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.

@PhantomViper it failing is why we have the End Times. But 8th edition with it's push towards large model could ts was most certainly an attempt to cater to vets.

A failure doesn't mean it wasn't tried, it means what was tried didn't work.

PhantomViper wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

It's iconic, but with it hemorraging people just a rules change isn't enough anymore.

It would be enough. Fantasy was popular before 8th, despite some deep issues but 8th killed it stone dead and its easy to see why.

No, 8th edition is actually the best ruleset they've written when combined with the best balanced army books they've written. Fantasy was dying a slow death as GW continually raised their prices.

6th and 7th editionw ere unbalanced piles of junk as far as rules were concerned. Plus there was total army book power level discrepancy. Magic was also ridiculous. Sure, individual spells were less powerful, but some armies were capable of generating 20+ power dice while others could barely get 7 or 8.

8th edition magic is the weak link in the ruleset, but overall the ruleset is superior. Blocks of infantry are strong anchors, but are countered by massive output of attacks and/or magic. Maneuverability skill is still the deciding factor in games.

Nope, you are wrong. Incredibly, hugely, humongously wrong.

I can't even begin to imagine what type of mental gymnastics you have to make to argue that the edition that caused the collapse of the game, both in the number of players and in sales is somehow the "best edition ever".

Or that the most balanced editions of the game are actually the worse... because reasons...

I've given many reason why 8th edition is superior and I can give many more. Fantasy failed for many reasons, the rules were not one of them.

1) There was an intense amount of outrage from power games who were pissed their hyper specialized armies were no longer as powerful as they used to be. That led to a big drop off.

2) GW continued to raise prices, and Fantasy is a game which requires a large number of purchases. Again, people were pissed they would have to buy a bunch more models to continue playing the game. While ignoring that the game, if you made those purchases, was superior.

3) People looked at magic and freaked out over the uber powerful 6th spells. Granted, they are too powerful. However, people also didn't bother to look at the big picture. With large blocks of infantry, those 6th spells were needed as a counter. The unreliability of power dice also tempers the spells power with some uncertainty, although its not completely unpredictable as it does still follow a bell curve.

4) Steadfast is an important rule for balance. The old rules where you got super ASF and there was no steadfast led to the absolutely moronic situations of cavalry or monsters charging a block of infantry, killing just the front ranks, and then automatically winning unless the victims rolled snake eyes on their moral test. Cavalry and monsters were way too powerful in the previous incarnation of the rules. Infantry were basically useless, which is neither realistic nor fun. In real life, Cavalry charging the front of a ranked unit were basically committing suicide unless they had massive numbers and the infantry weren't armed with spears.

5) For the first time ever, the game felt like an actual battle game. Prior editions were glorified skirmishes that were trying to pretend they were battles. I found that unfun. Not to mention the army book balance was atrocious. If you weren't daemons, lizardmen, dark elves, or high elves you basically didn't stand much of a chance against those armies.

Hmmm.....

It would definetly suck if GW ended Fantasy, especially for those who are invested in the game, I think that's pretty undebatable. Warhammer takes a lot of time and effort, and while by no means this would mean you couldn't play anymore, it definetlely would mean that interest (= opportunities to play) in the game would slowly vanish, meaning all your effort/money was "wasted".

But at some point sooner or later, Warhammer would have ended anyway. The question is less, if ending Fantasy sucks, but if ending Fantasy with the Endtimes books and models was a good decision.





The Endtime books are pretty good, and from what can be gathered from the responses on the internet, they are mostly received positively. At least storywise, the endtimes make for a good way to end the IP.

More problematic is the fact, that the endtimes came boundled with some of the largest and most expensive models in fantasy, to date. Should support for fantasy cease immedieatly afterwards, that would leave a bit of a bitter aftertaste, to what I consider one of the better releases GW has brought out recently.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
@PhantomViper it failing is why we have the End Times. But 8th edition with it's push towards large model could ts was most certainly an attempt to cater to vets.

A failure doesn't mean it wasn't tried, it means what was tried didn't work.

How is forcing players with existing armies to re-buy a large portion of those armies "catering to vets"?

 Mr Morden wrote:
The Magic system in the last few editions put me off WFB for good, although I liked a lot of what they did in 8th - premeasuring, charging, step up, etc.

The new "not Magic" system in 40k has also put me off 7th Ed sadly.

Now really just buy stuff for the fluff and pretty models so the rules element is of little interest unless to steers back towards the games I like.

The psychic phase was something they had before (and GW has been mining the fek out of 2nd for stuff lately) and it simplifies the whole Psychic powers system. I like it for streamlining things and allowing Psykers to use Witchfires and shoot.

I just wish Witchfires were streamlined because right now they take way too many dice to use properly.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

PhantomViper wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
@PhantomViper it failing is why we have the End Times. But 8th edition with it's push towards large model could ts was most certainly an attempt to cater to vets.

A failure doesn't mean it wasn't tried, it means what was tried didn't work.

How is forcing players with existing armies to re-buy a large portion of those armies "catering to vets"?

Vets have larger collections and can (and already were) play at higher point levels. The catering to them came from GW saying "take all your models!"

The game just didn't work below certain point levels, and vets could at least hit those point levels. New players were being expected to drop over $600 on starting an army, not to say trying to build it up to being competitive.

Like I said, it was an attempt to cater to long time players who had larger collections of models. I didn't say it was a good idea or that the game could survive like that.

 Grey Templar wrote:

No, 8th edition is actually the best ruleset they've written when combined with the best balanced army books they've written.

AHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA oh wait, your serious? I put up with the abuses of Herohammer and truly horrible balance of earlier editions yet 8th pretty much by itself killed my 20 year+ interest in WHFB. Yeah, its a great ruleset.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
GW tried relying on old players alone to float Fantasy and it failed.

Citation needed.

GW doesn't even bother to do any marketing research, I very much doubt they are sophisticated enough to target any demographic other than teenaged boys.

DrunkPhilisoph wrote:
Hmmm.....

It would definetly suck if GW ended Fantasy, especially for those who are invested in the game, I think that's pretty undebatable. Warhammer takes a lot of time and effort, and while by no means this would mean you couldn't play anymore, it definetlely would mean that interest (= opportunities to play) in the game would slowly vanish, meaning all your effort/money was "wasted".

But at some point sooner or later, Warhammer would have ended anyway. The question is less, if ending Fantasy sucks, but if ending Fantasy with the Endtimes books and models was a good decision.





The Endtime books are pretty good, and from what can be gathered from the responses on the internet, they are mostly received positively. At least storywise, the endtimes make for a good way to end the IP.

More problematic is the fact, that the endtimes came boundled with some of the largest and most expensive models in fantasy, to date. Should support for fantasy cease immedieatly afterwards, that would leave a bit of a bitter aftertaste, to what I consider one of the better releases GW has brought out recently.

With the spoiler I don't think it's ending, it's rather clear that the setting as we know it right now is ended, but there is also a clear starting point from there too. That short passage isn't clear who specifically won, and what we see next may come be heavily influenced by whomever the winner of the End Times was.

So until we know more it's a continued wait and see.

That said I don't think any of the new stuff is going to be invalidated. I expect Finecast to be updated or the models removed completely though, a lot of the special characters removed (since a good number of them are dead) with a few staying around. I don't have any concrete ideas what the plan for 9th is, but I wouldn't be surprised if we see a post-apocalyptic fantasy setting though (and kind of look forward to the idea honestly because I haven't seen that done too often), and think that it can prove to be an interesting game going forward.

It'll come down to what they do with the rules and setting, but they have plenty of room to work now by doing this and I don't think this was rushed out considering the amount of effort poured into the End Times and the models.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
GW tried relying on old players alone to float Fantasy and it failed.

Citation needed.

GW doesn't even bother to do any marketing research, I very much doubt they are sophisticated enough to target any demographic other than teenaged boys.

A lack of market research is why it backfired.

Just because something failed doesn't disprove that it wasn't attempted.

 agnosto wrote:
Give me a call next time you have an auto-accident, a home damaged by a storm or some like event that results in you losing the enjoyment of several thousand dollars of your hard-earned money so I can come over to your house and do this:

Wow, I take The Hobby and lots of nerdy stuff serious, and I think it sucks if they alienate the vets with the new edition,
but if you equal an "auto-accident" or "home damaged by a storm" to you not being able to play warhammer 9th the way you used to play 8th...
Lets just say GW might be doing you a favor adding some perspective to your priorities.

Gives me an idea though -"miniature game insurance"!
Much like your house or car can get wrecked and covered by insurance, a crappy/wrecked war game edition will be duly covered.
Soon on kick starter!
(just kidding folks, just kidding)

 Grey Templar wrote:

I've given many reason why 8th edition is superior and I can give many more. Fantasy failed for many reasons, the rules were not one of them.

1) There was an intense amount of outrage from power games who were pissed their hyper specialized armies were no longer as powerful as they used to be. That led to a big drop off.

Wrong. There was an intense amount of outrage from the existing player base that their varied armies were reduced to a single massive infantry block with spell casters galore. This was a result of the rules change.

 Grey Templar wrote:

2) GW continued to raise prices, and Fantasy is a game which requires a large number of purchases. Again, people were pissed they would have to buy a bunch more models to continue playing the game. While ignoring that the game, if you made those purchases, was superior.

Wrong again. The game was reduced to rolling buckets of dice with no effect and whoever rolled their "death spell" first won. Also the exodus of players happened in the very beginning of 8th edition where the more severe price hikes hadn't happened yet.

And also, people are always pissed that they have to buy new models whenever a new edition of a GW game comes around, but the only time that this generated a player base collapse was with 8th edition? Pull the other one, it has bells on.

 Grey Templar wrote:

3) People looked at magic and freaked out over the uber powerful 6th spells. Granted, they are too powerful. However, people also didn't bother to look at the big picture. With large blocks of infantry, those 6th spells were needed as a counter. The unreliability of power dice also tempers the spells power with some uncertainty, although its not completely unpredictable as it does still follow a bell curve.

People didn't "freak out" over the 6th spell power level, it is pretty obvious to anyone that those spells were built as counters to the humongous infantry blocks. People just didn't wan't to play a game where the only counter to a particular strategy was rolling a particular spell and getting that spell off! This is another sign of an inferior rule set.

 Grey Templar wrote:

4) Steadfast is an important rule for balance. The old rules where you got super ASF and there was no steadfast led to the absolutely moronic situations of cavalry or monsters charging a block of infantry, killing just the front ranks, and then automatically winning unless the victims rolled snake eyes on their moral test. Cavalry and monsters were way too powerful in the previous incarnation of the rules. Infantry were basically useless, which is neither realistic nor fun. In real life, Cavalry charging the front of a ranked unit were basically committing suicide unless they had massive numbers and the infantry weren't armed with spears.

And in previous editions cavalry and monsters could be countered with clever use of tactics. Using small or skirmishing units to redirect their charges, using flanking units or mobile heroes to threaten them, etc, not to mention that they where very vulnerable to war machines.

This made 6th and 7th edition armies much more diverse and tactically interesting than those in 8th edition.

 Grey Templar wrote:

5) For the first time ever, the game felt like an actual battle game. Prior editions were glorified skirmishes that were trying to pretend they were battles. I found that unfun. Not to mention the army book balance was atrocious. If you weren't daemons, lizardmen, dark elves, or high elves you basically didn't stand much of a chance against those armies.

That is your personal opinion and given that 8th edition failed spectacularly, you seem to be in the minority.

Also, again, that lack of army book balance that you mention happened in the end of 7th edition (and I would further argue that the only really problematic one was the Demon army book), prior to that time period, the game had much better balance, both internally and externally than it does today.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Vets have larger collections and can (and already were) play at higher point levels. The catering to them came from GW saying "take all your models!"

The game just didn't work below certain point levels, and vets could at least hit those point levels. New players were being expected to drop over $600 on starting an army, not to say trying to build it up to being competitive.

Like I said, it was an attempt to cater to long time players who had larger collections of models. I didn't say it was a good idea or that the game could survive like that.

But that wasn't what happened with 8th edition. It was never "take all your models". The point bracket at which the game was played didn't change that much.

It was, "see that huge collection of models that you have in the form of multiple units? Forget them, they are unplayable, now go buy double the amount of models that you already had in your infantry units."

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Just because something failed doesn't disprove that it wasn't attempted.

I don't want to get stuck in a tangent here but there is absolutely no proof, at least as far as I am aware, that GW has ever even attempted to cater to 'vets' as a distinct demographic. As such its impossible to say that their possibly non existent strategy failed or succeeded.

PhantomViper wrote:
I would further argue that the only really problematic one was the Demon army book

Vampire Counts were also ridiculous, or at least they could be.

@PhantomViper I actually thought most of 8th's rules were pretty solid, the issues I saw with it were fairly limited and were mainly in regards to how it couldn't scale down below a certain point.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Just because something failed doesn't disprove that it wasn't attempted.

I don't want to get stuck in a tangent here but there is absolutely no proof, at least as far as I am aware, that GW has ever even attempted to cater to 'vets' as a distinct demographic. As such its impossible to say that their possibly non existent strategy failed or succeeded.

I'd say the core rule design pushing it towards larger model collections was definitely more in favor of the veteran player than the newer player. You can disagree if you like, but that's my interpretation of the game's design.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
I don't have any concrete ideas what the plan for 9th is, but I wouldn't be surprised if we see a post-apocalyptic fantasy setting though (and kind of look forward to the idea honestly because I haven't seen that done too often), and think that it can prove to be an interesting game going forward.

I agree that post-apocalyptic fantasy is interesting and look forward to seeing where Fantasy goes from here. I always interpreted fantasy as post-apocalyptic already: Old Ones Gone, huge daemonic incursions from the warp energy leaking from the poles, warp energy directly mutating things and raising the dead, random magical fluctuations all over the globe, etc. I suppose 9th ed will be post-post-apocalyptic.

Re edition preferences:
I
Like
BIG BLOCKS
and I cannot lie.

 Fayric wrote:

 agnosto wrote:
Give me a call next time you have an auto-accident, a home damaged by a storm or some like event that results in you losing the enjoyment of several thousand dollars of your hard-earned money so I can come over to your house and do this:

Wow, I take The Hobby and lots of nerdy stuff serious, and I think it sucks if they alienate the vets with the new edition,
but if you equal an "auto-accident" or "home damaged by a storm" to you not being able to play warhammer 9th the way you used to play 8th...
Lets just say GW might be doing you a favor adding some perspective to your priorities.

Gives me an idea though -"miniature game insurance"!
Much like your house or car can get wrecked and covered by insurance, a crappy/wrecked war game edition will be duly covered.
Soon on kick starter!
(just kidding folks, just kidding)

No I equate someone gloating and casting disparaging remarks on the concerns others have regarding their time and monetary investment as similarly egregious. As you correctly point put, at least with the case of home or vehicle loss you have the potential for recompense through insurance. My point was/is, the hee-hawing and so forth could be kept to a minimum if someone is anything other than a troll.

Honestly I didn't think it was post-apoc yet because there weren't wars for resources, just land. Which is pretty common middle-ages/fantasy setting stuff.

 agnosto wrote:

No I equate someone gloating and casting disparaging remarks on the concerns others have regarding their time and monetary investment as similarly egregious. As you correctly point put, at least with the case of home or vehicle loss you have the potential for recompense through insurance. My point was/is, the hee-hawing and so forth could be kept to a minimum if someone is anything other than a troll.

Well, but buying toys isn't an investment, it's consumption, and the expectation of viewing it as "investment" is leading to a grossly false sense of entitlement, which is very evidently demonstrated by a fallacious comparison with houses or similar assets.

PhantomViper wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

I've given many reason why 8th edition is superior and I can give many more. Fantasy failed for many reasons, the rules were not one of them.

1) There was an intense amount of outrage from power games who were pissed their hyper specialized armies were no longer as powerful as they used to be. That led to a big drop off.

Wrong. There was an intense amount of outrage from the existing player base that their varied armies were reduced to a single massive infantry block with spell casters galore. This was a result of the rules change.

Single massive blocks? More like multiple massive blocks. Thats actually a good thing.

 Grey Templar wrote:

3) People looked at magic and freaked out over the uber powerful 6th spells. Granted, they are too powerful. However, people also didn't bother to look at the big picture. With large blocks of infantry, those 6th spells were needed as a counter. The unreliability of power dice also tempers the spells power with some uncertainty, although its not completely unpredictable as it does still follow a bell curve.

People didn't "freak out" over the 6th spell power level, it is pretty obvious to anyone that those spells were built as counters to the humongous infantry blocks. People just didn't wan't to play a game where the only counter to a particular strategy was rolling a particular spell and getting that spell off! This is another sign of an inferior rule set.

Your statement here clearly shows you haven't really considered that its fairly easy to get any single spell you want given that if a spell is already known by another wizard you get to choose your spell.

And you don't need the spells to counter the infantry blocks. Another block of troops with high offensive output will also deal with a large block of infantry. True, it can degenerate into a grindfest, but thats why maneuvering is more important than ever. Using skirmishers to block enemy units till you can get a favorable charge.

 Grey Templar wrote:

4) Steadfast is an important rule for balance. The old rules where you got super ASF and there was no steadfast led to the absolutely moronic situations of cavalry or monsters charging a block of infantry, killing just the front ranks, and then automatically winning unless the victims rolled snake eyes on their moral test. Cavalry and monsters were way too powerful in the previous incarnation of the rules. Infantry were basically useless, which is neither realistic nor fun. In real life, Cavalry charging the front of a ranked unit were basically committing suicide unless they had massive numbers and the infantry weren't armed with spears.

And in previous editions cavalry and monsters could be countered with clever use of tactics. Using small or skirmishing units to redirect their charges, using flanking units or mobile heroes to threaten them, etc, not to mention that they where very vulnerable to war machines.

Not everyone had warmachines to counter said monsters, nor did everyone have small units they could use to screen. And many monsters could easily ignore screening units due to flight. They certainly hit monsters too hard, they should count as having 2 ranks for the purposes of breaking steadfast. However cavalry were way too powerful, they were basically guaranteed to win any combat they charged into.

Cavalry are now where they're supposed to be. Flankers meant to aid the main infantry units by dealing with other cavalry and flanking in combat. They're a support unit.

This made 6th and 7th edition armies much more diverse and tactically interesting than those in 8th edition.

Disagree. They're just different. If you aren't seeing tactical diversity in 8th its because you aren't trying. Small units of light cav are still quite good. Small units of skirmishers are quite good. Just like they were before. If anything, they're more important because the infantry they're screening and blocking are a little more deadly. This means you actually have a reason to use skirmishers.

 Grey Templar wrote:

5) For the first time ever, the game felt like an actual battle game. Prior editions were glorified skirmishes that were trying to pretend they were battles. I found that unfun. Not to mention the army book balance was atrocious. If you weren't daemons, lizardmen, dark elves, or high elves you basically didn't stand much of a chance against those armies.

That is your personal opinion and given that 8th edition failed spectacularly, you seem to be in the minority.

Also, again, that lack of army book balance that you mention happened in the end of 7th edition (and I would further argue that the only really problematic one was the Demon army book), prior to that time period, the game had much better balance, both internally and externally than it does today.

Thats pretty obviously wrong given the terrible balance between armies that existed prior to the 8th edition books. And they were unbalanced way before late 7th edition.

Fantasy has clearly been dying from a combination of factors. 1) people not actually honestly evaluating the rules and more being pissed the rules have incentives for larger units. Just combine your smaller units for goodness sakes. 2) Rising prices making the barrier to entry for new players high, and many existing players being older themselves and slowly leaving the hobby from natural attrition 3) A general disenchantment with GW in general.

Saying you left because of the rules for Fantasy is a red herring. I'm sure many people actually believe it, but they didn't give the rules an actual chance. They're actually pretty good, still many flaws of course because its GW, but its not the disaster that many people claim it is.

I'll wait to see what they do before worrying. A reboot could be really cool, expecially if it brings the entry point down and I can start a new Goblin army (I miss my gobbos).

 docdoom77 wrote:
I'll wait to see what they do before worrying. A reboot could be really cool, expecially if it brings the entry point down and I can start a new Goblin army (I miss my gobbos).

Same here.

While it saddens immensely that some army will probably be squatted (my poor beloved beastmen ), I'm anxious to see what they will bring to rejuvenate the setting.

 Fayric wrote:

Gives me an idea though -"miniature game insurance"!
Much like your house or car can get wrecked and covered by insurance, a crappy/wrecked war game edition will be duly covered.
Soon on kick starter!
(just kidding folks, just kidding)

Whats the Kirby Blue Book value on my 6000-ish point Beastmen Army, fully painted and based, with minor conversions?

Mine was destroyed when the world that my miniatures live in was obliterated. I'll need an estimate to take to my local Games Workshop where they will repair it, if its not totaled.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:
The Magic system in the last few editions put me off WFB for good, although I liked a lot of what they did in 8th - premeasuring, charging, step up, etc.

The new "not Magic" system in 40k has also put me off 7th Ed sadly.

Now really just buy stuff for the fluff and pretty models so the rules element is of little interest unless to steers back towards the games I like.

The psychic phase was something they had before (and GW has been mining the fek out of 2nd for stuff lately) and it simplifies the whole Psychic powers system. I like it for streamlining things and allowing Psykers to use Witchfires and shoot.

I just wish Witchfires were streamlined because right now they take way too many dice to use properly..

I thought 6th Psychic was fine - a few powers needed sorting but now they have Invisibility - awesome.

It slows the game down IMO as well as having some armies without effective defence - hate the whole idea and execution, rather go back to RT

but back to OP - what do we think we wil keep and loose?

Everything is so up in the air. If my army is made useless to use in my local GW I will be sad. :(

I tried playing Fantasy shortly after Rogue Trader came out. I didn't like it for many of the reasons some people complain about 8th edition. (Rules can be cyclical in nature and new people try to go into old places, sometimes unintentionally.) I very much liked the rules of LotR, but I don't like LotR mythology. The game could handle a handful of heroes or recreations of the epic battles--same rule set either way.

If GW wants to reboot WHFB then their new game must make more money than the last iteration. Sorry, to be so crass, but that's GW's goal. If the last version that required large amounts of figures (and hence large money investment of players) failed then it only seems likely that they would swing the other way and try to rope in lots of players who only need comparatively less miniatures. If buying a battle box that gave you 20-30 troops, some elites and a big model or two around the $150USD and allowed you to play real games happened then Fantasy becomes the miniature wargaming equivalent of an impulse buy. Allow old timers to use their old models and now last gen gamers are less grumpy. But GW's failure will be that it forgets it makes money selling models. Event driven gaming like Privateer Press (and others) creates a narrative to gaming and adds new models for everyone in a set period. Constant cash flow from all players and an cheap buy in is the recipe that makes Fantasy work. The question is can GW overcome their own inertia to actually use a proven plan that works for their customers as well as themselves.

I look forward to what the future brings.

Iain.

 docdoom77 wrote:
I'll wait to see what they do before worrying. A reboot could be really cool, expecially if it brings the entry point down and I can start a new Goblin army (I miss my gobbos).

Exactly.

I see this as a chance for GW to turn back the clock and try again with WHFB. Now, this may blow up in their face because it's GW after all...but then again, it might not.

 Bottle wrote:
Everything is so up in the air. If my army is made useless to use in my local GW I will be sad. :(

I don't think we'll see things made useless as much see combined army lists that allow you to run your army you already own.

The losses I do expect are all the SCs who kicked the bucket, and anything in Finecast (though some might get updated to plastic instead but I won't hold my breath on that).

Chairman Aeon wrote:
I tried playing Fantasy shortly after Rogue Trader came out. I didn't like it for many of the reasons some people complain about 8th edition. (Rules can be cyclical in nature and new people try to go into old places, sometimes unintentionally.) I very much liked the rules of LotR, but I don't like LotR mythology. The game could handle a handful of heroes or recreations of the epic battles--same rule set either way.

If GW wants to reboot WHFB then their new game must make more money than the last iteration. Sorry, to be so crass, but that's GW's goal. If the last version that required large amounts of figures (and hence large money investment of players) failed then it only seems likely that they would swing the other way and try to rope in lots of players who only need comparatively less miniatures. If buying a battle box that gave you 20-30 troops, some elites and a big model or two around the $150USD and allowed you to play real games happened then Fantasy becomes the miniature wargaming equivalent of an impulse buy. Allow old timers to use their old models and now last gen gamers are less grumpy. But GW's failure will be that it forgets it makes money selling models. Event driven gaming like Privateer Press (and others) creates a narrative to gaming and adds new models for everyone in a set period. Constant cash flow from all players and an cheap buy in is the recipe that makes Fantasy work. The question is can GW overcome their own inertia to actually use a proven plan that works for their customers as well as themselves.

I look forward to what the future brings.

Iain.

GW's LotR game was the most enjoyable GW game I've ever played (the Battle for Armageddon board game was 2nd). The game was fast, easy to learn, heroes weren't over powered, the ruleset scaled well for bigger games. If WHFB 9 was an overhaul that turned the game into LotR I would be very happy. Unfortunately I don't think GW wants to do that or is capable of doing that.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
The Old World as we know it is dead. We'll see if it is slain completely in the future.

A distinction without a difference. If the Old World "as we knew it" is dead, it's dead, even if they bring out some new monstrosity hastily draped in the flayed remnants of its skin.

Prestor Jon wrote:

GW's LotR game was the most enjoyable GW game I've ever played (the Battle for Armageddon board game was 2nd). The game was fast, easy to learn, heroes weren't over powered, the ruleset scaled well for bigger games. If WHFB 9 was an overhaul that turned the game into LotR I would be very happy. Unfortunately I don't think GW wants to do that or is capable of doing that.

I said something similar when these rumours first hit. Turn New-hammer into something similar in scope and scale to LotR (individual bases, no 'units'/coherency requirements, 20-50 models a side, toned down magic and Heroes) and I'd buy in pretty easily. The startup cost would be waaaay less than WFB is now, the LotR ruleset is the best GW have ever done (so even if they can't copy it directly due to licencing, they can still take bits here and there to make something great) and the game is overall way more tactical than WFB was in my experience (unit-killing mega-spells are fun now and then, but frankly too heavily focused on in WFB).

It also wouldn't compete with KoW as well, which is on something of a stratosperic rise to power as a premier Fantasy mass battle system (and with good reason, it's amazing).

All this is unlikely, but personally I see it as the best outcome.

We're getting a little off-topic, but I have to back Grey Templar. I've been playing since 4th edition and from a purely rules and army book perspective, 8th edition far outshines any earlier edition. I'm not going to go into the specifics because basically these arguments boil down to personal choice and "That's, just like, your opinion, man."

Isn't 8th being the best edition the majority opinion? That's what I see most frequently at any rate.

Mymearan wrote:
Isn't 8th being the best edition the majority opinion? That's what I see most frequently at any rate.

Yet WHFB has nearly faded into obscurity to the extent that GW has apparently been forced to near enough blow up the whole world in an attempt to revive its fortunes. Some people evidently think its the best edition but WHFB's abysmal sales tell a different tale.