PDA

View Full Version : Are there too many armies? - Warhammer Fantasy



ashc
18-02-2014, 10:15
Inspired by the Bretonnian thread going on here, do you believe that there are too many armies in the game for them to remain fully feasible and supported?

What would you combine/remove if the number were to be decreased?

I for one would like to see one big chaos book again.

Ultimate Life Form
18-02-2014, 10:26
Oh yes, I think I'll start it off by quoting myself here, because the Bretonnia thread really is not the place to discuss this...


And yet they've done the exact opposite not long ago. I really didn't understand why in 7th Edition instead of merging Hordes of Chaos and Beasts of Chaos, as would be perfectly appropriate and reasonable, they went the exact other way and split Daemons of Chaos off because they insisted that everything should have their own, seperate army book, leaving us with 3 seperate armies that are arguably a lot more bland and boring than before. The only idea they had to fill the gaps in the Beastmen book was to release a bucketload of frankly rather ridiculous Monsters that nobody uses because their rules are subpar, further pushing them to the sidelines. That strategy didn't play out too well.

If GW plan on merging stuff together, it would be a complete 180, and that is nothing short of a revolution for them.

Acephale
18-02-2014, 10:39
I'll also quote my post in the other thread:


Yeah, it was a stupid move, but I guess they thought they could earn more by doing it; they probably had some accountant guy tell them that more army books and a larger miniature range = increased sales.

Now it's glaringly obvious that not only did the strategy fail sales-wise, but also PR-wise, since it doesn't look too good to have several unpopular, niche armies collecting dust on the shelves. So something will have to be done, but of course, as you say, just going back to how things were before would be admitting to past mistakes and that is not good PR either (at least not in GW's opinion).

Hopefully they come up with some way to merge armies without making it look simply like a return to previous editions, but rather like a totally new approach to how army books are used and armies combine and relate to each other. That way they can keep and expand their model range, but remove the barrier of entry that multiple expensive and unbalanced army books present.

There are many possibilities, especially considering that 9th is coming and presumably shaking things up a bit.

Darnok
18-02-2014, 11:09
No, I do not think so.

WHF has a wide variety of armies, and in my opinion each and every one of them add something unique in models, ways of gameplay and background. That is one of the main appeals of WHF in the first place: that there is so much choice, each of the choices being meaningful.

That said: I also think that GW handled the WHF range very poorly, and in parts still does so now. Maybe they change this with the new weekly release format, but the previous "release stuff, then do nothing for 4+ years" just didn't work - and never will, if they continue to do so.

Tl/Dr: The number of armies is fine, the way GW is supporting them is not.

Fear Ghoul
18-02-2014, 11:18
Some armies will always be less popular, regardless of what GW does otherwise.

Replicant253
18-02-2014, 11:20
No, I do not think so.

WHF has a wide variety of armies, and in my opinion each and every one of them add something unique in models, ways of gameplay and background. That is one of the main appeals of WHF in the first place: that there is so much choice, each of the choices being meaningful.

That said: I also think that GW handled the WHF range very poorly, and in parts still does so now. Maybe they change this with the new weekly release format, but the previous "release stuff, then do nothing for 4+ years" just didn't work - and never will, if they continue to do so.

Tl/Dr: The number of armies is fine, the way GW is supporting them is not.

Agreed. I think GW have done a pretty good job of giving each army its own identity and play style. That diversity and choice is an immense draw. From a making money POV none of what the OP claims can be backed up with hard evidence i.e. that the amount of armies adversely effects overall polularity/profitability of WFB. Hell some fo the armies haven't had any attention for years so can't be costing the company too much money to be just made available as is.

BTW is should declare a bias, i am Beastmen player and fear GW rolling us back into Chaos Hordes after they ahve done a good job of giving us two army books. Nout wrong with our big monsters...other than the rules, but that is just one part.

What is good is the moving away from the longs gaps of attention given to armies. Dwarfs have just emerged from an 8 year gap of not a single release (i think). I don't have much good to say about WD but the new weekly and frequent release schedule is a positive step, you just never know when your army might out of the blue get some attention rather than the large drop and 'see you in six years'. I also think that this will ultimately feed into an aggressive drive on new units being made available digitally and this will then auto merge with your base digital army book. Long way off yet but i beleive that is where we are heading.

Ultimate Life Form
18-02-2014, 11:22
Some armies will always be less popular, regardless of what GW does otherwise.

The problem is not that some armies are more popular than others, it's simply that some armies are outright better than others, a condition that GW tends to cement over and over with their continued neglect of certain lines.

The theory is that if there were fewer books, it would be easier to keep them fresh and balanced and, accordingly, the players happy.

Romark
18-02-2014, 11:29
Got to agree with Darnok here. I like the range they have out at the minute, if anything having Cathay/Nippon included would be a bonus for me!

I also think they could expand (albeit, not a lot) certain armies in the same way they have in 40k. I love the variety with Space Marine, CSM and Eldar to an extent. Though obviously the Empire is all close together, so variety isn't going to be as great as Legions spawned on different worlds...
I dont see a problem in supplemental books though. Just Dark Elves for example. There is enough variety between Han Gareth, Ghrond, Naggarond and Karond Kar for a few different armies. And while these are all possible from the main Army Book, you could expand on it. There is likely more than one Corsair hero than Lokhir, and they will have more than just standard Corsairs who have adapted to the life there and on the Arks. Same with the other places. I just think this could add to the game better than creating a game all around super-super magic. SoM was not for me...

baransiege
18-02-2014, 11:38
The problem is not that some armies are more popular than others, it's simply that some armies are outright better than others, a condition that GW tends to cement over and over with their continued neglect of certain lines.

The theory is that if there were fewer books, it would be easier to keep them fresh and balanced and, accordingly, the players happy.

Some players are attracted to underdogs though - my worst fear whenever one of the armies I play gets re-done is that it will become a top tier book - then people moan about it, it ends up not so challenging to use and it spoils the game for me.

And just having more varied armies adds to the experience of everyone, because even if you don't collect them you get to play against them which is exciting and fun. Anything that removes diversity from the game ultimately reduces the range of experiences on offer. I look at things like Warmachine, which a lot of people say is supposedly really balanced, and I'm horrified at how few factions are available, especially for a game that's been on the market as long as it has. I'll trade balance for diversity every day of the week.

I actually think Beastmen make much more sense separate from Warriors and Daemons as they really have their own identity and don't feature marks so there's no conflict internally. I think it would be better to have Daemons fieldable form within Warriors as well as standalone though as both armies adhere so closely to marks and the dynamics between the Chaos gods.

The Emperor
18-02-2014, 11:39
The theory is that if there were fewer books, it would be easier to keep them fresh and balanced and, accordingly, the players happy.

I doubt the players who see their favorite armies cut out or pushed to a handful of units within another army book would be happy with that result.

Greyshadow
18-02-2014, 11:41
Yes, there are probably too many armies. I say that with a heavy heart as there is not a single one I'd want to see go. I honestly think they are all incredible. One of my regular gaming buddies is a Bretonnian player. He couldn't be happier. He has enjoyed great success and enjoyment with his army and it felt dramatically refreshed when 8th came out. I am sure he would like to see a new book but he has also appreciated the stability and cost savings of not having to re-adjust his army.

I think ceasing any army would be a bad move - it sends us all a message that the army we lovingly collect and paint could be invalidated, discouraging people for starting in the first place. JJ has said in his columns over the years that GW will not be ceasing any more armies. Even Sisters of Battle which has always sold poorly is still available.

To sum up, yes there are too many but none should be removed.

Ultimate Life Form
18-02-2014, 11:43
I dont see a problem in supplemental books though. Just Dark Elves for example. There is enough variety between Han Gareth, Ghrond, Naggarond and Karond Kar for a few different armies. And while these are all possible from the main Army Book, you could expand on it. There is likely more than one Corsair hero than Lokhir, and they will have more than just standard Corsairs who have adapted to the life there and on the Arks. Same with the other places.

Yes, of course, this is all part of the pull. However there is a limit to what is possible. The army books are supposed to give the big picture. You can't give every single citizen of Ghrond their own entry in an army book. This detaily stuff should be left to be expanded by Black Library novels, but more importantly by player imagination. Isn't it part of the fun to make your own army with your own background and tell the story of your own Hero instead of using a paper cut-out from the books? That is by the way also one of the reasons I resent the so-called Special Characters - really nothing special about them other than exploiting them for their overpoweredness and unique rules.



I actually think Beastmen make much more sense separate from Warriors and Daemons as they really have their own identity and don't feature marks so there's no conflict internally.

Beastmen used to be able to be marked; in fact there used to be entire units of marked Beastmen. It's all about what GW will allow.

Personally I miss this aspect; I feel Beastmen lost a lot if not most of their character by severing their ties with Chaos. They were so much more awesome when they had a purpose rather than just randomly roaming the woods. They've lost all taste to me. It was their own identity within Chaos which appealed to me.

Lord Solar Plexus
18-02-2014, 11:50
I have a hard time to understand how you could possibly conclude that there are too many armies from the premise that they are all great and indispensable. That makes absolutely no sense.

---

I sadly cannot quote myself on this topic, so I just say no, there aren't too many armies. Variety is the spice of life and fantasy. I certainly don't want a game with just MEQ, TEQ and GEQ categories.

Having said that, I can see those rumoured fewer army books offering a lot of options and chances. That's not necessarily the same as rolling one into the other though. It could be as simple as having three books in one, or different Lord options opening up different choices to make a certain faction, or single army lists, or any shade and form inbetween.

Alltaken
18-02-2014, 12:31
The issue is not an amount of armies thing, but rather a rules issue that probably translates to other areas.

Bad balanced rules:
Some armies suck, so you dont want to invest heavy in them.
Some units suck, so you dont want to buy them.
Unbalanced games aren't fun, so you drop the game for periods or all together.
Current rules emphasize in a big amount of minis, or small amount of big minis as costly as the big unit purchase which discourage new players to start playing. To expand this standard play goes about 2k+ from what I can see from forums. Real economic cost at that point.
Bad relation between customer and public, gw is a horrible managed company regarding communication, that drops some clients in the end.

Now battle scrolls are a step un in a good direction, faqs were (we dont see them since quite a while), digital editions are a good step (though límited to Idevices is terrible), weekly release is great too.
What we still need is actually more competitive focus, think magic the gathering (collectible card game). You can play for fun, etc, but competitiveness gives you another very effective incentive to play (therefore buy). Another point of competitive mtg examples, people follow tours and pro players and therefore buy their card decks, for us, their armies. This would force gw to use for once their mighty information source (stores) and look profoundly at the book and balance, we would get faster upgrades, digital releases are the best way to go for quick patch books. Army books in magazine print format.
Battlescrolls can even make the idea Romark said come true, and we get differently built up armies with the same range, but we satisfy fluffers and those that like certain minis. Say a hag graef army, fix point costs, core executioners get less things in special rules or point allowances etc.

Im not saying its easy, but it will always fall back to rules I think. We dont sell because its expensive for new comers, no real small games with usefull escalation to bigger armies, unbalanced rules and no grand competitiveness. Those and price are the issues in my opinion.

From my servoskull

Ultimate Life Form
18-02-2014, 12:40
Making Warhammer competitive has two problems:

1) They've been saying they're not going that route

2) It would require painstaking amounts of meticulous balancing on part of the developers. Basically that means you have to build upon and improve what you have, adding a few Points here, taking a few Points there but always maintaining the framework. This approach is simply incompatible with GW's habit of throwing everything over and shuffling the cards anew every Edition.

Leonathion
18-02-2014, 12:42
I think there are too many armies for an efficient market control by one company. Players are agitated because their faction doesn't get enough attention, likely because there are too many factions.
Look to PP for a different take, they have essentially merged 40k and Fantasy into one game system aimed at two different players, with fewer armies with near constant support. Every book release in one of their two games add to your collection and rules, and to the current meta. It's a good strategy. I love the difference we get in the GW games though, it is worth a lot. I think, if we lost some armies, these could go:

Wood Elves
Brettonia
Chaos Deamons
Chaos Beastmen (just bake them into Chaos everything, together with deamons and warriors)
Tomb Kings (I loved the old Undead mummies, lets have those back :) )
Ogres

I do love these armies though, I just think that if any should go, it would be the above mentioned.

Xerkics
18-02-2014, 13:01
We could do with putting all elves in one book all chaos back in 1 book. All undead back into 1 book and Making Brets and ogres into mercenaries.

baransiege
18-02-2014, 13:06
What we still need is actually more competitive focus, think magic the gathering (collectible card game). You can play for fun, etc, but competitiveness gives you another very effective incentive to play (therefore buy). Another point of competitive mtg examples, people follow tours and pro players and therefore buy their card decks, for us, their armies. This would force gw to use for once their mighty information source (stores) and look profoundly at the book and balance, we would get faster upgrades, digital releases are the best way to go for quick patch books.

MtGs business model in the last decade has been purely focused on pay to win, with new sets featuring huge power creep to invalidate old collections and expensive rare cards a necessity to win. What you are proscribing would destroy balance, with old units becoming progressively weaker, invalidating people's armies and new releases being auto-buys. When this does on occasion happen, where a new unit is a bit overpowered, people already gripe extensively about it, so adopting it as the entire business strategy would seem unsound.

Regarding people buying pro player's decks that's just the same as net listing - another horrible aspect that cuts out a huge chunk of player involvement in the hobby.

MtG has more of a churn and burn attitude to long term player involvement than any other company out there.

Acephale
18-02-2014, 13:08
Having said that, I can see those rumoured fewer army books offering a lot of options and chances. That's not necessarily the same as rolling one into the other though. It could be as simple as having three books in one, or different Lord options opening up different choices to make a certain faction, or single army lists, or any shade and form inbetween.

Exactly, merging army books doesn't necessarily mean some armies will be discontinued or pushed to the side. If they cut down on the detailed fluff, model-porn and colour illustrations (that stuff could easily be published elsewhere, online or in separate books), and focused on rules instead , it would be perfectly plausible to have one book feature Empire, Bretonnia, Kislev and Cathay for example.

Of course this would mean that mortal enemies would have to share books but that's already the case with Daemons and that works fine imo. It would actually open up for some interesting ally/animosity options.

The downside of this is that each army wouldn't feel as "special" as before, but the upside is that it's much easier to maintain a steady update schedule and keep the editions more in line with each other and with the current ruleset.

Ultimate Life Form
18-02-2014, 13:14
MtG has more of a churn and burn attitude to long term player involvement than any other company out there.

Yes. I have played MtG for a great part of my life, and I love the game, but even though it pains me greatly, I have stopped a few years ago and cannot see me picking it up again in the future. The simple reason is that with their insane powercreep, they've pretty much invalidated my entire collection of several thousand, not cheap cards. These days they print things that make even some of the big stuff from Legends and Beta pale in comparison, a power level I thought impossible to achieve. I am very sad indeed.

Well, to make a long story short, if I wanted to play MtG again these days, I would have to start an entirely new collection from scratch, which I'm not going to do, and seeing GW adopt the same mindset would definitely make me quit Warhammer. There's no mistaking it.

Alltaken
18-02-2014, 13:28
MtGs business model in the last decade has been purely focused on pay to win, with new sets featuring huge power creep to invalidate old collections and expensive rare cards a necessity to win. What you are proscribing would destroy balance, with old units becoming progressively weaker, invalidating people's armies and new releases being auto-buys. When this does on occasion happen, where a new unit is a bit overpowered, people already gripe extensively about it, so adopting it as the entire business strategy would seem unsound.

Regarding people buying pro player's decks that's just the same as net listing - another horrible aspect that cuts out a huge chunk of player involvement in the hobby.

MtG has more of a churn and burn attitude to long term player involvement than any other company out there.

Yes they do sell pay to play, but it still sells, lets not forget that. And mtg costs more than fantasy or 40k by far, if you intend to play for some time.

Now on a reply, we dont need to copy mtgs fault, gw doesnt sell cards, units are generaly more expensive than boosters or individual cards. So we cash that in tourney inscription, battle scrolls, digital edition updates.

Competitiveness doesnt equate to unbalanced games (starcraft and dawn of war come to mind).

I know that gw some times makes op unit most buy, but that is evidently not always the case, none of the lizardmen new monster release is OMG I GOT A HPA, or the beastmen rare selection. Gw is not even doing that properly.

They might not want competitive WFB, but it would improve sales if it was a balanced game with balanced books, with at least 3 builds each.

From my servoskull

IcedCrow
18-02-2014, 13:29
That's why I played magic the gathering for a year back in 1995 when it was new and decided I didn't want to keep spending a ton of money to stay competitive, so gave it up.

Odin
18-02-2014, 13:32
Oh yes, I think I'll start it off by quoting myself here, because the Bretonnia thread really is not the place to discuss this...

Yup, couldn't agree more.

Beastmen as part of a big Chaos book make sense. If you want to theme a whole army around beastmen, you can, in exactly the same way as you can with Night Goblins or Savage Orcs - it would be one of a number of themed options. They would be able to use the trolls, dragon ogres, ogres, chimera as well, none of which wouild be out of place. They could use a converted Shrine, something more primitive carried by beasts with a shaman on it.

Likewise, I'd put Daemons in there as well, make one epic army book, like the Space Marines one.

A few simple rules to link troop types to characters, job done.

Vipoid
18-02-2014, 13:35
I'm in 2 minds about this.

On the one hand, most of the Fantasy armies are at least quite different (whereas about half the 40k armies are just marines in different outfits). And, I can also understand that a lot of players might not want their army merged with another one.

On the other, I'm dubious that some armies will be able to retain their identities. For example, Bretonnia seems based almost entirely on building list comprised entirely of knights. However, when both Empire and High Elves can also make Bretonnia-style cavalry lists with little issue (as well as having many other options available), I'm struggling to see the appeal of Bretonnia. Bear in mind, I'm speaking from a purely mechanical standpoint.

Fear Ghoul
18-02-2014, 13:38
The problem is not that some armies are more popular than others, it's simply that some armies are outright better than others, a condition that GW tends to cement over and over with their continued neglect of certain lines.

Those armies (Dwarfs, Tomb Kings, Wood Elves, and Bretonnians) get neglected because their imagery and playstyle is less popular.

Ultimate Life Form
18-02-2014, 13:44
Those armies (Dwarfs, Tomb Kings, Wood Elves, and Bretonnians) get neglected because their imagery and playstyle is less popular.

Well, that is a very dumb model. If I want to sell a product, I'd better give it my everything to make it as appealing as possible. Having certain lines of stuff that no one wants, simply because they're too lazy to do something with it, is very, very bad business. Axe them or mend them. Also Dwarves, Elves and Knights are THE Fantasy archetypes par excellence, they should be at the core of the game, and if they can't come up with anything to make them even halfway viable, that leaves me speechless. Also, again those are issues that could be alleviated by summing them up into a bigger book.

Odin
18-02-2014, 13:46
Those armies (Dwarfs, Tomb Kings, Wood Elves, and Bretonnians) get neglected because their imagery and playstyle is less popular.

That simple is it? Nothing at all to do with the rules and/or models being old and in many cases outdated, or the smaller variety of units?

Wood Elves were everywhere when their last army book got published. But they've had nothing new for a decade, and their rules no longer really work in 8th edition. That's the main reason they're not popular at the moment.

warhammerscotlandplayer
18-02-2014, 13:47
I think the balance of armies is fine as it is and each army has a theme and way of playing it.

The problem we have is certain armies being left on the shelf for far too long, which of course will have falling sales.

GW could have won a watch with the Chaos Dwarf release, they could have had a summer campaign with the Dwarfs declaring war on every race, but no, they over charged on everything and i have never played nor seen a model in my area. A "new" army, always breeds hype.

Soundwave
18-02-2014, 13:55
It is a real double edge sword at the moment (or hammer if you prefer). Clearly some of the factions are being spoilt with new models, rules and buckets of effective variety while some are stuck in limbo. I would love to see more races added the setting, fluff and model range expanded upon but first things first I would like to see and would be amazed by the last four books complete before the next addition.
From there a total re-work or combined army books could be good but it will all depend on how it will be handled. Wait and see I guess.

CountUlrich
18-02-2014, 13:59
I'm new to WHFB, but I'm an old 40k player and from both what I've seen, read and heard - FB is vastly more ballanced than 40k is.

Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk

Ultimate Life Form
18-02-2014, 14:05
I'm new to WHFB, but I'm an old 40k player and from both what I've seen, read and heard - FB is vastly more ballanced than 40k is.

At the moment it is fairly balanced, but it used to be quite different not that awfully long ago with two armies ruling supreme over the downtrodden rest, and we dread the return of these days.

CountUlrich
18-02-2014, 14:12
Who were those dominant armies? I'm assuming chaos was one ...

Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk

Ultimate Life Form
18-02-2014, 14:16
Daemons of Chaos were the most overpowered, underpriced and unfair army in 7th Edition, closely followed by Vampire Counts.

Though later Dark Elves made a name for themselves as well, mostly attributed to a number of underpriced choices and a selection of Magic Items that lent themselves to overpowered combinations.

Voss
18-02-2014, 14:23
I have a hard time to understand how you could possibly conclude that there are too many armies from the premise that they are all great and indispensable. That makes absolutely no sense.
Well, personally I don't think that is the problem. I think there are too many armies based on the fact that far too many are terrible, and often poor copies of other armies. Either historically (elves and other elves) or in their current form (beastmen as brown orcs without the benefits), or Empire as the Knight and technology and magic and religious army, while Brets are the knight/religious army that doesn't do either as well. Plus the spin off armies that are frankly, worse off than they were as part of the larger books (chaos and undead).

Unlike others, I don't think the variant armies (as I think of them) are particularly interesting or distinct, or provide playstyle options at all. Combining them and getting rid of the duplicates would produce something along the lines of the Empire and O&G books, which I think are the current pinnacle of options and possible playstyles (at least when done well).

CountUlrich
18-02-2014, 14:25
VC, HE and DE were all nearly my choices for first army. Ultimately I went Empire, and glad for it. My main group has 3 players of each of the above (as well as 3 chaos), while I am the only empire general. Anyways, sorry to sidetrack the thread, back on topic ...

Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk

Fear Ghoul
18-02-2014, 14:30
Well, that is a very dumb model. If I want to sell a product, I'd better give it my everything to make it as appealing as possible. Having certain lines of stuff that no one wants, simply because they're too lazy to do something with it, is very, very bad business. Axe them or mend them. Also Dwarves, Elves and Knights are THE Fantasy archetypes par excellence, they should be at the core of the game, and if they can't come up with anything to make them even halfway viable, that leaves me speechless. Also, again those are issues that could be alleviated by summing them up into a bigger book.

GW have tried repeatedly to make the less popular armies more appealing but it doesn't work because not all concepts are equally appealing. A diversity amongst armies therefore implies an unequal distribution of players and revenue for GW. Wood Elves, Dwarfs, and Bretonnians represent common fantasy tropes, but maybe that is why high fantasy isn't especially popular these days. Similarly their respective playstyles of skirmish, anti-magic shooting castle, and direct cavalry charges may be iconic to their fans but be boring and one-dimensional to many others.


That simple is it? Nothing at all to do with the rules and/or models being old and in many cases outdated, or the smaller variety of units?

Most newbies to the game aren't familiar with how old the models are, or how much better they could look if they received an update. Nor are they usually that knowledgeable regarding the rules, or when their next update is due.


Wood Elves were everywhere when their last army book got published. But they've had nothing new for a decade, and their rules no longer really work in 8th edition. That's the main reason they're not popular at the moment.

Wood Elves were very overpowered in 6th edition, and so they were popular with tournament players. But they clearly weren't that popular with the fanbase as a whole, because they didn't receive an update in 7th edition, and they will be the amongst the last armies updated in 8th. Compare that with Space Marines and Tyranids, the two most popular 40k armies, who always get an update in each edition, and that's despite Tyranids having received a bad book last edition.

Spider-pope
18-02-2014, 14:35
I think the number of armies is just fine, with one exception. And i say this as both a Daemons and Beastmen player, the Chaos armies should be merged back into the one army. The last 5th edition Chaos box is still what i consider the best way to go about a Chaos army - and an army in general to be honest. You chose a character, whether it was a Daemon, Mortal or Beastman, and then had to spend the same amount of points on giving them a retinue of the same kind. So a Great Unclean One would require a unit or two of Plaguebearers for example.

It allowed for players to field mixed armies as well as giving them the options for focusing on only one of the factions. And at the time i expected it's method for choosing armies would be spread to other Army books. Instead 6th edition happened.

underscore
18-02-2014, 14:46
The main issue with mixing Daemons back into 'mortal Chaos' is that they currently sell extremely well over two different systems to the point where I can't see it happening. Not that I don't think that it would be a good idea, mind. It might be that any ally rules waiting in the wings might be GW's answer.

draccan
18-02-2014, 14:49
Not too many armies. At all. But too many books. Way too many.

GW should separate fluff from armylists / rules and release all army books soon after launch of a new edition.

Fluff books, heraldry, stories, campaigns can be hardcover and come infrequently. Armylists and rules should be gathered in a few volumes and done quickly after a launch and be in softcover.

As I see it they could easily gather the books in these groups:

Men - Empire / Bretonnia / Marienburg and some variant lists (Norsca, Nippon, Cathay, Araby etc.)
Elves - High / Dark / Wood
Chaos - Warriors / Daemons / C-Dwarfs / Beastmen - should really just be one big list with animosity rules. So boring to keep them apart.
Under mountain & out in Jungle - Lizardmen, Dwarf and Skaven
Undead - Tomb / Vampire / Nagash

EDIT (I forgot): Orcs and Ogres. Including the all-important Snotling Army variant list.

Ultimate Life Form
18-02-2014, 14:57
Compare that with Space Marines and Tyranids, the two most popular 40k armies, who always get an update in each edition, and that's despite Tyranids having received a bad book last edition.

Well, that is interesting, because I think I've recently read somewhere around here that Tyranids are one of the less popular armies of 40K. No idea if that's right, I have no clue about 40K or as to the credibility of said poster.

But that's what I've been talking about the entire time. There is no reason that Wood Elves can be only skirmish, or Dwarves can be only gunline, or Bretonnia can be only cavalry. In fact, shoehorning them into these roles may well be the reason they're appreciated only by a select few players who relish in said playstyles. Empire can be all of these things. It is probably no coincidence that the most popular armies are also those with the most options. They just attract a wider range of players. That is not to say all armies should be the same (though they've definitely gone that direction lately), but at least some more options would be welcome. Just give them more unique stuff!

Sadly, the new Dwarf armybook seems to reconfirm their their limited role rather than expanding on it, and if that's anything to go by, we already know what the Bretonnia and Wood Elf books will look like.

Vipoid
18-02-2014, 15:13
Wood Elves, Dwarfs, and Bretonnians represent common fantasy tropes, but maybe that is why high fantasy isn't especially popular these days.

Could you perhaps elaborate on this?

I'm a little confused as to what you mean.

VaeVictisGames
18-02-2014, 15:20
Not too many armies. At all. But too many books. Way too many.

GW should separate fluff from armylists / rules and release all army books soon after launch of a new edition.

Fluff books, heraldry, stories, campaigns can be hardcover and come infrequently. Armylists and rules should be gathered in a few volumes and done quickly after a launch and be in softcover.

They tried that with the 3rd edition 40k pamphlets, it didn't go down well. I want my armybooks exactly how they are now, rules with fluff.

Lord Solar Plexus
18-02-2014, 15:22
Well, personally I don't think that is the problem. I think there are too many armies based on the fact that far too many are terrible, and often poor copies of other armies. Either historically (elves and other elves) or in their current form (beastmen as brown orcs without the benefits), or Empire as the Knight and technology and magic and religious army, while Brets are the knight/religious army that doesn't do either as well.

You mean when you work really hard to boil them all down to a single stereotype that doesn't describe them well, neglects their fluff and doesn't do the varied detailed background any justice then they all appear to be single lame stereotypes. Yes, that's kind of trivial. ;)

As to "that" (what?) being the problem, it is pretty much what he said: I like all armies, we need to drop some. Doesn't make any sense I'm afraid.

The idea from some outsiders, complete strangers, to take stuff away from others who like it while not even being in a position to do so is egregious and appallingly ignorant. The existence of Brets or TK hurts no-one. There's absolutely no reason to squat any of them, especially not for players of other factions.

Dark Aly
18-02-2014, 15:22
Not too many armies. At all. But too many books. Way too many.

GW should separate fluff from armylists / rules and release all army books soon after launch of a new edition.

Fluff books, heraldry, stories, campaigns can be hardcover and come infrequently. Armylists and rules should be gathered in a few volumes and done quickly after a launch and be in softcover.

As I see it they could easily gather the books in these groups:

Men - Empire / Bretonnia / Marienburg and some variant lists (Norsca, Araby etc.)
Elves - High / Dark / Wood
Chaos - Warriors / Daemons / C-Dwarfs / Beastmen - should really just be one big list with animosity rules. So boring to keep them apart.
Under mountain & out in Jungle - Lizardmen, Dwarf and Skaven
Undead - Tomb / Vampire / Nagash

:cries: no orcs and goblins, that would be a shame.

I stopped playing chaos since the books separated and the current book offers little of the variety which attracted me to chaos in the first place. I'm not sure how well rules pamphlets would work, the bachground is the reason why WHFB has endured so long and to remove that from the game would be a mistake.

Kahadras
18-02-2014, 15:32
I think that currently there are probably too many armies in the game. That's not to say that I think GW should get rid of some but I feel that certain armies shouldn't have been split up in the first place. As I see it the armies should be; Empire, Bretonnia, Dwarfs, High Elves, Dark Elves, Wood Elves, Undead (VC and TK), O&G, Beastmen, Chaos (Deamons and Warriors), Ogres, Lizardmen and Skaven. Each army should also have a solid theme which seperates it from the others. For example Empire should lose core heavy cavalry as that's Bretonnia's 'thing'. That's not to say that you can't have any cross over between the armies for example Dark Elves and High Elves should be similar to a point.

AM1640
18-02-2014, 15:33
It is almost not even a choice for GW to get rid of an army. They tried doing that and failed with the Chaos dwarves. It would be a massive waste of money to try getting rid of any of the other armies that currently exist. And why, is GW losing that much money? Does anybody have any proof that GW is losing money or are we just speculating because someone hasn't played a game in awhile. I also wouldn't change to be like Privateer Press. I thnk their game system is okay but I prefer the variability and cumtomization that is built into GW games. I think this is one reason that GW games are more wide spread than PP games (it probably helps that GW is at least 2 decades older). I like that GW comes out with supplements such as SoM and TT, etc. This can add fun and change the game dynamics, and make a little money on the side.

Fear Ghoul
18-02-2014, 15:34
Well, that is interesting, because I think I've recently read somewhere around here that Tyranids are one of the less popular armies of 40K. No idea if that's right, I have no clue about 40K or as to the credibility of said poster.

Only amongst the fanbase, who continue to buy models and play anyway. Tyranids have featured in one of the starter sets, and they are one of only two armies to receive an update each edition. Those two facts along should be enough of an indicator of their popularity.


But that's what I've been talking about the entire time. There is no reason that Wood Elves can be only skirmish, or Dwarves can be only gunline, or Bretonnia can be only cavalry. In fact, shoehorning them into these roles may well be the reason they're appreciated only by a select few players who relish in said playstyles. Empire can be all of these things. It is probably no coincidence that the most popular armies are also those with the most options. They just attract a wider range of players. That is not to say all armies should be the same (though they've definitely gone that direction lately), but at least some more options would be welcome. Just give them more unique stuff!

Sadly, the new Dwarf armybook seems to reconfirm their their limited role rather than expanding on it, and if that's anything to go by, we already know what the Bretonnia and Wood Elf books will look like.

GW could change those armies enough to make them more varied and appealing, but then they risk alienating the current fans of those armies. And its still not going to do much about model aesthetics, paint schemes, or artwork which do a lot to draw people into an army.


Could you perhaps elaborate on this?

I'm a little confused as to what you mean.

Generic high fantasy is not popular at this time. Bretonnians, Wood Elves, and Dwarfs all represent some aspect of high fantasy tropes, and therefore it is not surprising that they are not popular.

Karak Norn Clansman
18-02-2014, 15:37
There might be too many kits for most stores to supply, but there is probably not too many armies outside of Chaos. All of them have representatives on tournaments, and the sheer variety is a large part of WHFB's appeal. There is an army or three for almost everyone interested.

There might, however, be too many Chaos armies, but their number might also be viable as it is.

Voss
18-02-2014, 15:41
Well, that is interesting, because I think I've recently read somewhere around here that Tyranids are one of the less popular armies of 40K. No idea if that's right, I have no clue about 40K or as to the credibility of said poster.
I'd say they were a popular army, but people here really like complaining about the quality of the codex. At least the last two versions. It is more or less an unrelated phenomenon, though it could eventually drag the popularity of the army down.

I'm not all that sure about the new Dwarf book either. Most of the buffs certainly seem melee focused, rather than guns, guns, guns.

Spiney Norman
18-02-2014, 15:42
I don't think reducing the number of armies would make any difference how often fringe armies like Bretonnians or wood elves got new books.

Some armies get revisited every edition because of their solid fan base and their centrality to the game setting, armies like chaos warriors, Empire, orcs and goblins, high/dark elves etc, others that are more peripheral like wood elves, Bretonnians, Tomb Kings and dwarfs only get attention every couple of editions because its just not cost effective for GW to plough so many resources into them as it is for the more popular armies (that accordingly give larger returns).

I suspect they would only drop/combine an army if they had a great idea for a new army and wanted to free up some resources to start that off.


I'd say they were a popular army, but people here really like complaining about the quality of the codex. At least the last two versions. It is more or less an unrelated phenomenon, though it could eventually drag the popularity of the army down.

I'm not all that sure about the new Dwarf book either. Most of the buffs certainly seem melee focused, rather than guns, guns, guns.

Tyranid's problem is that they had a weak 5th edition codex and a mediocre 6th edition one, much more than in Fantasy the popularity of a 40k army revolves almost entirely around its power level.
In terms of 40k armies the studio 'loves' you're looking at the space marine and to a slightly lesser extent, chaos marines, Imperial Guard and Orks. All the others are pretty peripheral.

Malagor
18-02-2014, 15:46
Generic high fantasy is not popular at this time. Bretonnians, Wood Elves, and Dwarfs all represent some aspect of high fantasy tropes, and therefore it is not surprising that they are not popular.

I would say High Elves or Dark Elves are very common fantasy tropes as well and yet they are popular.
But as for the OP, no there aren't too many armies, just different levels of support.
One should never consider the lack of popularity with lack of interest.
GW learned that lesson with Tau, one of the least "popular" army in 40k and yet when they got a new book, GW couldn't keep up with the orders, only army I have seen that ever caused delays.
There is alot of interest for Bretonnia and Wood Elves but people are waiting for the new book, waiting for new models.
The Dwarf book so far seem to have sold well, the limited edition was sold out before it was released(the last releases couldn't match that), the book was sold out in my local store and the models have been praised causing even more interest in them.
So no, there are not enough armies and GW could support them all, they just need to put their mind to it.

Voss
18-02-2014, 15:48
You mean when you work really hard to boil them all down to a single stereotype that doesn't describe them well, neglects their fluff and doesn't do the varied detailed background any justice then they all appear to be single lame stereotypes. Yes, that's kind of trivial. ;)
Uh... sure. I worked not at all to sum up the armies as they currently exist. You can pretend that took effort on my part if you like, and further pretend it has anything at all to do with the background, which the current versions of the armies frankly don't do justice to at all. But I simply don't see it as trivial. Playstyle-wise, especially, the redundant armies offer nothing that other armies don't.


As to "that" (what?) being the problem, it is pretty much what he said: I like all armies, we need to drop some. Doesn't make any sense I'm afraid.
He can say whatever he likes. Apparently I disagree with both of you for different parts of the argument


The idea from some outsiders, complete strangers, to take stuff away from others who like it while not even being in a position to do so is egregious and appallingly ignorant. The existence of Brets or TK hurts no-one. There's absolutely no reason to squat any of them, especially not for players of other factions.
We all play fantasy. In that respect there are no outsiders, let alone 'complete strangers.' Done well, the combinations wouldn't take _anything_ away, but instead add options that bring the background back into prominence. But the current army book system wastes a lot of resources on inferior products, which hurts everyone.

Lord Solar Plexus
18-02-2014, 15:49
Don't humans feature in this High Fantasy as well? Perhaps we're better off to squat the whole hobby so we don't have to see those unappealing types either?

Well, whatever.

Kingly
18-02-2014, 16:03
I for one would like to see one big chaos book again.

In my mind there is plenty of room for more armies and I would love to see armies that contain allies like the good old days.

Fear Ghoul
18-02-2014, 16:05
In terms of 40k armies the studio 'loves' you're looking at the space marine and to a slightly lesser extent, chaos marines, Imperial Guard and Orks. All the others are pretty peripheral.

Don't forget Tyranids.


Don't humans feature in this High Fantasy as well? Perhaps we're better off to squat the whole hobby so we don't have to see those unappealing types either?

Well, whatever.

Yes they do, however we were talking about stereotypes rather than mere existence. Bretonnians are knights in shining armour, Wood Elves are the hippies that live in trees, and Dwarfs are just like those in LOTR. That may be a simplification but that is how many people critique these armies. The Empire by contrast has historically been more low fantasy and is a big draw with historical players with its emphasis on individually weak humans, combined arms tactics, and endemic corruption.

Ultimate Life Form
18-02-2014, 16:05
I still don't get this Tyranid thing. So based on their releases, they are one of the most popular armies, except with the players, who detest their weak codices, and the developers consider them as peripheral? 40K sure has a strange way of measuring popularity. :p



GW could change those armies enough to make them more varied and appealing, but then they risk alienating the current fans of those armies. And its still not going to do much about model aesthetics, paint schemes, or artwork which do a lot to draw people into an army.


I like the Dwarf aesthetics and paint schemes. What I don't like is their boringness. Surely something could be done about this...?

valle
18-02-2014, 16:11
No, Id like more... Only if GW changed the way they do things so they could be supported ofcourse. At the moment it looks like the ones we have CAN be supported and with rumored updates to happen on the net, there is no limit.

Quetzl
18-02-2014, 16:26
GW learned that lesson with Tau, one of the least "popular" army in 40k and yet when they got a new book, GW couldn't keep up with the orders, only army I have seen that ever caused delays.
There is alot of interest for Bretonnia and Wood Elves but people are waiting for the new book, waiting for new models.
The Dwarf book so far seem to have sold well, the limited edition was sold out before it was released(the last releases couldn't match that), the book was sold out in my local store and the models have been praised causing even more interest in them.
So no, there are not enough armies and GW could support them all, they just need to put their mind to it.


I agree with all of this, the reason older armies are not being sold is simply because people are waiting with baited breath for further miniatures and support. I wouldn't want to start a Wood Elf army at the moment simply because nobody knows what is going to be released for them in the future. It's even got to this point with my Beastmen, I've toyed with the idea of getting some Centigors, Harpies and perhaps kitbashing some of the characters but the realisation that new miniatures may be coming has stopped me from grabbing anything from GW/Ebay. I'd rather have the new 'hot sauce' plastics when/if they're released.

The moment GW release a new book and all the hysteria about what's going to be replaced and changed is put to bed, the floodgates of people waiting tentatively will come. Of course certain people will throw the book back at GW in anger, but I think the majority of people will grab the new book and the opportunities it creates with both hands.

The new White Dwarf Weekly is the most exciting thing GW have done for a 'very long time' and due to this anything is possible. Imagine a month where 5-6 Warhammer Armies get a new duel-build kit alongside a Warhammer Expansion book (of some sort) it would be exciting and different. Only issue I can think of is the 'rules' problem and having them in a physical format for those who don't own an iPad, because you won't want to miss a WD weekly as you'll miss out on the rules. (Or is that their ploy??? :eek:)

Ultimate Life Form
18-02-2014, 16:36
I agree with all of this, the reason older armies are not being sold is simply because people are waiting with baited breath for further miniatures and support. I wouldn't want to start a Wood Elf army at the moment simply because nobody knows what is going to be released for them in the future. It's even got to this point with my Beastmen, I've toyed with the idea of getting some Centigors, Harpies and perhaps kitbashing some of the characters but the realisation that new miniatures may be coming has stopped me from grabbing anything from GW/Ebay. I'd rather have the new 'hot sauce' plastics when/if they're released.


I'm the same, trust me. And once again we have evidence that GW are hurting themselves with their strategy of hesitant neglect. If you don't update Wood Elves for seven years, then people won't buy Wood Elves for seven years... sounds bad in my book.

Gustav Kohn
18-02-2014, 17:00
Those armies (Dwarfs, Tomb Kings, Wood Elves, and Bretonnians) get neglected because their imagery and playstyle is less popular.

Correlation and causation are not the same. In other words, their imagery and play style and their popularity may be correlated but not have causal relationships.

One could easily claim that the reason they are unpopular is because they do not receive the support which Chaos, VC, and others receive.

Voss
18-02-2014, 17:04
I still don't get this Tyranid thing. So based on their releases, they are one of the most popular armies, except with the players, who detest their weak codices, and the developers consider them as peripheral? 40K sure has a strange way of measuring popularity. :p


No, not really. The studio doesn't consider them peripheral, and they are popular. It's just that the last book and to some extent the current book drew a lot of ire on warseer. But what draws ire/devotion on warseer in only tangentially related to reality.

Fear Ghoul
18-02-2014, 17:18
Correlation and causation are not the same. In other words, their imagery and play style and their popularity may be correlated but not have causal relationships.

One could easily claim that the reason they are unpopular is because they do not receive the support which Chaos, VC, and others receive.

If your theory was true then these armies would have become incredibly popular during 4th edition, and yet that is not the case, as evidenced by the fact that none of them received updates in 5th edition.

Charistoph
18-02-2014, 17:58
I think it's amusing what some people ascribe as to "what makes an army worth updating or popular".

Dark Elves before 7th Edition were a pariah, nobody played them. Their 7th Edition book came out, and people came out of the wood work.

Vampire Counts before 7th Edition and Skaven before 8th Edition both had the same problem, and that's nobody wanted to build/paint hordes of units, and some of the models didn't help for getting set up. Vampire Counts suddenly became VERY powerful due to options and point values, and then you can't not find a player. Skaven book was good, but add in Island of Blood, and Wallah! Skaven players everywhere.

How often an army is played in tournaments is no indication of its popularity, just its usability and enjoyability as a game style.

Wood Elves were popular in 6th, especially LATE 6th, and early 7th. But then, 7th Edition rules combined with a change in following army design made them overpriced and almost useless. But no one argues that they aren't beautiful models, they just don't want to field them because it's a lot of money for too much work to play them.

Dwarf armies have one big problem, they are slow and they shoot good. The biggest complaint I hear is how they castle and blow away the other army, never mind that Empire can do exactly the same thing with more guns. Also keep in mind that they were the only army to have 2 6th Edition books.

I tell you that Dwarfs, Wood Elves, Tomb Kings, Beastmen, and Bretonnians ARE popular armies, in terms of collectability, theme, and character. Their downsides are mainly how to keep their character as an army and making them an enjoyable game style. These are the hardest armies to build rules for. That is why they haven't been updated as much. Every time someone thinks to take their project on, it stymies them. Then they stagnate for a while until they are far behind the others, so other armies get deemed "popular", and therefore more justifiable risk in deploying earlier. So some people put them on the shelf until they can enjoy playing them again, and play armies that are their second or third favorite that they feel they CAN have an enjoyable game with, or they just don't play at all until the next book comes out.

Fear Ghoul
18-02-2014, 18:14
I tell you that Dwarfs, Wood Elves, Tomb Kings, Beastmen, and Bretonnians ARE popular armies, in terms of collectability, theme, and character. Their downsides are mainly how to keep their character as an army and making them an enjoyable game style. These are the hardest armies to build rules for. That is why they haven't been updated as much. Every time someone thinks to take their project on, it stymies them. Then they stagnate for a while until they are far behind the others, so other armies get deemed "popular", and therefore more justifiable risk in deploying earlier. So some people put them on the shelf until they can enjoy playing them again, and play armies that are their second or third favorite that they feel they CAN have an enjoyable game with, or they just don't play at all until the next book comes out.

If these armies were popular then GW would release more frequent updates for them, because as we all know GW is very money-centric. The fact that GW doesn't do this is enough evidence regarding how much profit GW sees in these product lines, and quite simply trumps any sense of army equality, bias, or wish fulfilment.

Quetzl
18-02-2014, 18:17
This thread really got me thinking, so I've put a little survey together to see what you guys think.

https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/56Z9CGZ

If you could fill it out that would be great, I'll post the figures in a couple of days.

SpanielBear
18-02-2014, 18:20
If these armies were popular then GW would release more frequent updates for them, because as we all know GW is very money-centric. The fact that GW doesn't do this is enough evidence regarding how much profit GW sees in these product lines, and quite simply trumps any sense of army equality, bias, or wish fulfilment.

What about something like Dark Eldar, or Dark Elves, or Tomb Kings, where an army has been unpopular the GW releases something that attempts (sorry TK) to re-vitalise interest? Especially the Dark Eldar, how long were they in the Doldrums? And the release they got...

GW loves money, yes, but there are more ways of making money, maintaining interest and doing something that keeps employees interested and engaged than reducing a product line to the bare bones. Change is good.

Ultimate Life Form
18-02-2014, 18:23
This thread really got me thinking, so I've put a little survey together to see what you guys think.

https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/56Z9CGZ

If you could fill it out that would be great, I'll post the figures in a couple of days.

I had to mark a few armies as collected-never used, but mainly because those are work in progress projects.


Could you please clarify what you mean with "best" and "worst"? Is it in terms of power level/ playability or from a subjective standpoint (background, models and so on)?

Quetzl
18-02-2014, 18:26
I had to mark a few armies as collected-never used, but mainly because those are work in progress projects.


Could you please clarify what you mean with "best" and "worst"? Is it in terms of power level/ playability or from a subjective standpoint (background, models and so on)?

Apologies, yep I meant Power Level / Playability etc. I'll amend that question now

Ultimate Life Form
18-02-2014, 18:44
Okay, done. Looking forward to seeing the results!

Fear Ghoul
18-02-2014, 18:45
What about something like Dark Eldar, or Dark Elves, or Tomb Kings, where an army has been unpopular the GW releases something that attempts (sorry TK) to re-vitalise interest? Especially the Dark Eldar, how long were they in the Doldrums? And the release they got...

GW loves money, yes, but there are more ways of making money, maintaining interest and doing something that keeps employees interested and engaged than reducing a product line to the bare bones. Change is good.

I'm not saying that GW can't revitalize an army through releasing fantastic models with amazing rules. What I'm saying is that GW will never provide the same level of support to all armies, simply because not all armies are as inherently profitable because of imagery, cost, and playstyle. Space Marines will always be GW's biggest seller, simply because people love genetically-engineered elite super warriors who overcome insurmountable odds. By contrast Average Joe Guardsman with his one hundred mates just doesn't quite cut it for most people, and there is nothing you or anyone else can do about it.

lbecks
18-02-2014, 18:54
There aren't enough armies!

SpanielBear
18-02-2014, 19:43
I'm not saying that GW can't revitalize an army through releasing fantastic models with amazing rules. What I'm saying is that GW will never provide the same level of support to all armies, simply because not all armies are as inherently profitable because of imagery, cost, and playstyle. Space Marines will always be GW's biggest seller, simply because people love genetically-engineered elite super warriors who overcome insurmountable odds. By contrast Average Joe Guardsman with his one hundred mates just doesn't quite cut it for most people, and there is nothing you or anyone else can do about it.


Well, no, I'm just a guy on the Internet. Doesn't mean I can't hope for armies I'd like to get an update. I agree some armies will get more support, but that's different from other armies being axed. If sisters can cling on tenaciously...

Also, I don't know about the Guard being less popular. The image of puny humans armed with nothing but a flashlight, some cardboard body armour and a massive pair of brass... Yeah. People relate to them.

(Remembers which thread he's in)

By Which I of course mean Empire State troops. Yup.

I don't disagree that some armies will get more support than others, but I don't think that's reason to assume other more niche armies will be abandoned.

Charistoph
18-02-2014, 20:00
I'm not saying that GW can't revitalize an army through releasing fantastic models with amazing rules. What I'm saying is that GW will never provide the same level of support to all armies, simply because not all armies are as inherently profitable because of imagery, cost, and playstyle. Space Marines will always be GW's biggest seller, simply because people love genetically-engineered elite super warriors who overcome insurmountable odds. By contrast Average Joe Guardsman with his one hundred mates just doesn't quite cut it for most people, and there is nothing you or anyone else can do about it.

I disagree, Fear Ghoul. I believe they can. They have in points past, but then get side-tracked. They could use the FAQs to do it, but they don't. A lot of it is a relative disinterest in the gaming side of their product when compared to the hobby side, whereas, we the customer see it the other way around.

The biggest problem in Fantasy isn't the number of armies they have and are willing to support. Far from it. The biggest problem is simply their business model. From their operating perspective, they have only one single product line, models. Everything they do is about selling models, period. The army books and codices are about selling models. The video games, Black Library, and movies are to get people to look at their models and then buy them.

What they really have are three product lines, and need to properly separate them out and address them that way. They allow the other lines to interfere with the other's processes. For example, why should a second Wave of Dark Elves prevent or misplace the release of the Tyranids codex? Why should Lord of the Ring/Hobbit lines have any bearing, whatsoever, on what product is being released before Christmas? Yet, they do. I've never heard of a company deliberately ham-stringing their current profits just so they make next year's goals achievable, yet, Games Workshop did this for 40K in 2012.

Another problem, right now, is that they are completely revamping their entire process to go to a completely plastic lineup on all lines. Considering how much is still pewter and finecast in their lineup, that's a HUGE undertaking. They could do it all in a very short time, but they are going a very slow route so as not to overwhelm their profit margin for next year.

As Darnok said:

No, I do not think so.

WHF has a wide variety of armies, and in my opinion each and every one of them add something unique in models, ways of gameplay and background. That is one of the main appeals of WHF in the first place: that there is so much choice, each of the choices being meaningful.

That said: I also think that GW handled the WHF range very poorly, and in parts still does so now. Maybe they change this with the new weekly release format, but the previous "release stuff, then do nothing for 4+ years" just didn't work - and never will, if they continue to do so.

Tl/Dr: The number of armies is fine, the way GW is supporting them is not.

BattleofLund
18-02-2014, 20:05
This thread really got me thinking, so I've put a little survey together to see what you guys think.

https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/56Z9CGZ

If you could fill it out that would be great, I'll post the figures in a couple of days.

There was one question where the answers were (roughly): 'I'd be very annoyed', 'I'd be slightly annoyed' and 'Oh, I dunno, mixed feelings'. My answer was the last one, but really I would have liked to answer something like 'That would be a good change'. Ie, I think there should have been a positive option.

Also, mhy keybord iswonky. THAts annoing.

Ultimate Life Form
18-02-2014, 20:07
A lot of it is a relative disinterest in the gaming side of their product when compared to the hobby side, whereas, we the customer see it the other way around.
I've seen that point raised often.

They can't really be so deluded as to assume that people buy the models just for the sake of it, no? To put them in the cupboard or on display in a showcase? That I'm equally likely to buy a 40K Space Marine kit as a Wood Elf War Dancer box or a Gandalf, just because?

If that truely is the case, however, then I fear all hope is truly lost.

Charistoph
18-02-2014, 20:34
I've seen that point raised often.

They can't really be so deluded as to assume that people buy the models just for the sake of it, no? To put them in the cupboard or on display in a showcase? That I'm equally likely to buy a 40K Space Marine kit as a Wood Elf War Dancer box or a Gandalf, just because?

If that truely is the case, however, then I fear all hope is truly lost.

It's a relative disinterest, not a complete disinterest. Remember, Warhammer, to them, is more about getting together with your friends and having cool models than about having a tight, competitive, game.

How many other games are so sloppily written in their rules? Usually, future editions clarify and tighten things up. Not so with Warhammer. Every Edition tightens some things like a broken spring, leaves others unaddressed, and introduces new things to screw up.

SteveW
18-02-2014, 21:09
That's why I played magic the gathering for a year back in 1995 when it was new and decided I didn't want to keep spending a ton of money to stay competitive, so gave it up.
Yeah, back then I got my first deck put together and it was invalidated a month later. I could see the writing on the wall and got out. That model of business isn't possible in mini wargames though because you can just buy the new rules for your models.

For the topic at hand. GW is not going to roll Brets into the Empire any time soon/ever. They have gone from unpopular to their retconned version in 5th ed being super popular and are only unpopular now because of the age of the book and a lack of support. The other armies that have gone away have all been **** poor armies that supported or not were never popular. Just think about it for a second, with the lore that Brets have and how anti-empire it is. How could they ever join their ranks?

When the book comes out later this year and it has a 2012 copyright I wont be shocked.

Darnok
18-02-2014, 22:39
They can't really be so deluded as to assume that people buy the models just for the sake of it, no?

GW has stated exactly that, multiple times - both in hobby related articles in WD and in the yearly shareholder reports. GW does believe that a significant portion of their customers buy models simply to buy models.

Soulless
18-02-2014, 23:02
GW has stated exactly that, multiple times - both in hobby related articles in WD and in the yearly shareholder reports. GW does believe that a significant portion of their customers buy models simply to buy models.

And this is true - I know lots of people who play very very rarely but have extensive collections ... I don't think there is anything about to be amazed ...

SteveW
18-02-2014, 23:05
I've seen that point raised often.

They can't really be so deluded as to assume that people buy the models just for the sake of it, no? To put them in the cupboard or on display in a showcase? That I'm equally likely to buy a 40K Space Marine kit as a Wood Elf War Dancer box or a Gandalf, just because?

If that truely is the case, however, then I fear all hope is truly lost.

Most of the people I know are more collectors than players. I would say that people who collect, paint, and play are in the minority by a serious margin.

SSquirrel
18-02-2014, 23:09
Combine armies to make a nice round number 10. Yes most of these changes just take things back to the way they were earlier in GW's history. If rumors of an advancing timeline are true for the next edition, they could easily say things like the Skaven wiped out Bretonnia w/a plague, Nagash returned and took out the TK's root and stem, the Wood Elves forests are decimated by the Greenskins and they return to Ulthuan to rejoin their kin. Chaos, well heck, they branched off in chaos, why not re-merge in chaos? :) These would all be reasonable storylines and 10 is a good number I think. Gives you variety w/o making it too rock/paper/scissors


Hordes of Chaos (Beastmen+Daemons+Warriors)
Armies of Men (Bretonnia+Empire+Lists for other random human civs like Cathay and Nippon)
Dark Elves
Dwarfs
Light Elves (High+Wood)
Lizardmen
Ogre Kingdoms
Orcs & Goblins
Skaven
Undead (TK+VC, unless Nagash really destroyed them all, then just VC)

Ultimate Life Form
18-02-2014, 23:25
Yes, I too collect more than I play. But I do play. All this makes it sound like GW is thinking there is no rhyme or reason to my spending, that they seriously expect me to waltz into their store regularly and grab the next best box from the shelves, that I preorder every single thing on their site just because it's new. In short, that I'm a walking money bag that just waits to be milked für cash.

But that is not true. The things I buy have to meet certain criteria. I will buy things that I think will improve my armies, which have a certain quality and a reasonable price tag. Again, I will not just buy random models. And there are a great many of things that I would like to have, but do not buy, mostly either because the models are old and ugly, the rules are outdated or dumb beyond salvation, or, more recently, because the pricing is so insanely expensive that they can keep their stuff to play with themselves as far as I'm concerned. I have nothing against Wood Elves or Bretonnia, but with the sorry state they've been in for years, there's absolutely no chance I'll ever buy these things.

Spiney Norman
19-02-2014, 00:05
Correlation and causation are not the same. In other words, their imagery and play style and their popularity may be correlated but not have causal relationships.

One could easily claim that the reason they are unpopular is because they do not receive the support which Chaos, VC, and others receive.

I'm not sure its even about "attention" really, what I find matters most is how strong their book is the current meta, at the end of 6th edition when the wood elves were the new (and dirty) kids on the block, almost every other game I saw played had a wood elf army on one or both sides of the table, now they've suffered two extremely negative edition changes I've yet to see a game this year with them in.

Its probably unfair to say that power level is the only contributing factor, but it certainly is a major part of why players choose the armies they do.

Darnok
19-02-2014, 00:11
Its probably unfair to say that power level is the only contributing factor, but it certainly is a major part of why players choose the armies they do.

How can this possibly be true? Somebody starting with WHF has absolutely no idea about the metagame, and has no clue at all about how "good" or "bad" certain armies or even units are.

The point of view you mention is one only a "veteran" can have. And even then things like the overall look, "feel", general playstyle and background play a big role.

Spiney Norman
19-02-2014, 00:19
How can this possibly be true? Somebody starting with WHF has absolutely no idea about the metagame, and has no clue at all about how "good" or "bad" certain armies or even units are.

The point of view you mention is one only a "veteran" can have. And even then things like the overall look, "feel", general playstyle and background play a big role.

I disagree, even if you've never heard of the Internet or forums, most people experience the game for the first time in some kind of communal environment (even if that is the local customer base of a GW hobby centre) which is only too happy to advise them on which armies are good and which are not. When I started with wfb something like 15yrs ago it was the community at my local GW hobby centre that helped me decided to begin my career with the 6th edition Lizardmen army book. I'm fairly sure it was the GW staff member who advised me to choose Lizards over tomb kings (one of the other armies I was looking at) because it was "a tricky army for beginners" (or 'crap' in the common vernacular of the regulars).

m1acca1551
19-02-2014, 01:16
The number of armies was fine in 6th, when they broke down the hordes of chaos book into 3 and then added ogres they created the need to reinforce 3 new armies.

The problem as I see it is that these newer armies have stolen the spot light away from older more deserving armies who because of the new books (ogres,doc) have been pushed back further and further in the line.

Chaos needs one book, and if it's done right then people won't complain simple :)

Gustav Kohn
19-02-2014, 01:25
If your theory was true then these armies would have become incredibly popular during 4th edition, and yet that is not the case, as evidenced by the fact that none of them received updates in 5th edition.


If these armies were popular then GW would release more frequent updates for them, because as we all know GW is very money-centric. The fact that GW doesn't do this is enough evidence regarding how much profit GW sees in these product lines, and quite simply trumps any sense of army equality, bias, or wish fulfilment.

Fear Ghoul- I am not saying that you are definitively wrong, I am simply stating that your logic is flawed. You are right that GW is a business, but it doesn't mean that they have done the requisite studies on how popular certain armies are and how much new releases impact sales. Others have given evidence to suggest that a new book and good models can vastly increase the popularity of an army (WE, Ogres, Dark Eldar). Hence, until you give further evidence demonstrating causality between current unpopularity for certain armies and lack of current from GW.

Lord Solar Plexus
19-02-2014, 06:49
Combine armies to make a nice round number 10.

16 is a nice round number, too, and so is 8. 5 is right out of course...seriously, when the only reason to axe factions is the feel of a number that is preposterous and arrogant.


I disagree, even if you've never heard of the Internet or forums, most people experience the game for the first time in some kind of communal environment (even if that is the local customer base of a GW hobby centre) which is only too happy to advise them on which armies are good and which are not. When I started with wfb something like 15yrs ago it was the community at my local GW hobby centre that helped me decided to begin my career with the 6th edition Lizardmen army book. I'm fairly sure it was the GW staff member who advised me to choose Lizards over tomb kings (one of the other armies I was looking at) because it was "a tricky army for beginners" (or 'crap' in the common vernacular of the regulars).

And yet, many newbies chose an army regardless of the power level. Army list threads are started by saying they don't want the most powerful thing out there and the like, and what happens at your club doesn't happen at mine. People on the net will give the advice to collect what you like the look of and so on. Power level is just one factor.

Acephale
19-02-2014, 07:15
How can this possibly be true? Somebody starting with WHF has absolutely no idea about the metagame, and has no clue at all about how "good" or "bad" certain armies or even units are.

The point of view you mention is one only a "veteran" can have. And even then things like the overall look, "feel", general playstyle and background play a big role.

It's not like everyone who starts WHF necessarily is a total noob when it comes to wargaming or board games in general. And today, with forums and blogs and youtube, there is absolutely no reason for a potential GW customer to not do some research on which armies are currently worth the huge time and money investment. You don't even need to be involved in any meta, you just need to spend 15 minutes on your computer to get the general idea that WE, Brets, TK, and Beastmen are "underdog" armies, that some of their models are old and outdated, and that the Bret and WE books are a decade old. And if you're approaching the game through friends or a store community you'll have plenty of people telling you these things as well.

So while there may be plenty of people who just buys stuff that they think looks cool, there are also plenty of people who not only wants an army that they like, but also an army that is competitive and gets regular support - and thus they won't invest in WE or Brets as things stand.

Lord Solar Plexus
19-02-2014, 07:54
That's pretty inconceivable that someone will know all of that within 15 minutes on the web. There's so much silly crap out there, you wouldn't believe it. It's not even true that Beastmen are a decade old, so even if people decide on something based on a couple of minutes on the net, that has little to do with facts or power level.

For some, that is the only factor, no doubt about it but this has nothing to do with the topic. They would follow the same rationale if there were 12, 10 or 8 armies, so motivation is completely insubstantial.

underscore
19-02-2014, 08:21
That's pretty inconceivable that someone will know all of that within 15 minutes on the web.
I find it inconceivable that they wouldn't, tbh - Googling for 'best Warhammer army' gives pretty good results. And for a lot of people I'd be surprised if they hadn't got the results by the time they've left the store.

Acephale
19-02-2014, 08:39
That's pretty inconceivable that someone will know all of that within 15 minutes on the web. There's so much silly crap out there, you wouldn't believe it. It's not even true that Beastmen are a decade old, so even if people decide on something based on a couple of minutes on the net, that has little to do with facts or power level.

For some, that is the only factor, no doubt about it but this has nothing to do with the topic. They would follow the same rationale if there were 12, 10 or 8 armies, so motivation is completely insubstantial.

Never said BM are a decade old, just that they're underdogs.

As for "knowing", it's not a question about advanced, in-depth knowledge about every army, but rather a general idea about popular vs unpopular/powerful vs not-so-powerful armies. And a lot of people actually go for the popular/powerful choices just because they're popular and powerful.

And I'd say it has a lot to do with the topic btw, because from an economical standpoint it's less profitable to maintain and support four or five unpopular armies than just one or two of them. Of course a lot of the draw of WHB is the varied and diverse armies, but as I've pointed out before it's totally doable to have just as varied a model range, even if some army books are merged and the whole rules vs fluff thing is tightened up a bit.

Spiney Norman
19-02-2014, 09:29
16 is a nice round number, too, and so is 8. 5 is right out of course...seriously, when the only reason to axe factions is the feel of a number that is preposterous and arrogant.



And yet, many newbies chose an army regardless of the power level. Army list threads are started by saying they don't want the most powerful thing out there and the like, and what happens at your club doesn't happen at mine. People on the net will give the advice to collect what you like the look of and so on. Power level is just one factor.

I think the reason tends to be that the newest armies to get a book tend to be more popular among new players. This is for a few reasons, firstly the newer armies tend to have the best looking models, GW staffers seem to have a vested interest in pushing the newest stuff, I would guess that they have targets or whatnot, also on the website, through their emails and via white dwarf GW pushes the new stuff really hard, not to mention that a slow yet steady trend of power creep (with relatively few exceptions) means that each new book is one of the more competitive armies out there immediately following its release.

draccan
19-02-2014, 09:57
:cries: no orcs and goblins, that would be a shame.

I stopped playing chaos since the books separated and the current book offers little of the variety which attracted me to chaos in the first place. I'm not sure how well rules pamphlets would work, the bachground is the reason why WHFB has endured so long and to remove that from the game would be a mistake.

Arghh.. I forgot my favorite Warhammer army.

Ok. One Greenskin codex to rule them all then. I guess Ogres could go there as well. And the inevitable Snotling Army List that we all have waited for!

All joking aside I don't agree with these being pamphlets. I would see it as thinner softcover books, still with art work and tons of rules and army lists for those armies. But more worth the price then today.

I think very few people myself included by all the new army books (and 40k codices) due to the short life span and high prices. It just isn't worth it anymore.

Voss
19-02-2014, 11:14
Most of the people I know are more collectors than players. I would say that people who collect, paint, and play are in the minority by a serious margin.

Well, people who paint certainly are!

Fear Ghoul
19-02-2014, 11:31
I disagree, Fear Ghoul. I believe they can. They have in points past, but then get side-tracked. They could use the FAQs to do it, but they don't. A lot of it is a relative disinterest in the gaming side of their product when compared to the hobby side, whereas, we the customer see it the other way around.

The only time every army has received an update is in 6th edition, which was a reset of the entire game and lasted the longest of all editions so far. Any time an edition has only lasted 4-5 years certain armies get consistently left behind, and that is because GW knows it can make more money releasing another Orcs and Goblins book than a Bretonnians book.


The biggest problem in Fantasy isn't the number of armies they have and are willing to support. Far from it. The biggest problem is simply their business model. From their operating perspective, they have only one single product line, models. Everything they do is about selling models, period. The army books and codices are about selling models. The video games, Black Library, and movies are to get people to look at their models and then buy them.

What they really have are three product lines, and need to properly separate them out and address them that way. They allow the other lines to interfere with the other's processes. For example, why should a second Wave of Dark Elves prevent or misplace the release of the Tyranids codex? Why should Lord of the Ring/Hobbit lines have any bearing, whatsoever, on what product is being released before Christmas? Yet, they do. I've never heard of a company deliberately ham-stringing their current profits just so they make next year's goals achievable, yet, Games Workshop did this for 40K in 2012.

The reason army releases don't overlap is because GW knows they will draw the maximum amount of revenue by separating their releases so that people make multiple purchases. You need only hear people talk about how they have saved up money from their last big purchase and are ready to invest in a new army to know this is true.


Fear Ghoul- I am not saying that you are definitively wrong, I am simply stating that your logic is flawed. You are right that GW is a business, but it doesn't mean that they have done the requisite studies on how popular certain armies are and how much new releases impact sales. Others have given evidence to suggest that a new book and good models can vastly increase the popularity of an army (WE, Ogres, Dark Eldar). Hence, until you give further evidence demonstrating causality between current unpopularity for certain armies and lack of current from GW.

GW have the sales information for all the armies throughout all the editions, and therefore they have real knowledge regarding the long-term popularity of each army. Therefore if certain armies get left behind that is confirmation from the source itself that certain armies just don't cut the mustard. For example it doesn't take a genius to figure out that vampires are more prevalent in pop culture than mummies or necromancers, so is it any surprise that the original and most popular successor army to the 4th edition Undead was Vampire Counts? Some concepts are just more popular and therefore more profitable than others, and I really don't understand why people have such a big problem with this, or is perhaps that egalitarianism is expected to cover mere ideas now?

DeathlessDraich
19-02-2014, 12:23
GW has stated exactly that, multiple times - both in hobby related articles in WD and in the yearly shareholder reports. GW does believe that a significant portion of their customers buy models simply to buy models.

Poor deluded GW:D



Its probably unfair to say that power level is the only contributing factor, but it certainly is a major part of why players choose the armies they do.

Unfortunately it is true that a significant number (impossible to ascertain the majority without physically counting) of players simply 'copy' winning tournament lists. They inevitably lose at future tournaments before some of them realise that it is not the army or list they lack but the skills and tactics that they require.

Back on topic:

The most important criterion for the number of armies is that it should provide sufficient game playing variety.
Personally I would like more variety and therefore more armies:)

Lord Solar Plexus
19-02-2014, 12:49
As for "knowing", it's not a question about advanced, in-depth knowledge about every army, but rather a general idea about popular vs unpopular/powerful vs not-so-powerful armies. And a lot of people actually go for the popular/powerful choices just because they're popular and powerful.


While others don't - that's what I'm saying, it takes all kinds. Popular doesn't mean powerful and vice versa. Empire and O&G are both deeply rooted in WFB and yet have almost always been somewhat mid-tier, for example.



And I'd say it has a lot to do with the topic btw, because from an economical standpoint it's less profitable to maintain and support four or five unpopular armies than just one or two of them.


But which level of support are we talking about? I bought a box of Bretonnian men-at-arms a couple of weeks ago - how much monetary support did that box cost GW? Not a lot I believe. Also, if all four unpopular armies still make some profit, axing two of them will lower cumulated profits. I think none is so unpopular that it continuously loses them money, otherwise they would have stopped it a long time ago.

Even so, players should argue from a player POV. I still think its rude to single some out and ask to squat their toys, especially when some ideas about what to kill are based on nothing but a vague dislike. That's like saying the armies you play should go away...pretty sure you wouldn't like that either.

Faitfull
19-02-2014, 12:55
Hmm.... I do not belive the issue is with to many armies, but that GW all the time tries to "overdo" the earlier armies combined with their "Army focus".

Some armies are just collected together with books, while others are left in a time boble somehow.

zunjinto
19-02-2014, 12:58
Im fond of my beastmen and daemons as they are. Putting them into one book is of no interest to me. I fear that would cause them to loose alot of their uniqueness and flavor. I rather think there should be a supplement for such stuff ( like tamurkhan already have)

BattleofLund
19-02-2014, 13:02
Again, I will not just buy random models. And there are a great many of things that I would like to have, but do not buy, mostly either because the models are old and ugly, the rules are outdated or dumb beyond salvation, or, more recently, because the pricing is so insanely expensive that they can keep their stuff to play with themselves as far as I'm concerned.

Beautifully put, I agree completely. Also, funny.

Acephale
19-02-2014, 14:53
While others don't - that's what I'm saying, it takes all kinds. Popular doesn't mean powerful and vice versa. Empire and O&G are both deeply rooted in WFB and yet have almost always been somewhat mid-tier, for example.



But which level of support are we talking about? I bought a box of Bretonnian men-at-arms a couple of weeks ago - how much monetary support did that box cost GW? Not a lot I believe. Also, if all four unpopular armies still make some profit, axing two of them will lower cumulated profits. I think none is so unpopular that it continuously loses them money, otherwise they would have stopped it a long time ago.

Even so, players should argue from a player POV. I still think its rude to single some out and ask to squat their toys, especially when some ideas about what to kill are based on nothing but a vague dislike. That's like saying the armies you play should go away...pretty sure you wouldn't like that either.

Oh, I'm not suggesting any armies be "killed", just that it would make sense to merge some army books and make the currently very wide and disparate range a bit easier to manage - and perhaps even add more army options. If Empire, Bretonnia, Kislev, and Cathay shared a book for example, not only would we have two additional human armies, but also the Brets (hopefully) wouldn't have to wait another decade to get an update.

I think it's clear from my previous posts that I'm not suggesting the removal of any armies. I would be really sad to see any army disappear, since I like all of them even though I don't play them.

baransiege
19-02-2014, 15:10
How does combining multiple armies into one book help?

You still have just as many units to balance and just as much development work as before.

The only benefit to GW is that someone has to pay more for that book (think ForgeWorld book prices) and they are more likely to start additional armies that they already own the rules for.

Fear Ghoul
19-02-2014, 15:18
How does combining multiple armies into one book help?

You still have just as many units to balance and just as much development work as before.

The only benefit to GW is that someone has to pay more for that book (think ForgeWorld book prices) and they are more likely to start additional armies that they already own the rules for.

If all the Chaos books were combined into one then GW would only have to develop models, background, art, and rules for approximately four new kits every update rather than three times that number, and then also release them in one slot rather than three. Naturally this will open up two release slots every edition for other armies and shorten the development cycle of Chaos significantly.

baransiege
19-02-2014, 15:25
If all the Chaos books were combined into one then GW would only have to develop models, background, art, and rules for approximately four new kits every update rather than three times that number, and then also release them in one slot rather than three. Naturally this will open up two release slots every edition for other armies and shorten the development cycle of Chaos significantly.

The conversation was talking about doing things like combining Empire and Bretonnian into one book, not combining them into a single list.

In your example those 4 new kits you mention would be spread amongst Daemons, Warriors and Beastmen so really only 1 kit per army.

So sure that reduces development costs but at the expense of sales, because the Beastman player isn't going to buy the kits for the other armies. Unless you are talking about combining them into a single list, which isn't applicable to all these other combined books people are talking about.

And that only saves on new unit development. It does nothing to shorten the Chaos development time because there's still three books worth of pre-existing models that need to be altered, tested and redesigned every time this combined book is released, which I can only imagine is a significant portion of the work that goes into new army books (e.g. the Dwarfs only getting 2 new units in their recent book).

Fear Ghoul
19-02-2014, 15:31
The conversation was talking about doing things like combining Empire and Bretonnian into one book, not combining them into a single list.

In your example those 4 new kits you mention would be spread amongst Daemons, Warriors and Beastmen so really only 1 kit per army.

So sure that reduces development costs but at the expense of sales, because the Beastman player isn't going to buy the kits for the other armies. Unless you are talking about combining them into a single list, which isn't applicable to all these other combined books people are talking about.

Well yes I presumed we were talking about creating a single list or multiple overlapping lists like in Chaos 4th and 6th edition respectively.


And that only saves on new unit development. It does nothing to shorten the Chaos development time because there's still three books worth of pre-existing models that need to be altered, tested and redesigned every time this combined book is released, which I can only imagine is a significant portion of the work that goes into new army books (e.g. the Dwarfs only getting 2 new units in their recent book).

The tinkering of rules for units that already exist will represent a minimal portion of the development time, as they often don't change drastically anyway and we have been told by the developers that model development is the largest time sink.

yabbadabba
19-02-2014, 15:39
I'll also quote my post in the other thread: Your quote about the splitting of the Chaos armies ignores the fact that they were initially a successful release and in response to customer wants. What GW didn't do, and for good reasons, was make it easy "officially :rolleyes:" to merge the armies.

Anyway back to the OP. WFB doesn't have too many armies; the problem is GW is too big and has an overly-complicated player base which makes any release format previously tried guaranteed to upset or isolate some of that base.

snyggejygge
19-02-2014, 18:33
Short answer: Yes

Long answer: Yes there are too many armies in warhammer, there´s no need for so many armies when many play alike & they can´t have all armies up to date. Personally if I was in charge I would cut down a lot of the armies. First I would split em up into 3 factions, Forces of order, destruction & neutral forces, then I would release about 3 armybooks for each faction: Elves, Humans, Dwarves for the order ones. Chaos, skaven & undead for the evil ones. Greenskins, mercenaries & while I loathe Lizardmen they would get a spot here as well among the neutral races.
Some of the armies that exist I would include in other books, for example WE & HE would be one, DE, CD would go into Chaos as they used to, humans would be both Empire & Bretonnia, while mercenaries would leave room for various other races.

I would also allow allies, but max 25% from the same faction & only from core units.

StygianBeach
19-02-2014, 19:58
Short answer: Yes

Long answer: Yes there are too many armies in warhammer, there´s no need for so many armies when many play alike & they can´t have all armies up to date. Personally if I was in charge I would cut down a lot of the armies. First I would split em up into 3 factions, Forces of order, destruction & neutral forces, then I would release about 3 armybooks for each faction: Elves, Humans, Dwarves for the order ones. Chaos, skaven & undead for the evil ones. Greenskins, mercenaries & while I loathe Lizardmen they would get a spot here as well among the neutral races.
Some of the armies that exist I would include in other books, for example WE & HE would be one, DE, CD would go into Chaos as they used to, humans would be both Empire & Bretonnia, while mercenaries would leave room for various other races.

I would also allow allies, but max 25% from the same faction & only from core units.

This is not a bad idea. I think 3 is a little too stream lined though.

Also I think allies should be from 25% special (and Heroes) not core.

Urgat
19-02-2014, 20:04
No, there's not too many armies.

Chalkfour
19-02-2014, 20:07
It's not that they have too many armies/races, it's that they push for another edition of the game before re-working all of the army books. I find it's a bit of shame to see armies left in the dust as others get new books and models, even if I don't play that particular army.

Tupinamba
19-02-2014, 21:14
It's not that they have too many armies/races, it's that they push for another edition of the game before re-working all of the army books. I find it's a bit of shame to see armies left in the dust as others get new books and models, even if I don't play that particular army.

Exactly. If there weren´t this "need" to change the rules every 4 years and they´d finally made editions to last 10+ years, all armybooks could be updated.

Especifically to the OP, I still say no. It´s more important to have variety and a rich world with many factions and models than to have tournament level balance. WE, Bretonia etc. are all still playable factions, with lots of very nice models, art, fluff etc.

Lord Cedric
19-02-2014, 22:06
I don't see Bretonnia (or Dwarfs and Wood Elves for that matter) as unpopular. They have their fans as such, just like any of the other armies. And like older armies, most of the players have already reached their model needs and collections already. And while the interwebs really aren't a concrete place to verify actual popularity in a world-wide view (and neither is local meta), the several websites I frequent indicate that Brets are still very much being played, enjoyed, and collected quite steadily. Now, that's not comparing them to the new model shiney's, but if anything, I see Bretonnia as standing on their own just fine all-things considered.

And I'm very uncertain as to all the doom and gloom about GW armies whenever certain boxes are not currently being sold. It's like some type of alarm goes off in people's heads and they get a divine message from the Emperor that they need to stand on a pedestal in market square flagentally announcing the 'end is near' for army X creating more fanatics and an arm of crazed theogists attempting rationality on why GW is doing it and what they should be doing instead all the while predicting outcomes like a local meteorologist.

Now, as to the OP's question. Yes and no. I honestly feel that yes, there are too many Warhammer armies (40K and Fantasy) that the current staff at GW can handle on an appropriately timed basis. Their lack in FAQ updates is even an indicator of this. While they expand on new projects, it seems that their resources get thinned to the point that minimal coverage equals minimal results over-time. Now, I also feel that there could be MORE armies that could viably be integrated (and player based supported) into the Warhammer worlds of Fantasy and 40K IF GW would hire the appropriate amount of employees to be able to successfully keep them managed, updated and current. This would also include ADVERTISING, opening their communication doors once again to the public and players, and lifting certain sanctions and selling restrictions on the local hobby shops.

- Lord Cedric

Gustav Kohn
19-02-2014, 22:14
The only time every army has received an update is in 6th edition, which was a reset of the entire game and lasted the longest of all editions so far. Any time an edition has only lasted 4-5 years certain armies get consistently left behind, and that is because GW knows it can make more money releasing another Orcs and Goblins book than a Bretonnians book.
Once again, stating it is the reason that something has occurred over and over does not add weight to the argument. Again, long time between releases does not = unpopular army. It might, but it might not.


GW have the sales information for all the armies throughout all the editions, and therefore they have real knowledge regarding the long-term popularity of each army. Therefore if certain armies get left behind that is confirmation from the source itself that certain armies just don't cut the mustard. For example it doesn't take a genius to figure out that vampires are more prevalent in pop culture than mummies or necromancers, so is it any surprise that the original and most popular successor army to the 4th edition Undead was Vampire Counts? Some concepts are just more popular and therefore more profitable than others, and I really don't understand why people have such a big problem with this, or is perhaps that egalitarianism is expected to cover mere ideas now?
They absolutely have the sales information, it doesn't mean that it is the ONLY factor contributing to release schedule. Also, it doesn't prove long-term popularity of armies, it demonstrates only whether or not a release is successful or not. They MIGHT be able to infer that an army is unpopular if a number of releases for that army, in a row, have bad sales. I am not trying to pick on you and I am not even saying that you are necessarily wrong. I am simply suggesting that your reasons for your thesis are not as strong as one might think.

Again, WE, TK, Beastmen, etc., might not be popular armies, but the fact that they haven't received an update as often as some others does not necessarily mean that they are. Other possible reasons include interest of army book writers (they may or may not give the design team this much freedom); difficulties for designers in finding a working model for "different gameplay" armies; or even that they have never or have not recently had a solid armybook.

thegoss84
19-02-2014, 22:25
I like all of the armies, and I think that for the most part they all bring something different to the game/hobby.

Perhaps GW does take a little long to update each army, but I think the variety is worth it.

SuperHappyTime
20-02-2014, 00:49
Now, as to the OP's question. Yes and no. I honestly feel that yes, there are too many Warhammer armies (40K and Fantasy) that the current staff at GW can handle on an appropriately timed basis. Their lack in FAQ updates is even an indicator of this. While they expand on new projects, it seems that their resources get thinned to the point that minimal coverage equals minimal results over-time. Now, I also feel that there could be MORE armies that could viably be integrated (and player based supported) into the Warhammer worlds of Fantasy and 40K IF GW would hire the appropriate amount of employees to be able to successfully keep them managed, updated and current. This would also include ADVERTISING, opening their communication doors once again to the public and players, and lifting certain sanctions and selling restrictions on the local hobby shops.

- Lord Cedric

I think I have to agree with the guy who has plenty of every army. GW has a lot of problems and "Too Many Armies" is not anywhere near the top of that list.

Acephale
20-02-2014, 07:19
How does combining multiple armies into one book help?

You still have just as many units to balance and just as much development work as before.

The only benefit to GW is that someone has to pay more for that book (think ForgeWorld book prices) and they are more likely to start additional armies that they already own the rules for.

If an army book contained only rules and perhaps a couple of pages of background, and if the detailed fluff, model porn and huge color illustrations were published elsewhere for those who feel like paying for it, GW could easily fit four armies into one book the size of the current single-army books.

This would have several benefits:

* People who only want the rules wouldn't have to pay for anything but the rules.
* A smaller number of books would mean less discrepancy and imbalance between armies, since several armies would get updated simultaneously.
* GW could add new armies to their range within the framework of existing armies (like resurrecting Kislev or adding Cathay to a "humans" update that also includes Empire and Bretonnia)
* Giving some armies the same book could open up some interesting rules opportunities (an Elves book with more nuanced rules for mortal enemies for example, or a Greenskins/Ogre book with different mercenary options, snotling army lists, etc). Of course this could be done without merging books but it's more likely to happen if the armies in question share books and get updated simultaneously.

The only issue would be that some armies - namely Skaven and Lizardmen - just wouldn't fit that well with any of the other ones, and that some books would be bloated (humans, chaos) and others pretty thin (undead). A solution could of course be to flesh out the range even more and add like two new undead armies, split Skaven into four armies based on the major clans and make them share a book, and put Lizardmen in a "Lustria" book that also features Amazons and whatnot. But now I'm getting ahead of things so I'll just shut up. :cool:

baransiege
20-02-2014, 11:29
If an army book contained only rules and perhaps a couple of pages of background, and if the detailed fluff, model porn and huge color illustrations were published elsewhere for those who feel like paying for it, GW could easily fit four armies into one book the size of the current single-army books.

Why would they do that when things like the background fluff are easy to recycle, the model pictures cost them pretty much nothing and they can then charge £50+ instead of £30?



* A smaller number of books would mean less discrepancy and imbalance between armies, since several armies would get updated simultaneously.

Not really. Think about it this way:

It will still take the same amount of time to re-balance an army list.
Therefore one of three things will happen:
(i) In order to keep to a more rapid release schedule less time is spent per army on the re-write => this leads to a faster turnaround time per army but at the expense of worse written rules and poorer balance.
(ii) They stick to the same output rate but instead of releasing one book every 2 months they release one every 6 months => all this means is that individual books that would be finished earlier now get delayed until the last one is finished. It still takes the exact same amount of time between two versions of an army because you are still producing output at the same rate, just batching up the output
(ii) Time is spent, as I believe you imply, on repeated rebalancing of the armies within a book. All this achieves is better balancing between those 3 or 4 armies, and has no impact on the other books, which will lag just as much as today. Not only that but the constant knockon effect of testing multiple armies after retweaking requires more time and effort and reduces the output rate => thereby increasing the time delay between two revisions of an army and worsening balance between that book and the pre-existing ones.



* GW could add new armies to their range within the framework of existing armies (like resurrecting Kislev or adding Cathay to a "humans" update that also includes Empire and Bretonnia)

This can be done perfectly well with their current Digital model, which can publish a cheap pamphlet with a small model wave. During such waves you want the consumer focusing on the new Kislev or Cathay models, not being distracted by their new Empire or Bretonnia army list.




The only issue would be that some armies - namely Skaven and Lizardmen - just wouldn't fit that well with any of the other ones, and that some books would be bloated (humans, chaos) and others pretty thin (undead). A solution could of course be to flesh out the range even more and add like two new undead armies, split Skaven into four armies based on the major clans and make them share a book, and put Lizardmen in a "Lustria" book that also features Amazons and whatnot. But now I'm getting ahead of things so I'll just shut up. :cool:

Also there is absolutely zero similarity between Vampire Counts and Tomb Kings. There are no shared unit types, and the only shared rule being Instability. I've also yet to meet a Tomb Kings player interested in Vampire Counts and vice versa (I'm a Tomb Kings player btw).

Acephale
20-02-2014, 13:15
Why would they do that when things like the background fluff are easy to recycle, the model pictures cost them pretty much nothing and they can then charge £50+ instead of £30?

Or they could charge £30 for an army rule book and £30 for an army fluff book. Not saying it will happen, but profit could be made from such a model and yet players would benefit since they're not forced to pay for extra luxury stuff that they may not be interested in. Still that extra stuff would be there for those who desire it and given the constant demand for collector's editions, limited editions and so on, there would certainly be a market for it.


Not really. Think about it this way:

It will still take the same amount of time to re-balance an army list.
Therefore one of three things will happen:
(i) In order to keep to a more rapid release schedule less time is spent per army on the re-write => this leads to a faster turnaround time per army but at the expense of worse written rules and poorer balance.
(ii) They stick to the same output rate but instead of releasing one book every 2 months they release one every 6 months => all this means is that individual books that would be finished earlier now get delayed until the last one is finished. It still takes the exact same amount of time between two versions of an army because you are still producing output at the same rate, just batching up the output
(ii) Time is spent, as I believe you imply, on repeated rebalancing of the armies within a book. All this achieves is better balancing between those 3 or 4 armies, and has no impact on the other books, which will lag just as much as today. Not only that but the constant knockon effect of testing multiple armies after retweaking requires more time and effort and reduces the output rate => thereby increasing the time delay between two revisions of an army and worsening balance between that book and the pre-existing ones.

You make some good points. But afaik, the major time investment when it comes to new releases is not in rules tweaking, but in model design and production. And that will of course take just as long as before, but since several armies have had their model ranges updated recently, one could easily imagine a steady flow of new books that don't have to wait for the models to be designed and produced - especially if the merging strategy is implemented together with any major changes in the core rules brought on by the 9th edition.


This can be done perfectly well with their current Digital model, which can publish a cheap pamphlet with a small model wave. During such waves you want the consumer focusing on the new Kislev or Cathay models, not being distracted by their new Empire or Bretonnia army list.

Perhaps, but people also tend to want their rules in one place, not in online pamphlets. Also, if a book featuring Kislev and Cathay were to be released together with some tasty new models, people would be all over those new armies regardless of the new Bret/Empire stuff. Using the "humans" example, the release wave could last a month, with one army released per week and the book published at the end.


Also there is absolutely zero similarity between Vampire Counts and Tomb Kings. There are no shared unit types, and the only shared rule being Instability. I've also yet to meet a Tomb Kings player interested in Vampire Counts and vice versa (I'm a Tomb Kings player btw).

Except for both armies being undead, you mean? ;)

Seriously though, when it comes to rules, there is no need for armies in the same book to have similar rules or play styles. The merging strategy would be more about general themes and aesthetics; the point is not to remove the unique styles and characteristics of the armies, just to make the wide range a bit more consolidated and easier to balance in a timely manner.

But of course this is all speculation. I'm not counting on GW doing anything sensible at all tbh, their whole business strategy is screwed up and won't be unscrewed as long as they keep pretending they still own the wargaming market.

WhispersofBlood
20-02-2014, 20:08
That simple is it? Nothing at all to do with the rules and/or models being old and in many cases outdated, or the smaller variety of units?

Wood Elves were everywhere when their last army book got published. But they've had nothing new for a decade, and their rules no longer really work in 8th edition. That's the main reason they're not popular at the moment.
As a retailer, you know the post Christmas period is pretty hard up to make money. So what do you release? Something you're sure will sell. Look at the releases in that time slot, you see things like WofC multiple times, Space Marine Chapters, Empire, etc. Bolt on sales, with solid followings. Before Christmas you are going to do the same thing, because you want to have a guaranteed seller on your shelves. Which leaves spring and summer for releases of "less" popular armies. I feel GW has been pretty consistent in that regard, the spring summer releases have been armies that are not quite as sure, but a product GW supports, and with the rapid release schedule they have been doing a solid job of getting stuff out.

SteveW
21-02-2014, 06:45
Also there is absolutely zero similarity between Vampire Counts and Tomb Kings. There are no shared unit types, and the only shared rule being Instability. I've also yet to meet a Tomb Kings player interested in Vampire Counts and vice versa (I'm a Tomb Kings player btw).
Zero? Like being undead? And they do have a unit in common, basic skellies.

I tried being a TK for a bit, but the awesomeness of the army ends with its looks/theme.

Voss
21-02-2014, 16:11
Also there is absolutely zero similarity between Vampire Counts and Tomb Kings. There are no shared unit types, and the only shared rule being Instability. I've also yet to meet a Tomb Kings player interested in Vampire Counts and vice versa (I'm a Tomb Kings player btw).
Skeletons, arguably the backbone of both armies (and I'm not apologizing for that pun). Tombguard = Wights. Which pretty much means the basic core of the army was identical.
They've diverged the armies somewhat, but mummies used to be a unit for VC (or rather Undead armies), as were the skeletal chariots (which predate the existence of the tomb kings in the background; and liches were a character type just like vampires (but better), until GW decided to hump the angst/glitter bandwagon and push necromancers off to the side.

Fighting Newfoundlander
27-02-2014, 03:23
I think that the number of armies should increase if anything, and I don't see a problem with the army books (though they really can't go up in price). It seems to me that they've been doing really well on the release front for some time now. From my perspective they've done a lot right in the last couple of years, except for the pricing which is a very short term strategy and will cost them in both new entrants and vets.

And better balance. Not because of a tournament scene, but because a game is more fun when skill and/or luck determines outcome and most pieces have a place in the game, and that requires balance. They could certainly do with work there, but again, it has never been as good as it is now in that respect either. I hope they keep doing what they've been doing, and bang out those last few army books for 8th. It's been a great time to get back in the game.

Vipoid
27-02-2014, 11:10
Skeletons, arguably the backbone of both armies (and I'm not apologizing for that pun). Tombguard = Wights. Which pretty much means the basic core of the army was identical.

Well, that might be true for TKs, but neither of those can really be considered the 'backbone' of the VC army.

Wayshuba
28-02-2014, 11:44
I have to say, no there are not too many armies, but there are too many army books (same can be said of codexes in 40k). Simply put, it is time to combine books into volumes:

Man - Empire/Bretonnia/Cathay/Nippon
Elves - High/Wood/Dark
Chaos - Warriors/Beastmen/Daemons
Undead - Vampires Counts/Tomb Kings
Hordes - Orcs/Goblins/Ogres
Skin, Scale & Fur - Dwarfs/Lizardmen/Skaven

Secondly, they need to change how they release editions. They should have new edition rules and all the army books released at the same time. Honestly, a lot of the army books (and codexes) are mashed with space fillers to expand the page count. Do we really need a full page on each unit used in the game? A brief paragraph on the left followed by the army entry and options on the right would serve just as well.

Athelassan
28-02-2014, 12:55
Secondly, they need to change how they release editions. They should have new edition rules and all the army books released at the same time. Honestly, a lot of the army books (and codexes) are mashed with space fillers to expand the page count. Do we really need a full page on each unit used in the game? A brief paragraph on the left followed by the army entry and options on the right would serve just as well.
On the first point, while that would be great as a customer, it'd be a nightmare at the production end, since the miniature release is synchronised with the army books. It simply isn't realistic to expect a four-year hiatus in the release of an entire game range. The entire lifespan of an edition would be spent gearing up for the next one, and it would make it difficult to maintain interest and ongoing custom. Realistically it ain't going to happen.

The problem of the army books themselves is a slightly separate one. Since the army books also contain all the faction background and provide the majority of the ongoing fluff for the setting, short of releasing separate fluff volumes (not likely) it's difficult to cut a lot of material out without effectively putting up walls to the setting. Now, GW could provide such information on their website, but, while the current website blows, and I'd welcome the return of more hobby/background material, it's still not something I can really see them investing in. It's not even something their competitors do (although maybe GW could turn this to their advantage?) Once you've included all the background material and special rules, plus some artwork and pictures of the models, the army book is genuinely clocking in at around 100 pages. It's possible to strip it down much more than that and GW experimented with bare-bones army books/codices in the past, but nobody really liked them so they put the extra material back in. The real issue is the cost, which is too high for what you're getting, and is largely tied up in/justified by the unnecessary hardback format. It also kills a part of the reason for putting the background material in, which is that people will buy it even if they don't play the army, to see what's going on in the world (I used to buy most of the army books, but can't afford to now).

What GW should possibly experiment with again is a "black codex" released alongside (preferably in) the starter rulebook, as they did for 2nd and 3rd edition 40K and 6th edition fantasy: a barebones list which updates all the army lists to the new edition and attempts to balance them. It wouldn't be a substitute for the army book (as you'd need it for the special rules and the like) and it would leave room for a new book and range updates later in the day, but it would help to mitigate situations where an edition change suddenly renders an entire faction obsolete.

baransiege
28-02-2014, 20:08
Zero? Like being undead? And they do have a unit in common, basic skellies.

Apart from Instability & Fear both armies handle being undead very differently both in unit types, movement characteristics, magic style + resurrection.


Skeletons, arguably the backbone of both armies (and I'm not apologizing for that pun)


The Skeletons are pretty different though:
-The statlines are different - Tomb Kings have a higher leadership value. This is a pretty big deal given the crumble rule, it means that Tomb Kings skeleton units die slower from crumble. It's based on the fact that the Tomb Kings skeletons were the soldiery of their leader whereas VC's are just a rabble of disorganised dead bodies. Which leads on to...
-TKs can't resurrect past their starting number and can't magic up fresh units (VC's can still do that under their newer book right?)
-Different weapon options - TKs can take bows and field Fast Cav whereas VCs can take heavy cav.
-Okay it's an army special rule but TKs can't march.

So that's different stat lines, different weapon options and unit types and different ways of interacting with armywide rules = don't sound very similar to me.


Tombguard = Wights. Which pretty much means the basic core of the army was identical.

Tomb Guard are Special rather than core. If you look at Tomb King armies you will see the Core largely made up of Archers, Fast Cavalry and Chariot units - none of which feature in VC armies.

Then from Special you typically see 1 unit of Tomb Guard, Sphinxes and Necropolis Knights/Stalkers. Sometimes you see Ushabti. Apart from the Tomb Guard none of these have a direct corollary in VC.

For Rare you see 1-2 Giants, a Catapult and sometimes another Sphinx. Nothing like VC at all.

Petey
28-02-2014, 21:21
There have been rumors that they're doing away with army books per say and doing large compendiums of armies in the next edition, like the old war hammer armies book of days gone past. I for one would like to see all the armies of order in one big compendium

Darnok
28-02-2014, 21:27
There have been rumors that they're doing away with army books per say and doing large compendiums of armies in the next edition, like the old war hammer armies book of days gone past. I for one would like to see all the armies of order in one big compendium

... and I hope none of this ever sees the light of day. But then, if only half of what I have heard about WHF 9th turns out to be true, I'll happily stay with 8th edition anyway.

CountUlrich
28-02-2014, 23:21
... and I hope none of this ever sees the light of day. But then, if only half of what I have heard about WHF 9th turns out to be true, I'll happily stay with 8th edition anyway.

What kind of rumors?


Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk

SteveW
28-02-2014, 23:30
... and I hope none of this ever sees the light of day. But then, if only half of what I have heard about WHF 9th turns out to be true, I'll happily stay with 8th edition anyway.
I'm in the same boat as you are.

I don't think any of those rumors are true though.

Odin Morgrimmsson
01-03-2014, 02:08
I think there are definitely too many. It would be harsh on those players who play the armies, but I would axe Tomb Kings and Ogre Kingdoms completely. On the positive side though, a HUGE chaos book covering warriors, marauders, daemons, beastmen and Chaos dwarfs would be awesome - able to field combinations of all, or more specialised armies.

Vampire Counts could go back to being 'Undead' and allow Necromancer/Liche led armies to placate TK players and add more options.

I've never really felt Lizardmen or Brettonia fully fitted in with the rest of the Warhammer world but maybe that's because at the time I started playing they weren't supported and there were no models/army books for them.

So, stripped down list:

Empire - with addendum for Brettonia, Kislev
Dwarfs
Orcs and Goblins
Skaven
Chaos
Undead
High Elves
Wood Elves
Dark Elves
Mercenaries - covering all other odds and ends, able to make mercenary armies or provide mercs for other forces.

It seems odd to have three of the ten books be Elves, so they could be combined, but they feel very distinct from one another so I think its okay.

SSquirrel
01-03-2014, 07:13
What kind of rumors?


There is a whole forum full of that here ya know *grin*

Lord Solar Plexus
01-03-2014, 07:20
Well, apart from the merging of several armies into faction books - Harry said it, ergo it's truth - there are no rumours, so if half of them are true it's still zero. Basing an opinion on nothing doesn't sound smart but perhaps I overestimated you two. :)

Ultimate Life Form
01-03-2014, 07:26
I did a little search, and many of the rumors are far too detailed to be true. Considering we don't even know what's around the immediate next corner these days, I will unhesitatingly dismiss any and all rumors detailing the exact contents of the next starter box as baseless.

As for the rumors about a radical change in approach ... well, I think it's very possible. Things have changed. GW isn't doing as well as they used to, and we live in a modern, digital society. Less and less people are willing to put up with buying an entire library of books just to be able to play the game, and even less so are they willing to pay prices where a single unassembled unit will equate to an entire bucket of video games moneywise. GW will have to think their strategy over, that's for sure.

However, I for one do not think that's necessarily a bad thing.

Darnok
01-03-2014, 08:23
What kind of rumors?

Some of it can be gathered from our very own WHF rumour forum. But there are things that I don't forward for the time being. I have my reasons. ;)

Spiney Norman
01-03-2014, 08:32
Also there is absolutely zero similarity between Vampire Counts and Tomb Kings. There are no shared unit types, and the only shared rule being Instability. I've also yet to meet a Tomb Kings player interested in Vampire Counts and vice versa (I'm a Tomb Kings player btw).

Oh this is priceless, I started collecting a tomb king army back in 6th edition, and through most of 7th I actually used most of the army as a Vampire counts army by swapping out the tomb king for a Lahmian vampire lord. Skeleton warriors made handy skeleton warriors. Skeleton cavalry worked nicely as black knights and a skeleton chariot functioned as a black coach, tomb guard = grave guard etc.

Granted there are a few differences between them (the main one being that VC didn't get screwed with their last army book), but they are still basically more similar than any other two armies in the game (kind of on a par with the difference between high and dark elves).

Ultimate Life Form
01-03-2014, 08:34
Okay, but can we at least agree there will be a 9th Edition? Because a) when 8th hit the shelves, it was pretty much praised as the final and definite version of Warhammer that would never need to be changed and last forever and b) (quite contrary to the first point) apparently GW has at least considered discontinuing Fantasy altogether. I'm a bit confused as to what's going on right now, and that's a first here. I'm also a bit dissapointed and sad, it still seems like 8th is pretty much new and it's really good and I like it, and now, just a few years later, they unleash the next thing...

Darnok
01-03-2014, 08:44
Okay, but can we at least agree there will be a 9th Edition? Because a) when 8th hit the shelves, it was pretty much praised as the final and definite version of Warhammer that would never need to be changed and last forever and b) (quite contrary to the first point) apparently GW has at least considered discontinuing Fantasy altogether. I'm a bit confused as to what's going on right now, and that's a first here. I'm also a bit dissapointed and sad, it still seems like 8th is pretty much new and it's really good and I like it, and now, just a few years later, they unleash the next thing...

No idea where you got part b) from, but GW has praised every new core game edition - both 40K and WHF - as the best thing since the invention of sliced bread. None of that should be taken as fact, it always was only marketing speech.

9th edition will happen though, and it will - wether people like it or not - shake things up massively.

baransiege
01-03-2014, 10:48
Oh this is priceless, I started collecting a tomb king army back in 6th edition, and through most of 7th I actually used most of the army as a Vampire counts army by swapping out the tomb king for a Lahmian vampire lord. Skeleton warriors made handy skeleton warriors. Skeleton cavalry worked nicely as black knights and a skeleton chariot functioned as a black coach, tomb guard = grave guard etc.

Granted there are a few differences between them (the main one being that VC didn't get screwed with their last army book), but they are still basically more similar than any other two armies in the game (kind of on a par with the difference between high and dark elves).

Please see my earlier post elaborating on this, frankly this I find priceless as this has already been discussed higher up.

Proxying != sharing rules, weapon loads and so on.

I've seen people use Skaven as Empire - doesn't mean the two armies are similar. High and Dark Elves are way more similar as they at least share a statline and have more direct corollary units. If you were familiar with both army books you simply wouldn't say this, besides you're phrasing being pretty rude.

I mean last time I checked Black Coaches weren't fielded in units, didn't add their rank bonus to impact hits, didn't have bows, and didn't gain a character's WS when he leads them - unless I'm horribly misinformed. So saying a TK Chariot and VC Black Coach are basicly the same thing is no more accurate than saying a Black Coach is basicly the same thing as a High Elf White Lion Chariot - they share a base size and little else.

DeathlessDraich
01-03-2014, 10:54
No idea where you got part b) from, but GW has praised every new core game edition - both 40K and WHF - as the best thing since the invention of sliced bread. None of that should be taken as fact, it always was only marketing speech.

9th edition will happen though, and it will - wether people like it or not - shake things up massively.

Shake things up? In what way please? Please elaborate.
GW will still praise this as the 9th ed sliced bread ... toasted with cheese:D but will it be their intended version of shaking things up or will it be more in keeping with veteran players views.

Through the editions, changes have been made while maintaining fundamental features - yes, I know 4th to 5th and 5th to 6th changed gameplay and game mechanics but I think you understand my point.
So please explain what the 9th ed radical changes will be - in general terms since you cannot be too specific.;)
Thanks:)