I decided to start a companion thread to the Starter Box Speculation thread!

In which direction do you expect the rules to take in 9th edition? Changes to Steadfast? Changes to magic? To skirmishers?

Personally, I think one change that seems inevitable is a reworking of the rules for multiple model types so that single-model, large-target centerpiece models can be fielded with greater efficiency. They're adding them into the armies at too great a pace to have them not sell because they're tactically inferior.

What do you think? Any input from people who have been playing for multiple editions, who might be able to predict a trend to the changes?

If GW did the entire "nerf everything people have" trick, they'll make big blocks useless and give the revival of elite blocks that kill combatants in the first round. And that'll make scary mounted lords worth using, maybe nerf the wizards too. No idea if they'll ever get around to nerfing cannons though


On a more obvious note they'll allow allies in normal gameplay

I see them adding allies for sure.

I think they will allow cavalry and monsters a limited ability to break steadfast. Maybe cavalry counts each rank as two on the turn they charge.

Have Monsters above 5 starting wounds count as 2 ranks and those below count as 1.

Something to increase the viability and sales of those units anyway.

 Eldarain wrote:
I see them adding allies for sure.

*Groan*

I expect it too, maybe even being able to buy terrain pieces, but I really think it is a stupid idea. (I assume) It works in 40k because it is a squad level game and half the factions are Imperial anyway, I really don't think it should be implemented in fantasy beyond the rules for team games we already have. An Imperial Guard company with a squad of space wolves backing them up makes perfect sense, a massive high elf army army with a few dwarves following along not so much.

 jonolikespie wrote:

 Eldarain wrote:
I see them adding allies for sure.

*Groan*

I expect it too, maybe even being able to buy terrain pieces, but I really think it is a stupid idea. (I assume) It works in 40k because it is a squad level game and half the factions are Imperial anyway, I really don't think it should be implemented in fantasy beyond the rules for team games we already have. An Imperial Guard company with a squad of space wolves backing them up makes perfect sense, a massive high elf army army with a few dwarves following along not so much.

Aww but I liked the Kislev ally list

 jonolikespie wrote:

 Eldarain wrote:
I see them adding allies for sure.

*Groan*

I expect it too, maybe even being able to buy terrain pieces, but I really think it is a stupid idea. (I assume) It works in 40k because it is a squad level game and half the factions are Imperial anyway, I really don't think it should be implemented in fantasy beyond the rules for team games we already have. An Imperial Guard company with a squad of space wolves backing them up makes perfect sense, a massive high elf army army with a few dwarves following along not so much.

Yeah in fantasy i would expect a lot fewer allies working together. The forces in Fantasy are just far less likely to do so. However bringing back Dogs of War maybe and Kislev would be much appreciated.

Though on the other hand in Fantasy people do just abuse the fact that some factions have access to cannons


And the fact that DoW work for everyone but bretonnia, you'll see cannons in VC lists and stuff....


They need to nerf cannons or do something like double the price of allied dow cannons

Hmm, I hadn't thought about the terrain angle. Seeing as how they already tested the water with that pocket watchtower And the success of the 40k fortifications terrain purchased in your list seem very likely.

 Eldarain wrote:
Hmm, I hadn't thought about the terrain angle. Seeing as how they already tested the water with that pocket watchtower And the success of the 40k fortifications terrain purchased in your list seem very likely.

Will this involve anti flier weaponry?

It seems like they would have to change the way a lot of the terrain works if they added the option to purchase it, which I would love because I hate how little impact it has now.

Hopefully balancing basic rulebook lores this time and toning down magic a bit. Steadfeast will remain a big thing as it makes tons of money, I also expect them to buff monsters as they also are damn expensive, mb such as Monsters always being able to break Steadfast.

But then again, what point is there right now?

 kenshin620 wrote:

 Eldarain wrote:
Hmm, I hadn't thought about the terrain angle. Seeing as how they already tested the water with that pocket watchtower And the success of the 40k fortifications terrain purchased in your list seem very likely.

Will this involve anti flier weaponry?

While this point was raised in jest I could easily see it being included.

Given their quasi-nostalgic leanings of late. It would not shock me at all to see a return to the "flying high" mechanics of 4th-5th. (for those too young to remember this allowed you to remove your flyers one turn and then be able to land or charge anywhere on the table)

This was a vicious counter to artillery and small elite units.

If they brought it back and let you fire at the flyers as they arrive with ballistas or grapeshot emplacements on purchased terrain it certainly wouldn't surprise me.

9th edition will probably be 8.5 more than anything else.

Probably tweak a few spells, make steadfast a little easier to break(flanking negates it), give monsters a bone of some kind(count as having 2 ranks maybe) etc...


They may add Allies(or Mercs as they likly will call them)

Probably something like no more than 25% of your army may be Mercenaries.


A mercenary detachment must contain 1 hero, no more than 2. It may have up to 3 units in it. No lords at all. The Merc units count for the normal percentages. So the Hero would count towards your total Hero allowance.

the hero counts as the general for the mercs, and cannot be your army general.

I do think that cannons will get nerfed because:
Currently since so many armies have access to cannons (empire, dwarves, skaven, ogres) and cannons makes big centerpiece models and character mounts like dragons and griffons (which are typically expensive). When you consider that cannons are typically inexpensive to buy. Therefore we have a situation where expensive models that every army has available are not being bought and fielded because they are hard countered by inexpensive models that a few armies have access to. GW is far too smart for THAT to carry on for another edition! I would expect expect big monster mounted characters to at least be viable in 9th edition, to encourage people to buy thsoe models. And in order for that to happen cannons cannot potentially OHK both a rider and a mount >_>

I do hope that Magic will be nerfed. I like the concept of Magic, and I think the execution is well done, but from all the tournament battle reports i have read, it seems like everything is too centralized around the magic phase, and I think that is too bad.

I have kind of mixed feelings about allies as well actually. While I think it was horribly executed in 40K, and I think that the concept of allies in a wargame with different factions is lame as it sort of merges everybody together into a sloppy soup instead of the clear roles and armies of before... I also think it would be a lot of fun to ally some Wood Elves into my Brettonians since I adore the WE models... Of course thats assuming the Brettonnians don't get the tyranid treatment because of their "honor" and cannot take any allies. Then I'd just be pissed!

4(soon to be 5) armies out of 15 is hardly "so many"

Also, the currently OP armies don't have cannons(Lizardmen, HEs, and Dark Elves)

jonolikespie wrote:

 Eldarain wrote:
I see them adding allies for sure.

*Groan*

I expect it too, maybe even being able to buy terrain pieces ...

kenshin620 wrote:Though on the other hand in Fantasy people do just abuse the fact that some factions have access to cannons

And the fact that DoW work for everyone but bretonnia, you'll see cannons in VC lists and stuff....

I look forward to any and all tournaments worth attending banning allies. We learned the hard way back in like 6th or whatever that allies = DoW cannons everywhere. Quite literally in VC armies in particular. What a stupid time to be building lists

As for terrain purchasing, I'm about 95% against that as well. The Competitive Terrain Phase is one of the more asinine parts of 8E ... however I suppose if one paid for terrain that gave a ridiculous bonus if would be preferable to rolling up something ridiculous (though we all know said piece would be banished to a corner anyway ) Aside: I stopped playing with the Candyland chart & Mysterious terrain a good number of years ago

- Salvage, who's not too excited about a new edition in general, just updated 8E armybooks please!

There would have be pretty severe restrictions on who can ally with whom, otherwise I wouldn't be surprised at all to see Nuln detachments in every list with Engineers, Helblasters and Cannons...

Overall, I think ally rules wouldn't be good in Fantasy. They would, however, create opportunities for broken combinations which would encourage people to go out and buy models from armies they don't collect, so it will probably come in.

An 8.5 version would be much better than a brand new game for all concerned I think, with some tweaks to magic, cannons and common magic items (Crown of Command needs to be removed from the game, for example).

 Grey Templar wrote:
4(soon to be 5) armies out of 15 is hardly "so many"

Also, the currently OP armies don't have cannons(Lizardmen, HEs, and Dark Elves)

Meh, I would not say that HE are truly top tier. Teclis is the only thing that makes them overpowered, the rest of their army is easy to deal with. Sword Masters are tough, but a lot of their army is rather less point-effective.

Dwarf corner fortresses are f-ing annoying. Lamest list I can think of. Games vs. these are a battle of point denial alone.

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
4(soon to be 5) armies out of 15 is hardly "so many"

Also, the currently OP armies don't have cannons(Lizardmen, HEs, and Dark Elves)

Meh, I would not say that HE are truly top tier. Teclis is the only thing that makes them overpowered, the rest of their army is easy to deal with. Sword Masters are tough, but a lot of their army is rather less point-effective.

Dwarf corner fortresses are f-ing annoying. Lamest list I can think of. Games vs. these are a battle of point denial alone.

Agree High Elves are good but outside of Teclis, Book of Hoeth and Banner of the World dragon everything in the book has a real weakness usually T3.

Also I feel Non-comped Skaven are pretty damn brutal. As are Ogres.

Yeah, Ogres can be pretty brutal and are underestimated a lot. Their main downfall is being weak against Shadow which is a common staple in many armies. On the other hand, they excel at what works best in 8th: huge, expensive blocks of infantry.

Skaven are another issue: they are very poorly balanced. The entire army book has a "...but it can backfire!" mentality written all over it. Slaves e.g. are not as weak as a lot of people make them out to be and barely cost any points, WLC are a steal and let's not talk about the abomination...imo, Skaven are one of the worst army books out there. Poor internal balance.

Current top 3 books are Skaven, Lizards and Ogres but that's getting off topic a bit.

With a bit of luck, the other 2 will get books before 9th edition comes out (some rumours seem to indicate Lizards soonish?), and then WE/Dwarfs/Brets will get books either early on in 9th or late into this edition with 9th in mind.

I wouldn't be surprised to see one of them them get a White Dwarf update towards the end of the edition, and then appear in the starter box set with a new army book to follow shortly afterwards.

 Eldarain wrote:

Given their quasi-nostalgic leanings of late. It would not shock me at all to see a return to the "flying high" mechanics of 4th-5th. (for those too young to remember this allowed you to remove your flyers one turn and then be able to land or charge anywhere on the table)

This was a vicious counter to artillery and small elite units.

If they brought it back and let you fire at the flyers as they arrive with ballistas or grapeshot emplacements on purchased terrain it certainly wouldn't surprise me.

Well it would make flier monster characters more appealing

Maybe too appealing!

Allies in 40k are cool, but I also agree with the 'turning everything into soup' comment. I never take any with my Orks because, well, that would eat into my budget for greenskin nutjobs!

I can see cannons going down a touch. Something to make fighty generals more popular. I feel, as an undead player, that the leadership/fear/BSB rules need to be reworked - it is just too easy to pass all your tests. But I can imagine that not everybody would be pleased at that!

This one thing would tone down cannons.

Against models with the Large Target special rule, cannons only do D3 wounds.

Cannons should work much better against massed units than they do against lone models or skirmishers or whatever...


Regarding the 'flying high' thing. That sounds rather cool really - how would it affect stuff like magic? If a wizard was currently 'in flight' would be miss the magic phase, or would he get to cast magic missiles from on high?

 Micky wrote:
Cannons should work much better against massed units than they do against lone models or skirmishers or whatever...


Regarding the 'flying high' thing. That sounds rather cool really - how would it affect stuff like magic? If a wizard was currently 'in flight' would be miss the magic phase, or would he get to cast magic missiles from on high?

You would have to declare you were flying high at the beginning of your movement phase, so wizards would miss their magic phase. It was best used with units of flyers or melee heroes on smaller flying beasts.

There were some things which limited the power of the "flying high" charge though which prevented it from being too crazy. If you fled from the charge the flyers would stop at the point your unit just vacated. So you couldn't run down a unit which fled from a charge. This was still effective against artillery in particular as a crewless machine is still a machine that isn't shooting your units the next turn.

Is there really talk of a 9th edition already? Or is this fancy pants talk?

If cannons did D3 monsters would be awesome again. And they would still have the same punch against most infantry. And it would be possible to have a dude on a dragon.

I think they'd nerf spells. At least the mega save or die. And they could make flanking be a counter to mega blocks. Which would put the emphasis back on maneuvering. Like if you're hit in the flank/rear with more than 2 ranks...YOU ALL SAVE OR DIE!

DukeRustfield wrote:
Is there really talk of a 9th edition already? Or is this fancy pants talk?

There's already 9th edition talk because next year will be 4 years after the release of 8th. In the past 10 years or so, GW's been cycling editions every 4 years.

D3 wounds to large targets seems like a fair tradeoff

Cannons can still gut them but at least not in one turn of shooting (maybe enough time for some of the fast ones to get into combat!), and they still work wonder against other targets

On the topic of shooting skirmishers/solos with a cannon, maybe much like hexes you could cause them to waste their shot on a +4? (literally shooting the breeze) Or maybe even have to roll to hit using their BS


But this is starting to sound too logical for gw. They might still make spears bleh on S3 troops and BSB mandatory outside of undead armies

Making magic resistance a separate sort of saving throw (ala Deny the Witch in 40k?) seems like a likely thing.

 captain collius wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:

 Eldarain wrote:
I see them adding allies for sure.

*Groan*

I expect it too, maybe even being able to buy terrain pieces, but I really think it is a stupid idea. (I assume) It works in 40k because it is a squad level game and half the factions are Imperial anyway, I really don't think it should be implemented in fantasy beyond the rules for team games we already have. An Imperial Guard company with a squad of space wolves backing them up makes perfect sense, a massive high elf army army with a few dwarves following along not so much.

Yeah in fantasy i would expect a lot fewer allies working together. The forces in Fantasy are just far less likely to do so. However bringing back Dogs of War maybe and Kislev would be much appreciated.

I'd actually see the Fantasy Factions allying better than 40k.

High Elves, Dwarves, Empire- ally at several major points in fluff.

Chaos Demons, Warriors, and Beasts- Will fight under the command of the same powerful warlord.

Wood Elves, Brettonians- not as friendly as the "Big three", but could easily find themselves allying if necessary.

Dark Elves, Tomb Kings, Vampires: While I could only see these guys allying on occasion, I would not rule out the possability... if it suited them.

Ogres: Will work for food or gold.

Orcs+Skaven: Don't see these guys really allying with anyone- but they may attack in the same direction.

 Grey Templar wrote:
9th edition will probably be 8.5 more than anything else.

that's pretty much what I'm hoping for.

A lot of the suggestions in this thread are nice - monsters = 2 ranks, flanking cav can break steadfast 1st rnd of CC, very limited allies rules, etc. For me, maybe make charging 1d6 + March, fleeing units that are caught can only be destroyed if charging unit has a full rank or equal models or something.

8th is my first WHFB edition and I absolutely love it. I'd hate to see drastic changes to the rules in my relatively young WHFB career!

I think if they were to make rules for allies, they could make a new rule called "Signature Units" that would mean that particular unit can only be taken by the Parent Army book. Certain warmachines, monsters and elite infantry could be given this rule, perhaps?

This would maintain the integrity of the Army books and allow detachments of allied armies to augment a particular force but still prevent taking combos that break the system, such as the always mentioned cannons.

The only time this rule would be waived is for Grand Battles or whatever they tried calling their attempt at WHFB Apocalypse in White Dwarf a few years ago.

I think if there is a chance of a 9th ed coming out next year then the best plce to look will be army books coming out later in the year or early next year. Also i would love flanking cav to break steadfast first round of combat, in fact its a house rule at a club i play. It does unfortunatly have a sideaffect of MSU cavalry (especially cheap, points wise) being spammed.

Oh, man... I forgot about flying high!

I suspect allies rules like in Storm of Magic.

 Crazy_Carnifex wrote:


I'd actually see the Fantasy Factions allying better than 40k.

High Elves, Dwarves, Empire- ally at several major points in fluff.

Chaos Demons, Warriors, and Beasts- Will fight under the command of the same powerful warlord.

Wood Elves, Brettonians- not as friendly as the "Big three", but could easily find themselves allying if necessary.

Dark Elves, Tomb Kings, Vampires: While I could only see these guys allying on occasion, I would not rule out the possability... if it suited them.

Ogres: Will work for food or gold.

Orcs+Skaven: Don't see these guys really allying with anyone- but they may attack in the same direction.

Don't worry, with the 6th edition in 40k, GW has proven they do not care for any fluff at all and just randomly throw alliances together. Even alliances where you can't see your ally fluff-wise. Yup.

I don't think this is the place to complain about 40k 6th edition.

 thenoobbomb wrote:
I don't think this is the place to complain about 40k 6th edition.

No, but this is the place to discuss potential changes in WHFB. 40k appears to be another game GW makes (iirc) and could thus serve as an indicator for possible changes in WHFB as well - and allies seem like a sure thing to be added in 9th.

Allies seem to be a sure thing. As I said:

thenoobbomb wrote:I suspect allies rules like in Storm of Magic.

In Storm of Magic you could form a pact with Daemons, VC and Tomb Kings, wich had restrictions. I guess the new WHFB ally system will be a bit like that.

Well regarding allies I kind of prefer something a bit more in depth than the "current" fantasy ally system of good, bad, and neutral (aside from a few factions being REALLY backstabby)

 thenoobbomb wrote:
Allies seem to be a sure thing. As I said:

thenoobbomb wrote:I suspect allies rules like in Storm of Magic.

In Storm of Magic you could form a pact with Daemons, VC and Tomb Kings, wich had restrictions. I guess the new WHFB ally system will be a bit like that.

I'm assuming it to be broader, especially in regards to it allowing alliances between commonly played armies - same thing happened in 40k where GK were suddenly able to ally with (almost) everyone. I'm expecting sth. similar in WHFB.

Storm of Magic parallels are good ones to make. Though I don't know SoM very well, I can tell the monsters from the newer armybooks (Empire, WoC) are designed along similar lines as SoM, with characterful / devastating upgrades, etc. I could see an ally system likewise drawn from this.

Still not happy about it though

- Salvage

Allies would work a lot better in fantasy then in 40k if done fluffy. For instance empire would be battle brothers with dwarfs and high elves allies of convenience with ogres and tomb kings desperate allies with orks dark elves wood elves and bretonia and apocalypse with everyone else


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Forgot lizards they'd be convenience

Desperate with Bretonnia?

I'd say the very least allies of convenience

I thought the same but people were saying that they're to honourable to ally

Allies will likely appear - which is good - as noted above there are many races / armies that work together if they have to. Hopefully it will be better handled in terms of the fluff than 40k…………..

my initial thoughts

High Elves, Dwarves, Empire
Usually good aliies but have been know to fight each other..........

Chaos Demons, Warriors, and Beasts-
agree will fight under the command of the same powerful warlord/Demon/
and often find short term alliances with the Skaven and Orcs

Wood Elves, Brettonians
Wood Elves will ally if they have to and Bretonians go on Crusades IIRC to aid others (or conquere them)

Dark Elves,
Dangerous but powerful allies – Chaos can work with them – especially if Morathi is involved, or they can drive the Orcs/Beastmen before them as a screen

Tomb Kings, Vampires:
Both have no liking for Orcs and actively combat Chaos – most Vampires in particular are not keen on their food source being turned into mewling chaos spawn with acid for blood, except maybe Necrarachs and they are insane and just want everything Dead.

Ogres: Will work for food or gold.
Yep

Orcs+Skaven:
Orcs – well if they turn up and there is a fight going on – they will just get stuck in – plus you can manipulate them into attacking your enemies if you are clever (and lucky)

Skaven are tricksy but they will fight “with” their “inferiors” – ie anyone else and then turn on them – maybe have a table to roll on after the battle to see what they do


Other things

Buying fortifications seems likely - again good and will fit in with:

Missions more suited to tactical play - ie actually claiming objectives or similar as in 40k would seem to be likely and again a positive move.

I hope they will drop magic in power somewhat..............

Really? Why does this thread exist? As I said in the Starter Box thread, we're still 16 months away, it's very hard to predict something as predictable as the starter set, so it's nigh impossible to predict the rules. We already know that GW never really go in any direction with their rules. They don't really listen to our feedback, or change things that need to be changed. We can say what we want, think or should change, but guessing the actual contents is a complete stab in the dark.

The only thing we have to go on is GW's attitude in general (i.e. sell stuff) and the 6th Edition 40k rules. By this logic, one of the few fairly safe guesses is that there'll be an option to buy loads of terrain for your army and a rehaul of the allies mechanics, like the 40k one, meaning you can take a contingent of High Elves in your normal Empire army, as if they were units from your own list, for example.

I think if they add allies, it'll be just like the current Alliance rules for team games. If any thing, just limit it to Order and Destruction only being able to ally w/ themselves and the 2 Neutral armies. I think in order to balance it, maybe limit it to 1 Core choice and 1 Special or Rare choice from the allying army.

I imagine allies would exist along the same lines of the Warhammer MMORPG they came out with a couple years back, Humans High Elves, Dwarves for order and DE, WoC etc for Destruction or whatever it was. Personally if they were to add an ally system I would rather see a Dogs of War system, where everyone is restricted to the same choices from mercenaries for allied list, thereby preserving army integrity while still being able to fill gaps or alter your play style with mercenaries (not to mention some of the potentially baller models they can make for mercenaries).

As far as rules I would like to see in 9th ed;
1. Spears get some sort of benefit versult cavalry/mc/beasts
2. Cavalry buff in some way on the turn the charge, negating steadfast or something similar

Allies simply mean more sales of different armies so its logical for them to include it in the next edition. Each army book that comes out will have "must have" units that you will want to add to your core army and so its all good for their sales.

From a fluff point of view - most armies can and have allied with most other armies in "history" so no issue there.

Even "Forces of Order" versus "Forces of Destruction" is not the whole story.

I simply don't like allies because I can't ally my count as empire army. My empire army is converted to be dead, raised back from the ground, but different from VC as its not a vampire in control, but a corrupted arch lector. Because of this, my empire is evil. It wouldn't make sense for this army to take dwarves or high elves as allies as they're religious zealots.

Then you wouldn't

However If the Arch Lector can raise the human dead to fight for him - why could he not do the same with the Elves and Dwarves (my VC army has both) if you wanted to use some other stuff now and again?

Because he is not physically raising them. Thier religion is. Long lore story.

I also don't like most HE and Dwarves models. Part of the reason empire works is the models themselves. Skulls are a large part of the empire models, which helps make the switch from neutral-good to neutral-bad possible.

Allies are impossible to balance is it feths with creativity and multiple books. If my empire is dead, why can't it work with VC? Surely this could work in the lore. If the god my arch lector turned to before his (first) death was malal, why can't I take unmarked WoC as allies? Why can't I let demons be my allies as they're all working together in the effort to destroy order?

Set allies, specifically rules about allies in casual/competitive play, ruins the fun of the game for me. I will likely not play with allies, and not participate in tournaments that have them. Why should I buy two books to play one army? Why should I have to invest in a second army, specifically one I may not be interested in to remain competitive with one that I am interested in?

Stoupe wrote:
If my empire is dead, why can't it work with VC? Surely this could work in the lore.

I think you're kind-of missing the point that this situation is already covered in the lore of the game. Technically ALL of the VC units are Empire, or Brettonia, or whatever. The backstory of the more general WHFB says that, in this universe, when an arch lector turns evil he essentially becomes a necromancer or master necromancer... which you can find the rules for in the VC book. Further, necromancy is sort-of inherently limited, and you can't get braindead zombies to correctly operate cannons. So the dead (now undead) cannon operators just become zombies and you purchase them as melee troops from the VC core section, and that's why there's no cannons. Or whatever. So, what happens when Empire goes evil? It becomes VC. In WHFB, that's what happens.

You're basically writing your own story and then wanting the game, which already has a story, to conform to you. That doesn't seem reasonable to me.

Stoupe wrote:
Because he is not physically raising them. Thier religion is. Long lore story.

I also don't like most HE and Dwarves models. Part of the reason empire works is the models themselves. Skulls are a large part of the empire models, which helps make the switch from neutral-good to neutral-bad possible.

Allies are impossible to balance is it feths with creativity and multiple books. If my empire is dead, why can't it work with VC? Surely this could work in the lore. If the god my arch lector turned to before his (first) death was malal, why can't I take unmarked WoC as allies? Why can't I let demons be my allies as they're all working together in the effort to destroy order?

Set allies, specifically rules about allies in casual/competitive play, ruins the fun of the game for me. I will likely not play with allies, and not participate in tournaments that have them. Why should I buy two books to play one army? Why should I have to invest in a second army, specifically one I may not be interested in to remain competitive with one that I am interested in?

Firstly - if you create your own army background its not really fair to complain when this conflicts with the lore of the main world.

Allies don't mess up creativity - why would they? They give additional options for story, fluff and collecting. At present creativity is highly constrained by NOT allowing allies, IMO

If your Empire is the dead risen from some religious power - then Demons do indeed sound like great allies - they may look like manifestations fo whatever God your Empire worships but still work as Demons. Hopefully the allies rules will allow lots of fun combinations that allow you to expand your lore so yes you can incoprorate Demons, Vampires or whatever. The whole inherient weaknesses/styles of armies is fading anyway as they are adding units to all armies that cover some of these and usually the people who argue this have the largest selection of units in their chosen army in my experience...........

Your choice not to use them as ever, but I can't see GW not doing it as it makes commercial sense and its worked for them in 40K I don't agree with all the allies rules in that system myself - there are IMO, major cock ups with the allies table.

 Tangent wrote:
You're basically writing your own story and then wanting the game, which already has a story, to conform to you. That doesn't seem reasonable to me.

Your missing the point. I'm not asking the game to conform to me. I'm asking to not be restricted. There are alot of players like me, who convert and change their armies to write their own stories. This is part of the fun for players. They take bits and pieces of lore that has been written. In my case, its a combination of the lore written behind The Great War of Chaos, the lore behind Archaon (as the Everchosen is rumored to be a former warrior priest), and the formerly supported Chaotic God of Malal. But the story behind my army is not the point. The fact that there is a story behind my army is. Many players like to do the same thing as me and theme their army around a certain time period or story in the lore

The problem with the allies system is it removes all creativity. X army can only work with Y army because the main lore supports it. It creates it more difficult to theme armies together behind a larger story. A lot of beautiful armies done in this manor becomes obsolete. Perhaps you've designed your good army to be evil, or perhaps you've designed your evil army to have turned good. The problem with this type of system is that it is one which restricts a lot of creative ideas in a hobby that prides itself on being creative.

I honestly don't see an ally system working in the lore of WHFB either. Think about it. There is no mass travel in our world. There are a few battles here and there where factions worked together, but on the most part it was too difficult. Why? Because travel takes months or years to reach across oceans and many miles. The only reason Dwarves and Empire worked well is because they're in the same general locale. High Elves rarely, stepped in to help out because it would take months to get to them, months to get back, and by then the battle would be over. Lizardmen hardly allies with anyone due to the insular nature of both their culture and their terrain. 40k allies work, because these armies have had a history of working together, and because of the mass transit available in the lore. Here, It does not.

Thats your fault, not the game designers. You are the one that wrote yourself into a corner with no way out, and you are deliberatly limiting yourself to not allow for Elves and Dwarves to be raised from the dead alongside the Empire.

If your empire is dead then just convert dead units of other armies. Although no one is forcing you to use allies either.

And the travel issue isn't really an issue you could just imagine that it is one of the times that they ally

The problem with the allies system is it removes all creativity. X army can only work with Y army because the main lore supports it. It creates it more difficult to theme armies together behind a larger story. A lot of beautiful armies done in this manor becomes obsolete. Perhaps you've designed your good army to be evil, or perhaps you've designed your evil army to have turned good. The problem with this type of system is that it is one which restricts a lot of creative ideas in a hobby that prides itself on being creative.

Can't see this at all - my own Vampire Counts army is based around a Lahmiran Vampire assembling allies to fight against the forces of Chaos in the North - not cos she is "good" but to protect her food source. I can do it with the present rules - but ith allies I could also add to the army with forces she has acquired. Its not more difficult with allies, it just gives you new options IF you want to use them.

I honestly don't see an ally system working in the lore of WHFB either. Think about it. There is no mass travel in our world. There are a few battles here and there where factions worked together, but on the most part it was too difficult. Why? Because travel takes months or years to reach across oceans and many miles. The only reason Dwarves and Empire worked well is because they're in the same general locale. High Elves rarely, stepped in to help out because it would take months to get to them, months to get back, and by then the battle would be over. Lizardmen hardly allies with anyone due to the insular nature of both their culture and their terrain. 40k allies work, because these armies have had a history of working together, and because of the mass transit available in the lore. Here, It does not.

Sorry but this is nonsense - the armies of the Warhammer World are just as likely to ally against a common foe as were the armies of the ancient world or medievil Europe - which is of course what Warhammer is partly based on - look at the shifting allliances and empires in that world and its wars and just chnage the names of countries to those of different races. Consider that you also add in magical communciaitons, flying monsters etc - going to war without allies often resulted in defeat by those who did have them. There are lots of times different armies work together - Chaos and Orks fight together as much as against each other. Dwarves and the Empire are steadfast allies, Elves have aided the empire and fought aginst them. In the fluff there some odd alliances - Vampires, Humans and Dwarves against Orks (Neferata). Lizardmen and Humans against the Undead. Humans and Skaven against Humans (that ended well ).

re the months to travel - well yes and wars can takes years to fight or longer - plus the major conflicts in the world tend to draw in everyone else around - you choose a side or you are crushed by one or both of the main participants

Oh and skaven do have mass transit systems as well !

Stoupe wrote:


I honestly don't see an ally system working in the lore of WHFB either.

Put simply: You're wrong. Allies has actually been part of the game longer than it hasn't been. 1st through 5th all had Allies in some form, 1st and 2nd by having no real army construction restrictions and 3rd, 4th, and 5th by actually having Allies allocations, which by the way, were determined by who the army had ties to/alliances with by the fluff. Hell, even 8th has an Alliance system based on fluff.

Allies have actually been a HUGE part of Warhammer lore over the years(the Empire and Dwarf kingdoms actually have a pact to help each other in times of need, for example).

I love how people address the subject sentences rather than reading my posts.

Does anyone in here remember the General's Compendium? It had some pretty darn awesome allies rules in it with regards to the fluff (!) e.g. Lizardmen being unsure allies with everyone they can ally with because of their mysterious attitude and the lack of trust people, even good armies, engage them.

I'll see if I can find it on my netbook and will upload the chart. It also had really well-working allies / multiplayer rules.

Stoupe wrote:
I love how people address the subject sentences rather than reading my posts.

We do read the posts we just take the important bits for the quotes

Jayo'r wrote:

Stoupe wrote:
I love how people address the subject sentences rather than reading my posts.

We do read the posts we just take the important bits for the quotes

Exactly.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mr Morden wrote:

Oh and skaven do have mass transit systems as well !

The Dwarves have trains, at least in the WaR alt timeline.

Credible rumours suggest that whfb 9 will not be "8.5" but may indeed be a dramatic change. WHFB sales are not very good and it seems likely that GW management is inclined to do something drastic. Personally I hope for an evolution not revolution in the rules.

I can foresee GW doing something significant because it is very hard to recruit new players into whfb compared to 40k or warmahordes. Also GW currently is marketing mainly to the 11-15 year old age range and whfb just does not have a lot of appeal to that group. 40K has a lot of appeal to older and younger players, whfb not so much.

Allies: I think you can rely on this as part of standard games in 9th. In 3rd there were rules for allied contingents and the separate mercenary contingents as well.

Terrain: We already have purchasable terrain in the "Folding Fortress" magic item and the new demon book has a magic item that deploys as a barricade and can turn into a building on a high roll of the dice. Wood elves have long been able to deploy a free woods terrain . I expect more purchasable terrain in 9th if not sooner.

If you are going to speculate on rules for 9th, you may as well try and make your guess on what GW marketing thinks will sell models. I dont mean just "powerful units" but dramatically changing the game to make it more appealing to their target audience (11-15 year old boys).

JWhex wrote:
Credible rumours suggest that whfb 9 will not be "8.5" but may indeed be a dramatic change. WHFB sales are not very good and it seems likely that GW management is inclined to do something drastic. Personally I hope for an evolution not revolution in the rules.

I can foresee GW doing something significant because it is very hard to recruit new players into whfb compared to 40k or warmahordes. Also GW currently is marketing mainly to the 11-15 year old age range and whfb just does not have a lot of appeal to that group. 40K has a lot of appeal to older and younger players, whfb not so much.

I dunno about that from what I hear Fantasy is bigger in Europe and that 40k is bigger in the US. I know my local GW is huge into 40k since 6th and there are dullards that only play 40k, however last year we had a fantasy league with a dozen members. At the major local yearly tournament that is mix of 40k, fantasy and warmahordes about 10% of the tables is warmahordes 30% is fantasy and the rest are 40k, 30% isn't bad.

Hargus56 wrote:

JWhex wrote:
Credible rumours suggest that whfb 9 will not be "8.5" but may indeed be a dramatic change. WHFB sales are not very good and it seems likely that GW management is inclined to do something drastic. Personally I hope for an evolution not revolution in the rules.

I can foresee GW doing something significant because it is very hard to recruit new players into whfb compared to 40k or warmahordes. Also GW currently is marketing mainly to the 11-15 year old age range and whfb just does not have a lot of appeal to that group. 40K has a lot of appeal to older and younger players, whfb not so much.

I dunno about that from what I hear Fantasy is bigger in Europe and that 40k is bigger in the US. I know my local GW is huge into 40k since 6th and there are dullards that only play 40k, however last year we had a fantasy league with a dozen members. At the major local yearly tournament that is mix of 40k, fantasy and warmahordes about 10% of the tables is warmahordes 30% is fantasy and the rest are 40k, 30% isn't bad.

WHFB is more popular than it is in the US, but 40k still clearly outmatches WHFB.

Hargus56 wrote:

JWhex wrote:

I dunno about that from what I hear Fantasy is bigger in Europe and that 40k is bigger in the US. I know my local GW is huge into 40k since 6th and there are dullards that only play 40k, however last year we had a fantasy league with a dozen members. At the major local yearly tournament that is mix of 40k, fantasy and warmahordes about 10% of the tables is warmahordes 30% is fantasy and the rest are 40k, 30% isn't bad.

The space marine armies alone sell more than all the fantasy armies combined. WHFB does appear to be more popular in UK/Europe than the US but I am certain 40k outsells whfb everywhere. This is no surprise because the genre of sci fi is just more popular than fantasy and 40k is much easier to start up than fantasy.

8th edition got off to a very rocky start and GW didnt help matters by waiting so long to start updating the army books. I do not want to see a major reboot of fantasy because I think it will just cripple the player base with lots of people rage quitting.

Jayo'r wrote:

Stoupe wrote:
I love how people address the subject sentences rather than reading my posts.

We do read the posts we just take the important bits for the quotes

Indeed, which bit of your post did I not address in my fairly extensive reply?

There is always a reason for armies to fight each other and there's always a reason for them to be allies. There really is. Lizardmen and Daemons team up to fight HE and DE. You just have to stretch why they would.

There is a sliding scale of role playing that games fall on that goes something like:

11: Believing you're really a vampire like for real. Working at a used record store for life.
10: LARPing. Getting beat up.
9. Actor's Studio diceless RPG. But at least there are hot actresses there.
4-8. Generic roleplay games. There's always the guy with the pizza next to the guy trying to speak only in Klingon.
3. Warhammer. Other miniature battle games. Tactical games. Anyone dresses like Hitler playing a WWII game will likely get his ass kicked.
2. Monopoly banker. Making a free toaster joke the first three times you make change.
1. Online MMOs. /dance

It's cool you got a backstory for your army. But WHFB is primarily a strategy game.

Stoupe wrote:

 Tangent wrote:
You're basically writing your own story and then wanting the game, which already has a story, to conform to you. That doesn't seem reasonable to me.

Your missing the point. I'm not asking the game to conform to me. I'm asking to not be restricted. There are alot of players like me, who convert and change their armies to write their own stories. This is part of the fun for players. They take bits and pieces of lore that has been written. In my case, its a combination of the lore written behind The Great War of Chaos, the lore behind Archaon (as the Everchosen is rumored to be a former warrior priest), and the formerly supported Chaotic God of Malal. But the story behind my army is not the point. The fact that there is a story behind my army is. Many players like to do the same thing as me and theme their army around a certain time period or story in the lore

The problem with the allies system is it removes all creativity. X army can only work with Y army because the main lore supports it. It creates it more difficult to theme armies together behind a larger story. A lot of beautiful armies done in this manor becomes obsolete. Perhaps you've designed your good army to be evil, or perhaps you've designed your evil army to have turned good. The problem with this type of system is that it is one which restricts a lot of creative ideas in a hobby that prides itself on being creative.

I honestly don't see an ally system working in the lore of WHFB either. Think about it. There is no mass travel in our world. There are a few battles here and there where factions worked together, but on the most part it was too difficult. Why? Because travel takes months or years to reach across oceans and many miles. The only reason Dwarves and Empire worked well is because they're in the same general locale. High Elves rarely, stepped in to help out because it would take months to get to them, months to get back, and by then the battle would be over. Lizardmen hardly allies with anyone due to the insular nature of both their culture and their terrain. 40k allies work, because these armies have had a history of working together, and because of the mass transit available in the lore. Here, It does not.

Nah man, it's you who is really missing the point. You ARE asking the game to conform to you by asking the game to do something that it is not designed to do. You didn't make the game, but you, personally, want it to be different - you want it to conform to YOUR expectations and standards (in this case, standards of creativity, or creative license). You're asking to not be restricted in a restrictive game that you didn't create - that's wanting it to conform to your expectations. And it isn't reasonable, for two reasons:

1) You didn't design the game - you just play it as it is designed.
2) I forgot the second reason.

There are a lot of players like you who want the game to be different - I get it. And IF it were different, it would add to the fun for those players - I get that, too. But it ISN'T different, it ISN'T what you want it to be. Honestly, you want to play Dungeons and Dragons, and that's cool. I like D&D and I've played it for years. That game is inherently designed with the creativity that you want out of WHFB in mind.

But trying to add aspects of D&D to WHFB won't work in every case. Actually, you would probably end up better off if you did this in reverse - tried to add aspects of wargames to D&D.

Also, lol, just because something is in the main rules (in this case, allies as you mention) doesn't mean it's not creative.

From speaking to a FLGS manager, he said that sales have gone noticeably down since 8th ed came out. While I don't agree with his complaints about the game (though TLoS is a bit of a pain), I can definitely see GW wanting to radically change things up to try and bring customers back. What would that mean? Hopefully nothing too expensive!

Though I'd love to do a siege someday.

 Charles Rampant wrote:

Though I'd love to do a siege someday.

Me too!

A siege would be awesome

Sieges were fun with the 5th and 6th ed rules for them. Haven't tried out the Blood in the Badlands rules, yet.

 Platuan4th wrote:
Sieges were fun with the 5th and 6th ed rules for them. Haven't tried out the Blood in the Badlands rules, yet.

Plan for a lot of time. they take a while.

JWhex wrote:
Credible rumours suggest that whfb 9 will not be "8.5" but may indeed be a dramatic change. WHFB sales are not very good and it seems likely that GW management is inclined to do something drastic. Personally I hope for an evolution not revolution in the rules.

GW sales are soft for the same reason revenues are down everywhere - the economy is in the toilet and there's less money to spend. Has nothing to do with the quality of the game or the minis.

One could argue the ever-increasing price of entry to be a factor in GW's revenue loss as well, but that's not 100% confirmed.

 Vulcan wrote:

JWhex wrote:
Credible rumours suggest that whfb 9 will not be "8.5" but may indeed be a dramatic change. WHFB sales are not very good and it seems likely that GW management is inclined to do something drastic. Personally I hope for an evolution not revolution in the rules.

GW sales are soft for the same reason revenues are down everywhere - the economy is in the toilet and there's less money to spend. Has nothing to do with the quality of the game or the minis.

One could argue the ever-increasing price of entry to be a factor in GW's revenue loss as well, but that's not 100% confirmed.

I'm not sure that I buy this; Kingdom Death is considerably more luxury (even within the hobby) than Warhammer, and yet it made megabucks.

GW also has a pretty bad rep right now due to their price increases, public hate vs. gamers and sub-par mini releases.

There, here you go, the allies chart from 7th, from the Book "General'S Compendium". I can only recommend this book to everyone, it oozes with gaming love GW customers nowadays will not know. It's one of the best books GW has ever released.



Y = yes

n = no

m = maybe, aka you get some disadvantages under certain circumstances

Warhammer is a miniature game in the internet age. Frankly, I'm amazed they do as well as they do.

There used to be all kinds of generic "hobby stores" when I was growing up. With paper roleplaying games of all sorts. MMOs basically destroyed that. The number of gaming conventions has probably been cut by 90% over the last 20 years. There used to be a major one a month somewhere. And by major I mean thousands of people. TSR, the great grandfather of many, was bought out by the guys who made Magic: The Gathering a card game. There's been massive consolidation in that industry because they simply couldn't survive any more.

Computer games make more than Hollywood. Miniature games probably make more than a single indie movie with C-list celebrities about the cocaine addiction of dolphins.

DukeRustfield wrote:
Warhammer is a miniature game in the internet age. Frankly, I'm amazed they do as well as they do.

There used to be all kinds of generic "hobby stores" when I was growing up. With paper roleplaying games of all sorts. MMOs basically destroyed that. The number of gaming conventions has probably been cut by 90% over the last 20 years. There used to be a major one a month somewhere. And by major I mean thousands of people. TSR, the great grandfather of many, was bought out by the guys who made Magic: The Gathering a card game. There's been massive consolidation in that industry because they simply couldn't survive any more.

Great, Duke, now I'm sad.

DukeRustfield wrote:
Warhammer is a miniature game in the internet age. Frankly, I'm amazed they do as well as they do.

There used to be all kinds of generic "hobby stores" when I was growing up. With paper roleplaying games of all sorts. MMOs basically destroyed that. The number of gaming conventions has probably been cut by 90% over the last 20 years. There used to be a major one a month somewhere. And by major I mean thousands of people. TSR, the great grandfather of many, was bought out by the guys who made Magic: The Gathering a card game. There's been massive consolidation in that industry because they simply couldn't survive any more.

Computer games make more than Hollywood. Miniature games probably make more than a single indie movie with C-list celebrities about the cocaine addiction of dolphins.

There is always massive consolidation after the genesis of a completely new industry. There were once over 100 car manufacturers in the USA and in the early 80s there was a huge number of computer companies.

There may be fewer gaming conventions but there are plenty of mid to large sized warmahordes and warhammer tournaments. The question is, how healthy is non-computer gaming? It seems very healthy to me. MtG is huge, there are more adult boardgames than ever and there are more miniature companies world wide than ever before. Perhaps RPGs are on the decline but gaming not counting computer games appears to be very healthy and is probably helped by the internet more than hurt by it.

 Sigvatr wrote:
GW also has a pretty bad rep right now due to their price increases, public hate vs. gamers and sub-par mini releases.

There, here you go, the allies chart from 7th, from the Book "General'S Compendium". I can only recommend this book to everyone, it oozes with gaming love GW customers nowadays will not know. It's one of the best books GW has ever released.



Y = yes

n = no

m = maybe, aka you get some disadvantages under certain circumstances

What does the cross mean?

JWhex wrote:
MtG is huge, there are more adult boardgames than ever and there are more miniature companies world wide than ever before. Perhaps RPGs are on the decline but gaming not counting computer games appears to be very healthy and is probably helped by the internet more than hurt by it.

There are about a billionth as many "adult boardgames" as there used to be. They thrived 20 years ago because there were no computer alternatives. Adults tend to have adult responsibilities. Being able to play online gave them vastly more time and almost completely wiped out the post-college gaming community. I'm not talking about Jenga and the stuff you play with preppy people when you're drinking wine at a house party.

I played Shogun and Axis and Allies and Battletech and Diplomacy and Titan and countless others in pick-up games at conventions. That's how popular and omnipresent they were. You can play them for free online now. Why would someone drive 3 hours, rent a hotel, pay for overpriced meals, just to play a board game they can start online in 5 minutes?

I don't mean to be an old fuddy-duddy, but those days are gone. I don't think it's necessarily for the worse, it's just different.

 Vulcan wrote:

JWhex wrote:
Credible rumours suggest that whfb 9 will not be "8.5" but may indeed be a dramatic change. WHFB sales are not very good and it seems likely that GW management is inclined to do something drastic. Personally I hope for an evolution not revolution in the rules.

GW sales are soft for the same reason revenues are down everywhere - the economy is in the toilet and there's less money to spend. Has nothing to do with the quality of the game or the minis.

One could argue the ever-increasing price of entry to be a factor in GW's revenue loss as well, but that's not 100% confirmed.

Everyone else in the industry seems to be doing fine though, that's the thing. GW still have highest sales volume but it is dropping. PP, Corvus Belli, Spartan Games, Mantic, they are all doing fine right now though.

Unless you have their internal sales charts, which you don't, you can't say how a private company is doing or not doing. GW is public and has to disclose at least some info.

 Grey Templar wrote:

What does the cross mean?

It's a special rule for Chaos. If the armies got the same god, the cross counts as a "y", if not, it's "m".

Small correction: it's from 6th, not 7th.

The book clearly shows the change of GW from a hobby company that really has the gamers in mind (the book 25$!!!!) to a money-greedy, souless company that hates gamers from the heart. The General's Compendium just oozes love for the hobby. It's such an awesome book. Man, what has GW become in the last 10 years? So sad :(

DukeRustfield wrote:
Unless you have their internal sales charts, which you don't, you can't say how a private company is doing or not doing. GW is public and has to disclose at least some info.

True but we have the GW ones and they are breaking even or losing ground while other companies seem to be thriving. Spartan games have gone from 3 game systems to 6 recently, they are clearly growing despite the economy while GW have stagnated.

I have spent a lot of money with Spartan - great models - althought they do soend alot of time tweeking the rules and realsing new editons...........

I think they have just dropped Uncharted Seas sadly :( just when were starting up fleets at our local club :(

 Sigvatr wrote:


The book clearly shows the change of GW from a hobby company that really has the gamers in mind (the book 25$!!!!) to a money-greedy, souless company that hates gamers from the heart. The General's Compendium just oozes love for the hobby. It's such an awesome book. Man, what has GW become in the last 10 years? So sad :(

Because people arent buying miniatures as we have established?

Unless its CMoN Kickstarters

It'll be fun when 10 empire state troopers will cost $40

Heck they just stopped Online Bitz Selling, probably trying to get more people to buy from them or something

Meh, I'm done for the next few years. 1850 Necrons, 3000 pts Goblins - the next thing I'll buy is...well...idk. I won't buy the new O&G army book if it's 80+$...I guess it will either be the 9th starter or the 9th small rules book, depending on which armies are in the starter. No O&G => only buy the small rulebook.

So, back to the rules speculation:

I seriously expect big monsters to become more favoured by GW. Perhaps they will relax restrictions (i.e. 2 max per rare choice)? Disregarding cannons, their biggest problems are not being able to break steadfast, and being vulnerable to things like Death and 6th level spells. Though I doubt that they'll get rid of ways to snipe them, I can see them improving them versus Steadfast - perhaps something like monsters getting a better Thunderstomp if they charge, which can negate rank bonus and thus steadfast.

Steadfast was a direct counter to big monsters. It seems unlikely they'll simply reverse that. Because then 100 fodder units will get broken on turn one because they are never going to do as many wounds as a monster Tstomping their faces.

From an economic standpoint, lotsa little guys > one big guy. If you can get a viable 300pt in $50 they're going to make a whole lot less money on that than 6 boxes of rank and file and corresponding paints. I like to think they balance more fluffy, but it IS a business.

DukeRustfield wrote:
Steadfast was a direct counter to big monsters. .

This seems unlikely to me. Big monsters never really dominated 7th edition. I think steadfast combined with the step up rule was designed to counter cavalry and small elite infantry units from breaking large blocks of infantry.

JWhex wrote:

DukeRustfield wrote:
Steadfast was a direct counter to big monsters. .

This seems unlikely to me. Big monsters never really dominated 7th edition. I think steadfast combined with the step up rule was designed to counter cavalry and small elite infantry units from breaking large blocks of infantry.

Correct.

Everything ran from terror big monsters and were overrun and smushed.

DukeRustfield wrote:
Everything ran from terror big monsters and were overrun and smushed.

Actually, no. Terror tests are off of leadership and even without the bsb reroll if you halfway knew what you were doing it just wasnt that big of an issue for most armies.

Demons, vampire counts, tomb kings, all immune to psychology and dont give a fig about terror

Lizardmen have cold blooded and rarely fail their panic tests, even skinks

All the elves and dwarves are high leadership armies so terror tests are not a huge threat.

Even low leadership armies could keep their main units near the general if a terror causing monster was on the board. The worst that usually would happen is that a flying terror causing monster would land near some flanking warmachines or chaff. Terror was just not that big of a deal, the hydra and abomb and bloodthirsters were dangerous for other reasons. Ground pounding terror causing monsters just did not have the movement to charge, cause a terror reaction and run down a unit with any reliability.

A lot of those rules didn't exist or were very different in 7th. It doesn't amazingly matter, but trust me, fear and terror were huge. Google it.

DukeRustfield wrote:
A lot of those rules didn't exist or were very different in 7th. It doesn't amazingly matter, but trust me, fear and terror were huge. Google it.

You dont know what you are talking about. Lizards have had cold blooded since they were re-introduced in 5th edition. Undead and demons have always been immune to psychology. Elves, and dwarves have always had high leadership. I played many games of every edition and have the seventh edition rules right in front of me. Units have been able to use the general's LD since 4th edition and there was no terror rule in 3rd.

Everything I wrote was in the context of seventh edition. Indeed fear and terror were not huge in 7th compared to 4-5th. The importance and effect of psychology tests have been reduced and dumbed down every edition starting with the transition to 6th.

I agree with JWhex, while every once and a while you'd suffer due to bad dice terror wasn't that dominant in 7th. Once a unit passed a terror test they didn't have to test again.

Fear and Terror were only really effective if you outnumbered the enemy in combat. That was the requirement for the auto breaking in combat if the fear/terror causing unit won.

I commonly see it misremembered that a terror causing monster would just kill a couple guys in that 60 strong unit and they'd auto break.

JWhex wrote:
Indeed fear and terror were not huge in 7th compared to 4-5th.

Seriously. Google. Hell, search this forum for fear and restrict it to the time period of 7th edition.

As for 4th edition, the fear there was nothing compared to the terror of seeing Mat Ward projectile vomit rusty nails* while flapping open and closed the latest DoC army book. And interestingly, neither concept has anything to do with this thread.








*I've never met Mat Ward nor seen anyone projectile vomit nails.

DukeRustfield wrote:

JWhex wrote:
Indeed fear and terror were not huge in 7th compared to 4-5th.

Seriously. Google. Hell, search this forum for fear and restrict it to the time period of 7th edition.

Seriously I dont need to Google it I was there. You said the rules I mentioned were not in seventh edition, I corrected you and all you do is repeat to Google it. I played many games with a low leadership army, Beastmen. Neither fear nor terror were that big of a deal in 7th, you are just speculating and obviously have never played 7th or you would not have made the comment earlier that the rules I mentioned were not part of 7th edition.

But seriously.

Google it.

You were there makes it sound like 'Nam. But it wasn't the battle of Chow Puk Poo. It was what the gaming community thought. Not what you thought. Because unless you're buying tens of thousands of units, you mean jack. Not sure why you're thumping your chest about this, but the BRB between 7 and 8 changed. You know, it's why it's a new edition.

Fear and Terror were a lot more important in 7th due to them actually being a threat to nearby models, often making units run. They could be game-changers, but overall, I'd say that 7th was all about Herohammer. Then again, keep in mind that both USR now appear to be a lot stronger than they might have actually been due to them being useless in 8th.

Actually I'd agree with the herogammer, VC and DE with their unkillables..

The thing about fear and terror was because it was on the STRONGEST ARMY (Daemons)

Nobody gave a feth about Ogre Kingdoms having all fear, or undead having all fear.

Ogres were pretty lousy though before their switch. They didn't have Stomp, bull charge, were expensive and their magic wasn't real magic and their casters weren't decked-out in super magic armor and such. People weren't really afraid of Ogres because they were a substandard army to begin with.

Terror just had to be near you at the start of the turn and you had to test or flee.

Don't have the old VC book but as I recall they were more expensive for not drastically better.

I think putting some polls up would be good.
Maybe even sending GW our suggestions (What the hell druchii net seemed to have some influence on the min correction in that one edition (4th or 5th I think?).

My thoughts:
Bought Terrain yes, precedence for some things like woodies with their forest and the portable tower. If it goes well they then could re-do siege as a mid cycle release and bring back some more tactical aspects of the game. Makes financial sense

Steadfast must get negated by flank or rear charges by non skirmishers, or some measure of size wounds etc. Brings back some of the tactical appeal ie movement matters.

Terrain needs to have an impact and TLOS needs to be tweaked.

Spells need major tweeking, balance the lores, magic resistance should be pluses to saves where saves are allowed, multi wound models can't be insta killed by the power spells max 1 wound to each model in the unit . The biggest one to me a miscast MUST have as big a negative consequence as the positive of not being able to dispel. Just keeping the same results table but not allowing any saves would be more balanced.

Allies makes to much financial sense for them not to do it and there is plenty of precedence also lets DOW or Mercs in.

My 2 cents. Which in Canada now would be rounded down so worthless mmmmmmmmm.

Dogs of War tend to be horrendous ideas. They are very difficult to balance. An example of a DoW in the game are Giants. Lots of armies have them, their rules and cost are pretty much identical. No one uses them. Because if they were too good, all the armies would look identical. What point is there being an OK army or O&G army if 25-50% of your forces are identical?

I'd like to see spells less random. I think the army book lores in 8th tend to be less uber. Which is a sign to come.

But for the record, 9th, according to the last few releases, wouldn't be coming out until around 2016.

Allies are almost a sure bet for 9th edition. It makes financial sense but I always thought that allies were either a crutch for a poor player or a crutch for a poorly conceived army book.

Every army book should have a strong theme and be able to hold its own against the other armies. The inclusion of allies is just an excuse for GW to be even more careless when revising army books.

During third edition allies were everywhere but that was a very different game and a different era. In those days not very many people had huge collections of a single race and in a lot of the US, Citadel figs were not easy to find.

Had a random thought about a change of Steadfast rules, after i was watching a battle report...


...unit is stubborn up until the point that they lose combat by more than their Leadership.

The example i saw was when something like 18 models in a unit died to a single round of attacks from a steam tank or something, but there were more than 5 left so they had a rank and therefore were steadfast and didnt care that more than 75% of the unit was decimated.

I could see an Allies book, or rather a Mercenaries book being released that has a whole bunch of units and heroes. Each entry specifies which Warhammer armies can purchase the unit/model in question.

Heroes purchased as Mercenaries can't be your General. And you could purchase up to 25% of your army in Mercenaries.


Generic Mercenary units, basically empire state troops without the special rules, Cannons(prone to misfire), Bolt Throwers, Stone Throwers, etc...

Freelance Knights. HA, Shield, non-barded steeds, lances, can swap for GWs.

A few eliteish units that are pretty expensive. Like Tilean Pikemen. Fight in 2 extra ranks(so 4 ranks normally), HA, bucklers(+1 armor in combat, even with a pike)

Pavise Arbalesters. Light Armor, Pavise(+2 armor against shooting), Arbalest(str5 crossbow)

Ogre Maneaters without the BTDT special rules.

Dwarf Slayers

Arabyan Camel riders. Light cav, Vanguard, light armor, bows, cause fear in cavalry.

Generic Wizards with 25 points of magic items.

Generic merc captains with maybe 25 points of magic items.



basically a list of fairly customizable units that arn't really game breaking but can shore up a slight weakeness in every book without smothering the original army.

 Micky wrote:
Had a random thought about a change of Steadfast rules, after i was watching a battle report...


...unit is stubborn up until the point that they lose combat by more than their Leadership.

The example i saw was when something like 18 models in a unit died to a single round of attacks from a steam tank or something, but there were more than 5 left so they had a rank and therefore were steadfast and didnt care that more than 75% of the unit was decimated.

The problem there is that the game goes right back to an elite unit being able to kill enough enemy to just overcome their advantages and make them flee. If the elite unit isn't killy enough to do it, well then next game just add more geared up characters, before long you'll be able to score enough kills to overwhelm even Ld 9. It means the whole idea of hammer and anvil, and therefore the existance of unique troops that are more than just their killing potential, will disappear.


The simple fix to the problem you saw above is for monsters to count as having a rank. That'll stop the silliness of 5 goblins holding up a steam tank for another turn.


The other thing will be for flanking by two ranks or more to cancel steadfast (so flying monsters can't do it, but decent sized cavalry units can). That one means protecting your flanks becomes essential again (and so gives an important role to fast flanking units).

Yeah, fear and terror used to be super strong. Fear causing an auto-break if you outnumbered and terror forcing a test if you were just nearby... really awesome.