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.

That would line up with a AM starter box.

So, Commissar Badass from what is apparently a White Dwarf Daily in French (because wold elf pieces displayed on the left right page of the second image), heralding MOAR WAAAAAR!
Nice.

 Idolator wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Idolator wrote:

 Kroothawk wrote:

 pretre wrote:
Or Kroot could just be going off on GW again.

Still angry that I picked a correct rumour from faeit212 while statistically it is practically impossible?
Or is it just your daily "make a personal insult to Kroothawk" routine?

To be fair, though. Who doesn't make daily personal insults to Kroothawk? I know I do.

I don't post them though. I write them on my walls with a sharpie (sometimes poo). Just a few more square feet and my living room is finished. Then on to the foyer.

That made me chuckle.

And is it an insult when describing a pattern of behavior that always has Kroot predicting the most cynical possible reasons for things? I swear sometimes he keeps a list of these things he thinks is up in his free time (most of which are tied with ringing the doom bell for GW) just so he always has a cynical statement handy.

Hang on, did you read that as insulting. It's not. It's just a bit of fun. Who was it insulting to? I was just being goofy and lampooning both sides.

The "insulting" part was more in reference to Kroot's post. And no I wasn't being "super cereal".

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Idolator wrote:

 Kroothawk wrote:

 pretre wrote:
Or Kroot could just be going off on GW again.

Still angry that I picked a correct rumour from faeit212 while statistically it is practically impossible?
Or is it just your daily "make a personal insult to Kroothawk" routine?

To be fair, though. Who doesn't make daily personal insults to Kroothawk? I know I do.

I don't post them though. I write them on my walls with a sharpie (sometimes poo). Just a few more square feet and my living room is finished. Then on to the foyer.

That made me chuckle.

And is it an insult when describing a pattern of behavior that always has Kroot predicting the most cynical possible reasons for things? I swear sometimes he keeps a list of these things he thinks is up in his free time (most of which are tied with ringing the doom bell for GW) just so he always has a cynical statement handy.

Kroot is entitled to any commentary he pleases. For years he has and he still does us all a service by bringing us rumors. He used to be more objective sure, but can you blame him for being a bit jaded by GW?

I swear it's always the same group sniping others.

 Red Corsair wrote:
Kroot is entitled to any commentary he pleases. For years he has and he still does us all a service by bringing us rumors. He used to be more objective sure, but can you blame him for being a bit jaded by GW?

I swear it's always the same group sniping others.

I prefer the term "playfully ribbing" thank you.

 Red Corsair wrote:
Kroot is entitled to any commentary he pleases. For years he has and he still does us all a service by bringing us rumors. He used to be more objective sure, but can you blame him for being a bit jaded by GW?

I swear it's always the same group sniping others.

We appreciate the job he does, but don't appreciate the relentless cynicism. We have the right to that. In fact, the service he provides is the only reason he hasn't hit the ignore list long before now.

So basically they are going to repackage like they did for 3.5?

There was a reason I didn't play 4th ed and it looks like I may not being playing/buying an "updated" set of rules that is basically going to be FAQ's to the current rules - except you have to pay for them all over again.

 Ratius wrote:

They've also been told to continue selling Dark Vengeance, but once the new BRB drops they have to put a sticker on the box that says the rules inside aren't current.

Any indications DV box will get a reduction in price so?

None whatsoever. Black Reach wasn't reduced when 6th Ed dropped (and was still actively upsold), because "look at all the models you get". The only discount you'll see is on the 2nd hand market or from FLGS's getting rid of stock.

Ma local GW got one of those comissar posters up, no time for peace mother truckas!

 Uriels_Flame wrote:
So basically they are going to repackage like they did for 3.5?

There was a reason I didn't play 4th ed and it looks like I may not being playing/buying an "updated" set of rules that is basically going to be FAQ's to the current rules - except you have to pay for them all over again.

3.5 wasn't a repackage. Unless you mean D&D 3.5.

May not have been a repackage, but I don't remember having to buy a whole new set of rules and them calling it a new edition.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
But this doesn't even sound like that - it sounds like they are making us pay for FAQ's.

 pretre wrote:

 Uriels_Flame wrote:
So basically they are going to repackage like they did for 3.5?

There was a reason I didn't play 4th ed and it looks like I may not being playing/buying an "updated" set of rules that is basically going to be FAQ's to the current rules - except you have to pay for them all over again.

3.5 wasn't a repackage. Unless you mean D&D 3.5.

That's a pointless argument to have fellows. GW doesn't label their printings as different editions, so you'll just be arguing over what you personally want to call them.

 Idolator wrote:

 pretre wrote:

 Uriels_Flame wrote:
So basically they are going to repackage like they did for 3.5?

There was a reason I didn't play 4th ed and it looks like I may not being playing/buying an "updated" set of rules that is basically going to be FAQ's to the current rules - except you have to pay for them all over again.

3.5 wasn't a repackage. Unless you mean D&D 3.5.

That's a pointless argument to have fellows. GW doesn't label their printings as different editions, so you'll just be arguing over what you personally want to call them.

Except 3.5 was a thing. It didn't include a new rulebook, it was purely white dwarf and chapter approved.

And didn't cost $99

 pretre wrote:

Except 3.5 was a thing. It didn't include a new rulebook, it was purely white dwarf and chapter approved.

What exactly was 3.5E, and how was it different from a FAQ?

 pretre wrote:

 Idolator wrote:

 pretre wrote:

 Uriels_Flame wrote:
So basically they are going to repackage like they did for 3.5?

There was a reason I didn't play 4th ed and it looks like I may not being playing/buying an "updated" set of rules that is basically going to be FAQ's to the current rules - except you have to pay for them all over again.

3.5 wasn't a repackage. Unless you mean D&D 3.5.

That's a pointless argument to have fellows. GW doesn't label their printings as different editions, so you'll just be arguing over what you personally want to call them.

Except 3.5 was a thing. It didn't include a new rulebook, it was purely white dwarf and chapter approved.

This. And from what I've been told (and I am always am willing to be wrong) it's basically the same scope as that.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
So, Commissar Badass from what is apparently a White Dwarf Daily in French (because wold elf pieces displayed on the left right page of the second image), heralding MOAR WAAAAAR!
Nice.

Uhh...I don't think that's from a White Dwarf daily(or the weekly print version). It looks like something that came in someone's order, because those are the instructions for building a Treeman as Durthu.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Uhh...I don't think that's from a White Dwarf daily(or the weekly print version). It looks like something that came in someone's order, because those are the instructions for building a Treeman as Durthu.

Ooops, I indeed meant weekly. Are you sure the WDW does not include some pictures of the independent pieces of the treeman kit ? Also it seems to me those pictures include the staff from the ancient treeman.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Uhh...I don't think that's from a White Dwarf daily(or the weekly print version). It looks like something that came in someone's order, because those are the instructions for building a Treeman as Durthu.

Ooops, I indeed meant weekly. Are you sure the WDW does not include some pictures of the independent pieces of the treeman kit ? Also it seems to me those pictures include the staff from the ancient treeman.

None of the kits thus far have been shown off in that detail in the WDW.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Uhh...I don't think that's from a White Dwarf daily(or the weekly print version). It looks like something that came in someone's order, because those are the instructions for building a Treeman as Durthu.

Ooops, I indeed meant weekly. Are you sure the WDW does not include some pictures of the independent pieces of the treeman kit ? Also it seems to me those pictures include the staff from the ancient treeman.

White Dwarf doesn't generally contain pictures of the parts breakdown like that, and if they had it would have been in this past WDW not another issue.

 xttz wrote:

 pretre wrote:

Except 3.5 was a thing. It didn't include a new rulebook, it was purely white dwarf and chapter approved.

What exactly was 3.5E, and how was it different from a FAQ?

From what little I know: mostly an update to the assault rules published in the WD and later the collective Chapter Approved.

Yeah, but AFAIK, no instruction manual for a WFB kit has ever contained teaser material concerning a new edition of 40k either.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Yeah, but AFAIK, no instruction manual for a WFB kit has ever contained teaser material concerning a new edition of 40k either.

It is a bit of an enigma on where it came from, that's for sure. I highly doubt it's a hoax though.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Yeah, but AFAIK, no instruction manual for a WFB kit has ever contained teaser material concerning a new edition of 40k either.

Nobody is saying that the instruction manual contained it...

The Commissar print is a double sided thing. It looks to be a poster, which is something that they have included in mail order boxes before. In order for someone to have had a Treeman kit now(the kit would only just be hitting GW shops either yesterday or today), they probably would have preordered it via GW direct and had it shipped to their home address.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 xttz wrote:

 pretre wrote:

Except 3.5 was a thing. It didn't include a new rulebook, it was purely white dwarf and chapter approved.

What exactly was 3.5E, and how was it different from a FAQ?

From what little I know: mostly an update to the assault rules published in the WD and later the collective Chapter Approved.

I vaguely remember updated vehicle rules too. Mostly I remember that was when "Assault Vehicle" was introduced and you couldn't just charge out of a Rhino.

Here is a link to the facebook page for Liverpool where the image was revealed.
https://www.facebook.com/GWLiverpool

The information below must be taken as rumor, since we just cannot verify that these are from official sources. It looks very much like we will be calling this 6.5. Just to understand where these are coming from, GW managers have been in meetings in the UK, and this is where I am assuming that the information is being spread from. Hard to tell at this moment though, and the next few weeks will show us more of what is coming.

via an source over on Talkwargaming- Thanks for the heads up Zion
The new rulebook is not a 7th edition of the game, but a re-issue of 6th edition which has the FAQs incorporated in it, and some minor tweaks across the board. Some of you may remember when they did something similar during 3rd edition, where they totally overhauled the assault phase, but the edition itself was left alone from that point. Same idea here-- they're folding in the changes in Stronghold Assault into the main rulebook, and quantifying superheavy units and D weapons in the main rules. But that's about it.

via an anonymous source here at Faeit 212
My brother just got in from GW and the manager said the rulebooks were just getting errata tweaks put in them and would be re-released alongside something else. So just a 6.5 rather than a 7th edition

Before we take up the pitchforks and torches, let's wait and see what's being offered here.

I want to see what changes are being offered, if they right some of the wrongs I believe are present in 6th, or really are just doing some minor repackaging and asking another $70 for what are essentially FAQs.

I'm quite happy to tear them a new one online if I think GW's out of order, but lets hear the verdict before we march them to the scaffold eh? One of those factors, for me, will be whether I can obtain that rulebook readily for about $20 as I did with the 6th ed boxed set rules.


So, hold fast and keep calm and let's see what's happening.

All I read was panic. So...





(Kronk is willing to take a wait and see, approach. Besides, my FW Horus Heresy Book 3 Collectors set should ship tomorrow and I will have plenty to read and distract myself soon!)

I'm ready to play a new edition of 40k, I will actually be let down if this rulebook is 90% identical to the current one. Hopefully as the weeks lead up to pre release the white dwarfs will explain roughly what's changing in the game.

Wishful thinking on my part, but there you have it.

And where is this $99 price point I keep seeing coming from? Actual rumors or just cynical speculation?

I say this now, I've been open to the idea of 7th ever since it was first mooted as a rumour, as it would at least be interesting to have a load of different broken from the stuff we currently have.

But if the $ price tag translates as correct and into £ (around £60 at current exchange) I'm pirating it. There is no way I can justify that, and due to the conditions I play under I can't realistically stick with a previous edition.

Not trying to justify it, not wishing to debate the legalities or moralities of it, merely stating my position.