What would 7th edition mean to Space Wolves

[Grimfoe]

BOLS has a new rumor up from someone they claim to be very credible.  They are claiming we'll see a 7th edition of 40K in the summer.  I've also heard, for several months now, that we'll likely have a new codex shortly before then.

 

Is that what you're all hearing as well?

 

If so, what does that mean to us?  Specifically, I'm wondering if it's a good or a bad thing to have a codex issued right before the new edition of the Rulebook is released?

[Brother Captain Sirus]

Dont play wolves so cant answer that bit. However, as a grey knight player i can say its not great having a release before new edition as you have a codex that is in limbo between two editions. Mainly because you get some of the new stuff but not all, so as extras rules are used in new codecies you start to really feel that your army lacks just that little bit.

 

As a hobbyist and frequent gamer i really hope they let 6th ed have atleast another 9 to 12 months, but we'll just have to wait and see.

[dothac83]

I highly doubt there will be a 7th edition out this year. There's been a 4-year gap between the 4th, 5th, and 6th editions. If that pattern continued, then there's probably not going to be a 7th edition until 2016 give or take.

[Frater Cornelius]

Didn't they go back on this one and said that it will be more like 6.5, some minor tweak and escalation/fortifications taken in? These updates are needed, I mean it still calls Juggernaughts Infantry. As for SW? Depends on the Codex and, should they be so dumb and do 7ed proper, then depends on the rules. Look at our current Codex, still being strong.

[DanPesci]

Aye if they do bring out 7th next year, bets are itll be 6.5 rather than a whole new rulebook...hell, half the current armies haven't even been properly updated for 6th yet.

 

Would be nice to se them do a few bits of rules tweaking,  (e.g. i read one rumour somewhere about them making all pistol weapons usabel in combat similar to how cypher can, so plasma pistols would be well worth their points again) and id liek to see them combine all these new supplements into one book.

 

As for whether wolves will be affected by it...its very hard to tell, especially as we're most likely be going to get a new codex before any of this happens. If the new set of rules is 6.5, then itll most liekly be a good thing for us with a new codex that is built to suit 6th edition.

 

 

but unfortunately, we'll jsut have to wait..... (helpful i know! haha) 

[Grimfoe]

Lol.  I'm hoping it will be a 6.5.  The update will be welcome if only because it will put everything in one place and clean a few things up.

 

If it's 6.5, I'm guessing our new codex will be shiny, new and broken according to all our foes.  I have noticed, however, that GW is producing rulebooks MUCH faster than ever before.  I'm not so quick to say it won't be 7th edition.  Even so, I guess that doesn't necessarily mean there will be wholesale changes to the rules.

 

What to paint, then?  With limited time and potential for a new codex and/or a new rulebook in the next six months, where do we go from here?  I still have a 2nd edition army (the best edition, btw) that I'm trying to refit to make current.  I'm thinking that I should stick to refitting my Grey Hunters for now and adding to their strength.  5-7 units of Hunters have been an excellent force in every edition.  Does that sound like the reasonable direction.  I'm planning on picking up the brushes in a couple of weeks and wondering where to start.  I don't really have a lot of time and I don't want to be painting models that will be obsolete in a few months.

[Max_Dammit]

If there is a new core rule book i hope they nerf flyer's, that hit on 6 only no matter your BS is BS

 

Other than that, I will embrace the new SW book and adapt.

[Valerian]

So, a few thoughts from V:

 

I think it's a little early for a core rules revision, so would be surprised if anything is actually released.  The progression from 3e, 4e, to 5e were small revisions, whereas the jump to 6e was a pretty major adjustment to the rules; if something is released, I would expect that it would be an evolutionary step vice revolutionary (e.g. more like a version 6.5). 

 

In my opinion, 6e is the best version of the rules yet; it is by far more coherent than any that preceded it.  That being said, there are now some fairly significant issues with it that ought to be dealt with, so perhaps they want to fast-track that.  For one, they made too many small changes that, taken together, really hurt the close-combat portion of combat (also known as "assault is dead in 6e" syndrome); this is one area that could use some rebalancing. 

 

A second is, perhaps, the impact that flyers have had on the game; I'm really pleased at the incorporation of flyers, and the proliferation of new flyer models for some armies, but the rules for them could also use some re-balancing, and certainly given the absence of efficient and effective air defense capabilities in several codices (notably ours).

 

Additionally, I really think they should take another look the incorporation of allies; my preference would be that allies matrices be placed in an 'optional' category (i.e. with opponent's permission, etc.) rather than in the core rules.  Use of allies is terrific for narrative and themed games, where all parties agree to those conditions, but really throws a curveball into both pickup games and competitive play.  What I've always appreciated with older versions of the game was that you were, in fact, constrained to what was available within a single codex.  Each codex/army/race had its own strengths and weaknesses, so you got to pick the army list that you wanted to play with and then did the best you could to build an effective army with whatever was available.  Allowance of allies has largely taken that away, and has likewise led to monstrosities like the infamous Taudar list, and others.

 

Finally, the proliferation of supplements (both codex supplements as well as core rules supplements) has really complicated the game; right now the meta seems more like the Wild West, and I can't even keep up with what's currently "out there" (especially when you throw in additional ForgeWorld releases).  I much prefer the olden days where a game only required three books: your codex, my codex, and the rules - much simpler to keep track of everything, and also seems to be much less opportunity for "pay to win".

 

As far as the rumored Space Wolves codex to be released in a few months, it is all up to the designer.  We, the community here in the Fang, know exactly what units need to be adjusted and fixed; we've had dozens of threads listing out the details and making the coherent and rational arguments.  The question is whether the designer (whomever he may be) has 1) been paying attention, and 2) cares.  Luckily, the Wolves have always been treated well in the past; let us hope that the trend remains consistent with past experience.  That being said, please, please, please don't overdo the "wolf" theme; we really don't need the term to be inserted into every unit, piece of wargear, special rule, psychic power, and special character name - subtle is better!

 

Best,

 

Valerian

[skeletoro]

treating BS as 2 or 3 lower might work for fliers.

[Sigvard]

So, a few thoughts from V:

 

I think it's a little early for a core rules revision, so would be surprised if anything is actually released.  The progression from 3e, 4e, to 5e were small revisions, whereas the jump to 6e was a pretty major adjustment to the rules; if something is released, I would expect that it would be an evolutionary step vice revolutionary (e.g. more like a version 6.5). 

 

In my opinion, 6e is the best version of the rules yet; it is by far more coherent than any that preceded it.  That being said, there are now some fairly significant issues with it that ought to be dealt with, so perhaps they want to fast-track that.  For one, they made too many small changes that, taken together, really hurt the close-combat portion of combat (also known as "assault is dead in 6e" syndrome); this is one area that could use some rebalancing. 

 

A second is, perhaps, the impact that flyers have had on the game; I'm really pleased at the incorporation of flyers, and the proliferation of new flyer models for some armies, but the rules for them could also use some re-balancing, and certainly given the absence of efficient and effective air defense capabilities in several codices (notably ours).

 

Additionally, I really think they should take another look the incorporation of allies; my preference would be that allies matrices be placed in an 'optional' category (i.e. with opponent's permission, etc.) rather than in the core rules.  Use of allies is terrific for narrative and themed games, where all parties agree to those conditions, but really throws a curveball into both pickup games and competitive play.  What I've always appreciated with older versions of the game was that you were, in fact, constrained to what was available within a single codex.  Each codex/army/race had its own strengths and weaknesses, so you got to pick the army list that you wanted to play with and then did the best you could to build an effective army with whatever was available.  Allowance of allies has largely taken that away, and has likewise led to monstrosities like the infamous Taudar list, and others.

 

Finally, the proliferation of supplements (both codex supplements as well as core rules supplements) has really complicated the game; right now the meta seems more like the Wild West, and I can't even keep up with what's currently "out there" (especially when you throw in additional ForgeWorld releases).  I much prefer the olden days where a game only required three books: your codex, my codex, and the rules - much simpler to keep track of everything, and also seems to be much less opportunity for "pay to win".

 

As far as the rumored Space Wolves codex to be released in a few months, it is all up to the designer.  We, the community here in the Fang, know exactly what units need to be adjusted and fixed; we've had dozens of threads listing out the details and making the coherent and rational arguments.  The question is whether the designer (whomever he may be) has 1) been paying attention, and 2) cares.  Luckily, the Wolves have always been treated well in the past; let us hope that the trend remains consistent with past experience.  That being said, please, please, please don't overdo the "wolf" theme; we really don't need the term to be inserted into every unit, piece of wargear, special rule, psychic power, and special character name - subtle is better!

 

Best,

 

Valerian

 

^^ This

[Grimfoe]

I also tend to agree with Valerian, except I'll never place 6th edition above 2nd.  That was my favorite edition, by far.  I loved "hero hammer."

 

That said, what do you think of my plan?  Should I just stick with refitting Grey Hunters until we get more definitive information concerning the new codex?  My thinking is that we'll always need hunters, but I've had wargear problems in the past. 

 

(Just ask all of my troops with swords and powerfists how useful they feel now....."what do you mean there's no more parry rule?")

 

I guess what I'm really asking is do you think our current wargear load outs and options will stand up?  Will they likely be the same in June as they are now? 

[Sigvard]

I think kitting them out for 6th edition is a safe bet for the next few months after that it is anyones guess.

There are rumours flying around left, right and centre about new editions and whether we are trading places with BA in the release schedule. I personally think that Grey Hunters will retain their ability to have 2 special weapons but I do not think the second will be free. I also don't believe they will be able to take a hidden power weapon/fist.

 

Finally I do not think this "new edition" will be any more than a consolidation of exisiting expansions, data slates and collection of GW (bum) fluff into one shiny all important and overly expensive gimmick....sorry I meant book. It is not going to flip turn upside down the way the game handles because they have other products that require big updates

[Konnavaer]

So, a few thoughts from V:

I think it's a little early for a core rules revision, so would be surprised if anything is actually released. The progression from 3e, 4e, to 5e were small revisions, whereas the jump to 6e was a pretty major adjustment to the rules; if something is released, I would expect that it would be an evolutionary step vice revolutionary (e.g. more like a version 6.5).

In my opinion, 6e is the best version of the rules yet; it is by far more coherent than any that preceded it. That being said, there are now some fairly significant issues with it that ought to be dealt with, so perhaps they want to fast-track that. For one, they made too many small changes that, taken together, really hurt the close-combat portion of combat (also known as "assault is dead in 6e" syndrome); this is one area that could use some rebalancing.

A second is, perhaps, the impact that flyers have had on the game; I'm really pleased at the incorporation of flyers, and the proliferation of new flyer models for some armies, but the rules for them could also use some re-balancing, and certainly given the absence of efficient and effective air defense capabilities in several codices (notably ours).

Additionally, I really think they should take another look the incorporation of allies; my preference would be that allies matrices be placed in an 'optional' category (i.e. with opponent's permission, etc.) rather than in the core rules. Use of allies is terrific for narrative and themed games, where all parties agree to those conditions, but really throws a curveball into both pickup games and competitive play. What I've always appreciated with older versions of the game was that you were, in fact, constrained to what was available within a single codex. Each codex/army/race had its own strengths and weaknesses, so you got to pick the army list that you wanted to play with and then did the best you could to build an effective army with whatever was available. Allowance of allies has largely taken that away, and has likewise led to monstrosities like the infamous Taudar list, and others.

Finally, the proliferation of supplements (both codex supplements as well as core rules supplements) has really complicated the game; right now the meta seems more like the Wild West, and I can't even keep up with what's currently "out there" (especially when you throw in additional ForgeWorld releases). I much prefer the olden days where a game only required three books: your codex, my codex, and the rules - much simpler to keep track of everything, and also seems to be much less opportunity for "pay to win".

As far as the rumored Space Wolves codex to be released in a few months, it is all up to the designer. We, the community here in the Fang, know exactly what units need to be adjusted and fixed; we've had dozens of threads listing out the details and making the coherent and rational arguments. The question is whether the designer (whomever he may be) has 1) been paying attention, and 2) cares. Luckily, the Wolves have always been treated well in the past; let us hope that the trend remains consistent with past experience. That being said, please, please, please don't overdo the "wolf" theme; we really don't need the term to be inserted into every unit, piece of wargear, special rule, psychic power, and special character name - subtle is better!

Best,

Valerian

Totally this, as usual Valerian knows what he is talking about

[d@n]

6th edition is games works attempt to balance the rules. Vehicles and assault army have a hard time under 6th as they went to far. So I think , if they release a new edition, it will have a few minor rules tweak and all the new stuff like death from the skies, esculation ect added in.

It want be a total re write.

gw last year re wrote, fully half of all the codices in an attempted to have everyone using codices written for the same rule set, it

Would make no sense to change the rules.

[-Volsung-]

 

gw last year re wrote, fully half of all the codices in an attempted to have everyone using codices written for the same rule set, it

Would make no sense to change the rules.

 

Or to make hella money.

 

Especially now that spamming limited edition codices at double retail price is guaranteeing a set number of sold outs.

[Vor]

If there is a new core rule book i hope they nerf flyer's, that hit on 6 only no matter your BS is BS

 

Other than that, I will embrace the new SW book and adapt.

 

No real need for that. I've gunned them down with grey hunters before. And it's easy enough to take dedicated anti air.

[Max_Dammit]

Its not that, BS is made up in price or amount of shots, an ork has more chance of shooting down a flyer than a marine that can calculate trajectory.

 

they hit on a 5+ so the 6+ is only 50% penelty, A GH hits on a 3+, thats a 75% (?) penalty for something that knows how to shoot better

[d@n]

 

If there is a new core rule book i hope they nerf flyer's, that hit on 6 only no matter your BS is BS

 

Other than that, I will embrace the new SW book and adapt.

 

No real need for that. I've gunned them down with grey hunters before. And it's easy enough to take dedicated anti air.

 

I agree. Apart from hell drake and doom scythe spam, fliers are more of a nuisance then anything else. They miss a few turns to start with and when they do come on, don't do a huge amount of damage anyway and if you are playing against either of the 2 previously mentioned fliers, just get most of your stuff into assault and your opponent has a huge chunk of his points flying around with nothing to do.

 

I have never understood why people freak out so much about them

[DanPesci]

I also tend to agree with Valerian, except I'll never place 6th edition above 2nd.  That was my favorite edition, by far.  I loved "hero hammer."

 

That said, what do you think of my plan?  Should I just stick with refitting Grey Hunters until we get more definitive information concerning the new codex?  My thinking is that we'll always need hunters, but I've had wargear problems in the past. 

 

(Just ask all of my troops with swords and powerfists how useful they feel now....."what do you mean there's no more parry rule?")

 

I guess what I'm really asking is do you think our current wargear load outs and options will stand up?  Will they likely be the same in June as they are now? 

 

Haha i feel your pain when it comes to powerfists, in 5th every grey hunter squad i had was led by a wolf guard with PF/CM. Now i have 5-6 of these guys who rarely make it off the shelf.

 

However Id say sticking with grey hunters as your core army is always going to be a safe bet for a SW army to then build around.

 

And, if in doubt, about specials, magnets!!

[Max_Dammit]

I also tend to agree with Valerian, except I'll never place 6th edition above 2nd. That was my favorite edition, by far. I loved "hero hammer."

That said, what do you think of my plan? Should I just stick with refitting Grey Hunters until we get more definitive information concerning the new codex? My thinking is that we'll always need hunters, but I've had wargear problems in the past.

(Just ask all of my troops with swords and powerfists how useful they feel now....."what do you mean there's no more parry rule?")

I guess what I'm really asking is do you think our current wargear load outs and options will stand up? Will they likely be the same in June as they are now?

Haha i feel your pain when it comes to powerfists, in 5th every grey hunter squad i had was led by a wolf guard with PF/CM. Now i have 5-6 of these guys who rarely make it off the shelf.

However Id say sticking with grey hunters as your core army is always going to be a safe bet for a SW army to then build around.

And, if in doubt, about specials, magnets!!

Poor you, I have 3 BC and dont know how many GH out of my 3th ED dex when we could have 2 PF in our GH and 3 in our BC's

[d@n]

I'm really hoping, in the next dex we get 3 melee weapons for every 5 models. That simple change would instantly make blood claws a competitive unit again.

[Valerian]

Did you mean 1 Special Close Combat Weapon for every 5 models in Claws units?  3 for every 5 would be way over-the-top (in my opinion).

 

V

[Grimtooth]

Did you mean 1 Special Close Combat Weapon for every 5 models in Claws units? 3 for every 5 would be way over-the-top (in my opinion).

V

Wait, you don't want 9 powerfists in a BC squad being led by a wolf priest rolling out of a Land Raider?

[Karack Blackstone]

I'm really hoping, in the next dex we get 3 melee weapons for every 5 models. That simple change would instantly make blood claws a competitive unit again.

 

Did you mean 1 Special Close Combat Weapon for every 5 models in Claws units?  3 for every 5 would be way over-the-top (in my opinion).

 

V

 

3rd Edition, it was exactly 1 SCCW for every 5 models, rounding up.  Thus, 11 to 15 BC's was 3 Power Weapons; it was rather fun.

 

To the thread, I'm pretty sure the rumor that seems most viable is that they plan to just take all their rules supplements and somehow compress them all into the new edition.

 

As to the rather meaty opinions in here, I pretty well agree with them all, save that I think our 5th Edition book allows both Hero Hammer and the chance to take a well rounded force.  The issue is of course, I have yet to see what the 6th Ed. Codex looks like yet, and as such cannot have any reliable opinion on it yet.  That said, I expect we'll get a fieldable army; what I'd like is for there to be a little more forgiveness on Dreads, however, that would take a new edition.  Also, if we're anything close to the C:SM points, rules, and fluff, we should be an amazing Codex this coming edition, hopefully before the change to 6.5, just labeled as 7th.

[d@n]

I know and that was the last time they were competitive.