Righto..

Rumoured ( ) to be out later this year, looking like the rulebook in the summer with a box set with 2 armies later in the year. I would suggest maybe around September/Games Day/Space Hulk time of year.

It seems the box set will include High Elf and Skaven armies, with talk of plastic war machines, weapons teams and monster/s... there is a lot of talk about a plastic griffon rider model. Those of you who remember the 4th edition boxset might suddenly have had a flashback there eh ?

Not a massive revamp of the system --it has to work with existing army books of course.

This may.. and I say again MAY.. result in a cessation in the flow of army books until the new rules hit, there are a variety of conflicting rumours flying about with regards to this.

Rumours that I consider worth listening to or of note thus far :

Larger units to be better.
Battles to be much more scenario driven, presumably this will mean different missions and deployments etc etc.
Cavalry to be improved.
Combats to be more deadly and perhaps/related quicker to resolve.
There is sometalk to do with possible changes to the turn structure.
Magic to be changed... a lot of people have noted the high casting costs of some of the Beastman spells. It would be reasonable enough to assume that Skaven and Beastmen at least have been written with 8th edition in mind. See the war machine stats for example and the templates and the loss of partials.

To go with point there, and a degree of thinking about it, I would suggest it is likely that this edition will "work" best at slightly higher points than most armies/torunies play with now. They do want you to buy more models etc etc of course.


There is some talk about different or variant boxsets with different armies in.. but.... I'm not convinced by those rumours at all.

smoke 'em if you've got 'em.

Skaven in the box? Yes, yes, yes! It's a must purchase for me.

Hope improvements to cavalry involve impact hits, because this is what cavalry is for after all.

High elves and skaven is a nice departure from the very empire-oriented WHFB, and the rules changes will benefit me, so I've my fingers crossed on this batch of rumors.

Guessing we'll see a new High Elves book soon after 8th as well. Not the first time HE have jumped the cycle if I recall correctly.

Oddly enough I don't think we will.

Skaven clearly won't be done for a while, and the Elf book should work well with this edition I hear.

I guess these two were chosen.. eventually.. for a variety of reasons but the durability of their current books must be a factor.

Still.. be nice to get decent plastic High Elf spearmen eh ?

The scenarios thing has been lengthily discussed on various WHFB forums. There is a significant school of thought that they might well resemble those seen at the GW Throne of Skulls Grand Tournaments this year/season. Whilst not everyone likes them, they do inform army list selection quite a bit and bring something other than "tool up with toughest units" to the table.

Myself I quite like them, but some of them are a real headache for certain armies. Getting dwarves into hostile deployment zones can certainly be a challenge!

Man two armies I don't play another horde and the elves I hope they put out a special deal like last time I still have my message bag full of old stuff hmmm

So the talk about it being Empire and O&G in the box was disproven :(?

When it comes to rumours, nothing is set until we see it matey.

..I reckon it might be crossed wires perhaps. As in there migt very well be new models for those races coming soon ( in the GW style of the word I hasten to add) just not in any army box.

Which makes sense really : they are by far the biggest selling 2 armies by quite some distance in the WFB range and, makes sense to give some love and attention to some of the other races, especially ones that might be a tad more distinctive and "warhammery".

*space marine joke here*

Though I wouldn't be surprised if Empire and Orcses get some new book loving soon. Much as it pains me to say it, Orcs really do need some work these days. Magic Items are bland, Magic Lores are patchy, and Big'uns prohibitively expensive. Plus Empire can always do with a quick spit and polish, no?

As for the box contents, I'm not sure what we'll see. However, the model content is normally designed to introduce the core rules of the game in an easy way. Look at Skull Pass. Horde Infantry, Heavy Infantry, Ranged Infantry, Cavalry, Artillery and Monsters are all covered in the set, leaving out just Skirmishers (which is arguably covered by the Slayer). Black Reach is similarly styled as well, covering Heavy, Light and Elite Infantry, Vehicles, Walkers, Jetbikes and Characters, as well as the main types of weapon (Assault, Rapid Fire, Heavy, Template and Blast). This isn't by coincidence. So perhaps using this, we can extrapolate what the set might well contain?

So, taking a look at the current miniatures ranges and what needs conversion to plastic/updating to the newer look, any ideas on content?

I'm pondering the plague monks for skaven to bring them in-line with the new aesthetic.

Plastic white lions to look more like the ones in WAR.

I reckon Spears, Bows, Boltthrower, Shadow Warriors and perhaps Elyrian Reavers for the Elves, and I dunno for the Skaven.

See, it's the inclusion of the Skaven that I'm confused by. They've only just come out, so less of a tie in with a new book to follow. Plus their range has been similarly updated, meaning that if you make cheap infantry available in the Core Set, you sell less of the boxes. Hmmm.

I reckon sea guard as plastic rank and file for the HE...

I concur with the ER cav, those current ones use the 'angry horsies' which have been around for about 14 years.

You'd expect to see at least one multi-purpose kit. I.e can be built as an either / or unit. An infantry kit of HE that can be built as spears or bows makes sense. Whether that would be sea guard is somewhat debatable.

Interesting choices if correct and certainly not what I would have expected. GW normally has gone for races who have a big fluff issue between them. I can't remember any big note of the Skaven and High Elves meeting head on in fluff terms.

Would be very interested in seeing what they put in there after the last box though and a plastic Griffon would be quite amazing.

Also a part of me hopes it is correct as it might be a way of getting my wife to take up High Elves.

Seems a little empty as a Druchii player, with no Asur to murderize on a regular basis.

If High Elves and Skaven (or almost any race) were in the new incoming starter box, I would stop cursing GW and for a while congrat them. I would SO buy it (well, no matter what would came in the box I would still buy it but still)

I guess your plastic dark riders will console you eh ?

If GW can figure out a way to make WFB use multiple different missions with objectives that are more than just "kill in the center" then they would have improved the game 3x over..

Yay every game for past 15 years has been "line up and march to center and kill each other with super units"

Might make me feel a tiny bit better... ickle little bit... those and Asur to kill with 8th box set though... Priceless.




Seriously though.. Dark Riders.. the response would be where, or at the very least when?

Morathi's Darkest Sin wrote:Interesting choices if correct and certainly not what I would have expected. GW normally has gone for races who have a big fluff issue between them. I can't remember any big note of the Skaven and High Elves meeting head on in fluff terms

They have a major dust up in the new fluff for Skaven. The Council of Thirteen frustrated at not being able to penetrate Ulthuan decide to invade a High Elf sea fortress in Cathay. Result was a High Elf victory due to the timely intervention of their navy. Occurs fairly recently in the Warhammer timeline. Guessing this will be the inspiration for the box cover art.

EDIT - As for Skaven content, I would guess Clanrats/Slaves, Rat Ogres (preferably not sculpted by whoever did those minotaurs), Gutter Runners and a selection of Clan Skyre "toys" such as a Poison Wind Mortar and Warpfire Thrower. This covers core infantry, monsters, skirmishers and war machines.

I forget who it was, but someone over on warseer posted about there being markers in the 8th ed box. Presumably these are objective markers and not turn sequence or magic etc.

Just a small thing to support the objectives rumour.

Ah cheers Flashman, sounds interesting, nice to see they gave some actual fluff reasons for Skaven and High Elf warfare.


And in other news.. what the heck is this rumour about infantry getting to fight in two ranks in 8th over on Seer. That would make Witchies and Corsairs even more obscene in CC. I have to admit I likes it if true, although what does that mean for Spears, three ranks?

That petal, I believe is called Wish-Listing, and then some.

Same as how in 7th Ed, apparently all Chariots and Cavalry had to charge over half their range to get any bonuses. A nonsensical demand/wish/rule, as just when fighting Ogres, you simply marched into half their range, making them utterly bollocks and pointless.

Aye I would normally asume the same, but when Harry and such start hinting towards it being accurate, I do tend to take it a little more seriously.

It would certainly equal, combat quicker and deadlier if true.

Still not believing it, unless of course it means rather than actually fighting in two ranks, ala Spears, that a second rank can step forward and fight in the same phase it replaces casualties in? That would up them a bit without getting stupid.

Though please note, I'm not against such a rule, I just find it a little drastic and thus unlikely.

Aye, I must admit I'm raising an eyebrow here. Seems very .. different, the game would become even more devestating on the charge for some units.

An example given in the thread was Warriors of Khorne, 2 deep and 7 wide hitting with 56 attacks, I mean to me that sounds crazy.

I'm not sure if thats the fun or bad kind of crazy, but it would indeed change the game.

Never mind Khorne Warriors, my Savage Orc Big'uns could kick serious arse if given Noggs Banner of Butchery.

7 Wide gives me 22 attacks at present (A1, 2CC and Frenzy) doubled up to 43 (allowing Boss' additional attack) and then the same for the Banner (not including the Big Boss necessary for the Banner) all at S5!

Nah, not seeing it myself. I suspect a misreported or as yet incomplete rumour, possibly of a rule trialled then dropped.

Whatever happens, my Orc and Goblin tribe are big and diverse enough to adapt to the changes. Infantry better? Got lots of them. Cavalry better? Them too! Warmachines? Yup. Mages? Uh huh. Combat characters? Oh yes. Monsters? Plenty.

My dwarves are less diverse, but I'm not seeing dwarves playstyle altering massively anyway.

Skaven and High Elves in the box sounds interesting. New High Elf plastics are badly needed, so that's good. Skaven is suprising, given their new release, but perhaps this will be a chance for GW to release specific Slave models, and new rat ogres?

Separate slave models kind of exist now Boss, at least to my satisfaction. Half of the new clanrat box is given over to some suitably downtrodden individuals that work just fine as slaves or clanrats. That said, I can't see them not doing clanrats in the box, so maybe slaves will pop up too...

I think a more appropriate rule would be +1 attack at base strength for each model in the second rank. This way we can ignore any additionals, special rules or magic items.

Hmm, I'd do it at 1 attack only from models in the second rank but still use modified strengths and special rules. It would be too confusing otherwise (Frenzy though would not apply, because they'd chop up their mates in front ).

It's one of the most common complaints from 40K players that every rank after the first doesn't get to attack, so I could actually see GW doing this.

Scary thing is, High Elves with Spears would then attack 4 ranks deep, assuming spears continue to allow an additional rank to fight (if they don't, whats the bloody point in them?)

Still putting this one down to wishlisty I'm afraid.

With some dramatic changes to rank bonus, I could. Or if they got rid of the "ASF when charging" rule. It works well in WOTR, having Infantry fight at the same time, with cav and monsters getting to attack before them.

Da Boss wrote:It's one of the most common complaints from 40K players that every rank after the first doesn't get to attack, so I could actually see GW doing this.

It has more to with "making sense" and not spending 40$ on rank bonus filler models rather than being a "40k player".. Im sorry if something can attack you then you should be able to attack it back

Big complaint against fantasy is spending money on models you'll never ever use except when you put them into the dead bin.. Why even bother? Put dice on your movement tray or GW needs to give a reason to spend money on those extra models that never get to do a damn thing besides being .2 rank bonus each

Its worth pointing out that I *think* warhammer historical rules allow a 2nd rank to fight in the second round, a 3rd in the third, and so on. That means that if a shock unit didn't break a block in the first turn they would be doomed. Hard times for my Bret Knights. I might be confusing that with another ruleset though.

Kirasu wrote:

Da Boss wrote:It's one of the most common complaints from 40K players that every rank after the first doesn't get to attack, so I could actually see GW doing this.

It has more to with "making sense" and not spending 40$ on rank bonus filler models rather than being a "40k player".. Im sorry if something can attack you then you should be able to attack it back

Big complaint against fantasy is spending money on models you'll never ever use except when you put them into the dead bin.. Why even bother? Put dice on your movement tray or GW needs to give a reason to spend money on those extra models that never get to do a damn thing besides being .2 rank bonus each

Sigh... people who assume that fantasy ranks = models you will never use, kind of irritates me... sooo, because they arent touching the enemy models... your not using them? Why dont we use dice for 40k figures? Same thing just fantasy ranks past the first one dont touch the opposing players models... Im not trying to make a personal attack or anything but it gets rather frustrating when people assuming the only things in fantasy that are important for modeling, painting, and gaming, are models in the front ranks...

Those people should be ashamed, have a little pride in your hobby or don't play.

Kirasu wrote:

Da Boss wrote:It's one of the most common complaints from 40K players that every rank after the first doesn't get to attack, so I could actually see GW doing this.

It has more to with "making sense" and not spending 40$ on rank bonus filler models rather than being a "40k player".. Im sorry if something can attack you then you should be able to attack it back

Big complaint against fantasy is spending money on models you'll never ever use except when you put them into the dead bin.. Why even bother? Put dice on your movement tray or GW needs to give a reason to spend money on those extra models that never get to do a damn thing besides being .2 rank bonus each

My comment was actually derived from reading a lot of "Why do you prefer 40K to Fantasy" threads, that one pops up quite regularly from 40K players. I realise that the reason they don't like it is as you've stated above, sometimes I feel exactly the same way. There again, playing orks, a lot of my boyz are there just to soak up causulties for the power klaw.
So, my comment was more aimed that there could be a fairly good rationale and argument behind letting more than one rank fight. I'd be perfectly cool with a system like that, if it was balanced. They manage it pretty well in WOTR to my mind. As it is, I think the charge is too powerful in Fantasy.

Kirasu wrote:

Da Boss wrote:It's one of the most common complaints from 40K players that every rank after the first doesn't get to attack, so I could actually see GW doing this.

It has more to with "making sense" and not spending 40$ on rank bonus filler models rather than being a "40k player".. Im sorry if something can attack you then you should be able to attack it back

Big complaint against fantasy is spending money on models you'll never ever use except when you put them into the dead bin.. Why even bother? Put dice on your movement tray or GW needs to give a reason to spend money on those extra models that never get to do a damn thing besides being .2 rank bonus each

Agree completely, there is no way to argue that you are not just paying money and wasting time painting filler models, oh wait though, if we just did a front rank up and then used a counter for the rest of the rank and file GW wouldn't make as much money.

As a long time player of both games I find every model in my 40k armies gets used and has some bearing on the game while in fantasy the extra filler is literally just there to provide numbers and you do only touch them when they die. Its the main reason I'm done with fantasy unless they completely change the stack um up and march ala "red coat" style in 8th edition, unfortunately I just don't see it happening.

A couple other reasons....

If it does go to objectives like in 40K look for speedy armies to be the best. I pity the poor slow poke dwarfs trying to get into the enemies deployment zone when they barley have sufficient wheels to get there marching flat out for 5 turns with no combats bogging them down.

Then there is psychology.... you can't have some armies (undead/daemons) that are impervious to one of the most important aspects of the game (Psychology) and expect to have an even playing field amongst armies (I wonder why Daemons/Undead reign supreme right now). Imagine if an entire army was just immune to missile weapons? Immune to magic? Just is not fair. They need to make being affected by psychology give benefits as well as drawbacks to even the field.... Why does a friendly unit always want to run when they see a block of their buddies run down or shot to pieces? I say roll a die, 4+ and instead of taking a panic test the unit gets hatred and or frenzy. Sometimes troops get pissed off, that just isnt represented in the rules right now and it needs to be addressed.

I'm hoping for a miracle with these new rules... we'll have to wait and see.

Best way to fix infantry blocks.

Let models which are engaged after casualties are taken (i.e. the front rank) still strike.

As it is now my dwarves get charged and if I lose 3 or 4 (not unlikely) then the only guy who gets to swing back is the champion.

The in the 2nd round the 2nd rank can attack, in the 3rd round the 3rd rank can attack sounds interesting too especially if it replaces the poorly understood and little used lapping mechanic.

bravelybravesirrobin wrote:Best way to fix infantry blocks.

Let models which are engaged after casualties are taken (i.e. the front rank) still strike.

As it is now my dwarves get charged and if I lose 3 or 4 (not unlikely) then the only guy who gets to swing back is the champion.

The in the 2nd round the 2nd rank can attack, in the 3rd round the 3rd rank can attack sounds interesting too especially if it replaces the poorly understood and little used lapping mechanic.

The only problem with letting models move up immediately is that you would always (or until you are practically wiped out) get your full front rank attacking. You have 4 ranks of 5 and somehow loose 10... It would be unfair if you got to move up and kill... although it would even out some things I would admit (blood thirster anyone? )

I think it would be nice if you could move the second rank up, however if you lost 2 ranks of people than no... If that even makes sense?
Ex: If I have a block of 15 warriors (3 ranks of 5) and a bloodthirster kills say 6. well I still get 4 guys back that moved up from the second rank... but if he kills 11 (I know he cant, just an example) I dont get the 4 remaining guys from the third rank to attack...

I think it would be amazingly unfair for 2 ranks to attack normally, it would make things even more brutal for combat armies (although they might need it since some armies go through hell with magic and shooting by the time they get to combat). And it also wouldnt make much sense if you could move up to the front rank with your third rank and still attack on the same turn that you lost your first 2 ranks?

EDIT: I think I miss read what you said Bravelybravesirrobin.... If you mean that what ever is still in the front rank after casualties still gets to attack (say the champion, musician, standard, and probably a few other guys) Im not sure that would be fair either, cause until you are completely wiped out you are always getting attacks?

"There is sometalk to do with possible changes to the turn structure. "

Haven't we heard that rumour associated with every edition of 40K and WHFB for the past decade? I'm not saying it's a good or bad thing. It's just a common rumour when we hear talk of a new edition. I can't imagine GW switching away from the way it's played now. It seems to me it would change game balance too much.

We also have heard that 'block units will get better' before the release of the past 2 editions. I think they even did get better... for a little while. WHFB's main rules are fine. It's the army books that break the game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh and the prospect of a Skull Pass box set made up of Skaven fills me with so much joy that I shall chitter in my sleep tonight. Looks like my old clanrats might get replaced after all....

Cool rumors and ideas.

Some ideas that I think need to cross pollenate include:
Orcs being fearless if they have x number of models in their unit (ala 40k).
I also like the Space Wolf Lone Wolf idea for Dwarf Slayers. Models/units that dock the player points only if they survive the game----throw them in combat and have them actually be effective statwise, too.
Ditching templates in favor of a quick chart for blast/template weapons (ala WOTR). Gets rid of that whole positioning the template arguing.
Nix junk that works out of phase or is useless to defend against. Dwarf magic-like stuff should be dispellable as should the Engine of the Gods for Lizards. Nothing should have a zero chance of being countered.
The game needs to be less about uber list building. It sells models but it also unsells players. Our local group has devolved into people who either don't play or who play Demons, Dark Elves or VC and the occasional Skink Spam Lizards.

Going back toward 40k: Charging models in 40k strking first in the first round of combat. Everythign that cover would effect pretty much has frag grenades or equivalent. If you've let the other guy get his guys in close enough for the charge, his attacks should hit first (ala WHFB).

The Crippler wrote:"There is sometalk to do with possible changes to the turn structure. "

Haven't we heard that rumour associated with every edition of 40K and WHFB for the past decade? I'm not saying it's a good or bad thing. It's just a common rumour when we hear talk of a new edition. I can't imagine GW switching away from the way it's played now. It seems to me it would change game balance too much.
..

To clarify : I am hearing talk about the order in which actions are resolved altering. So... for example....a phase that is now say the 3rd or 4th action might jump the line and become the first phase. For example.

Let models which are engaged after casualties are taken (i.e. the front rank) still strike.

.. sounds cool to me.

As for new mission driven scenarios - this is what we used back when I still played regularly:

http://www.biguns.co.uk/articles/generator/index.asp

It's an online version of the mission generator I think ended up the General's companion. Not perfect but really made the game more interesting.

bravelybravesirrobin wrote:Best way to fix infantry blocks.

Let models which are engaged after casualties are taken (i.e. the front rank) still strike.

That is how my friends and I have been playing for ages, always taking casualties from the back. It may not really represent what may happen in battle, but it gives infantry a much better chance to bring down heroes. I really hope this happens.

I would be happy if all models are allowed to strike after the first round of combat and give Calvary a 40k "hit and run" type rule.

Won't letting models strike back after they've been killed negate the point of ASF, Great Weapons, Charging etc?

Smacks of strategies to break daemon's stranglehold on top tier IMO.

Anything that does level that playing field is good with me.

kestral wrote:Its worth pointing out that I *think* warhammer historical rules allow a 2nd rank to fight in the second round, a 3rd in the third, and so on. That means that if a shock unit didn't break a block in the first turn they would be doomed. Hard times for my Bret Knights. I might be confusing that with another ruleset though.

Warhammer Ancients Battles only allow attacks from the 2nd rank if the figures are equipped with spears (Thrusting or Throwing). You must be thinking of some other rule set.

I highly doubt that skaven will be in the starter box. It would rock hard and I'll buy one 100%, but still...I doubt it.

Greets
Schepp himself

Brings back some fond memories of the cardboard proxies for the griffon that they had way back when... (4th ed was it?)

Salt buckets at the ready.

BOLS (yeah I know) has hinted at some more possible changes, most look bogus, or already discussed, but one has been suggested as correct by Avian on Warseer.

The return that seems possible now is percentages for army construction.

Seriously thats coming from out of leftfield if accurate, and numbers at the moment suggest characters will only get 25% to play with.

Not sure If I like a return to the old on that one, makes some armies very hard to work with. Lizardmen Stegadon fans are already spitting teeth at the idea of it being true, even if it turns out not to be.

As a Druchii player not sure if it effects me much if it is accurate, nice to have some rumour to discuss eitherway.

the #1 thing I would like to see them change is the 5 models for rank bonus thing. It works fine for human sized models on little bases but once you get to the next size up like for chaos or orks 5 wide just gets to be too big.

A block of 25 models seems perfect for small bases but 25 models for the next size up just takes up too much space, not to mention the cost of extra models. But then, one thing v8 is sure to do is make us buy more models...

Could you elaborate more on this 'percentages of army construction' please? I'm a 6th ed player so i've never heard of it

Lord of battles wrote:Those people should be ashamed, have a little pride in your hobby or don't play.

whatever ...

The day some-one sells plastic/ cardboard counters that have pictures and names on them for every army is the day I jump up and down for joy. Building and painting get in the way of playing. Or bring on the PPM for all rank and file troops. Painting 2point model is a waste of time.

Kurgash wrote:Could you elaborate more on this 'percentages of army construction' please? I'm a 6th ed player so i've never heard of it

Well if i works as it did before you can spend a percentage of your points of the different unit types.

So if the rumour is correct it maybe something like...

Max 25% Characters
Min 25% Core
Max 40% Special
Max 25% Rare

So in a 2000pt game the max you could spend on Characters would be 500pts.

Not convinced at all about the percentage thing. Bit of a radical change no?

Tbh aye 100% agree.

I wasn't expecting this at all, couldn't imagine them going back to it for a second, but Avian had been murmering for the the last day or so there was one change from his sources he wasn't liking.

This it would seem is it.

I'm hoping his source is wrong as it is a really drastic change, as someone already pointed out, if rare is 25% expect to see three/four (not sure on the pts value) Hellblasters in 2K games.

well that kinda sucks, no more high point characters in games "Archaon comes to mind" and my WoC list would be hurting if at best i could only spend X pts on special choices...no more 2 units of knights with chosen.

hopefully this doesn't happen, as the high elf book is all about using the special units for your army backbone instead of core

Could be a special type of Force Organisation for specific Scenarios of course.

Well back in 4th edition armies had separate percentages. For instance with Orcs and Goblins it was:

25+ had to be "mobs"
0-50% was characters
0-25% was monsters
0-25% was allies
0-25% was war machines

Characters included everything ridden by characters and unit champions. All armies could take monsters out of the bestiary included with the main game box (which was pretty extensive). Mobs were pretty much everything else in the army list. Bretonnians were allowed 75% heroes if they wanted and I think Dwarves were allowed more war machines.

Obviously this resulted in some ridiculous lists (here's my Orc and Goblin army of all Boar Boys and a Bloodthirster) but I think the fundamental idea is sound. For instance with Orcs and Goblins now if you want enough war machines to actually do something (4 bolt throwers and a rock lobber) you can't take more than one unit of any special night goblins, boar boys, chariots, etc. Additionally you are limited to the same 4 heroes that Vampire Counts is and 4 goblins are not in any way equivalent to anything they can produce.

25% characters is way too low though so I'm hoping that's just some guy's estimate. At that point Vampires can take one lord and maybe a Necromancer which unless there are some fundamental changes that haven't been brought up yet is crippling to the army. I could see army dependent ratios again where Vampires and Bretonnians are allowed more heroes, High Elves are allowed more specials, Dwarves are allowed more war machines and so on.

25% characters is way too low though so I'm hoping that's just some guy's estimate. At that point Vampires can take one lord and maybe a Necromancer which unless there are some fundamental changes that haven't been brought up yet is crippling to the army. I could see army dependent ratios again where Vampires and Bretonnians are allowed more heroes, High Elves are allowed more specials, Dwarves are allowed more war machines and so on.

And thats one of the issues fantasy has.. Why bother making rules if every army can just ignore it? The better answer would be to write army books with limits in mind.. however, hard to think of GW doing that

25% does seem too low, but on the other hand people routinely spend close to 50% on characters currently (Or can )

Id love to see fantasy be more about actual movement tactics and heros in supporting roles rather than "March with big thing / super unit(s).. smash and laugh at armies that have to take weak foot troops"

GW sorta painted themselves into a corner just like in 40k by producing armies which have near useless core choices and then possibly changing missions to force people to use them

Just will skew results more in demons and vampires favor

I don't know about everyone else, but I play fantasy games for the mighty heros, powerful magic, and fearsome monsters.

There is a very vocal subsect of the Fantasy fanbase that wants to turn Fantasy into Warhammer:Ancients. I consider this a bad thing.

At first, I was disappointed at seeing Skaven and High Elves instead of my good 'ol Orcs, but now I'm actually quite excited. Great way for me to start both of those armies without having to buy a lot.

But onto 8th's changes. I'm not too excited about objectives in WHFB. 2,000 points can crowd up a 6x4 board and the game will devolve into a giant middle of the table brawlfest. Also not too psyched about the percentages for Army Organization

I'd also have to agree with Kirasu that most Core choices suck, which is a real shame. I mean, compare a Dark elf Spearmen to Black Guard. For 6 points more, A Black Guard has the same save (If the Spearmen uses his shield) is ItP, Stubborn, Re-rolls All rolls to hit, has a halberd, and has an additional Attack, Weapon Skill and Initiative.

They need to make it so that Special choices are slightly better, not OTT like they are now, IMHO.

You know, if some of these initial rumors are true, and 8th ED kicks off with some High Elf goodness, I think that might be just the prod I need to pick up WHFB. HE's are the only army that appeals to me aesthetically, and a new edition seems like the best time to start a new gaming system, IMO.

skyth wrote:I don't know about everyone else, but I play fantasy games for the mighty heros, powerful magic, and fearsome monsters.

There is a very vocal subsect of the Fantasy fanbase that wants to turn Fantasy into Warhammer:Ancients. I consider this a bad thing.

I do agree with you which is why I think the WPS comp system that Adepticon uses is so stupid. However on the flip side every competitive list I see now-a-days looks like it should be a Warmachine army with no more than 25-40 models and centers around a ridiculously overpowered hero/monster combo. I think they can curtail that a bit, make ranked infantry better (and not just super unit infantry) and still keep the fantastic elements of Fantasy present.

Kirasu wrote:

25% characters is way too low though so I'm hoping that's just some guy's estimate. At that point Vampires can take one lord and maybe a Necromancer which unless there are some fundamental changes that haven't been brought up yet is crippling to the army. I could see army dependent ratios again where Vampires and Bretonnians are allowed more heroes, High Elves are allowed more specials, Dwarves are allowed more war machines and so on.

And thats one of the issues fantasy has.. Why bother making rules if every army can just ignore it? The better answer would be to write army books with limits in mind.. however, hard to think of GW doing that

25% does seem too low, but on the other hand people routinely spend close to 50% on characters currently (Or can )

Id love to see fantasy be more about actual movement tactics and heros in supporting roles rather than "March with big thing / super unit(s).. smash and laugh at armies that have to take weak foot troops"

GW sorta painted themselves into a corner just like in 40k by producing armies which have near useless core choices and then possibly changing missions to force people to use them

Just will skew results more in demons and vampires favor

I dunno, I think that different ratios for armies depending on how integral certain parts are isn't bending rules. They try to do that now with special and rare slots (Empire and Brets have core heavy cavalry while most other armies have this as specials) but it doesn't work so well when everything gets cluttered into special slots like in the Orc book. I don't think it's unreasonable that Empire and Dwarves could be allowed more war machine percentages while High Elves get more of something else.

Agreed. And the more I think about it, the more a "let everybody fight, but infantry go at the same time, cav go before infantry but at the same time as other cav, and monsters go before everything but monsters" rule like in WOTR would go a LONG way towards doing that without nerfing people's ability to bring lots of big monsters.

Da Boss wrote:Agreed. And the more I think about it, the more a "let everybody fight, but infantry go at the same time, cav go before infantry but at the same time as other cav, and monsters go before everything but monsters" rule like in WOTR would go a LONG way towards doing that without nerfing people's ability to bring lots of big monsters.

I think that weapons and charging should give initiative bonuses to models (spears get a bonus, great weapons get a negative, etc) and everything goes in strict initiative order after modifiers but I think that would be more complex than the rumors for 8th have been indicating the game is going to be...

At the moment what makes infantry suck so hard is that they almost always get charged. Which tends to mean the front 5 are wiped, which means you're probably going to lose the combat automatically.

Well there's that. And the fact that bog standard infantry can't kill squat, including other bog standard infantry.

If the full 20 got to attack though, they'd pull some things down through weight of dice.

The problem is stuff like the super Graveguard, Shade or Blackguard units would get out of control and they are the last units that need help. I agree that they need to do something to make core infantry more desirable, but at the same time they can't let the deathstars get even more powerful.

reds8n wrote:Not a massive revamp of the system --it has to work with existing army books of course.

Epic Fail.

My apologies to those who view WHFB as the bees knees, but WHFB is a horrible system.

Other than the obvious money grab by GW, without a massive revamp of the rules, a new edition is utterly pointless.
I was really hoping for a revamp, but with this news giving the rationale that it has to work with current army books, this really is a failure to make the game actually good.

I was hoping for a revamp ala 3rd edition 40K where all the armt's rules would be included in the main rulebook to get you by until you got a dedicated armybook.

Again, epic fail. I am not going to fall for it.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Not convinced at all about the percentage thing. Bit of a radical change no?

It is suggested that the change from 7th to 8th will be more drastic than the change from 5th to 6th.

skyth wrote:I don't know about everyone else, but I play fantasy games for the mighty heros, powerful magic, and fearsome monsters.

That's completely fine but I'm sure you don't expect to autowin every game because of that. It is not farfetched at all to ask for regiments of foot soldiers to be *useful*. Not at all.

There is a very vocal subsect of the Fantasy fanbase that wants to turn Fantasy into Warhammer:Ancients. I consider this a bad thing.

Someone said the same in the Warseer rumours thread. It wasn't true there and it isn't true here. Some people want their Halberdiers (or any other State Troop for that matter) to be worth fielding for any reason besides aesthetics.

I can see and take your point Mr. Hellfury, but..that would be a bit unfair on those players who'd just forked out X£/$s on the recent army books would it not ?

That said with some of the rumours flying around -- especially the mooted return to a force % breakdown, I can see it causing a few issues -- isn't one of the High Elf abilities to ignore some of the normal force restrictions ? Goes someway too perhaps towards explaining the cheapness of the core units in the beastmen book too possibly.

I suppose we couldn't rule out a "Ravening Hordes" type army book however.

I don't understand. Is there something wrong with the 7th edition that needs to be changed so dramatically?

Yep. It's pretty badly broken, really. Mostly due to stupidly designed army books.

reds8n wrote: I can see and take your point Mr. Hellfury, but..that would be a bit unfair on those players who'd just forked out X£/$s on the recent army books would it not ?

*weighs the balance*

Recently bought rulebook works well in new edition in one hand

A competent rules system that is internally consistent in the other hand

Personally, I would buy 10 identical copies of the last army book made for 7th edition if it meant I had a playable game the next edition that made those 10 army books little better than toilet paper. GW isn't saving anyone money by allowing the current armybooks to be relevant. This is a logical fallacy based on false dilemma.

Sorry, to be frank and no offense meant, but that rationale you gave (and the one which I am certain GW shares) fails in the light of logic. But this is GW we are talking about here, so competent rules for their two biggest wargames will never happen. I realize this, but feel I must voice my displeasure at this obvious and long held trend.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Da Boss wrote:Yep. It's pretty badly broken, really. Mostly due to stupidly designed army books.

And that takes us to the heart of the matter.

Armybooks, or rather their oft broken design, are the main issue why 7th edition is busted. You have orcs and goblins on one side of the spectrum, and daemons on the other.

Add to that rules which used a dated turn structure of UGOIGO that is BORING for games that take roughly two hours to play with roughly 10 mins per player to resolve per turn, and you have the makings of something that needs to be seriously redone from the ground up.

So GW are remaking WHFB into its 8th edition because of the issues caused by army books.

This is similar to taking a car with a busted engine and transmission, who also happens to have bad brakes and fixing the engine without acknowledging the fact that the transmission and brakes need attention. But now that the engine is fixed, they work on the brakes but never changes or add new oil to the engine. So they then go and fix the transmission, but the engine is now failing and the brakes are going bad again.

This is exactly the cycle that GW uses to make their top two selling wargames, and like a car mechanic, they realize this order of operations stands to make them a lot of money over time. Instead of being a reputable mechanic and dealing with all issues so the whole machine runs smoothly, they opt for the spurious approach and tell you one thing is busted so that you will come back in a month to have something else fixed.

If you like that, good for you. But I really think it is high time people realize the wool GW are pulling over their eyes and look for something different if GW dont change their ways.

Lord Solar Plexus wrote:

skyth wrote:I don't know about everyone else, but I play fantasy games for the mighty heros, powerful magic, and fearsome monsters.

That's completely fine but I'm sure you don't expect to autowin every game because of that. It is not farfetched at all to ask for regiments of foot soldiers to be *useful*. Not at all.

There is a very vocal subsect of the Fantasy fanbase that wants to turn Fantasy into Warhammer:Ancients. I consider this a bad thing.

Someone said the same in the Warseer rumours thread. It wasn't true there and it isn't true here. Some people want their Halberdiers (or any other State Troop for that matter) to be worth fielding for any reason besides aesthetics.

I think THIS is on point. I want to see ranked units actually clash and actually have it matter. Magic, monsters, flying units, etc. should be there to add color...not be the focus.

And that segues into my next point, which is that I don't think GW can keep enough focus to have it matter anyway. They've tried to bring back ranks-and-flanks before, only to undo things by allowing stupid amounts of magic, skirmishers, cav, flying circuses, etc. in their army books.

This is why I have no interest in WFB in a competitive setting. As a beer-and-pretzels game, I'm fine with it.

Hellfury wrote:

reds8n wrote: I can see and take your point Mr. Hellfury, but..that would be a bit unfair on those players who'd just forked out X£/$s on the recent army books would it not ?

*weighs the balance*

Recently bought rulebook works well in new edition in one hand

A competent rules system that is internally consistent in the other hand

Personally, I would buy 10 identical copies of the last army book made for 7th edition if it meant I had a playable game the next edition that made those 10 army books little better than toilet paper. GW isn't saving anyone money by allowing the current armybooks to be relevant. This is a logical fallacy based on false dilemma.

Sorry, to be frank and no offense meant, but that rationale you gave (and the one which I am certain GW shares) fails in the light of logic. But this is GW we are talking about here, so competent rules for their two biggest wargames will never happen. I realize this, but feel I must voice my displeasure at this obvious and long held trend.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Da Boss wrote:Yep. It's pretty badly broken, really. Mostly due to stupidly designed army books.

And that takes us to the heart of the matter.

Armybooks, or rather their oft broken design, are the main issue why 7th edition is busted. You have orcs and goblins on one side of the spectrum, and daemons on the other.

Add to that rules which used a dated turn structure of UGOIGO that is BORING for games that take roughly two hours to play with roughly 10 mins per player to resolve per turn, and you have the makings of something that needs to be seriously redone from the ground up.

So GW are remaking WHFB into its 8th edition because of the issues caused by army books.

This is similar to taking a car with a busted engine and transmission, who also happens to have bad brakes and fixing the engine without acknowledging the fact that the transmission and brakes need attention. But now that the engine is fixed, they work on the brakes but never changes or add new oil to the engine. So they then go and fix the transmission, but the engine is now failing and the brakes are going bad again.

This is exactly the cycle that GW uses to make their top two selling wargames, and like a car mechanic, they realize this order of operations stands to make them a lot of money over time. Instead of being a reputable mechanic and dealing with all issues so the whole machine runs smoothly, they opt for the spurious approach and tell you one thing is busted so that you will come back in a month to have something else fixed.

If you like that, good for you. But I really think it is high time people realize the wool GW are pulling over their eyes and look for something different if GW dont change their ways.

I don`t think it`s that bad. It all depends on who you play. A couple of beers with the guys make almost anything enjoyable

Terje-Tubby wrote:It all depends on who you play. A couple of beers with the guys make almost anything enjoyable

True that. My expectations for paying so much money to GW over 15 years has just made me cynical and set myself up to be let down.

My apologies again to those who enjoy WHFB. Dont take it as a slight against you because I am dissing a game and a game company you enjoy as a slight against you through acquaintance. I just have strong opinions on GW faults. Bad on me because thats just far too easy to do.

reds8n wrote:

To clarify : I am hearing talk about the order in which actions are resolved altering. So... for example....a phase that is now say the 3rd or 4th action might jump the line and become the first phase. For example.

The Magic Phase moving to before the movement phase would make that one beastmen spell suddenly make sense. It would also make it possible to blast a unit with magic before charging it though, so I don't know if that would be good.

wildger wrote:I don't understand. Is there something wrong with the 7th edition that needs to be changed so dramatically?

Da Boss wrote:Yep. It's pretty badly broken, really. Mostly due to stupidly designed army books.

In that case don't change the core rules (which work fine IMO) but stop releasing OP army books like Dark Elf and Daemons. VC I guess are up there too but I manage to lose with them quite often. If every book was on par with Lizards, Skaven, Empire, High Elves, WOC and BOC, the rules themselves would work fine.

Yeah, I personally think the core rules are fine. Some need to be streamlined, some need to be tightened, but overall its a system that works well in a vacuum. Unfortunately, you add certain armies into the mix and the system collpases like a deck of cards, particularly those already mentioned. I would prefer that be the focus of 8th edition, making army books that are intelligently and sensibly written, not a revamp of the core rules.

So far we've only had comments on character selection being effected by %.

That doesn't mean the rest wouldn't be (as it was before), but it could only be characters?

A percentage limit on characters would royally screw Tomb Kings as they currently are.

A % limit on characters would intentionally screw over armies that are too reliant on characters as often these are the more powerful armies (daemons, VC).

Which the whole damn game system is anyway.

Sadly some armies which need characters but are fairly weak (TK) would be lost in the shuffle but their due for a new rulebook shortly anyway.

Kurgash wrote:Could you elaborate more on this 'percentages of army construction' please? I'm a 6th ed player so i've never heard of it

If WFB8 becomes like WFB5, then I'd suppose the default structure something like this:
- up to 50% Characters,
- at least 25% Core,
- up to 50% Special, and
- up to 50% Rare.

Or it could be as simple as:
- No more points spent on Characters & Rares than Core, and
- No more points spent on Special than Core.

Hard to say what GW intends, as either approach totally invalidates the WFB6 FOC that's in all current Army Books.

I can't really see GW applying the detailed % on top of the FOC, but something form of generalized mainstay rule based on general Cores might be possible.
____

Also: I think it's perfectly fine if WFB decides to focus on being Warhammer Fantasy Battles (i.e. WFB5 / WFB7 DoC), that'd be fine, aside from the old push to be be Warhammer Fantasy Battles (i.e. WFB6). In many ways, I'm happier if WFB goes to become a "pure" game of RPS-like Herohammer / Magichammer / Monsterhammer / Warmachinehammer. At least GW will have gotten off the fence and let everybody know what they intend for the future of the game.

If this is the intent, then seeing battles resolve each turn with unlimited rounds of combat is a *good* thing to speed the game along, along with moving back to more of a WFB5-ish structure that allows far more cool stuff in a valid army.

I really, really hope that they don't mess up the FOC, or I'm really going to be pissed. I mean, all the books are using the current one, and I think it's fine, IMHO.

As I said earlier, I think it's GW's tacking on of a million and one special rules onto special/rare/character choices that makes them OP.

I mean, I don't see a need to buff any of the core choices. They're solid, and fight like they should. However, they really need to stop making certain units over the top fantastic with about 3-4 Special Rules.

As I said earlier, Black Guard are ridiculous, Stubborn, Warrior Elite, Immune to Psychology, Halberds and 2 Attacks for the current points they are worth is gold. Another great example are War Hydras, who in this particular case need a points increase, because it has become a no-brainer now.

So I think it falls down to 2 major things, underpricing of the powerful units, and the powerful units being too powerful.

Just my 0.02.

And before I forget, any info on what's coming in the new starter box?

High Elves (spearelves, rumoured griffon and silver helms)

Skaven rumoured war machine teams.

JohnHwangDD wrote:
Also: I think it's perfectly fine if WFB decides to focus on being Warhammer Fantasy Battles (i.e. WFB5 / WFB7 DoC), that'd be fine, aside from the old push to be be Warhammer Fantasy Battles (i.e. WFB6). In many ways, I'm happier if WFB goes to become a "pure" game of RPS-like Herohammer / Magichammer / Monsterhammer / Warmachinehammer. At least GW will have gotten off the fence and let everybody know what they intend for the future of the game.

Indeed. I've frozen buying stuff for my Empire a long time ago because I need to see if the next edition intends to support the army at all, or will it be another lackluster armylist with infantry being used as set dressing for monsters, elite units and wizards.

High Elf and Skaven??? Then I must have this box!!! Great if this are true!

Morathi's Darkest Sin wrote:Aye I would normally asume the same, but when Harry and such start hinting towards it being accurate, I do tend to take it a little more seriously.

It would certainly equal, combat quicker and deadlier if true.

There's only 1 thing you need to take seriously in these threads.

You know, Howling Moon, that never ceases to be amusing.

Back on topic, I can't see the return of % working very well with existing army books. Think there was a reason they got rid of it.

Cryonicleech wrote:I mean, I don't see a need to buff any of the core choices. They're solid, and fight like they should. However, they really need to stop making certain units over the top fantastic with about 3-4 Special Rules.

As I said earlier, Black Guard are ridiculous, Stubborn, Warrior Elite, Immune to Psychology, Halberds and 2 Attacks for the current points they are worth is gold. Another great example are War Hydras, who in this particular case need a points increase, because it has become a no-brainer now.

So I think it falls down to 2 major things, underpricing of the powerful units, and the powerful units being too powerful.

Have a bad run-in with Dark Elves lately? Those no-brainer Black Guard are still T3 with a 5+ save and have serious issues with heavy armor without a very expensive character backing them up. Having difficulty bringing shooting, impact hits, heavy cavalry, magic, etc. on them? That Hydra can easily be taken down in one turn by an even cheaper (both points and money considering) Skaven Doomwheel or a good cannon shot. Dwarfs with flaming bolt throwers? Dead Hydra.

Not that any of that matters since the 8th Ed Rulebook won't remove any of it. It could drop Regeneration to 5+, change how Fear/Terror works, etc. but that's changing every army's dynamics at that point, not specifically Dark Elves.

I'd like to see regeneration stop being a saving throw and go back to being a roll at the end or beginning of the turn. Nothing was more amusing than knocking wounds off some troll/vampire through out the various phases, only to see them heal back up at the end of the turn. Making it just another saving throw kind of cheapens the imagery for me.

I agree with Cryonicleech that some units need toning down power wise, but the last two books (Skaven and Beastmen) seem to head in that direction.

To neatly tone down multiple save horrors (like Dark Elf Lord using Pendant and Regen Armour) just go 40k, where you use either or, not both (or in some cases all three). Ought to sort out quite a bit of stuff.

Even if they keep Regen seperate from it I'd still be happy.

Howlingmoon wrote:

Morathi's Darkest Sin wrote:Aye I would normally asume the same, but when Harry and such start hinting towards it being accurate, I do tend to take it a little more seriously.

It would certainly equal, combat quicker and deadlier if true.

There's only 1 thing you need to take seriously in these threads.

Spoiler:

everything you have been told is a lie

@Crazy Carnifex

Flashman wrote:I'd like to see regeneration stop being a saving throw and go back to being a roll at the end or beginning of the turn. Nothing was more amusing than knocking wounds off some troll/vampire through out the various phases, only to see them heal back up at the end of the turn. Making it just another saving throw kind of cheapens the imagery for me.

While I can see how at a first glance this might be a visceral differance in the gut feeling of it, but rolling a 4+ to regenerate inflicted wounds at the end of the shooting/combat round is not really any different from it being a saving throw at all.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:To neatly tone down multiple save horrors (like Dark Elf Lord using Pendant and Regen Armour) just go 40k, where you use either or, not both (or in some cases all three). Ought to sort out quite a bit of stuff.

Even if they keep Regen seperate from it I'd still be happy.

Feel No Pain works the same way Regeneration does (albeit with different cancelation requirements). It's a 4+ save taken after you do your armor/invul/cover save. The only difference in Fantasy is that you can stack armor and ward and you don't get cover saves at all. The stacking of armor and ward saves is much more prevelant than Regeneration. Against any weapon that ignores armor saves it's identical to 40k's invul + FnP.

And yet strangely, Tyranids now have regeneration that kicks in at the start of the turn. Go figure...

They've had that for a while, it's just (as before) unreliable and overcosted.

But if Fantasy regen went that way, a 1/6 chance of gaining wounds back in later turns, it would put a big nerf on things that use regen as their primary protection. And any change to the way regen works would change the way Mutant Regen works for the WoC, possibly to the point it would no longer work correctly (or at all), which leads me to believe they wouldn't give regen a major overhaul.

Hopefully in the next edition we will see horde armies actually gaining an increased benefit for stacking their numbers. Sure the +3 for ranks works to a point.... unless your opponent is fielding small ranked units. The horde team can be left with a measly +1 to their combat resolution for overwhelming numbers. This score does not change if you outnumber your opponent by 1 or by 30.

For example, my skaven army should in no right, on average, be up to par with the chaos close combat. However, in a combat where 12 warriors and 35+ clanrats are fighting there should be a way to better depict the horde effect on combat resolution. Perhaps remove the cap for rank bonuses? I don't think the lethality of the clanrats or similar units should be increased, nor do i think in situations as i have mentioned they should necessarily wing, but with increasing numbers their should be an increase in benefit.

Currently rules could have a regiment of 10 defeat a regiment of 100 in the first round of combat...

frawd wrote:Currently rules could have a regiment of 10 defeat a regiment of 100 in the first round of combat...

I agree that there should be some form of change to this, maybe an increase in rank bonus, but 50 slaves is what, 100 points? Even a giant block of 5x10 shouldn't bulldoze charging Chaos Knights so there has to be a cap somewhere.

Of course, I don't really have an answer to fix it.

frawd wrote:

Hopefully in the next edition we will see horde armies actually gaining an increased benefit for stacking their numbers. Sure the +3 for ranks works to a point.... unless your opponent is fielding small ranked units. The horde team can be left with a measly +1 to their combat resolution for overwhelming numbers. This score does not change if you outnumber your opponent by 1 or by 30.

For example, my skaven army should in no right, on average, be up to par with the chaos close combat. However, in a combat where 12 warriors and 35+ clanrats are fighting there should be a way to better depict the horde effect on combat resolution. Perhaps remove the cap for rank bonuses? I don't think the lethality of the clanrats or similar units should be increased, nor do i think in situations as i have mentioned they should necessarily wing, but with increasing numbers their should be an increase in benefit.

Currently rules could have a regiment of 10 defeat a regiment of 100 in the first round of combat...

I think you're right, did you all see the odd..... sizes and layouts of some of the Skaven units in their new army book ?

Assuming it's correct that the boxset will contain skaven and elfs, it would be odd in the extreme would it not if the new skaven army book wasn't one of the ones they used a lot when playtesting the new edition -- and yes, all jokes aside, they DO playtest.

Here some further information taken from Warseer:

1.) The 8th edition book is still in the writing process and changes are still possible. Most rumours come from early drafts. This as a general warning to take rumours too seriously.

2.) There are indications that 8th edition will move forward in the timeline or have another important narrative development, maybe even included in the starter set. There will also be one big monster and unit worthy a Warhammer novel and not seen before. These rumours come from Black Library authors.

3.) An Italian wrote the following mission rules for a tournament "borrowed from the 8th edition rules". These missions are:
- multiple objectives (random number, each worth some victory points, can only be taken by infantry units with standards within 3" but contested by anyone)
- central objective (just one in the center worth some victory points, any infantry unit with standards within 9" gives victory points)
- kill points (rumoured: heroes rare and special 2 each, Lord 3, banner 1, large target or flying +1, generates fear or dispell +1, army general +1)

4.) There will be some terrain in the starter set, a.o. a small warpstone pile.

5.) Seems that the Ogre Kingdom release got pushed back because of inconsistencies with 8th edition rules. Maybe released 2011 only.

Grimstonefire wrote:

bravelybravesirrobin wrote:Best way to fix infantry blocks.

Let models which are engaged after casualties are taken (i.e. the front rank) still strike.

That is how my friends and I have been playing for ages, always taking casualties from the back. It may not really represent what may happen in battle, but it gives infantry a much better chance to bring down heroes. I really hope this happens.

I thought this was what you were supposed to do
(OK am a noob with zip experience and could well have misunderstood)
but in the Skull Pass package am sure it says the command are not removed, and figures are taken from the rear, as that represents the troops moving forward to fill the space of their fallen comrades in front.

Again am no military expert, but the reason behind rank and file fighting was that the press of the men behind helped give the front rank momentum?
Though i am not convinced that all infantry would be able to directly assault with their weapons. As an example the Roman Gladius would only be effective from the front rank?

Kroothawk wrote:3.) An Italian wrote the following mission rules for a tournament "borrowed from the 8th edition rules". These missions are:
- multiple objectives (random number, each worth some victory points, can only be taken by infantry units with standards within 3" but contested by anyone)
- central objective (just one in the center worth some victory points, any infantry unit with standards within 9" gives victory points)
- kill points (rumoured: heroes rare and special 2 each, Lord 3, banner 1, large target or flying +1, generates fear or dispell +1, army general +1)

4.) There will be some terrain in the starter set, a.o. a small warpstone pile.

3. Would they really just steal the missions from 40K? Aside from being lazy, capturing objective seems out of sync with regiment based play. It should more based around capturing an area of ground like a hill and sticking your standard in it.

4. Mmmm... warpstone

Well since fantasy doesnt *use* missions at all besides pitched battle I think at this point creating, stealing, borrowing.. doing anything to have variety is nice

Kirbinator wrote:

Cryonicleech wrote:I mean, I don't see a need to buff any of the core choices. They're solid, and fight like they should. However, they really need to stop making certain units over the top fantastic with about 3-4 Special Rules.

As I said earlier, Black Guard are ridiculous, Stubborn, Warrior Elite, Immune to Psychology, Halberds and 2 Attacks for the current points they are worth is gold. Another great example are War Hydras, who in this particular case need a points increase, because it has become a no-brainer now.

So I think it falls down to 2 major things, underpricing of the powerful units, and the powerful units being too powerful.

Have a bad run-in with Dark Elves lately? Those no-brainer Black Guard are still T3 with a 5+ save and have serious issues with heavy armor without a very expensive character backing them up. Having difficulty bringing shooting, impact hits, heavy cavalry, magic, etc. on them? That Hydra can easily be taken down in one turn by an even cheaper (both points and money considering) Skaven Doomwheel or a good cannon shot. Dwarfs with flaming bolt throwers? Dead Hydra.

Not that any of that matters since the 8th Ed Rulebook won't remove any of it. It could drop Regeneration to 5+, change how Fear/Terror works, etc. but that's changing every army's dynamics at that point, not specifically Dark Elves.

Erm, no, I play Dark Elves.

Just the first example that came into my mind.

Anywhoo, I am really looking forward to the new box. A Griffon Rider/Skaven is already sending me drooling.

Kroothawk wrote:5.) Seems that the Ogre Kingdom release got pushed back because of inconsistencies with 8th edition rules. Maybe released 2011 only.

heh, where have we seen this excuse pop up before?

Could a % not potentially work perfectly fine within the current force organisation charts?

For example the 25% on rare choices for Empire:

In 2000 points that would be 500 points, which buys you a Steam Tank and a Hellbaster Volley Gun. Taking two Steam Tanks would no longer be possible in 2000 point battles, and a Steam Tank would be too expensive/powerful for a 1000 point battle. I could see how this fits the way they want you to build your armies, as these % limit your more powerful options in the book, but force you to spend more points on core units.

This means the max 2 rare choices for 2000 points AND the % limit, not the % limit instead of the maximum of 2 choices.

To be honest I would be perfectly fine with this, and it can be implemented without messing with/invalidating current army books. Of course that is my personal opinion. I view WHF as a game that should be about regiments of troops supported by a select few of the more powerfull units such as monsters and major characters.

If any rare choice in an army book goes over the 500 points allowed for a 2000 point battle (I am not sure if there is one?) they could even allow you to take that ONE choice, but for some kind of penalty elsewhere (take away a hero spot or whatever).

Similarly, filling up an army with characters and monsters can be prevented this way while still allowing a balanced amount of them. Malekith or Karl Franz on the Imperial Dragon would no longer be possible choices for 2000 points... unless GW allows it by taking away a rare choice (this is just another example). But they could also decide these particular choices are too strong outside of the real high point battles.

Different scenarios could have different % numbers for each of the armies and their force orginisation selections like in 40K's supplement books. I do not see a problem.

Basically they can fix all this while not making it too complicated.

Is there a place i should start to read on this thread to find a place to start with my rumor mongering?

steppingonyou wrote:Is there a place i should start to read on this thread to find a place to start with my rumor mongering?

I would just jump right in, all rumour mongering is good

steppingonyou wrote:Is there a place i should start to read on this thread to find a place to start with my rumor mongering?

You are always welcome to post rumours here ... as you do on Warseer
Thanks for being one of the rare sources of GW rumours nowadays BTW.

Yes, please steppingonyou! Give us the goods

Kroothawk wrote:

2.) There are indications that 8th edition will move forward in the timeline or have another important narrative development, maybe even included in the starter set.

I would LOVE for this to be true, but I doubt it will come to pass.

GW seems to suffer from a terminal fear of moving forward, even if just a little bit.

It is more of a problem in 40K, but GW should realize it is OK to move things forward.

Really, it is.

We will soon be seeing a few more/new kits for WFB, these and their like will be, in all likelihood, the only fantasy releases we get until the 8th edition rulebook rolls out.

Plastic dark riders seem a good bet, along with perhaps at least one more cavalry release. There are also some delightful, plastic trolls coming out soon as well.

Sorry to butt in as I'm not a fantasy player but I saw on warseer that there was a plastic squig herd box rumoured which I really want to add flavour to my 40k Ork army, is that one of the up and coming releases or is it way off?

I wouldn't hold your breath if you take my meaning.

Fair enough. :(

We will soon be seeing a few more/new kits for WFB, these and their like will be, in all likelihood, the only fantasy releases we get until the 8th edition rulebook rolls out.

Plastic dark riders seem a good bet, along with perhaps at least one more cavalry release. There are also some delightful, plastic trolls coming out soon as well.

Ork Boar Riders and new Empire Knights were rumoured a while ago.

Looking at (sizes of) the mounts everyone else rides on these days the Knights must feel a bit insecure while hobbling into battle on their barded donkeys.

Besides the constant update of rules, how come the tournament army size keep on increasing? I recalled that at one time it was 1800. Then, it went up to 2000. Subsequently, it become 2250 and now it is 2500?

wildger wrote:Besides the constant update of rules, how come the tournament army size keep on increasing? I recalled that at one time it was 1800. Then, it went up to 2000. Subsequently, it become 2250 and now it is 2500?

The cynical reason? Because higher points levels = more minis = more money for GW.

and its more fun to play with more of your toys!

Yes, but since the day is still only 24 hours long, you get to play less and less games per tournament because it's simply impossible to finish a game at the same speed. So either you'll be forced to run multiple-day events, or eventually cut rounds to two.

reds8n wrote:We will soon be seeing a few more/new kits for WFB, these and their like will be, in all likelihood, the only fantasy releases we get until the 8th edition rulebook rolls out.

Plastic dark riders seem a good bet, along with perhaps at least one more cavalry release. There are also some delightful, plastic trolls coming out soon as well.

Plastic Dark Riders sound nice! (At least, I hope they turn out nice...)

And the plastic trolls will only be considered 'delightful' if they match the super-awesome ever classic Stone Trolls sculpts!

Maybe the River Trolls too.

But definitely NOT the lump-o-plastic that we saw in the Skull Pass set...

... I believe they are sickeninglygood.

Alpharius wrote:

Kroothawk wrote:

2.) There are indications that 8th edition will move forward in the timeline or have another important narrative development, maybe even included in the starter set.

I would LOVE for this to be true, but I doubt it will come to pass.

GW seems to suffer from a terminal fear of moving forward, even if just a little bit.

It is more of a problem in 40K, but GW should realize it is OK to move things forward.

Really, it is.

The point with 40k is that it IS static. 10000 years of imperium without any significant technological development, great expansion or sudden decline. It's just a huge, unchanging setting with vast scope for you to play the game your way. Any story you can think of can be fitted into the previous 10000 years and enjoyed.
What advancements would you want, anyway?

reds8n wrote:... I believe they are sickeninglygood.

Oh - I like what you're implying there. Always nice to see some of the special rules make it into the modeled figure.

The Emperor 'dies'.

Then He returns!

Of course, the powers the be don't like this, don't believe this, don't want this.

Massive Civil War erupts.

Macgragge is one of the beacons of hope out there.

There are others.

And of course, the Emperor is out there somewhere...

Look - it is now even more grim and dark!

But now I've wandered far afield in a WFB thread!

So, for WFB... what would I want?

Archaon as a SPAWN for his massive failure.

Other than that?

A return of the Chaos Dwarfs!

A return of the Chaos Dwarfs!

Amen Brotha !!

just so long as they are hellcannon chaos dwarves and not tall hat chaos dwarves.

Something that keeps the Assyrian/Babylonian theme alive would work for me.

I still want a Lammassu and Great Taurus too!

I told you 'pointy ears and furry ears'! Ha, knew it!

Hang on, already have about 300 skaven.... Now what do I do with those in the starter box! Eep!

Druidic wrote:I told you 'pointy ears and furry ears'! Ha, knew it!

Hang on, already have about 300 skaven.... Now what do I do with those in the starter box! Eep!

Paint them up to a wonderful standard then give them to me out of the kindness of your heart?

Is it going to be skaven? Should I hold off on purchasing 7 boxes of clanrats for some good ones in the starter set?

RiTides wrote:Is it going to be skaven? Should I hold off on purchasing 7 boxes of clanrats for some good ones in the starter set?

Probably, as you'll get more for your money that way.

Especially if you sell off the Elf bits.

(I'll take the Griffons, if you're selling!)

Mmm, sounds good . Let's make a deal this summer, Alpharius (assuming that's when all this comes out) . I'm sure a lot of people will be trading the two halves, like with the current starter set for WHFB & 40k.

I play Tomb Kings and I hear they're making a codex update for May 2010, YAY!!!

HiveFleetGoliath wrote:I play Tomb Kings and I hear they're making a codex update for May 2010, YAY!!!

Don't count on it.

RiTides wrote:Mmm, sounds good . Let's make a deal this summer, Alpharius (assuming that's when all this comes out) . I'm sure a lot of people will be trading the two halves, like with the current starter set for WHFB & 40k.

You're on friend!

Totally will go halfsies with anyone (I call Elves!)

HiveFleetGoliath wrote:I play Tomb Kings and I hear they're making a codex update for May 2010, YAY!!!

They won't get a Codex in May ... nor an army book
No new army book before 8th edition. May releases are LOTR Battle host and some Orc plastic kits.

Depending on what the box comes with I will do a split jin I guess I could start the rats * grumble grumble *

I'll probably be needing a few, so I might be able to split more than one . Calling the rat half, of course!

Can't wait!!!

frawd wrote:

Hopefully in the next edition we will see horde armies actually gaining an increased benefit for stacking their numbers. Sure the +3 for ranks works to a point.... unless your opponent is fielding small ranked units. The horde team can be left with a measly +1 to their combat resolution for overwhelming numbers. This score does not change if you outnumber your opponent by 1 or by 30.

For example, my skaven army should in no right, on average, be up to par with the chaos close combat. However, in a combat where 12 warriors and 35+ clanrats are fighting there should be a way to better depict the horde effect on combat resolution. Perhaps remove the cap for rank bonuses? I don't think the lethality of the clanrats or similar units should be increased, nor do i think in situations as i have mentioned they should necessarily wing, but with increasing numbers their should be an increase in benefit.

Currently rules could have a regiment of 10 defeat a regiment of 100 in the first round of combat...

They could always make rank bonus a net modifier, up to a +3.....

Ive been thinking about this lately... Running a full CC army with little to none magic is qutie dificult as I usually lose a large number of infantry models due to cannon fire and magic (playing a full plate warriors army... I dont have much infantry to spare anyhow ). So if they made combat a single turn thing... doesnt that make it that much worse for me? That means I cannot escape the clutches of magic/shooting while in combat, as I will never be able to stay in combat?

Kroothawk wrote:

HiveFleetGoliath wrote:I play Tomb Kings and I hear they're making a codex update for May 2010, YAY!!!

They won't get a Codex in May ... nor an army book
No new army book before 8th edition. May releases are LOTR Battle host and some Orc plastic kits.

I've been looking around and they've been saying Tomb Kings will be the last army book before 8th Ed. and it's slated for May 2010. Unless all these sites like dealing in false information. http://www.warmongergameday.com/2010/01/preview-tomb-kings.html theres one site that is quoting Warseer

HiveFleetGoliath wrote:

Kroothawk wrote:

HiveFleetGoliath wrote:I play Tomb Kings and I hear they're making a codex update for May 2010, YAY!!!

They won't get a Codex in May ... nor an army book
No new army book before 8th edition. May releases are LOTR Battle host and some Orc plastic kits.

I've been looking around and they've been saying Tomb Kings will be the last army book before 8th Ed. and it's slated for May 2010. Unless all these sites like dealing in false information. http://www.warmongergameday.com/2010/01/preview-tomb-kings.html theres one site that is quoting Warseer

Rumors are just that, Rumors.

Ogre Kingdoms were also said to be coming out in May. That isn't happening ethier.

Maybe they're just going to combine them into undead Egyptian ogres


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Maybe they're just going to combine them into undead Egyptian ogres.. would solve problems for both armies!

Tomb kings could have units that dont suck without the help of magic and ogres could not die from psychology

The announcement about Orcs And Goblins for May release would seem to support the idea that WHFB 8th Edition is coming this year. The current Orcs And Goblins book is four years newer than the current Tomb Kings book, yet that range is being revised first and Orcs And Goblins are kind of a flagship model range for Fantasy in the way that Space Marines are a flagship for 40K. This may also be an indicator of Orcs And Goblins in the new starter set perhaps?

BrassScorpion wrote:The announcement about Orcs And Goblins for May release would seem to support the idea that WHFB 8th Edition is coming this year. The current Orcs And Goblins book is four years newer than the current Tomb Kings book, yet it's being revised first and Orcs And Goblins are kind of a flagship model range for Fantasy in the way that Space Marines are a flagship for 40K. This may also be an indicator of Orcs And Goblins in the new starter set perhaps?

None of that.

May is a few Greenskin Models, nothing more. The recent release of Deff Dreads and Kans did not give Orks a new Codex after all.

Skaven and Elves in the Starter.

I've also heard a rumor of another greenskins army book in the fall/winter this year.

And orcs don't need any new models, focus on some of the armies that actually need an update, Dark Eldar especially. -more out of keeping people who play those armies happy and don't feel cheated because everyone else is getting new units and rules and their army is left in the corner.

I still stand by my Tomb Kings in spring/summer at least.

I keep hearing that Skaven are in the starter set, but I'll believe Skaven in the starter set when I see it or hear it from certain specific people. Starter sets are largely sold through parents rather than directly to the gamers. Nearly everyone has heard of an Orc or Goblin even if they know little of mythology or fantasy gaming. Trying to explain Skaven to prospective parent buyers who know nothing about Warhammer would be a lot tougher sell and a tougher road to getting new customers into the hobby long-term. Skaven is possible, but they make a lot less sense than something more easily identifiable for prospective new customers.

Parent: "What is a Skay-vehn?"

GW Redshirt: "A giant, mutated, evil rat."

Parent: "Oh, ok. Here's my credit card!"

BrassScorpion wrote:I keep hearing that Skaven are in the starter set, but I'll believe Skaven in the starter set when I see it or hear it from certain specific people. Starter sets are largely sold through parents rather than directly to the gamers. Nearly everyone has heard of an Orc or Goblin even if they know little of mythology or fantasy gaming. Trying to explain Skaven to prospective parent buyers who know nothing about Warhammer would be a lot tougher sell and a tougher road to getting new customers into the hobby long-term. Skaven is possible, but they make a lot less sense than something more easily identifiable for prospective new customers.

Very wise.

That said...

I think the starter set is Skaven and High Elves, be nice to get some new placcy elven spearmen at last.

Ozymandias wrote:Parent: "What is a Skay-vehn?"

GW Redshirt: "A giant, mutated, evil rat."

Parent: "Oh, ok. Here's my credit card!"

This = +1.

reds8n wrote:

I think the starter set is Skaven and High Elves, be nice to get some new placcy elven spearmen at last.

Hopefully they're holding spears that they could actually, you know, hold - like the last time High Elves had spearmen in a start box!

I'm a bit annoyed by GW's current trend of weapon hafts that the wielder can barely get his hands around!

Hey, when you have gorilla hands, it's not a problem.

Skaven and Elves in the Starter.

I had a conversation about the new starter set today that reaffirmed my earlier assertion in this topic thread that Skaven are right out for the new Fantasy core set. This set will contain something more conventional and easy for an introductory army, though exactly what is still hazy.

Ozymandias wrote:Parent: "What is a Skay-vehn?"

GW Redshirt: "A giant, mutated, evil rat."

Parent: "Oh, ok. Here's my credit card!"

Parent: "What is a Skay-vehn?"
GW Redshirt: "A giant, mutated, evil rat."
Parent: "Eeeek! I'd rather have that starter set with the mushroom addicted fanatics torturing the naked punk dwarf!"

BTW: Next to Goblins, Skaven is the hordiest army in the game, requiring the most of models -> $$$

I would like to see Chaos Daemons in the starter.
That would also mean the plastic Daemon Prince (as pictured in another topic) has a home and it would give the starter a centrepiece.

Other army could then be Bretonians with a plastic Trebuche (pardon my spelling).

These two armies either can do with updating or have gaps in their plastic range that need filling.

There won't be Skaven and there won't be Daemons.

BrassScorpion wrote:There won't be Skaven and there won't be Daemons.

Guess you missed the "I would like" part of my post. I never stated Daemons as a fact or even a rumour I got from somewhere.

BrassScorpion wrote:There won't be Skaven and there won't be Daemons.

Still pointy ears v. Furry ears, though?

I wouldn´t mind some furry ears, and by the way my girlfriend had some pointy ears a few years ago but she was only in to painting so I´ve got Theclis? some silverhelms, bowelfs and spear elfs somewhere, so I could use the pointy ears to. There were Swordmasters of Hoeth too, yay.

A rumour I heard was Heavy Cavalry (anything with barding) might not be allowed to march in the new game (i don't believe this one)

also another rumour which I heard is the release date will not be this year but in 3 years. This I kinda believe as there have been reports from people that the Ogre book is out this summer. In all reality I heard the only books not being redone before 8th edition are woodelves and brettonians which looking at their books and facing a brettonian army they don't need updating

Hm. Your personal experiences aside, I'd say Brett's are well due for a new book. As I understand it, they don't really hang against the top levels at this stage, and a number of mechanics don't work so well for them at this point.

I think we'll pretty much see 8th this year. Wasn't there a mention of it, and the furry ears/pointy ears in WD?

RZ

I don't remember it being mentioned in WD

I do have to say that GW is being pretty tight-lipped on the rumors & info on 8th edition, especially considering that if some of the major changes that are being floated around are true, it will totally nerf ALOT of the current armies that folks are running. Biggest one I see is if they go to %s for different choices, such as characters at 25%, core at 25%-50%, etc. etc. You can basically say goodbye to VC, Lizardmen, Warriors of Chaos, certain Dark Elf builds, etc. etc. I don't put it out of the realm of possibility, as when 40k 5th edition came out, having troop choices as the only ones who could claim objectives killed off many of the "elite" or "heavy support" style armies.
On a side note, has anyone seen anything else on upcoming models they are supposed to release this summer? The rumor was going around that it was supposed to be plastic cavalry heavy, but I'm throwing a VC army together and REALLY am interested in new black knight models . .. . yes I know about the new orcs coming out here in May.

I do have to say that GW is being pretty tight-lipped on the rumors & info on 8th edition

They have gotten good at clamping down on major leaks after the really heavy leaks of just a few years ago. I've also just discovered I may need to back-pedal on that "no Skaven" thing I said earlier after all. Some people are more credible than others, but with so little out there we'll just have to wait and see what we really are getting this summer and fall for Fantasy.

skaven vs. high elves has sounded like one of the more legitimate rumors so far... I'm hoping the percentages doesn't happen (since it seems so awkward, I hope they can find a more elegant solution)

Orcs vs TK would be awesome. parents know what uies are. parents know what orcs are. they both need a rule update. kill two birds with 1 stone.

Brets vs. Tomb Kings would even be better: Crusade!!!
But it is Skaven vs. High Elves which is fine for me!