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.

I'm actually really excited about all of it. ET stuff is blowing my mind, and I prefer skirmish to massed combat.

 Paradigm wrote:
As a non-Fantasy player, I find the rumours to be very enticing. I hate square bases, and hate blocks of units, but the fantasy setting is a cool one. If, by this time next year, I can have a full army of 30-50 models, all on round bases and a truly skirmish ruleset, that mught just be what brings me back to the Fantasy fold. Bring it on, I say!

Why don't you just buy the Mordheim rules off eBay? It's a great squad-level skirmish game.

 Grinshanks wrote:

 Shas'O Dorian wrote:

 Paradigm wrote:
As a non-Fantasy player, I find the rumours to be very enticing. I hate square bases, and hate blocks of units, but the fantasy setting is a cool one. If, by this time next year, I can have a full army of 30-50 models, all on round bases and a truly skirmish ruleset, that mught just be what brings me back to the Fantasy fold. Bring it on, I say!

So what you actually want is 40k, just using fantasy models? Make a counts-as army.

No he wants a skirmish game in a Warhammer Fantasy setting. 40k isn't the only way to do a skirmish game.

I am personally looking forward to a skirmish ruleset that works specifically for a Warhammer Fantasy setting. I don't dislike whats coming, but I am not fond of what we'd be losing. I want both game styles to exist (I'm greedy like that).

Yeah, but I think most of the people who play fantasy do so because it's a mass battle game. That's what's most annoying about the rumours, is that (if they're true) they're going to be screwing over everyone who plays the game because it's a mass battle game, in order to appeal to new players who don't play it. Pretty crap way to treat the people who have spent God knows how much on your game. And in before 'it's just business' if GW had run their business competently up til now this whole shakeup might not be necessary.

Also, if what you want is a 'Skirmish in the Warhammer World', if the rumours are true, well, tough luck. Doesn't really see, like the WH world will really be around any more.

But yeah I want both styles to exist, and I'm hoping there is decent scalability in whatever we get.

Anyway, positives... I really like the new models (and I'm not even a 13 year old), the 'fantasy SM' could be awesome if they are more like gritty Bretonnia or something, and as long as Lizardmen and/or Skaven remain in some fashion, I might give it a go. Luckily I hadn't bought anything significant for Fantasy recently (I almost did but then saw the rumours). I'm a bit more tentatively curious now as opposed to panicked like when I first read them. We'll see.

So far I have been around for two edition changes and on a whole they have always been better than the last. They have come a long way to develop the rules they have now and I see no way they would drastically change it.

Skirmish may become an option but I don't see it becoming the main ruleset same with round bases.

The new models have an amazing level of detail on them un-paralleled by anyone else IMHO. The new rules for characters on monsters seems to work quite well and avoids a lot of confusion making them easier to play with.

As a player of the forces of order I am hoping for some of our heroes to step up and kick but instead of just copping a flogging.(fluffwise) Maybe some new ones will arise, that is the best part of the fluff advancement, get rid of the old characters with old game mechanics and bring in the new.


PS, nervous about what is to become of the dwarfs.

Grinshanks wrote:

 Shas'O Dorian wrote:

 Paradigm wrote:
As a non-Fantasy player, I find the rumours to be very enticing. I hate square bases, and hate blocks of units, but the fantasy setting is a cool one. If, by this time next year, I can have a full army of 30-50 models, all on round bases and a truly skirmish ruleset, that mught just be what brings me back to the Fantasy fold. Bring it on, I say!

So what you actually want is 40k, just using fantasy models? Make a counts-as army.

No he wants a skirmish game in a Warhammer Fantasy setting. 40k isn't the only way to do a skirmish game.

I am personally looking forward to a skirmish ruleset that works specifically for a Warhammer Fantasy setting. I don't dislike whats coming, but I am not fond of what we'd be losing. I want both game styles to exist (I'm greedy like that).

No, not 40k. 40k is squad-based, I want something more akin to LotR, where each model is individual, but not something as complex as Mordhiem. Something where I can play 40-50 minis a side and not get bogged down tracking each model individually.

ImAGeek wrote:
Yeah, but I think most of the people who play fantasy do so because it's a mass battle game. That's what's most annoying about the rumours, is that (if they're true) they're going to be screwing over everyone who plays the game because it's a mass battle game, in order to appeal to new players who don't play it. Pretty crap way to treat the people who have spent God knows how much on your game. And in before 'it's just business' if GW had run their business competently up til now this whole shakeup might not be necessary.

And there is absolutely nothing stopping you playing 8th edition WFB as it stands. If this new version is as radically different as it seems to be, then it doesn't really supercede the mass battle rules of WFB.

 Madmatt wrote:
So far I have been around for two edition changes and on a whole they have always been better than the last. They have come a long way to develop the rules they have now and I see no way they would drastically change it.

So you think that 7th was better than 6th? And the edition that killed the game is better than the two previous ones?

Some people here have a very strange definition of what "better" means.

Keep it positive? I've been playing WFB since 1985. 30 yrs a loyal, dare I say fanatical advocate of Warhammer and GW. I've collected, painted and played every army for WFB. I say that so you all know that I have some skin in the game. WFB is broken. Plan and simple. Instead of fixing what was broken in 7th and 8th editions GW has decided to kill WFB and take a major dump on all of us that have spent our hobby dollars (10K minimum in my case) with and supported GW. I have it on very good authority that WFB will no longer be a game of massed armies fighting epic battles but will be reduced to a six faction skirmish game. GW has no concern what we, the customers say about the game we love and it's heartbreaking to think a company that I have had a 30 yr relationship with in the end couldn't care less what I think or have any thought of what this will do to their WFB customer base. So after all this I 'm taking my hobby dollars and going to Mantic to play Kings of War. The KoW system works, the rules are free and I can use my GW figs. It's a sad day indeed when I have to turn my back on GW but they leave many of us no choice. If I want to play 40K I'll play 40K If I want to fight battles with massed armies on square bases then I'll be playing Kings of War. Oh and for those who say Play the older versions I say what's the point. It's not supported by GW and they don't care about us so no I'm done with over priced figs and broken rules.

 Paradigm wrote:
No, not 40k. 40k is squad-based,

I want something more akin to LotR, where each model is individual, but not something as complex as Mordhiem. Something where I can play 40-50 minis a side and not get bogged down tracking each model individually.

40k 7E is NOT squad-based. 40k is individual models, for movement, shooting, fighting and casualties. The whole "closest first" and "true line of sight" mechanics completely destroyed any notion that 40k would be a squad-based game as in 3E-5E. Flames of War is squad based.

If you want a larger game that plays faster, play WFB 6E with the Ravening Hordes lists.

 Paradigm wrote:

ImAGeek wrote:
Yeah, but I think most of the people who play fantasy do so because it's a mass battle game. That's what's most annoying about the rumours, is that (if they're true) they're going to be screwing over everyone who plays the game because it's a mass battle game, in order to appeal to new players who don't play it. Pretty crap way to treat the people who have spent God knows how much on your game. And in before 'it's just business' if GW had run their business competently up til now this whole shakeup might not be necessary.

And there is absolutely nothing stopping you playing 8th edition WFB as it stands. If this new version is as radically different as it seems to be, then it doesn't really supercede the mass battle rules of WFB.

This is the last time I'm going to say this; not everybody has the luxury of a gaming group to make decisions like that. Some people rely on pick up games, and personally, I have enough trouble finding pick up games for rules systems that are supported, let alone ones that aren't. Why don't people understand that.

I get why some people are complaining but honestly I'm not really too worried.

Square bases are what I'm using and my flgs will (the store owner said he won't change his bases either lol). New rules are cool. New models...also cool.
I have a feeling that the new rules are going to allow you to play square bases with regular units like we do now, it will also let you play on round bases and skirmish style. Use of old books and new books.

I don't understand why round bases are so good for skirmish what is the problem with square bases? Lol

JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Paradigm wrote:
No, not 40k. 40k is squad-based,

I want something more akin to LotR, where each model is individual, but not something as complex as Mordhiem. Something where I can play 40-50 minis a side and not get bogged down tracking each model individually.

40k 7E is NOT squad-based. 40k is individual models, for movement, shooting, fighting and casualties. The whole "closest first" and "true line of sight" mechanics completely destroyed any notion that 40k would be a squad-based game as in 3E-5E. Flames of War is squad based.

If you want a larger game that plays faster, play WFB 6E with the Ravening Hordes lists.

And then you have the fact units are bought as collected squads, have unit coherencey, and have abilities and effects that apply to whole squads. If these rumours and changes pan out the way I hope they will, you will have a game where EVERY model can act 100% independantly, so I can take 2 models and start them next to each other, by the end of the game they can be in opposite corners of the board, or anywhere between.

ImAGeek wrote:
This is the last time I'm going to say this; not everybody has the luxury of a gaming group to make decisions like that. Some people rely on pick up games, and personally, I have enough trouble finding pick up games for rules systems that are supported, let alone ones that aren't. Why don't people understand that.

I see where you are coming from, but I really don't get it. If you are suggesting that, as soon as the (completely different) 9th edition comes out, all the people that perfectly happily play pick-up games of 8th are going to stop doing so, forcing you and them to rely on getting a game of something so different that, if it weren't made by GW, wouldn't even be considered in place of WFB in terms of style or mechanics? If that is the case, then you have my sympathy, but I really do think that, should this come to pass, a little community agreement to say 'those who want mass battles, let's keep playing 8th' would go a long way, and make the whole thing a non-issue. So many people seem to think of pick-up games as events that require no communcation whatsoever, which I find really strange as a concept.

And by 'unsupported', what that really means is that you don't have to drop money on new books that change a few things every few years. In my books, 'freezing' a game at a certain point/edition is far better than a constant cycle of having to buy new stuff to stay 'current'.

 Paradigm wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Paradigm wrote:
No, not 40k. 40k is squad-based,

I want something more akin to LotR, where each model is individual, but not something as complex as Mordhiem. Something where I can play 40-50 minis a side and not get bogged down tracking each model individually.

40k 7E is NOT squad-based. 40k is individual models, for movement, shooting, fighting and casualties. The whole "closest first" and "true line of sight" mechanics completely destroyed any notion that 40k would be a squad-based game as in 3E-5E. Flames of War is squad based.

If you want a larger game that plays faster, play WFB 6E with the Ravening Hordes lists.

And then you have the fact units are bought as collected squads, have unit coherencey, and have abilities and effects that apply to whole squads. If these rumours and changes pan out the way I hope they will, you will have a game where EVERY model can act 100% independantly, so I can take 2 models and start them next to each other, by the end of the game they can be in opposite corners of the board, or anywhere between.

This game exists, it is called Malifaux. Honestly I don't think GW could compete with Malifaux at that style of game. It may just act as a gateway for more people to switch to wyrd.

I haven't played much Malifaux, but it seems like it is Mordheim-scaled around 6-10 models per side.

I'm not sure Malifaux scales to 40+, 50 models per side. Heck, I'm not entirely sure all of the factions even have 40 or 50 distinct sculpts unless you combine M1E and M2E together.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
I haven't played much Malifaux, but it seems like it is Mordheim-scaled around 6-10 models per side.

I'm not sure Malifaux scales to 40+, 50 models per side. Heck, I'm not entirely sure all of the factions even have 40 or 50 distinct sculpts unless you combine M1E and M2E together.

Enjoying Malifaux alot - and it is a true skirmish game - about 8-10 models each is what we tend to play - Warmachine is larger scale game and more what you are describing but I personally find it much inferior to Malifaux in terms of fun and rules.

 Mr Morden wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
I haven't played much Malifaux, but it seems like it is Mordheim-scaled around 6-10 models per side.

I'm not sure Malifaux scales to 40+, 50 models per side. Heck, I'm not entirely sure all of the factions even have 40 or 50 distinct sculpts unless you combine M1E and M2E together.

Enjoying Malifaux alot - and it is a true skirmish game - about 8-10 models each is what we tend to play - Warmachine is larger scale game and more what you are describing but I personally find it much inferior to Malifaux in terms of fun and rules.

No, WM/H has units that need coherency, albeit much less tight coherency. Malifaux tends to run 8-10 but gremlins can hit big numbers and the game scales pretty well, just need a bigger board over 60ish points also at that level I've played with multiple decks to prevent the need to reshuffle so much.

As for WM/H I'm not a huge fan because I hate the assassination mechanic.

I think the biggest thing about these rumors is how much do you trust them?

I personally doubt at least 70% of the things I've read because they just seem so outlandish and as someone that follows 40k quite a bit nearly all rumors that you hear are just plain wrong.

So I mean be fearful all you want but you don't have to shove it down peoples throats, I've heard the rumors and don't need every thread to have people moaning about it.

Madmatt wrote:
As a player of the forces of order I am hoping for some of our heroes to step up and kick but instead of just copping a flogging.(fluffwise) Maybe some new ones will arise, that is the best part of the fluff advancement, get rid of the old characters with old game mechanics and bring in the new.


PS, nervous about what is to become of the dwarfs.

Well said.

Its only natural people just don't like dealing with change if they are not used to it.

Guess we cant all be positive and see opportunities where others only see calamities..

tikhunt wrote:I think the biggest thing about these rumors is how much do you trust them?

I personally doubt at least 70% of the things I've read because they just seem so outlandish and as someone that follows 40k quite a bit nearly all rumors that you hear are just plain wrong.

So I mean be fearful all you want but you don't have to shove it down peoples throats, I've heard the rumors and don't need every thread to have people moaning about it.

I agree with this guy.

@OP - The initial post does indeed seem to state fact and not your opinion.
What you attempted as a "postivie" has misconstrued as another " ohh no.. change.. let's whine thread"
As to weather this was desired or not.. Trying to stay objective would be a start to establish some semblance of positivity.

For example a lot of these rumors are based on what this guy Darnok has said... (Source warseer)
And later he also said that he never said about "whole armies being definitively squatted" just a some units might be dropped. Take that as you will..

Stating rumors as fact at this stage just seems silly.

I appreciate a lot of people are worried because their beloved hobby they have invested a lot in might not be what they are used to, might even disappear all together.
All I can say is, hope for the best and don't waste time feeling down and negative about it until you get some concrete information so you can take appropriate decisions. Change is a part of life. Deal with it.

I mean if you are really that peeved off about these rumours that you cant sleep, then why not sell up and move onto another game like KOW, Mailfaux or something instead of trying to sabotage the community out of spite and bitterness with negativity.

 tikhunt wrote:
I think the biggest thing about these rumors is how much do you trust them?

I personally doubt at least 70% of the things I've read because they just seem so outlandish and as someone that follows 40k quite a bit nearly all rumors that you hear are just plain wrong.

So I mean be fearful all you want but you don't have to shove it down peoples throats, I've heard the rumors and don't need every thread to have people moaning about it.

The reason these rumors have been followed so strongly is because the people who generated the rumors (Darnok and Harry over on Warseer) have had very strong records pertaining to GW for years and years now. These two have been reinforcing each other's rumors pertaining to this change, and the state that WHFB seems to be in (I believe last reported to represent 8% of GW's sales?) is quite indicative that wide-sweeping changes are coming.

I think it's only reasonable that people are warning everyone about these changes. I mean, do you really want to shell out $300-$400 on a new army, only to find in two months that the game has changed so dramatically that half of the stuff you bought isn't even consistent with the new game? GW has shown with 40k (through the shortening of rules cycles, splitting of material into multiple books) that they are not above making significant change to encourage more sales. What WHFB may look like at the conclusion of all of this I cannot say, it may be enjoyable or it may be a mess. But I think any future enjoyment would be tempered by buying a bunch of redundant kits.

 Argive wrote:


@OP - The initial post does indeed seem to state fact and not your opinion.
What you attempted as a "postivie" has misconstrued as another " ohh no.. change.. let's whine thread"
As to weather this was desired or not.. Trying to stay objective would be a start to establish some semblance of positivity.

For example a lot of these rumors are based on what this guy Darnok has said... (Source warseer)
And later he also said that he never said about "whole armies being definitively squatted" just a some units might be dropped. Take that as you will..

Stating rumors as fact at this stage just seems silly.

Lol, what are you talking about?

I chose three rumours and gave my positive spin on them. Where in anything I said did it come across as me stating facts?

 Accolade wrote:


The reason these rumors have been followed so strongly is because the people who generated the rumors (Darnok and Harry over on Warseer) have had very strong records pertaining to GW for years and years now. These two have been reinforcing each other's rumors pertaining to this change, and the state that WHFB seems to be in (I believe last reported to represent 8% of GW's sales?) is quite indicative that wide-sweeping changes are coming.

I think it's only reasonable that people are warning everyone about these changes. I mean, do you really want to shell out $300-$400 on a new army, only to find in two months that the game has changed so dramatically that half of the stuff you bought isn't even consistent with the new game? GW has shown with 40k (through the shortening of rules cycles, splitting of material into multiple books) that they are not above making significant change to encourage more sales. What WHFB may look like at the conclusion of all of this I cannot say, it may be enjoyable or it may be a mess. But I think any future enjoyment would be tempered by buying a bunch of redundant kits.

As I said be fearful all you want but be vocal about it in threads which warrant it, this is a thread about not moaning about the rumours, which at this point are still only rumours regardless of the previous validity of said posters. There are what 3 or 4 threads in this section of the forum about moaning about the rumours and by all means go and vent your frustrations there but can you leave those of us who aren't throwing hissyfits about what some guys said online to talk about the positive parts of the rumours get on with it unimpeded?

Anyway to stay on topic, the idea of "Fantasy Marines" is very exciting for me, I am much more a fan of fantasy than sci-fi but whilst Bretonnia is very close to what I like about fantasy settings (Selfless knights in shining plate rescuing damsels from fire breathing beasts) their all mounted style really puts me off. If that's true then I might be able to stick to the next army I spend hundreds of £££ on.

 tikhunt wrote:
Anyway to stay on topic, the idea of "Fantasy Marines" is very exciting for me, I am much more a fan of fantasy than sci-fi but whilst Bretonnia is very close to what I like about fantasy settings (Selfless knights in shining plate rescuing damsels from fire breathing beasts) their all mounted style really puts me off. If that's true then I might be able to stick to the next army I spend hundreds of £££ on.

Yes! I'm hoping for some hardy knights on foot, where a unit of 10 will be strong enough to hold against a much larger regiment. As I already have an Empire army, any chance to ally them will be great too.

One thing we haven't mentioned is the possibility of a new starter set. If the rumours are true, my money is for a starter set of the Warriors of Order/Light vs Undead Legions (as Nagash is now the big baddy).

Should be awesome, and a great way to start an army

 tikhunt wrote:

 Accolade wrote:


The reason these rumors have been followed so strongly is because the people who generated the rumors (Darnok and Harry over on Warseer) have had very strong records pertaining to GW for years and years now. These two have been reinforcing each other's rumors pertaining to this change, and the state that WHFB seems to be in (I believe last reported to represent 8% of GW's sales?) is quite indicative that wide-sweeping changes are coming.

I think it's only reasonable that people are warning everyone about these changes. I mean, do you really want to shell out $300-$400 on a new army, only to find in two months that the game has changed so dramatically that half of the stuff you bought isn't even consistent with the new game? GW has shown with 40k (through the shortening of rules cycles, splitting of material into multiple books) that they are not above making significant change to encourage more sales. What WHFB may look like at the conclusion of all of this I cannot say, it may be enjoyable or it may be a mess. But I think any future enjoyment would be tempered by buying a bunch of redundant kits.

As I said be fearful all you want but be vocal about it in threads which warrant it, this is a thread about not moaning about the rumours, which at this point are still only rumours regardless of the previous validity of said posters. There are what 3 or 4 threads in this section of the forum about moaning about the rumours and by all means go and vent your frustrations there but can you leave those of us who aren't throwing hissyfits about what some guys said online to talk about the positive parts of the rumours get on with it unimpeded?

Anyway to stay on topic, the idea of "Fantasy Marines" is very exciting for me, I am much more a fan of fantasy than sci-fi but whilst Bretonnia is very close to what I like about fantasy settings (Selfless knights in shining plate rescuing damsels from fire breathing beasts) their all mounted style really puts me off. If that's true then I might be able to stick to the next army I spend hundreds of £££ on.

Throwing "hissy fits"? Get off your high horse man. Whatever moaning you are getting from my post is your own misinterpretation. The idea that the game may be moving from a large rank battle game to a skirmish is neither positive nor negative; it's just a statement about what the game will be like.

As I said in my previous post, this new version may be attractive or it may not be. One of the biggest positives would be getting new interest from a lot of non-WHFB players and actually seeing an uptick in the playerbase. This is something that can easily happen with people who haven't been investing in the game over these last twenty or so years.

A lot of what the rumors can be construed as positive or negative largely depending on which side is viewing it. For instance, we may see a complete reimagine of the different armies into something that is more unique. Is this a positive or negative? Well, it could be a huge positive for newcomers which may boost WHFB's dwindling sales, or it might be a negative for those from previous editions.

I just don't see why you need to paint these rumored changes as black or white.

 Accolade wrote:


Throwing "hissy fits"? Get off your high horse man. Whatever moaning you are getting from my post is your own misinterpretation. The idea that the game may be moving from a large rank battle game to a skirmish is neither positive nor negative; it's just a statement about what the game will be like.

As I said in my previous post, this new version may be attractive or it may not be. One of the biggest positives would be getting new interest from a lot of non-WHFB players and actually seeing an uptick in the playerbase. This is something that can easily happen with people who haven't been investing in the game over these last twenty or so years.

A lot of what the rumors can be construed as positive or negative largely depending on which side is viewing it. For instance, we may see a complete reimagine of the different armies into something that is more unique. Is this a positive or negative? Well, it could be a huge positive for newcomers which may boost WHFB's dwindling sales, or it might be a negative for those from previous editions.

I just don't see why you need to paint these rumored changes as black or white.

Sorry, my comment was not aimed directly at you but to the number of posters who have decided to make this thread a complete 360 of what it was intended to be.

And about the painting it black and white thing, that's precisely what this thread is about "Let's be positive about the 9th rumors!" not "Let's be objective about the 9th rumors!"

Again sorry if I didn't make it clear I wasn't attacking you it's just you were the one I was replying to at the time.

 Bottle wrote:


Yes! I'm hoping for some hardy knights on foot, where a unit of 10 will be strong enough to hold against a much larger regiment. As I already have an Empire army, any chance to ally them will be great too.

One thing we haven't mentioned is the possibility of a new starter set. If the rumours are true, my money is for a starter set of the Warriors of Order/Light vs Undead Legions (as Nagash is now the big baddy).

Should be awesome, and a great way to start an army

Exactly, there's a lot to look forward a new starter set would be awesome.

 tikhunt wrote:

 Accolade wrote:


Throwing "hissy fits"? Get off your high horse man. Whatever moaning you are getting from my post is your own misinterpretation. The idea that the game may be moving from a large rank battle game to a skirmish is neither positive nor negative; it's just a statement about what the game will be like.

As I said in my previous post, this new version may be attractive or it may not be. One of the biggest positives would be getting new interest from a lot of non-WHFB players and actually seeing an uptick in the playerbase. This is something that can easily happen with people who haven't been investing in the game over these last twenty or so years.

A lot of what the rumors can be construed as positive or negative largely depending on which side is viewing it. For instance, we may see a complete reimagine of the different armies into something that is more unique. Is this a positive or negative? Well, it could be a huge positive for newcomers which may boost WHFB's dwindling sales, or it might be a negative for those from previous editions.

I just don't see why you need to paint these rumored changes as black or white.

Sorry, my comment was not aimed directly at you but to the number of posters who have decided to make this thread a complete 360 of what it was intended to be.

And about the painting it black and white thing, that's precisely what this thread is about "Let's be positive about the 9th rumors!" not "Let's be objective about the 9th rumors!"

Again sorry if I didn't make it clear I wasn't attacking you it's just you were the one I was replying to at the time.

Fair enough, and I do apologize if I got overly riled myself.

Okay, so here are what I see as positives, coming from the perspective of someone who has never played WHFB but has always been interested:

1) Re-envisioning of WHFB armies into something darker. I like the whole Kingdom: Death concept of a world full of monsters, but would honestly be a little embarrassed having all of those scantily-clad models in my case. 9th may be able to cater to that area with models my fiancee wouldn't object to!

2) Going into (1) a bit, a Chaos/monster-ridden world darkens out the corners of the map. WHFB felt like there wasn't much to explore (minus Cathay and other areas GW only mentioned casually). It may be easier to come up with your own lore for your particular army that doesn't directly clash with the main background.

3) A smaller game *should* have a smaller price tag. I couldn't convince myself to shell out what I shelled out in 40k because that was already too much money! Something that is more in the $100-$200 range would be nice, and more people would be likely to pick it up.

4) A tighter level of factions. Hopefully WHFB will go the opposite direction of 40k and actually contract the rules a bit. With 40k, it feels like you could never own all of the rule content and have the best grasp on the game. Perhaps this new edition will make that a bit easier?

 melkorthetonedeaf wrote:
I'm actually really excited about all of it. ET stuff is blowing my mind, and I prefer skirmish to massed combat.

Then you are playing the wrong game buddy.

If you want to play WFB skirmish I recomend God of Battles... Don't feel the need to get rid of wfb mass battles!

^ + ^^

Not really productive guys. This thread is about being positive and if some users think the rumored change to skimirsh is a positive change, they have every right to post it.

As I said before, although I still hope to see ranked regiments in some form, if the movement rules somehow enable more freedom in movement (such as breaking into skimirsh when needed) then it could have some great positives for the game.

Although I don't like the warmachine aesthetic, I do admire the tables people make for the game. And with more freedom to move models outside of ranked files, we could have more dynamic boards in Warhammer Fantasy too. Sounds great


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Something like this:



Imagine playing a game of Fantasy on a table like that, where units can break formation to navigate the tricky terrain parts, but then rank up again on the road.

So i've said my piece about how i'm not happy with what's going on.


I will say this, skirmish games really lend themselves to nice terrain a lot more. You can get a lot more granular with terrain with skirmish games which is nice.

Well, since I loved Mordheim and enjoyed the support of GW when it came out, I look forward to the change. I don't know about you guy's but when Mordheim came out, it received much attention. Background stories, conversions, battle reports, terrain advices from GW and fanmades. It went so far, that it was too much rule sets and I couldn't follow any more. But that time the warhammer skirmish game introduced in the 6th edition, didn't get any attention (seriously who of the veterans actually remember, there was skirmish mentioned in the appendix of the rulebook).
Mordheim itself was always based on the location "Mordheim". GW tried to change that by renaming it "Empire in Flames", but imho that wasn't succesful. So I look forward to a warhammer skirmish game. Regarding the earlier mentioned Lord of the rings skirmish game: Yes I loved it too, but the problem is, it was for that fantasy world and as a company, they are not allowed to use the ruleset for other games, because they would steal the sells of the LOTR game. and Peter Jackson wouldn't like that, If I remember the contract, he forced GW up to.

Ok should get back to the main points:

1.) Love skirmish, will use it, when I can. For mass battles, I would stay with 8th for now.

2.) I don't think it is fantasy space marines, that they meant in the rumours, but heavy Armour (5+ Armour save) or plate armour (4+ save) as it had been for bretonnians and empire reik guard. And that would be exciting. Because in fantasy (generic as feth) there are always heavy armoured knights. I haven't played D&D much, but in Tolkien's world, King Arthur and Records of Lodoss War (the father of fantasy anime, before things went super sayajin son goku) there are always knights on foot in heavy armour. Space Marines are a new thing and is not the measurement even for GW. (If it turns out that they are exaclty fantasy space marines, then I will open a thread where you can call me a fool)

I do find it hard to remain positive because a large part of the reason I like WHFB is the regimental combat and I also prefer having the unique armies rather than squashing armies together in to factions. The number of books is largely irrelevant, they could all be in 1 big book for all I care, just keep the variety and keep armies separate instead of smooshing them together.

What I WANT to see is the current WHFB rules modified to scale down better, that doesn't require changing to a skirmish format, it just requires changing the way regimental rules work and maybe introducing a few pages of rules modifications for different points values (like say <750pts, modify rules X, Y and Z, for <1500pts modify rules T, U and V, for larger games use rules as written).

Then on top of that modification bring back a Mordheim-like game.

I don't think it's going to happen, but the last thing I want is for GW to try and turn WHFB in to 40k, a large scale skirmish game, that would just be the worst. But at this point I doubt they're doing that.