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.

I'd be tempted to pick up some of the dwarf warrior kits when those come out. Always like the look of them.

 Just Tony wrote:
The speculation was a bit fun, but honestly the hyperbole from some posters is even more fun. NOBODY has laid out any "AOS has failed" crap, yet AOS players are already in the thread making sure you know that they think that this won't be Warhammer like you remember it, it won't possibly have square bases, and you better DAMN well know that AOS isn't going anywhere.


Nobody is taking your game, people. We're getting another game. Period. A new release of BFG isn't suddenly going to negate 40K, nor would an actual MOW release negate WFB or AOS.

I'm not sure what this post is on reaction to.
The new game won't be like 8th edition or even 7th edition because despite the evident popularity of both the setting and Rank and File games, neither 7th nor 8th edition were particularly popular.
It is self evident that gw will change the game from 8th. The new game is not called Warhammer Fantasy Battles. The natural question is how gw will change it.

You raise a good point. What WAS the most popular WFB ruleset? If they are going to go back to the board with it like they've been trying to cram 2nd Ed. 40K back into the main game for the last three editions, I'd love to speculate on whether they'd go 5th WFB or 6th WFB.

 highlord tamburlaine wrote:
It baffles me we don't see more cross promotion between the models and the various video games they've made over the years.

All those sweet Lizardmen units from Total War, character models like Kholek Suneater... it just pains me they aren't capitalizing on those. Yet, at least.

Well, obviously, there hasn't been a lot of overlap. AoS doesn't have any major video game titles. Total War and Vermintide are set in the old setting. Although there has been some promotion and coverage via White Dwarf and online, advertising any of it is a bit tricky the way things currently are.
Do you want to defend the Empire against the invading Greenskins, Undead or hordes of Chaos? -Well, do it in this video game, because the Empire doesn't exist anymore, but about half the models are still available depending on what units you like best. Free Company and Knights you say? Ah, that's a shame...
How about this widely acclaimed DLC focussing on the Tomb Kings? -Yeah, about those...
Hmm, Vampire Coast then? Zombie pirates and crabs the size of a house? -Well, we never actually made many models for those. Aside from some characters, there was a nifty set combining zombies and.. oh, never mind, those same Free Company militia...

It sure would have been interesting to see what effect the Total War games might have had on WHFB. But it arrived too late for that. If the new classic Warhammer is released in 3 years time, the last instalment of the Total War trilogy will have been released a good while prior, though quite likely still ongoing with some regular DLC support.. but again, hardly great timing. It will be interesting to see if, probably not at release, but within the years after, GW will be using any unit redesigns, new unit designs or indeed underdeveloped factions that were popular in Total War for their new classic Warhammer game. In that sense, the apparent popularity of the Vampirates and perhaps soon Kislev could well prove to be relevant but I suppose we won't know until half a decade from now, unless they tease things early (but I imagine any previews will focus on things we can expect, and things people most look forward to seeing return. It can't be a coincidence that their own memes feature Tomb Kings several times).

 Gimgamgoo wrote:
I like the way people assume GW will call a hypothetical next version of WHFB version 9.
We all know they'll do an apple and skip 9 and call this Warhammer X.

GW stopped using Edition numbers long ago, they won't call it 9th as there already was no 8th

And we already know the name, The Old World.

 Just Tony wrote:
The speculation was a bit fun, but honestly the hyperbole from some posters is even more fun. NOBODY has laid out any "AOS has failed" crap, yet AOS players are already in the thread making sure you know that they think that this won't be Warhammer like you remember it, it won't possibly have square bases, and you better DAMN well know that AOS isn't going anywhere.

This is their own insecurities really (which is a natural human response so not a criticism). GW have had success with older titles like Blood Bowl, Necromunda etc and hence have now recognised that a significant market share didn't transfer over from WFB to AoS - you can't force people to playing a certain type of game. This was a business decision of GW that was flawed. AoS is fundamentally the same as 40K but in a different setting. Those that preferred ranked battles hence looked elsewhere. GW want to try and capture those people again to increase their market. Any game will stand on its own as to whether it is continued (and will also be partially how expensive they make it). If people continue to buy into AoS then it will continue, if not then it will slowly be reduced in importance.

My greatest concern for WFB is that GW no longer really have excellent game rules designers even if they have fairly decent artistic rule designers (Necromunda, Blood Bowl etc are all based on historic rule sets, AoS and 40K are relatively straightforward). That brings concerns that if they try and completely redo the game then they may make the game worse rather than better.

 Whirlwind wrote:
My greatest concern for WFB is that GW no longer really have excellent game rules designers even if they have fairly decent artistic rule designers (Necromunda, Blood Bowl etc are all based on historic rule sets, AoS and 40K are relatively straightforward). That brings concerns that if they try and completely redo the game then they may make the game worse rather than better.

This is why I think they should base it off an existing edition and dial up/down the minutia that needs to be dialed to get it in as sweet a spot as possible. Once it's in and done, then model support and FOR ASURYAN'S SAKE ADVERTISE AND PROMOTE THE DAMN THING!!!!!!!!!!! That is what GW should do. I have a pet edition, and one that I think needs the least dialing, but I would defer to the popular consensus and play the older edition if they chose something that doesn't check my boxes. I'm blessed that I can do that.

Rules are a potential concern, I think that’s largely what killed WHFB in the first place. Take Aeronautica as an example, they already had a really good rule set and the changes (though mostly minor) for the most part only made it worse.

Which ruleset 40k does HH use for the most part? Id it 3rd/4th?

 Argive wrote:
Which ruleset 40k does HH use for the most part? Id it 3rd/4th?

7th. It used the same rules as 40k when it was released, and didn’t update when 8th came out.

 ImAGeek wrote:

 Argive wrote:
Which ruleset 40k does HH use for the most part? Id it 3rd/4th?

7th. It used the same rules as 40k when it was released,

not really the same, some of the core rules were changed for the FW re-release

 kodos wrote:

 ImAGeek wrote:

 Argive wrote:
Which ruleset 40k does HH use for the most part? Id it 3rd/4th?

7th. It used the same rules as 40k when it was released,

not really the same, some of the core rules were changed for the FW re-release

Nothing massive though. Just little tweaks.

 ImAGeek wrote:

 kodos wrote:

 ImAGeek wrote:

 Argive wrote:
Which ruleset 40k does HH use for the most part? Id it 3rd/4th?

7th. It used the same rules as 40k when it was released,

not really the same, some of the core rules were changed for the FW re-release

Nothing massive though. Just little tweaks.

Yeah, they changed two, maybe even three, minor rules. They had all of the editions of 40K to pick and choose the best rules from...and they didn't. That would be my concern for a new version of WFB, that they won't really do much beyond reprinting the last version and calling it good.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 ImAGeek wrote:

 kodos wrote:

 ImAGeek wrote:

 Argive wrote:
Which ruleset 40k does HH use for the most part? Id it 3rd/4th?

7th. It used the same rules as 40k when it was released,

not really the same, some of the core rules were changed for the FW re-release

Nothing massive though. Just little tweaks.

Yeah, they changed two, maybe even three, minor rules. They had all of the editions of 40K to pick and choose the best rules from...and they didn't. That would be my concern for a new version of WFB, that they won't really do much beyond reprinting the last version and calling it good.

In fairness, AoD being 7.2.5 always seemed more about HAVING a purchasable 7th Edition book on the market for newblood to keep playing 30k than meant as a radical new thing.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 ImAGeek wrote:

 kodos wrote:

 ImAGeek wrote:

 Argive wrote:
Which ruleset 40k does HH use for the most part? Id it 3rd/4th?

7th. It used the same rules as 40k when it was released,

not really the same, some of the core rules were changed for the FW re-release

Nothing massive though. Just little tweaks.

Yeah, they changed two, maybe even three, minor rules. They had all of the editions of 40K to pick and choose the best rules from...and they didn't. That would be my concern for a new version of WFB, that they won't really do much beyond reprinting the last version and calling it good.

Ahh I see thanks. That was the concern I was raising. Fingers crossed they will pick the best parts of previous editions. Wouldn't it be something if they got something spot on this one time...

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 ImAGeek wrote:

 kodos wrote:

 ImAGeek wrote:

 Argive wrote:
Which ruleset 40k does HH use for the most part? Id it 3rd/4th?

7th. It used the same rules as 40k when it was released,

not really the same, some of the core rules were changed for the FW re-release

Nothing massive though. Just little tweaks.

Yeah, they changed two, maybe even three, minor rules. They had all of the editions of 40K to pick and choose the best rules from...and they didn't. That would be my concern for a new version of WFB, that they won't really do much beyond reprinting the last version and calling it good.

I think we'll see something closer to 40K and it's relationship to apocalypse, no reason to wait two years to release an older edition of a game and their recent voxcast videos have talked more about wanting to create different games that are focused on different scales.
So will probably be something new, probably with some nods to warmaster and old WFB, but focused more around blocks of infantry in mass combat and less on the individual warriors.

I'd be interested to see if they sculpt some of the new(ish) units that have been introduced in TW:W 1&2, that were invented in order to balance out some of the armies in the game.

 Wunzlez wrote:
I'd be interested to see if they sculpt some of the new(ish) units that have been introduced in TW:W 1&2, that were invented in order to balance out some of the armies in the game.

For example ?

 Argive wrote:

 Wunzlez wrote:
I'd be interested to see if they sculpt some of the new(ish) units that have been introduced in TW:W 1&2, that were invented in order to balance out some of the armies in the game.

For example ?

Naming some that I’d like to see
- Hippogryph Knights
- Dwarf Rangers
- Chaos dragons
- Hierotitan
- everything related to the Vampire Coast
- War Wagons
- Everything Norsca Related
- Squires
- Peasants
- Horned Ones

Some of the top of my head.

Though I would actually love to see them. Tapping into stuff related to the Rpg books. Kislev got much more in depth because of those.

 Segersgia wrote:

 Argive wrote:

 Wunzlez wrote:
I'd be interested to see if they sculpt some of the new(ish) units that have been introduced in TW:W 1&2, that were invented in order to balance out some of the armies in the game.

For example ?

Naming some that I’d like to see
- Hippogryph Knights
- Dwarf Rangers
- Chaos dragons
- Hierotitan
- everything related to the Vampire Coast
- War Wagons
- Everything Norsca Related
- Squires
- Peasants
- Horned Ones

Some of the top of my head.

Though I would actually love to see them. Tapping into stuff related to the Rpg books. Kislev got much more in depth because of those.

Beat me to it.

Although Hierotitan was just lacking a model rather than being entirely new. War Wagons would be a welcome return as well.

Also not sure if the skaven death-runners ever existed with distinct models.

 Segersgia wrote:

 Argive wrote:

 Wunzlez wrote:
I'd be interested to see if they sculpt some of the new(ish) units that have been introduced in TW:W 1&2, that were invented in order to balance out some of the armies in the game.

For example ?

Naming some that I’d like to see
- Hippogryph Knights
- Dwarf Rangers
- Chaos dragons
- Hierotitan
- everything related to the Vampire Coast
- War Wagons
- Everything Norsca Related
- Squires
- Peasants
- Horned Ones

Some of the top of my head.

Though I would actually love to see them. Tapping into stuff related to the Rpg books. Kislev got much more in depth because of those.

A lot those already existed.
The only things that are unique to Total War are Vampire Coast, Norsca, and Hippogryph knights.
Norsca's unit roster isn't really anything new; a lot of it are taken from Forge World ranges.

Dwarf Rangers were in the 8th ed army book
Horned Ones were a cavalry unit for the Southlands list in the 6th ed lizardman army book, and then a special mount in the 8th ed book.
Pretty sure squires and peasants were options in the Bretonnian army book
Dunno when War Wagons were around, but there was definitely a model for them at one point. I think 4th ed?
Hierotitans were in the 8th ed army book, but there was no model for it.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Segersgia wrote:

 Argive wrote:

 Wunzlez wrote:
I'd be interested to see if they sculpt some of the new(ish) units that have been introduced in TW:W 1&2, that were invented in order to balance out some of the armies in the game.

For example ?

Naming some that I’d like to see
- Hippogryph Knights
- Dwarf Rangers
- Chaos dragons
- Hierotitan
- everything related to the Vampire Coast
- War Wagons
- Everything Norsca Related
- Squires
- Peasants
- Horned Ones

Some of the top of my head.

Though I would actually love to see them. Tapping into stuff related to the Rpg books. Kislev got much more in depth because of those.

A lot those already existed.
The only things that are unique to Total War are Vampire Coast, Norsca, and Hippogryph knights.
Norsca's unit roster isn't really anything new; a lot of it are taken from Forge World ranges.

Dwarf Rangers were in the 8th ed army book
Horned Ones were a cavalry unit for the Southlands list in the 6th ed lizardman army book, and then a special mount in the 8th ed book.
Pretty sure squires and peasants were options in the Bretonnian army book
Dunno when War Wagons were around, but there was definitely a model for them at one point. I think 4th ed?
Hierotitans were in the 8th ed army book, but there was no model for it.

Right, but they didn't have models, which TW:W 'gave' them.

Dwarf Rangers had models, Squires had models(mounted Yeomen and Yeoman), hell even the Vampire Coast had models for a time.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Rules are a potential concern, I think that’s largely what killed WHFB in the first place. Take Aeronautica as an example, they already had a really good rule set and the changes (though mostly minor) for the most part only made it worse.

the rules didnt kill WHFB, the ridiculous unit cost in $$ did. need 4-5 50$ boxes to make a single 150-200 point unit was stupid

 Kanluwen wrote:
Dwarf Rangers had models, Squires had models(mounted Yeomen and Yeoman), hell even the Vampire Coast had models for a time.

I might be mistaken, but did the Brets have foot squires with great weapons in past editions?

 Wunzlez wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Dwarf Rangers had models, Squires had models(mounted Yeomen and Yeoman), hell even the Vampire Coast had models for a time.

I might be mistaken, but did the Brets have foot squires with great weapons in past editions?

Kinda/sorta?

Are they wearing full armor and the like? If so, it might be them playing with the idea of the "Virtue of Empathy" trait that was available to Bretonnian heroes. It let them go on foot, cause they were 'Of the People!'.
If not, it might just be a weird thing of showcasing the halberd wielding peasants again.

 Kanluwen wrote:
hell even the Vampire Coast had models for a time.

That's a bit misleading. GW sold a conversion pack consisting of sprues for Free Company and Zombies, and much later did a "Sartosa Vampire" model (which was not related to the VC armylist). It's something, but only technically counts as "had models".

 Darnok wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
hell even the Vampire Coast had models for a time.

That's a bit misleading. GW sold a conversion pack consisting of sprues for Free Company and Zombies, and much later did a "Sartosa Vampire" model (which was not related to the VC armylist). It's something, but only technically counts as "had models".

If we're talking unit designs however, those did exist for a larger group of models (which clearly inspired the Total War faction) in the form of conversions in a White Dwarf article.
Some pics here: https://twitter.com/games_workshop1/status/740256350337388545
Plus the Mourngul from Forge World.
That said, there still exist a bunch of completely new units in especially that faction, and a few others besides. Not a fan of all of them (latest Kroxigors with powerfists...), but overall they've done a smashing job and I certainly wouldn't mind seeing GW borrow some ideas back.
That is another sense in which I am quite looking forward to Kislev in Total War - there's a large list of units in one of the Citadel Journals, few of which were subsequently created as models (although again, a few published conversions exist). If the Total War team fleshes these out, it could be a great starting point for a more complete model range by GW. Although I'd settle for a Made-to-Order wave of the existing sculpts too, they're pretty gorgeous...

 Coenus Scaldingus wrote:

 Darnok wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
hell even the Vampire Coast had models for a time.

That's a bit misleading. GW sold a conversion pack consisting of sprues for Free Company and Zombies, and much later did a "Sartosa Vampire" model (which was not related to the VC armylist). It's something, but only technically counts as "had models".

If we're talking unit designs however, those did exist for a larger group of models (which clearly inspired the Total War faction) in the form of conversions in a White Dwarf article.
Some pics here: https://twitter.com/games_workshop1/status/740256350337388545
Plus the Mourngul from Forge World.

There is also the Necrofex Colossus - that walking shipwreck giant - which had concept art and rules in "Monstrous Arcanum" by FW. But "having model design" is quite something else than "having models".

 Whirlwind wrote:

My greatest concern for WFB is that GW no longer really have excellent game rules designers even if they have fairly decent artistic rule designers (Necromunda, Blood Bowl etc are all based on historic rule sets, AoS and 40K are relatively straightforward). That brings concerns that if they try and completely redo the game then they may make the game worse rather than better.

GW still have Jervis Johnson, don't they?

(That may be a good or bad thing depending on the style of game you prefer. Jervis's rulesets can be divisive because he prefers 'elegant' rules--streamlined, but with a lot of hidden depth. Many players prefer rulesets with more chrome--lots of options and special rules and details to fiddle with, even if they're actually shallower. But he knows what he's about.)