GW Studio Open Day Rundown:

[Bigred]

Faeit 212 got a decent rundown on the GW Openday and some interesting tidbits regarding 6th were touched on:

Full article (http://natfka.blogspot.com/2012/07/faeit-212-exclusive-40k-design-studio.html)

Main points:

-Hull points added to help reduce the randomness of the old vehicle rules, so vehicles degrade along a more regular curve, instead of being impossible to kill, or instantly dead.

-Psyker rules added to give them a more impact in game compared to their watered down versions in 5th.

-Challenges added to give heroes a feel of leading units in battle and offer chances for in-game heroics.

-6 40k projects are in the works right now

-Goal of releasing a major project for the game every month ongoing.

-Alessio was cited as making 5th edition a bit "flat and generic" by pushing towards a balanced competitive-worthy ruleset. They have moved in a different direction for 6th.

[Houghten]

-Alessio was cited as making 5th edition a bit "flat and generic" by pushing towards a balanced competitive-worthy ruleset. They have moved in a different direction for 6th.

*snrrrrrrrrrrrrrk* Fwa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!

Anyone trying to claim "40k is competitive!" from now on is going to have a hard time getting around that one.

[gcsmith]

TBH 40k is still competative, would be more so if they updated every codex within x months of the rules release

[Crevab]

Wow, reading that it's... disappointing, I guess, just how differently I view the game than the creators

[GrogDaTyrant]

Wow, reading that it's... disappointing, I guess, just how differently I view the game than the creators

Or any of us, for that matter... the idea that 5th was more 'competitive-worthy' is laughable. As is the idea that psykers already weren't having a 'big enough impact' when half the armies don't even have a means of stopping them.

[Wildeybeast]

Why allies and fortifications? To sell more models, duh. Like that was a question that even needed asking.

"He said that there would most likely need to be a larger number of expansions between now and 4 years time so that you don’t reach a point where all codex’s for 6th are released with 2 years still to go before the next cycle."

So in other words we are going to get a situation where some codexes are still left languishing until the end of the cycle. Oh good. Why not update all the codexes and then fart around with the expansions if you are so keen to prolong the lifespan of the rules? And so by a project every month, I expect to see new terrain, flyers etc, not a codex every month. Still it would be nice to see at least a couple between now and the end of the year and it is good to hear that they are planning to give us plenty of stuff over the next few months. That should stop people whining about 'the year of 40k' being a let down.

If 6th ed was finished 6 months ago, I think that conclusively proves that the 'leaked' rule set was fanmade one and not a work in progress (in case anyone still had any doubts).

Tyranids in the works? Yay!

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-ihiZGIU1-tk/UAHurv_o0_I/AAAAAAAAGsY/wgFPTTiuL8s/s400/GetAttachment.jpg

So that's what's been taking up all the parking spaces. There is no way that thing is life size. You cannot possibly fit 10 marines into it.

[Mr Mystery]

Why allies and fortifications? To sell more models, duh. Like that was a question that even needed asking.

"He said that there would most likely need to be a larger number of expansions between now and 4 years time so that you don’t reach a point where all codex’s for 6th are released with 2 years still to go before the next cycle."

So in other words we are going to get a situation where some codexes are still left languishing until the end of the cycle. Oh good. Why not update all the codexes and then fart around with the expansions if you are so keen to prolong the lifespan of the rules? And so by a project every month, I expect to see new terrain, flyers etc, not a codex every month. Still it would be nice to see at least a couple between now and the end of the year and it is good to hear that they are planning to give us plenty of stuff over the next few months. That should stop people whining about 'the year of 40k' being a let down.



Think of this from a financial standpoint. Releasing an army say, every 3 months means you'll sell more. Whereas I can certainly afford an expansion book every month, or something to add to my current armies, I can only realistically justify the cost of a new army periodically. Yet that doesn't stop me getting 'shinynew syndrome' every month.

And to be honest, I do question just how many armies are in urgent need of an update. Tau, Dark Angels, Eldar and Chaos spring to mind, follow by Tryanids. The rest strike me as much of a muchness

[Wildeybeast]

Think of this from a financial standpoint. Releasing an army say, every 3 months means you'll sell more. Whereas I can certainly afford an expansion book every month, or something to add to my current armies, I can only realistically justify the cost of a new army periodically. Yet that doesn't stop me getting 'shinynew syndrome' every month.

And to be honest, I do question just how many armies are in urgent need of an update. Tau, Dark Angels, Eldar and Chaos spring to mind, follow by Tryanids. The rest strike me as much of a muchness

I'd add SoB to that list since they don't actually have a proper codex. And if those were the ones to get updated first, then a codex every 3 months wouldn't be so much of an issue, but we all know they won't be. Rumours are CSM are first and we all know vanilla marines won't be too far behind. Even if they did update all those armies first, with one every three months you are still looking at waiting another year and half if you are last on the list, but with the big sellers chucked in there you are talking at least another two years to wait in some cases. And with expansions, Hobbit and fantasy in there, it could be more like 4-5 months between codexes. When we already have codexes which weren't updated last edition, it really sucks if you are the player of one of those armies. I get the business sense behind it, but that it is little consolation to those players affected by it.

[Mr Mystery]

I'd add SoB to that list since they don't actually have a proper codex. And if those were the ones to get updated first, then a codex every 3 months wouldn't be so much of an issue, but we all know they won't be. Rumours are CSM are first and we all know vanilla marines won't be too far behind. Even if they did update all those armies first, with one every three months you are still looking at waiting another year and half if you are last on the list, but with the big sellers chucked in there you are talking at least another two years to wait in some cases. And with expansions, Hobbit and fantasy in there, it could be more like 4-5 months between codexes. When we already have codexes which weren't updated last edition, it really sucks if you are the player of one of those armies. I get the business sense behind it, but that it is little consolation to those players affected by it.

I did indeed neglect Sisters!

But overall, none of the armybooks are exactly unplayable. Sure they need a spit and polish and everyone wants fun new toys, but they all function within the framework of the current rule set. In terms of the pay off for the producer, I'm guessing you also have to balance it out with how popular a given army is and what sort of return one might expect. SoB for various reasons have never been a widely played army, whereas Chaos and Tau have quite a wide base of players, and appeal to a wider range (former Chaos player. Had Iron Warriors in 3.5, got bored, sold them, and just need something to hook me in again) so it makes financial sense and crowd pleasing sense to tackle those first.

Marines? I don't see it to be honest. They have a complete set of models, nothing looks dated, and they've just had their digital codex released. Sure it's updateable, but this could be a new way of doing things. The Codex itself isn't broke, and needs nothing really doing to it. So just dish out new toys via WD, and save production costs, which can be filtered into other projects.

[Renegade]

I, um, ooo... Sounds like some interesting stuff out there. I like the direction they say they are taking the rules, and this bodes well for not only the newer codices, but for future editions if they stay with it.

[Bigred]

About 75% of what was said was the standard flowery marketing speech, papering over a simple desire for profit (which is fine), but they did let slip some nuggets that I put into the top summary.

Overall, they didn't say that much.

[jonsgot]

If 6th ed was finished 6 months ago, I think that conclusively proves that the 'leaked' rule set was fanmade one and not a work in progress (in case anyone still had any doubts).

A fan named Alessio Cavorte?;)

[jonsgot]

Think of this from a financial standpoint. Releasing an army say, every 3 months means you'll sell more. Whereas I can certainly afford an expansion book every month, or something to add to my current armies, I can only realistically justify the cost of a new army periodically. Yet that doesn't stop me getting 'shinynew syndrome' every month.

And to be honest, I do question just how many armies are in urgent need of an update. Tau, Dark Angels, Eldar and Chaos spring to mind, follow by Tryanids. The rest strike me as much of a muchness

That would explain why there are only pictures of a few codex's in the new rule book. I think it's 4 or 5 where as 5th had most of them.

[Lerra]

And to be honest, I do question just how many armies are in urgent need of an update.

Don't forget Black Templar either. I'd only call the top 6 or so of these armies "update urgently needed" but the others are due for an update anyway.

1. Sisters
2. Eldar
3. Chaos Space Marines
4. Chaos Daemons
5. Black Templar
6. Tau
7. Dark Angels
8. Codex: Space Marines (they don't need it per se, but as the flagship codex they're due for an update)
9. Tyranids

At a codex every 3 months, that's still over 2 years to get these armies all updated. I'm hoping GW doesn't take too much longer than 3 months per codex.

[Defenestratus]

A fan named Alessio Cavorte?;)

I guess the secrets out then.

Given the comments by Phil... There still seems to be some tension going on there.

[jonsgot]

I guess the secrets out then.

Given the comments by Phil... There still seems to be some tension going on there.

I think the tension would be with Jarvis - He's the Gibs of GWS - out lived all the directors and other writers. He's also not shy about his view 40k is for fun not competitiveness.

[the jeske]

ask the DA or chaos players how fun 5th ed was .

[Man in Black]

ask the DA or chaos players how fun 5th ed was .
And I have Chaos Marines, Dark Angels and Black Templars. Chaos wasn't all that bad, but still preferred the 3.5 Codex.

[Kaiserdean]

I thought that was an interesting reply. It's not terribly insightful but it does give some reasoning behind the GW thought process.

A lot of gamers seem to be complaining about old codexes but I think a lot of people underestimate how much production goes into an army release and how much time it can take to develop. Even when a new codex comes out, a lot of players flame the book and wish the designers spent more time on it... I guess it's a no-win situation.

Of course, most of these decisions are made to sell more product and get consumers to purchase more. GW is a business...

[Wildeybeast]

In terms of the pay off for the producer, I'm guessing you also have to balance it out with how popular a given army is and what sort of return one might expect.

That's true to some extent, but DE showed that you can take an unpopular and badly neglected army, give it a really good make over and turn it into one of your best selling ranges. The same could be done with any of the others, it just takes some TLC. I agree that non of the armies are unplayable, with even Tau becoming more competitive, but some still need an update, both in terms of models and a new codex. The longer you leave an army with the same old models, the more sales of that army will decline, so there is good sense in updating your oldest ranges first. SM will always sell well regardless of often they are updated, but you could get a big sales increase from some of the less popular ranges with a good overhaul.

[the jeske]

The longer you leave an army with the same old models, the more sales of that army will decline, so there is good sense in updating your oldest ranges first.
If that was true then SW and IG would have sold worse then nids , because both have older dex. Oddly enough the sells are in the rules . I mean technicly DA and chaos were awesome too. You could play DW with DA or BL with chaos and that is more or less it . playing such a codex for years is a very frustrating expiriance .
On the other hand dex like SW or GK are viable not only because they have powerful rules ,but also because their life is longer. You started with a draigo wing ? welcome to less then 1/3 of all GK builds of which all are different . That is what GW should be doing for their dex and that is why Ward dex were good [if you didnt try to read any fluff] .


Chaos wasn't all that bad, but still preferred the 3.5 Codex.
comparing to which army ? sure we had it better then old necrons [but who didnt] old IG[even sob had it better] , old GK or Sob . But we wer worse then all the new 5th ed dex , I mean even nid had more ways to be played then chaos . And post FAQ even DW and BT gunlies got better then our "fun" dex.