Hi,
while Harry still thinks that 9th edition comes next year, Hastings changed his mind and now is certain that it will come 2015, a year later.
Here the Fantasy release schedule according to Hastings:

2013:
High Elves
Lizardmen

2014
Dark Elves
Dwarfs
Wood Elves

2015
Bretonnia
Orks&Goblins
9th edition

Harry is certain that 9th edition will be more than a quick fix, featuring big changes. A new wave of job openings in the design studio last month (rules, background, painters) could be a sign of things to come. Here some recent quotes from Warseer:

75hastings69 wrote:I was actually discussing with Harry about a month or so ago that next WFB is not till 2015.

An extra year would allow all armies to get treatment before new edition in 2015.

2013

HE
Lizardmen

2014

DE
Dwarfs
Brets(?)

2015

WE (?)
Skaven (?)
9th edition

Personally I'd swap WE & Brets around and change Skaven to O&G....... but that's just me

Harry wrote:

Avian wrote:

NatTreehouse wrote:9th edition rumors
Major overhall and not like all the other "major" ones - radical rethink. Ricks gone so other people want to get their hands on it.
All army books gone and Ravening Hordes replacement
Timeline moves forward
So many changes won't come out before 2015, not next year (Memphis got panties in a bunch about this)

This is essentially a repeat of the rumours we had before both 8th edition and 7th edition. They are made up this time as well, which should be blindingly obvious from the suggestion that they are redoing all army books.
Just nonsense. Move along.

Says you. Based on what?

Avian wrote:Yeah, the mention of 2015 wasn't the thing that made people realize it was an invented rumour.
While I would hope that 9th comes soon to fix some of the problems I have with eighth

It is not an invented rumour. 9th will be more than a quick fix.
I posted months ago to hint as much. I first heard this last year. I have heard it a few times since.
(...)
When I said I thought 'it was 2014 but opinions vary' was because I was hearing different things from different folks.
When it comes to rumours I almost always go with what hastings says ... as he is almost always right.
So if his sources are saying 2015 ... then thats probably right.

As for the 'big changes' stuff ... you may want to hold off on the salt a bit.

Marked_by_chaos over at Warseer wrote:Every now and then I have a look at the job vacancies on the gw site out of interest. Recently the nature of adverts and types of jobs seems to have changed. There was in particular a big explosion of design studio jobs advertised at the end of last month. Seems like they are looking for everything from rules writers to background writers to army painters to video/hobby/painting presenters.

Perhaps they're starting to a get a bit more professional about design studio recruitment i.e. not a weird in house Recruitment process but an attempt to recruit the most effective staff. Some of the jobs indicate a new direction in project work, particularly the split between a rule writer and background writer role. One can only hope for no more kaldor draigos.

Wait

Orcs and Goblins will get a 8.5 book?

Hmmmm

To be precise, Hastings commented on the release schedule, so there is some room for speculation, whether O&G are released just before or just after 9th edition.

Such little hope for Bretonnia makes me sad.

orkybenji wrote:
Such little hope for Bretonnia makes me sad.

Such is the mark of bretonnian!

Why would they give O&G another book so quickly? Unless they have some more models to shift, it seems a touch pointless to re-release the army book within the same edition.

Again: O&G being 4 weeks before or after 9th edition release is of no importance, it still will be a 9th edition army book.
Also, 4.5 years between two army books is not super quick, it is just quicker than Wood Elf army books.

So the rumour is basically that all armies will get a hardcover army book within the next 2 years and then 3 months later they will all be invalidated with a Ravening Hordes pamphlet.

Right.

Isn't the other thread exactly for information like this?

Buff Goblins please!

Seriously though, I can hardly wait the tasty, tasty tears of frog players now having balanced casters

All army books gone and Ravening Hordes replacement

What exactly do they mean by this??

The sad thing is that everything they'll change will be aimed at selling us more stuff they want us to want... instead of improving the rules and making it a better game.

 TBD wrote:

All army books gone and Ravening Hordes replacement

What exactly do they mean by this??

The sad thing is that everything they'll change will be aimed at selling us more stuff they want us to want... instead of improving the rules and making it a better game.

It's what happened in 6th. Ravening Hordes was a booklet that replaced the older Army Books, required because of the changes to how armies were constructed from how it was done in 4th/5th.

Basically, if this happens, it means that there's such a change in how armies are created that the current Army Books will be utterly useless in constructing a playable army.

2014 (and to some degree, 2015) cannot come soon enough. I'd like to see what they do with the Dwarfs. They were the first WHFB army I played with and I've been thinking of revisiting them.

 Platuan4th wrote:

 TBD wrote:

All army books gone and Ravening Hordes replacement

What exactly do they mean by this??

The sad thing is that everything they'll change will be aimed at selling us more stuff they want us to want... instead of improving the rules and making it a better game.

It's what happened in 6th. Ravening Hordes was a booklet that replaced the older Army Books, required because of the changes to how armies were constructed from how it was done in 4th/5th.

Basically, if this happens, it means that there's such a change in how armies are created that the current Army Books will be utterly useless in constructing a playable army.

So basically they could be selling people brand new army books (for example) late 2014 that would be completely useless less than a year later?

I am not sure what to say....

 TBD wrote:


So basically they could be selling people brand new army books (for example) late 2014 that would be completely useless less than a year later?

I am not sure what to say....

It wouldn't be the first time. They released the SoB book in 2nd edition less than a year before 3rd was released and the 2nd edition Necron White Dwarf list only 2-3 months before.

And more relevantly, the very first Vampire Counts book was released about a year before 6th edition was.

 djphranq wrote:
2014 (and to some degree, 2015) cannot come soon enough. I'd like to see what they do with the Dwarfs. They were the first WHFB army I played with and I've been thinking of revisiting them.

They can leave Dwarfs alone till 9th, thankyouverymuch...

So no DE until 2014 blows as that army needs the plastic kits and army balancing far more than HE do.

I'd also rather have 9th be next year, but I'd rather see new WE and Brets more provided they are designed with any major changes from 9th in mind. To me that is a major point as those armies have seen steep hurdles in recent editions into their overall viability.

The biggest concern for me and 9th is that it damn well better remove Steadfast or introduce at least 3-5 ways to negate it entirely without just running an even deeper bus.

Other changes I'd like would be Charging reverted back to what it was before(randomly failing charges is stupid) and ASF on the charge against any target that doesn't have ASF or something along those lines.

 Dysartes wrote:

 djphranq wrote:
2014 (and to some degree, 2015) cannot come soon enough. I'd like to see what they do with the Dwarfs. They were the first WHFB army I played with and I've been thinking of revisiting them.

They can leave Dwarfs alone till 9th, thankyouverymuch...

oh god. my wallet begs that my "gateway drug" of dwarfs are left alone until a new, more worthy edition comes around.

(But those first armies are a fickle mistress)

Interesting. I'm hoping that this talk of a dramatic re-write is correct, because (personal opinion, yadda yadda) I am no fan of what WHFB became with the switch to Eighth Edition. WHFB had been my favorite game of any type, bar none, until Eighth Edition came about (and no, it wasn't because I had an uber win record, I was a sub .500 player). I still have my old Dark Elf and Beastmen armies, and would love to have a chance to use them as more than shelf-filler again.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
So the rumour is basically that all armies will get a hardcover army book within the next 2 years and then 3 months later they will all be invalidated with a Ravening Hordes pamphlet.

Right.

Maybe that's why they don't tell us until the day pre-orders go up.

What? Bretonnians in 2015? Weren't they suppposed to be released this summer?

Vintersorg wrote:
What? Bretonnians in 2015? Weren't they suppposed to be released this summer?

When are rumors ever accurate

 lord_blackfang wrote:
So the rumour is basically that all armies will get a hardcover army book within the next 2 years and then 3 months later they will all be invalidated with a Ravening Hordes pamphlet.

Right.

No? Reread it. Avian said that a Ravening Hordes pamphlet is nonsense.

 MasterSlowPoke wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:
So the rumour is basically that all armies will get a hardcover army book within the next 2 years and then 3 months later they will all be invalidated with a Ravening Hordes pamphlet.

Right.

No? Reread it. Avian said that a Ravening Hordes pamphlet is nonsense.

Except he is only saying it because of the rumours which surrounded 7th & 8th implying the same thing.

Note Harry's response to Avian saying it was rubbish...

Unless its a pamphlet, a la ravening hordes, that acts as an update to all the existing army books, and brings them in line with each other/9th edition. Doesnt replace the books, but is used in conjunction with them. Then, they could charge whatever they wanted, as everyone will need it...

Vintersorg wrote:
What? Bretonnians in 2015? Weren't they suppposed to be released this summer?

Well, not according to my rumour summary since July 2012.

 Dysartes wrote:

 MasterSlowPoke wrote:
No? Reread it. Avian said that a Ravening Hordes pamphlet is nonsense.

Except he is only saying it because of the rumours which surrounded 7th & 8th implying the same thing.
Note Harry's response to Avian saying it was rubbish...

Avian is trolling and hunting down every rumour poster on Warseer. That and the rumour-thread-rage-locking mods are the reasons, why less and less rumours come from Warseer

 Kroothawk wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:

 MasterSlowPoke wrote:
No? Reread it. Avian said that a Ravening Hordes pamphlet is nonsense.

Except he is only saying it because of the rumours which surrounded 7th & 8th implying the same thing.
Note Harry's response to Avian saying it was rubbish...

Avian is trolling and hunting down every rumour poster on Warseer. That and the rumour-thread-rage-locking mods are the reasons, why less and less rumours come from Warseer

Any idea why Avian is being more of a tit than normal these days?

Why do the mods lock rumour threads at Warseer?

GW might have their fat, overpaid lawyers on the loose again.

I don't think lawyers can stop a discussion group from discussing rumours. That's a bridge to far, even for Games "We hold copyright over arrows and skulls" Workshop.

 Charles Rampant wrote:
Why would they give O&G another book so quickly? Unless they have some more models to shift, it seems a touch pointless to re-release the army book within the same edition.

Orcs and Goblins have been the first army book released in an edition for the past two editions, js.

I'm still very sceptical about this schedule though. Only two more books for this year seems unlikely, especially as we're not expecting any new editions this year, and I can't believe they'd wait that long for a new Bretonnian book. Though, it has happened before...

 Dysartes wrote:
Any idea why Avian is being more of a tit than normal these days?

Send him a PM, he is also member of Dakka. But AFAIK it started with a feud against steppingonyou and stickmonkey and his geas to prove that both make up rumours.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Why do the mods lock rumour threads at Warseer?

The Mods there, like to beat their chest in thinking that Warseer is the best of the best and they don't have feeble fake crap on their site. Just look at them with Pancake edition of 40K. They thumped their chest in saying "see we were right in locking the threads with fake rumours".

It's a power thing. Most Mods on Warseer are on a power trip.

Davor wrote:
Most Mods on Warseer are on a power trip.

Not nessicarily but the mods, or at least the manner in which they moderate, is one of the prime reasons why I no longer post on Warseer.

I can only hope that 9th is a good edition but in reality I'm sure that my many fantasy armies will be staying in their respective boxes for a very long time yet.

Davor wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Why do the mods lock rumour threads at Warseer?

The Mods there, like to beat their chest in thinking that Warseer is the best of the best and they don't have feeble fake crap on their site. Just look at them with Pancake edition of 40K. They thumped their chest in saying "see we were right in locking the threads with fake rumours".
It's a power thing. Most Mods on Warseer are on a power trip.

Warseer started earlier, with the Tyranid Codex rumours. Brimstone hunted down any rumour poster daring to quote Phil Kelly, that there will be several new units dwarfing the Carnifex. Because Warseer just knew that there will never be a Tyranid bigger than a Carnifex. The Dude made rumour summaries following that official line without Phil Kelly quotes, which eventually led to him becoming the new mod for 40k, rage-locking every rumour thread made impure by naughty Warseer posters. BTW, when banning Tyranid players left and right didn't help people trusting Phil Kelly, Warseer banned Tyranid rumour discussion altogether until Codex release.

Even earlier, Harry was universally attacked on Warseer, because he predicted a high elf chariot drawn by white lions. He still feels the scars from that time.

Wha... huh?

So they locked threads and banned people for discussing rumours because they themselves didn't believe them?

Don't want to derail the thread any further, but yes:
I was banned from Warseer for repeatedly making Tyranid rumour summaries including the Phil Kelly quote. The Dude was promoted for making rumour summaries without Phil Kelly quotes or any other content, attacking me personally for spreading such nonsense as what turned out to be Tervigons, Tyrannofexes and Harpies. Many other Tyranid players were banned for criticizing that. Yeah, crazy times, and it got worse.

So you came to the wild wild west of Dakka Dakka (and I am glad of it)

Anyway, we should probably get back to talking about fantasy 9th edition... which unfortunately I was really hoping for in 2014

 Kroothawk wrote:
Don't want to derail the thread any further, but yes:
I was banned from Warseer for repeatedly making Tyranid rumour summaries including the Phil Kelly quote. The Dude was promoted for making rumour summaries without Phil Kelly quotes or any other content, attacking me personally for spreading such nonsense as what turned out to be Tervigons, Tyrannofexes and Harpies. Many other Tyranid players were banned for criticizing that. Yeah, crazy times, and it got worse.

If my memory serves me right. GW came down hard on Warseer back in 2009 on a rumor or two. This might be something in the back of those moderator's minds when they locked down the thread.

Lovely. Brets get a new book... just in time for a new edition to nerf them. Again.

I am very sparing in posting on Warseer now - I find the moderation policy to be extremely dictatorial. Its a deeply unpleasant environment to have discussions on many things as its locked down faster than a Supermax during a riot.

I'd be pretty disheartened if the new edition invalidated existing army books, but I also find it pretty unlikely.

There were some pretty drastic changes from 7th to 8th, and they managed to keep all Army Books valid through use of FAQs. I would expect a repeat of that at most.

I think we can do without the discussion of other forums please folks.

Thank you.

And all forum moderators are on power trips BTW

 reds8n wrote:
I think we can do without the discussion of other forums please folks.

Thank you.

And all forum moderators are on power trips BTW

At least the ones here admit it


I'm saddened that DE won't be until next year. I think WFB has too many armies to only release 3 a year and if anything they should have a rough order in which armies are redone, something along the lines of most popular to least, and then changing that order should a book be broken from a new edition releasing. So like:

Empire
Orcs and Goblins
Vampire Counts
Warriors of Chaos
Dark Elves
High Elves
Dwarves
Skaven
Ogres
Lizardmen
Daemons
Tomb Kings
Bretonnians
Wood Elves
Beastmen


Then if in the middle of that cycle a new edition releases and army X is obliterated by the changes, then that army gets bumped up in the queue.

Since the beginning of the year we have had at least one army book/codex each month. Was no one else expecting that trend to continue?

 jonolikespie wrote:
Since the beginning of the year we have had at least one army book/codex each month. Was no one else expecting that trend to continue?

That would mean a WFB army every 2 months, meaning 6 a year which we certainly have not seen.

Also, it's only been 2 months which is a bit premature to say what the trend will be. Last year saw 2 WFB releases in the first 4 months, then nothing for 6 months.

The releases are not spread out very well at all. Empire in Jan, VC in April, then nothing until October for WoC(or was that Nov?).

Everyone remember that one time that every army got a new book within 6 years before a new edition came out? WTF happened to THAT model?

 Aerethan wrote:


Everyone remember that one time that every army got a new book within 6 years before a new edition came out? WTF happened to THAT model?

That only happened once, though. And it only happened because 7th broke the "every 4 Years" new edition rule which has existed since 4th edition(even 4th didn't see all the Army Books being released before 5th was released).

Sometimes those popularity list make me so made. Those lists are a forced popularity, mainly due to the fact that there seems to been a viscous cycle where people only like books that get updated often, and gw only update armies people like. If WEs got a new book as often as Orcs, I promise they'd be as popular as (if not more) then the other elf armies.

Sigh, sry.

/end rant

Coyote81 wrote:
Sometimes those popularity list make me so made. Those lists are a forced popularity, mainly due to the fact that there seems to been a viscous cycle where people only like books that get updated often, and gw only update armies people like. If WEs got a new book as often as Orcs, I promise they'd be as popular as (if not more) then the other elf armies.

Sigh, sry.

/end rant

I agree to a certain level. The logic is that GW hasn't updated armies that don't sell as well as others that get redone more often. It may be true that by updating them they'd see where those armies truly stand, but GW would rather spend money on the army that they know will sell rather than take a gamble.

 Platuan4th wrote:

 Aerethan wrote:


Everyone remember that one time that every army got a new book within 6 years before a new edition came out? WTF happened to THAT model?

That only happened once, though. And it only happened because 7th broke the "every 4 Years" new edition rule which has existed since 4th edition(even 4th didn't see all the Army Books being released before 5th was released).

So they are on a 4 year cycle then?!?

Coyote81 wrote:
Sometimes those popularity list make me so made. Those lists are a forced popularity, mainly due to the fact that there seems to been a viscous cycle where people only like books that get updated often, and gw only update armies people like. If WEs got a new book as often as Orcs, I promise they'd be as popular as (if not more) then the other elf armies.

Sigh, sry.

/end rant

It may be upsetting, but GW will have sales figures/trends from when each army book was new, so they know what they sell like when new and shiney, and how fast the sales boost drops off

so I suspect they actually have the order pretty much right (yes the could 'force' popularity by popping out a clearly overpowered book, pulling in the power gamers but they seem to have at least tried not to do this recently)

 Alpharius wrote:


So they are on a 4 year cycle then?!?

According to Internet wisdom. As far as I can figure, that piece of knowledge is based on how long each previous edition's live span has lasted. I don't know that there's any published policy statement to this effect, though.

Per the info on the wikipedia page:

1st 1983
2nd 1984
3rd 1987
4th 1992 (4 years till next edition)
5th 1996 (4 years till next edition)
6th 2000 (6 years till next edition)
7th 2006 (4 years till next edition)
8th 2010 (? years till next edition)

 bbb wrote:
Per the info on the wikipedia page:

1st 1983
2nd 1984
3rd 1987
4th 1992 (4 years till next edition)
5th 1996 (4 years till next edition)
6th 2000 (6 years till next edition)
7th 2006 (4 years till next edition)
8th 2010 (? years till next edition)

And so far 6th edition, while not perfect, was the most overall balanced edition once it was all said and done. 5th was hero hammer, 7th was the age of Daemons and VC, and 8th is the age of the infantry bus. In 6th edition each army relied more on it's specific tactics rather than some universal win condition.

Also that time frame means 9th this year, which I'm almost certain won't be the case.

I really, really hope they get WHF right at some point. I love the idea of making an army, I love the fluff behind most of the armies, I love the spectacle when you setup the board.

Then you start rolling dice and looking up rules--and feel like you should be punching a clock.

 Aerethan wrote:

 bbb wrote:
Per the info on the wikipedia page:

1st 1983
2nd 1984
3rd 1987
4th 1992 (4 years till next edition)
5th 1996 (4 years till next edition)
6th 2000 (6 years till next edition)
7th 2006 (4 years till next edition)
8th 2010 (? years till next edition)

Also that time frame means 9th this year, which I'm almost certain won't be the case.

I may be missing something, but wouldn't 2010 + 4 years be 2014?

The biggest problem with 8th is my biggest problem with 6th 40K. Why the hell do I need magic/psionic, to play the damn game. I know there fantasy games, but you should be able to hold your own even if you don't want to sling spells across the feild.

 Dawnbringer wrote:

 Aerethan wrote:

 bbb wrote:
Per the info on the wikipedia page:

1st 1983
2nd 1984
3rd 1987
4th 1992 (4 years till next edition)
5th 1996 (4 years till next edition)
6th 2000 (6 years till next edition)
7th 2006 (4 years till next edition)
8th 2010 (? years till next edition)

Also that time frame means 9th this year, which I'm almost certain won't be the case.

I may be missing something, but wouldn't 2010 + 4 years be 2014?

Apologies, my math is off. I wouldn't expect 9th edition next year either.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Noir wrote:
The biggest problem with 8th is my biggest problem with 6th 40K. Why the hell do I need magic/psionic, to play the damn game. I know there fantasy games, but you should be able to hold your own even if you don't want to sling spells across the feild.

Play dwarves? Not every army relies on magic.

 AgeOfEgos wrote:
I really, really hope they get WHF right at some point. I love the idea of making an army, I love the fluff behind most of the armies, I love the spectacle when you setup the board.

Then you start rolling dice and looking up rules--and feel like you should be punching a clock.

This sums it up nicely for me - I'm 100% in agreement with this statement.

And it is that feeling that's got me on the verge of cashing out of WFB.

 Aerethan wrote:

Noir wrote:
The biggest problem with 8th is my biggest problem with 6th 40K. Why the hell do I need magic/psionic, to play the damn game. I know there fantasy games, but you should be able to hold your own even if you don't want to sling spells across the feild.

Play dwarves? Not every army relies on magic.

Thats just white washing the problem. Ohh.. goody I can play one army and I need to get a Anvil to make it work, fun.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I don't think lawyers can stop a discussion group from discussing rumours. That's a bridge to far, even for Games "We hold copyright over arrows and skulls" Workshop.

That's probably only after their lawyers had to tell them that they probably wouldn't have a case.

 MisterMoon wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I don't think lawyers can stop a discussion group from discussing rumours. That's a bridge to far, even for Games "We hold copyright over arrows and skulls" Workshop.

That's probably only after their lawyers had to tell them that they probably wouldn't have a case.

From the looks of it, GW's lawyers have no clue what constitutes having a case.

It's not so much that GW lawyers are bad at seeing if they have a good case, it's that their lawyers are really good at picking cases against small clients who cannot mount an extended legal defense... then mounting an extended legal attack against them, forcing them to capitulate without the case ever being actually decided by a judge.

In short... GW has more money to spend on lawyers than an independant, so they win by bankrupting the independant and not on the merits of their case.

 Vulcan wrote:
In short... GW has more money to spend on lawyers than an independant, so they win by bankrupting the independant and not on the merits of their case.

That's what GW thought before Chapterhouse and the Amazon-incident. Now, good IP lawyers stand in line to defend the victims pro bono against GW. Professionals now know that the Emperor has no clothes on

But we are off topic again.

So back on topic, are there any rumors of which rules will change?

Major points that people on average have issues with:

Random charge distance
ASF on charge
Magic in general(both in how it works as well as it being pretty mandatory to be competitive)
Steadfast


There are army specific things that I have issues with, but I feel that core rules issues are of course far more important.

 AgeOfEgos wrote:
I really, really hope they get WHF right at some point.

They're never going to get it "right"; there's no drive to make the game "more right" with each edition revision. Updates are just a way of changing the game without actually going to any effort to improve it, make the rules tighter, make it a more tactical experience. I haven't played WFB since 3rd ed (I'm a 40K player), but the older I get the shorter this four-year cycle seems to get - and each edition brings nothing but a bunch of relearning all the changes without substantially improving my gaming experience. I am beginning to feel I should get off this hamster wheel.

 Charles Rampant wrote:
Why would they give O&G another book so quickly? Unless they have some more models to shift, it seems a touch pointless to re-release the army book within the same edition.

Because £22.50 to gouge out of Orc players so recently isn't enough.

 AgeOfEgos wrote:
I really, really hope they get WHF right at some point. .

I much more fear they get 9th wrong!

8th is a very solid basis. It only has a few important imbalances, mostly overpowered magic, but it just needs a few adjustments to be an extremely good edition. The new army books are pretty damn well-balanced too for the most part.

Give us 8.5, I will gladly pay 50$ for the new rule book. I won't pay for a terrible 9th...

...and separate Goblins and Orcs already! I don't want to make my own Goblin codex all the time

AgeOfEgos wrote:I really, really hope they get WHF right at some point. I love the idea of making an army, I love the fluff behind most of the armies, I love the spectacle when you setup the board.

Then you start rolling dice and looking up rules--and feel like you should be punching a clock.

Noir wrote:The biggest problem with 8th is my biggest problem with 6th 40K. Why the hell do I need magic/psionic, to play the damn game. I know there fantasy games, but you should be able to hold your own even if you don't want to sling spells across the feild.

That's why I play KoW

 bbb wrote:
Per the info on the wikipedia page:
6th 2000 (6 years till next edition)

The best 6 years of GW.

 judgedoug wrote:

 bbb wrote:
Per the info on the wikipedia page:
6th 2000 (6 years till next edition)

The best 6 years of GW.

Agreed. Granted it was the slow beginning of price hikes, but back then they were pretty spread out.

 Aerethan wrote:

 judgedoug wrote:

 bbb wrote:
Per the info on the wikipedia page:
6th 2000 (6 years till next edition)

The best 6 years of GW.

Agreed. Granted it was the slow beginning of price hikes, but back then they were pretty spread out.

Generally the figures were a lot crappier back then, too.

 Breotan wrote:

 Aerethan wrote:

 judgedoug wrote:

 bbb wrote:
Per the info on the wikipedia page:
6th 2000 (6 years till next edition)

The best 6 years of GW.

Agreed. Granted it was the slow beginning of price hikes, but back then they were pretty spread out.

Generally the figures were a lot crappier back then, too.

Which is fair to a degree, but lets look at a few things.

Orcs. 20 for at their peak $35(at the beginning of 6th they were $25).
Now the SAME models are sold 10 for $29. A 65% increase from the 2006 price for 100% the same models.
I'd argue that Empire soldiers are worse now.


Further, I'm not going to argue that newer models aren't better quality and design overall. But if GW honestly does the math and say that X needs to cost Y to be profitable when they make it, how does that item see a price hike not a year later?

I can safely say that the Tactical Marine and Rhino tooling has been paid off by now if the range sells as well as GW claims. So those units have virtually no reason to increase in cost. The ONLY real cost for plastic models once the tooling is paid off is the packaging, and that is pennies per unit.

Alas, we've digressed far enough.

 Breotan wrote:
Generally the figures were a lot crappier back then, too.

Yeah, no dino-bots, no GI-Joe flyers and less skulls

 Kroothawk wrote:

 Breotan wrote:
Generally the figures were a lot crappier back then, too.

Yeah, no dino-bots, no GI-Joe flyers and less skulls

How did we manage?

I started playing with 5th edition and I really don't recognize the game anymore. It feels like Monsterhammer to me. I think there are a lot of really nice looking kits and some impressive models, but all the big stuff really takes me out of the game.

I haven't played in a long time and I would be interested in playing again, but right now it just doesn't draw me in. I don't anticipate that changing anytime soon.

Huh? Monsterhammer? It's pretty much the opposite on the battlefield, you'll see big blocks of infantry rather than a lot of monsters

 Sigvatr wrote:
Huh? Monsterhammer? It's pretty much the opposite on the battlefield, you'll see big blocks of infantry rather than a lot of monsters

Agreed. I saw a lot more monsters(well, ridden ones and Greater Daemons in 5 flavors) in 5th than now.

 Breotan wrote:

 Aerethan wrote:

 judgedoug wrote:

 bbb wrote:
Per the info on the wikipedia page:
6th 2000 (6 years till next edition)

The best 6 years of GW.

Agreed. Granted it was the slow beginning of price hikes, but back then they were pretty spread out.

Generally the figures were a lot crappier back then, too.

Interesting assertion, let me think about my armies:
Empire - nope, all the old models are better than the ones that replaced them, _especially_ the soldiers. Unless you want to field an army of barefoot half-simians. Note the knight and artillery kit is the same. (hell that plastic horse has been around since 1992). the old Empire General on Griffin is one of Citadel's best models ever, replaced with Hasbro Karl Franz on Deathclaw Action Figure. The old LE 6th ed BSB with the mohawk is one of the best Empire models they made. Plus the scads of Mordheim figs I use as militia.
Tomb Kings - all models are the same with the exception of Tomb Guard, and the new ones aren't better.. just different (I used both metal and plastic Tomb Guard). They did replace the meatball head liche priest with... still another awful model, and added undead surfers to the mix.
High Elves - nope, those hamfist plastic spearmen and archers were a gakpile in 6th and they're the same godawful models in 8th just more expensive. the plastic Phoenix Guard are awful, looking like their terrible 4th edition counterparts. My HE's are a mix of 4th edition metal archers and spearmen, 6th edition swordmasters/phoenix guard/white lions, 7th edition plastic chariots.

Seriously, as I think about it, GW's kept their worse models in print. Tomb Kings melonhead skeletons, VC zombies, HE hamfists. I love Tomb Kings so much I would gladly pay even GW prices if they redesigned the basic TK skeletons, as long as they didn't make them look like the turd-legged newer Empire soldiers kit. I own like 200 melonheads, I'd probably double that with a good redesign.

Interestingly, it was post 2006 where the figs started getting crappier. Empire, VC, Demons, they all got fething slowed models that look like they are based on some 14-year old's sketches drawn during class. The design process became: oh man this would be SOOO SWEET if there was this dude with a giant hat with wings on his hat and he had wicked armored with wings on his armor and sweet boots with wings and there were some flames shooting out of his ass and he's got this giant sword with wings and it's all on a winged chariot and instead of wheels there's bats and there's a monkey doing a handstand on the front and when he eek-eeks it's a strength 10 attack against all enemy models on the board only $85!

Bleh, I hope and pray 9th edition is a reset like 6th was. 8th is the new 4th/5th. gakky rules, gakky models, gakky gakky gak. Awful. I'm honestly surprised GW hasn't re-released Nagash as a $90 finecast model, since 8th rules and figures are basically WHFB 4th edition version 2.

uhh, so yeah. end rant i guess.

 Platuan4th wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
Huh? Monsterhammer? It's pretty much the opposite on the battlefield, you'll see big blocks of infantry rather than a lot of monsters

Agreed. I saw a lot more monsters(well, ridden ones and Greater Daemons in 5 flavors) in 5th than now.

I haven't seen a game being played for a long time, so I wouldn't know what people actually take. I just know that there are tons more gigantic model kits for armies than there ever was before. They keep putting out bigger and more expensive kits, yet still haven't updated some old and ugly models.

 bbb wrote:

 Platuan4th wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
Huh? Monsterhammer? It's pretty much the opposite on the battlefield, you'll see big blocks of infantry rather than a lot of monsters

Agreed. I saw a lot more monsters(well, ridden ones and Greater Daemons in 5 flavors) in 5th than now.

I haven't seen a game being played for a long time, so I wouldn't know what people actually take. I just know that there are tons more gigantic model kits for armies than there ever was before. They keep putting out bigger and more expensive kits, yet still haven't updated some old and ugly models.

Oh well, that might be the case for some armies, but what GW throws out and what people actually field is different.

Top tier armies are Skaven, Lizardmen, Ogre Kingdoms...Teclis of course...Dark Elves too. OK left aside, all of those armies don't field more than a 1-2 monsters. Skaven field 1-2 Abominations are they are *ridiculously* overpowered, Lizardmen...maybe a Stegadon or two, seen a lot with just double Slann and no monsters, Teclis w/ no monsters ofc, OK maybe 1-2 monsters, Dark Elves 2 Hydras.

8th is all about big, steadfast infantry units and magic - the latter wins or loses games, the former contributes as well. Shooting is neglible in most cases unless you got a lot of war machines.

If you prefer a game that's driven by big units instead of a few monsters, 8th is perfect for ya.

 Sigvatr wrote:
If you prefer a game that's driven by big units instead of a few monsters, 8th is perfect for ya.

Shooting and cavalry are ineffective. Giant massive columns of infantry in order to soak up the giant stupidly powerful magic spells. If that sounds great, then 8!

 judgedoug wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
If you prefer a game that's driven by big units instead of a few monsters, 8th is perfect for ya.

Shooting and cavalry are ineffective. Giant massive columns of infantry in order to soak up the giant stupidly powerful magic spells. If that sounds great, then 8!

I disagree.

I'm taking Quarallers again, as they are good at removing chaff while still retaining combat ability with their GW. My High Elves retain Archers, as bad as they are, again to remove chaff. I've lost war machines to massed bowfire, it only takes three 6s to wound to take off an Organ Gun. If your opponent doesn't take chaff, which BS shooting is good against, and only takes 3 hordes, then run him ragged with your chaff while concentrating force against one of his blocks to kill it for the points. If time allows, do the same to a second. The meta here in NZ started with big blocks, but we've adapted pretty quickly to a lot of chaff to support those blocks (reducing the points available for them), to guard flanks and redirect charges. This is where the BS shooting comes in, as cannons and stone-throwers are ineffective against a lot of chaff units. Magic missiles are good, but can be dispelled or stopped by a bad Winds of Magic roll; BS shooting is always there. So I think that while BS shooting isn't optimal against blocks, it still has a useful role to play.

Cavalry can be ineffective in that it doesn't auto-break on the charge. Hooray, that was a crap rule, and I'm glad Steadfast makes infantry worth taking. Cavalry can win on the grind if it's killy enough (Chaos Knights, Monster cav). Other cavalry with character support (the infamous VC Knight bus, Bretonnian lances with paladins) can also grind (or blend in the case of Vampire Lords....). The situation in 7th edition where 5 knights could charge 25+ infantry in the front, break them and then run them down was a travesty in my opinion. Now cavalry commanders need to be careful how to use their heavy horse, exactly as they should. Support them with infantry, attrit enemy blocks with firepower first, flank and combo charges; this is how cavalry should be. Cavalry still offers a combination of movement, protection and shock that is excellent to have; I'd love to take some knights with my Dwarves. I wouldn't under-rate them at all.

This is all my 2 cents worth of humble opinion. But I do think that BS shooting and cavalry are not as dead as they have been proclaimed to be.

I hope that 9th edition keeps Steadfast and Step-Up, two of the best rules to be incorporated into 8th edition.

Flash Felix wrote:


I hope that 9th edition keeps Steadfast and Step-Up, two of the best rules to be incorporated into 8th edition.

Um, what? Steadfast is the most broken thing in the game right now due solely to the fact that you can't negate it except with being MORE steadfast. All that does is promote buses instead of tactics. Why should bother flanking you with my fast cav if you are 10 ranks deep? More so, why should I charge you at all knowing that your bus is essentially a tar pit.

Steadfast and chargers not hitting first on the charge are two very major issues for CC right now. All they do is promote a VERY defensive posture where there is really very little reason to charge.

Reasons NOT to charge:
1. Random distance, snake eyes can kill you here.
2. Steadfast, you'll likely be stuck in that combat all game unless you have massive damage output or get lucky with a failed Ld roll(and with BSB's being damn near mandatory these days, the odds of breaking Stubborn anything with rerolls is slim).
3. Your damage output can be compromised by enemies with ASF or just higher Initiative.

Charging into combat is a heavy gamble these days, and honestly there are easier ways to kill the enemy without tying up so much of your army.


Some form of disruption for Steadfast needs to happen. MSU armies are basically fethed right now from it.

Aerethan nailed it there!

Problem is, Steadfast made the Beancouters happy, so it will be hard to dislodge that particular rule from the books.

Still, I agree that some way to counter it, weaken it, neutralize it, etc. would be the way to go.

Even a simple flank attack to get rid of steadfast would be great.

 Kroothawk wrote:

 Breotan wrote:
Generally the figures were a lot crappier back then, too.

Yeah, no dino-bots, no GI-Joe flyers and less skulls

Keep pretending, Kroot.

 Breotan wrote:

 Kroothawk wrote:

 Breotan wrote:
Generally the figures were a lot crappier back then, too.

Yeah, no dino-bots, no GI-Joe flyers and less skulls

Spoiler:

Keep pretending, Kroot.

It pains me to think that anyone spent actual money on those models.

Oof.

I know this is kind of spiraling away from any actual rumors, but I would hope that any method for countering steadfast isn't *too* easy. I think folks might be wearing some rose-tinted glasses with respect to 7th. I was glad to see large infantry units for a change, where before infantry usually just came along so you could bunker/get access to your toys.

There should be some kind of middle ground between:

5 cav blasting through and running down 100 foot-dudes who never even got to swing back at them (7th edition)

and

The last 5 battered infantry in a unit being content to almost certainly hold their ground against a monster... but if they lose one more, then hoooo boy, its time to get the heck outta dodge! (8th edition)

 Red_Zeke wrote:
Oof.

I know this is kind of spiraling away from any actual rumors, but I would hope that any method for countering steadfast isn't *too* easy. I think folks might be wearing some rose-tinted glasses with respect to 7th. I was glad to see large infantry units for a change, where before infantry usually just came along so you could bunker/get access to your toys.

There should be some kind of middle ground between:

5 cav blasting through and running down 100 foot-dudes who never even got to swing back at them (7th edition)

and

The last 5 battered infantry in a unit being content to almost certainly hold their ground against a monster... but if they lose one more, then hoooo boy, its time to get the heck outta dodge! (8th edition)

We had a system in place for this. It used to be called Unit Strength. But apparently that was rocket science and the kiddies couldn't figure it out.
For flanking it should be US10 to break steadfast. So 10 infantry or 5 cavalry. MC muck that up a bit, but it wouldn't be that hard to define.

I don't think 5 cav should break a 50 man bus on the charge 100% of the time, but like you said, 5 infantry shouldn't be stubborn against some huge monster.

Also, Fear and Terror need some kind of usefulness. Right now they are negligible.

 Aerethan wrote:
Also, Fear and Terror need some kind of usefulness. Right now they are negligible.

You got that right. It seems like everything I face with my Ogres has immunity to psychology, has high leadership, or also causes fear. It's annoying that I have to pay as much as I do for Ogres when a primary ability never seems to see play.

Also, I really doubt any "rumors" that point to a total overhaul of the system.

I think 7th fear rule was to harse but along the right lines. Instead of 'if I outnumber you, you auto break from fear' to 'if my unit strength doubles yours you auto break from fear' or even if I outnumber you , you take a penalty to your ld test. At the mo fear is poo, its done nothing for me and my ogres might as well not be there and reduce the cost of my minis!

Aerethan wrote:
Some stuff

Alpharius wrote:
Aerethan nailed it there!

I don't want to derail the thread, and RedZeke answered anyway. Suffice to say that for those who haven't tried 8th Edition yet, the jury is out on whether it's pants or it's the greatest thing since canned booze; I tend towards the latter. Play a few games, and you might enjoy it. The gaming community where I am certainly do, and no-one misses 7th Edition, not even the VC players.

9th Edition, take your time getting here. Not only are some us loving 8th Edition, but I'd like GW to actually do some playtesting, proofreading and independant reviewing this time.

 Aerethan wrote:

It pains me to think that anyone spent actual money on those models.

Prepare for more pain: Not only did I pay money for those Tyranid Warriors, they STILL see play as Alphas in my army.

 Breotan wrote:

 Kroothawk wrote:

 Breotan wrote:
Generally the figures were a lot crappier back then, too.

Yeah, no dino-bots, no GI-Joe flyers and less skulls

Keep pretending, Kroot.

Keep pretending yourself that 1991-1993 is the same as 2000-2006
Heck, GW didn't even sell those models in 2000.
That said, I personally like Bighat Chaos Dwarfs now, knowing their background story.

I have to say I really enjoy 8th (Please, don't lynch me just yet)

Every game I've played so far has been balanced, magic has only been a deciding factor in a few games (foot of gork/mork + Ogres = game over turn 2) and the way everything works rule wise seems pretty stable. I'll be sad to see 8th go...unless 9th IS better.

 Breotan wrote:

Keep pretending, Kroot.

Yeah, 1992 was pretty awful. Thankfully those models were long OOP by 2000. Can anyone with a straight face proclaim the newer plastic Bret infantry are better than the old Perry sculpts?

 Aerethan wrote:
)

I don't think 5 cav should break a 50 man bus on the charge 100% of the time, but like you said, 5 infantry shouldn't be stubborn against some huge monster.

Also, Fear and Terror need some kind of usefulness. Right now they are negligible.

I look at models from last century and more often then not think "How did I EVER think these looked cool???" The outragouesly over sized weapons in particular just look awful on so many models.

And as a more casual guy, I'm also glad plastic is becoming very common amongst almost all "core troops" in the GW games(if not all at this point.....). Sure, you had freedom with metal, but there are a lot of pains that come with it too. If I have a hoard of guys, they need to be easy to put together and paint.

 japehlio wrote:

 Aerethan wrote:
)

I don't think 5 cav should break a 50 man bus on the charge 100% of the time

Not 100% of the time no (but then it never was 100% of the time), but they should have a very good chance with a flank charge.

What I really want from 9th is the return of the meaningful movement phase and the toning down of magic, steadfast needs some work as well. As it is 8th has become a very static game.

Dont waste your time... 9th will be just like 8th, they will only change small parts of the rules, but exactly those ones who change playstyle enough. Them, they will have an excuse to re-do all the army books, adding new shinning units of hell to it...

(who will be the new most expensive kits available).

 Aerethan wrote:
Random charge distance

I think those are here to stay. As long as "forging a narrative" is their design goal, then things like rando-charge won't ever go away.

 Alpharius wrote:
Aerethan nailed it there!

Problem is, Steadfast made the Beancouters happy, so it will be hard to dislodge that particular rule from the books.

Still, I agree that some way to counter it, weaken it, neutralize it, etc. would be the way to go.

Easy answer would be to make a unit with disrupted ranks not have steadfast. You'd still need to get a sizable unit into their flank, but breaking steadfast would make the effort to do so worthwhile. Right now with steadfast. any sort of flanking maneuver means -all because they WILL be stubborn and shrug it off, when historically a flank charge against a unit was pretty darn near an auto-break.

And yes, I do realize that this is a game with mages and dragons. That doesn't change the need for versimilitude (god, I hope I spelled that right...) in the aspects that DO parallel reality.

Being a long time WE player, I can say that I really don't like 8th edition. Not just because it turned my army to crap. (Steadfast did that all by itself, but there are other villains as well) But the whole concept of huge infantry and cavalry units total takes away from the ability of a guerrilla warfare army to even exist. the casualties you can inflict in a game of such a short period are not remotely meaningful, so hit and run tactics don't work anymore. I for one would rather have a new WE army book, but I would settle for a 9th ed Rulebook with drastic changes to the combat system and the magic spells. (Note I said spells, love the new system)

One final note, why does GW hate skirmishers so much, every edition trys to out do the previous one on who can hit my skirmishers in the face the hardest with the nerf bat. =/

I keep coming back to this thread when I see it has new posts thinking there might be something new. But it seems like its become another spot for people to vent about all the things they don't like about 8th edition. Your right to do so and all that, but do we really need to do this (again) in a news and rumor thread?

And now, allow me to be something of a hypocrite, and continue to take this thread off topic

Maybe I'm in the minority in thinking a lot of the concerns are overstated- for example steadfast is being slowly brought back into line with the new books. Look at the pricing on empire infantry and marauders, and you start to see that they're making it tougher to pay for those huge steadfast busses. The biggest complaint people have with steadfast is usually skavenslaves, but that's really more of a complaint about slaves than it is the steadfast rule, I think...

Coyote81 wrote:
One final note, why does GW hate skirmishers so much, every edition trys to out do the previous one on who can hit my skirmishers in the face the hardest with the nerf bat. =/

Really? In what way did 7th try to hit skirmishers in the face with a nerf bat?

I recall skirmishers being a staple of those armies that could access them, and they were quite, quite powerful (skinks, shades, gutter runners, dryads) Skirmishers got toned down a little for 8th (though they're still pretty good), but one edition doesn't exactly make a trend.

 japehlio wrote:


I quoted you Aerethan for a small thing, but 5 guys arent stubborn, they need to have at least 1 rank, which the first 5 dont technically count as...

This is incorrect, btw. It was my comment that Aerethan quoted too. To be steadfast, you simply need more ranks of five (or three if you are a monstrous xxxx) than the enemy. Does the monster have any ranks of five? No? Then a single rank will suffice. Check page 54, and note that it requires ranks, not rank bonus.

 Red_Zeke wrote:
I keep coming back to this thread when I see it has new posts thinking there might be something new. But it seems like its become another spot for people to vent about all the things they don't like about 8th edition. Your right to do so and all that, but do we really need to do this (again) in a news and rumor thread?

And now, allow me to be something of a hypocrite, and continue to take this thread off topic

Maybe I'm in the minority in thinking a lot of the concerns are overstated- for example steadfast is being slowly brought back into line with the new books. Look at the pricing on empire infantry and marauders, and you start to see that they're making it tougher to pay for those huge steadfast busses. The biggest complaint people have with steadfast is usually skavenslaves, but that's really more of a complaint about slaves than it is the steadfast rule, I think...

Excellent observation. Steadfast is much needed for some units in order to stand a chance - my Night Goblins would be in serious trouble w/o it. The real problem is overpowered stuff like Skaven having LD 10 slaves (that should have Instability...seriously.). Just let Steadfast test on the unit's own LD and do not allow Steadfast when your rank bonus is denied. Suddenly, fixed.

That's correct- 5 models is a rank, even if it doesn't seem like it!

And I agree that steadfast in some form is actually a great thing.

If 5 cav still don't negate ranks then the rule should be that 5 cav negate 50% rounded down of the rank bonus at least.

I'm fine with Steadfast as a mechanic, but it needs to be regulated much heavier than the auto tarpit that it is. Slaves might as well be unbreakable with the way it currently works.

I don't think everything needs a major overhaul. I do think that certain things need to be brought back and certain things need to be toned down a good bit.

 Aerethan wrote:
If 5 cav still don't negate ranks then the rule should be that 5 cav negate 50% rounded down of the rank bonus at least.

I'm fine with Steadfast as a mechanic, but it needs to be regulated much heavier than the auto tarpit that it is. Slaves might as well be unbreakable with the way it currently works.

I don't think everything needs a major overhaul. I do think that certain things need to be brought back and certain things need to be toned down a good bit.

Precisely. What we need is WHFB 8.5, not 9th. Basically, make ETC restrictions official. Suddenly, one of the most balanced rulesets out there.

Slaves are overpowered, that's the problem, not Steadfast.

Cavalry should be able to break Steadfast on the charge (@flank / rear), but not with only 5 vs. e.g. 50 models. 5 vs. e.g. 20, yeah, but 5 vs. 50? Doesn't make much sense.

Agrreed. the game doesn't need a lot of changes.

Tone down steadfast a little.

A disrupting unit doubles it's ranks for purposes of steadfast.

-1 for fighting fear causing unit
-2 for fighting terror causing unit.

Tweak monsters. to maximum of d3 wounds vs cannon/stonethrower

if attacking skirmishers also recieve -1 to hit in close combat.

All "models are removed" for spells changes to take wound with no armour, regen or ward save. However magical resistance saves may be taken.

Balance lores a little more, fire is too weak.

I'm prove regular cav by giving additiional CR or +3 I on the charge or devastating charge to riders and mounts.

Cavallery already has a bonus on CR most of the time as they are highly likely to attack and thus get +1

 Sigvatr wrote:
Cavallery already has a bonus on CR most of the time as they are highly likely to attack and thus get +1

Agreed. CAv needs something small, maybe Devastating charge fits.

Give cavalry ASF on charge. Good buff and makes sense too.

 Sigvatr wrote:
Give cavalry ASF on charge. Good buff and makes sense too.

I agree completely.

 Sigvatr wrote:
Give cavalry ASF on charge. Good buff and makes sense too.

I would only give it for cav units equipped with Lances and Spears. The long pokey thing should mean something. Vice versa, they should also give ASF to infantry with spears when being charged.

I like steadfast. It's addition actually brought block units back into the game, though agree it needs to be mitigated by a successful flanking. That would end a lot of deathstars.

As for fear and terror, was way too powerful previously and only encouraged ItP armies. There were way too many times I lost a game because I couldn't charge that one model because it caused fear. I like the current version, but agree it is a little weak. Maybe make it you can't use Inspiring Presence when making the checks. Rewards high base Ld armies, but not ones that game it with a Ld bubble.

Lastly, adding pre-measure and random charges did away with what generated the most arguments I saw in the game. Is the unit 1/8th an inch away or not? Guessing ranges rewarded carpenters, not tacticians.

As for the rumors, I don't see another "Ravening Hordes" book coming out. I remember in the D6 Gen interview with Rick Priestley, he mentioned how sudden changes invalidate an entire warehouse of printed material. GW would have to pulp all their army books and I don't see GW abandoning printed material anytime soon.

Plus, as for rules changes, don't just think about simple changes like charges, flanks, and fear. They may be changing the way a turn sequence is done. Instead of the I-go-you-go format, they may switch to alternating units on each side. Adds a far more important tactical aspect to the game and would do away with what is considered an antiquated play format.

silent25 wrote:

Plus, as for rules changes, don't just think about simple changes like charges, flanks, and fear. They may be changing the way a turn sequence is done. Instead of the I-go-you-go format, they may switch to alternating units on each side. Adds a far more important tactical aspect to the game and would do away with what is considered an antiquated play format.

I would love to see this, but I feel this is something GW will never do. Hey I maybe wrong, I would love to be wrong!

silent25 wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
Give cavalry ASF on charge. Good buff and makes sense too.

I would only give it for cav units equipped with Lances and Spears. The long pokey thing should mean something. Vice versa, they should also give ASF to infantry with spears when being charged.
.

Those items give a strength bonus already.

And you mean to say that a charging soldier on a warhorse with a sword wouldn't hit before random infantry with the same weapon? The momentum of the horse charging alone should include impact hits or some manner of bonus to the charge if we wanted to get more realistically accurate.

 Aerethan wrote:

silent25 wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
Give cavalry ASF on charge. Good buff and makes sense too.

I would only give it for cav units equipped with Lances and Spears. The long pokey thing should mean something. Vice versa, they should also give ASF to infantry with spears when being charged.
.

Those items give a strength bonus already.

And you mean to say that a charging soldier on a warhorse with a sword wouldn't hit before random infantry with the same weapon? The momentum of the horse charging alone should include impact hits or some manner of bonus to the charge if we wanted to get more realistically accurate.

And they use to give initiate bonuses back in 3rd ed, the last edition where all combats were done based on initiative and charging did not guarantee striking first. It is not a new concept for WHFB. If we want to talk realism, mounted troops NEVER charged the front of a ranked unit. They would be met by and impaled on a wall of spears. That is, if their horses would let them. The whole idea was to hit the troops in the flank and cause confusion and disrupt. They risked their mounts being cut out from under them when they would go in the front.

 Aerethan wrote:
Those items give a strength bonus already.

And you mean to say that a charging soldier on a warhorse with a sword wouldn't hit before random infantry with the same weapon? The momentum of the horse charging alone should include impact hits or some manner of bonus to the charge if we wanted to get more realistically accurate.

You've really got a hard-on for cavalry, haven't you?

Am I the only one that finds 8th the most balanced edition to date and likes it best accordingly?.

On a design note, they need to find a way to do away with pivoting units. It is simply too clunky and slows the game down way too much. They need to rethink the movement.

xxvaderxx wrote:
Am I the only one that...

Slightly snarky answer: As a general rule, the answer to a question that starts like this is almost always no.

Slightly helpful answer: I agree!


I've only played since 6th, but barring perhaps the very beginning of 6th edition, I find 8th to have more balance between books than other editions I've played. Some players take issue with how that balance is achieved, and I certainly understand and respect the reasons why some players don't care for eighth, but on balance, I like it.

Steadfast pretty much just needs a way to be disrupted, like being flank charged. That would also help put Cavalry back in the game, since they'd be a key part of multicharging a block to get rid of Steadfast and deliver high casualties.

Vintersorg wrote:
What? Bretonnians in 2015? Weren't they suppposed to be released this summer?

Even 2015 is optimistic. Bretonnians are the red-headed step children of the WHFB universe, complete with buck teeth and banjos.

silent25 wrote:
If we want to talk realism, mounted troops NEVER charged the front of a ranked unit. They would be met by and impaled on a wall of spears. That is, if their horses would let them. The whole idea was to hit the troops in the flank and cause confusion and disrupt. They risked their mounts being cut out from under them when they would go in the front.

I'm pretty sure that cavalry did often charge the front of infantry regiments. They just didn't automatically win; you're looking at a lot of repeated charges to break the infantry line. Otherwise the Persians could never have defeated Roman field armies by using heavy cavalry charges, which they did reasonably often. And Hastings is another example of cavalry charging infantry in the front and uphill - granted the infantry held firm, but the cavalry won the battle when the infantry (eventually) broke ranks. However, Warhammer just isn't set up to have repeated charges by cavalry regiments against infantry blocks. So I doubt that we'll see anything like this.

I'm not sure why people think that chargers should be so powerful. It is only really Warhammer where chargers have such priority; if you think about it reasonably, if you see someone charging you then you'll either charge them back (like jousting knights) or you'll fix to receive the charge (pikes, etc). I'm perfectly happy with the current way that charging works, even as an undead player, because the fact that one unit has moved, and the other hasn't, doesn't seem to me a reason to assume that the second unit was less prepared for the fight.

 Red_Zeke wrote:

xxvaderxx wrote:
Am I the only one that...

Slightly snarky answer: As a general rule, the answer to a question that starts like this is almost always no.

Slightly helpful answer: I agree!


I've only played since 6th, but barring perhaps the very beginning of 6th edition, I find 8th to have more balance between books than other editions I've played. Some players take issue with how that balance is achieved, and I certainly understand and respect the reasons why some players don't care for eighth, but on balance, I like it.

8th may be balanced, but as you say the way that balance is achieved took a lot of the fun out of the game for me, unfortunately.

Also, I believe we just had a page of cavalry wishlisting but no more rumors...

Ludaman wrote:The biggest change GW has to make has to do with their current business model for warhammer fantasy. 15 armies, 15 types of players, with at most a possibility of having 3 or 4 of those armies getting a release each year. Leaving the other 11 or 12 out of 15 players sitting on their money instead of spending it on GW.

This leaves GW in a position where the only way to keep revenue consistent is to constantly add new players to the game, or convince current players to start a new army.

40k has always done well with this system, probably because 5 out of 15 of the armies for 40k are some form of space marines, so anytime they release any kind of space marine unit, it can cater to up to a 3rd of their player base.

With fantasy every army is very unique, doesn't share models with other armies (exception for mounts and monsters), and popularity is spread out fairly evenly between all 15. (At least compared to the 80/20 pie that is space marines vs. Everyone else in 40k).

If I were GW and wanted to build popularity and sales in Fantasy, I would do 1 of 2 things: Either create a ravening hordes style book containing all armies, and release new units alongside new rules or re-releases of current units for each army during the course of every year (ala privavteer press). Or change the way building an army works to be simply Good vs. Evil, allow special rules and bonuses to those who choose to play a mono-race army, but basically allow everyone to take advantage of pretty much every release (pretty much the way most CCGs work).

Either way would almost guarantee increased sales, however the second option might drive off a huge percentage of current fans

Honestly though, I feel like GWs track record points to just another slight rules tweaking and massive price hike on everything

Gobskrag 'Eadbasha wrote:I could get on board with that if they grouped some armies together in volumes, like HE, DE, and WE in one volume, WoC, DoC, and beastmen in another etc... That way it would update multiple armies at once and still have a good amount of content for them. But yeah, I think more solid allies rules would help.

Harry wrote:Between you .... you are somewhere close.

I think that you stunned everyone into silence, Kroothawk. The idea of 'Good' and 'Evil' sides really doesn't appeal to me, or at least not in the format suggested there. Moving to army waves, rather than army books, would be good though - Infinity, Warmachine and others have proved that this is a good model, and even Rick Priestly has come out and said that he didn't much like the codex format after a while.

Of course, you'd have to ask how they could transit from the current model to that one - it'd seem to entail an absolutely massive core book with just the current stats and rules. Or potentially you're looking at not all the current models having rules in the first book. And I wonder if people would like needing to buy multiple books as much as just needing their own army book and a rulebook..

I quite like the idea of grouping armies.

So Elves in one, Chaos dudes in another, Humans and Dwarves in another, and the funny others in another.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Or maybe you do it in kind of rival books:
High Elves vs Dark Elves
Wood Elves vs Beastemen (GW are going to love this book)
Dwarves vs Orcs and Goblins
Humans vs Warriors of Chaos
Lizardmen vs Daemons of Chaos
Etc.
And you could include some cool new special characters and scenarios and campaign rules

Something needs to be done as imo the age old army book format does not work.

 ExNoctemNacimur wrote:
I quite like the idea of grouping armies.

So Elves in one, Chaos dudes in another, Humans and Dwarves in another, and the funny others in another.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Or maybe you do it in kind of rival books:
High Elves vs Dark Elves
Wood Elves vs Beastemen (GW are going to love this book)
Dwarves vs Orcs and Goblins
Humans vs Warriors of Chaos
Lizardmen vs Daemons of Chaos
Etc.
And you could include some cool new special characters and scenarios and campaign rules

I think thats a really good idea myself - but I have most armies - doubtless some will complain that they only want the army they actually play?

 ExNoctemNacimur wrote:
I quite like the idea of grouping armies.

So Elves in one, Chaos dudes in another, Humans and Dwarves in another, and the funny others in another.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Or maybe you do it in kind of rival books:
High Elves vs Dark Elves
Wood Elves vs Beastemen (GW are going to love this book)
Dwarves vs Orcs and Goblins
Humans vs Warriors of Chaos
Lizardmen vs Daemons of Chaos
Etc.
And you could include some cool new special characters and scenarios and campaign rules

This is actually a pretty good idea. EVen if each dual army book ran $50, it would mean reducing the cycle time for new books by 50% and increasing the number of releases by 100%.

A good point was made about customers who only play X and Y armies. So in a year when GW doesn't release models or rules for those 2 armies, that customer is buying nearly nothing. Not every customer wants in on every new army release. The Daemons release has zero appeal to me, so quarter 1 GW sales for me are zero for WFB.

High Elves are due this year, so I'll spend a bit there on some new models and the book. Later this year is Lizardmen, and again I'll have zero purchases from that release as they are not an army I'm collecting currently.

Now if Lizardmen dual released with Dark Elves(as an example), then that release wave would see me buying stuff as it includes an army I collect. So with that, GW had 2 release waves in 12 months that got money from me, instead of 1 release now and 1 release 14 months from now, then nothing until another army I want comes up.

I'd like to do Bretonnians, and if GW released them this year I'd buy them, but GW won't because they feel Brets aren't popular enough. The problem is that by the time Brets do get done, my desire for them might have waned and GW might lose out on those sales because the products I wanted were not available when I still had interest in them.

Yeah, that would be a pretty dramatic change from the way things are. I'm tentatively hopeful that it'd work well. Right now it *is* pretty ridiculous to wait so long for some armies to get updated.

One cool thing about the current system is that an entire line can get an overhaul like the Dark Eldar- which though I don't play 40K, I thought was pretty dang cool. Of course the cost of that was waiting for an eternity for an update.

And as a poor example, the Tomb Kings, who waited super long as well ended up without updates to some of their most egregious sculpts (in their core selections no less!)

Just stay away from my O&G please.They already are a combined army book!

I would not buy a book that also has e.g. Dwarfs because I am not interested in that army to the smallest degree. I just play WHFB for Goblins and I only want Goblins in my army book. Bad enough we got to share our precious book with Orcs!

...that is, if you are not as smart as me and make your own Goblin codex

Dual army books could well work. There are some obvious pairings, as already noted - although I suspect that they might prefer similar armies in one book:

Humans - Bretonnia + Empire
Undead - VC & TK
Elves
Monstrous (Lizardmen, Ogres)
Chaos (yay, big book)
Dwarves (though this is difficult, as I doubt they'd steal CD from Forgeworld)

But might we not see that GW struggles to release all the models in waves for this? They seem to be aiming for releasing all of a book's models in one go, rather than having multiple waves. If they go to having two (or, for Elves, 3?) armies in one book, how many models would that imply per release?

They also went away from the big books style suggested here a while back. I remember chaos being split; will we now see it being recombined?

With all the bitching of the possibility of Black Templars (or any other marine chapter) being rolled back into Space Marines I suspect GW would avoid merging any of the fantasy book

just in case it impacted their higher selling 40K line (mergers in WHFB would suggest the possibility of mergers elsewhere to many)

Concerning the possible grouping:
In the past 6 month, we have seen all possible Chaos releases except Beastmen: Fantasy Daemons, 40k Daemons, Fantasy Warriors of Chaos, CSM. Plus a second WoC and Daemons wave.
In the 18 months from May 2013, we will see High Elves, Dark Elves, Wood Elves and even Eldar (Adam Troke been involved in all Fanatsy Elf playtesting).
After that Fantasy and 40k Orks within a year.
So there actually IS a grouping visible.

I think allies of some kind is a no-brainer that it will be in. For one thing, GW tends to make a similar release between 40k and fantasy (i.e. random charge distances in fantasy, then in 40k) so the fact that 40k got allies points to this.

Also, since it just makes sense from a marketing / money standpoint. It's true that the slow-drip of releases from Privateer Press gets me spending on them more consistently than the splash releases from GW, which either cause me to start a new army, or don't and end up being a complete miss.

So, I'm also cautiously optimistic about this...

I'd agree, definitely see Allies as a likely development. It seems kinda weird in 40k (like these Tau & Daemon lists or whatever*), and I'm sure some weird combos would crop up in Fantasy too, but tournaments can manage as they choose, and it certainly gives some cool hobby options.

RZ

*I don't know if that's a thing, or not... just see some weird ally combos floating around on the net.

P.S. Sweet, sweet new avatar RiTides

Thanks

And as for hobby options, if the Fantasy team tournament at AdeptiCon last year is any indication, people could do some wicked stuff with allies in WHFB!

Like this:




Or this

Yes, the possibilities to convert Mournfang are near limitless!

Just kidding, those are super awesome. The Daemon unit's pretty freakadelic in particular.

 Red_Zeke wrote:
Yes, the possibilities to convert Mournfang are near limitless!

Yeah, unfortunately you're right about that

Wow, people actually like an idea that I suggested! Don't worry folks, it's a once-in-a-lifetime happening when you see I, ExNoctemNacimur, suggest something worthwhile.

The idea of good vs evil sounds horrible. All it would take is for someone to ONLY use the best bits of good or evil to make an army, and suddenly every game is the same

That hugely depends on how viable and balanced indivudal armies are - if they are roughly even - it won't be an issue and just result in more varied looking armies on the table top and more sales for GW.

Allies "work" better in WFB than they ever would in 40K.

Allies in 40K creates the ridiculous situation of a Farseer/Rune Priest in every army - or even better, the Necrons teaming up with CSMs!

Thematically, it 'fits' better in WFB, and it will make the beancounters happy - so I suppose that's as close to a guarantee it is happening as you'll get!

Of course, Chaos used to be able to do this... before they took it away, it a move so counter to fluff it could only have come from... the beancounters!?!?!

 ExNoctemNacimur wrote:
Wow, people actually like an idea that I suggested! Don't worry folks, it's a once-in-a-lifetime happening when you see I, ExNoctemNacimur, suggest something worthwhile.

The name is a bit of a mouthful but yes, allies / grouping of armies / etc would be great for the game, I think most agree (in theory, it's always possible GW will muck it up ).

 Charles Rampant wrote:

I'm pretty sure that cavalry did often charge the front of infantry regiments. They just didn't automatically win; you're looking at a lot of repeated charges to break the infantry line. Otherwise the Persians could never have defeated Roman field armies by using heavy cavalry charges, which they did reasonably often. And Hastings is another example of cavalry charging infantry in the front and uphill - granted the infantry held firm, but the cavalry won the battle when the infantry (eventually) broke ranks. However, Warhammer just isn't set up to have repeated charges by cavalry regiments against infantry blocks. So I doubt that we'll see anything like this.

Except Hastings was where the cavalry charged after the English had already been weakened by archer fire and infantry combat. Cavalry was final blow, not the first. They were not the killer shock troops that destroyed everything in front of them.
Also with Hastings, William initially sent the cavalry in too soon resulting in horrible losses against a still strong and ranked infantry. He fortunately fell back on using his archers and own ranked infantry units to soften the English before trying again.

As for the Romans, still leaning about their history. Still at Hannibal and there cavalry were definitely a flanking force.

As for the repeated charges, in 3rd, there was a rule for units being pushed back. It was unfortunately seen as cumbersome.

@ExNoctemNacimur

That is a great idea

It is more ala Forgeworld books and could easily include rules for campaigns and extra scenarios. The only breakdown I see is at a certain point you will get some weird match ups. Your listings leave Skaven, Vampire Counts, Tomb Kings, and Ogres. Skaven and VC can work and have the Vanhel's and Nagash storylines to pull from. Ogres and TK? That would be the wonky one. There was a story in the TK book about the Red Pharaoh fighting Ogres, but it would still seem like the odd man out.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Alpharius wrote:
Allies "work" better in WFB than they ever would in 40K.

You didn't play in 4/5th ed did you <_<;

The Dwarf rent a stealth copter was a popular one.

 ExNoctemNacimur wrote:
I quite like the idea of grouping armies.

So Elves in one, Chaos dudes in another, Humans and Dwarves in another, and the funny others in another.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Or maybe you do it in kind of rival books:
High Elves vs Dark Elves
Wood Elves vs Beastemen (GW are going to love this book)
Dwarves vs Orcs and Goblins
Humans vs Warriors of Chaos
Lizardmen vs Daemons of Chaos
Etc.
And you could include some cool new special characters and scenarios and campaign rules

Nah, I don't like that system. I'd be fine with a "forces of good/evil/ambiguous" except without an allies system. Or better yet, instead of releasing the next crappy version of the rules, spend the time creating a single tome of all armies that can be errata-ed as time goes on. Or books by region, so "armies of the old world", "armies of the north", "armies of distant lands".

Or keep the current system of army books and just release them in batches instead of massively spread out. I would also like them to make them cheaper, black and white, soft cover, and primarily rules so that you could theoretically own ALL the rules for Warhammer without spending $800, but that's a pipe dream.

I could see them doing with a slightly different model, and doing something like....

Waves of releases, every couple of months, each with a few pages of fluff and story attached, based around a singular event. And lets say you have 4-6 of those each year at like $40-50/each (cuz its GW after all), and each is accompanied by a release of models, new units, and maybe a scenario.

Then, after a few years of this, they start releasing 'compilation' books which function similarly to the army books we have now. So lets say we're talking Lizardmen. This book would be a compilation and repackaging of all those previous waves of releases, including the chain of events, the scenarios they were involved in, all the models and units, and the definitive army list, along with whatever tweaked (erratta'd) rules got reworded over those few years.

So people who collect all the 'wave' books will have all the units and scenarios and models and rules, but people who missed some can grab the big compilation books.

Meanwhile, the 'waves' of new stuff continues.

I'd love a combined Undead book again.

And bring back Nagash with it!

 -Loki- wrote:
I'd love a combined Undead book again.

And bring back Nagash with it!

HERE HERE!!!

silent25 wrote:

 Alpharius wrote:
Allies "work" better in WFB than they ever would in 40K.

You didn't play in 4/5th ed did you <_<;

Selective editing for the loss.

Thematically, it 'fits' better in WFB

 Alpharius wrote:

silent25 wrote:

 Alpharius wrote:
Allies "work" better in WFB than they ever would in 40K.

You didn't play in 4/5th ed did you <_<;

Selective editing for the loss.

Thematically, it 'fits' better in WFB

And you missed my point about stealth copters in every army. It was as stupid as your "Rune Priest/Farseer" in every army. It didn't "fit" at all.

For a split second, I said "wow, really?" to the notion of adversaries being grouped together in combined codices. Then I remembered that this was something every WAB supplement did, and realized that it wasn't anything that new or unique. It's just new and unique for a GW core game.

silent25 wrote:


And you missed my point about stealth copters in every army. It was as stupid as your "Rune Priest/Farseer" in every army. It didn't "fit" at all.

Not really - I think you're just Big Fish/Little ponding it up, is all!

All kidding aside, I never saw anything as bad back then in WFB as I'm seeing now in 40K 6th.

Still, I suppose WFB could be... just as bad!

The adversary grouping works for me.
The outrage over Black Templar being hinted at joining the Vanilla codex is due to what every other army in vanilla codex is: 1 Mandatory HQ with 1 Special rule for the army. 2 COMPLETE army books wrapped in to one would be incredible.for many reasons.
1. If you play both armies, you only have to own 1 book. Now this would look like a loss for GW however...
1A. If you only play one of the armies, it's basically free advertising. GW gets to go "dude... you already have the book... now just buy some of the pretty models. You know you want to.
2. It allows for an easy return to scenario missions in Codex. I miss the old "Dark Eldar Raid Encounter" and things like that in the old Codex , and this would be a great way to bring some back; even if they were as simple as the ones in Dark Vengeance.
3. It encourages fluff expansion for the times the two armies faced each other in more detail as well still allowing each armies independent fluff.
Even with some $ increase (as long as it's not the price of two books now) it could be a really cool thing. I would love for this to happen.

It'd be funny to have the old Undead book back. But I really think that you'd still see watering down: do you think that GW could resist the urge to make the Undead book have the same cores, and just make chariots special for VC and core for TK? I doubt that a book with two armies in it would make each army as unique.

Adversary books would also be the perfect gateway drug for many people - you can buy a book with your mate! You keep seeing these other models to buy! Etc...

But I predict the cries of woe at being made to buy £50 army books.

 Alpharius wrote:

silent25 wrote:


And you missed my point about stealth copters in every army. It was as stupid as your "Rune Priest/Farseer" in every army. It didn't "fit" at all.

Not really - I think you're just Big Fish/Little ponding it up, is all!

All kidding aside, I never saw anything as bad back then in WFB as I'm seeing now in 40K 6th.

Still, I suppose WFB could be... just as bad!

I'm just having flashbacks to last tournament for 5th ed. Was a "Farewell to 5th". 25% allies were in full swing with Teclis in every army. Stealth copters and cannons everywhere. Random chaos sorceress on disks. Oh and Arkhan the Black on his flying chariot and the Talon of Death. Freaking Arkhan....

No it was stupid broken with Allies. They were banned from the tournaments and leagues for a reason.

Of course when I heard that there were allies again in 40k, my only though was, "Oh no. IT'S STARTING ALL OVER AGAIN"

And then I ran screaming from the room

I might be remembering this wrong, but didn't the stealth rune get cancelled once the war machine moved back then?

 Eldarain wrote:
I might be remembering this wrong, but didn't the stealth rune get cancelled once the war machine moved back then?

That was the first dwarf 6th ed book where they made the change. The removed it outright with the next book right before 7th.

Good point about Teclis showing everywhere, all the time...

I suppose, overall, allies are not a good thing for balance or 'theme', but they do generate sales so... they're in!

 Alpharius wrote:

I suppose, overall, allies are not a good thing for balance or 'theme', but they do generate sales so... they're in!

Yea, I guess you're right. OH MY GOD! YOU ARE RIGHT!

<runs from room screaming>

 Tangent wrote:

 -Loki- wrote:
I'd love a combined Undead book again.

And bring back Nagash with it!

HERE HERE!!!

Nagash should never be featured in WHFB again. Unless he's too expensive to fit into a competitive game.

 Vulcan wrote:
Lovely. Brets get a new book... just in time for a new edition to nerf them. Again.

 Breotan wrote:
Even 2015 is optimistic. Bretonnians are the red-headed step children of the WHFB universe, complete with buck teeth and banjos.

Perhaps I am misremembering, but I seem to recall a rumor that someone at the studio said they have no idea what to do with Bretonnians. That's a shame because I think a fantasy'd up Authurian romance faction could be amazing. But then again, it could be really awful:

Ahhhh! What is that?!

Is.. is that horse armed with a missile?

LOLZ

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Arthur_and_the_Knights_of_Justice

The problem with "combined" books is that they don't work very well from a fluff perspective. Undead are not uniform as the vampire counts and tomb kings are quite different in ideology and unit structure.

The good middle earth races like the Elves, Rohan, gondor and the dwarves ally pretty well together.. er I mean high elves, bretonia, empire and dwarves.

However, Lizardmen while they are opposed to Skaven and Chaos aren't exactly friends with anyone except the High Elves (and even then they aren't close friends). The Wood Elves kill anyone who enters their forest from beastmen to dwarves and Skaven don't play well even with themselves.

Only real logical ally book is Warriors of Chaos and Chaos Demons imo. The idea of adversaries feels like it would work much better.

 Red_Zeke wrote:
Ahhhh! What is that?!

It's a football player thrown back in time who replaces King Arthur.

 Platuan4th wrote:

 Red_Zeke wrote:
Ahhhh! What is that?!

It's a football player thrown back in time who replaces King Arthur.

Oh, right. I see it now.

Obviously.

 Red_Zeke wrote:

 Platuan4th wrote:

 Red_Zeke wrote:
Ahhhh! What is that?!

It's a football player thrown back in time who replaces King Arthur.

Oh, right. I see it now.

Obviously.

The show is exactly as bad as it sounds.

 Platuan4th wrote:

 Red_Zeke wrote:

 Platuan4th wrote:

 Red_Zeke wrote:
Ahhhh! What is that?!

It's a football player thrown back in time who replaces King Arthur.

Oh, right. I see it now.

Obviously.

The show is exactly as bad as it sounds.

It's no Visionaries...

What is?

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

 Platuan4th wrote:

 Red_Zeke wrote:

 Platuan4th wrote:

 Red_Zeke wrote:
Ahhhh! What is that?!

It's a football player thrown back in time who replaces King Arthur.

Oh, right. I see it now.

Obviously.

The show is exactly as bad as it sounds.

It's no Visionaries...

Why must you be so cruel MGS? I had successfully suppressed this part of my childhood.

So basically, Mark Twain the animated series

Indescribably less entertaining than that!

Here's hoping GW spends all this rumored time before a Bretonnia release working very hard to seriously update the line -- in 40k-terms (sorry, I don't follow WHFB closely enough) something more along the lines of the latest DE and Necron releases rather than what seems to be happening to the Tau.

I think they'll do a full reintroduction on Wood Elves, but I wonder about Brets... Here's hoping for a slaughterbrute sized Siege Snail though!

The Glade Guard and Glade Riders and many of the Lords/Heroes are great models as they are - they don't need to be re-done.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
Here's hoping for a slaughterbrute sized Siege Snail though!

Yes. Please.

Amaya wrote:

 Tangent wrote:

 -Loki- wrote:
I'd love a combined Undead book again.

And bring back Nagash with it!

HERE HERE!!!

Nagash should never be featured in WHFB again. Unless he's too expensive to fit into a competitive game.

Hello rain, my name is parade AND I HATE YOU

Manchu wrote:Indescribably less entertaining than that!

Here's hoping GW spends all this rumored time before a Bretonnia release working very hard to seriously update the line -- in 40k-terms (sorry, I don't follow WHFB closely enough) something more along the lines of the latest DE and Necron releases rather than what seems to be happening to the Tau.

So I know about the Tau releases and stuff, but what's "happening" to them?

I was referring to the apparent lack of new options -- it seems like a reconfiguration (in terms of rules but not models) of existing stuff plus the obligatory new flier and large model. DE and Crons by comparison got redesigned basically from the ground up. I think Bretonnia needs the latter rather than former treatment.

Ah, I see.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
I think they'll do a full reintroduction on Wood Elves, but I wonder about Brets... Here's hoping for a slaughterbrute sized Siege Snail though!

I going to be REALLY disappointed if they don't get a Slaughterbrute Sized Siege Snail now!

Heh, well I'll be keeping an eye out for Wood Elves now, as after taking Asur, and I'll be taking Druchii again via RH and its next GW release (hopefully next year.) I might as well consider having the three faces of Elvenkind on my shelf.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
I think they'll do a full reintroduction on Wood Elves

Like every time. Boooring!

Thought of the book and pictured this.



Great idea, they must use it.

 Alpharius wrote:


I going to be REALLY disappointed if they don't get a Slaughterbrute Sized Siege Snail now!

But you know GW will just end up having it's shell be a giant skull.

 kirsanth wrote:
Thought of the book and pictured this.



Great idea, they must use it.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
I think they'll do a full reintroduction on Wood Elves.

I just don't see what kind of introduction you can make for wood elves where their style of play and current model list would make them remotely competitive in this current 8th ed enviroment. The only reintroduction I can imagine working would invalidate all of my models from 5th ed days, and even the newer ones I've purchased. I know, i know, GW doesn't invalidate models...... my WE chariots say otherwise.

If they did jut redesign the army, I might purchase the new models if they did it well. Take WEs into the full one tree spirit realm. Like an army of spirit, opposing the evil daemons. These WEs would exist throughtout the world (so taht it actually make since when they fight armies like Lizardmen. I don't really know how to make this work, but someone needs to become creative and redo my first and most love army. I would like to play with my wardancers again......

I think you might see a few more things rank up- dryads springs to mind. Eternal guard might get a little more viable, and then the army starts to slide into a more 8th friendly form, while still maintaining lots of guerrilla warfare aspects.

Coyote81 wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
I think they'll do a full reintroduction on Wood Elves.

I just don't see what kind of introduction you can make for wood elves where their style of play and current model list would make them remotely competitive in this current 8th ed enviroment. The only reintroduction I can imagine working would invalidate all of my models from 5th ed days, and even the newer ones I've purchased. I know, i know, GW doesn't invalidate models...... my WE chariots say otherwise.

If they did jut redesign the army, I might purchase the new models if they did it well. Take WEs into the full one tree spirit realm. Like an army of spirit, opposing the evil daemons. These WEs would exist throughtout the world (so taht it actually make since when they fight armies like Lizardmen. I don't really know how to make this work, but someone needs to become creative and redo my first and most love army. I would like to play with my wardancers again......

I think they could make Wardancers a ranked unit of horribly potent ASF, Armor Piercing, fearless sobs, or they could make them directable, more reliable goblin fanatics of whirling doom. Enormous amounts of movement flexibility for the army as a whole. Beastmaster units like the DE, with horrible combo monster/beast options. Movement sapping attacks on the enemy from waywatchers etc. Cheap magic users, larger ranges and AP on bowfire...

Bring back zoats... huge deathstar zoat units with a mounted, killy warlord in them, buffed to all hells with beneficial magic and banners...

Anti fire wards for treemen and dryads.

 Breotan wrote:

 Kroothawk wrote:

 Breotan wrote:
Generally the figures were a lot crappier back then, too.

Yeah, no dino-bots, no GI-Joe flyers and less skulls

Keep pretending, Kroot.

You are aware neither of those were in print 6 years ago, right? Those plastic warriors were replaced with the current warriors almost 15 years ago. The chaos dwarves haven't been sold since almost the same time.

The first step to fixing both Bretonnia and Wood Elves is to make flanking MEAN something again. Right now, aside from reducing attacks back for a round, flanking does exactly nothing because of steadfast.

 Vulcan wrote:
The first step to fixing both Bretonnia and Wood Elves is to make flanking MEAN something again. Right now, aside from reducing attacks back for a round, flanking does exactly nothing because of steadfast.

No rank bonus = no steadfast.

It's a very simpe change that would improve the game by *a lot*.

Simple, effective, decisive. Works for me.

 Alpharius wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
I think they'll do a full reintroduction on Wood Elves, but I wonder about Brets... Here's hoping for a slaughterbrute sized Siege Snail though!

I going to be REALLY disappointed if they don't get a Slaughterbrute Sized Siege Snail now!

Thirded...

 Vulcan wrote:
Simple, effective, decisive. Works for me.

So we can guarantee that GW wont do it then?

 Red_Zeke wrote:
I think you might see a few more things rank up- dryads springs to mind. Eternal guard might get a little more viable, and then the army starts to slide into a more 8th friendly form, while still maintaining lots of guerrilla warfare aspects.

Agreed!

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Vulcan wrote:
The first step to fixing both Bretonnia and Wood Elves is to make flanking MEAN something again. Right now, aside from reducing attacks back for a round, flanking does exactly nothing because of steadfast.

No rank bonus = no steadfast.

It's a very simpe change that would improve the game by *a lot*.

Doubly agreed!!

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Vulcan wrote:
The first step to fixing both Bretonnia and Wood Elves is to make flanking MEAN something again. Right now, aside from reducing attacks back for a round, flanking does exactly nothing because of steadfast.

No rank bonus = no steadfast.

It's a very simpe change that would improve the game by *a lot*.

That would be great except skirmishers cannot remove rank bonuses (thats a majority of WE good combat units), and cavalry need at least 2 ranks of 5/.(the rest of the WE combat units and the enitre Bret book) This is one of the big reason it's difficult for WEs and Brets to work effectively under the new rules, even their "flank" charges don't bring the same effective result as other armies can bring. Makes me miss Unit Strength(much better way to work things out then rank bonuses imo. Yes a 7 wound monster should stop steadfast against a unit of 6 guys with one in the 2nd rank) With the a addition of a formation and no longer having 360 charges, I think my skirmishers should remove rank bonuses when performing flank/rear charges.

Tresson wrote:

 Vulcan wrote:
Simple, effective, decisive. Works for me.

So we can guarantee that GW wont do it then?

Pretty much. "Not Invented Here" and all...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Coyote81 wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Vulcan wrote:
The first step to fixing both Bretonnia and Wood Elves is to make flanking MEAN something again. Right now, aside from reducing attacks back for a round, flanking does exactly nothing because of steadfast.

No rank bonus = no steadfast.

It's a very simpe change that would improve the game by *a lot*.

That would be great except skirmishers cannot remove rank bonuses (thats a majority of WE good combat units), and cavalry need at least 2 ranks of 5/.(the rest of the WE combat units and the enitre Bret book) This is one of the big reason it's difficult for WEs and Brets to work effectively under the new rules, even their "flank" charges don't bring the same effective result as other armies can bring. Makes me miss Unit Strength(much better way to work things out then rank bonuses imo. Yes a 7 wound monster should stop steadfast against a unit of 6 guys with one in the 2nd rank) With the a addition of a formation and no longer having 360 charges, I think my skirmishers should remove rank bonuses when performing flank/rear charges.

Don't know about WE, but in the Bret FAQ it clarifies things. Bret Cavalry ranks of 3 function as ranks of 5.