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.

 madmitch411 wrote:

Edit: It also says this for every End Times book. Great job invalidating all of our purchases for the past few months, GW.

Does that really surprise you? GW did that all the time. Their fans are still buying the "new rules" no matter what - because it's made by GW, so it must be awesome.

It was quite obvious to me when the End Times series came that it would not last long. Warhammer Battle is dead - long live Age of Sigmar!

That's what they were saying from the very beginning.

So, to me, all that "9th edition" is just nonsense. It's a new game, otherwise why change the name? Better to accept the fact Warhammer Battle is buried deep in the earth - like Epic, Mordheim, Bloodbowl, Warmaster, War of the Ring....

Hastings on Warseer:

Yep...... I think this guy is actually NOT talking entirely about the AoS box/set but in some instances the Rules AFTERWARDS...

....... consists of three books (what I have heard too)

- full fledged rule system; no skirmish game - meaning not restricted to low miniature count: as I understand it AoS WILL be skirmish level, the later rules bring about massed battle rules)

- there are unit cards for every (as far as I can see) old unit. I was told there would be separate rules to allow fielding of old units, however I thought these were included in the kits

Setting
game is set on world Regalia that is connected with other young realms through portals of the old ones. Young realms are realms that were populated by the old creators and were guided on similar historical paths. Exactly what I was told

...... Fast travel is possible through a number of ..... circles that allows mages to open portal from one to another ..... There were a long period of peace curated by the Exoatl (Old Ones) ...... Exactly what I was told

The Skaven arrived on their own on Regalia and are basically the same. Exactly what I was told

The Soul Mill is a huge machinery ...... to feed on the power of dead spirits..... Exactly what I was told

- Lizardmen are not gone. There is a race called Servants of the Exoatl - I was not aware of the "servants of" part but the name Exoatl was mentioned to me.

The way I understand it AoS is a standalone skirmish game, the 'rules' included with it as my pastry based friend has already said multiple times are minimal. I then understand that the Rulebooks that come later deal with expanding the base game of AoS in every way in which you would imagine a GW product to do, upscale the battles, further the fluff, detail the world(s) & protaganists, lots of artwork etc.

I think rather than anyone being "wrong" there are 2 separate products here that are being merged into 1 topic.

Of course, the parts I am hearing about could just be rumour reverb from the post on Dakka???

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Thanks, KK. With all this 9E nonsense, I am so nostalgic, I am now thinking to eBay a 7E hardback rulebook for posterity.

I hear there's another company in Notingham making a grimdark fantasy battle game.

I even hear rumors they care about the quality of their games.

Too bad their miniatures look like gak sculpted by a half-blind one-armed halfwit.

I kind of agree, although their undead are, in my opinion, better than GW's. Besides, the good thing about them is they don't mind what you play the game with, and a human army made up of Perry stuff is not only cheaper than GW's, its also to my eyes much better looking. Same with others, I'd take the avatars of war stuff over the competing GW ones as well, and with kow2 there is a ruleset you can use, even in tournaments, to play it with.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

Too bad their miniatures look like gak sculpted by a half-blind one-armed halfwit.

No one told you to use their minis.
why has no one a problem with alternative minis for warhammer, but declines other rules just because he don't like how their minis look like?

therefore, GW makes the best rules but worst miniatures, because most players (I know) are looking for alternative minis but keep playing their games
(if it would be the other way around, everyone would GW minis with alternative rules)

If it makes you feel any better, I just spent 300 euro filling gaps in my GW fantasy armies, which I intend to play KOW with.

Wonderwolf wrote:

 monders wrote:


I really should know better. This isn't my first rodeo. I'm still heart broken over the distinct lack of Blood Bowl re-make.

Which, to be fair, wasn't a rumour from a nobody, but a Hastings & Harry rumour until it was shot down by Blood of Kittens.

See, I just don't know WHO to believe!

 monders wrote:


See, I just don't know WHO to believe!

No idea, but Hastings is bringing back the "multiple-games"-rumour with a vengeance

75hastings69 wrote:No.

As far as I understand AoS is a skirmish level game, pretty light on rules, a stand alone entry level game. What comes after is different, full ruleset for bigger battles with all the fluff, artwork etc.

So there may be a different game after AoS after all? AoS 2.0: the big battles?

75hastings69 wrote:No.

As far as I understand AoS is a skirmish level game, pretty light on rules, a stand alone entry level game. What comes after is different, full ruleset for bigger battles with all the fluff, artwork etc.

Something doesn't add up here.

If AoS is an entry level skirmish game and the full game is yet to come, then why did GW pull all of WHFB books of the shelves already?

Maybe "Age of Sigmar" is the new game that will replace WFB, but its first release is a boxed set with cut-down ruleset?

 Slinky wrote:
Maybe "Age of Sigmar" is the new game that will replace WFB, but its first release is a boxed set with cut-down ruleset?

Maybe, but that's not what Hastings said. He's explicit on it being, quote, "a stand alone entry level game."

PhantomViper wrote:

75hastings69 wrote:No.

As far as I understand AoS is a skirmish level game, pretty light on rules, a stand alone entry level game. What comes after is different, full ruleset for bigger battles with all the fluff, artwork etc.

Something doesn't add up here.

If AoS is an entry level skirmish game and the full game is yet to come, then why did GW pull all of WHFB books of the shelves already?

Because contrary to what their eyes and figures are physically telling them (and what common business practice advises) GW believe that pulling product without advertising a replacement keeps or actually increases their market share as the best miniatures manufacturer in the world.

There may well be two versions of AoS, a replacement for Warhammer could be one, but GW is a miniature making company, not a games company, obviously this means that leaving your customers in the lurch totally means they wont go over to competitors.

PhantomViper wrote:

75hastings69 wrote:No.

As far as I understand AoS is a skirmish level game, pretty light on rules, a stand alone entry level game. What comes after is different, full ruleset for bigger battles with all the fluff, artwork etc.

Something doesn't add up here.

If AoS is an entry level skirmish game and the full game is yet to come, then why did GW pull all of WHFB books of the shelves already?

I've actually been thinking about this a lot since I firmly believe that AoS will end up being a specialist game and not the replacement for Warhammer. For better or worse, Warhammer is an important brand for GW and they wouldn't just abandon it. Clearly, AoS is not a replacement for Warhammer. One of the few things that we retailers have been told is that AoS is not Warhammer 9. There are two ways to take that. One (that most seem to be assuming) is that it's not Warhammer 9 because it's radically different and they're not calling it Warhammer anymore because of this. The other way to take it is more literally. "This is not Warhammer 9" because that game isn't done yet and we're not ready to release it.

They won't abandon the Warhammer game brand. It's too important to their bottom line. This is a separate game.

So why did they pull all of the other books?

I think that they are actually doing a long transition time for the retailers. Clearly the new Warhammer game is going to be a break from the old. If they spring this on the retailers with 2 weeks notice (as they like to do) and then say "suck it! you can keep all of that useless product" they are going to lose a lot of retailers. I can tell you that I would use that as an opportunity to completely reevaluate their products value to my store. So doing this gives us a heads up. We can return the product and get some credit for their upcoming products, we can hold on to it and gamble that fans are going to want the books in the future. In any case, this gives us retailers more time to prepare for the new Warhammer.

If I were a betting man, I would say that we're going to get the details on Warhammer 9 (or at least a teaser) within two weeks of the release of AoS.

I have to say, I hate this gak. I hate it with a passion. Why GW thinks that this communication strategy is a good idea is completely beyond me.

PhantomViper wrote:

75hastings69 wrote:No.

As far as I understand AoS is a skirmish level game, pretty light on rules, a stand alone entry level game. What comes after is different, full ruleset for bigger battles with all the fluff, artwork etc.

Something doesn't add up here.

If AoS is an entry level skirmish game and the full game is yet to come, then why did GW pull all of WHFB books of the shelves already?

Presumably because whatever follows Age of Sigmar builds on the new rules established in the skirmish level game. From what we've heard AoS rules are not compatible with the current army books.

Talk of Warhammer being important to GW is of course true, but maybe that's why they're re-branding their stores from "Games Workshop" to "Warhammer".

That keeps their delicious IP rights, whilst AoS allows them a clean start in a fantasy setting chock full of mmmmm, yeaaahhh, more delicious IP!

 monders wrote:
Talk of Warhammer being important to GW is of course true, but maybe that's why they're re-branding their stores from "Games Workshop" to "Warhammer".

That keeps their delicious IP rights, whilst AoS allows them a clean start in a fantasy setting chock full of mmmmm, yeaaahhh, more delicious IP!

What I really don't understand is- the CHS court case basically set the case for third party miniatures that can even specify compatibility with GW's products (it was always legal before but GW managed to sue anyone else into submission before the issue came up).

What the hell is the point of all of this IP wrangling? They do all this stuff, rename all of the things, and where does that get them? Is Kirby just so angry that he's having this done in a fit of rage while the designers keep saying "Sir, the other companies can still leech off of us!"

 Accolade wrote:

What the hell is the point of all of this IP rangling? They do all this stuff, rename all of the things, and where does that get them? Is Kirby just so angry that he's having this done in a fit of rage while the designers keep saying "Sir, the other companies can still leech off of us!"

Dunno, but I am still waiting for Taser International to send em a cease & desist for the AdMech using Taser (tm) branded electroshock weapons instead of martian-made 41st century stuff. Sweet tears they would be.

 Accolade wrote:
What I really don't understand is- the CHS court case basically set the case for third party miniatures that can even specify compatibility with GW's products (it was always legal before but GW managed to sue anyone else into submission before the issue came up).

What the hell is the point of all of this IP wrangling? They do all this stuff, rename all of the things, and where does that get them? Is Kirby just so angry that he's having this done in a fit of rage while the designers keep saying "Sir, the other companies can still leech off of us!"

If I recall correctly, the CHS case was mostly about the physical representation of certain IP concepts. The infamous SM shoulder pad would be a good example.

Words now. Words are easier to protect, assuming they're sufficiently unique.

Then again, if the new game is set on Regalia of all places, it's not exactly going to improve GW's IP standing

Age of Sigmar is just the box name, no? Like Island of Blood or Battle for Skull Pass.

I honestly think this was a way for them to name all the traditional fantasy creatures as their own "unique" creations for IP purposes... i think the lawsuits about them trying to enforce generic concepts have all been failures (if not legally, at least in the eyes of the public: spacemarine/CH to name a few of the more noticable ones). it seems that anything that they couldnt defend as absolutely their creation, was rebranded so they could.

we dont have vampires in fantasy... we have nechrarchs...
we dont have orcs in fantasy... we have nigons...
we dont have lizardmen in fantasy, we have servents of xotltltl...

Kiwidru wrote:
I honestly think this was a way for them to name all the traditional fantasy creatures as their own "unique" creations for IP purposes... i think the lawsuits about them trying to enforce generic concepts have all been failures (if not legally, at least in the eyes of the public: spacemarine/CH to name a few of the more noticable ones). it seems that anything that they couldnt defend as absolutely their creation, was rebranded so they could.

we dont have vampires in fantasy... we have nechrarchs...
we dont have orcs in fantasy... we have nigons...
we dont have lizardmen in fantasy, we have servents of xotltltl...

But then is the point just to pretend they have unique concepts? Because third party companies can just write "compatible with fantasy necrarchs army" and there's not a damn thing GW can do about it.

Really, the smartest thing GW did was eliminate any units that didn't have kits (although I'd rather they'd just made the kits rather than cutting the units...), that should have knocked out most of the issue. The re-naming stuff just feels like they're over-doing it or trying to compensate for looking like fething morons during the CHS court case.

The only thing I'd add to the Blood Bowl rumours, is there have been a number of suggestions that Blood Bowl was incoming, but was pulled from the schedule due to the Dread Fleet sales.
Which if accurate is a shocking decision by GW, as its the equivalent of stopping a Dark Eldar release because new Lizardmen kits did not sell that well.

Sadly its the kind of suggestion only some one in GW HQ could ever confirm, so very hard to collaborate, and prove on a rumour thread hence why I've only seen it come up on occasion and by a short list of folks.

That is urgently off topic mind, but just raising it in case folks where not aware.

 His Master's Voice wrote:

 Accolade wrote:
What I really don't understand is- the CHS court case basically set the case for third party miniatures that can even specify compatibility with GW's products (it was always legal before but GW managed to sue anyone else into submission before the issue came up).

What the hell is the point of all of this IP wrangling? They do all this stuff, rename all of the things, and where does that get them? Is Kirby just so angry that he's having this done in a fit of rage while the designers keep saying "Sir, the other companies can still leech off of us!"

If I recall correctly, the CHS case was mostly about the physical representation of certain IP concepts. The infamous SM shoulder pad would be a good example.

Words now. Words are easier to protect, assuming they're sufficiently unique.

Then again, if the new game is set on Regalia of all places, it's not exactly going to improve GW's IP standing

Actually, it was pretty clear that bits companies can explicitly advertise their products about being compatible with GW kits. So if a kit is compatible with a GW trademarked item they can use that trademarked name in their description (i.e. "This product is compatible with Games Workshop (tm) Space Marines (tm) from the Tactical Marines (tm) kits.")

 His Master's Voice wrote:

 Accolade wrote:
What I really don't understand is- the CHS court case basically set the case for third party miniatures that can even specify compatibility with GW's products (it was always legal before but GW managed to sue anyone else into submission before the issue came up).

What the hell is the point of all of this IP wrangling? They do all this stuff, rename all of the things, and where does that get them? Is Kirby just so angry that he's having this done in a fit of rage while the designers keep saying "Sir, the other companies can still leech off of us!"

If I recall correctly, the CHS case was mostly about the physical representation of certain IP concepts. The infamous SM shoulder pad would be a good example.

Words now. Words are easier to protect, assuming they're sufficiently unique.

Then again, if the new game is set on Regalia of all places, it's not exactly going to improve GW's IP standing

That's the thing though, the words themselves might be easier to protect, but that still doesn't prevent other companies from using them. You couldn't make a clone of a unit called "Waaghkin Assaulters" and just call them "Warhammer Waaghkin Assaulters", but you can make a slight visual variation and sell them as "Orkkin Maulers, suitable proxies for Waaghkin Assaulters in Games Workshop's Warhammer game", and you can still make heads, weapons etc and sell them as "Compatible with Games Workshop Waaghkin Assaulters miniatures" etc. GW seem to think slapping a Trademarkable name on something will kill the aftermarket and alternatives industry, but it won't, because you're still allowed to use the Trademarked names in ways that will see your products right up at the top of Google when someone searches "Waaghkin Assaulters".

What the CHS case firmly established is that there's absolutely nothing GW can do about such uses, so all the renaming and rebranding seems to be for the benefit of the not-really-paying-attention shareholders, to give them the impression that the company is acting to shore up their IPs.

Kiwidru wrote:

we dont have vampires in fantasy... we have nechrarchs...
we dont have orcs in fantasy... we have nigons...
we dont have lizardmen in fantasy, we have servents of xotltltl...

To stay correct to the rumor that was floated a few pages back, Orcs are Waaaghkin. The Nigmos are some new "tall, slender priest caste."

IMHO, it is hard for me to believe this rumor is entirely true. Looking at the rules of it, it seems like a lot of things were pulled from different games. Salvage said a lot of it seemed to be pulled from Of Gods and Monsters (IIRC). Also, I don't see them moving away from the 1-10 numbering system to a 1-6, lowest number being better for skills system. A friend that plays Infinity says they use the lowest number is better system, but that is using a d20, not a d6, which leaves more room for rolls to be balanced.

It is hard to believe they depart that much from 40k and current WHFB stats system and going with something entirely different, especially if it is just lifting it from another game system.

The storyline seemed plausible enough from a GW standpoint (for better or for worse). However, it is hard for me to believe that if a company is trying to do what it can to protect it's IP by coming up with original names, designs and concepts, that they would double-down on making at least the initial release so focused on humans in a roman-to-medieval time period, which is probably the least original type of model you can create.

But, who knows. It will be interesting to see. The fact that some of the main rumormongers are quite silent is telling on this one. Surprised there haven't been any sort of leaks of book images with the release less than a month away now. The initial run has to be printed and at the distribution points and getting ready to be sent out to stores at this point, as it ships three weeks from today.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Actually, it was pretty clear that bits companies can explicitly advertise their products about being compatible with GW kits. So if a kit is compatible with a GW trademarked item they can use that trademarked name in their description (i.e. "This product is compatible with Games Workshop (tm) Space Marines (tm) from the Tactical Marines (tm) kits.")

Which is why I think they're going for the easy targets now. The new rumoured dwarf name, what was it? Davikarr? That's a good piece of IP. Good in the sense that it's easy to protect. It's not like GW having Dwarfs as an army was causing them to lose money. But having Davikarr as an army actually increases their IP portfolio value. Or will, if the game catches on.

Then again, Yodhrin might be right and it's nothing more than lackeys brown nosing upper management and shareholders. You can never tell with GW.

I usually believe Hastings, but I think he might be going for a fall here.

HobbyBox wrote:
Looking at the rules of it, it seems like a lot of things were pulled from different games. Salvage said a lot of it seemed to be pulled from Of Gods and Monsters (IIRC).

Even more looks to be pulled from the LotR SBG, including the alternating activation and compacted statline. Which is both plausible, as LotR is GW's game, but suspicious given the wishlisting of 9E using LotR / WotR elements over the last months.

- Salvage

 Morathi's Darkest Sin wrote:
The only thing I'd add to the Blood Bowl rumours, is there have been a number of suggestions that Blood Bowl was incoming, but was pulled from the schedule due to the Dread Fleet sales.

Which never was an explanation that worked. Hastings & co. started the Blood Bowl rumours in early/mid-2013, nearly two years after DreadFleet failed.

If they'd decided to scrap the game due to DreadFleet, they'd done it in 2011, maybe early 2012. Starting a rumour in 2013 and blaming DreadFleet when the rumour turns out wrong was just desperate obfuscation.

And TastyTaste, whatever else his qualities as a rumour-monger are (not so bad actually, checking the rumour-tracker), also said months before the predicted fall 2013 release for BloodBowl, that it never existed.

 His Master's Voice wrote:

Which is why I think they're going for the easy targets now. The new rumoured dwarf name, what was it? Davikarr? That's a good piece of IP. Good in the sense that it's easy to protect. It's not like GW having Dwarfs as an army was causing them to lose money. But having Davikarr as an army actually increases their IP portfolio value. Or will, if the game catches on.

However, the CHS case showed that other companies can still use the term Davikarr in a description "i.e. Fully compatible with Games Workshop Davikarr", and their IP doesn't get much added to them unless they differ enough that people don't just regard them as dwarves with a strange name.

Just like the Astra Militarum didn't make any difference to the Imperial Guard.

I think it is fair to say Hastings had legit info about a new Blood Bowl version and its box content - but the game got canceled.

There is ton of that stuff - like the Formula Waaagh Project

http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?383619-Lost-GW-projects!