8th edition lasted just over 3 years, and previous editions have lasted between 2 and 6 years...

How long do you think 9th edition will be with us?

They've settled both games into 3 year cycles which a once in a century global pandemic couldn't shift. 10th summer 2023.

I voted 3 years but I feel like their current manufacturing issues will extend it a bit longer than they had planned.

3 years on average, maybe 4 at most. Gotta crank out those Rulebooks which are FAQ'd useless in 2 weeks.

SemperMortis wrote:
Gotta crank out those Rulebooks.

This is it isn't it?

With 4 codexes and the BRB, I'm looking at over £150 (RRP) for a change of edition

Seems a lot, but perhaps spending £130 (in reality) on books every 3 years isn't the end of the world?

If they pull another 2 year cycle I think they would piss far too many people off. I think 3 is a compromise of spongeing money off people without alienating them too badly.

I might still be a little bitter over 6th. It broke me from buying cards/play aids/etc. I’ll pony up enough to play, but no more. And will pass on some of the “fringe” books. I’ll just play without the special rules in the campaign books for a few months/year. I’m going to have to buy a new codex shortly anyway. But buying a 30-50 buck book for 1d6 pages of relevant stuff is not for me anymore. I used to buy all the codexes/army books, but that was when they were more reasonably priced and had a longer shelf life.

I’d like to see them slow down and go with a living ruleset. I don’t begrudge paying for GW plastic. But every penny for paper is torture. My plastic habit would probably get a lot worse if I didn’t need to worry about buying and maintaining rules for things.

I want to be optimist. Voted for 4.
2 years to update all codici and then 2 years of additional campaign books.

 dreadblade wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:
Gotta crank out those Rulebooks.

This is it isn't it?

With 4 codexes and the BRB, I'm looking at over £150 (RRP) for a change of edition

Seems a lot, but perhaps spending £130 (in reality) on books every 3 years isn't the end of the world?

If they are good books yes. But how does someone feel if they have to spend that, and they get something like the necron codex. And suddenly all the enjoyment in playing the faction is linked to someone telling you that in prior editions the faction was much worse then it is now.

Obviously it won't be a two year cycle, they won't even have all the 9th edition codexes out in two years.

It would be silly to have it be 3 years...but it absolutely will be. That's the pattern, putting it off a year would disrupt their profit forecasts too much. 10th is already well into the design stages at this point, it'll be going to playtesters by April of next year at the latest, and the ruleset will be finalized by the end of 2022, probably right about the same time that the final 9th edition codex comes out, which will then have 6 months before it becomes out of date.

The global pandemic didn't stop it because everything was in motion before the pandemic was even heard of.

I could see them extend it if just because a good chunk of the first year or so is a "null" period for so many people who just can't easily or safely game right now.

There might also be things they want to slow down/adjust in the background as well. We've also no idea how much the global situation has affected their back-end in terms of future product development. It might be that as well as us losing a year to gaming; they've lost a year of concept and design work and such.

So I'd say 3 years minimum, but I could see 4 happening

Voted 4, COVID has had a pretty big impact on the rate of codex releases, in 8th GW averaged more than 1 codex/month until they ran out of codexes, and then continued to average more than 1 rulebook/month (codex supplements, vigilus, pariah nexus, etc.) right up until March 2020 when they went into lockdown and had to shift things 3 months back, etc.

Since 9th dropped, GW has averaged 1 codex every 2 months (so half the rate) and only matches the slightly more than 1 rulebook/month rate of 8th if you add Crusade mission packs, charadon, and codex supplements into the mix.

So a pretty noticeable difference in rate of releases, I imagine that GW would rather delay 10th than not finished its planned content roadmap for 9th.

Logistically I think it's minimum 3 years because of all the delays with printing and shipping books. Cynically, I think GW will keep chasing any minor short term profit they can get which means a new edition (and cycle of books) every few years.

Just long enough for a major paradigm shift at GW that sees 2-4 Codices released without Crusade content, as GW drop that in 10th.

 dreadblade wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:
Gotta crank out those Rulebooks.

Seems a lot, but perhaps spending £130 (in reality) on books every 3 years isn't the end of the world?

Considering i can get the rules/books and army builder for every other game system i play for free?

Hard pass.

 dreadblade wrote:
Seems a lot, but perhaps spending £130 (in reality) on books every 3 years isn't the end of the world?

Buying books?

Madness.

 dreadblade wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:
Gotta crank out those Rulebooks.

This is it isn't it?

With 4 codexes and the BRB, I'm looking at over £150 (RRP) for a change of edition

Seems a lot, but perhaps spending £130 (in reality) on books every 3 years isn't the end of the world?

By itself? No.

But the game balance turns into a trainwreck every time, and then its a couple years to get every army back on the same page in terms of power and paradigm, or even playing the very basics of the same game. Its consistently been a disaster for the last several editions. It wasn't great before 7th, but most of the problems were relatively mild. Now armies just utterly fail the same game test. They're either utterly behind or way out ahead, and when everyone starts to catch up GW slams the premature reset button and starts the whole process over again.

So its less the money more than the failed game state that GW consistently creates to sell more. The failures of the game are tied directly in to this short life cycle.

I'm gonna say four years. The rules aren't particularly wonky in any way I can think of of the top of my head, but there has been done delay in releases because Covid.

So realistically like, three and a half, but rounded to four for being picky's sake.

3 is most likely.

They'll stick with 3. They have to beat one summer's profits after the next, and the best way to do that is with a new rulebook that everyone HAS to buy and a decently well priced starter set of Primaris vs something else.

We'll have 10th in a little over a year and a half, and they'll hype it up as "the best ruleset ever" across about 100 different articles. It'll introduce Tertiary Objectives that require an extra deck of cards to buy and list-building will be "streamlined" (more complicated with points in two different parts of the codexes).

Points?

No! We'll have new Combat Teams that have set models and set weapons.

They'll start using 7-side dice that (1-6 and a 'critical' symbol) in a shape that that only they produce.

All bases will be triangle shaped.

4-5 years.

 Overread wrote:
The global pandemic didn't stop it because everything was in motion before the pandemic was even heard of.

I could see them extend it if just because a good chunk of the first year or so is a "null" period for so many people who just can't easily or safely game right now.

There might also be things they want to slow down/adjust in the background as well. We've also no idea how much the global situation has affected their back-end in terms of future product development. It might be that as well as us losing a year to gaming; they've lost a year of concept and design work and such.

So I'd say 3 years minimum, but I could see 4 happening

My thoughts exactly, voted (and hope for at least) 4.

The book prices just to play have gotten insane. I just can't justify spending that much on books that then get "invalidated" every three years. It's wasteful.

 Afrodactyl wrote:
I'm gonna say four years. The rules aren't particularly wonky in any way I can think of of the top of my head, but there has been done delay in releases because Covid.

So realistically like, three and a half, but rounded to four for being picky's sake.

The 8th Ed rules weren't wonky either but they still released a new edition in fairly short order.

Prior to 8th edition, my only previous experience was 1st edition, which lasted for 6 years. I actually stopped playing before 2nd edition, so the end of 8th was a bit of an eye-opener.

With 9th edition, I decided not to buy datacards or the UM codex supplement (as I don't actually have any UM-specific units). Trouble is, I've just bought Hexfire, which means I'm starting 2 new armies (in addition to the 2 I already have). So that's another 2 codexes I'll need to replace when 10th edition comes along

3 years unfortunately, gotta buy new books constantly is the modern GW policy.

Well, the basic question is whether we will see another SM codex in the 9th ed. as in the 8th ed.
If not, a move to the 10th ed. will be made rather quickly within 2 to 2.5 years.

 wuestenfux wrote:
Well, the basic question is whether we will see another SM codex in the 9th ed. as in the 8th ed.
If not, a move to the 10th ed. will be made rather quickly within 2 to 2.5 years.

They managed to release a Space Marine codex that only lasted 8 months before being replaced with surprisingly little complaint, I reckon they'll shoot for a 6 month shelf life this time.

The money train has no brakes

I'd be surprised to see them shift from the 3-year cycle that seems to have been in place since 7th (and duplicated in AoS), even though 9th basically missed a year due to the whole world being shut down. Would happily be proven wrong on this, though. In the meantime, I'm just sticking with the one Codex for now; no point forking out 20+ quid a time for something I'll barely use.

 Sim-Life wrote:

 Afrodactyl wrote:
I'm gonna say four years. The rules aren't particularly wonky in any way I can think of of the top of my head, but there has been done delay in releases because Covid.

So realistically like, three and a half, but rounded to four for being picky's sake.

The 8th Ed rules weren't wonky either but they still released a new edition in fairly short order.

Well, but 8th was a completr overhaul and had some essential things to improve,e.g. command point system, terrain rules.

I feel like 9th is more thought out and does not need a 10th that changes too much, but could work with minor adjustments via beta rules and FAQs

Bago wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

 Afrodactyl wrote:
I'm gonna say four years. The rules aren't particularly wonky in any way I can think of of the top of my head, but there has been done delay in releases because Covid.

So realistically like, three and a half, but rounded to four for being picky's sake.

The 8th Ed rules weren't wonky either but they still released a new edition in fairly short order.

Well, but 8th was a completr overhaul and had some essential things to improve,e.g. command point system, terrain rules.

I feel like 9th is more thought out and does not need a 10th that changes too much, but could work with minor adjustments via beta rules and FAQs

There was nothing wrong with 8th that couldn't have been solved with an 8.1 book like they did with AoS. Launching a whole new edition was a pure money grab.

New edition releases when marine codex sales go too far down.

Luckily I do actually really enjoy reading the codexes as well as using them for games. But yes, having 4 means some won't get much gaming use..

chaos0xomega wrote:
Voted 4, COVID has had a pretty big impact on the rate of codex releases, in 8th GW averaged more than 1 codex/month until they ran out of codexes, and then continued to average more than 1 rulebook/month (codex supplements, vigilus, pariah nexus, etc.) right up until March 2020 when they went into lockdown and had to shift things 3 months back, etc.

Since 9th dropped, GW has averaged 1 codex every 2 months (so half the rate) and only matches the slightly more than 1 rulebook/month rate of 8th if you add Crusade mission packs, charadon, and codex supplements into the mix.

So a pretty noticeable difference in rate of releases, I imagine that GW would rather delay 10th than not finished its planned content roadmap for 9th.

Gw has no requirement to update all codexes during edition and historically it's been abnormality.

I'd be interested to see how many rulebooks people need to update each edition, so I've posted a poll here: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/800437.page#11202158

GW has never made updates for all factions within 1 Edition

there is a 2 Edition cycle of similar rules were books with a smaller update via a campaign book stay valid

yet not thinking they go down to 2 years as they are not fast enough updating all Marine books

if 10th will be Summer 2023 depends on how big The Old World release will be and if they are able to match the given 3 years

otherwise I can see 3 main games with a new Edition launch each year (2023 40k, 2024 AoS, 2025 TOW, 2026 40k etc.)

 kodos wrote:
GW has never made updates for all factions within 1 Edition

there is a 2 Edition cycle of similar rules were books with a smaller update via a campaign book stay valid

yet not thinking they go down to 2 years as they are not fast enough updating all Marine books

if 10th will be Summer 2023 depends on how big The Old World release will be and if they are able to match the given 3 years

otherwise I can see 3 main games with a new Edition launch each year (2023 40k, 2024 AoS, 2025 TOW, 2026 40k etc.)

They haven't? What factions in 8e were still using indexes?

Fb had at least one complete edition.

I'd guessing a desiding factor might be whether we see factions like World Eaters and Emperors Children expanded with an individual codex and model release in the 9th or 10th editions, it happens in the 9th I'm guessing the game might last a bit longer.

4 years, they will need an additional year for supplements.

tneva82 wrote:
They haven't?.

Khorne did not get a Codex update in 8th as well as Inquisition (kind of)

Both are very debatable as factions.

Was chatting to a GW staff member a good while ago who said that the rough foundations of 10th are in place. Given how long ago that was I'd expect some significant progress to have been made since. If I had to make an educated guess I'd expect 10th in 2023.

Obviously have to take it with a pinch of salt.

 Tyran wrote:
Both are very debatable as factions.

lets see of the 9th Khorne Codex is an updated 7th one or something new

Three years, although there is the chance that 10th edition might drag out for four because of 9th's slow roll out.

To the original post -

From July of 2012 through November of 2020, Games Workshop released 4 editions of 40k.... That's right, we had 4 editions in just over an 8 year span. For Age of Sigmar, they just released the 3rd edition in just under 6 years.

If recent track record means anything, it means that no edition lasts longer than 3 years and in my humble opinion it either means GW loves the sales of new editions, or is completely incompetent in their ability to write a sustainable rules set. (I actually think it's a bit of both...)

This is why I've fallen back to the old adage of, "Newer is not always better" and I'd gladly go back and an older edition of 40k, than try and keep up with the latest rules set.

 Wolflord Patrick wrote:
To the original post -

From July of 2012 through November of 2020, Games Workshop released 4 editions of 40k.... That's right, we had 4 editions in just over an 8 year span. For Age of Sigmar, they just released the 3rd edition in just under 6 years.

If recent track record means anything, it means that no edition lasts longer than 3 years and in my humble opinion it either means GW loves the sales of new editions, or is completely incompetent in their ability to write a sustainable rules set. (I actually think it's a bit of both...)

This is why I've fallen back to the old adage of, "Newer is not always better" and I'd gladly go back and an older edition of 40k, than try and keep up with the latest rules set.

Your range there cuts 9th's length off at the knees and gives a bit of a false perspective.

In any case there are two periods of Warhammer : 8th and forward and old hammer. 8th is the first time they stripped out the core of 40K and heavily reworked it. 9th was a good transition to consolidate the experience they gained in designing the ruleset and it shows.

Now, GW loves money. No doubt. I fully expect 10th in 4 years or less and it will probably come with modified vehicle rules and some other changes, but the core will stay as it is. I'm not really bothered buying a BRB on that timescale, because it will consolidate the changes through 9th.

Oh man, I was playing from 5th-6th ed and it felt like they were both cut short by the next edition turning up early.

So I'd be pessimistic and vote low.

 Boringstuff wrote:
Oh man, I was playing from 5th-6th ed and it felt like they were both cut short by the next edition turning up early.

So I'd be pessimistic and vote low.

5th wasn't cut short, but 6th was.

The breaks were 6,5,6,4,4,2,3,3. It seems to me that GW didn't have the man power to shift editions early on and people are reaching back almost two decades to get the 6 year gap.

 Daedalus81 wrote:


In any case there are two periods of Warhammer : 8th and forward and old hammer. 8th is the first time they stripped out the core of 40K and heavily reworked it. 9th was a good transition to consolidate the experience they gained in designing the ruleset and it shows.

Now, GW loves money. No doubt. I fully expect 10th in 4 years or less and it will probably come with modified vehicle rules and some other changes, but the core will stay as it is. I'm not really bothered buying a BRB on that timescale, because it will consolidate the changes through 9th.

I’d argue that we’ve had 3 eras. RT-2nd, 3rd-7th, 8th+

The changes to 3rd were just a severe a break as the 7-8 change, if not more so.

 Nevelon wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:


In any case there are two periods of Warhammer : 8th and forward and old hammer. 8th is the first time they stripped out the core of 40K and heavily reworked it. 9th was a good transition to consolidate the experience they gained in designing the ruleset and it shows.

Now, GW loves money. No doubt. I fully expect 10th in 4 years or less and it will probably come with modified vehicle rules and some other changes, but the core will stay as it is. I'm not really bothered buying a BRB on that timescale, because it will consolidate the changes through 9th.

I’d argue that we’ve had 3 eras. RT-2nd, 3rd-7th, 8th+

The changes to 3rd were just a severe a break as the 7-8 change, if not more so.

You're probably right. My brain doesn't remember much from back then.

New edition, Summer 2024 and no sooner. Their releases have been hugely delayed due to COVID and the issue they face is they need 3 years at least of AOS 3.0 before they can bring over the playtested rules they want to bring into 40k.

End of 2022, We'll see the start of Edition 9.5 where Space Marines get a buff and a couple minor units whilst they continue to work on the all-new models for them that will come in 10th.

I also suspect that 10th will be the edition of Eldar Craftworlds as the primary opponent. The line needs a full refresh, there's not many armies left to do it with and the last 2 editions have seen exactly this as opposed to the mid-edition codexes where maybe you see 1 or 2 new units (Orks being the exception to this rule the last couple of editions)

Sumilidon wrote:
New edition, Summer 2024 and no sooner. Their releases have been hugely delayed due to COVID and the issue they face is they need 3 years at least of AOS 3.0 before they can bring over the playtested rules they want to bring into 40k.

End of 2022, We'll see the start of Edition 9.5 where Space Marines get a buff and a couple minor units whilst they continue to work on the all-new models for them that will come in 10th.

I also suspect that 10th will be the edition of Eldar Craftworlds as the primary opponent. The line needs a full refresh, there's not many armies left to do it with and the last 2 editions have seen exactly this as opposed to the mid-edition codexes where maybe you see 1 or 2 new units (Orks being the exception to this rule the last couple of editions)

In 8th you had a comparable refresh to the CSM line. Why many these units are still only available in the etb Starterset is beyond me, but they released at least 9 units with that one wave.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Boringstuff wrote:
Oh man, I was playing from 5th-6th ed and it felt like they were both cut short by the next edition turning up early.

So I'd be pessimistic and vote low.

5th wasn't cut short, but 6th was.

The breaks were 6,5,6,4,4,2,3,3. It seems to me that GW didn't have the man power to shift editions early on and people are reaching back almost two decades to get the 6 year gap.

Ok, maybe it just felt like it was cut short looking back. XD

Still was a bit of a shock to come back and it to be 9th ed.

5th felt cut short back than because people felt no need for a new Edition but just wanted to have a FAQ/Errata and expected to get another year

and GW does not care about Covid, they already have their fixed release dates and unless another lockdown in China happens that prevents shipping of books, it ill happen a planned

No they won't, GW release are behind schedule by at least a few months, as we know both the GK and TS codexes were meant to be released before CA 2021.

and if GW would have cared about that, they would have waited with CA2021 release

we can also guess that the whole AoS stuff is late for reasons as it makes no sense to release a new Edition and waith with the new books that cover the new core box units 2 months

but again, if GW would have cared, they would have waited or changed to release dates to match

so if they have planned to release a new Editon in 2023, they will do it, no matter if the last 9th Edition Codex or Campaign book will be coming after that, because they don't care

Someone said something that amazed me, and I would like proof of the claim.

What factions were left out of the update list for the last two editions? Not counting different flavors/colors of power armor.

Chaos Space Marines, Tyranids and Guard didn't get a 7th from memory

 Eldarain wrote:
Chaos Space Marines, Tyranids and Guard didn't get a 7th from memory

CSM kind of got an 8th edition book. But I don't think it was a full update?

Every single faction in the game (excluding Forgeworld only) got an 8th edition dex. CSM got one.

When Shadowspear came out, they got an 8.5 dex- it wasn't great, but it did include the new datasheets for the stuff that came in the Shadowspear box.

Then Faith and Fury came out and gave bespoke traits and relics for each legion.

Then Charadon book two reprinted that content.

PenitentJake wrote:
Every single faction in the game (excluding Forgeworld only) got an 8th edition dex. CSM got one.

When Shadowspear came out, they got an 8.5 dex- it wasn't great, but it did include the new datasheets for the stuff that came in the Shadowspear box.

Then Faith and Fury came out and gave bespoke traits and relics for each legion.

Then Charadon book two reprinted that content.

If by 8.5 book you mean "the exact same 8.0 book with nearly all units unchanged, a couple of new units, but with warlord traits, legion rules and stratagems totally unchanged", you'd be correct. So really it was just a reprinted 8th ed book with a couple of new/mildly altered units.

Which is exactly what I said in my post, yes?

It really confused me when I saw they used the same damn artwork for those two releases as from the 6th ed.

Depends on what you count as faction
not everyone who had its own Codex prior 8th got onr

Khorne Daemonkin and Inquisition did not get one in 8th, Black Templars not their own or Supplement

Every army got a dex for 8th because the indexes were being replaced. Similarly, every army got a dex in 3rd as well.

Every edition that wasn't a reboot has seen itself pass out of history with some army books unreleased during it's lifetime.

PenitentJake wrote:
Which is exactly what I said in my post, yes?

Not really, the only faction with an 8.5 book were loyalist marines, it had a complete rewrite and was essentially a new edition of their codex (clumsy wording).

The chaos marine codex was a v2 at best, it received nowhere near the same attention or alteration that the marines saw, despite being the only other army to receive a 2nd print in 8th.

An altered codex yes, 8.5 no.

I give this edition about 18 months before GW moves on to the next edition.

I really doubt there will be much change worthy of note, though. Just more shuffling the power curve around to upset the status quo, and around 2 new models per faction - except for marines, of course.

When GW starts to see their number slipping on sales of Marines. Which is why they drop a new "Chapter" ever two or so months. FOTM is now Black Primaris, with "SPECIAL" flamers that are flat 2 damage and 15".

1 damage. It was changed within minutes.

I give pretty good odds that it will be D2 in the book and then be FAQed back to 1 a couple weeks later.

Previews generally seem to the carry mistakes that made it to the printed versions.

And then, a few months later, after its errata'd to D1, they'll put its points cost up because the person in charge of the points forgot about the errata.

 Nazrak wrote:
I'd be surprised to see them shift from the 3-year cycle that seems to have been in place since 7th (and duplicated in AoS), even though 9th basically missed a year due to the whole world being shut down. Would happily be proven wrong on this, though. In the meantime, I'm just sticking with the one Codex for now; no point forking out 20+ quid a time for something I'll barely use.

Personally, I think 9th edition will have a 4 year cycle thanks to COVID. Then we'll settle back into a 3 year cycle again.

Then again, I also do have the controversial idea they'll split regular marines into 2 codexes.

- Codex Space Marine: First-born
- Codex Space Marine: Primaris

With rules that allow the 2 to either be taken together in a single detachment, or separately in their own mono-detachments. They'll say it's to avoid codex creep, but really it'll just be greed.

Jarms48 wrote:


Then again, I also do have the controversial idea they'll split regular marines into 2 codexes.

- Codex Space Marine: First-born
- Codex Space Marine: Primaris

With rules that allow the 2 to either be taken together in a single detachment, or separately in their own mono-detachments. They'll say it's to avoid codex creep, but really it'll just be greed.

Controversial, perhaps. But it wouldn't surprise me.

Personally, when Primaris arrived on the scene, I figured GW was planting the seeds for space marine civil war 2.0. Not for a long while yet- they'll likely need to work together for a good long time to bring the Imperium Nihilis back into the fold. But who knows what will happen given another decade?

Jarms48 wrote:

 Nazrak wrote:
I'd be surprised to see them shift from the 3-year cycle that seems to have been in place since 7th (and duplicated in AoS), even though 9th basically missed a year due to the whole world being shut down. Would happily be proven wrong on this, though. In the meantime, I'm just sticking with the one Codex for now; no point forking out 20+ quid a time for something I'll barely use.

Personally, I think 9th edition will have a 4 year cycle thanks to COVID. Then we'll settle back into a 3 year cycle again.

Then again, I also do have the controversial idea they'll split regular marines into 2 codexes.

- Codex Space Marine: First-born
- Codex Space Marine: Primaris

With rules that allow the 2 to either be taken together in a single detachment, or separately in their own mono-detachments. They'll say it's to avoid codex creep, but really it'll just be greed.

Eh. More likely 10e will move the Firstborn to Legends only or to 30k only.

Jarms48 wrote:


Then again, I also do have the controversial idea they'll split regular marines into 2 codexes.

- Codex Space Marine: First-born
- Codex Space Marine: Primaris

With rules that allow the 2 to either be taken together in a single detachment, or separately in their own mono-detachments. They'll say it's to avoid codex creep, but really it'll just be greed.

I'd really like that to be honest. Now I can play my entire codex instead of ignoring half of it.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
When GW starts to see their number slipping on sales of Marines. Which is why they drop a new "Chapter" ever two or so months. FOTM is now Black Primaris, with "SPECIAL" flamers that are flat 2 damage and 15".

I mean not to upset your complaint but black templars already have a supplement via free pdf, they also had bespoke rules via supplement in faith and fury in 8th and had a stand alone codex historically, they're hardly a "new 'chapter'".

The fact they delayed it until now is a blessing, it tops up their sales and figures with a minimal release and shaved 1 book and model wave off the marine deluge off the start of 9th.

I hope it lasts 4+ years. COVID denied a lot of people the chance to get value out of their rulebooks so I hope they get a bit of extra time. It should be longer than 3 years anyway, but especially in the current context.

Dudeface wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
When GW starts to see their number slipping on sales of Marines. Which is why they drop a new "Chapter" ever two or so months. FOTM is now Black Primaris, with "SPECIAL" flamers that are flat 2 damage and 15".

I mean not to upset your complaint but black templars already have a supplement via free pdf, they also had bespoke rules via supplement in faith and fury in 8th and had a stand alone codex historically, they're hardly a "new 'chapter'".

The fact they delayed it until now is a blessing, it tops up their sales and figures with a minimal release and shaved 1 book and model wave off the marine deluge off the start of 9th.

Pardon my phrasing, I meant new as in "Does not currently have a dex". Yes, you can PLAY BT, but they don't have a dex that leads to people buying new models, new combat patrol boxes, and lots of black paint for FOMO. There are several chapters that don't have Dexs yet, that will likely see the Dex-Combat patrol-special character release before 10th, or you are joking yourself.

Sometimes I think that GW should just do away with pretending there is freedom of choice. Leave the pick what ever you want for narrative or open. And for match play, just design pre build armies. And don't balance it about something abstract like points, because this clearly doesn't work for armies with so many points. But build armies play them against each other, and if they are more or less balanced they are what people should play. Give people 3-4 tiers of play ranging from 1v1 patrol to 2xbattalions vs 2xbattalions. Then design specific detachments with both limitations and special rules. So maybe this eldar army is build around just aspect warriors, but this means it has to take avatars, can't take no aspect warrior units, but in return the aspects do get some crazy rules, which aren't that crazy when they can't be mixed with other eldar stuff. But that would require like an edition of preping and then a full rules reset. So the chance of that happening is zero.

Karol wrote:
Sometimes I think that GW should just do away with pretending there is freedom of choice. Leave the pick what ever you want for narrative or open. And for match play, just design pre build armies. And don't balance it about something abstract like points, because this clearly doesn't work for armies with so many points. But build armies play them against each other, and if they are more or less balanced they are what people should play. Give people 3-4 tiers of play ranging from 1v1 patrol to 2xbattalions vs 2xbattalions. Then design specific detachments with both limitations and special rules. So maybe this eldar army is build around just aspect warriors, but this means it has to take avatars, can't take no aspect warrior units, but in return the aspects do get some crazy rules, which aren't that crazy when they can't be mixed with other eldar stuff. But that would require like an edition of preping and then a full rules reset. So the chance of that happening is zero.

That would require them to write a nuanced, skill based game with good decision space and meaningful choices to take advantage of the pre-set army lists though. GW aren't capable of that.

Preset army lists works in a small scale game like Killteam (even then the decision has a lot of detractors).
A 40k army has faaar too many moving parts to be doing that.

Jarms48 wrote:

 Nazrak wrote:
I'd be surprised to see them shift from the 3-year cycle that seems to have been in place since 7th (and duplicated in AoS), even though 9th basically missed a year due to the whole world being shut down. Would happily be proven wrong on this, though. In the meantime, I'm just sticking with the one Codex for now; no point forking out 20+ quid a time for something I'll barely use.

Personally, I think 9th edition will have a 4 year cycle thanks to COVID. Then we'll settle back into a 3 year cycle again.

Then again, I also do have the controversial idea they'll split regular marines into 2 codexes.

- Codex Space Marine: First-born
- Codex Space Marine: Primaris

With rules that allow the 2 to either be taken together in a single detachment, or separately in their own mono-detachments. They'll say it's to avoid codex creep, but really it'll just be greed.

'First-born' will eventually be relegated to Legends. The whole purpose of Legends was to facilitate the end-of-life of 'First-born' Space Marines. It will be a very sad day, but make no mistake, the day will come.

Karol wrote:
Sometimes I think that GW should just do away with pretending there is freedom of choice.

There is freedom of choice. Just because the area you play in is some kind of dystopian competitive nightmare where the default attitude towards other players is "I'll be a witch to everyone!" doesn't make that true of every group, or even the majority of groups.

yet all the armies I see posted, including ones on this forum , generally look like the ones being run here. I have yet to see a DE army with no raiders, succubi or witchs etc People also seem to be unhappy about the same stuff other armies run, that are run here.

Have yet to see someone post an army of scouts, footslogging harlis or something else that doesn't look like a meta list.

Karol wrote:
yet all the armies I see posted, including ones on this forum , generally look like the ones being run here. I have yet to see a DE army with no raiders, succubi or witchs etc People also seem to be unhappy about the same stuff other armies run, that are run here.

Have yet to see someone post an army of scouts, footslogging harlis or something else that doesn't look like a meta list.

Generally people running themed fun lists don’t post them here looking for feedback on how to make them more competitive.

 oni wrote:

'First-born' will eventually be relegated to Legends. The whole purpose of Legends was to facilitate the end-of-life of 'First-born' Space Marines. It will be a very sad day, but make no mistake, the day will come.

It might. I'd be a fool to deny the possibility.

But back in 8th, people swore it was going to happen in 9th. Not only did it not happen, old Marines got a second wound in 9th to put their viability on the table back in line with Primaris and just recently, they released Crowe, who I think is the first new Firstborn model we've seen (not enough of a Marine player to know if this is true).

Neither of these things fit the narrative that old Marines are on their way out.

Again, this isn't to say it won't happen eventually; anything is possible. But if it does happen, it's not likely soon.

PenitentJake wrote:

 oni wrote:

'First-born' will eventually be relegated to Legends. The whole purpose of Legends was to facilitate the end-of-life of 'First-born' Space Marines. It will be a very sad day, but make no mistake, the day will come.

It might. I'd be a fool to deny the possibility.

But back in 8th, people swore it was going to happen in 9th. Not only did it not happen, old Marines got a second wound in 9th to put their viability on the table back in line with Primaris and just recently, they released Crowe, who I think is the first new Firstborn model we've seen (not enough of a Marine player to know if this is true).

Neither of these things fit the narrative that old Marines are on their way out.

Again, this isn't to say it won't happen eventually; anything is possible. But if it does happen, it's not likely soon.

The safest bet on old marines has always been 10+ years out from the introduction of Primaris and no sooner. Even from a basic business stand point, it wouldn't make sense to do it any sooner than that. You don't kill the golden goose before you know if its replacement can stand on its own and become the new golden goose. It WILL 100% happen eventually. They just need to be sure the Primaris will hold up long term like the First Born did.

Far as how long 9th lasts - man IDK. I'm seeing record numbers of people stopping again. Not as bad as in 7th, but certainly more than at any other time I can remember outside of 7th. Something about this edition is just rubbing folks the wrong way. The local Warhammer store manager has said his Sigmar sales are on an up-swing, but 40k has been consistently DOWN for the first time in a while, and the LGS has said similar. Clearly this is anecdotal, but if other areas are experiencing similar, and as long as the pandemic doesn't prevent them, I could potentially see them cutting 9th short to jumpstart sales again.

3.5

 Da Boss wrote:
I hope it lasts 4+ years. COVID denied a lot of people the chance to get value out of their rulebooks so I hope they get a bit of extra time. It should be longer than 3 years anyway, but especially in the current context.

GW is driven by the money train, and despite people not supposedly getting play time, money has been rolling it at a record pace. I doubt COVID has even been a speed bump on their internal development schedule for when they plan to drop the next edition.

They seem pretty consistent with 3 now. Knowing you've got a reliable stream of 'new edition money' every 1.5 years probably looks good on paper between 40k and AoS.

 dreadblade wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:
Gotta crank out those Rulebooks.

This is it isn't it?

With 4 codexes and the BRB, I'm looking at over £150 (RRP) for a change of edition

Seems a lot, but perhaps spending £130 (in reality) on books every 3 years isn't the end of the world?

I encourage new/interested players who will only play casually and locally to buy an army off eBay with Christmas money and use Grimdark Future rules (which are free and were liberally looted by GW when they went from 7th to 8th... but are still the better rules and are free/living and balanced)

That being said, I do stay current so that I can play the occasional new member of our club who already knows 40k... but other than Marine Codex, maybe Dark Angels, and a rulebook... I'm done buying books from GW... sometimes I'll snag a cheap used codex that's obsolete just to stoke interest among my club mates who like to thumb through and look at pictures