8th Edition

I would also say 2.
I'm expecting aerial combat to become the new big thing, changes to alliance and force-org rules, maybe a few new basic special rules, but nothing to call it a whole new game for.

In terms of rules I expect a 3-4 and that's okay. Incorporate the faq. In terms of fluff I hope for a 7-8. Move the damn time line forward!

Also 3. They basically have to declutter the rules and streamline a bit of the gameplay. And since GW has realised how bad the initial AoS (without points) was recieved, they won't go full End Times mode and just flatten the rules.

CptMetal wrote:

Move the damn time line forward!

The Tyranids have eaten everything and there is no more war!

Kantalla wrote:

CptMetal wrote:

Move the damn time line forward!

The Tyranids have eaten everything and there is no more war!

There is no peace amongst the stars, only an eternity of indigestion.

Count Adhemar wrote:

Kantalla wrote:

CptMetal wrote:

Move the damn time line forward!

The Tyranids have eaten everything and there is no more war!

There is no peace amongst the stars, only an eternity of indigestion.

Can you imagine trying to eat a Chaos Terminator? That's a recipe for stomach ulcers if ever I saw one!

Right now 7th ed is a bit of a mess. It started out by trying to clean up and streamline 6th ed. The original intent was to nerf the factions, simplify them, remove the clutter of special rules and make the game easier to manage. I think what happened though is the old regime of leadership was ousted after it being obvious GW was being run into the ground and a new regime brought in to steady the ship. GW's attempts to revive the company were two-fold - they'd amputate the financially non-viable Fantasy line and replace it with a simpler and more accessible game aimed at shifting miniatures and they'd alter the 40k course by introducing the Decurion model of offering free models on the table and increasing the power level of games (which would inherently favour the stronger and more $$$ models). This attempt to pump steroids into the game coincided with the realisation that super-heavies and fliers have been accepted as standard parts of the game now (from the fringe elements they used to be). GW saw the powercreep happening outside of their control and decided to run with it, because they could sell more models if they did. So 7th ed has gone from an attempt to simplify and reduce the power levels of the game to an attempt to bost the power level and bring back the more diverse (but sometimes more complex) rules. A prime example of this are the DE losing the PfP token system in favour of a simpler over-time effect (introduced during the nerf era) whilst the Khorne Demonkin (the first time 40k has ever had a god-specific demon list as far as I'm aware) are introduced with a system resembling the older more complex DE PfP. These two decisions show clearly the shift in GW's outlook on the game.

There are several things that can be inferred from GW's behaviour of late. Codex's have stopped coming which suggests they're holding off whilst they work on a new edition. What we're seeing in the meantime is an effort to work out what to actually do.

DftS looks like a stop gap measure and an experiment at increasing the complexity of the game turn. It seems to have had a poor reception (at least the dogfight phase aspect) so GW will interpret that as the wrong way to go. I think the flyer formations and them being removed from the FO chart to take up their own LoW or Fort slots will stay. I don't think flyers should be competing with ground units for org slots and I don't think GW think they should either. In theory the dogfight phase isn't much more complex than the psyhic phase but I think having off-the-table battles that could result in your units not getting onto the table is an issue fora lot of players. A better solution might be to have a third layer of the table above the hovering/ground units and zooming/flyer layer for pure aerial combat so flyers can start on the table but at a higher altitude where they can engage each other before they drop down to engage ground targets. Interceptors/fighters in this manner might never drop low enough to target ground targets and may never see fire from them in return. But they'd be on the table looking cool.

AoS was a disaster for GW, at least initially. The intent was sound - have the game be more accessible and meaningful to beginners and give them the freedom to play the way they wanted. But it failed because they underestimated the need for structure and balance. The GH addresses this and shows GW's intent for the game - grand alliances (four of them) with individual factions in each and subfactions within them. The more restrictive you get with your faction selection the better the bonus you receive. Players get less freedom to take artifacts and special items but they don't have to min-max cost and they get to choose warlord traits instead of randomly rolling them. I think this is a very workable model for 40k that allows for the game to be played simply yet rewards you for self-restricting yourself to specific factions.

The FAQ's show us that GW is starting to listen to their customers/players and ask for feedback. They want to know what parts of the rules are causing issues. GW is learning several things from this - that the rules are cluttered and sometimes contradictory with no obvious method for resolution, that many players are getting confused by or having a hard time interpreting the rules (some of the FAQ questions seem stupid but people were genuinely having issues understanding them) and that the rules as written, as well as the FAQ responses aren't up to scratch. People have been scratching their heads at some of the FAQ rulings, pointing out the contradictions of some, the absurdity of others and how some of them completely alter or break the game. It also shows that GW's rules writers aren't up the to the task. whether this is the result of lazy poor writers being inherited from the old regime or from a lack of internal communication or info sharing only GW knows. But they need to address this (the FAQ's are making that plainly obvious) and the best time to do that is with a new edition of the game where all writers are on the same page working towards the same vision (something that GW hasn't been able to do in decades).

There's also GW's new marketing strategies of releasing easier to construct sets for sale at third party toy stores and the selling of discounted get started sets. They're pushing hard for new customers, particularly amongst the kids who aren't yet aware of 40k from videogames or having relatives/friends introduce them to it. If they can walk into Toys R Us, see the models and pick them up then they may well end up becoming hooked on the hobby. So GW is keen to make it's games more accessible to children.

How do I think GW will apply their experience and knowledge gained? I think 40k will get some streamlining and rules merging. Also there'll be some cleanup of parts of the game (units counting as being on the board when in vehicles, how psychic abilities work inside vehicles etc). All games are being streamlined all the time. This is good because it makes games play faster and makes them easier to learn - something crucial to the longevity of this hobby. I think they'll dispense with old codex format. The books are too expensive for both the players to buy and GW to print. GW doesn't want to put off people buying their models because they have to buy a £60 rulebook and a £30 codex before they even start. Remember they're aiming for the kids now rather than trying to fleece their parents. Parents won't buy these models unless their kids ask for them (which means they must already be into the hobby). The selling of models in toy stores is aimed to get kids to see them and want them. The games will have to be playable by them when they do. I think there'll be an Age of Sigmarine aspect to an 8th ed - a play whatever you want, bring whatever you want unbound-ultra play mode. But they won't make the mistake of abandoning the structured play like they did the first time around.

I think structured play will go the route of AoS 4 factions - Imperium, Chaos, Eldar and Xenos, merging all current factions into those alliances. You'll have freedom to ally within your alliance so long as you stay formation/detachment legal but you'd get some bonus if you stay within one faction and a further bonus if you remain within a single sub-faction. Imperium would be divided into Space Marines, Astra Militarum and Inquisition with all current existing armies (canon chapters, guard regiments, Tempestus, Sisters, Grey Knights, Imperial Kights etc) being specialised sub-factions of the big three. Chaos would be Chaos Marines, Demons and Renegade Guard with the various legions, cults and demonkin being sub-factions of them. Eldar would be Craftworlds, Dark Eldar, Harlequins and Corsairs with specific Craftworlds, as well as Coven and Wych Cult lists being sub-factions. Xenos would be Tau, Orks and Nids, I think only the Orks are developed and varied enough to spark sub-factions (Evil Sunz, Goffs etc). They'd have to end up lumped together, having nowhere else to go but it wouldn't make sense for them to ally so that alliance might end up with some restrictions on that in favour of better faction specific rules. The alliances would replace the current battle brothers/allies rules as that would be taken care of inside the alliance. Allying outside of your alliance would be treated the way allies of convenience work right now.

I think we'll see more focus on formations and detachments composed of multiple formations taken together to create your entire army with. I think we'll see the min/maxing of wargear thrown out with units having specific wargear or a choice from a finite list of equipment. Much of the commonly selected gear right now will come free (like grenades, free character upgrades for units, free banners etc). HQ's will choose from a smaller list of gear and will be allowed to carry one artifact only, with extra artifacts coming from picking certain units/formations. You'll have to choose from unique HQ's who can choose warlord traits and artifacts or special characters who cannot. I the psychic phase will be simplified and nerfed so that's it's a compliment to the game without drawing the emphasis away from the units doing the fighting. The game is about the models on the table duking it out rather than invisible magic powers being the star of the show. Putting less emphasis on the psychic phase will help to kill off some of those stupid deathstars that monkeywrench the game.

Most importantly though I thin GW will tie all the disparate elements of 40k that don't quite work together (fliers, super-heavies, D-weaponry everywhere) together into a coherent vision for the game that is built with all those things in mind from the start rather than relying on taking them on as an afterthought.

Very nice, Demantiae! I agree with everything you said, even though I am a big fan of customization and I would be sad to have my HQs confined to only a single artefact. Would be acceptable if their generic builds would become free options (so e.g. Archons get the Agoniser for free etc.).

From what I've seen of the General's Handbook for Age Of Sigmar it looks very promising, should GW decide to take the same route for 40K. The separation into the three playstyles (unbound, narrative and free [=building an army with points]) is something I could imagine we might see for 40K, along with the alliance system.

Quote :

Imperium would be divided into Space Marines, Astra Militarum and Inquisition with all current existing armies (canon chapters, guard regiments, Tempestus, Sisters, Grey Knights, Imperial Kights etc) being specialised sub-factions of the big three

You are forgetting the Adeptus Mechanicus, which strictly speaking does not belong to the Imperium but rather is an autonomous ally.

I also agree that we may see more formations being released. With the codices being replaced by the alliance books Imperium/Chaos/Eldar/Xenos I imagine that GW would expand these by campaign books and/or supplements akin to the Wulfen book/War of Fenris which will contain new formations or units etc.

Demantiae wrote:

Right now 7th ed is a bit of a mess. It started out by trying to clean up and streamline 6th ed. The original intent was to nerf the factions, simplify them, remove the clutter of special rules and make the game easier to manage. I think what happened though is the old regime of leadership was ousted after it being obvious GW was being run into the ground and a new regime brought in to steady the ship. GW's attempts to revive the company were two-fold - they'd amputate the financially non-viable Fantasy line and replace it with a simpler and more accessible game aimed at shifting miniatures and they'd alter the 40k course by introducing the Decurion model of offering free models on the table and increasing the power level of games (which would inherently favour the stronger and more $$$ models).

The whole power creep started under Tom Kirby though, and replacing Warhammer Fantasy was one of his last ideas that came to fruitation.

Well, I for one am very content that Age Of Sigmar failed soundly without the point system. If it hadn't I would be very afraid of the 8th edition for 40K also coming without points. It seems that GW has recognised this as their wake-up call because the company has done some astoundingly consumer friendly decisions as of late, like offering the Start Collecting Boxes, listening to the community(!!!) thus giving AoS a point system and even kicking of a global campaing for AoS whos outcome will effect which faction gets some new releases.

Basing on this I hope very much that the seemingly random and old-timey business practices that GW has displayed pre-AoS are a thing of the past and that their new chairsman along with the rest of the company tries to take the community more into account.

Over at Bell of lost souls there were some rumour posts about the general nature of the 8th edition and how GW wants to "take their time to make the new edition as perfect as possible right out of the gate, without needing any FAQs down the road". That is a very nice ambition and I do hope they succeed in streamlining the gameplay without diluting its complexety.

I am also still unsure if the 8th edition would introduce the same point and hit/wound/save system that AoS uses. Which would mean that units can only be bought for a fixed price at a fixed quantity (e.g. if a box contains 5 Space Marines and each costs 15 points then you can only ever buy quantities of 5 Marines for 150 points. You may field 8 Marines but you would still have to pay 300 points). Whilst many people (myself included) moaned and whined when they saw the fixed to-hit/to-wound values that AoS introduced we can now say that those still give a great complexety and depth to the gameplay since these values are manipulated by a vast array of special abilities, spells, artefacts or formations etc.

Something which I hope the 8th edition adresses is the ridiculous cover save mechanic that you can get your 4+ cover as long as your Imperial Knight tips his toe into a ruin.

Causalis wrote:

Over at Bell of lost souls there were some rumour posts about the general nature of the 8th edition and how GW wants to "take their time to make the new edition as perfect as possible right out of the gate, without needing any FAQs down the road". That is a very nice ambition and I do hope they succeed in streamlining the gameplay without diluting its complexety.

I'm actually hopeful that they don't achieve that as I feel that a) it's virtually impossible anyway and b) frequent FAQ's are actually a good thing as the game evolves and the makers of that game respond to it's evolution

Yeah, I'd have to agree. From a business perspective, one of the major upsides to doing something like that is the ability to downsize your rules team, and I think that's the opposite direction GW needs to move. I think they need a far more robust, active, engaging rules team that's constantly on the ball addressing issues in real time as they come up.

If some crazy rule wording abuse causes someone to win a major GT, I'd like to see that wording confirmed or otherwise resolved by a GW rules team within 2 weeks time.

And I would like to see an official GW forum. Probably won't happen either. :/

Causalis wrote:

And I would like to see an official GW forum. Probably won't happen either. :/

There used to be one. Not for very long though, because people were giving GW due crap on it.

I know. Seems extremely unprofessional in my opinion. GW offers a communication platform and gets hate from the sour people. Shutting everything down and turning the back is something a child does, not a big company. They either mass-ban the people, confront them or listen to what they have to say.

CA gets flak too for their DLC policy on Total War Warhammer on their forums. But they don't just shut those down or refuse communication.

I feel the scope of 7ed has outgrown what the rules can comfortably support, much like 2ed outgrew itself. I would like to see a major revamp along the lines of the 2ed to 3ed change.

Hopefully they do this with the lessons of Age of Sigmar learned. There are some nice features.

Rolling Necrons, Tau, Tyranids and Orks into a single Xenos faction might be a bit too far for me though.

Rolling the Xenos into one faction would be a technicality because you couldn't streamline the factions any other way. But you can easily make it harder to actually ally nids and tau for example (like the existing desperate allies rules) whilst giving them stronger solo faction buffs to make for the loss of options. Yes I forgot mechanicum, they'd end up with other imps though. Some suspension of disbelief would be in order to streamline the alliance system (that's now getting a little silly).

It's good to hear GW wanting to do things right. I left the hobby years ago due to the company's attitude, I'm glad they're paying attention now.

Demantiae wrote:

Rolling the Xenos into one faction would be a technicality because you couldn't streamline the factions any other way. But you can easily make it harder to actually ally nids and tau for example (like the existing desperate allies rules) whilst giving them stronger solo faction buffs to make for the loss of options.  Yes I forgot mechanicum, they'd end up with other imps though. Some suspension of disbelief would be in order to streamline the alliance system (that's now getting a little silly).

Yes, the whole idea is silly.
The four factions system in Age of Sigmar works because each of them has a defined leader: Order has Sigmar, Chaos has Archaon, Death has Nagash and Destruction has That-New-Random-Warboss-On-His-Fat-Dragon.

In 40k, on the other hand, we have the Imperium united under the High Lords of Terra, Chaos more or less under Abbadon, and the Eldar sort of under their common strife for survival.
But who or what could possibly unite any of Orks, Tau, Necrons and Tyranids under one banner? Don't think too hard about it, because there really is nothing.
And "streamlining" the factions can't possibly be worth it to make up something that contrived.

Just an FYI, AoS did not fail - it sold more units than WHFB - at least here in OZ and the UK.

Massaen wrote:

Just an FYI, AoS did not fail - it sold more units than WHFB - at least here in OZ and the UK.

I'm pretty sure that's not accurate, particularly before they started re-adding points systems. The quarterly report following the release of AoS was dismal.

AoS was not well received amongst much of the existing WHFB community, with the lack of a points system/balance being one of the largest gripes, but it did actually see an increase in model sales, with the Sigmarines being rather popular.

Based on that, one could argue GW just needed to release new models for Fantasy to boost sales, but AoS' incredibly casual system lowered the cost of entry, making it more accessible.

If AoS was selling well GW would not be desperately trying to revive it a year later with the generals handbook and constant promotions and attention.

It might be selling more than fantasy but still not good.

From a business standpoint though that would mean exactly that. It is good.

I have seen sales figures, AoS sold more in terms of % sales in store than WHFB did - here in OZ at least - and the UK is similar according to my information.

I would also argue they are not desperately trying to revive anything. They have hit their expected and projected sales data and are now looking to improve.

So the AoS sales % is up from WHF but GW overall sales continue to decline.