I think the news that GW was resetting 40k again in 10th edition was met with mixed feelings in the 40k community. On the one hand, GW had firmly tied themselves in knots with an AP arms race that meant the game was irredeemably lethal. Aside from an index-reboot, they could nerf each faction as it got its code, or try a massive FAQ but that would be a mess. On the other hand, some players only get to use their updated rulebook for few months before 10th comes out. Thus many players were curious, not only about 10th, but also how quickly GW would release the new books. Then the codex roadmap dropped…
Looking at the past yields some insights. In 8th edition GW released codexes at a very fast rate. 8th edition dropped in June 2017, and by Christmas we had 10 codexes already. 9th edition was a bit more lackadaisical. This is normal, given players could use their older books, and there was a massive pandemic going on. Looking at the upcoming schedule, I have some concerns about the way GW is planning on releasing their books .
This release pace is a bit of a hybrid between 8th and 9th ed. There will be 4 codexes out at Christmas, which is much better than 9th, but far behind 8th. We can’t forget that there are currently 26 factions with codexes in the game. At the current pace, barely a third of them will have codexes by the summer of 2024 when the game is nearly a year old. I will be largely digging through school work and childcare, with little time to play, but I feel bad for any players who don’t have one of these books. GW will either have to nail the indexes, or be diligent in its balancing as they fight to keep player interest over this next year (possibly both).
One of the issues with indexes is that you often have to sacrifice faction flavor and mechanics to fit everything. While these armies may still be competitive, they will lack unique crusade rules or other gadgets to make them stand out. In 8th GW realizes they needed to move fast to get people on board with the new edition, I am not seeing much of that same urgency here.
As we have discussed in the past, reboots are rarely popular with players unless the end product is really good. They have promised an edition which is less lethal, although the reviews still have a lot of lethality built in. If the level of competitiveness between index and non-index armies isn’t carefully managed, you could risk losing a lot of players. Indexes don’t provide as much material for narrative players and with limited mechanics may also provide less to casual players. Thus GW will need to find ways to augment these rules in the meantime.
Some ways GW has addressed this in the past have come through the use of updates in White Dwarf articles, balance updates, and GT packets. These can mollify some players, but can also create a rat’s nest of rules to manage. This, in turn, can be solved with a new App that manages everything, something alluded to by GW. However, we have yet to see any evidence of this app, and GW has a sordid history with such products.
Ultimately, we still need to sit an wait to see how everything shakes out. GW may have contingency plans in place for all of this already, and any fears may be unfounded. However, this is another tremor that makes me cautious about 10th ed. It seems like the game will be a lot simpler, but still very lethal. The snippets about the changes to terrain, and such, make me feel like the game’s complexity will largely derive from unit abilities. These are much more vulnerable to imbalance. Furthermore, we know AoS is getting a new edition in 2024, which might be why they can’t release more codexes in the interim (as the printers and plastic manufacturers are at capacity). This may also take up a lot of oxygen and stymie further 40k releases in 2024. Thus, I feel a great deal of trepidation as 10th ed creeps closer.
And remember, Frontline Gaming sells gaming products at a discount, every day in their webcart!
