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.

Yeah 'cause God forbid we discuss upcoming products...

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Yeah 'cause God forbid we discuss upcoming products...

Yeah, there's nothing to talk about or speculate on since GW has done such a good job providing us with previews and info......oh wait.

For the love of god please someone leaks something! The wait is killing me :-)

Anyway I think a change (even after just 2 years) is good. No doubt things will still be "broken" but it gives us all something else to work towards. The 6E book will be in my collection (like 2/3/4/5 are even though i only really started with 6th) for years to come. It's a great book and I enjoy all the old books still.

We only have a small community here in Shezhen so any breath of fresh air to rejuvenate the scene is welcome.

Except for the general nerf to CC what was "wrong" with 6th that was to do with the core rules and not with the codexes? I was happy (and i seem to remember many were) that Chaos SM (I am a Chaos player) weren't OP (Drake exempt). Then DA's came out and they weren't OP either. Didn't the problems arise with Eldar / Tau / Daemons and the subsequent allies abuse? Granted it was 6th that brough in allies but it was the codexes that seem to have broken it.

Zanderchief wrote:
For the love of god please someone leaks something! The wait is killing me :-)

Anyway I think a change (even after just 2 years) is good. No doubt things will still be "broken" but it gives us all something else to work towards. The 6E book will be in my collection (like 2/3/4/5 are even though i only really started with 6th) for years to come. It's a great book and I enjoy all the old books still.

We only have a small community here in Shezhen so any breath of fresh air to rejuvenate the scene is welcome.

Except for the general nerf to CC what was "wrong" with 6th that was to do with the core rules and not with the codexes? I was happy (and i seem to remember many were) that Chaos SM (I am a Chaos player) weren't OP (Drake exempt). Then DA's came out and they weren't OP either. Didn't the problems arise with Eldar / Tau / Daemons and the subsequent allies abuse? Granted it was 6th that brough in allies but it was the codexes that seem to have broken it.

Not entirely, people were already upset with CSM and DA. It also helps to know that GK and Necrons were obviously designed with at least part of 6th edition in mind. Allied are a big flaw with 6th edition. Will think of others but for the moment I need to think.

If there is going to be a new rules every two years I think the codexes should be designed with three editions in mind. Considering they can take as long as nine years to be updated.

Longer sometimes.

DE were more like 12 I think.

Yes, DE waited twelve.

 TedNugent wrote:
Why do you have to make a separate book for people to violate the force org. Just make it a special rule for a given SC just like every other Codex used to do (including DA with DW/RW)

If the models already exist, then there's even less reason for a $50 supplement. The fact of the matter is that you can't play an all-Crisis Suit force org without the Farsight supplement, and the question is "Why?"

Well, why SHOULD you, when you get to the bottom of it? Such an option did not exist in the old Codex either, so it was not anything which was removed.

"SC's with special rules" was big thing of 5th edition Space Marine Codex, but many people didn't like it. You couldn't field a Salamander army without Vulkan, making every Salamander army look the same. Also, you couldn't exactly fit a lot of fluff on a book which was meant to describe nearly every chapter. Non-Ultramarines armies came across as bare-bones and cookie-cutter.

I don't see the problem with these supplements, as long as you can play the faction you want with basic codex. For example, you do not need to buy Iyanden supplement to play Iyanden army. You may want to, for the extra fluff & rules. Arguably it's rather overpriced for what it offers, but it's not mandatory. New Imperial Gu...cough, Astra Militarum codex seems to be bit of an exception as some characters were removed, presumably to return in supplements. One hopes this is not sign of how it's handled in the future.

Yeah 'cause God forbid we discuss upcoming products...

We were discussing the news/rumors... until the latter half of this thread devolved into the beginnings of a fan-made 7th ed...

Then again, my argument just turned in on itself as I'm no longer discussing the current thread topic, only justifying my position (thus creating a forum vortex of doom.. to forever randomly suck in comments that have nothing to do with anything on the present topic).

I think that is exactly how it will be handled in the future.

Based on what has been done with the publications of 6th edition, GW aim to make a lot more money from books (and digital books) than in the past.

We can hardly blame them for trying to profit, but as consumers we have to think about the value-for-money in our own terms, and stop buying if it is too expensive.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:
[
That really applies to any playstyle advocacy though, doesn't it. I mean, I'd be happy if GW playtested the rules more thoroughly, took a more careful approach to wording and so on, and I think Escalation was a mistake when they could have gone with a percentage-based Lord of War slot, but MGS' "exclusive not inclusive" concept sounds bloody awful to me, and as soon as you move beyond arguing merely for better written rules and into what the "core" rules should actually permit by default, it all boils down to "I like my game this way, so feth the rest of you" regardless of what direction you're coming from.

I don't like olives. I don't much care for raw onion.

I'm in a restaurant and I order a meal that comes with a complimentary salad as part of the main course.

Option 1 is that I am presented with a salad premixed with many ingredients, added to my plate. 'I don't like olives or bits of onion', I tell the waiter, 'well you can pick them out of it as you go' he replies. I spend tedious time picking out the bits that I don't like from my salad, having to sift through it to remove what I don't like and making sure it's fully removed. This is the inclusive option.

Option 2 is that I am given access to the salad bar with all those same ingredients and can pick and choose what I like, leaving out the olives and onion and adding extra bits of what I want, leaving me entirely satisfied with my own informed choices. This is exclusive, I can add back in as I wish, the same core meal is present for both options, but the salad is what I make it, what I want it to be.

Spurious analogy. Your salad does not have its own opinion about what should be included in it, you are the only one making a decision in scenario two, so you can present it as being a neutral option when it evidently is not in the context of 40K. In that context, the inclusive option makes your experience worse, because you have to persuade your opponent to leave things you dislike out, while the exclusive option makes my experience worse, since I have to persuade my opponent to allow things they dislike. I've spent years having to play four turns of "UN Negotiator 40,000, In the grim darkness of the far future, there is only pedantry" before every bloody game to include my Forgeworld stuff, I don't fancy having to do the same thing with every other bloody part of my army as well.

I don't begrudge anyone their different opinion, but it must be acknowledged that it's exactly that, not objective or neutral analysis.

Backfire wrote:
"SC's with special rules" was big thing of 5th edition Space Marine Codex, but many people didn't like it. You couldn't field a Salamander army without Vulkan, ...

I don't see the problem with these supplements, as long as you can play the faction you want with basic codex. For example, you do not need to buy Iyanden supplement to play Iyanden army.

One of these statements, it would seem, does not belong...

What's the difference between not buying a supplement and playing your standard Eldar as Iyanden, and not fielding Vulkan and playing your standard Space Marines as Salamanders?

 Ascalam wrote:
Longer sometimes.

DE were more like 12 I think.

Yes. But that was the time of 2 Codexes per year. Many of the yet-to-be updated 5th Edition books also come with an additional time-bagged due to that.

If they can keep up the 5-6 Codexes a year shedule they started last year, we should be back to CSM and Dark Angels in late 2015, making it a 3-year turn-around max.

As some people noted, more Codexes were released/updated in 6th than in either 4th or 5th. So if you "count time" by the number of releases that fall into each edition, 6th is actually the most populated so far.

 Zweischneid wrote:
Yes. But that was the time of 2 Codexes per year.

And yet most other codexes were updated twice while DE were waiting for their update...

If they can keep up the 5-6 Codexes a year shedule they started last year, ....

Past history says that they are unlikely to do so.

And the state of the current codexes suggests that it might be better if they didn't, unless they make some serious culture changes in the studio.

For me, the core rules should be bigger, very well balanced, and contain all the basic rules for playing every army (which will encourage people to buy more minis IMO).

Then add codices that are mostly fluff and lavish pics, but with Formations and/or other cool/fun/fluffy rules add-ons. Which are also balanced, please.

I really enjoy narrative forgery -- in fact I'm off to a big friendly 40K sesh with about 15 players playing interactive battles as a big campaign. But I know it's going to be a nightmare, because the rules are imbalanced, so the forces are imbalanced, so it's pretty much impossible for us to set up the ground rules for our forged narration in such a way that everyone is guaranteed to have fun in their forgery.

I enjoy tournaments, too, but haven't played any since 6th came out, yet, because again, where do you start?!?

 Kilkrazy wrote:
If there is going to be a new rules every two years I think the codexes should be designed with three editions in mind. Considering they can take as long as nine years to be updated.

Codexes should be binned in their entirety given that they one of the biggest sources of imbalance (and customer dissatisfaction). A single book with complete rules for every current army and unit that acts as a base line for which ever edition it is designed for. This could be supplemented with periodic 'campaign' books with variant lists and the like. From a gaming point of view this would be much preferable, of course this would stop GW from reaping its huge mark up on its 'high quality' publications.

 insaniak wrote:

And yet most other codexes were updated twice while DE were waiting for their update...

Than you should be among the people rejoicing at how GW changed their release schedule these days, abandoning the lazy and incoherent ways of the Rick Priestley & Alessio Cavatore times, no?

 insaniak wrote:

Past history says that they are unlikely to do so.

And the state of the current codexes suggests that it might be better if they didn't, unless they make some serious culture changes in the studio.

Cake and eat it too.

 Ian Sturrock wrote:
For me, the core rules should be bigger, very well balanced, and contain all the basic rules for playing every army (which will encourage people to buy more minis IMO).

Then add codices that are mostly fluff and lavish pics, but with Formations and/or other cool/fun/fluffy rules add-ons. Which are also balanced, please.

I really enjoy narrative forgery -- in fact I'm off to a big friendly 40K sesh with about 15 players playing interactive battles as a big campaign. But I know it's going to be a nightmare, because the rules are imbalanced, so the forces are imbalanced, so it's pretty much impossible for us to set up the ground rules for our forged narration in such a way that everyone is guaranteed to have fun in their forgery.

I enjoy tournaments, too, but haven't played any since 6th came out, yet, because again, where do you start?!?

You and Palindrome both have a good idea about putting the core armies in the main rulebook, and releasing optional add-ons. Though for me, I would like to see fluff/pic books and separate "formation" or variant list books. Just because I am not so interested in fluff and pics.

If you want a good narrative campaign, the best way is to have one or more umpires to handle strategic movement and so on. They can behind the scenes re-balance things if they get out of kilter due to the game's built-in lack of balance, or because one side is too successful too quickly.

I don't think there's much worth in speculating about the idea of dropping individual codexes in favour of a BRB with all the core army lists in, given that:

1) that'd be a huge drop in revenue, at least in the short term

2) GW are doing the opposite at the moment with multiple books per core army rerelease

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Ian Sturrock wrote:
For me, the core rules should be bigger, very well balanced, and contain all the basic rules for playing every army (which will encourage people to buy more minis IMO).

Then add codices that are mostly fluff and lavish pics, but with Formations and/or other cool/fun/fluffy rules add-ons. Which are also balanced, please.

I really enjoy narrative forgery -- in fact I'm off to a big friendly 40K sesh with about 15 players playing interactive battles as a big campaign. But I know it's going to be a nightmare, because the rules are imbalanced, so the forces are imbalanced, so it's pretty much impossible for us to set up the ground rules for our forged narration in such a way that everyone is guaranteed to have fun in their forgery.

I enjoy tournaments, too, but haven't played any since 6th came out, yet, because again, where do you start?!?

You and Palindrome both have a good idea about putting the core armies in the main rulebook, and releasing optional add-ons. Though for me, I would like to see fluff/pic books and separate "formation" or variant list books. Just because I am not so interested in fluff and pics.

If you want a good narrative campaign, the best way is to have one or more umpires to handle strategic movement and so on. They can behind the scenes re-balance things if they get out of kilter due to the game's built-in lack of balance, or because one side is too successful too quickly.

I think 40k is too big now to be including units / armylists with the main BRB. There's already tons of content inside without duplicating more (which would inevitably be superseded and invalidated by new codexes).

What GW should really look into next is biting the bullet and simply split the 40k rule set into two editions:

A proper set of skirmish rules intended for 250-1000pt games. It would be a smaller rulebook (slightly above codex-sized) with the core game rules, background for all main races, and a basic army list for each.
This would function as the ideal introduction to 40k, as everything would be in one place and no codex would be required. It acts as a taster to get new players building up a collection without needing to sprint all the way to 1000pts+ to be playable.

The usual proper BRB with all the advanced rules such as vehicles, terrain and Lords of War. That is intended to be used alongside a codex for games of 1000pts upward, by players with established collections.

They could also quite easily do discounted starter kits comprised of the standard skirmish edition rulebook, dice, templates plus some choice basic units like Tac Squads, Guardsmen or Gaunts. Because these are comprised entirely of existing products, the only investment needed is in the new packaging, meaning GW can release several different skirmish level starter kits with little overhead (unlike sets like DV or AoBR).

 Zweischneid wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

And yet most other codexes were updated twice while DE were waiting for their update...

Than you should be among the people rejoicing at how GW changed their release schedule these days, abandoning the lazy and incoherent ways of the Rick Priestley & Alessio Cavatore times, no?

To be replaced with rushed, lazy and incoherent ways?

I'd rather they came out a bit slower (like every 6/8 weeks) if it meant that they were proofread and playtested beforehand.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Palindrome wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
If there is going to be a new rules every two years I think the codexes should be designed with three editions in mind. Considering they can take as long as nine years to be updated.

Codexes should be binned in their entirety given that they one of the biggest sources of imbalance (and customer dissatisfaction). A single book with complete rules for every current army and unit that acts as a base line for which ever edition it is designed for. This could be supplemented with periodic 'campaign' books with variant lists and the like. From a gaming point of view this would be much preferable, of course this would stop GW from reaping its huge mark up on its 'high quality' publications.

I don't think they should roll into the BRB, but they could easily do campaign books which include different lists for all armies in that campaign. So you might have one where all terminator armies are allowed, and another campaign that's more tactical squad biased. Each book would be balanced with itself, but you'd have near endless scope for introducing other books.

 Palindrome wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
If there is going to be a new rules every two years I think the codexes should be designed with three editions in mind. Considering they can take as long as nine years to be updated.

Codexes should be binned in their entirety given that they one of the biggest sources of imbalance (and customer dissatisfaction). A single book with complete rules for every current army and unit that acts as a base line for which ever edition it is designed for. This could be supplemented with periodic 'campaign' books with variant lists and the like. From a gaming point of view this would be much preferable, of course this would stop GW from reaping its huge mark up on its 'high quality' publications.

This would also give them reasons to have the digital supplements without it feeling like a blatant cash grab or first day DLC. Your supplements either expand on certain forces (e.g. different SM chapters) or are like FW's campaign books detailing a historical conflict with extras for that campaign and maybe even campaign/narrative rules to play it out (e.g. Armageddon #3) but the basics are all contained in a single, balanced "Black Codex" like we had in the olden days.

Of course this is assuming appropriately-priced supplements. Have like a Supplement: Veterans of the Adeptus Astartes that lets you field an entire 1st Company army (and include a section that has like special rules for the Deathwing) as an option, with the "Black Codex" rules representing a Battle Company only. Then you have one for like a fast assault army that is basically the current White Scars kind of all biker army that's given to everybody (with special rules for Ravenwing).

 Palindrome wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
If there is going to be a new rules every two years I think the codexes should be designed with three editions in mind. Considering they can take as long as nine years to be updated.

Codexes should be binned in their entirety given that they one of the biggest sources of imbalance (and customer dissatisfaction). A single book with complete rules for every current army and unit that acts as a base line for which ever edition it is designed for. This could be supplemented with periodic 'campaign' books with variant lists and the like. From a gaming point of view this would be much preferable, of course this would stop GW from reaping its huge mark up on its 'high quality' publications.

And the people would complain it was a cash grab from GW couch them to buy all the rules when all they want is the core rules and one codex, and what about releases? You couldn't add more rules unless they come with the mini, in which case many people would complain they could only get the rules if they by the mini. I'm not saying that there is no merit in the idea or that the current way works, only that I don't think there is any way GW can do it right for everyone, or even the majority ofpeople.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
If there is going to be a new rules every two years I think the codexes should be designed with three editions in mind. Considering they can take as long as nine years to be updated.

We don't know. In the Lord of the Rings forums, we all thought paying $100 for The Hobbit was crazy since a new rule book would be coming out and a lot of people just quit LotR/The Hobbit because of it. (1/2 minis which equate to a 33% price increase didn't help much either). So we all assumed this would happen and it never did. Now if only GW would have explained and reached to their fans/buyer base and said this was not the case, that supplements would be only needed after the initial $100 purchase.

So with GW, who knows what is going on. It bit GW on the ass with The Hobbit, will see now if it bites them on the cheek with 40K now.

*edit* Just woke up, sorry I read your post wrong. I thought you asked if it was going to be every 2 years for a rules release. Need my coffee now.

 Steve steveson wrote:

 Palindrome wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
If there is going to be a new rules every two years I think the codexes should be designed with three editions in mind. Considering they can take as long as nine years to be updated.

Codexes should be binned in their entirety given that they one of the biggest sources of imbalance (and customer dissatisfaction). A single book with complete rules for every current army and unit that acts as a base line for which ever edition it is designed for. This could be supplemented with periodic 'campaign' books with variant lists and the like. From a gaming point of view this would be much preferable, of course this would stop GW from reaping its huge mark up on its 'high quality' publications.

And the people would complain it was a cash grab from GW couch them to buy all the rules when all they want is the core rules and one codex, and what about releases? You couldn't add more rules unless they come with the mini, in which case many people would complain they could only get the rules if they by the mini. I'm not saying that there is no merit in the idea or that the current way works, only that I don't think there is any way GW can do it right for everyone, or even the majority ofpeople.

Rules for minis online for free in an army builder that only requires you to have an account on the GW website to use.

New models can be released and added to it at any time so no more waiting years for a new codex.

While they are at it rules online for free, buy the books if you want the art and fluff.

Customers are happy they can now pay less and get releases at a decent pace without being rushed either. GW is happy because people are going to their webstore and buying models.

It's a method that has helped Infinity double in size in the past 3 years or so, it can definitely work for GW if they would just accept that less cash up front but much more sales later is a good business strategy.


Seriously the idea of paying for anything more than a core rulebook is simply outdated.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
If there is going to be a new rules every two years I think the codexes should be designed with three editions in mind. Considering they can take as long as nine years to be updated.

I honestly think codexes are designed more for the edition they're in and the edition is designed with the last codexes in mind, not the reverse.

All I hope we get in 7th

Charges are D6+majority init"
Assault out of transport if it moved less than 6"
Assault out of reserve
No Battle Brothers
Max of 2 codices and 1 supplement per list
No invulns can improve beyond 3+
Str D becomes Str 10, AP1, reroll any save
Ignore cover = reduce cover by 2
Remove first blood
purchased fortification placement goes AFTER battlefield terrain setup

Pie in the sky, they won't do it, but I wish they would

Tweak weak units
Improve bolters to be assault 2 and storm bolters to assault 3
Get rid of AV and convert every vehicle to Toughness, Wounds, etc. Give all vehicles move through cover and eternal warrior
TDA +1 T
Let fast skimmer transports unload troops after a 12" move
Giver power weapons rending
Reduce DS scatter to d6"
Let players choose Warlord traits

Radical, no way, but would make a great game wish list stuff

You go/I go (so I move my models, you move your models... I shoot my guns, you shoot yours... remove casualties for both sides... I charge, you charge... fight assaults... rinse, repeat, but next turn its you go, I go... initiative winner decides who goes first the first turn)
High Str weapons can do multiple wounds
Half your reserves come in turn 2, half turn 3 (every delay +1, pushes a unit back a turn, every +1 to bringing in advances a unit a turn)

Oh my god. The teaser trailer. Not even worth posting a link too.

Argh. If anything, this teaser trailer got me so uninterested now, I just don't care now. Was really excited for it, but now?

Honestly I am perfectly happy with most of 6th edition now that I realized that A. The missions were the problem and B. I was a terrible player/was trying to win with gakky lists. Daemons, Wave serpents, deathstars etc, really not bad once I learned to play against them and still had fun.

However what I would like is a re-tooling of psychic powers so the other lores outside divination and telepathy are worth even looking at as well as a tightening up of the language. I dont care if they decide to go against my view of the rules. I just want things to be clear. Like the infiltrating characters, or the wounds/armor issues on vehicles.

Davor wrote:
Oh my god. The teaser trailer. Not even worth posting a link too.

Argh. If anything, this teaser trailer got me so uninterested now, I just don't care now. Was really excited for it, but now?

I prefer being less of a tease about things: