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.

 SavageRobby wrote:

I'd much rather have a new edition** that a compilation/cleanup of the current edition. It would take more than a simple editorial pass to make the current rules more than the pile of gal they are.




** Assuming they are written from the ground up, streamlined, play tested and proofread. Wishful thinking, I know.

I could not have said that better myself, 6th Ed is just appalling

 pizzaguardian wrote:

 Mathieu Raymond wrote:
Just to chime in, I know a guy that deals with GW directly, and he confirms the name change to Astra Militarum, and the codex will hit in April.

Anything about knights good sir?

Not a peep. But that doesn't mean anything, knights fall outside of his/her area of expertise. My source works on a very specific project that knights are not relevant to directly. He/she only learned about fine cast being flushed before us plebes because they run a campaign in house (and GW is very, very generous with its stock,when they want something out of you).

Any other "Astra Militarium" related info, Mathieu?

Should I start saving up for more tanks or prepare to sell off my metal Kasrkin in favor of new plastic-y guys?

A)I don't know what's wrong with the metal Kasrkin, I think they still look suitably bad-esh!

B)At this point in his/her involvement, no, nothing more concrete, especially when it comes to the physical game. Tanks would also fall outside of his/her scope. I'll try to email my contact for more sideways information.

Pretre... I guess you can finally add me to the tracker? I'm pretty sure my source would not receive false info regarding this, as it would be very costly and time consuming, and my contact is like a sibling to me.

 Pacific wrote:
Aren't you in the position of writing official material HBMC? Any way you could be principled/stick to your guns etc. with the next stuff you do?

From a Guard perspective I write vehicles. Don't much matter what the Guard call themselves - a Russ is a Russ is a Russ.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Billagio wrote:
I just want melee to work again. No challenges and no removal from front via shooting and Id be fine.

Removing "removal from the front" would fix a lot of things.

I for once think its the rule that makes the most sens.

Since in battle its the ones in the front of an assault who takes the most casualties, its the most realistic and true rule of the whole game.

What the should change is Disembark from a immobile vehicle and Assault, and maybe make Sweeping Advance like in 3Rd Ed again?...

Uhm... question to the veterans:

Was there ALLWAYS a space marine component in the starterboxes?

Also, yay for guards in April. Does this mean there's an actual chance to get Orks in March?

 Kosake wrote:
Uhm... question to the veterans:

Was there ALLWAYS a space marine component in the starterboxes?

Also, yay for guards in April. Does this mean there's an actual chance to get Orks in March?

Not a veteran but Yeh they all had SM in them.

 Kosake wrote:
Uhm... question to the veterans:

Was there ALLWAYS a space marine component in the starterboxes?

Also, yay for guards in April. Does this mean there's an actual chance to get Orks in March?

Just thinking back:

2nd ed was Orks/Gretchin vs SM
3rd ed was Dark Eldar vs SM
4th ed was Tyranid vs SM
5th ed was Ork vs SM
6th ed was CSM vs SM

So yes, in answer.

Astra Militarium eh? Sounds a bit daft but I s'pose it doesn't really change anything. I'll still be calling them Imperial Guard, much like Space Marines and Sisters of Battle.

 Yodhrin wrote:


Don't want to take things OT so I'll refrain from posting it again, I wrote a slightly ranty summary here.

Oh man, that's horrible. Why GW? WHY?

 filbert wrote:

 Kosake wrote:
Uhm... question to the veterans:

Was there ALLWAYS a space marine component in the starterboxes?

Also, yay for guards in April. Does this mean there's an actual chance to get Orks in March?

Just thinking back:

2nd ed was Orks/Gretchin vs SM (Blood Angels)
3rd ed was Dark Eldar vs SM (painted as Black Templar)
4th ed was Tyranid vs SM (painted as Ultramarines)
5th ed was Ork vs SM (painted as Ultramarines)
6th ed was CSM vs SM (actually Dark Angels)

So yes, in answer.

See additions in orange.

Naming things to sound cool in another language seems silly.

It's fine if you only speak one language, but like many of you I speak two and when translating is second nature it just becomes a little campy. "Oh you mean Space Military или звездные силы" and both sound stupid.

 Kroothawk wrote:

 filbert wrote:

 Kosake wrote:
Uhm... question to the veterans:

Was there ALLWAYS a space marine component in the starterboxes?

Also, yay for guards in April. Does this mean there's an actual chance to get Orks in March?

Just thinking back:

2nd ed was Orks/Gretchin vs SM (Blood Angels)
3rd ed was Dark Eldar vs SM (painted as Black Templar)
4th ed was Tyranid vs SM (painted as Ultramarines)
5th ed was Ork vs SM (painted as Ultramarines)
6th ed was CSM vs SM (actually Dark Angels)

So yes, in answer.

See additions in orange.

The Blood Angels were just the plain statue marines painted red, also.

Yeah, its only the last two sets that had the marines actually modelled as a specific chapter.

 RiTides wrote:

 Ravajaxe wrote:
Well, saying that thread has chilled out last weeks is an understatement, however latest discussions were about which armies were going to fit in the next starter box, and here are some fresh news.
From Bell of Lost souls, Larry Vela :

Launch Window - @September
Rules Summary : Updated Mini-rulebook contains FAQs, minor tweaks and clarifications, and much of Stronghold Assault rolled into a new shiny package.
Miniatures included: @70

Armies:
Blood Angels (plastic quick assembly)
- Assault Marine Squad
- Tactical Marine Squad
- Death Company Squad
- Captain (kitted out for assault)
- Chaplain
- Sanguinary Priest (limited edition, similar to the Dark Vengeance mini was)

Orks (plastic quick assembly)
- 'Ardboys (full mob)
- Nobs (small squad)
- Warboss
- Big Mek
- Ork themed fortification

This was described as simply an updated Warhammer 40,000 Starter Set and specifically "NOT 7th Edition."

Given this last statement of yours (which I have highlighted ) don't you think you should update the title of the thread?

I.e. "Revised rulebook and new starter set for 40k in summer"... rather than "7th edition".

it's actually similar to the 3.5rd edition released in 2003 along with new cadians? meow

There was a revised starter set/rulebook in 2003? I don't remember that at all.

Vehicle and assault rules were replaced several times during 3rd, but I'm not aware of any updated rulebook. As far as I know, they were only published in WD and such.

Yeah, never an updated rulebook. We got TAR and TVR, the former of which helped 3rd Ed to no end and the latter of which started the slow spiral into 4th Ed vehicles and how bland they were. But no new rulebook.

 Yodhrin wrote:


Don't want to take things OT so I'll refrain from posting it again, I wrote a slightly ranty summary here.

Thats emblematic of GWs lack of understanding of its own fluff and what makes it interesting. By far the best 40k fluff that I have read in recent years has come from FFG. Its well written, consistent and more importantly FFG 'gets it'. GW seems content to bang any old gak out as long as its GRIMDARK.

Yorkskargrim wrote:


I could not have said that better myself, 6th Ed is just appalling

Agreed. This edition is the absolute worst when it's come to balancing. Not that it matters, just pay for a download to "balance" everything. Greed is ruining this game.

 Moopy wrote:
Agreed. This edition is the absolute worst when it's come to balancing. Not that it matters, just pay for a download to "balance" everything. Greed is ruining this game.

I like 6th Ed (especially compared to 4th and 5th, two editions I despised), but even I can see that the balance of the game is way off. It's almost as if going first is even more important now. I wish the people writing it just cared more about making a better game, rather than just another game.

 Palindrome wrote:
By far the best 40k fluff that I have read in recent years has come from FFG. Its well written, consistent and more importantly FFG 'gets it'.

Well, we try.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
c22.png]

Well, we try.

The vehicle rules are gak though

Natfka rows back and now claims that the BA vs. Ork starter is for Epic.
http://natfka.blogspot.de/2014/02/blood-angels-vs-orks-will-be-for-epic.html

Interesting!

Makes some sense too, if they're bringing back Epic Armageddon.

That's one hell of a rumour to make, though.. people will not be happy with the site if it turns out to be wrong.

Sounds fishy.

Assuming (!) that 40K Radio is right with a new Edition of 40K, I don't see them doing Epic 40K as well in the same summer.

Not to mention that the Orks-vs.-Blood Angels boxed-set rumour was fairly specific. E.g. includes an "explicitly not-7th-edition-upgraded-rules-book", a LE Sanguinary Priest, A (single?) Captain with Assault Gear, etc..

Are these binned? Or will their be a LE 10mm scale Sanguinary Priest miniature?

I suppose it's almost possible they've given up on The Hobbit ever doing well enough to be the 3rd leg of the stool LoTR was

and so have decided to bring back Epic to do that job

but having gone to all the trouble to dump all the specialist games relatively recently I don't think its really likely

I also think it's unlikely for them to launch it with two factions that have not yet been updated for 6th so whatever they do in terms of rules/names/characters etc would either risk not fitting with the 6th updates, or require lots of cross talk with the 40K designers (and cross talk does not seem to fit GW's method of work)

Epic Complete? In other words a limited edition boxed waste of time. At least they wont butcher the rules too badly (I hope).

Buy that man a beer, Palindrome just hit the nail on the head!

 scarletsquig wrote:
Interesting!

Makes some sense too, if they're bringing back Epic Armageddon.

That's one hell of a rumour to make, though.. people will not be happy with the site if it turns out to be wrong.

Anyone still taking Faeit seriously at this point must have Alzheimer's anyway.

 Palindrome wrote:
Epic Complete? In other words a limited edition boxed waste of time. At least they wont butcher the rules too badly (I hope).

I doubt it will be limited edition. More likely they will do a first run with a limited edition model then keep a regular box as direct order only. I'm pretty sure they have noticed Space Hulk eBay prices now and will want a peice of that.