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.

Started getting into Warhammer 40k early this year in Spring! It's consumed a lot of my hobby time.
That being said, I know the rumour is that 8 Edition is coming out next year and that led me to the following questions:

How was the transition between 6e and 7e?
Do armies become obsolete between editions?
What major changes are already rumoured to be different in 8e?

Thanks guys!

from my understanding, we don't have any idea of the changes that might come with 8th edition, but I might be very wrong so don't quote me on that.

Armies definitely become obsolete, mainly due to changes with the rules and how that effects the armies, for example, if CAD becomes the only available army detachment to use, IK will become a lot weaker and IK armies would be totally shafted, but that's just an example and most likely won't happen.

Usually the transition happens slowly, but I got into 40k right after the transition from 6th so I was kinda learning the game as my peers were learning the new edition, so I'm not very knowledgeable about the transition.

Hope this helps!

~Mikey

The transitions from 3rd to 7th have been fairly gradational, since it's largely been the same system just with tweaks back and forth. No armies have been made totally obsolete, although the competitive meta has obviously shifted a lot.

Current state of rumors are that 8th will be more transformational, something akin to the Fantasy -> Age of Sigmar transition, if not quite that drastic. Personally I hope that's the case, because AoS is a surprisingly elegant and modular ruleset, very unlike the Katamari ball that 40k has become over the years.

It's still very unlikely they'll totally invalidate any armies, although who knows.

Other than being too short a turn around (most editions prior to 7th lasted about 5 years), it seems to have been taken moderately well.

It is definatley a case-by-case basis, though, as the new rules and new codixes often vastly shift the balance of power and can make several hundred dollars worth of units ineffective or obsolete.

There's not been any firm rumors yet, but there is much hope the ruleset will be trimmed down/streamlined. Don't count on it though; GW loves its overwrought rules, special snowflake units/characters and randomitus in the place of solid, well-thought rules and balanced gameplay.

I was talking to kevin at us mail order and he said there is "strong" rumor that the new edition will introduce an all new race/army.

While I hav'nt played 40k in about 15 years, new armies are always interesting. Even to a former player like me.

Expect most of the changes to be on the margin, but that can have enormous effects on the meta. Let me give you an example.

Bikes and Jump units are very similar. One key difference is that bikes have Jink and jump units do not. Right now bikes are favored in the modern meta. If a new edition comes out and gives jump units jink, then all jump units immediately become better, and the meta shifts such that Jump armies are much more powerful than they used to be, and by comparison bike armies are far less powerful, but the absolute power of the bike units hasn't changed. If the change goes the otherway, and bikes lose Jink, then Bike armies get less powerful. By Comparison Jump units become more powerful by comparison, but in absolute terms, jump units don't actually gain any power.

We don't know what GW is planning to change, and in reality, they probably haven't decided either. There is clearly a battle inside the GW rules team over philosophies, and it is unclear who will win out.

Most of the changes will be based on the rules designers. For instance, the current team either doesn't play or "doesn't feel inspired by" Orks, Tyranids, Dark Eldar, or IG. That is why their latest codexes are written from the point of view of someone that has never played those armies. Eldar, on the other hand are a favorite of Jervis Johnson who is head of the rules team. So their codex is stupidly powerful. Expect the rules changes to be much the same. If the designers like psykers, expect an edition dominated by psychic powers. If they like tanks expect buffs to vehicles. Their design process has very little room for refinement or playtesting, and so a new ruleset is quite a gamble.

However, we can make some educated guesses based on what we've seen from GW in the past, recently, and what mechanics in the game work and don't work.
- The psychic phase is going to change. I expect this to be a dramatic change in how powers are manifest and possibly the details of the specific powers.
- GW really likes the ideas of a flier phase, so it wouldn't surprise us if they add an additional phase to the game, but there is clearly a faction of the rules team that would rather simplify than add, so it is unclear. If a phase is added expect it to be poorly thought out, unclear, and generally disliked by players in the same way that Super Heavies and Stomp have been this edition.
- Jink is too powerful. Expect it to become a 5+ instead of a 4+. With modifiers more akin to the previous edition.
- The army comp system is unworkable. Expect 4 ways to play like Age of Sigmar (3 in sigmar). Unbound, Narrative, points based, and Apoc.
- Formations are a clear bed of experimentation for the rules team, there has been no consistent design philosophy, or clear view on how they should be used in the game. Expect some tweak to them. Either a Points cost associated with them or limitations on how to use them and a more consistent design philosophy.
- Super Heavies, Strength D, and Stomp are likely to get reworks. They were clearly beta-test level rules in 7th edition, and I expect them to be refined much more for 7th.
- Independent characters are likely to change. Most likely a tweak to battle brothers so that they can't join each other's units or some other restriction. We hate deathstar 40K, and all signs point to GW not liking it either.
- There are signs that unit types might go away, or be tweaked substantially. Most likely Vehicles and monstrous creatures will become more similar.
- The people obsessed with rolling on tables that wrote the 6th edition rules haven't been making many waves since the Ork Codex, so expect fewer tables to roll on.

3rd and 6th were both fairly large overhauls, 4th, 5th, and 7th were mostly maintenance releases. I don't expect 8th to go too far out of control.

Since 3rd the core rules have been assumed to be backwards-compatible with last edition's Codexes (worst-case scenario there were two-editions-old rules in 5th, but I don't think anyone's ever been left with rules three editions out of date). Codexes haven't been outright deleted since the 2nd-3rd transition dropped a few (Harlequins, Squats, et cetera); the Daemonhunters/Witch Hunters books from 3e have been split up and neutered, but if a unit entry exists it's not going to be deleted between editions. Options go, statlines go, and army construction formats go, but the models will be useable.

Rumour mill doesn't have much about specific changes. I've heard that it's going to be a streamlining/cleanup edition, at which point I'd expect formations/detachments, allies, supplements, psykers, and relics to be the main focus of the cleanup.

Awesome thanks a lot guys! So it's not totally dumb to continue buying and building my Blood Angels army with 8th edition around the corner?

tag8833 wrote:
Expect most of the changes to be on the margin, but that can have enormous effects on the meta. Let me give you an example.

Bikes and Jump units are very similar. One key difference is that bikes have Jink and jump units do not. Right now bikes are favored in the modern meta. If a new edition comes out and gives jump units jink, then all jump units immediately become better, and the meta shifts such that Jump armies are much more powerful than they used to be, and by comparison bike armies are far less powerful, but the absolute power of the bike units hasn't changed. If the change goes the otherway, and bikes lose Jink, then Bike armies get less powerful. By Comparison Jump units become more powerful by comparison, but in absolute terms, jump units don't actually gain any power.

We don't know what GW is planning to change, and in reality, they probably haven't decided either. There is clearly a battle inside the GW rules team over philosophies, and it is unclear who will win out.

Most of the changes will be based on the rules designers. For instance, the current team either doesn't play or "doesn't feel inspired by" Orks, Tyranids, Dark Eldar, or IG. That is why their latest codexes are written from the point of view of someone that has never played those armies. Eldar, on the other hand are a favorite of Jervis Johnson who is head of the rules team. So their codex is stupidly powerful. Expect the rules changes to be much the same. If the designers like psykers, expect an edition dominated by psychic powers. If they like tanks expect buffs to vehicles. Their design process has very little room for refinement or playtesting, and so a new ruleset is quite a gamble.

However, we can make some educated guesses based on what we've seen from GW in the past, recently, and what mechanics in the game work and don't work.
- The psychic phase is going to change. I expect this to be a dramatic change in how powers are manifest and possibly the details of the specific powers.
- GW really likes the ideas of a flier phase, so it wouldn't surprise us if they add an additional phase to the game, but there is clearly a faction of the rules team that would rather simplify than add, so it is unclear. If a phase is added expect it to be poorly thought out, unclear, and generally disliked by players in the same way that Super Heavies and Stomp have been this edition.
- Jink is too powerful. Expect it to become a 5+ instead of a 4+. With modifiers more akin to the previous edition.
- The army comp system is unworkable. Expect 4 ways to play like Age of Sigmar (3 in sigmar). Unbound, Narrative, points based, and Apoc.
- Formations are a clear bed of experimentation for the rules team, there has been no consistent design philosophy, or clear view on how they should be used in the game. Expect some tweak to them. Either a Points cost associated with them or limitations on how to use them and a more consistent design philosophy.
- Super Heavies, Strength D, and Stomp are likely to get reworks. They were clearly beta-test level rules in 7th edition, and I expect them to be refined much more for 7th.
- Independent characters are likely to change. Most likely a tweak to battle brothers so that they can't join each other's units or some other restriction. We hate deathstar 40K, and all signs point to GW not liking it either.
- There are signs that unit types might go away, or be tweaked substantially. Most likely Vehicles and monstrous creatures will become more similar.
- The people obsessed with rolling on tables that wrote the 6th edition rules haven't been making many waves since the Ork Codex, so expect fewer tables to roll on.

Thats an aweful lot of specualtion masquerading as authoritative commentry and fact.

Some of what you said may well end up being true, but it mostly reads like wishlisting at this point.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 maku wrote:
Awesome thanks a lot guys! So it's not totally dumb to continue buying and building my Blood Angels army with 8th edition around the corner?

Well, the way it plays is probably going to change with a new addition rule set and how much will depend on whether there are new rules for all armies right off the bat or whether you have to comp the current codex before a new one comes out, but the units themselves aren't likely to be invalidated.

 Imateria wrote:

Thats an aweful lot of specualtion masquerading as authoritative commentry and fact.

Some of what you said may well end up being true, but it mostly reads like wishlisting at this point.

It was 100% speculation. That is why I led with "We don't know what GW is planning to change, and in reality, they probably haven't decided either." Trust me, it isn't wishlisting. I HATE the idea of a flier phase. I am terrified what they do to the psychic phase. I want formations and super heavies gone from the game. It's speculation based on what GW's been doing in the FAQ's, and saying in their interviews recently, also the mechanics that have been tried in AoS.

The latest book: Traitor's Hate has terrified me for 8th edition. They took stuff and renamed them for no reason except they like rules bloat. They tripled down on deathstar powers. They changed design philosophies for formations yet again. It took a single read to realize that some of the rules weren't playtested (How can Heldrakes vector strike a unit that has gone to ground?). As much as the problems of 7th edition are legion, and obvious, I have 0 faith in the GW rules team to fix them in 8th. I fully expect 8th to be a lateral move with some good (army comp overhaul), and some bad (Flier phase).

maku wrote:Started getting into Warhammer 40k early this year in Spring! It's consumed a lot of my hobby time.
That being said, I know the rumour is that 8 Edition is coming out next year and that led me to the following questions:

How was the transition between 6e and 7e?
Do armies become obsolete between editions?
What major changes are already rumoured to be different in 8e?

Thanks guys!

1. Pretty fine. 7e is basically 6e with a patch and DLCs. It made the game better in some areas, worse in others.
2. Yes. Change of rules impact armies directly. Other situation is when a book is updated, older stuff lose benefits.
Example: There was an Apoc book about Eldar/Dark Eldar and Tyranids, with formations for Dark Eldar involving Power from Pain. 1 month later, the new Dark Eldar codex is released and the Power from Pain mechanic got an overhaul, totally invalidating the previous mechanic - so the formation benefit from the Apoc book was thrown away
3. That it will be a change similar to Fantasy > AoS, but much less crude. I guess the new folks there are learning with public backlash.

 Formerly Wu wrote:
because AoS is a surprisingly elegant

what

 Formerly Wu wrote:
...because AoS is a surprisingly elegant and modular ruleset...

AoS is the exact opposite of elegant. It's stripped down so far that it's impossible to consolidate and standardize rules and the game consists of a clunky mess of special rules, inconsistency, and bizarre balance choices.

The goals of AoS (make a cleaner, simpler, and more accessible game) were laudable, but if GW takes lessons on execution from it the end result is going to be an awful mess.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Formerly Wu wrote:
...because AoS is a surprisingly elegant and modular ruleset...

AoS is the exact opposite of elegant. It's stripped down so far that it's impossible to consolidate and standardize rules and the game consists of a clunky mess of special rules, inconsistency, and bizarre balance choices.

The goals of AoS (make a cleaner, simpler, and more accessible game) were laudable, but if GW takes lessons on execution from it the end result is going to be an awful mess.

Let's not turn this into ANOTHER quality of AoS argument please, it's been done. A certain number of people think it's delightful and others think it is the worst thing since the Horus Hersey

There is speculation that 8th edition will incorporate the successful (from GW's point of view) elements of the WFB > AoS change, esp. the massive simplification of core rules and warscroll system. Whatever happens, any "cleaning up" will be welcome here.

About "invalidation of armies"; that depends on your definition. I doubt any armies will no longer have rules (i.e. you will be able to put them on a table and play 8th ed 40k), but with each edition change some armies become weaker and other stronger (i.e. some armies will not be as good relative to others as they are now) and some combinations of troops may no longer be battleforged or viable.

 DarkBlack wrote:
There is speculation that 8th edition will incorporate the successful (from GW's point of view) elements of the WFB > AoS change, esp. the massive simplification of core rules and warscroll system. Whatever happens, any "cleaning up" will be welcome here.

About "invalidation of armies"; that depends on your definition. I doubt any armies will no longer have rules (i.e. you will be able to put them on a table and play 8th ed 40k), but with each edition change some armies become weaker and other stronger (i.e. some armies will not be as good relative to others as they are now) and some combinations of troops may no longer be battleforged or viable.

I answer this because is white text. I just have 2 observations:

- People could be fine with a certain degree of complexity, as long as one has not to look into 652436243642 manuals and there is an acceptable (not perfect but acceptable) balance, internal and external; the same people could loathe an oversimplified game. I see that a complex game is difficult to design, but once again this is not homebrew, is a company of professionals that charges an arm and a leg for its books.

- Armies can disappear after overhauls. See Tomb Kings and Bretonnia. GW cannot be trusted.

 Kaiyanwang wrote:
...People could be fine with a certain degree of complexity, as long as one has not to look into 652436243642 manuals and there is an acceptable (not perfect but acceptable) balance, internal and external; the same people could loathe an oversimplified game. I see that a complex game is difficult to design, but once again this is not homebrew, is a company of professionals that charges an arm and a leg for its books.

- Armies can disappear after overhauls. See Tomb Kings and Bretonnia. GW cannot be trusted.

To my mind the fact that GW charges an arm and a leg for the books is the core of the problem. The inflexible release schedule that assumes people are going to get the paper book and want it to be current for some time means they refuse to patch things they've messed up.

That said the first thing that's likely to be fixed is the proliferation of rulebooks. There are around fifty Codexes, supplements, and expansion books current in 40k right now (by my count, GW's website lists over 200 but they're double-dipping on collector's editions, digital editions, and small-format books), plus twelve current Imperial Armour books, plus any number of one-off dataslates. I think the campaign book release model they're doing now is going to be the main approach going forward; they'd be able to keep people buying books, keep the rules contained in a smaller pool of books to make them easier to find/learn, and they'd be able to speed up the update cycle considerably.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DarkBlack wrote:
Let's not turn this into ANOTHER quality of AoS argument please, it's been done. A certain number of people think it's delightful and others think it is the worst thing since the Horus Hersey

Sorry about that, stopping.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Kaiyanwang wrote:
...People could be fine with a certain degree of complexity, as long as one has not to look into 652436243642 manuals and there is an acceptable (not perfect but acceptable) balance, internal and external; the same people could loathe an oversimplified game. I see that a complex game is difficult to design, but once again this is not homebrew, is a company of professionals that charges an arm and a leg for its books.

- Armies can disappear after overhauls. See Tomb Kings and Bretonnia. GW cannot be trusted.

To my mind the fact that GW charges an arm and a leg for the books is the core of the problem. The inflexible release schedule that assumes people are going to get the paper book and want it to be current for some time means they refuse to patch things they've messed up.

That said the first thing that's likely to be fixed is the proliferation of rulebooks. There are around fifty Codexes, supplements, and expansion books current in 40k right now (by my count, GW's website lists over 200 but they're double-dipping on collector's editions, digital editions, and small-format books), plus twelve current Imperial Armour books, plus any number of one-off dataslates. I think the campaign book release model they're doing now is going to be the main approach going forward; they'd be able to keep people buying books, keep the rules contained in a smaller pool of books to make them easier to find/learn, and they'd be able to speed up the update cycle considerably.

Is what are they doing for AoS. New books every now and then with the story going forward and few new rules, all bloated by a certain writing style and their new art direction. The general handbook is an exception.

AND IS EVEN MORE HILARIOUS: they sold you as an expansion what is supposed to be a core part of the game.
"Ah, you want an engine with your car? TOO BAD YOU DID NOT ASK FOR OPTIONALS"

I do not want to be inflammatory, but discuss AoS is inevitable if we want to discuss the direction GW is taking or new, simplified 40k versions.

If you think about it, is a monkey-level imitation of what Privateer Press does, but the new stuff is the usual GW codex lottery (will it be pointless? powerful? just stupid and broken? WHO KNOWS). Is the usual GW knowing the words but not the music.

But now there is this new meme that with the new CEO "things changed"

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Kaiyanwang wrote:
...People could be fine with a certain degree of complexity, as long as one has not to look into 652436243642 manuals and there is an acceptable (not perfect but acceptable) balance, internal and external; the same people could loathe an oversimplified game. I see that a complex game is difficult to design, but once again this is not homebrew, is a company of professionals that charges an arm and a leg for its books.

- Armies can disappear after overhauls. See Tomb Kings and Bretonnia. GW cannot be trusted.

To my mind the fact that GW charges an arm and a leg for the books is the core of the problem. The inflexible release schedule that assumes people are going to get the paper book and want it to be current for some time means they refuse to patch things they've messed up.

That said the first thing that's likely to be fixed is the proliferation of rulebooks. There are around fifty Codexes, supplements, and expansion books current in 40k right now (by my count, GW's website lists over 200 but they're double-dipping on collector's editions, digital editions, and small-format books), plus twelve current Imperial Armour books, plus any number of one-off dataslates. I think the campaign book release model they're doing now is going to be the main approach going forward; they'd be able to keep people buying books, keep the rules contained in a smaller pool of books to make them easier to find/learn, and they'd be able to speed up the update cycle considerably.

Is what are they doing for AoS. New books every now and then with the story going forward and few new rules, all bloated by a certain writing style and their new art direction. The general handbook is an exception.

AND IS EVEN MORE HILARIOUS: they sold you as an expansion what is supposed to be a core part of the game.
"Ah, you want an engine with your car? TOO BAD YOU DID NOT ASK FOR OPTIONALS"

I do not want to be inflammatory, but discuss AoS is inevitable if we want to discuss the direction GW is taking or new, simplified 40k versions.

If you think about it, is a monkey-level imitation of what Privateer Press does, but the new stuff is the usual GW codex lottery (will it be pointless? powerful? just stupid and broken? WHO KNOWS). Is the usual GW knowing the words but not the music.

But now there is this new meme that with the new CEO "things changed"

 DarkBlack wrote:
Let's not turn this into ANOTHER quality of AoS argument please, it's been done. A certain number of people think it's delightful and others think it is the worst thing since the Horus Hersey

They will turn it into a even greater mess....
Sorry, but after AoS and the 7th edition, my trust in them is near 0 now....

Things I expect to see in 8th edition:

1.) WS and BS replaced with static to hit numbers, like KOW and AOS both now do.
2.) Dreadnaughts/walkers all become Monstrous creatures
3.) Space Marine codex redone 1st, since it has the most Dreadnaughts
4.) Dataslates to become more like warscrolls containing all pertinent rules for models.
5.) LOWs, Flyers, and Formations ALL remain in the game

tag8833 wrote:
We don't know what GW is planning to change, and in reality, they probably haven't decided either. There is clearly a battle inside the GW rules team over philosophies, and it is unclear who will win out.

That would mean book won't be getting out in next year. Lead times lead times...AOS started to be worked on 3 years before it was released for example. By now for next year(especially if we aren't talking christmas release...) they should be finalizing touches to the book. NOT arquing which way to take the book.

One thing we CAN be sure though. They won't be adding big restrictions so forget ideas about no more allying and no more super heavies. They want to sell those models so unless they plan to discontinue those models from store they won't be making fielding them harder. Also since AOS keeps pushing up formations more and more I don't expect them to go away. HOWEVER one good thing AOS did was points for formations. I thought from the get-go in 40k that would have been obvious thing to have(and what we experimented with initially before dumping 7th ed in favour of 2nd ed). Price for every formation and detachment(maybe first CAD for free). That's been one of the thing I like in AOS and were I not 2nd ed player would wish for 40k get as well.

Lots of speculation in this thread.
One this is certain, prices WILL go up, even if just at 5% inflation.
So in regards to the OP's question I'd say it's a safe bet to get your models now.
If there is a dramatic and terribad change to the next edition it won't be hard to find players who will be sticking with the current ruleset or using a fan made system.