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.

 Orange Knight wrote:
If GW advertise an updated edition which has a tighter set of rules and a clean up from the clutter over the last 3 years, whilst keeping all existing books fully compatible you can guarantee players will be excited and that will lead to more sales.

Hahaha, no it wouldn't. You'd have people complaining about the fact that X army didn't get "new items!!!!11!!" or how it was all "phoned in". We literally just saw this nonsense with Psychic Awakening, where if a faction didn't get a certain amount of things, it was "garbage".

@Aash

So your one and only factor in this hobby is knowing the power of your units? Maybe if you fear the worse.

What was great in 6th was still great in 7th. 8th to 9th can be the same.

If they say existing books are still valid then it's only personal insecurity that might get in the way.

 Orange Knight wrote:
So your one and only factor in this hobby is knowing the power of your units? Maybe if you fear the worse.

What was great in 6th was still great in 7th. 8th to 9th can be the same.

If they say existing books are still valid then it's only personal insecurity that might get in the way.

Exactly!! And personal insecurity would likely result in less sales.

I never said it was my one and only factor. I barely play, I primarily do the hobby and only occasionally play the odd game. It’s got nothing to do with my personal preference but everything to do with projected sales and revenue.

Aash wrote:

Sales would drop because of the uncertainty presented by an announcement of a forthcoming new edition. In most markets, uncertainty leads to a drop in consumer confidence, which is expressed by a fall in sales. It certainly wouldn’t increase sales in the period between announcement and launch, so why risk losing sales when the release of new models/rules publications without such an announcement would be expected to result in an uptick in sales.

Just seems an unnecessary risk.

Edit:

GW has historically seen a drop in sales in the lead up to a new edition followed by an increase after the release. I see nothing to indicate that this pattern is likely to change.

I'd love to see some facts back up that anecdotal opinion. If anything, that drop in sales is minute as people panic-buy things they read rumored on dumpsterfire rumor sites like BoLS/Spikeybits/Faeit are "getting squatted".

I'm with dudeface here. No Edition change so far made me regret buying a model, everything is still usable. Some of my DG models moved to CSM only, but who cares? I've got all special weapons magnetized, so... Melters had a hard time this edition, but their time will come again sooner or later.

Worth pointing out as well that even though edition changes inevitably change how many units function it's not a one-way thing and some units/armies get much better while some get worse. the switch to WHFB 8th edition, for example, very briefly saw Orcs (traditionally one of the weaker armies in the system) become extremely powerful almost entirely because of one of their spells.

The people most often hurt by edition changes that don't invalidate the previous edition's rules are the meta-chasers and anyone else with very limited collections for each army. Anyone with a fairly sizeable main army will likely not be too badly hurt by an edition change since most of the time the new edition just reshuffles which units are considered good and which are bad.

Slipspace wrote:
Worth pointing out as well that even though edition changes inevitably change how many units function it's not a one-way thing and some units/armies get much better while some get worse. the switch to WHFB 8th edition, for example, very briefly saw Orcs (traditionally one of the weaker armies in the system) become extremely powerful almost entirely because of one of their spells.

The people most often hurt by edition changes that don't invalidate the previous edition's rules are the meta-chasers and anyone else with very limited collections for each army. Anyone with a fairly sizeable main army will likely not be too badly hurt by an edition change since most of the time the new edition just reshuffles which units are considered good and which are bad.

I honestly think the meta-chasers are hurt the least just because they chase the meta. So they bounce from army to army based on what's "good" in the tournament scene and don't care about anything else. The people who are hurt the most IMHO are the ones who actually like a faction for its lore/aesthetic/etc. as they are the ones most likely to buy units they like rather than units that are good so run a greater risk of their purchases either being turned into total garbage or making them TFG overnight if the unit in question gets huge buffs.

Wayniac wrote:

Slipspace wrote:
Worth pointing out as well that even though edition changes inevitably change how many units function it's not a one-way thing and some units/armies get much better while some get worse. the switch to WHFB 8th edition, for example, very briefly saw Orcs (traditionally one of the weaker armies in the system) become extremely powerful almost entirely because of one of their spells.

The people most often hurt by edition changes that don't invalidate the previous edition's rules are the meta-chasers and anyone else with very limited collections for each army. Anyone with a fairly sizeable main army will likely not be too badly hurt by an edition change since most of the time the new edition just reshuffles which units are considered good and which are bad.

I honestly think the meta-chasers are hurt the least just because they chase the meta. So they bounce from army to army based on what's "good" in the tournament scene and don't care about anything else. The people who are hurt the most IMHO are the ones who actually like a faction for its lore/aesthetic/etc. as they are the ones most likely to buy units they like rather than units that are good so run a greater risk of their purchases either being turned into total garbage or making them TFG overnight if the unit in question gets huge buffs.

But by buying units you like, you never lose (provided you don't have only 2000 points of stuff). Regardless of the direction the meta shifts to, you supposedly only have stuff you like and therefore you build a list with that.
I have fun at tournaments even if I don't field the latest hot combo of units, I try to build the most competitive list I can with the models I have and enjoy the time spent rolling dice. The other units with suboptimal rules get played in friendly games.

 Orange Knight wrote:
...What was great in 6th was still great in 7th. 8th to 9th can be the same...

Jink nerf? GK Codex (and the general named character cull)? Any units that didn't get a formation dedicated to their use? Challenge-tank nerf? Closest-target casualties?

Plenty of stuff got way worse in 7e.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Orange Knight wrote:
...What was great in 6th was still great in 7th. 8th to 9th can be the same...

Jink nerf? GK Codex (and the general named character cull)? Any units that didn't get a formation dedicated to their use? Challenge-tank nerf? Closest-target casualties?

Plenty of stuff got way worse in 7e.

But it wasn't invalidated.

Dudeface wrote:

But it wasn't invalidated.

Not completely but it could change how you need to structure your army.

Dudeface wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Orange Knight wrote:
...What was great in 6th was still great in 7th. 8th to 9th can be the same...

Jink nerf? GK Codex (and the general named character cull)? Any units that didn't get a formation dedicated to their use? Challenge-tank nerf? Closest-target casualties?

Plenty of stuff got way worse in 7e.

But it wasn't invalidated.

It's pretty invalidated if an army slightly functioning before cannot function the same.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Aenar wrote:

Wayniac wrote:

Slipspace wrote:
Worth pointing out as well that even though edition changes inevitably change how many units function it's not a one-way thing and some units/armies get much better while some get worse. the switch to WHFB 8th edition, for example, very briefly saw Orcs (traditionally one of the weaker armies in the system) become extremely powerful almost entirely because of one of their spells.

The people most often hurt by edition changes that don't invalidate the previous edition's rules are the meta-chasers and anyone else with very limited collections for each army. Anyone with a fairly sizeable main army will likely not be too badly hurt by an edition change since most of the time the new edition just reshuffles which units are considered good and which are bad.

I honestly think the meta-chasers are hurt the least just because they chase the meta. So they bounce from army to army based on what's "good" in the tournament scene and don't care about anything else. The people who are hurt the most IMHO are the ones who actually like a faction for its lore/aesthetic/etc. as they are the ones most likely to buy units they like rather than units that are good so run a greater risk of their purchases either being turned into total garbage or making them TFG overnight if the unit in question gets huge buffs.

But by buying units you like, you never lose (provided you don't have only 2000 points of stuff). Regardless of the direction the meta shifts to, you supposedly only have stuff you like and therefore you build a list with that.
I have fun at tournaments even if I don't field the latest hot combo of units, I try to build the most competitive list I can with the models I have and enjoy the time spent rolling dice. The other units with suboptimal rules get played in friendly games.

If your army is consistently underpowered that's not winning even metaphorically.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Orange Knight wrote:
@Aash

So your one and only factor in this hobby is knowing the power of your units? Maybe if you fear the worse.

What was great in 6th was still great in 7th. 8th to 9th can be the same.

If they say existing books are still valid then it's only personal insecurity that might get in the way.

The ignorance here is outstanding. Your name should be White Knight instead of Orange Knight.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Orange Knight wrote:
...What was great in 6th was still great in 7th. 8th to 9th can be the same...

Jink nerf? GK Codex (and the general named character cull)? Any units that didn't get a formation dedicated to their use? Challenge-tank nerf? Closest-target casualties?

Plenty of stuff got way worse in 7e.

But it wasn't invalidated.

It's pretty invalidated if an army slightly functioning before cannot function the same.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Aenar wrote:

Wayniac wrote:

Slipspace wrote:
Worth pointing out as well that even though edition changes inevitably change how many units function it's not a one-way thing and some units/armies get much better while some get worse. the switch to WHFB 8th edition, for example, very briefly saw Orcs (traditionally one of the weaker armies in the system) become extremely powerful almost entirely because of one of their spells.

The people most often hurt by edition changes that don't invalidate the previous edition's rules are the meta-chasers and anyone else with very limited collections for each army. Anyone with a fairly sizeable main army will likely not be too badly hurt by an edition change since most of the time the new edition just reshuffles which units are considered good and which are bad.

I honestly think the meta-chasers are hurt the least just because they chase the meta. So they bounce from army to army based on what's "good" in the tournament scene and don't care about anything else. The people who are hurt the most IMHO are the ones who actually like a faction for its lore/aesthetic/etc. as they are the ones most likely to buy units they like rather than units that are good so run a greater risk of their purchases either being turned into total garbage or making them TFG overnight if the unit in question gets huge buffs.

But by buying units you like, you never lose (provided you don't have only 2000 points of stuff). Regardless of the direction the meta shifts to, you supposedly only have stuff you like and therefore you build a list with that.
I have fun at tournaments even if I don't field the latest hot combo of units, I try to build the most competitive list I can with the models I have and enjoy the time spent rolling dice. The other units with suboptimal rules get played in friendly games.

If your army is consistently underpowered that's not winning even metaphorically.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Orange Knight wrote:
@Aash

So your one and only factor in this hobby is knowing the power of your units? Maybe if you fear the worse.

What was great in 6th was still great in 7th. 8th to 9th can be the same.

If they say existing books are still valid then it's only personal insecurity that might get in the way.

The ignorance here is outstanding. Your name should be White Knight instead of Orange Knight.

Its not invalidated the model, its invalidated your play style. Even then it probably just made it worse rather than completely invalidated it. Ofc for some people the opposite is true and their trash becomes amazing.

Dudeface wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Orange Knight wrote:
...What was great in 6th was still great in 7th. 8th to 9th can be the same...

Jink nerf? GK Codex (and the general named character cull)? Any units that didn't get a formation dedicated to their use? Challenge-tank nerf? Closest-target casualties?

Plenty of stuff got way worse in 7e.

But it wasn't invalidated.

It's pretty invalidated if an army slightly functioning before cannot function the same.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Aenar wrote:

Wayniac wrote:

Slipspace wrote:
Worth pointing out as well that even though edition changes inevitably change how many units function it's not a one-way thing and some units/armies get much better while some get worse. the switch to WHFB 8th edition, for example, very briefly saw Orcs (traditionally one of the weaker armies in the system) become extremely powerful almost entirely because of one of their spells.

The people most often hurt by edition changes that don't invalidate the previous edition's rules are the meta-chasers and anyone else with very limited collections for each army. Anyone with a fairly sizeable main army will likely not be too badly hurt by an edition change since most of the time the new edition just reshuffles which units are considered good and which are bad.

I honestly think the meta-chasers are hurt the least just because they chase the meta. So they bounce from army to army based on what's "good" in the tournament scene and don't care about anything else. The people who are hurt the most IMHO are the ones who actually like a faction for its lore/aesthetic/etc. as they are the ones most likely to buy units they like rather than units that are good so run a greater risk of their purchases either being turned into total garbage or making them TFG overnight if the unit in question gets huge buffs.

But by buying units you like, you never lose (provided you don't have only 2000 points of stuff). Regardless of the direction the meta shifts to, you supposedly only have stuff you like and therefore you build a list with that.
I have fun at tournaments even if I don't field the latest hot combo of units, I try to build the most competitive list I can with the models I have and enjoy the time spent rolling dice. The other units with suboptimal rules get played in friendly games.

If your army is consistently underpowered that's not winning even metaphorically.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Orange Knight wrote:
@Aash

So your one and only factor in this hobby is knowing the power of your units? Maybe if you fear the worse.

What was great in 6th was still great in 7th. 8th to 9th can be the same.

If they say existing books are still valid then it's only personal insecurity that might get in the way.

The ignorance here is outstanding. Your name should be White Knight instead of Orange Knight.

Its not invalidated the model, its invalidated your play style. Even then it probably just made it worse rather than completely invalidated it. Ofc for some people the opposite is true and their trash becomes amazing.

If you cannot use the model around the same manner, it is invalidated. If GW just decided to bump Captains 100 points for no reason, they're invalid for anything but sitting on a shelf.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Orange Knight wrote:
...What was great in 6th was still great in 7th. 8th to 9th can be the same...

Jink nerf? GK Codex (and the general named character cull)? Any units that didn't get a formation dedicated to their use? Challenge-tank nerf? Closest-target casualties?

Plenty of stuff got way worse in 7e.

But it wasn't invalidated.

It's pretty invalidated if an army slightly functioning before cannot function the same.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Aenar wrote:

Wayniac wrote:

Slipspace wrote:
Worth pointing out as well that even though edition changes inevitably change how many units function it's not a one-way thing and some units/armies get much better while some get worse. the switch to WHFB 8th edition, for example, very briefly saw Orcs (traditionally one of the weaker armies in the system) become extremely powerful almost entirely because of one of their spells.

The people most often hurt by edition changes that don't invalidate the previous edition's rules are the meta-chasers and anyone else with very limited collections for each army. Anyone with a fairly sizeable main army will likely not be too badly hurt by an edition change since most of the time the new edition just reshuffles which units are considered good and which are bad.

I honestly think the meta-chasers are hurt the least just because they chase the meta. So they bounce from army to army based on what's "good" in the tournament scene and don't care about anything else. The people who are hurt the most IMHO are the ones who actually like a faction for its lore/aesthetic/etc. as they are the ones most likely to buy units they like rather than units that are good so run a greater risk of their purchases either being turned into total garbage or making them TFG overnight if the unit in question gets huge buffs.

But by buying units you like, you never lose (provided you don't have only 2000 points of stuff). Regardless of the direction the meta shifts to, you supposedly only have stuff you like and therefore you build a list with that.
I have fun at tournaments even if I don't field the latest hot combo of units, I try to build the most competitive list I can with the models I have and enjoy the time spent rolling dice. The other units with suboptimal rules get played in friendly games.

If your army is consistently underpowered that's not winning even metaphorically.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Orange Knight wrote:
@Aash

So your one and only factor in this hobby is knowing the power of your units? Maybe if you fear the worse.

What was great in 6th was still great in 7th. 8th to 9th can be the same.

If they say existing books are still valid then it's only personal insecurity that might get in the way.

The ignorance here is outstanding. Your name should be White Knight instead of Orange Knight.

Its not invalidated the model, its invalidated your play style. Even then it probably just made it worse rather than completely invalidated it. Ofc for some people the opposite is true and their trash becomes amazing.

If you cannot use the model around the same manner, it is invalidated. If GW just decided to bump Captains 100 points for no reason, they're invalid for anything but sitting on a shelf.

Oh cool I didn't realise a model in a codex with a full profile, stats and points value can't be used in a game and is invalid.

Better yet the look on my opponents faces when I tell them their captains are invalid and can't be used!

Considering the hype they build around it its hard not to suspect a new edition is coming.

If so, its likely similar to AoS where the "new" edition was basically a slight tweak of the previous edition so it wont invalidate anything.

I dunno, left 40k behind over a year ago but still feel hyped for this. Hoping for something to spark my interest enough to get back and start building an army again.

Dudeface wrote:


Better yet the look on my opponents faces when I tell them their captains are invalid and can't be used!

Ah so you're playing semantic games with the word "invalid".

If they changed something in the rules that drastically reduced the effectiveness of H2H armies, for example, they could render the setup of an army and a playstyle sub-optimal, making people not buy the models out of uncertainty until modification or clarification is made.

Better?

Kayback wrote:

Dudeface wrote:


Better yet the look on my opponents faces when I tell them their captains are invalid and can't be used!

Ah so you're playing semantic games with the word "invalid".

If they changed something in the rules that drastically reduced the effectiveness of H2H armies, for example, they could render the setup of an army and a playstyle sub-optimal, making people not buy the models out of uncertainty until modification or clarification is made.

Better?

Or how about Dudeface's extreme definition of "invalid", which took away a bunch of Dark Eldar and Marine HQs over time?

Kayback wrote:

Dudeface wrote:


Better yet the look on my opponents faces when I tell them their captains are invalid and can't be used!

Ah so you're playing semantic games with the word "invalid".

If they changed something in the rules that drastically reduced the effectiveness of H2H armies, for example, they could render the setup of an army and a playstyle sub-optimal, making people not buy the models out of uncertainty until modification or clarification is made.

Better?

But again thats personal paranoia, if it is announced there is a new edition fully compatible with existing rules, to stop and think "I won't buy that unit in case they gut the entirety of the melee phase" is a huge presumption.

I think it's best to leave it there, some people are in the hobby for casual fun and rule of cool and won't care, some others are over cautious and want to only buy "good" choices. Horses for courses.

But it's not semantics to simply apply a word correctly.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
...Or how about Dudeface's extreme definition of "invalid", which took away a bunch of Dark Eldar and Marine HQs over time?

When we're talking about people like Sliscus who dramatically alter how your army works and render whatever army build you were running nonfunctional or illegal when they're deleted?

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
...Or how about Dudeface's extreme definition of "invalid", which took away a bunch of Dark Eldar and Marine HQs over time?

When we're talking about people like Sliscus who dramatically alter how your army works and render whatever army build you were running nonfunctional or illegal when they're deleted?

Both can work. For example, a price hike on all Marine HQs of 100 points except a Techmarine would invalidate a bunch of models and alter armies. Then we have the literal deletion of profiles like Dark Eldar named Characters, generic Marines on Bikes, or stuff that their upgrade purchased doesn't really work anymore for even "counts as". The fact anyone can defend either is white knighting, period.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
...Or how about Dudeface's extreme definition of "invalid", which took away a bunch of Dark Eldar and Marine HQs over time?

When we're talking about people like Sliscus who dramatically alter how your army works and render whatever army build you were running nonfunctional or illegal when they're deleted?

Both can work. For example, a price hike on all Marine HQs of 100 points except a Techmarine would invalidate a bunch of models and alter armies. Then we have the literal deletion of profiles like Dark Eldar named Characters, generic Marines on Bikes, or stuff that their upgrade purchased doesn't really work anymore for even "counts as". The fact anyone can defend either is white knighting, period.

Removing entries is never good, gotta agree there, especially if they alter how armies can be built.

No points value you assign to a hq prevents me from using it however. That's not white knighting, it's plain fact. I might lose every single game, but I can choose to use it still the exact same way I did before.

 Jidmah wrote:
Please read my full argument, you must have missed it.
I said that announcing a new edition is unwise because people will stop buying things.
People will stop buying things because there is a real chance of purchases being invalidated independently of the magnitude of the rules change.
This uncludes both PA books and new models.

I don't see what's controversial about your thoughts here.

Traditionally, a new edition means you can't use the same units in your army and expect it to perform well. Maybe it's the use of the word 'invalidate,' but points and rules changes typically favor certain units over another. While it's possible to play the same units, it's likely you are going to be unhappy doing so.

GW writes rules to sell models and tends to favor certain factions over others. But I'd be really surprised if they threw out all the existing points / datasheets this time around, 8th changes significantly every 6 months or so. Feels a little too soon to be switching to a new edition.

 techsoldaten wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
Please read my full argument, you must have missed it.
I said that announcing a new edition is unwise because people will stop buying things.
People will stop buying things because there is a real chance of purchases being invalidated independently of the magnitude of the rules change.
This uncludes both PA books and new models.

I don't see what's controversial about your thoughts here.

Traditionally, a new edition means you can't use the same units in your army and expect it to perform well. Maybe it's the use of the word 'invalidate,' but points and rules changes typically favor certain units over another. While it's possible to play the same units, it's likely you are going to be unhappy doing so.

GW writes rules to sell models and tends to favor certain factions over others. But I'd be really surprised if they threw out all the existing points / datasheets this time around, 8th changes significantly every 6 months or so. Feels a little too soon to be switching to a new edition.

The thing is that this logic applies to all new releases in many ways. New unit on the way that does X? Might invalidate a certain meta setup? New codex on the way? Might invalidate your entire army build. New campaign book with new special rules? Again, might invalidate whatever you are doing. New CA being released? Here we go again, you might not be able to use those lovely setups you were building towards. New FAQ around the corner? You guessed correctly, invalidation to the rescue.

So if there is a new edition it will no better or worse towards invalidating anything than whatever is being released rather constantly over the year, and if they reveal a new edition now it is most likely coming out in a month or so, so people will be able to jump onto the train again and start building towards their dream team.

I would also remind that a huge system change like 8th was isn't something that happened every edition cycle.

 dadamowsky wrote:
ITT: a lot of doomsaying without us even knowing how the things are going to happen, or even if

no kidding, GW blatently teases a major background character getting a mini, in the next breath says "Announcing big news on saturday" and everyone is tripping over themselves to leap to the conclusion it'll be a new edition because EVERYTIME GW says "we're announcing something" they assume a new edition.

Wow it turns out it WAS a new edition literally nobody could've predicted this

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Wow it turns out it WAS a new edition literally nobody could've predicted this

I like that they call out they're happy with you playing 8th as is as well.

Yeah well nothing has ever prevented but as you can't play both in same game good luck finding opponents to 8th

Depending what was tweaked, even an iterative edition change could completely invalidate large swathes of models. If say, they changed the LOS/terrain rules and changed how cp works this would completely change the power dynamics of units and entire factions.

And so can and do faq's and ca. Whole point why gw does those