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.

 insaniak wrote:

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?

I think it was in one of the 5th Edition books, to explain the immersion. Writen as unit fireing arrows are not 10 but hundreds of arrows and the time between phases and rounds models doing nothing are like several hours were messenagers move around and units awaiting orders

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.

Dunno. You tell why they have provenly made things actually cheaper. I have cheaper than I have had in years in my main GW game as GW has been making it cheaper and cheaper and keeps doing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Cronch wrote:
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.

So on that logic if they make new box that has 2xmodels of old box they charge up 2x the price...which is provenly false.

 kodos wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

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?

I think it was in one of the 5th Edition books, to explain the immersion. Writen as unit fireing arrows are not 10 but hundreds of arrows and the time between phases and rounds models doing nothing are like several hours were messenagers move around and units awaiting orders

I totally remember reading something like this in a Fantasy rulebook, maybe for 6th or 7th. But maybe is the Mandela Effect in action.

 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.

The problem is that "Skirmish" can be the size of the encounter (small = Skirmish, large = battle, eg: Gettysburg started as a skirmish but developed into a full scale battle over the first day)
or the type of the formation, skirmishing units VS ranked up units, usually meaning that Skirmish are units in lose formation or no formation at all

Skirmish games usually have a low amount of models and are more focused on the basic model types with the big stuff being off the table support
For Example Infinity, or Malifaux

Larger games are called Mass-Battle games or Command/Platoon/Division Level games.

Individual Model basing/mechanics are usually seen as a 1:1 scale (model to real soldiers) while everything with unit bases is seen as 1:X
(exceptions are with smaller models, as 15 or 6mm can be a 1:1 scale but because it is easier to move/handle the models units bases and mechanics are used)

Rank & File would be a game with fixed units in blocks/bases, and while it can have less models than a Skirmish game, it is usually scaled that 1 unit/block/base represents a higher number of real soldiers, making it always a bigger Battle instead of a smaller Encounter

 Yodhrin wrote:
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.

Flames of War uses a 1:1 scale in 15mm is a Mass Battle game not an R&F game, while most Napolonics in 15mm would be an R&F Battle game, is the units still have a scale of 1:20, then there are SciFi games with single based models that uses Flank/Rare mechanics for units and a 1:1 scale which then would be still a Skirmish game

Just because something is using Ranks and Flanks does not necesarrily make it a Rank & File game

So 40k, same as AoS, WM/H, or Warhammer would be something like a Mass-Skirmish, Mass-Battle or Platoon-Level games as something in between a Skirmish and a Battle with Skirmish-Game rules but small Battle size, that is focused on individual Heros and Monsters instead of the basic (Rank & File) units

 kodos wrote:

I think it was in one of the 5th Edition books, to explain the immersion. Writen as unit fireing arrows are not 10 but hundreds of arrows and the time between phases and rounds models doing nothing are like several hours were messenagers move around and units awaiting orders

Multiple shots being represented by a single die roll is not the same thing as single models representing hundreds, though...

insaniak wrote:

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.

It's in the 5th edition Battle Book (in the section about campain rules IIRC). Something about needing to play in a parking lot if ranges and model counts were scaled realistically.
I'm at work so I don't have access to the book currently.

tneva82 wrote: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.

Wasn't a misinterpretation.
4th Edition had the Hydra Sword only being able to target models in base-to-base with the wielder.
5th Edtition had no such restriction. Each hit was D6 hits.
I managed 22 hits with a Blood Dragon Vampire once

the hydra sword was a staple on my chaos lord. That and his dragon. That model by itself could wipe your entire army by itself (and often did).

I literally just gave up the Ghost that this would ever happen after Adepticon. I had a feeling it was coming, but figured if it didn’t happen there, my feeling was just gas. Anyway, I moved on from GW. AOS just doesn’t do it for me.

It’ll be interesting to see where this goes. Hope SOMETHING comes out before 3 years. Hope to hear the plans much earlier, such as will this use older models, or will the be remaking the old world from scratch (my guess).

I always wanted to play WFB in the old days, but the hard core tourney style and multiple editions put me off. I’m hoping they bring the game back to earlier editions where it was more narrative wargame, less tourney style like the days of Bloodbath at Orcs Drift, etc.

Interested in seeking JG what happens to the background as well as far as how they avoid painting themselves into a corner with Chaos again.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh, and I really don’t care if the figures have square or round bases. Don’t care if it’s ranked or open. Just make it FUN.

Even though it says “old” in the title, it’s not. The real old world is dead and gone. No way around that. From here on it’ll always be the new old world.

 Arnizipal wrote:

insaniak wrote:

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.

It's in the 5th edition Battle Book (in the section about campain rules IIRC). Something about needing to play in a parking lot if ranges and model counts were scaled realistically.
I'm at work so I don't have access to the book currently.

tneva82 wrote: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.

Wasn't a misinterpretation.
4th Edition had the Hydra Sword only being able to target models in base-to-base with the wielder.
5th Edtition had no such restriction. Each hit was D6 hits.
I managed 22 hits with a Blood Dragon Vampire once

It was clarified in WD, can't remember what issue but reasonably 200-something, that if a weapon multiplied hits the multiples could only be allocated to a single model.

Genuine question, do people expect WHFB r&F style game to have the simplicity of AOS/40k?

You already have AOS/40k to get that easy simple rules fix. Why want another clone of those ?

 Argive wrote:
Genuine question, do people expect WHFB r&F style game to have the simplicity of AOS/40k?

You already have AOS/40k to get that easy simple rules fix. Why want another clone of those ?

At the moment I don't have any expectations about warhammer the old world, there just isn't enough information. Based on the time frame, it looks like they're making new rules and models

I like complexity if it can be justified in the background.

For example, I disliked the multipart mounted monster models receiving one single statline in 8th edition.
Not because it didn't work well, but becuase it felt too simplistic.
I want heroes knocked of their steeds (or vice versa) and creatures going berserk after having lost their riders

tneva82 wrote:

Cronch wrote:
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.

So on that logic if they make new box that has 2xmodels of old box they charge up 2x the price...which is provenly false.

I...don't really know how you came from that statement to your "EVERYTHING IS ALWAYS 2X MORE EXPENSIVE", but sure.

insaniak wrote:

 kodos wrote:

I think it was in one of the 5th Edition books, to explain the immersion. Writen as unit fireing arrows are not 10 but hundreds of arrows and the time between phases and rounds models doing nothing are like several hours were messenagers move around and units awaiting orders

Multiple shots being represented by a single die roll is not the same thing as single models representing hundreds, though...

Arnizipal wrote:

insaniak wrote:

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.

It's in the 5th edition Battle Book (in the section about campain rules IIRC). Something about needing to play in a parking lot if ranges and model counts were scaled realistically.
I'm at work so I don't have access to the book currently.

5th Edition rulebook, Appendix 2 (page 111, German version)

Scale
It would be extremely impractical, if not impossible, to bring regiments made up of hundreds of models into play.
Battles in Warhammer are usually with fewer models than there would be in reality. The ten or twenty models of a unit are equal to one hundred or two hundred warriors, and therefore also move like larger units.
As both players use in size reduced units, the outcome is the same anyway


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Argive wrote:
Genuine question, do people expect WHFB r&F style game to have the simplicity of AOS/40k?
You already have AOS/40k to get that easy simple rules fix. Why want another clone of those ?

Simple rules do not mean that the game is less complex but can be less bloated and complicated
Not that GW ever managed to remove bloated and complicate rules by adding simplicity to the core

But than there is a difference between a simple R&F game and a simple Skirmish game

So the question would be more like, why would one want to have simple rules for R&F Warhammer when there is Kings of War already doing it

Whoa! How did anyone get from my post that I was some kind of masochist who would feel no joy in life until WHFB came back. I thought I had a very pragmatic approach. Play KOW until WHFB came out, and then switch back to WHFB if it wasn't a train wreck. As for why not play WHFB 8th now without support or updates? Because none of my friends are. Support constantly adds cool and new things to the game, which I think most people like. Aside from a group of grognards who continue to play the same game at 60 that they did at 15, I think most people gravitate to the new new. Also, the ecosystem of gaming says that people play what is being played in their LGS, and that is just a fact. In that space GW destroys Mantic, it's not even close. Game stores support the best selling games/models, and the others can run a marathon.

I think simple rules mean exactly that.. I don't think you can have complexity and depth achieved through simplicity... Is it bloat to have a couple additional mechanics/rules which may or may not do much and be situational? Maybe..Maybe not.. That depends on personal preference and over arching execution. I personaly like rules in mechanics. Terrain, facing or wot have you..The more the merrier. So naturally that sort of game takes a while to play/learn. We found this this with new board games where the first session is always about learning to play. If it takes 3-4 hours to learn a modern board game(they get fairly complex these days), why would it be reasonable to assume it take the same amount of time to learn a table top game involing 10s-100s of models one has spent 100's of hours painting is beyond me.

Its only bloat when there is very little core rules mechanics, and you end up with unit X that has 15 abilities/traits/special rules that mean core rules xyz don't apply in certain phases, apply partially in others, there are x amount of modifiers and you re-roll everything which you have to take into account. (looking at you 40k)

To me personally formations mean battles... Lack of formations mean skirmish.. If WHFB is technically a "skirmish battle R&F simulator" so be it All I know Is I fell in love with 6th ed WHFB after taking a break from 40k way back and none of the other things I looked at since filled that spot. Hail Ceasar being the top contender because Im all about the romans/antiquity history. But I also want my High Elf Prince riding into battle on a massive dragon side by side with his footmen


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Arnizipal wrote:
I like complexity if it can be justified in the background.

For example, I disliked the multipart mounted monster models receiving one single statline in 8th edition.
Not because it didn't work well, but becuase it felt too simplistic.
I want heroes knocked of their steeds (or vice versa) and creatures going berserk after having lost their riders

This guy gets it!

If I have painstainkly converted built and painted a bad ass dragon and have a whole bunch of fluff imagined for, My dragon Faraam the Breaker of armies should damn well be mad/fly off greatly upset when his Long time friend and rider gets killed and knocked off his back by some goblin arrows.

 Argive wrote:

I think simple rules mean exactly that.. I don't think you can have complexity and depth achieved through simplicity... Is it bloat to have a couple additional mechanics/rules which may or may not do much and be situational? Maybe..Maybe not.. That depends on personal preference and over arching execution. I personaly like rules in mechanics. Terrain, facing or wot have you..The more the merrier. So naturally that sort of game takes a while to play/learn. We found this this with new board games where the first session is always about learning to play. If it takes 3-4 hours to learn a modern board game(they get fairly complex these days), why would it be reasonable to assume it take the same amount of time to learn a table top game involing 10s-100s of models one has spent 100's of hours painting is beyond me.

this maybe also a cultural thing, but there is a difference between complicated and complex
simple rules are the opposite of complicated rules but not the opposite of complex rules (and also not the opposite of detailed rules or a lot of rules)

learning the rules should never take more time than reading them twice, while learning to play the game can take forever (= simple rules but a complex game)

if it takes more time learning the rules than actually learning to play the game, the rules are complicated but not complex.

In other words, easy to learn but hard to master
not the other way around and GW games often have the problem that they pretend to be complex by having complicated rules that not everyone understand at first, while still are not very detailed and don't deliver a complex game


PS: we once took the 7th Edi 40k book and wrote our own version to make it easier for beginner/newcomers. Cleaned up the language, included Erratas and we ended up with a little more than 1/3 of the pages from the original book

some people think that complicated language and a lot of rules are guaranty for a complex and detailed game while this often only results in a game that just needs much more time to learn the rules while being very boring to play as soon as you understand everything

Yeah, but the reason they made dragons and riders a single stat line is that in the event of a cannon ball smacking into a dragon the rider would get punched off the mount and the dragon would separately be gravely injured. It wasn't a good experience to spend all that time painting up your dragon to have to take him off the table on turn 1.

 Argive wrote:
Genuine question, do people expect WHFB r&F style game to have the simplicity of AOS/40k?

You already have AOS/40k to get that easy simple rules fix. Why want another clone of those ?

That's two very different questions.

Yes, I expect a returned WHFB to be similar in complexity to the current AoS/40K rules.

I don't want that... what I want is something closer to 5th edition. It's just what I expect will happen.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 kodos wrote:

5th Edition rulebook, Appendix 2 (page 111, German version)

Scale
It would be extremely impractical, if not impossible, to bring regiments made up of hundreds of models into play.
Battles in Warhammer are usually with fewer models than there would be in reality. The ten or twenty models of a unit are equal to one hundred or two hundred warriors, and therefore also move like larger units.
As both players use in size reduced units, the outcome is the same anyway

Interesting. Although in true GW style, that section also starts out by pointing out that a single model represents a single warrior.

 insaniak wrote:

Interesting. Although in true GW style, that section also starts out by pointing out that a single model represents a single warrior.

Yeah, so that a single character model is still a single warrior character or hero, but units are scaled down (and as soon as you remove the heroes the scaling starts working as intended as 100 Elves VS 100 Goblins is the same result as with 10 Elves VS 10 Goblins, it is just that 1 Hero VS 100 Goblins will end up different than 1 Hero VS 10 Goblins)

 kodos wrote:

 Argive wrote:

I think simple rules mean exactly that.. I don't think you can have complexity and depth achieved through simplicity... Is it bloat to have a couple additional mechanics/rules which may or may not do much and be situational? Maybe..Maybe not.. That depends on personal preference and over arching execution. I personaly like rules in mechanics. Terrain, facing or wot have you..The more the merrier. So naturally that sort of game takes a while to play/learn. We found this this with new board games where the first session is always about learning to play. If it takes 3-4 hours to learn a modern board game(they get fairly complex these days), why would it be reasonable to assume it take the same amount of time to learn a table top game involing 10s-100s of models one has spent 100's of hours painting is beyond me.

this maybe also a cultural thing, but there is a difference between complicated and complex
simple rules are the opposite of complicated rules but not the opposite of complex rules (and also not the opposite of detailed rules or a lot of rules)

learning the rules should never take more time than reading them twice, while learning to play the game can take forever (= simple rules but a complex game)

if it takes more time learning the rules than actually learning to play the game, the rules are complicated but not complex.

In other words, easy to learn but hard to master
not the other way around and GW games often have the problem that they pretend to be complex by having complicated rules that not everyone understand at first, while still are not very detailed and don't deliver a complex game


PS: we once took the 7th Edi 40k book and wrote our own version to make it easier for beginner/newcomers. Cleaned up the language, included Erratas and we ended up with a little more than 1/3 of the pages from the original book

some people think that complicated language and a lot of rules are guaranty for a complex and detailed game while this often only results in a game that just needs much more time to learn the rules while being very boring to play as soon as you understand everything

I think anything table-top grade that you can learn quickly by reading twice will not be hard to master... As you take away mechanics and moving parts you take away more and more variables.
Obviously that's just my opinion.

Its like HH rules compared to 40k 8th rules … I don't see why this new thing would be anything similar to either AOS or 40k rules design if is meant to be the HH of AOS era..

 Argive wrote:

I think anything table-top grade that you can learn quickly by reading twice will not be hard to master... As you take away mechanics and moving parts you take away more and more variables.
Obviously that's just my opinion.

why to you think that an easy to understand and easy to remember mechanics mean that you need to take mechanics away.
a rider and a dragon having their own profile and the dragon will keep on fighting with a Leadership test each turn, is not harder to understand or remember than a single profile and removing the whole model

it just gets hard to remember if the rules are inconsistent or contrary, like some monsters have combined profiles while others do not and some need an LD test while others need a Strength test and the third have their own chart for random dice rolls, or monsters only have combined profiles if fighting specific other monsters
than the rules are going to be complicated without adding any complexity or detail to the game


I have never seen a complicated ruleset that took me hours or even days to really learn the rules, turning out as a more complex demanding game
While there are a lot of games around with easy to learn rules that are hard to master on the table (looking at X-Wing, it is much easier to learn and remember the rules than to learn to move your units the right way)

Whatever this ends up being, it won’t be what already was, and won’t be entirely new.

Classic GW, classic...

Kill off a fan favourite fantasy setting of 30 odd years.
Release a god awful USA styled fantasy game, with the promise that your armies can be used in it.
Kill off two factons/miniature ranges from the get go.
Slowly kill off availability of the WFB kits.
Annouce a re-release of the original after it being dead for 4 years.
GW fandom reacts with joy.

In 3 years time I'm sure we'll see that this has made GW a lot of money and is a financial success.

Sometimes I think GW fans deserve what they get, this stunt honestly reminds me of the battered wife syndrome.

Personally I am glad I jumped over to KoW during 8th edition... not only is it a great system, it also allows me near unlimited scope for models. I'm toying with the idea of buy a Napleonic force and using it as a Kingdom of Men list. I can use nearly every Historical range of miniatures, and any of the wonderful fantasy stuff we are seeing now. Rank & File fantasy is well and truly going through a great period, it'd be a same for people to miss out on this as they are too transfixed by GW's PR.

 Arnizipal wrote:
I like complexity if it can be justified in the background.

For example, I disliked the multipart mounted monster models receiving one single statline in 8th edition.
Not because it didn't work well, but becuase it felt too simplistic.
I want heroes knocked of their steeds (or vice versa) and creatures going berserk after having lost their riders

I always hated the monster and rider being separate. Riding a horse gave you a better save and you couldn't be sniped, but for some reason riding a monster worked completely differently. Silly and arbitrary. Not to mention that you needed to have a separate model for the unmounted rider (and if you want hardcore WYSIWYG for the riderless mount as well) and usually no such thing was provided in the kit.

Playing LOTR, dismounting opponents is just too fun. But thats why mounted heroes come in two versions.

 kodos wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

Interesting. Although in true GW style, that section also starts out by pointing out that a single model represents a single warrior.

Yeah, so that a single character model is still a single warrior character or hero, but units are scaled down (and as soon as you remove the heroes the scaling starts working as intended as 100 Elves VS 100 Goblins is the same result as with 10 Elves VS 10 Goblins, it is just that 1 Hero VS 100 Goblins will end up different than 1 Hero VS 10 Goblins)

I've never actually met anyone who approached the game in that way.

 kodos wrote:


5th Edition rulebook, Appendix 2 (page 111, German version)

Scale
It would be extremely impractical, if not impossible, to bring regiments made up of hundreds of models into play.
Battles in Warhammer are usually with fewer models than there would be in reality. The ten or twenty models of a unit are equal to one hundred or two hundred warriors, and therefore also move like larger units.
As both players use in size reduced units, the outcome is the same anyway

Makes sense. People that think a Rn'F game like WFB is played at a 1 to 1 ratio have to hand wave away the fact that their battles are little more than skirmishes with what amounts to a small town militia sized force.

The leader of the Empire takes to the field with 150 fighters and fights the great invasion of 100 elves. Not so massed battle anymore in that case.

I think it's important to remember that whatever this game ends up being, it's going to be a Forgeworld project. And let's be honest, enthusiasm for their designs just sort of keeps dropping. 30k is a shadow of what it was at its height. Necromunda has been a rules editing mess. Prices for their starter boxes are now at 175 GBP.

Do people really think that Forgeworld could roll out a proper version of warhammer set in the old world with all the armies you might want being playable and fun on day 1? It's likely going to launch with a expensive plastic starter with a small amount of miniature for two armies. Then they'll be inundated with emails and comments like "where are my high elves?" "what about my dwarves?" and maybe they'll release get you buy lists for some of them, but they'll be barely (or not at all) playtested.

Then if you're lucky your army might get a tiny bit of stuff in the next release. Maybe it'll be in a full colour super expensive hardcover rulebook but then be all forgeworld resin.

This isn't going to be what people are hoping for. If you don't already play a Forgeworld game, remeber that the same team who hasn't been able to convince you to try their current offerings is going to be working on this game. If you do play a Forgeworld game, then you're very aware of the phoned in approach their garbage tier studio takes these days when it comes to rules and making sure the factions get their releases in a timely fashion.

 Crimson wrote:

 Arnizipal wrote:
I like complexity if it can be justified in the background.

For example, I disliked the multipart mounted monster models receiving one single statline in 8th edition.
Not because it didn't work well, but becuase it felt too simplistic.
I want heroes knocked of their steeds (or vice versa) and creatures going berserk after having lost their riders

I always hated the monster and rider being separate. Riding a horse gave you a better save and you couldn't be sniped, but for some reason riding a monster worked completely differently. Silly and arbitrary. Not to mention that you needed to have a separate model for the unmounted rider (and if you want hardcore WYSIWYG for the riderless mount as well) and usually no such thing was provided in the kit.

Luckily WHFB was not WYSIWG and the regular model sufficed just fine for both situations.