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.

 Brother SRM wrote:
I sincerely don't believe it, really. Given the lead time for development, printing, and so on, this would mean they were writing 7th edition by the time 6th edition was hitting the shelves.

Unless it really is just a re-release of 6th with FAQ amendments included in the rules and rolling Escalation into the book.

Which would actually make some sense.
The tone in this thread seems to have shifted to "It's definitely a god damn new edition!" in the last few days. Have new rumours emerged?

Either way I'm holding off on buying any 6th edition rules at all (having just tentatively stepped back in to 40k).

 plastictrees wrote:
Which would actually make some sense.
The tone in this thread seems to have shifted to "It's definitely a god damn new edition!" in the last few days. Have new rumours emerged?

Either way I'm holding off on buying any 6th edition rules at all (having just tentatively stepped back in to 40k).

40K Radio, who can do no wrong rumour wise recently, have it as a bona fide 7th edition for launch in May. That's what has shifted the tone.

Thanks, must have missed that while spinning in my chair and squealing at the sight of the Knight and Infinity Geckos.

 puma713 wrote:

 Brother SRM wrote:
I sincerely don't believe it, really. Given the lead time for development, printing, and so on, this would mean they were writing 7th edition by the time 6th edition was hitting the shelves.

Unless it really is just a re-release of 6th with FAQ amendments included in the rules and rolling Escalation into the book.

Yeah, I'd believe that, but anything more than that would be baffling to me. Back in late 3rd/4th edition, they released second edition printings of a number of codices containing some FAQ and errata and fixes and the like, so there's definitely precedent, just not recently.

 Kosake wrote:
This would mean orks wouldn't get an update for 2 editions. Did any other faction ever jump two whole editions without a new codex?

Sororitas got not a single new miniature since 3rd edition.
Wood Elves still have a 6th edition armybook, with 8th edition out 4 years.

If GW managers really do a new 40k edition after less than 2 years, the company deserves a new logo:

Kroothawk, you made my day ^^

 Kroothawk wrote:

 Kosake wrote:
This would mean orks wouldn't get an update for 2 editions. Did any other faction ever jump two whole editions without a new codex?

Sororitas got not a single new miniature since 3rd edition.
Wood Elves still have a 6th edition armybook, with 8th edition out 4 years.

If GW managers really do a new 40k edition after less than 2 years, the company deserves a new logo:

Nice Your C&D will be arriving shortly.

Kroothawk, well done. Money making is GW's primay motive and now they are paniking.

 wuestenfux wrote:
Kroothawk, well done. Money making is GW's primay motive and now they are paniking.

Yes. You have succesfully explained Kroothawk's joke.

Still thinking that it's going to be a 6.1 personally, which is neither news nor a rumour.

 plastictrees wrote:

 wuestenfux wrote:
Kroothawk, well done. Money making is GW's primay motive and now they are paniking.

Yes. You have succesfully explained Kroothawk's joke.

Still thinking that it's going to be a 6.1 personally, which is neither news nor a rumour.

I yhink even if they call it 7th it will be more like a 6.1, like D&D 2nd was more like a 1.5

So let me guess:

Take 6th, add in superheavies and expanded fortification/bunker assault rules, buff close combat, add more standard missions, remove IC tanking wounds mechanic, fix challenges and boom you got 7th.

 Sir Arun wrote:
So let me guess:

Take 6th, add in superheavies and expanded fortification/bunker assault rules, buff close combat, add more standard missions, remove IC tanking wounds mechanic, fix challenges and boom you got 7th.

Nah, that doesn't actually sound too bad!

 Sir Arun wrote:
So let me guess:

Take 6th, add in superheavies and expanded fortification/bunker assault rules and boom you got 7th.

Fixed to reflect the most possible outcome .

 Sir Arun wrote:
So let me guess:

Take 6th, add in superheavies and expanded fortification/bunker assault rules, buff close combat, add more standard missions, remove IC tanking wounds mechanic, fix challenges and boom you got 7th.

That's probably closer to the truth.

 Sir Arun wrote:
So let me guess:

Take 6th, add in superheavies and expanded fortification/bunker assault rules, buff close combat, add more standard missions, remove IC tanking wounds mechanic, fix challenges and boom you got 7th.

It's not like any edition change after 2nd edition has been much more complicated than that. A few minor tweaks here and there that might push the focus of the game a bit towards a specific playstyle. 6th didn't add anything to the game except flyers, allies and fortifications, all of which were bad for balance but also giving a lot more options for players. In a non-competitive environment there isn't a problem. Like you said, 7th will most likely just add superheavies and even more fortifications. It'll again be bad for balance, and even better for those who just want to have a good time. And as a tournament player I'm not saying a competitive game wouldn't be having a good time. I'm using the GW definition of good time, which is taking a random collection of models with few or no synergies whatsoever and playing drunk against your best buddy. It's not that bad.

 Therion wrote:
. It'll again be bad for balance, and even better for those who just want to have a good time. .

Making the game less balanced isn't 'better' for those just playing casually. It's worse, because it increases the odds of your casual list getting brutally stomped by another casual list that just happens to include something wildly unbalanced.


That's why the current direction of the game is so baffling - Balance benefits everybody. This apparent attack on tournament play that GW are currently on, by seeing just how massively crazy they can make the game, is just cutting off their nose to spite their face.

 plastictrees wrote:
Which would actually make some sense.
The tone in this thread seems to have shifted to "It's definitely a god damn new edition!" in the last few days. Have new rumours emerged?

As said, it was always 7th Edition with 40K Radio, who broke the original rumour. The rest was just BOLS noise.

That said, what is a "proper" new Edition of 40K these days? It's not like the changes from 4th to 5th or 5th to 6th were any more massive than "assimilate expansion, tweak some rules, add more USR".

I don't think any rumour has ever claimed it was a "proper" new edition breaking all ties in the sense that the new editions of 1st to 2nd or 2nd to 3rd have been.

 insaniak wrote:

 Therion wrote:
. It'll again be bad for balance, and even better for those who just want to have a good time. .

Making the game less balanced isn't 'better' for those just playing casually. It's worse, because it increases the odds of your casual list getting brutally stomped by another casual list that just happens to include something wildly unbalanced.


That's why the current direction of the game is so baffling - Balance benefits everybody. This apparent attack on tournament play that GW are currently on, by seeing just how massively crazy they can make the game, is just cutting off their nose to spite their face.

What you said only holds true only in general. It's not true in GW games. Despite what people try to claim every edition, the game is horribly imbalanced and has been for well over a decade. It's imbalanced to the point of being impossible to be taken seriously. When a game is impossible to be taken seriously, adding more variety to it, no matter how imbalanced, can't be a bad thing anymore. You don't fix 40K by not adding superheavies and new fortifications. You fix it by deleting all of your codices and rulebooks, firing every single one of your game designers and hiring some competitive people and giving them a year or two to work on a better product. Since you can agree that won't happen, I'm satisfied with just some more variety. I don't really blame GW anymore for creating imbalanced stuff, and I think going wild is much better than desperately trying to maintain the poor illusion that your game is all serious, when it never has been and the points costs of everything are all over the place. They don't have the realistic option to start afresh with every codex, expansion, rulebook and supplement invalidated, so they'll just push the game even further into anarchy land with dozens of legal army lists and crazy games.

A few reasons very specific to miniature gaming exist why a lot of players would rather opt to just keep the current state of horrible imbalance and impossibility to be taken seriously, instead of wanting new imbalanced stuff. One of them is that new models cost money, and they rather keep the old bad game than spend 500 additional dollars to play the new bad game. For me, the only excuse to play games as bad as 40K is that atleast new radical stuff keeps getting introduced to it that keeps changing the landscape.

I would consider the changes 6th did to 5th's meta far more drastic than what 5th did to 4th's meta.

My wishlist, but I'm sure little to none of this would actually be addressed:

-4th Edition terrain rules, but add something for height requirements (IE: titans hiding behind tiny ruins)
-size categories for models
-heavily restrict the allies chart
-fix the silly mission/terrain set up rules
-wound allocation
-modify D weapons for non Apoc style games; I want to see the big cool models on the table, but folks are so panicked by Stronghold/Escalation, a lot of folks just refuses to even play it

 Sir Arun wrote:
So let me guess:

Take 6th, add in superheavies and expanded fortification/bunker assault rules, buff close combat, add more standard missions, remove IC tanking wounds mechanic, fix challenges and boom you got 7th.

Also remove battle brothers.

That would be awesome if they did all the above!

bodazoka wrote:

 Sir Arun wrote:
So let me guess:

Take 6th, add in superheavies and expanded fortification/bunker assault rules, buff close combat, add more standard missions, remove IC tanking wounds mechanic, fix challenges and boom you got 7th.

Also remove battle brothers.

That would be awesome if they did all the above!

Indeed. 40k's problem right now is that it is becoming more and more like MTG and devolving into insane builds that ruin the tournament (and oftentimes even FLGS) scene. GW prodding you to buy stuff you otherwise NEVER would have simply because the combo you can build is uber-awesome is a filthy, but efficient marketing strategy that I absolutely despise.

Now that Imperial Knights will join the fray and superheavies are just itching to get auto-included in the near future, I am sad to see how 40k is losing its original flair and simply become a GIB US UR MONIEZ FOR MOAR DAKKA fest.

At least 5th ed 40k had the decency to reserve this madness for Apoc scale battles, complete with their own hardcover rulebook.

Ever since the Riptide was released have things been going downhill. I've read many battlereports and its funny how in most of them the Riptide is still standing by the end of the game, nevermind lists that are rocking two or more. A unit that is more or less guaranteed to last an entire battle is usually an auto-include, isnt it? There are plenty of multi-wound MCs in 40k but most of them are either 3+ armor save or have no invuln. When one MC is 2+ and rocks a 3++ inv. you know somethings not right. Of course some people say the whole downhill thing began when GW decided to introduce Flyers into the game, others say it began ever since Mat Ward's Grey Knights codex was released (and with it the dreadknight), some go even further back and say deepstriking Blood Angel Land Raiders started the entire power creep, but either way 40k has been going on an ever increasing power level trip. Only Grav weaponry has now started to pose a serious threat to any and all multi-wound MCs deciding to stick around till endgame, but Grav Cents can be easily outmaneuvered/out-LoS'd and grav bikers lack the punch unless fielded en masse, which brings us back to the grav gun biker command squad and tanking IH CM and deathstar units.

Especially as there's now a lot of "One Shot" action going on.

There's very little 'fun' to be had in that...

 Sir Arun wrote:
I would consider the changes 6th did to 5th's meta far more drastic than what 5th did to 4th's meta.

Agreed. 4th to 5th seemed like a streamlining of the rules to make the game quicker and easier to maneuver. 6th felt like a new game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Alpharius wrote:
Especially as there's now a lot of "One Shot" action going on.

There's very little 'fun' to be had in that...

And randomness. I know that I certainly don't speak for anyone but myself, but I hate randomness. The more randomness in basic rules that you add to a layered and structured game like 40k, the less fun it is. I know that they were aiming for more fun through randomness, but where you might think it adds a sense of luck to the game, it adds imbalance. Why should I destroy your psyker warlord on turn 1 simply because I am running daemons? Why should some of the most powerful psykers in the universe not be able to summon the powers they want at will?

 puma713 wrote:


And randomness. I know that I certainly don't speak for anyone but myself, but I hate randomness. The more randomness in basic rules that you add to a layered and structured game like 40k, the less fun it is. I know that they were aiming for more fun through randomness, but where you might think it adds a sense of luck to the game, it adds imbalance. Why should I destroy your psyker warlord on turn 1 simply because I am running daemons? Why should some of the most powerful psykers in the universe not be able to summon the powers they want at will?

It's very hard to argue against randomness when the main part of the game involves random rolls to hit, wound and save.

Luckily, in 7th you will randomly roll for your forces, like back in Rogue Trader days. And just to make sure you maximize your purchasing, GW will also include tables to randomly roll which army you will play come game time.

 Stormonu wrote:

 puma713 wrote:


And randomness. I know that I certainly don't speak for anyone but myself, but I hate randomness. The more randomness in basic rules that you add to a layered and structured game like 40k, the less fun it is. I know that they were aiming for more fun through randomness, but where you might think it adds a sense of luck to the game, it adds imbalance. Why should I destroy your psyker warlord on turn 1 simply because I am running daemons? Why should some of the most powerful psykers in the universe not be able to summon the powers they want at will?

It's very hard to argue against randomness when the main part of the game involves random rolls to hit, wound and save.

Randomness in rolls to hit, wound and save are what make the game what it is - that is not what I am talking about. That randomness has been present since the game's inception. Me randomly rolling an 11 on 2d6 to destroy your most powerful psyker and giving me First Blood and Slay the Warlord before the game has even gotten underway - that is not fun nor fair to either side. Albeit an extreme example, but a more accurate example of what I am referring to.

I'd love to see "levels" of rules, personally.

Level 1 takes out flyers and certain units (like Riptides, Imperial Knights, and Wraithknights), level 2 puts them in, level 3 adds in Formations and Super Heavyies, and Level 4 is anything goes.

Pipe dream, but hey.

 puma713 wrote:

 Stormonu wrote:

 puma713 wrote:


And randomness. I know that I certainly don't speak for anyone but myself, but I hate randomness. The more randomness in basic rules that you add to a layered and structured game like 40k, the less fun it is. I know that they were aiming for more fun through randomness, but where you might think it adds a sense of luck to the game, it adds imbalance. Why should I destroy your psyker warlord on turn 1 simply because I am running daemons? Why should some of the most powerful psykers in the universe not be able to summon the powers they want at will?

It's very hard to argue against randomness when the main part of the game involves random rolls to hit, wound and save.

Randomness in rolls to hit, wound and save are what make the game what it is - that is not what I am talking about. That randomness has been present since the game's inception. Me randomly rolling an 11 on 2d6 to destroy your most powerful psyker and giving me First Blood and Slay the Warlord before the game has even gotten underway - that is not fun nor fair to either side. Albeit an extreme example, but a more accurate example of what I am referring to.

Speak for yourself, I think that's hilarious and very fun. I love it when things that aren't supposed to happen do happen - it's what makes the games epic and memorable. Randomness at times COULD be really annoying but honestly if you're taking something that is built on being random (like a SAG) then you have no room to complain.

 ntdars wrote:

Speak for yourself, I think that's hilarious and very fun. I love it when things that aren't supposed to happen do happen - it's what makes the games epic and memorable. Randomness at times COULD be really annoying but honestly if you're taking something that is built on being random (like a SAG) then you have no room to complain.

 puma713 wrote:

I know that I certainly don't speak for anyone but myself, but I hate randomness.

Do you at least read the page you're on? Or just the last post?