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.

 MrMoustaffa wrote:
@Kroothawk, are those rumors you posted suggesting a "starter rulebook" hinting that GW may be axing the mini rulebooks with the full complement of rules from the starter boxes?

Because that would be a major blow to their value. Half the point in getting the box is so you can have a full rulebook that weighs less than 10 pounds.

That wouldn't surprise me, seeing as they've released a separate "rules only" book for 40k. It's not a bad product as far as I can see, but it seemed kinda pointless as they released it a couple of months after the main rule book and Dark Vengenance iirc, so there wasn't really a place for it. Getting rid of the full mini rule book in the starter set would certainly solve that problem(!)

Of course the big question is will they release the full rule book and "rules only" book on day one, or will they try to wait out and force people to buy the full book. If all goes according to plan I imagine GW could really shoot the new release in the foot...

 MrMoustaffa wrote:
@Kroothawk, are those rumors you posted suggesting a "starter rulebook" hinting that GW may be axing the mini rulebooks with the full complement of rules from the starter boxes?
Because that would be a major blow to their value. Half the point in getting the box is so you can have a full rulebook that weighs less than 10 pounds.

That is what the rumour says. And Hastings and Harry are quite certain that the days of armybooks will soon end as well, after a few unfinished ones like Dwarfs and Wood Elves. See the thread where I quoted from.

BTW the OP rumours (half content, maybe with half rulebook as well) would be consistent with the doubling cost strategy GW managers like to boost sales.

Apparently the reason for a lower model count is to introduce a newer way to play the game with small skirmishes being the way to play the game in 9th.

 necronspurs2012 wrote:
Apparently the reason for a lower model count is to introduce a newer way to play the game with small skirmishes being the way to play the game in 9th.

That just sounds silly - GW will sell less miniatures.

 necronspurs2012 wrote:
Apparently the reason for a lower model count is to introduce a newer way to play the game with small skirmishes being the way to play the game in 9th.

If that's what your 'source' told you, then I'd say we can safely call this one 'false' now.

If the starter going to 50 models indicates lower model counts overall in WFB, I'm pleased

If Games Workshop doesn't want to lower prices, turning Fantasy into a skirmish game would be the only way to save it in the long run, so that would make sense.

Nah, sorry, I briefly forgot which company we're talking about.

 Allod wrote:
If Games Workshop doesn't want to lower prices, turning Fantasy into a skirmish game would be the only way to save it in the long run, so that would make sense.

Nah, sorry, I briefly forgot which company we're talking about.

Fantasy just does not work in a skirmish setting. Rank and file for 10 guys is just ridiculous and the balance is going to be set around rank and file not single models.

 Alpharius wrote:
If that's what your 'source' told you, then I'd say we can safely call this one 'false' now.

Because GW can never, ever do anything right? Everyone playing WFB will tell you the current edition failed because of a)magic, b)unit bloating. Maybe for once GW realized it's better to have a system that earns less, rather than a system that earns nothing?

xxvaderxx wrote:
Rank and file for 10 guys is just ridiculous and the balance is going to be set around rank and file not single models.

Except rank and file units of 10 used to be okay for a long time.

Yeah, I do remember when my units were deployed 4x3. It worked nicely back then.

 His Master's Voice wrote:

 Alpharius wrote:
If that's what your 'source' told you, then I'd say we can safely call this one 'false' now.

Because GW can never, ever do anything right? Everyone playing WFB will tell you the current edition failed because of a)magic, b)unit bloating. Maybe for once GW realized it's better to have a system that earns less, rather than a system that earns nothing?

Is that what I said?

The answer is, of course, no, that isn't what I said.

In fact, I've been saying more of this "Everyone playing WFB will tell you the current edition failed because of a)magic, b)unit bloating." as a reason why I don't play WFB anymore, but to think that GW is suddenly going to drastically reduce unit sizes in WFB?

Now there's a fantasy for you!

 Alpharius wrote:

Is that what I said?

The answer is, of course, no, that isn't what I said.

You labelled the rumour as false, implying it's something GW would not do, despite it being one of the two solutions to one of the biggest issues with the current edition of WFB. Or am I reading it wrong?

 Alpharius wrote:
In fact, I've been saying more of this "Everyone playing WFB will tell you the current edition failed because of a)magic, b)unit bloating." as a reason why I don't play WFB anymore, but to think that GW is suddenly going to drastically reduce unit sizes in WFB?

Now there's a fantasy for you!

Between reducing prices and reducing unit sizes, the later is much more likely, if only because it allows GW to maintain the self induced illusion that their customer base is not price sensitive.

The alternative to not doing either of those things is the very likely death of WFB, which I'm sure even GW would not want.

I guess I'm still shocked that you think unit sizes will be drastically reduced in the next iteration of WFB.

 Alpharius wrote:
I guess I'm still shocked that you think unit sizes will be drastically reduced in the next iteration of WFB.

I could see them making the starter set have less models and having a limited ruleset that allows for smaller games to give new players a softer entry in to the game. Like "wasn't that game with 15 goblins and 10 men fun? How much more fun will it be with 300 goblins!"

I imagine a lot of potential gamers quit after trying to paint 100 models in the starter set and realising it's actually a lot more time consuming than they thought.

 Alpharius wrote:
I guess I'm still shocked that you think unit sizes will be drastically reduced in the next iteration of WFB.

Well if they cut the amount of minis in a box in half and keep the price the same, GW actually comes out ahead.

There's nothing stopping people from running 20+ blobs, they will just have to buy 2 boxes instead of one.

I'm having an Imperial Guard flashback.

 Alpharius wrote:
I guess I'm still shocked that you think unit sizes will be drastically reduced in the next iteration of WFB.

I don't think it's very likely, but at the same time I' think it's necessary for the system to survive.

 His Master's Voice wrote:

 Alpharius wrote:

xxvaderxx wrote:
Rank and file for 10 guys is just ridiculous and the balance is going to be set around rank and file not single models.

Except rank and file units of 10 used to be okay for a long time.

No, rank and file units of 10 specialist or sacrificial in a large army battle used to look and still does silly but acceptable. Rank and file units of 3 or 5 in a 15 to 20 miniatures total game, used to look silly and play awful when they printed the warbands game mode and still does today.

And I am an empire player so i am rather familiar with playing 10 strong infantry units in an army sized game.

As i said before, i am ok with going back to 30-35 ish sized units. But i dont want the game to end up as it was back in 6th and 7th were 90% of the units were killed turn 1 of combat, and only the one rank fighted and lesser but more numerous units were essentially worthless.

Considering that Fantasy doesn't work well till you've got over a 1000 points or so per side at the very least I could well see GW adjusting a boxed set with a simpler or at least different skirmish based rules set.

1000 points is quite a bit for some armies (esp anything hord based) not just in costs, but also in time to build. 40K has 400 and 500 point matches to ease people in plus has a generally lower model count.


I'd be somewhat sad if the whole focus of fantasy went small scale skirmish - in my mind if you want that you go play hords whilst if you want a larger force you come to play fantasy. I'd dislike seeing the armies reduce across the board into smaller forces; but I'd welcome a "skirmish mode" approach.

I'd also greatly welcome no random magic selection!




In bad news this means I've got to snap up several copies of LoB before it vanishes - esp as for HE is the only affordable way to get Hoeth swordsmen and the only way to get reavers.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Alpharius wrote:
I guess I'm still shocked that you think unit sizes will be drastically reduced in the next iteration of WFB.

I could see them making the starter set have less models and having a limited ruleset that allows for smaller games to give new players a softer entry in to the game. Like "wasn't that game with 15 goblins and 10 men fun? How much more fun will it be with 300 goblins!"

I imagine a lot of potential gamers quit after trying to paint 100 models in the starter set and realising it's actually a lot more time consuming than they thought.

Dark Vengeance had this, as does several other starter sets like Open Fire! for flames of war. The Dark Vengeance ones start out hilariously small (I think the first scenario is 5 marines against 10 cultists or something like that) and slowly build up until you're using all the models for the final one. Seemed like a good way to introduce new players, especially kids.

However, th"suggested" army size will stay the same, or probably increase.

Kroothawk wrote:

 MrMoustaffa wrote:
@Kroothawk, are those rumors you posted suggesting a "starter rulebook" hinting that GW may be axing the mini rulebooks with the full complement of rules from the starter boxes?
Because that would be a major blow to their value. Half the point in getting the box is so you can have a full rulebook that weighs less than 10 pounds.

That is what the rumour says. And Hastings and Harry are quite certain that the days of armybooks will soon end as well, after a few unfinished ones like Dwarfs and Wood Elves. See the thread where I quoted from.

BTW the OP rumours (half content, maybe with half rulebook as well) would be consistent with the doubling cost strategy GW managers like to boost sales.

I'll have to check that thread out. Had not heard about army books going away.

The mini rulebook dilemma sounds like a very bad decision though. I don't even play Fantasy but if this is where 40k is heading too it makes the starter boxes almost worthless to a new player. Plus, that initial buy in is going to look a lot more daunting when you're going from just a single box that has 2 armies and a rulebook, to 2 armies in a box, with a half assed rulebook and you still need to buy the real one for $50 if you want to play with anyone else.

 His Master's Voice wrote:
Maybe for once GW realized it's better to have a system that earns less, rather than a system that earns nothing?

That's why they reduced prices for the Hobbit!
In other words: Not happening under the current management!
Also would require more than just copy/paste with random point value changes, so highly unlikely.

 Kroothawk wrote:
That's why they reduced prices for the Hobbit!

I'm not convinced it's the prices that drive Hobbit down. As far as I know, a functional army for Hobbit or WotR is not more expensive than a comparable 40k force. If that's the case (and I'm open to being corrected on this), what's left to drive the sales is a) existing player base and b) public desire for a LotR miniature game. Neither seems to be available in any real capacity.

As sad as it may sound, people might just not be into wargaming with LotR all that much.

Anyway, I'm convinced that if GW decides to resuscitate WFB, they'll do it on a core rulebook level, because it wouldn't involve lowering prices.

 Kroothawk wrote:

 MrMoustaffa wrote:
@Kroothawk, are those rumors you posted suggesting a "starter rulebook" hinting that GW may be axing the mini rulebooks with the full complement of rules from the starter boxes?
Because that would be a major blow to their value. Half the point in getting the box is so you can have a full rulebook that weighs less than 10 pounds.

That is what the rumour says. And Hastings and Harry are quite certain that the days of armybooks will soon end as well, after a few unfinished ones like Dwarfs and Wood Elves. See the thread where I quoted from.

BTW the OP rumours (half content, maybe with half rulebook as well) would be consistent with the doubling cost strategy GW managers like to boost sales.

Wait, what? Since when? Any indications of what GW would do instead of army books?

~Tim?

I've seen a lot of people, myself included back out on the Hobbit due to price. I will wait and see on this. I find the rumour pretty hard to believe.

 Some_Call_Me_Tim? wrote:

 Kroothawk wrote:

 MrMoustaffa wrote:
@Kroothawk, are those rumors you posted suggesting a "starter rulebook" hinting that GW may be axing the mini rulebooks with the full complement of rules from the starter boxes?
Because that would be a major blow to their value. Half the point in getting the box is so you can have a full rulebook that weighs less than 10 pounds.

That is what the rumour says. And Hastings and Harry are quite certain that the days of armybooks will soon end as well, after a few unfinished ones like Dwarfs and Wood Elves. See the thread where I quoted from.

BTW the OP rumours (half content, maybe with half rulebook as well) would be consistent with the doubling cost strategy GW managers like to boost sales.

Wait, what? Since when? Any indications of what GW would do instead of army books?

~Tim?

Rumour has it that there will be 3 mega books (Kingdom of Men inc Dwarves, Forces of Chaos and One for all the rest like Ogres) with all the background, details, rules etc

There will also be very basic stat only entries for some/most/all (?) armies in the new rule book which will be a (major) re-vamp in the way the game works.

Whether this will mean things being left out or whether the big books will be as big as all the codices combined is not clear (and what the cost might be either)

The rationale is supposedly to make the revamp easier to get done all at once (no old codices to consider when writing rules etc), and means updates will have better internal balance (lots done at once)

whether this is real or just made up nonsense who knows

I can see a problem there - lets say you play one army, suddenly your new rules costs £50 or more for a compiled listing of all the armies of the side you're on.

Then again I guess they could soften the blow by selling individual armies as ebooks (however since those with a mobile ereader are more likely to be in the more affluent groups of gamers it doesn't really help those on a more reduced budget).

At the moment though it just sounds like a lot of rumour floating around. Although they have, it seems, run down stocks of Silver Helms so that might be an indication that they are gearing up for a helms and reaves joint boxed set; which hints that the HE LoB might be vanishing (ergo new boxed set).

Though they'd still have the griffon and Swordmasters to release (and maybe put a sane price on those Sea-helms).

 Overread wrote:
I can see a problem there - lets say you play one army, suddenly your new rules costs £50 or more for a compiled listing of all the armies of the side you're on.

How is that a problem as far as GW is concerned?

If there intent is to lower starting prices combining army rules into grouped volumes only works if those volumes are similar to current codex prices; otherwise they've just increased the startup costs for the player.

This is a concern, especially if they don't want to create two fantasy player bases - those who run just off the core rules and those who run with the expanded rules (if they split things). Whilst a simple "light" skirmish game version can be a good introduction (in the same way that fire-team is for 40K) they don't really want to split their community and player base; especially if introduction player base is focused on much smaller games (ergo smaller sales volume per army).

I'm sure those mega books will reflect the content by also quadrupling the price well beyond their perceived value. GW hard at work here then.

Not only that if htey keep the current idea of having unit stats split into two places in the same book - and then have several armies in the same book - gah they'll be a nightmare to navigate (the big rulebooks though are already nightmares to use on the rules front).

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

 Allod wrote:
Games Workshop

 Allod wrote:
long run

HA! Good one!

 Alpharius wrote:
I guess I'm still shocked that you think unit sizes will be drastically reduced in the next iteration of WFB.

They'll change the minimum frontage from 5 to 8!