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.

 Accolade wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Kelly was on vacation when the final draft of the codex was made. From my understanding Jervis is the person who made several changes to it that Kelly didn't like.

Jervis is also the same person whose name seems to crop up a lot on projects that turn out to be utter drek.

Yeah, judging by the comments Jervis made in the rule writing for the Imperial Knights in a WDW, it seems most of his work in this area is creating a rough estimate/"feel" for where something should be and then leaving it at that.

Significant play-testing is for nerds!

Funnily enough I was reading a Q&A in White Dwarf today that stressed precisely the opposite, whereby the points value of certain units might seem unnecessarily low or high, but extensive and repeated playtesting at GW headquarters shows the values of units can vary according to how the unit is played, and what it is played against. Really interesting stuff. White Dwarf 195, circa 1996.

 Ozymandias wrote:
Remember when this thread was about 9th edition? Ah, the good old days!

I remeber it like it was yesterday...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Darkjim wrote:

 Accolade wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Kelly was on vacation when the final draft of the codex was made. From my understanding Jervis is the person who made several changes to it that Kelly didn't like.

Jervis is also the same person whose name seems to crop up a lot on projects that turn out to be utter drek.

Yeah, judging by the comments Jervis made in the rule writing for the Imperial Knights in a WDW, it seems most of his work in this area is creating a rough estimate/"feel" for where something should be and then leaving it at that.

Significant play-testing is for nerds!

Funnily enough I was reading a Q&A in White Dwarf today that stressed precisely the opposite, whereby the points value of certain units might seem unnecessarily low or high, but extensive and repeated playtesting at GW headquarters shows the values of units can vary according to how the unit is played, and what it is played against. Really interesting stuff. White Dwarf 195, circa 1996.

Yeah, too bad that was nearly twenty years ago and doesn't represent the studio during 4th or later when most of those devs where gone.

I am pretty sure that today's internal and external balance between units and factions is not obviously worse than what we had in 1996 (WFB 5E / 40k 2E)... I seem to recall huge swings in effectiveness, depending on who got first turn, and whether particular models were sniped away.

I wonder how many points the 2E Tyranid pre-game table would be worth today, how GW would cost it and balance it.

 Accolade wrote:
Yeah, judging by the comments Jervis made in the rule writing for the Imperial Knights in a WDW, it seems most of his work in this area is creating a rough estimate/"feel" for where something should be and then leaving it at that.

Significant play-testing is for nerds!

When Jervis was left to his own devices to run Specialist Games, he conducted an extensive public playtest of Epic Armageddon. So I have significant doubts that this no-playtest mindset was his idea.

 Vermis wrote:

You git. I was expecting a pic of a nicely painted Pathfinder dragon.

After I'm finished with some kheyos spess mehreens and a few diverse things still on my painting table, I'll get on with the dragon. It's a promise

Agreed with what you say, though I can (partly) understand a bit of 'fantasy tax' on some plastic minis if 'heroic' scales*, poses and masses of bits reduces the number of actual bodies you can fit on a sprue... though that's certainly not to excuse GW's prices, just that I wouldn't mind stretching to €1/£1 per fantasy plastic, depending on what it was and how it looked.

*Although, I actually have a couple of Mantic elves beside me here, an old sample I got years ago. Even then I didn't realise how teeny they are. The details are pretty good and sharp too. I just wish they were... different details.

I don't mind paying 1€, perhaps even more (£1 yeah) for a plastic infantry miniature if I think the deal is worth it (i.e. the minis are truly good quality, there are enough quality bits in the sprue to be of any use in any of my evil projects, etc). Then you have some deals I can consider borderline "decent" but little else. 20 mantic dwarves for 20€? (actually a bit less, considering the discount). Ok deal. 30 AoW vestals for 35€? (pre-order deal). Ok deal. I consider neither of them to be great kits, just good enough to deserve my money. I'm sure GW's witch elves are of higher quality than AoW vestals, but I'm simply not willing to spend 45€ on a 10-girls box. Because even if WFB 8th is not my thing (I'm leaning more towards Oldhammer nowadays), still you're hardly going anywhere with a unit of 10 girls in any proper "mass-battle" game. The AoW deal gets me 30 girls I'll probably organize in two squads of 15.

The issue here is, 45€ for 10 plastic infantry miniatures would be somewhat acceptable if those 10 minis would let you assemble a whole band in a skirmish game. We would be still talking about an expensive product, but you buy the 10 girls and then you can play the game, end of it. In WHFB though, you pay 45€ for the girls, then you buy another box for the same money in order to field an useful unit... congratulations, after spending 90€ you already have a unit that perhaps represents... 10%? 15%? of your whole army. Insanity.

You can't charge skirmish game prices for minis intended to be used on a mass battle game, and expect to get away with it forever. People are not that stupid ffs.

BTW, since we're at it in a rumors thread, any credibility to the rumors about a new army of "ascended" warriors à la Karl Franz 2.0 a.k.a. spess mehreens with bows and halberds? Because I once thought nothing worse could happen after some of Matt Ward's worst fanfics became canon material in the 40k universe, but now I'm beginning to think I was wrong.

So, square bases are dying and WHFB is going to be unrecognizably changed?

Guess I'm gonna be playing 8th Gen forever and having to find square bases elsewhere to put everything on

Lockark wrote:

NewTruthNeomaxim wrote:

 Lockark wrote:
@Vermis: My feelings about kings of war seem to be alot like yours. I would be more interested if every other sculpt wasn't so bad.

I've never understood this sentiment. Like GW models? Play KoW using those. Unlike GW, Mantic's official stance is "please enjoy using whatever models you like, even at a competitive level".

KoW is an amazing ruleset (about to get even better), that gives the WHFB minis you own a wonderful second life, IF WHFB really does morph into something unrecognizable.

Because I need people to play kings of war with, and the bad models makes people think it's a bad rule set. Sadly unlike my Friday knights I can't play with myself.

Indeed. If you look at the thread about "which army woudld you choose" in the 40k forum --

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/631335.page

47% of the respondents say, "how the army looks" and 30% say, "the fluff of the army". That's a combined 77% out of 187 votes.

Looks don't just matter, they're almost *everything* that matters to people who play 40k/whfb. There are people like me, who would rather play the best models in the world using the weakest army of the game, with the worst rules in the world, than the other way around. Mostly, I'm there to play with my friends and have a good time. Even if I lose, it's fine, as long as the table looks awesome and I had a good time.

The problem with games like KoW is that without great looking models, *nobody will play the game*. With great looking models, people will simply stop buying models from other companies. This isn't just me saying it, it's a reality of what happens at local stores. Think to your FLGS, and ask yourself when the last time someone played KoW.

PP is successful because it's models are pretty good, and there are a lot of people who really like that aesthetic.

And/but: People do judge books by their covers, and people judge movies by their trailers and posters. People buy MtG cards because they have pretty paintings, not because it's the best TCG system in the world. A cute blonde girl needing help with her bicycle will get many offers of assistance, while an averagish man will be largely ignored. I don't care if there are old adages warning against it -- if you want your stuff to sell, make it pretty, or suffer the consequences.

Talys wrote:
Looks don't just matter, they're almost *everything* that matters to people who play 40k/whfb. There are people like me, who would rather play the best models in the world using the weakest army of the game, with the worst rules in the world, than the other way around. Mostly, I'm there to play with my friends and have a good time. Even if I lose, it's fine, as long as the table looks awesome and I had a good time.

And/but: People do judge books by their covers, and people judge movies by their trailers and posters. People buy MtG cards because they have pretty paintings, not because it's the best TCG system in the world. A cute blonde girl needing help with her bicycle will get many offers of assistance, while an averagish man will be largely ignored. I don't care if there are old adages warning against it -- if you want your stuff to sell, make it pretty, or suffer the consequences.

This. WFB 9E needs to simplify things, because I'm mostly there to shoot the gak while I drink a beer and look at pretty toys. Excessive rules and detail just gets in the way, because it breaks the conversation and flow any time someone needs to stop and look something up.

Also totally agreed that looks are super important. The stuff a good-looking person (esp. girl) can get away with is insane. In this sense, WFB 9E likely being the grimdarkest grimdark we ever saw might be a bad thing if it ruins the look.

Agreed. I've maintained for a long time now that the rules aren't suited for sober play, let alone beer & pretzels. The rules were more of an issue for me than the cost, although the prices certainly didn't help.

As much as i like/d the models, if i'm playing a game with them i don't want to be certain to lose every time because of their rules, no matter how good the models look themselves.

 Ozymandias wrote:
Remember when this thread was about 9th edition? Ah, the good old days!

Yes, let's try to remain on-topic (9th edition fantasy rumor discussion only), please. Thanks!

Big edit: Argh. Just while I was posting. Well I'm off to Discussions to start a new topic, then.

This okay?

I'm putting it down now, the new rulebook will be $100 easily. The current one is $75, 40K is $85, so $100 easy.

Talys wrote:


if you want your stuff to sell, make it pretty, or suffer the consequences.

The only word I would change is pretty to appealing.

 Vermis wrote:
Big edit: Argh. Just while I was posting. Well I'm off to Discussions to start a new topic, then.

This okay?

That's perfect, thank you!

Please direct discussion of alternate rulesets, etc, over there everyone - there's already a healthy discussion going on in that thread in just a day

Barfolomew wrote:
I'm putting it down now, the new rulebook will be $100 easily. The current one is $75, 40K is $85, so $100 easy.

My prediction:

- Limited Edition set for $250 with a free plastic slipcover instead of a cardboard one, and one foldout map poster that has irreparable creases in it. Sold out in 5 minutes because of high demand for plastic slipcovers.

- Hardcover set for $95 or $99 (a la 40k).

- Softcover mini for free in 9th edition starter box.

Ebay Softcover mini for $30
Later on, mini hardcover version for $75 or something silly.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sheck2 wrote:

Talys wrote:


if you want your stuff to sell, make it pretty, or suffer the consequences.

The only word I would change is pretty to appealing.

Agreed But, physically appealing (rather than intellectually) -- because the human race is a shallow one. See, we still 38,000 years to go, and we're already headed down the path of Chaos.

New Skaven characters do not have scenic bases on their sprues like most (all?) other recent plastic characters, but come with separate bases instead. I say this is because of the upcoming base change.

 Crimson wrote:
New Skaven characters do not have scenic bases on their sprues like most (all?) other recent plastic characters, but come with separate bases instead. I say this is because of the upcoming base change.

Well they still come with a 20mm SQUARE base so I'm not sure where you're going with this.

 angelofvengeance wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
New Skaven characters do not have scenic bases on their sprues like most (all?) other recent plastic characters, but come with separate bases instead. I say this is because of the upcoming base change.

Well they still come with a 20mm SQUARE base so I'm not sure where you're going with this.

They come with a square base currently as it is currently still 8th edition. The fact that the base is not on the sprue as standard is a definate indicator of something. But what exactly, we don't quite know.

 DarkStarSabre wrote:

They come with a square base currently as it is currently still 8th edition. The fact that the base is not on the sprue as standard is a definate indicator of something. But what exactly, we don't quite know.

Exactly. Other plastic characters come with a scenic base in their sprue, these come with a separate square base, and could easily be packaged with a different kind of a base.

I just can't believe in the more extreme rumors. Switching to round bases will make every single rulebook/army book/supplement for WHFB obsolete.

This is something they haven't done since 1998 with 3rd edition 40k. But in that instance there was a gap between the last 2nd edition codex (summer 1997) and 3rd edition (summer 1998).

If these rumors are to be true, they are currently releasing lots of new rules in very expensive rule books (End Times) that will be made obsolete just a few months later.

The only way I can believe these rumors is if 8th edition will continue to live on side by side with 9th edition (which will be another game entirely, rather than "9th").

But the round base rumor still confuses me. You can play skirmish games with square bases but you can't play rank-and-file games with round.

Would GW really invalidate all the WHFB rulebooks?? Some coming out just a few months before...

 Bottle wrote:
This is something they haven't done since 1998 with 3rd edition 40k. But in that instance there was a gap between the last 2nd edition codex (summer 1997) and 3rd edition (summer 1998).

WHFB had a full rewrite which obsoleted old army books in 2000 (6th edition). There was also a gap of about a year between the last 5th ed army book (Vampire Counts in June 1999) and the 6th ed rulebook in Oct 2000.

However I wouldn't put it past GW to do something like that now, since the powerhouse days of the late 90's GW has dropped specialist games and released 2 editions of 40k within just 2 years of each other, things I don't think they would have done back then.

Also, if you ignore the end times, the last WHFB army book was 8 months ago, so we already have quite a gap since then.

But we'll see, I also struggle to believe some of the more extreme rumours like round bases... but not long ago I also would have said I didn't believe they'd destroy Lustria, so times are changing.

Considering GW doesn't force people to switch bases I imagine they won't force people, they just may have to move the unit as a formation (like now) instead of more like a skirmishing unit.

 Crimson wrote:

 DarkStarSabre wrote:

They come with a square base currently as it is currently still 8th edition. The fact that the base is not on the sprue as standard is a definate indicator of something. But what exactly, we don't quite know.

Exactly. Other plastic characters come with a scenic base in their sprue, these come with a separate square base, and could easily be packaged with a different kind of a base.

Not true, Araloth didn't come with a scenic base in his sprue.

The models that have came with a scenic base "on their sprue" have had something interesting/unique about the base. The Dwarf Dragon Slayer might as well not have come with his base on the sprue, barring the simple fact that it needed the cut so the dragon head decoration could be shown.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Bottle wrote:
This is something they haven't done since 1998 with 3rd edition 40k. But in that instance there was a gap between the last 2nd edition codex (summer 1997) and 3rd edition (summer 1998).

WHFB had a full rewrite which obsoleted old army books in 2000 (6th edition). There was also a gap of about a year between the last 5th ed army book (Vampire Counts in June 1999) and the 6th ed rulebook in Oct 2000.

However I wouldn't put it past GW to do something like that now, since the powerhouse days of the late 90's GW has dropped specialist games and released 2 editions of 40k within just 2 years of each other, things I don't think they would have done back then.

Also, if you ignore the end times, the last WHFB army book was 8 months ago, so we already have quite a gap since then.

But we'll see, I also struggle to believe some of the more extreme rumours like round bases... but not long ago I also would have said I didn't believe they'd destroy Lustria, so times are changing.

Thanks for the info, I didn't realize 6th did a hard reset too. I see the destruction on Lustria to be just another obvious move at shrinking the map.

 Bottle wrote:
Thanks for the info, I didn't realize 6th did a hard reset too.

They did - they published a book of army lists (Ravening Hordes?) at the same time so you could keep playing your old army.

Ravening Hordes is correct, and it was a serious stripping down from 5th: each army fit onto a page, maybe a page and a half if they were lucky. Empire suffered the most, we lost our most iconic toy during RH (got it back in 6th): the Runefang. 5th edition had the right of it though, where you could have multiple Runefangs on the table, seeing how 12 existed!!

Most of these rumors that are floating around are fake and made up by some internet troll. GW is not going to get rid of their model range becase that would be incredibly stupid on a buisness perspective. They would be losing thousands of dollars if they did that. Round bases will not be the new standard for Warhammer fantasy. Any fantasy player would be pissed at GW and many players would probably quit. Whoever believes that 9th edition fantasy will be round bases, you are incredibly stupid.

 Mindstrike1 wrote:
Most of these rumors that are floating around are fake and made up by some internet troll. GW is not going to get rid of their model range becase that would be incredibly stupid on a buisness perspective. They would be losing thousands of dollars if they did that. Round bases will not be the new standard for Warhammer fantasy. Any fantasy player would be pissed at GW and many players would probably quit. Whoever believes that 9th edition fantasy will be round bases, you are incredibly stupid.

Case in point Squats, Genestealer hybrid models, and specialist games.

 Mindstrike1 wrote:
Most of these rumors that are floating around are fake and made up by some internet troll. GW is not going to get rid of their model range becase that would be incredibly stupid on a buisness perspective. They would be losing thousands of dollars if they did that. Round bases will not be the new standard for Warhammer fantasy. Any fantasy player would be pissed at GW and many players would probably quit. Whoever believes that 9th edition fantasy will be round bases, you are incredibly stupid.

You must be new here....

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
[WHFB doesn't need to be 50/50 with 40k for it to be worth keeping. It just needs to be making more than it costs to maintain it, it doesn't need a new release every month, it doesn't need big shake ups, it doesn't even need the full range to be kept in each and every store. Support it with tournaments, advertising, events. GW's biggest expenses aren't maintaining games, it's maintaining the infrastructure to sell games, if they drop fantasy I'd suggest their expenses would barely even shift.

That's not quite right. Games Workshop also has to consider the opportunity cost of supporting Fantasy. Let's use some utterly ridiculous made-up numbers!

If it costs £100,000 to keep Fantasy running, and you get back a profit of £25,000, that sounds good. But if Games Workshop can put that same £100,000 into something new for 40K, and get back even £30,000, just £5,000 more, they might judge that to be a better use of their £100,000.

It's not as simple as that, either, because the Fantasy IP has a value of its own that is created and sustained by the existence of the game(s) which use it. But, again, if these rumours are true, perhaps Games Workshop are hoping that they can put their £100,000 into developing this new skirmish Fantasy game, and maybe get back the £30,000 they'd get from investing it in 40K, or more, which serves the dual purpose of increasing profits and keeping the IP alive. Or, even better, if they put £50,000 into this new game and get £15,000 back, that means they can put the other £50,000 into 40K as well and keep the IP viable for half the overhead.

I'm actually more inclined to believe that Games Workshop would try a radical revamp of Fantasy like this than I would be to believe they'd just give up on it, because of the value of the Fantasy IP. I also think the small-scale regular churn of limited-edition releases makes sense - it refreshes the IP, gets players into the store regularly for the new stuff, and doesn't leave a backlog of depreciating inventory taking up warehouse space.

I would be very surprised if Games Workshop makes much money on old metal figures like Sisters of Battle troops at this point. How long ago did they go out of production, and how much inventory has been sitting there costing them warehouse overhead and asset taxes?