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.

 Squidbot wrote:
Nothing concrete. Rulebook "No longer available", and that's all we know for certain. People feel personally offended.
Oh, internet, don't ever change.

Your posting in news and rumours.

What ifs are par for the course.

 loki old fart wrote:

 Squidbot wrote:
Nothing concrete. Rulebook "No longer available", and that's all we know for certain. People feel personally offended.
Oh, internet, don't ever change.

Your posting in news and rumours.

What ifs are par for the course.

I think you missed my point.

So anyone else getting a shovel and burying all expectations and assuming the worst so if thus turns out even a little better than what they assumed they feel like they came out ahead?

Because I am.

You mustn't have made it clear. Have another go

I would direct folks to the Jervis Johnson article in the latest WD to see a possible trajectory for 7th edition. He writes about a design change set wherein armies compete for specific objectives as opposed to single objectives both armies fight over.

If you read his articles and the other designer articles over the last months, you can see where this is headed.

I leave you with this nugget of Jervis Johnson design insight:

"“Just decide on which scenario or mission you are going to play normally, but then sit down with your opponent before deploying, and come up with a background story explaining why the battle is taking place.”
This done, replace the victory conditions with a set of objectives for each side based on the background you have come up with, and then proceed to set up your armies and fight the battle. At the end of the game, discuss who has won with your opponent – if you can’t agree, then the battle is clearly a draw! I think (and hope) that you will be surprised how much difference this small change can make to the way that the game feels and plays.”

Excerpt From: Games Workshop. “White Dwarf Issue 13: 26 April 2014.” iBooks. https://itun.es/us/wxc0Z.l

I give you "7th edition."

Noone wins or loses! Great news, Jervis.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
So anyone else getting a shovel and burying all expectations and assuming the worst so if thus turns out even a little better than what they assumed they feel like they came out ahead?

Because I am.

I buried my care. Either the new rules are just terribad, and I'll keep on playing Warmachine most of the time, or they are an improvement, and then I will play my Sisters of Battle again. Really, not putting all my eggs in the same basket was an awesome idea.

From a business point to view it makes great sense. Sales are dropping and the best way to boost sales is make its customer base all buy a new rulebook.

We really need to stop thinking about how it affects the gamers, GW's MO has always been how to make money, and there are enough fanboys buying up all the collector edition proves their point well enough.

Will there be a backlash from gamers? I hardly doubt it, especially if the new ruleset (doesn't matter if it is 6.1, 6.5, 6 sp1 or 7th) is a improvement to the enjoyment of the game (notice I did not use the word 'balanced'). If you still have any involment with 40K, you will buy this book.

I don't need to feel bad for those who purchased the 6th collector ed or the recent mini rulebook. I assumed you know what you are in for when you started the GW hobby.

And I salute all the fanboys that supports GW and its decisions with money.

As for myself I welcome a change to the core rules to make the game more enjoyable. I will not be purchasing a new ruleset on day one however. The internet and FLGS feedback will determine if I should continue on with 40K or switch to a new system. As a consumer I now have the choice in the market to decide where which products gets my hobby money.

(Yes I'm still bitter about paying $59.50CAD for my DA codex that contains spelling errors and basic omissiond / contracditions on my units)

I actually like the idea of multiple objectives for each army...means that camping on a single objective dies painfully.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
So anyone else getting a shovel and burying all expectations and assuming the worst so if thus turns out even a little better than what they assumed they feel like they came out ahead?

Because I am.

I buried my care. Either the new rules are just terribad, and I'll keep on playing Warmachine most of the time, or they are an improvement, and then I will play my Sisters of Battle again. Really, not putting all my eggs in the same basket was an awesome idea.

Fair enough. I've started work on a Flesh Tearers Battle Company for Apoc because even if the core rules aren't that good Apoc will still be fun (it's fun now despite the rules for instance, mostly because we have a good group to play with locally).

YakManDoo wrote:
“Just decide on which scenario or mission you are going to play normally, but then sit down with your opponent before deploying, and come up with a background story explaining why the battle is taking place.

This done, replace the victory conditions with a set of objectives for each side based on the background you have come up with, and then proceed to set up your armies and fight the battle. At the end of the game, discuss who has won with your opponent – if you can’t agree, then the battle is clearly a draw! I think (and hope) that you will be surprised how much difference this small change can make to the way that the game feels and plays.”

Yeah. That sounds like a completely practical thing to do for a pickup game against someone you don't know.

YakManDoo wrote:
I would direct folks to the Jervis Johnson article in the latest WD to see a possible trajectory for 7th edition. He writes about a design change set wherein armies compete for specific objectives as opposed to single objectives both armies fight over.

If you read his articles and the other designer articles over the last months, you can see where this is headed.

I leave you with this nugget of Jervis Johnson design insight:

"“Just decide on which scenario or mission you are going to play normally, but then sit down with your opponent before deploying, and come up with a background story explaining why the battle is taking place.”
This done, replace the victory conditions with a set of objectives for each side based on the background you have come up with, and then proceed to set up your armies and fight the battle. At the end of the game, discuss who has won with your opponent – if you can’t agree, then the battle is clearly a draw! I think (and hope) that you will be surprised how much difference this small change can make to the way that the game feels and plays.”

Excerpt From: Games Workshop. “White Dwarf Issue 13: 26 April 2014.” iBooks. https://itun.es/us/wxc0Z.l

I give you "7th edition."

3rd Edition codexes used to list reasons why two armies would fight (Sisters of instance would fight Eldar because as far as the Sisters are concerned Eldar are a "xenos race of heretical witches" ) so the narrative idea isn't new. The idea of armies having objectives that they need to complete to win is a cool on that's been done before too, and I wouldn't mind seeing it becoming a staple of the game honestly. It'd spice things up a bit at least.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

YakManDoo wrote:
“Just decide on which scenario or mission you are going to play normally, but then sit down with your opponent before deploying, and come up with a background story explaining why the battle is taking place.

This done, replace the victory conditions with a set of objectives for each side based on the background you have come up with, and then proceed to set up your armies and fight the battle. At the end of the game, discuss who has won with your opponent – if you can’t agree, then the battle is clearly a draw! I think (and hope) that you will be surprised how much difference this small change can make to the way that the game feels and plays.”

Yeah. That sounds like a completely practical thing to do for a pickup game against someone you don't know.

I assume the intent is doing it with friends you do know.

YakManDoo wrote:
I would direct folks to the Jervis Johnson article in the latest WD to see a possible trajectory for 7th edition. He writes about a design change set wherein armies compete for specific objectives as opposed to single objectives both armies fight over.

If you read his articles and the other designer articles over the last months, you can see where this is headed.

I leave you with this nugget of Jervis Johnson design insight:

"“Just decide on which scenario or mission you are going to play normally, but then sit down with your opponent before deploying, and come up with a background story explaining why the battle is taking place.”
This done, replace the victory conditions with a set of objectives for each side based on the background you have come up with, and then proceed to set up your armies and fight the battle. At the end of the game, discuss who has won with your opponent – if you can’t agree, then the battle is clearly a draw! I think (and hope) that you will be surprised how much difference this small change can make to the way that the game feels and plays.”

Excerpt From: Games Workshop. “White Dwarf Issue 13: 26 April 2014.” iBooks. https://itun.es/us/wxc0Z.l

I give you "7th edition."

Actually... I always liked how in 2nd edition each army had their own objectives, unknown to their opponent, via the Mission Cards. Maybe your goal was to get into your opponent's deployment zone, while his goal was straight up kill as many units as possible. It worked really well IMO and added a lot to the strategy of the game.

If something like that were to come back I think it would be a good thing.

Of course then you had things like Tyranid Attack which was literally "If you have any models left on the table, you win. Otherwise, the Tyranid player wins". In fact I still can remember one game I played with my brother (me as Space Marines, him as Tyranids) in I think '97 or '98 that literally came down to a failed save at the very end of the game that gave him the win, if I had just rolled one higher on the die I would have had a single model left and won.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
I've started work on a Flesh Tearers Battle Company for Apoc

Space marines . So many space marines .

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

YakManDoo wrote:
“Just decide on which scenario or mission you are going to play normally, but then sit down with your opponent before deploying, and come up with a background story explaining why the battle is taking place.

This done, replace the victory conditions with a set of objectives for each side based on the background you have come up with, and then proceed to set up your armies and fight the battle. At the end of the game, discuss who has won with your opponent – if you can’t agree, then the battle is clearly a draw! I think (and hope) that you will be surprised how much difference this small change can make to the way that the game feels and plays.”

Yeah. That sounds like a completely practical thing to do for a pickup game against someone you don't know.

Oh poppy cock, nobody actually does that!

The enlightened in the UK all play in clubs, spiritual successors to the frontier adventure clubs.



What the tribal colonies do with their free time is trivial and uninteresting.

"Just decide on which scenario or mission you are going to play normally, but then sit down with your opponent before deploying, and come up with a background story explaining why the battle is taking place. This done, replace the victory conditions with a set of objectives for each side based on the background you have come up with, and then proceed to set up your armies and fight the battle. At the end of the game, discuss who has won with your opponent – if you can’t agree, then the battle is clearly a draw! I think (and hope) that you will be surprised how much difference this small change can make to the way that the game feels and plays.”

THIS IS WHAT JERVIS ACTUALLY BELIEVES!










Hopefully someone gets the reference...

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
I've started work on a Flesh Tearers Battle Company for Apoc

Space marines . So many space marines .

So many angry Space Marines who will die horribly to the first D-template that wanders their way.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
"Just decide on which scenario or mission you are going to play normally, but then sit down with your opponent before deploying, and come up with a background story explaining why the battle is taking place. This done, replace the victory conditions with a set of objectives for each side based on the background you have come up with, and then proceed to set up your armies and fight the battle. At the end of the game, discuss who has won with your opponent – if you can’t agree, then the battle is clearly a draw! I think (and hope) that you will be surprised how much difference this small change can make to the way that the game feels and plays.”

THIS IS WHAT JERVIS ACTUALLY BELIEVES!
Hopefully someone gets the reference...

South Park's Scientology episode.

And I thought we all knew by now that Jervis was the nutter on the design team. The one who probably used words like "cinematic" all the time and insists that "the Most Important Rule" not be removed from the game.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
"Just decide on which scenario or mission you are going to play normally, but then sit down with your opponent before deploying, and come up with a background story explaining why the battle is taking place. This done, replace the victory conditions with a set of objectives for each side based on the background you have come up with, and then proceed to set up your armies and fight the battle. At the end of the game, discuss who has won with your opponent – if you can’t agree, then the battle is clearly a draw! I think (and hope) that you will be surprised how much difference this small change can make to the way that the game feels and plays.”

THIS IS WHAT JERVIS ACTUALLY BELIEVES!







Hopefully someone gets the reference...

Oh quite.

You know you have to buy a ticket on the GW Airline FineFlight to get the Super Ultra-Limited Edition Codex, where the Real Truth is revealed.

WayneTheGame wrote:


Actually... I always liked how in 2nd edition each army had their own objectives, unknown to their opponent, via the Mission Cards. Maybe your goal was to get into your opponent's deployment zone, while his goal was straight up kill as many units as possible. It worked really well IMO and added a lot to the strategy of the game.

If something like that were to come back I think it would be a good thing.

Technically it is back, and has been for about 6 months.

You just have to buy Mantic's Deadzone to get it.

RoninXiC wrote:
Btw, I honestly doubt that GW will manage to come up with a proper, balanced, fair, fun, simple yet complex (not complicated!) ruleset
without
AN OPEN BETA and LOTS OF OUTSIDE PLAYTESTING.

Privateer Press did this some years ago before they released their MK2 of Warmachine. It did the system SOOOOO good to have thousends of people having their eyes on an early draft. Sure, some things slipped through and are not 100% balanced. But imagine what could've happened without any form of open discussion.

GW needs open and long time playtesting.

I think that is what we've just witnessed. 6th edition was an open beta with lots of playtesting. Many things worked well (basic game mechanics, shooting, moral, Terrain, Line of Sight), some didn't (allies, FOC, Consolidation, Overwatch, Psychic powers) Now they are ready to release the revised version. They are calling it 7th.

NoggintheNog wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:
A significant issue, and I personally have my doubts.

In the midst of all this though, the question I havent seen asked is a simple one.

What does this mean for Fantasy, it's been bumped off it's cycle to release a new 40K. That doesnt really bode well long term.

Fantasy is still one. One of the stated reasons for 7th edition 40k is to make 40k and Fantasy play more similar so that someone who plays one can easily take up the other.

WayneTheGame wrote:

Actually... I always liked how in 2nd edition each army had their own objectives, unknown to their opponent, via the Mission Cards. Maybe your goal was to get into your opponent's deployment zone, while his goal was straight up kill as many units as possible. It worked really well IMO and added a lot to the strategy of the game.

I started 40k with 5th so I never experienced this feature of 2nd. Let me tell you that this is a hell of a great idea! I'm tempted to figure out a way to introduce this in my friendly games.

As for 7th, I am in the bandwagon of those who think it will be minor updates to 6th edition.
But even with minor changes, it can have major impacts on the game. If they make minor modifications to the allies charts, psychic powers, skyfire and snapfire we could have a a very different game.

The only major change I would appreciate in 6th (which it would seem that I am in the minority that really likes this edition) would be to be able to assault out of a larger selection of vehicles or do something that would make assault a more important part of the game.

 OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote:
I suspect the big change will be the complete removal of the allies matrix

Wish listing, if this was the case newer books like Knights wouldn't have included a matrix. At least one would think.

 Byte wrote:

 OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote:
I suspect the big change will be the complete removal of the allies matrix

Wish listing, if this was the case newer books like Knights wouldn't have included a matrix. At least one would think.

I think it'd be fine if allies were made "Opponent's Permission" only, versus "Oh hey I'm taking Taudar with an Inquisitor along for the lulz" on any random game. Of course that might prevent people using models they bought in a game (*GASP!*) so still unlikely.

I never understood why Rhinos were not considered assault vehicles in the first place...

But yeah, 6th edition being the Vista to the upcoming 7th edition Win7 sounds promising. Unless GW makes you pawn your organs to pay for all the new books, codices and slates you'll still need.

 Kosake wrote:
I never understood why Rhinos were not considered assault vehicles in the first place...

yup me too

 Kosake wrote:

But yeah, 6th edition being the Vista to the upcoming 7th edition Win7 sounds promising. Unless GW makes you pawn your organs to pay for all the new books, codices and slates you'll still need.

Hey GW reads forums aswell you know, don't even suggest it in jest. I like my kidneys.

Doesn’t the SM siege assault vanguard list already have the army specific objective rule? I’d not mind seeing more of that kind of thing. I seem to recall previous editions having odd VP things as well. Like apothocaries collecting the Chapter’s Due from the slain, or SoB getting points for killing psykers. I’d like to see games be more then just “try to table your opponent, and get someone on the objectives last turn”

If this is in fact a full new edition, I will be torqued off at GW. 2 years is too soon. Not irritated enough to stop playing, mind you, but mad. If it’s just a 6.5 reprint, I’ll be less angry. As I have stronghold and the apoc book (but not escalation) I’d probably just muddle though with what I have for a few years until the true 7th comes out.

I’ll not be picking up a big rulebook anyway. Tired of lugging around the old monster, want something slim. And how often do I need to pay for the same fluff? Wether I pick up the new starter (assuming it has a full rules small book) or wait for a slimline hardcover depends on the starter contents.

 Kosake wrote:
I never understood why Rhinos were not considered assault vehicles in the first place...

The 3rd edition BA Rhino Rush still lives in many dreams and nightmares

Boycott needs to be NOW! (or this will continue to happen)
.
$75 Main/Big Rule Book obsolete in less than two years (6e 23rd of June, 2012)
Wow, just wow.
.
No "new" FaQs for months, no older FaQs on the "new" website. Now the excuse will be that GW was gearing up for the change.
No rules Support, ever.
Massive flooding of multiple Rule Books with huge issues attached to each.
Constantly making "current" purchased publications obsolete with a release of another purchased publication.
No Battle Bunkers, No tables in GW stores.(where we used to go to see what "fair" House Rules were being used by a large majority, rather than relying on non GW Tournaments).
GW Stock in the toilet.
.
All of which We will have to Pay For.
.
Boycott Now

WayneTheGame wrote:

 Byte wrote:

 OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote:
I suspect the big change will be the complete removal of the allies matrix

Wish listing, if this was the case newer books like Knights wouldn't have included a matrix. At least one would think.

I think it'd be fine if allies were made "Opponent's Permission" only, versus "Oh hey I'm taking Taudar with an Inquisitor along for the lulz" on any random game. Of course that might prevent people using models they bought in a game (*GASP!*) so still unlikely.

the game needs LESS of things like that.

it really flat out defeats the purpose, and is unnecessary, because you can house rule anything you want out. so just leave everything legal. less dramas, more options,

things like allies, BB needs toning down.
SHV, needs StrD weapons sorted out.
why just flat out remove them and not just fix the problems.?

Hopefully they fix them rather than just dump things, though lets be honest, they wont be, after already adding escalation to the game a couple of months back its here to stay, same as allies, just be hoping they fix them to be a bit more sensible

rexscarlet wrote:
Boycott needs to be NOW! (or this will continue to happen)
.

I was wondering when the voice of reason would show up!

Thank you, sir! No more waiting!