Switch Theme:

Is the new rule book a fully new edition?  [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
Steadfast Ultramarine Sergeant





Is the new rule book a fully new edition, or just a Version 2.0 of the edition we were just in? I took a break from waiting to be spoon fed a new model kit that I may or may not want for one of my armies every week, thinking I could come back in a few months and be able to order several at once... now there's a new book and a new starter set?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/08/01 05:31:42


My WHFB armies were Bretonians and Tomb Kings. 
   
Made in us
Witch Hunter Undercover in a Cult







Depends on how you define the difference between "a new edition" and "version 2.0 of last edition". There are core rules changes, but they're closer to the 3e->4e or 4e->5e changes in scope than the 5e->6e or 7e->8e changes.

Balanced Game: Noun. A game in which all options and choices are worth using. 
   
Made in us
Steadfast Ultramarine Sergeant





 AnomanderRake wrote:
Depends on how you define the difference between "a new edition" and "version 2.0 of last edition". There are core rules changes, but they're closer to the 3e->4e or 4e->5e changes in scope than the 5e->6e or 7e->8e changes.


Well a new edition would replace all the codex, a version 2.0 would only replace the ones that didn't get replaced already (or didn't get replaced well enough) In other words if we're looking at a new Codex Space Marines in the next few months its a new edition, if we're not going to see one until after the NEXT new rule book, it's just a 2.0

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/08/01 05:11:14


My WHFB armies were Bretonians and Tomb Kings. 
   
Made in fi
Decrepit Dakkanaut





On that logic we would be on 3rd edition now

12 factions for Lord of The Rings
4663
11772 pts(along with lots of unpainted unsorted stuff)
5265 pts
5150 pts
~3200 pts Knights

 
   
Made in us
Steadfast Ultramarine Sergeant





tneva82 wrote:
On that logic we would be on 3rd edition now



I've got a lot of different Space Marine Codexes for us only being in 3rd edition. Some of the other armies get the short end though. I think what people call 4th and 5th used the same SM Codex but different rule books. The rest I believe all replaced rulebook and SM codex.

My WHFB armies were Bretonians and Tomb Kings. 
   
Made in ca
Legendary Master of the Chapter





Breton wrote:
tneva82 wrote:
On that logic we would be on 3rd edition now



I've got a lot of different Space Marine Codexes for us only being in 3rd edition. Some of the other armies get the short end though. I think what people call 4th and 5th used the same SM Codex but different rule books. The rest I believe all replaced rulebook and SM codex.


well if you wanna use space marine codices as your guide, we're in 10th edition

Opinions are not facts please don't confuse the two 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut



NE Ohio, USA

Breton wrote:
 AnomanderRake wrote:
Depends on how you define the difference between "a new edition" and "version 2.0 of last edition". There are core rules changes, but they're closer to the 3e->4e or 4e->5e changes in scope than the 5e->6e or 7e->8e changes.


Well a new edition would replace all the codex, a version 2.0 would only replace the ones that didn't get replaced already (or didn't get replaced well enough) In other words if we're looking at a new Codex Space Marines in the next few months its a new edition, if we're not going to see one until after the NEXT new rule book, it's just a 2.0


New edition.
   
Made in us
Steadfast Ultramarine Sergeant





BrianDavion wrote:
Breton wrote:
tneva82 wrote:
On that logic we would be on 3rd edition now



I've got a lot of different Space Marine Codexes for us only being in 3rd edition. Some of the other armies get the short end though. I think what people call 4th and 5th used the same SM Codex but different rule books. The rest I believe all replaced rulebook and SM codex.


well if you wanna use space marine codices as your guide, we're in 10th edition


I would use Matched Pairs of Rule Book + SM Codex. Some editions had two Codex, or a Codex, and a Supplement (i.e. Angels of Death in 7th Ed) or more. But back to my question, is this just a new rulebook because the BRB errata made it cost effective (because people will buy it, especially in a new units Starter Box) to reprint version 2.0 or are they going through the editionary cycle?

My WHFB armies were Bretonians and Tomb Kings. 
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran





tneva82 wrote:
On that logic we would be on 3rd edition now


Wouldn't it be 4th now?

RT (1.0), 2nd ed. (2.0) and 3rd ed. (3.0) are all significant changes, with stat lines being completely reworked and completely invalidating what came before.

4th-7th (3.1, 3.2, 3.3 and 3.4) all built on the framework of 3rd so can be argued to be iterations of the same edition, and the 8th was a fully new editon, so would be "4th" (4.0) and the current new edition would be 4.1

On-topic:

Yes this is a new edition, built on the framework of 8th. As others have said it is similar to the transition from 3rd - 4th and 4th - 5th. it is more than simply updating the BRB with the Errata and FAQs that have been released since 8th launched.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/08/01 11:40:08


 
   
Made in de
Longtime Dakkanaut




tneva82 wrote:
On that logic we would be on 3rd edition now


In many ways we are.

Again, numbering editions is mostly convention among players. GW traditionally hasn't referred to editions by numbers. Whether "5th Edition" was genuinely 5th Edition or 3.2. Or whether 7th Edition was perhaps 3.4 or 5.2 or whatever, is basically down to your own preference.

That said, GW's social media side at least has now, for the first time, adopted the "commonly used" designator of "9th", which they never did before.
   
Made in se
Fresh-Faced New User




Sunny Side Up wrote:
tneva82 wrote:
On that logic we would be on 3rd edition now


In many ways we are.

Again, numbering editions is mostly convention among players. GW traditionally hasn't referred to editions by numbers. Whether "5th Edition" was genuinely 5th Edition or 3.2. Or whether 7th Edition was perhaps 3.4 or 5.2 or whatever, is basically down to your own preference.

That said, GW's social media side at least has now, for the first time, adopted the "commonly used" designator of "9th", which they never did before.


4th edition had a big Roman numeral IV on the cover at least.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





Fargo, ND USA

The box set retrospective also mentions some edition numbers.

You know you're really doing something when you can make strangers hate you over the Internet. - Mauleed
Just remember folks. Panic. Panic all the time. It's the only way to survive, other than just being mindful, of course-but geez, that's so friggin' boring. - Aegis Grimm
Hallowed is the All Pie
The Before Times: A Place That Celebrates The World That Was 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: