Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Just been reading a certain forthcoming Army Book for Fantasy, that may or may not be released in the next couple of squeaks.

And there are a few interesting things in it which I reckon might well be the shape of things to come.

For instance, Artillery. Both bits have a single combined Profile, ala a Chariot. Rather than randomise hits from shooting/ranged magic, you simply use the Artillery's toughness value. In HTH, you use the crews toughness. A single wound track is used, and once all wounds are gone (regardless of how they were inflicted) the whole shebang is removed.

Furthermore, it does indeed appear partial hits are going, which I for one am quite glad about, as they added a not entirely necessary extra roll when splatting stuff.

Am still digging my way through the book, and will report back should I spot any further possible inklings.

There has previously been slight murmurs about eight edition; that Army Book has caused them to grow louder. There are many claims that it is written with eighth edition in mind, due to points such as you raise. The rumour goes that eight edition is any time from the middle of 2010 to the middle of 2011.

I'd wager perhaps earlier.

Although seemingly minor, these do change game Dynamics somewhat (after all, no point in firing bows at Artillery now. S3 cannot wound T7!).

Also worth noting that the pieces of Artilery these rules currently apply to are T6...

Grots, ratillery has always been a little different, however this rules makes sense of artillery gets a T drop.

Orlanth wrote:Grots, ratillery has always been a little different, however this rules makes sense of artillery gets a T drop.

Actually the Skaven book doesn't imply that at all. For example, the Bell still has the ability that causes damage to all models with T7 or higher, which means war machines and war machines only. If the Skaven book was written with 8th edition in mind, which it of course should be as 8th edition is only a year away, I'd wager war machines will stay T7. The biggest changes I foresee coming are kill points, only core units counting as scoring, and 2 of the 3 missions being won solely through objectives, à la 40K.

Another edition? Already?! Gw take the piss, no wonder I gave up serious gaming.

Therion wrote:

Orlanth wrote:Grots, ratillery has always been a little different, however this rules makes sense of artillery gets a T drop.

Actually the Skaven book doesn't imply that at all. For example, the Bell still has the ability that causes damage to all models with T7 or higher, which means war machines and war machines only. If the Skaven book was written with 8th edition in mind, which it of course should be as 8th edition is only a year away, I'd wager war machines will stay T7. The biggest changes I foresee coming are kill points, only core units counting as scoring, and 2 of the 3 missions being won solely through objectives, à la 40K.

Do you really see WFB employing all of those '40K-style' rules?

To me, is just doesn't seem 'right', or to 'fit'...

Do you know something we don't?

Are you... in the know???

The UK GT circuit which is actually organised by GW itself at the Warhammer World has used the 40K-style kill point and mission system for two full seasons now IIRC. There's nothing wrong with it and this leads me to believe more changes like that are coming. Perhaps even a similar way of deployment and start of game.

There aren't many WHFB core rules that GW can or knows how to tweak for the better. It's the start of the game/victory conditions that will see the most changes. I'm fairly certain of it. Actually, making only US10+ core units with standard bearers scoring, and making missions heavily objective based and not so much based on killing units and gathering victory points is one of the easiest ways to push players off their 3x minimum core + tons of monsters & cavalry type armies.

The magic phase might see some changes as well, but considering how the army books support the current system I wouldn't predict any truly major changes. The changes might be tweaks akin to the ones we got for the current edition.

Warhammer is all about beers and a pitch battle with two forests, a hill and building of some sort. Maybe a few rocks for good measure not - UGH - objectives.

Maybe an 8th edition box set is going to be the big summer release. I'll wager Beastmen v. Empire.

Warhammer and Warhammer 40K are mostly about whatever the victory conditions say, and never ever have they been about beers. Not to my knowledge atleast and I've been playing these games for 18 years.

I don't see Fantasy moving away from pitched battles as the most common game. I hope they finally make a genuine attempt at adding some variety, but I don't foresee pitched battles being knocked off its throne. They will streamline rules; removing partials and combining artillery profiles are good examples. I hope they end up being true. There is a reason 40k and Fantasy exist, they are two separate systems. GW would be foolish to follow Therion's suggestions, as that would make the two systems too similar, for no good reason. Which means GW will probably do it.

Alpharius wrote:

Therion wrote:The biggest changes I foresee coming are kill points, only core units counting as scoring, and 2 of the 3 missions being won solely through objectives, à la 40K.

Do you really see WFB employing all of those '40K-style' rules?

I simply can't see WFB moving to Objectives - WFB has always been a VP game through and through. I can see GW moving the game to a more refined scoring of KPs (i.e. enemy killed + friendly saved), so if I kill 8/12 and save 3/8 I score 11/20 vs opponent killing 4/12 and saving 5/8 for only 9/20. Factor Bonus points for Quarters, Objectives and Generals and it's all good.

I can see Quarters and Objectives requiring Ranked Infantry with a Standard to hold - it'd give a nice boost to block Infantry that's been missing for quite a while. Letting any Core hold, means that light Cav, and other Skirmishers could hold and that doesn't feel right. Particularly when you consider Elite Infantry Specials like Greatswords and Stormvermin -- considering their cost, these units should definitely be able to hold (or at least Contest) Objectives. Similarly, not having a Standard feels wrong as well - if you literally plant a flag on the objective, then you've taken it. This will probably require a US minimum in addition to the Standard, to further encourage block infantry.

Removing the test for partials will probably carry from 40k, as it's simpler and faster in the same way that the Guess mechanic is gone, to be replaced by place and Scatter / Bounce. This also removes the problem of trying to range snipe over / through enemy units / large terrain.

Lastly, I wouldn't be surprised to see GW do something to revise rank & file requirements by base size. I'd suppose 7-wide for 20mm, 6-wide for 25mm, 4-wide for 40mm, and 3-wide for 50+mm (nominal 150mm rank), with +1/rank for 20-25mm (max +3) and +2/rank for 40+mm (max +2). Then, give static CR for unengaged Files to encourage formation width based on envelopment.

Anything that nerfs daemons would be a plus so war machines getting a bolster wouldn't be a bad thing.

Therion wrote:Warhammer and Warhammer 40K are mostly about whatever the victory conditions say, and never ever have they been about beers. Not to my knowledge atleast and I've been playing these games for 18 years.

Expand your knowledge. Have a beer.

Therion wrote:Actually, making only US10+ core units with standard bearers scoring, and making missions heavily objective based and not so much based on killing units and gathering victory points is one of the easiest ways to push players off their 3x minimum core + tons of monsters & cavalry type armies.

I'm just starting high elves, but only having large core units as scoring, when all of our units except for spearmen, archers, and lothern sea guard are no longer core... wouldn't seem to make any sense at all. Making it objectives based also seem to be too 40k to me... but then I'm just starting fantasy

Most 40K armies only have 1 or 2 troops choices, and some, like Necrons, only have one.

I know it's silly, since there isn't necessarily any correlation between the photography and any implied rules, BUT, one of the things that jumped out at me in the ads for the new book was a shot of plague monks deployed 8-wide. That's just stupid in the current environment. It's not stupid if having a wider frontage counts for combat resolution.

Therion wrote:Warhammer and Warhammer 40K are mostly about whatever the victory conditions say, and never ever have they been about beers. Not to my knowledge atleast and I've been playing these games for 18 years.

In my club at least, not a single game goes by without the downing of at least 1 beer by 1 player. Usually much more...

Therion wrote:Warhammer and Warhammer 40K are mostly about whatever the victory conditions say, and never ever have they been about beers. Not to my knowledge atleast and I've been playing these games for 18 years.

Serious Business?

Think there will be something in 8th ed requiring Ogres not to suck?

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Just been reading a certain forthcoming Army Book for Fantasy, that may or may not be released in the next couple of squeaks.

You really are a GW employee. It's up for pre-order and you still feel the need to keep it's name secret - tongue-in-cheek or otherwise...

Da Boss wrote:Most 40K armies only have 1 or 2 troops choices, and some, like Necrons, only have one.

This is true, but at least for high elves, if you take much more than the just the baseline mandatory (or maybe just a bit more than mandatory) core requirements, you are severely handicapped. For 40k, the basic rank-and-file troop squads seem to be more effective... but then again I'm just starting fantasy, so take my thoughts on it with a grain of salt

Mad Dog Grotnisk wrote:For instance, Artillery. Both bits have a single combined Profile, ala a Chariot. Rather than randomise hits from shooting/ranged magic, you simply use the Artillery's toughness value. In HTH, you use the crews toughness. A single wound track is used, and once all wounds are gone (regardless of how they were inflicted) the whole shebang is removed.

Isn't this how the Warp-Lightning Cannon worked in the old book? Expaning this to all war machines would foolish, methinks.

Riides Nids wrote:This is true, but at least for high elves, if you take much more than the just the baseline mandatory (or maybe just a bit more than mandatory) core requirements, you are severely handicapped. For 40k, the basic rank-and-file troop squads seem to be more effective... but then again I'm just starting fantasy, so take my thoughts on it with a grain of salt

Several armies would be up a creek: All varieties of Elves, Ogres, Brettonians... Dwarves wouldn't fare well in grabbing objectives, either.

Letting any Core hold, means that light Cav, and other Skirmishers could hold and that doesn't feel right. Particularly when you consider Elite Infantry Specials like Greatswords and Stormvermin -- considering their cost, these units should definitely be able to hold (or at least Contest) Objectives.

This is the same type of thinking that makes you ask why your 1st company Terminators or Long Fangs Devastators can't hold objectives. It doesn't make any sense of course, but it has the desired effect on armies. Let's be honest, the troops choices and core units are not the most killy units in the game. These days noone really cares at all what core units an army has. They're there because you've been forced to take them and they rarely achieve anything at all. Since I'm pretty sure GW won't all of a sudden make WS3 S3 T3 units with 4+ armour saves slaughter Bloodthirsters and Dragons and hordes of Flesh Hounds or regenerating Black Knights, how about making them important for the scenario objectives? It's either going to be the 'only core can hold objectives' or then a force organisation system that forces you to spend ~40% of your points in core units.

Objective based play has been used in plenty of massive tournaments already and it hasn't been the end of the world you're predicting. The other thing I'd like to see changed in all tournaments is the way tournament points are scored. I like it when a minor victory is worth the same amount of tournament points as a major victory. To be succesful in the usual pitched battles tournaments your army has to be able to massacre opponents. If you can't 'mop up' the few remaining units and heroes running for their lives and move a unit to each table quarter in the last turn, you're going to have a really hard time getting to the top. When you only need to focus on winning by a few victory points/kill points, or controlling only one more of the 4-6 objectives than the enemy, the game changes altogether. It becomes a lot more subtle and armies that might be totally outmatched on paper can still get a win by playing better than the opponent. The UK GT now has 2 missions out of 6 that are based solely on objectives and the other 4 are a combination of various objectives and victory points. A win is worth 30 points, a draw 10 points and a loss 1 points while you get 0 if you concede.

Anyway, I see this aspect of Warhammer being the one that will see the most rule book changes. Of course I might be wrong, but since that and army composition are the parts that are most disliked and altered by tournament organisers and hobbyists, GW will probably do something.

I really like the sound of this! Now if they only bring in entrenchment as an option for dwarf warmachines...

Does that mean that if the crew flee the warmachine cannot be recrewed?

Haven't half the rules been ruined or lost? If not, you lied to me Dakka, lied!

I'm liking the sound of this. I dropped fantasy because of the new edition rules (both BRB and army books) and I would love to see something change, hopefully for the better. The objective/killpoint thing has worked great for 40k so I don't see why it wouldn't work for fantasy. It'd save a lot of calculation at the end of the battle determining VP too!

Therion wrote:

Letting any Core hold, means that light Cav, and other Skirmishers could hold and that doesn't feel right. Particularly when you consider Elite Infantry Specials like Greatswords and Stormvermin -- considering their cost, these units should definitely be able to hold (or at least Contest) Objectives.

This is the same type of thinking that makes you ask why your 1st company Terminators or Long Fangs Devastators can't hold objectives. It doesn't make any sense of course, but it has the desired effect on armies.

Let's be honest, the troops choices and core units are not the most killy units in the game. These days noone really cares at all what core units an army has. They're there because you've been forced to take them and they rarely achieve anything at all.

It's either going to be the 'only core can hold objectives' or then a force organisation system that forces you to spend ~40% of your points in core units.

Objective based play has been used in plenty of massive tournaments already and it hasn't been the end of the world you're predicting.

I don't think that Objectives WFB would be bad, and I prefer objectives gaming, overall, but I think that 40k should be Objectives game, not WFB. That creates a useful (arbitary) distinction between the two games.

The "any Core" vs "Ranked (non-Missile) Infantry" is a important distinction. Armies take Core (because they are required to), but they rarely take block infantry, and when they do, it's HE Archers over Spears, or Crossbows / Handgunners / other missiles. Or Cav / Skirmishers over ordinary foot troops. The only really successful no-missile block infantry I've seen is in Daemons, and even then, it's because Horrors produce PD & DD. The next best blocks are Flagellants, because they're crazy good - good because the models are crazy. WFB should be about block infantry, and that should be encouraged first and foremost. Otherwise, all the rules about blocks might as well not be there, and we can play something else. So, force block play. It's what the game is supposed to be about, and don't allow the player to get around it.

If you also need to encourage Core (and you probably do, but to a lesser extent than the above), then allow any Core unit with starting size of US20+ to contest (but not capture) Objectives. This makes Core Cav and Skirmishers very useful in denying Objectives to the enemy, so they'll still be taken.

With a minimum requirement to capture / contest 4 quarters, then that's at least 4 core / brick units per army, each of decent size to do its job.

I'm also convinced that WHFB 8th Edition is highly likely for 2010 and I have been so for some time. It just makes sense based on the releases of the past couple years, especially the slightly shorter than previous revision cycle of 40K 5th Edition.

GW has become a well oiled machine at revising and releasing the products they feel will generate the biggest cash spkes and long-term continuous sales. I already sold my Fantasy hardback rule book on eBay earlier this year.

The Crippler wrote:I know it's silly, since there isn't necessarily any correlation between the photography and any implied rules, BUT, one of the things that jumped out at me in the ads for the new book was a shot of plague monks deployed 8-wide. That's just stupid in the current environment. It's not stupid if having a wider frontage counts for combat resolution.

It's stupid in which manner, if you don't mind me asking? An eight-wide front means that against anything that is not a ≤4 25mm model / ≤5 20mm model unit, all models get to attack. You also are increasing the number of attacks you can make in the off chance of being charged. Is there some inherent flaw I'm missing in maximizing frontage?

JohnHwangDD wrote:If you also need to encourage Core (and you probably do, but to a lesser extent than the above), then allow any Core unit with starting size of US20+ to contest (but not capture) Objectives. This makes Core Cav and Skirmishers very useful in denying Objectives to the enemy, so they'll still be taken.

With a minimum requirement to capture / contest 4 quarters, then that's at least 4 core / brick units per army, each of decent size to do its job.

That's a bad idea. Not all armies can reasonably meet that requirement. Elven armies can't win with their Core units, most Chaos (all types) units are too expensive to field in blocks that size, you would need 7+ models for Ogre Kingdoms... Basing it on starting US seems kinda silly, anyhow: "Hey, there WERE 19 other guys that started this battle with me, but I'm the guy with the flag so I'm just gonna hide over here and do something maybe useful..."