# 40k 6.5/7th Edition Rumors



## Zion (May 31, 2011)

> via 40k Radio 12-25-2013
> 
> 40k 7th ed is slated for 2014 with fantasy 9th being scrapped for the time being. Apparently the source is the one that has been leaking them the info on SM and their other highly reliable previous rumours......
> via Faeit 12-27-2013
> ...





> via 40K Radio 1-24-2014
> 
> Warhammer 7th Edition is a real thing for 2014.
> 1) It will purely be a book release.
> ...





> via Faeit 4-10-2014
> 
> 40k 7th edition and the new starter kit Beachhead Stygia. It is small kit, with only five scouts, five blood angels, a commander with jump pack, five meganobs, 10 armoured ork shootas including a nob with two-handed axe and 10 gretchins. There are some destroyed columns, destroyed gothic stone walls and a three-piece stone bridge carried by gargoyles. It has a 96 page book, but only about the half is used for rules including three scenarios. Expert rules like all vehicle-related stuff are omitted completely. There are a handful of dice, a ruler, but no blast markers.
> 
> At the same time, there will be a new starter painting kit with 10 snapfit miniatures that will bring the tactical marines from the starter box to a full squad size and gives the ork player 5 additional boyz. It has a 48 page booklet with additional scenarios and hobby guides, brushes, basing sand and glue.


Faiet 10/04/2014


> via an anonymous source on Faeit 212
> - 7th 40k edition is only a minor update
> - 40k run is part of the movement phase
> - assault distance is not influenced by terrain, but gives minus two to
> ...


Rumors are rumors, so don't get too upset if they do/don't happen.


----------



## ntaw (Jul 20, 2012)

I am dismayed that I may have to shell out another ~100 for a new core rulebook, but if they're gunna give me fancy BA models I'll take it. Plus there are a few things that could be tweaked...sometimes I feel like my buddy and I are the only people who actually like 6th :laugh:

Fuck GW has me by the balls.


----------



## Einherjar667 (Aug 23, 2013)

ntaw said:


> I am dismayed that I may have to shell out another ~100 for a new core rulebook, but if they're gunna give me fancy BA models I'll take it. Plus there are a few things that could be tweaked...sometimes I feel like my buddy and I are the only people who actually like 6th :laugh:
> 
> Fuck GW has me by the balls.



I suspect that the 6.5 ed or what ever might just be 6th ed + Stronghold Assault, and/or Escalation rolled into one? So if you already have those, you might not even need it.


----------



## ntaw (Jul 20, 2012)

Einherjar667 said:


> I suspect that the 6.5 ed or what ever might just be 6th ed + Stronghold Assault, and/or Escalation rolled into one? So if you already have those, you might not even need it.


Why would they combine books to save us money? If it comes out it will be something that takes money from us given GW's marketing history I'd wager, especially seeing as how the top rumour states "7th not 6.5".

Time will tell I suppose.


----------



## Einherjar667 (Aug 23, 2013)

ntaw said:


> Why would they combine books to save us money? If it comes out it will be something that takes money from us given GW's marketing history I would assume.


I can't imagine it being purely an entire new BRB, as it's only been half the time between editions.


----------



## Zion (May 31, 2011)

Enjoy the sea-fresh saltiness: 



> via an anonymous source on Faeit 212
> - 7th 40k edition is only a minor update
> - 40k run is part of the movement phase
> - assault distance is not influenced by terrain, but gives minus two to
> ...


----------



## ntaw (Jul 20, 2012)

Einherjar667 said:


> I can't imagine it being purely an entire new BRB, as it's only been half the time between editions.


What have the previous time differences between editions been? I'm not even sure I know how long 6th has been kicking around...2 years ish?



Zion said:


> Enjoy the sea-fresh saltiness


Reminds me of my days by the coast! hahaha


----------



## Zion (May 31, 2011)

Editions before had a 5 year gap, save for 5-6 which had a 4 year gap. If GW is seeing a major drop in sales for 40k (which is their flagship game) they might be looking at a way to fix it, which would start with a new edition (especially if all this pushing of new codexes hasn't fixed the issue).

I have my doubts however, but if it's based around a small number of changes then it might be true.


----------



## Jace of Ultramar (Aug 2, 2011)

Personally, I think there hasn't been enough of a time lapse for a 7E, I think that with the lack of rules on the starter, and only scenarios that we may be looking at a refreshed starter set pointing to the 6E rules for expanding on games.


----------



## Einherjar667 (Aug 23, 2013)

Perhaps it is to bring in new players, shake things up and refresh things like Jace said, which i believe was the purpose of changing IG to AM. To make things feel new and exciting again, it is an excellent business strategy and works wonders

I have my doubts though, i highly doubt they postponed 9th ed fantasy and are putting out a new ed of 40k, theres just no logic to that idea


----------



## Zion (May 31, 2011)

Einherjar667 said:


> Perhaps it is to bring in new players, shake things up and refresh things like Jace said, which i believe was the purpose of changing IG to AM. To make things feel new and exciting again, it is an excellent business strategy and works wonders
> 
> I have my doubts though, i highly doubt they postponed 9th ed fantasy and are putting out a new ed of 40k, theres just no logic to that idea


Actually there is one thing that would be logical to that idea: 40k, their flagship product at this point, losing sales tracing back to when 6th started. If they think 6th is a flop they could try and push out an updated set of rules to fix that and reverse course on it.

But that's just speculation.


----------



## Einherjar667 (Aug 23, 2013)

Well yeah, i was working under the assumption that 6th ed is generally liked. Im new as of this ed so Im unfamiliar with the differences that most players would be unhappy with.


----------



## Zion (May 31, 2011)

Einherjar667 said:


> Well yeah, i was working under the assumption that 6th ed is generally liked. Im new as of this ed so Im unfamiliar with the differences that most players would be unhappy with.


Reactions to it have been largely mixed and anecdotally there have been a fair number who have claimed to quit or buy less this edition.


----------



## Einherjar667 (Aug 23, 2013)

Hmmm, that would warrant an update then if their sales figures reflect that unhappiness. And its evident by this board that previous ed players are likely to return if they like the new ed


----------



## Zion (May 31, 2011)

Einherjar667 said:


> Hmmm, that would warrant an update then if their sales figures reflect that unhappiness. And its evident by this board that previous ed players are likely to return if they like the new ed


Christmas 2013 revenue figures do show a dip from 2013 but some of that could be related to the cruddy sales season everyone had.

And generally, that is likely the hope that it'd bring people back.


----------



## Jace of Ultramar (Aug 2, 2011)

All valid ideas, Zion, but I think that if this happens then its no different than Wizards of the Coast doing a new Core Set every year. 
7E this soon is just not right by my view of this. Keeping things fresh like updating the Starter every couple of years does as it will most likely hit the market close to the time the two armies in it get an updated Codex to possibly boost those sales. If true, we may yet see something two years down the road like Space Wolves vs Dark Eldar in another new starter.


----------



## Zion (May 31, 2011)

WotC isn't potentially losing money right now. They just do it to force people to keep buying.


----------



## Bindi Baji (Apr 23, 2009)

I think 7th edition coming so soon could burn a lot of players,
it's one hell of a gamble and I think the best case scenario would be a slight upturn.

I hope either the rumour is wrong, or I am.


----------



## Nordicus (May 3, 2013)

> you have to pass a initiative test to shoot overwatching


I would buy 7th edition for this alone.


----------



## Zion (May 31, 2011)

Bindi Baji said:


> I think 7th edition coming so soon could burn a lot of players,
> it's one hell of a gamble and I think the best case scenario would be a slight upturn.
> 
> I hope either the rumour is wrong, or I am.


An initial slight uptick could result in a much larger one in time. IT's all about trends (assuming there is a down trend that is).

Fantasy isn't even on of the big 5 games anymore so I see GW trying to protect 40k before it slips off the big 5 too.


----------



## Jace of Ultramar (Aug 2, 2011)

Zion said:


> WotC isn't potentially losing money right now. They just do it to force people to keep buying.


Which isn't a bad model for a company to follow if they're sales are down.


----------



## Zion (May 31, 2011)

Jace of Ultramar said:


> Which isn't a bad model for a company to follow if they're sales are down.


You do realize you're saying basically that GW should release a new edition right? Because that's what the new edition MtG every year is: a new edition that kicks off some new meta setting that influences what the them of the cards is.

You may consider it different, but that's what it actually is: a new edition.


----------



## Jace of Ultramar (Aug 2, 2011)

Zion said:


> You do realize you're saying basically that GW should release a new edition right? Because that's what the new edition MtG every year is: a new edition that kicks off some new meta setting that influences what the them of the cards is.
> 
> You may consider it different, but that's what it actually is: a new edition.


Every core set is a refresh, but, the rules stay the same. New products make people crack open wallets. A new starter set doesn't necessarily denote a new edition.


----------



## Zion (May 31, 2011)

Jace of Ultramar said:


> Every core set is a refresh, but, the rules stay the same. New products make people crack open wallets. A new starter set doesn't necessarily denote a new edition.


Except the rules don't always stay the same. New editions are how they've introduced new mechanics like *Indestructable* or refined how the Stack works.


----------



## Jace of Ultramar (Aug 2, 2011)

Zion said:


> Except the rules don't always stay the same. New editions are how they've introduced new mechanics like *Indestructable* or refined how the Stack works.


True, but, the induction of a new starter isn't necessarily the end of this edition. Yes, rules are added into MtG, but, the Core Set doesn't necessarily mean WotC is taking everything down and calling it a new game. In this instance, I can't see this heralding the absolute end of 6E which is only 2 years old.


----------



## ntaw (Jul 20, 2012)

It still seems a bit odd to me that GW would make it more convenient _and_ less expensive to have all of the rules for the game without calling it 7th edition. Also, if they folded the expansion rules into the core book there wouldn't be any real reason to buy the expansion books. Off the top of my head, it would lose them Death from the Skies, Stronghold Assault, and Escalation.

I would like a new starter set, but a new version or edition of the BRB might be a bit much right off the hop.


----------



## Zion (May 31, 2011)

Jace of Ultramar said:


> True, but, the induction of a new starter isn't necessarily the end of this edition. Yes, rules are added into MtG, but, the Core Set doesn't necessarily mean WotC is taking everything down and calling it a new game. In this instance, I can't see this heralding the absolute end of 6E which is only 2 years old.


Right, but show me any other edition with two starters.


----------



## AAAAAAAAARRRGGHH (Apr 17, 2009)

Zion said:


> Except the rules don't always stay the same. New editions are how they've introduced new mechanics like *Indestructable* or refined how the Stack works.


In general, comparisons between Warhammer and MTG are, at best, inadequate and at their worst, retarded. In this case I would say we get your point, but claiming the WotC release schedule is essentially "an edition change" is a bit of a stretch. At least, you seem to actually know something about MtG, unlike certain other random posters around.
I find it odd that so many, supposedly grown men, all of a sudden understand everything about this particular game and it's produier, even though their comments often indicate that they have never actually played it for more than a week. Oh well, that is the interwebz I guess. 

Anyway, less griping more topical discussion.

I, for one, doesn't give 2 shits about these rumours. Not only does most of them seem like total wishlisting (several of them I have seen repeated ad nauseum these last couple of years), but most of them sound like awful to implement into 40k.
However, I can see why GW might consider going for yet another starter set this early.
Starter sets have pretty much always been popular, and if GW have the impression that 6th isn't as liked as they would want it, they could be brewing on a new one already. A new edition and starter set always attracts attention, so it's definitely a viable gamble.
Unfortunately I don't think GW has the vision nor the talent to make the tweaks necessary for making 7th a truly great edition.


----------



## Zion (May 31, 2011)

MtG used to actually number the editions instead of using years, so I'd say calling it an "edition change" was something they did first, but I understand your point, they're not a 1:1 comparison.

As for the rumors, many of them seem to be largely based on 2nd edition stuff, or fairly logical progressions of the rules. Yes it can be wishlisting but we've seen the same thing said about actual releases where the rumors were dead on too.


----------



## Jace of Ultramar (Aug 2, 2011)

True, making a comparison stating that 40K and MtG are on an even keel is illogical and a misrepresentation, good thing I didn't say anything of that accord and polintedout the possibility of similarities with a new starter.



Zion said:


> Right, but show me any other edition with two starters.


Every core set with expansions typically have a starter deck for each expansion and multiple starters at that.
And now days they have a sealed deck that's tournament ready out of the box.


----------



## Zion (May 31, 2011)

I was talking about any other edition of 40k. Let's be honest here, they aren't known for copying other companies that closely.


----------



## Einherjar667 (Aug 23, 2013)

Zion said:


> An initial slight uptick could result in a much larger one in time. IT's all about trends (assuming there is a down trend that is).
> 
> Fantasy isn't even on of the big 5 games anymore so I see GW trying to protect 40k before it slips off the big 5 too.



What ARE the big 5? I have wanted to ask this but haven't had the chance. All the groups around me play 40k, fantasy, and warmahordes like crazy. 40k is a beast down in CT, and Warmahordes and 40k is a little more predominant in western MA. (My neck of the woods). But what else is played in the grand scheme of things?


----------



## Zion (May 31, 2011)

Einherjar667 said:


> What ARE the big 5? I have wanted to ask this but haven't had the chance. All the groups around me play 40k, fantasy, and warmahordes like crazy. 40k is a beast down in CT, and Warmahordes and 40k is a little more predominant in western MA. (My neck of the woods). But what else is played in the grand scheme of things?


Swiping from BoLS (from a survey of FLGS stores mainly in the US/NA region, not counting GWs as they're biased):



> 1: Warhammer 40k
> Games Workshop
> 
> 2: Star Wars X-Wing Miniatures
> ...


----------



## The Sturk (Feb 3, 2012)

Nordicus said:


> I would buy 7th edition for this alone.


As someone who's entire army is Initiative 2, I stand against that change to overwatch (hint, its not Tau).

With the exception of Tau, overwatch is already hard enough to pull off, given that you need 6's. So why punish all other armies with lower initiative all around (Necrons, Orks), especially Necrons, who are fragile in assault, just because Tau can abuse it?

I'm going to jump aboard the "Its too early for a new edition" train. Being only 2 years since the edition change, it can really burn out players who already dropped $75 on the previous rule book plus more on the expansions (escalation, etc).


----------



## Einherjar667 (Aug 23, 2013)

Zion said:


> Swiping from BoLS (from a survey of FLGS stores mainly in the US/NA region, not counting GWs as they're biased):


Aha, interesting. I've seen the Star Wars game played a bit. Must just be the group in CT then, you'd think 40k and Fantasy were the only wargames in existence down there.


----------



## Jace of Ultramar (Aug 2, 2011)

Swiping exactly what a company draws more parallels than they would like. Putting out a second starter is barely enough to raise the WotC eyebrow or any other company for that matter.

Those are the top 5, really? Seems logical.


----------



## AAAAAAAAARRRGGHH (Apr 17, 2009)

Zion said:


> MtG used to actually number the editions instead of using years, so I'd say calling it an "edition change" was something they did first, but I understand your point, they're not a 1:1 comparison.


While the old core sets used to be called "editions", they weren't actually refering to eras or changes to the game itself, but more to the simple, biannual if I remember correctly, edition of the coreset. Which back then, consisted entirely of reprints, much unlike todays core sets.
Also, actual editions of MtG happened sporadically rather than at a predetermined schedule and they where never called editions even in the instances where they essentially were (the most known being the "6th edition rules change").

More on topic, while GW has currently ripping off their own ideas way back from 2nd edition, this fact doesn't really give the rumours more credit (as even drunk monkeys can recognize patterns when they see them). It seems more like lazy guesswork and retro-wishlisting than actual rumours, especially because it refers to some of the more, in my opinion at least, putrid ideas of 2nd edition.

Edit; Man, people are posting fast in this thread.
About the Top 5 big games, I actually thought Warmachine and Hordes were lumped together and that Flames of War was #5. Shows what I know.


----------



## Einherjar667 (Aug 23, 2013)

I remain rather skeptical. If i had to bet, I'd say WFB 9th ed is on the front burner for GW


----------



## Zion (May 31, 2011)

Warmachine/Hordes (or as my FLGS calls it: "Hormachine") are cross compatible but are have enough different games to be basically be different games.


----------



## Nordicus (May 3, 2013)

The Sturk said:


> As someone who's entire army is Initiative 2, I stand against that change to overwatch (hint, its not Tau).
> 
> With the exception of Tau, overwatch is already hard enough to pull off, given that you need 6's. So why punish all other armies with lower initiative all around (Necrons, Orks), especially Necrons, who are fragile in assault, just because Tau can abuse it?


Because, frankly, shooting is so powerful in this edition, that it's time for assault to get some kind of advantage thrown their way. I realize it's a probably a subject that we will never agree on, and I don't want to derail this thread - I do realize it will impact low initiative armies to a higher degree


----------



## JAMOB (Dec 30, 2010)

I really want that starter set, mostly because I have both of the armies... I hope it's not a fake rulebook though :sad: or at least that the paint set completes it or something


----------



## Zion (May 31, 2011)

Time to get ALL the salt kids. This is apparently 1/2 of a chat conversation that made it's way onto post bin that is where the rules Natfka posted came from. It's either real, or one hell of a hoax that's for sure!



> Yes, one ruleset for both systems, but each rulebook is still written individually with whole sections skipped or altered (i.e. obviously no tanks for fantasy). The text is certainly not a copy and paste job with differently flavoured examples but individually crafted for each system. Some rules have the same function but different names. You wouldn’t expect the rules to apply to the other system if you had only one rulebook to judge. There is are no labels that say “Here ends the generic rule section. The following is 40k specific”. In the fantasy rules everything is explained through the eyes of units in tight formation which do not exist in 40k. Skirmish units are the exception to the rule in fantasy, where in 40k everything is in skirmish formation and everything is explained that way from the get go. There isn’t even a name for this formation, it is just the default. But if every unit in fantasy would be skirmishers, it wouldn’t matter if you play the game with the 40k or fantasy rules. Everything would work exactly the same.
> 
> Another example: units in formation do not get +1 A on the charge, so this bonus is not mentioned until fighting in skirmish formation is introduced. In the 40k rulebook, the bonus is mentioned right in the assault section - not as an exception, but as the rule because there are no other formations in 40k. Different way to introduce it, but the same outcome if you play fantasy with all skirmishers.
> 
> ...


----------



## Zion (May 31, 2011)

And part 2:


> 40k has similar rules, yes. 7th edition 40k uses a percentage system, too. min 20% troops, max 25% HQ, elite, fast attack, heavy support and secondary detachment.
> 
> There is a chart for those that are unable to use a calculator. You are expected to play with an army value that is a multiple of 250 if you use it.
> 
> ...


----------



## Zion (May 31, 2011)

Well while reading through that whole thing I caught this: "Warhammer is not supposed to be about min/maxing."

So either we have a really good fake or someone really is a GW employee.


----------



## d3m01iti0n (Jun 5, 2012)

Well thats a good way to make me a collector/painter only.


----------



## Bindi Baji (Apr 23, 2009)

I quickly gave up reading that as there is less text in the whole 330+ pages of the ABC Warriors Mek Files i'm currently reading.

The idea of a cross rule-set (or a base rule-set) has been kicked about for at least 15 years,
pre-space orks and fantasy beastmen being able to be fielded in 40k are some other things I am aware of that have been discussed.

I'm not convinced it will ever happen,
I think IF it could be done then it would a great idea,
it's a fucking huge IF though


----------



## Zion (May 31, 2011)

d3m01iti0n said:


> Well thats a good way to make me a collector/painter only.


I'd say at least give it a try before you flip anymore tables. 

Seriously though, change is always met with resistance and honestly sometimes it's not as bad as we think it'll be. I'll give the new edition (if/when it is released) a fair go before I call it quits for sure.



Bindi Baji said:


> I quickly gave up reading that as there is less text in the whole 330+ pages of the ABC Warriors Mek Files i'm currently reading.
> 
> The idea of a cross rule-set (or a base rule-set) has been kicked about for at least 15 years,
> pre-space orks and fantasy beastmen being able to be fielded in 40k are some other things I am aware of that have been discussed.
> ...



40k and WFB have been pretty close to each other in the past, so it's no unreasonable they try to make them as alike as possible. I mean if Warmahordes can be cross compatible with largely the same mechanics minus some small changes between them I don't see a problem here. It'd make learning WFB a lot easier for sure.


----------



## ntaw (Jul 20, 2012)

That's a whole lot of typing someone did if it's a hoax.

Worst case scenario my gaming group stays on 6th I guess, but like Zion I'll be giving any new editions a full chance. I certainly remember being full of woe at JUST re-learning 5th when 6th happened, with any amount of years under my belt with 6th I feel the same sense of woe thinking of the impending learning new/forgetting really similar rules but I'm sure it would be for the better.


----------



## Einherjar667 (Aug 23, 2013)

Im with zion, everyone hate the latest thing to come out, look at music albums, its always the same whining. Be optimistic before we all get pissed off


----------



## Zion (May 31, 2011)

Einherjar667 said:


> Im with zion, everyone hate the latest thing to come out, look at music albums, its always the same whining. Be optimistic before we all get pissed off


And at the same time set the bar (that us, your expectations) low so that you haven't overhyped it and set yourself to be horribly disappointed.


----------



## Badknox (Nov 7, 2013)

I think it would make perfect sense for Warhammer to move to a Warmahordes type model of combining the two games. Some people really seem to enjoy the flexibility of it. Both systems still have slightly different rule sets and mechanics but it seems to work. If you take Chaos daemons as an example of crossing over the games you could consider that as the test model for a wider adoption. They're often regarded as a good army to have if you want to toy around in both systems with a lower investment than buying two completly seperate armies.

That said I'd really like to see GW adopt the stat cards model that warmahordes uses. I've been contempating creating some for keeping track of boon table rolls, wounds etc easier.


----------



## Bindi Baji (Apr 23, 2009)

Zion said:


> - you can bring three allies to a game and must choose one


So, you can take three to a game and use one?
am I missing something? as this currently sounds about as useful as using a flamethrower on an active volcano and twice as pointless


----------



## Zion (May 31, 2011)

Bindi Baji said:


> So, you can take three to a game and use one?
> am I missing something? as this currently sounds about as useful as using a flamethrower on an active volcano and twice as pointless


Either one must be your primary detachment, or you can have a sideboard of sorts. I don't know fore sure and both are speculation.


----------



## Bindi Baji (Apr 23, 2009)

Zion said:


> Either one must be your primary detachment, or you can have a sideboard of sorts. I don't know fore sure and both are speculation.


We'll have to see, it may just be pure speculation or a misconstrued sentence


----------



## Einherjar667 (Aug 23, 2013)

Zion said:


> And at the same time set the bar (that us, your expectations) low so that you haven't overhyped it and set yourself to be horribly disappointed.



Yeah, i do my best to be fair about these rumors.


----------



## Majorian (Apr 7, 2014)

And here I was trying to teach my friend how to play 6th.


----------



## Zion (May 31, 2011)

Majorian said:


> And here I was trying to teach my friend how to play 6th.


Still not a bad idea to do that. With how iterative GW makes editions most things with be largely the same so that'll make learning a new edition easier (assuming it's actually coming, if it isn't then learning the current edition is still mandatory to play).


----------



## ChaosRedCorsairLord (Apr 17, 2009)

Dear GW,

By all means, continue to make cool models and release black library and background books. I only ask that you CEASE and DESIST writing game rules and/or mechanics. Just let Fantasy Flight make and test all of your game rules, they're much better at it.

Regards 
A fan.


----------



## Zion (May 31, 2011)

ChaosRedCorsairLord said:


> Dear GW,
> 
> By all means, continue to make cool models and release black library and background books. I only ask that you CEASE and DESIST writing game rules and/or mechanics. Just let Fantasy Flight make and test all of your game rules, they're much better at it.
> 
> ...


Now now, GW has proven from time to time they do fine with rules. The problem is a lack of consistency. A standardized points costing system would do wonders for 40k.


----------



## ntaw (Jul 20, 2012)

Zion said:


> A standardized points costing system would do wonders for 40k.


...looks at post...looks back at avatar...looks at post...looks back at avatar....


----------



## Zion (May 31, 2011)

ntaw said:


> ...looks at post...looks back at avatar...looks at post...looks back at avatar....


Well it's true! And if it isn't may @Tawa be struck by lightning.


----------



## GrimzagGorwazza (Aug 5, 2010)

I really hope this rumour is bogus, i'm pretty happy with this edition so far and i've not even had an update for my core army yet. If we yet again end up with an ork codex release just before the new BRB is released i think that would well and trully put the the final nail in the coffin as far as trying to keep up with the 40k rules is for me. 
I'll be petitioning my gaming group to stick with sixth as we all have updated rules once Codex orks is released, with all the expansions already owned there isn't a reason to move on.


----------



## Zion (May 31, 2011)

GrimzagGorwazza said:


> I really hope this rumour is bogus, i'm pretty happy with this edition so far and i've not even had an update for my core army yet. If we yet again end up with an ork codex release just before the new BRB is released i think that would well and trully put the the final nail in the coffin as far as trying to keep up with the 40k rules is for me.
> I'll be petitioning my gaming group to stick with sixth as we all have updated rules once Codex orks is released, with all the expansions already owned there isn't a reason to move on.


Honestly I wouldn't put any nails in any coffins until after the rules are out and you know how they work. Resisting change for the sake of resisting does no one any good.


----------



## GrimzagGorwazza (Aug 5, 2010)

Zion said:


> Honestly I wouldn't put any nails in any coffins until after the rules are out and you know how they work. Resisting change for the sake of resisting does no one any good.



I'm not resisting for the sake of resisting but i'm a firm believer in the theory of "if it aint broke, don't smack it wiv a spanner". I'm happy with 6th so why would i want to switch when this is the first time since 3rd edition that every race has been up to date in one hit? Admitedly if it's a minor minor update that doesn't mean i need to spend another chunk of money on a full update than i'll look into it but as i bought the special edition rulebook two years ago and have only had a chance to use it a dozen or so times, i'm not going to be in a hurry to replace it when i could be spending money on more models or paints. Heck i wouldn't buy a new pc or games console after only two years if a new one came out, i'm not going to be doing it for a book when the one i've got still works with my immediate games group.


----------



## Zion (May 31, 2011)

GrimzagGorwazza said:


> I'm not resisting for the sake of resisting but i'm a firm believer in the theory of "if it aint broke, don't smack it wiv a spanner". I'm happy with 6th so why would i want to switch when this is the first time since 3rd edition that every race has been up to date in one hit? Admitedly if it's a minor minor update that doesn't mean i need to spend another chunk of money on a full update than i'll look into it but as i bought the special edition rulebook two years ago and have only had a chance to use it a dozen or so times, i'm not going to be in a hurry to replace it when i could be spending money on more models or paints. Heck i wouldn't buy a new pc or games console after only two years if a new one came out, i'm not going to be doing it for a book when the one i've got still works with my immediate games group.


6th is hardly perfect though. There are a number of things that need fine tuning (and I don't mean just the codexes either). The rules allow a lot of spam, and some of them just don't make much sense (Example: Interceptor lets Skyfire shoot at ground targets instead of making it a separate rule). At least see what 7th does to the game before burying it out in the backyard is best I think.


----------



## Einherjar667 (Aug 23, 2013)

Wow, is ANYONE an optimist here? It's as if GW has only ever done bad things, which is very far from true.


----------



## Nordicus (May 3, 2013)

Einherjar667 said:


> Wow, is ANYONE an optimist here? It's as if GW has only ever done bad things, which is very far from true


*Raises hand* I would welcome a new addition, even though I like the current. Change is always fun in my book!


----------



## Zion (May 31, 2011)

Einherjar667 said:


> Wow, is ANYONE an optimist here? It's as if GW has only ever done bad things, which is very far from true.


I'm pessimistic in my expectations, but an optimist in what I hope for.


----------



## Einherjar667 (Aug 23, 2013)

Zion said:


> I'm pessimistic in my expectations, but an optimist in what I hope for.


I'd say you have one of the most fair perspectives, which is excellent as you do reviews. I'm just saying, going on about how an update is the end of the world is absolutely absurd when it's still in "rumor form", especially since the 6th edition codex's and army books have been getting better over time.


----------



## Bindi Baji (Apr 23, 2009)

Einherjar667 said:


> Wow, is ANYONE an optimist here? It's as if GW has only ever done bad things, which is very far from true.


I am optimistic they will improve some things,
I am not optimistic about forking out for a rule book so quick after the last though.......


----------



## Zion (May 31, 2011)

Bindi Baji said:


> I am optimistic they will improve some things,
> I am not optimistic about forking out for a rule book so quick after the last though.......


I am a bit skeptical on a rulebook coming out this quick, but I'm willing to be wrong too.


----------



## King Gary (Aug 13, 2009)

Does anyone else think that these rumors might actually be linked to the rumored Epic release rather than an update to 40k? I'm just saying that an Epic re-release makes more sense to me at this point (there is a massive appetite within the hobby for large scale battles) than a new starter box and updated rules for the core game.


----------



## Zion (May 31, 2011)

King Gary said:


> Does anyone else think that these rumors might actually be linked to the rumored Epic release rather than an update to 40k? I'm just saying that an Epic re-release makes more sense to me at this point (there is a massive appetite within the hobby for large scale battles) than a new starter box and updated rules for the core game.


It is possible, but I'm not holding my breath for either one.


----------



## bitsandkits (Mar 18, 2008)

Im not convinced by this rumour, considering the number of additional books they have been pumping out for this edition and the rate that the codex/supplements armies have been coming it seem counterproductive to suddenly drop another edition on people, a new starter set i could swallow, but only from the point of veiw of shifting more models, a new starter set gives a massive boost to the armies contained within it and would make sense to change up after two years as one of the armies was chapter specific and the other gave a nice additional boost to chaos marines, doing it again with blood angels(arguably the most popular non codex codexed army) and the Ork (loved and popular but get little love from GW) makes perfect sense and give a boost to two up coming releases.

a new set of rules doesnt make sense, a book with *all* the rules in and smaller amount of fluff however makes sense, include all the expansions and make a super book , sell that as the core book for another couple of years until 7th is released.

anyway i dont see the community swallowing a bog standard core rule book this soon, 4 to 5 years is already far too quick for most GW gamers and im sure GW know it.


----------



## ntaw (Jul 20, 2012)

bitsandkits said:


> a new starter set gives a massive boost to the armies contained within it and would make sense to change up after two years as one of the armies was chapter specific and the other gave a nice additional boost to chaos marines, doing it again with blood angels(arguably the most popular non codex codexed army) and the Ork (loved and popular but get little love from GW) makes perfect sense and give a boost to two up coming releases


:goodpost:


----------



## psactionman (Jul 1, 2012)

Personally, and from a pure business perspective, releasing a combined rule set makes more sense than anything else. Their drop in sales last year is not surprising since every year at that time the stock and sales drop. Also, they were competing with a starter set and new rules release, so I doubt they are concerned at all. Let's keep in mind, they have sold out of all the new Tau releases when they came out, as well as the Imperial Knights. If they aren't happy with the money they made from those two alone then I don't know what will make them happy.

A lot of changes made and data slate/formation/supplement releases have been to make the game more flexible. If they sell more models great, but it seems like they are giving the players more opportunity to buy new things without trying to build one new thing that appeals to everyone. They were going to release a new Fantasy rule set anyway, why not roll that into a 40k re-release and buff the sales of a product that is not doing very well right now? It makes more sense than boosting sales to 40k, which from my perspective is doing quite well on its own.

I'm also more convinced it is Epic being released. A starter set that includes terrain makes more sense for a smaller scale game like epic than 40k.


----------



## Zion (May 31, 2011)

New rumor bits:


> via a must remain anonymous source.
> -7th edition will come in June
> -New fortification rules and Lords of War will both be in the new rulebook as standard, there are some changes from what we have now.
> -There will be a new phase added to the game, a psychic phase.


"New" phrase indeed.


----------



## VictorLazarus (Mar 5, 2009)

I would gladly buy a new edition rule book. So long as that book has something like:

A Heavy Tank that does not move may fire all its weapons (including Ordinance) at its full Ballistic Skill.

I just can't bring myself to tear the weapons off my tanks.

MVL.


----------



## The Sturk (Feb 3, 2012)

Oh look...another Psychic Phase rumor.


Honestly, as long as that Overwatch rumor from a few pages back isn't implemented, I don't think I'd care too much (other than shelling another $70+ for the book).


----------



## Zion (May 31, 2011)

Some more stuff concerning products and a possible relation to the new edition:



> via an anonymous source on Faeit 212
> Huge 7 page list of items to be known lossed and returned to corporate. Vast majority is Lord of the Rings. Some odd core/troop choices for both Fantasy and 40k as well. These are going to direct order only. Likely, it is a move similar in the past, that those items that don't sell well get pulled to make more shelf space.





> via another anonymous source on Faeit 212
> This is a new strategy that has started. For instance the plan is to slowly renew all the core troops. And in preparation for this there pulling older boxes back so they don't have to throw away a lot of items. This is the same for other models. Long planning cut backs, everything they have in the warehouse, they control directly.
> 
> Second, the plan is to have all GW shops eventually sell only the new models and models in the new boxes. All finecast kits and old box art will disappear from the shop floor eventually. This is partly due to shop floor spaces (more one man stores with less wall space) and less of their assets in the shops. Which seeing there decline in the stock is a logical step.


And confirmation from the comments:


> Father Gabe
> My local GW had pulled a bunch of stuff and had it on the table. Manager said if you want it now instantly, buy it now. He ended up boxing what was left to send back to home office.
> 
> Saw things like: Most LotR (not hobbit), Super Slaanesh Lawnmower box thingy, Hellcannon, Minotaurs, Beastman, Ungor, Empire steamtank, Hellblaster Volley Gun to name a few...and a crap ton of 40k/Fantasy finecast blisters. Hope this helps.





> pain ted
> Yep it's happening here too. Lotr finecast stuff disappearing hopefully to return on shelves in plastic but that's doubtful... Probably Web exclusive. Which is okay anyways, I never find I need something instantly. I can always wait a week or two.


So it's a thing that's happening for the GW stores and it's something that makes. It's only tentatively tied to a new edition, but we'll see were it goes.


----------



## iamtheeviltwin (Nov 12, 2012)

Talking with my local redshirt who also had a pile of stuff in the backroom, this is just a standard re-organization of store inventories. Most of the items being sent back are going direct order only to free up space for newer models on the store shelves.

The only exception he mentioned is that some of the oldest LoTR are being sent back to be "destroyed" (whatever that means).

Doesn't look like this has anything to do with any "new" editions, just another move with their new business plan and weekly release schedule.


----------



## Zion (May 31, 2011)

The rumors came out on Faeit tied to 7th so I put them here just in case.


----------



## iamtheeviltwin (Nov 12, 2012)

While I expect we are getting a new printing of the rulebook this coming month (based on rumors and such)...it is likely just a rebinding/branding of the books with the current FAQs written into them (much like the current eBook or iBook versions).

The "new edition" rumors sound more and more like simple wishlisting, seem to have little substance, and the "changes" vary wildly depending upon the rumormonger.


----------



## Zion (May 31, 2011)

Rumor puts pre-orders for the new rulebook at 24 May and release being 31 May.


----------



## Moonschwine (Jun 13, 2011)

http://s14.postimg.org/s109wqg5d/1398882136998.png


----------



## Zion (May 31, 2011)

From BoLS comments section:


> My sister in law works in the printing department and has seen parts of the new rule book. She has limited gameplay experience but does know the rules from watching countless games. One thing she did notice is that "Prescience" is no longer the Primaris Power in Divination. It has move to number five and now cost two warp charges to cast.


All the salt on that one.


----------



## Worthy (Feb 10, 2013)

Moonschwine said:


> http://s14.postimg.org/s109wqg5d/1398882136998.png


*"THERE IS NO TIME FOR PEACE"*

...because at our Games Workshop store, we will be playing Heavy Metal music whilst making alot dreadnought sound effects :grin:


----------



## Einherjar667 (Aug 23, 2013)

Zion said:


> From BoLS comments section:
> All the salt on that one.



GW's book says they're printed in China...... Pretty sure their printing is outsourced.


----------



## MidnightSun (Feb 10, 2009)

Zion said:


> Rumor puts pre-orders for the new rulebook at 24 May and release being 31 May.


My local GW says pre-orders go up at around 7PM on the 16th, hence the new opening hours coming into effect on the 14th. No idea if this is across the country or not, but it certainly makes sense here.


----------



## Bindi Baji (Apr 23, 2009)

Einherjar667 said:


> GW's book says they're printed in China...... Pretty sure their printing is outsourced.


Indeed, printing moved out of the UK to China a good few years ago now


----------

