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.
Draco765 wrote: Am I misremembering an early announcement for 8th edition that included a little bit about this being the last "raw" edition overhaul and that they will just update the game via Chapter Approved/Supplements like PA, etc?
Probably not, but there is a laundry list of things they said or hinted when 8th was announced that have either been outright lies or "politician statements" that could easily be construed as not meaning what everyone thought they meant.
Draco765 wrote: Am I misremembering an early announcement for 8th edition that included a little bit about this being the last "raw" edition overhaul and that they will just update the game via Chapter Approved/Supplements like PA, etc?
Probably not, but there is a laundry list of things they said or hinted when 8th was announced that have either been outright lies or "politician statements" that could easily be construed as not meaning what everyone thought they meant.
"3 ways to play!"
These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
I think the Core rules of 8E are great and really do not need to change and Missions get updated in CA, so there really is no reason to go to 9E. Most of the core issues with 8E have to do with detachments and CP generation, and specifically how they interact with army building and Stratagems, which are Codex based.
Since it's unlikely that Codices will be invalidated with a new edition immediately after this edition did so, any potential 9E will do Jack for Stratagems.
UNLESS....the rework of core rules does something special with CP generation and how it interacts. I'd personally like to see Battle Forged grant 3CP EACH ROUND and detachments grant little to no CPs at all. Or maybe you only get CPs for detachments that have the Faction keywords as your WL.
Or even limiting how many CPs you can use in a player turn to like...5 or something so you cant blow your lot on 1 devastating turn
I would like to see the whole sale remaval of cp and stratagems. The introduction of AA. The release of all the datasheets online for free. The adoption of apoc like terrain rules and a move toward unit to unit interactions instead of model to unit.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/12/15 18:36:58
These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
Draco765 wrote: Am I misremembering an early announcement for 8th edition that included a little bit about this being the last "raw" edition overhaul and that they will just update the game via Chapter Approved/Supplements like PA, etc?
Probably not, but there is a laundry list of things they said or hinted when 8th was announced that have either been outright lies or "politician statements" that could easily be construed as not meaning what everyone thought they meant.
"3 ways to play!"
No see 3 ways to play was legit. It's just that most people ignore 2 of them to focus on one.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Lance845 wrote: I would like to see the whole sale remaval of cp and stratagems. The introduction of AA. The release of all the datasheets online for free. The adoption of apoc like terrain rules and a move toward unit to unit interactions instead of model to unit.
You're gonna be waiting a looooong time for that.
I agree though, CP/Stratagems have become this edition's formations/detachments, arguably worse.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/12/15 18:50:53
Matched allows you to use pl or anything to build your lists. 3 ways to play = 2 different classifications of missions and a open way to build missions.
Thats not 3 ways to play. Thats 3 ways to build missions.
These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
Matched allows you to use pl or anything to build your lists. 3 ways to play = 2 different classifications of missions and a open way to build missions.
Thats not 3 ways to play. Thats 3 ways to build missions.
What in the ever loving feth are you rambling about? The 3 ways to play is factually true, just because 2/3rds of them are ignored by the community doesn't mean they don't exist.
Matched
Open
Narrative.
Oh look, there's 3 different ways to play the game there.
Games Workshop Delenda Est.
Users on ignore- 53.
If you break apart my or anyone else's posts line by line I will not read them.
LunarSol wrote: FWIW, I've been hearing rumors of 9th edition since Christmas of 2017....
And you'll keep hearing them until they are ... eventually ... correct.
And until than, every little re-print of the rulebook or battle primer with some editorial cleanup will be heralded as the verification of these rumour unshakable accuracy, to be followed the next day of rumours of the soon-to-arrive actual 9th Edition.
Matched allows you to use pl or anything to build your lists. 3 ways to play = 2 different classifications of missions and a open way to build missions.
Thats not 3 ways to play. Thats 3 ways to build missions.
What in the ever loving feth are you rambling about? The 3 ways to play is factually true, just because 2/3rds of them are ignored by the community doesn't mean they don't exist.
Matched
Open
Narrative.
Oh look, there's 3 different ways to play the game there.
What are the actual differences between them?
Narrative - a set of mission.
Matched - other sets of missions and extra rules. But not points. Because the actual section on matched says you can use pl, or whatever system you and your opponent agrees on including no system. And while detachments are required for matched, they are not forbidden from narrative or open. Btw neither are points.
Open-litterally use any rules you want. Including all of matched.
Again, 3 ways to play in what actual capacity? More and more restrictive mission selection? Open encompasses all of narrative, matched, and anything else combined. So how could it possibly be a 3rd separate way to play?
These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
LunarSol wrote: FWIW, I've been hearing rumors of 9th edition since Christmas of 2017....
And you'll keep hearing them until they are ... eventually ... correct.
And until than, every little re-print of the rulebook or battle primer with some editorial cleanup will be heralded as the verification of these rumour unshakable accuracy, to be followed the next day of rumours of the soon-to-arrive actual 9th Edition.
I think the key difference here is that this source is relatively credible in that they've predicted like 5 or 6 things completely accurately. Add to this the "massive 40k announcement" that GW has lined up at Adepticon and I think it's fair to say this isn't the usual doomsaying or random guessing.
Draco765 wrote: Am I misremembering an early announcement for 8th edition that included a little bit about this being the last "raw" edition overhaul and that they will just update the game via Chapter Approved/Supplements like PA, etc?
Likely not. But then again the GW always says to that effect for every edition. Note how GW doesn't even particularly make any mention of "8th". In rulebook page there's no mention of 8th ed. Again standard for GW. They downplay number of editions in general.
Matched allows you to use pl or anything to build your lists. 3 ways to play = 2 different classifications of missions and a open way to build missions.
Thats not 3 ways to play. Thats 3 ways to build missions.
What in the ever loving feth are you rambling about? The 3 ways to play is factually true, just because 2/3rds of them are ignored by the community doesn't mean they don't exist.
Matched
Open
Narrative.
Oh look, there's 3 different ways to play the game there.
What are the actual differences between them?
Narrative - a set of mission.
Matched - other sets of missions and extra rules. But not points. Because the actual section on matched says you can use pl, or whatever system you and your opponent agrees on including no system. And while detachments are required for matched, they are not forbidden from narrative or open. Btw neither are points.
Open-litterally use any rules you want. Including all of matched.
Again, 3 ways to play in what actual capacity? More and more restrictive mission selection? Open encompasses all of narrative, matched, and anything else combined. So how could it possibly be a 3rd separate way to play?
Honestly the whole "3 ways to play" is purely marketing spiel. We've had those 3 ways since before GW was born.
Matched is just games with points - you can have a full narrative campaign system with them, a tournament, a one off fight.
Narrative is well is just games with connected story. This might be a campaign, but could just be you telling a story in your head.
Open - almost meaningless because it means "Well just do whatever you and your opponent(s) want to do. You don't need a "mode of play" for that you just, do it.
I do think some of it is generational though, I've noticed more generations coming through who are very competitive focused with the hobby almost to the exclusion of any other kind of approach or concept for their evenings gaming. Not that there is anything wrong with matched play competitive standard, but it can become quite a clique on its own and quite a closed shop affair to new commers who often under perform and thus will tend to lose out far more than normal. I've also noticed some casual hints that some cultures/countries are more like this than others. I'd say the UK is pretty open to other modes of play but that some regions like the USA, appear to be a bit more single minded in how they approach the game at the club level. Though this might just be an impression generated from forums and such so is bias in the type of people who sign up to forums to chat.
In the end the net normally defaults to Matched and most of the narrative is just matched with connected missions or story. Mostly because those are universal concepts which are easily understood. More freeform open play is often hard to chat about because there's no unification or common ground. One group might just use power levels for open play; another might be using custom rules written by someone etc... The range is huge and thus can get bogged down in the details.
Everyone's got their Codex, SM & Chaos got their 2nd, Sisters will be getting their new models/codex soon (if I haven't missed its release already) and the "rules only" version of the rulebook is out (and GW didn't bother to put in the effort to incorporate the errata).
So yeah, can very much see GW releasing 8.5 revised/9E this June. I won't be buying it, but can definitely see the codex/rules churn starting all over again - and that's always a good time for them to put a new rulebook out there.
I don't think we'll see 9th edition anytime soon. AoS being the tester for this system type needed a 2nd edition but 40K really doesn't. If they need to update anything that is what the Chapter Approved books are for basically. If you want to remain up to date with points and for tournaments then you need the CA books. If you are a collector or like a variety of missions then you need the CA books. Expansions like Vigilus also make them money and so will new models. If we see a 9th edition then I don't expect to see it within the next few years.
3 years after the launch of an edition is a good time to bring out a revised BRB. It will not be a new edition, since GW doesn't like that term.
It will include all the erratas and add some minor changes (with possible huge effects on the meta, but that is another matter).
The game is working quite fine right now, both in terms of gameplay and sales. A new edition right now wouldn't be a good marketing move, and if GW learned one thing in the last years, is how to manage the marketing side of business.
We need an SM nerf, but that does surely not require an edition change.
PenitentJake wrote: Personally, I hope there never is a 9th edition. I want to see an Imperial Agents dex, a Drukari 2.0 with restored characters and model support, I want a playable plastic kroot army. I want more non-imperial Blackstone explorers with 40k and Kill Team rules. I want every faction to have a Kill Team box with a unique sculpt, which gets released as a stand alone later.
None of this will happen if we go a hard 9th.
Now the idea of a soft 9th that blends seamlessly, that I can handle; there are some dexes that really need a 2.0, and I could especially get behind this if each dex update includes getting everything updated to plastic with a few new units to boot.
If you think about it, that's pretty much where we're already at.
A hard rules overhaul doesn't make sense. The cross platform integration between games has never been what it is now. Messing with any of those systems too much too fast takes the whole network down.
And with two different ways to cost an army, three ways to play, two separate campaigns which you can choose to integrate or not, and in whichever combinations you choose, not to mention three additional scales of gameplay that use the same models... Well quite franly, you are not using the tools you've been given.
As for the IGOUGO debate, I'll say again what I always say: with Blackstone, Kill Team and Apocalypse all being Altenate Activation already, you can already get what you want, without suggesting wrecking 40k for those of us who like it BECAUSE it offers breaks in the action rather than in spite of it.
This is what I mean about using the tools you've been given.
With the right group of players, you can probably talk at least a few people into playing 40k in AA format.
For casual, narrative campaign play between friends, this game has never been better. We've certainly never had so many options.
I get that other versions of the game or other designs might be better for balanced, steamlined, accessible tournament style play. But this isn't my prefered style of play, so a system optimized for it is far less appealing than what we've already got.
Especially when you already have the tools to do what you want anyway.
They won’t call it 9th if they do one, but judging by AoS they’d not be averse to a new edition.
The “rumours” do just seem to be an echo on forums without any basis though.
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"
Honestly wouldn't mind a new BRB with all the FAQs written into the core rules.
A Song of Ice and Fire - House Greyjoy.
AoS - Maggotkin of Nurgle, Ossiarch Bonereapers & Seraphon.
Bloodbowl - Lizardmen.
Horus Heresy - World Eaters.
Marvel Crisis Protocol - Avengers, Brotherhood of Mutants & Cabal.
Middle Earth Strategy Battle game - Rivendell & The Easterlings.
The Ninth Age - Beast Herds & Highborn Elves.
Warhammer 40k - Tyranids.
Matched allows you to use pl or anything to build your lists. 3 ways to play = 2 different classifications of missions and a open way to build missions.
Thats not 3 ways to play. Thats 3 ways to build missions.
What in the ever loving feth are you rambling about? The 3 ways to play is factually true, just because 2/3rds of them are ignored by the community doesn't mean they don't exist.
Matched
Open
Narrative.
Oh look, there's 3 different ways to play the game there.
What are the actual differences between them?
Narrative - a set of mission.
Matched - other sets of missions and extra rules. But not points. Because the actual section on matched says you can use pl, or whatever system you and your opponent agrees on including no system. And while detachments are required for matched, they are not forbidden from narrative or open. Btw neither are points.
Open-litterally use any rules you want. Including all of matched.
Again, 3 ways to play in what actual capacity? More and more restrictive mission selection? Open encompasses all of narrative, matched, and anything else combined. So how could it possibly be a 3rd separate way to play?
Open - no need for thought or concern of balances or narrative, simply bring some stuff, put it on the table and roll dice
Narrative - unique scenarios using points or PL often with a particular story or skew that means it cannot be deemed a competitive or balanced mission
Matched - balanced missions that are primarily intended around points based play
You're right you can do all of those with points or PL, likewise you can use any of those features or missions and call it a matched game. but the overriding operative si they designed these aras of the game for people with different mindsets, people who want different things presented for them.
I don't think we will get a full on 9th edition as many fear. More like 8.5 that continues what has been already done.
The current Dark Imperium box has now sold well over a few years and I doubt it is making them a lot of money anymore. Updating with a new box would be a very sensible move business-wise. The market is currently very saturated with Death Guard minis and the second hand market is directly competing with GW.
Second, the current rulebook and pamphlet are woefully out of date so I wouldn't be surprised if they want to update those things along with putting maybe a few updates such as CA cover rules and whatnot. The new rulebook would have(hopefully) updated rules from errata along with the FAQ changes to the system as well all mission changes and improvements from CA.
So I wouldn't be surprised if we see a new edition, but it ain't going to be anything like the switch to 8th. It's not going to be a complete rule change, but minor editing and addition to an already slim ruleset. They've already did that for AoS with Soul Wars and it was a very welcome change.
However, as I am a cynic, I wouldn't be surprised if this were to jumpstart another codex cycle. Gotta sell those books.
I'm happy with the current BRB + latest CA approach, so I'd be against an edition change that invalidates current codexes. I could get behind a new BRB release though which included the latest matched play rules plus some other tweaks.
Matched allows you to use pl or anything to build your lists. 3 ways to play = 2 different classifications of missions and a open way to build missions.
Thats not 3 ways to play. Thats 3 ways to build missions.
What in the ever loving feth are you rambling about? The 3 ways to play is factually true, just because 2/3rds of them are ignored by the community doesn't mean they don't exist.
Matched Open Narrative.
Oh look, there's 3 different ways to play the game there.
What are the actual differences between them?
Narrative - a set of mission. Matched - other sets of missions and extra rules. But not points. Because the actual section on matched says you can use pl, or whatever system you and your opponent agrees on including no system. And while detachments are required for matched, they are not forbidden from narrative or open. Btw neither are points. Open-litterally use any rules you want. Including all of matched.
Again, 3 ways to play in what actual capacity? More and more restrictive mission selection? Open encompasses all of narrative, matched, and anything else combined. So how could it possibly be a 3rd separate way to play?
Open - no need for thought or concern of balances or narrative, simply bring some stuff, put it on the table and roll dice Narrative - unique scenarios using points or PL often with a particular story or skew that means it cannot be deemed a competitive or balanced mission Matched - balanced missions that are primarily intended around points based play
You're right you can do all of those with points or PL, likewise you can use any of those features or missions and call it a matched game. but the overriding operative si they designed these aras of the game for people with different mindsets, people who want different things presented for them.
No I really think he is right there. Narrative is just a bunch of exotic missions, with no changes to the actual game outside of that. The Open War cards are as much "a way to play" as narrative is. I have played a ton of narrative missions, and never used PL once. Open play is just ignoring army building limitations to field a themed army or an army from a limited collection, which is functionally identical with a player asking his or her opponent "Can I field X?". People have been doing that for seven editions before GW gave it a name.
So, in reality: Matched - Play a game of WH40k Narrative - Play a game of WH40k with an exotic mission Open - Play a game of WH40k with an exotic army
IMO they should just drop three modes, turn matched play into core rules and then combine all optional rule modules like CoD, spearhead or battle honors under "Narrative". People who want to skip certain parts of the rules will figure out how to do that themselves.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/12/16 09:25:21
7 Ork facts people always get wrong: Ragnar did not win against Thrakka, but suffered two crushing defeats within a few days of each other. A lasgun is powerful enough to sever an ork's appendage or head in a single, well aimed shot. Orks meks have a better understanding of electrics and mechanics than most Tech Priests. Orks actually do not think that purple makes them harder to see. The joke was made canon by Alex Stewart's Caphias Cain books. Gharkull Blackfang did not even come close to killing the emperor. Orks can be corrupted by chaos, but few of them have any interest in what chaos offers. Orks do not have the power of believe.
Jidmah wrote: People who want to skip certain parts of the rules will figure out how to do that themselves.
You would think so, and yet some of the stuff I've read on this forum would suggest that some people are completely incapable of doing anything unless it is somehow explicitly prescribed by Games-Workshop. I've legitimately read posts here from people who object to the idea of discussing game parameters with their opponent. It's utterly bizarre.
Well, there is also Matched Play with the added event recommendations for tournament/competitive play such as limits to detachments and datasheets. IMO it might make sense for GW to label that as „competitive play“ or something as a 4th variant, as it seems popular, especially in the US.
Jidmah wrote: People who want to skip certain parts of the rules will figure out how to do that themselves.
You would think so, and yet some of the stuff I've read on this forum would suggest that some people are completely incapable of doing anything unless it is somehow explicitly prescribed by Games-Workshop. I've legitimately read posts here from people who object to the idea of discussing game parameters with their opponent. It's utterly bizarre.
The thing is, open play does not solve that. If you agree on open play, you throw a ton of rules out of the window at once, some of which you might not even be aware of. And there are plenty reports of people denying open play for more or less good reasons, as well as people who trick people into playing open play so they can exploit the missing restraints of matched play (having your entire army shoot twice via stratagems, for example).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sunny Side Up wrote: Well, there is also Matched Play with the added event recommendations for tournament/competitive play such as limits to detachments and datasheets. IMO it might make sense for GW to label that as „competitive play“ or something as a 4th variant, as it seems popular, especially in the US.
I'd rather have them drop the additional baggage and just make those rules part of the core rules, for all regular games. There is no difference between a game played at a store on a weekday night and a game played against the same person in the same store during an event.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/12/16 10:28:16
7 Ork facts people always get wrong: Ragnar did not win against Thrakka, but suffered two crushing defeats within a few days of each other. A lasgun is powerful enough to sever an ork's appendage or head in a single, well aimed shot. Orks meks have a better understanding of electrics and mechanics than most Tech Priests. Orks actually do not think that purple makes them harder to see. The joke was made canon by Alex Stewart's Caphias Cain books. Gharkull Blackfang did not even come close to killing the emperor. Orks can be corrupted by chaos, but few of them have any interest in what chaos offers. Orks do not have the power of believe.
Jidmah wrote: People who want to skip certain parts of the rules will figure out how to do that themselves.
You would think so, and yet some of the stuff I've read on this forum would suggest that some people are completely incapable of doing anything unless it is somehow explicitly prescribed by Games-Workshop. I've legitimately read posts here from people who object to the idea of discussing game parameters with their opponent. It's utterly bizarre.
The thing is, open play does not solve that.
You're right; it doesn't. A lot of people seem to be of the opinion that Matched Play with all that that entails is the only legitimate way to play, and that's fair if that's what they want to do, but then I read posts where people suggest that Games-Workshop should outright get rid of anything that isn't Matched Play, and I'm like, hold-up; I like a lot of the non-Matched Play elements. Why is it fair for someone to suggest that I can house rule additions to the rules, but it's not fair for me to suggest people house rule subtractions?
Don't get me wrong. I'm all for a discussion that allows critiques, criticisms and suggestions. Games evolve, and this kind of discussion is invaluable in establishing the direction most want their games to go, but when I hear people just take an entire aspect of the game I love and say "nobody uses this," as if it's an irrefutable fact, it bothers me.
For what it's worth, I love 8th edition. I generally have a lot of fun playing it, which is pretty much the only benchmark I use to measure its value. I was steamrolled a couple of times by Space Marine armies recently, and that honestly was not fun, so no, the game's not perfect, but the core rules are pretty solid as far as I can tell, and I'd hate for them to change them beyond maybe publishing an updated set that includes errata and FAQs that they've already published.
And finally, I don't know how it hasn't occurred to any of you, but there's not actually going to be a 9th edition. The next edition will be mark X, and it will be published with a font 30% larger than the previous.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/12/16 11:02:23
And finally, I don't know how it hasn't occurred to any of you, but there's not actually going to be a 9th edition. The next edition will be mark X, and it will be published with a font 30% larger than the previous.
Well, unlike Power Armour marks, Editions of Warhammer 40K aren't numbered either.
What is commonly called "8th" could just as well be just "4th Edition" if you only count the hard re-sets, or it could already be something like 17th Edition or Edition 8.3 (or 4.3) if you count smaller updates and patches.
I'd rather have them drop the additional baggage and just make those rules part of the core rules, for all regular games. There is no difference between a game played at a store on a weekday night and a game played against the same person in the same store during an event.
Sure there is.
A) Event recommendation take out quite a few matched-play builds out of the game (e.g. Dark Eldar 6-patrol raiding force, etc..)
B) Event recommendations aren't applied identically to all events anyhow. E.g. Some tournaments use a limit of 3 datasheets, some events only 2 or 1, etc.. (which makes sense, as these recommendations themselves come with the explicit, again, recommendation by GW to tweak and change them as needed).
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2019/12/16 11:09:21
Ginjitzu wrote: You're right; it doesn't. A lot of people seem to be of the opinion that Matched Play with all that that entails is the only legitimate way to play, and that's fair if that's what they want to do, but then I read posts where people suggest that Games-Workshop should outright get rid of anything that isn't Matched Play, and I'm like, hold-up; I like a lot of the non-Matched Play elements.
Which one of those aren't mission related?
Why is it fair for someone to suggest that I can house rule additions to the rules, but it's not fair for me to suggest people house rule subtractions?
I have no idea where you got this idea from. If anything, my experience with 40k across the last decade is that people would rather let you ignore a rule than create a new one.
Don't get me wrong. I'm all for a discussion that allows critiques, criticisms and suggestions. Games evolve, and this kind of discussion is invaluable in establishing the direction most want their games to go, but when I hear people just take an entire aspect of the game I love and say "nobody uses this," as if it's an irrefutable fact, it bothers me.
My point was that all three play styles are 100% supported by just having matched play rules. Everything narrative play related works 100% fine even when using matched and organized play rules. Dropping random models on the table and rolling dice without any mission also works with matched play rules. There simply is no reason for open play and narrativ play to exist as separate rule sets.
For what it's worth, I love 8th edition. I generally have a lot of fun playing it, which is pretty much the only benchmark I use to measure its value. I was steamrolled a couple of times by Space Marine armies recently, and that honestly was not fun, so no, the game's not perfect, but the core rules are pretty solid as far as I can tell, and I'd hate for them to change them beyond maybe publishing an updated set that includes errata and FAQs that they've already published.
I love 8th, too, but its core rules do have some major flaws that could be ironed out without re-inventing the game - CP generation, measuring from bases in combat and terrain/cover as big examples pretty much everybody agrees on.
And finally, I don't know how it hasn't occurred to any of you, but there's not actually going to be a 9th edition. The next edition will be mark X, and it will be published with a font 30% larger than the previous.
With a special xenos edition, which will just be an 8th edition BRB updated with a sharpie and sticky-notes.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sunny Side Up wrote: A) Event recommendation take out quite a few matched-play builds out of the game (e.g. Dark Eldar 6-patrol raiding force, etc..)
You got this backwards here. The correct answer is, it's the same game. You should be able to use your armies special rule in all games or it should not exist. If anything, the whole Drukhari detachment dilemma is an argument for having just one ruleset instead of 3.5. De facto, the 6 patrol raiding force might as well be narrative play only right now.
B) Event recommendations aren't applied identically to all events anyhow. E.g. Some tournaments use a limit of 3 datasheets, some events only 2 or 1, etc.. (which makes sense, as these recommendations themselves come with the explicit, again, recommendation by GW to tweak and change them as needed).
Yet another argument for having just one ruleset for playing games. Either GW puts those limits into rules and that's how the game works, or they don't. There is no reason for an inbetween.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/12/16 14:17:56
7 Ork facts people always get wrong: Ragnar did not win against Thrakka, but suffered two crushing defeats within a few days of each other. A lasgun is powerful enough to sever an ork's appendage or head in a single, well aimed shot. Orks meks have a better understanding of electrics and mechanics than most Tech Priests. Orks actually do not think that purple makes them harder to see. The joke was made canon by Alex Stewart's Caphias Cain books. Gharkull Blackfang did not even come close to killing the emperor. Orks can be corrupted by chaos, but few of them have any interest in what chaos offers. Orks do not have the power of believe.
Facts that exist, which I infer point to a 9th on the near horizon:
- Sisters were released
- There is GWcon or giant party planned in Summer 2020
- There is currently 138 books needed to be read, or purchased, to play the game
- 8th is almost 3 years old
- GW currently has models or entire stratagems being banned at majors
- GW "accidentally" dropped their new 40k Rulebook on the webstore for a hot second.
- There are several more PA releases, about one per month, and nothing has been announced after PA.
- GW is losing money on the Erules front, where it can charge for new or updated content. (Recent meeting highlighted their interest in this regard - Push players to online rules)
Space Marines (Rift Wardens) - 8050pts.
Vampire Covenants 2060pts. 
[1,750] Chaos Knights | 
[1,250] Thousand Sons | 
[1,000] Grey Knights | 40K editions: RT, 8, 9, 10 | 
