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.

I've been kinda mulling this one over because I'm more upset with GW's business model than the game itself.

I feel like the only "winning" situation GW can pull from this, for me, is a repackaged book with minor changes put into print for those that want them. Digital editions get free updates and a massive FAQ dump is engaged.

I will be happy with that, but not elated. It's been too long for FAQs and I won't simply forget what happened to get us there.

However, looking at the business context, Games Workshop has to be wanting to sell us something. The last month of their fiscal year, sales down, a poor midyear report... something big has to entice us. A new book with just FAQ style updates wouldn't make many folks go out and plop down $99 USDs.

So it's probably something a bit more "not in my cornbread" style of release, something we didn't really ask for. And at a higher price.

I'm just skimming and floating with the rules changes. I really don't care how they tell us to play the game, just as if their is a concise clarity to their design choices. As long as it's clearly in black and white on the page, then there can be little dispute over it. You may not like it, but there's a finality to a hard answer that's pleasing. I just don't want to pay for it after buying two rulebooks for 6E already.

tag8833 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
-Escalation and Stronghold Assault rules are in, but profiles are not (and they were added to try and balance the Riptide and Wraithknight, paticulalry for Imperial Armies who don't have a lot of tools to

That is a bunch of BS. If GW wanted to address the OP nature of Riptides and Wraith Knights, they would just FAQ them.

If they added Escalation and Stronghold Assault, it is to sell big expensive models, not to balance anything.

Please show me the last FAQ that nerfed an overpowered unit to the point that it was at best balanced.

Please.

... I'm waiting.

rasias wrote:

 Idolator wrote:

rasias wrote:
Hey, I just recently got back into 40k (I used to play 4th edition) and i've started following these rumors, as i need a ruelbook soon
I've a question for you guys: It seems that many aren't really happy () with the rules.. so why don't you just houserule/create rules as a community? Is there anything (copyright or sth) that prevents you from writing + publishing rules online (non-commercia ofc)?
It's not like you're forced to play by the rules GW makes.. except for maybe tournaments, but a tournament organizer could have the same view anyways.

A rabid legal team based in Nottingham and a company head that stated that they weren't afraid to use them to intimidate. In the investors annual report, no less.

well.. then you wouldn't publish it online, but it wouldn't stop anyone of applying smaller rule changes that are discussed on forums anyways, does it?

Yeah, nothing stops that. Tourney guys do it all the time. For now! (cue ominous music)

rasias wrote:

 Idolator wrote:

rasias wrote:
Hey, I just recently got back into 40k (I used to play 4th edition) and i've started following these rumors, as i need a ruelbook soon
I've a question for you guys: It seems that many aren't really happy () with the rules.. so why don't you just houserule/create rules as a community? Is there anything (copyright or sth) that prevents you from writing + publishing rules online (non-commercia ofc)?
It's not like you're forced to play by the rules GW makes.. except for maybe tournaments, but a tournament organizer could have the same view anyways.

A rabid legal team based in Nottingham and a company head that stated that they weren't afraid to use them to intimidate. In the investors annual report, no less.

well.. then you wouldn't publish it online, but it wouldn't stop anyone of applying smaller rule changes that are discussed on forums anyways, does it?

Nothing at all, my group has been playing a version of 2nd edition that allows us to include the latest toys since 5th edition came out, and looking around the web that seems quite a common thing.

 timetowaste85 wrote:
Blah, I like the idea of percentages. Oh well, GW can keep not getting my money. Then again, it sounds like the vocal majority on here doesn't want percentages, so just based on Dakka they're making the right call. Just wish there was a way to make everyone happy.

If GW was a "proper" hobby company, they could release a small supplement showing how to use percentages to calculate a force organisation. It shouldn't be more than one page of A4, unless they decided to do different percentages for each codex, which I think is how it ought to be done. Then you could use it as an optional rule.

The opposition to percentages is not based on spiteful prejudice. A lot of it is based on well-founded fears that it would not work, due to a number of reasons including GW's incapacity.

Personally, I'm not in favor of percentages. From what I've seen, it won't really affect the majority of my lists all that much, but I just think the change would introduce more complexity into the list-building process without really doing anything to address the problems it's intended to fix.

 -Loki- wrote:

tag8833 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
-Escalation and Stronghold Assault rules are in, but profiles are not (and they were added to try and balance the Riptide and Wraithknight, paticulalry for Imperial Armies who don't have a lot of tools to

That is a bunch of BS. If GW wanted to address the OP nature of Riptides and Wraith Knights, they would just FAQ them.

If they added Escalation and Stronghold Assault, it is to sell big expensive models, not to balance anything.

Please show me the last FAQ that nerfed an overpowered unit to the point that it was at best balanced.

Please.

... I'm waiting.

You could have just stopped at the underlined part, GW hasn't FAQ'd anything for ages.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jimsolo wrote:
Personally, I'm not in favor of percentages. From what I've seen, it won't really affect the majority of my lists all that much, but I just think the change would introduce more complexity into the list-building process without really doing anything to address the problems it's intended to fix.

Yeah, coz maths is hard and stuff

40k is already one of the most convoluted sets of rules going around, adding percentages to the mix barely even registers on the "complexity" scale of 40k.

The main reason I want percentages isn't to limit existing armies but rather to allow more options for horde armies who have lots of cheap non-troops but can only take a few of them because we're limited to a number of selections rather than proportions of an army.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
While not impossible I really don't know. We can basically rule out Sisters and anything Chaos in the future because both just are too likely to set off the Soccer Moms and from what I understand there is a very solid desire by GW to push more into the toy store demographic again (like they did for LotR). I don't know how fast they plan to do this, but I assume they still want to avoid angering soccer moms who have nothing better to do with their time than be offended.

EDIT: Yes I know we just got Chaos but things change and apparently GW is finally looking at a wider market again from what I've heard so we're looking at them getting more PC about how they push themselves.

Okay, what the hell are you talking about? What are those “soccer moms”, why would they be offended by Sisters, and how could we get rid of them?

It wouldn't fix anything. It would just add yet another step to the process.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
While not impossible I really don't know. We can basically rule out Sisters and anything Chaos in the future because both just are too likely to set off the Soccer Moms and from what I understand there is a very solid desire by GW to push more into the toy store demographic again (like they did for LotR). I don't know how fast they plan to do this, but I assume they still want to avoid angering soccer moms who have nothing better to do with their time than be offended.

EDIT: Yes I know we just got Chaos but things change and apparently GW is finally looking at a wider market again from what I've heard so we're looking at them getting more PC about how they push themselves.

Okay, what the hell are you talking about? What are those “soccer moms”, why would they be offended by Sisters, and how could we get rid of them?

The very un-subtle religious motif, for one. Also, "old people" America still has a "thing" about chicks as soldiers, imo. Mainstream 'Murica doesn't like the idea of women getting ripped in half and blown up. It's cool when it happens to guys though.

I still have no idea what “soccer moms” means, and why they would be offended by Sisters. Also, would they be offended by goddam Joan of Arc too ?

40K is actually a simple set of rules, complicated mainly by the rampant growth of overlapping special rules. The core concepts, however, are simple, with a few bits of bad, counter-intuitive design to make them more difficult than they ought to be.

40K is actually a simple set of rules, complicated mainly by the rampant growth of overlapping special rules.

Agreed. A consolidated rulebook (and maybe a few FAQ's) would help streamline it all under 6th.

with a few bits of bad, counter-intuitive design to make them more difficult than they ought to be.

I'm still getting used to 6th ed rules, can you elaborate on this?

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
I still have no idea what “soccer moms” means, and why they would be offended by Sisters. Also, would they be offended by goddam Joan of Arc too ?

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=soccer+mom

 Grimtuff wrote:
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=soccer+mom

Seems a pretty unpleasant bunch. Are they really so many that they would influence business decisions (from GW or any other company) ?
Also a bit confused as how those would want something with “There is only war” as a slogan.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
40K is actually a simple set of rules, complicated mainly by the rampant growth of overlapping special rules. The core concepts, however, are simple, with a few bits of bad, counter-intuitive design to make them more difficult than they ought to be.

Can't agree more. I had to do a special sheet for all the various USRs that each unit I use has. It's awfull. I wonder, if it would just be possible to give them simple upgrades like +1 BS or whatever instead of some convoluted "when regrouping after retreating unit auto-hits with half of their shots on a successfull LD check when shooting infantry squads of up to twice the size of the unit"-horror.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

-Escalation and Stronghold Assault rules are in, but profiles are not (and they were added to try and balance the Riptide and Wraithknight, paticulalry for Imperial Armies who don't have a lot of tools to shut them down fast enough) .

Wait, so apparently GW came up with escalation so imperials could deal with Riptides and Wraithknights but then gave Taudar the Revenant Titan???

That only makes sense if your GW I guess.

 Kosake wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
40K is actually a simple set of rules, complicated mainly by the rampant growth of overlapping special rules. The core concepts, however, are simple, with a few bits of bad, counter-intuitive design to make them more difficult than they ought to be.

Can't agree more. I had to do a special sheet for all the various USRs that each unit I use has. It's awfull. I wonder, if it would just be possible to give them simple upgrades like +1 BS or whatever instead of some convoluted "when regrouping after retreating unit auto-hits with half of their shots on a successfull LD check when shooting infantry squads of up to twice the size of the unit"-horror.

Definitely, or special rules that reference other special rules that do something simple. Ability X gives troops the Y special rule, which just means an extra D6 on counterattack, instead of making the special rule "+1D6 on counterattack".

Or the various "Fleet of ____" rules, instead of just "Fleet".

I guess it's all about flavour, but when you need to make up cheat sheets then you've gone too far. I made cards up for all of my units with the stats and what the special rules meant, and I ran vanilla guard with a couple of characters, Orgyns and Ratlings; it must be hell if you've got something fancy.

I dunno, the whole 'lets take the worst aspect of fantasy' (core tax) and worst of 40k (strD OPness) and put them in one! I've been going off 40k 6E for a while now but this is putting the final nails in the coffin. if it turns out to be accurate it probably will be the final nail.

Herzlos wrote:


Definitely, or special rules that reference other special rules that do something simple. Ability X gives troops the Y special rule, which just means an extra D6 on counterattack, instead of making the special rule "+1D6 on counterattack".

Or the various "Fleet of ____" rules, instead of just "Fleet".

I guess it's all about flavour, but when you need to make up cheat sheets then you've gone too far. I made cards up for all of my units with the stats and what the special rules meant, and I ran vanilla guard with a couple of characters, Orgyns and Ratlings; it must be hell if you've got something fancy.

Just Khornate Deamons. But when literally every rule sounds along the lines of: Bloodlust, Rampage, Fury, Hatred, Rage, Wrath - and references other, similar sounding USRs - it becomes a huge pain. Add a halfdozen of random-roll tables (3x chaos boons, warp storm, 3xpsy disciplines [well, not for khornates but still], warlord traits and so on, and playing without any USRs on any unit suddenly becomes that much more inviting.

 timetowaste85 wrote:
Blah, I like the idea of percentages. Oh well, GW can keep not getting my money. Then again, it sounds like the vocal majority on here doesn't want percentages, so just based on Dakka they're making the right call. Just wish there was a way to make everyone happy.

Having worked in corporate process improvement for many years, I can tell you that vocal minorities complaining about things usually reflect unhappy or apathetic majorities also not happy about the same issues.

Complaints are free feedback, resolving them and implementing real process improvement from them leads to a healthier business. The one person who feels compelled and annoyed enough to complain often represents a multitude of people also not happy but not bothered to tell you, they are far more dangerous as they'll often just abandon ship without warning.

A smart company listens very closely to complaints, it runs trend analysis to identify the root causes of these complaints and it implements process improvement to fix those root causes.

If the 'vocal minority' are voicing on Dakka that they don't like something, it's highly likely the silent majority feels similarly about it. This can be said of most of the gripes about the gaming companies that you hear voiced by several different, unrelated customers on this forum.

Tip of the iceberg.

Well said.

Unfortunately how much of that demographic is kids and young adults in the process without a voice or the ability to intellectually articulate their concerns for the game?

 snowman40k wrote:

40K is actually a simple set of rules, complicated mainly by the rampant growth of overlapping special rules.

Agreed. A consolidated rulebook (and maybe a few FAQ's) would help streamline it all under 6th.

with a few bits of bad, counter-intuitive design to make them more difficult than they ought to be.

I'm still getting used to 6th ed rules, can you elaborate on this?

For example, in most cases, like "to hit" you want a high stat and a high roll.

However if rolling for Leadership or scatter, you want a high stat and low roll. If rolling to save, you want a low stat (Sv) and a high roll. Your enemy wanted a high stat (BS and a low stat AP) in attacking you.

There you have three different and opposite mechanisms in the absolutely core dice rolling rules.

I won't go into LoS or allocating wounds, as I still don't fully understand them after playing for nearly 10 years.

These are fundamental parts of the rules, which get further modified by various special rules such as Markerlights, twin-linking, BS above 6, psychic powers, Interceptor, and so on.

Or you can just hire someone to visit GW stores for a year or so and write a report that you'll then ignore; that's much better than real market research.

Scary thing. They're actually doing this.

via 40k Radio on Facebook
Ok, it seems a nasty rumor is making its way around the interwebs. Many forums are saying 40k 7th is switching over to % based lists. We are here to 100% confirm that is not happening.

We have always told you guys the truth about everything in the past 12 months. Our source has been spot on with everything from release schedules to what each army will have.

So please rest easy knowing that force org will still be in the game.

These are facts, not rumors from your trusted source for insider 40k news, not rumors.

I believe them over any other rumors now, they have been the most accurate

 Kilkrazy wrote:


For example, in most cases, like "to hit" you want a high stat and a high roll.

However if rolling for Leadership or scatter, you want a high stat and low roll. If rolling to save, you want a low stat (Sv) and a high roll. Your enemy wanted a high stat (BS and a low stat AP) in attacking you.

There you have three different and opposite mechanisms in the absolutely core dice rolling rules.

I won't go into LoS or allocating wounds, as I still don't fully understand them after playing for nearly 10 years.

These are fundamental parts of the rules, which get further modified by various special rules such as Markerlights, twin-linking, BS above 6, psychic powers, Interceptor, and so on.

Some of these problems can be missed by those who've been playing GW game for any period of time, but trying to explain the mechanics to a [potentially] new player shines a bright light on them. From that perpective, that the core sequence of hitting, wounding, saving and testing morale all use different dice mechanics is utterly baffling.

When whispers of a new edition were first reported, I hoped that 6th would turn out to be a planned stopgap to allow the studio time to update all of the codexes. Once all the legacy books were gone 7th could be released to tighten everything up and everyone writing be happy. However, attributing that much forethought to the same studio responsible for all the hastily designed and written codexes and supplements released in the past couple years should be too Pollyanna for even the most ardent GW defenders.

 spectreoneone wrote:

Is it too much of a stretch to possibly predict that the rumored starter set could possibly be Orks and IG (ahem, sorry, Astra Militarum)? Think about it...Commisar on the poster, that new Armageddon strategy game...GW could make a lot of money with an Armageddon starter set with plastic steel legion...

Mmm, that would be a dream come true. However, I can't imagine a starter set with those two armies, it would take far too many models to be economical. The shear number of Guardsmen and Boys would have to be huge. On the other hand, I would totally buy it.

Thanks,
Duncan

Not really, it might actually give you a balanced game with 20-30 minis per side.

 vadersson wrote:

 spectreoneone wrote:

Is it too much of a stretch to possibly predict that the rumored starter set could possibly be Orks and IG (ahem, sorry, Astra Militarum)? Think about it...Commisar on the poster, that new Armageddon strategy game...GW could make a lot of money with an Armageddon starter set with plastic steel legion...

Mmm, that would be a dream come true. However, I can't imagine a starter set with those two armies, it would take far too many models to be economical. The shear number of Guardsmen and Boys would have to be huge. On the other hand, I would totally buy it.

Surely from GW's perspective it's better to give people lots of models with a low points value in the starter set? If you can make half an army with the starter set, you're cutting into your potential sales harder than you would if the starter set only had a quarter of an army?

I find the idea of a new plastic regiment in the starter set to be very unlikely though. They don't want to start people off with an army they can't complete by buying the plastic model kits they sell. A smarter move might be to have new catachan sculpts in the starter set.