7th Edition 40k: Not 6.5


Of course with rumors of a new edition, I just had to see if there was anything else we could learn. The response is looking fantastic, and much more than I thought a new edition might be.

I had a whole article written on my thoughts of what a new edition might be when this arrived. Yea, a lot of what I was thinking was incorrect. This looks like it will be an edition to bring the rules together, making them all work with each other, and setting the frame work for moving forward.

Please remember that these are rumors.

via an anonymous source on Faeit 212 (solid source)
The next edition of 40k will be called 7th, not 6.5 when it drops, but as far as rules go it will be less of a jump than 5th to 6th. 

The key areas being updated:
Interceptor, sky fire, fortifications, lords of war, allies and data slates. 

As for its release it'll probably be September not "the summer."

It's not finished yet, still being tested so anything can happen. 

The thought behind this edition is to make the game less alpha strike explosive and more "competitive" at all points values (even when including Lords of War), but D weapons outside of apocalypse may see alternate rules. 

ps
Pistols in close combat in 7th


Post a Comment

109 Comments

  1. 6th edition is great, has more content than any before it, and will have all the codices updated in no time. Rather than just add Supplements, FAQ's, and dataslates to keep it going and give everyone a little something...let's reboot it in less than 3 years after release????

    What the...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. could be (and i personally think this is why) that the reason they are moving to 7th ed is that currently, they can not produce what they what to produce for the game under the games current rules. Combine that with the big issues that are now prevalent in the 6th ed rules (despite it being overall pretty good), and the design team at GW get the perfect excuse to update all the rules.
      Personally i think this is a good thing as there are parts of 6th ed that just don't work anymore.

      Delete
    2. What parts are people saying do not work in the current incarnation of the book?

      Delete
    3. Come on, I was so happy that 6th was gonna be around for awhile. After third I stopped playing, not painting because the 4,5,6 rules kept changing so fast when 6th came out and GW said this would be it for years I got right in and was surprised at how happy I was with the new edition, FAQs have been minimal, but this last 6months are reminding me of what happened to third edition which had a long run and was well liked. Remember it was followed by 4,5 ed which seemed to be trying to applease the tourney players...

      Delete
    4. Exactly
      People dont like ever changeing rules that in this case would probably make all or most 6th dexes and peoples Investment obsolete.

      GW might need a new ED sooner than later to drive sales. But they are also driving people out of the Hobby every Time they make peoples armys unplayable.

      This Not a good sign for the Hobby.
      GW just releases the Mini BRB a few months back. The Hobby should Not be about buying mandatory Books every other month.

      Delete
    5. All they need to do to make the game less Alpha-Strikey is change it to alternating turns.

      Delete
    6. I bought the AOBR set to get started in 40K not too long before 6th edition dropped. I'm glad I haven't yet bought the 6th ed. rulebook. And now I will be waiting to see how the new Ork codex and these rumors pan out.

      Delete
    7. you might as well wait to buy 8th ed book if you haven't bought 6th yet, even the mini one is cheap on ebay.

      Delete
    8. @herpguy Yes that would be awesome and make the game more fun rather than "I pummel you, you pummel me." you'd have a lot of bait and switch, act, react.

      Delete
  2. very happy about this... feel it is needed as large hole's are showing in the current 6th ed rules. Now if they just brought out Vespid with duel neutron pistols i will be over the moon.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Could be cool. Lets just hope they don't pull the carnifex treatment on fliers. I don't run flier/anti air, so I want that, but the Internet butt hurt levels will skyrocket if they do

    ReplyDelete
  4. Not sure I really buy this rumor. Of course it WOULD explain the lack of meaningful FAQs in the last six months

    ReplyDelete
  5. To be honest I like the sound of this, I'd prefer fantasy 9th edition as I love fantasy, but an edition that is effectively 6.5 in 7th clothing would be good, help balance things out a bit with the new inclusions but keep the core of 6th which I like allot.

    It won't happen as they want to keep people's options open, which is fair enough, but I think it might work if you limit lords of war and mega fortifications to be taken with secondary detachments only.

    ReplyDelete
  6. will be interested to see how this one develops over the coming months.

    What I'd love to know is whether or not dark vengeance gets a repack with the new rules or if a new starter set comes out with the new minibook.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AoBR wasn't updated in the months after 6th ed brb, they waited till dark vengeance to release mini-rules(something like 3 months later IIRC). I doubt 7th would be any different.

      Delete
  7. I don't see this happening. GW doesn't see this as a competitive game. I also have a hard time believing that they would release lords of war if they knew they were flawed and "fix" them in a new edition next year. I'm also not sure of a new edition being released only two years later. Don't get me wrong, 40k does need several tweaks in balance, but I don't see them revising the whole edition so soon.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Yeah I take this with a huge grain of salt. The production process on these games is about a year, meaning they would have had to start developing it a year after 6th released.

    But with the speed with which they're releasing codexes I wouldn't be shocked if the rules were able to come together more quickly either. Especially if its more of compilation than a big jump in rules.

    If its true, I hope they change assault to make it viable with my tyranids coming next month.

    Keep in mind, this kinda happened between 4th and 5th edition- I remember getting the 4th ed rules and then getting 5th not 2 years later in 2008.

    Bummed about fantasy though, would love to see what 9th ed does to monsters and the magic phase.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 4th ed came out in 2004 though, so it was 4 years, then another 4 for 5th edition

      Delete
    2. Yup you're right, don't know how I forgot that haha thanks for the correction

      Delete
  9. So basically 6.5 ? The less I play the more I laugh at GW marketing strategy. Releasin dataslates and additional rules for extra cash, then releasing it all together in a book for additional cash

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The more I play the more I laugh as the fanbase. 3 updates a year, cry about no content. New releases every month, cry about them daring to charge money for the work they do.

      Its almost as if being angry is the point and the reason doesn't matter.

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    3. And they could just release one book containing every army, and have only a few models represent everything, and roll all of Forge Worlds books into the rule book.

      Sure, some of the extra stuff added in data slates and expansions 'could' have conceivably been included in the codex, you could theoretically have every possible aspect of a faction covered in a codex given a huge amount of time to work on it and assuming everything is developed at exactly the same time and then religiously ignored.

      Instead they can have multiple projects and add entirely optional extras to existing products and those that want it can buy it and those that don't want to don't have to. If that's too much for you, fair enough, don't buy it, that's your opinion, it is however my opinion that these things are all extra, non essential and the ones I'm interested in I'm happy to spend money on.

      If you're going to pull the "it's my opinion back off" card, don't then attack somebody else's opinion, you contradict yourself.

      Delete
    4. Which of the ~10 codicies cypher can roll with should he have been in? All of them? You would just be here moaning about 'copy paste'. And if he was only in, say, CSM so that any of those besides chaos had to buy two whole codicies to run him? Good god, a bunch of you people would probably die from dehydration you would cry so hard.

      Delete
  10. I'm not calling Bullshit on this rumor... But if it smells like it... what can I say?

    ReplyDelete
  11. I'm not calling Bullshit on this rumor... But if it smells like it... what can I say?

    ReplyDelete
  12. I just can't bring myself to quite believe this, thought pistols in cc would be quite nice, it would make plasma and grav pistols worth their price for sure

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Im very new to 40k, so my apologies, but I thought you Could use a pistol in cc already? As a cc I mean, not for firing.

      Delete
    2. I'm guessing it means that you would get a close combat weapon with the same stat line as your pistol.

      Delete
    3. Wasn't that originally in the rules, but was removed maybe in 4th edition? Or was it 3rd edition it was pulled? Long time ago, either way

      Delete
    4. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    5. It was back in the glory days of 2nd ed.

      Delete
    6. Remember when units could walk in 6" from reserves, then launch an assault? Or when leaving a totally stationary transport? Pepperidge farms remembers...

      Delete
  13. Neither rumor states that they are adding particular Dataslates to the BRB. They are probably stating how they affect your FOC more likely since the big changes to the FOC that we have now with detachments, Lords of War, etc....A new graphic for the FOC, perhaps a new Allies Matrix, clarified rules, additional rules they were holding back as well....

    not looking forward to the new, 'my (add army name) codex is so old now, it's useless!'

    Would be nice if the add-ons would be added to the electronic versions of Codices. So like the FarSight enclave and the Rip Tide dataslate would be added to the electronic version of the Tau Codex as well as any future add-ons. Not looking forward to having to repay all the prices however just so it says 7th edition with the changes.

    ReplyDelete
  14. One thing I would love to see tweaked, is terrain placement. There is nothing more obnoxious than spending 50 pts on a quad gun so you have some anti-air, and then your opponent grabs the widest, tallest peice of terrain to place 3" in front of it. Its not a very likely narrative that my army set up a gun in front of a wall it can't fire through.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Even just adding to the rule, that purchased weapon emplacements deploy with your forces, would fix most of the issues.

      Delete
    2. In the meantime add some kind of giant pillar to put the gun on top of, so it can shoot anything on the table until your opponents stop being pricks.

      Delete
    3. It's not too difficult to stop that tactic any more. Doesn't need a fox

      Delete
    4. It needs a fix because it boils down to who wins the dice roll to place terrain first.

      Delete
    5. Teivel, back when 6th started I would agree. However, with good placement of your emplaced gun, its virtually impossible to stop the blocking of the gun after some experience. Dont bunch up your aegis defense lines.

      Not only that, but now with more fortifications able to placed with a single fortification slot, you can eat up all the terrain placement quite easily.

      Delete
  15. For the love of the Lion and Jesus and Vishnu, Please errata or remake the DA codex for 7th edition asap. I would gladly buy a new codex if it meant that I could actually win against someone other than Chaos SM.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If you can't win with DA you just suck at playing.... DA are a strong codex that actually plays to fluff, sure our flyers are overpriced and not as cool as others, and our overpriced super speeder is dead to fast, but best bikes better specials than space marines cooler models, green marines are as good as vanilla, termites are great, and the bikes come on stop bitching and go buy a easier codex to win with like tau but you probably would complain that kroot can't beat other CC troops

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    3. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    4. +1 wretchedfred, I was about to write the same especially about the DA bikes being better than the WS. That's a joke. Point for point basic WS bikers are far and away better than basic ravening ones

      Delete
    5. White scars are 6 points cheaper and get skilled rider and can take grav guns. heh

      Delete
    6. I totes mistyped earlier. Meant to say the WS bikers being better than the DA ones

      Delete
    7. WS bikes are soooo much better than my ravenwing bikes ; (

      Delete
    8. They are better... until you factor in the Standard of Devastation and the Black Knights. While I agree the DA codex is the weakest of the 6th ed codex, it's only because some key units are overpriced and because it lacks viable AA options.

      Delete
    9. Nice work deleting my comment and leaving that poison remaining on here.

      Delete
    10. While the Black Knights and BoD are great, they are basically the entire build at this point. There are somethings like the DW Knights which are entirely too costly to be used regularly and the fighters are way overcosted for what they do. If they made them useful and interesting then I would pay the 180 points for them. the LSV.. Awesome model and concept but .. well I dont have to say it.

      Delete
    11. I am going to agree with others here. With WS being RW+1 for 6pts cheaper (blatant spit in the face), terminators being weakened by low AP spam, and Greenwing suffering from being outgunned by tau and extra AA option, the DA are easily the weakest 6th edition book (I wont begin to cite overcosting our best units, and weakening the playability of others). They need allies and support from other codices to place in tournaments. Couple that with GW's blatant lack of care (see their 6th ed. advent calander for proof, nothing exclusive for DA), and things aren't boding well for now. Now, an excellent general can still pull out the wins from these better books but we should be better balanced to the other releases (and cared about some more).

      Delete
    12. Raven attack squad gets a 45 point two wound super fast attack bike that is scoring. Termies do suffer from all low ap weapons, but are still best termites with a assult teleport. Green marines are what they always have been I would have liked a couple new toys AA tank, thunder cannon, grav guns, and thunder chicken. Our specials are great, yes only one ap2 but SM codex simular. Samuel is dope, DAs got their style if you can win with SM you can win with DA. AA good old devs with missile 145 out door, throw in a tech with powerfield or buy a ageis defends. My buddy whines about his chaos dex and I see it. Another buddy plays witchsistersorotis. My point everybody screamed when white scars rolled out, but all in all raven wing command better than WS command and all other toys and rest codex, stop hating DA aren't screwed unless super competive games but those aren't characterful anyway if you want it that way play 30k all same basic choices

      Delete
  16. While definitely taking this with some salt, it could prove beneficial if they did make tweaks, esp to make everything streamlined (ie LoW, Dataslates, Fortifications, and making it all balanced and "competitive")

    With that said the only reason I give a little credence to this is the pistols in cc part of the rumor. It makes cyphers rule make more sense within the game framework. Then again that bit in the rumor could've been added in because of the cypher release and thus this rumor isn't true at all

    ReplyDelete
  17. I've had sex that's lasted longer than this edition it this is true.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Let's hope they get rid of HP's this time around, I'd really like to be able to run a vehicle (other than a skimmer with a grip of special rules or a flyer) and not feel handicapped.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Most of the members in our gaming group don't mind the hull point system too much, but a lot of us think it should be a little harder to lose them. Maybe GW could revise the rules so that a glance doesn't automatically take a hull point.

      A simplified "damage table" for glancing would make a lot of sense. The weapon's AP could be factored into it. For example, glances by AP1 weapons could take a HP on a 2+, AP2 on a 3+, and all other weapons on a 4+.

      Delete
    2. Either that, or distribute HP's more evenly. A Leman Russ should have more Hull Points than a Chimera, and especially more then a floating skeleton skimmer (Necron Transports), It gives WAY too much power to Crons with Gauss weaponry. I didn't mind it without HP's, but now they spam vehicles to death, vehicles are pretty much useless against them. I think 5th ed. had it best where you subtracted 2 on the damage table.

      My prime example is that I was facing 'Crons in 5th ed., and my friend got rid of all but one, are all of its weapons, and then, due to good maneuvering and poor placement on his part, I squished a squad of his 'Crons with Tank Shock, and then next turn I Rammed his Catacomb Command Barge and blew it up. This epicness would have never happened if there were Hull Points

      Delete
    3. Well, I guess it wpuld be less evenly in this case lol

      Delete
    4. Keep hull points, but give all vehicles a save of some sort against glancing. Your heavier vehicles would have a better save, while your lighter ones would have a worse one. It should not be worse than a 4+, say 4+ for open topped and lighter vehicles, 3+ for full-on tanks (say AV13), and 2+ for AV14 vehicles (as long as they are enclosed). Weapon AP actually effects this, so an Autocannon (which is made to be a light anti-tank weapon) would negate saves on open topped and light vehicles, and a Lascannon would negate all of them.

      Delete
    5. That sounds like adding more steps and rolls to fix something that wasn't necessary in the first place though. If we're keeping HP's at all, there's no reason not to just give vehicles a T value and drop AV entirely. Having both HP's and a Damage table just means we've got two overlapping kill mechanics for no real reason.

      Delete
    6. Vehicles get a arm our save from their armor value, 14 get armor save 2+, 13 gets a AS 3+, 12 gets a 4+, 11 gets a 5+, and 10 gets a 6+ then a tank would be able to drive through small arms with little concern

      Delete
    7. I've always said simplify it by making HPs the number of glancing hits you can ignore.
      Once all HPs are gone, glancing hits become penetrating and roll on the damage table.

      Try this in your games, it works much better than the 6th ed rules.

      Delete
  19. Hmm, may be true but I'm afraid GW would lose a lot of good will with its customers if they forced this edition to be so short lived. Smacks of desperate money grabbing, a perception they're already wrestling with pretty badly.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Maybe they'll add chaff for drop pods - Interceptor weapons firing when the pods come on the table only hit on a 4+.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Doesn't make any sense, really. You already roll to hit. Besides, who cares if the Pod gets hit? It does its job after the Marines bail out.

      Delete
  21. I think the Grinch has been pulling some temp work in the rumor department this holiday season. This would NOT make my year. The only reason this may be needed is precisely b/c they are releasing so much information so quickly that they had unintended consequences.

    ReplyDelete
  22. If this is true the edition will only have lasted, what a little more than 2 years.(June 2012-September 2014) I hate to get into price but thats pretty quick to make some expensive rules obsolete.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Sounds like bollocks to me, goes against everything GW have been doing for the last 2 years

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And "every army is getting a new codex" was all truth too.

      Delete
    2. Quit whining, the release schedule is as rampant as could be - hell, people are bitching at how quick it is!

      Delete
    3. I think Darren's complaint was directed at Black Templars getting rolled into the Marine codex, rather than expecting GW to have already done updated codexes for every army by now.

      Delete
  24. Who else is really glad they didn't waste money on those special edition 6th Edition rulebook sets?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. people that get these are collectors, so a new edition would not really matter

      Delete
  25. This feels like a "Nids in December" rumor, just my 2 cents.

    ReplyDelete
  26. So much salt, i need a doctor. Sounds more like a big compendium of rules and a massive FAQ is all that is required. Should they bring out a '7th' could have massive negative financial implications on the company.

    ReplyDelete
  27. So, the edition that "will last a long time" will actually end up as the second most short-lived edition of FB/40K ever (the shortest being the 1+ year lifespan of WHFB 1st ed)?

    It may be just me - most likely is - but somehow, I feel that 6th Ed as envisioned by the then-CEO Wells did not have all of these expansions, supplements, formations, detachments, the works, but this is the direction acting CEO Kirby actually wants to take the company to (or take back to, remembering Chapter Approved and the like from the elder aeons). The devil's advocate in may says also that this might also be the reason for the friendly parting of the ways that took place.

    But since we will have a new edition, what will be in the inevitable new starter boxset? MUHREENS are a given, but how about highlighting the "ally" system and having four forces instead of the usual two - eg. have IG with Marine allies (the IG regiment being one that is not available in plastic but will not available outside the boxset either, forcing even Guard players to buy it), against Chaos and pals (or a combo of two xenos)? Wouldn't even be the first time, Epic 2ed came with three armies in the box (Marines, Orks, & Eldar; Marines having as much troops as Orks+ Eldar combined) .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'd like to see Adepta Sororitas, just for the plastic Penitent Engine. Maybe it could be the old Inquisiiton/SoB vs Black Templars scenario for the boxed set.

      Delete
    2. My guess is that if they make a new starter they will make it so you can play it right out of the box. Ie. you will get at least one HQ and 2 troop selections per army. This allows people to play immediately and have fun from the get go.

      Delete
  28. Just play 1st edition rogue trader. It's silly and loveable. And you can put an sm apotbecary on a jetbike and give him a lascannon. Legit.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Just play 1st edition rogue trader. It's silly and loveable. And you can put an sm apotbecary on a jetbike and give him a lascannon. Legit.

    ReplyDelete
  30. I don't buy it. Chances are strong it's to flush out whomever is leaking the early info, IMO.

    ReplyDelete
  31. I'll start the templars codex rumors going.

    ReplyDelete
  32. If they so this and the changes beyond 6th + escalation /strongholds are fairly limited then I think they should release a free PDF listing the changes so that those who bought the full 6th ed ruleset aren't required to buy yet another book that invalidates their recent purchases. GW would still sell plenty of copies (likely fewer in the short term, admittedly) but on the other time, it would go a long way towards earning loyalty from their customers - which translates to $$$ in the long term.

    ReplyDelete
  33. I'm convinced we're getting a 7th edition

    ...

    right after the Summer of Fliers! :-P

    ReplyDelete
  34. My vote is this more along the lines of a chapter approved release then a full blown edition. Perhaps the 6th edition rulebook will get a reprint with the updates and everyone else will buy the compendium.

    This is a good thing. It means GW is more actively tweaking rules based on releases vs waiting 5 years between editions and letting codex's get stronger.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Would be very sad not see 9th edition fantasy although given the strength of this edition just updating the army books would work for me.

      Delete
    2. WFB needs a new edition far more than 40k. 8th is what actually served to kill a lot of people's will to continue playing. I believe that some of Kings of War's success has been because WFB 8th was such a clusterfuck.

      Delete
    3. In my circle we saw very few people leave fantasy with 8th. I understand why people don't like 8th but overall feel it's a better game. A lot people call GW games too random but both 6th 40K and 8th fantasy use strategic randomness quite well (ie random charge distance). While there is an element of randomness it gives more tactical possibilites and IMHO makes for a better more exciting game.

      Delete
  35. Is like to just bring up for a moment that Matt Ward hasn't written a 6th ed codec to date but is still drawing a paycheck.....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He has written several decent Fantasy Armybooks(High Elves, Dark Elves).

      Delete
  36. Pretty sure this rumor is bogus. Goes down with the '9th Ed Fantasy in 2014' and 'Nids in December'.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Sounds really silly. Another edition of rules in 2 years..? As much as I love 40k, spending another $100 on a book every year or two isn't something to jump for joy about. Especially if it doesn't change much, which I can't imagine it would. Personally I'm hoping this rumour is not true.

    ReplyDelete
  38. They're learning from Wizards of the Coast. E.g. DnD 3 to 3.5. Plus, as always a new edition means higher prices for no good reason.

    ReplyDelete
  39. They're learning from Wizards of the Coast. E.g. DnD 3 to 3.5. Plus, as always a new edition means higher prices for no good reason.

    ReplyDelete
  40. this smells of stickmonkey wishlisting...

    ReplyDelete
  41. "ps Pistols in close combat in 7th"

    There's no way that's true. What'd be the point of giving a character a Power Weapon of any sort when you can give him a Str 7, AP 2 Plasma Pistol? The Burning Blade in Codex: Space Marines is 55 points for slightly WORSE stats thanks to Incandescent. Are they really going to make it obsolete by having a Captain who does the same damage with his 15 point Plasma Pistol?

    Nevermind the armies which have access to the Infernus Pistol (Str 8, AP 1). There's no way they'll allow the use of that in hand-to-hand. The thing's got more punch to it than a Power Fist and would strike at Initiative order. That'd make Commander Dante one of the most lethal fighters in the game, and it won't be because of his axe, which is supposed to be his primary hand-to-hand weapon.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Could be only 1 attack with the pistol instead of the normal amount, or half of the attacks rounded down, etc.

      If that were the case, CC powerhouses wouldn't likely bother, but it would significantly buff weaker characters, such as IG.

      Delete
    2. IMO, I think someone's piggybacking that false rumor on a true rumor and basing it off Cypher's rules, as he uses both pistols in hand-to-hand.

      No matter how you look at it, though, it's insane. A Plasma Pistol, at Str 7/AP 2, would be superior to a Power Sword, a Power Axe, and most every other close combat specific weapon out there.

      Delete
    3. I'd expect it to change to somethign along the lines of having a pistol as your CC weapon makes a single attack use the pistol's stats, and if it is a 2nd weapon then this is a bonus attack that this can be gained even when using a Specialist Weapon.

      So a guy with a Power Fist has a point to spending 15 points on a Plasma Pistol in CC as he gets a S7 AP2 attack (with gets hot) at normal initiative.

      Meanwhile a power weapon and a 2nd (non Specialist) CC weapon such as a big knife or whatever just gives the bonus attack as under the current rules.


      Power Weapons themselves need revising as they currently don't balance very well and don't make much sense.
      Anyone who has ever used an axe for instance will know that they are not 'unwieldy', whilst Mauls are currently better for taking out vehicles than Krak grenades!

      Delete
  42. Why make a new edition this early in the game? Just do a revised rulebook with all of the FAQ fixes/changes in place (and clean up a few of the more obscure rules).

    ReplyDelete
  43. Soo when are the predicting this new ed. Comes out? I do feel it is too soon considering these codex updates are for 6th ed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I've been done with 40K since they brought fliers out and super heavies in the standard game. To be honest I've been on the fence since the end of 4th edition. For the record I've been both a tournament player, played in about a dozen or more GTs and Grand GT events, etc. and more RTTs back in the day than I can count.

      But around the middle of 5th ed. I just really stopped enjoying the tournament scene, there were fewer players running their own painted stuff, fewer tournament players who knew the backstory and were not just good players but fun people to BS with about the game, etc. In short the entire fanbase had changed.

      As massive changes to codexes and the fluff occurred (Necrons and Chaos for example .. I still lament the demise of the 3rd/4th ed Chaos book for the vanilla trash they've had ever since) I looked on somewhat disturbed but kept giving GW my money. With the beginning of 6th I was really excited about where things might go ... looked forward to a new Chaos codex, DA, etc. and they clogged the already jam packed table with unrealistic (yes I know its a fantasy plastic army man game but work with me here ok) amounts of stuff.

      40k in its current iteration should be a 15MM game ... or smaller ... PERIOD. You would never have friggin fliers and titans jammed in such small spaces on a regular basis. It is just beyond silly. The escillation has always been there but since 6th edition it has become so bad that they have taken things towards a CCG style system where every new codex means loads of new whacky units (some cool most not) and huge sweeping revisions to a venerable universe which has stood mostly unchaged for a few decades now.

      There is nothing at this point which would bring me back to GW. I am not just a random hater troll though. I love mini gaming, I love the GW universe. My gaming group has been looking back to what we loved about GW and that was the 3rd-4th edition era of the game. We loved that fluff, we loved the way the game played then the scale of it ... just a little bigger than skirmish but it didn't have to be a outlandishly huge deal. You didn't need $100.00 titan models and three $80.00 flier models just to have a fun game with a friend. A few squads of marines, a couple Rhinos maybe a pred. .... bada bing yer ready to go!

      So we are looking at companies like mantic to supply the models now at lower prices, using the 3rd/4th ed. codexes of our choice and just having fun again. We aren't chained to GWs release schedule and we aren't angry when they poop on the fluff we love. Because to us the game was complete years and years ago. Sure there were a few codexes that lagged ... like the Orks and Dark Eldar ... but hey those dexes are actually ok for fun lists.

      Anyway my long winded rant is just an explaination of an alternative. You don't have to be a fanboy and you don't have to dump your stuff in the dumpster and flame GW endlessly. If you don't like what they are doing then go back to doing what you liked and stop giving them your money. They are going to keep doing crazy stuff as long as the fanboys keep buying. It isn't their fault it is our fault.

      Delete
  44. If 7th ed. must be then I want alternate activation!

    ReplyDelete
  45. Good news is, new starter box with lot of miniatures? :D

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah, that's what I'm looking forward to the most. I LOOOVVVEEE buying new starter boxes with the miniatures and terrain. :D

      Delete