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.

Hey everyone,
Been playing fantasy for about a year and have amassed a decent skaven force. In my area fantasy is just as popular as 40k but i don't play it as much despite having a few armies.

Lately 40k has been getting all the updates. New codecies (army books) rules expansions etc. Fantasy seems to have been put on the back burner a bit. We did get dwarfs and wood elves recently which was nice but I feel like their releases as so much smaller than the 40k releases.
We only have 3 books to update before everyone is up to date with the rules. You would think that they could update them faster. Brettonia has been rumoured forever but never actually gets released.

Might be a money thing mostly with gw trying to push more profitable products but do you think that since the old CEO stepped down we might see an increase in fantasy releases? Do you feel fantasy has been left in the dust a little?

I have no problem with it.

The Fantasy releases we've seen are generally more solid, with much nicer miniatures.

Not at all. WHFB 8th is a very solid ruleset, that needs little work to be a viable and even competitive ruleset.

40k 7th was an utter mess with piss-poorly written rules. I am happy that GW neglects WHFB so far.

 Sigvatr wrote:
Not at all. WHFB 8th is a very solid ruleset, that needs little work to be a viable and even competitive ruleset.

40k 7th was an utter mess with piss-poorly written rules. I am happy that GW neglects WHFB so far.

I'm sorry...you think steadfast was actually an improvement?One of the worst rules ever written into whfb and clearly written by someone who has no concept of nor ever having been in actual combat.

Well I have to agree that the rules for fantasy are good and don't need much changing but for the new army releases it would be nice to have all the books updated to the most recent ruleset.
Plus hardcover books would be nice lol

 chiefbigredman wrote:
Well I have to agree that the rules for fantasy are good and don't need much changing but for the new army releases it would be nice to have all the books updated to the most recent ruleset.
Plus hardcover books would be nice lol

Well, the slower releases do mean nicer models which, to me, is the most important thing.

 quickfuze wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
Not at all. WHFB 8th is a very solid ruleset, that needs little work to be a viable and even competitive ruleset.

40k 7th was an utter mess with piss-poorly written rules. I am happy that GW neglects WHFB so far.

I'm sorry...you think steadfast was actually an improvement?One of the worst rules ever written into whfb and clearly written by someone who has no concept of nor ever having been in actual combat.

Steadfast was a huge step in the right direction. I do not, in any way, want to go back to herohammer. Steadfast is a very well thought-out mechanism that simply requires a little tweak, such as being flanked by a unit of 2+ ranks results in the loss of Steadfast, or a monster or anything similar.

 quickfuze wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
Not at all. WHFB 8th is a very solid ruleset, that needs little work to be a viable and even competitive ruleset.

40k 7th was an utter mess with piss-poorly written rules. I am happy that GW neglects WHFB so far.

I'm sorry...you think steadfast was actually an improvement?One of the worst rules ever written into whfb and clearly written by someone who has no concept of nor ever having been in actual combat.

I agree with Sigvatr that 8th as an overall rules set is pretty close to "right on" as you can get. That doesn't mean there aren't issues obviously, but compared to the clusterfeth that was 6th 40k, (7th IS a big improvement on 6th overall), or the campiness of 5th ed herohammer, 8th is amazing.

IMHO, the 3 big glaring issues that need addressing would be:
1. Steadfast & BSB's.
These are too much of an idiot proof mechanic. Steadfast needs some kind of soft counter, even if it's say something like -1Ld for each full additional rank from a flanking enemy.
BSB's need to go back to their age old role of providing re-rolls to just Break tests and perhaps also include Panic tests. In no way however should they be allowed for things like Fear or Terror tests, as it's simply made those rules a non-factor.

2. Fix cannons.
They're too good right now. At the very least, large monsters need some protection from being one-shot killed or crippled by a single cannon ball. Perhaps something like "Large Monster rule = D3 wounds from cannons" in place of the full-on D6.
Something however is needed, as we almost never see ridden monsters, while Greater Daemons & the DoC Prince especially are fairly soft for their steep price tag.

3. Scale the Magic phase & remove the Initiative-based kill spells.
Bigger games need more than just 12 dice. Even at 2.4k, the 12 dice cap is a bit too limiting. By 2.6-3k or more, and it's stupid how pointless that 3rd & 4th plus wizard becomes.
Now while the auto-kill spells do need to stay around as a check against ultra hard deathstars, none of them should be targeting the initiative stat as just outright unfair to most armies... Elves of all flavours, WoC, Skaven & half the DoC book just laugh as they take at most 33% casualties. Ogres, Dwarfs, Lizzies, VC's, TK's, O&G's in general and Nurgle Daemons though cry as at least 2/3rd's of what gets hit is auto-killed.
Instead, change-up the auto-kill spells to either a set dice roll, (ala Final Trans), or else use the Str or toughness stats as there's very little variance between all the armies.


Just my random ramblings!

 Sigvatr wrote:
40k 7th was an utter mess with piss-poorly written rules. I am happy that GW neglects WHFB so far.

+1.

I'm a Bret player, I'd really like to see new kits, but I fear the price increases.

By the way, 8th ed is not a bad edition if you fix some rules:

- Premesuring: nope.

- Steadfast: Way too strong. Just use the WAB rules. I need twice as many minis if I want my unit to be steadfast, you can deny it by making my unit fight on two sides (with units that have at least 1 full rank), and if my unit is steadfast, it just recoil 1D6ps (if it can physically recoil, otherwise, it flees). Your unit may follow up, or you can choose not to follow.

- Charge: Too much randomness. Our house rule is 2xM+D3-2 ps. The formula sounds complicated, but it's just the good old 2xM, and a D3 with "minus" (one), "zero" and "plus" (one).
Hey, GW, you could sell extra dice with that rule!

- Canons : Scatter D3-2 ps (using the same dice as above). You'll almost never miss a dragon, but you won't hit that single infantry character (but the next one on the left or the right) 33% of the time, and you'll miss a pegasus 25% of the time.

Well I disagree that slower releases means nicer models. There's no garuntee that the models will look nice because they wait longer between releases.

Most of what you guys say about rules I agree with. Other than pre measuring, not sure what's so wrong about that? Although I know that previous edition didn't allow that but I started in this edition so I don't really know anything else.

Am I the only one here who regularly doesn't get steadfast but doesn't hate it???

I think that the slow releases for fantasy are indeed mainly due to the popularity of 40k. Where I'm at, only a few people have Fantasy armies, and even those who do have them play 40k most of the time.

Well they messed up both my spacewolf and ork force, so im glad they are keeping away from fantasy as theres less chance of them cocking it up.

I don't really care if they release slowly. The things they fethed up for me were the random charge distances and steadfast (both of which I think would be fine with slight adjustments, like D3 variation in charge range instead of 2D6 and steadfast being significantly less effective).

Neither of those problems will be fixed by faster release cycles.

8th edition really killed WHFB around this area, barely anyone plays it anymore.

I can't say I'm upset, no. As much as I love this hobby, it takes a bit more than slow releases to actually upset me or hurt my feelings or anything like that.

That said, I surely would like to see all army books being updated for 8th. It would be really nice to have a "complete" 8th edition if 9th proves to be a total disaster - that way we can at least still play this edition for eternity and not care what stunts GW pulls to save themselves financially.

I guess the reason for the "slow" Fantasy releases (the last book was in May so I'm not sure they are that slow actually) is that 40k sells more and thus GW focus on that system now to boost sales. It makes no sense to release stuff for what could well be their least popular ranges - Beastmen and Bretonnia - when they're bleeding money. As a Fantasy player I'm rather content that they make some money off the masses on f*cking up 40k even more, so that they then can afford to release quality Fantasy books that only a select few (relatively speaking) will buy anyway...

 Ciciro wrote:
I think that the slow releases for fantasy are indeed mainly due to the popularity of 40k. Where I'm at, only a few people have Fantasy armies, and even those who do have them play 40k most of the time.

Oddly prior to the 7th Edition rule set release 40k was the most popular game format in my area, now most people are building up there WFB armies Myself included, though I myself am just moving into WFB because I love the models and game format and will still play 40k when I find something worth sticking too. It has done wonders for the painting and small game scene as everyone is always painting some Hero or Monster and when they are finished there is always a duel between the new models

I do hope that Brets will get their book before the Grey Knight codex, but other than that I'm pretty content with WHFB being slower than 40k.

At this point, I won't go into game rules changes.. but I'm wish listing that all books get completed under the 8th ruleset.

Slow releases doesn't mean better releases where GW is concerned. WFB still had crappy army books & models back when they were only releasing 1 or 2 a year and this isn't gonna change.

 Fenrir Kitsune wrote:
Slow releases doesn't mean better releases where GW is concerned. WFB still had crappy army books & models back when they were only releasing 1 or 2 a year and this isn't gonna change.

Compare the last two Fantasy releases to the last two 40K releases.

I'm fine with the rate of things right now. Suddenly getting updates for everything sounds kinda nice, but doing that is going to turn out terribly in the real world. The spacing of things also means I can enjoy the building hype and curiosity for each new release, which I admit is fun. And it stops me from buying a new army every three weeks.

I'm for the most part content with 8th, minor tweaks to steadfast, magic, and cannons aside. I am ok with the slower release schedule. I'm trying to decide what army to do next, EMP, Dwarfs and Skaven are all interesting. But I got a few DOC models to finish by an event in November. So it gives me time to pace myself.

 Cult of Slaanesh wrote:

 Ciciro wrote:
I think that the slow releases for fantasy are indeed mainly due to the popularity of 40k. Where I'm at, only a few people have Fantasy armies, and even those who do have them play 40k most of the time.

Oddly prior to the 7th Edition rule set release 40k was the most popular game format in my area, now most people are building up there WFB armies Myself included, though I myself am just moving into WFB because I love the models and game format and will still play 40k when I find something worth sticking too. It has done wonders for the painting and small game scene as everyone is always painting some Hero or Monster and when they are finished there is always a duel between the new models

You know something is wrong when a game becomes popular when a different game gets updated.

chiefbigredman wrote:Lately 40k has been getting all the updates.

Do you REALLY want WHFB to be updated like 40k?

40k gets updates every week, from rushed codices to dataslates to white dwarf formations etc. etc. etc. The 40k community was also upset by how slow things were... until they started speeding up...

The pace is fine with me.

Last year was one of the best ever for fantasy, in my opinion.

Couldn't last forever.

Steadfast needs a HUGE nerf, its ridiculous that x5 guys can hold up a unit of x2 Mornfangs (since now you only need the FRONT RANK to have x5 models) and remain stubborn because they have a rank and the Mournfangs dont even after losing alot of their unit. Ideas for this:

-They should only be Steadfast if they have double +1 the ranks of the opponent, so if I have x1 rank, they need x2 to get it.
-They suffer -2 LD or lose Steadfast entirely if they are hit on the flank or rear with a unit consiting of x2 ranks Including the front rank.

Besides that Cannons need a nerf (as already mentioned) needing a tweak I am fine with everything else, the last thing we need is Magic to be even more powerful.

Back to the OT I agree that its annoying that 40k is getting all the attention, sadly GW is a money driven buisness and if 40k is selling better then of course they are going to focus on 40k...still annoying though.

I think steadfast should be a modifier to leadership rather than a "test on unmodified".

So if you have more ranks than your opponent, the penalty for losing combat is reduced by -1 for each rank (or maybe -2) to a minimum of 0.

So if an Orc unit loses combat by 3 points but has 2 more ranks than any enemy unit, they get a -1 penalty instead of -3. If they lose by 1 point but have 2 more ranks, they still lose the combat, but they get to test on their unmodified leadership.

That way it stops it being an all-or-nothing thing like it is now.

I hate all-or-nothing rules, like steadfast or initiative or the AP system in 40k. Modifiers are almost always preferred for me.

Slow rules release doesn't bother me as much as slow model release.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
I think steadfast should be a modifier to leadership rather than a "test on unmodified".

So if you have more ranks than your opponent, the penalty for losing combat is reduced by -1 for each rank (or maybe -2) to a minimum of 0.

So if an Orc unit loses combat by 3 points but has 2 more ranks than any enemy unit, they get a -1 penalty instead of -3. If they lose by 1 point but have 2 more ranks, they still lose the combat, but they get to test on their unmodified leadership.

That way it stops it being an all-or-nothing thing like it is now.

I hate all-or-nothing rules, like steadfast or initiative or the AP system in 40k. Modifiers are almost always preferred for me.

The only thing worse than all-or-nothing rules are overly cumbersome rules.

WHF already suffers from an abundance of special rules, situational rules, modifiers, extra tests and rerolls so on.

Imho the game needs to be simplified (not dumbed down or made less complex, just easier to play and learn), and then adding even more modifiers is not the way to go. Steadfast could very easily be toned down just by making it require at least double the amount of ranks, and making it void if you're attacked from the flank/rear.

Acephale wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
I think steadfast should be a modifier to leadership rather than a "test on unmodified".

So if you have more ranks than your opponent, the penalty for losing combat is reduced by -1 for each rank (or maybe -2) to a minimum of 0.

So if an Orc unit loses combat by 3 points but has 2 more ranks than any enemy unit, they get a -1 penalty instead of -3. If they lose by 1 point but have 2 more ranks, they still lose the combat, but they get to test on their unmodified leadership.

That way it stops it being an all-or-nothing thing like it is now.

I hate all-or-nothing rules, like steadfast or initiative or the AP system in 40k. Modifiers are almost always preferred for me.

The only thing worse than all-or-nothing rules are overly cumbersome rules.

WHF already suffers from an abundance of special rules, situational rules, modifiers, extra tests and rerolls so on.

Imho the game needs to be simplified (not dumbed down or made less complex, just easier to play and learn), and then adding even more modifiers is not the way to go. Steadfast could very easily be toned down just by making it require at least double the amount of ranks, and making it void if you're attacked from the flank/rear.

I disagree that making the rule like I described would make the rules any more cumbersome. The rules for break tests and steadfast already take up a full page in the rulebook. Just clearly break it down in to "this is how you fight combat, this is how you determine who wins, this is how you determine what leadership value you need to pass to avoid fleeing".

I still just don't like the idea of steadfast even if it's double the number of troops, as it still creates this arms race to create units that are large that I personally don't like.

EDIT: Sorry I'm going off topic. At the end of the day I have big problems with WHFB, yes, but none of them are related to or could be fixed by a faster release cycle.