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.

Zenithfleet wrote:

 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.)

Does he banjo. I mean, this is sarcasm, right? Because there's no way someone would seriously argue Jervis "who needs points anyway" Johnson's preference is for "elegant" rules, right? Hidden depth? Yes, very well hidden indeed. In that it's yet to be found.

I mean jeezo man, this is the guy who thought AoS 1.0 was an unappreciated work of genius.

All I can say is that this WHFB reboot will be just another opportunity for them to not update my Brets..

I'm ready for whenever this releases, my Bret army is in it's case untouched since the old world went boom.

Assuming that the rules are a reiteration of 8th ed, the main points I hope they address are

- The likes of laser-guided canons making any monster useless. The phrase "6 inches from the rear of your unit" when firing a canon is burnt into my memory.
- Ridiculous death star units towards the end of 8th ed - i.e. horde of Phoenix Guard with Teclis and Banner of World Dragon lol.. Only option is to bait that unit and try to avoid for the entire game.
- Rework the magic phase completely. Using 40k/AoS as a base would be a good starting point. each spell has a casting value on 2d6 with a dispel on 2d6. Removes the stupidity of 6 dicing the likes of Purple Sun and Dwellers - whilst on this topic, tone down those OP spells to have a cap on how many models etc rather than EVERYTHING
- Steadfast must go or at least provide a different bonus to basically being immune to morale
- If not removing Steadfast, remove the BSB reroll. One or the other must be done. Make psychology actually mean something again. BSB could be a +2 to LD or something. Either way, if a unit is mulched in single round it should be a miracle that they stick around.
- ASF rework, either go first or reroll hits. Pick one.

 Yodhrin wrote:

Zenithfleet wrote:

 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.)

Does he banjo. I mean, this is sarcasm, right? Because there's no way someone would seriously argue Jervis "who needs points anyway" Johnson's preference is for "elegant" rules, right? Hidden depth? Yes, very well hidden indeed. In that it's yet to be found.

I mean jeezo man, this is the guy who thought AoS 1.0 was an unappreciated work of genius.

I look at his 3rd Ed. Imperial Guard book as a nice metric. Elite troops who are priced like Elite troops but are statted almost identical to the Troop troops. I pay for value, not the ability to "go nuts" with converting an overpriced unit.

 Yodhrin wrote:

Does he banjo. I mean, this is sarcasm, right? Because there's no way someone would seriously argue Jervis "who needs points anyway" Johnson's preference is for "elegant" rules, right? Hidden depth? Yes, very well hidden indeed. In that it's yet to be found.

I mean jeezo man, this is the guy who thought AoS 1.0 was an unappreciated work of genius.

He's also the guy who did epic armageddon.

 NurglesR0T wrote:

- The likes of laser-guided canons making any monster useless. The phrase "6 inches from the rear of your unit" when firing a canon is burnt into my memory.

About cannons, and their "laser" accuracy, they weren't as accurate as some people think. Against the monsters etc that use 4" (100mm) long chariot base you had a 50% chance to hit if aiming 6" from back and 75% chance if aiming (better choice) 10" from back. 2+ to hit is 83.33% chance and 3+ to hit is 66.67% chance. So 2.5+ to hit? Around BS3.5. Good odds, but as accurate as people think.

6" from rear you will overshoot a third of the time. If your knights were 4 ranks deep that would be an (4 ranks x 2" base) = 8" deep target. Which would be hit on anything but a misfire (a laser guided 2+ effectively); if aimed 10" from back. But the number of models hit in the unit would vary of course.

As an Empire player, I remember wishing I could get bolt-throwers. Against large monsters (+1 to hit for being large) they were almost as accurate, and only around half the cost of a great cannon. I would have liked it if cannons were treated like bolt-throwers.

For steadfast you just need a way to cancel it. If a flank charge or rear charge could cancel steadfast, then that big death star blob would be very risky because if they got flank or rear charged, all of those points could vanish.

That by itself would make fielding those type of units more risk than players would be rewarded with and remove them. Additionally it does so by adding a tactical element to the game (again)... pushing maneuver to the forefront of whats important as opposed to lulz and throwing a mega unit together and just plowing it forward (because players WILL aim toward the path of least resistance if given the opportunity and that was about as mindless as it got and one reason I really did not like 8th edition at all)

 Just Tony wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:

Zenithfleet wrote:

 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.)

Does he banjo. I mean, this is sarcasm, right? Because there's no way someone would seriously argue Jervis "who needs points anyway" Johnson's preference is for "elegant" rules, right? Hidden depth? Yes, very well hidden indeed. In that it's yet to be found.

I mean jeezo man, this is the guy who thought AoS 1.0 was an unappreciated work of genius.

I look at his 3rd Ed. Imperial Guard book as a nice metric. Elite troops who are priced like Elite troops but are statted almost identical to the Troop troops. I pay for value, not the ability to "go nuts" with converting an overpriced unit.

When I think of Jervis Johnson's elegant rules I think of the second half of 4th ed 40k and how it all went downhill from there.

I'm sure he's a nice guy and has some good ideas, but I don't believe you should put him in charge and let his ideas go unchallenged and unchecked. He seems more like a team player contributing ideas than a project lead to me.

Tygre wrote:

 NurglesR0T wrote:

- The likes of laser-guided canons making any monster useless. The phrase "6 inches from the rear of your unit" when firing a canon is burnt into my memory.

About cannons, and their "laser" accuracy, they weren't as accurate as some people think. Against the monsters etc that use 4" (100mm) long chariot base you had a 50% chance to hit if aiming 6" from back and 75% chance if aiming (better choice) 10" from back. 2+ to hit is 83.33% chance and 3+ to hit is 66.67% chance. So 2.5+ to hit? Around BS3.5. Good odds, but as accurate as people think.

6" from rear you will overshoot a third of the time. If your knights were 4 ranks deep that would be an (4 ranks x 2" base) = 8" deep target. Which would be hit on anything but a misfire (a laser guided 2+ effectively); if aimed 10" from back. But the number of models hit in the unit would vary of course.

As an Empire player, I remember wishing I could get bolt-throwers. Against large monsters (+1 to hit for being large) they were almost as accurate, and only around half the cost of a great cannon. I would have liked it if cannons were treated like bolt-throwers.

The way GW has written rules in recent years I'd be worried that things are only going to get more accurate. Rampant re-rolls and across the board increase to deadliness would be very much expected, but not particularly good for the hypothetical new edition.

Assuming they go the old rank and flank with this Old World setting, I'm anticipating the shooty volumes and killiness of current 40k (along with CCG style buffs and synergies out the wazoo) being ported over to the close combat/melee portions of the Old World.

One of the game directions GW has moved toward is making the game "faster" at higher points values. I don't see anything that would make me think a new version of WHFB, at this point in time, would look anything like the original.

And since its 3 years out or so, I'll stick with 5th/6th ed WHFB, and Warhammer Ancients for my rank and flank games. Fortunately I have a game group who doesn't chase the newest rules and has slowed on GW, and they are perfectly happy to play older or alt rulesets.

And, since I have a huge 5th edition Bret army (old plastic knights and metal MAA), and never upgraded to the new plastics, I'm not GW's target audience for any Bret update. Though they may stay squatted for all I know.

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 malfred wrote:
If I were feeling cheeky I'd play this game using Mantic sculpts,
but their line is so inconsistent it's like they have 1-2 sweet
models and then they poop the bed.

Why torture yourself with meh rules and meh models? Play great KoW rules with great GW models

Since you keep shilling the same post over and over again, I'll bite.

Why would I want to play a checkers version of WFB?

 Vulcan wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 malfred wrote:
If I were feeling cheeky I'd play this game using Mantic sculpts,
but their line is so inconsistent it's like they have 1-2 sweet
models and then they poop the bed.

Why torture yourself with meh rules and meh models? Play great KoW rules with great GW models

Since you keep shilling the same post over and over again, I'll bite.

Why would I want to play a checkers version of WFB?

Don`t encourage him, or we`ll get the same old "KoW is a better ruleset, than GW has ever written, and undead minis don`t look too bad"
If I had a rouble for every time I`ve read/heard that...

 auticus wrote:
For steadfast you just need a way to cancel it. If a flank charge or rear charge could cancel steadfast, then that big death star blob would be very risky because if they got flank or rear charged, all of those points could vanish.

That by itself would make fielding those type of units more risk than players would be rewarded with and remove them. Additionally it does so by adding a tactical element to the game (again)... pushing maneuver to the forefront of whats important as opposed to lulz and throwing a mega unit together and just plowing it forward (because players WILL aim toward the path of least resistance if given the opportunity and that was about as mindless as it got and one reason I really did not like 8th edition at all)

There was a risk if people actually played with proper terrain rules, as in the random amount rolls. I know that's not always convenient for people based on what they have at hand, but I vividly remember Mr Malorian's earlier videos with his O&G hordes and 5-wide ranked anvils**** and complaining about the hordes and 5-ranks making the game very boring, but also playing on tables with sparse terrain. Later on in his battle reports there seemed to be more terrain on the videos, but what I remember most is the army with the big 100-man NG units backed up by 50-man Orc 5-wide units. I'm not picking on him though, I always enjoyed his videos, but that part stood out to me and it's as good an example as any.

For example dividing up placement of terrain between players as evenly as possible can easily result in a canny opponent placing bottlenecks for larger units. Wych elf and savage orc big un hordes aren't nearly as scary when they have to manuever through tiny areas using reform and are forced to only fight with a fraction of their ranks and attacks. And another extremely important rule that always seemed to be forgotten in games I witnessed (though not in the ones I played) was that if a unit has a majority of it's footprint within a wood, then it loses the rank bonus and cannot benefit from steadfast. Woods being one of the most ubiquitous types of terrain in most fantasy and historical wargaming collections. I've never had an issue with dealing with steadfast or hordes (outside of a few exceptional death-stars) due to this fact, as if someone relies upon that I tended to make use of the terrain as best I could to lead them on and trap them.

And that's not to mention the horribly broken instant death spells.

However, yes it was by no means an edition without flaws, there were a lot of things I would change, but claiming a use of hordes and larger units is a mindless tactic is an extreme bent to what is a minor issue compared with other problems in the game, army book creep being the main offender as usual.

Take it from someone who played O&Gs, Brets and TKs, as both on the using and receiving end of them; hordes are one of the last issues on my mind.



****It's important to make this distinction since hordes are the 10 wide, or 6 if monstrous, units and not the deep 5-ranked ones that are hard to shift due to steadfast.

People seem to be assuming this will just be WHFB 9th or 10th edition (I don't know if end times counts as 9th or not) but I'm guessing it'll probably be a lot closer to something like a fantasy version of the new apocalypse. The same detachments/orders/datasheet style ported on over to fantasy stuff.

 cole1114 wrote:
People seem to be assuming this will just be WHFB 9th or 10th edition (I don't know if end times counts as 9th or not) but I'm guessing it'll probably be a lot closer to something like a fantasy version of the new apocalypse. The same detachments/orders/datasheet style ported on over to fantasy stuff.

Sounds pretty plausible.

I imagine it will be similar to the plastic boxed sets released for HH. A Self contained rule set for the encounter represented in the box.

Dread Master wrote:
I imagine it will be similar to the plastic boxed sets released for HH. A Self contained rule set for the encounter represented in the box.

Nah. Those were board games, but you could use the models for the proper Horus Heresy game. I don’t see them releasing an Old World board game with no full game to use the models in - especially not announcing it 3 years in advance.

 Yodhrin wrote:

Zenithfleet wrote:

 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.)

Does he banjo. I mean, this is sarcasm, right? Because there's no way someone would seriously argue Jervis "who needs points anyway" Johnson's preference is for "elegant" rules, right? Hidden depth? Yes, very well hidden indeed. In that it's yet to be found.

I mean jeezo man, this is the guy who thought AoS 1.0 was an unappreciated work of genius.

Aaaand that's exactly the sort of reaction I was alluding to when I said Jervis's rules were 'divisive'.

I can't comment on AoS as I've never played it. But Jervis also did the rules for:

-the original Blood Bowl (enough said)

-The 'Wargames Series' boxed map-and-counter games from the early 90s: Battle for Armageddon, Horus Heresy and Doom of the Eldar (all of which are solid light wargames and worth tracking down, assuming you don't mind working out combat ratios in proper old-school fashion)

-Epic 40,000 (lots of innovative and indeed elegant mechanics such as blast markers, but famously unpopular for being too streamlined and different to the previous edition... think the reaction of many WFB players to AoS and you've pretty much got it)

-Epic Armageddon (the happy halfway house between 2nd and 3rd edition Epic).

Technically speaking, Jervis was also partly responsible for Battlefleet Gothic's core rules. (Spoilered because it's a bit off topic for this thread.)

Those are all actual games, not just Codexes.

I'm not saying he'd be ideal for WFB, mind you. Just that he's the first name that springs to mind when talking about actual proper experienced GW game designers still with GW.

Anyway, I don't recall him having much involvement with Warhammer Fantasy. Apart from, y'know, the whole AoS thing.

The issue with Jervis is that a) he likes 'elegant and streamlined' whereas players often prefer bling, and b) he's always been partial to the 'gentlemen's game' approach. He generally assumes both players will be sensible and agree on limits, refrain from taking obviously broken or unfair lists, and so on. The gentlemenly historical wargamer's approach. That attitude seems to be where the whole 'no points in AoS 1.0' came from. But players out in the wild often disagree. It's not exactly helpful for pickup games, for instance.

Enough about JJ. Who's for dragging Tuomas Pirinen back in for a remake of 6th ed? (It was Tuomas, wasn't it? I embarrassed myself once by saying it was Alessio. ) He can give Mordheim a spring cleaning while he's there.

Nah, see the trouble isn't whether Jervis is "divisive", it's with your characterisation as to why he's divisive.

You define his work as "elegant and streamlined" but full of "hidden depth", and say people who don't favour his work prefer "bling chrome, but shallower".

My contention is his work is simplistic and has all the depth of a puddle, while the preference of people who dislike his work is for well-explained crunchy, substantive rules, with actual depth. Blood Bowl is a fun game, but you could hardly call it deep, it's almost pure RNG and player input is largely limited to listbuilding and odds management. Never played his "boxed games". Epic 40K...yeah. At one point I was actually tempted by it, then I saw a game actually being played.

As to your wee spoilered box - erm, doesn't that rather prove that Andy Chambers is responsible for Epic: Armageddon, rather than that Jervis was responsible for BFG? Jervis had a bad idea, Andy fixed it, Jervis subsequently copied Andy's fix.

Bringing back Tuomas though? Yeah, that I can get behind. Whether or not they'd offer him terms he's interested in these days is another thing - he has a lot of love for his work from GW(he still pops into the Mordheim FB group on occasion), but these days he does his own thing and GW aren't exactly renowned for paying well.

Tuomas Pirinen? Would be a dream, I bet he still can write better rules off his head than the actual RD team in GW headquarters.

Depending on what you're looking for, you might want Priestley for the WHFB reboot. He did Warmaster, and also the Hail Caesar historical rules stable for Warlord, based on the Warmaster system, but in 28mm.

Either way, with Jervis, or Priestley, or Tuomas, you pretty much know what you're going to get - more of the same as before, but tweaked. There is so much legacy stuff tied up in how GW does rules, that I don't think the studio would be given too much latitude for a miniatures game (not board game), outside of the LOTR SBG, 40k, AOS, Epic/Gothic/Warmaster mold. Remember Starship Troopers by Chambers, which was supposedly the new edition of 40k, but the powers that be said nope?

So if we see anything, it'll be "familiar" and "streamlined" and deep enough for a 12 year old to grasp so that they can keep churning the new blood into the GW universe. If its too different, people don't get the connection, and there is less cross pollination.

Like I say in all my posts, my age clearly makes me not the target demographic for GW's rules, approach, and now CCG-like system of buffs and synergies. I prefer my games with more crunch, and the odd look up chart, which is why I play many of the older versions of WHFB, still play Mordheim and Gothic, and play a bunch of historicals from all eras (I should say I have bought and read a metric ton of rulebooks of all types of TT games, and I play the ones I can find opponents for :-)

 ImAGeek wrote:

Dread Master wrote:
I imagine it will be similar to the plastic boxed sets released for HH. A Self contained rule set for the encounter represented in the box.

Nah. Those were board games, but you could use the models for the proper Horus Heresy game. I don’t see them releasing an Old World board game with no full game to use the models in - especially not announcing it 3 years in advance.

I know they’re board games, that goes without saying.I was suggesting that the Old world is the Setting for a new series of board games that will be self contained encounters based on historical battles in the Warhammer world. Just as the Horus Heresy is the setting for Betrayal at Calth and The Burning of Prospero.

I could see that. Lots of boxed sets like the Isle of Blood, or the Battle for Skull Pass. Those were all akin to the Heresy boxed sets (even though they just used WHFB rules where the Heresy games used unique mechanics).

I am not thrilled for GW ruleset but "Warhammer The Old World" will be compatible with 9th Age.

Mr Priestley has already written an updated version of WHFB - it's called Warlords of Erewhon. It's streamlined with crunchy bits, if that's what you like. It's not turn based, or phase based either, so traditionalists would probably dislike it. It's also d10 based. Most shocking of all (put your pipe down and sit down), it's on round bases. It's not really rank and flank as so many seem to want, but it certainly captures the flavour of WHFB without all the fiddle.

 Huginn wrote:
Mr Priestley has already written an updated version of WHFB - it's called Warlords of Erewhon. It's streamlined with crunchy bits, if that's what you like. It's not turn based, or phase based either, so traditionalists would probably dislike it. It's also d10 based. Most shocking of all (put your pipe down and sit down), it's on round bases. It's not really rank and flank as so many seem to want, but it certainly captures the flavour of WHFB without all the fiddle.

Round bases is a clear no go for me. I have a Night Goblin, Lahmian Vampire and Khemri army in my cabinet and only a complete fool would assume it is a good idea to move each mini on it's own. Besides, models organized in R&F look simply amazing.

Warlords of Erehwon is excellent, does everything I want for a way to play with my old world toys. I’m looking forward to the new shiny stuff this game brings so it can go straight on a round base (the irony) for WoE!

 Huginn wrote:
Mr Priestley has already written an updated version of WHFB - it's called Warlords of Erewhon. It's streamlined with crunchy bits, if that's what you like. It's not turn based, or phase based either, so traditionalists would probably dislike it. It's also d10 based. Most shocking of all (put your pipe down and sit down), it's on round bases. It's not really rank and flank as so many seem to want, but it certainly captures the flavour of WHFB without all the fiddle.

Wait?

So it's and "update of WHFB", except no rank & file, no square bases, not turn based, etc..

Doesn't sound like an update of WHFB to me as it just sounds like just a different game.

Bases don’t matter in WoE either, and we always use movement trays, albeit for 5 / 10 man groups. Well worth Old Worlds fans giving a go given how cheap the buy in is.

@wunzlez: I very much remember trees effecting the game a lot. I often avoided random trees because of all the bad things they had in em but if you can force large units halfway in it would do that if the forest was big enough. I also recall skirmishers being steadfast in woods, flyers and cavalry taking Dt and yet another thing that ruined ballistic skill weapons.

As far as something far better than woods was rivers. If a rank and file was even partially in a river and lost a fight no steadfast happened at all. You have no idea of facing an enemy gun-line which is superior just waiting on the other side of that river preventing you from charging because you'll be partly in the river and your combat resolution sucks.

That said worse comes to worse chaff and super spells could destroy those death stars.

 Strg Alt wrote:
I am not thrilled for GW ruleset but "Warhammer The Old World" will be compatible with 9th Age.

9th age is a dead trainwreck

 quickfuze wrote:

 Strg Alt wrote:
I am not thrilled for GW ruleset but "Warhammer The Old World" will be compatible with 9th Age.

9th age is a dead trainwreck

Why?