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.

There have been rumors of late (which have been debunked) of an 8th Edition coming later this year (rumormongers say new edition is coming, but not until at least 2017), but are we even in 7th Edition? I was listening to The Long War podcast last night, and one of the guys brought up a really good point: nowhere in any of GW's official literature does the phrase "7th Edition" or anything of the like appear. Also consider that most of the recent Forgeworld rulebooks say they are meant to be used with "Warhammer: 40,000" without a mention of an addition (I don't play Forgeworld, but it's my understanding that earlier FW books referred to the edition of 40k they were compatible with). The recent Death from the Skies supplement changes the way fliers work. Combine this with the recent FAQ which in some cases seemingly changed the rules (the Cullexus Assassin's aura and transports and battle-brothers in dedicated transports rules come to mind), and it all seems to point to one thing:

We are not in Warhammer: 40,000: 7th Edition. We are in a living ruleset that GW is attempting to update through supplements and (recently) FAQs.

Discuss.

GW said this was suppose to be the case when they released "7th" edition. They even said that with a few minor tweaks, 6th ed rulebooks were still useable if they got the online FAQ (yes I'm aware this is so not the case).

Then they went completely silent about the rules for an entire year, not even releasing erratas.

However I gotta point out that them making FAQ changes and supplements with additional rules isn't entirely unheard of. These might just be to tie us over until "8th" edition officially drops.

Basically we're paying them to be beta testers.

 EnTyme wrote:
Discuss.

no.

 carldooley wrote:

 EnTyme wrote:
Discuss.

no.

Exalted

Now if they could just get the basic rules right.

What kind of living ruleset makes their players pay out the ass for updates?

 TheCustomLime wrote:
What kind of living ruleset makes their players pay out the ass for updates?

The GW kind.

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
GW said this was suppose to be the case when they released "7th" edition.

Did GW actually say that, or was it just a rumor that 7th edition was "the one to rule them all"? I remember someone posting rumors about 7th being the last edition and GW would instead focus on expansions and supplements to it, but I don't remember ever seeing anything "official" hinting at that.

hey, maybe they nerfed gargantuan MC and gravitons hahahahah......................nope, they will not

 Sidstyler wrote:

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
GW said this was suppose to be the case when they released "7th" edition.

Did GW actually say that, or was it just a rumor that 7th edition was "the one to rule them all"? I remember someone posting rumors about 7th being the last edition and GW would instead focus on expansions and supplements to it, but I don't remember ever seeing anything "official" hinting at that.

I heard it was from GW officially, which is why this was never titled "7th edition". Forgot exactly where though but it was the one where someone asked if DV was still valid.

Well actually I don't think they've ever done that. 4th, 5th, and 6th editions weren't numbered, either. The fans always refer to them by number but GW's always just called it Warhammer 40,000. And they did eventually release an updated Dark Vengeance set with the new rules, if I'm not mistaken.

 TheCustomLime wrote:
What kind of living ruleset makes their players pay out the ass for updates?

RPGs come to mind. D&D 3rd edition had something like 70 distinct books. most of which where optional supplements.

it's also not entirely unknown for a table top wargame to employ a similer approuch. Battletech published their last offical core rules set in 2007-2008, since then we've gotten new rules, new weapons etc added in a varity of supplements. entirely optional supplements.

assuming GW is moving away from the "edition churn" expect that to be the norm. with new books offering new, situational/optional rules etc.

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:

 Sidstyler wrote:

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
GW said this was suppose to be the case when they released "7th" edition.

Did GW actually say that, or was it just a rumor that 7th edition was "the one to rule them all"? I remember someone posting rumors about 7th being the last edition and GW would instead focus on expansions and supplements to it, but I don't remember ever seeing anything "official" hinting at that.

I heard it was from GW officially, which is why this was never titled "7th edition". Forgot exactly where though but it was the one where someone asked if DV was still valid.

I don't think GW released any "official" statements. Unless it's hidden in one of their financial reports, but it would have been bigger news if that was the case.

It's more likely some GW store manager said something to a customer and that customer took it to be "official", when it was probably just the store manager making a wild guess.

It is an interesting idea and I agree that it is a living ruleset in the way that it constantly changes and gets updated without a new comprehensive rulebook being released however it is unlikely that they will never release a new rulebook.

There have been rumours that the codex system may be replaced by ongoing campaign and supplement releases updating rules and formations but even this is unlikely to be the permanent structure because GW relies on its revenues from rules even if they say they're a hobby model company.

There's nothing stealthy about a $70 mandatory-optional book that's the equivalent of jiggling keys in front of an unimpressed cat. If this is a living rule set, it needs to die. I'm tired of calling apoc 40k.

BrianDavion wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:
What kind of living ruleset makes their players pay out the ass for updates?

RPGs come to mind. D&D 3rd edition had something like 70 distinct books. most of which where optional supplements.

it's also not entirely unknown for a table top wargame to employ a similer approuch. Battletech published their last offical core rules set in 2007-2008, since then we've gotten new rules, new weapons etc added in a varity of supplements. entirely optional supplements.

assuming GW is moving away from the "edition churn" expect that to be the norm. with new books offering new, situational/optional rules etc.

Yeah but those RPG books were loaded with new content necessary for a satisfying adventure. You could run a game of D&D with just the core rule book. If you want to play WH40k as intended you need to pay an extra $58 for a relatively minor update on top of whatever it is you paid for the basic rules. Warlord games released a free PDF when they made expanded rules for fliers in their game.

 TheCustomLime wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:
What kind of living ruleset makes their players pay out the ass for updates?

RPGs come to mind. D&D 3rd edition had something like 70 distinct books. most of which where optional supplements.

it's also not entirely unknown for a table top wargame to employ a similer approuch. Battletech published their last offical core rules set in 2007-2008, since then we've gotten new rules, new weapons etc added in a varity of supplements. entirely optional supplements.

assuming GW is moving away from the "edition churn" expect that to be the norm. with new books offering new, situational/optional rules etc.

Yeah but those RPG books were loaded with new content necessary for a satisfying adventure. You could run a game of D&D with just the core rule book. If you want to play WH40k as intended you need to pay an extra $58 for a relatively minor update on top of whatever it is you paid for the basic rules. Warlord games released a free PDF when they made expanded rules for fliers in their game.

actually a lot of the stuff in those RPG books WHEREN'T nesscary and existed purely to sell us new books (Splatbook power creep was a problem in D&D too.) and we don't NEED death from the skies toi play 40k. we don't NEED Angels of Death to play Space Marines etc.

as evidanced by the fact that from comments on these forums many people aren't bothering with DFTS.

Keep in mind I'm not saying death from the skies is a great product (honestly having gotten a looksie at an electronic copy I don't feel it adds much to the game. but someone whose really enthusiastic about airpower may disagree) just that this is hardly some unprecidented thing.

now to my way of thinking the problem arises from the nature of 40k gaming groups. using the D&D analogy, as a DM I decide what books I do and do not want to use (I GM as often as not and I did occasionally opt not to use stuff, I refused to allow classes from the book of 9 swords or whatever it was) 40K useally doesn't have a DM it just has two players. so if you get player 1 who really likes fliers and wants to sue the expanded rules cause her thinks they add awesomeness, and player 2 who doesn't... you get problems. but I think GW expects us to work that out between ourselves like mature people.

Just another observation: It seems that more units are coming with rules included in the kit than even a few months ago when I started painting models. The first Tactical Squad I purchased had no rules, neither did the Captain or Dreadnought that came with the Space Marine Battleforce I started with. The last Tactical Squad and Captain I purchased had (partial) rules written on the assembly instructions. These are just the basic unit datasheets, so no weapon profiles, but if you had a BRB and these kits, you could probably at lease be able to get by.

It's not so much "living" as recently thawed in the microwave and "jiggled".

Can give the semblance of life, but isn't likely to fool anyone ...

I'd be fine if "8th" ed was merely just 7th repackaged to include all the FAQs & Erratas, + a few MINOR tweaks (like limiting detachments and toning down GMCs). But overall leave the core rules alone. What is the point of an FAQ if the rules then change and need a new FAQ?

 Galef wrote:
I'd be fine if "8th" ed was merely just 7th repackaged to include all the FAQs & Erratas, + a few MINOR tweaks (like limiting detachments and toning down GMCs). But overall leave the core rules alone. What is the point of an FAQ if the rules then change and need a new FAQ?

how, pray tell should GMCs be toned down? thanks to the FAQ, people that played them strictly RaW were apparently mistaken in their interpretation of their shooting capabilities. Given that they don't 'blow up' like superheavies when they die, how else to change them?

Sad panda said 7th (and you would have to surmise 6th too) is considered a lame duck over at GW. So whatever 8th is, it'll most likely be substantially different from this current iteration. If GW is trying to bring the game back to its previous levels of popularity.

You can call it whatever you please, but the fact of the matter is this is the 7th iteration of the same core game with a number of rule shifts, never designed to improve the game, but only to mix it up.

Oh and no, the only kind of release we'll be getting will be the $80-to-stay-current kind.

 Accolade wrote:
Sad panda said 7th (and you would have to surmise 6th too) is considered a lame duck over at GW.

Yeah, if anything its a dying ruleset lol