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.

 Xenomancers wrote:
The truth of the matter is - editions are really determined not by their edition number - but by how many space marine codex's have been released. You really think it will be another 2ish years before we get our next space marine codex?

Well, (Space Marine) Codexes aren't really determined by Editions, but big box sets.

8th Edition needed a Chaos Marines 2.0 and a Space Marines 2.0, because they released Shadowspear, which replaced Dark Imperium as the KPI for the stores and those two Codexes were the add-on sale to that box for store managers.

If GW adds a big box like that this summer or the next to take the place of Indomitus as store KPI, whatever factions are in it (and one of them will be Marines of course) will get a new Codex, because as direct add-on sale / upsale for GW's marketing profile of "new-to-the-hobby-guys" they cannot be Codexes without the new shiny units in whatever new shiny box they release (which is different from all the Codexes that aren't part of the sale-conversation/training for the store guys as they try to shift those boxes).

Sunny Side Up wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
The truth of the matter is - editions are really determined not by their edition number - but by how many space marine codex's have been released. You really think it will be another 2ish years before we get our next space marine codex?

Well, (Space Marine) Codexes aren't really determined by Editions, but big box sets.

8th Edition needed a Chaos Marines 2.0 and a Space Marines 2.0, because they released Shadowspear, which replaced Dark Imperium as the KPI for the stores and those two Codexes were the add-on sale to that box for store managers.

If GW adds a big box like that this summer or the next to take the place of Indomitus as store KPI, whatever factions are in it (and one of them will be Marines of course) will get a new Codex, because as direct add-on sale / upsale for GW's marketing profile of "new-to-the-hobby-guys" they cannot be Codexes without the new shiny units in whatever new shiny box they release (which is different from all the Codexes that aren't part of the sale-conversation/training for the store guys as they try to shift those boxes).

You might want to revise your argument here. Shadowspear didn't replace Dark Imperium, it was a one-off production run. Codex Space Marines 8.5 was released nearly 6 months after Shadowspear.

 alextroy wrote:

Sunny Side Up wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
The truth of the matter is - editions are really determined not by their edition number - but by how many space marine codex's have been released. You really think it will be another 2ish years before we get our next space marine codex?

Well, (Space Marine) Codexes aren't really determined by Editions, but big box sets.

8th Edition needed a Chaos Marines 2.0 and a Space Marines 2.0, because they released Shadowspear, which replaced Dark Imperium as the KPI for the stores and those two Codexes were the add-on sale to that box for store managers.

If GW adds a big box like that this summer or the next to take the place of Indomitus as store KPI, whatever factions are in it (and one of them will be Marines of course) will get a new Codex, because as direct add-on sale / upsale for GW's marketing profile of "new-to-the-hobby-guys" they cannot be Codexes without the new shiny units in whatever new shiny box they release (which is different from all the Codexes that aren't part of the sale-conversation/training for the store guys as they try to shift those boxes).

You might want to revise your argument here. Shadowspear didn't replace Dark Imperium, it was a one-off production run. Codex Space Marines 8.5 was released nearly 6 months after Shadowspear.

It didn't replace DI, but Shadowspear wasn't a one off, either. It lasted a good while (I think 6 months or so, far longer than any of their 'one off' boxes), and was intentionally set up to fold its kits into the Start Collecting sets (which still exist, despite the jump to Combat Patrol boxes for the snowflake marines, DG and DE)

its year 2024, and the 9th edition Astra-militarum codex comes out before Christmas, with a brand new limited edition box set to sell out.

bat702 wrote:
its year 2024, and the 9th edition Astra-militarum codex comes out before Christmas, with a brand new limited edition box set to sell out.

HA! Ain't that the truth! Who knows, maybe that new LE box set will even have the first models from the first new IG Infantry line since 3rd edition just to make it all the more enticing, since no one will know if they be released separately within a few months or a couple years.

 SergentSilver wrote:

bat702 wrote:
its year 2024, and the 9th edition Astra-militarum codex comes out before Christmas, with a brand new limited edition box set to sell out.

HA! Ain't that the truth! Who knows, maybe that new LE box set will even have the first models from the first new IG Infantry line since 3rd edition just to make it all the more enticing, since no one will know if they be released separately within a few months or a couple years.

I would like to add the box will contain models that wont be purchasable in their own box for 2 years

 SergentSilver wrote:

bat702 wrote:
its year 2024, and the 9th edition Astra-militarum codex comes out before Christmas, with a brand new limited edition box set to sell out.

HA! Ain't that the truth! Who knows, maybe that new LE box set will even have the first models from the first new IG Infantry line since 3rd edition just to make it all the more enticing, since no one will know if they be released separately within a few months or a couple years.

So it contains Vostroyans?

ccs wrote:

 SergentSilver wrote:

bat702 wrote:
its year 2024, and the 9th edition Astra-militarum codex comes out before Christmas, with a brand new limited edition box set to sell out.

HA! Ain't that the truth! Who knows, maybe that new LE box set will even have the first models from the first new IG Infantry line since 3rd edition just to make it all the more enticing, since no one will know if they be released separately within a few months or a couple years.

So it contains Vostroyans?

Yes, right before the dex wipes out all mention of previous regiments (save Cadians and Catachan) and gives us a whole new set of regiments...which never get separate kits.

You will definitely be able to buy all the regiments in new kits, except for they will come in start collecting boxes which will contain an officer unit (which alone retails for 40 dollars) "so its a GREAT deal!!" and it will also contain the most useless of the tank or chimera chasis

edwardmyst wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
GW can draw out an edition for as long as they want. There is no requirement to make a new edition at anytime. If they wanted to, they could just roll a few years of errata into a new printing of the rules and make no other changes at all.

This is absolutely true. They however, will not do this. They will roll 10th out as soon as the Sister's of Battle Codex comes out. (Sarcasm, see the history of 40k to get it.)
Or, more realistically, they will roll a new one out when they decide they can get more money by doing so. This usually occurs when they believe the majority of players have received the codex (codices) they use. This does seem to be a rough 3 year pattern. Creep has been a part of the last four editions at least, it is part of GW's system, not a flaw. Creep sells the latest releases. GW is in it to make money.

Seconded.
If they feel that every player received the codices they use, they will start a new edition.
Codex creep is not an issue for them as they do not really bolster the tourney scene.

Tiberias wrote:
How long can GW draw out 9th Ed until it requires a reset due to codex creep and stat creep?

Forever. Are there any fundamental problems with the core rules? If not then codexes can be replaced, SM and CSM 8.0 got replaced by 8.5 and 8.1 codexes respectively to bring in new units and in the case of SM to increase power. SM 9.0 could have been released in 8th edition. Codex and stat creep does not require an edition update. Most likely if GW is going to release 10th edition it is going to be a radically different system, otherwise they have no reason to update it. 8th had tonnes of rules changes at the end, those have all been incorperated into 9th. 9th might need a re-release to update character rules and stuff like that, but I don't think changes have been radical enough to call for a new edition change.

With warhammer working on a D6 system and a unit statline ranging from 1-10, I am wondering for how long units and weapons can get stronger and stronger.

Yugioh still exists, so basically forever. GW could come out any day they want and nerf multi-melta to Heavy 1 S10 and remove the dark lance buff with an errata. There is also no rule about 1 codex per army per edition, most editions it was 0-2, now it is 1-2, but GW could change it to 2+ for 9th edition.

Well, I thought that GW would merge 40k and AoS into one system just like PP has merged WM and Hordes.
But I guess this will not happen anytime soon.

 vict0988 wrote:

Tiberias wrote:
How long can GW draw out 9th Ed until it requires a reset due to codex creep and stat creep?

Forever. Are there any fundamental problems with the core rules? If not then codexes can be replaced, SM and CSM 8.0 got replaced by 8.5 and 8.1 codexes respectively to bring in new units and in the case of SM to increase power. SM 9.0 could have been released in 8th edition. Codex and stat creep does not require an edition update. Most likely if GW is going to release 10th edition it is going to be a radically different system, otherwise they have no reason to update it. 8th had tonnes of rules changes at the end, those have all been incorperated into 9th. 9th might need a re-release to update character rules and stuff like that, but I don't think changes have been radical enough to call for a new edition change.

I think that ignores the reality of how GW operates. Whether they need a new edition or not is irrelevant, as is whether they need to update stats or just make a bunch of minor improvements. The cash injection GW gets when a new version of 40k releases will continue to drive decisions about editions and is why we won't see a living edition of 40k any time soon. If nothing else, the rules bloat GW seem intent on continuing with new Codexes and multiple campaign supplements means they eventually need a reset to rein in their huge range of SKUs back to something more manageable.

 alextroy wrote:
You might want to revise your argument here. Shadowspear didn't replace Dark Imperium, it was a one-off production run. Codex Space Marines 8.5 was released nearly 6 months after Shadowspear.

Shadowspear was released in March. Marines 2.0 in July.

It did replace Dark Imperium as GW store KPI that store managers were evaluated on.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 wuestenfux wrote:
Well, I thought that GW would merge 40k and AoS into one system just like PP has merged WM and Hordes.
But I guess this will not happen anytime soon.

No reason to, if both are expanding.

If GW were facing a rapidly shrinking player base, needed to cut costs and adapt to shrinking shelf-space in stores they don't own as their primary form of retail distribution, they might consider doing it.

Slipspace wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

Tiberias wrote:
How long can GW draw out 9th Ed until it requires a reset due to codex creep and stat creep?

Forever. Are there any fundamental problems with the core rules? If not then codexes can be replaced, SM and CSM 8.0 got replaced by 8.5 and 8.1 codexes respectively to bring in new units and in the case of SM to increase power. SM 9.0 could have been released in 8th edition. Codex and stat creep does not require an edition update. Most likely if GW is going to release 10th edition it is going to be a radically different system, otherwise they have no reason to update it. 8th had tonnes of rules changes at the end, those have all been incorperated into 9th. 9th might need a re-release to update character rules and stuff like that, but I don't think changes have been radical enough to call for a new edition change.

I think that ignores the reality of how GW operates. Whether they need a new edition or not is irrelevant, as is whether they need to update stats or just make a bunch of minor improvements. The cash injection GW gets when a new version of 40k releases will continue to drive decisions about editions and is why we won't see a living edition of 40k any time soon. If nothing else, the rules bloat GW seem intent on continuing with new Codexes and multiple campaign supplements means they eventually need a reset to rein in their huge range of SKUs back to something more manageable.

Indeed, the decrease of the yearly revenue is a clear sign for GW to launch a new edition.
Moreover, GW tries to keep up the revenue during an edition and does so by releasing not only codices and models but also rule bloating supplementary books.

I really wish I could go back and delete the words "Living ruleset" out of the 40k lexicon.
It's never been a thing, never going to be a thing, and is directly contrary to GWs purpose of making money. They effectively put the bullet in the head when they said no more E-pubs.

Nothing in this hobby is free, and if you suddenly expect this company to just stop trying to make money, well, I have bridge I'd like to sell you.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I really wish I could go back and delete the words "Living ruleset" out of the 40k lexicon.
It's never been a thing, never going to be a thing, and is directly contrary to GWs purpose of making money. They effectively put the bullet in the head when they said no more E-pubs.

Nothing in this hobby is free, and if you suddenly expect this company to just stop trying to make money, well, I have bridge I'd like to sell you.

This.
10th ed will be in 2023 or 2024, depending on whether covid+brexit slow down the release schedule so much or not.

8th ed saw the release of two codices per month for the first year, with basically all factions receiving theirs within 18 months. The remaining 18 months of the 3 years edition lifespan were covered with campaign supplements (psychic awakening).
9th ed is seeing a definitely slower codices release, with less than one per month on average. Keeping this pace, it will be almost two years before the last "new" codex gets released, let alone new marine supplements for those chapters still using 8th ed ones.

The sad part is they should have just done what Warmahordes did with the books. That is, everything gets a base update in one shot (think indexes) and errata as needed up to and including stats, and then just campaign type books that add extra things to several different factions that are involved. The latter they are doing but they're doing it alongside constant codex updates.

Wayniac wrote:
The sad part is they should have just done what Warmahordes did with the books. That is, everything gets a base update in one shot (think indexes) and errata as needed up to and including stats, and then just campaign type books that add extra things to several different factions that are involved. The latter they are doing but they're doing it alongside constant codex updates.

Indeed, this would be the straightforward way to implement a new edition.
However, PP failed badly to realized MK3 which almost cost them the business.

Cronch wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
GW can draw out an edition for as long as they want. There is no requirement to make a new edition at anytime. If they wanted to, they could just roll a few years of errata into a new printing of the rules and make no other changes at all.

Yes, but then they're missing out on all those rulebook sales. Gotta keep the customers chasing the meta.

This is why they are developing their Campaign books. The Charadon resources were far and away better than PA; Vigilus was a test; if I remember correctly, it was fairly well received. They pushed further with PA- experimenting with a monthly campaign cycle, which I think blew up in their faces a bit; I don't have actual sales figures, but I'm quite a fanboy, and even I had issues with PA.

The experimentation isn't limited to 40; Broken Realms = Chardon. Five Broken Books in the series I believe?

I had anticipated 4/ year, facilitating a quarterly rhythm. And of course in 40K, it isn't JUST those 4 hardbacks, it's also the Mission Packs. Once dexes are done, they might push it to 6 books per year.

I was sure 8th was going persistent edition; I think 9th could, but after getting burned with 8th, I will not be as bold in my assertions. But think about this: 8th was their best selling edition; 9th is generally accepted as an improvement on 8th, even if some Dakkanaughts think it didn't go far enough.

A huge rule shift has the potential to drive away all the new players 8th gave them; it is a real risk to do a reset on the best selling edition in a long and storied 34 year old game. I honestly think a persistent edition would be more profitable- and the day GW believes it too is the day it will happen.

Slipspace wrote:
The cash injection GW gets when a new version of 40k releases...

Where is the cash coming from? Every time an Errata or Chapter Approved book is released its a new version of 40k. What makes an edition change special or different?

Campaign supplements can be banned when a new codex comes out, just have it say in the SM Codex 9.5 that SM can no longer use rules from this, this and this campaign supplement.

 wuestenfux wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
The sad part is they should have just done what Warmahordes did with the books. That is, everything gets a base update in one shot (think indexes) and errata as needed up to and including stats, and then just campaign type books that add extra things to several different factions that are involved. The latter they are doing but they're doing it alongside constant codex updates.

Indeed, this would be the straightforward way to implement a new edition.
However, PP failed badly to realized MK3 which almost cost them the business.

Yeah.... Its a really bad example. The scale of the MK2 conversion was hugely punishing for their rules guys, and Mk3 was a huge fumble and outright failure for some factions.
It isn't a good model for anything.

Especially since they simply set their book line on fire as well, went card only and then gave up on cards as well for digital-only: either blind-buy your faction(s) on 'the app' or print them yourself.

 vict0988 wrote:

Slipspace wrote:
The cash injection GW gets when a new version of 40k releases...

Where is the cash coming from? Every time an Errata or Chapter Approved book is released its a new version of 40k. What makes an edition change special or different?

Campaign supplements can be banned when a new codex comes out, just have it say in the SM Codex 9.5 that SM can no longer use rules from this, this and this campaign supplement.

Edition changes give them an excuse to sell a whole new box set and a new rulebook, as well as giving them a "natural" point to reset the cycle of other books. The cash comes from...well, the vast majority of 40k players who now need to get at least a new rulebook.

Everything you're saying is something GW could do with the books but it's not something they will do. It's just not how they operate. That was the context of my post, BTW, as explained in the very first sentence.

Voss wrote:

 wuestenfux wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
The sad part is they should have just done what Warmahordes did with the books. That is, everything gets a base update in one shot (think indexes) and errata as needed up to and including stats, and then just campaign type books that add extra things to several different factions that are involved. The latter they are doing but they're doing it alongside constant codex updates.

Indeed, this would be the straightforward way to implement a new edition.
However, PP failed badly to realized MK3 which almost cost them the business.

Yeah.... Its a really bad example. The scale of the MK2 conversion was hugely punishing for their rules guys, and Mk3 was a huge fumble and outright failure for some factions.
It isn't a good model for anything.

Especially since they simply set their book line on fire as well, went card only and then gave up on cards as well for digital-only: either blind-buy your faction(s) on 'the app' or print them yourself.

They did it for Mk2 as well and it worked pretty well then, it wasn't why Mk3 was terrible. The approach of books that update multiple factions rather than doing each one independently and spaced out is IMHO still worlds better.

WMH didn't update all the codici at the same time. They update one half and then the other half if you consider WM and H the same game.
They could that though because at the time of MK2 they had only 8 major factions.
We have almost three dozen.
If such a book came out it would have a single model for every faction.

To be fair, I think faction bloat is a problem in 40k in general.

Slipspace wrote:
Edition changes give them an excuse to sell a whole new box set and a new rulebook, as well as giving them a "natural" point to reset the cycle of other books. The cash comes from...well, the vast majority of 40k players who now need to get at least a new rulebook.

Everything you're saying is something GW could do with the books but it's not something they will do. It's just not how they operate. That was the context of my post, BTW, as explained in the very first sentence.

Since when did model companies need an excuse to sell a whole new box set? A new rulebook is not that expensive.

Phoenix Rising was relevant for DE exactly until the codex came out, which then invalidated it. I don't know what you're on about this being something GW doesn't do. Whether it is Drukhari 8.5 or 9.0 doesn't really matter, if they want to wipe the slate clean they can and they have done it and will continue to do its.

 vict0988 wrote:

Since when did model companies need an excuse to sell a whole new box set? A new rulebook is not that expensive.

Phoenix Rising was relevant for DE exactly until the codex came out, which then invalidated it. I don't know what you're on about this being something GW doesn't do. Whether it is Drukhari 8.5 or 9.0 doesn't really matter, if they want to wipe the slate clean they can and they have done it and will continue to do its.

Model companies don't need excuses to sell whole new box sets.

That's what they do.

But since GW can boost those box set sales by publishing hard-bound advertising booklets full of funny numbers and charts on things you might do with those models after you assembled them, they decided to re-brand part of their advertising as "game studio"

They still haven't opened their stores yet. They're going to get (more) pushback (than usual) if they push out a new edition while people can't even play (in the store that sold them the stuff to play - ostensibly on their boards).

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
To be fair, I think faction bloat is a problem in 40k in general.

There are a lot of folks who agree with you- I suspect that the majority of Dakkanaughts feel this way. I think that's because most Dakkanaughts are competitive players for whom balance is the highest priority, and there is no denying that the more factions you have, the harder it is to balance.

However, your average Dakkanaught =/= your average player, and I think the number of factions in our game one of the reasons for both its longevity and the fact that it is currently the best selling war game in the world. The high number of factions is one of the things that makes this game unique, and it's why I personally find most games are limited and shallow by comparison. I think torpedoing factions would be the most damaging thing the company could do to itself.

Just my opinion of course, and I don't expect anyone here to share it.