it blind you to the real thing