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.

It seems that you cannot discuss new WHFB in the context of the current times without comparing KOW and WHFB. I used to play WHFB a lot, but when they killed the game I, like many others, switched to KOW. Both systems have their positives and negatives, but if I'm being honest, if WHFB were still in production today and having new editions come out, I would have never switched to KOW. KOW positives: Clean rules, freedom to base models on scenic bases, and I suppose, inexpensive models. KOW negatives: Non-sensical rules (being able to disengage from an opponent who just charged you and charge another opponent), everything is vanilla, and Mantic models (with the possible exception of some of the new stuff) are terrible, Background was an afterthought (Mantica!). Units do not degrade through taking casualties. Also, probably most importantly, .player interaction in a given players turn is almost zero. WHFB negatives: Models used as wound counters, scenic bases are not a thing, some rules could be complex or too powerful, Heroes and Magic tended to dominate the game. WHFB positives: GW models are overall the best in the industry, Psychology rules were far more interesting (it was fun to break a unit and run it down). Casting Magic was far more fun. Units degrade during the game, so even chaff units can do some damage. Both players get to fight in the fight phase, so your beautifully painted unit gets do something before it is removed. Deeply developed background, every army felt different, had it's own unique spells, magic items, heroes. Nothing was vanilla. Most people take chocolate or strawberry over vanilla.

I have discovered that most people who play KOW do so for one of three reasons 1) It's the only RF game they know, having entered the hobby after WHFB was discontinued. 2) They were former WHFB players that didn't want to continue playing WHFB if it was not going to get continuous updates and new content, and their friends all switched to KOW (I am in this category), and 3) They are extremely bitter over the betrayal by GW of their favorite hobby by killing WHFB (like the guy in the video that lit his Dark Elf army on fire), and they have vowed never to support GW again (I know a few of those).

I for one am not bitter towards GW because I understand why they did it. I will simply continue to play KOW without buying any of their figures until WHFB comes back, and then I will switch to that (assuming it is not a train wreck, but I think they have learned a few things since the AOS release). And I am not knocking KOW players. They have the right to like what they like, I'm just saying if I had a choice, I'd play WHFB.

overtyrant wrote:
I always felt KoW would've been more suitable at Warmaster scale, then the not removal of individual 'bases' wouldn't of been as bad

Individual removal actually freaks me out when I think of the paint jobs. ;-)

Seeing lots of comments about KoW and scenic regiments.

I think that’s definitely something GW could adopt. People tended to do it anyway, so why not ‘sanction’ it at a rules level?

Good examples I’ve seen in the past from display level armies include a couple of Trolls packing out a Night Gobbo regiment.

And as I suggested elsewhere, why not ‘Easy To Build’ style kits for rear ranks? Let’s them go all out on the front two ranks, for extra sparkly command section. And offers us Nerds a more cost effective way to put together fair sized regiments.

Many options on the table really.

I think that’s definitely something GW could adopt. People tended to do it anyway, so why not ‘sanction’ it at a rules level?

At this point we need to introduce a reality check. This is GW we're talking about. The only thing that changed since Kirby days is they are better at distracting people's attention from the prices. Why would they want to sell fewer/cheaper stuff? This is not a tear-eyed reunion of old lovers, this is a corporate entity coming to realization there might be a chance to sell the same people new models again.

Cronch wrote:

I think that’s definitely something GW could adopt. People tended to do it anyway, so why not ‘sanction’ it at a rules level?

At this point we need to introduce a reality check. This is GW we're talking about. The only thing that changed since Kirby days is they are better at distracting people's attention from the prices. Why would they want to sell fewer/cheaper stuff? This is not a tear-eyed reunion of old lovers, this is a corporate entity coming to realization there might be a chance to sell the same people new models again.

Well, that`s a grim outlook. i won`t list all the things i thinks, that have changed, but when it comes to prices - many boxes have come out with double the amount of models with a 50% price increase. And other companies maybe cheaper, even some minis are better, but in reality you have to choose one, You like Malifaux/Infinity models better? Good luck getting the same amount of minis cheaper, than what GW offers. OH! you want the numbers? Have fun scraping off horrendous mold lines and painting horrible minis of mantic.

And blaming the biggest company in the industry for trying to make money of what fans have been crying about ever since the WFB apocalypse - that`s just plain nonsence.

Cronch wrote:

I think that’s definitely something GW could adopt. People tended to do it anyway, so why not ‘sanction’ it at a rules level?

At this point we need to introduce a reality check. This is GW we're talking about. The only thing that changed since Kirby days is they are better at distracting people's attention from the prices. Why would they want to sell fewer/cheaper stuff? This is not a tear-eyed reunion of old lovers, this is a corporate entity coming to realization there might be a chance to sell the same people new models again.

I politely disagree.

GW are in the market to make money. And to make the most money, you need to price it about right.

Previously, complaints about WHFB pricing, where what, 60%+ of your purchases were just fancy wound markers rung true. Much as I like my big units (three units of 18 Ogres were ace in 8th Ed), if they offered me a cheaper way to do it, I’d be more likely to invest in say, Skaven, Empire or Greenskins, which traditionally required a higher buy-in price, just to get regiments that could function in the game.

If it makes financial sense to GW to do ETB rank fillers? Then I’ll expect they’ll do so. Better to take (numbers for description only) £60 from 20 players, than £100 from 10, no? Especially if it helps a new system get off the ground.

Did I blame them anywhere? I just stated that people thinking GW will somehow not charge the absolute maximum they think they can get away with is unrealistic. If they would sell you unit fillers, they'd price them to make sure you spend the same amount as if they sold you equivalent number of models. Realistically, if they go for "WFB but new" way of reboot, the best one can hope for is they bring down the needed/practical units sizes back to 6th ed 30, not 50+ from 8th.

Better to take (numbers for description only) £60 from 20 players, than £100 from 10, no?

I can think of very few instances of that thinking in GW. The only ones off the top of my head was when they repacked basic Stormcast units from 5 to 10 per box at 50% discount cause it was clear they didn't sell at that price and the fyreslayer SC! box for the same reasons (the price of the individual kits stayed the same I think) . They had the chance to repack DoK witch elves at 20 per box, but they kept them at 10 and the same price as before.

They also showed steady price increase trend with their recent big boxes. The truly baffling price of Blood of Phoenix, the higher than usual cost of Feast of Bones (where 50% of the box were old ogre kits), and the eye-watering Necromunda box they are releasing do not show a tendency to go for high sales at lower profit per unit.

Their pricing already changed in between

First Edition AoS, with the first new factions, they tried to keep the old pricing, which was also a reason why it failed (Fireslayer never were a popular army)

But they went a step back to a still expensive but more reasonable price point for larger units

Smellingsalts wrote:

I for one am not bitter towards GW because I understand why they did it. I will simply continue to play KOW without buying any of their figures until WHFB comes back, and then I will switch to that (assuming it is not a train wreck, but I think they have learned a few things since the AOS release). And I am not knocking KOW players. They have the right to like what they like, I'm just saying if I had a choice, I'd play WHFB.

There are 8th editions of WFB out in the wild. An unofficial 9th edition in constant review. A passionate OldHammer community. Dozens of different tournament documents for lots of editions to clean them up and balance them.

Why in the name of God can you not play WFB if that is what you want to do?

Having to play a 'fully supported' game I will never understand. 99% of war-games have no miniature support at all. Most miniature companies have no 'official' rule-set.

Not to mention, if you want to play WHFB with unit fillers, there really isn't anything to stop you. When I started playing, in about 2007 or so, I recall seeing people do it. If your opponent objects, don't play them. As long as you have enough "loose" models to accurately represent you unit's current model count, there really is no rules reason why it doesn't work.

It seems to me that when people want to talk about what this, or that, or the other system is, but all they really tend say is what it isn't. That's not the same conversation, at all. It's also not very productive, in reality.

OK, I'll say this and nothing more, because this kind of semantic guff is pointless.

Rank & flank refers to the style of play, whether or not it has individual casualty removal or not has nothing to do with that. To argue that because most R&F games don't use Mechanic A, a game that does use Mechanic A cannot be R&F is sheer, unadulterated, unmitigated farce. Most ice creams don't have raisins in them, that doesn't mean rum & raisin is not ice cream.

People keep referring to WHF as "skirmish", but this is the same problem as "army" - you're using one definition of the word to argue a point with people using a completely different definition. To I would wager the vast majority of non-Historical wargamers(and most of them too), "skirmish" means games that aren't based on ranked formations. It has nothing to do with the size of the battle, as evidenced by the fact that people will describe games as "small skirmish" or "platoon skirmish" or "company+ skirmish", which would be completely redundant if "skirmish" was about the size of the forces.

 Yodhrin wrote:
OK, I'll say this and nothing more, because this kind of semantic guff is pointless.

Rank & flank refers to the style of play, whether or not it has individual casualty removal or not has nothing to do with that. To argue that because most R&F games don't use Mechanic A, a game that does use Mechanic A cannot be R&F is sheer, unadulterated, unmitigated farce. Most ice creams don't have raisins in them, that doesn't mean rum & raisin is not ice cream.

People keep referring to WHF as "skirmish", but this is the same problem as "army" - you're using one definition of the word to argue a point with people using a completely different definition. To I would wager the vast majority of non-Historical wargamers(and most of them too), "skirmish" means games that aren't based on ranked formations. It has nothing to do with the size of the battle, as evidenced by the fact that people will describe games as "small skirmish" or "platoon skirmish" or "company+ skirmish", which would be completely redundant if "skirmish" was about the size of the forces.

A company sized battle is a skirmish. Id play it with Song of Drums or another skirmish system. Unplayable with an Rn'F system without heavy modification. Battalion with each company a block is about as low as Rn'F games go. Even that is very small level to be playing at.

niall78 wrote:

Smellingsalts wrote:

I for one am not bitter towards GW because I understand why they did it. I will simply continue to play KOW without buying any of their figures until WHFB comes back, and then I will switch to that (assuming it is not a train wreck, but I think they have learned a few things since the AOS release). And I am not knocking KOW players. They have the right to like what they like, I'm just saying if I had a choice, I'd play WHFB.

There are 8th editions of WFB out in the wild. An unofficial 9th edition in constant review. A passionate OldHammer community. Dozens of different tournament documents for lots of editions to clean them up and balance them.

Why in the name of God can you not play WFB if that is what you want to do?

Having to play a 'fully supported' game I will never understand. 99% of war-games have no miniature support at all. Most miniature companies have no 'official' rule-set.

Because there is a large, dare I say majority, number of people who will only ever play with A) the current and B) officially supported ruleset of a given game. This is especially true with GW products, wherein people might gripe and moan about an edition or a system, but still play it because... well, what exactly is the alternative when there's more than enough people - again, a majority - who for whatever reason will only ever touch what is official? I don't get the mindset either, but unfortunately, the harsh reality is wargaming is a niche and being a niche within a niche is rarely feasible.

GW could take an axe to 8th tomorrow and release a 'new' edition that was literally a copy/paste of 7th. Oh for sure the forums would explode with disdain for it, but most people would still grumble and play it, with a number of people saying "If you don't like 9th, just play 8th bro."

This is especially true of the UK where LFGS are a lot less prominent compared to the US, depending on where you are of course, and more people end up playing at official GW stores where obviously you can only play what's current.

 Arbitrator wrote:

niall78 wrote:

Smellingsalts wrote:

I for one am not bitter towards GW because I understand why they did it. I will simply continue to play KOW without buying any of their figures until WHFB comes back, and then I will switch to that (assuming it is not a train wreck, but I think they have learned a few things since the AOS release). And I am not knocking KOW players. They have the right to like what they like, I'm just saying if I had a choice, I'd play WHFB.

There are 8th editions of WFB out in the wild. An unofficial 9th edition in constant review. A passionate OldHammer community. Dozens of different tournament documents for lots of editions to clean them up and balance them.

Why in the name of God can you not play WFB if that is what you want to do?

Having to play a 'fully supported' game I will never understand. 99% of war-games have no miniature support at all. Most miniature companies have no 'official' rule-set.

Because there is a large, dare I say majority, number of people who will only ever play with A) the current and B) officially supported ruleset of a given game. This is especially true with GW products, wherein people might gripe and moan about an edition or a system, but still play it because... well, what exactly is the alternative when there's more than enough people - again, a majority - who for whatever reason will only ever touch what is official? I don't get the mindset either, but unfortunately, the harsh reality is wargaming is a niche and being a niche within a niche is rarely feasible.

GW could take an axe to 8th tomorrow and release a 'new' edition that was literally a copy/paste of 7th. Oh for sure the forums would explode with disdain for it, but most people would still grumble and play it, with a number of people saying "If you don't like 9th, just play 8th bro."

This is especially true of the UK where LFGS are a lot less prominent compared to the US, depending on where you are of course, and more people end up playing at official GW stores where obviously you can only play what's current.

I get the whole GW ecosystem thing. Even though I've always been jelious of the club wargaming scene in the UK which seems well developed.

The poster I was replying to though was playing KoW and would switch in the morning to a new GW WFB supported edition. Like why not just play it now? They aren't playing KoW in the nearest GW store.

Smellingsalts wrote:

I for one am not bitter towards GW because I understand why they did it. I will simply continue to play KOW without buying any of their figures until WHFB comes back, and then I will switch to that (assuming it is not a train wreck, but I think they have learned a few things since the AOS release). And I am not knocking KOW players. They have the right to like what they like, I'm just saying if I had a choice, I'd play WHFB.

And this is exactly why GW produced a teaser for something possibly 3 years off.
They've actually stopped you from enjoying a hobby for 3 years of your life, on some deluded idea that the grass is greener...

 Gimgamgoo wrote:

Smellingsalts wrote:

I for one am not bitter towards GW because I understand why they did it. I will simply continue to play KOW without buying any of their figures until WHFB comes back, and then I will switch to that (assuming it is not a train wreck, but I think they have learned a few things since the AOS release). And I am not knocking KOW players. They have the right to like what they like, I'm just saying if I had a choice, I'd play WHFB.

And this is exactly why GW produced a teaser for something possibly 3 years off.
They've actually stopped you from enjoying a hobby for 3 years of your life, on some deluded idea that the grass is greener...

That has to be the most ridiculous accusation so far. GW sucked joy out of hobby of some poor soul (FOR 3 YEARS) by announcing a game. Smellingsalts is a victim now, is he, Gomgamgoo?

Some wild and wonderful ideas being thrown about...

I really don't see why it can't/won't be just a copy and paste of an earlier WHFB system... It's the one thing that makes the most sense to me, and fits in their HH /40k Comparison and would be the safest bet from a risk perspective. It existed before and people spent money on it.

I guess they have to call it "Warhammer old world" so it doesn't get confused with "Warhammer age of sigmar"
The much-beloved "Warhammer" logo died sadly, and I can see why they'd have to go with a new logo, it's essentially a re-brand.


I also don't understand why are people so against this being a WHFB reboot with R&F playstyle and individual models all... Heres why I think it will be a WHFB reboot ala 6th ed:

1. There are plenty mentioned alternatives available out there for people who don't like that style of game (KOW, Conquest, ASOIF, historicals)
2. But. there aren't alternatives for people that do want their individual dudes models are there? Don't ask me why, yes it does seem masochistic to want to build to rank & paint xxx amount of dudes...And no it won't be quick.. That's fine by a lot of people.. I think the target market will be fine with that and spend a lot of £££ on their army long term project. Therefore a ££ barrier to entry isn't something that's relevant. I don't think this product will be aimed at a 9 year old timmy who has £40 to spend for his birthday or pocket money... Or someone who wants to blast £300 on a new meta army to kick some names and take some ass... Little timmy will have 40k/AOS worth toys to pick from. Building, ranking up a lot of same looking dudes is not for lil timmy... But I don't think they would go back to 50 dudes per regiment. A Box worth of 20-30+ dudes is the sweet spot.
3. As per the FW comparison - Correct me if I'm wrong but last I looked HH uses a previous 40k system with vehicle facing, armour values and templates no? Despite being told repeatedly thats too much admin and nobody wants it in their games.. well somebody wants it clearly because they are buying it so its either aesthetic for some, or rules, or both or something in between. SO it makes sense this would be similar.
4. WHFB existed as a game and although not as successful as its 40k counterpart in terms of raw sales.. it still made money right? So its a tried and tested system and as per point 2 there is a market for it, as nothing is still filling it adequately. Low-risk additional revenue stream, sounds like good business sense.
5. AOS can keep being AOS and doing its thing... WHFB can be WHFB and do its thing... Why do the two need to interact? Does it matter which system sells models as long as models get sold?

 Gimgamgoo wrote:

Smellingsalts wrote:

I for one am not bitter towards GW because I understand why they did it. I will simply continue to play KOW without buying any of their figures until WHFB comes back, and then I will switch to that (assuming it is not a train wreck, but I think they have learned a few things since the AOS release). And I am not knocking KOW players. They have the right to like what they like, I'm just saying if I had a choice, I'd play WHFB.

And this is exactly why GW produced a teaser for something possibly 3 years off.
They've actually stopped you from enjoying a hobby for 3 years of your life, on some deluded idea that the grass is greener...

Mate.

21 pages of discussion about WHFB returning.

That’s not a delusion. That’s a plan in action.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

 Gimgamgoo wrote:

Smellingsalts wrote:

I for one am not bitter towards GW because I understand why they did it. I will simply continue to play KOW without buying any of their figures until WHFB comes back, and then I will switch to that (assuming it is not a train wreck, but I think they have learned a few things since the AOS release). And I am not knocking KOW players. They have the right to like what they like, I'm just saying if I had a choice, I'd play WHFB.

And this is exactly why GW produced a teaser for something possibly 3 years off.
They've actually stopped you from enjoying a hobby for 3 years of your life, on some deluded idea that the grass is greener...

Mate.

21 pages of discussion about WHFB returning.

That’s not a delusion. That’s a plan in action.

WHFB has been announced?

Or there has been 21 pages of speculation about the pictures showing a square base?

niall78 wrote:

WHFB has been announced?

Or there has been 21 pages of speculation about the pictures showing a square base?

That and the accompanying article about it...

 Argive wrote:

I really don't see why it can't/won't be just a copy and paste of an earlier WHFB system...

It might be... but that doesn't seem like something that would take 3+ years (plus however long they've already been working on it prior to the announcement) to produce, and old WHFB simply isn't the style of game that GW are making these days.

Cronch wrote:

Carlovonsexron wrote:
Personally, I would love if the return of the old world is basically just a big "F-you" to Kirby and those who supported his choice to kill off fantasy because it didn't sell enough.

Because the massive turn around in GW finances wasn't enough already.

Kirby is still there in GW, still making money off every single "f-u Kirby" purchase you will make of the "Return to Old World" line. I doubt he will weep hot tears of rage because he gets paid more per share if TOW turns up to be a huge seller.

He still has shares, but several years worth of GW yearly financial reports by Roundtree seem to refer to him, warning people not to listen to him.

 insaniak wrote:

niall78 wrote:

WHFB has been announced?

Or there has been 21 pages of speculation about the pictures showing a square base?

That and the accompanying article about it...

 Argive wrote:

I really don't see why it can't/won't be just a copy and paste of an earlier WHFB system...

It might be... but that doesn't seem like something that would take 3+ years (plus however long they've already been working on it prior to the announcement) to produce, and old WHFB simply isn't the style of game that GW are making these days.

Which is precisely why they will be making it in 3 years time imo... why even bother with square bases if it will be anything but that? HH ruleset is also the type of game GW dont produce these days, and yet it is.

I dont think the dev time of 3 years is to do with rules.. I really dont. Whatever the final ruleset will wind up to be, i think its almost inconsequential to models in GW mind... I think they are starting from zero in terms of minatures to make it a full blooded te-boot/rebrand. Yes some kits are still probably fine, but to use any of those exact same kits would undermine the new brand imo. They need it to feel lile the old world but be all new and shiny.

Maybe its just crazy ramblings.... who knows what GW is really up to.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

 Gimgamgoo wrote:

Smellingsalts wrote:

I for one am not bitter towards GW because I understand why they did it. I will simply continue to play KOW without buying any of their figures until WHFB comes back, and then I will switch to that (assuming it is not a train wreck, but I think they have learned a few things since the AOS release). And I am not knocking KOW players. They have the right to like what they like, I'm just saying if I had a choice, I'd play WHFB.

And this is exactly why GW produced a teaser for something possibly 3 years off.
They've actually stopped you from enjoying a hobby for 3 years of your life, on some deluded idea that the grass is greener...

Mate.

21 pages of discussion about WHFB returning.

That’s not a delusion. That’s a plan in action.

I think what he's saying is, just the announcement may have cost KoW sales at least of their rules, as people now are saying " Hey, I'll just wait for WHFB to come back now ! "

I agree with him, it seems awfully telling to be coming out so soon to their 3rd edition release. I don't think people should put their lives on pause for something that may or may not be years off and may or may not even be the return of WHFB. For all we know could be square based but different kinds of models, or game system based in the old world. We could be arguing over nothing at all that will matter to anyone involved.

If WHFB gets remade in the future, great, I'm in so long as I can use my old stuff, if not, they can go to hades, I'm not buying in after they burned me once already. If its a new type of game in the old world but not WHFB, good for who gets in, still won't be. If it's going to be 3 years before we know anything, play whatever games make you happy.

I really do agree GW is clever with how they make their announcements. This made good logical sense to them especially since they've never been fond of Mantic. Saying it wasn't made to force a reaction is pretty daft as most could imagine what reactions it would stir up. GW isn't the fresh faced cuddly buddy who looks after our best interest. Same as Legends is the kiss of death for many models wrapped in a smile, so to is this announcement done to attack competition and make people think to wait for the " New " WHFB.

Just my theory but to say they only have good and pure and sweet motivations for what they do I think is really making them out to be something they aren't. They aren't our arch enemy either but neither are they our friend. They are a company and want just our money, and will say and do almost anything for that.

My bet is that they will release the game next year. People will be craving for it and they will serve them after they have done the Sisters of Battle treatment, with an article every couple of weeks.

niall78 wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:
OK, I'll say this and nothing more, because this kind of semantic guff is pointless.

Rank & flank refers to the style of play, whether or not it has individual casualty removal or not has nothing to do with that. To argue that because most R&F games don't use Mechanic A, a game that does use Mechanic A cannot be R&F is sheer, unadulterated, unmitigated farce. Most ice creams don't have raisins in them, that doesn't mean rum & raisin is not ice cream.

People keep referring to WHF as "skirmish", but this is the same problem as "army" - you're using one definition of the word to argue a point with people using a completely different definition. To I would wager the vast majority of non-Historical wargamers(and most of them too), "skirmish" means games that aren't based on ranked formations. It has nothing to do with the size of the battle, as evidenced by the fact that people will describe games as "small skirmish" or "platoon skirmish" or "company+ skirmish", which would be completely redundant if "skirmish" was about the size of the forces.

A company sized battle is a skirmish.

Whoosh. That point that just sailed over your head was that's not how most people see the term in this context. We're not at military school, we're on a casual wargaming forum - "skirmish" means something specific here, and it isn't "a company-sized combat scenario". I genuinely can't think of a clearer way to explain this.

Id play it with Song of Drums or another skirmish system. Unplayable with an Rn'F system without heavy modification. Battalion with each company a block is about as low as Rn'F games go. Even that is very small level to be playing at.

Except, you know, Warhammer Fantasy exists, so we know with 100% certainty that you're wrong and a rank & flank system can work at that size. Because it did, for thirty years.

 Yodhrin wrote:

niall78 wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:
OK, I'll say this and nothing more, because this kind of semantic guff is pointless.

Rank & flank refers to the style of play, whether or not it has individual casualty removal or not has nothing to do with that. To argue that because most R&F games don't use Mechanic A, a game that does use Mechanic A cannot be R&F is sheer, unadulterated, unmitigated farce. Most ice creams don't have raisins in them, that doesn't mean rum & raisin is not ice cream.

People keep referring to WHF as "skirmish", but this is the same problem as "army" - you're using one definition of the word to argue a point with people using a completely different definition. To I would wager the vast majority of non-Historical wargamers(and most of them too), "skirmish" means games that aren't based on ranked formations. It has nothing to do with the size of the battle, as evidenced by the fact that people will describe games as "small skirmish" or "platoon skirmish" or "company+ skirmish", which would be completely redundant if "skirmish" was about the size of the forces.

A company sized battle is a skirmish.

Whoosh. That point that just sailed over your head was that's not how most people see the term in this context. We're not at military school, we're on a casual wargaming forum - "skirmish" means something specific here, and it isn't "a company-sized combat scenario". I genuinely can't think of a clearer way to explain this.

Id play it with Song of Drums or another skirmish system. Unplayable with an Rn'F system without heavy modification. Battalion with each company a block is about as low as Rn'F games go. Even that is very small level to be playing at.

Except, you know, Warhammer Fantasy exists, so we know with 100% certainty that you're wrong and a rank & flank system can work at that size. Because it did, for thirty years.

If WFB simulated battles of a hundred or so fighters in a 1 to 1 ratio in your own head so be it. It's your game as well as mine.

In reality what WFB simulated was a mass battle. Each block potentially representing hundreds if not thousands of troops. Just like every other Rn'F block game on the market. That was the whole point of the game from its very inception.

niall78 wrote:
In reality what WFB simulated was a mass battle. Each block potentially representing hundreds if not thousands of troops. Just like every other Rn'F block game on the market. That was the whole point of the game from its very inception.

I've never seen anything in any of the WHFB rulebooks to suggest that this is the case. Got a quote to back it up?

The rules have always, so far as I'm aware, been written with the principle that a model is just that - a single model.

Like in 40k, my Fantasy battles were always the focal point of a bigger battle.

For example, my Grim'gor with his inmortulz with 60 goblins and 50 orcs wasn't the full Waaagh!, but only the units in the centre (Or a flank or on top of a hill or trying to capture a vital fort ) fighting agaisnt Karl Franz and his retinue.

Just like the battle of Blackfire Pass in the Empire 6th edition army book, were the different flanks are described (One comanded by the Mad Count that end ups killed by the orc warboss) and Karl Franz ends up dueling the Greenskin Warboss and being imbued with Sigmar essence to win in the end. You can basically visualize the different parts of the battle as their own Fantasy games.

There was some discussion of this topic waaaaaay back in the early days. And the attitude the studio took at the time was “hey if you want to imagine that each model represents a score or more of fighters, go for it. But if you’re fine not doing that, well that’s cool too.” And that’s as it should be. You can imagine your hobby to be what you’d like.

 Galas wrote:
6th-7th edition is also my favourite. If only they could make cavalry a little less powerfull and infantry a little more usefull without the absurdity of 8th.
5th and herohammer was something I greatly dislike. I know Fantasy has always had a ton of very powerfull heroes but... I prefer an equilibrium between all parts of an army. Greenskins can't really play hero hammer. Your slow orcs die before hitting and goblins are goblins.

Herohammer came lot from a) misplaying rules like hydra sword to suddenly kill like 30 guys with your 6 attack guy(no that's no max 6*6=36 models. That's max of 6 models you kill). Also artificial limits like removing black gem of gnar that was effective tool at discouraging at huge heroes.

Don't cheat with hydra sword and don't ban anti-hero hammer items straight from rules and it became lot less of an issue.