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:
Did you say they might be doing away with army books completely Kroot?

Apparently they will condense army book into volumes of between 2-4 armies in one, the way they are to be condensed (themes, race, geography) is still under debate with no one knowing anything more since the rumour started (75hastings69, May 2013). I've done posts on the maths involved and it does actually end up working in GW's favour financially. However we'd be looking at further raising the cost of entry unless the next edition of Fantasy scales back the amount of models required and retools all the rules to make it a more tactical/less dice-reliant game.

Since the actual price of the set is in the air, it's hard to make a judgement call based upon the value therein.

Any word on if they are introducing back any terrain pieces like in the BfSP?

Clean slate reboot sounds like a good idea; many problems in GW games are due legacy issues and designers having to worry about backwards compatibility.

I really hope they make the game playable with smaller units. Not only because of the cost, but because painting, ranking and moving huge units is such a pain. I gave up on my Empire army after I had painted an amount of models that would be a fair sized army in 40K, but in Fantasy it was not even two average sized units.

 Crimson wrote:
Clean slate reboot sounds like a good idea; many problems in GW games are due legacy issues and designers having to worry about backwards compatibility.

+1

Played since 4th ed and have seen units/cards/etc come and go. I liked 6th fantasy, but a complete reboot sounds good.

Mordheim 2.0 anyone?

It is feasible that numbers have been crunched, and it has been decided that the number of potential new players they feel they could attract with a lower buy-in point (ie with fewer models needed for a game) will generate more money than the current approach.

While I appreciate the plan of milking each customer for all their worth fits with their usual MO, there may be a sound business reason to reduce the model count for a game that seems to be floundering somewhat.

I'm honestly surprised GW hasn't got at least one if not two smaller scale skirmish games on the market. At present pretty much the bulk of the new companies are small scale games. Things like Infinity, Malifaux where a half dozen models is all you need - for both sides for a good game.

GW rules for larger battles; so I'm surprised they haven't just gone for some small scale stuff. They could easily run out a skirmish heroes based game for 40K and fantasy with the existing model ranges.

Plus they can't deny; those cheap games do get people interested and with some having fairly quick rounds they fit in well for those who don't have 5 hours for a regular game

They used to have several depending on what you're willing to count. Mordheim, Necromunda, Blood Bowl, Space Hulk, Gorka Morka, Inquisitor....

Pricing issues aside, I'm don't think that a bigger army book with multiple armies is a bad idea. I think it could work in the armies' favour and create a more cohesive game. More army books designed at the same time leading to greater balance across the whole line (and yes I do know what company I'm talking about).

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Pricing issues aside, I'm don't think that a bigger army book with multiple armies is a bad idea. I think it could work in the armies' favour and create a more cohesive game. More army books designed at the same time leading to greater balance across the whole line (and yes I do know what company I'm talking about).

I think it would be great, but can't shake the feeling that releases after will be a case of buy the miniature, then buy the rule so use that miniature.

Joyboozer wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Pricing issues aside, I'm don't think that a bigger army book with multiple armies is a bad idea. I think it could work in the armies' favour and create a more cohesive game. More army books designed at the same time leading to greater balance across the whole line (and yes I do know what company I'm talking about).

I think it would be great, but can't shake the feeling that releases after will be a case of buy the miniature, then buy the rule so use that miniature.

Well this is supposed to be about the 9thed WHFB starter box but I'll bite before making some additional comments on the subject.

The prospective tradeoff for having these 'volumes' of armies is how they are going to deal with army-wide rules and army book which are yet to be completed. It looks like we're also going to see a lot more emphasis on collections and pictures for advertising rather than fleshing out the model rules. Essentially these volumes could potentially become nothing more than a collectors piece more than an actual army book. That said, it's great to see colour pictures, but having to pay for them out the nose as a requirement to play is something else and just adds to the cost of entry, which will further stifle new blood making its way onto the tabletop.

Anyone who has hauled around the 8thed full-sized rulebook will know how much of a pain in the ass it can be, and how easily it can get damaged and dropped when compared to the lighter softcover versions. Further issues include their current quality control with rules writing, including the Lizardmen debacle in which the new artwork in terms of aesthetic and quality was abysmal and some even had WIP watermarks stating 'new artwork' which went through printing and onto shelves.

All of these factors lead to it being another picture-laden tome much like the current BRB which will be a pain to haul around for some small benefit (an all-in-one). However remember that you'll still need your BRB as well on top of this. So that adds up to two Oxford Dictionaries worth of paper, or if you're lucky you can pick up the main rules mini book. DISCLAIMER: personal opinion and speculation for discussion, not fact or from a reliable source.

The two sides seem to be more fairly distributed than the IoB set given we're comparing a captain on steed to a warboss on wyvern and cavalry to a bolt thrower (one on either side fairly superior to the other in terms of use). The warrior priest giving out rerolls in combat and additional ranks for bodies on top of a higher Initiative should outweigh any bonuses that the orcs or goblins possess (on top of animosity).

Having multiple army lists in one volume is a very good thing from a game balance perspective.

In theory all the lists would have been designed at the same time and would have been balanced against each other and designed with the same criteria in mind. Of course this is GW so...

I have been hoping that GW moves away from the army book format for years as the cycle is just too long. Ideally there should be a set of basic army lists for every faction that comes with the rulebook and a periodic release of campaign book or similar with slightly expanded and updated lists for 4 or 5 different factions. That way the game stays relatively balanced and no one gets left behind. The down side to this is of course the cost to the consumer.

I'm a ll for a complete reboot and redesign from the ground up, but I don't see it happening.

Just buy manticgames company and rebrand it as Warhammer. Ive been playing it and it's quicker, less rules, and more fun. Just like the old Warhammer system used to be 20+ years ago. The problem is trying to have so many races and special rules for all of them bugger the system up.

OR
Restart Warhammer as a small unit skirmish type game, fewer models and such. smaller board. But have the rules beable to play larger scale games (Apocalypse) for gamers who already have armies.

If WFB 9th turns into a skirmish game, I'm out... or at the very least sticking to 8th.

You can run squads all you like. I want to run an army... or at least a decent battalion.

 Vulcan wrote:
sticking to 8th.

Here we go!

I just wish the OP had a track record for rumors... afaik the several threads he created recently were his first rumors, so we won't know whether he (or his source) is at all reliable until some time passes...

Shouldn't post rumours unless you have a track record, but in order to create a track record you need to start posting rumours. Catch 22!

Consolidating to:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/573247.page