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.

If they keep all statlines that same as they are written in the codices (which they have stated will still be valid publications for 8th), I wouldn't mind an altered 'To hit' and 'To wound' charts.
Basically keep them as they are now, but put some 2s on the 'to hit' and more 6s on the 'to wound. Meaning that units with much higher WS can hit on 2+ instead of 3+, possibly at the same "double +1" threshold that require low WS units to hit on 5+
So a WS2 model will hit a WS5+ model on 5+ as they do now, but that WS5+ model will be able to hit the WS2 model on a 2+. You would therefore need WS9 to hit Marines on 2+

Currently str 4 attacks wound as such vs: T4= 4+, T5= 5+, T6= 6+. T7= 6+, T8= cannot wound. I think it would go a long way if str4 could actually wound T8 on a 6. Likewise allowing str3 to wound T7
Add in Armour save modifiers using the current AP values and suddenly Marines can actually hurt WKs without spamming Grav.

-

Breng77 wrote:
It would also allow things like wyches to have a negative hit modifier to make them hard to hit but easy to wound, which would be fluffier than what they are now.

Now this doesn't necessarily make the game less complicated, but it might make it easier for people to learn as you only need to know your own stats and not a table on how they compare.

Player A - "Ok I hit on 3s"
Player B - "my unit has a -2 modifier to that roll, so that is 5s to hit"

When people first started talking about fixed to-hit and to-wound rolls in 40k it struck me as a really bad idea, but now I think with appropriate modifiers it could be pretty cool.

A guardsmen shouldn't have the same chance to hit a Howling Banshee Exarch in melee as they do to hit a Fire Warrior, but the Exarch or other high WS models could be given a "parry" ability or something that gives other models a negative modifier to hit them in close combat. One cool effect of this is it might better represent big ol' monsters like carnifexes and ork warbosses. I imagine a carnifex taking big, scything swings or a warboss throwing haymakers with a powerfist might be difficult to dodge or parry, but at the same time they wouldn't necessarily be hard to hit. I don't imagine a carnifex would sit there using the tip of its talon to parry chainsword strikes. (To be fair giving a carnifex a higher WS in the current system could represent the difficulty of getting past all of its scything talons laying waste in every direction.)

If they are having charging units go first a "parry" rule could interact with unwieldy weapons. So maybe a Space Marine Captain with a Thunder Hammer no longer strikes last but he loses out on his parry ability.

I'm not saying that's what they'll do or that's what they should do, I'm just saying there's a lot of things they could potentially do and I'm pretty excited. My fears mostly revolve around changes to the fluff rather than changes to the rules.

Where was it stated that existing books would be valid for 8th?

 Eldarain wrote:
Where was it stated that existing books would be valid for 8th?

I thought I read back several pages that GW stated this at Adepticon or a similar event. If true, that really limits what rumors we can believe. It is entirely possible to add Move Stats to existing units via an Errata, just as they did when Hull points were added to the game.

It makes perfect sense for them to keep the books because they have released so dang many in the recent 2 years and the backlash that happened after AoS.
It would only make business sense to keep all the codices & supplements valid and just alter the main rule around them.
It might be harder to rebalance everything, but it is entirely possible with key main rules changes.
Really it could look like a completely different game and still use the same stats that exist in the codices

-

As long as the changes are meaningful and not just GW Tzeentchian change for changes sake that would be nice. Have entirely too many books that could be invalidated.

Youn wrote:
It would be extremely easy to just give Vehicles lower saves: Example:


Marine Wnds: 2 Move: 5" Save: 4+ B: 8
Bolter: Range: 24" Att: 1 ToHit: 4+ ToWnd: 4+ Damage: 1 Rend: -1
Heavy Bolter: Range: 24" Att: 1 ToHit: 4+ ToWnd: 3+ Damage: 1d3 Rend: -1

Can replace heavy bolter with Lascannon, Multi-melta, Missile Launcher, Gravcannon, Heavy flamer.
Example rule for Lascannon: -2 Rend


Rhino Wnds: 8 Move: 10" Save: 3+
Storm Bolter: Range: 24" Att: 2 ToHit: 4+ ToWnd: 4+ Damage: 1 Rend: -1

Razorback Wnds: 8 Move: 10" Save: 3+
Twin linked Heavy Bolter: Range: 36" Att: 1 ToHit: 3+ ToWnd: 3+ Damage: 1d3 Rend: -1


Predator Wnds: 10 Move: 10" Save: 3+
Autocannon: Range: 36" Att: 1 ToHit: 4+ ToWnd: 3+ Damage: 1d3+1 Rend: -1
2 Twin linked Heavy Bolter sponsons: Range: 36" Att: 1 ToHit: 3+ ToWnd: 3+ Damage: 1d3 Rend: -1
Extra armor: +1 to saves vs Rend - weapons

Land Raider Wnds: 14 Move: 10" Save: 2+
Lascannon: Range: 36" Att: 1 ToHit: 4+ ToWnd: 3+ Damage: 1d3 Rend: -2
2 Twin linked Heavy Bolter sponsons: Range: 36" Att: 1 ToHit: 3+ ToWnd: 3+ Damage: 1d3 Rend: -1
Extra armor: +1 to saves vs Rend - weapons



At 14 wounds at a 2+ armor save 1+ vs Rend 0 weapons.This also assumes that items that are 1+ are immune to attacks basically from that weapon type.

Rules wise that would become extremely easy to remember. There would be very little argument over it.

Something with 14 wounds and a 2+ armor would have to take a huge amount of attacks to take it down in a game. That would be much more satisfying for your 250+ point item then what it is now.

nice, so IG soldiers have no problem killing a LandRaider in one phase without heavy weapons
14 wounds with 2+ save that get wounded on 4+ are nothing you can call tanky in that game.

sounds like a good idea

 Galef wrote:

 Eldarain wrote:
Where was it stated that existing books would be valid for 8th?

I thought I read back several pages that GW stated this at Adepticon or a similar event. If true, that really limits what rumors we can believe. It is entirely possible to add Move Stats to existing units via an Errata, just as they did when Hull points were added to the game.

It makes perfect sense for them to keep the books because they have released so dang many in the recent 2 years and the backlash that happened after AoS.
It would only make business sense to keep all the codices & supplements valid and just alter the main rule around them.
It might be harder to rebalance everything, but it is entirely possible with key main rules changes.
Really it could look like a completely different game and still use the same stats that exist in the codices

-

I think it is important that all units remain valid, but I would hope that if rules changes are large all codices would be invalidated similar to AOS. IF well thought out data slates were released free for all units it would be fine. The problem with trying to keep all codices etc valid is that is exactly what leads to balance issues. It is ridiculously hard to balance codex releases especially when they cross editions.

 Galef wrote:

 Eldarain wrote:
Where was it stated that existing books would be valid for 8th?

I thought I read back several pages that GW stated this at Adepticon or a similar event. If true, that really limits what rumors we can believe. It is entirely possible to add Move Stats to existing units via an Errata, just as they did when Hull points were added to the game.

It makes perfect sense for them to keep the books because they have released so dang many in the recent 2 years and the backlash that happened after AoS.
It would only make business sense to keep all the codices & supplements valid and just alter the main rule around them.
It might be harder to rebalance everything, but it is entirely possible with key main rules changes.
Really it could look like a completely different game and still use the same stats that exist in the codices

-

I don't remember seeing this assertion anywhere. If you can find it, let me know.

I sure hope they are NOT valid after 8th. Those books are half of what is wrong with 40k right now.

 kodos wrote:

Youn wrote:
It would be extremely easy to just give Vehicles lower saves: Example:


Marine Wnds: 2 Move: 5" Save: 4+ B: 8
Bolter: Range: 24" Att: 1 ToHit: 4+ ToWnd: 4+ Damage: 1 Rend: -1
Heavy Bolter: Range: 24" Att: 1 ToHit: 4+ ToWnd: 3+ Damage: 1d3 Rend: -1

Can replace heavy bolter with Lascannon, Multi-melta, Missile Launcher, Gravcannon, Heavy flamer.
Example rule for Lascannon: -2 Rend


Rhino Wnds: 8 Move: 10" Save: 3+
Storm Bolter: Range: 24" Att: 2 ToHit: 4+ ToWnd: 4+ Damage: 1 Rend: -1

Razorback Wnds: 8 Move: 10" Save: 3+
Twin linked Heavy Bolter: Range: 36" Att: 1 ToHit: 3+ ToWnd: 3+ Damage: 1d3 Rend: -1


Predator Wnds: 10 Move: 10" Save: 3+
Autocannon: Range: 36" Att: 1 ToHit: 4+ ToWnd: 3+ Damage: 1d3+1 Rend: -1
2 Twin linked Heavy Bolter sponsons: Range: 36" Att: 1 ToHit: 3+ ToWnd: 3+ Damage: 1d3 Rend: -1
Extra armor: +1 to saves vs Rend - weapons

Land Raider Wnds: 14 Move: 10" Save: 2+
Lascannon: Range: 36" Att: 1 ToHit: 4+ ToWnd: 3+ Damage: 1d3 Rend: -2
2 Twin linked Heavy Bolter sponsons: Range: 36" Att: 1 ToHit: 3+ ToWnd: 3+ Damage: 1d3 Rend: -1
Extra armor: +1 to saves vs Rend - weapons



At 14 wounds at a 2+ armor save 1+ vs Rend 0 weapons.This also assumes that items that are 1+ are immune to attacks basically from that weapon type.

Rules wise that would become extremely easy to remember. There would be very little argument over it.

Something with 14 wounds and a 2+ armor would have to take a huge amount of attacks to take it down in a game. That would be much more satisfying for your 250+ point item then what it is now.

nice, so IG soldiers have no problem killing a LandRaider in one phase without heavy weapons
14 wounds with 2+ save that get wounded on 4+ are nothing you can call tanky in that game.

sounds like a good idea

What makes you think they could do it in 1 round. If we go with his numbers if lasguns are Rend 0 they cannot hurt it at all without heavy weapons. But if they have rend -1 but hit on 4s wound on 5s and are single shot, it would take 252 lasgun shots to do 14 wounds. SO how many lists have 252 guardsman? Even if they have 2 shots how many have 125 guardsman, and if they do at 5 points each why is it a problem to have 625 points of guardsman shooting at a single 250 point target having the ability to kill it? Also what are the odds of all of those models to have range and LOS? What if cover makes it harder to hit?

Breng77 wrote:
The problem with trying to keep all codices etc valid is that is exactly what leads to balance issues. It is ridiculously hard to balance codex releases especially when they cross editions.

Only if GW doesn't quickly update those older armies. I have been though 3 edition changes and each time (except 6th to 7th) the overall affect was a decent rebalance and shake up of the army power levels. GW has proven recently that they can rapid-fire releases, so initially releasing just a new edition, then new codices over a few months is very possible.

And I might add preferable. "Free" dataslates are not actually free as they require the purchase of a Tablet or similar device. And digital rules are inferior to hard copy.
I haven't met a person able to scroll to a rule faster than I can flip to a page.

 docdoom77 wrote:

I sure hope they are NOT valid after 8th. Those books are half of what is wrong with 40k right now.

As long as GW provides IMMEDIATE, hard copy, free or at least VERY cheap replacements for all the existing army rules, yeah sure, I too hope they reboot 40K.

-

 Galef wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
The problem with trying to keep all codices etc valid is that is exactly what leads to balance issues. It is ridiculously hard to balance codex releases especially when they cross editions.

Only if GW doesn't quickly update those older armies. I have been though 3 edition changes and each time (except 6th to 7th) the overall affect was a decent rebalance and shake up of the army power levels. GW has proven recently that they can rapid-fire releases, so initially releasing just a new edition, then new codices over a few months is very possible.

And I might add preferable. "Free" dataslates are not actually free as they require the purchase of a Tablet or similar device. And digital rules are inferior to hard copy.
I haven't met a person able to scroll to a rule faster than I can flip to a page.

 docdoom77 wrote:

I sure hope they are NOT valid after 8th. Those books are half of what is wrong with 40k right now.

As long as GW provides IMMEDIATE, hard copy, free or at least VERY cheap replacements for all the existing army rules, yeah sure, I too hope they reboot 40K.

-

Well, since that is a practical impossibility, you might as well just say you don't approve.

I didn't mind when they did it for 3rd edition and I won't mind now. Sometimes you've just got to sweep it all away and start over again.

I don't think anything less would reignite my passion for the game.

The real problem with using old codexes comes in with what order do you do them in?

So, if you create a Space Marine 8th edition codex first. Then the Tyranid players still suffering with the 6th edition codex have rules that make absolutely no sense. After all right now in 7th edition, their psychic rules are actually non-sense.

But, if they release a Warscroll for each model they have right now, it becomes a much faster and smoother turn over. At that point, they can release hard/soft cover books at a good rate without anyone simply not having their army for a year.

And at this point they really do need to sweep it all away. The rules that is, not the setting. The setting's fine.

Youn wrote:
The real problem with using old codexes comes in with what order do you do them in?

So, if you create a Space Marine 8th edition codex first. Then the Tyranid players still suffering with the 6th edition codex have rules that make absolutely no sense. After all right now in 7th edition, their psychic rules are actually non-sense.

But, if they release a Warscroll for each model they have right now, it becomes a much faster and smoother turn over. At that point, they can release hard/soft cover books at a good rate without anyone simply not having their army for a year.

In both 2nd and 3rd edition, they scrapped previous books and included army lists in the boxed set, which worked as serviceable rules for all the models until Codices were released.

I think Digital Warscroll style is pretty likely considering how they handled AoS and Shadow War.

 Galef wrote:
"Free" dataslates are not actually free as they require the purchase of a Tablet or similar device. And digital rules are inferior to hard copy.
I haven't met a person able to scroll to a rule faster than I can flip to a page.

Its free if you already have a tablet (and many can and do have tablets without having any need from wargames), and its relatively cheap to print out just the dataslates (significantly less so than it would cost to purchase a new codex).

I'd also submit that, while it is probably faster to flip to a page than scroll for a rule, that dynamic shifts when you need to flip through 5 separate rulebooks to find all the rules you needs for one particular unit, compared to a single dataslate.

If they're keeping all the existing rule books as viable, the latter is going to be the rule, rather than the exception.

By and by, any luck finding the source for the "GW will keep all their existing codexes as viable when the rules change" statement?

As long as GW provides IMMEDIATE, hard copy, free or at least VERY cheap replacements for all the existing army rules, yeah sure, I too hope they reboot 40K.-

That first option isn't happening. You know it. I know it.

That said, I don't think it would be unreasonable for GW to provide the option of purchasing (at or near cost of producing/distributing) a decent quality printout of the dataslates they initially release, or add that to the Basic Rule Book purchase (which would almost certainly be included as part of the cost for buying the Basic Rule Book).

 Galef wrote:

 docdoom77 wrote:

I sure hope they are NOT valid after 8th. Those books are half of what is wrong with 40k right now.

As long as GW provides IMMEDIATE, hard copy, free or at least VERY cheap replacements for all the existing army rules, yeah sure, I too hope they reboot 40K.-

I'm hoping for a 40k GHB, myself.

 Galef wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
The problem with trying to keep all codices etc valid is that is exactly what leads to balance issues. It is ridiculously hard to balance codex releases especially when they cross editions.

Only if GW doesn't quickly update those older armies. I have been though 3 edition changes and each time (except 6th to 7th) the overall affect was a decent rebalance and shake up of the army power levels. GW has proven recently that they can rapid-fire releases, so initially releasing just a new edition, then new codices over a few months is very possible.

And I might add preferable. "Free" dataslates are not actually free as they require the purchase of a Tablet or similar device. And digital rules are inferior to hard copy.
I haven't met a person able to scroll to a rule faster than I can flip to a page.

 docdoom77 wrote:

I sure hope they are NOT valid after 8th. Those books are half of what is wrong with 40k right now.

As long as GW provides IMMEDIATE, hard copy, free or at least VERY cheap replacements for all the existing army rules, yeah sure, I too hope they reboot 40K.

-

I remember 5th to 6th and 6th to 7th and don't really remember a great rebalancing some armies were still terrible. Some remained bad across several editions, some were broken across several editions. In the past entire armies have gone editions without update while others were updated multiple times. I've seen no evidence to suggest that GW can release all new codices at edition release or that people would be happy to buy them. As for requiring a tablet, the AOS stuff was PDF, so all you need is a printer and a binder. So not free
But cheaper than buying multiple codices or supplements again.

I wouldn't mind a ruleset that included the datasheets for all existing units print within the rulebook.
If 8th ed is simple enough (like AOS with 4 pages of rules) than this would be entirely possible. I actually started with GW by playing the Lord of the Rings game, and that is how they did this

If only up to a dozen or less pages are dedicated to the main rules and the new profiles for units are small enough to fit several per page, a single 100-200 page book could include all of the current 40K units (especially since Marines/Imperium would share so many units that could just apply a "faction rule" to give flavor to the different Chapters)

EDIT: Did I just basically describe the General's Handbook? AoS left a bad taste in my mouth when it killed Fantasy, and even though it now sounds like a much better game, I haven't picked it up.

2nd edit: SIde question: If GW has 40K 8th ed already planned out (which I think they do), than why do all the newest 40K kits have all the unit profiles/rules printed in the instructions? That seems odd to go through all the trouble to print all those instructions for part of them to be invalid within a few months.

-

The General's handbook really serves as the point costs for all units that exist in the game. In theory, those should have been printed in the upper right corner of each warscroll when they were originally created but, you know... noone is perfect.

There of course is alot more other stuff in that handbook.

If they have stated that the codexes are still valid (I don't see how that can be possible) then i think half of these rumors can't happen since an AOS-like stat change would invalidate most every unit sheet. This is what has me confused. It could just be adding some stats back like Shadow War has, but that's not "AOS level changes" like most of these rumormongers state.

 Galef wrote:
I wouldn't mind a ruleset that included the datasheets for all existing units print within the rulebook.
If 8th ed is simple enough (like AOS with 4 pages of rules) than this would be entirely possible. I actually started with GW by playing the Lord of the Rings game, and that is how they did this

That's how they did 3d Edition. There were rules for every army in the BRB. Granted, they were pretty vanilla, but at least you could start playing right away. (Even the initial 3rd Ed. codexes were a little bland, IMO, until they started releasing supplements and 3.5 books.)

I think printable free PDF warscrolls on rollout are a better solution than including everything in the BRB. It might cost a little more for a few people (I don't own a printer) but it would keep the size and cost of the core rulebook down.


Old books getting invalidated sucks, but sometimes it is necessary. I've got piles of invalid Warhammer books. I've got a stack of 3/3.5 D&D books that is probably four feet tall. I think that any relatively complex rules system that relies on printed books probably will need a total reboot* every once in a while. By moving towards digital rules it might actually keep them from having to invalidate so many books in the future. I hope they do publish printed books, but I think if they do we will have to expect them to have a shorter shelf life than digital rules (although we might be able to print off updates).
*Reboot of the rules, not of the story/setting.


One possibility is that 8th Edition might be a transitional edition that is not around for a long time. It might be only halfway towards GW's end goal, but would allow them to keep around the existing books for another year or two. They could publish cheap/free codex updates and campaign books (like the Gathering Storm series) that help get us used to the way that the new rules are going to work. This lets them ease us into things and will help keep people who bought some of the newer rule books (like GSC and Traitor Legions) from feeling cheated. Then, in a year or two they could roll out 9th Edition with more radical changes.

 kodos wrote:

nice, so IG soldiers have no problem killing a LandRaider in one phase without heavy weapons
14 wounds with 2+ save that get wounded on 4+ are nothing you can call tanky in that game.

sounds like a good idea

Please do some math before making such statements. It would be almost unkillable with lasgun fire. 4+ to hit, 5+ to wound, saves on anything but a 1. That would take 252 lasguns shots to take down statistically and something around 126 bolter shots? Seems perfectly reasonable to me.

 KommissarKiln wrote:
Yep, I highly doubt that templates are getting removed, as GW has newer prettier templates in their SW:A boxes...

Those aren't new. They're the same templates we've had since 5th edition, just with red dye added to the plastic instead of green or grey.

Zatsuku wrote:

 kodos wrote:

nice, so IG soldiers have no problem killing a LandRaider in one phase without heavy weapons
14 wounds with 2+ save that get wounded on 4+ are nothing you can call tanky in that game.

sounds like a good idea

Please do some math before making such statements. It would be almost unkillable with lasgun fire. 4+ to hit, 5+ to wound, saves on anything but a 1. That would take 252 lasguns shots to take down statistically and something around 126 bolter shots? Seems perfectly reasonable to me.

yep, sounds good to me too; land raiders are meant to be durable, not indestructible. If you pour a billion shots into them, and it goes poof fair game... and if you have some 1 out of 10 000 fluke where a small squad manages to do it, then that's also fine and fun.

 Dakka Flakka Flame wrote:
Old books getting invalidated sucks, but sometimes it is necessary. I've got piles of invalid Warhammer books. I've got a stack of 3/3.5 D&D books that is probably four feet tall. I think that any relatively complex rules system that relies on printed books probably will need a total reboot* every once in a while. By moving towards digital rules it might actually keep them from having to invalidate so many books in the future. I hope they do publish printed books, but I think if they do we will have to expect them to have a shorter shelf life than digital rules (although we might be able to print off updates).
*Reboot of the rules, not of the story/setting.

One possibility is that 8th Edition might be a transitional edition that is not around for a long time. It might be only halfway towards GW's end goal, but would allow them to keep around the existing books for another year or two. They could publish cheap/free codex updates and campaign books (like the Gathering Storm series) that help get us used to the way that the new rules are going to work. This lets them ease us into things and will help keep people who bought some of the newer rule books (like GSC and Traitor Legions) from feeling cheated. Then, in a year or two they could roll out 9th Edition with more radical changes.

I have nearly all of the D&D 4th edition books sitting on my bookshelves, along with all my softback, black and white, 5th edition Codexes (Codices?), WHFB Army Books, some outdated Forge World Imperial Armor books, and various hardback 40K Codexes that were outdated more recently than Chaos Marines, such as Eldar, Tau, and the first Imperial Knight Codexes. I have all 3 Necron Codexes. I even got a really old Tyranid Codex (4th edition, I think) that is a lot of fun to look at.

If the rules get changed, then publications will get invalidated. That is okay. It has been happening longer than I can remember for 40K, and I don't see it stopping. Yes, it sucks that you spent money on something that is no longer current, but it's not the end of the world.

I like the idea that 8th edition might be transitional; I had not thought of that before. Kind of makes sense though, since that is basically what 6th edition ended up being.

 Galef wrote:


2nd edit: SIde question: If GW has 40K 8th ed already planned out (which I think they do), than why do all the newest 40K kits have all the unit profiles/rules printed in the instructions? That seems odd to go through all the trouble to print all those instructions for part of them to be invalid within a few months.

-

That doesn't seem odd to me at all, particularly if the rumors are true that the dataslates will be available for free.

Why?

IF the dataslates will be available for free, then the inclusion of the new rules in the box would be absolutely meaningless (and would be a spoiler for the new rules for a new edition), and would not allow those units to be used in the existing 7th edition game (which is still the current edition, and the only edition that can be played until the 8th edition is actually released).

GW, in that case, would have every incentive to include the rules for the current edition (which would make those units immediately playable) and every incentive not to bother including the rules for 8th edition (which would spoil rules changes and remain unplayable at the moment, likely reducing sales).

There is an interesting side effect if they did use full AoS rules for 40k.

Demon armies already have their warscrolls. And technically, feral armies could face off vs modern armies.

 Mr Morden wrote:

Vehicle AV gone - if they merge vehicles and monsters and it works like AOS - massive result, Looking forward to seeing how the new Dwarf airships work as that should give a good steer. Add in lots of wounds, good armour and some special rules and it should be fine. I think it will be huge improvement on AV/Damage Tables that we have now.

I guess the effect of small arms is to mission kill the vehicle - so like modern insurgents can damage Main Battle Tanks viewing systems, kill crew etc

For me that would be a really lame change as AV system is one of the things 40k has going for it, it is both intuitive and realistic. If vehicles get an MC profile, I would not even play that edition. Tanks are salt of the game and if they are not properly modelled, I won't bother.

Not too hot about removing Templates either. I think they are a cool mechanic and rolling for scatter is always fun.

 Galef wrote:

2nd edit: SIde question: If GW has 40K 8th ed already planned out (which I think they do), than why do all the newest 40K kits have all the unit profiles/rules printed in the instructions? That seems odd to go through all the trouble to print all those instructions for part of them to be invalid within a few months.

-

They're all going to need new instructions when the kits all get re-branded for the new edition anyway, so it doesn't really matter what they put on them now.

 insaniak wrote:

 Galef wrote:

2nd edit: SIde question: If GW has 40K 8th ed already planned out (which I think they do), than why do all the newest 40K kits have all the unit profiles/rules printed in the instructions? That seems odd to go through all the trouble to print all those instructions for part of them to be invalid within a few months.

-

They're all going to need new instructions when the kits all get re-branded for the new edition anyway, so it doesn't really matter what they put on them now.

And it's hardly unprecedented. All the units released with Warhammer Fantasy End Times got rules. They were all invalidated.

Hell, they even invalidated the bases that came in many of the boxes.