Will we get an 8th edition of 40k and what would it look like?

[Voltigeur]

Hey Everyone,

The release of Angels of Death has left a bad taste in my mouth and along with other issues has me wishing for a revamp of the game. Traditionally we have have seen these kind of overhauls when editions change, most notably 2nd to 3rd. I have a bad feeling however that 7th might be the last (at least for a long while) edition that GW will put out. The amount of codices, supplements, and formations is so high that trying to update them would be a herculean effort. Compounding this problem is the fact that GW doesn't seem to want to put out new codices anymore or even update the ones that are tragically behind the times. I can't see them wanting to update the base rules anymore than they do the codices.

My questions for you are:
Do you think we'll see an 8th edition of 40k? If we do how far down the road do you think it will be?

What do you think 8th edition should look like (ex. Refinement of 7th, complete re-write, AoS :P)?

My opinion is that I would like a complete re-write of the game from the ground up. My group has been experimenting with some other games for a while now and it's made us aware of just how clunky and unengaging 40k feels when compared to newer wargames. I would love to see a nothing is sacred (except the fluff) total tear down and rebuilding of 40k.

[Cactus]

I'm not sure when we'll see an 8th edition, but I bet it's within the next two years or so. Also, I don't think it's going to be a ground breaking re-write from the ground up.

I imagine that it's going to be a simpler version of the game, hopefully not as simple as AoS, but I think a lot of things will get streamlined.

I also think that the game is going to get bigger. While AoS knocked the model count down, 40k games seem to be expanding in scope (which I actually like.)

I play a number of other war games too but right now, 40k is my favorite. I love the fluff, I love the models, I like that I don't have cards for individual models and units, there aren't any tokens, and I like that I can easily find a game with other gamers.

[Erik Setzer]

For large games, they need to bring back Space Marines/Titan Legions (Adeptus Titanicus). Then people can play epic massive battles, and not have to worry about the cost to start up 40K being around a thousand dollars.

[grimmas]

I want them to bring out 28mm scale Epic style rules (with WotR style bases for infantry) for apocalypse. I played 40k scale Space Marine at the Golden Daemon awards (91 I think) and it was great.

[Captain Bubonicus]

I'm not sure when we'll see an 8th edition, but I bet it's within the next two years or so. Also, I don't think it's going to be a ground breaking re-write from the ground up.

I imagine that it's going to be a simpler version of the game, hopefully not as simple as AoS, but I think a lot of things will get streamlined.
.

One of the usual rumor sources says we'll get just that soon - a slightly updated and FAQ'd rulebook (a 7.5, if you will):

http://natfka.blogspot.com/2016/04/40k-and-aos-rumors-blood-angels.html

[Charistoph]

Hey Everyone,

The release of Angels of Death has left a bad taste in my mouth and along with other issues has me wishing for a revamp of the game. Traditionally we have have seen these kind of overhauls when editions change, most notably 2nd to 3rd. I have a bad feeling however that 7th might be the last (at least for a long while) edition that GW will put out. The amount of codices, supplements, and formations is so high that trying to update them would be a herculean effort. Compounding this problem is the fact that GW doesn't seem to want to put out new codices anymore or even update the ones that are tragically behind the times. I can't see them wanting to update the base rules anymore than they do the codices.

I don't understand what you mean here. GW has long used Expansions to include new gaming systems. Look up Cities of Death, Planetstrike, and Spearhead. And these Expansions like Angels of Death really aren't introducing any actual new gaming systems, just new detachments (which follow the same detachment type as was introduced in several codices first) and new Psychic Power sets (see every codex with a Psyker in 3rd-5th Edition).

Now, you do have a point that codex release has severely stagnated, much to the chagrin of the Bugs and the Warp Marines. But to be fair, that has only been really telling in the last four months. Usually only one codex is released between August and December, but we normally would have had at least 2 more codices than that since New Year's.

Personally, I wish they would just stop with this lightly handing out Contingents two at a time and release a book for everyone else who doesn't have one. Then codices can start rolling along proper.


My questions for you are:
Do you think we'll see an 8th edition of 40k? If we do how far down the road do you think it will be?
I do and I don't. 7th Edition is only called that by us. GW was very careful to separate an edition number from the release of the current rulebook.

They do seem to be getting to a point where this will be the last huge rulebook release for some time, though. Whether that means just a patched book release in a few months, or going Age of the Emperor in a couple of years, I can't say.


What do you think 8th edition should look like (ex. Refinement of 7th, complete re-write, AoS :P)?

It depends on how well Age of Sigmar is doing when they actually start working on it. It is doing well in much of Europe, but having a hard time here in the States.

What I would like to see is the ruleset set up to look at 3 levels/sizes of the game: Combat Patrol, Battles, and Apocalypse. Each unit (and detachment) will have a level associated with that level of the game as the minimum. This will allows Super-Heavies to be relegated to a low level Apocalypse game where they belong (with some mission exceptions). It will also allow an easier definition for Growth Leagues to be created much like Privateer Press' Journeyman Leagues.

With Combat Patrol level games, we'd be looking at most Infantry and up to medium Vehicles with small Formations and Detachments to define it, much like the Combat Patrol mission of yore. The Tyranid Monstrous Creatures would need to be reviewed or restructured to allow some of them to be in this game level. This would be for games up to 600-800 points.

Battle level games would look much like what we see today but without the Escalation concepts in play. The targeted point levels will start a little below the higher end of Combat Patrols, and end a little higher than Apocalypse level games. Battle Games would be in the realm of 700-2300 points.

Apocalypse level games are ones which are just huge massive affairs like what people are used to seeing. Unbound is already a thing, so it would remain as it is, but the Apocalypse Formations and FW units will be defined. This is where Super-Heavies come back in to play. Apocalypse games should start somewhere from 1850-2000+ points.

I do think some simplification would be desired on one level (at least for everyone else's armies), but I cannot think of how to do it without it coming across as a nerf by a good portion of the community. In some ways, think of it like every unit had a limit of 2 Special Rules. This is like the return of the Movement Characteristic. If done properly, there won't be a problem. However, if the "standard" movement of the IG and Tau is 4", those players will consider this as nothing but a hit against them.

Another thing that some people seem to request is the standardization of stats for Vehicles. Just think of how much easier it would be to deal with Vehicles if they had a T stat like Monstrous Creatures instead of the AV. Or if the To-Wound Roll operated more like the Armour Penetration roll for ease of the players.

[Defenestratus]

For large games, they need to bring back Space Marines/Titan Legions (Adeptus Titanicus). Then people can play epic massive battles, and not have to worry about the cost to start up 40K being around a thousand dollars.

What?

Are you saying that they should ditch those of us that HAVE invested thousands in our armies?

[Path Walker]

Add movement values and replace cover saves with a to hit modifier. Perfect.

[Defenestratus]

Add movement values and replace cover saves with a to hit modifier. Perfect.

I've always lamented the lack of movement stats. The ability of GW to effectively differentiate the factions and their "speed" has led to some pretty ridiculous outcomes IMO. For example, warp spiders. How many dice do I need again to move them? Why don't they just have a static movement range? Oh because we need to somehow make them different that assault marines movement, and tau crisis suits.

Which brings me to my next point - the move from 2nd to 3rd edition drove off a lot of the the "uniqueness" of many armies. I know that I felt it viscerally when tau were released and were basically anime Eldar.
If you trim the ruleset down, a lot of units start to play and feel like others from other factions. It's something that I hope doesn't happen but I know definitely will if they try to "streamline" the rule set.

[Path Walker]

Watching the tranisiton from having a Movement Value in 2nd to standardised movement in 3rd then a raft of special rules to make up for that over the next few years (remember that Fleet wasn't a standard part of rules in 3rd and were made up to represent Eldar being faster than humans at first) was pretty funny, they took a simple and elegant way to represent different unit speeds and turned it in to 20 different special rules.

[Denzark]

Add movement values and replace cover saves with a to hit modifier. Perfect.

This may be a rare occasion in which I agree with PW 100%!

- - - Updated - - -

In fact if I remember correctly, there was -1 to hit modifier per 10" something moved. So a Genestealer (M6) that used its run move was going 12" - -1 to hit. And when they introduced overwatch (in a WD I think) that applied as well.

So a flyer going 36" would be -3 - seems reasonable.

[Charistoph]

Watching the tranisiton from having a Movement Value in 2nd to standardised movement in 3rd then a raft of special rules to make up for that over the next few years (remember that Fleet wasn't a standard part of rules in 3rd and were made up to represent Eldar being faster than humans at first) was pretty funny, they took a simple and elegant way to represent different unit speeds and turned it in to 20 different special rules.

I cannot completely agree. In some ways, it will actually increase the special rules in other ways as well. It won't change how Fleet works now. It won't change Move Through Cover now. It won't change the different Unit Types with odd movement interactions like FMCs, Jet Packs, Bikes, and Jumpers. Slow and Purposeful does not affect actual Movement rates anymore (aside from denying the Run, which one wouldn't want to remove now), but is more significant with its interactions on the Shooting Phase and the Assault Phase.

In most cases where extra movement is being added, a unique special rule is applied to the unit itself, and that is pretty much limited to Dark Eldar Vehicles. Generally where it changes is rerolling random ranges or their interaction with Terrain and other units. That is it.

Random movement ranges do not even do much to represent other movement abilities, but to increase that random element that takes away from the assurity that premeasuring provides.

As I pointed out earlier, this will tend towards a general nerf, unless you are willing to stick Imperial Guard and Fire Warriors with 6" movement and progress (or reduce for SNP) from there. You will still need the rules to cover going over Terrain and units like Skimmers and Jumpers have, the ability to easily negotiate Terrain like Beasts, and the chance to improve the random movement with Fleet since you will probably not be able to remove premeasuring, so you want that random element to keep games more interesting.

Still a Movement State won't necessarily mean a deathknell for the game, but it will have to be approached VERY carefully to avoid ostracizing a portion of the community.


In fact if I remember correctly, there was -1 to hit modifier per 10" something moved. So a Genestealer (M6) that used its run move was going 12" - -1 to hit. And when they introduced overwatch (in a WD I think) that applied as well.

So a flyer going 36" would be -3 - seems reasonable.

Yeah, that would be helpful, like Battletech.

One other thing I would like to see added to something like this is To Hit compared to Initiative instead of a target number, but a 6 always hits. This will allow for higher BS to actually mean something with results like Twin-Linked. It would also allow for Cover to modify To Hits a bit better and have an impact.

[Haighus]

I can see the gameplay mechanic benefit for rolling to hit vs I, but it makes little fluff sense when considering all the weapons firing lasers and so forth, where only a very few creatures with insane reaction times would have any benefit in dodging. Like Lelith Hesperax. Oh wait a moment...

[Charon]

A major thing that has to go is IGYG.
You can basically keep most things the same but let units activate alternating so both players are involved in every part of the game.
As it is now, especially at larger points, you can watch an episode of Dr Who while your friend is playing.

The Psi phase also needs a large overhaul as the power budget for force multipliers is calculated completely wrong while witchfires are hugely overpriced.
Armies that do not even have access to psykers are basically completely left out of the phase (and basically defenseless) while a single 100 points model can make half of the enemy army massively stronger.

Reintroducing to hit modifiers would also go a long way in balancing different weapons for different situations.

Also weapon skill needs to be looked at.

[Mr Mystery]

Unlikely, but I'd like a double system.

Closer to 2nd Ed rules for small scale games - modifiers etc to really make the board the thing you need to beat/control.

Adopt and Adapt the old 'classifications' from City Fight - when agreeing a game, set the level...

Alpha - FoC only. Nothing fancy.
Gamma - FoC and Formations.
Omega - FoC, Formations and Unbound.

Simple short hand, with added 'legitimacy' because it's in the rule book. When arranging a game? Hey dudes, anyone up for a 1,500 Gamma engagement?

[Charistoph]

I can see the gameplay mechanic benefit for rolling to hit vs I, but it makes little fluff sense when considering all the weapons firing lasers and so forth, where only a very few creatures with insane reaction times would have any benefit in dodging. Like Lelith Hesperax. Oh wait a moment...

You are not always reacting to the round, but the person who is shooting them, and their ability to hit a swift moving target.

[Haighus]

But what if the model did not move last turn? I don't see why the Eldar Exarch firing the weapon emplacement at flyers is going to be any harder for a Guardsman to hit than a Marine firing the same weapon emplacement. It still only makes sense in relatively limited situations, and most of those situations are covered better by focussing on them specifically (like flyers being hard to hit). Which does raise the point of how vehicles interact with this, although I guess your answer would be to just turn them into a normal statline like monstrous creatures.

[Charistoph]

But what if the model did not move last turn? I don't see why the Eldar Exarch firing the weapon emplacement at flyers is going to be any harder for a Guardsman to hit than a Marine firing the same weapon emplacement. It still only makes sense in relatively limited situations, and most of those situations are covered better by focussing on them specifically (like flyers being hard to hit). Which does raise the point of how vehicles interact with this, although I guess your answer would be to just turn them into a normal statline like monstrous creatures.

Or give them at least an hitting target the equivalent of I.

But the soldiers and warriors are rarely standing still in a battle, and this is more of a narrative construct than a tabletop construct. But again, moving was considered a possibility, I believe I mentioned it right after that suggestion.

[Defenestratus]

Alpha - FoC only. Nothing fancy.
Gamma - FoC and Formations.
Omega - FoC, Formations and Unbound.

Ugh. Getting rid of the FoC was the best thing GW ever did. Don't bring it back. Ever.

[son_of_volmer]

Drastic changes to 40k mean drastic changes in 30k, so I doubt much will change.

Apparently, GW just introduced two new stats for fliers, perhaps they can include them in a new rulebook.

A new rulebook would be the perfect place to put a lot of FAQ/clarifications.

I'd prefer if instead of fluff in the rulebook, they include something along the lines of Codex Imperialis (from 2nd Edition). Stats for one HQ and one TROOPS for each faction, and then a page or two of upgrades or faction specific rules. Perfect for beginners, and Allies.

[Denzark]

A major thing that has to go is IGYG.
You can basically keep most things the same but let units activate alternating so both players are involved in every part of the game.
As it is now, especially at larger points, you can watch an episode of Dr Who while your friend is playing.

But except for the movement phase (where you may roll interceptor occasionally) you are denying the witch, rolling saves, rolling FNP, fighting in hth. I'd be pretty frakked off if my opponent was watching Doctor Who instead of doing this.

The Psi phase also needs a large overhaul as the power budget for force multipliers is calculated completely wrong while witchfires are hugely overpriced.
Armies that do not even have access to psykers are basically completely left out of the phase (and basically defenseless) while a single 100 points model can make half of the enemy army massively stronger.


I don't understand how witchfires are overpriced. Because I don't have any armies where you pay specific points for specific powers - they are rolled/drawn randomly. Same for buffing powers. A single 100 pts model still needs to roll his psychic test and can only buff one unit at a time - with no repetition of casting.

[Path Walker]

40k has some interaction in the opponents turn, which is something, I still remember with dread the time i played Kings of War. That really was a game where you could tune out on their turn, you have literally nothing to do.

[Mr Mystery]

Ugh. Getting rid of the FoC was the best thing GW ever did. Don't bring it back. Ever.

I was more meaning just shorthand for arranging games, so players can explain their comfort zone of gaming clearly.

Also....these new flier rules are spooking me.

Not long ago, I started a thread about how I found their current use a bit dull and boring, and how they just didn't gel with the rest of the game that well. Lo and behold, new flier rules including Dogfights and stuff (of course too early to say if these are any cop, as we've not seen them).

Add to that? I asked if GW could some kind of part work. Black Library are now doing a part work.

I AM THE PROPHET OF BoLS/BALLS, DEPENDING ON HOW YOU LOOK AT IT.

[Cutter]

I AM THE PROPHET OF BoLS/BALLS, DEPENDING ON HOW YOU LOOK AT IT.

I don't want to look at 'it' at all, and you can't make me.

>.<

[grimmas]

40k has some interaction in the opponents turn, which is something, I still remember with dread the time i played Kings of War. That really was a game where you could tune out on their turn, you have literally nothing to do.

Silence it is the saviour of fantasy games and eveyone is playing it 😉. I found it very dull because of that, also the fact that units were basically just multi wound entities rather than a group of troops and hand to hand combat seems to involve shooting your units at the enemy it is a very strange game.


The 40K trun sequence does allow you to formulate a tactical plan and utilise your army as a whole with units supporting each other. A squad level activation system tends revolve around reacting to the enemies moves rather than carrying out a tactical plan. Both have their bonuses and downsides but do produce very different games. Even keeping the same rules for everything else if the activation sequence was altered like this we would have a game that felt very different from 40K as we know it.

- - - Updated - - -


I was more meaning just shorthand for arranging games, so players can explain their comfort zone of gaming clearly.

Also....these new flier rules are spooking me.

Not long ago, I started a thread about how I found their current use a bit dull and boring, and how they just didn't gel with the rest of the game that well. Lo and behold, new flier rules including Dogfights and stuff (of course too early to say if these are any cop, as we've not seen them).

Add to that? I asked if GW could some kind of part work. Black Library are now doing a part work.

I AM THE PROPHET OF BoLS/BALLS, DEPENDING ON HOW YOU LOOK AT IT.

Actually I think it was down to Kirsten's Bombas over da Sulfur Riva in 28mm request that did it 😜

[Mr Mystery]

BUT AS A GOOD PROPHET I PROPHECISED FIRST.

No religious wars in my name, thank you.

Only IGOUGO system I ever enjoyed was Epic Space Marine/Titan Legions (never played it's preceding version, sadly). Having to commit to orders helped to restrict the reactionary nature, something I find detracts from the challenge of a game (other opinions are available, no more or less valid than my own!).

[Path Walker]

Both have their advantages and disadvantages, I like plenty of games that use a IGOUGO and some that use some form of alternative activation. I definitely agree that with IGOUGO you do get more of a feeling of an army working in concert. Its not like IGOUGO is the big bogeyman of bad games design, I think a bigger problem is people using too many points in a game, making the turns last too long.

[Mr Mystery]

I just don't like the 'right, now I've seen what you're doing, I'll react before you can capitalise' thing. I'm far happier with 'right, I've committed now....' of player turns. I find it adds a desperation IGOUGO can lack when things start going south, which means you get far fewer games where a single duff decision snatches defeat from the jaws of victory.

Just me though - doesn't invalidate the approach.

[grimmas]

BUT AS A GOOD PROPHET I PROPHECISED FIRST.

No religious wars in my name, thank you.

Only IGOUGO system I ever enjoyed was Epic Space Marine/Titan Legions (never played it's preceding version, sadly). Having to commit to orders helped to restrict the reactionary nature, something I find detracts from the challenge of a game (other opinions are available, no more or less valid than my own!).

First edition was similar. I'm a big fan of the system they utilised for Space Marine. The orders system finessed it somewhat so you still needed an overall plan as well as the ability to react. Horses for courses though

[Mr Mystery]

Yup.

Sure the counters were a pain, and someone dithering over their orders phase could slow the pace right down, but it worked. Had to stick to your strategy and tactics, whilst allowing some wiggle room.

Best way we found to stop order dithering was to put a 1 minute timer on that part, ala Space Hulk.

[Charon]

I don't understand how witchfires are overpriced. Because I don't have any armies where you pay specific points for specific powers - they are rolled/drawn randomly. Same for buffing powers. A single 100 pts model still needs to roll his psychic test and can only buff one unit at a time - with no repetition of casting.

"Overpriced" does not refer to "points"

Witchfire: Harness warp charges, roll to hit, opponent can deny and add in adamant will, psyker, higher ML
Blessing: Harness warp charges, opponent can deny on a 6

Witchfires tend to have a weapon profile, like 24" large blast, ignore cover S4 AP5 2WC
Blessings enhance a unit and give various boni like ignore cover 1WC

In the end the blessing will always win out as it is harder to deny, doesnt need to hit and will do a lot more than the witchfire power.
That is why lores that revolve around witchfires are mostly ignored while lores that heavily rely on blessings are prefered.
A unit of centurions is much more powerful with a 4++ and ignore cover than a psyker that can cast 2 large blasts at S4.

[Denzark]

"Overpriced" does not refer to "points"


"Overpriced" in English means there is a quantifiable metric that pertains to a certain thing and said thing costs more of that metric than its actual worth.


Given that the only a few psykers have all psychic suites available, that you draw randomly from what you do have, and the relative benefits are entirely situational I still fail to see how overpriced is the correct term.

'Witchfires are much sh*tter' than blessings" now that is subjective not objective.

But if living lightning has blown a scoring unit off an objective last turn and you win 15-14 its much better than the fact you got a bit of presience earlier on.

[Charon]

WC is a quantifiable metric. And they cost a lot more WC then they are worth. Also the points of a psyker are a quantifiable metric. If his damage output with spells is below the damage output of any other shooty model for the same price, it is not worth picking him.

Again, there is a reason why pyromancy is an extremely underused lore compared to divination or telepathy.

[Wayniac]

What it should look like IMHO, is a streamlined version of the rules that cleans things up. I honestly would not mind an AoS-style approach: Rules ("Datasheets") included with purchases and available for free with an app, formations/detachments able to be unlocked or similar in books, three ways to play (preferably with more balanced point values), more campaign supplements that add different (and hopefully balanced) ways to use existing things rather than constantly adding or revamping new things, so that GW can take the time to redo ranges that need it (e.g. Chaos). Ideally they will try to make things somewhat balanced, but having the AoS approach has the following benefits IMHO:

* The casual approach lets you literally buy a new box, assembled it and play. This is HUGE because you don't have to fuddle around with points or tweak things.
* The narrative approach is the GW preferred style, and lets them put out different campaign supplements that enrich the background, although you run the risk of "power creep" (not like you don't everywhere else)
* The matched play (i.e. points) approach allows for standardized pickup games and (gasp!) tournaments, hopefully with a rules cleanup.

[Defenestratus]

Ugh

Simplification == lack of diversity in the rules of the different factions.

I don't want Plague Marines to be "tough" in exactly the same way as a Necron Warrior is "tough" or a Wraithguard is "tough". Right now they all work a little different from one another but still the lines between them all get blurred because of the current rules level of simplicity.

What needs to happen in the next edition is that we need to move away from the D6 system - but we know that will never, ever happen sadly.

[Asymmetrical Xeno]

I like the idea of different "modes" to appeal to different types of players. Personally, I'd like a more simplified ruleset but thin there should be a more complex variant too ect

[Brettila]

I am most definitely ready for a change like from 2nd to 3rd edition. Scrap every codex and start over, (Gasp: Perhaps even with a system for consistently costing units from book to book.) with massively reduced rules. That does not really mean dumbed down, just easier and quicker; without the constant rule checking. Give vehicles a T and wounds with a save. They could also have a penetrating hit result chart. Get rid of the AMAZINBGLY STUPID closest model dies rule. You kill 3 guys, I pick up 3 models and we move on (Like 3rd & 4th). This is supposed to be cinematic after all. Drastically reduce USR's, how they interact and do not let them be given to units that don't have them. Go back to a quicker, more intuitive use of psychic powers. I would love the removal of formations, but it will not happen as they exist SOLEY (Do not fool yourself) to sell expensive models. There are too many examples to list, but the game would play almost unchanged, but could be faster with much less digging through books.

- - - Updated - - -

Pretty sure it was just -1 for combat speed and -2 for fast. A rhino chassis went 25" in fast mode however; and could shoot all of its weapons at different targets (with targeters for +1 to hit). There was a to hit minus for going fast too.