Switch Theme:

how about just an 8th 2.0 rulebook?  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Fresh-Faced New User




Instead of releasing 9th edition and feeling the need to change everything from top to bottom, how about an 8th 2.0 book that just incorporates all of the rules changes over the last 2 years from FAQs/errata/Chapter Approved/White Dwarf.

Bonus that it's just a rulebook so you dont need to flip through pages of fluff to find what you need (let the campaign books give us the fluff, I do love fluff)

Am I crazy or is this a great idea?
   
Made in us
Veteran Knight Baron in a Crusader




Most of the rules changes aren't in the handful of pages that constitute the 'rulebook.'

They're spread out over codexes and supplements and beta changes to codexes and supplements.

It would have minimal impact on the mess.

Efficiency is the highest virtue. 
   
Made in gb
[DCM]
Heroic Senior Officer





Gone-to-ground in the craters of Coventry

The digital versions should have had this done already. I doubt GW will have ordered the changes to be applied though.
Can anyone confirm this? I stopped buying ePubs off them a while ago, when they had refused to update them.

4000 pts - 3500 pts - 3500 pts - Harlies: 1000 pts - 1000 pts DS:70+S+G++MB+IPw40k86/f+D++A++/cWD64R+T(T)DM+
IG/AM force nearly-finished pieces: http://www.dakkadakka.com/gallery/images-38888-41159_Armies%20-%20Imperial%20Guard.html
"We don't stop playing because we grow old; we grow old because we stop playing." - George Bernard Shaw (probably)
Clubs around Coventry, UK 
   
Made in us
Enigmatic Chaos Sorcerer




Tampa, FL

I don't think they will do a 9th edition, just adjust 8th's rules.

- Wayne
Formerly WayneTheGame 
   
Made in us
Awesome Autarch





Dallas area, TX

Voss wrote:
Most of the rules changes aren't in the handful of pages that constitute the 'rulebook.'

They're spread out over codexes and supplements and beta changes to codexes and supplements.

It would have minimal impact on the mess.
Agreed.
Although a printed book could be produced that update the Core rule with the small changes + all non-faction specific FAQs, Chapter Approved changes and Matched play changes. You could even take out a lot of the lore to include the few point changes pages that are in each Chapter Approved.

In fact, CA2019 could be a hardcover REPLACEMENT for the BRB that included all the Core rules, and changes typically included in CA.
Things like the Beta Bolter rule can be made "official" by including it as a side-bar in the Rapid-Fire section

Make it so that all you need is the BRB, YOUR Codex + all the free Codex FAQs

-

   
Made in de
Terrifying Rhinox Rider






Voss wrote:
Most of the rules changes aren't in the handful of pages that constitute the 'rulebook.'

They're spread out over codexes and supplements and beta changes to codexes and supplements.

It would have minimal impact on the mess.


A LOT of rule changes and clarifications are in the Core Rules. The codex errata are many, but you only need the ones for the armies you play, so they don't have a lot of impact per game.

See my signature for an updated Battle Primer.



 
   
Made in gb
Brainy Zoanthrope





Wayniac wrote:
I don't think they will do a 9th edition, just adjust 8th's rules.


This is what I think. There won't be a need for a whole new edition. It's been billed as a living system so it'll just be updates and clarifications. At some point they may do 8.5 as it were but I don't think we'll ever see a new edition like we used to.

40K:
Genestealer Cult - 1287 pts.. 
   
Made in us
Fresh-Faced New User




That's what I'm hoping to see. I really do like the core rules engine. I also like the updates they've made. That's why I'd like to see it all in one book.
   
Made in gb
Waaagh! Ork Warboss






GW won't ever do this because they think proper digital copies will eat into their profit from selling 30p of paper for £40.

+++++There are currently NINETY THREE (93) documents required to play Warhammer 40,000 8th edition+++++
Disclaimer: My YMDC answers are from a "What the rules, as written (or modified by Special Snowflake FAQ) in the rulebooks, actually say" perspective, not a "What I wish the rules said" perspective. Even GW agrees with me, send an email to 40kfaq@gwplc.com for a confirmation reply "4. Apply The Rules As Written. If you still don’t have a satisfactory answer, use the rule just as it is written if you possibly can, even if you are not completely happy with the effect the rule has."
Because some people get their knickers in a twist, I'll list these RaW 'oddities' in my sig. Sadly GW's promise of fixing their broken rules has itself been broken. Zoom in to read them. RaW you cannot advance and then fire assault weapons, you can't shoot pistols if within 1" of an enemy; "minimum" ranges don't work; Seraphim have to re-roll saves that "fail" pre-re-roll; the game simply breaks if you ever have more than one wounded model in a unit; the game also breaks if a single rule ever tries to do multiple things simultaneously; Khârn punches himself in the face if he's not near some meatshields; Librarians on Bikes are locked to the Index power list, Howling Banshees can't declare a charge further than 12"; Spore Mines have an infinite range; Shroudpsalm technically doesn't do anything, only enemy models, not friendly models, have permission to move on top of a Skyshield Landing Pad; T'au have access to stackable Ignore Wounds (albeit against Mortal Wounds only); the T'au Early Warning Override Support System only works if a unit is "teleporting to the battlefield", not just arriving mid-battle; you can only ever use the Deathwatch Teleportarium Stratagem "once", and then never again in any battle after you use it; if a model splits fire, each weapon must target a different unit; a Tyrant Guard with Lashwhip can absorb an infinite amount of damage via Shieldwall between the time they die and the time they fight; Chapter Tactics on Successor Chapters don't actually do anything; Codex Leman Russ's can take an infinite amount of Hunter-Killer Missiles, Storm Bolters and Heavy Stubbers; Imothekh's 'Lord of the Storm' ability hits the "target unit" twice; "Airborne" units can't be charged by non-FLY units, but can be Heroically Intervened into, piled into, or consolidated into just fine by non-FLY units; Wave Serpents cannot be legally charged at by any model with a standard base; Slab Shields, along with the 'Take Cover!' stratagem no longer have any effect; and vehicles that are "slain" by a special effect do not trigger the "Explodes" ability; Taking any Forge World Space Marine Named Characters denies the use of a Chapter Tactic; and Chapter Tactics do not work on Successor Chapters.
--- Mathhammer tables for 2D6 and 3D6 Charging with various re-roll abilities --- Stylus CSS theme for DakkaDakka forums to hide black avatar background and fully hide ignored users. --- Userscript to add a button to open all "[First Unread]" links on the page, hides the "[Blog View]" links, and adds a "Subscribed Threads" link to forum pages. 
   
Made in us
Enigmatic Chaos Sorcerer




Tampa, FL

 BaconCatBug wrote:
GW won't ever do this because they think proper digital copies will eat into their profit from selling 30p of paper for £40.


Yeah, they seem to have very outdated views on selling things.

- Wayne
Formerly WayneTheGame 
   
Made in gb
Stern Iron Priest with Thrall Bodyguard



UK

8 th is beyond saving it's the same mess as 7th.
   
Made in us
Enigmatic Chaos Sorcerer




Tampa, FL

hobojebus wrote:
8 th is beyond saving it's the same mess as 7th.


You know this isn't far from the truth. The game itself is overall better as far as the rules are concerned, but GW has quickly bloated the game again and gone back to their old tricks.

- Wayne
Formerly WayneTheGame 
   
Made in us
Clousseau





East Bay, Ca, US

There are essentially a few viable lists in 8th edition. You can count what they are on one hand. There is some slight variance in them but it's the same end result: if you don't field something in the top tier, you'll get smashed by someone who does.

Allies have proven to make balancing the game incredibly difficult. While I don't think anyone wants to see allies completely go away, there should be more of a tradeoff so list building isn't walking the buffet line for your macro faction. More restrictive force organization charts would also help.

They need to completely rework the points for everything if they're going to keep this AP system.

 Galas wrote:
I remember when Marmatag was a nooby, all shiney and full of joy. How playing the unbalanced mess of Warhammer40k in a ultra-competitive meta has changed you

Bharring wrote:
He'll actually *change his mind* in the presence of sufficient/sufficiently defended information. Heretic.
 
   
Made in gb
Long-Range Ultramarine Land Speeder Pilot





UK

Since finding out that CA 2018 includes all the matched play rules updates and points adjustments from CA 2017 I think that 8th edition is less of a mess*. Sure, the errata and FAQs should all be searchable online rather than in separate PDFs**, but at the end of the day they're mainly just clarifications of the rules rather than new rules. I would much rather pay £20 for the latest CA each year than have to replace the BRB and my Codex at a cost of £65 because they bring out a new edition. Points adjustments, new matched play rules and beta rules that interact with keywords are a good mechanism for a living ruleset and they don't invalidate the BRB and codexes. If you only need 3 books to play with the latest rules I'm cool with that. Trying out additional beta rules throughout the year is fun too.

* GW really need to do a better job of explaining that you only need the BRB, the latest CA and your codex though.
** Similarly beta rules should all be on a single web page, even if they are published in CA, on Warhammer Community and in WD originally.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2019/02/05 18:51:54


   
Made in fi
Decrepit Dakkanaut





Zarkro wrote:
Instead of releasing 9th edition and feeling the need to change everything from top to bottom, how about an 8th 2.0 book that just incorporates all of the rules changes over the last 2 years from FAQs/errata/Chapter Approved/White Dwarf.

Bonus that it's just a rulebook so you dont need to flip through pages of fluff to find what you need (let the campaign books give us the fluff, I do love fluff)

Am I crazy or is this a great idea?



Umm pretty much what 9th will be. Well some changes as well but gw will always sell things to ensure people change their armies.

But codex replacing edition changes are rare. 3 times in gw history so far 40k/fb combined

“Nothing has a definite nature, so people cannot be purely evil. Even so-called evil people will aspire to follow a moral path when they feel a sense of community.” – Kukai

11772 pts(along with lots of unpainted unsorted stuff)
5150 pts
~3200 pts Knights
 
   
Made in us
Fresh-Faced New User




 Brother Castor wrote:
Since finding out that CA 2018 includes all the matched play rules updates and points adjustments from CA 2017 I think that 8th edition is less of a mess*. Sure, the errata and FAQs should all be searchable online rather than in separate PDFs**, but at the end of the day they're mainly just clarifications of the rules rather than new rules. I would much rather pay £20 for the latest CA each year than have to replace the BRB and my Codex at a cost of £65 because they bring out a new edition. Points adjustments, new matched play rules and beta rules that interact with keywords are a good mechanism for a living ruleset and they don't invalidate the BRB and codexes. If you only need 3 books to play with the latest rules I'm cool with that. Trying out additional beta rules throughout the year is fun too.

* GW really need to do a better job of explaining that you only need the BRB, the latest CA and your codex though.
** Similarly beta rules should all be on a single web page, even if they are published in CA, on Warhammer Community and in WD originally.


I think you def need the FAQ too right? This post was started because I wanted to find the changes to CPs from detatchements. Was it in FAQ 1...or FAQ 2? Or this year's CA? Or last years? Or errata?

The experience of looking for it kinda bummed me out.
   
Made in us
Enigmatic Chaos Sorcerer




Tampa, FL

 Marmatag wrote:
There are essentially a few viable lists in 8th edition. You can count what they are on one hand. There is some slight variance in them but it's the same end result: if you don't field something in the top tier, you'll get smashed by someone who does.

Allies have proven to make balancing the game incredibly difficult. While I don't think anyone wants to see allies completely go away, there should be more of a tradeoff so list building isn't walking the buffet line for your macro faction. More restrictive force organization charts would also help.

They need to completely rework the points for everything if they're going to keep this AP system.


From what I read the GSC codex handles this in a good way with Brood Brothers

1) You can only take 1 Brood Brother detachment for each GSC detachment (i.e. you could only take 1 in Matched Play if you're using the 3 detachment limit)
2) Brood Brother detachments only provide half the CP (rounding up)
3) Brood Brother detachments do not get any army traits (e.g. no Guard doctrine)

I think that might be a fix to soup if it was applied all over. The main issue with soup is there is no drawback to just taking a detachment to offset your weaknesses and CP batteries. Making it so your Loyal 32 only provides half CP and don't get any of the special IG benefits means it's more of a choice if you want to take them. Even when you don't care about the CP (e.g. a Vanguard or Spearhead which would still provide 1 CP) it becomes more of a choice if those units won't get any of their special abilities.

That change to non-primary detachments might be just the fix that soup needs. Force you to declare a primary faction keyword (with the current restriction of no Imperium, Chaos, Aeldari or Tyranid) and any detachment which doesn't have that keyword is limited, provides half CP and doesn't get their army traits. Maybe even go so far as to force the primary faction keyword to be one of the variable keywords e.g. <CHAPTER> as opposed to just <ADEPTUS ASTARTES> to prevent minor souping like an Ultramarine Gunline with Blood Angel Supreme Command. Ynnari still could remain a problem though as they then become the only faction I think who can skirt around that issue.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2019/02/05 19:30:21


- Wayne
Formerly WayneTheGame 
   
Made in gb
Long-Range Ultramarine Land Speeder Pilot





UK

Zarkro wrote:
I think you def need the FAQ too right? This post was started because I wanted to find the changes to CPs from detatchements. Was it in FAQ 1...or FAQ 2? Or this year's CA? Or last years? Or errata?

The experience of looking for it kinda bummed me out.

You should only need the latest CA and Big FAQ (GW have now removed the previous ones from their website). Other FAQs and errata are only an occasional reference for rules clarification aren't they?

Having said that, in your specific example:



That's from Big FAQ 1 (no longer available) and repeated in the BRB errata. Fortunately BattleScribe takes care of the points and CP changes.

   
Made in ca
Wicked Wych With a Whip




Yes I would l like an updated rules book.
   
Made in us
Fresh-Faced New User




 Brother Castor wrote:
Zarkro wrote:
I think you def need the FAQ too right? This post was started because I wanted to find the changes to CPs from detatchements. Was it in FAQ 1...or FAQ 2? Or this year's CA? Or last years? Or errata?

The experience of looking for it kinda bummed me out.

You should only need the latest CA and Big FAQ (GW have now removed the previous ones from their website). Other FAQs and errata are only an occasional reference for rules clarification aren't they?

Having said that, in your specific example:



That's from Big FAQ 1 (no longer available) and repeated in the BRB errata. Fortunately BattleScribe takes care of the points and CP changes.


See that's confusing. Did they make an official statement about not using the first FAQ any more? I printed mine out and put it in a binder. I guess I should toss the first one now as its invalid?

   
Made in us
Clousseau





East Bay, Ca, US

A rule to restrict souping wouldn't change the fact that many armies simply can't stand up to Guard, Ynnari, or Orks.

I guess if you accept that marines/CSM are supposed to be bad, or just delete them from the game, this edition is fairly well balanced.

 Galas wrote:
I remember when Marmatag was a nooby, all shiney and full of joy. How playing the unbalanced mess of Warhammer40k in a ultra-competitive meta has changed you

Bharring wrote:
He'll actually *change his mind* in the presence of sufficient/sufficiently defended information. Heretic.
 
   
Made in gb
Long-Range Ultramarine Land Speeder Pilot





UK

Zarkro wrote:
See that's confusing. Did they make an official statement about not using the first FAQ any more? I printed mine out and put it in a binder. I guess I should toss the first one now as its invalid?

No they didn't which was why I was confused too. Anything from a Big FAQ should end up in CA (or the next Big FAQ). In this case you've found a rule change that ended up in the BRB errata. In any case, you don't need that original FAQ anymore.

   
Made in us
Fresh-Faced New User




 Brother Castor wrote:
Zarkro wrote:
See that's confusing. Did they make an official statement about not using the first FAQ any more? I printed mine out and put it in a binder. I guess I should toss the first one now as its invalid?

No they didn't which was why I was confused too. Anything from a Big FAQ should end up in CA (or the next Big FAQ). In this case you've found a rule change that ended up in the BRB errata. In any case, you don't need that original FAQ anymore.


Gotcha.
   
Made in us
Grizzled MkII Monster Veteran





Mississippi

This is a horrible idea. If GW just repackages and incorporates the erratta into the rules, a lot of people won't buy it. It's the dreaded "D&D 3.5" phenomenon all over again.

It never ends well 
   
Made in gb
Dakka Veteran




 Stormonu wrote:
This is a horrible idea. If GW just repackages and incorporates the erratta into the rules, a lot of people won't buy it. It's the dreaded "D&D 3.5" phenomenon all over again.


Which is why they need to get away from the idea of selling rulebooks. I've no problem with selling Codexes and CA, but the main rulebook should be free, or at least access to the core rules should be free and digital. Note, that means all the terrain rules (minimal as they are) and the "advanced" rules for detachments and missions that aren't in the Battle Primer. Then all these changes to the core rules can be properly updated in one place. This is how FFG does X-Wing now. The core set contains a basic Getting Started rules leaflet but the full rules are in an online Rules Reference, which allows them to alter core rules as needed. It also means all you need to do to check up on the core rules is check the rules reference, rather than trawl through multiple FAQ and errata documents.
   
Made in gb
Regular Dakkanaut




The irony of having very efficient condensed core rules is that now the errata is much larger than the original ruleset. Could put people off...
   
Made in gb
Long-Range Ultramarine Land Speeder Pilot





UK

Cheeslord wrote:
The irony of having very efficient condensed core rules is that now the errata is much larger than the original ruleset. Could put people off...

Agreed.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/02/10 13:02:26


   
Made in gb
Dark Angels Librarian with Book of Secrets





Cardiff

I just hope that when v8.1 arrives we don’t get Persistent Psychic Powers and some unnecessary cards. That seems to be current M.O.

 Stormonu wrote:
For me, the joy is in putting some good-looking models on the board and playing out a fantasy battle - not arguing over the poorly-made rules of some 3rd party who neither has any power over my play nor will be visiting me (and my opponent) to ensure we are "playing by the rules"
 
   
Made in us
Krazed Killa Kan






Wayniac wrote:
hobojebus wrote:
8 th is beyond saving it's the same mess as 7th.


You know this isn't far from the truth. The game itself is overall better as far as the rules are concerned, but GW has quickly bloated the game again and gone back to their old tricks.


Worse, rules are still a bare bones mess and it's held together by stratagems. Game balance might be better but the game as a whole is really lacking in depth.

"Hold my shoota, I'm goin in"
Armies (7th edition points)
7000+ Points Death Skullz
4000 Points
+ + 3000 Points "The Fiery Heart of the Emperor"
3500 Points "Void Kraken" Space Marines
3000 Points "Bard's Booze Cruise" 
   
Made in us
Enigmatic Chaos Sorcerer




Tampa, FL

 Vankraken wrote:
Wayniac wrote:
hobojebus wrote:
8 th is beyond saving it's the same mess as 7th.


You know this isn't far from the truth. The game itself is overall better as far as the rules are concerned, but GW has quickly bloated the game again and gone back to their old tricks.


Worse, rules are still a bare bones mess and it's held together by stratagems. Game balance might be better but the game as a whole is really lacking in depth.


Yeah this is rather amusing. The rules themselves are still pretty barebones. All the "depth" is in stratagems, which essentially means just another combo stacking game. It's become tabletop Magic: The Gathering in effect.

- Wayne
Formerly WayneTheGame 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: