PDA

View Full Version : Do you think we'll see 9th edition in 2015?



Pages : [1] 2

Avian
26-05-2014, 09:08
Reading the forums and looking at how many collectors editions GW has yet to sell*, one could easily get the impression that the latest edition of 40K actually made things worse, being neither a critical or a financial success. Given that, I have to wonder whether or not there will actually be a new edition of FB next year, as Hastings has been suggestion. FB is clearly the "little brother" these days and if the "bigger brother" doesn't manage to grab enough cash with its cash grab, why would GW invest in a redo of FB? Especially a new starter box, which they didn't bother with for 40K.

What do you think, do you think we'll see a new edtion next year or the year after (or even this year)?


EDIT: Great, whole thing crashed while I was posting. There was meant to be a poll here, but too late now. Hrmf! :(




* 318 out of 2000 at this moment

Urgat
26-05-2014, 10:44
I'd say no, but based on nothing in particular. As for the new 40K edition, it was way too early. If they wanted to change stuff, they should have made amendments. I know GW is completely against that, but it's just stupid. Instead of saying "ok, we've messed up on a few things, so we're changing the rules here, here and here", they try and sell a whole new edition. I'm not sure most people take that kind of move so well.

The Odor
26-05-2014, 10:57
I would say there is a possiblity for it, but its in no way guaranteed. Less so due to 7:th Ed 40K "failing" (which I haven't quite seen actually) but more due to 8:th working well and GW seemingly trying to redo old books (new wood elves and rumors of incoming Brets).

Samsonov
26-05-2014, 11:15
If GW are in as desperate situation as many claim and if 7th has not been a success then we are in completely uncharted territory. That was two big "if" statements but lets assume they are true. If 7th edition was not the quick fix they desired then they need a new quick fix, so a new edition sooner rather than later would be my prediction. Alternative, if there is no hurry then I'd expect next year.

Ramius4
26-05-2014, 13:22
If they wanted to change stuff, they should have made amendments. I know GW is completely against that, but it's just stupid. Instead of saying "ok, we've messed up on a few things, so we're changing the rules here, here and here", they try and sell a whole new edition.

Urgat, I assume you've been around long enough to have played 4th-5th ed Fantasy, and 6th-7th ed Fantasy? Because "amendments" to the rules are all 5th and 7th edition were. In fact, I'd be willing to bet that there were roughly 3 pages worth of actual rules text that were different from the 4th and 6th editions (not including spells). 8th edition has the biggest changes since 4th, but even then the core mechanics of the game are still mostly intact.

Same with the majority of the 40K rules from 3rd edition onwards.

I just don't see anything surprising about it at all. Because "amendments" are exactly what GW has historically based new editions on. This is no different.

Malagor
26-05-2014, 13:34
Way too early to tell if 7e hasn't done well.
1. The collectors edition is quite expensive so will be harder to sell so not a good indication wether or not the edition is selling well.
2. People might be holding off for the starter set(me including) unless of course they won't bother with updating it with the rulebook.
3. Considering they split it to 3 books, I kinda just want the rules, don't care for the other stuff so might wait for that to be released seperate as well.

But to be honest, I think people are a bit wary considering it was only 2 years ago they released 6e so it's easy to understand that it would leave a sour taste in people's mouths.
Fantasy doesn't have that problem.

Fear Ghoul
26-05-2014, 13:47
I think we will see 9th edition in 2015, mainly because by that time all of the books will have been made 8th-compatible, and also because that is the year Hastings gave when he was still in the rumours business.

But in all honesty I'm not that fussed if 9th edition never arrives, because despite the fact that there are many potential improvements that could be made, I'm not confident at all GW could either identify that the problems are or fix them adequately.

Replicant253
26-05-2014, 13:59
I think we will see 9th edition in 2015, mainly because by that time all of the books will have been made 8th-compatible, and also because that is the year Hastings gave when he was still in the rumours business.

But in all honesty I'm not that fussed if 9th edition never arrives, because despite the fact that there are many potential improvements that could be made, I'm not confident at all GW could either identify that the problems are or fix them adequately.

Do you know there is a part of me that hopes they pull the plug on WFB. Not because I want it to fail, I started playing WFB in 1991 so I have an emotional attachment to it but because i think 8th edition is about as good as it is going to get...it has been a fantastic edition and if they manage to put out the last few books then my friends and I would be quite happy to play 8th in perpetuity.

8th is not perfect and a few things need to be looked at but GW seem incapable and or unwilling to solve the issue between editions. I'm not a 40k 7th edition hater but there was clearly stuff that needed resolving that GW have completely ignored. If GW do 9th edition WFB they have as much chance of screwing the whole thing up as they do of improving on 8th. I'd rather not take the gamble.

Haravikk
26-05-2014, 14:22
I'd say no, but based on nothing in particular. As for the new 40K edition, it was way too early. If they wanted to change stuff, they should have made amendments. I know GW is completely against that, but it's just stupid. Instead of saying "ok, we've messed up on a few things, so we're changing the rules here, here and here", they try and sell a whole new edition. I'm not sure most people take that kind of move so well.
The whole of 40k 7th edition just feels like supplemental rules to me, but not going far enough to make a fun supplement (like Storm of Magic is, by being a bit bonkers).
It's just so soon and doesn't fix any of the things that people really didn't like about 6th edition (ignoring those who just don't like change), while introducing new things that people hate more than ever.

I dunno, I just don't get it at all, when I was all geared up for fantasy 9th edition to be this year. I'm sure we'll see it next year, but it just feels like we should be getting a new edition, now that Wood Elves finally got an update, as it's time to break all their units again ;)

Ramius4
26-05-2014, 14:29
it has been a fantastic edition and if they manage to put out the last few books then my friends and I would be quite happy to play 8th in perpetuity.

Sure, me too.


If GW do 9th edition WFB they have as much chance of screwing the whole thing up as they do of improving on 8th. I'd rather not take the gamble.

So what? How is that a 'gamble' for you? If they put out 9th and you don't like it, or don't want to even try it, you don't have to. 8th is still there for you and your friends, just as you said above.

PS. I say this as a guy whose gaming group NEVER stopped playing 2nd edition 40K.

CountUlrich
26-05-2014, 14:48
Sure, me too.



So what? How is that a 'gamble' for you? If they put out 9th and you don't like it, or don't want to even try it, you don't have to. 8th is still there for you and your friends, just as you said above.

PS. I say this as a guy whose gaming group NEVER stopped playing 2nd edition 40K.

Because alot of us enjoy tournaments, and those are going to play with the latest rules.

Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk

Replicant253
26-05-2014, 14:50
Sure, me too.



So what? How is that a 'gamble' for you? If they put out 9th and you don't like it, or don't want to even try it, you don't have to. 8th is still there for you and your friends, just as you said above.

PS. I say this as a guy whose gaming group NEVER stopped playing 2nd edition 40K.

Agreed but there is an element of having the current live edition that certainly effects a few of my friends. As a group we discussed it when 40k 5th edition hit as some us really liked 4th. However we all agreed that the reality would be us frozen out of new codices,which could have new units and cool new models, white dwarf (yes some us were still reading it back then)etc.

Things have changed a bit now so if they do manage to produce 9th edition we may very well do as you say.

Alltaken
26-05-2014, 15:09
If brets come in, we more or less have a full edition, even if beastmen and ratmen dont make the cut, they are the latest 7th ed books. We should be good with a couple of house rule tweeks to go for ages!

From my servoskull

Sir_Glonojad
26-05-2014, 15:26
I think 40k ate this year's release slot, so the 9th editio. Might just as well arrive in 2016.

Epicene
26-05-2014, 15:34
As long as the charge bonus' are fixed again and the magic toned down, I'll be a happy bunny.

I'd predict if the new 40k rulebook doesn't give GW a bumper harvest this quarter, we'll see a new WHFB rolled out in the 3rd and 4th quarters.

Sir_Glonojad
26-05-2014, 15:38
You rarely got what You wanted from the new edition.

Epicene
26-05-2014, 16:01
You rarely got what You wanted from the new edition.

Probably why I've hardly played a single game of 8th. The changes were large and imo, very damaging. I'm willing to get back into gaming, but more for the social aspect rather than the actual game. Getting rid of ASF for charging was stupid and 1+ combat res did not make up for it.

I'm just interested in what will be in the boxed release. There is always one faction I wouldn't mind playing.

Lorcryst
26-05-2014, 16:13
Getting rid of ASF "I kill your first rank, you cannot attack back, you break, I run you down, I win the game" that transformed 7th ed games in the half-inch shuffle to see who would get the game winning charge was propably the best idea GW has had in ages.

What I hope to see before the 9th Edition hits the shelves is the Bret book (strongly rumoured to be "soon" after a couple of 40K releases), a new Skaven book (so many pages of erratas to make that one fit with 8th ed, and even then everything is not clear) and a new Beastmen book (arguably that book was designed with 8th ed in mind, but those poor beasties suffered heavily).

My pipe dream would be a "United Forces of Chaos" thingy, but apart from that I think that 9th should be fine-tuning the current rules, those are the best I've toyed with since 4th ed when I started my Warhammer Fantasy journey.

When we will see it (or even IF we will see it) is dependant on the accountant and coin-counters of GW, alas, not the rules-dev team ...

Epicene
26-05-2014, 16:24
Getting rid of ASF "I kill your first rank, you cannot attack back, you break, I run you down, I win the game" that transformed 7th ed games in the half-inch shuffle to see who would get the game winning charge was propably the best idea GW has had in ages.

Fair point, but I felt the slightly random nature of charges in 8th did a lot to relieve those issues. They could have done more to boost chargers instead of laying in wait with your hoard of spearmen, but that's person preference.

Pipe dreaming for me would involve ditching all the army books and the rules and redoing them from the ground up. P:

If not 2014, I think we'll probably see GW finishing all the 8th Ed army books before getting a new release. Though with the messy release schedule lately, its hard to predict anything.

Ramius4
26-05-2014, 16:38
Getting rid of ASF for charging was stupid and 1+ combat res did not make up for it.

ASF for charging is entirely meaningless unless you're doing enough casualties to reduce the Attacks back the enemy gets (or vice versa).

I think what you're really asking for is a return of the old way of doing casualty removal, where models removed as casualties do not Attack back.

I doubt you'll get anyone here who agrees with you though (except perhaps Avian?)

Epicene
26-05-2014, 16:49
I doubt you'll get anyone here who agrees with you though (except perhaps Avian?)

Probably not, and I'm willing to accept that. I actually moved from Goblins in 5th, 6th and (some) 7th so I'm very used and aware of the old issues of casualty removal and charge rules. 8th probably would have benefited me competitively, but I still prefer the old system. Both systems have their advantages, so its just person preference at the end of it.

On a different note - I'd be ecstatic with a Breton\Beastmen starter set. I know the current rumor is Empire\Orcs, but that feels like a stinky choice to me - they already have a very solid fan base and Brets\Beastmen both need a boost to their base.

Alltaken
26-05-2014, 16:49
ASF for charging is entirely meaningless unless you're doing enough casualties to reduce the Attacks back the enemy gets (or vice versa).

I think what you're really asking for is a return of the old way of doing casualty removal, where models removed as casualties do not Attack back.

I doubt you'll get anyone here who agrees with you though (except perhaps Avian?)

Actually Ramius4 it makes the world of a diference for great weapon wielders (bar elves), also my saurus miss this. But I do agree that its not the end of the world and its not even a problem really, there is a lot to change in 8th and a lot so well done too

From my servoskull

Ramius4
26-05-2014, 16:55
Actually Ramius4 it makes the world of a diference for great weapon wielders (bar elves), also my saurus miss this.

Again. No it doesn't, unless casualties happen to reduce your Attacks back (or vice versa). Otherwise it literally makes no difference whatsoever if you attack first or second.

So while smaller units might care, most larger ones don't at all.

Avian
26-05-2014, 16:59
I doubt you'll get anyone here who agrees with you though (except perhaps Avian?)
I don't mind casualty removal or striking on initiative all the time. My complaints with the system is mainly to do with Leadership (re-rolls and Steadfast) and magic (spells and items). And reforming. And lines of sight. And terrain. And "guess" range weapons. And the misnamed Always Get Re-rolls rule.

But I don't mind how combat is resolved. I think that works well enough.

SSquirrel
26-05-2014, 17:26
Looking at a $300 book not selling all 2000 copies in a week and claiming the sky is falling is stupid. $100 army book LEs sell out quickly but $300 a pop is a lot for most people

Here in Louisville the new 40k rules are flying off the shelf


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

ashc
26-05-2014, 17:36
I would still peg it at 2015, that would then allow them to roll out new editions alternating years. I will expect to see some experimentation with warhammer fantasy though, as they do not feel they have hit on a mega selling formula with it yet.

Sent from my GT-I8190N using Tapatalk

Alltaken
26-05-2014, 17:38
Again. No it doesn't, unless casualties happen to reduce your Attacks back (or vice versa). Otherwise it literally makes no difference whatsoever if you attack first or second.

So while smaller units might care, most larger ones don't at all.

Casualty removal is what makes the diference for great weapon units. It cuts on msu great weapon units, horde gw units or hordes with just close to your total attack output amounts. Even non core MI.
If you dish your pain on charge you can live with striking last sucesive turns.

From my servoskull

Epicene
26-05-2014, 17:42
Casualty removal is what makes the diference for great weapon units. It cuts on msu great weapon units, horde gw units or hordes with just close to your total attack output amounts. Even non core MI.
If you dish your pain on charge you can live with striking last sucesive turns.

From my servoskull

This. Its reasons like this that I dislike the current combat res system so much.

And yes, I'm aware I am "behind the times"\"living in the past". I haven't played seriously for years now.

Sexiest_hero
26-05-2014, 17:49
If it's not 8.5 then I hope it never comes.

Alltaken
26-05-2014, 17:50
This. Its reasons like this that I dislike the current combat res system so much.

And yes, I'm aware I am "behind the times"\"living in the past". I haven't played seriously for years now.

Seriously Epicene, it makes a diference, but you can live with it. The improvements in 8th are real.

We need to address magic lores, dice generation. Negation of steadfast. Ld reroll buble/fear-terror interaction (a balance between all of them). The rest is sort of up to army books

From my servoskull

Epicene
26-05-2014, 18:14
We need to address magic lores, dice generation. Negation of steadfast. Ld reroll buble/fear-terror interaction (a balance between all of them). The rest is sort of up to army books

From my servoskull

Magic has been a mess for a very, very long time and sometimes you're left feeling like its a "game within a game" where the outcome can quite easily decide the result of the whole battle.

olderplayer
26-05-2014, 18:19
The fact that GW priced the LE WH40K book so high simply means a lot fewer people will buy it than normally occurs. Since the rule book is available generally at a much lower price, we have no way to extrapolate from LE sales to sales of the common rule book sinc the ratio of the LE edition price to the standard rule book price seems far in excess of what has been previously seen. In that sense, Alltaken is right and Avian is wrong. [GW never seems to understand price elasticiticy concepts correctly and incapable of understanding how price inelasticity in the short run can become price elasticity over the longer run. GW assumed that it can set prices and raise prices with limited loss in sales volume and has found out that, over time, raise prices will slowly erode the existing player base and retards the growth of new players.] Also, WH40K 6th ed ruiles have been an issue, as has the increasing prices for models, so the base of players is eroding over time, an issue masked only by price increases and rolling out new books a bit faster in WH40K and WHFB.

As for the 9th edition of WHFB, I have very litte doubt that GW will come out with that rule book next year; if anything because it is timed to come out then and credible rumors indicated GW was well along in development by the end of last year; and the new edition does boost sales to some extent and GW seems oriented to generating sales. While we can see some trends in the more recent WHFB army books of some improvements (the number six spells allow some saves and are not quite so OP or random), I have serious doubts that GW is capable of properly doing the kinds of simulation and theoreticaly development and then play-testing of rules to ensure a balanced fix of the issues with 8th edition while improving on what 8th edition "fixed" or at least the current mix of players now have learned to play with and like.

GW's real problem is a combination of not designing a well-contructed scalable game in WHFB and a series of poor marketing decisions over time. One big issue is that GW seems increasingly hostile to the tournament gaming community, rather than being supportive. GW has never created a feedback system to allow it to obtain feedback and make design improvements to address the community and solicit feedback from the community. GW seems quite intolerant or, alternatively, has learned to shut own, discount, and ignore entirely the sometimes harsh criticism it receives from that community, rather than sorting through the criticism and mining it for valid issues. This combines with the issues of competing with online gaming and alternatives cutting away at its market share.

When I speak with gaming stores, they consistently say that what GW needs in 9th edition is to create a "warbands" or similar smaller version of the game at say 500 to 750 points, where one can easily buy a battalian or army box, army book, and condensed set of rules and play the game on a 4"x4" table in say 1 hour to 1.5 hours. The issue with 8th edition, especially winds of magic and limited character/leadership options, is that it created a set of rules that allows the game to be played optimally at 2400 to 3000 points but does not scale down appropriately, especially for some armies. Creating a scalable set of rules would make it a lot easier to sell to new players and to promote slow escalation events at retailers to upsell over time. People are willing to buy a basic set of models and rules and try the game out for say $350 or less in entry cost if they can get games regularly and learn to play regularly. However, the thought of having to buy, assemble and paint a complete army and play at 1500 points or above is and has been a huge issue for marketing the game at hobby stores. I know that the largest GW store in my area (before it closed) had a lot of difficulty selling WHFB to new players as opposed to selling WH40K and Lord of the Rings/Hobbit game stuff to people walking into the store to the point that the store manager and others really did not promote or play WHFB after the old manager left.

I did see some discussions/rumors about GW insiders acknowledging some of the marketing and small games issues. Whether that is addressed by publishing a smaller game gaming book this year (as some suggested) or writing into the rule book scalability of the game is not clear. I've seen a number of hints (reducing the number of models by type of unit required to create ranks, creating a new PD and DD dice generation scheme to scale down power and dispel dice for smaller games, creating the means for champions to become warband leaders in smaller points battles or discount prices).

Epicene
26-05-2014, 18:26
@olderplayer - it was a big thing in my local GW store (Brighton, UK) for a long time during 5th-7th for the store (and even a couple of local gaming groups) to run tournaments based on buying a Battalion, adding a hero and playing at 500 points, leading up to 1000 points over a couple months. The only Comp GW used to include was having no more than one wizard.

CountUlrich
26-05-2014, 18:36
Seriously Epicene, it makes a diference, but you can live with it. The improvements in 8th are real.

We need to address magic lores, dice generation. Negation of steadfast. Ld reroll buble/fear-terror interaction (a balance between all of them). The rest is sort of up to army books

From my servoskull

I agree with you with two additions: I think that hills/forests need to block line of sight again (a rule that our local meta and all regional GTs here play with already), and they need to rework building rules I think.

Alltaken
26-05-2014, 18:49
I agree with you with two additions: I think that hills/forests need to block line of sight again (a rule that our local meta and all regional GTs here play with already), and they need to rework building rules I think.

True, both are very interesting points, our meta rules no LOS across hills and forrests too.

However I dont think those are such crucial points, and the LOS issue is very simple to solve, unlike the other options that need say an overhaul or a position that is harder to agree on and needs brb backing to be implemented. Of course this is my perception and there might be more important things, this is what I believe to be "crítical", with this fixed Im more than happy

From my servoskull

Trains_Get_Robbed
26-05-2014, 18:55
8th Ed is almost perfect. A few adjustments on the rules for steadfast, terror/fear, magic phase and resistance and it's scalability; as well as making terrain more generic and all inclusive affecting movement, charging and line of sight -leaving random terrain out completely or mysterious terrain before deployment but after terrain is placed or per with the scenario/objective- I'd say you have a perfect edition.

Lorcryst
26-05-2014, 19:00
In my humble opinion, having played more than 50 games with my (admitedly small) gaming group at 500 and 750 points while we bought, built and painted our armies, 8th edition works at lower point levels, the players just need to use some not-so-common sense and avoid bringing a L4 Night Goblin shaman in 750 points games (I'm guilty of that, did it once, and my shamy totally dominated the game ... never again).

Ultimate Life Form
26-05-2014, 19:01
Do you know there is a part of me that hopes they pull the plug on WFB. Not because I want it to fail, I started playing WFB in 1991 so I have an emotional attachment to it but because i think 8th edition is about as good as it is going to get...it has been a fantastic edition and if they manage to put out the last few books then my friends and I would be quite happy to play 8th in perpetuity.


Whoa, I'm glad I'm not alone with this sentiment here. Maybe GW did things a bit too good for once; 8th is really excellent and I too see no actual reason to ditch it. Once the Army Book cycle is complete, it will effectively be a self-contained game for the first time in history and also the best balanced iteration of the game ever. Why would you want to change that? I am living in the fear that GW will completely destroy the game in 9th again, just because. I understand the tournament player's comment about the latest rules to a degree but really what's the point if the latest rules are horrible? Effectively you're allowing GW to milk you for money however much they like just by pumping out new books at ridiculous prices. That is exactly what they have been pulling the last few years. Are you the slave of them?

As for Avian's original question, yes, I think it will be in 2015 as nothing else makes much sense. Then again, that's GW we're talking about here so be ready for a few baffling surprises. If 40k flops (or should I say, continues to flop), then it is possible we'll see some kind of knee-jerk reaction from them. However what I absolutely don't get is the worry that they might shelf Fantasy altogether. The game represents a sizable, if not overly big chunk of their income, and it is a steady and reliable source of money. Why would you cut it because 40k isn't doing well? On the contrary, If 40k shrinks Fantasy's influence on sales will grow and its contributon will be all the more felt and needed. The only scenario I could imagine is that when they get deaperate they pretty much give up everything else and focus all their efforts on nursing 40k back to health, because it pretty much is their single greatest asset. But if we really get to this point I think the death knell for GW has quite audibly tolled.

Ramius4
26-05-2014, 19:09
Once the Army Book cycle is complete, it will effectively be a self-contained game for the first time in history

They got all the army books done for 6th edition too.

Ultimate Life Form
26-05-2014, 19:11
They got all the army books done for 6th edition too.

Oh? Somehow this slipped under my radar. Was it at least good?

And also you know what they did with 7th then.

Ramius4
26-05-2014, 19:15
Oh? Somehow this slipped under my radar. Was it at least good?

I've been playing since 4th edition. In my opinion, each edition has been an improvement over the previous one.

So yes, at the time it was decent enough.

The only big complaint I had back then, is that some army books actually lost a few units that existed previously. For example, Empire had no Steam Tank in the 6th edition book. (although they did produce rules and a model for it in one of the annuals, the 2003 one I think).

Oh... I would like to add that army book balance was still an issue. But the edition rules themselves are what I meant by each edition being an improvement over previous ones. And with 8th at least, we seem to have finally gotten a decent level of balance between army books.

Avian
26-05-2014, 19:19
6th edition did last longer than any other edition, before or after, though.

Personally I'd like to see 7th edition rules (with the 8th edition combat system) adapted for 8th edition army books, but that might just be me.

Ramius4
26-05-2014, 19:29
6th edition did last longer than any other edition, before or after, though.

Personally I'd like to see 7th edition rules (with the 8th edition combat system) adapted for 8th edition army books, but that might just be me.

Yes, it was out for roughly a year longer than any other edition if I recall.

I feel for you bud. I know you're not a big fan of the way 8th plays. But you are a fan of Warhammer. I personally love 8th, but I get where you're coming from.

In some ways back in 1998 when 3rd ed 40K came out, I was put in a similar situation. Although I was lucky to have a group of friends who stuck with my beloved 2nd edition, and to this day we still play 2nd ed 40K.

rwphillipsstl
26-05-2014, 19:47
My personal hope--one with about 0.1% probability of happening--is that (1) GW completes the army book cycle with Bretons, Beastmen, and Skaven books here in 2014; and (2) rather than a whole new 9th edition WFB game, come out with a "Warhammer Warbands/Skirmish" comprehensive set of rules that covers the whole gamut of gaming at small scales, complete with a few new army books that gives some flavor at local levels within each army/race/faction. They could then repackage the miniatures-and yes, with new heroes and such for higher prices--to support the unit sizes for Warbands and allow longer-term to be scales up into 8th edition mass battle units. I think GW would be better served making 2015 the year of small scale Warhammer Fantasy, and then come out with a new "mass combat" edition in 2016 or 2017, perhaps with new players having joined the fold.

Ramius4
26-05-2014, 19:54
I never did answer the OP... Yes, I do think we'll see a 9th edition in 2015.

After having played these games for 21 years, I don't think there's an end in sight to new editions coming out.

Ultimate Life Form
26-05-2014, 20:10
I've been playing since 4th edition. In my opinion, each edition has been an improvement over the previous one.


I've been playing for only 7 years now, but my research suggests that the evolution of Warhammer pretty much was one of gradually simplifying and abstracting the ruleset. So I'm a bit surprised you'd say that. This is what drove a lot of players away when 8th was released as far as I recall, and this may also be what Avian finds lacking and dissatisfactory (correct me if I'm wrong). On the other hand, the goal is clear: making the game easy to pick up for anyone (and by anyone, I mean 12 year old boys, GW's new target group). I had the "pleasure" of reading the 3rd Edition book and it was pretty clear from the way it was written and worded that it was aimed at a completely different group (I'd say adult RPGers). However, I would not even want to play this mess.

So yes, every generation has its heroes, and its Edition of Warhammer. If you don't like 8th, chances are, you have been phased out of the target group. That's why I'm surprised Ramius actually finds 8th to be thet best yet. Could you elaborate a bit on why you ferel that way?

Alltaken
26-05-2014, 20:19
I do believe too next june (sumer) 9th ed. I believe (I have no knolwedge about this) that at least brets and 1 more book will come out in 8th if not all together both beasts and rats

From my servoskull

CountUlrich
26-05-2014, 20:32
That's why I'm surprised Ramius actually finds 8th to be thet best yet. Could you elaborate a bit on why you ferel that way?

As someone else with that opinion, I can say that in this edition there is an actual role for rank and file and infantry, it isn't dominated by herohammer or cav list bull crap that previous editions really struggled with. Add in that the army books are for the most part ballanced, or at least as ballanced as I can remember them in a long time, and it makes for the best edition in my memory.

Ramius4
26-05-2014, 20:34
I've been playing for only 7 years now, but my research suggests that the evolution of Warhammer pretty much was one of gradually simplifying and abstracting the ruleset.

That's a fallacy. The rules for 4th edition all the way through 8th edition are largely the same mechanically, and virtually identical in complexity.

1st-3rd were a completely different game, and not really comparable at all.


That's why I'm surprised Ramius actually finds 8th to be thet best yet. Could you elaborate a bit on why you feel that way?

Yes.

The current system of casualty removal lessened the power of the charge. In all previous editions, charging meant you were going to win combat nearly 90% of the time. It also used to mean that you wouldn't be taking casualties back, and in many cases, the enemy couldn't fight back at all.

Steadfast makes infantry blocks useful. In all previous editions, going beyond 20 models was a waste. And in many cases, even having those 20 infantry models in the first place was essentially a waste. Steadfast also necessitated a change to Monsters (Thunderstomp), which previously could single-handedly break enemy units in one round of combat. They are now mostly support units, which is where they should be IMO.

Steadfast also means that single characters couldn't charge out and break units of ranked up troops on their own.

Magic. While there are a few offending spells (there always have been), the actual mechanics for the magic phase are largely good. With a few tweaks, such as making miscasts worse if you roll more dice to cast, it could be even better. I'm also a big fan of hexes and augments, and well defined spell types (before 8th, the only defined spell 'type' was magic missile.)

That's just a few things. Now for a couple I'd like to see changed.

Terrain. Previous editions probably placed a bit too much emphasis on the effects of terrain. 8th places too little. Forests really should block line of sight, but allow models to see up to 2" through them, like previous editions did.

Battle Standards. I'd like to see them give re-rolls only for Break tests within 12". And then re-rolls for all Leadership tests for the BSB and his unit only.

Line of Sight. I prefer the abstract system of line of sight they had before.

Victory Points. You really should get half points for anything reduced below 50%.

Ultimate Life Form
26-05-2014, 21:05
and virtually identical in complexity.

I would have to respectfully disagree. If we think back to 7th and so on, just moving your own troops was a big pain in the back. If you wanted to do something fancy, like moving backwards or sideways, the rules for that were covered on about 1-2 pages each, and you had to carefully measure and so on and so on. I used to avoid any kind of terrain like the plague because the rules were overcomplicated and woods were pretty much just glorified impassable terrain, except for the odd Wood Elf or Monster. Or just take the charge rules, where you had to guess the distance accurately and then move and wheel and struggle and suffer to get your unit across the table only to find out it was a quarter inch short or something. Nowadays you just roll the dice and measure and if luck favors you you're automatically in (more or less). And let's not even get into Warmachine guessing and all that stuff. 8th Edition, by and large, is just measure, roll, and win (or not).

There have been many other examples in the past where unnecessarily convoluted rules were simply cut, or reduced to a very simple, generic mechanic.

And also if all Editions were pretty much the same, there would be no reason for people to dislike some and others not.

olderplayer
26-05-2014, 21:13
The current system of casualty removal lessened the power of the charge. In all previous editions, charging meant you were going to win combat nearly 90% of the time. It also used to mean that you wouldn't be taking casualties back, and in many cases, the enemy couldn't fight back at all.

Steadfast makes infantry blocks useful. In all previous editions, going beyond 20 models was a waste. And in many cases, even having those 20 infantry models in the first place was essentially a waste. Steadfast also necessitated a change to Monsters (Thunderstomp), which previously could single-handedly break enemy units in one round of combat. They are now mostly support units, which is where they should be IMO.

Steadfast also means that single characters couldn't charge out and break units of ranked up troops on their own.

Magic. While there are a few offending spells (there always have been), the actual mechanics for the magic phase are largely good. With a few tweaks, such as making miscasts worse if you roll more dice to cast, it could be even better. I'm also a big fan of hexes and augments, and well defined spell types (before 8th, the only defined spell 'type' was magic missile.)

That's just a few things. Now for a couple I'd like to see changed.

Terrain. Previous editions probably placed a bit too much emphasis on the effects of terrain. 8th places too little. Forests really should block line of sight, but allow models to see up to 2" through them, like previous editions did.

Battle Standards. I'd like to see them give re-rolls only for Break tests within 12". And then re-rolls for all Leadership tests for the BSB and his unit only.

Line of Sight. I prefer the abstract system of line of sight they had before.

Victory Points. You really should get half points for anything reduced below 50%.

Good general summary of the changes and suggested improvements. To me, the idea that one could charge a big unit with something fast and hard-hitting and break it seemed a bit much. I would, however, like to see some compensation for getting the charge or charging the flanks and rear (something for the surprise or more ability to break ranks with a single rank of cav counting as two ranks effectively or even break steadfast in 9th edition). As someone that runs out two rounds of combat simulations, the steadfast, supporting attacks, and step up rules (combined with the ability to get stubborn with crown of command) made the game more fair and balanced but made getting a charge off less important; it takes longer to resolve many combats but you roll a lot more dice and cause a lot more casualties than before as well. The loss of some of the movement tactics and benefits from such tactics is what cost us a lot of players in the transition from 7th ed to 8th ed. (lots of loyal wood elf and high elf players quit 8th ed.).

To counter the deathstar, point denial blocks, giving partial victory points for causing a lot of wounds in larger units is something a lot of people have recommended as a "fix" to the metagame in the uncomped or limited comp environment and would probably eliminate the current ETC comp restrictrions on unit sizes and similarly the Swedish comp bias against larger units and infantry units. We played with some ideas like percentage VPs = (# wounds caused- 10)/(#wounds starting in the rank and file or skirmish unit) as one alternative scenario [small units give up nothing until killed to the last model] because the benefits of size in terms of being steadfast and gaining extra attacks of hordes seemed enough compensation. Also, half VPs for fleeing units and things lkie that seem to make for interesting games but harder to calculate out VPs.

The ability to pre-measure is a bit annoying in that it takes longer to play but eliminated guess ranges and stuff, which was really an improvement and benefit to newer players and those of us less adapt at it. I personally like replacing guess range with the random charge.

Magic, on the other hand, is an issue in 8th edition. It is too variable and not scalable with a double six meaning an OP magic phase and double 1's being a minimal phase.
- I don't know how we'd replace the winds of magic to make the PD and DD make sense in a scalable game but something like 2+ D3+channel dice. I'd assume some better ability to channel as a function of magic levels might make sense with a lower starting base. Maybe something like one gets a channel roll for each magic level and runesmiths count as lvl 1 and runelords lvl 3 for dispel dice purposes and channels occur on a 5+. You end up rolling more dice but the number of dice one gets is sort of smoothed out from one phase to the next.
-I'd prefer the old miscast on double 1's and IF on double 6's rule with a miscast meaning a failure to cast (so there is a greater risk of a failure to cast whenever one miscasts even if one also rolls double 6's); a miscast table based on D6 plus the number of dice thrown (sort of like the steam tank misfire table concept; no risk of blowing up on two dice and minial with 3 dice but gets a lot worse thereafter); and more emphasis on utility spells (augments and hexes) and less of the uber spells (really only a handful) that are OP and people tend to six dice all the time.
-Limiting the ability of direct damage spells (possibly even magic missiles) by introducing a save or limiting the ability to cast out of combat.

On shooting, I too prefer the abstraction concept of 7th edition but would add something like a cover save for non-BS war machine shooting or have cannons scatter on the roll to hit like D3" and then bounce (both more realistic and adds a greater element of failure to picking off smaller models and units).

Ludaman
26-05-2014, 23:01
Just as an aside: there is no evidence at all (other than the made-up kind) that Brets, skaven, or beasts will get a new book, let alone one this year. Hastings had a Bret release in 2015, either right before, or right after the new edition. Possibly without a book. Other than that, 40k radio said "Brets are next " no time frame. I'll honestly be surprised as heck to see a single Fantasy release before late august, unless of course someone with real information wants to share something new. Keep all this in mind, I'd say Warhammer 9th sometime next summer.

Malagor
26-05-2014, 23:03
Actually 40k Radio put Brets in September.

Replicant253
26-05-2014, 23:12
Just as an aside: there is no evidence at all (other than the made-up kind) that Brets, skaven, or beasts will get a new book, let alone one this year. Hastings had a Bret release in 2015, either right before, or right after the new edition. Possibly without a book. Other than that, 40k radio said "Brets are next " no time frame. I'll honestly be surprised as heck to see a single Fantasy release before late august, unless of course someone with real information wants to share something new. Keep all this in mind, I'd say Warhammer 9th sometime next summer.

Agreed but it is fair speculation to suggest that if a new edition comes it will now not be for at least 12 months. I doubt they are going stop releasing WFB products altogether so following this through i reckon we are on solid ground suggesting that we will at least get two new army books. Meaning that the edition is as good as damned finished as you are going to get, add in Storm of Magic and the award for best edition ever goes to 8th edition...is this where i put IMO?

Ramius4
26-05-2014, 23:46
I would have to respectfully disagree. If we think back to 7th and so on, just moving your own troops was a big pain in the back. If you wanted to do something fancy, like moving backwards or sideways, the rules for that were covered on about 1-2 pages each, and you had to carefully measure and so on and so on. I used to avoid any kind of terrain like the plague because the rules were overcomplicated and woods were pretty much just glorified impassable terrain, except for the odd Wood Elf or Monster. Or just take the charge rules, where you had to guess the distance accurately and then move and wheel and struggle and suffer to get your unit across the table only to find out it was a quarter inch short or something. Nowadays you just roll the dice and measure and if luck favors you you're automatically in (more or less). And let's not even get into Warmachine guessing and all that stuff. 8th Edition, by and large, is just measure, roll, and win (or not).

Yes, certain things were simplified. But then we also have a lot of complexity added back in to make up for what was changed. Steadfast, Vanguard moves, Quick Reforms, Troop Types defined (Infantry, Cavalry, Swarms, Chariots, Monstrous Cavalry, Monstrous Infantry, Monstrous Beasts, Warbeasts, and Monsters), then you've got several pages of special rules in the core rulebook. There's also additional rules for things like Musicians, Battle Standard Bearers, boosted magic spells, horde formation, dangerous terrain, etc.

You honestly can't tell me that this edition is any less complex than those before it. Different? Yes, but not less complexity.


Good general summary of the changes and suggested improvements. To me, the idea that one could charge a big unit with something fast and hard-hitting and break it seemed a bit much. I would, however, like to see some compensation for getting the charge or charging the flanks and rear (something for the surprise or more ability to break ranks with a single rank of cav counting as two ranks effectively or even break steadfast in 9th edition).

Thanks.

What I would like to see change with Steadfast is this...

Flank charge gives you +2 ranks, but only for the purposes of determining who is Steadfast.

Rear charge gives you +4 ranks, but only for the purposes of determining who is Steadfast.

Done and done :cool: Gives a way to break Steadfast for smaller units, without being over the top.

Ultimate Life Form
26-05-2014, 23:52
Troop Types defined (Infantry, Cavalry, Swarms, Chariots, Monstrous Cavalry, Monstrous Infantry, Monstrous Beasts, Warbeasts, and Monsters)

That might be 8th's single greatest merit. I can't even recount the innumerable situations where you didn't even know how to treat a unit, let alone resolve a given situation, and I didn't even play that much. I'll chalk it up under "simplification" in the sense that it made the game a lot easier to play.

Ramius4
26-05-2014, 23:59
I'll chalk it up under "simplification" in the sense that it made the game a lot easier to play.

Lol... When in reality, it added another layer of complexity within the rules ;)

How you perceive it, is another matter. :)

Spiney Norman
27-05-2014, 00:19
Reading the forums and looking at how many collectors editions GW has yet to sell*, one could easily get the impression that the latest edition of 40K actually made things worse, being neither a critical or a financial success. Given that, I have to wonder whether or not there will actually be a new edition of FB next year, as Hastings has been suggestion. FB is clearly the "little brother" these days and if the "bigger brother" doesn't manage to grab enough cash with its cash grab, why would GW invest in a redo of FB? Especially a new starter box, which they didn't bother with for 40K.

What do you think, do you think we'll see a new edtion next year or the year after (or even this year)?


EDIT: Great, whole thing crashed while I was posting. There was meant to be a poll here, but too late now. Hrmf! :(




* 318 out of 2000 at this moment

I think the success or failure of the unnecessary 7th edition of 40k (which really was just changing things for the sake of change, or rather for the sake of marketing a £50 book to all 40k players) will have little to no bearing on whether they release 9th edition fantasy.

I assume their production deadlines are pretty far ahead, so if they were intending to release wfb 9th next year it is probably already at the printers, and even if it's not the bulk of the art and design work, plus the game rules design will have been completed months ago. I would think that they would have so much invested in a new editon by now that pulling the plug on it would probably not make a great deal of financial sense.

Then there is the question of time scale, 40k 6th edition was still very young, less than half the age of recent editions at their time of replacement, whereas warhammer 8th is already very mature. In fact wfb only has three more armies to cycle through, which could very easily be done by this time next year. I haven't bought the new 40k book at all, not because I particularly like 6th editon but because I don't really want to pay out for an expensive book that doesn't really change, or improve the game very much at all, there seems no reason to buy to 7th when my friends and I are still happy playing 6th.

I suspect the problem is that the increased speed of release we have seen over the last 12 months or so had finally reached the point where it is too fast, and consumers can't keep up with it, and GW is coming to realise that just because they are producing models and books at a furious rate, that doesn't mean that gamers are either so inclined, or capable to buy all their products at that same rate.

Ultimate Life Form
27-05-2014, 00:30
I suspect the problem is that the increased speed of release we have seen over the last 12 months or so had finally reached the point where it is too fast, and consumers can't keep up with it, and GW is coming to realise that just because they are producing models and books at a furious rate, that doesn't mean that gamers are either so inclined, or capable to buy all their products at that same rate.

That's right. You can't really buy 3 new armies a year, let alone all this 40k stuff they're pumping out. Once people's spending capacity is reached all they can do to increase revenue is acquire new customers rather than producing more stuff.

I'd say they should sit back and take it easy and focus on fixing their current problems rather than creating new ones all the time.

Ramius4
27-05-2014, 00:52
That's right. You can't really buy 3 new armies a year, let alone all this 40k stuff they're pumping out. Once people's spending capacity is reached all they can do to increase revenue is acquire new customers rather than producing more stuff.

I'd say they should sit back and take it easy and focus on fixing their current problems rather than creating new ones all the time.

Yeah, it also creates a situation in which the players literally cannot know the rules of every army they are likely to face. That would be an absolute pain in the ass.


I think the success or failure of the unnecessary 7th edition of 40k (which really was just changing things for the sake of change

Arguably, every new edition is "changing things for the sake of change". Warhammer Fantasy 7th edition was a fine rules set. Army books wrecked it after a while, but the rules were still sound. Same with 6th (7th was almost an identical copy of those rules). Same with 4th (5th was almost an identical copy of those rules).

Now here we are with 8th ed Fantasy, and largely the people posting here feel it's an excellent edition. Why do a 9th if not changing things for the sake of change? (which is a nice way of saying "changing things for an influx of profit")

Etc. etc. ad infinitum

Spiney Norman
27-05-2014, 00:54
Yeah, it also creates a situation in which the players literally cannot know the rules of every army they are likely to face. That would be an absolute pain in the ass.

Oh come on, I only buy the books for the five armies I actually collect and I have a good working knowledge of the majority of armies out there, just read warseer.

Hragnar Goreskull
27-05-2014, 00:58
My personal hope--one with about 0.1% probability of happening--is that (1) GW completes the army book cycle with Bretons, Beastmen, and Skaven books here in 2014; and (2) rather than a whole new 9th edition WFB game, come out with a "Warhammer Warbands/Skirmish" comprehensive set of rules that covers the whole gamut of gaming at small scales, complete with a few new army books that gives some flavor at local levels within each army/race/faction. They could then repackage the miniatures-and yes, with new heroes and such for higher prices--to support the unit sizes for Warbands and allow longer-term to be scales up into 8th edition mass battle units. I think GW would be better served making 2015 the year of small scale Warhammer Fantasy, and then come out with a new "mass combat" edition in 2016 or 2017, perhaps with new players having joined the fold.

This is probably the smartest assessment of what GW should be doing IMO...Bravo!!! I would invest heavily if this was the case.

Make WFB 3 games, Warbands/Skrimish, Normal Rank and File size games and then a Apoc game with complete FW supported monsters! (More like the current trend of including SoM % pts to spend on monsters!)

KalEf
27-05-2014, 02:12
6th edition did last longer than any other edition, before or after, though.

Personally I'd like to see 7th edition rules (with the 8th edition combat system) adapted for 8th edition army books, but that might just be me.

Avian, you are pretty great!

Anyhow, I realize 8th edition ushered in a new era of amazeballs sales and perfect balance between all armies and unkillable characters are a thing of the past and blender lords don't exist anymore and the magic phase is never ridiculous... but, speaking as one of the many who don't post much now because of loss of interest; I can't wait for 9th!

I bought several collections from people who gave up on fantasy because of 8th edition. For dirt cheep! Which I'm fairly sure was GW's plan all along. They knew they were going to hike up the prices, and didn't want me to give them toooo much money to play the awesomeness that will be 9th!!!

For me 7th +(a dynamic steadfast) or +(step-up) would have been the bees-knees... but to each their own! 8th with steadfast being more dynamic, size categories (no tlos), monsters counting as 1 rank, fear/terror/MR having a purpose, not winning turn 2 because of the magic phase, and ridiculous ward saves not being given out like candy (though that is more of an army book problem); would be great by me as well.

Greyshadow
27-05-2014, 03:58
I think we will see a new edition of fantasy in the next 12 -18 months. For the following reasons:

- GW would have been planning for it before 7th 40K came out
- Hastings said so

Sexiest_hero
27-05-2014, 05:00
Just to chime in about how broken magic is in 8th, have people forgotten how you could have almost 21 powerdice to like four dispel. I mean it was a great time to be a vampirecounts player, but the magic system and the OP of fear auto break mean that only vampire counts daemons and dark elves were being played.

Avian
27-05-2014, 05:52
They could have added a limit of max 12 dice to 7th edition as well.

Spiney Norman
27-05-2014, 07:36
They could have added a limit of max 12 dice to 7th edition as well.

But they didn't, what is your point?

I would like some of the more rediculous spells to get powered down, but I really don't want to go back to how magic operated at the end of 7th.

Avian
27-05-2014, 08:49
But they didn't, what is your point?
Hmm? If one liked the 7th ed magic system, but didn't like that magic dice could be spammed, then there's a simple solution for that. Or did you mean something else?

ashc
27-05-2014, 09:47
I've always liked how 8th ed looks on paper, but to my shame have never had a single game. I moved house to a new city and never found another gaming group for it. I liked the removal of fixed charge distances because my friends and I had been playing the 1/2inch shuffle since 5th ed and it had made things really dull.

In terms of playability for me I loved 6th ed, both in terms of core rules and army balance, but I think 8th looks really good on paper.

It is a shame it doesn't seem to have a mass appeal like 40k for Games Workshop to pay it more attention.

Snake1311
27-05-2014, 10:22
I moved house to a new city and never found another gaming group for it.


Doncaster, England

You are near quite a lot of tournaments, clubs, and venues, including Warhammer World - should be fairly easy to get games around your area!

Spiney Norman
27-05-2014, 12:12
You are near quite a lot of tournaments, clubs, and venues, including Warhammer World - should be fairly easy to get games around your area!

There are two gaming clubs that I'm aware of in doncaster, one at the Grid and Heathens & Peasants, I wonder if. Doncaster is where he moved from and he just hasn't updated his location...

Alltaken
27-05-2014, 13:55
Just to chime in about how broken magic is in 8th, have people forgotten how you could have almost 21 powerdice to like four dispel. I mean it was a great time to be a vampirecounts player, but the magic system and the OP of fear auto break mean that only vampire counts daemons and dark elves were being played.

Dont forget lizardmen.

Magic isnt broken, seriously. Dispell generation is great. Dice generation is just too random, brb spells need adjustment (doom vortexes), but that is not the problem with the magic phase per se, and a new brb spell list fixes that, or should fix that.

It would be good to have incentive to take lvl 3 and 1 wizards too, but even that is not much of a deal its just 35 points in the end.

From my servoskull

HelloKitty
27-05-2014, 13:59
Wasnt 7th edition the edition where every creature took all-cavalry armies? Why would it want to go back to that?

ewar
27-05-2014, 14:06
Now for a couple I'd like to see changed.

Terrain. Previous editions probably placed a bit too much emphasis on the effects of terrain. 8th places too little. Forests really should block line of sight, but allow models to see up to 2" through them, like previous editions did.

Battle Standards. I'd like to see them give re-rolls only for Break tests within 12". And then re-rolls for all Leadership tests for the BSB and his unit only.

Line of Sight. I prefer the abstract system of line of sight they had before.

Victory Points. You really should get half points for anything reduced below 50%.

Gold star for you, couldn't agree more. I absolutely love 8th edition - the only things I'd add to your list are:

- make the killer spells test on a broader range of characteristics so some armies aren't almost immune to them
- miscasts affected by PD spent, so no losing my Slann for a 2 dice cast
- pulling back on the high quality ward saves being doled out in the army books, I don't think any unit or character should have a better than 4++ under any circumstances. And definitely no re-rolls.


And also if all Editions were pretty much the same, there would be no reason for people to dislike some and others not.

Warhammer has been essentially the same since 4th edition - all of the changes since then have been essentially minor tweaks to mechanics but the game remains the same: weaponskill and ballistic skill tables, unit stats, movement, units of measure, the phases of the game, break tests, combat mechanics. If you compare 8th to 4th, only the magic phase is materially different. The rest is basically just tweaks.

Which is good, because I like Warhammer. Having a new edition every 4 or 5 years doesn't bother me as, historically, I've found a slight refresh is good for keeping up my enthusiasm and the editions have always got better and better. However with 6th and 7th ed 40k my confidence has been sorely shaken and I'm now quite worried what they will do for 9th ed WFB.

Fingers crossed it's just an 8.5ed and they focus their design energies on introducing more (optional) supplements to broaden the way the game is played.

In all honesty, I don't see how they can maintain the current insane release schedule - to stop release fatigue setting in on their main game systems, it would seem to me an ideal opportunity to revisit the Specialist Games. How great would it be if they left WFB and 40k alone for a while and instead brought out a new Battlefleet Gothic or Blood Bowl set?

I can but dream I guess...

Clockwork
27-05-2014, 21:20
- miscasts affected by PD spent, so no losing my Slann for a 2 dice cast
- pulling back on the high quality ward saves being doled out in the army books, I don't think any unit or character should have a better than 4++ under any circumstances. And definitely no re-rolls.
.

I agree that miscasts should scale, but I don't agree that you shouldn't be able to Dimensional Cascade on 2 dice - it should just be very very unlikely.

The Ward save fix is easy - just apply a non-MR cap of 4++.

Spiney Norman
28-05-2014, 00:35
I agree that miscasts should scale, but I don't agree that you shouldn't be able to Dimensional Cascade on 2 dice - it should just be very very unlikely.

The Ward save fix is easy - just apply a non-MR cap of 4++.

A scaleable miscast table would be a great improvement, roll 2D6 and add the number of dice used to cast the spell, dimensional cascade could be the 14+ result with the lower ranking results being the kinder ones.

KalEf
28-05-2014, 03:38
Just to chime in about how broken magic is in 8th, have people forgotten how you could have almost 21 powerdice to like four dispel. I mean it was a great time to be a vampirecounts player, but the magic system and the OP of fear auto break mean that only vampire counts daemons and dark elves were being played.

No... Apparently you have forgotten how good the slan and the book of hoath were too lol. I regularly (couple times a month), for years, played against super magic-y slan, vamps, d-elves, h-elves, pink horror crazy armies. Had a great time. Usually played with flighty plus some good magic defense.

However, I did not have the ability to dwellers, pit of shades, purple sun etc and actually win the game turn 1. I mean that both figuratively and literally... as I actually won round 1 with a power scroll bomb several times. many friends promptly quit after, as there was nothing they could have done about it. I'm glad GW finally came to their senses about that thing... but telling my friends about the BotWD did little to make them believe GW was making more balanced decisions.

I actually like both magic systems. 8th is just worse for me because of the ridiculousness of the spells.

But again, I got a crap-ton of cheap models for 9th, so I'm not complaining.

Urgat
28-05-2014, 07:49
A scaleable miscast table would be a great improvement, roll 2D6 and add the number of dice used to cast the spell, dimensional cascade could be the 14+ result with the lower ranking results being the kinder ones.

Why make it so complicated? Just apply the result of the miscast to the table. The bigger the result, the worse. So the more dice you use, the greater the risk. No need to add additional, useless steps.

ashc
28-05-2014, 10:56
don't want to go derailing the thread, but I will respond because people have been kind enough to respond to my personal situation ;)


You are near quite a lot of tournaments, clubs, and venues, including Warhammer World - should be fairly easy to get games around your area!

Warhammer world is just over an hour away, I don't get too much time to travel! :)


There are two gaming clubs that I'm aware of in doncaster, one at the Grid and Heathens & Peasants, I wonder if. Doncaster is where he moved from and he just hasn't updated his location...

Yes, the Grid has recently opened and I need to get myself down there to see their setup and the games playing. I have never heard of Heathens & Peasants, so thanks for that!

Zoneout Gaming Centre has recently moved and now have larger premises for gaming; I popped in yesterday so fingers crossed!

On-topic: 7th was a bastard-child of 6th; the books ramped up in power and broke what was good about 6th, in my opinion.

Snake1311
28-05-2014, 13:46
Warhammer world is just over an hour away, I don't get too much time to travel!

Same here (well, that and I'm lazy!). To be honest, unless you have a very demanding lifestyle (i.e. long-hour job + newborns + evil wife (but only those combined, and not individually)) the best way to get good gaming is to hop into a random tournament for a weekend.

Josfer
29-05-2014, 19:53
I'd love to remove some of the luck elements from magic. And some of the rock-paper-scissors elements.
@Luck: You have to chose which lore your caster knows when building the army, but you roll which spells he has before combat. WHAT? And then you invest hundreds of points in lots of magic levels and you roll ****** on the winds of magic roll (either really low or something and a one and your enemy probably can dispell most of your stuff).
@Rock-Paper-Scissors: Stuff with initiative tests...Initiative ranges from 1 to 5+ (where it doesn't matter anymore because 6 is auto failure) oh yeah and you can't have ward saves against that **** most of the time too. Or lore of metal with 0 damage against most demons and 5/6 (-ward saves at least) against heavy cav and lots of characters. I like regen and flaming attacks, because it effectively about doubles the dmg. Trippling the damage is hard, but might still be ok if you have things you can do against it (which you have with dispell scrolls). But times five??? Same goes with BotWD. Or cannons (...well warmachines in total mostly). Or ethereal. Or...well, this list can get VERY long if I continue.

And toning down steadfast would be nice. As well as bringing back ASF for charges. With the removal of not being able to hit back if the front row is killed larger blocks are fine in my opinion and it would improve the worth of small units as they could (even if low I or ASL) at least deal some damage while kamikazeing. And in the same time small units gets more dangerous as a charge with dmg potential on them could wipe them off the board without them doing anything. Or maybe in a charge situation, the front rows (both) attack first without initiative order, afterwards the supporting attacks come in initiative.

Disclaimer: I'm new to WH and only know 8th

@Topic: IF skaven come next, I'd say we see 9th "soon" with brets vs. beastmen as starterbox. Otherwise a sensible thing would be to wait for christmas 2015 with 9th and introducing an addon like expansive style of army lists. On the other hand if I had a wish free, I'd say go full digital with a wiki like rules system which can (and will) be updated and expanded where necessary.

Doommasters
29-05-2014, 21:06
I have a feeling they are going to want to sell more of their big kits which will mean a tweak to cannons at a minimum. I also hope they make the rules more like 40k 7th, small tweaks here and there to improve the game. Also more incentives to take combat lords over casters as generals would be a welcomed change if you ask me. 2015 don't see why they would wait any longer given core rule books are almost a must buy for all of us.

Lord Dan
29-05-2014, 21:18
Corresponding poll: http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?395237-%28Avian-s%29-Weekly-Poll-14-Do-You-Think-We-ll-See-9th-Edition-in-2015

Epicene
29-05-2014, 21:20
@Topic: IF skaven come next, I'd say we see 9th "soon" with brets vs. beastmen as starterbox. Otherwise a sensible thing would be to wait for christmas 2015 with 9th and introducing an addon like expansive style of army lists. On the other hand if I had a wish free, I'd say go full digital with a wiki like rules system which can (and will) be updated and expanded where necessary.

This would have been my bet, actually. It would be an excellent opportunity for GW to replace the ENTIRE Breton army with plastic, spreading it over a release and starter set. Same with Beastmen. Also makes sense from a rules stand point.

Brets

Pegasus Knight - Flying. Character.
Battle Standard - Battle Standards.
Bowmen - Shooting.
Men-at-Arms - Block Infantry.
Knights Of the Realm - Cavalry.

Beastmen

Shaman - Magic.
Beastmen Herd - Infantry
Ungor Herd - Skirmishers. Scouts.
Beastmen Chariot - Chariot.
Minotaurs - Monster.

Something like that I could see working very nicely.

We have the Breton rumors about that its SOON... but theres been absolutely nothing concrete.

Ludaman
29-05-2014, 21:23
This would have been my bet, actually. It would be an excellent opportunity for GW to replace the ENTIRE Breton army with plastic, spreading it over a release and starter set. Same with Beastmen. Also makes sense from a rules stand point.

Brets

Pegasus Knight - Flying. Character.
Battle Standard - Battle Standards.
Bowmen - Shooting.
Men-at-Arms - Block Infantry.
Knights Of the Realm - Cavalry.

Beastmen

Shaman - Magic.
Beastmen Herd - Infantry
Ungor Herd - Skirmishers. Scouts.
Beastmen Chariot - Chariot.
Minotaurs - Monster.

Something like that I could see working very nicely.

We have the Breton rumors about that its SOON... but theres been absolutely nothing concrete.

That would be an awesome set! Although if the high elf griffon is anything to go by, I'd rather have a hippogryph :)

Spiney Norman
29-05-2014, 23:43
This would have been my bet, actually. It would be an excellent opportunity for GW to replace the ENTIRE Breton army with plastic, spreading it over a release and starter set. Same with Beastmen. Also makes sense from a rules stand point.

Brets

Pegasus Knight - Flying. Character.
Battle Standard - Battle Standards.
Bowmen - Shooting.
Men-at-Arms - Block Infantry.
Knights Of the Realm - Cavalry.

Beastmen

Shaman - Magic.
Beastmen Herd - Infantry
Ungor Herd - Skirmishers. Scouts.
Beastmen Chariot - Chariot.
Minotaurs - Monster.

Something like that I could see working very nicely.

We have the Breton rumors about that its SOON... but theres been absolutely nothing concrete.

Would they really put their two fringiest of fringe armies in a starter boxed set together? Brets were in the 5th ed starter, but they were the new kids on the block back then, they've had over a decade of neglect since then.

I'll be surprised if we ever see a starter set that doesn't either have orcs and goblins or warriors of chaos on it in the foreseeable future.

Epicene
30-05-2014, 00:01
Then again, I'd have found High Elves and Skaven an unlikely paring - ESPECIALLY since there has already been a High Elf starter set.... and Greenskins have had their turn twice already (High Elves V Gobbos and Empire V Orcs).

Maybe fringe armies would be a good idea, though? Two armies that are in need of a leg-up to get people into them.

@allmyownbattles
30-05-2014, 00:08
This would have been my bet, actually. It would be an excellent opportunity for GW to replace the ENTIRE Breton army with plastic, spreading it over a release and starter set. Same with Beastmen. Also makes sense from a rules stand point.

Brets

Pegasus Knight - Flying. Character.
Battle Standard - Battle Standards.
Bowmen - Shooting.
Men-at-Arms - Block Infantry.
Knights Of the Realm - Cavalry.

Beastmen

Shaman - Magic.
Beastmen Herd - Infantry
Ungor Herd - Skirmishers. Scouts.
Beastmen Chariot - Chariot.
Minotaurs - Monster.

Something like that I could see working very nicely.

We have the Breton rumors about that its SOON... but theres been absolutely nothing concrete.

I think that's unlikely as lots of it already has good plastic kits. The likely units for the boxed set are the ones that need new models - Empire Knights?

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

someone2040
30-05-2014, 00:21
Then again, I'd have found High Elves and Skaven an unlikely paring - ESPECIALLY since there has already been a High Elf starter set.... and Greenskins have had their turn twice already (High Elves V Gobbos and Empire V Orcs).

Maybe fringe armies would be a good idea, though? Two armies that are in need of a leg-up to get people into them.

3 times actually, you're forgetting battle for skull pass(dwarves vs goblins).

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk

Epicene
30-05-2014, 00:30
TBH - the logic behind GWs starter selection is odd, and it doesn't always seem to revolve around which armies need new models. Skaven definitely didn't need the treatment, and the previous Dwarfs and Night Goblin set wasn't exactly a must-have either, given they all got models just before or immediately after the starter release.

I think they just have a dart board with armies on it and chuck a couple at random. :P

someone2040 - jeez. lol. I forgot about that and somehow managed to mention it in the post I just did. :I

Spiney Norman
30-05-2014, 14:34
TBH - the logic behind GWs starter selection is odd, and it doesn't always seem to revolve around which armies need new models. Skaven definitely didn't need the treatment, and the previous Dwarfs and Night Goblin set wasn't exactly a must-have either, given they all got models just before or immediately after the starter release.

I think they just have a dart board with armies on it and chuck a couple at random. :P

someone2040 - jeez. lol. I forgot about that and somehow managed to mention it in the post I just did. :I

I used to think that starter sets tended to contain armies that had either just got their book, or were soon to get one to act as a progression for new gamers who bought the starter set.

That's why greenskins have been in so many boxed sets, they've been the first army out in nearly every edition.

Empire and greenskins were the first two book releases in 6th edition, Dwarfs got their book at the end of 6th, O&G got theirs soon after the beginning of 7th, Skaven were the last book of 7th, high elves were a bit of an anomaly, but their book was strong enough to keep them near the top of the pile and they had wave releases just before the edition change.

The same thing happened with 40k 6th, with the two starter armies getting their books straight after the edition change.

I would guess that depending on the order which the Bretonnian/beastmen/Skaven books drop, we might see one of them in the starter set, probably with either empire or greenskins who almost universally get their books at the start of a new edition.

WhispersofBlood
30-05-2014, 16:38
I have a feeling they are going to want to sell more of their big kits which will mean a tweak to cannons at a minimum. I also hope they make the rules more like 40k 7th, small tweaks here and there to improve the game. Also more incentives to take combat lords over casters as generals would be a welcomed change if you ask me. 2015 don't see why they would wait any longer given core rule books are almost a must buy for all of us.

I think its been demonstrated that its not cannons that stop people fielding monsters its that most of these big kits just outright suck or are in direct competition with units that are great. The good monsters or single models get taken consistently.

Lord Dan
30-05-2014, 16:46
To be fair, those "best" monsters are at least in part decided on because they have a built in regeneration save, healing ability, or enough wounds to shrug off all but the luckiest of single cannonball shots - Terrorgheists, Hellpits, Chimeras, Hydras, etc.

WhispersofBlood
30-05-2014, 17:25
To be fair, those "best" monsters are at least in part decided on because they have a built in regeneration save, healing ability, or enough wounds to shrug off all but the luckiest of single cannonball shots - Terrorgheists, Hellpits, Chimeras, Hydras, etc.

Terrorgheists has a 6+ regen... The monsters that are taken do stuff the monsters that don't aren't.

Terrorghiests, Chimeras, Frostheart, Abom, Arachnarock. They either have massive offense, massive defense, Itp, High movement and maneuverability or high leadership. The mosnters that don't have some combination of these things slaughterbrute, hydra, etc don't get taken, hell even some that do Shaggoth don't. Its not that monsters are weak to cannons, they are and its frictional part of the game. Its that even when they don't face cannons they don't do anything. I can fight down a hydra with 6 pt halberdiers, it really should have been like 135 or 150 with breath weapon.

I suppose monsters as a whole might get a new general rule, or -1 leadership in the flank and -2 in the rear. But they in general are so lackluster in effect.

Lord Dan
30-05-2014, 17:57
Terrorgheists has a 6+ regen... The monsters that are taken do stuff the monsters that don't aren't.
Sure, and as I alluded to, has 6 wounds and belongs to an army that throws healing spells around like tic tacs. If it had 4 wounds and cost 40 points less I think it would be far less of the no-brainer choice that it is currently.


Terrorghiests, Chimeras, Frostheart, Abom, Arachnarock. They either have massive offense, massive defense, Itp, High movement and maneuverability or high leadership. The mosnters that don't have some combination of these things slaughterbrute, hydra, etc don't get taken, hell even some that do Shaggoth don't. Its not that monsters are weak to cannons, they are and its frictional part of the game. Its that even when they don't face cannons they don't do anything. I can fight down a hydra with 6 pt halberdiers, it really should have been like 135 or 150 with breath weapon.
Yeah, I'd forgotten that the Hydra lost its regen, so you're absolutely right on that account. That said, all of the "good" monsters have some combination of offensive power and defensive ability. The reason you never see Star Dragons isn't because "when they don't face cannons they don't do anything", it's because despite their ridiculous offensive capabilities they die to an average of two cannonballs.


I suppose monsters as a whole might get a new general rule, or -1 leadership in the flank and -2 in the rear. But they in general are so lackluster in effect.
I agree, perhaps make some kind of negative leadership modifier part of the Terror rule.

WhispersofBlood
30-05-2014, 18:08
Star Dragon is actually a pretty good monster, high stats across the board, flies, only removed on a 6 for all the test of be removed spells. It is however in competition with Loremaster and Archmage both extremely competitive and popular choices. I have been trying to find a list I like him in for a while.

Lord Dan
30-05-2014, 18:45
Agreed, though I think most people's primary hangup with the Star Dragon is the option to take two Frosthearts instead.

shelfunit.
30-05-2014, 18:52
I agree, perhaps make some kind of negative leadership modifier part of the Terror rule.

Back in 3rd ed they had Fear/Terror +1 etc, which I think added the "+" number to the dice roll.

Ultimate Life Form
30-05-2014, 20:43
Only 158 Collector's Editions left. Grab them while you can folks!

Meaning they sold 150 in 4 days.

MiyamatoMusashi
30-05-2014, 20:56
Only 158 Collector's Editions left. Grab them while you can folks!

Meaning they sold 150 in 4 days.

Couple of observations before too much is made of this:

- Last time round, IIRC, the collector's edition was £70 instead of £45. It's not a big deal for a lot of people to go "ahh, go on then" at that price. At £200 instead of £50, of course it sells slower.
- The extra production costs for the collector's edition probably only costs GW a few quid. They probably don't mind too much how long it takes to sell out, because it's all free money to them.

...though I'm not sure what that has to do with Warhammer 9th. Frankly I think it depends on this year's financial results. If they're OK, 9th in 2015. If not, who the hell knows what happens. I don't think GW know themselves, yet.

Avian
30-05-2014, 21:24
Still, you'd think they'd be able to find more than 150 nutters in four days when they have the whole world to pick from.

Ultimate Life Form
30-05-2014, 22:07
Couple of observations before too much is made of this:

- Last time round, IIRC, the collector's edition was £70 instead of £45. It's not a big deal for a lot of people to go "ahh, go on then" at that price. At £200 instead of £50, of course it sells slower.
- The extra production costs for the collector's edition probably only costs GW a few quid. They probably don't mind too much how long it takes to sell out, because it's all free money to them.

...though I'm not sure what that has to do with Warhammer 9th. Frankly I think it depends on this year's financial results. If they're OK, 9th in 2015. If not, who the hell knows what happens. I don't think GW know themselves, yet.

That just reminded me, they are still selling the Engineer's Ranging Rubbish that was released as a "limited edition" along with 8th. Quote: Order now to avoid disappointment. Now it looks like they can advertise it with 9th as well. I wonder if it was a case of gross overproduction or people realizing that 50$ for a ruler wasn't quite worth it.

Doommasters
30-05-2014, 23:42
Its a roll of a 5-6 on the cannons the scares most people, combined with the fact it is like a pinball game with monster and rider. If you don't have a minimum of a 5+ ward or 4+ regen monsters are a liability in an all comers environment, not mention combat res all pops them more often than you would like.

snowbert
31-05-2014, 18:08
I think we will see 9th summer 2015. My hope is that 8th will be a complete edition before that though. A man can dream.

Avian
31-05-2014, 19:22
At any rate, over in the Rumours area Darnok hinted at a major shake up for FB, possibly this year, but most likely next year.

Ultimate Life Form
31-05-2014, 19:36
At any rate, over in the Rumours area Darnok hinted at a major shake up for FB, possibly this year, but most likely next year.

Well, that has been "hinted at" for quite some time now. As in, written on a ginormous billboard, with electric neon lights, and a bat signal on top, and being slapped around the head with it. I just wish it weren't so secretive. It's a bit like waiting for Christmas. You don't know what you'll get but chances are, you'll be blown away by either joy or disappointment. Of course, nowadays I prefer just getting money to spend as I see fit. :rolleyes:

Anyway, it seems 9th is a relatively safe bet...

Urgat
31-05-2014, 19:44
Still, you'd think they'd be able to find more than 150 nutters in four days when they have the whole world to pick from.

The whole world minus those who don't play 40K, minus those who don't care about rules written in English. That's a lot of minus :p

Spiney Norman
31-05-2014, 20:21
At any rate, over in the Rumours area Darnok hinted at a major shake up for FB, possibly this year, but most likely next year.

I wonder if that means we'll get as badly shafted as 40k just did, the design team seems to have completely lost the plot as far as making a playable game goes.

I just watched my first game of 7th edition 40k, do you know how much summoning a daemon army can accomplish now in the psychic phase when it has 20 warp charge dice at its disposal? There must be something woefully unlucky about 7th editions, daemons and "magic" phases written into the fabric of the universe.

Ultimate Life Form
31-05-2014, 20:42
There must be something woefully unlucky about 7th editions, daemons and "magic" phases written into the fabric of the universe.

Well, 7 is the sacred number of Nurgle, so it makes sense the game gets corrupted.

Voss
31-05-2014, 21:15
Couple of observations before too much is made of this:

- Last time round, IIRC, the collector's edition was £70 instead of £45. It's not a big deal for a lot of people to go "ahh, go on then" at that price. At £200 instead of £50, of course it sells slower.
- The extra production costs for the collector's edition probably only costs GW a few quid. They probably don't mind too much how long it takes to sell out, because it's all free money to them.

...though I'm not sure what that has to do with Warhammer 9th.
That if the game that sells is not selling as well, the other game doesn't stand much of chance.

Urgat
31-05-2014, 22:08
Let's be serious, that a 250 bucks special edition of an extremely early (imo) new edition doesn't sell super fast isn't really an indication that 40K isn't selling. This is a niche within a niche, coupled to an unprecedented situation. It cannot be used to illustrate anything.

MiyamatoMusashi
31-05-2014, 23:18
Well, 7 is the sacred number of Nurgle, so it makes sense the game gets corrupted.

By that logic, 9th Ed of Warhammer (as 9 is the number of Tzeentch) should see...

CHANGE.

Voss
31-05-2014, 23:21
Let's be serious, that a 250 bucks special edition of an extremely early (imo) new edition doesn't sell super fast isn't really an indication that 40K isn't selling. This is a niche within a niche, coupled to an unprecedented situation. It cannot be used to illustrate anything.

Bah. If you want a niche- niche product, there was that stupid void shield generator and *that* sold out almost literally the moment it went up. They cut the number of limited editions in half this time, and it is still poking about. That _is_ significant.

Urgat
31-05-2014, 23:44
They also multiplied the price by more than 3. That's what is significant, if you ask me.

gingersmali
01-06-2014, 01:03
Persoanlly i hope whenever 9th does come they don't going changing too much, and i really hope they do all the books first.

Even if they did pull the plug on fantasy I fell the tournament scene in the UK is strong enough that TOs could create enough diversity in there rules packs and in house rules to keep the game engaging. They'd need to be some sort of committee to release errata keep things fresh, sure all the pod-casters/TOs/other could work something out.

I personally surprised we don't see more TOs being more experimental with there rules packs, for example changing disrupting ranks to bracking steadfast, changing cannonsto d3+1 etc etc. Or more whacky ideas, i'd love to see a tournament where you never used you own army. It would be fun as it all be able bring the worse list possible, you obviously need some comp, Swedish could work.

tneva82
01-06-2014, 07:41
I just watched my first game of 7th edition 40k, do you know how much summoning a daemon army can accomplish now in the psychic phase when it has 20 warp charge dice at its disposal? There must be something woefully unlucky about 7th editions, daemons and "magic" phases written into the fabric of the universe.

in average two squads.

seen more reports of daemon factory losing than winning. actually have yet to see win except in warseer doomsayers theoryhammers.

dalezzz
01-06-2014, 07:48
Surely a lot of 40kers are waiting for the starter set? If 9th comes along in the same style as 40k has I'll likely do the same . In fact I hope they do it the same way so I can try out these " major changes" first

Spiney Norman
01-06-2014, 08:36
Surely a lot of 40kers are waiting for the starter set? If 9th comes along in the same style as 40k has I'll likely do the same . In fact I hope they do it the same way so I can try out these " major changes" first

If they make as big a mess of fantasy as they have of 40k I'll just continue playing 8th, there's a group of about 6 40k gamers at our club that have sworn off 7th for the time being after seeing a few games of it so I can feasibly get 6th ed games if I want them (which is probably a good idea since none of the three armies I play have any Psykers at all and as such are even more vulnerable than normal to the new, ultra-abusive psychic phase).

Ludaman
01-06-2014, 08:39
Well, we know that 9th is coming in some form. We don't know when, but we do know it's going to shake up the game. If I were named Lord Dan and liked to put up weekly polls, my next one would be. "Dan's Weekly poll #15: Do you think they'll get around to updating any more army books before 9th edition?" because that's the only question on my mind. Harry's old rumor made it sound like they'd be streamlining the books. Whether that means "forces of order" in one and "forces of destruction" in another, or smaller factions like "Armies of the Old World (Men and dwarfs)", "Elves", "Chaos and skaven", "Undead", "Mercenaries and Lizardmen for some reason", It will still most likely mean that they intend to roll up certain Army books into bigger ones. With both Brets and Beastmen being fairly weak sellers (according to popular internet speculation), they may not want to invest in a new release when they're about to just shoe-horn them in with another book. So the question I'd pose (If i were Dan of course) is really all about whether you think GW will trim it's roster of 15 Armies, or Finish what they started in 8th, complete the cycle, and then give us a heapin' helpin' of ground up rules changes.

Ultimate Life Form
01-06-2014, 08:48
If they know what's good for them and wish to save the game they better put it on a solid foundation (= bring all the books on a common denominator) and then take very careful steps from there. Of course, this is GW we're talking about...

tneva82
01-06-2014, 19:37
If they make as big a mess of fantasy as they have of 40k I'll just continue playing 8th, there's a group of about 6 40k gamers at our club that have sworn off 7th for the time being after seeing a few games of it so I can feasibly get 6th ed games if I want them (which is probably a good idea since none of the three armies I play have any Psykers at all and as such are even more vulnerable than normal to the new, ultra-abusive psychic phase).

That's really funny. Apart from possible daemon summoning psychics got major NERFBAT in 7th ed.

Let's see. 20 ML magic will do in average:

With ML1 spells 10 attempts with 75% success rate. Compared to before of 20 attempts at 90% success rate(roughly). To have SAME chance you get...5 attempts. 5 vs 20! Spells were NOT scaled up so much that would be covereed up.
ML2 spells, it's 5 attempts at notable chance success rate drop. Before you had 10 attempts at 90% success rate.
With ML3 before you had 6 attempts at 90% chance, now 3 attempts at 65%(plus 2 dice to spare).

Gee. Really powerfull.

Oh and before you could only dispel the worthless spells. Now, albeit chances aren't that good for ML2/ML3 spells unless they are those worthless spells, you can actually dispel.

Stone cold fact is that psychics got lot less reliable in 7th ed. Also lot more dangerous as perils(miscast) went from 1/36 minor nuisance to regularly happening lot more dangerous. Psykers get also less effective the more you bring. Each brings less and less power dice/ML.

Knee jerk reaction if anything.

Much more cause for concern is unbound but...That requires opponent's approval anyway so it's not like you are forced to face it if you don't want it.

Samsonov
01-06-2014, 19:51
Well, 7 is the sacred number of Nurgle, so it makes sense the game gets corrupted.


By that logic, 9th Ed of Warhammer (as 9 is the number of Tzeentch) should see...

CHANGE.

And after years of people pondering the seemingly imponderable long term strategy of GW we finally see the logic behind the decision making. Granted, logic determined by the chaos gods, but logic nonetheless.

Spiney Norman
01-06-2014, 19:52
Sorry, but to just to clarify the rather important fact that there was no way to arbitrarily summon a greater daemon before 7th edition. I'm not arguing that psychic powers didn't get less reliable, but they also got one heck of a lot more powerful. The best you could hope for before was stuff like JotWW, which while horrible was not even vaguely in the same league as creating yourself a brand new bloodthirster.

Psychic spam armies can, on average summon up to three units of daemons a turn just with their ML dice, that is faster than most armies will be able to kill them.

Two of the armies I play have no Psykers at all (sisters and Necrons) and my dark elder only have access to one ML1 psyker which is a unit upgrade for one of the worst units in the codex, the shadow seer, my chances of stopping any enemy psychic powers with any of them are slim to none, and against daemons I literally just get to stand there while my opponent rolls dice and shovels new units on to the table.

40k 7th was the epitome of a rushed job with inadequet play testing and no comprehension of the mile-high loopholes they left open. If the next edition of fantasy turns out to be the same level of fail I won't be playing it.

Avian
01-06-2014, 20:06
That's really funny. Apart from possible daemon summoning psychics got major NERFBAT in 7th ed.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't psykers now able to give their psy dice to other psykers, which has previously not been possible?

Lord Zarkov
01-06-2014, 22:04
Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't psykers now able to give their psy dice to other psykers, which has previously not been possible?
Previously they didn't need to, the way it used to work is not really comparable.

They used to be able to cast up to their mastery level per turn (with some powers counting double), with a Ld test for each power (typically on Ld8-10, usually 9-2 for L2+ psykers).

Now they get 1 dice per mastery level (+D6 for the army) and need to roll 1-3 4+s (depending on the power).

So if you have 2 L2s each with 2 PL1 powers whereas before you could reasonably expect to get all 4 powers off (72%/83%/92% chance per power for Ld 8/9/10), now you need to roll a 4+ on the army dice to have even a 75% chance for each power to go off.

Spiney Norman
01-06-2014, 22:07
Previously they didn't need to, the way it used to work is not really comparable.

They used to be able to cast up to their mastery level per turn (with some powers counting double), with a Ld test for each power (typically on Ld8-10, usually 9-2 for L2+ psykers).

Now they get 1 dice per mastery level (+D6 for the army) and need to roll 1-3 4+s (depending on the power).

So if you have 2 L2s each with 2 PL1 powers whereas before you could reasonably expect to get all 4 powers off (72%/83%/92% chance per power for Ld 8/9/10), now you need to roll a 4+ on the army dice to have even a 75% chance for each power to go off.

The fact remains that you could not do the crazy, game-altering antics with psychic powers last edition that you can now, like summoning entire units of daemons and greater daemons.

Still this is the fantasy section of the forum people, let's leave the autopsy of 40k 7th edition to the other boards shall we?

Ultimate Life Form
01-06-2014, 22:16
Still this is the fantasy section of the forum people, let's leave the autopsy of 40k 7th edition to the other boards shall we?

Yes, yes you're absolutely right, but in this case, as the OP explicitely linked the two things I think a teensy little exception doesn't hurt here and there. Especially since I'm interested in what's going on on the other side of the medal but since I don't play 40k, I can't really read the other board since I do not understand the discussions going on there.

Bigman
02-06-2014, 01:13
I don't think we can draw lots from 40k right now. I think GW will see a few headline points (not selling the limited editions out, the massively deliberate loophole of summoning limitless daemons and it's effect on players, and finally the mission cards) and then wait a while. Being that fantasy isn't out for a while, according to the best rumours, they have that luxury.

I think that anyone who comes on this thread expecting 9th to be tweaks of 8th is in denial.

I feel that 8th was the last attempt to give the fans what they wanted. Unfortunately they didn't realise the link between only having children aged 12-15 being the main gamers in stores and the decline in fantasy sales ( those age groups are all playing 40k) and it's impact on sales.

9th will bring about changes that we can't predict. To predict them you would need to answer some of the following questions or statements:-

Fantasy sales aren't anywhere near acceptable for our flagship game...what can we do to changed that?
How can we make Fantasy more accessible to young children aged 10-17?
What are other companies doing in a fantasy setting that is drawing in players?

Believe me when I say none of the questions the executives are asking is:-

How can we make a set of rules that is more than adequately thought out and checked?
How can we make this new edition compatible with people's current collections?
How can we bridge the gap that has developed between the players of fantasy and some GW stores?
How can we take 8th and make improvements to it.

It could be the death knell for some aspects of the game. They need to drive sales. In that respect nothing is sacred...for proof see "Unbound" armies in 40k.

That idea smacks of corporate ideas. "How can we make all the model ranges available to every gamer.

That would be my goal as a non-GW playing executive.

ashc
02-06-2014, 06:30
Bigman hits the nail on the head with regards to what GW would be thinking.

tneva82
02-06-2014, 06:44
Sorry, but to just to clarify the rather important fact that there was no way to arbitrarily summon a greater daemon before 7th edition. I'm not arguing that psychic powers didn't get less reliable, but they also got one heck of a lot more powerful. The best you could hope for before was stuff like JotWW, which while horrible was not even vaguely in the same league as creating yourself a brand new bloodthirster.

Yeah. No bloodthirster. Instead OTHER potentially even more powerful.

IG blob with 4+ inv and rerolling to hits. Your baneblade firing your army instead of opponents.

So 20 ML dice can generate 2 squads of bloodletters in turn. So that's X points free stuff. How many free points you don't get by not using other spells?

I tell you I rather face 20 new bloodletters than have my shootiest unit fire at MY army while opponents big cheap blop gets 4+ inv making it impossible to clear along with rerolls to his shootiest units.
[quuote]
Psychic spam armies can, on average summon up to three units of daemons a turn just with their ML dice, that is faster than most armies will be able to kill them.[/quote]

20ML=2 units.

I have seen more daemon spamming daemons(non-daemons kill their psykers with the lore...) losing than winning. Only place I have seen win for daemon is in theory hammer of warseer doom-sayer. "OH EVERYTHING IS DOOM AND GLOOM!" "Hey here's real game example of daemons losing." "DOESN'T MATTER! I CAN'T PROVIDE PROOF OF DAEMON SPAMMING WINNING BUT IT'S DOOM&GLOOM!".


The fact remains that you could not do the crazy, game-altering antics with psychic powers last edition that you can now, like summoning entire units of daemons and greater daemons.

Still this is the fantasy section of the forum people, let's leave the autopsy of 40k 7th edition to the other boards shall we?

That's your opinion. So far game reports(ie the actually reliable stuff over theory hammering in internet forum) indicates otherwise.

And if you didn't see powerful spells in 6th ed...Did you even PLAY it? Potentially lot more powerful spells there than 10 blood letters. At least you can KILL blood letters. With right spells there were then units that were night on unkillable. Give me 10 killable blood letters any day over 10 models that you need more shots to kill than most armies generate in 6 turns.

Avian
02-06-2014, 06:48
Could people inclined to talk about 40K Daemon summoning do so in one of the many, many threads in the 40K General forum, where this is already happening? KTHX. :shifty:

tneva82
02-06-2014, 06:54
Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't psykers now able to give their psy dice to other psykers, which has previously not been possible?

Yeah. But every dice is less powerful and more risky.

Before: ML2 psyker brought in 2 dices. He could either use those to summon 2xML1 or 1xML2.

Now he needs two dice to summon ML1 with 75% chance(before 90% or so). Note: Half the castings, notable drop in success rate. To get SAME chance as before he needs to spend FOUR DICE. That's DOUBLE what he generates! ML2 spell for about same rate needs SIX dices. You need 3 ML2 psykers to generate dice for equal chance success of one ML2 spell.

Before you had 3 ML2 castings with 90% success, now you have one.

Sure you can loan the dice but generally in 6th ed you didn't NEED to borrow. If you had ML1 spells only(the most common) you DIDN'T need to loan. You generated all the dice you needed yourself. Well unless you also needed to use force weapon of course.

Only time in 6th ed you would have needed to take dice is if you rolled ML2 and ML1 spell while being ML2.

But ability to do that does not compensate for needing to borrow dice just to cast ANY spells with decent success rate. ML1 psyker will have 50% chance without borrowing. Compare to 90% of before...

And again: Perils went from minor nuisance that happens 1/36(ie once per 6 game per psyker if he stays alive every turn!) to much more common(even for daemon army that's 36% while trying that infamous daemon summoning) which has much more nasty effects including your psyker flat out dying. Nothing like that lord of change blowing his head up :D

So: You got +d6 extra power dice(this means one high level psyker is far more cost effective psyker combo available). Your power dice efficiency however decreased significantly while danger increased. Also opponent gained chance to at least TRY dispelling worthwhile spells(ML1 spells it's not that impossible to dispel one even without psyker) while not-so-hot(witchfire) spells are now total pants against decent psyker including squad. Before you had flat out ZERO chance to dispel any spell worth casting. It was about 90% to succeed and that's it. Opponent had lots more attempts and they succeeded so easily it wasn't worth planning on opponent NOT having spell he wanted to get off.

People are talking like number of spells going off increased when in fact it decreased. 20ML is getting you lot less spells off than it used. There's potential problem with daemon army using daemon summoning(though so far reports haven't been that indicative but albeit it's early) but apart from that lore psychics got loooooot less powerful.

And if that one lore in hands of one army DOES become problem that's ridiculously easy to comp. Lot easier than comping 6th ed psychics to 7th ed nerffed version would have been.

Avian
02-06-2014, 06:55
And now we are done talking about 40K Daemons, yes?

snowbert
02-06-2014, 07:35
GW needs to figure out how to sell models to my 12 yr old bro in law and his mom. For me they need to do what I feel they did (opinion remember) with the wood elf release. - solid models, rulebook that can win sometimes. I dropped $300 on new wood elves and bought an old battalion before the release.

My mother in law doesn't want to spend $400 (price of a ps4) on an army of plastic toys. If I'm GW I say $50 army book and $100 battle force gets any army started with ~750 points. Or... Include condensed rules in each battle box.

ddfishy
02-06-2014, 15:27
Call me jaded but I would say yes, simply put GW is in the business of selling models.

They are pretty invested in fantasy to stop supporting the game entirely. Writing rules is the cheapest part of their business as you pay a guy to sit down and write something which is a lot cheaper then designing, casting and moulds for models. If you look at how various unit/army powers can be impacted by change of edition that is where they will sell models. For example the adding of a horde rule and steadfast encouraged people to go and buy lots of infantry. Cav used to be better in 7th ed and got tone down by omission. Monsters got a buff from impact hits on the charge. Whether the rules are completely balanced or not is really beside the point, if there is a broken rule that can be exploited Tourny players will buy the models to exploit it, causal players will ignore it and new players will buy what is shiny and new. If it is really bad, they will FAQ it.

Spiney Norman
02-06-2014, 19:30
Call me jaded but I would say yes, simply put GW is in the business of selling models.

They are pretty invested in fantasy to stop supporting the game entirely. Writing rules is the cheapest part of their business as you pay a guy to sit down and write something which is a lot cheaper then designing, casting and moulds for models. If you look at how various unit/army powers can be impacted by change of edition that is where they will sell models. For example the adding of a horde rule and steadfast encouraged people to go and buy lots of infantry. Cav used to be better in 7th ed and got tone down by omission. Monsters got a buff from impact hits on the charge. Whether the rules are completely balanced or not is really beside the point, if there is a broken rule that can be exploited Tourny players will buy the models to exploit it, causal players will ignore it and new players will buy what is shiny and new. If it is really bad, they will FAQ it.

Oh absolutely, I wouldn't be surprised if we see a big surge in summoning type spells next edition. Perhaps even a necromantic and chaos battle magic lores in the brb, perhaps even a dryad-summoning spell in the lore of life. Letting empire wizards summon daemons or skeletons or other stuff will encourage people to buy models they wouldn't normally buy.

snowbert
02-06-2014, 19:34
Wasn't storm of magic all about summoning monsters. Did that sell? Was it popular? Just wondering if that sales/rules tactic has already been tried in fantasy.

Spiney Norman
02-06-2014, 19:38
Wasn't storm of magic all about summoning monsters. Did that sell? Was it popular? Just wondering if that sales/rules tactic has already been tried in fantasy.

That was slightly different though, Storm of magic was an expansion to the game that almost never got played, it wasn't part of the core rules, also every faction automatically got access to the summoning spell and could do it in equal measure.

I'd also argue that they have tried that sort of tactic with fantasy already (using rules to force you to buy models you wouldn't normally need for your army) with the wood elf book. Every wood elf player needs to buy a citadel wood just to play with their army, if you want to use the acorns of ages magic item (which is extremely powerful) you need to go out and buy a further three citadel woods.

Bigman
02-06-2014, 19:38
GW needs to figure out how to sell models to my 12 yr old bro in law and his mom. For me they need to do what I feel they did (opinion remember) with the wood elf release. - solid models, rulebook that can win sometimes. I dropped $300 on new wood elves and bought an old battalion before the release.

My mother in law doesn't want to spend $400 (price of a ps4) on an army of plastic toys. If I'm GW I say $50 army book and $100 battle force gets any army started with ~750 points. Or... Include condensed rules in each battle box.

This^

Parents don't see the point of spending that much money.

As a total separate comment, GW are playing a dangerous game.

I have 2 nephews and a niece under 8. I'm a teacher for children 4-11.

I can tell you with much, much certainty, that none of them are that interested in anything that isn't computerised. They appreciate great pictures of monsters and stuff, but why would they buy a model they have to BUILD before they can play with it...and that they need to spend plenty more money before it can be used properly in a game?

Also as a parent, a £350-£400 investment in a games system brings HOURS AND HOURS of quiet, non contact time.

I actually feel that in 10-15 years the teen market will dry up for GW. Technology has moved on far too much.

As for what will come of this, not quite sure.

Ramius4
02-06-2014, 19:38
Wasn't storm of magic all about summoning monsters.

No, not at all really.


Did that sell?

Nobody has sales figures for specific products bud.


Was it popular?

You'll only get anecdotal responses to that. For instance, I would say yes, because my group really enjoys it. Same with Triumph and Treachery. Someone else will say it's not popular at all... YMMV.


Storm of magic was an expansion to the game that almost never got played

See what I mean?

Ludaman
02-06-2014, 20:10
If I were GW, I'd release multiple smaller versions of the Isle of Blood style boxes. 2 units and a commander for both sides (about 10 infantry or 5 cavalry per unit) include a super dumbed down version of the basic rules, and a card with each units rules. Sell it for about 75$ and offer multiple types. For example: Wood elves vs. Beastmen, Lizards vs. Daemons, Brets vs. Vamps. 3 boxes, 6 options for new players to start the game, and if you split with a friend it's a start up cost of only 37.50$ (roughly the same cost of each additional box you'll be buying to add onto your army.).

This is how I'd update fantasy, then every two years discontinue the current 3 sets and release another 3 showcasing different factions.

Ramius4
02-06-2014, 20:27
include a super dumbed down version of the basic rules,.

Why would anyone ever want a dumbed down copy of the rules? That doesn't teach people to play the game, it teaches them how to play a different game.

Ludaman
02-06-2014, 20:32
Why would anyone ever want a dumbed down copy of the rules? That doesn't teach people to play the game, it teaches them how to play a different game.

Lol that's what you choose to focus on out of my entire post.

I just mean give people enough to play and understand the basics; Like the tutorials they always include with card game starter boxes.

Ramius4
02-06-2014, 20:46
Lol that's what you choose to focus on out of my entire post.

I'm funny like that :p


I just mean give people enough to play and understand the basics; Like the tutorials they always include with card game starter boxes.

I get that, but I don't think that's a very good idea in the case of Warhammer.

Speaking for myself, one of the driving reasons I buy starter boxes is to have a portable and complete rulebook. Take away that, and I would never buy a starter box.

I just don't think with this kind of game that selling new players an incomplete version would help things.

Ludaman
02-06-2014, 21:08
I'm funny like that :p



I get that, but I don't think that's a very good idea in the case of Warhammer.

Speaking for myself, one of the driving reasons I buy starter boxes is to have a portable and complete rulebook. Take away that, and I would never buy a starter box.

I just don't think with this kind of game that selling new players an incomplete version would help things.

Yeah the idea would be to release multiple smaller starters, each with a small but balanced in points force for each side. Offer a tutorial for the first battle, and then sell the advanced rules separately. Have 2 versions, small paperback for 20$. Big full color hardback for 75$.

SpanielBear
02-06-2014, 21:46
I'll put my money on rules for doing smaller, starter battles being the way of the future. The interesting thing will be seeing how they manage the scale up from the skirmish game to the large one.

And if it so happens that the starter set features skirmishing skaven and humans, fighting over a ruined city, whose name sounds like Home of the Dead in German... Well. That'll be interesting too. ;)

Ultimate Life Form
02-06-2014, 22:14
a ruined city, whose name sounds like Home of the Dead in German...

Totenheim?


And we have 134 Collectors Editions left. Buy them, people, so we don't lose hope!

SpanielBear
02-06-2014, 23:33
Totenheim?

Yeah, you're right, too ambiguous for little Timmy, huh? What's a Germanic sounding phrase that has deathly overtones? Something like, I dunno, that Empire God whose garden is one of the few pieces of scenery we still sell. Morrd, was it?

(Alright, so after a 14 hour shift my German is rubbish. Well caught! ;) )

Ramius4
02-06-2014, 23:52
Yeah, you're right, too ambiguous for little Timmy, huh? What's a Germanic sounding phrase that has deathly overtones? Something like, I dunno, that Empire God whose garden is one of the few pieces of scenery we still sell. Morrd, was it?

Let's see...

Kickthebucketheim?
Grassnapheim?
Sixfootunderheim?
Buythefarmheim?
Deadheim?
CoreyHaimheim?

SpanielBear
03-06-2014, 00:36
Let's see...

Kickthebucketheim?
Grassnapheim?
Sixfootunderheim?
Buythefarmheim?
Deadheim?
CoreyHaimheim?

Ceasedtobeheim?
Shuffledoffthismortalcoilheim?
Joinedthechoirinvisibleheim?
Stiffheim?
Ifyouhadntnailedittotheperchitwouldbepushingupthed aisiesheim?
Thisisanex...heim?

Urgat
03-06-2014, 08:08
Could people inclined to talk about 40K Daemon summoning do so in one of the many, many threads in the 40K General forum, where this is already happening? KTHX. :shifty:

For once I don't mind, it's interesting, and I get to understand it, not sure I would if it was a pure 40K discussion.
How does the summoning work, in 40K? Not saying VC will work that way at all in 9th ed, but that can give some insight into how GW thinks stuff up.

Spiney Norman
03-06-2014, 08:13
For once I don't mind, it's interesting, and I get to understand it, not sure I would if it was a pure 40K discussion.
How does the summoning work, in 40K? Not saying VC will work that way at all in 9th ed, but that can give some insight into how GW thinks stuff up.

There are two summoning spells in the new Malefic daemonology psychic discipline. One summons a new unit of core daemons when successfully cast, and the other turns the caster into a greater daemon (permanently) when successfully cast.

The way psychic powers work now is not quite like casting magic in fantasy, you basically can choose to cast with any number of dice and in order to successfully cast you must achieve a number of 4+ rolls equal to the power's warp charge rating. So for example in order to cast the spell to summon a unit of daemons (warp charge 3) you need to roll at least 3 natural 4+s on your casting roll.

dalezzz
03-06-2014, 08:43
If I were GW, I'd release multiple smaller versions of the Isle of Blood style boxes. 2 units and a commander for both sides (about 10 infantry or 5 cavalry per unit) include a super dumbed down version of the basic rules, and a card with each units rules. Sell it for about 75$ and offer multiple types. For example: Wood elves vs. Beastmen, Lizards vs. Daemons, Brets vs. Vamps. 3 boxes, 6 options for new players to start the game, and if you split with a friend it's a start up cost of only 37.50$ (roughly the same cost of each additional box you'll be buying to add onto your army.).

This is how I'd update fantasy, then every two years discontinue the current 3 sets and release another 3 showcasing different factions.


Id id certainly buy them if they came with exclusive models I liked , seems a pretty good idea , although like Ramius said I'm not sure a dumbed down version is needed, is warhammer that complex? (Assuming your not one of those people n the rules forum who can argue for 30 pages about ridiculous things)

Urgat
03-06-2014, 08:45
There are two summoning spells in the new Malefic daemonology psychic discipline. One summons a new unit of core daemons when successfully cast, and the other turns the caster into a greater daemon (permanently) when successfully cast.

You know, iirc, that's pretty much what chaos could do in WFB in 5th ed. The greater demon thing required a bit of effort, but the end result was the same, sacrifying a character to get it.


The way psychic powers work now is not quite like casting magic in fantasy, you basically can choose to cast with any number of dice and in order to successfully cast you must achieve a number of 4+ rolls equal to the power's warp charge rating. So for example in order to cast the spell to summon a unit of daemons (warp charge 3) you need to roll at least 3 natural 4+s on your casting roll.

Mmh... like that, it doesn't sound so bad actually.

Avian
03-06-2014, 08:52
You know, iirc, that's pretty much what chaos could do in WFB in 5th ed. The greater demon thing required a bit of effort, but the end result was the same, sacrifying a character to get it.
I think you need to check your memory as you certainly couldn't get free Greater Daemons in 5th edition. Back in 3rd edition you could, though random magic item rolls, but that was exceedingly unlikely.



Mmh... like that, it doesn't sound so bad actually.
The basic idea isn't too bad, but they adopted the abusable rule from FB 6th edition where wizards you donate magic dice to each other. There's a reason that idea was abandoned eight years ago in this system. ;)

williamsond
03-06-2014, 09:24
I spoke to a guy who works in a certain building in nottingham last weekend and while he wouldn't be drawn out on details he did state that big changes are coming to warhammer by the end of the year (2014), and that there's several ideas running at the moment, but the way we will be playing warhammer will be dramaticaly changed. last tid bit i managed to gleen is that the time line will also be advancing with dramatic effect. While I'm first to admit this is just the chatter of one guy talking to another, he has been reliable about this sort of stuff in the past and is in a position to know these things.

Hoffa
03-06-2014, 09:34
last tid bit i managed to gleen is that the time line will also be advancing with dramatic effect. This has been rumored for every edition since at least 7:th and it has yet failed to happen.

Spiney Norman
03-06-2014, 09:38
I spoke to a guy who works in a certain building in nottingham last weekend and while he wouldn't be drawn out on details he did state that big changes are coming to warhammer by the end of the year (2014), and that there's several ideas running at the moment, but the way we will be playing warhammer will be dramaticaly changed. last tid bit i managed to gleen is that the time line will also be advancing with dramatic effect. While I'm first to admit this is just the chatter of one guy talking to another, he has been reliable about this sort of stuff in the past and is in a position to know these things.

No offence to you, but there are several things in that that make me think he was talking out of his posterior.

1. Timescale: if they were aiming to get this out by the end of the year they would be way past the 'several ideas running' stage now, they would be well into the translation and sending to print stage at 6 months out, if that wasn't done already. Kicking ideas around is something you do 1-2 years in advance.
2. Timeline, advancing the timeline is one of those rumours, like fishmen, that hangs around like a bad smell, its been rumoured on and off every since I started playing warhammer, but the timeline itself has hardly advanced at all since before 6th edition.

Its one of those things that the fans have routinely thought would be cool without actually thinking it through. When you have a setting which is on the brink of apocalypse (as both wfb and 40k are) trying to work through a moving timeline is a massive headache, and regrettably I don't see that they could do it convincingly.

Unless of course the big change to the game is going to be that they are discontinuing it.
Maybe the 9th ed rule book will contain a single page in the rules section with the words "chaos wins, the end" in very large letters, followed by 200 pages of product pictures and a link to the 40k section of the online store.

Avian
03-06-2014, 09:50
It's certainly true that GW won't be deciding now what they are going to do in 6 months. If they were moving the timescale forward, to bring in new models and whatnot, then those models will have been designed a year or two ago. Anything out this year will have been sent to the printer already, or it's being sent these days.

tneva82
03-06-2014, 10:35
I spoke to a guy who works in a certain building in nottingham last weekend and while he wouldn't be drawn out on details he did state that big changes are coming to warhammer by the end of the year (2014), and that there's several ideas running at the moment, but the way we will be playing warhammer will be dramaticaly changed. last tid bit i managed to gleen is that the time line will also be advancing with dramatic effect. While I'm first to admit this is just the chatter of one guy talking to another, he has been reliable about this sort of stuff in the past and is in a position to know these things.

Something is fishy about this. End of 2014 yet they are running through IDEAS now? If they are releasing something big on this year it would be on production-stage already rather than idea-stage.

Ultimate Life Form
03-06-2014, 10:37
You are aware are you not, that advancing the timeline would mean Storm of Chaos all over again.

But the idea itself isn't that crazy. As has been pointed out it could be a great excuse to shuffle things around, turning armies upside down, creating new units and last but not least, introduce an entirely new cast of Special Characters. That everyone will want to have. Because, quite frankly, who's still giving a hang about Morglum Necksnapper, Nagash, Arbaal the Undefeated and all our other friends from times past? Time to cull the old guys and introduce a new generation (with an adequate price hike of course).

Samsonov
03-06-2014, 10:45
Well, it is not as if GW do not have a habit of releasing rushed products... Anyway, my theory is that 7th edition 40K was meant to be an expansion and after bad financial figures they turned it into a full edition in not much time. They might not be at the ideas stage as such, rather, they have multiple concrete ideas of how they will change the game but they are just to decide which one they are going with. So they might have all the background written, and three or four set of rules all formatted and ready for printing, with simply the decision of just how radical they want they changes to be still to be decided. How long does it take to insert a single rule or remove a single rule, yet a single rule can completely change how the game plays.

jtrowell
03-06-2014, 10:47
Dont forget lizardmen.

Magic isnt broken, seriously. Dispell generation is great. Dice generation is just too random, brb spells need adjustment (doom vortexes), but that is not the problem with the magic phase per se, and a new brb spell list fixes that, or should fix that.

It would be good to have incentive to take lvl 3 and 1 wizards too, but even that is not much of a deal its just 35 points in the end.

From my servoskull


An easy houserule is to reduce the casting bonus to half the level rounded up, so level 1-2 get +1 to the casting/dispell rolls, and levels 3-4 get +2.

This reduce the dependance on having a level 4, as the highest modifier is lower *and* you can get it with a level 3.
This also make bound spells slightly better, as their effective caster level of 0 is less extreme compared to the best modifier.

Finally, at 35 points for the caster level upgrade, it is still more effective to buy the upgrade than buy a new level 1 wizard, so levels 2 and 4 are still useful, but level 1 and 3 can bring similar power (but with less spells) if you need the points elsewhere without letting you feel penalized.

I might reduce the casting difficulty of all spell lores (but not bound items) by 1 however to compensate for the lower casting modifier (but this might not be needed, after all even level 2 are able to cast spells currently).

Hum, the only problem that I see is that this make items or ability giving a casting/dispell bonus relatively stronger, so they might have to be rebalanced.

williamsond
03-06-2014, 10:50
all very good counter points but, I know this guy and he really didn't want to expand on stuff and seemd to be nervous about telling me this much which is why i put weight to it and didn't dismiss it as nonsence. The whole several ideas coment may just be that they are in the last phase of development before final approval, to be honest your guess is as good as mine. He was only drawn on the subject at all because I brought up the GW dropping fantasy subject thats doing the rounds at the moment, he said that "it's not getting dropped but will be changing significantly " and "that there were several ideas in the pipeline to how and what it will change to but we will see these launch by the end of the year" the whole advancing the timeline thing was something he seemed really excited about. I know it pays to treat this sort of information with a lot of salt but for my part I felt he was genuine. Time will tell I suppose. one other thing we talked about is release scedules of models and he talked about how its really frustrating to the GW designers that they have heaps of stuff sitting around waiting to be released foir fantasy but the sceduling people just havent put it out yet (dragon ogers had been ready for about two year by all accounts) while 40k stuff is being fired out early (the 7th edition 40k stuff was dragged up by about 9 months by all accounts, and had to be finished very quickly).

Avian
03-06-2014, 10:53
So they might have all the background written, and three or four set of rules all formatted and ready for printing, ...
Do you really thing that ANYBODY, completes four different versions of a project and THEN decides which one to go with?

Isn't it exceedingly more likely that some guy in Nottingham either got it wrong or made it up?




...while 40k stuff is being fired out early (the 7th edition 40k stuff was dragged up by about 9 months by all accounts, and had to be finished very quickly).

Someone suggested that they planned to put out 7th edition 40K in February next year? :shifty:

Urgat
03-06-2014, 11:01
I think you need to check your memory as you certainly couldn't get free Greater Daemons in 5th edition.

I don't have the book handy, but I'm pretty sure there was something with a magic circle that let you invoke a greater demon through a character. Not that I can back it up with anything, so yeah.

Avian
03-06-2014, 11:05
I don't have the book handy, but I'm pretty sure there was something with a magic circle that let you invoke a greater demon through a character. Not that I can back it up with anything, so yeah.
Admittedly I didn't play Chaos in 5th edition, but I'm sure that if my Chaos-playing buddies were able to summon free Greater Daemons they would have! ;)


Are you sure you are not thinking of how in 4th edition 40K, you had to sacrifice one of your characters to summon your (PAID FOR!) Greater Daemon onto the table?

dalezzz
03-06-2014, 11:13
but the way we will be playing warhammer will be dramaticaly changed.

We will stop playing it? I'm not sure why GW would want to do such a thing to be honest , people that like 8th seem to like it a lot and it seems to be growing at a reasonable rate ( as in the " war hammers dead in my area " posts seem to have dried up on the various forums and been replaced with " getting into wfb " posts :) )

the risks as I see them would be a mass exodus of current warhammer players , not a problem as such for GW I suppose if they can replace them with new or returning players, easier said than done with so much competition now . To my mind though making massive changes does nothing a separate skirmish game couldn't achieve , and without the risks

Urgat
03-06-2014, 11:15
Admittedly I didn't play Chaos in 5th edition, but I'm sure that if my Chaos-playing buddies were able to summon free Greater Daemons they would have! ;)


Are you sure you are not thinking of how in 4th edition 40K, you had to sacrifice one of your characters to summon your (PAID FOR!) Greater Daemon onto the table?
yes, I'm sure, I've only played the 40K edition when the tau were released, and I've only ever played tau versus space marines or dark elves, I have no idea how chaos would work in 40K back then (or ever, for that matter).
Iirc, the greater demon thing wasn't so great because even though BT were amazing, back then, a chaos lord would be nearly as great, you wouldn't want to lose him just for that (there probably were risks involved, I can't remember). Pretty sure the rules were in the Realm of Chaos armybook.

edit: Ah, I think I remember you didn't get to choose what character the GD would possess, so it could be your general, or your sorcerer, which would have been annoying in any case.

Spiney Norman
03-06-2014, 11:16
Do you really thing that ANYBODY, completes four different versions of a project and THEN decides which one to go with?

Isn't it exceedingly more likely that some guy in Nottingham either got it wrong or made it up?

Or he's just been fed some nonsense by someone higher up the food chain. There are reasons why people might be wrong without them being the evil master of false-rumourmongering.

In many ways this rumour changes precisely nothing, all we have to go on is still pretty much "big changes coming up".

My only regret with this is that the end of the year really is t far enough away, they have time to get one, maybe two books out before then, which sadly isn't enough time to redo all of them before they go and turn the game inside out.

It would have been nice to have a complete 8th edition that we could keep playing if we wanted to.

Ultimate Life Form
03-06-2014, 11:23
So how exactly are they going to win new customers who see the old customers leaving in droves (can you even imagine the vetstorm? Current complaints will be like singing praises in comparison), especially when a quick google will bring to light that there are a lot of other companies out there that offer comparable or even better products at 1/3 the price. Teens are not as dumb as one might be lead to believe at times. If they can do nothing else they do know how to use the internet. Don't underestimate the power of social networking. An area where GW has approximately zero competence. Which is all but a death sentence in these modern times.

Malagor
03-06-2014, 11:31
Especially since it my area what people like compared to say 40k is the number of models we bring on the table.
All these awesome troops in their neat formations and the like.
But brings something different compared to the scattered troops 1'' away from each other all over the place.
Removing that aspect and well you will just have a game that is like everyone else.

williamsond
03-06-2014, 11:47
Malagor if it helps at all when i asked about the round based fantasy rumour he didn't confirm this was happening, just said that fantasy will be changing. I got the positive impression that warhammer fantasy will not be a round base skirmish game and will keep its nice square units.

dalezzz
03-06-2014, 11:57
I suppose " dramatic change" might not really be as bad as we seem to think? After all the optional unbound rules for 40k are pretty dramatic .

Spiney Norman
03-06-2014, 12:05
Malagor if it helps at all when i asked about the round based fantasy rumour he didn't confirm this was happening, just said that fantasy will be changing. I got the positive impression that warhammer fantasy will not be a round base skirmish game and will keep its nice square units.

I think even GW (clueless as they are) realise that asking their existing player base to rebase their entire collections is probably a bad idea.


I suppose " dramatic change" might not really be as bad as we seem to think? After all the optional unbound rules for 40k are pretty dramatic .

They're not, "unbound" is really just the new name for apocalypse, the only really dramatic thing about 7th edition is the way is has been marketed. I suppose the psychic phase was a pretty major change, but really the game isn't that different from 6th, and thanks to a few wildly unbalancing factors like the daemon summoning powers its not any more balanced that 6th either.

williamsond
03-06-2014, 12:09
After a few beers I had hoped he may have let more slip but the conversation tended to be more about the internal politics currently present at GW.

Avian
03-06-2014, 12:19
As I understand it, 40K 7th has three controversial parts to it:

1) They're asking people to pay £50 to continue playing the game, two years after the previous book
2) The army selection restrictions have essentially gone completely.
3) The new psychic phase uses mechanics abandoned in FB eight years ago and allows essentially anyone to summon Daemons, which doesn't make any sense from a background perspective and is iffy balance-wise.

The rest is just cleanup and balancing, which nobody much objects to as far as I have seen.


Now, #1 is unlikely to be a problem in FB, since the edition will be five years after the previous one, but I don't know about the other two (if ported over, which I think is likely).

williamsond
03-06-2014, 12:26
One thing I would hope to see in the future would be a return to multiple small units and more manover around the board, one of teh issues I have with the current game is it feels like two massive units crashing in the middle of the board and then magic blowing stuff up with impunity.

tneva82
03-06-2014, 12:42
As I understand it, 40K 7th has three controversial parts to it:

1) They're asking people to pay £50 to continue playing the game, two years after the previous book
2) The army selection restrictions have essentially gone completely.
3) The new psychic phase uses mechanics abandoned in FB eight years ago and allows essentially anyone to summon Daemons, which doesn't make any sense from a background perspective and is iffy balance-wise.

Well as for point 2 are you by any chance referring to unbound which still requires agreement with your opponent? It's basically optional rule coupled with rule giving non-unbound list some advantage in return. Hardly game breaking(if you feel it is game breaking don't agree to it)

MiyamatoMusashi
03-06-2014, 12:45
As I understand it, 40K 7th has three controversial parts to it:

1) They're asking people to pay £50 to continue playing the game, two years after the previous book
2) The army selection restrictions have essentially gone completely.
3) The new psychic phase uses mechanics abandoned in FB eight years ago and allows essentially anyone to summon Daemons, which doesn't make any sense from a background perspective and is iffy balance-wise.

The rest is just cleanup and balancing, which nobody much objects to as far as I have seen.


I'd split your number #3 into two separate points (making four in total) but otherwise, yeah.

Just going to mention also, that the whispers of dramatic changes to Fantasy, including very specifically an advance in the timeline, chimes strongly with what I heard, and passed on, months ago. I don't hear anywhere near enough (or often enough, or accurately enough) to be considered a "reliable source", but Harry backed me up at the time, so if you don't believe me, go back and see what he said. (Does nobody really remember - Avian, surely you must - all that stuff he was saying about the army books hitting the reboot button, and being merged into three-ish larger books containing multiple armies each? And yet now someone suggests there's dramatic changes afoot and the response is "not possible!" Really?)

dalezzz
03-06-2014, 12:48
The unbound thing is " at your opponents discretion" . Will still cause trouble but less then it might have.
Demon summoning in fantasy battle will be very dodgy ground however ( maybe a magic item with a random demon in it that's priority target is models of the opposing power :) )killing 3 units of demons a turn in 40k seems to be a bit tricky , unlike the physical impossibility it would be in fantasy

MiyamatoMusashi
03-06-2014, 12:49
Well as for point 2 are you by any chance referring to unbound which still requires agreement with your opponent?

Sigh. Only in the sense that EVERYTHING requires agreement with your opponent, no-one can put a gun to your head and force you to play a tabletop wargame. Otherwise, the rules are that Unbound is "in"... they even said in White Dwarf that it is now the standard way to play, and Battle-forged is there for those who prefer a "more structured way" to build a list.

Now, granted, I for one have no interest whatsoever in playing against Unbound armies, so I have a standing house-rule that I just won't do it. But that's my house-rule, not a rule of the game... and pretending it's "optional" in some way that all the other rules of the game (that you can also house-rule away if you want) aren't, and therefore it's OK; is intellectually dishonest and grossly misrepresenting the way GW themselves expect, and have explicitly stated that they expect, the game to be played.

tneva82
03-06-2014, 12:56
Sigh. Only in the sense that EVERYTHING requires agreement with your opponent, no-one can put a gun to your head and force you to play a tabletop wargame. Otherwise, the rules are that Unbound is "in"... they even said in White Dwarf that it is now the standard way to play, and Battle-forged is there for those who prefer a "more structured way" to build a list.

Rulebook specifically says you need to agree with your opponent on army selection method. IT'S IN RULEBOOK!

How more official you want it? If rulebook says you need to agree on army selection then what else you need?

If you haven't agreed on unbound then as per rulebook unbound isn't available=no unbound list.

It's not pretending it's optional. It's reading the rulebook(you HAVE read 40k rulebook and not going just by forum posts right?).

MiyamatoMusashi
03-06-2014, 13:06
Rulebook specifically says you need to agree with your opponent on army selection method. IT'S IN RULEBOOK!

How more official you want it? If rulebook says you need to agree on army selection then what else you need?

If you haven't agreed on unbound then as per rulebook unbound isn't available=no unbound list.

It's not pretending it's optional. It's reading the rulebook(you HAVE read 40k rulebook and not going just by forum posts right?).

You also need to agree to play 40K and not Warhammer, or some other game, or drink cider in the park instead. OH MY GOD IT'S ALL OPTIONAL.

Nowhere does it say that Unbound is any less valid than not Unbound (or in any way not the default way to play).

tneva82
03-06-2014, 13:17
Nowhere...Except rulebook.

BUUUUUT I suppose some people don't believe rulebook if it states something they don't want to believe.

Avian
03-06-2014, 13:28
Well as for point 2 are you by any chance referring to unbound which still requires agreement with your opponent?
No, I'm referring to the option to take multiple detachments in the same Battle Forged army + the changes to allies (specifically Come the Apocalypse).



But even if I were, you cannot deny that Unbound has been CONTROVERSIAL. That is undeniable. Whether or not you feel its game breaking you cannot deny that it has sparked controversy.

Bloodknight
03-06-2014, 15:29
Are you sure you are not thinking of how in 4th edition 40K, you had to sacrifice one of your characters to summon your (PAID FOR!) Greater Daemon onto the table

In 2nd edition 40K you had to do stuff that pleased your God to summon daemons, collecting summoning points. You know, hit people in CC, force LD checks, cast psychic powers and whatever Nurgle wanted. I think you needed 10 points for a greater daemon, but he had to be paid for. Numbers might be off, I only fought CSM in 2nd, didn't play them myself.

As to that rumor of WFB changing, it would be really interesting to hear more opinions about that. So far the rumor is "WFB is changing", which, given that GW tends to play pendulum with the rules of awesomeness and sucking, doesn't really mean anything.

Malagor
03-06-2014, 15:39
Just going to mention also, that the whispers of dramatic changes to Fantasy, including very specifically an advance in the timeline, chimes strongly with what I heard, and passed on, months ago. I don't hear anywhere near enough (or often enough, or accurately enough) to be considered a "reliable source", but Harry backed me up at the time, so if you don't believe me, go back and see what he said. (Does nobody really remember - Avian, surely you must - all that stuff he was saying about the army books hitting the reboot button, and being merged into three-ish larger books containing multiple armies each? And yet now someone suggests there's dramatic changes afoot and the response is "not possible!" Really?)
I remember what Harry said, he clearly stated that while you say is correct, what he heard was only something that was suggested in a meeting at the very early stage of development and that he had no idea if they actually went with it or not.
And as some have stated, this sorta rumour comes up with every edition so guess there is always 1 on the design team that thinks they should combine the books and move the timeline forward.

Bigman
03-06-2014, 15:45
We will stop playing it? I'm not sure why GW would want to do such a thing to be honest , people that like 8th seem to like it a lot and it seems to be growing at a reasonable rate ( as in the " war hammers dead in my area " posts seem to have dried up on the various forums and been replaced with " getting into wfb " posts :) )

the risks as I see them would be a mass exodus of current warhammer players , not a problem as such for GW I suppose if they can replace them with new or returning players, easier said than done with so much competition now . To my mind though making massive changes does nothing a separate skirmish game couldn't achieve , and without the risks

Go back and read my posts from page 7/8... Clear reasons set out there.

Big changes will happen. They need to sell more, 8th hasn't sold well enough. They have it a chance, now they change it.

HelloKitty
03-06-2014, 15:53
It is reminded of the arguments about forge world being official or not.

MiyamatoMusashi
03-06-2014, 16:02
I remember what Harry said, he clearly stated that while you say is correct, what he heard was only something that was suggested in a meeting at the very early stage of development and that he had no idea if they actually went with it or not.
And as some have stated, this sorta rumour comes up with every edition so guess there is always 1 on the design team that thinks they should combine the books and move the timeline forward.

Fair point. I had understood it to be more concrete than that this time, but we'll have to wait and see.

dalezzz
03-06-2014, 16:41
Go back and read my posts from page 7/8... Clear reasons set out there.

Big changes will happen. They need to sell more, 8th hasn't sold well enough. They have it a chance, now they change it.


I did ( and had to wade through all the waffle about 40k! :p ) didn't really see anything there that made me think reworking fantasy battle is a better choice than a separate game doing the things people claim will generate mass sales. Did I miss something? I admit it was hard going having to learn all about the psychic phase for 40k ;)

Lorcryst
03-06-2014, 19:12
I honestly don't think that a skirmish game that uses less models is the way forward for a company that prides itself in selling high-quality models by the truckload.

Same with combining Army Books, why shoot themselves in the foot when the current scheme works wonders, and can attract different kinds of players (and their wallets) to the same hobby ?

BTW, back in the '80ies, 40K was the "cheap" game, you only needed a couple of boxes of Tactical Marines and a Character to be able to play the game (and those were the contents of the 2nd Ed starter box, along with Gretchins, Goffs and a cardboard Dreadnought), while now, at least from what I see in my local GW and FLGS, the "norm" is 1850 points armies with several detachments (without Unbound, even), with very little in the way of playing smaller games ... my GW started a "small games" affair with the release of 7th Ed 40K, the first week was '500 points with a Psyker', and they're already at the '1000 points and a big kit' mark ...

On the other hand, the current 8th Ed Fantasy rules work rather well at low point levels (500 to 750), you can make an amry of this size with almost all batallions and the newflanged army boxes, and it's now cheaper to start Fantasy than 40K ...

Yes, we will see a 9th Edition of Fantasy.

Yes, probably in 2015.

Everything else is conjecture, wishlisting or pipedreams.

It is well know that the store managers and employees are the last to know something is coming ...
Proof : the Friday before the WDW with the news of a new 40K edition was published, literaly the day before the news hit, the manager of my local GW was pushing people to buy the Dark Vengeance boxed set. And on the Saturday in question, he was as surprised as everyone else (barring maybe WarSeerites that keep a finger on the pulse of rumours) to see a new edition revealed.

Clockwork
03-06-2014, 21:19
Just to be a contrarian, I actually enjoyed the 40k discussion here - I don't follow that game at all, and when I do venture onto their boards its usually too dense to get an easily accessible summary.



Two of the armies I play have no Psykers at all (sisters and Necrons) and my dark elder only have access to one ML1 psyker which is a unit upgrade for one of the worst units in the codex, the shadow seer, my chances of stopping any enemy psychic powers with any of them are slim to none, and against daemons I literally just get to stand there while my opponent rolls dice and shovels new units on to the table.


Man, if only Necrons still had some sort of anti-psyker thing going on like back when their fluff was cooler than TOMB KINGS IN SPAAAAACE.

MiyamatoMusashi
03-06-2014, 23:49
Nowhere...Except rulebook.

BUUUUUT I suppose some people don't believe rulebook if it states something they don't want to believe.

Well, let's see (now that I've got the rulebook in front of me). Here's all the relevant sections from the Choosing Your Army section of the rulebook. Direct quotes, by the way, not just "the rulebook says it!" without actually stating what the rulebook says.


Before any game, players must agree how they are going to select their armies, and if any restrictions apply to the number and type of models they can use.


The two main ways of organising an army are the Unbound method and the Battle-forged method. Both players need not use the same method.

Yeah, that's... that's pretty much all there is. Decide if "any" restrictions apply is about as strongly worded as it gets. What it does not say, anywhere in the rulebook, is any of these, which you claim it does:


Unbound is an optional rule.

Unbound requires your opponent's consent.

The default way to pick an army is Battle-forged, but if your opponent agrees, you can use Unbound.

There is literally nothing there to support your claim. Unbound is equally as "optional" as Battle-forged... Unbound doesn't require your opponent's consent any more than Battle-forged, nor indeed any more than agreeing to play 40K at all does. In fact, the rulebook spends more time mentioning that, by the way, you don't even have to have equal points values, than in suggesting that Unbound requires consent to use. Of course, someone can house rule it by refusing to play against Unbound (like I will), but someone could house rule it to give themselves 50% more points than their opponent if they wanted to, too, and it would be equally valid. (No-one would agree to play a game with such a rule, but it's every bit as much supported by the rulebook as your claim that Unbound is "optional").

On the other hand, let's take a look at White Dwarf Weekly #16 - which, granted, isn't a rulebook, but it should show us how "optional" GW think Unbound is, or isn't:


Once you and your opponent have decided the points limit of your game (if indeed you want to use points at all), you need to decide whether your army is going to be Battle-forged or Unbound.


Unbound armies are the baseline for games of Warhammer 40,000 now

Yep - that's right, Unbound armies are the baseline for games of 40K, declared right there in a printed GW publication. They require your opponent's consent only in the same way that agreeing to play 40K does, or agreeing to play with a 2000 points limit, or whatever. (I can agree not to play against Unbound armies, but I can agree to go to the pub instead, Unbound is still a rule). They are not, and are not being represented as by anyone but you, some kind of optional bolt-on extra that exists only for "haters" on the internet to get upset by.

Please, in future, when claiming the rulebook says something, provide direct quotes. It's so much easier.

KalEf
04-06-2014, 00:48
We will stop playing it? I'm not sure why GW would want to do such a thing to be honest , people that like 8th seem to like it a lot and it seems to be growing at a reasonable rate ( as in the " war hammers dead in my area " posts seem to have dried up on the various forums and been replaced with " getting into wfb " posts :) )

the risks as I see them would be a mass exodus of current warhammer players , not a problem as such for GW I suppose if they can replace them with new or returning players, easier said than done with so much competition now . To my mind though making massive changes does nothing a separate skirmish game couldn't achieve , and without the risks

You sir are the biggest optimist in the world. I appreciate that! However, less people being crazy angry about the game changing -4 years later- is no indicator that sales are up.

Lets say NBC canceled "Friends" and replaced it with "Survivor". NBC would get lots of hate right away "F-you guys I miss friends"... 4 years down the road, the people that hated the change would have started watching something else on a different station, or resentfully watching survivor. "Survivor" would pick up and lose viewers like anything else and have fans sending fan-mail. "Survivor" could have half the viewing audience friends did, and 4 years down the road, they would be getting almost no hate mail for their underperforming show.

I've just stuck it out, and keep the hate alive, because I got a lot invested in this hobby! lol

dalezzz
04-06-2014, 12:02
You sir are the biggest optimist in the world.

Thanks :D I suppose the only thing we really know is fantasy makes up 8% of total GW sales :evilgrin: .
You do raise a valid point though , and as you say (most of) the people who either dislike 8th or are in areas it's dryer up have moved on to something else , it doesn't change the fact that the are plenty of people looking to start up fantasy ( even on the herdstone! )

Not that that's any indicator of sales, as for all we know they will buy mantic models ;)

Malagor
04-06-2014, 12:03
Thanks :D I suppose the only thing we really know is fantasy makes up 8% of total GW sales :evilgrin: .

Actually we don't know that.

dalezzz
04-06-2014, 12:06
Actually we don't know that.

I know we don't ;)

Bigman
04-06-2014, 17:13
I did ( and had to wade through all the waffle about 40k! :p ) didn't really see anything there that made me think reworking fantasy battle is a better choice than a separate game doing the things people claim will generate mass sales. Did I miss something? I admit it was hard going having to learn all about the psychic phase for 40k ;)

It was more that they think that everyone will jump on skirmish.

There store target market is youngsters, they will do what it takes to try and attract them, I guess that was my point.

Along with how short sighted that will seem sometime in the future when children are just not interested in table top war games.

Bigman
04-06-2014, 17:20
Also, when hobbit runs out, you have got to believe they'll be picking up a wargame franchise for GoT...I mean it's meant to be.

Urgat
04-06-2014, 17:29
What the heck would they do with a GoT franchise? Knights, and knights, and more knights, and some foot troops and some archers? Ah yeah, a couple dragons. GoT is the last franchise I'd pick for a fantasy wargame, it'd be pretty much an historical game.

dalezzz
04-06-2014, 17:36
It was more that they think that everyone will jump on skirmish.

There store target market is youngsters, they will do what it takes to try and attract them, I guess that was my point.

Along with how short sighted that will seem sometime in the future when children are just not interested in table top war games.


I pretty much agree with you here mate , thinking about it , if they do release a skirmish game they sort of need to carry on supporting the battle system ( assuming they don't decide to use a whole new set of models) if existing players decide to sell up ebay would surely make a huge impact on their sales. I personally could kit out at least 200 skirmish warbands :D


as for for a GoT battle game why wait! Get it done GW and make sure they are the same scale as warhammer ( or at least the hobbit)

dalezzz
04-06-2014, 17:38
What the heck would they do with a GoT franchise? Knights, and knights, and more knights, and some foot troops and some archers? Ah yeah, a couple dragons. GoT is the last franchise I'd pick for a fantasy wargame, it'd be pretty much an historical game.

I have over a dozen different knightly orders for my empire army :) so yes , knights knights and more knights!

Avian
04-06-2014, 18:21
What the heck would they do with a GoT franchise? Knights, and knights, and more knights, and some foot troops and some archers? Ah yeah, a couple dragons. GoT is the last franchise I'd pick for a fantasy wargame, it'd be pretty much an historical game.
Ice zombies? Giants?



But yeah, GoT is more of a drama series with some boobs fighting thrown in for good measure.

Ramius4
04-06-2014, 18:24
But yeah, GoT is more of a drama series with some boobs fighting thrown in for good measure.

War-boobs? :p Sounds like a new unit GW might come up with.

Voss
04-06-2014, 18:32
What the heck would they do with a GoT franchise? Knights, and knights, and more knights, and some foot troops and some archers? Ah yeah, a couple dragons. GoT is the last franchise I'd pick for a fantasy wargame, it'd be pretty much an historical game.

Sounds exactly why GW handles Bretonnia so badly.


Also, when hobbit runs out, you have got to believe they'll be picking up a wargame franchise for GoT...I mean it's meant to be.

Woo. Garbage all the way down, from rules to setting and characters. That sounds like fun.

Samsonov
04-06-2014, 18:38
Do you really thing that ANYBODY, completes four different versions of a project and THEN decides which one to go with?

Isn't it exceedingly more likely that some guy in Nottingham either got it wrong or made it up?

It strikes me as reasonable that they have generic warhammer skirmish written and need to decide just how radical the rule changes will be. So, hypothetically, they have an update of 6th edition rules as the starting point. They just need to decide if they will A: just have those skirmish rules; B: campaign rules added to the standard game with characters gaining experience over games; C: warmachine caster style rules where you character has a big influence on how the rest of the warband plays, D: adding some card based mechanism which might determine initiative so moving away from IGOUGO; E: a combination of these rules. So the most radical change might only require an additional five pages of rules each, taking a single 9 to 5 day to type up and format. Balancing them, yes that will require much more work, but who thinks these new changes are likely to be balanced?

theshoveller
04-06-2014, 18:43
What the heck would they do with a GoT franchise?
Spend thousands hammering out complicated legal agreements with Fantasy Flight and Darksword Miniatures, presumably.

Ludaman
04-06-2014, 19:12
Spend thousands hammering out complicated legal agreements with Fantasy Flight and Darksword Miniatures, presumably.

Nah, dark sword only has the rights to produce miniatures based on the books not the show. As I understand it they'd need to work out an agreement with HBO who holds control of all the shows rights.

Honestly GoT wouldn't be a terrible idea for a wargame. Most troops would be very similar with color scheme being the main difference. You could simply have a box of "footmen" a box of "archers" a box of "knights", and then have a few specialized boxes for different factions. Lannister Knights, Northern Knights, Mance Rayder's giants, Dothraki horsemen, etc. for a smaller investment from GW you could have enough miniatures to cover pretty much any force in westeros, the only problem would be characters, as GW doesn't use metal anymore, finecast is awful, and the main draw of a GoT miniature game would be miniatures of your favorite characters, and that's a ton of plastic clampacks.

Wintermute
04-06-2014, 19:30
Ice zombies? Giants?



But yeah, GoT is more of a drama series with some boobs fighting thrown in for good measure.

No GoT is a drama series with lots of politics and some sex fantasy thrown in for good measure :p

Bigman
04-06-2014, 20:39
I understand people's rejection of the viability of a gaming system, but given the timing of the end of the Hobbit franchise rights (and millstone around GW's necks) and the apparent popularity of the show, honestly answer these two questions:-

A) Do you think that to capitalise on its popularity, Game of Thrones owners will want to make a war game out of the universe? (Bear in mind there is already a board game).

If yes

B) Who else would they turn too to make said wargame (a company with a track record of handling IP, say like the Lotr franchise...)

I suppose the first question is more debatable, but, if that is a yes for GoT owners, then they will choose GW. I would based on quality of miniature and track record.

Avian
04-06-2014, 20:44
Well, I personally don't see them making a war game out of it, since that isn't really the main focus of the books OR the show (though I'm sure if they could afford more battles, there would have been more). An RPG seems much more natural and if someone now tells me there is one already I would not be the least bit surprised.

Ludaman
04-06-2014, 20:53
Well anyway, game of thrones aside, I think the biggest question right now is not "Will we see 9th in 2015?" But is instead "what the heck will we see next in Warhammer Fantasy?"

I mean honestly, kudos to GW for clamping down on leaks hard enough that I don't think anyone on these forums really has much of a clue what's next from GW after 40k Orks. Let alone what's next for fantasy.

Don't get me wrong, there are a few people who claim to know Brets are next, but so far those rumors seem to be mainly guesswork and wish listing.

Sexiest_hero
04-06-2014, 21:40
game of thrones she show can go burn in a fire. The books are...ok.

Ultimate Life Form
04-06-2014, 21:44
Hmm... "Game of Thrones: the Game". Sounds legit. So maybe Intrigue at Court will finally male a triumphant return?

rwphillipsstl
04-06-2014, 22:25
GoT already has miniature-based boardgames (off of Battlelore game), collectible card games, an RPG, Dark Sword miniatures, and a regular boardgame. I doubt they will license a miniature wargame line.

Bloodknight
04-06-2014, 22:25
An RPG seems much more natural and if someone now tells me there is one already I would not be the least bit surprised.

There is. It was written in 2005 and published by White Wolf under the Sword&Sorcery label for the D20 system.

Verm1s
05-06-2014, 00:28
If you want a GoT game, why do you want to sit around in the bewildering hope that GW might oblige you, as if you need a stamped-in-triplicate official say-so to connect a setting with minis and rules? Run over to the Lead Adventure Forum and do a search to see how many are building up GoT/ASoIaF armies and warbands. Look at HvM's Mormonts for Impetus (http://www.lead-adventure.de/index.php?topic=41342.0), and Captain Blood's historicals conversions (http://www.lead-adventure.de/index.php?topic=62778.0) in particular.

chaospantz
05-06-2014, 02:23
I honestly don't see why GW would do 9th next year. Fantasy is such a small part of their income and they will probably want to spend next year milking the last of the hobbit movie. In my opinion 8th is fine, maybe do what they did with 40K and do an 8.5 release to clean up some of the rules and spells. Plus their is still alot of 40K armies and sup lament things that they can push out that people will buy that fantasy seems kind of on the back of their mind. Maybe we will get lucky and if fantasy sits long enough after everything is caught up they will put out another world wide campaign again. Not likely but would be nice.

Lorcryst
05-06-2014, 06:29
I forced myself to watch a couple of episodes of the Game of Thrones series on the TV ... and to say that I was disappointed would put it mildly :


I've found the rythm of the episodes very slow
Most of the characters are very "generic" and bland
The scenarii made me want to slap the writers around the head with a large trout


The only redeeming quality, for me, is the generous and gratuitous amount of Teats & Ass ... not enough to make a good pr0n series, and too much to make a good drama.

I long for the days of Star Trek : TNG and NYPD Blues ... these days the only TV series I find watchable are things like Bones, Downtown Abbey and Rizoli & Isle ... CSI was good in the Vegas setting and at the start, but spirraled into bland rather quickly.

Back on topic, I agree with Ludaman, the main question is not the release date of 9th Ed, but what the frell will GW do with it ...

To reiterate some of my older points, I don't think a skirmish game with at most a batallion or a couple of boxes of minis needed to play is the way forward, that would alienate most of the players that like to play "big games with big armies", those would eBay most of their collections (and make the starting players happy, but without giving a cent to GW) and would decrease the volume of sales even more.

Also, combining army books doesn't really make sense, from a financial point of view and from a "fluff" point of view ... all Elves in a single book : goodies, badies and hippies share a bit of history, sooooo long ago in the timeline that they are now three very distinct races with totally different styles of play.
I doubt that someone wanting to play Woodies would be interested in playing HE or DE too ... a single army is already a serious cash-sink if you want to have several army lists possible with your collection, three armies is something for the madmen like me who haven been collecting for more than 20 years or are made of solid gold.

theshoveller
05-06-2014, 07:28
If you want a GoT game, why do you want to sit around in the bewildering hope that GW might oblige you, as if you need a stamped-in-triplicate official say-so to connect a setting with minis and rules? Run over to the Lead Adventure Forum and do a search to see how many are building up GoT/ASoIaF armies and warbands. Look at HvM's Mormonts for Impetus (http://www.lead-adventure.de/index.php?topic=41342.0), and Captain Blood's historicals conversions (http://www.lead-adventure.de/index.php?topic=62778.0) in particular.
Personally, I think Deus Vult would be the best ruleset for it, since it has entertaining subsystems for pre-battle treachery and sub-commanders who refuse to follow orders.

Voss
05-06-2014, 07:42
I understand people's rejection of the viability of a gaming system, but given the timing of the end of the Hobbit franchise rights (and millstone around GW's necks) and the apparent popularity of the show, honestly answer these two questions:-

A) Do you think that to capitalise on its popularity, Game of Thrones owners will want to make a war game out of the universe? (Bear in mind there is already a board game).

If yes

If yes, they would have done so already. Capitalizing on the fantasy-incest murder porn already has all its boats out in the water. Launching a war-game alongside season 5 (or even 6) of the HBO afterdark special seems anti-climatic and far too close to the Hobbit model- trying to interest the market after the mass enthusiasm has already started to fade.


B) Who else would they turn too to make said wargame (a company with a track record of handling IP, say like the Lotr franchise...)

I suppose the first question is more debatable, but, if that is a yes for GoT owners, then they will choose GW. I would based on quality of miniature and track record.
I wouldn't. They can barely prop up their own (fantasy) IP anymore, and their current iteration of Somebody Else's Toys is fairly miserable.

On the other clubfoot, Mr. GRR apparently has the same attitude towards 'advanced' (read:last century) technology that GW does, so maybe it is a match made in a barren womb after all:
https://xnagamedeveloper.wordpress.com/2014/05/15/george-rr-martin-and-the-dos/

Alltaken
05-06-2014, 17:02
There is no reason not to make a war game of got. We have a couple of time lines to explore (Roberts rebellion, valyryan descent on the 7 kingdoms) etc. Give different units and stats and you got a sort of historical, pull a low fantasy warhammer.

Besides thatccollecting all armies in a couple of bundles gives the following things:
Faster and more complete update of book/lore.
Wait time for access for new shinies (new units, sculpts), which opens oportunities for the competition.
And we have the unknown económical effect of it on book sales.
I believe they wont do this since they're orienting their sales at impulse purchase (new weekly selling scheme and little in the way of rumors).

I think a smart play would be to bring out a new edition oriented at smaller battles, main rulebook, oriented at big skirmishes (still ranked units) and an expansión for more bigger battles as its now. Promote a lot of new skirmish tourneys at their clubs so they get new players and evolve to escalation games next year. Later in the cycle bring sort of like apoc or big minis expansión towards the end of it.

From my servoskull

Voss
05-06-2014, 23:51
There is no reason not to make a war game of got. We have a couple of time lines to explore (Roberts rebellion, valyryan descent on the 7 kingdoms) etc. Give different units and stats and you got a sort of historical, pull a low fantasy warhammer.

I honestly don't understand the obsession with it, or what it has to do with 9th edition WFB. Its a softcore drama-tragedy with a vaguely fantasy background. I can think of a dozen far more interesting settings for a miniatures game off the top of my head, and that still doesn't mean that GW is going to make them for no apparent reason.

Ludaman
06-06-2014, 00:19
I honestly don't understand the obsession with it, or what it has to do with 9th edition WFB. Its a softcore drama-tragedy with a vaguely fantasy background. I can think of a dozen far more interesting settings for a miniatures game off the top of my head, and that still doesn't mean that GW is going to make them for no apparent reason.

The Lord of the Rings and the Hobbit are incredibly popular books with now incredibly popular motion pictures based on them. GW produced miniatures and a couple games to cash in on this phenomenon.

Game of thrones is an incredibly popular book series with an incredibly popular TV series based on it and with no end in sight for the TV show.

If that's not an "apparent reason" to you, fine, but I think most can see the apparentness of it :)

Snarky humor aside, you are absolutely correct that a discussion on its merits/flaws as a miniature game doesn't belong in this thread. I am sorry to have engaged in it here rather than in it's own thread.

Alltaken
06-06-2014, 00:24
I honestly don't understand the obsession with it, or what it has to do with 9th edition WFB. Its a softcore drama-tragedy with a vaguely fantasy background. I can think of a dozen far more interesting settings for a miniatures game off the top of my head, and that still doesn't mean that GW is going to make them for no apparent reason.

Then you havent read the post and the point why got is discused. Ludaman wrote it pretty well, and your showing a personal antypathy against the book out of the blue

From my servoskull

Voss
06-06-2014, 00:51
The Lord of the Rings and the Hobbit are incredibly popular books with now incredibly popular motion pictures based on them. GW produced miniatures and a couple games to cash in on this phenomenon.

So you want more Hobbit-style shovelware from GW? Thats a strange thing to wish for something you apparently like.

But it ranks up there with the Wheel of Endlessness war-game, Starship Troopers, Babylon 5, His Dark Materials and so on and so forth. All series popular at one point, that the fans wished for war-games of and they either a) never happened, or b) were regretfully bad when they did.

Ludaman
06-06-2014, 00:55
So you want more Hobbit-style shovelware from GW? Thats a strange thing to wish for something you apparently like.

But it ranks up there with the Wheel of Endlessness war-game, Starship Troopers, Babylon 5, His Dark Materials and so on and so forth. All series popular at one point, that the fans wished for war-games of and they either a) never happened, or b) were regretfully bad when they did.

Hey I never said GW wouldn't turn it to poop ;) just said that there was a reason for said poop to be shoveled upon us...

WhispersofBlood
06-06-2014, 01:31
game of thrones she show can go burn in a fire. The books are...ok.

lol I just watched season four, after skipping most of season 1, and seasons 2 ad 3. They really should just be called the middle aged and the restless. As to a wargame? Meh, I think I would pass. I actually don't enjoy having everything idea mushed together into every possible medium.

Ramius4
06-06-2014, 02:20
The Lord of the Rings and the Hobbit are incredibly popular books with now incredibly popular motion pictures based on them. GW produced miniatures and a couple games to cash in on this phenomenon.

Game of thrones is an incredibly popular book series with an incredibly popular TV series based on it and with no end in sight for the TV show.

There's one absolutely massive difference. Hobbit and/or Lord of the Rings has sold more books than anything else in history. Including the Bible (which comes in second btw). There's a hell of a difference between a currently popular book and tv series as opposed to that. Because literally nothing comes close to the kind of popularity and long term success of Tolkein's series.

Urgat
06-06-2014, 07:27
Game of thrones is an incredibly popular book series with an incredibly popular TV series based on it and with no end in sight for the TV show.

This is incorrect, there's a end in sight, they plan either 7 or 8 seasons, regardless of how long the books will run.

Ludaman
06-06-2014, 07:28
We'll see about that, they did a great job chopping book 3 in half to make two seasons ;)

(Remember how nicely they finished the Hobbit in 2 films, as promised, or the hunger games in 3? Etc etc, remember when you have a license to print money it's always a good call to hang onto it)

Urgat
06-06-2014, 07:46
Maybe, but for now the official line is 7/8 seasons :p
I still don't see the point in making a game that would be mostly "WFB: Bretonnian Civil War" with most of the magic removed. There is nothing exciting or interesting in the armies that would make the game interesting. GoT's RPG material, not wargame.

Ludaman
06-06-2014, 07:59
I see a point: new "Bretonnian" miniatures ;)

Avian
06-06-2014, 08:20
It would probably be a different scale, as with LotR.

Ultimate Life Form
06-06-2014, 08:25
It would probably be a different scale, as with LotR.

Super-heavy scale. With a seperate Codex for every model.

MiyamatoMusashi
06-06-2014, 08:30
I love the GoT books, I love the series, but there's no way I'd be bothered about a wargame based on it. Same goes for Wheel of Time, and The Name of the Wind, and dozens of other vaguely-fantasy worlds out there for which someone could conceivably make a wargame.

In any case, there's no reason why GW should license out such properties (what, are their own IPs not enough?) and absolutely no chance that they would (look how hard they're pushing The Hobbit in your face, oh wait) so can we draw a line under it and move on? The only reason they made an exception for LotR is that it is the biggest fantasy IP there has ever been or will ever be - Gandalf's sword is one of the ones in the Iron Throne, as a tribute from the makers of GoT to LotR - and there was a very real danger that if GW didn't make a game on it, someone else would, and awareness of LotR is much higher than Warhammer, so it was a threat to them. They'll never, ever do something similar again... or should we start demanding that GW make a 40K version of The Hunger Games and a Warhammer equivalent to Twilight, too?

Samsonov
06-06-2014, 08:51
Well, historical games can sell without magic or fantastical elements. So GoT might not appeal to the average fantasy fan over and above any other fantasy game but it is not meant to. It would appeal to GoT fans.

MiyamatoMusashi
06-06-2014, 09:46
...and GW don't make historical games, either. (Any more. Sadly).

Nobody's saying there couldn't be a GoT game, only that if there is, it won't be made by GW.

Lorcryst
06-06-2014, 12:44
Can we stop babbling about GoT, agree to disagree on its qualities (namely, for me, Teats & Ass) and move back to the topic of a new edition of WFB ?

Bloodknight
06-06-2014, 13:13
Hobbit and/or Lord of the Rings has sold more books than anything else in history. Including the Bible (which comes in second btw)

That cannot be true. The bible has been sold an estimated 2-6 billion (milliard) times. LoTR has enjoyed an estimated 150 million sales, that's barely 50 million more than the first Harry Potter (the HP series has about 60 million sales for every volume after the first, so the combined series outsold LotR+Hobbit massively...), but over a much longer period. I'd expect LotR to fall behind Harry Potter over the next 10-20 years even more, mostly because HP is more accessible to children and not as dully written as LotR is.
No matter how influential that book is/was on Fantasy, it's a drag to read, a slowly and repetitively told story of a whiny little dude, his "special" friend Sam and a wizard who's only being described as ridiculously powerful (this is bad style, btw. You don't say "That guy is powerful". You show what he can do.), but who doesn't actually work a lot of magic beyond parlor tricks.

That said, if I look at the Guardian's list of top 100 best selling titles of all time in the UK (which doesn't include the bible since it's often given away for free), LotR is in the 70th spot. Heck, 50 Shades of Grey sold 4 times as many copies there.

Echunia
06-06-2014, 13:45
Wow! So many hipsters in this thread. We get that you want to rag on something that's popular because you're cool, but do you need to do it in 3 consecutive posts?

Anyway... I have a hard time seeing GW not releasing 9th in 2015. They pushed out the new 40k edition way faster than anticipated. Also won't they run out of armybooks to release soon? Sure, there are some missing holes in the range, like the Necrolith colossus, but they need change in order to keep producing stuff.

Alltaken
06-06-2014, 16:33
That cannot be true. The bible has been sold an estimated 2-6 billion (milliard) times. LoTR has enjoyed an estimated 150 million sales, that's barely 50 million more than the first Harry Potter (the HP series has about 60 million sales for every volume after the first, so the combined series outsold LotR+Hobbit massively...), but over a much longer period. I'd expect LotR to fall behind Harry Potter over the next 10-20 years even more, mostly because HP is more accessible to children and not as dully written as LotR is.
No matter how influential that book is/was on Fantasy, it's a drag to read, a slowly and repetitively told story of a whiny little dude, his "special" friend Sam and a wizard who's only being described as ridiculously powerful (this is bad style, btw. You don't say "That guy is powerful". You show what he can do.), but who doesn't actually work a lot of magic beyond parlor tricks.

That said, if I look at the Guardian's list of top 100 best selling titles of all time in the UK (which doesn't include the bible since it's often given away for free), LotR is in the 70th spot. Heck, 50 Shades of Grey sold 4 times as many copies there.

Wow, this I find baffling, I know for instance china mieville (current writer, acredited to be the father of the new wierd style) has an interesting opinión on why he doesnt like lotr, but it goes quite far from calling those critiques here

From my servoskull

HelloKitty
06-06-2014, 16:54
Its creatures keep telling it that the internet says that fantasy will be dropped soon and that there won't be another edition for it.

This one hopes that this is not true.

Brother Haephestus
06-06-2014, 17:35
I don't believe GW is in a desperate spot at all. I don't see 40k, regardless of our own interpretations/rumors to the same as being a desperate cash grab. I think the real reason that 40k is getting a new edition is a finalization to their rebranding efforts, allowing them to have solid IP trademarks so that they don't run into the Chapterhouse fiasco again.

That being said, I expect the next variant of Fantasy to be something different. I have a lot of what I think is solid speculation, but because it's just guesswork I will keep it to me.

WhispersofBlood
06-06-2014, 18:42
Personally I was shocked they didn't rename the Elf armies to their elven variants. Asur, Asrai and Druchii.

theshoveller
07-06-2014, 12:20
Personally I was shocked they didn't rename the Elf armies to their elven variants. Asur, Asrai and Druchii.
Perhaps (and I'm not a lawyer) "Warhammer: High Elves" is a suitably trademarked title, "Codex: Imperial Guard" is not.

Verm1s
07-06-2014, 13:38
But it ranks up there with the Wheel of Endlessness war-game, Starship Troopers, Babylon 5, His Dark Materials and so on and so forth. All series popular at one point, that the fans wished for war-games of and they either a) never happened, or b) were regretfully bad when they did.

Starship Troopers wasn't a bad game: Mongoose Publishing's* typical handling of any miniatures-related game or franchise was and is bad. See the current situation with Judge Dredd, where Warlord Games had to step in.

*Remember kids, the mongoose is there because it's gonna break the GW cobra's hypnotic hold on the war games market! :p



I still don't see the point in making a game that would be mostly "WFB: Bretonnian Civil War" with most of the magic removed. There is nothing exciting or interesting in the armies that would make the game interesting. GoT's RPG material, not wargame.

I usually roll my eyes at the guys at the local club who sneer at Warhammer's 'goblins and wizards' (while playing WAB), but here, I'm with Samsonov. If hordes of grim northmen under the wolf banner crashing into the serried ranks of crimson and gold southrons for the control of a kingdom and vengeance for a murdered lord can't get your juices running without some goblins wedged in there somewhere, then I feel pity.


I love the GoT books, I love the series, but there's no way I'd be bothered about a wargame based on it. Same goes for Wheel of Time, and The Name of the Wind, and dozens of other vaguely-fantasy worlds out there for which someone could conceivably make a wargame.
... or should we start demanding that GW make a 40K version of The Hunger Games and a Warhammer equivalent to Twilight, too?

In response to you, Voss and Urgat, and to reiterate my point: nobody 'needs' to make a wargame, in the sense of a wargames business buying a license, writing and printing rules, commissioning and casting minis, all spoonfed to you on a nice big official stamp. No need to harrumph about yet another exclusive wargame popping up that you 'need' to pay official prices for, either. For a wee bit more effort and a big bit less outlay than starting a new Warhammer army, or starting Warhammer at all, a couple of gaming 'fans who wish for it' could decide on a decent set of historical or fantasy rules (Hail Caesar, Dux Bellorum, KoW, Mayhem etc. etc. I think there are ASoIaF lists floating about for KoW and Warmaster, IIRC) buy up some medieval minis (crusades to HYW to WotR: Perrys are coming out with some nice plastic HYW in the next year or so) and paint 'em up in the proper colours. It's really not that difficult to cut the apron strings and mash up any trio of settings, rules and minis that you like the look of.


...and GW don't make historical games, either. (Any more. Sadly.)

Not too much to be sorry about, IMO. :shifty:


Can we stop babbling about GoT, agree to disagree on its qualities (namely, for me, Teats & Ass) and move back to the topic of a new edition of WFB ?

Pointless babbling about potential GoT gaming and the opening up of one or two minor little vistas is a lot more interesting than pointless babbling about when 9th ed may or may not come out. How many times can you say or read "well they have to release hardbacks for such and such a race first so it'll take mumble mumble months" over the course of 10+ pages? That's all you can say. It's a topic best served by a poll with no posts allowed: 'Do you think we'll see 9th edition in 2015?'

'Yes.'

'No.'

'Maybe.'

And wassamatter? Can't you get a girl?

Bloodknight
07-06-2014, 14:49
tarship Troopers wasn't a bad game: Mongoose Publishing's

Yeah, Mongoose is where good games go to die. SST is a good system, that Babylon 5 space game wasn't shabby either.
GW OTOH, is were bad games turn into the Undead, though. :p