At least one of the people working at my local GW seems to believe that the company is moving away from the edition-based way of developing the game over time, and instead will be shifting more towards smaller, periodic updates. Does anyone else believe that this might be the case?

Nope!

Edit: I think periodic updates will happen, and then be consolidated into a new edition along with a few other changes.

When it gets stale they will shake the boat a little. They get a large influx of money when they update editions. Its printing money.

Have they ever officially referred to it as 8th edition? I can't remember if they had only used the general name since 7th, as a branding thing.

Lolno. If they were going to do that it would be 7th IMO. That's when they radically contents mid edition with decurions.

At one point that was the suggested approach, they would have a "living ruleset" and tweak things rather than do entirely new editions. They did this sort of with AOS, where 2.0 isn't a whole new edition just added/cleaned up some stuff.

They could do that with 40k but honestly I think 40k needs a brand new edition, maybe using the Apocalypse rules as a start, but something that isn't just the same old crap largely.

Consider that 3rd to 7th were all built on the same mediocre "rules chassis". That was about 18 years. They tried to adjust the rules over that time, but the stat lines were the same, and the codices were used through numerous editions. It's entirely possible that the core structure of 8th edition will last 10-15 years. It'll be massaged, ruined, and massaged some more in the process. GW doesn't even acknowledge actual editions of 40K (which is hilarious).

So, when will you see the next big full roll-out with an entire codex line replaced and everything scrapped? Not for a loooooooong friggin' time. The rules have changed so much in 8th, we're already in 9th edition if you start comparing the changes from 3rd to 3.5...to 4th, etc.

 Trickstick wrote:
Have they ever officially referred to it as 8th edition? I can't remember if they had only used the general name since 7th, as a branding thing.

They've almost never referred to the edition number in any edition of the game.

With the changes that come in points and stats as well as the addition of new models GW can still do editions and considering that editions generate a huge amount of buzz, media and sales for them I can't see them abandoning that approach.

The biggest consideration is if GW uses the edition as a tune-up of the current rules. Consolidating all the addendum and errata; polishing it up and clearing it up. Ergo sticking with what we have now and providing a single rules document and updated selection of Codex, with some new amendments and all the prior released FAQ/Errata and point changes.
Basically a polish and an update.


The second option is they do the above, but also throw new mechanics into the mix. This might be as simple as when they introduced dedicated fliers into the game; or could be something else like a complete re-work of terrain rules. Basically sticking with the same general core of the game, but then throwing big changes into it at the same time and using the new edition to launch those changes. This has the bonus that it increases value of the new documents to long term fans and presents new approaches to play. New mechanics can also introduce new niches for models, increasing army diversity for larger armies that might otherwise have solutions to all current mechanics.

The third option is to re-write the rules on a much more fundamental level. Heck with Apoc in the wild many are wondering if GW might use that as a foundation - moving toward alternating activations or other ideas presented in Apoc. Such massive changes are ideally suited to a new edition, and such a big change means that GW can maximise things as they have done now with updated FAQ/Errata and also new handbooks each year etc...




So yeah I think we will have new editions, they are major landmark releases that GW uses to generate a big injection of profit and income into the company as well as to consolidate things.
Just what nature the new edition takes is impossible to predict though and GW might not yet be fully sure what direction they will take.








Note there's another possibility and that's if GW doesn't introduce a new edition at all and instead creates a rolling rules set. This is basically akin to the first idea I proposed, but instead of bieng a big "new edition" marketing they'd instead market it as an updated rulebook. This method has the bonus that GW doesn't have a landmark single launch where they then have to spend the best part of 2 years updating all the codex at once. Instead they can just roll out the new rule book with all the previous amendments in it and some new additions; whilst not making as big a fan-fare, but at the same time also able to keep old codex around and update slower. Simply making it into one long series of rolling updates on the core rules and codex over time.


The bonus here is that whilst GW removes the big cash injection they also smooth out the investment and production into a more steady stream of changes. So instead of a massive investment risk and then massive returns they make steadier investments and get steadier returns.

There absolutely will be... it will be closer to the jump between AoS and AoS 2.0

 ArcaneHorror wrote:
At least one of the people working at my local GW seems to believe that the company is moving away from the edition-based way of developing the game over time, and instead will be shifting more towards smaller, periodic updates. Does anyone else believe that this might be the case?

Yeah, riiiight.. Even if that is their line of BS/plan at the moment, it'll change.

 ArcaneHorror wrote:
At least one of the people working at my local GW

Just remember that GW's local store employees are minimum-wage retail workers who get very little inside information. Their belief is no more credible than my random claim that 9th edition is coming next week.

 ArcaneHorror wrote:
At least one of the people working at my local GW seems to believe that the company is moving away from the edition-based way of developing the game over time, and instead will be shifting more towards smaller, periodic updates. Does anyone else believe that this might be the case?

Yeah, riiiight.. Even if that is their line of BS/plan at the moment, it'll change.

The core rules will change and when they do it will be another edition even if they dont use the word to describe it. 9th will happen. Maybe by another name, but it will happen all the same.

I expect a rule consolidation before the end of the year, but a new edition? Unlikely in the near future.

Maybe 5 years from now it could happen, who knows.

As above, they never (in recent times) numbered or named their editions. It´s always just "here´s the new Warhammer 40K or new Age of Sigmar or whatever".

There was actually some debate about whether 7th was 7. Edition or Edition 6.5, because fake-rumour websites did have stuff about a "living rulebook" and so on back in the day and didn´t want to admit they were wrong, but "7th edition" ultimately seems to have been the name people settled on.

By and large, I expect GW to roughly (!!!) stick to a 3-4 year cycle, alternating between AoS and 40K editions. So there should be a new Warhammer 40K in 2021 maybe (plus or minus a year)

I also expect to cross-pollination from other games to continue. AoS-style "permanent effects" might come in with the 40K-equivalent of endless spells (which doesn´t mean they have to be psychic powers... could be a miniature for a Tau force field or whatever), perhaps some refined variant of things we see in Apoc like alternating detachment-activation, etc.., etc..

I hope they just continue to update/refine 8th. Cover was addressed in CA18 now we just need to see what CA19 "fixes".

If they do a major shakeup(d12-20 system w D6 for specific stuff) it shouldn't require an entire change due to them expressing a "living" ruleset. They could just say "hey btw, you use D12's for S/T or armour/invuln now, but D6 for everything else". May require a new battle primer but should be relatively easy to implement.

 Overread wrote:

This method has the bonus that GW doesn't have a landmark single launch where they then have to spend the best part of 2 years updating all the codex at once. Instead they can just roll out the new rule book with all the previous amendments in it and some new additions; whilst not making as big a fan-fare, but at the same time also able to keep old codex around and update slower. Simply making it into one long series of rolling updates on the core rules and codex over time.

I have this childish, utopian dream of GW for once sitting down and writing ALL of the codices for 40k AT THE SAME TIME! You know, so that the various faction abilities and special rules can all be compared with each other and tested properly instead of throwing them out there and simply adding new factions/abilities that are just plain better than what already exists.

Maybe not I mean why release a new edition for £40 every 4 years when you can sell an errata sorry chapter approved every year for £20.

SeanDrake wrote:
Maybe not I mean why release a new edition for £40 every 4 years when you can sell an errata sorry chapter approved every year for £20.

{whynotboth.gif}

They make more money from the books than the models. Lots of players who have been around might go an entire edition without buying a model if they really don't want to. They'll buy several books.

Breton wrote:
They make more money from the books than the models. Lots of players who have been around might go an entire edition without buying a model if they really don't want to. They'll buy several books.

I find this quite hard to believe. Do you have any official number on this?

Spoletta wrote:

Breton wrote:
They make more money from the books than the models. Lots of players who have been around might go an entire edition without buying a model if they really don't want to. They'll buy several books.

I find this quite hard to believe. Do you have any official number on this?

I would imagine it's simple logic? If they change editions your models update all but automatically. Your books do not.

Breton wrote:

Spoletta wrote:

Breton wrote:
They make more money from the books than the models. Lots of players who have been around might go an entire edition without buying a model if they really don't want to. They'll buy several books.

I find this quite hard to believe. Do you have any official number on this?

I would imagine it's simple logic? If they change editions your models update all but automatically. Your books do not.

This goes against my experience.
Edition changes every 3 years (using 6th 7th and 8th average). One rulebook and codex together cost as much as a couple of boxes of medium price. Are you telling me that people don't buy 2 boxes in 3 years? I know that i buy more than that in a single year.

Books are much more expensive to make than some plastic models for GW especially since rule books get outdated unlike models so they have to reprint and restock them and every unsold copy is a direct loss when the new version comes.

I used to buy the books way back but now I mostly just use battlescribe. Came back to the game a few months back and looked at what rule books I would need. Added the cost together and just said "feth no! I aint spending that much for just some rules documents that have been FAQed anyway". Especially now that the core rules are so shallow and most of the special rules really lies in all the subfaction special rules, stratagems, relics and traits. Would need to pay hundreds of $, £, or € just to not get surprised and lose a game and that isnt an option. So I would need to download every codex anyway or look them up at 1d4chan so why pay for my own books when im already using the internet + battlescribe.

I have spent a few hundred € to update my army though since new edition changes what is viable and even how many or what unit you can actually field in your army.

Have a few friends who just looked at the book prices, shaked their heads and laughed at the thought of buying the books and getting back into 40k. In these cases the books even prevents people from spending money.

Klickor wrote:
Books are much more expensive to make than some plastic models for GW especially since rule books get outdated unlike models so they have to reprint and restock them and every unsold copy is a direct loss when the new version comes.

I used to buy the books way back but now I mostly just use battlescribe. Came back to the game a few months back and looked at what rule books I would need. Added the cost together and just said "feth no! I aint spending that much for just some rules documents that have been FAQed anyway". Especially now that the core rules are so shallow and most of the special rules really lies in all the subfaction special rules, stratagems, relics and traits. Would need to pay hundreds of $, £, or € just to not get surprised and lose a game and that isnt an option. So I would need to download every codex anyway or look them up at 1d4chan so why pay for my own books when im already using the internet + battlescribe.

I have spent a few hundred € to update my army though since new edition changes what is viable and even how many or what unit you can actually field in your army.

Have a few friends who just looked at the book prices, shaked their heads and laughed at the thought of buying the books and getting back into 40k. In these cases the books even prevents people from spending money.

I don't think GWE realisticly expects everyone to buy every codex. I suspect the vast majority of the player base bought their own codex, and maybe a codex or two for armies they faced often or just had intreast in.

I don't know anyone, not even the most competitive kind of players, who ever though about buying all the codici. Yours is more than enough.

Many players i play with don't even buy the rulebook...

Spoletta wrote:

Breton wrote:

Spoletta wrote:

Breton wrote:
They make more money from the books than the models. Lots of players who have been around might go an entire edition without buying a model if they really don't want to. They'll buy several books.

I find this quite hard to believe. Do you have any official number on this?

I would imagine it's simple logic? If they change editions your models update all but automatically. Your books do not.

This goes against my experience.
Edition changes every 3 years (using 6th 7th and 8th average). One rulebook and codex together cost as much as a couple of boxes of medium price. Are you telling me that people don't buy 2 boxes in 3 years? I know that i buy more than that in a single year.

I didn't. I bought three rule books, 2 Codex, an Index, two Vigilus expansion books, and Imperial Armor for 8th edition. The only models came in "starter sets" with the books and/or were new/Primaris. Beyond that, I have some boxes from 5th I've been in no hurry to get to.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I realize I could be an outlier offset by the new player who has to buy new models for everything - but until recently I hadn't bought any kit available in 5th edition. But I bought lots of books. In 8th edition - as near as I can tell - all of my models from 5th edition are still legal to use though my 2nd edition assault marines either need a white helmet now. None of my books are.

My point is, nobody HAS to toss their old models and buy new ones when a new edition drops. They do have to buy new books. New Editions generate book sales from all buyers, and starter set sales from many buyers - between the mini rule books we used to get, and unique/resculpts (Remember Deffkoptas from Assault on Black Reach?)

Thing is GW doens't just release new books, they typically also release new models and updated models. Plus shifts in balance and how the game works can sometimes make a unit which was once under performing or not all that important to take; suddenly become part of the new meta or gain a new role on the battlefield.

So typically unless you already "own everything" most people will be buying a few boxes here and there of new fresh models. Plus new editions can often spark that "hey lets start that new army" craze in many gamers so even if you've got all the Marines you could ever want you might now get a hunger for Orks or Tyranids .

Spoletta wrote:
I don't know anyone, not even the most competitive kind of players, who ever though about buying all the codici. Yours is more than enough.

Many players i play with don't even buy the rulebook...

I used to back in 2nd and 3rd edition, the books weren't too expensive and 3rd had the longest shelf life so it was value for money. I used to like to read the rules of all the factions to see what I might come up against. At least back then the number of Factions wasn't as bad as it is now, also the options for the factions were a fraction of what they are now.

I can't imagine anyone doing this from 6th edition onwards. Shame as it was really nice to read all the other faction's background and fluff.

Back on topic,
9th edition will come along eventually, as will 10th, 11th, etc. As long as GW are still in business, they will have their gamers tax. Which is to buy a new set of rule books every 2-4 years. Sometimes it is just a tidy up (7th), other times it is a big change (3rd).

I expect a 8.1 release which some will probably consider 8.5 A new rulebook consolidating the ruleset and a new box set to replace the Dark Imperium after it has sold enough.

I also imagine that depending on how certain rules play out in Kill Team, AoS, and Apocalypse that they might be incorporated somehow into the core 40k ruleset.

I wouldn't mind a living rulesset if the core rules were worth a gak in the first place. But IMHO 40k's base rules, while certainly better than 7th, are still pretty awful. They didn't change enough around. I wouldn't want to see a move away from editions until they actually had a good base set of rules to work from (so never, because this is GW)

 Eldarsif wrote:
I expect a 8.1 release which some will probably consider 8.5 A new rulebook consolidating the ruleset and a new box set to replace the Dark Imperium after it has sold enough.

I also imagine that depending on how certain rules play out in Kill Team, AoS, and Apocalypse that they might be incorporated somehow into the core 40k ruleset.

I really wish they would do a consolidation rulebook. It's hard to keep up with what is the current actual rules sometimes...

This 8-page ruleset has ballooned into a surprising mess of what is valid.

I'd even be happy with an official GW "living ruleset list" telling us exactly what is truly the current ruleset and which books we should be using.

I reckon we'll get a period of 'compendium rulebooks'. That's more or less how AoS' second version worked out.

But if we do get a full on overhaul? I'm hoping it's to incorporate the Apocalypse turn structure - with or without the addition of unit orders.

 ArcaneHorror wrote:
At least one of the people working at my local GW seems to believe that the company is moving away from the edition-based way of developing the game over time, and instead will be shifting more towards smaller, periodic updates. Does anyone else believe that this might be the case?

this can be summed up with red shirts (GW employees) say the darnedest things.

I remember the 7th to 8th they released the teaser of not using initiative or initiative mattering less. A red shirt i asked if they knew anythign insisted that a GW rules writer had told him that it meant you would fight first if you charged (he got that right) but that subsequent combats would in fact use the initiative stat (this was not right). It is possible somebody playtested that and went with something else but idk.

In a way 4th to 5th to 6th to 7th was a wort of evolution of the same core rules. They tweeked them and added new mechanics but the overall ruleset was about the same.

If there ever will be a change of edition, it will be to get away from the horrible canonical turn structure. It is something that we are seeing in all the new 40K related games. They are testing the waters for new turn structures.

Spoletta wrote:
If there ever will be a change of edition, it will be to get away from the horrible canonical turn structure. It is something that we are seeing in all the new 40K related games. They are testing the waters for new turn structures.

your words to GW ears... one of the biggest annoyances I have always had in 40k is this idea that one side fully activates before the other. liek they just did not shoot back standing there watchign the opposing force move towards them, shoot and then charge only bothering to overwatch.

I think it should be like the alternate deployment. you take turns moving until oen side has moved all units then the opponent keeps moving till done, ditto shooting, and assaults (oen who did the assaultign strikes first and go from there.

If we assume a new edition to follow the 3rd through 7th and AOS 1 - 2.0 standard, then a new edition is completely possible, and reasonable as soon as next year, and only really represents a new core rule set and probably a boxed starter game.

It wouldn't have any large changes, as these would invalidate all of the existing publications, and up until now 8th is the only edition to necessitate it invalidating all of its predecessors supplements.

Its much more reasonable to expect an edition change which retains the turn structure, core wound based mechanics, core morale mechanics, and the current stats for weapons and models.

More likely are changes to the rules for terrain, movement, target selection, casualty removal, charging and assault phase movement and targeting, which can all experience reasonable to dramatic change without invalidating more than a handful of entries in the existing supplements.
These are the traditional things to see change during a conservative edition change.

Spoletta wrote:
I don't know anyone, not even the most competitive kind of players, who ever though about buying all the codici. Yours is more than enough.

Lots of people used to, especially early on, and definitely pre-internet. It was the only way to find out what other armies rules were. Then suddenly GW army books doubled in price and army book sales went down, like that was a correlation or something.




But OP-wise, there will be a new edition. I doubt it will be all that far in the future either, based on past trends (both 7th and AoS), what GW calls it would be irrelevant. But casually trawling through past financial reports show definitively that the 'new edition spike' is very real and important to their profit margin. Based on past editions, changes can be pretty minimal or fairly large, as long as they don't touch the profiles or invalidate units. That's always a big one (2nd->3rd, 6th->8th, Fantasy 8th->AoS), and can only be done rarely.

 G00fySmiley wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
If there ever will be a change of edition, it will be to get away from the horrible canonical turn structure. It is something that we are seeing in all the new 40K related games. They are testing the waters for new turn structures.

your words to GW ears... one of the biggest annoyances I have always had in 40k is this idea that one side fully activates before the other. liek they just did not shoot back standing there watchign the opposing force move towards them, shoot and then charge only bothering to overwatch.

I think it should be like the alternate deployment. you take turns moving until oen side has moved all units then the opponent keeps moving till done, ditto shooting, and assaults (oen who did the assaultign strikes first and go from there.

That's equally nonsensical. Why would you just stand around watching your enemy move to cover and not do anything?

Snugiraffe wrote:

 Overread wrote:

This method has the bonus that GW doesn't have a landmark single launch where they then have to spend the best part of 2 years updating all the codex at once. Instead they can just roll out the new rule book with all the previous amendments in it and some new additions; whilst not making as big a fan-fare, but at the same time also able to keep old codex around and update slower. Simply making it into one long series of rolling updates on the core rules and codex over time.

I have this childish, utopian dream of GW for once sitting down and writing ALL of the codices for 40k AT THE SAME TIME! You know, so that the various faction abilities and special rules can all be compared with each other and tested properly instead of throwing them out there and simply adding new factions/abilities that are just plain better than what already exists.

What, like they did with the INDEXES?

pm713 wrote:

 G00fySmiley wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
If there ever will be a change of edition, it will be to get away from the horrible canonical turn structure. It is something that we are seeing in all the new 40K related games. They are testing the waters for new turn structures.

your words to GW ears... one of the biggest annoyances I have always had in 40k is this idea that one side fully activates before the other. liek they just did not shoot back standing there watchign the opposing force move towards them, shoot and then charge only bothering to overwatch.

I think it should be like the alternate deployment. you take turns moving until oen side has moved all units then the opponent keeps moving till done, ditto shooting, and assaults (oen who did the assaultign strikes first and go from there.

That's equally nonsensical. Why would you just stand around watching your enemy move to cover and not do anything?

to an extent that is true, but if its movement and the order is to run to ___ position for cover while shooting is going on around they might not notice or go ahead and fire on the other untit that is not firing at them. or more realistically covering fire is being provided but its mostly to force the other unit to maintain cover.

Though I guess that may break down with orks and such but still better than the wait out a full turn before acting.

If we went down the firelines.coverage thing we woudl end up at Infinity which, while fun, would not work at 40k scale.

GW is very market savy. That being said, all major games and hobbies retailers are moving towards a faster and more profitable style of content delivery.

Dynamic living rulesets allow GW at basically zero cost, to create new rule sets that require purchase in order to play. They've been testing the waters with 8th in the form of White Dwarf rule sets. Once they say people would pay 20+ dollars for a magazine, they realized the market was ready.

This assertion is also supported by the fact that their "digital releases" are not updated periodically. You are unable to purchase a fully updated codex from GW. You are however, able to buy the 10-20 books, updates, and point change compilations.

My assertion is that GW will not make a 9th, as it would defeat their style of marketing.

Spoletta wrote:

Breton wrote:
They make more money from the books than the models. Lots of players who have been around might go an entire edition without buying a model if they really don't want to. They'll buy several books.

I find this quite hard to believe. Do you have any official number on this?

He doesn't because it's nonsense. The tac marine kit alone (intercessors/scouts in the modern day) makes more money than all their books put together.

Also it's mostly the opposite anyway. Players tend to buy models and either pirate or crowdsource books.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
GW is very market savy. That being said, all major games and hobbies retailers are moving towards a faster and more profitable style of content delivery.

Dynamic living rulesets allow GW at basically zero cost, to create new rule sets that require purchase in order to play. They've been testing the waters with 8th in the form of White Dwarf rule sets. Once they say people would pay 20+ dollars for a magazine, they realized the market was ready.

This assertion is also supported by the fact that their "digital releases" are not updated periodically. You are unable to purchase a fully updated codex from GW. You are however, able to buy the 10-20 books, updates, and point change compilations.

My assertion is that GW will not make a 9th, as it would defeat their style of marketing.

Market savy is not a term I would really apply to GW, not even in the 'New GW' era. They weren't even considering make Sisters of Battle until their first ever(?) Community survey had 100000 people ask for them.

GW are just recently to the point where they're not totally market agnostic.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Stormonu wrote:

Snugiraffe wrote:

 Overread wrote:

This method has the bonus that GW doesn't have a landmark single launch where they then have to spend the best part of 2 years updating all the codex at once. Instead they can just roll out the new rule book with all the previous amendments in it and some new additions; whilst not making as big a fan-fare, but at the same time also able to keep old codex around and update slower. Simply making it into one long series of rolling updates on the core rules and codex over time.

I have this childish, utopian dream of GW for once sitting down and writing ALL of the codices for 40k AT THE SAME TIME! You know, so that the various faction abilities and special rules can all be compared with each other and tested properly instead of throwing them out there and simply adding new factions/abilities that are just plain better than what already exists.

What, like they did with the INDEXES?

Which hilariously disproved the 'make it all at once and balanced' idea. Index GuillyRavens is STILL the strongest list relative to its competition we've seen in 8th.

 G00fySmiley wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
If there ever will be a change of edition, it will be to get away from the horrible canonical turn structure. It is something that we are seeing in all the new 40K related games. They are testing the waters for new turn structures.

your words to GW ears... one of the biggest annoyances I have always had in 40k is this idea that one side fully activates before the other. liek they just did not shoot back standing there watchign the opposing force move towards them, shoot and then charge only bothering to overwatch.

I think it should be like the alternate deployment. you take turns moving until oen side has moved all units then the opponent keeps moving till done, ditto shooting, and assaults (oen who did the assaultign strikes first and go from there.

I don't mind the one player activates all at once, but I think Casualties/resolutions should be removed at the end of a full turn - i.e. Player A moves, Psych's, Shoots, Fights, Player B Moves, Psych's, Shoots, Fights, Player A and Player B resolve casualties. The problem isn't that Player A does it all first, its that Player A does it all, and that reduces how much Player B can do. There will always be some point where one player gets to act more than the other. Even if we take turns, the Pure infantry Guard Player is going to have a lot more units left to activate after the Pure Knight Player is done.

The Perfect World to balance turn order is - Player A draws a map of the game board, and assigns movement orders to his units. Player B draws a map of the game board, and assigns movement orders to his units - both players do this blind without knowing what the other player does. Resolve Movement. Then you chose psychic actions in the same secret ballot blind process, and resolve. and so on. The time this would involve is prohibitive.

I predict a 41st Age community rules set that will replace most casual 40k based wargaming.

People may or may not use GW models.
Might read the fiction.
Likely played the video games.

But, the rules are bad, and in need of so much house ruling a reskinned 2nd ed is the only best answer.

Nonsense. With very rare exceptions, community attempts to even hold onto a rule set fail. (The exception being Blood bowl)

Actual Replacement? Not a chance. That starts to fail in week 2, when personalities emerge and desires and pet armies diverge.

heh.
Kill Team is 9th
Apoc is 10th

It's hard to say. I mean, if you think about it, GW never even denotes edition numbers on the cover of their books already. So anything is possible.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jeff white wrote:
I predict a 41st Age community rules set that will replace most casual 40k based wargaming.

People may or may not use GW models.
Might read the fiction.
Likely played the video games.

But, the rules are bad, and in need of so much house ruling a reskinned 2nd ed is the only best answer.

I dunno, a lot of people say this. But, I really like 8th edition. It's the most balanced edition I've played in and so far we're two years into it and the fire and passion in my local area still hasn't died down. Lots of games going on every weekend and sales are up.

Snugiraffe wrote:

 Overread wrote:

This method has the bonus that GW doesn't have a landmark single launch where they then have to spend the best part of 2 years updating all the codex at once. Instead they can just roll out the new rule book with all the previous amendments in it and some new additions; whilst not making as big a fan-fare, but at the same time also able to keep old codex around and update slower. Simply making it into one long series of rolling updates on the core rules and codex over time.

I have this childish, utopian dream of GW for once sitting down and writing ALL of the codices for 40k AT THE SAME TIME! You know, so that the various faction abilities and special rules can all be compared with each other and tested properly instead of throwing them out there and simply adding new factions/abilities that are just plain better than what already exists.

They did that at the release of 8th with the Index system.

The problem was the indexes were written as a bare bones transition to hold over before GW gave everyone a codex with a lot more thing to balance and kinks to work out. I know many players don't want to change over to an all electronic system, (myself included) but that in my opinion is the only way to make a living rule set truly viable.

Apocalypse is 9th.

HoundsofDemos wrote:
The problem was the indexes were written as a bare bones transition to hold over before GW gave everyone a codex with a lot more thing to balance and kinks to work out. I know many players don't want to change over to an all electronic system, (myself included) but that in my opinion is the only way to make a living rule set truly viable.

Even GW doesn't want to go to an all electronic system. If they're smart, they figure out how to give hardcopy owners a coupon for a free e-book of anything they own a hardcopy of. They want you to have both. And they don't want a living ruleset. There's not a doubt in my mind they want to set out an entire system, let it mature, and let someone else take over the job and watch human nature demand they fix what isn't broke, break what isn't fixed, and do it the way they think it should be done. Look at the history of Grenades. That's the story of 40K. They just don't know what to do with grenades. Are they a weapon you can attack with? Something that provides an in-game benefit/rule during assaults? Decorative but not functional beyond already being included in the "representation" of shooting the bolters? There are too many things they keep trying to rework to get just right for that.

Apocalypse is 9th.

And No, Apocalypse, an expansion like Cities of Death, KillTeam/Warbands, and the like is not 9th Edition.

Breton wrote:

HoundsofDemos wrote:
The problem was the indexes were written as a bare bones transition to hold over before GW gave everyone a codex with a lot more thing to balance and kinks to work out. I know many players don't want to change over to an all electronic system, (myself included) but that in my opinion is the only way to make a living rule set truly viable.

Even GW doesn't want to go to an all electronic system. If they're smart, they figure out how to give hardcopy owners a coupon for a free e-book of anything they own a hardcopy of. They want you to have both. And they don't want a living ruleset. There's not a doubt in my mind they want to set out an entire system, let it mature, and let someone else take over the job and watch human nature demand they fix what isn't broke, break what isn't fixed, and do it the way they think it should be done. Look at the history of Grenades. That's the story of 40K. They just don't know what to do with grenades. Are they a weapon you can attack with? Something that provides an in-game benefit/rule during assaults? Decorative but not functional beyond already being included in the "representation" of shooting the bolters? There are too many things they keep trying to rework to get just right for that.

Apocalypse is 9th.

And No, Apocalypse, an expansion like Cities of Death, KillTeam/Warbands, and the like is not 9th Edition.

Apoc is not an expansion. It's an entirely different game.

 Lance845 wrote:


Apoc is not an expansion. It's an entirely different game.

This time around. So is Kill Teams. This time around. Both started as expansions. Kill Teams (And Warbands) had it's origin in a White Dwarf. I think Apocalypse first showed up in the back of the 4th Edition rule book. It's still an expansion until it survives on it's own a for a few editions. And Even you say it's not 9th Edition if it's "an entirely different game.".

Breton wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:


Apoc is not an expansion. It's an entirely different game.

This time around. So is Kill Teams. This time around. Both started as expansions. Kill Teams (And Warbands) had it's origin in a White Dwarf. I think Apocalypse first showed up in the back of the 4th Edition rule book. It's still an expansion until it survives on it's own a for a few editions. And Even you say it's not 9th Edition if it's "an entirely different game.".

I am sorry. I fail to see the relevance of what a expansion was called in the past compared to the new game released today.

8th ed is an entirely different game from 7th. In the same capacity Apoc is an entirely different game from 8th. They could make an official 9th at some point. (by calling it that) They might. Hell it might even be likely. In the meantime there is a game called apoc that uses all the same models with rules changes that allow you to play games at the same scale or larger and have better games with more modern game design elements while ditching many of the archaic game design elements 8th hung onto from past editions. It does all the things a new edition does. Just like the move from 7th to 8th. You can argue semantics I guess if that makes you feel better. Here. You are right. Apocalypse is not called "Warhammer 40,000 9th Edition" and that fact is very relevant and important.

 Lance845 wrote:


I am sorry. I fail to see the relevance

You fail to see a lot of things that interfere with your opinions. Including the relevance of years of historical perspective on the very subject being discussed. In the mean time there is a game called Cities of Death that uses all the same models with rules changes that allow you to play games at the same scale or larger with more modern game design elements while ditching the more archaic lack of bunkers and bastions. Maybe Apoc is 10th Edition.

Breton wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:


I am sorry. I fail to see the relevance

You fail to see a lot of things that interfere with your opinions. Including the relevance of years of historical perspective on the very subject being discussed.

Your years of historical perspective mean exactly nothing in this instance. Try not to confuse what Apoc was with what Apoc is. When you have any actual point to make I will take it under consideration.

In the mean time there is a game called Cities of Death that uses all the same models with rules changes that allow you to play games at the same scale or larger with more modern game design elements while ditching the more archaic lack of bunkers and bastions. Maybe Apoc is 10th Edition.

https://www.games-workshop.com/en-US/Warhammer-40-000?N=2562756967&Nr=AND%28sku.siteId%3AUS_gw%2Cproduct.locale%3Aen_US_gw%29&Nrs=collection%28%29%2Frecord%5Bproduct.startDate+%3C%3D+1563669960000+and+product.endDate+%3E%3D+1563669960000%5D

On the side bar you might notice the Apoc is it's own section. Separate from both the boxed games AND 8th.

You might also notice that cities of death is not a product on there. What datasheets does CoD use? Are they the ones from 8ths codexes? Interesting. What core rules does it use? Is it just 8th? Hmm... I think you are having trouble with what is and is not an expansion.

CoD is an expansion. It uses all of the core 8th edition rules and unit/army rules with a few minor additions. IOW, it expands the base game.

Apocalypse is an entirely new game. It uses zero rules content from 8th edition and has very little in common with 8th edition other than using the same models, much like two different historical games could use the same Roman legion infantry models.

It's as simple as that, and the fact that there used to be an Apocalypse expansion in previous editions doesn't change the fact that it's an entirely separate game now.

 Peregrine wrote:
CoD is an expansion. It uses all of the core 8th edition rules and unit/army rules with a few minor additions. IOW, it expands the base game.

Apocalypse is an entirely new game. It uses zero rules content from 8th edition and has very little in common with 8th edition other than using the same models, much like two different historical games could use the same Roman legion infantry models.

It's as simple as that, and the fact that there used to be an Apocalypse expansion in previous editions doesn't change the fact that it's an entirely separate game now.

The fact that "it's an entirely seperate game now" means it's not 9th edition. Again. And the fact that it was an expansion for years, and stand-alone spinoffs from GW rarely last long means it will probably be an expansion, again.

Your years of historical perspective mean exactly nothing in this instance. Try not to confuse what Apoc was with what Apoc is. When you have any actual point to make I will take it under consideration.

While we're waiting to see if Apoc as a standalone lasts as long as a standalone as it did as an expansion, lets go have a game of something else. Epic 40,000? Titan Legions? Rats.

Breton wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
CoD is an expansion. It uses all of the core 8th edition rules and unit/army rules with a few minor additions. IOW, it expands the base game.

Apocalypse is an entirely new game. It uses zero rules content from 8th edition and has very little in common with 8th edition other than using the same models, much like two different historical games could use the same Roman legion infantry models.

It's as simple as that, and the fact that there used to be an Apocalypse expansion in previous editions doesn't change the fact that it's an entirely separate game now.

The fact that "it's an entirely seperate game now" means it's not 9th edition. Again. And the fact that it was an expansion for years, and stand-alone spinoffs from GW rarely last long means it will probably be an expansion, again.

Your years of historical perspective mean exactly nothing in this instance. Try not to confuse what Apoc was with what Apoc is. When you have any actual point to make I will take it under consideration.

While we're waiting to see if Apoc as a standalone lasts as long as a standalone as it did as an expansion, lets go have a game of something else. Epic 40,000? Titan Legions? Rats.

Or we can play Apoc? Seeing as how it's exclusively the game my gaming group wants to play now. 8th is dead in my play group. Apoc is our ninth. All the same models, same scale, better game.

So tell me, is your entire argument right now that 1) in the past it was like X there fore I predict it will be like X again and 2) Games that used different models are comparable to a game that uses the same models?

I just want to make sure I fully grasp your talking points.

 Lance845 wrote:


So tell me, is your entire argument right now that 1) in the past it was like X there fore I predict it will be like X again and 2) Games that used different models are comparable to a game that uses the same models?

I just want to make sure I fully grasp your talking points.

No, my current argument is that

Apoc used to be an expansion and is historically more likely to return to such in the future than maintain it's standing as a stand-alone
Apoc and 8th are running concurrently so one is not the update of another.


My entire argument will change as you say things I can.. enjoy.

So tell me, is your entire argument 1) This is how we do it, so this is the way it is 2) I said that's the way it is and what I say goes?

I just want to make sure I fully grasp your talking points.

Breton wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:


So tell me, is your entire argument right now that 1) in the past it was like X there fore I predict it will be like X again and 2) Games that used different models are comparable to a game that uses the same models?

I just want to make sure I fully grasp your talking points.

No, my current argument is that

Apoc used to be an expansion and is historically more likely to return to such in the future than maintain it's standing as a stand-alone
Apoc and 8th are running concurrently so one is not the update of another.


My entire argument will change as you say things I can.. enjoy.

So tell me, is your entire argument 1) This is how we do it, so this is the way it is 2) I said that's the way it is and what I say goes?

I just want to make sure I fully grasp your talking points.

No.

1) Apocalypse IS it's own game. It doesn't matter what it was in the past. What matters is what it is now. You think in a few years or whatever it will end up a expansion of some other edition of 40k? Sure. Maybe? What relevance does that have now? None.

2) People are using Apoc in place of 40k. Not JUST me and my local group (though we are a part of that) but lots of people.

3) As I said before, GW may very well release an official 9th. It's even likely. In the meantime Apoc and killteam are not expansions but whole other games taking away table space and players from 8th. Not dissimilar from 7th loosing ground to 8th. Again,

You can argue semantics I guess if that makes you feel better. Here. You are right. Apocalypse is not called "Warhammer 40,000 9th Edition" and that fact is very relevant and important.

Apocalypse is the game GW wants us playing 40k battles in.

Look at the past decade of models and scale.

Kill Team is for small battles. Apocalypse is for lager battles.

There is no supported game for middle size battles currently.

 DarknessEternal wrote:
There is no supported game for middle size battles currently.

I disagree, there is one for mid-sized battles.

 Melissia wrote:

 DarknessEternal wrote:
There is no supported game for middle size battles currently.

I disagree, there is one for mid-sized battles.

Spoiler:

You mean that weird expansion to Apocalypse that is just a worse way of playing mid-size games?

It will get to the tenth version, then will be just updates of that while still being called 10th edition.

It will be called weird names, like "Warhammer 40,000 10th Edition: Tiger", "Warhammer 40,000 10th Edition: Tiger" and "Warhammer 40,000 10th Edition: Yosemite" etc.

8th edition does not do medium battles well without a lot restraint on both players sides and a good amount of house rules. (Not that 6th or 7th were any better.



A game that has everything from a grot to a titan in the rules simply doesn't work well. Who cares what upgrades I choose for my tactical squad sgt when the knight across the table is just going to roll a few dice and boom whole squad is dead.

 Melissia wrote:

 DarknessEternal wrote:
There is no supported game for middle size battles currently.

I disagree, there is one for mid-sized battles.

Spoiler:

See above re: Grot and Titan.

I hope they do, 8th after this long has become horribly boring and stagnant to play

 Backspacehacker wrote:
I hope they do, 8th after this long has become horribly boring and stagnant to play

I'm curious to what makes you feel this way. I would use many words to describe 8th both positively and negatively but stagnant is not one of them. I've never played an edition where so much has changed in a rather short amount of time.

Games Workshop is a company, there will always be a "9th Edition".

The correct question is "How long until the 9th edition"?

HoundsofDemos wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:
I hope they do, 8th after this long has become horribly boring and stagnant to play

I'm curious to what makes you feel this way. I would use many words to describe 8th both positively and negatively but stagnant is not one of them. I've never played an edition where so much has changed in a rather short amount of time.

To me it's become the most stagnant edition because armies have now become super cookie cutter and 9/10 times you know exactly what the army is going to be doing before the game starts. Chaos gonna be spamming psyker powers, marines, gonna be spamming banner rerolls, guard gonna be spamming tanks, knights gonna have 32 guards and knight.

Oh your playing imperium? So you have the loyal 32, oh chaos? So did you bring 2 t sons daemon princes and ahriman? Or are you taking 3 with your death guard. Deamons? Well know there is going to be a plague bearer squad as a shield.

The use of cp also turns the game into a "did you bring your standard cp farm detachment." There is far less veriety in armies anymore.

Worse more is none of the armies really don't feel unique or different, like marines, they feel like slightly better guardsmen because of how AP works now and with so much AP -2 weapons in the game, marines don't feel like power armored hulks anymore.

Psyker powers were and issue in 7th sure, but now they have been watered down so much every spell is basically a "here is another way to do D3 wounds"

8th has lost the majority of it's stratigic play, it's very boring to play, and honestly not even fun to look at on the table as everyone just runs the same crap.

I miss the complexity that came with 7th, the cool wacky builds that worked. Like forexample, raven wing and deathwing, totally worked in 7th, was it the best? No, was it viable? Yes. Now, it's why are you not playing ultra marines?

Another issue I forgot to add is that armies are getting outta hand, and the 6x4 is just not big enough for the current meta. Remember the game largly has not changed for the last 4 editions, 8th being the biggest set of rule change but the numbers are still the same for t s and what not. Now we have super heavies roaming the table when in 4-6 even seeing a single land raider on the table was like..holy crap a lr!?!? And there is nothing limiting this in games like a 1/4 of your army can not be a single unit. And with point drops your seeing more and more gak on the table, the game has changed from skrimish of small units to every damn game would be considered an apoc game by previous standards

8th is like eating plain oatmeal, it's boring.

 Peregrine wrote:

 ArcaneHorror wrote:
At least one of the people working at my local GW

Just remember ... 9th edition is coming next week.

WTF! I've barely played 8th and now 9th is coming out next week?!?!

 Tamwulf wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 ArcaneHorror wrote:
At least one of the people working at my local GW

Just remember ... 9th edition is coming next week.

WTF! I've barely played 8th and now 9th is coming out next week?!?!

And 10th the week after that. Trust me, my local GW store employee said so.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Tamwulf wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 ArcaneHorror wrote:
At least one of the people working at my local GW

Just remember ... 9th edition is coming next week.

WTF! I've barely played 8th and now 9th is coming out next week?!?!

And 10th the week after that. Trust me, my local GW store employee said so.

There's a real risk of someone visiting the forums and thinking claims like that are true.

 Backspacehacker wrote:

HoundsofDemos wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:
I hope they do, 8th after this long has become horribly boring and stagnant to play

I'm curious to what makes you feel this way. I would use many words to describe 8th both positively and negatively but stagnant is not one of them. I've never played an edition where so much has changed in a rather short amount of time.

To me it's become the most stagnant edition because armies have now become super cookie cutter and 9/10 times you know exactly what the army is going to be doing before the game starts. Chaos gonna be spamming psyker powers, marines, gonna be spamming banner rerolls, guard gonna be spamming tanks, knights gonna have 32 guards and knight.

Oh your playing imperium? So you have the loyal 32, oh chaos? So did you bring 2 t sons daemon princes and ahriman? Or are you taking 3 with your death guard. Deamons? Well know there is going to be a plague bearer squad as a shield.

The use of cp also turns the game into a "did you bring your standard cp farm detachment." There is far less veriety in armies anymore.

Worse more is none of the armies really don't feel unique or different, like marines, they feel like slightly better guardsmen because of how AP works now and with so much AP -2 weapons in the game, marines don't feel like power armored hulks anymore.

Psyker powers were and issue in 7th sure, but now they have been watered down so much every spell is basically a "here is another way to do D3 wounds"

8th has lost the majority of it's stratigic play, it's very boring to play, and honestly not even fun to look at on the table as everyone just runs the same crap.

I miss the complexity that came with 7th, the cool wacky builds that worked. Like forexample, raven wing and deathwing, totally worked in 7th, was it the best? No, was it viable? Yes. Now, it's why are you not playing ultra marines?

Another issue I forgot to add is that armies are getting outta hand, and the 6x4 is just not big enough for the current meta. Remember the game largly has not changed for the last 4 editions, 8th being the biggest set of rule change but the numbers are still the same for t s and what not. Now we have super heavies roaming the table when in 4-6 even seeing a single land raider on the table was like..holy crap a lr!?!? And there is nothing limiting this in games like a 1/4 of your army can not be a single unit. And with point drops your seeing more and more gak on the table, the game has changed from skrimish of small units to every damn game would be considered an apoc game by previous standards

8th is like eating plain oatmeal, it's boring.

Glad my games haven’t degenerated into this. Are you sure it’s an issue of the game and not the play group?

I'm not gonna pretend that that's not a possibility. But every store I go to in my town it's the same thing. Every imp play has loyal 32. Every marine player is running the banner Bois, all the chaos are just psyker spam. Even the local tournaments are turning into that.

My personal axe to grind is the game is so watered down now, just does not feel like I'm actually fighting other armies its all just a blob of different looking units of the same faction.

 Backspacehacker wrote:
I'm not gonna pretend that that's not a possibility. But every store I go to in my town it's the same thing. Every imp play has loyal 32. Every marine player is running the banner Bois, all the chaos are just psyker spam. Even the local tournaments are turning into that.

My personal axe to grind is the game is so watered down now, just does not feel like I'm actually fighting other armies its all just a blob of different looking units of the same faction.

That's definitely not my experience. Anecdotally, We've got about 30-40 local players of different degrees of competitiveness/casualness, and I can honestly say that I pretty much never see the same list twice. There are certainly some things that are consistent over various lists. For example, Chaos players almost always are reliant on some psychic powers. Guard players pretty much always have some combination of infantry and Leman Russes. But even the most competitive players, regardless of format, are always trying new things with their lists and armies.

Yeah and I'm not saying my experiences are law of the land, it's just the more and more I watch and play of 8th the more I loose my interest. I'm actually drifting over to HH because I miss the fun you can have with that rule set.

Like knights in HH WAY cooler with their rules.

Backspacehacker wrote:I'm not gonna pretend that that's not a possibility. But every store I go to in my town it's the same thing. Every imp play has loyal 32. Every marine player is running the banner Bois, all the chaos are just psyker spam. Even the local tournaments are turning into that.

My personal axe to grind is the game is so watered down now, just does not feel like I'm actually fighting other armies its all just a blob of different looking units of the same faction.

Backspacehacker wrote:Yeah and I'm not saying my experiences are law of the land, it's just the more and more I watch and play of 8th the more I loose my interest. I'm actually drifting over to HH because I miss the fun you can have with that rule set.

Like knights in HH WAY cooler with their rules.

damn, I feel bad for you, I've never faced, loyal 32, traitor 16, supersmashcapt, etc...The more I play 8th (w ca18 cover rules) the more I like it.

there are only 2 players beside myself @flgs that have knights and I only play them as part of my Admech.

Your experience is not the norm. Loyal 32 is very common

Just play aocalypse. Its better.

Martel732 wrote:
Your experience is not the norm. Loyal 32 is very common

I admit even I take them because it's just to good. I suppose the only saving grace, or lie I tell myself, is I run 32 scions using the auxilia models and use them as my men at arms for my titan/knight legion.

At this point I'm surprised GW does not just sell a loyal 32 bundle.

What's the loyal 32?

Taking a 3xIG squad 2xOfficer IG detatchment completely barebones for CP.

Even in tournies, it's more a concept than a rule, though. I see a lot more "more than min" IG CP batteries than Loyal32s.

pm713 wrote:
What's the loyal 32?

As said it's a way to get 5 cp for dirt cheap, but the concept is not limited to just guard it's doable with chaos space marines, mechanicum. Basically it's to spam strats

They released a new edition of AOS despite doing the General's Handbook, So I'm sure they will do it for 40k.

I hope we get a 9th ed. 8th is horrible.

LunaWolvesLoyalist wrote:
I hope we get a 9th ed. 8th is horrible.

I just don't like the reliance on characters... and the infinite re-rolls and invulnerable saves

HoundsofDemos wrote:
8th edition does not do medium battles well without a lot restraint on both players sides and a good amount of house rules. (Not that 6th or 7th were any better.



A game that has everything from a grot to a titan in the rules simply doesn't work well. Who cares what upgrades I choose for my tactical squad sgt when the knight across the table is just going to roll a few dice and boom whole squad is dead.

1000 points, cut table size a little bit, pick one of the chapter approved 2009 missions with sudden death rules so the one guy who brings a knight for some reason still loses on points.

Probably some of my most fun games in the last couple years honestly. If you have it do a full size table and pack that sucker with terrain for a real fun experience.

YeOldSaltPotato wrote:

HoundsofDemos wrote:
8th edition does not do medium battles well without a lot restraint on both players sides and a good amount of house rules. (Not that 6th or 7th were any better.



A game that has everything from a grot to a titan in the rules simply doesn't work well. Who cares what upgrades I choose for my tactical squad sgt when the knight across the table is just going to roll a few dice and boom whole squad is dead.

1000 points, cut table size a little bit, pick one of the chapter approved 2009 missions with sudden death rules so the one guy who brings a knight for some reason still loses on points.

Probably some of my most fun games in the last couple years honestly. If you have it do a full size table and pack that sucker with terrain for a real fun experience.

I agree that does sound fun but it kinda proves my point. You played a modified game with a like minded player that isn't stock 40k. I know a lot of people love Super Heavies and flyers in standard games but I think is one of the things that GW screwed up with introducing in the name of profit.