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.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

Flashman wrote:GW have been trying to steer people towards ... not too many ... superhuman characters... The lastest effort in 40K was to make Troops crucial for 2/3 of the missions.

... and then triple the amount of Special Characters in each Codex, giving them army-altering rules that make some of them virtually mandatory.

Yeah, I think their only 'aim' is to sell models and to keep the sales cycle going. If troops aren't selling, they change the rules so people have to buy more of them. And when the sales go down from that, they'll change again.

Yes, there will always be a business motivation behind selling models, but the non cycnical part of me thinks that JJ and his minions do actually believe that armies should look like armies rather than a random assortment of monsters and war machines.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

Flashman wrote:GW have been trying to steer people towards ... not too many ... superhuman characters... The lastest effort in 40K was to make Troops crucial for 2/3 of the missions.

... and then triple the amount of Special Characters in each Codex, giving them army-altering rules that make some of them virtually mandatory.

Yeah, I think their only 'aim' is to sell models and to keep the sales cycle going. If troops aren't selling, they change the rules so people have to buy more of them. And when the sales go down from that, they'll change again.

Meh i know their bottom line is to sell models, but i disagree that the only aim is to do that...

When i started playing warhammer 5-6 years ago it really did look like 2 armies hit the table for a battle. Now it looks like 2 dragons and 50-60 guys with swords are fighting the wars.

I am personally looking forward to seeing an epic battle going down, as opposed to a small skirmish. Also Games Workshops is actually doing pretty well all things considered with the economy (at least in the USA)

I hear from a very reliable source that the unit requirement for ranks for normal infantry will be 7 and 40mm will be 4. I think cavalry was 5 but I can't remember what was said exactly.

Surtur wrote:I hear from a very reliable source that the unit requirement for ranks for normal infantry will be 7 and 40mm will be 4. I think cavalry was 5 but I can't remember what was said exactly.

6 wide is already clunky. 7 wide 25 mm bases would just be silly. Also 4 wide for ogre bases doesn't help at all. The cheapest unit you can field to get a whopping +1 CR is 280 points and there's no way that range fire can't do three wounds to that unit negating it before combat hits so you'd have to have some extra redundant models. It really doesn't help the Ogre situation in the least.

Kinda hoping those aren't true. As much as I want 8th to be cool none of the rumors sound any good with the possible exception of percentages (which will suck if they don't release balance errata for current books to work with them).

I'm not going to try to second guess what GW has planned for 8th ed. What I would like to see is Fantasy versions of Apocalypse and some small scale fights similar to kill teams in 40k. I don't mean that it has to be skirmish though. Perhaps a reduction of units so that you have 6 or 8 infantry in a block rather than 15-20 and no siege weapons. I do think they need to do something with the game regarding scenery. The current unit size is way to big for city fights or fights in woodland. Given that such a big swathe of the Old World is forest I'd like to see a way of having lots of big trees and stands of trees with avenues inbetween and possibly replace a couple of stands withg sacred sites. This would give some nice strategy problems for woodelves and beastmen. For an apocalyse style game I'd like to see huge plains with very little scenery and possibly something in the chaos wastes with movable scenery objective points. I'd also like to see some castle/city fights where you have the big outer walls and then secondary walls before you get to the central keep / living quarters. Each section would have grids of buildings and objectives that have to be either held or destroyed. Destroying objectives would be interesting because troops couldn't do it and it would either tie up a hero or you'd have to include monstrous allies in your army list.

Bloodwin wrote:What I would like to see is Fantasy versions of Apocalypse

Legendary Battles?

Bloodwin wrote:and some small scale fights similar to kill teams in 40k. I don't mean that it has to be skirmish though.

Warhammer Skirmish? Warhammer Mordheim? Warhammer Warbands?

If you mean the old Kill Teams, it can be simulated well enough. If you mean the new, it doesn't quite work as you can't just take a WHFB rulebook and slap a couple abilities on people saying "They are veterans": You'd pretty much only have psychological factors, and and in Skirmish a few of them might not matter much (Immune to Psychology in Skirmish wouldn't help too much for instance outside fighting two or three armies).

Bloodwin wrote:Perhaps a reduction of units so that you have 6 or 8 infantry in a block rather than 15-20 and no siege weapons.

So Warbands?

Bloodwin wrote:I do think they need to do something with the game regarding scenery. The current unit size is way to big for city fights or fights in woodland.

But regiments were wielded in blocks, not small strings of people eight-to-ten big.

Bloodwin wrote:I'd also like to see some castle/city fights where you have the big outer walls and then secondary walls before you get to the central keep / living quarters.

Now this would require an Apoc-style change, as outside Flier units or some very good spell rolling it'd be impossible to make it past the first wall in a single game. WHFb can't pull a 40K and expect its faster infantry to run some 40"+ in three turns regardless of terrain in the way.

In normal RaF taking a unit of 6-7 would be very very risky. All you have to do is pop 2 with shooting or magic and they are testing for panic.

I also agree 7 wide is already clunky (even though i run my units 7 wide). 4 wide for 40mm bases just doesnt make sense. Are there even units with 40mm bases that you would want to run 4 wide?

ShivanAngel wrote:In normal RaF taking a unit of 6-7 would be very very risky. All you have to do is pop 2 with shooting or magic and they are testing for panic.

I also agree 7 wide is already clunky (even though i run my units 7 wide). 4 wide for 40mm bases just doesnt make sense. Are there even units with 40mm bases that you would want to run 4 wide?

I think Ushabti sometimes work at four-wide, but that's the very largest I can imagine wielding them. Same goes for possibly Iron Guts, depending on characters and what-not.

Updated the first post.

Please tell me all these 8th Edition WHFB rumors are just an elaborate joke. Please, someone, tell me it's not so.

If Musicians lose their old bonus for +1 to Rally (if there is a rally and units don't become disorganized like WotR), they're going to vanish from a lot of people's army lists. Fast Cavalry for instance are probably going to drop them for some extra points to spend elsewhere (if, without the Musician, the Fast-Cav unit is still reliable enough to be worth taking).

Same goes for if the Standard Bearer loses its bonus to combat res, a lot of people will probably drop theirs if their army is more re-active than pro-active.

If the rumor that charging = +1 Combat Res is true, the whole digs deeper and deeper. Several of the armies being hit by the rule don't need a 6 static combat res from the charge, they need the security that they're not going to watch some 10+ models striking against them before they can do anything with their attacks and low WS / Armor combinations (I say 10+ as the "Strike in two ranks" rule seems very loathe to die).

Longbows is one of the few rule changes I don't mind, and actually encourage: Would people really mind if a unit of 15 Longbowmen on the hill could fire 15 shots instead of 10?

Resolving the whole "Terrain covering the table" issue with "It doesn't slow you down but now you take 16% of unit away as casualties when going through" is, well, idiotic. If it applies to Skirmishers too, then it just makes things worse. And finding Magic Items at random in the woods too?

If this edition is not a joke, then I'm seriously doubting it's meant for anyone to actually use it but actually an attempt to drive people into the arms of Warhammer 40K. These rules make little to no sense, so unless they're all horrendously false leaks to find where GW needs to plug its rumor sources, then - regardless of what I originally said - I probably am going to stop playing WHFB in their stores until the next edition. If I can find a group to play at their houses and all and get some 7th-or-earlier edition games in, I'll crack the army out. Otherwise, it's just not appealing to me. And, once more, of course they're going to drastically increase the amount of terrain after they start drastically cutting down on the number of (effective) skirmisher units.

Jesus man just relax! At this point everything is still sketchy and taking so many conclusions based on rumours is just not productive. Unless we have a clear OVERALL picture of the new edition theres really no point in moaning.

Thank you Grimstonefire for the updates they are a very interesting and for sure fun to check out.

Woah, hold your horses there Minsc!

I probably should make it clear that unless something is written in the sticky as being changed it will all stay the same.

The command things are all in addition to what they currently do.

I've added a couple more things I will stick in here next time I copy it over. Basically allied forces % allocation is not in there, but the rules for using allies are.

So they would need the opponents permission.

I figure if GW was going to change the width of ranks, they wouldn't have set every infantry unit in the Beastman armybook to 5/10 minimums.

NAVARRO wrote:Jesus man just relax! At this point everything is still sketchy and taking so many conclusions based on rumours is just not productive. Unless we have a clear OVERALL picture of the new edition theres really no point in moaning.

Thank you Grimstonefire for the updates they are a very interesting and for sure fun to check out.

Haha, my thoughts exactly! The sky has not fallen just yet, let's wait and see, and then wait to PLAY the new rules before passing judgment. We may all be pleasantly surprised.

I thought 40K 5th ed sounded like crap, but it turned out to be, by far, the best edition of the game yet, at least IMHO.

So let's see first before getting upset. I personally think WFB sucks ass right now and is in dire need of major changes, but I know not everyone feels that way.

Minsc, every time I see you post, my eyes glaze over your wall of text and instead, I see a very popular meme with Leonidas screaming at the top of his lungs. My dakkafu is weak, or I'd come up with something.

In short, just calm down man. Complain when the book hits the shelves, or at least until we get some reliable pdfs on the intrawebz.

I'm sorry for complaining, but I am just not amused that the hobby I've been focusing on for the last five and a half years is taking drastic changes that - seemingly - are mostly negative (EDIT: In my opinion).

There are good implementations in the new rules, I've stated them in prior pages. However, I am not liking a lot of the proposed changes. It's that simple. I like my rule changes to be minor things, stuff like archers get to fire in two ranks now or Ogre ranks need to be less wide than Goblin (in terms of models). I don't like my rule changes coming in the variety of "Terrain turns into 40K Dangerous that can possibly hold a magic item" or "Irresistible Force can now drop a S5 mortar centered on top of your Wizard" changes.

I repeatably mention "If not a joke", "If the majority of these rumors are true", "If these rumors aren't disproven". A few of the changes, I can accept. But, again, when 60%-70% of the rumors are leaving a bad taste in my mouth and only about 10% of them a good one (the remaining 20%-30% being rumors I am apathetic to), there's reason for me to be wary.

Well there are always players who dont adapt well to any changes in a game system regardless of what they are.. You might be one of them

Terrain in fantasy needed massive changes.. As ive said before it might as well be impassable for non-skirmishers.. Im not sure I like 1 in 6 chance of dying but I prefer that over STUCK FOR THE ENTIRE GAME.. It wouldnt be so bad if you could move small amounts in terrain without totally destroying your movement for the rest of the game (IE wheeling out or moving 2" with no penalty

Fact is, terrain is stupid right now and always has been.. Fantasy desperately needs dynamic boards and dynamic missions.. Barren boards using pitch battle are great for old timers and status quo but I think GW is finally realizing it makes the game too static

Minsc wrote:I'm sorry for complaining, but I am just not amused that the hobby I've been focusing on for the last five and a half years is taking drastic changes

Five-and-a-half-years isn't a long time. Many of us have been playing for a decade or more. Sad, but true. Over time, you learn to roll with the changes.

In general, based on how I've seen 40k evolve from 2E, to 3E, to 4E (with Apoc), to current 5E, each step has been generally positive overall.

WFB made great strides forward from 5E to 6E, and I'm thinking 7E to 8E has similar intent.

Sure, there's a little heartburn during the transition, but overall, GW's dev team has been doing a good job. I think we owe 8E a serious look before turning it away.

Interesting how those that seem most enamoured of the rumours have space marine avatars

sorry, just couldn't resist
meanwhile back on topic...

I could change it to something WFB if that would increase my internet street cred.. Obviously the avatar makes things much more creditable!

None dare question the cat. Clearly felines are the superior avatar.

Kirbinator wrote:None dare question the cat. Clearly felines are the superior avatar.

Sir, my avatar is a laughing lord of change.

He is amused at the rage of the daemons book.

I win.

---------------

Anyways, I hope a lot of these aren't true, but its not up to us.

You know what crying about it does? Nothing.

The book is already being printed, everything that is in the book is set in stone. We'll have to roll with it.

There WILL be the good, and there WILL be the bad. That's inevitable. I just hope I don't have to change my list too drastically for these changes, I am not made of money.

I am not really all that enamoured with the rumors. It seems that they are taking away the importance of maneuvering and charging and just making the game more random.

This probably appeals to thier target demographic though. However, I perfer my games being won on skill rather than luck.

I'm still liking most of these rumours - they same to be levelling the playing field a lot and for those who say they want it to be a contest of skill, surely this is better than - ooh, I've taken Daemons, I'll just push this big red iWIN button...

The one I don't like is 'finding magic items in the woods'. This is supposed to be Warhammer, not D&D. Magic is supposed to be rare and dangerous - but hey, I'll stop in the middle of a battle to do a bit of treasure hunting in the woods "Ooh look! I've just found a sword of smiting, who left that there? Careless of them..."

It just seems a little over the top. The only way I can see it working balance-wise is if either its impossible to find anything good (in which case people won't bother and the rule is a waste of time), or its a scenario-specific rule rather than a general 'this happens all the time' rule.

The thing is, they aren't really leveling the playing field. They are just changing what the power lists are. The game will still be as unbalanced as it was before.

The only difference is that because there is so much more random elements involved and skill-based elements are reduced, it makes lower power armies able to win slightly more, but through pure happenstance, rather than any skill involved.

I think the worst builds will mostly all vanish, so that part is good. Obviously people will instinctively have identified the new generation of power builds within a few days.

I SO cannot wait for full rulebooks to come out and confirmations to appear.

I do not believe that stuff about losing models going through the woods. It would make skirmishers nearly useless. Also imagine bringing a 400-500+ point character in the woods and rolling a 1...

If it is the Forest of Athel Loren then it would be fair enough Shiven

These terrain "events" hark back to the very first days of Warhammer when going through a wood (or near one?) saw your models being attacked by Satyrs. Ironically, the designers poked fun at this in the 25th Anniversary issue of WD. Maybe the idea grew on them...