GW is officially laying out the schedule going forward.

The Good - more regular points and mission updates. This could also mean Maelstrom for those so inclined. Potentially only two Warzone books to deal with ( instead of the....four or five this past year ).

The Bad - Greater than zero Warzone books to deal with.

The Ugly - No digital or free points, which means $$.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2021/12/28/warhammer-40000-seasons-are-going-to-change-the-way-you-conquer-the-galaxy/

All bad- more bloat, more of the same.

Just a promise that every book will be invalid in 6 months. Excitement!

Yeah, this isn’t for me. I haven’t bought a campaign book before and have no interest in starting now.

I suppose it’s fun that they are building a theme around the model release schedule and are moving the narrative forward, but this doesn’t really seem like anything new, just a rebranding and formalising what they’ve been doing for the last year or so.

Campaigns are something I adore, and I would support this kind of effort in a heartbeat if not for the fact that:

1. The Crusade books are mostly a reprint of the 40k rules. The more of them you purchase, the more you just end up buying the same rules over and over again.

2. The Crusade rules/missions from the Crusade books should just be in the overall Campaign book. Splitting Crusade rules between two different books is unnecessary and makes me want to purchase them less.

Plus paying for rules updates once per year was wrong. Twice per year is more wrong.

Voss wrote:
All bad- more bloat, more of the same.

Just a promise that every book will be invalid in 6 months. Excitement!

Structured bloat, yes, but let's look at what we've dealt with...

Warzone Charadon : Book of Rust
Warzone Charadon : Book of Fire
Warzone Octarius : Rising Tide
Warzone Octarius : Critical Mass

vs two Warzone books.

And in my naive brain I'm hoping this prevents Pyshic Awakening style releases on top of campaigns.

PA: Blood of Baal
PA: Engine War
PA: Faith & Fury
PA: Pariah
PA: Phoenix Rising
PA: The Greater Good
PA: War of the Spider
Vigilus Ablaze
Vigilus Defiant

If they stick to this it is decidedly far less bloat than we've had.

Not sure how this invalidates books though ( other than missions )?

 Daedalus81 wrote:


And in my naive brain I'm hoping this prevents Pyshic Awakening style releases on top of campaigns.

Oh, OK.
Meanwhile I'm sure we'll see more such filler material come the last 6-9 months of this edition.
But you keep hoping....

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Voss wrote:
All bad- more bloat, more of the same.

Just a promise that every book will be invalid in 6 months. Excitement!

Structured bloat, yes, but let's look at what we've dealt with...

Warzone Charadon : Book of Rust
Warzone Charadon : Book of Fire
Warzone Octarius : Rising Tide
Warzone Octarius : Critical Mass

vs two Warzone books.

And in my naive brain I'm hoping this prevents Pyshic Awakening style releases on top of campaigns.

PA: Blood of Baal
PA: Engine War
PA: Faith & Fury
PA: Pariah
PA: Phoenix Rising
PA: The Greater Good
PA: War of the Spider
Vigilus Ablaze
Vigilus Defiant

If they stick to this it is decidedly far less bloat than we've had.

Not sure how this invalidates books though ( other than missions )?

I admire your optimism. Remember we're only 2 years into 9th, COVID/shipping crisis messed up the release schedule and not even half the armies have a 9th Ed codex yet. PA happened 4 years into the edition after all of the codexes were out, give it time.

On the topic of Season just imagine whatever the loudest groan possible is and then imagine I typed it out here.

Is it too much to ask that they release the rules for the remaining factions first before boring everyone to death with this drivel?

Ugh, GW please. Focus on finishing and releasing all the codices first before doing campaign stuff like this. Especially since these "seasons" basically have a shelf life of only 6 months. At least battle passes in video games are "free". This drip feed approach is backwards as feth, especially within the context of the pandemic where more people have embraced online/digital platforms, it makes no sense that GW keeps pushing for physical stuff like this. Especially since it looks like they're aiming for 3 year cycles for editions, they're basically screwing over the last few codices when they inevitably change course for the new edition.

On the plus side this means that we can reasonably expect a battle box every 6 months.

 Grimskul wrote:
Ugh, GW please. Focus on finishing and releasing all the codices first before doing campaign stuff like this. Especially since these "seasons" basically have a shelf life of only 6 months. At least battle passes in video games are "free". This drip feed approach is backwards as feth, especially within the context of the pandemic where more people have embraced online/digital platforms, it makes no sense that GW keeps pushing for physical stuff like this. Especially since it looks like they're aiming for 3 year cycles for editions, they're basically screwing over the last few codices when they inevitably change course for the new edition.

If they are going to commit to this I'd prefer a "battle pass" and something digital for sure. As it stands I refuse to buy any campaign book.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Grimskul wrote:
Ugh, GW please. Focus on finishing and releasing all the codices first before doing campaign stuff like this. Especially since these "seasons" basically have a shelf life of only 6 months. At least battle passes in video games are "free". This drip feed approach is backwards as feth, especially within the context of the pandemic where more people have embraced online/digital platforms, it makes no sense that GW keeps pushing for physical stuff like this. Especially since it looks like they're aiming for 3 year cycles for editions, they're basically screwing over the last few codices when they inevitably change course for the new edition.

If they are going to commit to this I'd prefer a "battle pass" and something digital for sure. As it stands I refuse to buy any campaign book.

I mean, if Warhammer+ included books I would already be a member, I almost joined when it seemed it would include all codexes, then they said current only and going forward they were not included where you add the code from codexes for digital so... i passed.

They could still take my money if the include digital codexes and campaign books in the warhammer+ subscription but i am not sure they will ever do that

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Voss wrote:
All bad- more bloat, more of the same.

Just a promise that every book will be invalid in 6 months. Excitement!

Structured bloat, yes,

but let's look at what we've dealt with...

Warzone Charadon : Book of Rust
Warzone Charadon : Book of Fire
Warzone Octarius : Rising Tide
Warzone Octarius : Critical Mass

vs two Warzone books.

Now, ask yourself if Charadon and Octarius were supposed to be the same year, or if Covid delays pushed them closer together and biannual was the actual plan all along.

And in my naive brain I'm hoping this prevents Pyshic Awakening style releases on top of campaigns.

That does sound naive

PA: Blood of Baal
PA: Engine War
PA: Faith & Fury
PA: Pariah
PA: Phoenix Rising
PA: The Greater Good
PA: War of the Spider
Vigilus Ablaze
Vigilus Defiant

If they stick to this it is decidedly far less bloat than we've had.

Is it...? Vigilus looks like 2 books. This is will be 8 for the year between two seasons. Hey, you've got 8 books listed there.
And they've made zero promises of no PA-like books, so we very reasonably could end up with 14 or so books. Exciting new levels of bloat are now possible.

Not sure how this invalidates books though ( other than missions )?

Really? How many of those (especially those that have armies that got a real 9e book) still have usable content?
Vigilus is officially declared as a no-go, and with the exception of a few armies, PA has been entirely superseded.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Grimskul wrote:
Ugh, GW please. Focus on finishing and releasing all the codices first before doing campaign stuff like this. Especially since these "seasons" basically have a shelf life of only 6 months. At least battle passes in video games are "free". This drip feed approach is backwards as feth, especially within the context of the pandemic where more people have embraced online/digital platforms, it makes no sense that GW keeps pushing for physical stuff like this. Especially since it looks like they're aiming for 3 year cycles for editions, they're basically screwing over the last few codices when they inevitably change course for the new edition.

If they are going to commit to this I'd prefer a "battle pass" and something digital for sure. As it stands I refuse to buy any campaign book.

Seriously. If they wanted Warhammer Plus to succeed, they should have just done a subscription model where you pay a flat 12 dollars a month or something and get access to all the army rules in addition to whatever weird stuff they have as the selling points for the current subscription. As it is, there's no reason why people shouldn't just be using battlescribe and wahapedia for their rules needs.

 vipoid wrote:
Is it too much to ask that they release the rules for the remaining factions first before boring everyone to death with this drivel?

They need to get the rules out for the Primaris Captain Stacey (with new hat/chainsword) and Primaris Ancient Stacey (with new hat/power sword), and it's either these books (and the datasheets repeated ad nauseam) or a new Marine book.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 vipoid wrote:
Is it too much to ask that they release the rules for the remaining factions first before boring everyone to death with this drivel?

They need to get the rules out for the Primaris Captain Stacey (with new hat/chainsword) and Primaris Ancient Stacey (with new hat/power sword), and it's either these books (and the datasheets repeated ad nauseam) or a new Marine book.

Or they just need a LoLcat gif with 'Primaris can has swords now'



Or one of those mysterious FAQ/errata pdfs. Unfashionable, I know, but they managed this exact thing with intercessor sergeants once upon a time.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

And in my naive brain I'm hoping this prevents Pyshic Awakening style releases on top of campaigns.

PA: Blood of Baal
PA: Engine War
PA: Faith & Fury
PA: Pariah
PA: Phoenix Rising
PA: The Greater Good
PA: War of the Spider
Vigilus Ablaze
Vigilus Defiant

Vigilus Defiant was December 2018.
It was followed by "Urban Conquest" in January 2019.
March 2019 was Vigilus Ablaze.
PA started in October 2019 and got staggered more than it likely was going to be with C19 starting up.

Voss wrote:
Now, ask yourself if Charadon and Octarius were supposed to be the same year, or if Covid delays pushed them closer together and biannual was the actual plan all along.

Not really possible since PA ended at the start of 2020 and we picked these four up in 2021. If anything these would have been quarterly.

Is it...? Vigilus looks like 2 books. This is will be 8 for the year between two seasons. Hey, you've got 8 books listed there.
And they've made zero promises of no PA-like books, so we very reasonably could end up with 14 or so books. Exciting new levels of bloat are now possible.

The purpose of PA was to drive "story" and kick out rules patches. With Dataslate, Armies of Reknown, and bi-annual missions there isn't a true need for such a transition. That isn't to say they won't decide some sort of grand campaign isn't called for in a transition to a new edition, but they have more tools than they did before.

Not sure how this invalidates books though ( other than missions )?

Really? How many of those (especially those that have armies that got a real 9e book) still have usable content?
Vigilus is officially declared as a no-go, and with the exception of a few armies, PA has been entirely superseded.

Vigilus and PA were different design standards. These books are going to do Armies of Reknown, which stand as their own singular set instead of a tack on to any list like Vigilus was. PA was "necessary" to catch up armies, but we have Dataslate for that.

 vipoid wrote:
Is it too much to ask that they release the rules for the remaining factions first before boring everyone to death with this drivel?

Money doesn't stop for feelings. The reality is that these various publications are being worked on in parallel by different teams, etc. Just because the codex team(s) were delayed for whatever reason doesn't mean they are going to put on hold all their other publications while they wait for the codexes to catch up. In all likelihood the schedule for this was probably set up so that these "seasons" would roll out after all the updated codexes were released. For obvious reasons, there has been a slowdown in the pace at which those have been coming out, and they are putting out the other publications in advance of the codexes as a result.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Voss wrote:
All bad- more bloat, more of the same.

Just a promise that every book will be invalid in 6 months. Excitement!

Structured bloat, yes, but let's look at what we've dealt with...

Warzone Charadon : Book of Rust
Warzone Charadon : Book of Fire
Warzone Octarius : Rising Tide
Warzone Octarius : Critical Mass

vs two Warzone books.

And in my naive brain I'm hoping this prevents Pyshic Awakening style releases on top of campaigns.

PA: Blood of Baal
PA: Engine War
PA: Faith & Fury
PA: Pariah
PA: Phoenix Rising
PA: The Greater Good
PA: War of the Spider
Vigilus Ablaze
Vigilus Defiant

If they stick to this it is decidedly far less bloat than we've had.

Not sure how this invalidates books though ( other than missions )?

Given that both 40k and AoS have used the "End Times" format (i.e. Psychic Awakening, Gathering Storm, Broken Realms, The Realmgate Wars) to end each edition and shepherd in the next one, I think you're being overly optimistic here that the new "seasons" format will prevent further such releases from occurring. In reality, I think the point of these books (aside from making money) is specifically to front-load rules updates to factions for the new edition in order to keep them some semblance of "balanced" against shifting meta, etc. while they wait their turn for a codex (arguably it doesn't work).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

BrianDavion wrote:
On the plus side this means that we can reasonably expect a battle box every 6 months.

Don't see what one has to do with the other. We are already getting at least 2 battleboxes a year for both 40k and AoS as it stands (some years have been more than that) so I'm not sure what this changes.

chaos0xomega wrote:
In all likelihood the schedule for this was probably set up so that these "seasons" would roll out after all the updated codexes were released.

I tend to think that the whole "Season" concept was conceived specifically because of the delays from the previous two years.

Now they're doing to two sets of these books a year, and can release them any time during a 6 month window. Allows for greater flexibility and reactions to potential delays.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Voss wrote:
Now, ask yourself if Charadon and Octarius were supposed to be the same year, or if Covid delays pushed them closer together and biannual was the actual plan all along.

Not really possible since PA ended at the start of 2020 and we picked these four up in 2021. If anything these would have been quarterly.

Is it...? Vigilus looks like 2 books. This is will be 8 for the year between two seasons. Hey, you've got 8 books listed there.
And they've made zero promises of no PA-like books, so we very reasonably could end up with 14 or so books. Exciting new levels of bloat are now possible.

The purpose of PA was to drive "story" and kick out rules patches. With Dataslate, Armies of Reknown, and bi-annual missions there isn't a true need for such a transition. That isn't to say they won't decide some sort of grand campaign isn't called for in a transition to a new edition, but they have more tools than they did before.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
In all likelihood the schedule for this was probably set up so that these "seasons" would roll out after all the updated codexes were released.

I tend to think that the whole "Season" concept was conceived specifically because of the delays from the previous two years.

Now they're doing to two sets of these books a year, and can release them any time during a 6 month window. Allows for greater flexibility and reactions to potential delays.

my guess is they got the idea from modern video games and premium passes. with League of Legends, Fortnite, Apex Legends, Genshin Impact etc all now having battle passes people have become accustomed to there being seasons where things about a game change and you pay money per season for the good stuff, difference being GW likely is of the opinion buying into the season should be mandatory and a few published small points tweaks and new units/ formations are adequate content

Oh absolutely. Don't disagree with you at all with that. Certainly calling them 'Seasons' is GW's attempt at aping one of the worst and consumer-unfriendly aspects of the AAA gaming industry. But GW was already releasing this kind of crap Day-1 DLC gak and paid-for patches prior to formalising them as 'Seasons'.

I just think that the timing of it - one per 6 months - is a response to the delays.

Voss wrote:
The 'purpose' of PA was to sell crap. There wasn't a grand campaign or transition, let alone a 'need' for one.

There was a need, because GW was expanding the design into 9th with the SM books and PA books were a leveler that we didn't really get to use, because of COVID.

Need is a relative term. I'm not saying that the game could not survive without it, but there definitely would have been a more noticeable gap even post IH nerfs.

What? Obviously PA and Vigilius were different- Vig was ostensibly an actual campaign for a selection of factions.
I have no idea why you think 'armies of reknown' are somehow different. They're just as easily invalidated.

Armies of Reknown ( Cohort, Defence, Terminus, Freeblade, Crusher, and Speed Mob ) bear their own restrictions and are self-contained. Vigilus detachments were not restricted in the same fashion and had the ability create uncontrolled balance issues if left untended.

The more egregious thing done by GW was Codex Supplements. Day 0 patches, if you will. Those are bs and should not exist. Now, COVID made things screwy and I'm sure things showed up differently to us, but surely Cult of Strife could have been placed in the DE book as well as Metalica into Admech and BA in Orks. But even these don't go stale unless we decide to dumpster stratagems, traits, and relics.

Not all Codex Supplements are as egregious since they put 9th edition tools into older books ( like PA did ) -- Cadia, Leviathan, and Raven.

Then you have the "get you by" segments, which are the Nids update, Be'Lakor, CSM reprint from PA, and Inquisition reprint.

Now, they did not mention any Codex Supplements for this next batch - just "one AoR", which to me is fine.

I have no idea what that is. Nor why you deem PA 'necessary.'

...you don't know what the Dataslate is?

I think the timing of it is a response to consumer feedback on that survey from a few months back. Overwhelmingly, based on the chatter I saw on dakka, facebook groups, twitter, etc. it seemed most people thought 6 months was the optimal frequency for "balance updates" in response to the questions posed in the survey. I think it follows that they listened to what the people want and decided to move ahead with a 6 month season based on that.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 vipoid wrote:
Is it too much to ask that they release the rules for the remaining factions first before boring everyone to death with this drivel?

They need to get the rules out for the Primaris Captain Stacey (with new hat/chainsword) and Primaris Ancient Stacey (with new hat/power sword), and it's either these books (and the datasheets repeated ad nauseam) or a new Marine book.

New Sisters are in White Dwarf?

 Mr Morden wrote:

New Sisters are in White Dwarf?

They're also on the Warhammer Community page...

chaos0xomega wrote:
I think the timing of it is a response to consumer feedback on that survey from a few months back. Overwhelmingly, based on the chatter I saw on dakka, facebook groups, twitter, etc. it seemed most people thought 6 months was the optimal frequency for "balance updates" in response to the questions posed in the survey. I think it follows that they listened to what the people want and decided to move ahead with a 6 month season based on that.

I doubt that's the case. I didn't get the impression that this was balance update, more just dumping more rules on the game. Balance updates would be altering points values and existing rules, which the WarCom article makes no mention of as far as I can see.

chaos0xomega wrote:
I think the timing of it is a response to consumer feedback on that survey from a few months back.

If true then we need to be very careful what we tell GW in the future, as it seems they take every suggestion as "We like this, so sell even more of it!".

 Mr Morden wrote:
New Sisters are in White Dwarf?

What?

 Sim-Life wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
I think the timing of it is a response to consumer feedback on that survey from a few months back. Overwhelmingly, based on the chatter I saw on dakka, facebook groups, twitter, etc. it seemed most people thought 6 months was the optimal frequency for "balance updates" in response to the questions posed in the survey. I think it follows that they listened to what the people want and decided to move ahead with a 6 month season based on that.

I doubt that's the case. I didn't get the impression that this was balance update, more just dumping more rules on the game. Balance updates would be altering points values and existing rules, which the WarCom article makes no mention of as far as I can see.

The first season introduces a new Grand Tournament Mission pack, which provides the framework for the next six months of competitive play. There will be new missions, new secondary objectives, and updated points costs for the armies in Warhammer 40,000.

Second book is point values.

"Seasons". Give me a fething break.

Go on, GW- keep simping after the tournament crowd...

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
I think the timing of it is a response to consumer feedback on that survey from a few months back. Overwhelmingly, based on the chatter I saw on dakka, facebook groups, twitter, etc. it seemed most people thought 6 months was the optimal frequency for "balance updates" in response to the questions posed in the survey. I think it follows that they listened to what the people want and decided to move ahead with a 6 month season based on that.

I doubt that's the case. I didn't get the impression that this was balance update, more just dumping more rules on the game. Balance updates would be altering points values and existing rules, which the WarCom article makes no mention of as far as I can see.

The first season introduces a new Grand Tournament Mission pack, which provides the framework for the next six months of competitive play. There will be new missions, new secondary objectives, and updated points costs for the armies in Warhammer 40,000.

Second book is point values.

I stand corrected. Thats super gakky of GW.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
I think the timing of it is a response to consumer feedback on that survey from a few months back.

If true then we need to be very careful what we tell GW in the future, as it seems they take every suggestion as "We like this, so sell even more of it!".

 Mr Morden wrote:
New Sisters are in White Dwarf?

What?

Novices rules are in White Dwarf not a supplemet?

I don't know why you're talking about Sisters.

I hate the fact they have called them seasons, why not just call them campaigns and say there will be a new one every 6 months.

Seasons just reminds me of everything I click through when playing any thing like battlefield

What’s worse is the feeling that players who don’t engage with the seasons will be missing out on something that improves the games and will be forced to buy the odd book here and there for some rules that make the game work better.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
It also concerns me that there will be a growing divide in players knowing the current state of the setting and latest narrative updates. The setting was once static and the dark imperium was a huge update, now the story of the whole galaxy is getting updated every 6 months…..

so basically season pass obsolesence and money grabbing greed from the Mobile gaming industry has achieved bookformat with gw.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Voss wrote:
All bad- more bloat, more of the same.

Just a promise that every book will be invalid in 6 months. Excitement!

Structured bloat, yes, but let's look at what we've dealt with...

Warzone Charadon : Book of Rust
Warzone Charadon : Book of Fire
Warzone Octarius : Rising Tide
Warzone Octarius : Critical Mass

vs two Warzone books.

And in my naive brain I'm hoping this prevents Pyshic Awakening style releases on top of campaigns.

PA: Blood of Baal
PA: Engine War
PA: Faith & Fury
PA: Pariah
PA: Phoenix Rising
PA: The Greater Good
PA: War of the Spider
Vigilus Ablaze
Vigilus Defiant

If they stick to this it is decidedly far less bloat than we've had.

Not sure how this invalidates books though ( other than missions )?

What exactly makes you think they'll only release one Warzone book per season? This announcement only seems to mean they'll be focusing on one Warzone per season, nothing is stopping them from releasing two in that time frame. And I expect they will, because all this is just a marketing plan. They're going to release the same things, in the same order, as previously planned, just "branded" as "seasons" instead of "whatever we're throwing out right now".

And I seriously doubt it's a response to the recent community poll as many are theorizing. Gw can't change their production and printing schedules that quickly. If anything is a response to that, it's the recent digital document that nerfed Admech and Orks while giving "get your by" rules for the Guard, Necrons, and CSM. This is most likely just the same stuff they already had on their release schedule anyway, just branded to look more like a coherent package.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Not all Codex Supplements are as egregious since they put 9th edition tools into older books ( like PA did ) -- Cadia, Leviathan, and Raven.

Those are the most egregious. You get minor fixes, but only if you play subfaction Y is pretty piss-poor.

Then you have the "get you by" segments, which are the Nids update, Be'Lakor, CSM reprint from PA, and Inquisition reprint.

Reprints are _utterly_ unnecessary and pointless. That's just padding out a subpar product so they can sell it.

Now, they did not mention any Codex Supplements for this next batch - just "one AoR", which to me is fine.

Good for you, I guess? To me they're the same kind of indistinguishable garbage rules bloat.

I have no idea what that is. Nor why you deem PA 'necessary.'

...you don't know what the Dataslate is?

Nope. I know what 'a dataslate' would be. I don't know of any GW product or publication called 'the Dataslate.'
No idea why I would.

Wait, weren't those the ebook painting guides during 7th edition? Several bucks for a specific unit?
----

MrFickle wrote:What’s worse is the feeling that players who don’t engage with the seasons will be missing out on something that improves the games

At this point we absolutely know that players who don't engage with Warzones aren't missing out on squat.

mrFickle wrote:
I hate the fact they have called them seasons, why not just call them campaigns and say there will be a new one every 6 months.

Seasons just reminds me of everything I click through when playing any thing like battlefield

What’s worse is the feeling that players who don’t engage with the seasons will be missing out on something that improves the games and will be forced to buy the odd book here and there for some rules that make the game work better.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
It also concerns me that there will be a growing divide in players knowing the current state of the setting and latest narrative updates. The setting was once static and the dark imperium was a huge update, now the story of the whole galaxy is getting updated every 6 months…..

As gw won't invalidate models the story updates are just saturday cartoon level where bad guys get beaten but not killed and they retreat swearing "i'jl get you next time" and stalemate continues.

Nice another round of books for me to ignore. Man GW is really trying hard to make me not spend money on their rules, it's almost like they're stepping over dollars to get to dimes(or quid, euros, etc).

Racerguy180 wrote:
Nice another round of books for me to ignore. Man GW is really trying hard to make me not spend money on their rules, it's almost like they're stepping over dollars to get to dimes(or quid, euros, etc).

to be fair they will still sell a ton of books so i am not sure i would say they are missing out on money by printing more books. personally I love reading the campaign book stories and playing the missions, to me there is value in them for that alone. I am more likely to skip the points change books and mission pack books just going off battlescribe

 Grimskul wrote:
Ugh, GW please. Focus on finishing and releasing all the codices first before doing campaign stuff like this. Especially since these "seasons" basically have a shelf life of only 6 months. At least battle passes in video games are "free". This drip feed approach is backwards as feth, especially within the context of the pandemic where more people have embraced online/digital platforms, it makes no sense that GW keeps pushing for physical stuff like this. Especially since it looks like they're aiming for 3 year cycles for editions, they're basically screwing over the last few codices when they inevitably change course for the new edition.

I almost can't believe they expect us to fork out $100+ for books when they tell us ahead of time they'll be kindling in 6 months. This kind of campaign is literally the perfect time to do something digital. Oh btw a global pandemic has destroyed supply chains and closed gaming stores around the world so that's a good reason too. GW gonna GW though...

 Grimtuff wrote:
"Seasons". Give me a fething break.

Go on, GW- keep simping after the tournament crowd...

Crusade and whatever 'War of Faith' campaigns are ( in addition to an entire book that is just for 'War of Faith' ) have absolutely nothing to do with tournament players. In fact the only pieces we'd care about are the single Army of Reknown and points/missions.

Usually "we're going to be doing a run of campaign books!" means "six months to the next edition!"

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

What exactly makes you think they'll only release one Warzone book per season? This announcement only seems to mean they'll be focusing on one Warzone per season, nothing is stopping them from releasing two in that time frame. And I expect they will, because all this is just a marketing plan. They're going to release the same things, in the same order, as previously planned, just "branded" as "seasons" instead of "whatever we're throwing out right now".

And I seriously doubt it's a response to the recent community poll as many are theorizing. Gw can't change their production and printing schedules that quickly. If anything is a response to that, it's the recent digital document that nerfed Admech and Orks while giving "get your by" rules for the Guard, Necrons, and CSM. This is most likely just the same stuff they already had on their release schedule anyway, just branded to look more like a coherent package.

Good point. They can totally push more books in the season, which would suck horribly and I maintain my position to not buy them regardless. Actually it probably makes sense for quarterly campaign books if they're doing quarterly Kill Team.

They can definitely print missions and points adhoc. Campaign books don't move so easily.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Reprints are _utterly_ unnecessary and pointless. That's just padding out a subpar product so they can sell it.

No argument from me there.

Nope. I know what 'a dataslate' would be. I don't know of any GW product or publication called 'the Dataslate.'
No idea why I would.

Quarterly balance fixes:
https://www.warhammer-community.com/2021/11/09/game-balance-is-at-the-heart-of-this-official-warhammer-40000-rules-update/


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Toofast wrote:
I almost can't believe they expect us to fork out $100+ for books when they tell us ahead of time they'll be kindling in 6 months. This kind of campaign is literally the perfect time to do something digital. Oh btw a global pandemic has destroyed supply chains and closed gaming stores around the world so that's a good reason too. GW gonna GW though...

These are absolutely not things you just go out and buy if your concern is matched play.

Chapter Approved is the only thing you'd buy, but I only grab it for convenience. Most everyone uses Battlescribe and Wahapedia these days ( and should continue to do so until GW commits to a sound digital platform ).

The odd person might want the first book for the Army of Reknown, but again - Wahapedia. Everything else is, I presume, useful and interesting to casual players.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 vipoid wrote:
Is it too much to ask that they release the rules for the remaining factions first before boring everyone to death with this drivel?

They need to get the rules out for the Primaris Captain Stacey (with new hat/chainsword) and Primaris Ancient Stacey (with new hat/power sword), and it's either these books (and the datasheets repeated ad nauseam) or a new Marine book.

I wish you were more wrong.

(Also, I applaud your one-man effort to turn Primaris Stacey into a meme. )

chaos0xomega wrote:

Money doesn't stop for feelings.

Feelings do, however, influence spending.

Hence why my own wallet will not be opening for any of this crap.


Aside:


Is that piece of art unintentionally hilarious to anyone else?

Something about the huge claw on one arm and the tiny, weenie hand on his other arm, plus the fact his head is so small relative to his power armour. I mean, people used to joke about terminators' arms being too high and then we have this guy whose arms apparently join a full head above his shoulders. To top it all off, the bottom of the picture fails to hide the fact that his legs cease to exist below the knees, giving him the look of a floating double-amputee.

 G00fySmiley wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
In all likelihood the schedule for this was probably set up so that these "seasons" would roll out after all the updated codexes were released.

I tend to think that the whole "Season" concept was conceived specifically because of the delays from the previous two years.

Now they're doing to two sets of these books a year, and can release them any time during a 6 month window. Allows for greater flexibility and reactions to potential delays.

my guess is they got the idea from modern video games and premium passes. with League of Legends, Fortnite, Apex Legends, Genshin Impact etc all now having battle passes people have become accustomed to there being seasons where things about a game change and you pay money per season for the good stuff, difference being GW likely is of the opinion buying into the season should be mandatory and a few published small points tweaks and new units/ formations are adequate content

If they wanted to charge me $10-20 to participate in a campaign and give out free, exclusive models during the campaign, that sounds awesome and I'm all in. That's how those video game battlepasses work. If they want to sell me $100 in books that will be invalidated after 6 months, I have zero interest in that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

These are absolutely not things you just go out and buy if your concern is matched play.

The odd person might want the first book for the Army of Reknown, but again - Wahapedia. Everything else is, I presume, useful and interesting to casual players.

I'm just waiting to meet all these casual players that love power levels and fluff campaigns and never play competitively. I've been playing on and off for 20 years in several states and a couple other countries. I've played in Warhammer stores, FLGS, basements, garages, and hipster bars. Everywhere I've played, it seems like 1850/2k points and matched play missions or tournament missions are the standard. There might be one guy in the group that says "hey guys I'm new, can we do power level and just play a quick casual game?" but that is a rare exception rather than the rule.

I'm not sure how they'll be able to do more than one book per 'season' - not saying they won't, GW is GW after all, calling them seasons is also absolutely awful, this isn't sports or fashion.

Anyway, the reason why they cannot do more than one book - or shouldn't be able to anyway, is if the seasons dictate the narrative, and have consequences, they cannot tailor and release a book to reflect that.

I'm interested how they'll have this affect the narrative though, will they release a full lore impact breakdown at the end of each season? As again, when the next season moves to a new war zone, GW again won't have had enough time to tell the narrative impact within the next seasons book.

I mean, I'm talking as if GW aren't just going to fiddle the numbers to get the results they want anyway but hey ho...

Then all they're going to be in for is Chapter Approved, which is largely redundant given the tools available outside GW. None of those people are dropping money on the other two books unless they specifically want rules for the AoR.

What GW is doing is crappy, but it isn't some requisite purchase to be able to play.

 Toofast wrote:

 G00fySmiley wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
In all likelihood the schedule for this was probably set up so that these "seasons" would roll out after all the updated codexes were released.

I tend to think that the whole "Season" concept was conceived specifically because of the delays from the previous two years.

Now they're doing to two sets of these books a year, and can release them any time during a 6 month window. Allows for greater flexibility and reactions to potential delays.

my guess is they got the idea from modern video games and premium passes. with League of Legends, Fortnite, Apex Legends, Genshin Impact etc all now having battle passes people have become accustomed to there being seasons where things about a game change and you pay money per season for the good stuff, difference being GW likely is of the opinion buying into the season should be mandatory and a few published small points tweaks and new units/ formations are adequate content

If they wanted to charge me $10-20 to participate in a campaign and give out free, exclusive models during the campaign, that sounds awesome and I'm all in. That's how those video game battlepasses work. If they want to sell me $100 in books that will be invalidated after 6 months, I have zero interest in that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

These are absolutely not things you just go out and buy if your concern is matched play.

The odd person might want the first book for the Army of Reknown, but again - Wahapedia. Everything else is, I presume, useful and interesting to casual players.

I'm just waiting to meet all these casual players that love power levels and fluff campaigns and never play competitively. I've been playing on and off for 20 years in several states and a couple other countries. I've played in Warhammer stores, FLGS, basements, garages, and hipster bars. Everywhere I've played, it seems like 1850/2k points and matched play missions or tournament missions are the standard. There might be one guy in the group that says "hey guys I'm new, can we do power level and just play a quick casual game?" but that is a rare exception rather than the rule.

while some points and formations will be invalidated the missions can still be played years later sometimes with a little modifications across editions. heck a few weeks ago i played a game where we modified the 6th edition death from the skies book for dogfights in how we handled ariel combat. it was pretty fun honestly.

As for fluffy campaign type games they do exist. Pre covid in my town (Tallahassee FL) we were doing quarterly large narrative games. we had people show up from all over FL and some from surrounding states for our Gathering Storm campaigns and have had good turnouts for everything since. It is not that nobody does narrative campaigns I more think its a lack of much organization to them outside small groups

I might be completely clueless, but aren't they just rebranding chapter approved ?

 Toofast wrote:

I'm just waiting to meet all these casual players that love power levels and fluff campaigns and never play competitively. I've been playing on and off for 20 years in several states and a couple other countries. I've played in Warhammer stores, FLGS, basements, garages, and hipster bars. Everywhere I've played, it seems like 1850/2k points and matched play missions or tournament missions are the standard. There might be one guy in the group that says "hey guys I'm new, can we do power level and just play a quick casual game?" but that is a rare exception rather than the rule.

Sup?

I have zero interest in Points. Points are ABSOLUTE TRASH. They're a false sense of balance. They also encourage the absolute dumpsterfire that is the faux-comp scene, which basically amounts to copy/paste tourney lists.

I regularly play Power. I have a group of people that I played with regularly prior to COVID and a few of the members having new lil' ones joining their families. We played nothing but Power, with a few people also playing points in tourneys locally.

Now you've met one. Understand that it's entirely likely you're not "meeting all these casual players that love power levels and fluff campaigns and never play competitively" because Power is still, effectively, a new system and it's treated with extreme derision by people like yourself who continually act as though points are the sacred cow of gaming.

Siegfriedfr wrote:
I might be completely clueless, but aren't they just rebranding chapter approved ?

Hmm? Not really. Just formalizing it to bi-annual.

each campaign is 1 Warzone, and because they already said that they will do different Warzones each time, what the result of one season will have no effect on any other season unless it comes back to that specific Warzone again
and there is no reason of not doing 2+ book per Warzone to get something out of it

PS: and not buying the rules but still playing the game to make a point is pretty much useless as it does not change anything
GW can get away with those things, and keep doing it, because there are enough new players who will buy the stuff, for the main reason because everyone is playing 40k, that no one else is paying for the rules or buys the original models does not matter as long as they play the game and keep the community big enough to get those who pay into the GW bubble

PPS:
I guess 10th is going to be released Sommer 2022

This looks to provide no extra value to my gaming. Pass.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Toofast wrote:

I'm just waiting to meet all these casual players that love power levels and fluff campaigns and never play competitively. I've been playing on and off for 20 years in several states and a couple other countries. I've played in Warhammer stores, FLGS, basements, garages, and hipster bars. Everywhere I've played, it seems like 1850/2k points and matched play missions or tournament missions are the standard. There might be one guy in the group that says "hey guys I'm new, can we do power level and just play a quick casual game?" but that is a rare exception rather than the rule.

Sup?

I have zero interest in Points. Points are ABSOLUTE TRASH. They're a false sense of balance. They also encourage the absolute dumpsterfire that is the faux-comp scene, which basically amounts to copy/paste tourney lists.

I regularly play Power. I have a group of people that I played with regularly prior to COVID and a few of the members having new lil' ones joining their families. We played nothing but Power, with a few people also playing points in tourneys locally.

Now you've met one. Understand that it's entirely likely you're not "meeting all these casual players that love power levels and fluff campaigns and never play competitively" because Power is still, effectively, a new system and it's treated with extreme derision by people like yourself who continually act as though points are the sacred cow of gaming.

Make that two. And I can say my whole gaming group is like that (not opposed to points, but to tournament play). We have that one guy who always knows what's going on in the tournament scene and what's the meta but... he hasn't played a single tournament game, yet since noone else is interested in that kind of play

 Toofast wrote:

I'm just waiting to meet all these casual players that love power levels and fluff campaigns and never play competitively. I've been playing on and off for 20 years in several states and a couple other countries. I've played in Warhammer stores, FLGS, basements, garages, and hipster bars. Everywhere I've played, it seems like 1850/2k points and matched play missions or tournament missions are the standard. There might be one guy in the group that says "hey guys I'm new, can we do power level and just play a quick casual game?" but that is a rare exception rather than the rule.

Howdy! That's me and the 4 other people in my gaming group, and we couldn't give a rats about what the competitive meta is at any given time and have never done so. We play with power because it's easier to throw a list together and use our limited free time to actually do some 40k rather than waiting for people to make lists.

 endlesswaltz123 wrote:
I'm not sure how they'll be able to do more than one book per 'season' - not saying they won't, GW is GW after all, calling them seasons is also absolutely awful, this isn't sports or fashion.

Anyway, the reason why they cannot do more than one book - or shouldn't be able to anyway, is if the seasons dictate the narrative, and have consequences, they cannot tailor and release a book to reflect that.

I'm interested how they'll have this affect the narrative though, will they release a full lore impact breakdown at the end of each season? As again, when the next season moves to a new war zone, GW again won't have had enough time to tell the narrative impact within the next seasons book.

I mean, I'm talking as if GW aren't just going to fiddle the numbers to get the results they want anyway but hey ho...

Uh, they didn't even remotely suggest that player games would dictate the narrative or have consequences (well, unless the video says something different, I didn't have any interesting in watching someone prattle on about nothing). Just that these particular flashpoints would have consequences for the 40k setting. Its going to be GW's narrative to write as they see fit.

Indeed. CA is still CA whether once a year or twice.

Screw it, more stuff is fun, it isn’t compulsory, and keeps the meta moving. I’ll skip all the books I don’t want or need and pick up CA for extra mission lols.

It's gakky, but not surprising.

The current mission design is so horrible, so complete trash, and has created such a stale and unbalanced game that this is GW's shoot-from-the-hip answer to try and get players back to the table. After all, GW fuels itself off of player hope. Hope that the next time/thing will be better.

Mike Brandt = The New Matt Ward

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Toofast wrote:

I'm just waiting to meet all these casual players that love power levels and fluff campaigns and never play competitively. I've been playing on and off for 20 years in several states and a couple other countries. I've played in Warhammer stores, FLGS, basements, garages, and hipster bars. Everywhere I've played, it seems like 1850/2k points and matched play missions or tournament missions are the standard. There might be one guy in the group that says "hey guys I'm new, can we do power level and just play a quick casual game?" but that is a rare exception rather than the rule.

Sup?

I have zero interest in Points. Points are ABSOLUTE TRASH. They're a false sense of balance. They also encourage the absolute dumpsterfire that is the faux-comp scene, which basically amounts to copy/paste tourney lists.

I regularly play Power. I have a group of people that I played with regularly prior to COVID and a few of the members having new lil' ones joining their families. We played nothing but Power, with a few people also playing points in tourneys locally.

Now you've met one. Understand that it's entirely likely you're not "meeting all these casual players that love power levels and fluff campaigns and never play competitively" because Power is still, effectively, a new system and it's treated with extreme derision by people like yourself who continually act as though points are the sacred cow of gaming.

Oh I know you guys exist, you're just the vast minority. Sure, points don't perfectly balance a game. Power level just does an even worse job because it doesn't distinguish between a squad with basic weapons and the same squad loaded up with melta or plasma guns. "Points suck for balance" is a valid argument but power level is even worse, it just caters to the players who don't care about balance. At that point, why even have a power level? Just eyeball your opponents collection and throw approx that many models on the table. Hell you don't even need to roll dice, whoever makes the loudest laser sounds wins that round of shooting. The better WAAAGGGHHH wins close combat.

There's a lot of people dropping comments about how the books are invalid after 6 months, but the only thing invalidated is the tourney pack? The crusade and campaign content isn't "removed" when the next one starts.

Can we stick to seasons and let points vs PL be its usual gakshow elsewhere?
Pretty sure there's an active thread about it.

 oni wrote:
It's gakky, but not surprising.

The current mission design is so horrible, so complete trash, and has created such a stale and unbalanced game that this is GW's shoot-from-the-hip answer to try and get players back to the table. After all, GW fuels itself off of player hope. Hope that the next time/thing will be better.

Mike Brandt = The New Matt Ward

A post so over the top that I'd call it comedy if I didn't know better.

 oni wrote:
It's gakky, but not surprising.

The current mission design is so horrible, so complete trash, and has created such a stale and unbalanced game that this is GW's shoot-from-the-hip answer to try and get players back to the table. After all, GW fuels itself off of player hope. Hope that the next time/thing will be better.

Mike Brandt = The New Matt Ward

I don’t think too highly of the last bit. Ward was just a fluff writer, working to spec. It’s well-known that GW wanted an Ultramarines codex out of the 5e Codex, but changed course mid-voyage to a generalist Space Marines codex. Hence stuff like the spiritual liege gak.

This plays into a warped perception of Ward. Do I think Grey Knights should be their own army? No. They don’t even have anti-tank, they’re so poorly designed. But that’s another convo entirely. The point is this - the Ward hate is a 4chan meme that saw it’s day in the sun and doesn’t need to be dragged up again.

 Toofast wrote:

Oh I know you guys exist, you're just the vast minority. Sure, points don't perfectly balance a game. Power level just does an even worse job because it doesn't distinguish between a squad with basic weapons and the same squad loaded up with melta or plasma guns.

lol, because points does a great job of preventing that right?

It's almost like points has resulted in a situation where plasma has become a de facto "it's always there for you" thing now...and maybe, just maybe the problem is plasma being too easily obtainable because of legacy rules being catered to for tourney players?

"Points suck for balance" is a valid argument but power level is even worse, it just caters to the players who don't care about balance. At that point, why even have a power level? Just eyeball your opponents collection and throw approx that many models on the table. Hell you don't even need to roll dice, whoever makes the loudest laser sounds wins that round of shooting. The better WAAAGGGHHH wins close combat.

Why even have points, just eyeball your opponent's list and call it for whoever has the more optimized list?

Frankly, pretending that people playing with Power "don't care about balance" is a bit disingenuous. Maybe "balance" isn't number-crunching things to the point of requiring spreadsheets to decide your next purchase but rather it's ensuring both players have a good time?

Crazy thought, I'm sure.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Maybe "balance" isn't number-crunching things to the point of requiring spreadsheets to decide your next purchase but rather it's ensuring both players have a good time?

How dare you ensure that a good time is had by both parties! If your opponent isn't leaving the game in tears you aren't having fun the right way.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I don't know why you're talking about Sisters.

New rules can be published on Warhammer Community and/or White dwarf not always in new books - no reason the new Marine figure rules could not be the same

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Toofast wrote:

Oh I know you guys exist, you're just the vast minority. Sure, points don't perfectly balance a game. Power level just does an even worse job because it doesn't distinguish between a squad with basic weapons and the same squad loaded up with melta or plasma guns.

lol, because points does a great job of preventing that right?

It's almost like points has resulted in a situation where plasma has become a de facto "it's always there for you" thing now...and maybe, just maybe the problem is plasma being too easily obtainable because of legacy rules being catered to for tourney players?

"Points suck for balance" is a valid argument but power level is even worse, it just caters to the players who don't care about balance. At that point, why even have a power level? Just eyeball your opponents collection and throw approx that many models on the table. Hell you don't even need to roll dice, whoever makes the loudest laser sounds wins that round of shooting. The better WAAAGGGHHH wins close combat.

Why even have points, just eyeball your opponent's list and call it for whoever has the more optimized list?

Frankly, pretending that people playing with Power "don't care about balance" is a bit disingenuous. Maybe "balance" isn't number-crunching things to the point of requiring spreadsheets to decide your next purchase but rather it's ensuring both players have a good time?

Crazy thought, I'm sure.

"Plasma is too easily obtainable. To fix that, let's make them free instead!" What a great idea, why didn't I think of that?

Folks, let's please move on from the points vs PL discussion.


As for the season thing, I would have preferred that we just get a year for the GT mission pack, unless they are going to be substantially different. The 20->21 had mostly secondary changes, but overall it wasn't substantial. While we know the new missions are going to have big changes, I am curious to see how big the changes will be with a 6 month rotation.

That being said, with us paying for points now every six month, I also think it means that we should have some better expectations on balance now. Quarterly dataslate changes and bi-yearly paid points updates means we shouldn't be in another Drukhari situation again.

I do think there is a lot of room here to do cool stuff with the missions specific to each "Warzone", but I'm not sure if we are going to see that or not.

 oni wrote:
Mike Brandt = The New Matt Ward

Let's not go overboard, oni. That comparison is deeply unfair...

...to Matt Ward.

It's bad enough GW are already charging us for points updates. Now that they plan to do it twice a year it seems like a bad joke. Every other game I can think of offers points and missions for free, often more frequently than GW. The current missions feel pretty samey already and GW have shown no inclination to change them radically. Charging for "new" ones twice a year is hardly a brilliant value proposition.

Then there's the fact we're still waiting for a lot of Codices and they're going to release a bunch of Warzone books before completing the Codex line up. I really couldn't care less about GW's attempts at a continuing story for 40k as it never seems to really impact any gameplay in a meaningful way and the quality of writing is usually mediocre at best.

This seems like nothing more than a blatant cash grab to me as the extra value is deeply questionable.

 Toofast wrote:

"Plasma is too easily obtainable. To fix that, let's make them free instead!" What a great idea, why didn't I think of that?

Oh sweet summer child, that wasn't what I said. But if it makes you feel better let me spell it out for you:

Plasma is a crutch. It needs to be cut down in its availability, dramatically, across Imperial factions. The stuff is supposed to be rare now. Guard Infantry Squads have zero reason to be toting them en masse. Scions shouldn't be able to rock as many of them as they can. Skitarii Rangers just flatout shouldn't have them (they're more of a fit for, y'know, Vanguard).

Cut Plasma Guns from Special Weapon lists. Give them their own slot in squad organization setups.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Screw it, more stuff is fun, it isn’t compulsory, and keeps the meta moving.

Putting aside that not everyone cares what the 'meta' is, you say that more stuff is fun? Chapter Approved used to be fun.

Chapter Approved used to not only be about errata and FAQs but also adding more interesting ways to play the game, new army lists, quirky ideas, putting in new scenarios and generally enhancing the game experience. Now Chapter Approved is a sterile wasteland of tournament rules (and mostly reprinted core rules). The fun has gone from CA. The creativity. The narrative. It’s just all tournaments all the time.

And we shouldn't have to pay for points updates. They should be in the free errata FAQs. If they're including the new points alongside the Chapter Approved books I can only surmise that it's because they're afraid that without them the CA book won't sell. If they made Chapter Approved more appealing to everyone, we wouldn't have that problem.

tneva82 wrote:
As gw won't invalidate models the story updates are just saturday cartoon level where bad guys get beaten but not killed and they retreat swearing "i'jl get you next time" and stalemate continues.

This is true.

Ghaz's last adventure saw him getting decapitated. He walked it off, probably whilst saying "Iz get yooz next time, Ragnar! Next time!".

 Kanluwen wrote:
Points are ABSOLUTE TRASH.

Oh man... not this nonsense again. Points are better than Power Levels. Power Levels are even worse at creating balance. I simply cannot fathom how anyone could see one as better than the other. They're both bad, but one is worse.

Love that this approach has finally been made formal. We can now plan for four boxed sets per year- two KT and two 40k. Excellent. Any degree of predictability to an annual release schedule alleviates a ton of anxiety.

For me, this is EXACTLY the approach a company needs to take in order to sustain a persistent edition. I've said it before: the experiments of 8th and 9th have been leading us in this direction for five years; this is an indicator to me that we have arrived. I HATE edition churn- it's been the bane of this game and this company since the eighties. I would SOOOO very much prefer buying 4 campaign books per year, every year forever to an entirely new set of dexes every three years forever.

Perhaps if I only played one army I might feel differently. But I have chosen to play and collect many small armies rather than one or two large ones in order to facilitate campaign play for a circle of friends who like the game, but not enough to invest in it.

As a Crusader, I think the badge system popularized in the first campaign books is cool- you fight a battle in the Zone, your army gets a "Badge" that allows that Crusade content to stick to them even once they leave that theatre of war. I can see my future armies being modelled by detachment to fit the campaign setting- so you look at the army and you can see a detachment with consistent basing, trophies and upgrades depicting the gains from that particular campaign, but a second detachment may include veterens of a different theatre.

Anyway, from my perspective, it looks like GW's roadmap for the edition was that all dexes were to have been rolled out by now so that the formalization of the seasons system would roll out clean, replacing the dex driven sales model. Very unfortunate that it didn't happen that way, because I do agree that combining this with dex releases is overwhelming, and the drip feed of dex releases imposed by the Covid/ shipping/ Brexit trifecta has created game imbalance between haves and have nots. Had they been able to maintain the 2 dex per month pace declared in October of 2020, the level of discontent for the edition, or at least for certain issues within the edition, would be far lower than it is.

It looks like the edition is locked in for all of 2022 at least; a season system isn't necessary if you aren't going to let the edition breathe long enough to contain a few seasons.

PenitentJake wrote:For me, this is EXACTLY the approach a company needs to take in order to sustain a persistent edition.

What? How did you even get there from the information presented? Why in the world would GW give up on their edition churn?

It looks like the edition is locked in for all of 2022 at least; a season system isn't necessary if you aren't going to let the edition breathe long enough to contain a few seasons.

Declaring they're doing warzones every six months is entirely edition agnostic.
In fact, they're declaring in advance that they're not even thinking in terms of long term support, they can literally set everything in a current warzone on fire in six months and not care, because a new 'season' is opening, and _that_ is what they'll support (briefly).

If persistence is what you want, this new model should _terrify_ you. Limited book runs, limited release runs, when things are gone they're gone, and no point in bringing it back because that's last month's gak, sales have dried up, forward, ever forward!

There is not a single thing to suggest they're going to drop the codex model, or not do a new edition. Its just a pipedream

It isn't a guarantee- it may have sounded like I was implying that- sorry to be unclear.

What I meant was that a season system facilitates the possibility of a persistent edition by providing a reliable framework of releases to drive model sales in the absence of Codex releases.

I DO believe we're locked in for 2022, but beyond that, we'll see. And sure, seasons can be edition agnostic, I suppose. But announcing their formal institution does suggest a move toward consistency, and I believe an edition shift prior to an adjustment period to effectively establish seasons would undermine any consistency presented by the system itself.

All speculation, of course.

 oni wrote:
It's gakky, but not surprising.

The current mission design is so horrible, so complete trash, and has created such a stale and unbalanced game that this is GW's shoot-from-the-hip answer to try and get players back to the table. After all, GW fuels itself off of player hope. Hope that the next time/thing will be better.

Mike Brandt = The New Matt Ward

What's the role of Mike in this bi-annual conspiracy?

Voss wrote:

PenitentJake wrote:For me, this is EXACTLY the approach a company needs to take in order to sustain a persistent edition.

What? How did you even get there from the information presented? Why in the world would GW give up on their edition churn?

It looks like the edition is locked in for all of 2022 at least; a season system isn't necessary if you aren't going to let the edition breathe long enough to contain a few seasons.

Declaring they're doing warzones every six months is entirely edition agnostic.
In fact, they're declaring in advance that they're not even thinking in terms of long term support, they can literally set everything in a current warzone on fire in six months and not care, because a new 'season' is opening, and _that_ is what they'll support (briefly).

If persistence is what you want, this new model should _terrify_ you. Limited book runs, limited release runs, when things are gone they're gone, and no point in bringing it back because that's last month's gak, sales have dried up, forward, ever forward!

There is not a single thing to suggest they're going to drop the codex model, or not do a new edition. Its just a pipedream

I agree completely on the bold part. But then again, I don't see how the previous things you mentions would be bad for the game.
I'm all for a game that is routinely balanced and refreshed by the release of new missions and point updates, at least it doesn't get stale.

My only gripe is receiving point updates in physical books, since they'd already be obsolete once the book is released.

 wuestenfux wrote:

 oni wrote:
It's gakky, but not surprising.

The current mission design is so horrible, so complete trash, and has created such a stale and unbalanced game that this is GW's shoot-from-the-hip answer to try and get players back to the table. After all, GW fuels itself off of player hope. Hope that the next time/thing will be better.

Mike Brandt = The New Matt Ward

What's the role of Mike in this bi-annual conspiracy?

Mission design, as mentioned in the second paragraph, if I'm not mistaken.

These seasons are just another reason why I feel no need to return to 40k.

Stop making your rules worth less than the paper they're printed on. Stop focusing on army building aura buffing scheneigans, and start returning the game to one that's actually you know, a war game.

Oh wait, But the META!

feth off with this meta gak, and maybe you wouldn't need to sell new point values every 6 months?

 wuestenfux wrote:

 oni wrote:
It's gakky, but not surprising.

The current mission design is so horrible, so complete trash, and has created such a stale and unbalanced game that this is GW's shoot-from-the-hip answer to try and get players back to the table. After all, GW fuels itself off of player hope. Hope that the next time/thing will be better.

Mike Brandt = The New Matt Ward

What's the role of Mike in this bi-annual conspiracy?

Mike is responsible for managing the competitive and tournament facing aspect of the hobby, such as as tournament mission packs which are now biannual.

Dudeface wrote:

 wuestenfux wrote:

 oni wrote:
It's gakky, but not surprising.

The current mission design is so horrible, so complete trash, and has created such a stale and unbalanced game that this is GW's shoot-from-the-hip answer to try and get players back to the table. After all, GW fuels itself off of player hope. Hope that the next time/thing will be better.

Mike Brandt = The New Matt Ward

What's the role of Mike in this bi-annual conspiracy?

Mike is responsible for managing the competitive and tournament facing aspect of the hobby, such as as tournament mission packs which are now biannual.

It's certainly a paid job.
As a biologist he came from a much different angle.

 Aenar wrote:

Voss wrote:

PenitentJake wrote:For me, this is EXACTLY the approach a company needs to take in order to sustain a persistent edition.

What? How did you even get there from the information presented? Why in the world would GW give up on their edition churn?

It looks like the edition is locked in for all of 2022 at least; a season system isn't necessary if you aren't going to let the edition breathe long enough to contain a few seasons.

Declaring they're doing warzones every six months is entirely edition agnostic.
In fact, they're declaring in advance that they're not even thinking in terms of long term support, they can literally set everything in a current warzone on fire in six months and not care, because a new 'season' is opening, and _that_ is what they'll support (briefly).

If persistence is what you want, this new model should _terrify_ you. Limited book runs, limited release runs, when things are gone they're gone, and no point in bringing it back because that's last month's gak, sales have dried up, forward, ever forward!

There is not a single thing to suggest they're going to drop the codex model, or not do a new edition. Its just a pipedream

I agree completely on the bold part. But then again, I don't see how the previous things you mentions would be bad for the game.
I'm all for a game that is routinely balanced and refreshed by the release of new missions and point updates, at least it doesn't get stale.

My only gripe is receiving point updates in physical books, since they'd already be obsolete once the book is released.

Its not the missions that makes 40k stale, its the bland rules, excessive book keeping and bloat that does that.
Also updating points and FAQs isn't a problem either, its that they're charging for it thats the problem. And again, if it was part of their subscription service we wouldn't even be discussing it, its the fact that they'll charge £/€/$50 every 6 months for the privilege that people have issue with. Thats without even getting into the discussion about whether or not its even worth balancing the game with points when it would be better overall to balance stats and special rules to match the points.

PenitentJake wrote:
Love that this approach has finally been made formal. We can now plan for four boxed sets per year- two KT and two 40k. Excellent. Any degree of predictability to an annual release schedule alleviates a ton of anxiety.

For me, this is EXACTLY the approach a company needs to take in order to sustain a persistent edition. I've said it before: the experiments of 8th and 9th have been leading us in this direction for five years; this is an indicator to me that we have arrived. I HATE edition churn- it's been the bane of this game and this company since the eighties. I would SOOOO very much prefer buying 4 campaign books per year, every year forever to an entirely new set of dexes every three years forever.

Uuh...you realize gw won't stop pressing print money that is new edition?

These are in addition to new editions.

40k 10th edition 2023.

tneva82 wrote:
40k 10th edition 2023.

by now I am sure we see 10th in 2022

 kodos wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
40k 10th edition 2023.

by now I am sure we see 10th in 2022

I wouldn't be surprised if they do this, but I will be saddened and disappointed.

Not every codex will be updated by December 2022, I don't think. We already have reliable rumors through may of next year.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 kodos wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
40k 10th edition 2023.

by now I am sure we see 10th in 2022

I wouldn't be surprised if they do this, but I will be saddened and disappointed.

Not every codex will be updated by December 2022, I don't think. We already have reliable rumors through may of next year.

was there ever an Edition were every Codex was updated before the next one hit the shelf?
and just because there are rumours for new Codex books in May, does not mean a new Edition is released in June

 kodos wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 kodos wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
40k 10th edition 2023.

by now I am sure we see 10th in 2022

I wouldn't be surprised if they do this, but I will be saddened and disappointed.

Not every codex will be updated by December 2022, I don't think. We already have reliable rumors through may of next year.

was there ever an Edition were every Codex was updated before the next one hit the shelf?
and just because there are rumours for new Codex books in May, does not mean a new Edition is released in June

8th.

Yeah that was the promise of the "nuGW" that people coming back after the catastrophe of 7th believed in.

It appeared that GW had genuinely changed.

 Sim-Life wrote:

 kodos wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 kodos wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
40k 10th edition 2023.

by now I am sure we see 10th in 2022

I wouldn't be surprised if they do this, but I will be saddened and disappointed.

Not every codex will be updated by December 2022, I don't think. We already have reliable rumors through may of next year.

was there ever an Edition were every Codex was updated before the next one hit the shelf?
and just because there are rumours for new Codex books in May, does not mean a new Edition is released in June

8th.

And 3rd.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 kodos wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
40k 10th edition 2023.

by now I am sure we see 10th in 2022

I wouldn't be surprised if they do this, but I will be saddened and disappointed.

Not every codex will be updated by December 2022, I don't think. We already have reliable rumors through may of next year.

We know from history that GW released a new edition before all codices have been updated.
Wouldn't be a surprise if they do so.

 Platuan4th wrote:


[/spoiler]

 Sim-Life wrote:

 kodos wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 kodos wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
40k 10th edition 2023.

by now I am sure we see 10th in 2022

I wouldn't be surprised if they do this, but I will be saddened and disappointed.

Not every codex will be updated by December 2022, I don't think. We already have reliable rumors through may of next year.

was there ever an Edition were every Codex was updated before the next one hit the shelf?
and just because there are rumours for new Codex books in May, does not mean a new Edition is released in June

8th.

[/spoiler]

And 3rd.

Maybe?

I say that because the design of Hunter/ Inquisition books seemed to imply that there was a plan for Alien Hunters, which never happened.

But maybe they only planned to release two of the three Ordos out of the gate, I don't know. What I do know is that their failure to release an Alien Hunter dex was my biggest complaint about 3rd.

I like the idea of the Seasons, keeping a theme to play in. On face value, that's pretty cool.

I won't need to buy the campaign/cursade book (unless it's applicable for my army). Usually, I've enjoyed reading the campaign books I've read.

I really like having a physical chapter approved book, and I do like how the book is bound/formatted and the content. not fussed buying two of those a year. I would be happy if it was cheaper and the points manual wasn't included, and was a free PDF on the community site. The points manual is such a waste of paper.

chaos0xomega wrote:
I think the timing of it is a response to consumer feedback on that survey from a few months back. Overwhelmingly, based on the chatter I saw on dakka, facebook groups, twitter, etc. it seemed most people thought 6 months was the optimal frequency for "balance updates" in response to the questions posed in the survey. I think it follows that they listened to what the people want and decided to move ahead with a 6 month season based on that.

Which is almost certainly not what anyone wanted lol. They wanted balance updates, not stuff they had to buy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kanluwen wrote:
I have zero interest in Points. Points are ABSOLUTE TRASH. They're a false sense of balance. They also encourage the absolute dumpsterfire that is the faux-comp scene, which basically amounts to copy/paste tourney lists.

They're a better sense of balance than Power.

But you seem to steer away from games and game systems with a focus on balance.

These so called seasons are a way for gw to manipulate the availability of units through passing narrative, introducing new units with rules supported by their effectiveness in a current theater, and ideally explaining why for instance wave serpents might go up in points, because they had been overused due to high availability and effectiveness (I.e. low points cost and op serpent shield nonsense etc) with the result being that most have been damaged or destroyed, in need of repair, so now forces should pay more to requisition them with perhaps a limit on how many may be used. These seasons also reinforce the idea of a comp meta driving innovative play at top levels (not a fan of so called competitive 40k but also not one to judge how people want to spend their time) and should allow gw to manipulate that meta, drive sluggish unit sales and all that bizniz.

That said, not for me. Prohammer, oldhammer, yada… that is my ticket to the future. Unless 10th does something to stabilize the system, return to wargame sim RPG roots, my personal hope is that this whole market driven meta sales campaign that gw is calling seasons will flop.

 jeff white wrote:
These so called seasons are a way for gw to manipulate the availability of units through passing narrative, introducing new units with rules supported by their effectiveness in a current theater, and ideally explaining why for instance wave serpents might go up in points, because they had been overused due to high availability and effectiveness (I.e. low points cost and op serpent shield nonsense etc) with the result being that most have been damaged or destroyed, in need of repair, so now forces should pay more to requisition them with perhaps a limit on how many may be used. These seasons also reinforce the idea of a comp meta driving innovative play at top levels (not a fan of so called competitive 40k but also not one to judge how people want to spend their time) and should allow gw to manipulate that meta, drive sluggish unit sales and all that bizniz.

That said, not for me. Prohammer, oldhammer, yada… that is my ticket to the future. Unless 10th does something to stabilize the system, return to wargame sim RPG roots, my personal hope is that this whole market driven meta sales campaign that gw is calling seasons will flop.

I think you've hit on something interesting: the impact of Seasons definitely has different effects for Crusade and Matched.

Matched, of course, has to deal with meta in some way shape or form- I'm no expert in Matched play, and I'll leave it to others to figure out whether scheduling and normalizing balance updates at a biannual pace is good or bad. It sounds like most people aren't objecting to that, they're objecting to the cost.

Crusade is a bit different though- that stuff has to be story based. The Crusade mission pack/ campaign book combos we've seen so far have presented some story based mechanic- grudge points, planet-strike, investigation points, three player scenarios etc. And then of course, all of the specific Agendas, Battle Honours, relics etc. Some have suggested that these become "invalidated" at the end of the season- so far, that hasn't really been the case; completing a battle in the theatre marks your army as a veteran force from that theatre, and this status allows you to keep your gains, or trade them for others from the next theatre as you see fit.

Even in Crusade, you're right that they can use rules to drive unit selection/ boost sales etc. And while Armies of Renown aren't exclusively a feature of Crusade, they can be used that way. These would be the most likely mechanism for driving model sales.

Interesting as well that you mention simulation and RPG in the same sentence; I personally find the two to be opposites of each other- I certainly get an RPG feel from Crusade, but I feel that most would argue that this detracts from the simulation feel of more conventional wargames.

Edit: I agree with HBMC that the content from the campaign book and the crusade mission pack could and should be merged. Heck, you could probably merge the GT pack too, but if you did, some people would object because they are exclusively matched players and they don't want the campaign stuff- just the tourney updates.

I’m really excited about this!

The rigidity of a Seasons model, on a regular scheduled basis, opens up a ton more freedom for iteration and development for matched/narrative meta long form play.

At the moment, each FAQ or Chapter Approved represents a ‘final version’ (both psychologically in the player base, and practically in terms of army investment), which encourages conservative/cautious, minor changes. With a seasonal model, with changes known to be imminent on a part-year basis, these changes can be made a bit more optimistically with less caution-if they don’t work.

sieGermans wrote:
I’m really excited about this!

The rigidity of a Seasons model, on a regular scheduled basis, opens up a ton more freedom for iteration and development for matched/narrative meta long form play.

If you truly believe that's what GW are going to do with the "season" approach I have a bridge I want to sell you. That's quite apart from the fact they'll be charging us double for the privilege now too.

Slipspace wrote:

sieGermans wrote:
I’m really excited about this!

The rigidity of a Seasons model, on a regular scheduled basis, opens up a ton more freedom for iteration and development for matched/narrative meta long form play.

If you truly believe that's what GW are going to do with the "season" approach I have a bridge I want to sell you. That's quite apart from the fact they'll be charging us double for the privilege now too.

Why couldn't they? They've adjusted missions multiple times already. As the game continues to develop this gives them an outlet to address issues.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Slipspace wrote:

sieGermans wrote:
I’m really excited about this!

The rigidity of a Seasons model, on a regular scheduled basis, opens up a ton more freedom for iteration and development for matched/narrative meta long form play.

If you truly believe that's what GW are going to do with the "season" approach I have a bridge I want to sell you. That's quite apart from the fact they'll be charging us double for the privilege now too.

Why couldn't they? They've adjusted missions multiple times already. As the game continues to develop this gives them an outlet to address issues.

Because their business model relies on change for the sake of change. If they somehow magically got the game to an absolutely perfect state in which no more changes would be necessary they'd change it to make it worse because otherwise they couldn't sell you new books.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Slipspace wrote:

sieGermans wrote:
I’m really excited about this!

The rigidity of a Seasons model, on a regular scheduled basis, opens up a ton more freedom for iteration and development for matched/narrative meta long form play.

If you truly believe that's what GW are going to do with the "season" approach I have a bridge I want to sell you. That's quite apart from the fact they'll be charging us double for the privilege now too.

Why couldn't they? They've adjusted missions multiple times already. As the game continues to develop this gives them an outlet to address issues.

I didn't say they couldn't. I expressed extreme doubt that they will, backed up by experience of the mission packs so far. TBF, I did accidentally delete the second half of the quote that mentions making bigger changes, which is mainly what I'm sceptical of. If GW were to take a radically different direction at some point to start a new season, experience also suggests the balance will be virtually non-existent until they iterate on that concept about 6 times, before promptly changing to something else.

But, like, that’s what people said for like 5 editions until 8th... which has shown a marked improvement to both balance, enjoyability, and FAQ/amendments schedules. If you look at how 8th was better (aside from the Index ‘reset’ which put all armies at an even keel):

1. Regular Chapter Approved release schedule (read: rules updates, points adjustments)
2. Better/more communication

This ‘Seasons’ thing is both!

It’s not guaranteed to be perfect, nor better—but it’s definitely a cost-investment from GW.

sieGermans wrote:
But, like, that’s what people said for like 5 editions until 8th... which has shown a marked improvement to both balance, enjoyability, and FAQ/amendments schedules. If you look at how 8th was better (aside from the Index ‘reset’ which put all armies at an even keel):

1. Regular Chapter Approved release schedule (read: rules updates, points adjustments)

Supposedly we were getting those anyway.

2. Better/more communication
This ‘Seasons’ thing is both!

Eh? Aside from 'this is definitely twice a year (until we have to push back a release date),' where is the more/better communication promised?

It’s not guaranteed to be perfect, nor better—but it’s definitely a cost-investment from GW.

How so? Quite seriously, how is this costing them anything more? They did warzones, mission packs, crusade packs and etc this year too.

Voss wrote:

2. Better/more communication
This ‘Seasons’ thing is both!

Eh? Aside from 'this is definitely twice a year (until we have to push back a release date),' where is the more/better communication promised?

It’s not guaranteed to be perfect, nor better—but it’s definitely a cost-investment from GW.

How so? Quite seriously, how is this costing them anything more? They did warzones, mission packs, crusade packs and etc this year too.

I don't want to speak for SieGermans, but I think it's about commitment. You're right Voss- there's no additional monetary investment on GW's behalf- we got everything this year that two seasons promises us for next. But the commitment is an investment in the future, and the details of the season system take a lot of anxiety out the year. We know exactly what we're getting: are you a KT player? Two vs. boxes, one for each campaign. Are you a 40k player? Two vs. boxes, one for each campaign.

Do you play Matched? Two GT packs and point updates per year, one per season- each informed by the tournament scene and metawatching of the previous six months. Like a particular secondary from season one? Well, in season two, you might not be playing it an official event, but casually with your mates? No reason you have to stop just because the season's over.

Do you play Crusade? Well strap in- there's two campaign books and two mission packs per season. You don't NEED any of these, strictly speaking, so it's best to check Goonhammer before you buy. There might even be some stuff Matched players want in a campaign book every now and again, but any new rule content is generally going to just be a sub-faction supplement or two and an army of renown or two, so really it's a crap shoot.

And it's incredibly consistent and predictable. You know how to budget, what to expect and when to expect it.

Now of course, there are caveats: the two campaign books and two crusade mission packs per season- that's my speculation based on 2021; GW hasn't actually confirmed that. Also, the Codex release cycle, unfortunately isn't wrapped up like it would have been if this Covid/ shipping crisis/ Brexit trifecta hadn't kicked the world in the gonads, meaning that there is still a degree of unpredictability to the year. And finally, as you pointed out, those three crises aren't actually over, so they do have the capacity to interfere with best laid plans for 2022 as much as they did in 2021.

But it is a clearer and more concise roadmap than we had at this time last year. And here's hoping that they get it right, and that it continues in 2023. There is an implication that this is what they are planning.

sieGermans wrote:
But, like, that’s what people said for like 5 editions until 8th... which has shown a marked improvement to both balance, enjoyability, and FAQ/amendments schedules. If you look at how 8th was better (aside from the Index ‘reset’ which put all armies at an even keel):

1. Regular Chapter Approved release schedule (read: rules updates, points adjustments)
2. Better/more communication

This ‘Seasons’ thing is both!

It’s not guaranteed to be perfect, nor better—but it’s definitely a cost-investment from GW.

If you zoop back to 6e-era me and told me "Good news! In the future things are going to be much, much more broken out of the gate, but GW's going to tone them down six months after release so they're only slightly more broken, but only if you buy periodic rules update books!" I really don't think I'd have thought that was what I was asking for.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

sieGermans wrote:
But, like, that’s what people said for like 5 editions until 8th... which has shown a marked improvement to both balance, enjoyability, and FAQ/amendments schedules. If you look at how 8th was better (aside from the Index ‘reset’ which put all armies at an even keel):

1. Regular Chapter Approved release schedule (read: rules updates, points adjustments)
2. Better/more communication

This ‘Seasons’ thing is both!

It’s not guaranteed to be perfect, nor better—but it’s definitely a cost-investment from GW.

If you zoop back to 6e-era me and told me "Good news! In the future things are going to be much, much more broken out of the gate, but GW's going to tone them down six months after release so they're only slightly more broken, but only if you buy periodic rules update books!" I really don't think I'd have thought that was what I was asking for.

But what if we also told you that this would be the best way to forge the narrative?

 Sledgehammer wrote:
These seasons are just another reason why I feel no need to return to 40k.

Stop making your rules worth less than the paper they're printed on. Stop focusing on army building aura buffing scheneigans, and start returning the game to one that's actually you know, a war game.

Oh wait, But the META!

feth off with this meta gak, and maybe you wouldn't need to sell new point values every 6 months?

Literally anyone who doesn't compete doesn't need these, and even then most of it is online on multiple sites within days of releasing.

The rest of us who love the meta and competitive 40k, we know this stuff is coming, and we look forward to it.

The idea that this invalidates anything is ridiculous. You're welcome to play the game however you want, but for many of us the meta is extremely important. So are new editions with new rulles.

The game becomes stale without it, much like WFB is outside of unofficial content.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 kodos wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
40k 10th edition 2023.

by now I am sure we see 10th in 2022

No. It will be summer 2023 at the earliest. We might see it extend to early 2024 because covid set everything back.

People who think getting new editions suck probably don't play WFB. I'd do anything for an official 9th edition (on top of TOW). The game would become incredibly stale without new editions and mission packs.

And like I said above, complaining about having to buy it for points values is incredibly disingenuous, as the values are ALL online by the day it launches.

If you aren't a tournament player just skip it. Most gaming clubs just buy one between them for the new missions. Us tournament players are quite happy to get new missions and new strategies to play.

I play a lot of games that don't change for the sake of change every 6 months, and they still work, are fun and never became stale

always playing the very same list with the very same scenario against the very same opponent is stale, and without official changes there is of course nothing you can do about it

that you need to be forced by a company to change your game, tells a lot about how well GW marketing works
(just imagine every tournament/event having their own scenario pack that changes each time, without any official support from the company, 3rd to 5th Edi events must have been really stale and boring without the "official" stamp on them)

I guess this is also why real time strategy is stale if there are no changes every few weeks, play 1 game and all others games after that are just the same

PS: I even cannot imagine how stale chess tournaments are, same rules for decades, same scenario, same factions, just different players
I how could that tournament scene survive without bi-annual season that changes how the rules work

Slipspace wrote:
It's bad enough GW are already charging us for points updates.

They aren't; no matter how much this gets repeated, the current points alterations are available via tye Warhammer Community site for free.

There is plenty to scrutinise in here, but pounds-for-points isn't one of them.

I would like to see your source for that statement. As far as I can remember point updates (except for very minor things) have never been posted for free on the community page.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
I would like to see your source for that statement. As far as I can remember point updates (except for very minor things) have never been posted for free on the community page.

2021 was cause Covid. But I don't believe they said they would always be free online.

Catulle wrote:

Slipspace wrote:
It's bad enough GW are already charging us for points updates.

They aren't; no matter how much this gets repeated, the current points alterations are available via tye Warhammer Community site for free.

There is plenty to scrutinise in here, but pounds-for-points isn't one of them.

Substantiate your claim with a link.

Cause no one here lives in your dimension.

Balance database is here: https://www.warhammer-community.com/downloads/

Codex and MFM Errata here: https://www.warhammer-community.com/faqs/

Note that the MFM-introduced points changes are reflected in, e.g. the Drukhari Codex errata (I freely admit I've not pored through everything) but it's always been available within a short window of any alterations.

There is room for complaint re timeliness and appropriate indexing, sure, but I don't think the sky is falling on that particular front.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I will add that I do feel that the MFM is a waste of carbon and ought to be replaced by a "living" document online, but that isn't what keeps being asserted.

They're not giving out the points changes for free. They gave out two armies as part of a balance sheet as they were needed. It was done as an emergency.

You think the new points coming with this first 'season' will be free?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
They're not giving out the points changes for free. They gave out two armies as part of a balance sheet as they were needed. It was done as an emergency.

You think the new points coming with this first 'season' will be free?

I do, honestly.

Avatar-bet?

If you own your codex and register it in the app, the points update there for free.

Literally the only person being stung for points changes are people who want a paper copy, if you pirated a book initially, odds are you'd do the same with points as a guess.

Catulle wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
They're not giving out the points changes for free. They gave out two armies as part of a balance sheet as they were needed. It was done as an emergency.

You think the new points coming with this first 'season' will be free?

I do, honestly.

Avatar-bet?

They’re quite literally selling them in a book.

 JohnnyHell wrote:

Catulle wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
They're not giving out the points changes for free. They gave out two armies as part of a balance sheet as they were needed. It was done as an emergency.

You think the new points coming with this first 'season' will be free?

I do, honestly.

Avatar-bet?

They’re quite literally selling them in a book.

Which clearly means the errata will never be updated again..?

Like I say, it's a waste to print the MFM, though I reckon the cost-benefit's been done and the tourney crowd are sufficiently invested that they'll grumble then buy the damn thing anyway.

Catulle wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
They're not giving out the points changes for free. They gave out two armies as part of a balance sheet as they were needed. It was done as an emergency.

You think the new points coming with this first 'season' will be free?

I do, honestly.

Avatar-bet?

Resident "white knight" here - they will not be free.

The free one was an aberration based on circumstances.

Since they're advertising the next one as a book (and the one after that by extrapolation of the whole '2 per year' announcement)... no, it will not be free. It will be bundled with the GT missions, same as it was before this year's hiccup.

Just as a minor aside:

The idea that wargame rules become "stale" if they aren't reconfigured every 6 months is laughable.

I don't see "balance dataslates" for Chess.

The only reason for this is to sell things, and if the game does indeed get stale without a seasonal reset... maybe it isn't actually that good of a core game design?

40k has one quintillion MORE things going on than chess, but apparently gets "stale" if left to settle for 6 months without getting hit with a brick. Hmm.

It is too much in my opinion, I do support GW creating content with an expiration date, but it should be 12 months and not in an expensive hardcover book. I also wonder how many seasons we'll go through before GW realise they don't have enough information to make any changes since last update and end up printing the same book as last time with some cosmetic differences. The last mission update felt half-finished with the lack of updates to mission secondaries and I do not like the upcoming changes to mission secondaries so I do not want to support the product. Points are still not in a great place and I doubt more printed books will fix the issue, online updates can be released to quickly deal with current issues, printed books deal with old issues. My expectations are just too low for GW to manage a 2 CA 4 Dataslate per year release schedule.

 kodos wrote:
not buying the rules but still playing the game to make a point is pretty much useless as it does not change anything

It decreases GW profits on the product, less profitable products are less likely to continue. It is also cheaper to just borrow the book so you can spend more on the products you approve of, like new Necron Characters like the Plasmancer or Chronomancer. I do think it is a big mistake when people mention Wahapedia on a public forum, it is going to get too big and then GW is going to make the developer's life difficult.

 oni wrote:
It's gakky, but not surprising.

The current mission design is so horrible, so complete trash, and has created such a stale and unbalanced game that this is GW's shoot-from-the-hip answer to try and get players back to the table. After all, GW fuels itself off of player hope. Hope that the next time/thing will be better.

Mike Brandt = The New Matt Ward

What game are you talking about? 40k does not have a stale meta, it changes every couple of months because of a new OP codex or the old OP codex getting a nerf. The current missions are fantastic and engaging, when a GT mission game is boring it is usually because of dice or pts being out of wack from my experience.

The 5e Necron Codex was a lot more innovative and evocative than the 7e version was and both were about equally unbalanced and I much prefer Newcron lore. Matt Ward absolutely made some stupidly OP books, but balance comes down to testing and points. "Matt Ward is bad at guesstimating points" is not a very damning statement, "GW refuses to put effort into testing their games" is. Whether you like fluff is more subjective, remembering the bad is just a lot easier than remembering the okay or good stuff.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Toofast wrote:

"Plasma is too easily obtainable. To fix that, let's make them free instead!" What a great idea, why didn't I think of that?

Oh sweet summer child, that wasn't what I said. But if it makes you feel better let me spell it out for you:

Plasma is a crutch. It needs to be cut down in its availability, dramatically, across Imperial factions. The stuff is supposed to be rare now. Guard Infantry Squads have zero reason to be toting them en masse. Scions shouldn't be able to rock as many of them as they can. Skitarii Rangers just flatout shouldn't have them (they're more of a fit for, y'know, Vanguard).

Cut Plasma Guns from Special Weapon lists. Give them their own slot in squad organization setups.

Plasma is not a problem in competitive 40k or in casual 40k using pts.

 Sledgehammer wrote:
These seasons are just another reason why I feel no need to return to 40k.

Why return to the 40k General Discussion forum on Dakka? Why should GW cater to someone who does not play and who has plenty of reasons to not return? More frequent updates was a pretty frequent answer in the last questionnaire GW sent out and guess what, they did not give a flying squig about people that have not played 9th.

lol, plasma absolutely is a problem.

It's why Skitarii lost their ability to triple up on special weapons.
It's why they restricted Command Squads to 1 per Officer.
It's why they literally added two separate point costs for the stupid gun in Guard.

But yes. Say again that plasma isn't a problem. I could use a good chuckle.

Dudeface wrote:
If you own your codex and register it in the app, the points update there for free.

Literally the only person being stung for points changes are people who want a paper copy, if you pirated a book initially, odds are you'd do the same with points as a guess.

If you have to pay for something to get the points update, ie the app, it isn't free.

Tresson wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
If you own your codex and register it in the app, the points update there for free.

Literally the only person being stung for points changes are people who want a paper copy, if you pirated a book initially, odds are you'd do the same with points as a guess.

If you have to pay for something to get the points update, ie the app, it isn't free.

You don't need to pay to access your unit entries in the app.

 Kanluwen wrote:
lol, plasma absolutely is a problem.

It's why Skitarii lost their ability to triple up on special weapons.
It's why they restricted Command Squads to 1 per Officer.
It's why they literally added two separate point costs for the stupid gun in Guard.

But yes. Say again that plasma isn't a problem. I could use a good chuckle.

Plasma Command Squads have not been competitive in 9th you little chuckle Daemon. Why do you even care? You don't use points, you can just take whichever weapon has the best profile, so if plasma guns get nerfed you will just take the next-best weapon and you don't have to evaluate anything based on cost-effectiveness and army synergy because it has the same cost anyway and you just take as many weapons as possible.

Gee-golly-willickers, why would anyone care about substantial changes being made to their codices in the name of "balance" when it's really just being done as a knee-jerk to metachasing goons?



You'll notice, by the by, that of those 3 bits I mentioned? Literally only one has to deal with points.

Changing the Skitarii loadouts literally forces army-wide changes to the setup of the units players take.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Gee-golly-willickers, why would anyone care about substantial changes being made to their codices in the name of "balance" when it's really just being done as a knee-jerk to metachasing goons?



You'll notice, by the by, that of those 3 bits I mentioned? Literally only one has to deal with points.

Changing the Skitarii loadouts literally forces army-wide changes to the setup of the units players take.

Skitarii took 3 plasma guns because it was pts-efficient, Command Squads were more pts-efficient to transport than Veterans because 10 Veterans could have fewer plasma guns than 3 Command Squads. Skitarii lost the ability to spam plasma because the bits are not available in the box to make enough plasma to spam it. The Command Squad change was made at least in part because it was not thematic or historic that Command Squads were taken in excess of how many Commanders you had.

For anyone who genuinely believed the 40k metagame was stale, I suggest perusing the battle reporting for the last year on Goonhammer--there were tons of variations and iterations in lists within the top-tier armies with quite a bit of metagame interplay.

What I think people mean when they say 'stale' is that the Factions aren't balanced (they aren't) and that there are a number of nearly auto-pick units within certain armies (there are) which leads to high and low level repetition.

Any reasonably balanced game of high complexity will always have this--it isn't a failing of the game it's a feature (if present to reasonable degrees). [Note the caveat about 'reasonable'--I freely admit this is sort of a weasely 'No true Scotsman', which isn't intended but unavoidable]

As an example: Chasing the idea that there is some ideal army composition for a given meta, 'that just hasn't been discovered yet!' is a key driver for a lot of players (it certainly sparks loads of interesting debate in the Tactics sections).

 Kanluwen wrote:
It's why Skitarii lost their ability to triple up on special weapons.

Losing access to triple plasma in Skitarii squads had nothing to do with the rules and everything to do with GW restriction weapon options based upon what comes in the kit. Don't try to pretend otherwise.

 Kanluwen wrote:
It's why they restricted Command Squads to 1 per Officer.

Did it make any sense that Command Squads sans officers would be floating around?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Just as a minor aside:

The idea that wargame rules become "stale" if they aren't reconfigured every 6 months is laughable.

I don't see "balance dataslates" for Chess.

The only reason for this is to sell things, and if the game does indeed get stale without a seasonal reset... maybe it isn't actually that good of a core game design?

40k has one quintillion MORE things going on than chess, but apparently gets "stale" if left to settle for 6 months without getting hit with a brick. Hmm.

It is like the rule books themselves were squirming, multiplying… confirming my suspicion of heresy and an infestation of chaos filth in GW headquarters. Starve the beast. Get it to stop moving. Then burn it. I could do with some “staleness”.

 vict0988 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Gee-golly-willickers, why would anyone care about substantial changes being made to their codices in the name of "balance" when it's really just being done as a knee-jerk to metachasing goons?



You'll notice, by the by, that of those 3 bits I mentioned? Literally only one has to deal with points.

Changing the Skitarii loadouts literally forces army-wide changes to the setup of the units players take.

Skitarii took 3 plasma guns because it was pts-efficient, Skitarii lost the ability to spam plasma because the bits are not available in the box to make enough plasma to spam it.

This is a garbage argument. You've got two units (Rangers and Vanguard) that are built from the same kit. One of those units(Rangers) benefitted greatly from one weapon when first introduced (the Arquebi) while not benefitting from the other two because of range bands and unit rules while the other benefitted more from the other two weapons (Vanguard with Arc and Plasma Calivers).

It literally has nothing to do with "the bits are not available in the box to make enough X to spam it". They doubled the maximum unit size from 10 to 20, doubled the number of maximum specials from 3 to 6, and doubled the capacity for you to take Omnispex and Data-Tethers.

It has everything to do with invalidating previous builds. It has everything to do with some of the playtesters still having axes to grind over that stupid War Convocation dumpsterfire.

It also has everything to do with the design team of late really not knowing where to go with the Mechanicus. It's obvious they don't know how to properly balance the combined codices. It's obvious as well that they don't know how to actually write a book anyways.

Command Squads were more pts-efficient to transport than Veterans because 10 Veterans could have fewer plasma guns than 3 Command Squads. The Command Squad change was made at least in part because it was not thematic or historic that Command Squads were taken in excess of how many Commanders you had.

The change was made to curtail the trash being down early in 8E with the allied detachments. You'd see cheapo Psykers and then Scion Command Squads DSing in with full plasma.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
They're not giving out the points changes for free. They gave out two armies as part of a balance sheet as they were needed. It was done as an emergency.

You think the new points coming with this first 'season' will be free?

I mean, it will absolutely be free online in all the exact places everyone gets them now. Wahapedia and Battlesscribe, so this whole line is a bit disingenuous. Nobody is buying these for points. There are no rules in these books that aren't available easily elsewhere. We buy them because those of us who compete want them. Theres no reason for narrative players to buy anything they choose not to, but the new missions are there to play if you want them.

 Kanluwen wrote:
lol, plasma absolutely is a problem.

It's why Skitarii lost their ability to triple up on special weapons.
It's why they restricted Command Squads to 1 per Officer.
It's why they literally added two separate point costs for the stupid gun in Guard.

But yes. Say again that plasma isn't a problem. I could use a good chuckle.

If those things have been fixed then sure, plasma WAS a problem. But right now it's not.

 Kanluwen wrote:
It literally has nothing to do with "the bits are not available in the box to make enough X to spam it". They doubled the maximum unit size from 10 to 20, doubled the number of maximum specials from 3 to 6, and doubled the capacity for you to take Omnispex and Data-Tethers.

It's literally the only reason it happened, because it happened to at least one if not multiple units in every Codex, with their restrictions changing (or being written to exactly match) the weapons available in the kit.

 vict0988 wrote:
schedule.

 kodos wrote:
not buying the rules but still playing the game to make a point is pretty much useless as it does not change anything

It decreases GW profits on the product, less profitable products are less likely to continue. It is also cheaper to just borrow the book so you can spend more on the products you approve of, like new Necron Characters like the Plasmancer or Chronomancer. I do think it is a big mistake when people mention Wahapedia on a public forum, it is going to get too big and then GW is going to make the developer's life difficult.

I know a lot of people who would stop playing if they had to pay for the rules, and GW knows that they need a core of "free" players to have a community to get the "whales" started

This does not hurt GW as their profit comes not from veterans who play and by a new unit from time to time but from new people who buy everything to have a 2k army to play with those guys and buy more to keep up with the meta

We have seen what happened with Warhammer if people just play but no new "whales" come in
GW changes the System to get them again, 8th 40k was similar although not a hard background reset it still was a big reset to start over

As long as the free player base get in enough paying players, no matter how bad the game is (and needing a reset every 6 months means it is really bad by now), GW will continue with the current business model

For those who keep wanting to come at me with the "iT's WhAt iS iN tHe BoX!1!" nonsense...

You're wrong.
You know how I know you're wrong?

Because the wording for the Data-Tether and Omnispex options are not this level of convoluted nonsense:

Page 98 – Militarum Tempestus Command Squad,
Wargear Options
Change the first and second bullet points to read:
‘• One model may either replace its hot-shot lasgun with a hot-shot laspistol and a vox-caster, or take a hot-shot laspistol and
a vox-caster in addition to their hot-shot lasgun.
• One other model may either replace its hot-shot lasgun with a
hot-shot laspistol and a medi-pack, or take a hot-shot laspistol
and a medi-pack in addition to their hot-shot lasgun.’

The simple(and correct) answer is and always will be that this garbage was balance related nonsense. You know why?

Because at 9 or less models, you get one special and one option of Data-Tether or Omnispex...yet somehow going up to 10 models(meaning: adding anywhere from 1 to 5 models) triples the number of specials.
Because they doubled the maximum size of the squad from 10 to 20 while still never allowing for you to triple up on specials.

Because at no point does there exist an option to have a Pistol, Rifle/Carbine, and a Melee on the Alpha despite there being a loose Galvanic Rifle and Radium Carbine on the sprue that would fit the bill for that. Because at no point does there exist an option to have an additional two Skitarii Vanguard or Rangers that aren't the Alpha with a Melee and Pistol despite there being two extras in the kit.

The "it's what's in the box" argument fails on so many levels and yet you lot keep coming at people with it. It's really quite silly.

• If this unit contains 9 or fewer models, 1 Skitarii Ranger equipped with a galvanic rifle can be equipped with one of the following: 1 enhanced data-tether; 1 omnispex. That model’s galvanic rifle cannot be replaced.
• For every 10 models in this unit, 1 Skitarii Ranger equipped with a galvanic rifle can be equipped with one of the following: 1 enhanced data-tether; 1 omnispex. That model’s galvanic rifle cannot be replaced.

You don't call this convoluted? There is also the fact that there are enough omnispexes in the box to equip 2/20 with them, so that's your silly theory out the window. Taking 2 omnispexes does nothing anyway, so nobody is going to be forced to scour the internet or proxy a second omnispex in their 20-man unit.

 vict0988 wrote:

• If this unit contains 9 or fewer models, 1 Skitarii Ranger equipped with a galvanic rifle can be equipped with one of the following: 1 enhanced data-tether; 1 omnispex. That model’s galvanic rifle cannot be replaced.
• For every 10 models in this unit, 1 Skitarii Ranger equipped with a galvanic rifle can be equipped with one of the following: 1 enhanced data-tether; 1 omnispex. That model’s galvanic rifle cannot be replaced.

You don't call this convoluted?

The only thing "convoluted" about it is the fact that you can tell the original wording likely featured "Ranger" and "Vanguard" models rather than simply "models".

Why do I say that?
Because it's the only thing that makes that bit of craziness make sense. A unit of 10 would be 9 Rangers/Vanguard and an additional model labeled as a Ranger/Vanguard Alpha.

And again, see what I put out about the Scion Command Squad/Scion Squad.

There is also the fact that there are enough omnispexes in the box to equip 2/20 with them, so that's your silly theory out the window.

This sprue is not duplicated in the box. You get one omnispex and one data-tether per boxed set of 10.

If you're going to talk down at me, at least be correct.

Bonus?

Sprue 02 features the "loose" Galvanic Rifle and Radium Carbine parts that just don't get used for anything really.

Remind me again what the point of having leftovers is? Because it kinda blows a hole in the nonsense about "it's what's in the kit!".

Taking 2 omnispexes does nothing anyway, so nobody is going to be forced to scour the internet or proxy a second omnispex in their 20-man unit.

If you're fielding a 20 man unit, you've bought multiple boxes...meaning that you've got two of each part.

And lord help you if you're running (shock! gasp!) multiple 20 model units!

Is that a box of 20 Vanguard Rangers? If not, you get two boxes, you get two omnispexes.

One model can be made into an Alpha, fitted with an enhanced data-tether or an omnispex - the box truly portrays the compulsive data-gathering nature of the Adeptus Mechanicus.

This multi-part plastic kit contains everything needed to make either ten Skitarii Rangers or ten Skitarii Vanguard. Included in the box are 124 components - twenty-three heads, eleven of which are Skitarii Rangers, twenty-five weapons, a small transfer sheet one Citadel 60x35.5mm Oval Base and ten Citadel 25mm Round Bases.

Seems like I am right dn dn dnnn... And a less convoluted way to write the option:

*1 Skitarii Ranger equipped with a galvanic rifle can be equipped with one of the following: 1 enhanced data-tether; 1 omnispex. If the unit includes 20 models 1 other Skitarii Ranger may be equipped with one of the above. These models’ galvanic rifles cannot be replaced.

Now go read the options of the actual unit.

Because the Alpha cannot take an Omnispex or Data-Tether. Even in C: Skitarii that product info was wrong.

The options are the exact same between a unit with >10 and 10-19.

• If this unit contains 9 or fewer models,

1 Skitarii Ranger equipped with a galvanic rifle can be equipped with one of the following: 1 enhanced data-tether; 1 omnispex. That model’s galvanic rifle cannot be replaced.

• For every 10 models in this unit,

1 Skitarii Ranger equipped with a galvanic rifle can be equipped with one of the following: 1 enhanced data-tether; 1 omnispex. That model’s galvanic rifle cannot be replaced.

Your copy/paste literally talks about Alphas with the items...

Plasma has not been a problem for years.
The most recent competitive use of it were the plasma on the inceptors, which were simply nerfed with points, and that was a long time ago.

The change to skittles were purely made based on what is in the box, like plague marines, sisters and everyone else.

Except it wasn't. Because if the changes were "purely made based on what is in the box", it would be like Plague Marines, Sisters, or Kommandos where there's a shedload of options and very few if any wasted parts.

But keep trying! One day you lot might be right.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Except it wasn't. Because if the changes were "purely made based on what is in the box", it would be like Plague Marines, Sisters, or Kommandos where there's a shedload of options and very few if any wasted parts.

But keep trying! One day you lot might be right.

Your snarky comments only make it more evident how desperate and out of real arguments you are.

Apocalypse81 wrote:


People who think getting new editions suck probably don't play WFB. I'd do anything for an official 9th edition (on top of TOW). The game would become incredibly stale without new editions and mission packs.

Serious question though: let's say WFB got one Campaign book per quarter (ie. two per season), and each contained fluff, a supplement for one army, and army of renown for another and a handful of rules updates. Each book is accompanied by a box set with at least one new model for each army in the box (because there is no WFB Kill Team equivalent).

That's new models for 8 factions/ year and new rules for every faction in the game.

Would that be enough to update it and keep it fresh in perpetuity?

Or are you arguing that they actually need to blow everything up and start all over again every 3-5 years so that you have to rebuy everything you already own for a 9th time?

This is WHY I'm all for seasons. They are a viable alternative to edition churn (which I've hated in every RPG, CCG, and Wargame I've played since I was in grade three).

PenitentJake wrote:

Apocalypse81 wrote:


People who think getting new editions suck probably don't play WFB. I'd do anything for an official 9th edition (on top of TOW). The game would become incredibly stale without new editions and mission packs.

Serious question though: let's say WFB got one Campaign book per quarter (ie. two per season), and each contained fluff, a supplement for one army, and army of renown for another and a handful of rules updates. Each book is accompanied by a box set with at least one new model for each army in the box (because there is no WFB Kill Team equivalent).

That's new models for 8 factions/ year and new rules for every faction in the game.

Would that be enough to update it and keep it fresh in perpetuity?

Or are you arguing that they actually need to blow everything up and start all over again every 3-5 years so that you have to rebuy everything you already own for a 9th time?

This is WHY I'm all for seasons. They are a viable alternative to edition churn (which I've hated in every RPG, CCG, and Wargame I've played since I was in grade three).

But its not an alternative to churn, its in addition.

You're most likely right Sim.

I'm not naive enough to absolutely believe that the persistent edition is finally here. I'm just a) saying that it could be and b) hoping that it might be.

But my eyes are open.

PenitentJake wrote:

Apocalypse81 wrote:


People who think getting new editions suck probably don't play WFB. I'd do anything for an official 9th edition (on top of TOW). The game would become incredibly stale without new editions and mission packs.

Serious question though: let's say WFB got one Campaign book per quarter (ie. two per season), and each contained fluff, a supplement for one army, and army of renown for another and a handful of rules updates. Each book is accompanied by a box set with at least one new model for each army in the box (because there is no WFB Kill Team equivalent).

That's new models for 8 factions/ year and new rules for every faction in the game.

Would that be enough to update it and keep it fresh in perpetuity?

Or are you arguing that they actually need to blow everything up and start all over again every 3-5 years so that you have to rebuy everything you already own for a 9th time?

This is WHY I'm all for seasons. They are a viable alternative to edition churn (which I've hated in every RPG, CCG, and Wargame I've played since I was in grade three).

People said the exact same thing about PA. And yet here we are.

A new edition is simply to big of a $$ boost for GW to abandon when they can sell you seasons AND a new edition instead.

So, out of curiosity: who thinks GW is going to drop SM 2.0 in 2022? All the factions should have been updated by middle of 2022, and the Poster kids are lacking in the viability department.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
So, out of curiosity: who thinks GW is going to drop SM 2.0 in 2022?

It's happening - there's multiple rumours ("new supplements for vanilla chapters, a missile launcher equipped primaris unit and a heavier dread") and we've already seen the new Ancient.

Well, at least we know when those drop, 9th is dead and we can put all this behind us.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Well, at least we know when those drop, 9th is dead and we can put all this behind us.

Oh no, that's not how this all works at all.
What'll happen is just "Same , different day." but now we call it 10th edition. And then 11th edition. And 12th edition. And 13th.....
This will continue on & on & on into the future in a 3-4 year cycle.

 Kanluwen wrote:
You're wrong.

Your entire proof is the Omnispex and Datatether? That's it?

That kind of goes against the wealth of unit entries that are all restricted by sprues/kits.

And these are just the ones that I've bothered to scan in. There are more. There will be more in the future. It is to due with sprues. You need to accept this.

 Ordana wrote:


People said the exact same thing about PA. And yet here we are.

A new edition is simply to big of a $$ boost for GW to abandon when they can sell you seasons AND a new edition instead.

Perhaps. The thing you have to remember is that 8th picked up a lot of new (and returning) players. In that context, 9th was a risk, because anyone who WAS new might not know about edition churn, and there was a risk that they'd walk away rather than buy everything again for a new edition. They went ahead with the gamble, but they caged it as 8th 2.0, and luckily for them, it didn't shrink the player base.

But from my perspective, every new edition has as much potential to disillusion many of the players they've picked up as it does to boost sales. If they do go to a 10th (and remember, I'm not saying they won't- I'm just hopeful), it will take a lot of skill to keep me in the game- they'll have to keep game size mechanics and mission support, they'll have to keep Crusade, and they'll have to sever any new Crusade content from dexes. Even then I'm not sure they can keep me for another edition.

beast_gts wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
So, out of curiosity: who thinks GW is going to drop SM 2.0 in 2022?

It's happening - there's multiple rumours ("new supplements for vanilla chapters, a missile launcher equipped primaris unit and a heavier dread") and we've already seen the new Ancient.

Again, I'm not naive enough to say that it won't happen- it might.

But I should point out that NONE of these rumours are a 2.0 sm Codex. And the absence of a rumour specifically about a 2.0 codex when there are so many other rumours seems to indicate that it isn't happening. After all, if EVERYTHING else has been leaked, certainly this would have been if it was coming.

It's also worth pointing out that even if we do get a marine dex 2.0, that isn't necessarily a guarantee of a 10th ed either.

Truth is, we're all just going to have to wait and see.

PenitentJake wrote:

 Ordana wrote:


People said the exact same thing about PA. And yet here we are.

A new edition is simply to big of a $$ boost for GW to abandon when they can sell you seasons AND a new edition instead.

Perhaps. The thing you have to remember is that 8th picked up a lot of new (and returning) players. In that context, 9th was a risk, because anyone who WAS new might not know about edition churn, and there was a risk that they'd walk away rather than buy everything again for a new edition. They went ahead with the gamble, but they caged it as 8th 2.0, and luckily for them, it didn't shrink the player base.

But from my perspective, every new edition has as much potential to disillusion many of the players they've picked up as it does to boost sales. If they do go to a 10th (and remember, I'm not saying they won't- I'm just hopeful), it will take a lot of skill to keep me in the game- they'll have to keep game size mechanics and mission support, they'll have to keep Crusade, and they'll have to sever any new Crusade content from dexes. Even then I'm not sure they can keep me for another edition.

beast_gts wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
So, out of curiosity: who thinks GW is going to drop SM 2.0 in 2022?

It's happening - there's multiple rumours ("new supplements for vanilla chapters, a missile launcher equipped primaris unit and a heavier dread" and we've already seen the new Ancient.

Again, I'm not naive enough to say that it won't happen- it might.

But I should point out that NONE of these rumours are a 2.0 sm Codex. And the absence of a rumour specifically about a 2.0 codex when there are so many other rumours seems to indicate that it isn't happening. After all, if EVERYTHING else has been leaked, certainly this would have been if it was coming.

It's also worth pointing out that even if we do get a marine dex 2.0, that isn't necessarily a guarantee of a 10th ed either.

Truth is, we're all just going to have to wait and see.

No, truth is,10th is guaranteed to happen. Just as 9th was guaranteed, influx of new 8e players or not. GW has never been afraid of alienating people thanks to edition churn, bloat, imbalance, etc.
The only question is exactly when 10th arrives. Not if, when.
And that when boils down to Summer of 2023? Or Summer of 2024?
Place your bets.

The only thing (short of an extinction lv event) that could possibly derail the coming of the next edition is if everyone just up & stopped buying/playing 40k as is. Then they'd just re-boot & rebrand it ala WHFB ---> AoS & things would continue rolling right along with a different logo.
That doesn't show any signs of happening.

But hey, meanwhile? You keep hoping.

It is very likely to be the summer of 2024.
We pretty much know the full releases of 2022 and a few of the 2023. Before the end of the edition, there is usually a final campaign series of books.
It would be very hard to fit all this before summer 2023.

PenitentJake wrote:

 Ordana wrote:


People said the exact same thing about PA. And yet here we are.

A new edition is simply to big of a $$ boost for GW to abandon when they can sell you seasons AND a new edition instead.

Perhaps. The thing you have to remember is that 8th picked up a lot of new (and returning) players. In that context, 9th was a risk, because anyone who WAS new might not know about edition churn, and there was a risk that they'd walk away rather than buy everything again for a new edition. They went ahead with the gamble, but they caged it as 8th 2.0, and luckily for them, it didn't shrink the player base.

But from my perspective, every new edition has as much potential to disillusion many of the players they've picked up as it does to boost sales. If they do go to a 10th (and remember, I'm not saying they won't- I'm just hopeful), it will take a lot of skill to keep me in the game- they'll have to keep game size mechanics and mission support, they'll have to keep Crusade, and they'll have to sever any new Crusade content from dexes. Even then I'm not sure they can keep me for another edition.

beast_gts wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
So, out of curiosity: who thinks GW is going to drop SM 2.0 in 2022?

It's happening - there's multiple rumours ("new supplements for vanilla chapters, a missile launcher equipped primaris unit and a heavier dread") and we've already seen the new Ancient.

Again, I'm not naive enough to say that it won't happen- it might.

But I should point out that NONE of these rumours are a 2.0 sm Codex. And the absence of a rumour specifically about a 2.0 codex when there are so many other rumours seems to indicate that it isn't happening. After all, if EVERYTHING else has been leaked, certainly this would have been if it was coming.

It's also worth pointing out that even if we do get a marine dex 2.0, that isn't necessarily a guarantee of a 10th ed either.

Truth is, we're all just going to have to wait and see.

They have been churning new editions and risking alienating their players for decades, this is not a new phenomena.

All these folks forgetting how many years between editions it’s been historically...

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
So, out of curiosity: who thinks GW is going to drop SM 2.0 in 2022? All the factions should have been updated by middle of 2022, and the Poster kids are lacking in the viability department.

I don't mind that GW releases 2.0 of a codex in an edition.

I would, however, like that they address actual bad codexes and update them. Like Necrons for example.

 Eldarsif wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
So, out of curiosity: who thinks GW is going to drop SM 2.0 in 2022? All the factions should have been updated by middle of 2022, and the Poster kids are lacking in the viability department.

I don't mind that GW releases 2.0 of a codex in an edition.

I would, however, like that they address actual bad codexes and update them. Like Necrons for example.

Well their solution to that is to just get a new edition out as quickly as possible then update the codex for that edition. Though they've also been playing doctor by giving bad factions the band aid of MOAR RULES via supplements, but that doesn't fix core issues. Remember when they "fixed" a bunch of bad tyranid units in PA by giving them more stratagems, rather than just fixing the units? Fun times.

I'm curious though, to the people with better historical knowledge of 40k than me has any faction that wasn't Space Marines ever had two codex released in a single edition?

Chaos in 3rd had 2 editions.

 Sim-Life wrote:

 Eldarsif wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
So, out of curiosity: who thinks GW is going to drop SM 2.0 in 2022? All the factions should have been updated by middle of 2022, and the Poster kids are lacking in the viability department.

I don't mind that GW releases 2.0 of a codex in an edition.

I would, however, like that they address actual bad codexes and update them. Like Necrons for example.

Well their solution to that is to just get a new edition out as quickly as possible then update the codex for that edition. Though they've also been playing doctor by giving bad factions the band aid of MOAR RULES via supplements, but that doesn't fix core issues. Remember when they "fixed" a bunch of bad tyranid units in PA by giving them more stratagems, rather than just fixing the units? Fun times.

I'm curious though, to the people with better historical knowledge of 40k than me has any faction that wasn't Space Marines ever had two codex released in a single edition?

CSM had two in 3rd (or four if you want to count the reprints of the 3.5 book, which weren't exactly insignificant changes like the base toughness of Obliterators, but if you go down that route...), as did Dark Eldar who had a second printing that compiled all of the various bits they'd ben given in CA like vehicle upgrades and new wargear into their codex.

PenitentJake wrote:

Apocalypse81 wrote:


People who think getting new editions suck probably don't play WFB. I'd do anything for an official 9th edition (on top of TOW). The game would become incredibly stale without new editions and mission packs.

Serious question though: let's say WFB got one Campaign book per quarter (ie. two per season), and each contained fluff, a supplement for one army, and army of renown for another and a handful of rules updates. Each book is accompanied by a box set with at least one new model for each army in the box (because there is no WFB Kill Team equivalent).

That's new models for 8 factions/ year and new rules for every faction in the game.

Would that be enough to update it and keep it fresh in perpetuity?

Or are you arguing that they actually need to blow everything up and start all over again every 3-5 years so that you have to rebuy everything you already own for a 9th time?

This is WHY I'm all for seasons. They are a viable alternative to edition churn (which I've hated in every RPG, CCG, and Wargame I've played since I was in grade three).

I mean, personally, no.
I've been doing this for 28 years now, and Ive always looked forward to new editions and new rules. I do wish they would go with 4-5 years per edition instead of 3, but I would be incredibly put off playing the same rules in perpetuity with just new missions. But also, thats just me. I play a lot of Tournament warhammer, and a lot of warhammer in general, now that I retired from the forces. I think if you play once in a while, I definitely understand how edition churn could be mind boggling.

Also, though, im a colle tor of Tabletop/P&P RPG books. I have a book shelf in our games room where I have hundreds of books from many different settings. I look forward to these books, and I have since I started playing D&D in the early 90's.

And they don't just sit there, we play these older editions often. My best friend and I just played a BT squats vs Eldar 3rd edition game in honor of the new box set they showed at Christmas (which is what started my Black Templars army way back when!

But again, I do think 3 years is too fast. 5 would be far better for most in the hobby.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ccs wrote:

PenitentJake wrote:

 Ordana wrote:


People said the exact same thing about PA. And yet here we are.

A new edition is simply to big of a $$ boost for GW to abandon when they can sell you seasons AND a new edition instead.

Perhaps. The thing you have to remember is that 8th picked up a lot of new (and returning) players. In that context, 9th was a risk, because anyone who WAS new might not know about edition churn, and there was a risk that they'd walk away rather than buy everything again for a new edition. They went ahead with the gamble, but they caged it as 8th 2.0, and luckily for them, it didn't shrink the player base.

But from my perspective, every new edition has as much potential to disillusion many of the players they've picked up as it does to boost sales. If they do go to a 10th (and remember, I'm not saying they won't- I'm just hopeful), it will take a lot of skill to keep me in the game- they'll have to keep game size mechanics and mission support, they'll have to keep Crusade, and they'll have to sever any new Crusade content from dexes. Even then I'm not sure they can keep me for another edition.

beast_gts wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
So, out of curiosity: who thinks GW is going to drop SM 2.0 in 2022?

It's happening - there's multiple rumours ("new supplements for vanilla chapters, a missile launcher equipped primaris unit and a heavier dread" and we've already seen the new Ancient.

Again, I'm not naive enough to say that it won't happen- it might.

But I should point out that NONE of these rumours are a 2.0 sm Codex. And the absence of a rumour specifically about a 2.0 codex when there are so many other rumours seems to indicate that it isn't happening. After all, if EVERYTHING else has been leaked, certainly this would have been if it was coming.

It's also worth pointing out that even if we do get a marine dex 2.0, that isn't necessarily a guarantee of a 10th ed either.

Truth is, we're all just going to have to wait and see.

No, truth is,10th is guaranteed to happen. Just as 9th was guaranteed, influx of new 8e players or not. GW has never been afraid of alienating people thanks to edition churn, bloat, imbalance, etc.
The only question is exactly when 10th arrives. Not if, when.
And that when boils down to Summer of 2023? Or Summer of 2024?
Place your bets.

The only thing (short of an extinction lv event) that could possibly derail the coming of the next edition is if everyone just up & stopped buying/playing 40k as is. Then they'd just re-boot & rebrand it ala WHFB ---> AoS & things would continue rolling right along with a different logo.
That doesn't show any signs of happening.

But hey, meanwhile? You keep hoping.

There is no might about it, there will be a 10th edition. I have no idea why you would even consider that they might get rid of editions.

I also don't know why some think its a gamble. The vast majority of players have a single army. A codex and a rulebook is all they need. Then they add a few new models throughout the edition.

People here pretending that you're required to buy these campaign books to play are just looking for things to complain about. 90% of players never even consider or look at them. As I've said previously, the few pages of rules and the pts values are always easily found online. The odd army rules are also easily found on the most popular 40k sites. Nobody is required to buy it, unless maybe you're a tournament player and it has specific rules for your army. But us tournament players are happy for new missions. I played 18 tournaments last year, and play twice a week. Things get stale for players like me if there is no change.

 Sim-Life wrote:

 Eldarsif wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
So, out of curiosity: who thinks GW is going to drop SM 2.0 in 2022? All the factions should have been updated by middle of 2022, and the Poster kids are lacking in the viability department.

I don't mind that GW releases 2.0 of a codex in an edition.

I would, however, like that they address actual bad codexes and update them. Like Necrons for example.

Well their solution to that is to just get a new edition out as quickly as possible then update the codex for that edition. Though they've also been playing doctor by giving bad factions the band aid of MOAR RULES via supplements, but that doesn't fix core issues. Remember when they "fixed" a bunch of bad tyranid units in PA by giving them more stratagems, rather than just fixing the units? Fun times.

I'm curious though, to the people with better historical knowledge of 40k than me has any faction that wasn't Space Marines ever had two codex released in a single edition?

That's why I think that if they are updating a faction within an edition they should address factions having problems and not patching using whatever alpha build the campaign supplements end up being. Sadly I don't think it will happen as their release schedules appear to be set in stone long ahead of actual release so they might have decided that 9th will get a second Space Marine Codex years ago.

Great, a battle pass was just what I had been missing from warhammer 40k. Being able to rest assured of two paid dlcs, at least, each year with I'm sure plenty of other rule splat books to bloat things up nicely along with them, sounds like everything I've always dreamed of. Nothing aids me more on leg day than carrying a whole library's worth of books just to field one faction at a time in 40k. Glad they let me know ahead of time what the bare minimum is I can expect yet still be surprised with the massive levels of bloat they can drop on me along the way. Their love for me is like a truck I see.

 kodos wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 kodos wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
40k 10th edition 2023.

by now I am sure we see 10th in 2022

I wouldn't be surprised if they do this, but I will be saddened and disappointed.

Not every codex will be updated by December 2022, I don't think. We already have reliable rumors through may of next year.

was there ever an Edition were every Codex was updated before the next one hit the shelf?
and just because there are rumours for new Codex books in May, does not mean a new Edition is released in June

FB 6th or 7th was close at least and guess 8e could be.

And GW can just release new edition right away if they want. Codex in may? Fine. Edition in july. with books being compatible they don't have to wait.

Again. Not every book is quaranteed update before new edition. 9e codexes up to book X, edition 10, 8e codex updated to 10e is 100% possible for GW and common pattern. Edition skipping codexes is quite common for GW...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Yeah that was the promise of the "nuGW" that people coming back after the catastrophe of 7th believed in.

It appeared that GW had genuinely changed.

By ramping up release schedule faster and faster? That's not change. All "nuGW" did was hire couple PR guys to do WHC articles.

Just take the heresy pill



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Honestly this kinda practice is making me long for 7th.
7th had it's issues, but good God damn, at least it was not this train wreck.

GW profit margins on their printed products must be quite high. That’s the only explanation for this.

tneva82 wrote:

 kodos wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 kodos wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
40k 10th edition 2023.

by now I am sure we see 10th in 2022

I wouldn't be surprised if they do this, but I will be saddened and disappointed.

Not every codex will be updated by December 2022, I don't think. We already have reliable rumors through may of next year.

was there ever an Edition were every Codex was updated before the next one hit the shelf?
and just because there are rumours for new Codex books in May, does not mean a new Edition is released in June

FB 6th or 7th was close at least and guess 8e could be.

And GW can just release new edition right away if they want. Codex in may? Fine. Edition in july. with books being compatible they don't have to wait.

Again. Not every book is quaranteed update before new edition. 9e codexes up to book X, edition 10, 8e codex updated to 10e is 100% possible for GW and common pattern. Edition skipping codexes is quite common for GW...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Yeah that was the promise of the "nuGW" that people coming back after the catastrophe of 7th believed in.

It appeared that GW had genuinely changed.

By ramping up release schedule faster and faster? That's not change. All "nuGW" did was hire couple PR guys to do WHC articles.

It is change and it's change for the better. However the problem is that GW do nothing to capitalise on the accelerated release schedule. They were practically tripping over themselves to release 9th (and more Primaris) as soon as they shoved the Sister's dex out the door. They never tried to balance the edition once every army had an army book or let it settle and adjust some things and see how it went. They toyed with beta rules early on then abandoned the idea. They took a stab at adjusting the game via CA but limited themselves to points changes only.

I defended GW during 8th because I bought into the hype but as soon as they announced 9th instead of 8.1 I was done. Its clear they have no intention of making a good game, only spamming us to death with bandaids in the shape of expensive hardback books or actually fixing anything

At this point it's no longer change for the good imo it's just change for changes sake. To me it seems like GW has literally no idea how to write rules, just hodge podge a bunch of new gimmicky stuff for a new codex, little to no regard to how it effects the game as a whole, shoves it out the door to push a new or previously poorly selling model and calls it good.

Its always been change for changes sake. They make a lot of money selling you books and need to keep selling them to you.