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.

as the question states what do you think 9th edition will be like?

Nobody has any idea. The rumours are wild & often contradictory.

 Scorpionov wrote:
as the question states what do you think 9th edition will be like?

Balanced.

Unbound will be a option. Allies will be an option. Balance will be just as bad if not worse. Poorly written rules is guaranteed. More random tables to roll on.

 Chute82 wrote:
Unbound will be a option. Allies will be an option. Balance will be just as bad if not worse. Poorly written rules is guaranteed. More random tables to roll on.

The second you add allies you remove any and all semblance of balance. it's just not feasible tro balance even 6+ books against each other AND against combinations fo them

Litcheur wrote:

Balanced.

Snort

I dunno what ninth will be like. Not hopeful, though. I'm waiting on other avenues for me fantasy 'warband'-size skirmish fix.

If you take 40k 7th and the recent 40k codex releases (looking at you, Eldar) as a rough measurement, then it will be the worst iteration of WHFB in all times, with Unbound on top of the poo pie.

GW nowadays isn't even trying to make coherent or balanced rules anymore. They randomly throw stuff together and quickly shoot it out the sales department.

I have a couple of ideas, premised on the notion that End Times was a dumping ground for rule changes that "didn't quite make the cut" for 9th, either because they were too complex/time consuming or too unbalanced.

1) Monsters: I think ridden monsters will use monster cav rules. The combined-profile ridden monsters of the End Times tell me that GW is aware that ridden monsters are crap this edition and need a boost in survivability. However I think that combined profiles was an idea they brainstormed and realized was WAY too powerful, but threw into ET on a lark as a way to create really powerful characters in the theme of the campaign.

I'm guessing we will see monster cav rules, with combined wounds but not combined armour.

2) Magic: something along the lines of Khaine magic, but not quite as powerful or overwhelming. So no Khaine super spells. I expect that the big crazy spells will be reigned in a bit as well, and that we'll see more emphasis on recasting little spells.

3) Allies: based on GW's direction in WH40K, I think allies are a near certainty. Helps them cross-sell their ranges between players. Much easier to start a new army when you can incorporate it with your current one.

I'm guessing too that this "faction" rumour has something to do with these alliances. We will likely see consolidated books, with "subfaction" books that modify these in some way.

So, for instance, perhaps dwarfs are part of a "Humans" faction, manning warmachines, gyros, and with one unit in special. But no slayers, limited special characters, etc.

Want to run just dwarfs? Then grab the dwarf supplement. You get slayers in core, a different army-wide special rule, and extra character / special character options.

Similar with Undead: noble vampires and wights in the main armybook, with special supplements for Nehekhara and Strigoi armies.

Forgot to add GW is going to cut content out the army books just to resell it to us as supplements.

 Chute82 wrote:
Forgot to add GW is going to cut content out the army books just to resell it to us as supplements.

This. A thousand times this.

I'd expect to see a lot of 40k rules bleed into 9th after a lot of 8th ed rules found their way into 6th ed 40k for no reason *cough*randomterrain*cough*.

I have very little hope for 9th. I'm picturing random tables, less structured army construction (to encourage people to buy more stuff) including balance destroying allies systems. I'm picturing more of the stuff that has made 40k so craptastic over the past couple of editions coming in to WHFB. Things like attempts at simplifications which end up making stuff more complicated, poorly thought out rules, interactions that the designers probably never even considered and overall poor rule writing.

I'm trying to remember the last time GW actually wrote a good game. Mordheim, Necromunda, Epic, Space Hulk, Warmaster... we're talking 15+ years ago for all those (I know Space Hulk was released more recently, but it is the same core game from over 20 years ago). So I don't actually have a lot of hope for WHFB 9th.

What he said. This is GW's Age Of Dreadfleet.

Dreadfleet wasn't actually that bad. I enjoyed the game. IMO it needed 2 things to be a success.

1.) More event cards. The small deck got repetitive quickly

2.) Lower price. Nobody wants to pay that much for a boardgame besides the serious boardgame collectors and even then they expect a game and an expansion for that much.

 Shas'O Dorian wrote:

1.) More event cards. The small deck got repetitive quickly

More randomness, just what modern GW games need.

In a one-off board game like dread fleet, or a silly game mode like triumph & treachery, yes. Randomness can be quite fun.

But in their main lines where a big draw is being able to play in competitive events to determine who is the best tactician, not so much.

Some people like to bitch about any randomness and if you don't want any randomness in your game go play chess. The issue is finding the right balance and for WHFB & 40k GW have strayed to far into the random rolls for everything side.

Randomness works better in smaller games I think. In games like WHFB or 40k where you have a monolithic range of miniatures, players spend hundreds of dollars collecting an army, hundreds of hours assembling/painting an army then your typical game takes a whole afternoon, you want to minimise the randomness to the point where it has little effect on the overall outcome of the game.

In a game of maybe 1 or 2 dozen models total for both sides which only cost ~$100, where people don't spend 43% their life assembling just their own half of the game and the game takes maybe 20 to 60 minutes per mission/battle/whatever... then randomness can be a more acceptable way to add interest to a game.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Randomness works better in smaller games I think. In games like WHFB or 40k where you have a monolithic range of miniatures, players spend hundreds of dollars collecting an army, hundreds of hours assembling/painting an army then your typical game takes a whole afternoon, you want to minimise the randomness to the point where it has little effect on the overall outcome of the game.

In a game of maybe 1 or 2 dozen models total for both sides which only cost ~$100, where people don't spend 43% their life assembling just their own half of the game and the game takes maybe 20 to 60 minutes per mission/battle/whatever... then randomness can be a more acceptable way to add interest to a game.

Well, I'm sure actual generals would like to get rid of randomness too. Problem is, no matter how good your tactics are, sometimes things align a certain way that time where it doesn't happen the right way. Or sometimes communication doesn't get to one unit. Or people get scared and react irrationally. There needs to be some element of randomness in a wargame, otherwise it isn't really a wargame anymore.

I will agree, there needs to be a balance, it can't all just be random. I think WHFB at times can be too random, but a good player will do whatever he/she can to eliminate the effect randomness has on their game.

HobbyBox wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Randomness works better in smaller games I think. In games like WHFB or 40k where you have a monolithic range of miniatures, players spend hundreds of dollars collecting an army, hundreds of hours assembling/painting an army then your typical game takes a whole afternoon, you want to minimise the randomness to the point where it has little effect on the overall outcome of the game.

In a game of maybe 1 or 2 dozen models total for both sides which only cost ~$100, where people don't spend 43% their life assembling just their own half of the game and the game takes maybe 20 to 60 minutes per mission/battle/whatever... then randomness can be a more acceptable way to add interest to a game.

Well, I'm sure actual generals would like to get rid of randomness too. Problem is, no matter how good your tactics are, sometimes things align a certain way that time where it doesn't happen the right way. Or sometimes communication doesn't get to one unit. Or people get scared and react irrationally. There needs to be some element of randomness in a wargame, otherwise it isn't really a wargame anymore.

I will agree, there needs to be a balance, it can't all just be random. I think WHFB at times can be too random, but a good player will do whatever he/she can to eliminate the effect randomness has on their game.

Of course real war is very random.... but then wargames aren't real war. Real war is not balanced, generals can't bring what they *want* they instead work with what that actually *have*, a real general doesn't hover a kilometre above the battlefield whispering orders to individual troops like an omnipotent god.

A warGAME needs to know where to draw the line between being a game vs being a simulation. Randomness is one of those lines that, IMO, needs to be limited to small scale stuff that over the course of a game will typically average out (a few poor armour saves here, a few good leadership tests there, etc) not things that go a long way to determining the game in one or two rolls (like a magic spell that can wipe out units or random charge distances that can completely destroy an entire battleplan). And especially they shouldn't be completely stupid things that make no sense to be random in the first place (a general that has a different random specialisation each battle or a wizard who randomly forgets and remembers spells from one battle to the next).

On the other hand I think randomness can play a larger part in a board game where the players aren't as heavily invested in a game. Where if a bad roll destroys your game you can just laugh it off and play another game in the time it takes just to unpack your typical 40k/WHFB army let alone play a single turn of the actual game

Some randomness is ok.

Specially when it aims to portray things quite difficult to get into a wargame like WHFB (i.e. artillery shots scattering, due to a mixture of wind conditions, bad calculations from the crew, etc).

But it becomes an issue when it makes a good player fail a perfectly planned charge because he rolls double 1. As long as you're throwing dice around there will always be a strong random element to the game, but I consider it goes beyond limits when the game is more decided by luck and random factors than skill and experience. That's why I dislike random charges. And random tables as getaways for lazy game design.

HobbyBox wrote:
I will agree, there needs to be a balance, it can't all just be random. I think WHFB at times can be too random, but a good player will do whatever he/she can to eliminate the effect randomness has on their game.

Agreed with that, and with Korinov, so I'll expand your line a bit to include the game: a good set of rules will allow a good player to do whatever they can to eliminate the effect randomness has on their game. A kind of adjustable in-game balance of risk vs. reward (the good R's) where small, seemingly 'bland' mechanics can build up to help you reduce the risk of a bad dice roll or some other bad result or situation. Perhaps going a bit further than 'hit 'em in the flank' or 'make sure you're close enough to nullify the random number added on to your charge distance'. (Which almost seems like a no-brainer to me.)
You've got a few formations in Epic cleverly set up to provide not only supporting fire but a crossfire. A good enough example in itself; but rather than passing the initiative to your opponent - who might activate the target formation to escape, or activate another formation to distract from or provide support to the target - will you try to retain the initiative (a dice roll that becomes more difficult with each retention) to activate the formation that will perform the actual assault, catching your opponent on the hop? A similar situation in Warmaster or Hail Caesar, etc. - will you issue a brigade order to have several units perform the same action, or risk a blunder with several order rolls to have them perform different actions? Which one will best create the situation you want to set up, complete with supporting attacks and so on? Or a lesser known game like Mayhem, where a single unit performing several actions in a turn will use up more and more of your army's action point pool with each action. Are that particular unit's qualities the best chance of achieving your short-term goal, or are you better off activating a 'fresh' unit that'll only use up one or two points?

Compared to... just random things, for the sake of being random, that can't be chipped away at. (at least not without more difficulty) Plasma guns that might blow up, nothing you can do about it. Screaming bells that might kill your guys as much or more than the other side, nothing you can do about it. Dreadfleet wind that changes every turn, mucking up any multi-turn plans you might have, nothing you can do about it. They inadjustable balance of rails (as in, 'playing on') vs. randomness: being more subject to the whims of the game, with less opportunity for control. The bad R's.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:On the other hand I think randomness can play a larger part in a board game where the players aren't as heavily invested in a game. Where if a bad roll destroys your game you can just laugh it off and play another game in the time it takes just to unpack your typical 40k/WHFB army let alone play a single turn of the actual game

I get what you're saying, and maybe it's a subjective failing on my part, but I struggle to understand when I hear about people taking that attitude with 40K and WHFB. Like you said earlier, someone goes to all the trouble of shelling out, assembling, painting, maybe converting a buttload of minis, and then guffaws as the subsequent game ends up as an exercise in rails and randomness, and removing minis. Can't wrap me head round it. You might as well spend that time painstakingly putting your minis together for a specific in-game role, just to have that game be Snakes 'n' Ladders or Ludo.

 Chute82 wrote:
Forgot to add GW is going to cut content out the army books just to resell it to us as supplements.

Since you seem to hate GW and Warhammer so much maybe you should stop wasting time posting in Warhammer forums and sell all your stuff.

We get it! You are like all the other GW hate-trolls which pounce around the internet. Gw this blah blah, gw that blah blah. DONT PLAY THEIR GAMES IF YOU DONT WANT TOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


I personally am looking forward to a new addition. I like allies in 40k and very much enjoy it. I hope the core game rules don't change too much as I think they are solid. I would like to see monsters get better, and canons get worse but that's about it.

Actually I thought random charges made quite a bit of sense.

From ground level, it's actually QUITE HARD to judge just how level and easy to traverse the ground is. And all it takes is one rock, gopher-hole, or even a mere mudpuddle to cause one person/mount to stumble and throw a whole charging unit into confusion.

Yes, ON THE AVERAGE you can expect a M+7" charge (8.5" for swiftstride). But sometimes the ground is better than it looks... and sometimes it's much much worse. Only way to find out is to go through and find out.

 Icelord wrote:

 Chute82 wrote:
Forgot to add GW is going to cut content out the army books just to resell it to us as supplements.

Since you seem to hate GW and Warhammer so much maybe you should stop wasting time posting in Warhammer forums and sell all your stuff.

We get it! You are like all the other GW hate-trolls which pounce around the internet. Gw this blah blah, gw that blah blah. DONT PLAY THEIR GAMES IF YOU DONT WANT TOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


I personally am looking forward to a new addition. I like allies in 40k and very much enjoy it. I hope the core game rules don't change too much as I think they are solid. I would like to see monsters get better, and canons get worse but that's about it.

Welcome to the Internet, where opinions different from yours may exist and be expressed.

 Icelord wrote:

 Chute82 wrote:
Forgot to add GW is going to cut content out the army books just to resell it to us as supplements.

Since you seem to hate GW and Warhammer so much maybe you should stop wasting time posting in Warhammer forums and sell all your stuff.

We get it! You are like all the other GW hate-trolls which pounce around the internet. Gw this blah blah, gw that blah blah. DONT PLAY THEIR GAMES IF YOU DONT WANT TOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Instead of going in a shallow fanboy rant, why don't you tell us how this didn't happen in 40k?

 Icelord wrote:

 Chute82 wrote:
Forgot to add GW is going to cut content out the army books just to resell it to us as supplements.

Since you seem to hate GW and Warhammer so much maybe you should stop wasting time posting in Warhammer forums and sell all your stuff.

We get it! You are like all the other GW hate-trolls which pounce around the internet. Gw this blah blah, gw that blah blah. DONT PLAY THEIR GAMES IF YOU DONT WANT TOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


I personally am looking forward to a new addition. I like allies in 40k and very much enjoy it. I hope the core game rules don't change too much as I think they are solid. I would like to see monsters get better, and canons get worse but that's about it.

Never said I hate warhammer. Just don't like the direction the company is taking. GW has done more to destroy the games I loved then help promote. Who looks forward to paying $85 for a rulebook, $50 for a army book, and another $50 on a supplement just to make your army playable? Just tired of getting short changed by GW and expect more for my money.