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.

Same here. I like fantasy because its regimental level large scale combat.

If i want to play a skirmish game, the market is positively flooded with them, and to boot, some of the best rules systems in the industry are at the skirmish level (WM/H, Infinity, Malifaux). If they twist my arm and MAKE me make a comparison in rules and models, it's not a battle GW is likely to win unless they pull an epic rabbit out of a hat rules wise.

I think regimental large scale combat will still exist in the game. Let's be honest, when does GW prefer for their customers to play with/buy less models?

The focus on skirmish will be to make the game more accessible for new players, but there will be ways to play with lots of models. It might be rules that adapt at different point levels, or it might be a supplement like apocalypse, but I would be very surprised if large scale combat disappears. And I think large scale combat will likely have regiment rules (and I hope lower point values have rules for forming into regiments too)

xxvaderxx wrote:
I think 9th has grate potential, if properly implemented a scalable system that allows you to play both a skirmish and army size battle would be awesome, cutting back unit sizes back to something like 6th and 7th, keeping blocks but getting rid of wheeling, this are all very good opportunities, the risks are that failing at properly implement this, it would alienate a good size (likely most of it) of the fantasy player base and likely kill the game.

Were any other company doing this move i would feel confident, this is something the people form FFG and PP could likely pull of. GW on the other hand, has a track record of screwing it self out of opportunities over and over and over again.

I don't get this criticism? Most people ALREADY have access to competitive armies with similar model counts to 7th.

WoC: a few marauder horse, some crushers, a bunch of characters, some chariots, maybe a monster or three.

Ogres: two dozen models tops.

High Elves: silver helms in core, outside of deathstars units are rarely bigger than 20ish, lots of monsters

Dark Elves: dark riders in core, brolocks in rare, lots of characters, maybe some crossbows/shades

TK: chariots, necroknights, constructs...maybe some archers for a mage bunker, but that's it

Bretonnians: What...40 models max?

Empire: knights in core, demis in special, steam tanks and warmachines, maybe a wizard bunker

Dwarfs: a couple infantry blocks with warmachines...same as before.

Lizardmen: lots and lots of skinks with scar vets, slann, and maybe some dinos. Same as before.

Skaven/VC/OnG: still horde armies, just like they've always been.


All low model count armies. The difference is that people who WANT to run armies full of infantry, which are epic and awesome (and good for GW's bottom line) are able to. They're gakky...but they're possible.

Seriously, where the hell are you guys playing that infantry is such a big deal? Infantry is crap. Infantry is not competitive. If you're having problems with infantry then it's not 8th's fault, it's yours. If anything infantry needs to be helped MORE. Right now the only reason to take them is rank bonuses and steadfast, both of which are basically just delay tactics. They're tarpits, not hammers. And if they are a hammer then any player worth his salt will just chaff them up all game whilst they slaughter the rest of your army.

 Bottle wrote:
I think regimental large scale combat will still exist in the game. Let's be honest, when does GW prefer for their customers to play with/buy less models?

The focus on skirmish will be to make the game more accessible for new players, but there will be ways to play with lots of models. It might be rules that adapt at different point levels, or it might be a supplement like apocalypse, but I would be very surprised if large scale combat disappears. And I think large scale combat will likely have regiment rules (and I hope lower point values have rules for forming into regiments too)

I hope you are right.

I am actually hoping for a ruleset nimble enough to accomodate skirmish OR regimental scale. Think Age of Rag'Na'Rok, but ya know, not god awful.

 Haight wrote:

 Bottle wrote:
I think regimental large scale combat will still exist in the game. Let's be honest, when does GW prefer for their customers to play with/buy less models?

The focus on skirmish will be to make the game more accessible for new players, but there will be ways to play with lots of models. It might be rules that adapt at different point levels, or it might be a supplement like apocalypse, but I would be very surprised if large scale combat disappears. And I think large scale combat will likely have regiment rules (and I hope lower point values have rules for forming into regiments too)

I hope you are right.

I am actually hoping for a ruleset nimble enough to accomodate skirmish OR regimental scale. Think Age of Rag'Na'Rok, but ya know, not god awful.

Yes I would love that too! Especially if units could 'break' formation or go from skirmish to ranks. Imagine a block of infantry breaking into skirmish to take a short cut through some Elven ruins and then ranking up again on the otherside. To me, that would be awesome.

 Bottle wrote:
I think regimental large scale combat will still exist in the game. Let's be honest, when does GW prefer for their customers to play with/buy less models?

The focus on skirmish will be to make the game more accessible for new players, but there will be ways to play with lots of models. It might be rules that adapt at different point levels, or it might be a supplement like apocalypse, but I would be very surprised if large scale combat disappears. And I think large scale combat will likely have regiment rules (and I hope lower point values have rules for forming into regiments too)

Even at smaller scales I tend to prefer regimental combat to skirmish, the current WHFB rules just don't scale down well. Most the WHFB games I used to play with my mates were below 40 models per side and I thought it worked quite well. It's only when you get down to less than 20 models a side I think skirmish works better. So I would like a Mordheim like rules system for those really small games.

 Bottle wrote:

 Haight wrote:

 Bottle wrote:
I think regimental large scale combat will still exist in the game. Let's be honest, when does GW prefer for their customers to play with/buy less models?

The focus on skirmish will be to make the game more accessible for new players, but there will be ways to play with lots of models. It might be rules that adapt at different point levels, or it might be a supplement like apocalypse, but I would be very surprised if large scale combat disappears. And I think large scale combat will likely have regiment rules (and I hope lower point values have rules for forming into regiments too)

I hope you are right.

I am actually hoping for a ruleset nimble enough to accomodate skirmish OR regimental scale. Think Age of Rag'Na'Rok, but ya know, not god awful.

Yes I would love that too! Especially if units could 'break' formation or go from skirmish to ranks. Imagine a block of infantry breaking into skirmish to take a short cut through some Elven ruins and then ranking up again on the otherside. To me, that would be awesome.

Yeah that'd be super neat! And like, different formations coudl have different bonuses - skirmish could be like it is in 40K, where a model just has to be within 2-3" of another one to be in formation, but in any kind of array. -1 shooting at it, but if charged, in that round of combat gets always strikes last.

So much you could do with it IF it was done well and really playtested out.

While I agree that a lower start-up cost, whilst somewhat screwing over veterans, is a good way to get new players, WHFB doesn't need to be a skirmish game like LotR. What it needs to be is more "warband" level, the kind of system where you can pick up a battalion and a character model and have a good-sized army. That's what WHFB has always needed, except that it's always (well, at least since I've been playing) not been balanced until you start to get to points levels in the high thousands. Such a system would also be far easier to scale up to mass battles, which many people - not just veterans - will no doubt want to see returned.

If WHFB is downsizing, it'd be great if the new rulebook came with 6 "warband" sized missions, for armies from the 500-1000pt mark, and hopefully as varied as the 40k missions are, as well as 6 "mass battle" scenarios which'd be similar (if not identical) to the ones we have currently.

Despite being extremely pessimistic (and still skeptical) about the 9th rumours, I'll admit that there is potential for GW to revamp the game, make it more appealing to all players and make it more successful in the long run. To do this though, WHFB have to do it well and do it right. Only time will tell if they can manage that.

PirateRobotNinjaofDeath wrote:

Seriously, where the hell are you guys playing that infantry is such a big deal? Infantry is crap. Infantry is not competitive. If you're having problems with infantry then it's not 8th's fault, it's yours. If anything infantry needs to be helped MORE. Right now the only reason to take them is rank bonuses and steadfast, both of which are basically just delay tactics. They're tarpits, not hammers. And if they are a hammer then any player worth his salt will just chaff them up all game whilst they slaughter the rest of your army.

My hordes of Halberds, Storm vermin, 2 handed wielding marauders and many more beg to differ. You are doing it wrong.

xxvaderxx wrote:

PirateRobotNinjaofDeath wrote:

Seriously, where the hell are you guys playing that infantry is such a big deal? Infantry is crap. Infantry is not competitive. If you're having problems with infantry then it's not 8th's fault, it's yours. If anything infantry needs to be helped MORE. Right now the only reason to take them is rank bonuses and steadfast, both of which are basically just delay tactics. They're tarpits, not hammers. And if they are a hammer then any player worth his salt will just chaff them up all game whilst they slaughter the rest of your army.

My hordes of Halberds, Storm vermin, 2 handed wielding marauders and many more beg to differ. You are doing it wrong.

GW Graveguard + Banner of the barrows + a tomb prince / king also beg to differ

 Shas'O Dorian wrote:

xxvaderxx wrote:

PirateRobotNinjaofDeath wrote:

Seriously, where the hell are you guys playing that infantry is such a big deal? Infantry is crap. Infantry is not competitive. If you're having problems with infantry then it's not 8th's fault, it's yours. If anything infantry needs to be helped MORE. Right now the only reason to take them is rank bonuses and steadfast, both of which are basically just delay tactics. They're tarpits, not hammers. And if they are a hammer then any player worth his salt will just chaff them up all game whilst they slaughter the rest of your army.

My hordes of Halberds, Storm vermin, 2 handed wielding marauders and many more beg to differ. You are doing it wrong.

GW Graveguard + Banner of the barrows + a tomb prince / king also beg to differ

Exactly Hordes of hardish hitting flimsy bodies is how infantry grinds its way to victory. They die in droves sure, but honestly thats what they are there for, who cares.

Maybe I'll get better-looking High Elf line infantry out of 9e?

 AnomanderRake wrote:
Maybe I'll get better-looking High Elf line infantry out of 9e?

What you don't like their current dresses haha. All new models coming out these days are pretty awesome.

Anyway i was having a chat with my local store owner and he seemed pretty certain that only six armies will remain and on round bases. Round bases to me points in the direction of a skirmish type setting, which i will be massively pissed off about.

undead
chaos
elves
dwarves
men + ogres
skaven? or Orcs?

\

So seems like a massive re-write for fantasy, one that if true, will meen it will be very hard to remain positive considering the amount of money we have all put in for massed armies.
Hopefully this guy is totally wrong!

From the last End Times books looks like Skaven + Chaos are one faction and Dwarves either gone or merged with empire if enough are left alive.

 Mr Morden wrote:
From the last End Times books looks like Skaven + Chaos are one faction and Dwarves either gone or merged with empire if enough are left alive.

So if Dwarves are gone...does that mean the White Dwarf magazine will become the 'Black Elf'?

I very much doubt that Dwarves will go. Not only have they recently received a new, strong army book with many new, good kits, but they are a staple race in a fantasy setting. If a new player is looking into WHFB, they are going to expect Dwarves to be playable in some form, and it is not unlikely for one to think go into the game wanting to play the army and assuming they will. GW can't miss out on these new players.

If any armies are dropped, it will be the ones that are less recognisable: Lizardman, Skaven and Beastmen (though the latter two are probably safe - Skaven have their own End Times book and Beastmen can be combined with other chaos forces) and also Bretonnia, since there's already a human faction in the Empire.

Stay strong, Lizardmen folks. Let this dude bolster your spirits!

More like

I watched that for way too long. Also, for some reason, I totally agree with you now.