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.

Wayniac wrote:
I hope it's a 2.0 (well 9.0) like they did with AOS. Clean up the rules and fix a few of the worst offenders (really hoping for a fix to soup for CP generation). Game direly needs some kind of base cleaning. It won't invalidate existing books though just like AOS didn't.

That is what I am hoping, I like the idea of being able to mix factions if you want but giving bonuses for mono faction. Honestly I think they should either standardize cp based on game size or rebalance the amount of CP you get from each detachment by the army you chose to tone down guard cp farming and the crazy amount of cp guard can get. My normal guard opponent spends more cp than I get for the game before the game starts and still has more CP left than I started with.

There's 3 PA books to release still but they're all announced. That's probably 2 months of releases? Seems time to let everybody in on the thing that's coming after.
Since they're fresh-out of major codices to do without doing more Marines-2.0 kind of books, I'd guess we'll see another set of campaign-style releases or 9.0 and them re-starting the codex wheel.

I'm not 100% sure it will be an edition change.

If it is, I am fairly certain it won't invalidate anything, but obviously as pointed out, I can't be sure.

I do want to set the record strait on the history of 40k invalidation rules. Rogue Trader to 2nd was invalidation, as was 2n to 3rd, as was 7th to 8th. Within 8th, Indexes have been invalidated, and that will soon include FW Indexes as well.

I could have missed something between 3rd and 7th, but I'm not as familiar with that era. Once the 3rd ed wiped out GSC and the Witch Hunter dex was replaced sometime after 3rd, from my perspective, the whole game was invalidated.

I took a break for a while- until GSC returned, to be exact. The prospect of new Sisters is what kept me in.

The timing of the end of BSF is also interesting. I has been suggested that there may be another Warhammer Quest game set in 40k. Wouldn't it be interesting if the pattern was one WHQ game per soft update of the living edition?

Announcing an edition change in a climate where people are encouraged to stay away from each other would be pretty stupid.

I hope it's Necron Pariahs. If Necrons get some cool stuff I will finally bite the bullet and start collecting Necrons again.

 Insectum7 wrote:
Announcing an edition change in a climate where people are encouraged to stay away from each other would be pretty stupid.

I hope it's Necron Pariahs. If Necrons get some cool stuff I will finally bite the bullet and start collecting Necrons again.

Announcing a new anything is no more or less stupid than anything else in this climate. But it might get people creating new lists, buying new armies, considering new units etc.

Plus it might not be out until people return to a degree of normality.

Dudeface wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Announcing an edition change in a climate where people are encouraged to stay away from each other would be pretty stupid.

I hope it's Necron Pariahs. If Necrons get some cool stuff I will finally bite the bullet and start collecting Necrons again.

Announcing a new anything is no more or less stupid than anything else in this climate.

That's certainly not true. Trying to sell products intended for group activities is far worse an idea than selling products for solitary engagement. Video games are way up in sales, for example. GW should be focusing on models, stories and list tinkering. Save the new edition for when people can start playing again.

PenitentJake wrote:

I do want to set the record strait on the history of 40k invalidation rules. Rogue Trader to 2nd was invalidation, as was 2n to 3rd, as was 7th to 8th.

PenitentJake wrote:
Within 8th, Indexes have been invalidated, and that will soon include FW Indexes as well.

That is not the same as being invalidated because of edition change.

I'm going to say the same thing I did in the N&R thread: whether or not 8th edition rulebooks are invalidated, announcing a new edition while you're still trying release supplements for the current edition would be bad marketing. Some people declare codices obsolete as soon as the FAQ is released.

Given how far in advance GW plan their releases, the current situation likely doesn’t factor in at all.

If 9th Ed is done, printed and ready for release? That’s a huge amount of warehouse space.

Postpone it, and what do you actually achieve? You’d need to find space somewhere else in an already packed release schedule, and keep everything in your warehouse - whilst also ramping up production on your other, soon to be released products.

I get people’s comments that it’s not ideal - and no, it’s not at all. But I don’t think it’s sufficient to stop such a release altogether.

I think it'll be more PA stuff.

I don't think we will see 9th edition news. As new editions would mean people would hold off on buying so they know what they would be looking at. It generally leads to a slow down from most wise buyers so they don't pick up something good now to be crap soon.

I think if 9th was this Summer that was before the pandemic struck and now with social distance and how it'll hit gaming in person still going forward, I'd imagine that is getting pushed back till next year or end of the year at earliest at this point. That is if it was coming at all.

Just my ideas of course.

A new stompa would be big and would fit with comic's series in warhammer community... Just saying

 Insectum7 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Announcing an edition change in a climate where people are encouraged to stay away from each other would be pretty stupid.

I hope it's Necron Pariahs. If Necrons get some cool stuff I will finally bite the bullet and start collecting Necrons again.

Announcing a new anything is no more or less stupid than anything else in this climate.

That's certainly not true. Trying to sell products intended for group activities is far worse an idea than selling products for solitary engagement. Video games are way up in sales, for example. GW should be focusing on models, stories and list tinkering. Save the new edition for when people can start playing again.

Well that's correct, but this is about a GW preview which is the context I applied to my statement. Warhammer is inherently a social activity and anything they release or preview is ultimately with the intent of engaging in it.

A new edition is the epitome of list tinkering and deep reading/review opportunities for the community. It'll generate more conversations than almost anything else they can release or show.

Ultimately if they reveal it, it likely won't be in our hands until after society is starting to return to normal(ish), it's not like their reveal equates to immediate release.

Dudeface wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Announcing an edition change in a climate where people are encouraged to stay away from each other would be pretty stupid.

I hope it's Necron Pariahs. If Necrons get some cool stuff I will finally bite the bullet and start collecting Necrons again.

Announcing a new anything is no more or less stupid than anything else in this climate.

That's certainly not true. Trying to sell products intended for group activities is far worse an idea than selling products for solitary engagement. Video games are way up in sales, for example. GW should be focusing on models, stories and list tinkering. Save the new edition for when people can start playing again.

Well that's correct, but this is about a GW preview which is the context I applied to my statement. Warhammer is inherently a social activity and anything they release or preview is ultimately with the intent of engaging in it.

A new edition is the epitome of list tinkering and deep reading/review opportunities for the community. It'll generate more conversations than almost anything else they can release or show.

Ultimately if they reveal it, it likely won't be in our hands until after society is starting to return to normal(ish), it's not like their reveal equates to immediate release.

8th ed was announced officially almost 3 months before release, but it was a drastic change of the ruleset. The primaris marines and the Dark Imperium boxset have been revealed 2-3 weeks before preorders (from mid May to preorders on the first week of June 2017).

It's certainly possible that on Saturday they'll show the Silent King, something else like the Forge World books and then close the preview hinting at a new boxset coming up, only to do another online preview next month.
They would ramp up the hype but not commit to release something massive (in terms of production and distribution) when they're still working at reduced capacity.

Another thing has to be considered: if this new boxset and 9th ed (or call it 8.5) were planned for June before the pandemic, they would've started producing it months in advance, because distribution all around the world takes time. They may be good at keeping things secret, but if something this big was being produced in March, there's no way that they'd be able to keep it a secret for many more months. Better to announce it, even slowly over multiple previews, rather than having unofficial leaks spoiling it and possibly having an uncontrolled impact on sales.
If a new edition is officially announced, with the promise of not invalidating current codices and PA books, it probably doesn't negatively impact sales. If it were to leak unofficially, people may be worried about it and not buy new stuff until there's uncertainty about the future of the game. Staying on top of the narrative is crucial.

 EnTyme wrote:
I'm going to say the same thing I did in the N&R thread: whether or not 8th edition rulebooks are invalidated, announcing a new edition while you're still trying release supplements for the current edition would be bad marketing. Some people declare codices obsolete as soon as the FAQ is released.

The PA books would still be valid. They are, for all intents and purposes, the version patch on older codexes and contain unit rules that would still be valid. A new edition does not necessarily mean new codexes for all factions, much like how it was before 8th came. I remember the before-time where books were valid for several editions. Hell, I am still using 1.0 Tomes in AoS 2.0 because they haven't been given another release and those books are doing quite well.

I think people are a bit too stuck on the gamechanging 8th edition. Not all edition changes have been so drastic and books were more often than not backwards compatible. It's why some people refer to a potential new edition as 8.5. Hell, most editions were a 0.5 update more than anything else as they made small changes to the core game for the most part.

Also, and I am a bit surprised no one has mentioned this, but campaign books leading up to a new starter/game rule update isn't exactly new. Gathering Storm, End Times, and Malign Portents were all campaign books lead up to a new starter and such. We don't have that many PA books left and releasing a new starter with some rule updates is not entirely out of the realm of possibility and something I kinda expect.

I expect that you’re right, that when it comes, 9th edition won’t invalidate existing codexes, Campaign books and PA rules.

However, (probably unpopular opinion) I would prefer if the rules expansions did get invalidated when a new edition comes around.

I really dislike the way the rules are spread across so many publications, and each publication has its own errata/faq as well.

 Aenar wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Announcing an edition change in a climate where people are encouraged to stay away from each other would be pretty stupid.

I hope it's Necron Pariahs. If Necrons get some cool stuff I will finally bite the bullet and start collecting Necrons again.

Announcing a new anything is no more or less stupid than anything else in this climate.

That's certainly not true. Trying to sell products intended for group activities is far worse an idea than selling products for solitary engagement. Video games are way up in sales, for example. GW should be focusing on models, stories and list tinkering. Save the new edition for when people can start playing again.

Well that's correct, but this is about a GW preview which is the context I applied to my statement. Warhammer is inherently a social activity and anything they release or preview is ultimately with the intent of engaging in it.

A new edition is the epitome of list tinkering and deep reading/review opportunities for the community. It'll generate more conversations than almost anything else they can release or show.

Ultimately if they reveal it, it likely won't be in our hands until after society is starting to return to normal(ish), it's not like their reveal equates to immediate release.

8th ed was announced officially almost 3 months before release, but it was a drastic change of the ruleset. The primaris marines and the Dark Imperium boxset have been revealed 2-3 weeks before preorders (from mid May to preorders on the first week of June 2017).

It's certainly possible that on Saturday they'll show the Silent King, something else like the Forge World books and then close the preview hinting at a new boxset coming up, only to do another online preview next month.
They would ramp up the hype but not commit to release something massive (in terms of production and distribution) when they're still working at reduced capacity.

Another thing has to be considered: if this new boxset and 9th ed (or call it 8.5) were planned for June before the pandemic, they would've started producing it months in advance, because distribution all around the world takes time. They may be good at keeping things secret, but if something this big was being produced in March, there's no way that they'd be able to keep it a secret for many more months. Better to announce it, even slowly over multiple previews, rather than having unofficial leaks spoiling it and possibly having an uncontrolled impact on sales.
If a new edition is officially announced, with the promise of not invalidating current codices and PA books, it probably doesn't negatively impact sales. If it were to leak unofficially, people may be worried about it and not buy new stuff until there's uncertainty about the future of the game. Staying on top of the narrative is crucial.

There have been some leaks and hints for over the last year form a few people who are usually fairly on the money alongside the blurry primaris leak image.

List of potential leaks:

Aash wrote:
I expect that you’re right, that when it comes, 9th edition won’t invalidate existing codexes, Campaign books and PA rules.

However, (probably unpopular opinion) I would prefer if the rules expansions did get invalidated when a new edition comes around.

I really dislike the way the rules are spread across so many publications, and each publication has its own errata/faq as well.

This is why I really really hope the 9th will come with sub-base online multi-platform service with ALL the rules in it. While books would be sold as solely collector's items, artbooks and fluff stuff. It's XXI century guys, we should ask for and expect XXI century solutions.

Never mind 21st century solutions, let’s try and implement some 20th century ones at least!!

Any other publisher will make edits to correct errors when they reprint a publication, GW should do this for all the rules sources. There is no reason I can see that if I were to buy the BRB today it is the same edition as was released in 2017, they should be reprinted with the amendments from CA and errata/faq amendments. CA should be available separately for an annual update for those who already own the BRB, but someone coming into the hobby new shouldn’t be getting a 4 year out of date rule book and feel the need to buy CA for the latest rules and download a bunch of pdfs to get started.

Would never be a 9th edition announcement. Announcing 9E now would basically kill all sales for Psychic Awakening- even if the rules were backwards compatible with a new edition.

 BlaxicanX wrote:
Would never be a 9th edition announcement. Announcing 9E now would basically kill all sales for Psychic Awakening- even if the rules were backwards compatible with a new edition.

But why? If they confirm all codecies and expansions are entirely valid and written to be compatible, why wouldn't people buy them?

Dudeface wrote:

 BlaxicanX wrote:
Would never be a 9th edition announcement. Announcing 9E now would basically kill all sales for Psychic Awakening- even if the rules were backwards compatible with a new edition.

But why? If they confirm all codecies and expansions are entirely valid and written to be compatible, why wouldn't people buy them?

Because without knowing what rules changes and mechanics will or won’t be introduced/changed in the new edition it impossible to tell how effect the rules in PA would be. I expect many players would hold off on getting things if there is doubt over how it will work in a new edition. Just because the rules are compatible, doesn’t mean that the same things are effective in the the new edition.

Aash wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 BlaxicanX wrote:
Would never be a 9th edition announcement. Announcing 9E now would basically kill all sales for Psychic Awakening- even if the rules were backwards compatible with a new edition.

But why? If they confirm all codecies and expansions are entirely valid and written to be compatible, why wouldn't people buy them?

Because without knowing what rules changes and mechanics will or won’t be introduced/changed in the new edition it impossible to tell how effect the rules in PA would be. I expect many players would hold off on getting things if there is doubt over how it will work in a new edition. Just because the rules are compatible, doesn’t mean that the same things are effective in the the new edition.

Those would have to be new players. Anyone who played from 3rd through 7th would know that codexes sometimes last for multiple editions.

Aash wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 BlaxicanX wrote:
Would never be a 9th edition announcement. Announcing 9E now would basically kill all sales for Psychic Awakening- even if the rules were backwards compatible with a new edition.

But why? If they confirm all codecies and expansions are entirely valid and written to be compatible, why wouldn't people buy them?

Because without knowing what rules changes and mechanics will or won’t be introduced/changed in the new edition it impossible to tell how effect the rules in PA would be. I expect many players would hold off on getting things if there is doubt over how it will work in a new edition. Just because the rules are compatible, doesn’t mean that the same things are effective in the the new edition.

So you'll deliberately not buy the extra warlord traits/relics/strats/units/army rules for an army because you don't know whether ignores cover might be of more use as a random example?

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Aash wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 BlaxicanX wrote:
Would never be a 9th edition announcement. Announcing 9E now would basically kill all sales for Psychic Awakening- even if the rules were backwards compatible with a new edition.

But why? If they confirm all codecies and expansions are entirely valid and written to be compatible, why wouldn't people buy them?

Because without knowing what rules changes and mechanics will or won’t be introduced/changed in the new edition it impossible to tell how effect the rules in PA would be. I expect many players would hold off on getting things if there is doubt over how it will work in a new edition. Just because the rules are compatible, doesn’t mean that the same things are effective in the the new edition.

Those would have to be new players. Anyone who played from 3rd through 7th would know that codexes sometimes last for multiple editions.

The codexes stayed valid, but how effective they were definitely changed between editions. A new edition might fundamentally change the mechanics for MW, Ld, S vs T, wound allocation, WS, BS, fallback mechanics etc. without invalidating the current codexes. Any of these changes would change the effectiveness of numerous units and possibly whole armies. This would certainly give pause to me and I’m sure many others when deciding whether or not to buy new models or PA books etc.

Aash wrote:
Never mind 21st century solutions, let’s try and implement some 20th century ones at least!!

Any other publisher will make edits to correct errors when they reprint a publication, GW should do this for all the rules sources. There is no reason I can see that if I were to buy the BRB today it is the same edition as was released in 2017, they should be reprinted with the amendments from CA and errata/faq amendments. CA should be available separately for an annual update for those who already own the BRB, but someone coming into the hobby new shouldn’t be getting a 4 year out of date rule book and feel the need to buy CA for the latest rules and download a bunch of pdfs to get started.

You severely underestimate the roar that would be heard over "why do I have to buy the same book again", and the massive sell drop following it. And rightfully so, the current system of FAQs and Erratas is just a better way to update a book-based game, from a pure consumer viability point of view. It's just not better overall.

Just as music, movies, software, or video games are widely becoming a product-as-service, this is a future for wargaming as well - at least in the part of the game itself. There's no longer a point why would you buy a book that is outdated several weeks after release, you have to carry for several pages of rules and is generally troublesome - just take a look at the scale of the content piracy that is happening on the rules alone. GaS low-fee-high-consumer-count model would not only patch that for GW's incentive to do so but supported by a corresponding interactive and interlinked app it would also contribute to the massive improvements for users. The obscurity of rules hidden beneath dozens of publications is basically gone when you can quickly check the proper FAQ or designers' commentary linked to the rule. Classic win-win other sectors of entertainment proved to work wonders.

I'm not really sure what a "new edition" actually entails, and have 0 insight as to what their announcement will involve save for their own clues which suggest something related to the Silent King.

If the announcement is that I have to buy another big rulebook, then I won't be happy, even if it is an improvement. I'm kind of sick of spending money on books instead of plastic.

 dadamowsky wrote:

Aash wrote:
Never mind 21st century solutions, let’s try and implement some 20th century ones at least!!

Any other publisher will make edits to correct errors when they reprint a publication, GW should do this for all the rules sources. There is no reason I can see that if I were to buy the BRB today it is the same edition as was released in 2017, they should be reprinted with the amendments from CA and errata/faq amendments. CA should be available separately for an annual update for those who already own the BRB, but someone coming into the hobby new shouldn’t be getting a 4 year out of date rule book and feel the need to buy CA for the latest rules and download a bunch of pdfs to get started.

You severely underestimate the roar that would be heard over "why do I have to buy the same book again", and the massive sell drop following it. And rightfully so, the current system of FAQs and Erratas is just a better way to update a book-based game, from a pure consumer viability point of view. It's just not better overall.

I don’t think it should force people to rebuy what they already paid for, and I think the downloadable faq/erratas should remain. What I’d suggest is that for those who own the BRB or a codex already, the annual CA would contain new content and the FAQs etc would be available, but the existing books should be reprinted with the amendments from the FAQs and errata and new stuff from CA such as missions etc that are expansions to the rule book so that someone new coming in wouldn’t be buying an out of date book while those who already own the book would be able to get the FAQs as is currently the case.

Aash wrote:



I don’t think it should force people to rebuy what they already paid for, and I think the downloadable faq/erratas should remain. What I’d suggest is that for those who own the BRB or a codex already, the annual CA would contain new content and the FAQs etc would be available, but the existing books should be reprinted with the amendments from the FAQs and errata and new stuff from CA such as missions etc that are expansions to the rule book so that someone new coming in wouldn’t be buying an out of date book while those who already own the book would be able to get the FAQs as is currently the case.

So you basically are designing a mute (from a profitability point of view) physical product (meaning presales investments) that incentivizes piracy even more. Sorry, but that is not happening for a reason.

 BlaxicanX wrote:
Would never be a 9th edition announcement. Announcing 9E now would basically kill all sales for Psychic Awakening- even if the rules were backwards compatible with a new edition.

That makes no sense. If you want to have access to the new abilities and units you still need the books. I am still going to need Phoenix Rising for the Ynnari Index and the sub-faction traits for my Aeldari units, not to mention Jain-Zar and Drazhar. A new edition does nothing to invalidate that. Only thing that could invalidate Phoenix Rising is the release of a new codex for Asuryani, Drukhari, and Ynnari. That won't happen immediately with a release of a new edition.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Aash wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 BlaxicanX wrote:
Would never be a 9th edition announcement. Announcing 9E now would basically kill all sales for Psychic Awakening- even if the rules were backwards compatible with a new edition.

But why? If they confirm all codecies and expansions are entirely valid and written to be compatible, why wouldn't people buy them?

Because without knowing what rules changes and mechanics will or won’t be introduced/changed in the new edition it impossible to tell how effect the rules in PA would be. I expect many players would hold off on getting things if there is doubt over how it will work in a new edition. Just because the rules are compatible, doesn’t mean that the same things are effective in the the new edition.

That goes for any change. By that metric the Chapter Approved books invalidate PA books.

Plus I doubt they print a gazillion copies of the PA books. Maybe 1-2 runs at best to meet demand and then they disappear just like any other campaign books, at best available online. The PA books are not something that is meant to be around for a long time. They are there to give some updates for each army, lore for the lore nerds, and money for the accountants at GW at release.

The codexes stayed valid, but how effective they were definitely changed between editions. A new edition might fundamentally change the mechanics for MW, Ld, S vs T, wound allocation, WS, BS, fallback mechanics etc. without invalidating the current codexes. Any of these changes would change the effectiveness of numerous units and possibly whole armies. This would certainly give pause to me and I’m sure many others when deciding whether or not to buy new models or PA books etc.

A new model can give pause to another army. That's just the nature of the Warhammer hobby. If you are in it to chase the meta you better have a big bank account because the meta is ever shifting.

 dadamowsky wrote:

Aash wrote:



I don’t think it should force people to rebuy what they already paid for, and I think the downloadable faq/erratas should remain. What I’d suggest is that for those who own the BRB or a codex already, the annual CA would contain new content and the FAQs etc would be available, but the existing books should be reprinted with the amendments from the FAQs and errata and new stuff from CA such as missions etc that are expansions to the rule book so that someone new coming in wouldn’t be buying an out of date book while those who already own the book would be able to get the FAQs as is currently the case.

So you basically are designing a mute (from a profitability point of view) physical product (meaning presales investments) that incentivizes piracy even more. Sorry, but that is not happening for a reason.

You might be right, a guy can dream though.

I’m not 100% convinced that it wouldn’t be profitable though. I’ve no stats to support this, but it’s not inconceivable that there are potential customers dissuaded from buying into the hobby when they learn the starter book (BRB) is not valid and they need to also buy CA and download a bunch of FAQs. I think there is value in lowering the barriers to entry, and this would be one way of doing it.

That being said, I doubt it’ll ever happen.