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.

PenitentJake wrote:
My suspicion is that all 9th dexes are written, 10th is nearing the end of planning and they are actively working on the transition campaign that will break the game so that 10th can sweep in with the appearance of rescuing it.

8th gave us Vigilus while dexes were being released; 9th gives is Charadon while dexes are being released. Once all the dexes were done, PA came in as the transition campaign. The second campaign for 9th will likely be PA's equivalent.

I try not to be cynical, but after 8th turned out to not be a persistent edition, it's harder for me to believe that 9th could be... Even though I find 9th would be more suitable as a persistent edition.

I hope I'm wrong and that GW finally delivers.

We put numbers on editions, but we're presently still in 8th. 7th wasn't a remarkable change from 6th ( until formations, but that didn't change the core ).

 Daedalus81 wrote:

PenitentJake wrote:
My suspicion is that all 9th dexes are written, 10th is nearing the end of planning and they are actively working on the transition campaign that will break the game so that 10th can sweep in with the appearance of rescuing it.

8th gave us Vigilus while dexes were being released; 9th gives is Charadon while dexes are being released. Once all the dexes were done, PA came in as the transition campaign. The second campaign for 9th will likely be PA's equivalent.

I try not to be cynical, but after 8th turned out to not be a persistent edition, it's harder for me to believe that 9th could be... Even though I find 9th would be more suitable as a persistent edition.

I hope I'm wrong and that GW finally delivers.

We put numbers on editions, but we're presently still in 8th. 7th wasn't a remarkable change from 6th ( until formations, but that didn't change the core ).

yeah no. This isn't a living ruleset so the assessment that this is somehow still 8th is remarkably delusional daedalus.

That's the cool thing about Tabletop Simulator; I want to change something, I change it.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
On the GW dog, rules are the tail. Miniatures are the dog. Rules follow with the miniatures the miniature team make.

How else do you explain them having to find a way to fit a giant Centaur into the Destruction faction?

I still argue the unaligned Beastmen would have fit better in Destruction with only the god aligned ones joining Chaos.

Not Online!!! wrote:
yeah no. This isn't a living ruleset so the assessment that this is somehow still 8th is remarkably delusional daedalus.

I'm not claiming it is a full blown living ruleset. I'm saying 10th won't be a huge leap from 9th.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
yeah no. This isn't a living ruleset so the assessment that this is somehow still 8th is remarkably delusional daedalus.

I'm not claiming it is a full blown living ruleset. I'm saying 10th won't be a huge leap from 9th.

Yeah, not sure why this would be contentious. There was RT, 2nd, 3rd and then a bunch of dot releases, and now 8th and at least one dot release (10 will probably be one as well, I'm sure it takes increased resources to do a full overhaul and GW doesn't appear to be swimming in people to do that work.)

 Daedalus81 wrote:
I'm not claiming it is a full blown living ruleset. I'm saying 10th won't be a huge leap from 9th.

You also just said we're still in 8th.

I hope I can get my 9th edition lists built and painted before 10th edition.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
I'm not claiming it is a full blown living ruleset. I'm saying 10th won't be a huge leap from 9th.

You also just said we're still in 8th.

Aren't we though? Same type of list building. Mostly the same table interactions. Biggest difference is the missions.

That's like saying that we never left 3rd Ed all through 4th through 7th.

40k is no different than it ever was. the codex release schedule was accelerated from what it was during the 4th to 7th era as a mean to sell new models on a more regular basis.

Roundtree had a better view of how to positively address the community trough good PR, and didn't make rude comments about how they are a "model company first" like Kirby did.

But he correctly assessed that regularly flooding the market with new releases is the best way to rank up profit, because people are hungry for new and updated sculpts more than new and updated rules.

The problem of 40K and/or GW, is and always will be the corporate nature of the company running the show.

Siegfriedfr wrote:
40k is no different than it ever was. the codex release schedule was accelerated from what it was during the 4th to 7th era as a mean to sell new models on a more regular basis.

Roundtree had a better view of how to positively address the community trough good PR, and didn't make rude comments about how they are a "model company first" like Kirby did.

But he correctly assessed that regularly flooding the market with new releases is the best way to rank up profit, because people are hungry for new and updated sculpts more than new and updated rules.

The problem of 40K and/or GW, is and always will be the corporate nature of the company running the show.

Designers not listening to feedback doesn't sound corporate, it sounds amateur. Like a DnD gamemaster not listening when their players are saying that regular TPKs are unfun because the gamemaster enjoys replicating the first episode of Attack on Titan. "Haha dark lance go pew."

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Now I get this image of the design team writing 10th Ed and someone going "But guys! We haven't put out 9th yet!!!".

GW isn't writing 10th. Not yet anyway.

As said, all 9th codices have been finished, and 10th ed lies in the drawer.

 Mr. Grey wrote:

 Gregor Samsa wrote:


No business could have anticipated COVID, but all businesses were forced to react. GW should have responded to the data that demonstrated how stay at home orders were fuelling hobby purchases and subsequently sped up the Codex releases. Before everyone gets in here with the "but the supply chain!!". Please understand how low-effort and cheaply done the manufacturing and production of these codex are.

Warhammer rules supplements are not vehicles or hospital equipment, they're comic books that make the average fanzine or manga in Japan look like a timeless work of art. It was very much in the realm of power for a 3.74b market cap organisation to respond to current market shaping events and deliver product in a reasonable timeline.

Because there you run into the next problem, which is printing. From what I remember, most if not all of GW's books and codexes are printed in China. Which means that each codex probably has a very tightly scheduled window of time in which it can be printed and shipped. If a print run misses a window, then you have to find room in the schedule to try again... and remember, Covid isn't just a UK problem. China probably had lockdowns as well, during which time nothing is getting printed or shipped by anybody.

China had very strict lockdowns. I mean strict the point where they were barring people into their apartments and not allowed out. But the manufacturing factories were back to work in April/May 2020 and haven't stopped since except for Chinese New Year. What is more likely is that the ongoing container/shipping shortage which has been happening since December 2020 is effecting GW.

Paper and card materials are the easiest and fastest part of a game to produce. The only reason there would be a delay is due to either GW not being able to book containers (or not wanting to pay the extra cost of booking an on schedule one) or they haven't sent their manufacturer the files for their own reasons. With how the world is now I doubt the writers/playtesters couldn't work because the writers can use a magical thing called "The World Wide Web" to communicate and I would hope that the playtesters (who are a pretty minor part of the process lets be honest) would own more than one army to play solo games at home.

So we're back to the container shortage being the main culprit. That said most of the games I've backed on Kickstarter in the last year have/are delivered/delivering more or less on time. Notably Awaken Realms managed to get the first wave of Nemesis out with only a months delay (a production error, nothing to do with shipping containers or COVID) by absorbing the extra cost of shipping themselves. So i suspect GW are just being their usual corner cutting selves and refusing to pay higher shipping costs.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
yeah no. This isn't a living ruleset so the assessment that this is somehow still 8th is remarkably delusional daedalus.

I'm not claiming it is a full blown living ruleset. I'm saying 10th won't be a huge leap from 9th.

The terrain rules are too different for 8th and 9th to be the same type of game. The 8th was dominated by LoS blocking enclosed buildings turning in to bunkers, for long time, till FAQ change, without even an option to get charge. 9th is about LoS blocking terrain too, but there are no bunkers, plus the scenario or methods of scoring are drasticly different. For how 10th is going to look like who knows. Maybe GW decides to do a AoS-light style reset. The lore from before 8th and early 8th very much looked as if GW was thinking about something similar for 8th, but for some reason decided to not pull it through. And in 9th they started to paddle back away from it, with strange lore changes and 200years crusades suddenly fitting in to 12 years.

I feel like AoS 3.0 will likely be a good barometer for where 40k 10th may head since the two games regularly test new mechanocs for each other.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
I feel like AoS 3.0 will likely be a good barometer for where 40k 10th may head since the two games regularly test new mechanocs for each other.

*looks at 'reinforcement point' rule*

God-Emperor help us all.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
I feel like AoS 3.0 will likely be a good barometer for where 40k 10th may head since the two games regularly test new mechanocs for each other.

*looks at 'reinforcement point' rule*

God-Emperor help us all.

I don't mean everything. I was thinking more core battalions replacing the current FOC or maybe changes to how unit sizes work.

Unit sized and unit number limited by minimal unit size seems brutal. Paladins aren't core, so they wouldn't be able to take the 3ed upgrade in unit size, this would mean they wouldn't be able to be run in 10 man unit sized. Which would make their rule that lets them take extra weapons at 10 man unusable in matched play.

I hope the changes will not get implemented in to w40k.

Karol wrote:
Unit sized and unit number limited by minimal unit size seems brutal. Paladins aren't core, so they wouldn't be able to take the 3ed upgrade in unit size, this would mean they wouldn't be able to be run in 10 man unit sized. Which would make their rule that lets them take extra weapons at 10 man unusable in matched play.

I hope the changes will not get implemented in to w40k.

If it's a unit of 5 and you reinforce it then it'd have 10 models.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
That's like saying that we never left 3rd Ed all through 4th through 7th.

*shrug* kinda.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Karol wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
yeah no. This isn't a living ruleset so the assessment that this is somehow still 8th is remarkably delusional daedalus.

I'm not claiming it is a full blown living ruleset. I'm saying 10th won't be a huge leap from 9th.

The terrain rules are too different for 8th and 9th to be the same type of game. The 8th was dominated by LoS blocking enclosed buildings turning in to bunkers, for long time, till FAQ change, without even an option to get charge. 9th is about LoS blocking terrain too, but there are no bunkers, plus the scenario or methods of scoring are drasticly different. For how 10th is going to look like who knows. Maybe GW decides to do a AoS-light style reset. The lore from before 8th and early 8th very much looked as if GW was thinking about something similar for 8th, but for some reason decided to not pull it through. And in 9th they started to paddle back away from it, with strange lore changes and 200years crusades suddenly fitting in to 12 years.

They're more refined, but magic boxes were a thing for a lot of people already.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
I feel like AoS 3.0 will likely be a good barometer for where 40k 10th may head since the two games regularly test new mechanocs for each other.

*looks at 'reinforcement point' rule*

God-Emperor help us all.

I don't mean everything. I was thinking more core battalions replacing the current FOC or maybe changes to how unit sizes work.

"Core" battalions? Do they require an "auxiliary" so that they form(ation) an army? Sounds familiar. Nope. No thank you. Keep that in AoS.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
I feel like AoS 3.0 will likely be a good barometer for where 40k 10th may head since the two games regularly test new mechanocs for each other.

*looks at 'reinforcement point' rule*

God-Emperor help us all.

I don't mean everything. I was thinking more core battalions replacing the current FOC or maybe changes to how unit sizes work.

"Core" battalions? Do they require an "auxiliary" so that they form(ation) an army? Sounds familiar. Nope. No thank you. Keep that in AoS.

No, in AoS there were battalions in the battletomes you could pay points for to gain a bonus, command point and artifact. Those are rumored to be going away in favor of core battalions that everyone can take for a minor perk instead. We don't have all the information yet so some of it is still rumors.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
I was thinking more core battalions replacing the current FOC or maybe changes to how unit sizes work.

I'm all for each faction having their own method of army construction, abandoning the (already mostly useless) FoC completely. I've been for army-specific organisation ever since I saw how Tyranids worked in Space Marine 2nd Ed (aka Epic).

Now the FoC as it stands (the standard one: 2-3 HQs, 2-6 Troops, etc.) fits perfectly for some factions, so I'm not saying that that structure goes away completely, but I'd rather have the structure of the army be based on that army, rather than some arbitrary outside framework that might work with some (Marines) but wouldn't necessarily work with others (Tyranids, Daemons).

 Daedalus81 wrote:
*shrug* kinda.

Having the same rule base doesn't mean that edition change doesn't happen.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
I was thinking more core battalions replacing the current FOC or maybe changes to how unit sizes work.

I'm all for each faction having their own method of army construction, abandoning the (already mostly useless) FoC completely. I've been for army-specific organisation ever since I saw how Tyranids worked in Space Marine 2nd Ed (aka Epic).

Now the FoC as it stands (the standard one: 2-3 HQs, 2-6 Troops, etc.) fits perfectly for some factions, so I'm not saying that that structure goes away completely, but I'd rather have the structure of the army be based on that army, rather than some arbitrary outside framework that might work with some (Marines) but wouldn't necessarily work with others (Tyranids, Daemons).

I could get on board with this.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

No, in AoS there were battalions in the battletomes you could pay points for to gain a bonus, command point and artifact. Those are rumored to be going away in favor of core battalions that everyone can take for a minor perk instead. We don't have all the information yet so some of it is still rumors.

There are now two types of battalions in Warhammer Age of Sigmar. The warscroll battalions you know and love are for units of renown and represent a specific focus, a special leader, or additional training. On the other hand, core battalions are intended to balance out the various units in exchange for distinct abilities.
Every army in a matched play event will have the same set of core battalions at their disposal, which further evens the playing field. So how does it work in practice?

Warscroll Battalions aren't going away. It just sounds like they're going to be our version of "Specialist Detachments".

Reinforced Units being a thing wouldn't be bad, IMO. Some of the problem units can't just be solved with points tweaks alone.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

No, in AoS there were battalions in the battletomes you could pay points for to gain a bonus, command point and artifact. Those are rumored to be going away in favor of core battalions that everyone can take for a minor perk instead. We don't have all the information yet so some of it is still rumors.

There are now two types of battalions in Warhammer Age of Sigmar. The warscroll battalions you know and love are for units of renown and represent a specific focus, a special leader, or additional training. On the other hand, core battalions are intended to balance out the various units in exchange for distinct abilities.
Every army in a matched play event will have the same set of core battalions at their disposal, which further evens the playing field. So how does it work in practice?

Warscroll Battalions aren't going away. It just sounds like they're going to be our version of "Specialist Detachments".

Reinforced Units being a thing wouldn't be bad, IMO. Some of the problem units can't just be solved with points tweaks alone.

I should have said "going away for matched play".

The Reinforcement Point rule should never be part of 40k. It shouldn't be part of anything. It's an absurd rule.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Having the same rule base doesn't mean that edition change doesn't happen.

It's pretty much philosophical thing, but overall 10th will have CA missions, command points, detachments, heroic interventions, etc. We can mark the release of 10th as such, but it will ( in theory ) still be the same base. GW will always find a hinge point to keep us engaged and churn the next cycle of books though - perhaps vehicles change fundamentally or they expand interactions with your opponent.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
The Reinforcement Point rule should never be part of 40k. It shouldn't be part of anything. It's an absurd rule.

I had to look that one up. Do you mean the rule form AoS 1.0 where you had to have points set aside to summon from? They dropped that for free summoning in 2.0, but 40k had the same thing for a while for summoning daemons and no one liked it there too.