I open a own Thread for this.

From War of Sigmar commentary:

Expect 40k to have a shake up later in the year!
"It won't be as drastic as Warhammer, but it will be quite a change."
More stream lined and easier to pick...

I was talking to Ally Morrison and Adam Dunn (They were near the entrance) I know Adam from a while back and during our chat 40k came up...
Well about how cumbersome it's become.
Any way.
He said the quote above....

Sad Panda wrote:

New edition won't arrive in 2016.

But they will (and kinda already do) move the story forward.

Sad Panda wrote:
There is a new edition of 40K in the works.

It's also correct that GW doesn't bother re-doing old Codex books, basically since Tau, as they consider 7th a lame duck rule set (there will still be rules for new miniatures, incl. campaigns, Codex Deathwatch, etc..).

Just that the timeline is off and the new edition further away ... at least 2017 ... according to my information (which has been good so far, but a new edition of 40K is the most secretive topic you could find in GW).

Hold on...is War of Sigmar GW related? Or is that supposed to be Age of Sigmar?

I don't anticipate a full 8th Edition any time soon, not after the backlash of how short-lived 6th Edition was. A full rules update with FAQs and Errata would be likely (and welcome) as we officially move into Warhammer 40,000 7.5

 KaptinBadrukk wrote:
Hold on...is War of Sigmar GW related? Or is that supposed to be Age of Sigmar?

War of Sigmar is a rumour blog https://war-of-sigmar.herokuapp.com/

Natfka is offering similar rumors on Faeit 212 right now -
http://natfka.blogspot.com/2016/05/warhammer-40k-new-edition-coming.html

Take with much salt, but the rumormongers in general have been pretty spot on the last few months...

So it's coming then. Prepare for buthurt. If this turns out to be true which I think is an inevitability then the campaign books have been leading up to a shake up of the setting.

 totalfailure wrote:
Natfka is offering similar rumors on Faeit 212 right now -
http://natfka.blogspot.com/2016/05/warhammer-40k-new-edition-coming.html

Take with much salt, but the rumormongers in general have been pretty spot on the last few months...

Naftka and Faeit are basically not running rumors, they just find random nonsense and repost it.

As of right now? I'll wait to hear Atia herself say anything, or any of the rumormongers with proven track records. Right now all we have is someone who posted the line quoted in the comments section of Atia's blog.

 EnTyme wrote:
I don't anticipate a full 8th Edition any time soon, not after the backlash of how short-lived 6th Edition was. A full rules update with FAQs and Errata would be likely (and welcome) as we officially move into Warhammer 40,000 7.5

I see the logic in your skepticism, but at the same time they may see 8th edition as an opportunity to monetize the FAQ/errata-fest going on right now. That wouldn't surprise me, either. As pissed as I was with the 6th to 7th transition, I still bought the 7th ed rulebooks, and would probably do the same with 8th.

*edit*

It may not necessarily be a bad thing (other than the cost, which does suck) if they're changing the game in meaningful ways for the better, beyond the recent FAQ stuff.

 Bull0 wrote:

 KaptinBadrukk wrote:
Hold on...is War of Sigmar GW related? Or is that supposed to be Age of Sigmar?

War of Sigmar is a rumour blog https://war-of-sigmar.herokuapp.com/

Thanks for telling me.

 Wolf_in_Human_Shape wrote:

 EnTyme wrote:
I don't anticipate a full 8th Edition any time soon, not after the backlash of how short-lived 6th Edition was. A full rules update with FAQs and Errata would be likely (and welcome) as we officially move into Warhammer 40,000 7.5

I see the logic in your skepticism, but at the same time they may see 8th edition as an opportunity to monetize the FAQ/errata-fest going on right now. That wouldn't surprise me, either. As pissed as I was with the 6th to 7th transition, I still bought the 7th ed rulebooks, and would probably do the same with 8th.

*edit*

It may not necessarily be a bad thing (other than the cost, which does suck) if they're changing the game in meaningful ways for the better, beyond the recent FAQ stuff.

Oh, I'm sure I'd buy it, too. It really depends on how much they want to change right now. It might actually be better to have a shiny new edition with all the clarifications made with the FAQ. With all the errata, 7th is starting to look like it's being held together by duct tape, hope, and rhino saliva. Don't get me wrong, I still really enjoy the game, but it does require a good deal of houseruling and player-made balancing even after the FAQ.

Yeah, it really does. Both for the sake of clarity and enjoyment.

This is good. 7th is a bloated mess with far too many Special Rules, so streamlining the game would be a good thing.

Also, AoS didn't go far enough, even though it went farther than many GW players were willing to accept.

If 8E is even a half-step to what AoS was, it will be a great improvement in playability. Heck, even if it's just AoS with points, that'll do.

As long as they do a decent job, and don't flip the game on its head I've not got a problem with this. A small update with all the FAQs in and some of the balance sorted could do the game the world of good.

So we can get it out of the way since timing and rumors seem to align...

Three cheers for CSM being the first codex of the next edition! Because that never turns out poorly!

But seriously, "quite a change" has me concerned.

 totalfailure wrote:
Natfka is offering similar rumors on Faeit 212 right now -
http://natfka.blogspot.com/2016/05/warhammer-40k-new-edition-coming.html

Take with much salt, but the rumormongers in general have been pretty spot on the last few months...

They are literally just quoting that exact same comment on Atia's blog. All of this 8th edition talk comes from one random comment on a blog from someone who, as far as I know, has no reputation for knowing any rumors.

Nvs wrote:
So we can get it out of the way since timing and rumors seem to align...

Three cheers for CSM being the first codex of the next edition! Because that never turns out poorly!

But seriously, "quite a change" has me concerned.

Haha, ! I didn't even consider that. I bet that's absolutely what will happen.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
This is good. 7th is a bloated mess with far too many Special Rules, so streamlining the game would be a good thing.

Also, AoS didn't go far enough, even though it went farther than many GW players were willing to accept.

If 8E is even a half-step to what AoS was, it will be a great improvement in playability. Heck, even if it's just AoS with points, that'll do.

Yes, yes, YES! But I think we may be in the minority on that desire....

My ideal would be:
*Streamlined, AoS-like rules, with points.
*Unit differences focused on the stat-line and standard USRs, not a myriad of unique special rules for each unit.

Way back when I remember the white and black army list (that had everything) that came with 2nd edition. It was great! The only issue was the separate "wargear" cards. I instead like how wargear is listed by unit now.

We don't need to take it back that far, but the game needs to be a lot more simple and straight-forward for the casual player like me,

Mez

Square bases with rank adn file formations.... Mark my words!!!!!11

 Mezmaron wrote:
Way back when I remember the white and black army list (that had everything) that came with 2nd edition. It was great! The only issue was the separate "wargear" cards. I instead like how wargear is listed by unit now.

We don't need to take it back that far, but the game needs to be a lot more simple and straight-forward for the casual player like me,

Actually, yes, we do! Although I would accept a level of complexity equivalent to what we got in the 40k3 Rulebook.

Also, streamlined rules are good for competition, simply because there are far fewer things to screw up or argue about. You look at a Space Marine, and it says BS4, and nobody argues over what that means or how it works. Simple.

Does it make me an awful person for wanting the game to get significantly simplified?

I know AoS caused an initial gak-storm because it threw out the baby with the bath-water... but something half-way in that direction, while still maintaining points, and something like Force-Org that asks players to make meaningful choices.... while cropping out a bunch of the bloat, would be terrific.

Points don't matter. They really, really, really don't. All the garbage players are the ones who whined and whined about "No points means it's going to be anarchy!"

AoS has special rules on everyone and his pony (that you may or may not have to ride around and talk to to get boni). Many, probably most, are unique to boot. Just because it is light on core mechanics thst doesn't make it streamlined.

I never got the 7th ed rules, but if GW re-uses Dark Vengeance for a THIRD time I will have to finally buy it for the sheer hilarity.

Edit: Geez, what is wrong with my phone's keyboard today.

I doubt the will re-uses Storm of Vengeance again.

I can't believe it is true.
Not so soon !
And why doing this just after a faq that clarified the few issues 7th edition had ?

Well if they make the rules free like AoS then count me in.

 Mezmaron wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
This is good. 7th is a bloated mess with far too many Special Rules, so streamlining the game would be a good thing.

Also, AoS didn't go far enough, even though it went farther than many GW players were willing to accept.

If 8E is even a half-step to what AoS was, it will be a great improvement in playability. Heck, even if it's just AoS with points, that'll do.

Yes, yes, YES! But I think we may be in the minority on that desire....

Maybe, but I know there's a lot of players that simply don't have the time or desire to keep up with all the codexes and expansions and campaigns that add layer upon layer of stuff. I think I've played maybe 3 games of 40k since 6th edition. I almost started AoS simply because I loved the simplicity of the rules, but I couldn't get my friends to play, so I gave up on that idea. However, I know we'll get a lot more games on 40k in with simpler rules.

I haven't bought a single thing for 7th edition as far as rules or books go, but I'd be the first to line up for 8th if it means an AoS style overhaul. I think with points coming back in AoS they won't get rid of them for 40k, but otherwise I think it would be a huge improvement to just cut out all the fat with 40k, and also allow for focus on skirmish level gaming like AoS did.

Binabik15 wrote:
I never got the 7th ed rules, but if GW re-uses Dark Vengeance for a THIRD time I will have to finally buy it for the sheer hilarity.

I thought the Dark Angel models only got used once.

Ooh, that'd get me into it. Only a 40k novel and videogame collector as it is, doing a decent job of streamlining and adjusting the game for casuals would be great!

It's easy to get my buddies interested in a universe of super soldiers, aliens and daemons but once I take out the rulebooks they run for the hills.

Until someome with a good rumor reputation chimes in and says what it really will be I dont believe this is going to be a new edition.

Warhammer 40k has its 30th anniversary next year. The 25th saw a new edition (6th) and with this being rumored to be the year of AoS why should they release a new 40k version in 2016?

Sounds more like a printed FAQ book. In 3rd, about a year before 4th, GW released new CC rules and other changes in WD/Chapter Approved/Digital so people could give it a try.

With the recent more positive moves from GW, this could be great news. A smooth, fast and easy playing 40k ruleset might actually get me gaming 40k again.

The current bloated slowplaying unbalanced mess can`t get worse, so big thumbs up for new rules!

Binabik15 wrote:
AoS has special rules on everyone and his pony (that you may or may not have to ride around and talk to to get boni). Many, probably most, are unique to boot. Just because it is light on core mechanics thst doesn't make it streamlined.

To be fair, the core AOS mechanics would make for a good game if not for the wildly inconsistent mismash of special rules on the units.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

Binabik15 wrote:
AoS has special rules on everyone and his pony (that you may or may not have to ride around and talk to to get boni). Many, probably most, are unique to boot. Just because it is light on core mechanics thst doesn't make it streamlined.

To be fair, the core AOS mechanics would make for a good game if not for the wildly inconsistent mismash of special rules on the units.

This. The core rules were fine, just add some points to everything and get rid of some of the special rules that were a little too powerful/dumb.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Points don't matter. They really, really, really don't. All the garbage players are the ones who whined and whined about "No points means it's going to be anarchy!"

"Everyone who disagrees with me is wrong, and also literally garbage."

Come on Kan, you're not even trying these days, your deliberate bear-poking used to be so much more subtle.

Points mattered to me and seemingly a lot of people given GW are poised to bring them back in AoS.

I would be very concerned if they tried to make 40k into a ruleset that is say 6 pages.

With that said I think overhaul is needed. The balance between the good armies (Eldar, Necrons, Tau, Space Marines) and the bad armies (Dark Eldar, Orks, CSM, Tyranids) has never seemed greater. Its one thing when tournament lists crush fluffy lists but this seems overwhelming. Its no fun being on the other end of a turkey shoot.

SOoo... What about the statements from GW that 7th would be sticking around for a long time?

Or did everyone forget about all that?

Could I just point out that so far the only people to use either the words "New" or "Edition" are journalists looking for a "scoop"?

GW is releasing new editions every 2 years now in an attempt to keep their declining sales up. This is a likely rumor. I just hope they don't AOS-ify it.

Tyel wrote:
Points mattered to me and seemingly a lot of people given GW are poised to bring them back in AoS.

Yeah, and I bet those people never once bothered to even try playing without points. I've played far, far, far more Age of Sigmar than 40k of late--and the only time I've ever had issues with games are when it's the local players who purposely go out of their way to try and make broken lists to prove their (no pun intended) point about how "no points=so open to abusive powergaming" or some such nonsense.

It's really quite adorable, since they were powergaming with points and play broken lists in 40k too. So excuse me, but I'd rather people actually stop whining about how "No points was awful!" when really what was happening is they were trying to say "I don't know how to build an army without points to know what's best!".

With that said I think overhaul is needed. The balance between the good armies (Eldar, Necrons, Tau, Space Marines) and the bad armies (Dark Eldar, Orks, CSM, Tyranids) has never seemed greater. Its one thing when tournament lists crush fluffy lists but this seems overwhelming. Its no fun being on the other end of a turkey shoot.

Putting it rather bluntly, it's specific lists of those armies that really makes things go out there. I play a Pinion Demi-Company with a Shadowstrike Kill-Team and while it can be exceedingly powerful if my rolls are hot, I've never had complaints from the other side about the list. The second I ran a Battle Demi-Company I got complaints--and that was without free transports.

Wasnt the rumor being it was going to be 7.5? with an FAQto cover the changes?

 EnTyme wrote:
Could I just point out that so far the only people to use either the words "New" or "Edition" are journalists looking for a "scoop"?

Well...no. That would be level-headed, measured, and realistic of you.

Why would they finally be working on FAQs if the core rules were going to change significantly in a few months' time?

Maybe they are going to do a 3 ways to play type thing with 40k- full fat, semi skimmed and skimmed modes..

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Wasnt the rumor being it was going to be 7.5? with an FAQto cover the changes?

That was the from the Something aweful forum. Then posted by Natfka. Not sure if this has much credibility.

Maybe he was just talking about the simplified version they are selling to hobby stores as an easy introduction to new people.

A decent FaQ and Errata, reworked monstrous creature, vehicle and force organisation rules and some downloadable codizes with adjusted points costs and/or overhauled units(Orks, Chaos) is all the game needs.

Harriticus wrote:GW is releasing new editions every 2 years now in an attempt to keep their declining sales up. This is a likely rumor. I just hope they don't AOS-ify it.

Releasing a new edition of the game is more likely to push customers away.

I've been in this hobby a very long time, since 2nd edition, and I can attest that it's when new editions are released that I've seen the most people jump ship.

It's human nature to be apprehensive to change. People who come into 40K (fresh or returning) and like it are more likely to disapprove of the changes a new edition brings and thus stop playing altogether.

 oni wrote:

Harriticus wrote:GW is releasing new editions every 2 years now in an attempt to keep their declining sales up. This is a likely rumor. I just hope they don't AOS-ify it.

Releasing a new edition of the game is more likely to push customers away.

I've been in this hobby a very long time, since 2nd edition, and I can attest that it's when new editions are released that I've seen the most people jump ship.

It's human nature to be apprehensive to change. People who come into 40K (fresh or returning) and like it are more likely to disapprove of the changes a new edition brings and thus stop playing altogether.

As someone who played 6th like 3 times, and skipped on 7th...a new, less bloated, more balanced rules system might bring me back... I have absolutely no desire to play this game in its current incarnation, but cant bring myself to sell my models...

New edition of the rules coming? Yes, I believe it. And honestly, I don't see why people would think the opposite, after all the gak GW did with 6th edition quickly going to 7th.

I don't expect they will be better written, but if the rules for 40k are finally going on the website/in the boxes "for free" and let the fluff in the codexes, like for AoS...I would be fine with it 100%.

it would just mean there is no point in getting the books besides spending 58 bucks over lore, which hardly attracts anyone around my local stores

At this point I think 2nd edition would be easier to teach a new player than 7th. I know if I teach 40k to my wife, that's what I would do. Sometimes I can't believe it was either 4th or 5th edition that only had about 24 USR's.

I remember 4th ed being really simple to understand. The rulebook wasn't that thick either; maybe like a third of it was full of rules, the rest was hobby stuff and fluff.

 aracersss wrote:
it would just mean there is no point in getting the books besides spending 58 bucks over lore, which hardly attracts anyone around my local stores

Oh, they will just go the AoS way; have some warscrolls and battle plans along the fluff, plenty of nice pictures/artworks and give a reasonable price for the books.

It will just mean if you only want the rules, you don't have to go full pirate or buy an overpriced book. There will be always people buying books, anyway.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Points don't matter. They really, really, really don't. All the garbage players are the ones who whined and whined about "No points means it's going to be anarchy!"

But they do and this is proven with well every other table top game that I know. Sure points come with different names but they are needed. I can understand if it were an historical game where its men with muskets vs other men with muskets but you do need to balance the post human walking tank to the 2 foot high sniveling snotling and points is the most tried and tested method to do so.

 AegisGrimm wrote:
At this point I think 2nd edition would be easier to teach a new player than 7th. I know if I teach 40k to my wife, that's what I would do. Sometimes I can't believe it was either 4th or 5th edition that only had about 24 USR's.

If I were to teach my wife, I'd teach her to play 4th Edition, using the 3rd Edition Rulebook Army Lists.
- 4th Edition is the big cleanup of 3E streamlining 2nd.
- 3rd Edition Rulebook takes care of the Codex problem.

Definitely not RT/2E/6E/7E. Ugh.

Yeah, I guess that's technically true. Those would be the best way ro teach 40K at it's core, with 4th edition and most of the 3rd edition codexes. Though maybe Eldar could use their later edition when things like Autarchs first showed up, as some of the points values of 3rd edition sucked (like 50pt Shining Spears!)

I would be using 2nd ed for more of a skirmish game- remove squad cohesion rules for one thing, use really small points totals, and basically play it as Necromunda with 40k races. At that level 2nd edition works perfectly fine. It's the larger scale that the rules bog down-essentially the problem with every edition since, too.

I'm afraid any further edition would either be just as complicated, or Age of Sigmar. Either is not a good result.

If true, it would appear that I've managed to skip 7th edition entirely. Oh well.

Well we have half the codexes playing 6th and 7th and the super power codexes on 7.5 - pretty much killed the game where we are.

A nice simple game with the flavour and ability to blow lots of stuff up on both sides would go down well with me........

Roll on 8th and the new Sisters of Battle vs Chaos starter set (well we can but hope)

Warhams-77 wrote:
Until someome with a good rumor reputation chimes in and says what it really will be I dont believe this is going to be a new edition.

LMFAO. I am sure that is what people said, then 7th dropped. Nobody said GW will make a new edition only 20 months in. Not even a full two years.

I'll need a much better source than that to believe this rumour.

Anyways, even if there is a new edition I doubt it will be a big change. They could risk it with WHFB, cause they were thinking of canning it, but they won't mess too much with the golden goose.

 godardc wrote:
I can't believe it is true.
Not so soon !
And why doing this just after a faq that clarified the few issues 7th edition had ?

Uhhh... Did we read the same book?

Good on em if they do a proper reboot and release a proper 8th Ed with all codexes being revamped. Aka a "3rd edition" style reboot. There are so many pointless, bloated, and just plain obtuse rules in 7th. Heck there are special rules that when you read their entry, just give you MORE special rules (Crusader i think was a good example). Thats ridiculous.

If they just release a 7.5 with FAQ changes and thats it, it won't be enough. The game needs a serious makeover at this point, not a bandaid. I know it would really annoy some people, but Superheavies, GMC's, and decurion style formations need to be removed from standard and returned to apocalypse. Allies needs to be toned down to two forces max (different space marine chapters should count as different forces as well for this) and the force org needs more incentive to be used. Not to mention the Walker and vehicle rules, the psychic phase, the complete uselessness of Lightly armored infantry like guardsmen, and just the sheer amount of special rules that only exist in one unit in one codex that could just use a standard USR from the main book to get the same result.

If they can do half that it would be massive improvement. If they can drop the prices on rulebooks and codexes too that would be even better, then just release rules for new models online as PDF's or ebooks for free.

GW is making good progress to turn around, but they still have a long way to go before they win back a lot of their old fanbase. "8th" edition, or whatever they call it, will be the crucial moment. Theyll either save the game and bring the old players back, or they'll sink it like they did Fantasy. And while the rumor itself has little going for its legitimacy, you would have to be nuts to not see that this is what GW is up to

Formations, GMC, Super-heavies and so forth cannot be gotten rid off, sorry.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Formations, GMC, Super-heavies and so forth cannot be gotten rid off, sorry.

Of course they can.

Or, more likely, siphoned off into purely voluntary expansions where they should have always been.

its the man, not the machine - nothing wrong with 7th edition as is, nor was there with 2nd edition. I can't understand getting excited about the tooth pulling process of relearning the core rules, cognitively decommission your whatever you've managed to bed down. Greener pastures syndrome much

The rules bloat makes the game take way too long. There has to be some middle-ground between 40k as it is now and AoS.

Well didn't GW say it was a model company and not a rules company? Yeah, I see GW releasing 8th ed soon.

The hope would be that 8th ed cleans up the game but it is hard to hope for anything with GW. And I second the fears that someone had about a new addition followed by the CSM dex - I fear the same thing for tyranids - another botched job where the dex either wont be fully written for the new edition or will be written in a toned down mode followed a few dexes later by OP dexes.

But then, could be wrong.

marcusc wrote:
its the man, not the machine - nothing wrong with 7th edition as is, nor was there with 2nd edition. I can't understand getting excited about the tooth pulling process of relearning the core rules, cognitively decommission your whatever you've managed to bed down. Greener pastures syndrome much

No.

40k 7th edition is a terrible rule set. I has too many rules that only slow the game down, far too many special rules, way too much to keep track of (ever finished a game without forgetting something?) and the rules for each unit (ditto army) are in too many places.
Oh, and it's balance is a joke.

Rules similar to AoS would be fantastic.

 DarkBlack wrote:

marcusc wrote:
its the man, not the machine - nothing wrong with 7th edition as is, nor was there with 2nd edition. I can't understand getting excited about the tooth pulling process of relearning the core rules, cognitively decommission your whatever you've managed to bed down. Greener pastures syndrome much

No.

40k 7th edition is a terrible rule set. I has too many rules that only slow the game down, far too many special rules, way too much to keep track of (ever finished a game without forgetting something?) and the rules for each unit (ditto army) are in too many places.
Oh, and it's balance is a joke.

Rules similar to AoS would be fantastic.

I thought GW always spread its rules over multiple locations? Codexes/Armybooks, main rulebooks and white dwarf

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
This is good. 7th is a bloated mess with far too many Special Rules, so streamlining the game would be a good thing.

Also, AoS didn't go far enough, even though it went farther than many GW players were willing to accept.

If 8E is even a half-step to what AoS was, it will be a great improvement in playability. Heck, even if it's just AoS with points, that'll do.

Too true.

My god! I just agreed with Johnhwang. The only thing weirder I could think of would be to agree with kanluwen.... XD

I hope the gut the feth out of 40k. It needing a reset is an understatement.

A move back toward 3rd edition would be great, 3rd through 5th, while all having exploitable loopholes and various little issues, did indeed play quicker and easier than this bloated mess we have right now.

 Hellfury wrote:
My god! I just agreed with Johnhwang. The only thing weirder I could think of would be to agree with kanluwen.... XD

Dude, step away from the crazy pills...

No, just stop jesus. I guess I dont care cause Ill just keep playing 30k which shares very little of the problems 40k has.

Does anyone else want to explain it to him, or shall I?

I'm done with GW and their editions. I have rulebooks all the way back to 2nd, and PDF copy of the first (since the original copy I had fell apart).

I *may* buy a few more models from them (but really, I have more than enough), but I'm moving forward with my own ruleset as GW can't be bothered to put together even a semi-balanced ruleset. They've had 7 attempts and nothing has stuck.

 Azreal13 wrote:
Does anyone else want to explain it to him, or shall I?

All yours.

I will have completely skipped 7th after they gutted 6th in length (which felt great after buying that collector's edition of the rule book! ), so this could go either way for me. It could be working to make the game playable at multiple levels (all apocalypse all the time is terrible) or cutting the cost of rules down, either of which would be good. Or it could just be keeping with the previous theme and trying to extract more cash with a shorter rules span, which would be terrible and convince me to finally move to an old edition.

Whose to say right now.

They should learn from Dungeons and Dragons 5th edition. I don't know how much your into tabletop RPG's but we had the edition wars long ago. Then they went back to the fundamentals there was not 4 current editions of DnD well 5 with 3.5 and the official 5th (6th) was coming out. Every edition had its own fans and vastly different mechanics. So they took it all the way back to the idea of first edition "modular" rule sets. They distilled the base game down the very basics of play and made it quinessential DnD and only had the things most associated with DnD and cut the fluff. Then in the Dungeon Masters Guide they had more advanced and optional rules. This would allow the game master and players to layer on their complexity and add in systems to their game for more depth if they so choose. Finally in the story supplements they have new rules introduced if need be. So say a something is so fundamental to a campaign story they release they will add rules for it, but they try keep it light so this is rare.

In this way they made an edition that appealed to a broad player base. At the same time they reprinted all the older editions of DnD so players could play whatever the hell they wanted. At long last they also offer completely free Dungeons and Dragons articles on their website with free new classes, articles, feedback, and the occasional free monster. Suffice to say it's been a slam dunk. I think if the new GW CEO looks at Wizards he could pick up more than a few tips of how to make an edition that is widely accessible to people as it can be while still retaining an older audience. Wizards struck lightning as 5th and the reprints are all selling like hotcakes and they don't plan to make a new edition for a loooooong time since they plan to either release the rare rules supplement or mostly just tons of adventures.

WH40K should be simplified so a person with a biggest model wins automatically.

 Yaraton wrote:
WH40K should be simplified so a person with a biggest model wins automatically.

That's kind of how it already works.

I have just one thing to say...

So that GW's course correction some have been praising was apparently so they could realign and hit the iceberg head on this time....

 Wolf_in_Human_Shape wrote:

 EnTyme wrote:
I don't anticipate a full 8th Edition any time soon, not after the backlash of how short-lived 6th Edition was. A full rules update with FAQs and Errata would be likely (and welcome) as we officially move into Warhammer 40,000 7.5

I see the logic in your skepticism, but at the same time they may see 8th edition as an opportunity to monetize the FAQ/errata-fest going on right now. That wouldn't surprise me, either. As pissed as I was with the 6th to 7th transition, I still bought the 7th ed rulebooks, and would probably do the same with 8th.

*edit*

It may not necessarily be a bad thing (other than the cost, which does suck) if they're changing the game in meaningful ways for the better, beyond the recent FAQ stuff.

Well one thing is sure. If it's up for later this year the recent FAQ's will not be included per se(they might but that was settled before FAQ was even opened). For later this year release book itself would be ready and in printers by now.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MrMoustaffa wrote:
but Superheavies, GMC's, and decurion style formations need to be removed from standard and returned to apocalypse.

Sorry but I think it's safe to say that won't happen. They don't want to reduce people buying those models. Superheavies etc in apoc only=less people buying those as less chances to use them=GW ain't doing it.

They moved them OUT of apoc games to ensure people buy them for normal games. That they ain't reversing. Especially when their sales are sinking.

I think they might break the game up into different levels, or release an alternate ruleset. They know it works with Sigmar, and are already pumping that out. Could see the same aimed at 40k to address criticism of the system.

In the grim, dark future there are only War Scrolls.

"Datasheets"

Warhams-77 wrote:
Warhammer 40k has its 30th anniversary next year.

That's quite impressive actually ... Makes me realize how old I am as I remember its launch ...

Of course they'll make use of this. Releasing a 30th anniversary edition is easy marketing. And just imagine the collector's edition, available in orkhide cover.

I hope that GW have been able to learn from the success of PP and others and realize that a stringent ruleset attracts players. Combined with their excellent fluff and some of the best models around they'll have a 60th anniversary as well.

MrMoustaffa wrote:
but Superheavies, GMC's, and decurion style formations need to be removed from standard and returned to apocalypse.

Sorry but I think it's safe to say that won't happen. They don't want to reduce people buying those models. Superheavies etc in apoc only=less people buying those as less chances to use them=GW ain't doing it.

They moved them OUT of apoc games to ensure people buy them for normal games. That they ain't reversing. Especially when their sales are sinking.

I know they probably won't, just saying they really need to do it if they want to save the game.

The question is, do they want to save te game or do they just want to improve sales?

And even if the core of the game would be simple like AoS, the game it self would not be more playable or less complicated.

Improve sales, obviously.

 kodos wrote:
The question is, do they want to save te game or do they just want to improve sales?

Hopefully these go hand in hand ...

New edition won't arrive in 2016.

But they will (and kinda already do) move the story forward.

 pinkmarine wrote:

 kodos wrote:
The question is, do they want to save te game or do they just want to improve sales?

Hopefully these go hand in hand ...

thinking of the "new" strategy and the latest statements about sales, I guess 40k will get a simple basic rule set with all the complex rules being written on the unit entry/datasheet
and because sales are best in the first weeks after release, they won't care for the game it self on the long run (but only for the latest datasheets/campaign books)

and I don't think we will see a real codex release any more but campaign books and supplements.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sad Panda wrote:
New edition won't arrive in 2016.

But they will (and kinda already do) move the story forward.

So we will see what happens to Fenris in autumn

Sad Panda wrote:
New edition won't arrive in 2016.

But they will (and kinda already do) move the story forward.

Well, they wouldn't want to risk leaving out us fluff gamers, everyone should be given an equal chance to see their favourite aspect of the game destroyed.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
"Datasheets"

This. Free datasheets to download, main army selection through formations (no individual points values on models or wargear). BRB updated with FAQ, but no major rules changes. No more codexes, but rather campaign books with datasheets and formations is what I forsee.

Sad Panda wrote:
New edition won't arrive in 2016.

But they will (and kinda already do) move the story forward.

Is that all you have on the subject? Just curious. Like dying.
Please save me Panda

Let's hope they've realised that bringing out a new edition without revising all the codices doesn't work wonders for selling those armies without a new codex.

I don't feel 40k's rules are that complicated.

The real problem is that the balance is so out. It feels a bit like 7th edition Fantasy, where the good armies were ludicrously good and killed off the game.

There have always been tiers but the gulf between the top (Eldar, SM, Necrons, Tau) and bottom tier (CSM, Orks, Tyranids, DE) seems greater than ever before. If you play a bottom tier codex against a top tier codex it often feels like you are just the other side of a turkey shoot, which isn't fun.

If they bring in the next edition, I sure as hell hope, they kill off as many USRs as possible. Aside from the fact, that the core mechanic is slow (ugoigo, roll to hit, roll to would, roll to save), the various USRs are a plague of nurgelite proportions...
"Hey, these dudes have rage, they re-roll assaults!
- No, i think that was hatred.
- No, no, I'm sure that was rampage!
- That is attacking more often in a melee with more enemies than own models.
- So, still what do these guys have...? I'm sure they had something...

Tyel wrote:
I don't feel 40k's rules are that complicated.

They aren't hugely complicated, but theres far far too many of them spread out in different places and conveying very minor differences. And for all that bloat, they actually provide very little in game choice "Move, attack from distance, attack close up" being about it.

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:
I have just one thing to say...

EXALTED!!! lol



As others have said they have to go back to 40k being a skirmish game and leave all the other crap to expansions IE if I feel like playing apoc I can choose to do so as opposed to have it forced upon players. Formations should have always stayed in apoc where they belong.

The one thing I liked about age of sigmar is how all the core rules fit on two pages. Their great in that respect. But no force org and no points just made the whole game fall apart. When ever I see people try to play a pick up game of it, then spend more time trying to make two balanced forces then they do playing the game.

Getting two Warhammer players to argue about balance before every game was a terrible idea.

Thanks, Sad Panda

As mentioned earlier by someone else, it is just websites amplifying comments from non-reliable sources to have a 'scoop'. And the hysteria seems to find its victims.

There is Battle for Vedros for an easier start ino the game

They need to League of Assassins the gak out of 40K. Burn it to its core and start again without all this endless formations and special rules on top of special rules on top of special rules nonsense, with updated Codices that are the same but with a few extra formations, and people needing 16 different books to a single army.

The madness has to end.

 Crimson Devil wrote:
So that GW's course correction some have been praising was apparently so they could realign and hit the iceberg head on this time....

I don't know why but I really love this metaphor.

Median Trace wrote:
The rules bloat makes the game take way too long. There has to be some middle-ground between 40k as it is now and AoS.

Agreed. AoS with points etc. [mayby something like that in the upcoming AoS book] is the way to go. Let people play what they want [from single squad to apocalypse].

Sad Panda wrote:
But they will (and kinda already do) move the story forward.

Sorry Panda but I don't believe you here. 40K's story does not move forward. They just slot things into the years between 30k and 40k and claim that it was always there.

I mean just look at the new Marine flyer. It's fluff claims it's the backbone of Astartes airpower, yet we've never heard of it until a month ago. Was it always there, just off camera?

40K is a setting, not a story.

 Lockark wrote:
The one thing I liked about age of sigmar is how all the core rules fit on two pages. Their great in that respect. But no force org and no points just made the whole game fall apart. When ever I see people try to play a pick up game of it, then spend more time trying to make two balanced forces then they do playing the game.

Getting two Warhammer players to argue about balance before every game was a terrible idea.

Then again if you move most of the rules to unit entries you would get 40k rulebook thinned down quite a bit...

Which then results in either crapload of unique rules for units or multiplying same rule into multiple places(which could lead to case of smoke launchers working differently for dark angels because...reasons.)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Sad Panda wrote:
But they will (and kinda already do) move the story forward.

Sorry Panda but I don't believe you here. 40K's story does not move forward. They just slot things into the years between 30k and 40k and claim that it was always there.

I mean just look at the new Marine flyer. It's fluff claims it's the backbone of Astartes airpower, yet we've never heard of it until a month ago. Was it always there, just off camera?

40K is a setting, not a story.

Uhm. They said same about FB as well...Look how it turned.

And look at the recent stuff that's been coming. Tau thing is changing. Fenris just got bombarded by Dark Angels...Don't think that was in past.

Better to accept that GW decided they can move things forward.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Sad Panda wrote:
But they will (and kinda already do) move the story forward.

Sorry Panda but I don't believe you here. 40K's story does not move forward. They just slot things into the years between 30k and 40k and claim that it was always there.

You should read the fluff of the last 2 campaign books, the storyline is moving forward

If GW was moving it forward, it'd be M.42 now. This stuff with Fenris and the Tau, is just getting pushed into 999.M41.

That's what Sad Panda says, doesnt he? The timeline is going to be continued, story moves on.

Edit: In upcoming products

A lot of people are talking about a more balanced and streamlined version of 40k.

Well, it's already here and it's called Maelstrom's Edge!

Epic 40k suppression style rules, alternate unit activation and balanced gameplay = me never wanting to play 40k again for as long as I live.

Is there space marines in that?

The original rumor quote was clearly not about fluff moving forward.
"more streamlined, easier to pick".
But the fact that the story probably will take a jump with the second part of the Fenris campaign late this year, might tie in with some rules change.
I must say though, with all the formations and campaign rules, there is no quick fix to the present state.
So, my conclusion is that Sad Panda probably is more reliable than the original rumor.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
A lot of people are talking about a more balanced and streamlined version of 40k.

Well, it's already here and it's called Maelstrom's Edge!

Epic 40k suppression style rules, alternate unit activation and balanced gameplay = me never wanting to play 40k again for as long as I live.

Oh great, how did they balace my wraith knights in ME? Id love to use them again.

 Fenrir Kitsune wrote:
Is there space marines in that?

There is the non-union Mexican equivalent


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Fayric wrote:
The original rumor quote was clearly not about fluff moving forward.
"more streamlined, easier to pick".
But the fact that the story probably will take a jump with the second part of the Fenris campaign late this year, might tie in with some rules change.
I must say though, with all the formations and campaign rules, there is no quick fix to the present state.
So, my conclusion is that Sad Panda probably is more reliable than the original rumor.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
A lot of people are talking about a more balanced and streamlined version of 40k.

Well, it's already here and it's called Maelstrom's Edge!

Epic 40k suppression style rules, alternate unit activation and balanced gameplay = me never wanting to play 40k again for as long as I live.

Oh great, how did they balace my wraith knights in ME? Id love to use them again.

Clearly, I wasn't being clear enough when I clearly offered a clear alternative to a clearly different sci-fi skirmish game.

"Don't like X? Just play Y!" isn't a valid line of thinking for most people.

I like 40K. Another game having better rules doesn't matter, because I don't play 40K for the rules I play it for the setting. I'm sure Warmahordes is a better game, but I don't like the setting (other than the odd thing here and there), so I don't play it.

I hear good things about Heavy Gear, but I like the BattleTech story, and the 'Mechs, so I play that rather than Heavy Gear, no matter how good Heavy Gear may or may not be.

 Wolf_in_Human_Shape wrote:

 EnTyme wrote:
I don't anticipate a full 8th Edition any time soon, not after the backlash of how short-lived 6th Edition was. A full rules update with FAQs and Errata would be likely (and welcome) as we officially move into Warhammer 40,000 7.5

I see the logic in your skepticism, but at the same time they may see 8th edition as an opportunity to monetize the FAQ/errata-fest going on right now. That wouldn't surprise me, either. As pissed as I was with the 6th to 7th transition, I still bought the 7th ed rulebooks, and would probably do the same with 8th.

*edit*

It may not necessarily be a bad thing (other than the cost, which does suck) if they're changing the game in meaningful ways for the better, beyond the recent FAQ stuff.

The question for GW is whether they can make a new edition in a way that will keeep the current players and bring back people like me who abandoned the game in 6th/7th edition for various combinations of reasons (expense, multiplication of unwanted rules, etc.)

I think it can be done from the angle of actually reorganising all the rules, but there probably will be a timing issue if GW can all the expensive 7th edition books so soon.

Personally I am hoping for an Age of Emporer rule set up, completely revising many aspects of the game, and releasing much of the current core material (flyers, fortresses, etc.) as optional supplements.

A lot of people have justifiable concerns about where this new edition of 40k is heading and as a result, they may decide to look elsewhere for a new game.

As somebody who has played 40k over the years and enjoyed it, and who has played Maelstrom's Edge, and enjoyed it, I'm offering up Maelstrom's Edge as an excellent alternative to 40k.

Naturally, of course, my opinion being only that, an opinion, my fellow dakka members are free to take it or leave it as they see fit.

If there is a new edition coming I hope they remove a lot of randomness from the game. No longer rolling for Warlord traits, psycik powers, random tables. Cange the CSM boon table to a shorter variand like the fantsy one. Remove all thouse d3, d6 and other random gak from weapon profiles.Make the Assault range less random, fix issues with psycik poers like Invisibility. Add stuff like, say, overwatching drops your initiative to 1 or having to take a leadership check to overwatch to help assault-orientated units. And make te game less shooty, cos right now my orks feel like bringing a knife to a gun fight.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
If GW was moving it forward, it'd be M.42 now. This stuff with Fenris and the Tau, is just getting pushed into 999.M41.

So? It's still forward from what was before. Or when did Fenris's bombing get mentioned before?

You can't deny bombing of Fenris isn't new advancement...

tneva82 wrote:

 Lockark wrote:
The one thing I liked about age of sigmar is how all the core rules fit on two pages. Their great in that respect. But no force org and no points just made the whole game fall apart. When ever I see people try to play a pick up game of it, then spend more time trying to make two balanced forces then they do playing the game.

Getting two Warhammer players to argue about balance before every game was a terrible idea.

Then again if you move most of the rules to unit entries you would get 40k rulebook thinned down quite a bit...

Which then results in either crapload of unique rules for units or multiplying same rule into multiple places(which could lead to case of smoke launchers working differently for dark angels because...reasons.)

Exactly. People whine about long list of USR's, and sure there are one or two which are largely superfluous and/or annoying (Soul Blaze...), however they forget that in the past, there were actually much more special rules in the game as many units, characters and wargear had their own, unique rules. Nowadays they have been reduced a great deal in exchange of larger list of corebook special rules.

I am quite happy with the state of 40k core rules, with maybe Vehicle damage being the one which most needs the update. It is the codex design which is out of whack, with all the formations insanity and ever-more powerful psykers and Psychic powers.

Not sure if we urgently need new rules if they are going to do detailed FAQs complete with a public review. I'd rather they took their time and thought about what they'd like to do, what the player base will accept, and come up with a polished product.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
A lot of people are talking about a more balanced and streamlined version of 40k.

Well, it's already here and it's called Maelstrom's Edge!

I would call it Warpath.....

Backfire wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Lockark wrote:
The one thing I liked about age of sigmar is how all the core rules fit on two pages. Their great in that respect. But no force org and no points just made the whole game fall apart. When ever I see people try to play a pick up game of it, then spend more time trying to make two balanced forces then they do playing the game.

Getting two Warhammer players to argue about balance before every game was a terrible idea.

Then again if you move most of the rules to unit entries you would get 40k rulebook thinned down quite a bit...

Which then results in either crapload of unique rules for units or multiplying same rule into multiple places(which could lead to case of smoke launchers working differently for dark angels because...reasons.)

Exactly. People whine about long list of USR's, and sure there are one or two which are largely superfluous and/or annoying (Soul Blaze...), however they forget that in the past, there were actually much more special rules in the game as many units, characters and wargear had their own, unique rules. Nowadays they have been reduced a great deal in exchange of larger list of corebook special rules.

I am quite happy with the state of 40k core rules, with maybe Vehicle damage being the one which most needs the update. It is the codex design which is out of whack, with all the formations insanity and ever-more powerful psykers and Psychic powers.

There were a lot more special rules in 1st and 2nd edition. Then it was all rationalised for 3rd edition. 4th and 5th editions developed and expanded on 3rd, partly through optional supplements. Then in 6th/7th the structure became more like 1st/2d again, lots more special rules, lots more psychic, lots more options coded into the core game.

The thing is, 3rd/4th/5th were the most popular and successful editions, judged by sales value. Things have fallen off during 6th/7th.

I think the problem is partly the codexes like you say, and also just the sheer expense of rulebooks.

tneva82 wrote:
Or when did Fenris's bombing get mentioned before?

When did the Centurions get mentioned before? Or the new Marine flyer?

You're confusing "retcon" with "advancement".

Seems several of you arent even playing. Stay in warmachine then.
If they "streamline" the game to aos most people will just quit, why play 40k when you might aswell just play warmachine/hordes/infinity that doesnt have 50 books already out with special rules anyway. If they make 8th ed in AoS style they will have to REMAKE ALL THE CODEXs or give out all the new unit info for free like aos, it will not happen.
The only way to simplify 40k enough for you guys is to burn it down since every codex has it's own rules and they cant rerelease everything at the same time.
Everyone doesnt play with 20 books and supplements, it's only you guys that think you need raukaan, fenris, ia3 and 3 different sm codexes to play a "friendly" game.

One codex and the rule book is actually enough, they just need to show this to people, which they do in their stores. The complexity is what drew me in to 40k and not star wars, if i wanted to play tic tac toe i would...

40K absolutely has rules bloat, it's a fact of such a long lasting game. But that on it's own isn't such a horrible problem, if the rules were easily available in front of you while playing. The bigger issue is the rules structure problem that 40K has. Taking some examples to have the rules in front of you when playing, outside of the core mechanics of move/shoot/fight etc:

A unit in Warmachine:
The units card
The reference for stealth/immunities etc

Guildball:
The models card

X-Wing:
The models card
Any upgrade cards

40K unit:
It's Datasheet
For older Codex's, the Bestiary equivalent
Weapon rules from the Rulebook
Weapon rules from the Codex
Rulebook USR's
Codex Special Rules
Formation Special rules (which in turn may need more USR's etc)

Structurally that is just terrible, and takes a "what does this unit do?" 30 second question into 10 minutes of flicking through either 2 or 3 books. And that's for 1 unit. For an army it could easily be 25 locations across 5 books. Rather than a few cards right in front of you.

Sure as you become more experienced you remember more, but for new players it's a big blocker to getting into the game.

GW's problem is the only way to restructure the rules is a complete reboot, which I'm unsure they'll dare to do with their flagship product.

Backfire wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Lockark wrote:
The one thing I liked about age of sigmar is how all the core rules fit on two pages. Their great in that respect. But no force org and no points just made the whole game fall apart. When ever I see people try to play a pick up game of it, then spend more time trying to make two balanced forces then they do playing the game.

Getting two Warhammer players to argue about balance before every game was a terrible idea.

Then again if you move most of the rules to unit entries you would get 40k rulebook thinned down quite a bit...

Which then results in either crapload of unique rules for units or multiplying same rule into multiple places(which could lead to case of smoke launchers working differently for dark angels because...reasons.)

Exactly. People whine about long list of USR's, and sure there are one or two which are largely superfluous and/or annoying (Soul Blaze...), however they forget that in the past, there were actually much more special rules in the game as many units, characters and wargear had their own, unique rules. Nowadays they have been reduced a great deal in exchange of larger list of corebook special rules.

I am quite happy with the state of 40k core rules, with maybe Vehicle damage being the one which most needs the update. It is the codex design which is out of whack, with all the formations insanity and ever-more powerful psykers and Psychic powers.

Except the unit specific rules were in the codex. I did not have to flip over to the BRB to find out what a rule did.
It was a lot more efficient back then, as you just had to read the codex and the core rules were fairly easy to remember. Now you have to refer to both the codex and the brb to keep track of all the different special rules.
Like, before I knew what Gloom Prism and Phylactery do, as they were explained in the book. Now they give Adamantium Will and It Will Not Die
Ok, what do those do? I now have to open the BRB, and verify what those do. Its just not efficient.

MaxT wrote:
40K absolutely has rules bloat, it's a fact of such a long lasting game. But that on it's own isn't such a horrible problem, if the rules were easily available in front of you while playing. The bigger issue is the rules structure problem that 40K has. Taking some examples to have the rules in front of you when playing, outside of the core mechanics of move/shoot/fight etc:

A unit in Warmachine:
The units card
The reference for stealth/immunities etc

Guildball:
The models card

X-Wing:
The models card
Any upgrade cards

40K unit:
It's Datasheet
For older Codex's, the Bestiary equivalent
Weapon rules from the Rulebook
Weapon rules from the Codex
Rulebook USR's
Codex Special Rules
Formation Special rules (which in turn may need more USR's etc)

Structurally that is just terrible, and takes a "what does this unit do?" 30 second question into 10 minutes of flicking through either 2 or 3 books. And that's for 1 unit. For an army it could easily be 25 locations across 5 books. Rather than a few cards right in front of you.

Sure as you become more experienced you remember more, but for new players it's a big blocker to getting into the game.

GW's problem is the only way to restructure the rules is a complete reboot, which I'm unsure they'll dare to do with their flagship product.

I don't see how all those problems couldn't be solved by consolidating the information into more concise rule books and codices. There is bloat I agree, but as others have said, it's the complexity that appeals to a lot of people. I like the fact that X unit can synergies with Y unit because of how their special rules interact. I like the fact that formations and detachments give certain bonuses for building fluffy lists. I like the fact that every army doesn't have to conform to one standard method of list building (CAD).

You're right in the fact that all of this can be very daunting, and expensive. But those aren't problems that can't be solved without throwing the baby out with the bath water. There's so much hyperbole on this site about how 40k is irrevocably broken, and how it needs to be rebooted because it's unplayable. It clearly IS playable because there's thousands of people buying models and playing the game, supporting hundreds of stores across the globe. If it was as awful as some people make out, why is it so many people still enjoy it?

There are issues, but for me they are down to poor planning regarding GWs release schedule, and a lack of concise rules writing. the fact that many races are still working off codices from a previous version of the game is clearly something that's making the game unbalanced and difficult to pick up. They need to recognise this, they also need to recognise that spreading rules over four or five books doesn't help player engagement.

A big problem is not just the proliferation of special rules but the growth in units that have them.

The basic marine weapon is S4 AP5, rapid fire 24". No special rules, just 3 or 4 stats to remember. The basic marine has a stat line and Know No Fear.

But now add Chapter Tactics and Formation bonuses, and Warlord bonuses and you have a lot more to remember, forget or misremember.

And newer codexes pile on the special snowflake rules. Adeptus Mech guns cause 2 wounds on a roll of a 6! Because of reasons!

If I were in charge I'd lose half the special rules in the big book and units would lose half of their special rules.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

Backfire wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Lockark wrote:
The one thing I liked about age of sigmar is how all the core rules fit on two pages. Their great in that respect. But no force org and no points just made the whole game fall apart. When ever I see people try to play a pick up game of it, then spend more time trying to make two balanced forces then they do playing the game.

Getting two Warhammer players to argue about balance before every game was a terrible idea.

Then again if you move most of the rules to unit entries you would get 40k rulebook thinned down quite a bit...

Which then results in either crapload of unique rules for units or multiplying same rule into multiple places(which could lead to case of smoke launchers working differently for dark angels because...reasons.)

Exactly. People whine about long list of USR's, and sure there are one or two which are largely superfluous and/or annoying (Soul Blaze...), however they forget that in the past, there were actually much more special rules in the game as many units, characters and wargear had their own, unique rules. Nowadays they have been reduced a great deal in exchange of larger list of corebook special rules.

I am quite happy with the state of 40k core rules, with maybe Vehicle damage being the one which most needs the update. It is the codex design which is out of whack, with all the formations insanity and ever-more powerful psykers and Psychic powers.

There were a lot more special rules in 1st and 2nd edition. Then it was all rationalised for 3rd edition. 4th and 5th editions developed and expanded on 3rd, partly through optional supplements. Then in 6th/7th the structure became more like 1st/2d again, lots more special rules, lots more psychic, lots more options coded into the core game.

The thing is, 3rd/4th/5th were the most popular and successful editions, judged by sales value. Things have fallen off during 6th/7th.

I think the problem is partly the codexes like you say, and also just the sheer expense of rulebooks.

True, 2nd edition wasn't straightforward by any stretch of the imagination, but people forget the number of models needed for a game was miniscule compared to what it is nowadays.

And another point, we're all familiar with the Rick Priestly interview where he talked about the danger of the creative studio being a marketing wing for sales. With GW, the models have always driven the rules, rather than the rules driving the models.

A classic example is the Knight Titan. Lovely model, but being the model it was, it had to get super-duper shiny wonderful rules, regardless of the effect it had on everything else.

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:
A big problem is not just the proliferation of special rules but the growth in units that have them.

The basic marine weapon is S4 AP5, rapid fire 24". No special rules, just 3 or 4 stats to remember. The basic marine has a stat line and Know No Fear.

But now add Chapter Tactics and Formation bonuses, and Warlord bonuses and you have a lot more to remember, forget or misremember.

And newer codexes pile on the special snowflake rules. Adeptus Mech guns cause 2 wounds on a roll of a 6! Because of reasons!

If I were in charge I'd lose half the special rules in the big book and units would lose half of their special rules.

Good thing you're not in charge then.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:
A big problem is not just the proliferation of special rules but the growth in units that have them.

The basic marine weapon is S4 AP5, rapid fire 24". No special rules, just 3 or 4 stats to remember. The basic marine has a stat line and Know No Fear.

But now add Chapter Tactics and Formation bonuses, and Warlord bonuses and you have a lot more to remember, forget or misremember.

And newer codexes pile on the special snowflake rules. Adeptus Mech guns cause 2 wounds on a roll of a 6! Because of reasons!

If I were in charge I'd lose half the special rules in the big book and units would lose half of their special rules.

Good thing you're not in charge then.

An excess in snowflake special rules when aiming to portray things that can actually be portrayed with numerical changes to a mere statsline is one of the most glaring examples of incompetent and/or lazy rules design. This is known to basically everyone who is not:

a) A Games Workshop rules designer.
b) A lobotomized Games Workshop die-hard fan.

Yonasu wrote:
Seems several of you arent even playing. Stay in warmachine then.
If they "streamline" the game to aos most people will just quit, why play 40k when you might aswell just play warmachine/hordes/infinity that doesnt have 50 books already out with special rules anyway. If they make 8th ed in AoS style they will have to REMAKE ALL THE CODEXs or give out all the new unit info for free like aos, it will not happen.
The only way to simplify 40k enough for you guys is to burn it down since every codex has it's own rules and they cant rerelease everything at the same time.
Everyone doesnt play with 20 books and supplements, it's only you guys that think you need raukaan, fenris, ia3 and 3 different sm codexes to play a "friendly" game.

One codex and the rule book is actually enough, they just need to show this to people, which they do in their stores. The complexity is what drew me in to 40k and not star wars, if i wanted to play tic tac toe i would...

You obviously weren't around for a big edition change. 5th invalidated all of the 4th edition codexes , 6th invalidated all of the 5th edition codexes, and some sat for a few years before being updated to the new rules.

It is my hope that 40k becomes more like AOS. A handful of pages of rules, keep the special rules on the unit cards themselves, have at it.

I understand some people require a ton of complex rules for them to feel a game is good, but I lost that desire years and years ago.

I would love a game where I didn't have to have my nose in a rulebook 1/3 of the game to make sure everything was done right.

Almost a year of AOS and I've yet to have a rules argument.

40k there is one or two every game.

There are way too many special rules. I always forgot that I have to enact Doctrine when playing SM. Every time im shooting or assault I have to stick my nose to the codex how many attacks and what the str and etc is. annoying.

 DalinCriid wrote:
There are way too many special rules. I always forgot that I have to enact Doctrine when playing SM. Every time im shooting or assault I have to stick my nose to the codex how many attacks and what the str and etc is. annoying.

Unless you're playing Ultramarines, a Battle Demi-Company, or a Gladius--you don't have to enact Doctrines.

Because of the way they worded Doctrines there is no other way to use them.

Yonasu wrote:
Seems several of you arent even playing. Stay in warmachine then. .

HA! Yes, because everyone who doesn't play 40K must be a dirty warmachine player.

40K needs to be AoS'ed, then built up again.

"Streamlining" 40K sounds easy enough, but if it actually happened, the nerdrage would break the interwebz and we'd realize that there's a great difference of opinion regarding *WHAT* needs to be changed and/or streamlined.

Besides, Sad Panda stated that nothing's coming this year.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sinful Hero wrote:
You obviously weren't around for a big edition change. 5th invalidated all of the 4th edition codexes , 6th invalidated all of the 5th edition codexes, and some sat for a few years before being updated to the new rules.

That isn't true at all. The last time codicies were invalidated was in the change from 2nd to 3rd. They received errata in the changes you mention, but were still used for play.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 DalinCriid wrote:
There are way too many special rules. I always forgot that I have to enact Doctrine when playing SM. Every time im shooting or assault I have to stick my nose to the codex how many attacks and what the str and etc is. annoying.

Unless you're playing Ultramarines, a Battle Demi-Company, or a Gladius--you don't have to enact Doctrines.

Because of the way they worded Doctrines there is no other way to use them.

It's still anoying thou. Im into this hobby for about one year now and I still don't know how to use doctrines if I am not Ultramarines. My guess is that if I am some other chapter and I use a Battle-Demi I have access to one Doctrine total for the whole game.

 Sinful Hero wrote:

Yonasu wrote:
Seems several of you arent even playing. Stay in warmachine then.
If they "streamline" the game to aos most people will just quit, why play 40k when you might aswell just play warmachine/hordes/infinity that doesnt have 50 books already out with special rules anyway. If they make 8th ed in AoS style they will have to REMAKE ALL THE CODEXs or give out all the new unit info for free like aos, it will not happen.
The only way to simplify 40k enough for you guys is to burn it down since every codex has it's own rules and they cant rerelease everything at the same time.
Everyone doesnt play with 20 books and supplements, it's only you guys that think you need raukaan, fenris, ia3 and 3 different sm codexes to play a "friendly" game.

One codex and the rule book is actually enough, they just need to show this to people, which they do in their stores. The complexity is what drew me in to 40k and not star wars, if i wanted to play tic tac toe i would...

You obviously weren't around for a big edition change. 5th invalidated all of the 4th edition codexes , 6th invalidated all of the 5th edition codexes, and some sat for a few years before being updated to the new rules.

5th and 6th didn't invalidate any armies codex to my knowledge, a few supplements it did admittedly, but Yonasu is wrong in the sense that they did exactly that in 3rd edition.

They revised the full rules set and put stand in lists for all armies in the back of the BRB.

I've made no secret of my opposition to GW, but it's clear, even to me, that a corner has been turned by the new management that has taken over.

Now, given that GW are happy to give licenses to video games company, and given the number of companies that make good rulesets for rival games, perhaps this new management might pay somebody to write the rules for them?

By all accounts, they took feedback from independents for a points system for AOS, perhaps GW will adopt a common sense approach for this new edition of 40k...

But then again, that idea's been mooted on this site for years.

 Fenrir Kitsune wrote:

Yonasu wrote:
Seems several of you arent even playing. Stay in warmachine then. .

HA! Yes, because everyone who doesn't play 40K must be a dirty warmachine player.

40K needs to be AoS'ed, then built up again.

They just need to scrap all the codices and re-do them all at once with proper balance, after fixing the inconsistencies in the main ruleset (glaring as they sometimes are).

No need to go the AoS route.

 gorgon wrote:

 Sinful Hero wrote:
You obviously weren't around for a big edition change. 5th invalidated all of the 4th edition codexes , 6th invalidated all of the 5th edition codexes, and some sat for a few years before being updated to the new rules.

That isn't true at all. The last time codicies were invalidated was in the change from 2nd to 3rd. They received errata in the changes you mention, but were still used for play.

They were still used, but they were immediately outdated. For example Tyranid Ravenors had Acute Senses in fourth, but in fifth had no way to outflank so it was a useless rule for them until the updated codex. Or the Carnifex upgrade that doubled its model count for assault- it had zero analogue in 5th. Could also point out that you could no longer two of the same ranged weapon or biocannon on the same model, so suddenly entIre load outs were left by the wayside. They could function(move, shoot, run), but they were not functioning correctly.

I suppose I chose poor wording when I said, "invalidated".

Can... can we just close this thread for now? Or at least move it to general. All of this is just pointless bickering based on shakey and unconfirmed rumours that tell us very little to begin with.

 nudibranch wrote:
Can... can we just close this thread for now? Or at least move it to general. All of this is just pointless bickering based on shakey and unconfirmed rumours that tell us very little to begin with.

If I can't start my morning reading pointless bickering and shakey, unconfirmed rumors, my day is ruined.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Points don't matter. They really, really, really don't. All the garbage players are the ones who whined and whined about "No points means it's going to be anarchy!"

As someone who's been playing warhammer since 3rd edition and 40k since it existed, this 'garbage player' not only complained at the lack of points, I saw the anarchy and inability to play pick up games and effective tournaments with my own eyes. Points systems have worked for 30 bloody years, they've been worked on and refined for that long. Your blanket insult and sweeping statements really do not endear you to many people, Kan, and you've been at this a wee while now, one might have assumed you'd have mastered at least the rudiments of polite discourse, to somehow mask your dreary obsession with dwelling in a world of black and white 'I'm right and the rest of the world is wrong' skewed logic you persist in ramrodding into every bloody thread you participate in.



As for the thread subject, I would strongly suggest that the mistakes of AoS (and boy were there...) have been studied and that when 40k is stripped down (as I feel it must be), the shift will be far less draconian and absolute.

The bloat and churn must be stripped away to make a playable game, the genies of LoW, D weaponry etc must be placed back into bottles with 'by mutual consent' clearly labelled on them and the endless removal of gameplay and replacement with 'random chart horrifically affecting entire game' must be taken into the back yard and a bullet put through it's skull. The game should be, I feel, tailored towards pick up and tourney, with the options to add in other things with mutual consent.

Points, which aren't perfect, do at least steer people towards a sense of balance for gaming with strangers, without scenarios.

Could RazorEdge or a mod add the following to the first post, please

Sad Panda wrote:

New edition won't arrive in 2016.

But they will (and kinda already do) move the story forward.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/691067/8660241.page

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Thanks, RazorEdge

 Kanluwen wrote:
Good thing you're not in charge then.

Nah. He's right. You want to have as little rules bloat as possible and always use your core central special rules rather than continuously inventing new ones.

You create as many base-line rules as you can, and you avoid modifying/adding to them at all costs.

Okay, so one of the most (if not the most) reliably rumormongers has already said this won't be a new edition. Why are people still talking about it as if it is?

scrap formations, end the power creep, update older codex's before updating/making models to core army's that are already up to date.
new rules for specialty games (happening)
bring back kill team, necromunda and the mordhiem or whatever it was called.

that's my wish list. but change the BRG to give balance to the units and easier to understand. a rule book that doesn't need a FAQ, wouldn't that be ideal?

Folks, as Rick Pitino might say, 5th edition isn't walking through that door.

griffomate wrote:
scrap formations, end the power creep, update older codex's before updating/making models to core army's that are already up to date.
new rules for specialty games (happening)
bring back kill team, necromunda and the mordhiem or whatever it was called.

that's my wish list. but change the BRG to give balance to the units and easier to understand. a rule book that doesn't need a FAQ, wouldn't that be ideal?

Formations aren't going anywhere--and they shouldn't. Formations are far more user friendly than CADs.

There is a new edition of 40K in the works.

It's also correct that GW doesn't bother re-doing old Codex books, basically since Tau, as they consider 7th a lame duck rule set (there will still be rules for new miniatures, incl. campaigns, Codex Deathwatch, etc..).

Just that the timeline is off and the new edition further away ... at least 2017 ... according to my information (which has been good so far, but a new edition of 40K is the most secretive topic you could find in GW).

Sad Panda wrote:
There is a new edition of 40K in the works.

It's also correct that GW doesn't bother re-doing old Codex books, basically since Tau, as they consider 7th a lame duck rule set (there will still be rules for new miniatures, incl. campaigns, Codex Deathwatch, etc..).

Just that the timeline is off and the new edition further away ... at least 2017 ... according to my information (which has been good so far, but a new edition of 40K is the most secretive topic you could find in GW).

Thanks

How far away is Codex: Genestealer Cults?

Sad Panda,
Why would they go through all this Errata process just to scrap it all in a new edition? Or will these Faqs essentially be part of the new rules? Can you speculate?

Also, will they be coming out with brand new codexes for all the factions for 8th edition?

Sad Panda wrote:
There is a new edition of 40K in the works.

It's also correct that GW doesn't bother re-doing old Codex books, basically since Tau, as they consider 7th a lame duck rule set (there will still be rules for new miniatures, incl. campaigns, Codex Deathwatch, etc..).

Just that the timeline is off and the new edition further away ... at least 2017 ... according to my information (which has been good so far, but a new edition of 40K is the most secretive topic you could find in GW).

7th is considered a lame duck? I'd have to assume 6th was considered much the same since they gutted it in two years. So two poor editions in a row then? Clearly the direction of the game is going to have to shift dramatically if GW wants to avoid more of the same.

Oh, and thank you as always for the info sad panda, it is much appreciated.

Sad Panda wrote:
There is a new edition of 40K in the works.

It's also correct that GW doesn't bother re-doing old Codex books, basically since Tau, as they consider 7th a lame duck rule set (there will still be rules for new miniatures, incl. campaigns, Codex Deathwatch, etc..).

Just that the timeline is off and the new edition further away ... at least 2017 ... according to my information (which has been good so far, but a new edition of 40K is the most secretive topic you could find in GW).

I honestly wonder if they can make a new system, a completely new engine, that could have tiers of play. Skirmish, then squads then formations?
Because doing the same thing over and over again, just worse nearly each time is sad. GW expects their target demographic, 12 year old boys, to play and stick with what weve seen since fifth?
The kirby years truly were insane.
Bring back sanity, and at least decent game design.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Points don't matter. They really, really, really don't. All the garbage players are the ones who whined and whined about "No points means it's going to be anarchy!"

As someone who's been playing warhammer since 3rd edition and 40k since it existed, this 'garbage player' not only complained at the lack of points, I saw the anarchy and inability to play pick up games and effective tournaments with my own eyes.

I have NEVER spent more than five minutes arranging a pick up game of AoS with no points or comp systems involved. It usually comes down to me dropping down one of the campaign books and letting the other guy pick out a scenario that catches his fancy and playing those instead of standard games. And it's not like you need to use the campaign books for that either, since the individual army books have gone back to the "Good Old Days" where the army books included scenarios.

I've had a wildly different experience than you have I guess, but you know what?
It just highlights anecdotal experiences being anecdotal experiences and how people tend to drift towards those

Points systems have worked for 30 bloody years, they've been worked on and refined for that long.

That's why we have codex creep, and have had codex creep for 30 years?

Your blanket insult and sweeping statements really do not endear you to many people, Kan, and you've been at this a wee while now, one might have assumed you'd have mastered at least the rudiments of polite discourse, to somehow mask your dreary obsession with dwelling in a world of black and white 'I'm right and the rest of the world is wrong' skewed logic you persist in ramrodding into every bloody thread you participate in.

Polite discourse is a give and take.
You want polite discourse? Then don't let people garbage post, and I won't feel the need to do the same.

As for the thread subject, I would strongly suggest that the mistakes of AoS (and boy were there...) have been studied and that when 40k is stripped down (as I feel it must be), the shift will be far less draconian and absolute.

What you consider a mistake is not necessarily a mistake.

For myself, the mistakes of AoS?
-Only doing Stormcast Eternals(basic ones) and Khorne Bloodbound at launch(although Bloodbound were a FAR more interesting release IMO)
-Prices on the Stormcast Eternal units being ridiculous for the number of models.
-Design aesthetics on the Stormcast Eternals. If they'd gone and done certain units with less armor or shifted certain parts to leather instead of metal or any number of things, I would have been far far more interested.
-Not including the Campaign Missions from the first Age of Sigmar book in the AoS app.
-Not including a "Your army may contain only contain one of this model" tag on characters beyond the Celestant-Prime.

That's off the top of my head, mind. I'm sure if I sat and thought about it I could come up with more.

The bloat and churn must be stripped away to make a playable game,

I can agree with you on this. The bloat, in my mind, is a product of designers not being willing to alter old things and instead just copy/pasting and making a few tweaks here and there.
Look at the humble Guardsmen or Cultists. Two of the iconic "We need to put tons and tons and tons and tons of shots downrange to put wounds on anything that isn't us or Orks and we're awful at CC so we tend to hunker down and hope for the best" units, and they don't realistically have a way of doing so beyond spamming the units in excessive numbers.

Change "Rapid Fire" to "Salvo 2/4" or roll the Salvo rules into Rapid Fire and all of a sudden those units are having new life breathed into them.

the genies of LoW, D weaponry etc must be placed back into bottles with 'by mutual consent' clearly labelled on them and the endless removal of gameplay and replacement with 'random chart horrifically affecting entire game' must be taken into the back yard and a bullet put through it's skull. The game should be, I feel, tailored towards pick up and tourney, with the options to add in other things with mutual consent.

Because "the genies of LoW" are what's killing 40k. Those Marneus Calgar, Dante, Azrael, Gabriel Seth, Logan Grimnar, Ghazghkull Thraka, Stompa, Lord of Skulls, and Baneblade variants are what's absolutely ruining the game.

Hell, even D weaponry isn't that bad when on appropriately costed models...but that's the rub isn't it?
The models that are the problems aren't because of them being LoW or touting D weaponry or whatever, but because they're undercosted compared to what amounts to holdout stuff from "the Good Old Days".
Guardsmen don't suck because they're Guardsmen, they suck because they haven't had anything but point tweaks and minor shifts in statlines over the years.
Wraithknights aren't amazing because they're LoW, Wraithknights are amazing because they're undercosted and saw a huge leap in survival capabilities when they shifted from MCs to GMCs.

I also absolutely vehemently disagree that the game should be tailored towards tournament play. I want them to get 40k to a point where pick-up games don't require me to ask someone to please not take multiples of something that I know for a fact my army does not contain a way to counter before they even start thinking about tournaments. Tournaments tend to do their own thing anyway, so why should GW do the work for them?

Points, which aren't perfect, do at least steer people towards a sense of balance for gaming with strangers, without scenarios.

I really don't agree with this, but that's your opinion.

In my opinion?
Armies aren't magically balanced because of points--especially in a game where some books/items can go multiple editions without more than a cursory drop in points with no actual changes to reflect the shift in rules.

An 1850 Guard army versus 1850 Eldar isn't magically balanced because we're the same points. It's not even magically balanced if we both had books from the same edition. It's balanced by the persons playing the armies taking a few moments and discussing things.

With any luck an 8th edition will really streamline like AOS and go the same route (relatively speaking) of having a "play what you want" style (which I guess already exists with Unbound), a narrative style and a "matched" style that hopefully tries better to balance points (which it remains to be seen how balanced, if at all, the AOS points are).

Might I just say that it's going to take a fine and careful touch to streamline 40k without breaking or ruining it somehow? You know how you play an army partly because they do things in the rules that you like? Well that has to be translated into words somehow. And the more unique your army is, the more special rules it's going to need. That's what makes the game fun.

I think of it this way: A rule is a tool, and the BRB is a box. You like having tools, and you like having a tool box, the only problem you have is that at this point you have to spend 5 minutes digging through your toolbox to find the tool you're looking for.

40k doesn't need to be redone ala Age of Sigmar, all it needs it some restructuring. There's some fat to trim, sure. Let's just make sure that GW doesn't accidentally take something important out when and if they start trimming it.

I wouldn't mind a 3rd ed-level streamlining. They don't need to quite go as far as Age of Sigmar, but a streamlined ruleset with a lot less bloat would be great for the game. Part of me would be frustrated because I've only bought a few codices recently, but if they did free rules releases like Age of Sigmar does, that'd be great.

I don't think ditching points is a good idea though. There needs to be some objective constraint on everybody to make a balanced game. While maybe 1850 of Guard vs 1850 of Eldar isn't a perfectly balanced game due to player skill, army composition, and the power of the codices, it's closer than just eyeballing it.

I, for one, would welcome a severe streamlining of 40k.

I've never played a game of 40k, but I must have read the rules for 7th edition four times by now and I still am unable to wrap my head around it all.
I know that playing would likely provide a great dealy of clarity, but the rules are pretty impenetrable for someone with very little wargaming experience.

I've got more of a board gaming background than miniature gaming, but the hobby of miniature-building, the beautiful tables, and the excitement of three-dimensional gaming pieces have won me over.
I came to 40k by way of Space Hulk (1st edition) and a love for the 40k design/races/massive universe.
I've purchased an awful lot of models for someone that doesn't even play 40k proper!
I've also acquired Deathwatch: Overkill and Betrayal at Calth and love them both.
The new WHQ is beautiful and I am sorely tempted to buy it.

And every time I try to go through the rulebook again, I'm overwhelmed and think twice about starting.
I have a full-time job. I have a wife.
The same goes for most of my friends. Warhammer 40K, in its current state, discourages casual players.
The modelling aspect of 40k is already time-consuming enough.
What I want is a system that's relatively quick-to-learn, and doesn't suck away all of my time (or my friends' time) in other ways...
Which I'll now address:

I would absolutely be in favor of them getting rid of the points system. Points to me represent the most unappealing aspect of the game.
As someone totally new to 40k, I don't want to spend hours making army lists. That's meta-game. I hate meta-game. I want to play 40k, not 40k team manager.
If I want to meta-game, I'll play a CCG or an LCG. Magic, Netrunner, etc.
By their nature, miniatures just SCREAM of theme, and immersion in that theme; points take me right out of the fantastical world of Warhammer faster than anything else.

I understand that this is a generalization and does not apply to all, but I have noticed that many of the individuals that love list-building are frequently the same individuals with whom I would have no desire to play the game: rules-mongering bros with less interest in fun than in figuring out the most powerful list they can fit into X points and Y dollars. I'd rather have an opponent that is interested in a thematic, cohesive army, and would prefer to agree on unclear rules by means of a dice roll and a handshake rather than a 5-minute leaf through the rulebookS that requires the game to be put on pause.

Age of Sigmar is looking really, really good to me, but I prefer the sci-fi themes of 40k by a mile.

Just a perspective from an outsider.

Sad Panda wrote:
There is a new edition of 40K in the works.

It's also correct that GW doesn't bother re-doing old Codex books, basically since Tau, as they consider 7th a lame duck rule set (there will still be rules for new miniatures, incl. campaigns, Codex Deathwatch, etc..).

Just that the timeline is off and the new edition further away ... at least 2017 ... according to my information (which has been good so far, but a new edition of 40K is the most secretive topic you could find in GW).

Thanks for jumping in, adding to the first post.

The only thing I really want to see in a new edition is for Hit and Run to be more like Infiltrate. It will only work if all models in the unit have Hit and Run.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
There were a lot more special rules in 1st and 2nd edition. Then it was all rationalised for 3rd edition. 4th and 5th editions developed and expanded on 3rd, partly through optional supplements. Then in 6th/7th the structure became more like 1st/2d again, lots more special rules, lots more psychic, lots more options coded into the core game.

Indeed. A simple example is to look at how Warp Spiders worked in 2E vs 3E vs 7E.

The other thing to do is to look at the number of Codices in 2E vs 7E.

Then look at the number of unit entries in 2E vs 7E.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sinful Hero wrote:

 gorgon wrote:

 Sinful Hero wrote:
You obviously weren't around for a big edition change. 5th invalidated all of the 4th edition codexes , 6th invalidated all of the 5th edition codexes, and some sat for a few years before being updated to the new rules.

That isn't true at all. The last time codicies were invalidated was in the change from 2nd to 3rd. They received errata in the changes you mention, but were still used for play.

They were still used, but they were immediately outdated. For example Tyranid Ravenors had Acute Senses in fourth, but in fifth had no way to outflank so it was a useless rule for them until the updated codex. Or the Carnifex upgrade that doubled its model count for assault- it had zero analogue in 5th. Could also point out that you could no longer two of the same ranged weapon or biocannon on the same model, so suddenly entIre load outs were left by the wayside. They could function(move, shoot, run), but they were not functioning correctly.

I suppose I chose poor wording when I said, "invalidated".

Except, the models were still valid. You could still play the Ravenors and Carnifex. They may not have had the same chromey effects, but they were definitely playable. That happens to various units with almost every Codex changeover. But then again, you pretty much deserve it for playing Nids or Orks or Chaos - those armies get heavily reworked every time, whereas SMs pretty much stay the same. Unless you're Black Templars.

sturguard wrote:
Sad Panda,
Why would they go through all this Errata process just to scrap it all in a new edition? Or will these Faqs essentially be part of the new rules? Can you speculate?

Also, will they be coming out with brand new codexes for all the factions for 8th edition?

Like he said, 7th is a lame duck.

However, they can't rush a new edition out next month, especially if they want to do it right, so in all likelihood this is the tourniquet to keep the patient from bleeding out while you rush him to the hospital to try and reattach his leg.

They can also use it as a test and see if a "7.5" will be enough to please old fans (it won't)

It's the best option they have, and given the drastic, sweeping changes it at least gives us some hope that they're listening

The biggest problem is this- models are GWs lifeblood moreso than rules. People buying the 40k rulebook or the starter dont make them enough money to stay in business. And although new blood will buy existing minis, they need the come out with new minis to sell to the veterans, or even the newer folks that want to expand their armies. There are only so many ways you can make a tank with plasma/lascannon/heavy bolter. What separates this tank from that tank are guns and special rules. So in many scenarios GW has to create some niche for a new model to fit into the game and there goes the special rules snowball. That's where we are. They have done fliers, they have done Knights, I don't think they can do submarines, so each incarnation of models has to have either new guns or new rules as only so many folks are going to buy it as it looks pretty. GW is trying to appeal to both the hobbyists and the gamers and it isnt easy.

In my opinion you can't even compare AOS and 40k. Even if you think AOS has been a success, they simply hit the reset button and have been working on 2 factions. If 40k got the same treatment and for a year all that was covered was Ultramarines and say Chaos Space Marines, I think many folks would walk away and that could spell the collapse of the company.

Fantasy, and subsequently 40K were developed to drive model sales.

So why you're right to a point to say GW need the model sales to make money, they need the games to be popular to drive the sales of those models, Brian Ansell realised this 30+ years ago, Kirby got so overconfident it appears he forgot it.

Equally, they do need to keep expanding the range to drive sales from existing customers, but they're very risk averse, and I bet that a majority of players from most factions would easily identify a kit that they feel needs an update, or a unit that they'd love to own some/more of, but the in game function holds them back from buying. But GW would rather, historically, launch a new kit that nobody has over redesign a kit that perhaps won't be well received most of the time.

There are far more subtle ways of keeping people buying new models, but very little about recent GW could be characterised as subtle.

The good news about Sad panda's info is that this will not be a Kirby product, and might therefore actually get playtested.

sturguard wrote:
The biggest problem is this- models are GWs lifeblood moreso than rules.

No way. I am sure there are loads of people buying Imperial Knights Renegade for the 2 pages of "game" and the 3rd page of scenarios. Same with Betrayal at Calth.

Actually, I am super mad that the 40k rules pamphlet wasn't printed as a separate thing that I can just keep with my CSM codex. Rather than also having to carry IKR rules.

Late second quarter 2017 sounds about right that's 3 years for a new edition which was the old norm and gives them a year to ruminate on the faqs.

If they really want to speed up the game they need to get rid of a lot of random tables, combine a lot of the excessive rolls and counter rolls, and take a sharpie to a lot of the immersive but excessive rules (challenges, tank shock). I realize they have been adding rules to the game since 3rd edition but honestly they need to get back to 3rd/4th edition ruleset minus a few of the more broken issues.

 oni wrote:


Releasing a new edition of the game is more likely to push customers away.

I've been in this hobby a very long time, since 2nd edition, and I can attest that it's when new editions are released that I've seen the most people jump ship.

It's human nature to be apprehensive to change. People who come into 40K (fresh or returning) and like it are more likely to disapprove of the changes a new edition brings and thus stop playing altogether.

I've been playing since 2nd edition as well. The people who are so averse to change are going to quit anyway unless it is a minor update on existing rules, which does nothing to fix the problem with the game as it currently is. So the option is to lose customers who may quit anyway, or reboot and bring in new players with simplified rules that can be picked up and played within an afternoon. There's far too much competition out there that allows people to learn and play a game in one go, and not have to study multiple rule books for days before learning the basics. Casual gamers are the money makers and when there are more options than ever for casual gamers, GW has to address the barriers to entry that currently hinder growth, or they'll continue to lose both players and revenue.

We've seen what GW's decision has been in regards to this with Warhammer Fantasy. You're buying your head in the sand if you don't think 40k will go in a similar direction.

I think if they got rid of a bunch of rules that do essentially the same thing, removed a lot of the random tables, and boosted Assault to be on level with Shooting, they might be on track. Hopefully Blood Angels will be one of the first codexes. Honestly, if they basically do the same thing that they did with Dark Vengeance, my brother and I will probably pick up two boxes.

S'why I play Necromunda...

What I miss is the 3rd edition style of books. None of this pay $50 for glossy pages for a book with pretty pictures you can put on a shelf. Make RULE BOOKS cheaper and easy to use for games, and ALSO put out big fluff/picture/artwork tomes for people to buy for the shelf.

Maybe they will go the AOS route and have datasheets included with every model and available for free, and then sell detachments/formations and supplements, along with fluff/artwork/picture books. So the collector can buy all of those and have a shelf full of 40k literature and lore, the gamer can pick and choose if they want to learn more about their army, the narrative player can buy the campaign sets that interest them, etc.

WayneTheGame wrote:
What I miss is the 3rd edition style of books. None of this pay $50 for glossy pages for a book with pretty pictures you can put on a shelf. Make RULE BOOKS cheaper and easy to use for games, and ALSO put out big fluff/picture/artwork tomes for people to buy for the shelf.

Maybe they will go the AOS route and have datasheets included with every model and available for free, and then sell detachments/formations and supplements, along with fluff/artwork/picture books. So the collector can buy all of those and have a shelf full of 40k literature and lore, the gamer can pick and choose if they want to learn more about their army, the narrative player can buy the campaign sets that interest them, etc.

I kinda like both approaches. I like having a nicely made book full of lavish art and full color photography, but having the thin little pamphlet codices made getting to games easier. There's good points to both approaches.

 Brother SRM wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:
What I miss is the 3rd edition style of books. None of this pay $50 for glossy pages for a book with pretty pictures you can put on a shelf. Make RULE BOOKS cheaper and easy to use for games, and ALSO put out big fluff/picture/artwork tomes for people to buy for the shelf.

Maybe they will go the AOS route and have datasheets included with every model and available for free, and then sell detachments/formations and supplements, along with fluff/artwork/picture books. So the collector can buy all of those and have a shelf full of 40k literature and lore, the gamer can pick and choose if they want to learn more about their army, the narrative player can buy the campaign sets that interest them, etc.

I kinda like both approaches. I like having a nicely made book full of lavish art and full color photography, but having the thin little pamphlet codices made getting to games easier. There's good points to both approaches.

Thing is though, is current GW - even moderately improved current GW - capable of putting out a product that isn't, in their view, a jewel-like object of wonderment?

Sure, anyone sane could look at the barriers to entry on GW products and say "hey, black & white softcover rules at a substantially lower price would help a lot with that, and you can still offer the super-shiny-mega-special-limited hardcover versions for folk who care about that sort of thing", but to GW that would be an insult to their amazing product - afterall, they just got done changing to a new format for unit entries(Datasheets/Warscrolls) that use up half the page on glorious high definition photographs of their Ferrari-esque miniatures, and you want them to print those off without colour?!?! A travesty!

Ugh, I would murder someone if it meant a return to the simple, rational, affordable army book formats of 3rd Edition.

They seriously need to crop out much of the over lap in gear, unit types, and USR's. Then clean up the phases a tad. The core of 40k is pretty simple, it is all the cross referencing that kills the game for casuals and new comers.

It's funny to see the game come almost full circle. I remember this exact same issue in 2nd ed, take power weapons for example, they were all different until 3rd ed came in and simply said they ignore armor. Steering the ship back to 3rd ed simplicity would help out loads. I mean, do we really need separate rules for zealot, hatred, fearless or rage, rampage and furious charge? I still forget why strike down was ever written as a USR lol. Why is infiltrate, scout and outflank all separate? You can go through the USR's and crop them down by 2/3rds as well as do away with each codexes special exception, like destroyer protocols and heavy battle servitor, for feths sake can't you just make them relentless and while we are at it get rid of slow and purposeful?

I honestly think the game could be pretty easily streamlined, but it would take a bit of a leap of faith, but no more then back between 2nd and 3rd ed and look how that turned out, exceptional!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Yodhrin wrote:

 Brother SRM wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:
What I miss is the 3rd edition style of books. None of this pay $50 for glossy pages for a book with pretty pictures you can put on a shelf. Make RULE BOOKS cheaper and easy to use for games, and ALSO put out big fluff/picture/artwork tomes for people to buy for the shelf.

Maybe they will go the AOS route and have datasheets included with every model and available for free, and then sell detachments/formations and supplements, along with fluff/artwork/picture books. So the collector can buy all of those and have a shelf full of 40k literature and lore, the gamer can pick and choose if they want to learn more about their army, the narrative player can buy the campaign sets that interest them, etc.

I kinda like both approaches. I like having a nicely made book full of lavish art and full color photography, but having the thin little pamphlet codices made getting to games easier. There's good points to both approaches.

Thing is though, is current GW - even moderately improved current GW - capable of putting out a product that isn't, in their view, a jewel-like object of wonderment?

Sure, anyone sane could look at the barriers to entry on GW products and say "hey, black & white softcover rules at a substantially lower price would help a lot with that, and you can still offer the super-shiny-mega-special-limited hardcover versions for folk who care about that sort of thing", but to GW that would be an insult to their amazing product - afterall, they just got done changing to a new format for unit entries(Datasheets/Warscrolls) that use up half the page on glorious high definition photographs of their Ferrari-esque miniatures, and you want them to print those off without colour?!?! A travesty!

Ugh, I would murder someone if it meant a return to the simple, rational, affordable army book formats of 3rd Edition.

The cynic in me wants to say they would simply cut out the fluff, shift to black and white bound by soft cover and continue to sell it at the current price point. Their current attitude makes me pause though.

Lots of good ideas and discussion here however we are drifting off New & Rumours so may I request people to take the continuation of this to the 40K Discussions Forum?

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/690966.page#8658963

 Red Corsair wrote:
They seriously need to crop out much of the over lap in gear, unit types, and USR's. Then clean up the phases a tad. The core of 40k is pretty simple, it is all the cross referencing that kills the game for casuals and new comers.

It's funny to see the game come almost full circle. I remember this exact same issue in 2nd ed, take power weapons for example, they were all different until 3rd ed came in and simply said they ignore armor. Steering the ship back to 3rd ed simplicity would help out loads. I mean, do we really need separate rules for zealot, hatred, fearless or rage, rampage and furious charge?

A better question is do we even need rules for morale in the game AT ALL?

Most armies ignore Morale, so it's a kick in the teeth to the few armies that don't. Far better to simply make EVERYBODY Fearless and just move on.

1.) Too many USR's. Some of which are essentially worthless. Fear anyone?

2.) Too many rolls during set-up. This makes it take way too long. Find a way to integrate into army list creation. This idea is a bit out there but I am thinking of an attached penalty to certain strong formations to balance them. "If you use this formation, opponent deploys first. " it could even work as a means to balance powerful units. It could also be used for board set-up an terrain as well. If both sides have it, then there is a default set-up with everything picked already.

3.) Do we need two separate tables to hit? The assault to-hit table doesn't seem all that necessary with the effect weapon skill has.

4.) Too many phases of the game for "I go, You go."

5.) Warlord traits and psychic powers should be tied to something else besides a roll. Be it a point-buy, tied to specific models or formations, or something else.

6.) Too many different unit types. I am looking at you walkers. Infantry, vehicles, and monsters. Maayyybee flyers. Let the statlines and special abilities differentiate the units within a unit type

7.) Simplify what IC's can and can't do.

8.) Allies. I am not overtly fond of them. But a codex shouldn't have to rely on other allies to fill holes. I understand certain armies will have strengths and weaknesses, but Super Friends makes me throw up in my mouth a little.

9.) Simplify each phase a little or make them share traits. I remember switching from Tau to Space Marines. The assault phase took me awhile to lock down.

I am sure I missed something and I am sure others probably have better insight. But these are my rapid-fire thoughts. I don't want Warmachine or AoS but I shouldn't need a lawyer on retainer to play the game alongside me.

Simple thing could really improve the game would be interleaved turn structures.

This concept is not so foreign to GW as some of their game utlize it already.

You move, I move.
You shoot, I shoot.
You assault I assault.
You cast magic/psychic ppwers, then I do the same.

It would be a vast improvement over taking lunch while someone else takes their turn. As it is, it seems like a game of two player solitaire many times.

UGOIGO is flawed for this format and its outdated use doesn't fit contemporary design.

This is absurd.

I feel surrounded by moody teens and man-children who all have ADHD.

When 5th Ed. was in, the Dakka community bitched that things were too simple, the force org. chart was too restrictive, vehicles and wound allocation was being abused, codex creep was out of control and blah blah blah - we need a more involved and complex rules system.

Enter 6th Ed. with a more involved and complex rules system and guess what? The Dakka community bitched that things were needlessly complex and unclear, flyers and super heavies should not be in the game and blah blah blah - we need a more clear and refined core rules system where only the special rules dictate exceptions.

Enter 7th Ed. with refined rules and loads of special rules and the freedom to build your army however you desire and guess what? The Dakka community still bitches. There's too many special rules, too many books, I can't figure out how to build an army because the freedom of choice is too overwhelming - we need to streamline, we need to go back to 5th edition.

Because clearly it is all the same people saying these things.

 Hellfury wrote:
Simple thing could really improve the game would be interleaved turn structures.

This concept is not so foreign to GW as some of their game utlize it already.

You move, I move.
You shoot, I shoot.
You assault I assault.
You cast magic/psychic ppwers, then I do the same.

It would be a vast improvement over taking lunch while someone else takes their turn. As it is, it seems like a game of two player solitaire many times.

UGOIGO is flawed for this format and its outdated use doesn't fit contemporary design.

Which is not so simple as you think.
Switching from IGYG to alternate phases goes much deeper. It also removes all kind of reactions from the game, otherwise it would make it worse. So no more Overwatch, Intercept, banning psi powers, striking back in close combat etc

If you want a more dynamic gameplay it would be better to improve the current reaction system.

Not really, Bolt Action/Gates has managed to do random activation and reactions.

Which is different because they have per unit activations and not just alternating phases.

But there are a lot of posibilities how 40k can be a better game, we have tried a lot of them in the past 3 years

 oni wrote:
This is absurd.

I feel surrounded by moody teens and man-children who all have ADHD.

When 5th Ed. was in, the Dakka community bitched that things were too simple, the force org. chart was too restrictive, vehicles and wound allocation was being abused, codex creep was out of control and blah blah blah - we need a more involved and complex rules system.

Enter 6th Ed. with a more involved and complex rules system and guess what? The Dakka community bitched that things were needlessly complex and unclear, flyers and super heavies should not be in the game and blah blah blah - we need a more clear and refined core rules system where only the special rules dictate exceptions.

Enter 7th Ed. with refined rules and loads of special rules and the freedom to build your army however you desire and guess what? The Dakka community still bitches. There's too many special rules, too many books, I can't figure out how to build an army because the freedom of choice is too overwhelming - we need to streamline, we need to go back to 5th edition.

Not everyone as I was one of the Dakka members that was happy and playing games during 5th with only minor complaints. Now we are in 7th and I play games at home only with a few select friends. And a lot of custom rules that I didn't need in 5th

 oni wrote:
This is absurd.

I feel surrounded by moody teens and man-children who all have ADHD.

And...?

When 5th Ed. was in, the Dakka community bitched that things were too simple, the force org. chart was too restrictive, vehicles and wound allocation was being abused, codex creep was out of control and blah blah blah - we need a more involved and complex rules system.

Enter 6th Ed. with a more involved and complex rules system and guess what? The Dakka community bitched that things were needlessly complex and unclear, flyers and super heavies should not be in the game and blah blah blah - we need a more clear and refined core rules system where only the special rules dictate exceptions.

Enter 7th Ed. with refined rules and loads of special rules and the freedom to build your army however you desire and guess what? The Dakka community still bitches. There's too many special rules, too many books, I can't figure out how to build an army because the freedom of choice is too overwhelming - we need to streamline, we need to go back to 5th edition.

Well, just think how a majorly simplified 40K would allow Dakka to dust off all those jokes about Jervis's kid from the 4th edition streamlining.

And let's not forget that they've DONE massive simplification and streamlining more recently than 2nd to 3rd - Epic 40,000. While I personally think it's a fantastic ruleset, it's safe to say many disagreed. IIRC even some of the designers notes to Armageddon (or were they interviews?) pointed to the lesson being learned that their audience LOVES their fiddly little differentiations, the more granular the better. Given the way that period turned out, you could forgive them being a little gunshy about doing similar to 40k.

 oni wrote:
Enter 6th Ed. with a more involved and complex rules system

Not complex, just convoluted.

 gorgon wrote:

 oni wrote:
This is absurd.

I feel surrounded by moody teens and man-children who all have ADHD.

And...?

When 5th Ed. was in, the Dakka community bitched that things were too simple, the force org. chart was too restrictive, vehicles and wound allocation was being abused, codex creep was out of control and blah blah blah - we need a more involved and complex rules system.

Enter 6th Ed. with a more involved and complex rules system and guess what? The Dakka community bitched that things were needlessly complex and unclear, flyers and super heavies should not be in the game and blah blah blah - we need a more clear and refined core rules system where only the special rules dictate exceptions.

Enter 7th Ed. with refined rules and loads of special rules and the freedom to build your army however you desire and guess what? The Dakka community still bitches. There's too many special rules, too many books, I can't figure out how to build an army because the freedom of choice is too overwhelming - we need to streamline, we need to go back to 5th edition.

Well, just think how a majorly simplified 40K would allow Dakka to dust off all those jokes about Jervis's kid from the 4th edition streamlining.

To be fair, remember how many more users on Dakka there were during 4th/5th? Or how many more players there were? People speak with their wallets; GW's sales peaked during the "simplified" years of 4th & 5th.

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 oni wrote:
Enter 6th Ed. with a more involved and complex rules system

Not complex, just convoluted.

Time for my semi regular "complex =\= complicated" post.

40K is complicated. There is a huge amount of content, there are many things to keep track of in a game, and many events require multiple steps in order to resolve.

40K is not especially complex. It does not offer a huge amount of interactions between units, nor are there a huge number of actions a player needs to consider on a turn by turn basis.

Complexity is desirable, it is what give a game depth, complicated rules should be avoided at all costs.

sturguard wrote:
Sad Panda,
Why would they go through all this Errata process just to scrap it all in a new edition? Or will these Faqs essentially be part of the new rules? Can you speculate?

Also, will they be coming out with brand new codexes for all the factions for 8th edition?

Doing the FAQs now, in what is possibly the timeframe for writing and polishing the ruleset for printing and a 2017 release, lets them see the problem areas that people frequently have and word the rules more clearly to avoid them, while the FAQs themselves hold things over for 7th edition until 8th comes along.

 Noir Eternal wrote:

 oni wrote:
This is absurd.

I feel surrounded by moody teens and man-children who all have ADHD.

When 5th Ed. was in, the Dakka community bitched that things were too simple, the force org. chart was too restrictive, vehicles and wound allocation was being abused, codex creep was out of control and blah blah blah - we need a more involved and complex rules system.

Enter 6th Ed. with a more involved and complex rules system and guess what? The Dakka community bitched that things were needlessly complex and unclear, flyers and super heavies should not be in the game and blah blah blah - we need a more clear and refined core rules system where only the special rules dictate exceptions.

Enter 7th Ed. with refined rules and loads of special rules and the freedom to build your army however you desire and guess what? The Dakka community still bitches. There's too many special rules, too many books, I can't figure out how to build an army because the freedom of choice is too overwhelming - we need to streamline, we need to go back to 5th edition.

Not everyone as I was one of the Dakka members that was happy and playing games during 5th with only minor complaints. Now we are in 7th and I play games at home only with a few select friends. And a lot of custom rules that I didn't need in 5th

Yah, I loved 5th at the time too. Alot of people came around to 5th ed in time. My only issue with 5th was the space wolf book, and it's OP-ness. But most only remembers the insanitiy that came at the very tail end of the edition with Grey Knights. To be fair they came out less then a year before 6th, and was not representative of most 5th ed games for it's life span.

Your experience with 7th has been alot like mine. I don't like playing agiest formations and lords of war. I gave them a try and just don't like apoc in my normal 40k.

 oni wrote:
This is absurd.

I feel surrounded by moody teens and man-children who all have ADHD.

When 5th Ed. was in, the Dakka community bitched that things were too simple, the force org. chart was too restrictive, vehicles and wound allocation was being abused, codex creep was out of control and blah blah blah - we need a more involved and complex rules system.

Enter 6th Ed. with a more involved and complex rules system and guess what? The Dakka community bitched that things were needlessly complex and unclear, flyers and super heavies should not be in the game and blah blah blah - we need a more clear and refined core rules system where only the special rules dictate exceptions.

Enter 7th Ed. with refined rules and loads of special rules and the freedom to build your army however you desire and guess what? The Dakka community still bitches. There's too many special rules, too many books, I can't figure out how to build an army because the freedom of choice is too overwhelming - we need to streamline, we need to go back to 5th edition.

I believe it's the rose tinted eyes of nostalgia talking mostly. People think back to the days of wonder when they played such and such. Oh what fun we had with lego terrain and glued toilet paper rolls playing with unpainted tin and a weak grasp of ruleset, when in actuality it was a constant fighting with your brother cause he kept cheating and it smelled funny in the basement...

 oni wrote:
This is absurd.
I feel surrounded by moody teens and man-children who all have ADHD.

Got a kid with ADHD... your tolerance is rather thin.

When 5th Ed. was in, the Dakka community bitched that things were too simple, the force org. chart was too restrictive, vehicles and wound allocation was being abused, codex creep was out of control and blah blah blah - we need a more involved and complex rules system.

The long span between codex's was causing a creep of sorts where they barely saw an update between rule updates.
BTW last edition I could buy all the rules for all the armies, it was quite nice to know ALL the rules.

Enter 6th Ed. with a more involved and complex rules system and guess what? The Dakka community bitched that things were needlessly complex and unclear, flyers and super heavies should not be in the game and blah blah blah - we need a more clear and refined core rules system where only the special rules dictate exceptions.

I like how they tried to get all the special rules itemized in the BRB.
The army and allied chart broke the game however.
It just became a rehash of changing Apocalypse into the core rules, not all that unique.
Became a huge clunky mess.

Enter 7th Ed. with refined rules and loads of special rules and the freedom to build your army however you desire and guess what? The Dakka community still bitches. There's too many special rules, too many books, I can't figure out how to build an army because the freedom of choice is too overwhelming - we need to streamline, we need to go back to 5th edition.

Yes, at this stage literally no-one who legally buys all the various rules could afford it, never mind remember it all.
Formations was a nice idea but their toying with pay to win or just too much free stuff made fast and dirty OP units in short order.
"Refined" I really have to look around and say "Where??".
Choices should have consequence.
Have some logical consideration.
Most of it is buried in too much randomization with the illusion of choice and a whole bunch of unique units that cease to have relevance other than a selected few.
Yep, lots of choice boiling down to rock paper scissors army selection.
Heck, Bolt Action activation alone could save the bloody game, it does not take much other than giving a damn about the rules.

I have played this since 2nd edition, your rage over the complaining is almost as out of place of your passive acceptance of a game that has virtually become a game of pachinko.

Two scenarios:



A book with all the rules you need to play and various optional supplements available for purchase but not required that allow for players to take their battles in various more specific directions (apoc, cityfight, planestrik, the new stupid plane thing)





A convoluted living ruleset with 4 books that are made to be a requirement for cynical gain with the possibility of even more essentially mandatory expansions.



I know kanluwan favours the second option and I won't speculate as to why as I don't think it's healthy to ascribe that clarity of purpose to evil But the first option was how the game used to work and it was better for it. The fact that 40k is apoc now and we all have to put on our gak eating grins and call it 40k makes me sad. Formations are awful, the foc is king.

I love the formations, for the special rules they bring. When you play with only FOC things are predictable. Formations allow for much greater diversity in army building and their special rules can make otherwise suboptimal units enjoyable to field.

I'm taking these 8th edition in 2017 tumors with a 5lb bag of salt. It seems like the same people who speculated about 40K being on a 2 years cycle when 7th edition dropped are the same ones calling 8th edition in 2017, with no new evidence.

Fritz on Youtube is confident about 8th edition simply because someone he asked refused to answer about it.

8th edition rumors are just great click bait.

WTF would they even bother with the FAQ they are currently working on if it's invalidated in less than 6 months ?

Now honesntly, I could see a (7.5?) rulebook with the FAQ changes incorporated, and updated fortifications section. Maybe even a new starter set, with armies less aweful than Dark Angels and CSM

Sad panda said that 8th is coming in 2017, and he's about the most solid rumormonger we got.

 kodos wrote:

 Hellfury wrote:
Simple thing could really improve the game would be interleaved turn structures.

This concept is not so foreign to GW as some of their game utlize it already.

You move, I move.
You shoot, I shoot.
You assault I assault.
You cast magic/psychic ppwers, then I do the same.

It would be a vast improvement over taking lunch while someone else takes their turn. As it is, it seems like a game of two player solitaire many times.

UGOIGO is flawed for this format and its outdated use doesn't fit contemporary design.

Which is not so simple as you think.
Switching from IGYG to alternate phases goes much deeper. It also removes all kind of reactions from the game, otherwise it would make it worse. So no more Overwatch, Intercept, banning psi powers, striking back in close combat etc

If you want a more dynamic gameplay it would be better to improve the current reaction system.

The entire system needs an overhaul. A fundamental reworking from the ground up. I'm not so naive as to think slapping interlewved turn structure onto the existing system would fix it, nor was it implied.

But if they were to go for a more radical reworking of the game, this should be instituted.
I'm not bothered about how reactions work. I already know they can because I've seen them in action in gws own game that utilize this mechanism.
Lotrs WotR is an excellent example of this working well.

 adamsouza wrote:
I love the formations, for the special rules they bring. When you play with only FOC things are predictable. Formations allow for much greater diversity in army building and their special rules can make otherwise suboptimal units enjoyable to field.

Yes, things are far from predictable now. Will I play against that White Scars' Gladius painted as Ultramarines or that other White Scars' Gladius painted as Raven Guard?

 adamsouza wrote:
I love the formations, for the special rules they bring. When you play with only FOC things are predictable. Formations allow for much greater diversity in army building and their special rules can make otherwise suboptimal units enjoyable to field.

I'm taking these 8th edition in 2017 tumors with a 5lb bag of salt. It seems like the same people who speculated about 40K being on a 2 years cycle when 7th edition dropped are the same ones calling 8th edition in 2017, with no new evidence.

Fritz on Youtube is confident about 8th edition simply because someone he asked refused to answer about it.

8th edition rumors are just great click bait.

WTF would they even bother with the FAQ they are currently working on if it's invalidated in less than 6 months ?

Now honesntly, I could see a (7.5?) rulebook with the FAQ changes incorporated, and updated fortifications section. Maybe even a new starter set, with armies less aweful than Dark Angels and CSM

I felt the same way about these rumors untill sad panda just dropped his rumour bomb. When Sad Panda says something is happening, you take note.

OT, but I realy need to say. The formations are the number one thing breaking 40k right now. Mechanicus War Convocation is insane to the point, that their is no reason NOT to use it if your playing the army.

 adamsouza wrote:


WTF would they even bother with the FAQ they are currently working on if it's invalidated in less than 6 months ?

WTF would they even bother writing/producing/distributing a hardback rulebook if it's invalidated in 24 months ?

Dunno. But they did didn't they?

I see a faq as a working document to ensure the next version is fixed using what was learnt from writing the previous faq.

Unfortunately, GW have a habit of bringing in and making new rules each edition to ensure it sells.

So i guess imperial/tau/eldar knights will be troops, more special squads and less normal units?

And off course the new starter box will be Sisters of Battle Vs Squats!

 kodos wrote:

 Hellfury wrote:
Simple thing could really improve the game would be interleaved turn structures.

This concept is not so foreign to GW as some of their game utlize it already.

You move, I move.
You shoot, I shoot.
You assault I assault.
You cast magic/psychic ppwers, then I do the same.

It would be a vast improvement over taking lunch while someone else takes their turn. As it is, it seems like a game of two player solitaire many times.

UGOIGO is flawed for this format and its outdated use doesn't fit contemporary design.

Which is not so simple as you think.
Switching from IGYG to alternate phases goes much deeper. It also removes all kind of reactions from the game, otherwise it would make it worse. So no more Overwatch, Intercept, banning psi powers, striking back in close combat etc

If you want a more dynamic gameplay it would be better to improve the current reaction system.

You don't play many other games, do you.

nah, the new rule book will be Imperial Zoats vs Ambulls.

 adamsouza wrote:
WTF would they even bother with the FAQ they are currently working on if it's invalidated in less than 6 months ?

Try 12+ months from now. GW usually does edition changeovers in the summer

WayneTheGame wrote:
With any luck an 8th edition will really streamline like AOS and go the same route (relatively speaking) of having a "play what you want" style (which I guess already exists with Unbound), a narrative style and a "matched" style that hopefully tries better to balance points (which it remains to be seen how balanced, if at all, the AOS points are).

I sincerely hope not

 Kanluwen wrote:
I have NEVER spent more than five minutes arranging a pick up game of AoS with no points or comp systems involved.

Oh good for you!

(/Christian Bale)

The fact of the matter is, Kan, that you called people wishing for points "garbage players". Your black and white nonsense, as MGS so rightly put it, isn't doing you any favours here.

 Lockark wrote:

 adamsouza wrote:
I love the formations, for the special rules they bring. When you play with only FOC things are predictable. Formations allow for much greater diversity in army building and their special rules can make otherwise suboptimal units enjoyable to field.

I'm taking these 8th edition in 2017 tumors with a 5lb bag of salt. It seems like the same people who speculated about 40K being on a 2 years cycle when 7th edition dropped are the same ones calling 8th edition in 2017, with no new evidence.

Fritz on Youtube is confident about 8th edition simply because someone he asked refused to answer about it.

8th edition rumors are just great click bait.

WTF would they even bother with the FAQ they are currently working on if it's invalidated in less than 6 months ?

Now honesntly, I could see a (7.5?) rulebook with the FAQ changes incorporated, and updated fortifications section. Maybe even a new starter set, with armies less aweful than Dark Angels and CSM

I felt the same way about these rumors untill sad panda just dropped his rumour bomb. When Sad Panda says something is happening, you take note.

OT, but I realy need to say. The formations are the number one thing breaking 40k right now. Mechanicus War Convocation is insane to the point, that their is no reason NOT to use it if your playing the army.

It's not the formations that are the problem, but the fact that only a select few armies have acces to them. If everyone had a shiny new codex with their own decurion it would be fine. Competitive players are always going to min max no matter what the system of picking the army is.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
I have NEVER spent more than five minutes arranging a pick up game of AoS with no points or comp systems involved.

Oh good for you!

(/Christian Bale)

The fact of the matter is, Kan, that you called people wishing for points "garbage players". Your black and white nonsense, as MGS so rightly put it, isn't doing you any favours here.

In all honesty, I laughed out loud when I read that statement from Kan. Last weekend I watched two GW employees on their off time, screw up trying to set up a balance Age of Sigmar Game. They spent like 30 min just trying to figure out what seemed like balenced forces to them, and then one side just crushed the other side so hard the winner was like "yah, we messed that up..."

Even the GW employees who's job is to sell people on age of sigmar, struggle to set up balanced games between each other. Even the manager of the location more or less said he can't wait for the point system for age of sigmar. He's sick of players asking for him and his employees help setting up balanced games of age of sigmar. (And more or less the lot of them failing at it.)

My experience when visiting local GW stores is that Age of Sigmar has put the retail sales staff of GW in the position of being game designers for players struggling to play balanced pick-up games. The only people who regularly play Age of Sigmar in the store are small groups who normally play at each other's homes. They only play at the GW store because the people in the group who normally host the games is busy that weekend. These people don't even buy from the GW store, and refuse to play ageist people outside their gaming group. (Like. They mainly play at home. So they buy online. You can't blame them for that.) This is the only groups of people I see actually enjoying age of sigmar.

Age of Sigmar has no way to hand random match-ups between people who may hardly know each, something that you can expect in both a pick up game or tournament environment. Kan may call these people "Garbage players", but the truth is clear at this point these "garbage players" make up a pretty good chunk of the player base of wargames. GW is writeing up a points system just to try and get them back after all.

They are a company under new management that has clearly seen the additional revenue that campaign books, supplements and codices bring them. A company that previously operated on a more or less 4 yr release schedule for rules editions did a new rule set in 2 years and a re-release of almost every codex.

It is entirely possible that in the foreseeable future they could switch to a 2 yr rules release schedule. The only thing that might stop that is people voting with their wallets and not purchasing it in droves.

I hope this isn't the case but if it is I will probably buy it anyway. I thin kits more likely that they will release a streamlined set of rules for casual play with a proper rule set inbound in the future. A "shake up" does not necessarily mean a new edition. Even death from the skies is a shake up.

 Fenrir Kitsune wrote:

 kodos wrote:

 Hellfury wrote:
Simple thing could really improve the game would be interleaved turn structures.

This concept is not so foreign to GW as some of their game utlize it already.

You move, I move.
You shoot, I shoot.
You assault I assault.
You cast magic/psychic ppwers, then I do the same.

It would be a vast improvement over taking lunch while someone else takes their turn. As it is, it seems like a game of two player solitaire many times.

UGOIGO is flawed for this format and its outdated use doesn't fit contemporary design.

Which is not so simple as you think.
Switching from IGYG to alternate phases goes much deeper. It also removes all kind of reactions from the game, otherwise it would make it worse. So no more Overwatch, Intercept, banning psi powers, striking back in close combat etc

If you want a more dynamic gameplay it would be better to improve the current reaction system.

You don't play many other games, do you.

I play most games that are out there but at the moment going to focus on X-Wing, Kings of War and A Fantastic SAGA.

And you can never just throw some new stuff into a system that is not clearly designed for it. You need to re-write it from scratch to add new stuff.
That is one reason why the 7th core rules are a mess, instead of a clean written new Edition they just change stuff and put new rules in while keeping everything else unchanged (leading to strange problems with RAW because some sentence left from 4th edition is interfering with a new 7th edition wording)

 kodos wrote:

 Fenrir Kitsune wrote:

 kodos wrote:

 Hellfury wrote:
Simple thing could really improve the game would be interleaved turn structures.

This concept is not so foreign to GW as some of their game utlize it already.

You move, I move.
You shoot, I shoot.
You assault I assault.
You cast magic/psychic ppwers, then I do the same.

It would be a vast improvement over taking lunch while someone else takes their turn. As it is, it seems like a game of two player solitaire many times.

UGOIGO is flawed for this format and its outdated use doesn't fit contemporary design.

Which is not so simple as you think.
Switching from IGYG to alternate phases goes much deeper. It also removes all kind of reactions from the game, otherwise it would make it worse. So no more Overwatch, Intercept, banning psi powers, striking back in close combat etc

If you want a more dynamic gameplay it would be better to improve the current reaction system.

You don't play many other games, do you.

I play most games that are out there but at the moment going to focus on X-Wing, Kings of War and A Fantastic SAGA.

And you can never just throw some new stuff into a system that is not clearly designed for it. You need to re-write it from scratch to add new stuff.
That is one reason why the 7th core rules are a mess, instead of a clean written new Edition they just change stuff and put new rules in while keeping everything else unchanged (leading to strange problems with RAW because some sentence left from 4th edition is interfering with a new 7th edition wording)

It's also worth mentioning that with the new faq it's become incredibly obvious GW has a broken physics engine for the game. The release of 7th was the first indication with the removal of a lot of the terrain rules. 7th basically removed the unlimited ceiling for vertical movement (jump, jet, jetbike, skimmers) only to have it put back in faq form. Walls being permeable was always up to players back when ruins had, like, rules.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

The fact of the matter is, Kan, that you called people wishing for points "garbage players". Your black and white nonsense, as MGS so rightly put it, isn't doing you any favours here.

You mean his black and white knight nonsense, surely?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Or when did Fenris's bombing get mentioned before?

When did the Centurions get mentioned before? Or the new Marine flyer?

You're confusing "retcon" with "advancement".

So you call the bombing of Fenris retcon?

Oookay so guess Return of the King was retcon of Fellowship of the ring then.

Hopefully the narrative involves the rotting corpse getting removed from the Golden Throne so the Emperor can be reborn. Would love to see it happen where Chaos tears rifts across the galaxy and the Emperor returns to lead a second Crusade to reclaim it. Ever sense Age of Sigmar, I've been expecting we'd see a similar shakeup in 40k.

If they remove multiple FoC and tactical objective cards I will probably not bother with a new edition. 7th is the most fun edition so far for me (started with 5th).

A few "grand alliance" books to neatly collect the WD/campaign/codex formations would get some of the problems back on track.
Also, scrap the whole warp charge system they got going for psychers.

Thanks in advace.

 nurgle86 wrote:
They are a company under new management that has clearly seen the additional revenue that campaign books, supplements and codices bring them. A company that previously operated on a more or less 4 yr release schedule for rules editions did a new rule set in 2 years and a re-release of almost every codex.

It is entirely possible that in the foreseeable future they could switch to a 2 yr rules release schedule. The only thing that might stop that is people voting with their wallets and not purchasing it in droves.

I hope this isn't the case but if it is I will probably buy it anyway. I thin kits more likely that they will release a streamlined set of rules for casual play with a proper rule set inbound in the future. A "shake up" does not necessarily mean a new edition. Even death from the skies is a shake up.

Precisely. A shake up could mean almost anything, and I've got a feeling that the original rumour was confusing the whole battle for vedros thing with a new edition.

As for the release schedule of rules, as long as they are good rules, and we see a progression that's worth doing, I've no problem in shelling out for rules on a bi annual basis. Especially if it means more player engagement and FAQs etc. What I wouldn't be happy with is just releases for release sake akin to the way the big video game studios churn out edition after edition of Call of Duty/FIFA/Assasins Creed.

 Crimson Devil wrote:
Yes, things are far from predictable now. Will I play against that White Scars' Gladius painted as Ultramarines or that other White Scars' Gladius painted as Raven Guard?

Dude, do you even go to tourneys?
Here is the list of the last 9 armies I've played at tourneys
- Renegades w/daemons gun line
- Gladius DA list
- Eldar/Corsair gunline
- Eldar Warp Spider Spam
- Tau Riptides (7 of them)
- Eldar/Tau gunline
- Nids
- Corsair/Tau gunline

I'll be the first to say there are a lot of Eldar, but it sure beats the days of 5th when every other table was the exact same GK build. At least we are seeing varieties in builds!

40k needs to be split into 2 games. A game full of flyers and warmachnes far to large for the table and an actual skirmish game like 40k used to be.
Until this happens the chances of me playing 40k again are remote to say the least.

tneva82 wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Or when did Fenris's bombing get mentioned before?

When did the Centurions get mentioned before? Or the new Marine flyer?

You're confusing "retcon" with "advancement".

So you call the bombing of Fenris retcon?

Oookay so guess Return of the King was retcon of Fellowship of the ring then.

His point is that the clock never moves past 999.M41. Did the bombing of Fenris take place after that, or was it retconned into the current timeline?

Warzone Fenris plays in the past.

Fenris itself was not bombed, is was another Planet from the same System.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:
40k needs to be split into 2 games. A game full of flyers and warmachnes far to large for the table and an actual skirmish game like 40k used to be.
Until this happens the chances of me playing 40k again are remote to say the least.

EXALTED


We need the line back between normal 40k and apoc.

 Illumini wrote:
With the recent more positive moves from GW, this could be great news. A smooth, fast and easy playing 40k ruleset might actually get me gaming 40k again.

The current bloated slowplaying unbalanced mess can`t get worse, so big thumbs up for new rules!

Pretty much this. After playing Age of Sigmar, I've found it's a refreshing game which is simple to pick up and easily customisable for however you want to play. I like the current rules for 40K but I agree with what has been mentioned several times in this thread - It's bloated.

Also I've been thinking GW may reboot 40K since hearing about the Death from the Skies supplement. If you look back at all recent releases for 40K (well since Tau update), it's all the bear minimum to support the new models. I think they are gearing up for a reboot and I welcome it, especially if it's like Age of Sigmar. I don't need to play complicated games, I just want something fun

 Crablezworth wrote:

 Silent Puffin? wrote:
40k needs to be split into 2 games. A game full of flyers and warmachnes far to large for the table and an actual skirmish game like 40k used to be.
Until this happens the chances of me playing 40k again are remote to say the least.

EXALTED
We need the line back between normal 40k and apoc.

I agree with getting back to the "normal" 40k of skirmish / squad based.
Apocalypse was fun and all but was clunky then as an add-on for 40k.
What was all that wrong with Epic?
Or at least make some rules to streamline the horde of models an "epic" battle represents on a 28mm scale rather than 5mm.

For smaller battles we like all that detail, it makes heroes more heroic etc.
For big battles, it is less heroic roleplay and more top view tactics on a large scale.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:
A game full of flyers and warmachnes far to large for the table and an actual skirmish game like 40k used to be.

EPIC

 Lockark wrote:

 adamsouza wrote:
I love the formations, for the special rules they bring. When you play with only FOC things are predictable. Formations allow for much greater diversity in army building and their special rules can make otherwise suboptimal units enjoyable to field.

I'm taking these 8th edition in 2017 tumors with a 5lb bag of salt. It seems like the same people who speculated about 40K being on a 2 years cycle when 7th edition dropped are the same ones calling 8th edition in 2017, with no new evidence.

Fritz on Youtube is confident about 8th edition simply because someone he asked refused to answer about it.

8th edition rumors are just great click bait.

WTF would they even bother with the FAQ they are currently working on if it's invalidated in less than 6 months ?

Now honesntly, I could see a (7.5?) rulebook with the FAQ changes incorporated, and updated fortifications section. Maybe even a new starter set, with armies less aweful than Dark Angels and CSM

I felt the same way about these rumors untill sad panda just dropped his rumour bomb. When Sad Panda says something is happening, you take note.

OT, but I realy need to say. The formations are the number one thing breaking 40k right now. Mechanicus War Convocation is insane to the point, that their is no reason NOT to use it if your playing the army.

What "rumor bomb" are you talking about? All Sad Panda said was that a new edition of 40K would not come in 2016, which I think would be anyone's normal assumption, but that a new edition is being worked on, which I'm sure we all would have assumed to be the case.

I think we're done here for now, as there's no real news.