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.

Continued from this topic in particular. Dunno if anyone else from that is bothered, but it wouldn't be the internet without a 30-page argument over toy soldiers.

To recap, judging by replies in that topic, the choices in response to the possible reduction of Warhammer from mass battles in 8th ed to skirmish in 9th, and the redesign or cancellation of familiar factions, are:

A) Embrace 9th and carry on.
B) Keep playing with 8th, or another previous edition.
C) Use your substantial army of GW minis with an alternative, compatible set of rules.
D) Switch to another game and set of minis entirely.
E) Quit entirely.

And Orlando's additions:

F) Carry on collecting/painting
G) Go 'Wow 9th looks genuinely different (and needs far fewer minis), I'll give Warhammer another try.'

Edit: seems there's a few people who can't grasp the point of this topic. This is not news and rumours, and is not doom-mongering. I've already stated what it is, but for extra clarity: it's a topic about members' plans should the actual rumours pan out, spun off from the N&R topic and placed here at the prompting of the Dakka moderators.

Anyways, I like C, meself. I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with the concept of mass battle gaming, and I see the change to a skirmish edition as an opportunity to try something new, at little expense, with your old toys. There are a number of pretty good, tactical, fantasy mass battle rulesets out there that you can slot elves, dwarfs and scary armoured barbarians into with little bumping or rattling, using generic lists, good fan lists, or unit creation rules.

Also, there's a bit of inevitable price discussion going on, though steering towards the quality of mass-produced mass-battle minis, and the type of games that certain price structures lend themselves to. £35 for 10 witch elves might actually work for more people in Warhammer skirmish, if you only need ten or fewer. Although...

Korinov wrote:20 mantic dwarves for 20€? (actually a bit less, considering the discount). Ok deal. 30 AoW vestals for 35€? (pre-order deal). Ok deal. I consider neither of them to be great kits, just good enough to deserve my money. I'm sure GW's witch elves are of higher quality than AoW vestals, but I'm simply not willing to spend 45€ on a 10-girls box.

Spot on.

still you're hardly going anywhere with a unit of 10 girls in any proper "mass-battle" game.

In Mayhem, the recommended unit element size for 28mm is a 60mm square. Should fit nine human-sized, 20mm-based minis nicely. Ten minis will also fill out most of a four-stand (40x40mm stands) unit in Legions of Battle, especially with a little judicious spacing, and especially as Light Troops. Or they could make up two or three (40x40 or 50x50mm) Single Stand Units. Might be appropriate for Witch Elves as SSUs don't waver, they fight to the death.

(Hey, it's more than you get in HoTT, anyway)

Also, just noticed this little bit from near the start of the LoB PDF:

When playing Legions of Battle you can only use official
figures from the Legions of Battle Miniature Range...........
just kidding.
There have been a huge amount of excellent figures
produced by lots of different manufacturers over the last
25 years. It really would be a shame if someone designed
a set of rules where you couldn’t use them because they
were out of date!

Murdock129 wrote:So, square bases are dying and WHFB is going to be unrecognizably changed?

Guess I'm gonna be playing 8th Gen forever and having to find square bases elsewhere to put everything on

http://www.em4miniatures.com/acatalog/MINIAATURES_BASES.html

Talys wrote:
Looks don't just matter, they're almost *everything* that matters to people who play 40k/whfb. There are people like me, who would rather play the best models in the world using the weakest army of the game, with the worst rules in the world, than the other way around. Mostly, I'm there to play with my friends and have a good time. Even if I lose, it's fine, as long as the table looks awesome and I had a good time.

JohnHwangDD wrote:This. WFB 9E needs to simplify things, because I'm mostly there to shoot the gak while I drink a beer and look at pretty toys. Excessive rules and detail just gets in the way, because it breaks the conversation and flow any time someone needs to stop and look something up.

Torga_DW wrote:Agreed. I've maintained for a long time now that the rules aren't suited for sober play, let alone beer & pretzels. The rules were more of an issue for me than the cost, although the prices certainly didn't help.

As much as i like/d the models, if i'm playing a game with them i don't want to be certain to lose every time because of their rules, no matter how good the models look themselves.

This looks like a bizarre progression to me. "I don't care about rules and I'll happily play bad ones." "I agree, I'm mostly there to meet folks and bad rules get in the way." "I agree, I care about rules and won't play bad ones."

Anyways, I agree more with Torga. I agree that nice looking minis are nice, and I dismiss a lot that don't meet my own pedantic and fussy minimum standard. But after seeing that kind of fussiness in others, I don't understand why the ostensible aim and endpoint - playing the game - is then allowed to slide, so to speak.
"Well the minis are nice and I get to see people" is... not an entirely relevant justification, I think. What is it, "two out of three ain't bad"? Or that you think you're only allowed two out of three? To turn around and defend Neomaxim's point this time, why not use a different ruleset with your luverly models? Help me understand the mental block in this situation. Would ogling minis and shooting the breeze be ruined by a cheaper, more stable, easier-to-learn, quicker-to-play, but deeper ruleset? One that's balanced to eliminate the position of 'weakest army' that your jewel-like items of wonder find themselves in? (or at least balanced and tactical enough to reduce inequality to something that makes little difference)

Well I don't play WHFB and haven't in somewhere around 15 years (last edition I played was the tail end of 5th, like right around when Vampire Counts became its own army), but I'm always curious to see what is going on. The rumors though seem way insane though, although it would help to fix some glaring issues with WHFB like getting 10 guys per box but you need 20-30 to make a unit that isn't totally useless. I mean, 10 guys was pretty crap even back in my day (barring cavalry).

Although at this point if I wanted a Fantasy-themed mass battle game I'd play Kings of War. I even don't find the Mantic figures to be that awful! I'm really looking forward to seeing what changes come about in KoW 2.0.

So what are the alternative rulesets?

I know of Armies of Arcana, KoW and Mayhem, I guess.

I am mostly a model collector, and have 1000's of minis purchased and a lot painted over the past 25 years.

Currently not really playing much, but I did like 8th edition quite a lot.

I stopped buying some time ago, not because I could not afford it, (although I could only afford to buy less than before).

One day I stopped to buy some new plastic Bestigors, looked at the price and put the box down and walked away. I run 24 figure units, 8 wide and 3 deep. I needed 3 boxes.

My wife does not buy $500 hand bags. I do not wear $200 jeans or sneakers. I am not wearing a Rolex.

I realized that I was not the market.

It is perfectly possible to keep playing with other minis, and playing older versions. The point about walking in to a store and having a game against a complete stranger has some merits. But there is nothing wrong with staying with what you like and building a group of regulars. Stores might not welcome you because you are not playing the latest version that they are selling, but you can play at home.

I think Fantasy Rules! by a company called Chipco is the best all around generic fantasy rules that will allow you to use all your minis. You can stack abilities on to them to give them the same play style as the WFB equivalent. Fantasy Rules! has no fluff so you can set the battles in your world of preference.

Regarding the new direction of WFB. I am curious, but not willing to pay the cost to stay in the GW side of the hobby.

A man got to know his limits.

I had already reached that exact same point with WHFB 8.

We couldn't stand the rules, picked up Kings of War... and surprisingly little else has changed.

Same armies, same players, different game.

The difference has been getting in more games in the same amount of time - with fewer arguments.

The Auld Grump

Just to recap my post that was on this tangent. Even though you can play kings or war with gw modles, most people see the lack luster minis and assume the rules must be bad too.

Not all kings of war models are bad, it's just models for races that traditionally are the popular races everyone looks at 1st aren't that great.

Also kings of war has almost no fluff besides "fantasy kingdoms fighting".

People want to buy into a setting and world. It's one of kings of war greatest weakness.


I actually do love the kings of war rules mind you, except for the tiny dragons....

I'm just going to sit back and wait. I have space in my miniatures case for one other game, and it may this or WM/H or Infinity (WH40k keeps taking up less space as my interest in that game has started to wane).

I don't think it would do me any good now to invest in a system I haven't had any experience in, but I certainly wish the WHFB vets the best of luck convincing people to move their miniatures into KoW or the like.

 Lockark wrote:
Just to recap my post that was on this tangent. Even though you can play kings or war with gw modles, most people see the lack luster minis and assume the rules must be bad too.

Not all kings of war models are bad, it's just models for races that traditionally are the popular races everyone looks at 1st aren't that great.

Also kings of war has almost no fluff besides "fantasy kingdoms fighting".

People want to buy into a setting and world. It's one of kings of war greatest weakness.


I actually do love the kings of war rules mind you, except for the tiny dragons....

Well said and I agree!

That's not to say that they are all bad though. They're not. The undead range (troops wise) is great. But then you look at the special characters and they are utter dog poo. Elves - hmm, the skinny alien vibe has started to appeal a lot more, but then you look at the war machine and it's dog poo. And the Dark Elf archer lady. Jeebus H Christmas, that is effing laughable.

Orcs are pretty solid across the board, no complaints here. I like their ogres and trolls too.

The dwarfs? A bit 1980s NES jumping platform game character for me.

I'd happily give KoW a go, probably with Orcs. Yeah there's not much fluff, but that comes with time. It would be pretty cool to get in early and watch it grow.

Maybe it is just that my group is older - we tend to divorce the miniatures from the game. We weigh the game and the miniatures separately.

We still use some old Ral Partha and Grenadier miniatures. (Most of my very first game of Warhammer was played with miniatures that had never seen Nottingham.)

There are Mordheim warbands in our group that have no GW miniatures at all.

So, I would run a game of Kings of War with GW minis - just to let people get a feel for the game.

The Auld Grump

 TheAuldGrump wrote:
Maybe it is just that my group is older - we tend to divorce the miniatures from the game. We weigh the game and the miniatures separately.

We still use some old Ral Partha and Grenadier miniatures. (Most of my very first game of Warhammer was played with miniatures that had never seen Nottingham.)

There are Mordheim warbands in our group that have no GW miniatures at all.

So, I would run a game of Kings of War with GW minis - just to let people get a feel for the game.

The Auld Grump

This. Just because you are playing a Mantic game does not mean that Ronnie is holding a gun to your head and you HAVE to use Mantic models. Its probably because play mostly historicals, but the idea that you would use just one manufacturers minis because you were playing their game would never enter into my head.

I have a number of Bolt Action armies. My Late War Germans have a grand total of 1 Warlord mini. The army I'm currently building, mid war Italians has a grand total of zero.

I know that the massed battles of WH mean that you need a lot of minis, and that the choices for cheap, easily accesible minis representing the faction/race/monster you want are probably low, but there are still choices out there, even more so than when I started gaming 25 years ago.

Go crazy and use all the sources at your disposal, don't feel you are tied to anything.

 Pete Melvin wrote:

 TheAuldGrump wrote:
Maybe it is just that my group is older - we tend to divorce the miniatures from the game. We weigh the game and the miniatures separately.

We still use some old Ral Partha and Grenadier miniatures. (Most of my very first game of Warhammer was played with miniatures that had never seen Nottingham.)

There are Mordheim warbands in our group that have no GW miniatures at all.

So, I would run a game of Kings of War with GW minis - just to let people get a feel for the game.

The Auld Grump

This. Just because you are playing a Mantic game does not mean that Ronnie is holding a gun to your head and you HAVE to use Mantic models. Its probably because play mostly historicals, but the idea that you would use just one manufacturers minis because you were playing their game would never enter into my head.

I have a number of Bolt Action armies. My Late War Germans have a grand total of 1 Warlord mini. The army I'm currently building, mid war Italians has a grand total of zero.

I know that the massed battles of WH mean that you need a lot of minis, and that the choices for cheap, easily accesible minis representing the faction/race/monster you want are probably low, but there are still choices out there, even more so than when I started gaming 25 years ago.

Go crazy and use all the sources at your disposal, don't feel you are tied to anything.

Heck - before we switched over to Kings of War I was thinking about doing an Empire army using mostly Perry historical models. (Now it is going to be my Kingdoms of Men army.)

The Auld Grump

Heck - before we switched over to Kings of War I was thinking about doing an Empire army using mostly Perry historical models. (Now it is going to be my Kingdoms of Men army.)

The Auld Grump

Don't give me ideas. Those new Perry's Men-at-arms made my wallet twitch something terrible.

I'm already doing that: making a Kingdoms of Men army with Perry historicals. The kits are really good, and even Mantic itself is open to using different models for their rules.

As with the fluff... no one is stopping anybody from using Warhammer fluff with KoW rules.

 Lockark wrote:
Just to recap my post that was on this tangent. Even though you can play kings or war with gw modles, most people see the lack luster minis and assume the rules must be bad too.

Not all kings of war models are bad, it's just models for races that traditionally are the popular races everyone looks at 1st aren't that great.

Also kings of war has almost no fluff besides "fantasy kingdoms fighting".

People want to buy into a setting and world. It's one of kings of war greatest weakness.


I actually do love the kings of war rules mind you, except for the tiny dragons....

People say that but IMHO the issue with many of the figures is that they aren't Tolkien/GW aesthetics. Mantic's elves, for example, look thin and lithe, very fey-like not Warhammer "humans with pointy ears" style. Their dwarves look squat and squarish, which is IMHO what Dwarves should be not smaller humans with long beards and Viking iconography. Most of the aesthetic complaints I've seen (not all, mind you) seem to just be that they don't look like the traditional style that you see virtually everywhere else.

The world doesn't have much history but I don't see that as an issue either, because it allows for you to throw the fluff out the window and make your own things, without feeling like the fluff of the world is shoehorning you into a specific style. Maybe my Elves are really from the faerie court and are evil and sinister beings who seek to conquer and enslave instead of being good forest folk? I don't have to use a word of written fluff for "Mantica" if I don't want to, because I just need to know how an Elf army is constructed and then use it as I see fit. Maybe instead of Drakons, my elves ride giant lizards (that work the same way in the rules). Maybe my world doesn't even have fantasy races, it's all different human civilizations and I just use the rules for different races to represent them (sort of like the old Hyboria campaign of yore). So Elves become elite Roman-like units, Dwarves maybe some kind of Teutonic civilization, Goblins are like barbarian hordes, normal Humans represent a generic type of civilization, etc. The possibilities are endless.

Could just be me but I don't mind generic settings because they give you a lot more leeway to come up with your own look, feel and campaigns without having to care if it fits in. As much as I liked the fluff for WHFB and 40k, I always felt constrained by it because I weighed every concept against the established fluff. I couldn't, for example, decide to make a army using Empire rules that was some new kingdom, because there's no place for it in the established fluff - you COULD do it of course, but at that point you're rewriting existing things so you might as well not use the established fluff at all. With something like KoW though, I can very easily do such a thing and create my own world - if my brother wants to play Undead and I want to play Basileans, we have free reign to make a world in which a noble and righteous human empire is besieged by the evil tyrant who used to rule it centuries ago, raised as a vampire who seeks revenge or even flip things on its head and have a kingdom of intelligent undead who don't mean harm (think a less evil Forsaken in WoW) being invaded by a zealous and corrupt religion seeking to wipe them out because they're xenophobic extremists.

You can't easily do something like that in an established world without feeling like you're going against the fluff.

 monders wrote:

 Lockark wrote:
Just to recap my post that was on this tangent. Even though you can play kings or war with gw modles, most people see the lack luster minis and assume the rules must be bad too.

Not all kings of war models are bad, it's just models for races that traditionally are the popular races everyone looks at 1st aren't that great.

Also kings of war has almost no fluff besides "fantasy kingdoms fighting".

People want to buy into a setting and world. It's one of kings of war greatest weakness.


I actually do love the kings of war rules mind you, except for the tiny dragons....

Well said and I agree!

That's not to say that they are all bad though. They're not. The undead range (troops wise) is great. But then you look at the special characters and they are utter dog poo. Elves - hmm, the skinny alien vibe has started to appeal a lot more, but then you look at the war machine and it's dog poo. And the Dark Elf archer lady. Jeebus H Christmas, that is effing laughable.

Orcs are pretty solid across the board, no complaints here. I like their ogres and trolls too.

The dwarfs? A bit 1980s NES jumping platform game character for me.

I'd happily give KoW a go, probably with Orcs. Yeah there's not much fluff, but that comes with time. It would be pretty cool to get in early and watch it grow.

The Elfs sculpts look terrible. Stone Heaven miniatures pulled off the skinny elf look alot better. Even being elfs the mantic elfs are just TOO skinny for guys wearing Armour. The portions on them are terrible.

the humans look pretty bad.

the orcs are amazing, easily their best range.


all the dragon models are to small.

I don't play Warhammer fantasy any more, although I still collect/paint the minis to a degree,

so I'll add another couple of options

F) Carry on collecting/painting

G) Go Wow 9th looks genuinely different (and needs far fewer minis), I'll give Warhammer another try

(so probably F for me but G migt happen)

Well, I'll also give the new Fantasy a try if it becomes a skirmish game at smaller pt levels.

As much as I'd like to get into WHFB more the sales model and game model of GW isn't for me. I'll use my small needs to be painted Empire and Orc armies with KoW most likely. Or just use 6th and RH as I do pretty much all my gaming with friends instead of random people at the stores.

Though I'll probably being playing Bolt Action instead.

The rumours though seem to be approach ridiculous although, although it would help to repair some glaring problems with WHFB like acquiring Ten guys for each package but you need 20-30 to make a device that isn't entirely worthless.

I like the idea of a fantasy mass battle game. I didn't like the overwhelming complexity (not to be confused with depth) of WFB rules. I would consider a push towards skirmish-level play a great thing, as it makes that complexity more manageable, for those who still want it. More important, for me, is the increased chance of more streamlined rules gaining a bit of traction. If KoW had any local presence, I might actually crank out an army and play some games.

I hope the Warhammer Total War game will shake things up and bring in a new glowing eyed generation of minature lovers into the whfb world this or next year

This whole thing just sounds weird to me.

I recall on this forum and others people saying that GW should create or move to a skirmish-level game to make it less expensive for new and current players.

Now that they seem to be doing so, people are still complaining.

While I don't play much anymore I understand people not wanting to buy yet another ruleset, but wasn't there mention that older rulesets would be, in some ways, compatible with the new one?

Other than a new ruleset coming out, I don't really understand the new round of complaints.

 prplehippo wrote:
This whole thing just sounds weird to me.

I recall on this forum and others people saying that GW should create or move to a skirmish-level game to make it less expensive for new and current players.

Now that they seem to be doing so, people are still complaining.

While I don't play much anymore I understand people not wanting to buy yet another ruleset, but wasn't there mention that older rulesets would be, in some ways, compatible with the new one?

Other than a new ruleset coming out, I don't really understand the new round of complaints.

People have spent years, in some cases decades, building armies in their current ranked up big block standard base size format. The last thing these people want to do is rebase possibly hundreds of models, if indeed their army even exists in the new format. Complaints are understandable if the rumours reach fruition.

So how much of this is confirmed again and how much is speculation? Please get me up to speed. I know we have the one photo from the digital White Dwarf of a round base (which, oddly, is cropped in the paper version) but what else is actually KNOWN?

 prplehippo wrote:
This whole thing just sounds weird to me.

I recall on this forum and others people saying that GW should create or move to a skirmish-level game to make it less expensive for new and current players.

Now that they seem to be doing so, people are still complaining.

While I don't play much anymore I understand people not wanting to buy yet another ruleset, but wasn't there mention that older rulesets would be, in some ways, compatible with the new one?

Other than a new ruleset coming out, I don't really understand the new round of complaints.

Well, your problem here is twofold;

1. There is no "gamer hive-mind", so a good portion of the people who are complaining about the new direction will not be the same people who wanted the game to take a new direction.

2. A lot of people aren't upset because the rules are changing at all. They're upset that in order to justify the change in direction and move to a new and even more short-term-focused ADD business model, GW are tearing down the whole Warhammer World and destroying all the locations and factions that made people choose to play Warhammer in the first place.

lord_blackfang wrote:So what are the alternative rulesets?

I know of Armies of Arcana, KoW and Mayhem, I guess.

I'd forgotten about Armies of Arcana! That makes my list one longer. It goes:

Kings of War
Mayhem
Legions of Battle
Armies of Arcana
Warmaster (might need some jiggling for 28mm)
Hordes of the Things (HoTT, based on the DBX series of historical wargames)
Fantasy Warriors (an old set with a couple of versions floating about. Read here. Mirliton's site isn't working for me right now but EM4 has an English download here.)
Fantasy Rules! (Ta Ken)
God of Battles (pretty interesting new set, IMO, written by Jake Thornton and sold by Wargames Foundry. Based around Foundry's own factions, but I've seen some cunning counts-as. Biggest problem is the price of the enormous full-colour book full of photos and painting articles of Foundry's dubious minis.)
Impetus (Popular historical game with a fantasy expansion & lists. See the bottom of the page. 12cm unit element frontages - also useful for 10-figure boxes)

There was also a fan project to adapt Hail Caesar for fantasy, but it seemed to have died a death by the time I joined the yahoogroup, with no significant results. Pity, 'cos it could've been great. It's partly why I include it's grandaddy Warmaster in the list, and I think that if GW ever goes back to big fantasy battles (as well as becoming more gamer-oriented again; pipe dream, I know) they could do worse than revisit that and take a few cues from Rick Priestly.

kenofyork wrote:It is perfectly possible to keep playing with other minis, and playing older versions. The point about walking in to a store and having a game against a complete stranger has some merits. But there is nothing wrong with staying with what you like and building a group of regulars. Stores might not welcome you because you are not playing the latest version that they are selling, but you can play at home.

Yup. I see some people bemoaning the rumoured 9th ed changes because it means they can't play 8th (or Warhammer at all) in GW stores. I can understand that 'cos I was in the same boat for different reasons. Hasn't killed my gaming. Slowed it down a little, maybe, but also broadened it a great deal.

Accolade wrote:I don't think it would do me any good now to invest in a system I haven't had any experience in

It may depend on just what you're investing in. A lot of that list up there sits on my own bookshelf or hard drive because they're free, or because they weren't huge expenses. Maybe 'sitting there' sounds like too much of a waste to some, but then I feel the same way about wound marker units in Warhammer...
Investing in learning rules, getting all the supplements? Most don't have many of the latter, and the former are often a lot shorter, simpler and more intuitive. Although as Oadie says, don't confuse complexity or complications with depth.

TheAuldGrump wrote:Maybe it is just that my group is older - we tend to divorce the miniatures from the game. We weigh the game and the miniatures separately.

Pete Melvin wrote:This. Just because you are playing a Mantic game does not mean that Ronnie is holding a gun to your head and you HAVE to use Mantic models. Its probably because play mostly historicals, but the idea that you would use just one manufacturers minis because you were playing their game would never enter into my head.

Go crazy and use all the sources at your disposal, don't feel you are tied to anything.

heartserenade wrote:As with the fluff... no one is stopping anybody from using Warhammer fluff with KoW rules.

Yes, yes and yes.

WayneTheGame wrote:People say that but IMHO the issue with many of the figures is that they aren't Tolkien/GW aesthetics. Mantic's elves, for example, look thin and lithe, very fey-like not Warhammer "humans with pointy ears" style. Their dwarves look squat and squarish, which is IMHO what Dwarves should be not smaller humans with long beards and Viking iconography. Most of the aesthetic complaints I've seen (not all, mind you) seem to just be that they don't look like the traditional style that you see virtually everywhere else.

Like I've said, personally I don't think GW's aesthetics are Tolkien or vikingish enough. For dwarfs especially I'd like to get away from the Hagar-the-Horrible-with-no-legs look. Something like Hasslefree's Norman-styled dwarf packs, and others (particularly Russ and Benn) but perhaps priced even more towards army-building...

The world doesn't have much history but I don't see that as an issue either, because it allows for you to throw the fluff out the window and make your own things, without feeling like the fluff of the world is shoehorning you into a specific style...
Could just be me but I don't mind generic settings because they give you a lot more leeway to come up with your own look, feel and campaigns without having to care if it fits in.

I have to say I like this kind of setting too. A vague, nonrigid, 'here be dragons' sandpit full of wide vistas and hidden cities where you can go wild. Like Hyboria, or other as-yet unformed game settings like Heresy's Netherhells. Like you I enjoy Warhammer fluff too (what's left of it) but for this purpose, the Border Princes just don't compare.

Lockark wrote:The Elfs sculpts look terrible. Stone Heaven miniatures pulled off the skinny elf look alot better. Even being elfs the mantic elfs are just TOO skinny for guys wearing Armour. The portions on them are terrible.

When I look at the Mantic elf minis I have here, I think the same thing when I see a woman drawn by Rob Liefeld. "Where do the organs go!?"

OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote:I don't play Warhammer fantasy any more, although I still collect/paint the minis to a degree,

so I'll add another couple of options

F) Carry on collecting/painting

G) Go Wow 9th looks genuinely different (and needs far fewer minis), I'll give Warhammer another try

(so probably F for me but G migt happen)

Good point. Added.

oadie wrote:I would consider a push towards skirmish-level play a great thing, as it makes that complexity more manageable, for those who still want it.

Agreed there. All the stats and rules of Warhammer are arguably more suited to the smaller type of game it was, in ye olde editiones.

More important, for me, is the increased chance of more streamlined rules gaining a bit of traction. If KoW had any local presence, I might actually crank out an army and play some games.

In another topic Psychopomp said a lot of impressive stuff about FLGS owners needing to break out of the GW 'sit back and let it happen' paradigm. Without singling you out here, I think a lot of ex-GW gamers will have to break out of something similar.

If this is true... well, it's been a while since I played Fantasy, now it looks like the models will never see the light of day again.

This really makes me sad. I've been playing the game for nearly 2 decades... and now it's done...

I'm in total wait and see mode, but in the meantime X Wing keeps me amused for now, so I guess D

 djones520 wrote:
If this is true... well, it's been a while since I played Fantasy, now it looks like the models will never see the light of day again.

This really makes me sad. I've been playing the game for nearly 2 decades... and now it's done...

The rule set made the game to move downhill unexpectedly.
GW became too greedy making a rule set encouraging troops units with 40 or more models.

 prplehippo wrote:
This whole thing just sounds weird to me.

I recall on this forum and others people saying that GW should create or move to a skirmish-level game to make it less expensive for new and current players.

Now that they seem to be doing so, people are still complaining.

While I don't play much anymore I understand people not wanting to buy yet another ruleset, but wasn't there mention that older rulesets would be, in some ways, compatible with the new one?

Other than a new ruleset coming out, I don't really understand the new round of complaints.

Because what people wanted was games on several levels, skirmish and mass battle (and maybe RPG and medium battle.

Instead if the rumours are true it isn't going to be mass battle any more.