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.

I found this on a google search after hearing that WFB is supposedly gearing for a 9th edition.
---->http://natfka.blogspot.com.au/2014/04/warhammer-fantasy-9th-edition-rules.html

the rules rumored here are; (there are translation errors.)

via an anonymous source on Faeit 212
- the next fantasy edition is no continuation of the 8th edition. It uses a
variant ruleset of 40k now
- Fantasy has no movement value anymore, but a armour saving profile
- there are still armour savings modifiers
- all special rules use the 40k rules
- units move like 40k units, but can assume one of three formations, block,
tortuga and arrow
- fantasy flyers can only be hit with minus three to the ballistic talent
and can hit models under their flight path
- there are allies in fantasy
- war machines are their own category like special and core now, 25% of
points can spent on war machines
- there is a system to buy terrain
- warlord tables, but can choose which trait to get
- weapons have a profile like 40k but no armour ignore column.


The main things im concerned about if these are true in any form, is GW wanting to change fantasy to a 40k style play style.

I prefer the play of fantasy to 40k hence why i am making the investment into the game.

But if they are planning on ruining the rules like they are rumored to here is there a point?

Basically i am asking if there are any truths to the above mentioned?
should i be worried?

If there are any more concrete rumors or statements from GW on the matter, can someone please fill me in.

9th ed Is probably coming this summer, but I sincerely doubt that they would basically swap the entire ruleset around, all the rulebooks etc would have to be severely rewritten, (taking out the M char., using the armour save stat.)

It's probably guaranted that an allies system would be introduced, but if they do turn fantasy into 40k MK II, I swear I'm gonna go down to Nottingham and punch someone (mat ward) very hard.

Don't believe these rumors one single bit.

I wouldn't expect but wouldn't mind the following ones:

Allies if done right
You already can buy terrain, hopefully there would be more.
War machines were their own category at one point, however would really tweak some armies, as chariots did count as war machines then.

War machines as their own category would be a terrible decision. War machine heavy lists make for the most boring games you can imagine and cutting down on those is what really improved games.

Never believe anything posted on natfka. He'll post anything to get hits to his blog.

There is a rumour accuracy tracking thread here on Dakka, and natfka/Faeit have among the most abysmal records of true vs. false rumours.
Now, if something is posted and/or reputed to have come via 40k radio, then odds are there's a decent air of truth to said rumours!

awesome good to hear!

i was scared that the game was going to be trashed before i can get fully into it, but then again, if they did f**k it up as badly as those rumors may have suggested, the number of players who would stay with 8th probably would be the majority, or you would find some fan made rulesets that use 8th and some of 9th tweaked and retrofitted to the 8th ruleset.

how soon before the launch of the next rule set do they start releasing information on the set?

as im new i have no knowledge of this sort of thing.
hell i cannot even get white dwarf where i am without stooping to digital copies.

8th is a very solid ruleset. It needs a few adjustments, mainly in the magic department, but then works pretty damn good. Start by limiting the max PD used for Shadow and Death magic to 4 and capping additional PD/DD at 2, and grant LOS! for test-or-die spells and you're off to a pretty good basic ruleset and lots of fun games.

I hope that GW stays away from WHFB 8th as long as possible.

 Sigvatr wrote:
8th is a very solid ruleset. It needs a few adjustments, mainly in the magic department, but then works pretty damn good. Start by limiting the max PD used for Shadow and Death magic to 4 and capping additional PD/DD at 2, and grant LOS! for test-or-die spells and you're off to a pretty good basic ruleset and lots of fun games.

So, basically use ETC, which is the worst comp ever.

Technically, it's the worst comp. It's also the best comp...as there only is one comp. If you don't like it, feel free to share your ideas with the rules council. Competitive players are always welcome to share their input.

I wouldn't count Swedish as a comp as it doesn't tackle the game's basic problems.

 Sigvatr wrote:
Technically, it's the worst comp. It's also the best comp...as there only is one comp. If you don't like it, feel free to share your ideas with the rules council. Competitive players are always welcome to share their input.

I wouldn't count Swedish as a comp as it doesn't tackle the game's basic problems.

The problem with ETC is that it makes the game as fun as stabbing yourself in the eyes with rusty spoons.



I use this, as it solves the majority of the issues.

via an anonymous source on Faeit 212
- the next fantasy edition is no continuation of the 8th edition. It uses a
variant ruleset of 40k now - Very doubtful, especially with the popularity of 40k waning (From what I've heard)
- Fantasy has no movement value anymore, but a armour saving profile - Nope, M is too central a concept in fantasy & every army would need to be redone & have their pts values recalculated.
- there are still armour savings modifiers
- all special rules use the 40k rules - I can see them adding in some 40k special rules. I feel having unified keywords wouldn't hurt, stubborn in 40k is the same as stubborn in fantasy etc.
- units move like 40k units, but can assume one of three formations, block,
tortuga and arrow - Highly doubtful
- fantasy flyers can only be hit with minus three to the ballistic talent
and can hit models under their flight path - Nope.avi, flyers already get their skirmisher bonus and It's not like they're flying at the same speed as jets in 40k
- there are allies in fantasy - I'd say this is pretty solid. It would sell more models but I'm wary as I don't want it to turn into 40k where you're just piking the best of both worlds for your army.
- war machines are their own category like special and core now, 25% of
points can spent on war machines - I wouldn't like this, armies like VC, TK, WoC, Wood Elves (to my knowledge) all don't have warmachines & I don't want to see more widespread usage of them. Too many warmachines makes for a very boring game.
- there is a system to buy terrain - Acardia says you already can but a quick glance through the rule book I couldn't find it
- warlord tables, but can choose which trait to get - I could see this, in 40k most warlord traits are mostly very minor anyway & only situationally useful. It'd be cool but I can see it not happening since we already get IP.
- weapons have a profile like 40k but no armour ignore column. - We already kinda have that. Halbers are 2H but +1 Str, Spears & lances give bonuses, Short bow long bow blowpipe already have profiles.

I sincerely doubt GW will try to make fantasy an old-timey version of 40k. From what I've heard 40k players are fed up with the direction it is going & moving to other games, (WarmaHordes, BoltAction, Fantasy, Malifaux) and my local group confirms this. It would be a colossal mistake and I think GW knows they stand to LOSE much more of their players than they will gain back if they did this.

 thedarkavenger wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
8th is a very solid ruleset. It needs a few adjustments, mainly in the magic department, but then works pretty damn good. Start by limiting the max PD used for Shadow and Death magic to 4 and capping additional PD/DD at 2, and grant LOS! for test-or-die spells and you're off to a pretty good basic ruleset and lots of fun games.

So, basically use ETC, which is the worst comp ever.

ETC is god-awful for one-on-one singles play. Keep it to it's own special snowflake team tournament where it belongs.

You can "fix" the more egregious elements of things like Lore of Death by following one simple common sense rule called, "don't be a dick!"
If you're up against a Lizardman army for example, don't throw a powered up Purplefun down their flank 1st turn just because you can - that's why we call it a pure "dick move."

Experiment 626 wrote:

 thedarkavenger wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
8th is a very solid ruleset. It needs a few adjustments, mainly in the magic department, but then works pretty damn good. Start by limiting the max PD used for Shadow and Death magic to 4 and capping additional PD/DD at 2, and grant LOS! for test-or-die spells and you're off to a pretty good basic ruleset and lots of fun games.

So, basically use ETC, which is the worst comp ever.

ETC is god-awful for one-on-one singles play. Keep it to it's own special snowflake team tournament where it belongs.

You can "fix" the more egregious elements of things like Lore of Death by following one simple common sense rule called, "don't be a dick!"
If you're up against a Lizardman army for example, don't throw a powered up Purplefun down their flank 1st turn just because you can - that's why we call it a pure "dick move."

That's not "fixing", that's simply casual / uncomped WHFB. You can still have fun with uncomped WHFB, no doubt, but it's more of a Premium Yahtzee instead of an actual war game. But to each his own!

No... no no no, my group are just moving to fantasy FROM 40k because of the colossal rules minefield its become, let us at least get into fantasy before you cap it in the knees....

GW you've taken my money, my dignity... could you at least leave me with my dreams.....

 Sigvatr wrote:

Experiment 626 wrote:

 thedarkavenger wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
8th is a very solid ruleset. It needs a few adjustments, mainly in the magic department, but then works pretty damn good. Start by limiting the max PD used for Shadow and Death magic to 4 and capping additional PD/DD at 2, and grant LOS! for test-or-die spells and you're off to a pretty good basic ruleset and lots of fun games.

So, basically use ETC, which is the worst comp ever.

ETC is god-awful for one-on-one singles play. Keep it to it's own special snowflake team tournament where it belongs.

You can "fix" the more egregious elements of things like Lore of Death by following one simple common sense rule called, "don't be a dick!"
If you're up against a Lizardman army for example, don't throw a powered up Purplefun down their flank 1st turn just because you can - that's why we call it a pure "dick move."

That's not "fixing", that's simply casual / uncomped WHFB. You can still have fun with uncomped WHFB, no doubt, but it's more of a Premium Yahtzee instead of an actual war game. But to each his own!

ETC is as much a game as stabbing yourself in the eyes with rusty forks for the length of a game.

danp164 wrote:
No... no no no, my group are just moving to fantasy FROM 40k because of the colossal rules minefield its become, let us at least get into fantasy before you cap it in the knees....

GW you've taken my money, my dignity... could you at least leave me with my dreams.....

Yeah, I'm with danp. Many of the changes brought to 40k over the last year (coupled with upcoming rumors) has discouraged me from continuing heavily with that game.

However, GW still makes some of the best looking miniatures, If the insanity that is leaking into 40k stays on that side and fantasy gets relatively ignored (i.e. not giving the same treatment as 40k), I will be happy to play that game.

Experiment 626 wrote:

 thedarkavenger wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
8th is a very solid ruleset. It needs a few adjustments, mainly in the magic department, but then works pretty damn good. Start by limiting the max PD used for Shadow and Death magic to 4 and capping additional PD/DD at 2, and grant LOS! for test-or-die spells and you're off to a pretty good basic ruleset and lots of fun games.

So, basically use ETC, which is the worst comp ever.

ETC is god-awful for one-on-one singles play. Keep it to it's own special snowflake team tournament where it belongs.

Agreed. They started using ETC for everything here and it just devolved into a Deathstar arms race. The place I played before moving didn't have comp and the armies were much more varied and interesting to play.

 Accolade wrote:

danp164 wrote:
No... no no no, my group are just moving to fantasy FROM 40k because of the colossal rules minefield its become, let us at least get into fantasy before you cap it in the knees....

GW you've taken my money, my dignity... could you at least leave me with my dreams.....

Yeah, I'm with danp. Many of the changes brought to 40k over the last year (coupled with upcoming rumors) has discouraged me from continuing heavily with that game.

However, GW still makes some of the best looking miniatures, If the insanity that is leaking into 40k stays on that side and fantasy gets relatively ignored (i.e. not giving the same treatment as 40k), I will be happy to play that game.

Perhaps this is their way of boosting Fantasy's popularity. Since they consider their games the entirety of the genre pushing people from one should send them to the other?

 Eldarain wrote:

 Accolade wrote:

danp164 wrote:
No... no no no, my group are just moving to fantasy FROM 40k because of the colossal rules minefield its become, let us at least get into fantasy before you cap it in the knees....

GW you've taken my money, my dignity... could you at least leave me with my dreams.....

Yeah, I'm with danp. Many of the changes brought to 40k over the last year (coupled with upcoming rumors) has discouraged me from continuing heavily with that game.

However, GW still makes some of the best looking miniatures, If the insanity that is leaking into 40k stays on that side and fantasy gets relatively ignored (i.e. not giving the same treatment as 40k), I will be happy to play that game.

Perhaps this is their way of boosting Fantasy's popularity. Since they consider their games the entirety of the genre pushing people from one should send them to the other?

Haha, perhaps. Although if trends in 40k start to find their way into Fantasy then I most certainly will not continue down that road.

I have already been waiting for a while to try WHFB since the rumors of 9th came through. The current rumor that the release was delayed so the staff could focus on 40k releases gives me hope that Fantasy might remain a game worth playing because GW simply doesn't touch it.

That and I've enjoyed the WE and Dwarf releases.

Yeah, I can't remember the last Fantasy release I wasn't impressed by.

 Shas'O Dorian wrote:
via an anonymous source on Faeit 212
- the next fantasy edition is no continuation of the 8th edition. It uses a
variant ruleset of 40k now - Very doubtful, especially with the popularity of 40k waning (From what I've heard)
- Fantasy has no movement value anymore, but a armour saving profile - Nope, M is too central a concept in fantasy & every army would need to be redone & have their pts values recalculated.
- there are still armour savings modifiers
- all special rules use the 40k rules - I can see them adding in some 40k special rules. I feel having unified keywords wouldn't hurt, stubborn in 40k is the same as stubborn in fantasy etc.
- units move like 40k units, but can assume one of three formations, block,
tortuga and arrow - Highly doubtful
- fantasy flyers can only be hit with minus three to the ballistic talent
and can hit models under their flight path - Nope.avi, flyers already get their skirmisher bonus and It's not like they're flying at the same speed as jets in 40k
- there are allies in fantasy - I'd say this is pretty solid. It would sell more models but I'm wary as I don't want it to turn into 40k where you're just piking the best of both worlds for your army.
- war machines are their own category like special and core now, 25% of
points can spent on war machines - I wouldn't like this, armies like VC, TK, WoC, Wood Elves (to my knowledge) all don't have warmachines & I don't want to see more widespread usage of them. Too many warmachines makes for a very boring game.
- there is a system to buy terrain - Acardia says you already can but a quick glance through the rule book I couldn't find it
- warlord tables, but can choose which trait to get - I could see this, in 40k most warlord traits are mostly very minor anyway & only situationally useful. It'd be cool but I can see it not happening since we already get IP.
- weapons have a profile like 40k but no armour ignore column. - We already kinda have that. Halbers are 2H but +1 Str, Spears & lances give bonuses, Short bow long bow blowpipe already have profiles.

I sincerely doubt GW will try to make fantasy an old-timey version of 40k. From what I've heard 40k players are fed up with the direction it is going & moving to other games, (WarmaHordes, BoltAction, Fantasy, Malifaux) and my local group confirms this. It would be a colossal mistake and I think GW knows they stand to LOSE much more of their players than they will gain back if they did this.

Sorry, I should have been more clear. In the BRB you can buy the folding fortress for 100, in storm of magic you can get another one for 150 both are enchanted items, Wood Elves can get more woods through an acorn. Also in some of the dataslates there are terrain included. It's a weak system, but it could be done where it's not tied to a character's magic item allowance.

Allies did exist a while ago, was just 25% of total army allowance, but couldn't take lords. I think it would work where it was limited to a core tax heroes and up to 1 special.

 Acardia wrote:

 Shas'O Dorian wrote:
via an anonymous source on Faeit 212
- the next fantasy edition is no continuation of the 8th edition. It uses a
variant ruleset of 40k now - Very doubtful, especially with the popularity of 40k waning (From what I've heard)
- Fantasy has no movement value anymore, but a armour saving profile - Nope, M is too central a concept in fantasy & every army would need to be redone & have their pts values recalculated.
- there are still armour savings modifiers
- all special rules use the 40k rules - I can see them adding in some 40k special rules. I feel having unified keywords wouldn't hurt, stubborn in 40k is the same as stubborn in fantasy etc.
- units move like 40k units, but can assume one of three formations, block,
tortuga and arrow - Highly doubtful
- fantasy flyers can only be hit with minus three to the ballistic talent
and can hit models under their flight path - Nope.avi, flyers already get their skirmisher bonus and It's not like they're flying at the same speed as jets in 40k
- there are allies in fantasy - I'd say this is pretty solid. It would sell more models but I'm wary as I don't want it to turn into 40k where you're just piking the best of both worlds for your army.
- war machines are their own category like special and core now, 25% of
points can spent on war machines - I wouldn't like this, armies like VC, TK, WoC, Wood Elves (to my knowledge) all don't have warmachines & I don't want to see more widespread usage of them. Too many warmachines makes for a very boring game.
- there is a system to buy terrain - Acardia says you already can but a quick glance through the rule book I couldn't find it
- warlord tables, but can choose which trait to get - I could see this, in 40k most warlord traits are mostly very minor anyway & only situationally useful. It'd be cool but I can see it not happening since we already get IP.
- weapons have a profile like 40k but no armour ignore column. - We already kinda have that. Halbers are 2H but +1 Str, Spears & lances give bonuses, Short bow long bow blowpipe already have profiles.

I sincerely doubt GW will try to make fantasy an old-timey version of 40k. From what I've heard 40k players are fed up with the direction it is going & moving to other games, (WarmaHordes, BoltAction, Fantasy, Malifaux) and my local group confirms this. It would be a colossal mistake and I think GW knows they stand to LOSE much more of their players than they will gain back if they did this.

Sorry, I should have been more clear. In the BRB you can buy the folding fortress for 100, in storm of magic you can get another one for 150 both are enchanted items, Wood Elves can get more woods through an acorn. Also in some of the dataslates there are terrain included. It's a weak system, but it could be done where it's not tied to a character's magic item allowance.

Allies did exist a while ago, was just 25% of total army allowance, but couldn't take lords. I think it would work where it was limited to a core tax heroes and up to 1 special.

I liked the dogs of war system where only specific units could be taken and that unit now took up space as a rare choice. It allows for some variety but nothing game breaking

 Acardia wrote:

Sorry, I should have been more clear. In the BRB you can buy the folding fortress for 100, in storm of magic you can get another one for 150 both are enchanted items, Wood Elves can get more woods through an acorn. Also in some of the dataslates there are terrain included. It's a weak system, but it could be done where it's not tied to a character's magic item allowance.

off topic but related, if I've understood it, the WE get one free Citadel Woods just for being WE, and then the acorn gives another D3, right?
That's a pretty clever ploy to sell every Welf 4 of those terrain pieces.

 Purifier wrote:

 Acardia wrote:

Sorry, I should have been more clear. In the BRB you can buy the folding fortress for 100, in storm of magic you can get another one for 150 both are enchanted items, Wood Elves can get more woods through an acorn. Also in some of the dataslates there are terrain included. It's a weak system, but it could be done where it's not tied to a character's magic item allowance.

off topic but related, if I've understood it, the WE get one free Citadel Woods just for being WE, and then the acorn gives another D3, right?
That's a pretty clever ploy to sell every Welf 4 of those terrain pieces.

Correct.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 namiel wrote:

 Acardia wrote:

 Shas'O Dorian wrote:
via an anonymous source on Faeit 212
- the next fantasy edition is no continuation of the 8th edition. It uses a
variant ruleset of 40k now - Very doubtful, especially with the popularity of 40k waning (From what I've heard)
- Fantasy has no movement value anymore, but a armour saving profile - Nope, M is too central a concept in fantasy & every army would need to be redone & have their pts values recalculated.
- there are still armour savings modifiers
- all special rules use the 40k rules - I can see them adding in some 40k special rules. I feel having unified keywords wouldn't hurt, stubborn in 40k is the same as stubborn in fantasy etc.
- units move like 40k units, but can assume one of three formations, block,
tortuga and arrow - Highly doubtful
- fantasy flyers can only be hit with minus three to the ballistic talent
and can hit models under their flight path - Nope.avi, flyers already get their skirmisher bonus and It's not like they're flying at the same speed as jets in 40k
- there are allies in fantasy - I'd say this is pretty solid. It would sell more models but I'm wary as I don't want it to turn into 40k where you're just piking the best of both worlds for your army.
- war machines are their own category like special and core now, 25% of
points can spent on war machines - I wouldn't like this, armies like VC, TK, WoC, Wood Elves (to my knowledge) all don't have warmachines & I don't want to see more widespread usage of them. Too many warmachines makes for a very boring game.
- there is a system to buy terrain - Acardia says you already can but a quick glance through the rule book I couldn't find it
- warlord tables, but can choose which trait to get - I could see this, in 40k most warlord traits are mostly very minor anyway & only situationally useful. It'd be cool but I can see it not happening since we already get IP.
- weapons have a profile like 40k but no armour ignore column. - We already kinda have that. Halbers are 2H but +1 Str, Spears & lances give bonuses, Short bow long bow blowpipe already have profiles.

I sincerely doubt GW will try to make fantasy an old-timey version of 40k. From what I've heard 40k players are fed up with the direction it is going & moving to other games, (WarmaHordes, BoltAction, Fantasy, Malifaux) and my local group confirms this. It would be a colossal mistake and I think GW knows they stand to LOSE much more of their players than they will gain back if they did this.

Sorry, I should have been more clear. In the BRB you can buy the folding fortress for 100, in storm of magic you can get another one for 150 both are enchanted items, Wood Elves can get more woods through an acorn. Also in some of the dataslates there are terrain included. It's a weak system, but it could be done where it's not tied to a character's magic item allowance.

Allies did exist a while ago, was just 25% of total army allowance, but couldn't take lords. I think it would work where it was limited to a core tax heroes and up to 1 special.

I liked the dogs of war system where only specific units could be taken and that unit now took up space as a rare choice. It allows for some variety but nothing game breaking

That's true a lot of the DoW system was pretty balanced and was loaded with awesome sculpts. Even today would be pretty solid, except maybe a horde of pikemen with mindrazor would be pretty filthy.

 Purifier wrote:

 Acardia wrote:

Sorry, I should have been more clear. In the BRB you can buy the folding fortress for 100, in storm of magic you can get another one for 150 both are enchanted items, Wood Elves can get more woods through an acorn. Also in some of the dataslates there are terrain included. It's a weak system, but it could be done where it's not tied to a character's magic item allowance.

off topic but related, if I've understood it, the WE get one free Citadel Woods just for being WE, and then the acorn gives another D3, right?
That's a pretty clever ploy to sell every Welf 4 of those terrain pieces.

On an off topic but equally related note, how big are those woods? So I can proxy them in the meantime before I fling more money at GW. >.>

About 25x18 cm

http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?311990-Citadel-forest-size

 Sigvatr wrote:
About 25x18 cm

http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?311990-Citadel-forest-size

Herp derp, I guess Google should be my friend. Perfect, thanks!

I pray these rumors aren't anywhere close to the changes that are coming when 9th hits the shelves. 8th edition doesn't need a complete overhaul just some tinkering with the rules to make it an even more balanced ruleset. Which is what i hope 9th edition brings and maybe some other fun rules like buying terrain, Dogs of War (One can dream!), etc.

Oh and please GW if you are reading this don't muck up the ally rules like you did in 40k. That destroyed the game for me and i haven't really played it since 5th edition. Use ally rules that make sense ie DoC can ally with WoC, Vampires with TK, etc.

I would prefer a tightly controlled allies allowance. For example. I play TZKhorne DOC. I'd likely use core and a hero from Warriors of chaos or beastmen. maybe some razorgor or marauder horseman, nothing too serious, but would have to count for some of my core as I'm already dropping 500-600 points into horrors....

Now for my TK. I want lore of beasts bad. Ogres are also neutral so that's a good call, but not inspired to paint them. Empire would be cool, with some handgunners or something. Nope to elves, unless some wood elves can be used with some specialty arrows.