WFB 8th Edition: whispers of a rumour

[AramilSairSianontel]

If the 8th edition comes, the first thing i would like to see in it would be new army books for Tomb Kings, Brettonians, Ogre Kingdoms and Wood Elves. I don't want to see ANY army extinct, just because they got jumped.
Or maybe a big book with all the army lists for all the armies-balanced armies. And to replace the army book releases with fluff, special charakters-books, and new models of course.
I would like to see a dozen things in in 8th edition, but more importantly, i wouldn't like to see armies end up like chaos dwarves or dark eldar in 40.000, like i said i want a dozen things but firstly i think those things are of critical importance for the future of the game.

[DarkTerror]

There's nothing wrong with a new edition coming out. All it means is new (and better 95% of the time) rules for specific situations and cheap models.

And personally, I wouldn't mind if Ogres got faded into oblivion along with Chaos Dwarfs, Dogs of War and all thoughts of mercenaries in general. Warhammer needs more focus on their money-making armies.

EDIT: To clarify what I mean due to replies, I think GW's profit model would be better by focusing in on certain armies (like Space Marines have done for 40k) so that the whole of the hobby doesn't rise so quickly in price. Mercenaries getting phased out is simply due to gameplay in that they cover holes which they shouldn't.

And yes, I did play CD for a time during 5th edition.

[AramilSairSianontel]

Originally Posted by DarkTerror

There's nothing wrong with a new edition coming out. All it means is new (and better 95% of the time) rules for specific situations and cheap models.

And personally, I wouldn't mind if Ogres got faded into oblivion along with Chaos Dwarfs, Dogs of War and all thoughts of mercenaries in general. Warhammer needs more focus on their money-making armies.

I can only laugh at that. No reason to argue with people who think like that.
Way to go sir for your nice set of opinions.

[Spiney Norman]

Originally Posted by DarkTerror

There's nothing wrong with a new edition coming out. All it means is new (and better 95% of the time) rules for specific situations and cheap models.

And personally, I wouldn't mind if Ogres got faded into oblivion along with Chaos Dwarfs, Dogs of War and all thoughts of mercenaries in general. Warhammer needs more focus on their money-making armies.

You know, its kinda funny, I wouldn't be too bothered if High Elves, Skaven and the three Chaos armies got phased out of existence because I don't play them, and have no intention of doing so. Does that make my opinion more valid than someone whose favourite army is Beasts of Chaos or Skaven, I suggest not.
*************************

[Dargon]

Originally Posted by Grontik

Booooo!!! Hssssss!!! A new edition after this one will have been out for 3 and a half years?!? I still think they should focus on supplementing the ruleset with books that cover Siege, Scenarios, Campaigns, .... hell anything. So after 8th edition gets released what will the release cycle be after that? Two years and we'll see 9th?!?

No, in another 2 years after Fantasy (2012), we'll see 6th Edition 40K. 9th Edition Fantasy won't be until 2014.

Warhammer and 40K work in alternating 4 year cycles and have done so for at least as long as I've been in the hobby (since 92). This timeframe briefly expanded to a 6-year cycle during 6th Edition Fantasy and 3rd Edition 40K, but that was to create a nice big open window in their schedule to release their Lord of the Rings Games.

Just a thought...

[sorberec]

Originally Posted by AramilSairSianontel

If the 8th edition comes, the first thing i would like to see in it would be new army books for Tomb Kings, Brettonians, Ogre Kingdoms and Wood Elves. I don't want to see ANY army extinct, just because they got jumped.
...
but more importantly, i wouldn't like to see armies end up like chaos dwarves or dark eldar in 40.000, like i said i want a dozen things but firstly i think those things are of critical importance for the future of the game.

Of those 4 books you first mentioned, do you really think Bretonnia and Wood Elves actually need new army books (in terms of being competative in friendly/tournament play as opposed to just because they've not had new arrmy books for a while)? From what I understand they're still pretty competative under the current rules and don't suffer from any serious problems due to changes in the rules between editions (unlike Beasts of Chaos who clearly should have had either a new book or an updated FAQ to sort out the ranking up issue).

Weren't Chaos Dwarves only ever semi-official to begin with in that they didn't have a proper army book, just pieces published in White Dwarf?

And aren't Dark Eldar still a current 40k army? From the little I've read about the 40k codexes, several army books have gone quite a while before being updated (if at all) and still cope quite well with the changes in the main rules.

[Grimstonefire]

Originally Posted by sorberec

Weren't Chaos Dwarves only ever semi-official to begin with in that they didn't have a proper army book, just pieces published in White Dwarf?

It depends by what you mean by 'semi-official'. They had an armybook that was not written to be an armybook (possibly the only warhammer one to be done like this in decades, though I know I will be corrected). It was not a purpose written book (which imo is a 'proper' book) but it was an 'official' army book for a while (6 years). They were supported only as much as an official release of models, we were probably lucky that they didn't drop them in RH.

I am anxiously looking forwards to seeing how CD are treated in the rulebook, whether there is any hope of plastic models at any point or whether they will always be 100% resin.

[BruderLoras]

Originally Posted by sorberec

And aren't Dark Eldar still a current 40k army? From the little I've read about the 40k codexes, several army books have gone quite a while before being updated (if at all) and still cope quite well with the changes in the main rules.

Yes, Dark Eldar are a current army in terms of being playable and tournament legal, so are Witch Hunters and Demon Hunters, the other two old-timers around. The problem with those armies isn't that you can't play them in the current edition, but that they weren't designed for it. For example, a lot of their armory enries refer to rules that have just been phased out of existence since those books were written.

[Spiney Norman]

Originally Posted by sorberec

Of those 4 books you first mentioned, do you really think Bretonnia and Wood Elves actually need new army books

nope, I play wood elfs and although we're smarting slightly from the cataclysmic upgrade that High Elves got the book is still perfectly playable and competitive. As for Bretonnians the only unit that has suffered at all from 7th is the Questing Knights, and I don't think many people really used them in 6th anyway since there was always better or cheaper choices for Bret generals.

Quote

Weren't Chaos Dwarves only ever semi-official to begin with in that they didn't have a proper army book, just pieces published in White Dwarf?

CD did have an army book in 5th Edition, it was called "White Dwarf Presents: Chaos Dwarfs", however, despite its title it was NOT just a WD supplement, it was an 80 odd page army book in its own right. Chaos Dwarfs also had a 6th Ed list in Ravening hordes like everyone else

Quote

And aren't Dark Eldar still a current 40k army? From the little I've read about the 40k codexes, several army books have gone quite a while before being updated (if at all) and still cope quite well with the changes in the main rules.

Yes they are, but no-one talks about them. The problem with GW's policy with releasing 40k armies is that whatever position they're in with the release cycle, whenever a new edition comes out Space marines get redone, followed by Greenskins. All that means is that the minority armies like Dark eldar never get to the front of the schedule because they're at the back of the cycle and there isn't enough time between the edition releases to cycle through all the armies fully, which is kinda what we're afraid of with Tomb Kings.

To be honest if they would only rein in the power creep redoing all the books each edition wouldn't be so critical. I mean O&G is a 7th Ed book and they've been so drastically left behind by the likes of Daemons, VC and Dark Elves that its not even funny. Power creep has greatly accelerated in 7th Ed, and armies like Tomb Kings and Ogres were never powerful armies even when they hit the shelves.

[Morskittar]

Didn't GW make a conscious decision partway into 7th to up the power scale in WFB? Maybe not Daemons all around, but with High Elves onward.

[InsideReticle]

Were High Elves even that good when their 7th edition book came out or are people just still sore about the ASF thing? High elves blew chunks last edition, only slightly less so than dark elves. I don't remember winning any more games after 7th than I did before with HE. Comparing HE ASF to the power creep displayed in the VC, Daemon, and to an extent, DE books is not realistic.

[Kloud13]

OMG people are still whinning about ASF. Get over it. Are the HE winning every single game they play in? Didn't think so.

Let's steer this Thread back on topic.

WHAT Do you guys think will change in the 8th edition core rulebook?

[RipFlag]

There has been alot of talk about warhammer following 40k with missions, which I would love to see, to break up the monotony of the pitched battle.

Hopefully these missions/scenarios can mitigate some of the armybook creep that has been going on....

[Emeraldw]

Originally Posted by Kloud13

WHAT Do you guys think will change in the 8th edition core rulebook?

My hope is some changes to the Challenge rules. It is currently too easy to hide and too easy to abuse in some situations. Warriors of chaos are particularly affected by it.

Magic being redone would be great.

I am somewhat concerned about shooting. If partials are indeed going away, I fear for the coming of multiple template armies as fantasy is much more compact than 40k, though there are no misfires in 40k. Just a fear.

Part of me would like to see more powerful Static Combat resolution, however I fear for the power that would grant some armies. Though a +4 cap to rank bonus might not be so bad.

Making it so Hatred doesn't effect mounts would be nice too ^.^

[Kloud13]

Issuing a Challenge. That is Definetly something I wouldn't miss at all if it were to be removed. Or at least allow Characters to refuse the challenge but still fight if they are not in a unit.

A prime example of abuse of this rule, was when I had a Prince on Star Dragon overun into a unit of Tomb King Skeletons. The unit Champion would keep issuing challenges, get destroyed, then get rezzed to do it all over again. like really, a character on his own has no interest in wiping out one peon, he wants to kill everybody.

I for one would like to see some more clarity in the rules in regards to pychology. I want clarity on if items or spells that make a unit "Immune to Pychology" cause that unit to lose "Stubborn". I say yes, but people sure like to argue tooth an nail if one of their ubber units are at stake.

Something also needs to be done about "Large Targets" there are way too many high strength shooting weapons, out there, and most Large targets are just too vulnerable, and just don't end up being the force to reckon with that they were intended to be. I'm refering to Giants, and Griffons mostly. (Those two in particular die to plain arrow fire. way too easily)

(I propose all Large Targets, have a 3+ Ward vs Strength 3, 4+ Ward vs strength 4, 5+ ward vs strength 5, and a 6+ ward vs strength 6, and no wards for strength 7 an up. Oh, and if the Strength of the attack is more than the large targets tougness, then no ward there either. So a Giant doesn't get a ward save vs strength 6 attack, but a Dragon would. I just made that up, but I think it would well represent a large targets ability to shrug off minor wounds.)

[Vermin-thing]

I think that banner victory points need a rework, as a 10 point clanrat rag banner should not yield 100 VPs. On the other hand a decked out high elf battle banner (boy do I love rolling for that) should give more than 100 VPs. Maybe double the total cost rounding down would work. So your only every getting 20 VPs for a normal clanrat banner, and less you take magic banner, which would yield 70 points. That way there's some risk factor in taking the regen banner of (un)death.

[Ludaman]

I agree, neither hatred nor frenzy should effect a character's mount, that's a change I'd like to see in the new edition. I really don't see any reason GW would end the book cycle and start over BTW. Fixing Orcs & Goblins just seems like a good idea once the new edition is out, but after that I don't really see them doing new books for Vamps, HE, DE, Chaos warriors, chaos daemons, Lizardmen, Empire, or skaven before tomb kings and wood elves. Maybe they'd do Dwarves just because dwarves are almost as bad off as Orcs as it is and they could use a couple plastic boxes. Too be honest I think that's the biggest factor to consider with when GW releases army books. They aren't going to re-do the product line unless they have some nice new product to sell with it. Brets, Tomb Kings, Wood elves and obviously Beasts of Chaos as well as Ogres all have Plastic boxes from the era before "amazing plastic technology" hit the scene, and so are all due for an update

[D-N-Angel]

Maybe they should just keep it the pitch battle fantasy players all know and love, and add stuff to it for extra vps like. More ways of claiming VPs.

Anyway in my games me and the oponent usualy roll for a random special feature per 4ft of bored.

[warhawk95]

i forsee what D-N-Angel said instead of missions there is still pitch battles but small missions within those battles. the main objective is still kill enemy but if you do X,Y, or Z you get extra VP points. like say capture a magic banner, kill general (i know it is one but still) or take down a dragon/hydra type monster. if these were worth enough points then it might also help a tiny bit in encourging less dragons if say a lucky cannonball killed the dragon it was all of the sudden plus 500 VP and cost of dragon.

and i think it has already been said that BoC are not the last army book of 7th. so it might be BoC, TK/OK the 8th then O&G TK/OK (whichever wasnt at 7th) Dwarfs maybe then Bretts and WE? maybe might be some other armies between dwarfs and bretts/WE but if the rules are a drastic a change from 5th to 6th then certain armies might be really effected and need an update.

[Tarax]

Going out on a limb here. It is generally assumed that the first army books released after a new edition are the ones with models in the new box set. This happened in years past as with the new edition they changed several rules to make new Army Books necessary.

If Harry is correct and the new set contains Empire and O&G, you would expect a new Empire and O&G Army Book. Now, I think a new Empire book is not necessary, the old one is still up to date. (If they don't change that many rules.) While I also think that O&G need an update. But it is not needed to release it at the same time.

Perhaps what we should look at is which army is 'oldest' and in most need of an update, and not which army is in the box.