Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Lets not dream of what would be if Kirby were still in charge.




AS for the next wave my impression is thus:
1) GW cleaned house by adopting a "no model no rule" policy. This was a sound choice not just from the legal angle of them protecting their interests by not having choices in codex that GW wasn't going to release (ever or for a long while) and thus letting 3rd parties supply that market.
But its also from a marketing point of view. New players are now able to buy kits for everything in their respective codex. This makes the game far more accessible to them as they are not "required" to convert or hunt around for second hand old sculpts to field their whole army. Yes they can still convert, but now its by choice rather than requirement.

2) The Index releases will go away, It might take a few years and another edition release, but I fully expect them to go away. Certainly from the tournament scene, which will then filter down to many casual level games. At least by and large. At the personal level you'll still be able to find people to play with index rules, it just won't be the "normal" nor "expected" way casual matches will line up.

3) GW will start to release new models for the various armies, these models will likely have rules in the box and GW might even take a leaf out of Warmachine and put dataslate cards (not just assembly and rules) into the box. The idea being that now they can expand armies with new models when they want and the rules will come in the box.
That would allow them to add single models to armies or to add several models to several armies at once.

Another option would be if they release a block of models for a single army in one go and release a supplement book (eg a mini codex) for those models. This might get bundled with a campaign, new Battleplans and might even be marketed early on with two armies getting updates with a campaign pack( we've seen a few of these already- eg Admech VS Necrons).

4) Every so often GW will release a new edition and a likely new wave of updated codex that will combine earlier separate releases and updates into a single publication. Hopefully in a similar manner to which they have done 8th edition - eg a year of updates. Or they might vary it - eg 2 or 3 codex at once etc...



The only risk on the table, that Age of Sigmar sort of hints at, is that GW shifts into a pattern of releasing new codex and new smaller armies (eg more Custodes style releases). Spreading the range wider rather than adding depth to individual factions or even replacing older sculpts with new kits.

HoundsofDemos wrote:
The ork codex was pretty much the writing on the wall. They got new "buggie" units that were not the same as any of the older ones and had a ton of options trimmed. The kit bash and custom faction got slaughtered in it's codex release. It's beyond clear at this point GW wants a smaller range with less options for all factions.

Unpopular opinion time:

I'm not sure this is such a bad thing. When I was a newbie scrub, it was hard to know what was what with some codexes. The shear number of options some units had, started to get a little absurd. I can remember having many discussions as a noob, with my friends telling me "don't build that with X" because X was a terrible option. So, after some time I began to wonder, if some upgrades are nearly pointless, why even have them in the kit at all. Unfortunately, I'll admit that the primaris box took that a little too far. But it will be a lot easier for the competitive scene to keep some semblance of balance if the options are more tightly controlled.

It just sucks that this will inevitably end up hurting those who like to go full nuts with customization.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:

Orktavius wrote:
I find it amusing that every time people get salty about GW's "No model - No rule" policy that everyone conveniently forgets the reason for it becoming a thing is the chapter house debacle after they made what they called "Games Workshop tervigon conversion kits" and "Games Workshop space wolf thunderwolf calvary". The resulting lawsuit making it so if GW wanted to protect it's IP it couldn't put stuff in a codex that didn't have a model.

They could put it in the Index but not the Codex, huh? Come on, at least think things through before you go parroting blatantly obvious nonsense.

The index is literally a PR stunt, nothing more. The only reason it exists is because Kirby got the shaft and they are trying to compromise between not (overly) pissing off the playerbase while also keeping the lawyers happy. If Kirby was still at the helm I would bet you my left foot the Indexes would not have been released, or released with the No Model No Rules mantra.

I thought the indexes were the reset, to hold us over until 8th could be fully completed?

 fraser1191 wrote:
Campaign books and models related to said campaign

For instance Blood angels VS tyranids might be melee inceptors and actual shrikes

You dream big dude.

Orktavius wrote:
I find it amusing that every time people get salty about GW's "No model - No rule" policy that everyone conveniently forgets the reason for it becoming a thing is the chapter house debacle after they made what they called "Games Workshop tervigon conversion kits" and "Games Workshop space wolf thunderwolf calvary". The resulting lawsuit making it so if GW wanted to protect it's IP it couldn't put stuff in a codex that didn't have a model.

I'm not sure what leads you to believe that people are 'forgetting' about the Chapterhouse debacle. The way that lawsuit was handled was absolutely ridiculous, and the entire situation was one of GW's own creation.

The simple fact is that that third party market wouldn't have been there if GW had released the models with those options in the first place. Thunderwolves are a prime example - most of the third party options were horrible models. But people bought them because GW waited 18 months to release their own model, and compounded the issue through Kirby's 'Don't tell the punters what we're working on!' policy... If people had at least known that GW wolves were coming, many of them wouldn't have bought the awful resin versions. Even fewer would have bought them if they had been released alongside the codex to begin with.


To be clear, having a policy that every option in the codex should be represented on the models isn't a problem. The problem is that GW didn't have this policy for a very long time, and their solution to the resultant issues was to remove those options instead of updating or releasing kits to plug the holes.

I know why GW is doing the no rule, no model thing. It does seem daunting to some armies with smaller model lines though. If they arent popular right now, the chance that GW will suddenly shower them with new models is slim to non. At the same time without new models, the armies won't be good and if they are not good, they aren't popular. We get a death cycle which killed WFB, on a smaller scale of course.

I hope that the thing about unit rules being put in to different boxs is going to be a real thing. People wouldn't have to wait years for a codex and hope GW by accident gives them good rules or doesn't nerf them afterwards.

Orktavius wrote:
I find it amusing that every time people get salty about GW's "No model - No rule" policy that everyone conveniently forgets the reason for it becoming a thing is the chapter house debacle after they made what they called "Games Workshop tervigon conversion kits" and "Games Workshop space wolf thunderwolf calvary". The resulting lawsuit making it so if GW wanted to protect it's IP it couldn't put stuff in a codex that didn't have a model.

I find amusing that every time someone brings up this they conveniently forget that GW is not even consistent in this rule. Tell me, where exactly can I buy a Grandmaster in a Dreadknight? Where can I get a Devastator squad with 4 lascannons? Multiple Cyclic Ion Blasters for Tau? Where can one get a SM captain on bike? Cultists with special weapons? Deffkoptas?

If you're going to blindly defend GW for one of their most bass ackwards decisions in recent years at least do your research.

 Grimtuff wrote:

Orktavius wrote:
I find it amusing that every time people get salty about GW's "No model - No rule" policy that everyone conveniently forgets the reason for it becoming a thing is the chapter house debacle after they made what they called "Games Workshop tervigon conversion kits" and "Games Workshop space wolf thunderwolf calvary". The resulting lawsuit making it so if GW wanted to protect it's IP it couldn't put stuff in a codex that didn't have a model.

I find amusing that every time someone brings up this they conveniently forget that GW is not even consistent in this rule. Tell me, where exactly can I buy a Grandmaster in a Dreadknight? Where can I get a Devastator squad with 4 lascannons? Multiple Cyclic Ion Blasters for Tau? Where can one get a SM captain on bike? Cultists with special weapons? Deffkoptas?

If you're going to blindly defend GW for one of their most bass ackwards decisions in recent years at least do your research.

It also leads to some absurd things like not supporting things they actually still sell like the razorback turrets or dred weapons. I can still buy all of those but they are index only so they are now illegal at some events. That's just frustrating.

Forge World sell them, not GW. Codexes don't acknowledge Forge World exists.

Which is again ridiculous. One they are the same company, two that was something that they just recently started doing that. Hell over the years straight up FW options have been in codexes before and there is no reason for them to not have that be the case again.

HoundsofDemos wrote:
Which is again ridiculous. One they are the same company, two that was something that they just recently started doing that. Hell over the years straight up FW options have been in codexes before and there is no reason for them to not have that be the case again.

The reason is because No Model, No Rules. What you're saying is like saying a Volkswagen Golf and a Porsche 911 are the same thing because they happen to be the same "company". FW books still have some of their models supported (although many aren't matched play legal anymore).

In any case, WYSIWYG is not actually a rule, so if it comes down to brass tacks you can always just counts-as.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

HoundsofDemos wrote:
Which is again ridiculous. One they are the same company, two that was something that they just recently started doing that. Hell over the years straight up FW options have been in codexes before and there is no reason for them to not have that be the case again.

The reason is because No Model, No Rules. What you're saying is like saying a Volkswagen Golf and a Porsche 911 are the same thing. FW books still have some of their models supported (although many aren't matched play legal anymore).

In any case, WYSIWYG is not actually a rule, so if it comes down to brass tacks you can always just counts-as.

GW and FW are the same company. It's not comparing different companies model lines or products. And your own logic doesn't hold. The models exist, GW still sells them and a ton of options available for models don't come with the kits they sell. A land Speeder Storm can take an AC or HF, last time I checked the box doesn't come with one. I need to buy another kit to get that option. But some how all the bike characters are suddenly not a thing despite GW still selling all the pieces I need to make one.

GW isn't at all constant and is basically deleting options at random and it's damaging to the hobby as a whole.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

HoundsofDemos wrote:
Which is again ridiculous. One they are the same company, two that was something that they just recently started doing that. Hell over the years straight up FW options have been in codexes before and there is no reason for them to not have that be the case again.

The reason is because No Model, No Rules. What you're saying is like saying a Volkswagen Golf and a Porsche 911 are the same thing because they happen to be the same "company". FW books still have some of their models supported (although many aren't matched play legal anymore).

In any case, WYSIWYG is not actually a rule, so if it comes down to brass tacks you can always just counts-as.

What models aren't matched play legal anymore?

HoundsofDemos wrote:
Which is again ridiculous. One they are the same company, two that was something that they just recently started doing that. Hell over the years straight up FW options have been in codexes before and there is no reason for them to not have that be the case again.

One, no they're not. They're separate companies within the GW PLC group.

And two, no, it's not. Forgeworld have at times produced models for things that were in codexes and didn't have Citadel models, and the Dev team have occasionally adopted Forgeworld models into codex revisions (usually with a corresponding Citadel model replacing the original Forgeworld one) but beyond that the GW design team has never considered Forgeworld in codexes. That's not a new policy, it's the way it's been since Forgeworld started producing gaming models.

 Overread wrote:
But its also from a marketing point of view. New players are now able to buy kits for everything in their respective codex. This makes the game far more accessible to them as they are not "required" to convert or hunt around for second hand old sculpts to field their whole army. Yes they can still convert, but now its by choice rather than requirement.

Every time I see something like this I imagine how this choice to convert goes:

A: I gave my new Primaris Sergeant a plasma pistol. I think it looks cool!
B: Primaris Sergeants can't take plasma pistols.
A: I don't mean to use it. I'll play it as a bolt pistol.
B: But it's not a bolt pistol! Stop confusing me!

Tradition matters and GW games have a tradition of following WYSIWYG. What's the point of doing such conversions if you confuse yourself (yes, I'm getting old - I like WYSIWYG because it also reminds me what my models can do) and your opponent by representing wargear options the model can't take? Of course you could limit yourself to aesthetic changes, but how far does that go to satisfy your conversion ambitions?

It's not helped by many restrictions being completely arbitrary. Why can't your sergeant have an iconic Marine weapon like a chainsword? He's certainly not opposed to swinging swords in general, after all he can get a power sword. Power fists are a complete thing of the past, though. Until he gets promoted to captain, but only if he's born on a certain day under certain stars. He'll even get a plasma pistol then.

 Togusa wrote:

HoundsofDemos wrote:
The ork codex was pretty much the writing on the wall. They got new "buggie" units that were not the same as any of the older ones and had a ton of options trimmed. The kit bash and custom faction got slaughtered in it's codex release. It's beyond clear at this point GW wants a smaller range with less options for all factions.

Unpopular opinion time:

I'm not sure this is such a bad thing. When I was a newbie scrub, it was hard to know what was what with some codexes. The shear number of options some units had, started to get a little absurd. I can remember having many discussions as a noob, with my friends telling me "don't build that with X" because X was a terrible option. So, after some time I began to wonder, if some upgrades are nearly pointless, why even have them in the kit at all. Unfortunately, I'll admit that the primaris box took that a little too far. But it will be a lot easier for the competitive scene to keep some semblance of balance if the options are more tightly controlled.

It just sucks that this will inevitably end up hurting those who like to go full nuts with customization.

Realistically that just shifts the problem from pointless wargear options to pointless units. If the designers are incapable of establishing a semblance of balance between wargear choices, they won't fare much better with monobuild units. Consider that 40k has a very large selection of units with overlapping roles. Way more than anyone building a competitive, balanced game from scratch would even consider. Additional wargear options don't make balancing easier to be sure, but at the point GW is with its huge miniatures range, additional wargear options are far more likely to add more flavor to an already unbalanced game than to add, in balance terms, the straw that breaks the camel's back.

 Blackie wrote:
Next wave of codex means 9th edition. Too soon to predict what will be GW's politics in the future.

For orks I can say that the lack of options will reduce their sales. I hope they'll notice that and they add to next codex options and units that must be kitbashed or converted to use them. SW codex still have several units, expecially HQs, that must be converted/kitbashed because there is no official model. Basically with the generic SM commander you can assemble any sort of HQ now, but you may also buy a TWC kit just for making 1+ HQs.

Not necessarily, they could always release the codices as a "Second Wave" to include previous CA point entries, FAQ and Erratas, and straight up revamp some weaker books. Could keep the 8th edition ruleset, call them Codex: Second Wave, or something to let folks differentiate between them.

No reason to scrap a good ruleset, I much prefer a "living" ruleset that can adapt and change month per month.

I mean it's not like GW haven't released two codexes in the same edition before. Dark Angels, Dark Eldar, Chaos Space Marines and Imperial Guard all got second printings in 3rd edition.

Stormcast have had three books for AoS, two in first edition. That’s a pretty recent precedent for the idea of a V2 Codex.

If any army does get a rapid-fire new codex, it'll be the Primaris marines, and possibly a simple Primaris only codex. Even if the rumours are true that sales weren't overly inspiring on Primaris kits - the die has likely been cast and you're looking at another 10-12 kits in the next 12-18 months at least, i.e. "the second wave". While new models may make due with an FAQ or a Community Post for a datasheet --- the Primaris marine force will be well behind on datasheets when the new kits arrive. Thus I can see a quick turnaround on another marine book to cover the new releases.

 lord_blackfang wrote:

Orktavius wrote:
I find it amusing that every time people get salty about GW's "No model - No rule" policy that everyone conveniently forgets the reason for it becoming a thing is the chapter house debacle after they made what they called "Games Workshop tervigon conversion kits" and "Games Workshop space wolf thunderwolf calvary". The resulting lawsuit making it so if GW wanted to protect it's IP it couldn't put stuff in a codex that didn't have a model.

They could put it in the Index but not the Codex, huh?

Uh yeah, because gradually phasing them out is less of a PR headache then cold-turkey removing all those units from play.

It's actually kind of amazing that there are people that haven't noticed the causal link between GW's IP struggles in the early 2010's and all the changes we've gotten. The slow change in official titles to more obscure and easily copyrightable faux-latin like "Astra Militarum" and "Heretic Astartes", Space Marines being replaced with Primaris Marines, official art becoming less abstract and replaced with more literal representations of the models, systematic removal of rules that can't be represented by the model. Like... in your mind these are all just random things that GW bigwigs woke up one day and decided to do, because it was thursday?

The game was created to sell the models. When they stop making certain models, it makes complete sense to remove those options from the rules. I don't like that fact, but I understand it from a business perspective.

 Elbows wrote:
If any army does get a rapid-fire new codex, it'll be the Primaris marines, and possibly a simple Primaris only codex. Even if the rumours are true that sales weren't overly inspiring on Primaris kits - the die has likely been cast and you're looking at another 10-12 kits in the next 12-18 months at least, i.e. "the second wave". While new models may make due with an FAQ or a Community Post for a datasheet --- the Primaris marine force will be well behind on datasheets when the new kits arrive. Thus I can see a quick turnaround on another marine book to cover the new releases.

I think we'll get another 8th edition vanilla marine codex and not a primaris only one. Yet. I think it's a little too soon for a primaris only book but I bet it's going to happen in 9th.

 Elbows wrote:
If any army does get a rapid-fire new codex, it'll be the Primaris marines, and possibly a simple Primaris only codex. Even if the rumours are true that sales weren't overly inspiring on Primaris kits - the die has likely been cast and you're looking at another 10-12 kits in the next 12-18 months at least, i.e. "the second wave". While new models may make due with an FAQ or a Community Post for a datasheet --- the Primaris marine force will be well behind on datasheets when the new kits arrive. Thus I can see a quick turnaround on another marine book to cover the new releases.

Isn't this basically what they did with Stormcast Eternals?

I'm fully expecting a new marine book within the first half of 2019.

Early Age of Sigmar may not be the best example to draw on because the game wasn't originally well received in its first year. Sigmarines got their army book as the first of a number of books that fully embraced the splintered mini factions Age of Sigmar got. Then another book for the Extremis chamber that contained rules for something like three models. By the time the Vanguard chamber came around, if I remember correctly, GW had turned away from releasing each tiny little faction on its own and instead of a Vanguard book they released a new, at the time complete Sigmarine book. (Dislaimer: timeline may not be exact, but the gist should be)

40k hasn't had this problem. The Marine codex might be considered bad by comparison, but I suspect as far as GW's original intentions are concerned it is complete for this edition. I expected that we'd get the codices out of the way just so that they are out there with model releases for those for which they planned model releases in those two or so years, and then following up with campaign boxes/books that cover new model releases.

I don't think GW plans to keep around 8th ed very long. Age of Sigmar 1st ed lasted for three years with an effective 1.5 ed after the first year. Since they are willing to change points and even datasheets in Chapter Approved/General's Handbook, I don't think they'll feel the need to rush out another Marine codex instead of fixing it elsewhere, especially if the lifespan of 8th ed may not exceed 3 years and a 9th ed Marine codex might be the first thing we'll see after the starter box.

GW has released multiple versions of same codex within same edition and codexes will be almost certainly usable in 9th. No real reason for GW to stop their print money button that the codexes are.