Continuing Rumors of WHFB 9th (Post-End Times) in Early Summer 2015

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**WhispererofTruth**

Undivided

**H.B.M.C.**

Oh, well, yeah. Undivided has been gone for a well. It's been Khorne, Slaanesh, Nurgle, Tzeentch and unaligned (small 'u', not an "Undivided" force like it once was) for a while now. Years even. I remember having this drilled into me by the fine folks at FFG - never write "Undivided".

I was worried that you were going to say that one of the four Chaos Gods was going the way of Malal.

**WhispererofTruth**

That's what I mean, no unaligned units. All units are marked.

**H.B.M.C.**

Well that seems... pointless. Moorecock-ian shenanigans aside, GW's stamp on Chaos is pretty firm. Don't see why they'd need to remove anything.

**TheKbob**

So this then assumes the Bretonnia may or may not be more than one box of horses, if that, and a line in the books? (still really glad I sold my army before I invested time into it...)

Where do Lizards land? Seems like a hard sell to have a limited run and a split between derpy plastic and the new big guys. Can't really slap IP on a big dinosaur and Aztec markings...

Where do Ogres land? Always one of my favorites as they defied the stupid amounts of models you'd need to have a good force. Loads of terribad old models cut, but the new big stuff is amazing.

**OgreChubbs**

I still say the rumour mongers are twits and misunderstood the end times rumors and put them in 9th. But hell I am going to be banned from here and warseer when 9th comes out and nothing changes and I spend a couple of topics telling everyone how dumb they where and are lol.

**Accolade**

OgreChubbs wrote:
I still say the rumour mongers are twits and misunderstood the end times rumors and put them in 9th. But hell I am going to be banned from here and warseer when 9th comes out and nothing changes and I spend a couple of topics telling everyone how dumb they where and are lol.

OR, and I'm spit-balling here, you could *not* be a douche to other posters and you won't have to worry about getting banned. I mean, that's always an option.

**Leggy**

H.B.M.C. wrote:
Well that seems... pointless. Moorecock-ian shenanigans aside, GW's stamp on Chaos is pretty firm. Don't see why they'd need to remove anything.

Generic barbarians, generic evil armoured warriors, generic evil Knights, goat men, minotaurs. They're models that I imagine are pretty hard to lock down the IP for, and form the core of two of the three chaos armies. I don't know if their removal is nessecary, per se, but I can see the thinking behind it.

*EDIT* especially if you replace them with some more specifically Warhammerish models, like the Skullcrushers of Khorne and the Putrid Blightkings

**OgreChubbs**

Accolade wrote:
OgreChubbs wrote:
I still say the rumour mongers are twits and misunderstood the end times rumors and put them in 9th. But hell I am going to be banned from here and warseer when 9th comes out and nothing changes and I spend a couple of topics telling everyone how dumb they where and are lol.

OR, and I'm spit-balling here, you could *not* be a douche to other posters and you won't have to worry about getting banned. I mean, that's always an option.

no it really isn't when people get this..... crazy for y2k oh sorry 9th then they deserve what they get lol. But out of my 28 years of life I learnt americans and to a far lesser extent brits love gloom and doom doomsday crap and we are all screwed so might just be that.

**Deadawake1347**

OgreChubbs wrote:
Accolade wrote:
OgreChubbs wrote:
I still say the rumour mongers are twits and misunderstood the end times rumors and put them in 9th. But hell I am going to be banned from here and warseer when 9th comes out and nothing changes and I spend a couple of topics telling everyone how dumb they where and are lol.

OR, and I'm spit-balling here, you could *not* be a douche to other posters and you won't have to worry about getting banned. I mean, that's always an option.
no it really isn't when people get this..... crazy for y2k oh sorry 9th then they deserve what they get lol. But out of my 28 years of life I learnt americans and to a far lesser extent brits love gloom and doom doomsday crap and we are all screwed so might just be that.

I'm curious what you'll do if/when 9th comes out and the better part of the rumors turn out to be true. Does every one who disagreed with you get to tell you "how dumb you were and are"?
Because honestly, that seems kind of childish, especially for a self proclaimed 28 year old.

But in my experience, when you hear the same thing over and over from a bunch of different people, it's usually wise to pay attention, even if it may not be a good idea to blindly agree with them.

**Chief Librarian Mephiston**

WhispererofTruth wrote:
Some information I have on some of the factions;

The Chaos faction will be mostly Daemons, with a few tacked on units from the other two books. This of course means the Chaos faction will be the largest faction, but it will be joined by units which are firmly entrenched in the GW IP and as such can't be copied by other manufacturers. A certain aspect of Chaos is going the way of the squat for this very reason, Hint: The gods are still there. Due to the nature of the new world, or pocket worlds rather, where Chaos is everywhere, Daemons will form the bulk of the Chaos armies. Generic stuff like Warhounds won't be sticking around in place of units like Flesh Hounds.

All the Orc and Goblin concepts will be combined into singular new concepts. Savage/Orcs/Black Orcs becoming one type of Orc for example. I initially heard way back that two armies would be joining the O&G, one would replace trolls, the other would lend some of it's concepts to the new O&G while being squatted themselves. Although the nature of the rules would let you imitate that squatted faction in Newhammer. Squigs and other O&G beasties will be made more predominant in place of boars, due to their IP able nature. I also heard Orcs would become, "Orks", but I'm not entirely sure if that was a joke.

Alot of Undead units are very similar with the combined list and as such alot of units will be going away. Ushabti for example and the Casket/Black Coach which are fairly redundant in light of the Mortis Engine. The concept of constructs will stay around in some form or the other. The Morghasts for example.

Skaven keep their more tech and frankenstein-esque units to define the armies new look. Plaguey and sneaky Shaven take the back seat.

Warmachines in general will be mounted on other units, to again save shelf space, and also to suit the more mobile style of a skirmish game better.

Other than that all I know has already been said tbh or is blatantly obvious. (Elves are a faction and Snape killed Dumbledore.)

I don't suppose you've heard anything about the humans? We've heard talk of Fantasy Space Marines. I'd be interested in some elaboration on that. I'm also curious if any units from the current Empire and Bretonnian army lists survive as-is in the new 9th edition faction. And is the human faction just humans, or will they be joined by Dwarfs or some other army?

**WhispererofTruth**

Fantasy marines are more like an evolution of Grail Knights with a bit of Empire mixed than Space Marines, They are effectively the fantasy equivalent though as I understand it. Of the Dwarves I've heard nothing, don't think they are getting squatted though.

**Wehrkind**

Accolade wrote:

OR, and I'm spit-balling here, you could *not* be a douche to other posters and you won't have to worry about getting banned. I mean, that's always an option.

When I first read this my initial thought was 'Well... maybe not always, and perhaps not even often in his case.' I am curious as to how you think my off the cuff prediction has held up.

I had to admit, I am slightly excited about the idea of new rules. I liked the old fluff well enough, but my WHFB army is all counts as conversions, so I don't care much what happens to particular unit types. I totally get why people are angry about that as it is pretty much what keeps me from even looking back at 40k, but for me fortunately it is a non-issue. I am just holding out hope that the rules end up being interesting and fun. Now that I type that out, I don't know why I am holding out hope, but a fun Warhammer game would be a really nice thing for me after all these years.

**Chief Librarian Mephiston**

I'd be curious to know how they're an evolution of Grail Knights, given that the Lady of the Lake is depowered and about to die, which ostensibly puts an end to any new Grail Knights being created. And is there any word on what becomes of Gilles Le Breton?

**WhispererofTruth**

Not Grail Knights as in actual Grail Knights. Just a similar concept, knights empowered by the gods. Hence an evolution of the concept, not necessarily the unit. No idea, I know as much as too how the ET ends as you do.

**Chief Librarian Mephiston**

Hmm, well that's disappointing. For a moment there I had my hopes up and thought that maybe some remnant of Bretonnia survived into 9th edition after all.

**Kid_Kyoto**

Leggy wrote:
H.B.M.C. wrote:
Well that seems... pointless. Moorecock-ian shenanigans aside, GW's stamp on Chaos is pretty firm. Don't see why they'd need to remove anything.

Generic barbarians, generic evil armoured warriors, generic evil Knights, goat men, minotaurs. They're models that I imagine are pretty hard to lock down the IP for, and form the core of two of the three chaos armies. I don't know if their removal is nessecary, per se, but I can see the thinking behind it.

*EDIT* especially if you replace them with some more specifically Warhammerish models, like the Skullcrushers of Khorne and the Putrid Blightkings

Unless I am seriously mistaken about IP law (and 15 years in publishing and PR says I ain't) GW is still trying copyright 'ideas' which they can't do.

You cannot copyright 'barbarians'. OK, fine, we all see that even the highly stylized Conan type barbarians cannot be copyrighted, anyone can use the idea.

You cannot copyright 'spikey warriors'. Yeah, sure. Even if GW are the main actors who brought the whole Heavy Metal Album Cover look into fantasy it's not a unique idea, we all get this.

Well guess what... you can't copyright rotting corpse demons or lean sword demons fond of blood or smexy claw girls or crazy guys wtih too many limbs.

You can't.

You can only copyright a specific execution of an idea, and so long as I'm making 'avatars of pestulance' then I am not infringing on 'plague bearers'.

Really anyone even vaguely aware of comic books or video games or any other medium where people are tapping the same basic ideas has to intuitively know this.

**Death By Monkeys**

WhispererofTruth wrote:
Not Grail Knights as in actual Grail Knights. Just a similar concept, knights empowered by the gods. Hence an evolution of the concept, not necessarily the unit. No idea, I know as much as too how the ET ends as you do.

This is a hunch, but I'm betting that GW is wanting to tap in on the popularity of Space Marines among 40k players to draw them to Fantasy. I'm guessing that the Fantasy human faction will be like a cross between IG and SM in that if you want to build an army of a horde of S3 T3 5+ save humans you can do so, but you could also play the elite human knights, empowered to fight against Chaos with their S4 T4 3+ plate armor saves. Or you'll be able to play the army as a mix of the two, much like running SM allied with IG or vice versa.

**AlexHolker**

Even if you can't protect the IP here, it's still stupid to take them out of production. Not developing any more products that only have weak IP protection? Okay, sure, that makes a bit of sense. But when you've already done the most expensive job - actually designing the kits and milling the moulds - it's insane to throw that away. It would be a lot smarter to keep them in production, even if they can't support stupid expensive pricing, just to make it harder for anyone else to establish a foothold.

Games Workshop has already made this mistake once with the Specialist Games, making room for the likes of Dreadball and those Spartan games. Since the per unit cost of production is so low for HIPS, GW would be better off just knocking half the price off these generic units and keeping them in the market to say "If we can't have this IP, nobody can".

**JohnHwangDD**

Leggy wrote:
Generic barbarians, generic evil armoured warriors, generic evil Knights, goat men, minotaurs. They're models that I imagine are pretty hard to lock down the IP for, and form the core of two of the three chaos armies. I don't know if their removal is nessecary, per se, but I can see the thinking behind it.

When your army has generic models that look basically identical to historical Celts or Vikings, you have a problem with IP that is not distinctive.

Kid_Kyoto wrote:
Unless I am seriously mistaken about IP law (and 15 years in publishing and PR says I ain't) GW is still trying copyright 'ideas' which they can't do.

GW isn't trying to copyright ideas or concepts. They are simply trying to move the visual look and design in a direction that makes it impossible for any player to substitute 3rd party historical or generic models in place of GW models. Players being able to substitute historical "puffed & slashed" Landsknect for Empire troops is a bad thing. Same with being able to substitute Crusaders or Knight Templars. At least, it's bad for GW's bottom line, now that GW-compatible 28mm "heroic" historical plastic minis are a thing, where there were none 10-15 years ago.

**heartserenade**

I think square bases could work in a skirmish game, provided that the square base IS integral to the rules of the game. For example, knowing the sides and the back of the model is important because there are attack modifiers if attacked from the side or back. Square bases provide a clearer view on where the attack is coming from, thus it wold make sense to keep them in square bases.

But if they're not really integral to the rules, I would prefer round bases for a skirmish game.

**nobody**

When I dabbled in Fantasy in 6th, I played Lizardmen.

Pricing and a lack of other players have always prevented me from modernizing and starting to play WFB again.

Discovering that the only army I really had any interest in is getting squatted would completely kill any interest I had in playing it again.

**Sidstyler**

No doubt GW is expecting people to just buy another faction, being completely oblivious as to how or why anyone could form a personal attachment to any one army, as in their eyes it's just a product designed to be "consumed" and nothing more. And we aren't supposed to be upset because buying product is what the "hobby" is all about.

**Breotan**

As a Bretonnian player, I'm not terribly upset if our "Men at Arms" are squatted in favor of Empire Free Companies or State Troops. Same with archers. It's all generic so nothing lost there. Not getting Grail/Questing Knight models in plastic will really upset me, however. I've been waiting for those for a real long time now.

Ogres disappearing would make me sad because I have a huge army of them.

That my Skaven would seem to be coming out relatively unscathed makes me a happy camper.

**JohnHwangDD**

Don't worry, there won't be Empire State Troops going forward.

**Vermis**

From what I gathered the game was moving to a skirmish game format with options for models to rank up in slot-trays, so technically if you always kept your models in appropriately sized movement trays you be able to play with your old square based models, you just wouldn't be able to skirmish them. The option to rank up or skirmish, always he's to make the game scalable, and as such more open to beginners.

That does sound a little similar to Jake Thornton's/Wargame Foundry's God of Battles rules. I wonder if they were taking notes...?

Gimgamgoo wrote:I have an old supplement from GW called "Warhammer Skirmish". I think it was from somewhere around 2001/2.
it allowed - shock horror - skirmish on square bases. It was full of great scenarios. I have a feeling it was developed by GW US. (Not got it to hand as I type - sorry).

Why all of a sudden do people think it's impossible to move a single mini around a board with a square base.

It was an appendix in the 6th ed rulebook. I hadn't heard of Mordheim at point, and I thought it was a great idea. Something else you can play with your models.

Why do people think it's impossible to play something else with their models, too?

Who was that dude who dumped his entire Bretonnian army rather than do something not GW-sanctioned with it? I think it was this one...

TheKbob wrote:
In an age filled with competing games that have hard and fast rules on modeling, basing, etc. and are succeeding, then GW should get with the program. Their wishy-washy stance is what's gonna be the final do in otherwise.

There are other games that basically say 'this is how we like to base, but whatever's easiest for you, bro', which are fairly popular too. Basing rules can be useful for some types of game, but, well, can I say your insistence that it's what makes or breaks a game is kind of disturbing to me.

Kanluwen wrote:
Have you seen the Eternal Guard?

The closest High Elf unit they look like is the Sisters of Avelorn, who were made to look more like Wood Elves than High Elves.

Well, you could look at them and say 'these are dressed a bit like Sisters of Avelorn', or you could look at them and say 'these are elves with spears and shields'.

Much as some WH players are obsessed with jamming too much fluff into the minis and rules (usually with the appellation 'special'), I don't think that extends quite as far as haute couture.

NewTruthNeomaxim wrote:Is it terrible that I am excited to play Kings of War for my former "mass battles" scale (since its super lean, movement/positioning is king rules better depict those kinds of battles IMO), and this as something altogether new?

No. Taking control of your hobby, rather than letting GW dictate it for you, and using a more enjoyable and arguably more appropriate ruleset, is never terrible. It's pretty great, even.

JohnHwangDD wrote:
Leggy wrote:
Generic barbarians, generic evil armoured warriors, generic evil Knights, goat men, minotaurs. They're models that I imagine are pretty hard to lock down the IP for...

When your army has generic models that look basically identical to historical Celts or Vikings, you have a problem with IP that is not distinctive.

Blimey. What Celts and Vikings are you looking at?

**Wehrkind**

I am not sure how GW would manage to control the models people use in their armies given that they don't run events and so don't have much of a say what goes on at tournaments and the like. Perhaps they want to get back into running and supporting events, but I can't quite imagine that actually happening given their tendencies.

**Kanluwen**

Vermis wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:
Have you seen the Eternal Guard?

The closest High Elf unit they look like is the Sisters of Avelorn, who were made to look more like Wood Elves than High Elves.

Well, you could look at them and say 'these are dressed a bit like Sisters of Avelorn', or you could look at them and say 'these are elves with spears and shields'.

Much as some WH players are obsessed with jamming too much fluff into the minis and rules (usually with the appellation 'special'), I don't think that extends quite as far as haute couture.

Well, you could also look at them and realize that each of the "flavor" of Elves have different established visual aesthetics in terms of their weapons, armor, and shields.

If you want to boil it down to "elves with spears and shields" that's fine, but it's also a disingenuous and lazy argument.

**melkorthetonedeaf**

heartserenade wrote:
I think square bases could work in a skirmish game, provided that the square base IS integral to the rules of the game. For example, knowing the sides and the back of the model is important because there are attack modifiers if attacked from the side or back. Square bases provide a clearer view on where the attack is coming from, thus it wold make sense to keep them in square bases.

For instance, painting on the front arc in WM/H instead of measuring "from the shoulders".

**pretre**

Oooh, new rumor monger.