Is 2014 The Year Of Warhammer Fantasy Battles?
January 22, 2014 by brennon
A few rumours have been flying about lately about changes coming this year to Warhammer Fantasy Battles. Bell of Lost Souls, through a user on Dakka called Necronspurs2012 highlighted a few of the massive changes that might be coming to the Old World over the next few months. I guess the first place to start would be with the armies themselves.
Massing The Armies
Armies such as the Dwarfs, Wood Elves and Bretonnians have been waiting for an army book update since 6th Edition and their entries and rules are woefully in need of a bit of a clean-up to bring them up to scratch with the current forces at play in the Warhammer World. As a Dwarf player we've managed to come out of this long slumber quite well and our army still seems to be a match for most on the tabletop. Wood Elves and Bretonnian players on the other hand have been getting a fairly raw deal with their forces (especially in the case of Wood Elves) just not being as exciting as their cousins.
So let's look at the prospective update schedule of Dwarfs (currently pegged for February if the rumours are to be believed) followed by Wood Elves, Bretonnians and then finally the 7th Edition lingerers, the Beastmen. Skaven are nowhere to be seen but from what I've seen they have been doing well of late with their current book.
In terms of a time and date for these releases, your guess is as good as ours. However, with Dwarfs coming next month (the name of Belegar on the front of the White Dwarf #1 preview was a big hint) and Games Workshop switching up to a weekly supplement with White Dwarf, we could see all these books coming at us before the summer each with tantalising glimpse as to the next edition of Warhammer Fantasy.
The Dwarfs are in need of a good update to bulk out their units, which are lacking in the 'big' department and the runic laws need to be sorted out to clean away some of the dusty old ones that no longer hold water. Saying that, from what some folk have mentioned we could be seeing runic customisation returning with the new book, which would be fun. As it stands on the model front the first two weeks of February are set to be a big one, with the majority of finecast and metal pieces getting swapped to plastic. This has been a trend with all of the Warhammer releases of late, so expect to be paying around £30 for ten Slayers. I imagine they are going to be gorgeous though.
This is going to be followed by characters, a new plastic Lord, a rather mighty siege engine and a war altar of sorts if the hints are to be believed. Let's hope this all comes with some great new rules which keep the flavour of Dwarfs and don't ruin their roots. The Engineer's Guild will be up in arms otherwise.
Wood Elves, as one of my friends continues to tell me, are just 's**it'. It's a shame really as they have some amazing looking units and frankly look the best when you put all three of them together, even considering the updated High Elves and Dark Elves. They do however need a kick in the arse rules wise. They are falling behind in terms of tabletop strength when it comes to their High and Dark brothers and the list of models you want to take drops drastically, which again is a shame because of the lovely models. All those archers are good and all, but most armies can just weather the storm nowadays.
Bretonnians are the last of the 'big three'. The staple 'swords and sorcery' style army was given a bit more of a grim dark feel with the release of 8th Edition and I think they benefited from it. The cruel barons and knights remained, but they were given a much more desperate feel which I think was sorely needed. Some folk have said that they are going to be absorbed into the next big book as allies for the Empire, but I think that would be a disservice. Their roots in the Medieval period, rather than the more Germanic Empire were fantastic and the amount of pageantry (something I learned from Blue Table Painting's Shawn Gately) they bring to the table is awesome. Give them some updated plastic knights, a massive trebuchet or two and some kind of Grail Relic to bring into battle and you're sorted.
Beastmen on the other hand are a bit of an unknown quantity. They are different from both Warriors of Chaos and Daemons of Chaos in so many ways but yet they feel almost lost at sea when it comes to where they fit in. They are fantastic IF you can get them into combat but that requires a lot of bodies and a very, very big dose of poor luck on your opponents side. From past experience a few lists have been decided upon and that's it, deviating from that just becomes a lost cause. It would be nice to have that chariot army you mentioned, but it costs a fair bit. If they are going to get themselves a new book they are going to need a massive dose of extra flavour to make them something unique. I would love to see something like 'warchants' where they can roar out a new battle cry each turn to turn things in their favour. Build on their raiding mentality too with more focus on that 'they are everywhere' feeling.
But what of Skaven? The first book for the new edition perhaps?
A New Edition?
But I think I should take a bit of a step back here. 'Next edition of Warhammer Fantasy?' I hear you cry, and yes I did bring that up a little way back. The 9th Edition of the game could be coming to your tabletop this year. According to the rumours we picked up on at the start of this piece the new starter set and rulebook are pegged for summer featuring the old enemies of Empire and Orcs & Goblins.
Back in 6th Edition we saw the Empire take on the Orcs and I think returning to that could be a winning formula for Games Workshop. When it comes to fantasy, whatever the property, the major players have always seemed to be the struggling forces of Orcs and Humans. Warcraft, Lord of the Rings and many others leap at this since it puts the valiant humans against the ravening hordes (that's a call back ain't it!) of the greenskins. It also ties in nicely to the background of the Old World. Humans and Orcs have always been at each others throats and it certainly feels like a more interesting match-up than High Elves and Skaven.
The set is meant to have a selection of Knights, Foot Troops and Handgunners for the Empire facing off against Night Goblins, Orcs and a Troll for the Orcs and Goblins. Sounds like a standard and fairly good step for them as all are key elements that make up each army. Sword Masters and a fellow on a Griffon for the High Elves was a nice idea, but not exactly useable. Hopefully there will be a pair of character models in there too to use as generals as I think this could add another dimension to things.
One of the major draws to Warhammer Fantasy for me has always been that it evokes a really narrative feeling. You genuinely can get down there amongst the troops and see your general and his other heroes leading the charge (or receiving it in my case as Dwarfs) against the enemy. It's also quite the spectacle, seeing two fully painted armies there on the tabletop fighting it out. The addition of characters to the mix for a starter set like this, maybe even if they were exclusive, would give people something to focus their collecting around. I've always felt each of the battalion boxes should have had this option in the past. A character to lead your force, something everyone will need.
All this is wonderful of course but it does raise the question of whether or not Warhammer Fantasy does need a new edition. Some people would argue that it's just become a random dice fest with little to no strategy left. I can see where they are coming from, with the removal of guess ranges, random charges and of course the infamous magic system. But, I would argue that all of these things have actually added to the game. Generals and cannon crews would 'know' how to range in on a target and there is still the chance to miss or explode violently. Charges become a tactical thinking game where you sum up the chances of success based on the distance (that you know) and wonder if the dice will land in your favour. It might occasionally be a kick in the teeth but that adds another edge of dynamism and 'whats going to happen next' to the chaos of battle. It also leads to moments of unexpected heroism as my Dwarfs charge 15'' across the battlefield!!!
Finishing things off on that front, the magic system I think has benefited from the randomness. I love that magic has become this dangerous yet powerful force that can be extremely potent and draining at the same time. It means use Dwarfs can chortle as we say 'well we did tell you it would end badly'.
So what could they be changing? If the army book updates are to go as planned then I don't imagine we'll be seeing anything being shoved into larger books. Rumour was that Tomb Kings would be absorbed into a book simply about the 'Undead' and Warriors of Chaos, Beastmen and Daemons sucked into the warp induced 'Realm of Chaos'. I could see the later of those being more plausible, but then I reckon Games Workshop would like to keep their armies as they stand.
Rules wise I don't think that much could really change from the previous edition. To be frank, I like them as they stand and I think the problems lie at an army level, not a rulebook one. Maybe Storm of Magic and more campaign based affairs might be absorbed into the new rulebook alongside a possible forwarding of the narrative. They have hinted at this with Sigmar's Blood and while it would be a bold move I hope they do broach the subject of the Storm of Chaos finally descending.
Saying that, something has to change. Maybe we'll see something different done with the way rank and file work, building on the addition of things like Hordes from this edition. I could see alliances becoming more of a definitive thing with a chart much like the one in the latest Warhammer 40,000 rulebook being present. The magic system, which has had a lot of people on both sides shouting, is the other likely candidate for a change.
The Changing Face Of Games Workshop
This all comes alongside rumours that Games Workshop are doing a bit of a consolidation move after the bloody combat of previous years. The website is getting an overhaul and Black Library and Forge World could be sucked under that particular umbrella instead of having individual sites. How this will all work out, we don't know (it might not even happen), but it does show that Games Workshop are taking a hard look at themselves and could well be making changes for the better. The additional information of 'more hobby tips and painting advice' might even herald a return to a few years back when they were all over the Games Workshop site.
This all seems to be happening within a very short period of time, but if anyone has the backing to do this, it's that lot in Nottingham. As a stalwart Warhammer Fantasy fan, I can't wait to see what they come up with and even if the company occasionally makes me splutter into my Bugmans and curse the Chaos Gods I do enjoy the world they have created.
With all this said, there is still a truck load of salt to be taken with any of these rumours. But, I want to know what you think. What do you see being on the cards for Warhammer Fantasy Battles, be it this year, or the next?
Art by the wonderfully astounding (and possibly best Games Workshop artist) Adrian Smith.
Drop some comments below with your ramblings while I go back to painting Vargheists and making screeching noises.
[poll id="9"]
"Bretonnians are the last of the ‘big three’. The staple ‘swords and sorcery’ style army was given a bit more of a grim dark feel with the release of 8th Edition and I think they benefited from it."
Supported by (Turn Off)
Supported by (Turn Off)
"Rumour was that Tomb Kings would be absorbed into a book simply about the ‘Undead’ and Warriors of Chaos, Beastmen and Daemons sucked into the warp induced ‘Realm of Chaos’"
Supported by (Turn Off)
These rumours are dated. GW had a bad financial year and are therefore reducing their costs by merging with FW and Black Library. Also Warhammer Fantasy 9th edition is likely to get shelved, and replaced by 40k 7th edition to boost sales.
There’d be a precedent for that kind of thing over at Forge World, who dumped the WHF books in favour of turning out more Horus Heresy stuff as the latter sold much better than the former. The other rumour that’s been floating about has been for a skirmish-sized game set in the Old World which will serve as a gateway to WFB. Time will tell how any of this pans out.
I’ve been playing a version of Warhammer Fantasy called Regiments of Renown (used at Warhammer World and I might also write up my experiences with it for the site) down at my local club/store and it’s been incredibly well received. Not saying this points to anything of that nature but it does show that some thought has gone int0 the skirmish level scuffling.
Would love to see a variant of Warhammer Skirmish return as a viable introduction to the Old World though. Until then I have RoR and Mordheim to keep my company!
BoW Ben
And if you look in the Campaign E-books there are some skirmish like scenarios in there
I second your sentiment on a Warhammer Skirmish rules set @brennon. It would make it easier for gamers to ‘test the water’ before getting a full army.
Brennon, it seems to me that the competition from companies such as Avatars of War will be a problem for GW in the future. For instance, look how good AOW dwarf army and compare the prices for AOW dwarves with the new GW prices. The prices are so much higher with GW that they do not seem grounded with reality (particularly when you look at the quality of AOW).
This might be why GW has concentrated a lot on huge plastic models such as the screaming bell. Most other companies can’t make those kind of models yet. But pretty soon they will be able to.
I agree that the big thing about Fantasy is having huge armies. It is a shame that you cannot build huge armies using GW troops.
Also the background for WFB is surely better than 40k (more like a real universe and less like GIJoe Action Figures).
I agree that other companies have great models out there to fill the gaps – I use AoW Slayers in my Dwarf army (wasn’t going to buy masses of metal). It’s just a shame that these alternatives are a bit harder to get hold of. With GW itself, you can get hold of everything you need pretty quickly.
When it comes to the background, I totally agree. Folks can keep their Horus Heresy. The Time of Legend is much more fun!
I’m not sure that merging the GW and FW sites is really a cost cutting exercise. I think it could be happening for two reasons. Firstly it brings FW more to the attention of mainstream GW customers, potentially increasing sales of FW models and books. Secondly, it may be an attempt to erode this artificial divide where some people don’t regard FW’s models and rules as being ‘proper’ GW.
It would be well within the usual lifespan for an edition if 9th were to be released in the summer. Only 6th edition has had a lifespan longer than four years and 2014 makes it four years for 8th ed.
I tell a lie. 3rd ed went for five years.
IMO (and ignoring prices) the only major issue with WFB right now is those out of date army books. As long as they get those out – or at least as long as they don’t leave my Wood Elf-playing mate high and dry – I don’t mind what they do.
If 9th ends up rubbish, I’ll stick with 8th.
Always a viable solution. Play the edition that you like, especially great if you have a group of friends who all feel the same way.
BoW Ben
Still playing 40k second and third edition…
Not surprised you are still playing 2nd edition; there were a lot of rules
/ badom tish
“If 9th ends up rubbish, I’ll stick with 8th”
I recall saying that about 8th and 7th 😉
2014 is the year to get a Kings of War army…..
Mantic certainly do make some cheaper alternatives for building for your army. I have been using the Mantic Skeletons (much more flexible kit than I first thought) for my Vampire Counts in Warhammer Fantasy. Been building towards a good 1000 points and the Mantic Skeletons and their Zombies/Ghouls have been perfect for the rank and file.
Think I’m going to be sticking with Games Workshop for the more characterful units however. Vargheists are indeed, their Vargheists and I’m toying with the idea of using the new Dark Elves (the chaps with the skull helmets) for my Graveguard. I think they might look a bit more unique when compared to the usual ones.
Plus, the Wight Lord and the Necromancer plastic clampacks are just amazing looking. I have those painted up and ready for my army. No vampire yet, but I reckon I’ll be using the one with his one wing unfurled, or a Strigoi.
BoW Ben
Totally agree… last couple of years i’ve been getting more and more jaded with WFB. Think that has been helped by the introduction of KoW. Got to admit, my planned buys for this year are all mantic ones. Large affordable armies FTW.
I really enjoy Kings of War. You can get an army on the table, and play a game with the minimum of fuss. I don’t want to spend almost a £100 on rules.
Nice article Brennon, thank you.
From all I hear, the biggest issue with WHFB are 1) magic and 2) randomness. Many competitive players have moved away from WHFB because of the fact that skill does not necessarily determine the outcome of a game any longer.
IF GW opts to not bring the 9th edition this year, I would say that WHFB is dead. Currently, WHFB is rumored to contribute 7-15% of sales to the overall turnover. The problem with this is that it won’t be enough to even compensate for the lost sales of the first half year. So logically, GW must release a competitive 9th edition and bring the army books back in line but financially they almost cannot afford to do so.
It will be very interesting to see how they proceed. It’s almost like a loss-loss situation for them. And then we can’t forget that GW is not working in a vacuum. Other companies see the Giant is bloodied – and what better time to attack than now?
I wrote a series of articles on the subject, the most recent one being #10 “The End is Nigh!”. But beware: Massive wall of text!
http://masterminis.blogspot.de/2014/01/the-future-of-games-days-and-games_22.html
Will give this a read!
I think 8th is the best edition yet, don’t think it warrants a new one, just a few army books. The tournament scene has never been stronger so I would have to disagree with your statement about competitive play. This edition, along with a few podcasts, has drawn a lot of new blood into the tournament scene and I think this is one of its strengths. I also find it hard to believe that warhammer only contributes 7-15% of sales, don’t know where you heard that rumour.
Can only provide anecdotal experience here, so take it as you will…
-There use to be a rather large WFB group at Complete Strategiest here in NYC…8th edition killed it. They all play Warmahordes now due to a perceived lack of competitive play.
-I got a friend that works for Quarterstaff in Birlington, VT (an awesome gaming store btw…check it out if you ever visit). The area has a rather strong gamer community. While 40k still sells well WFB stock barely moves.
-The guys that first introduced me to GW games were playing them since they were 12. WFB was their favorite game…until 8th edition. They stopped playing it completely and now play either Warmahordes or FoW.
It may very well be that things are drastically different outside of my bubble, I’l admit to that. However, based on what I’ve seen, what Zaphod says bears some merit. I feel that GW greatly underestimated the competitive scene with WFB and the game suffered as a result.
You should write a regular column for BoW, Michael.
Excited to see what update Wood Elves receive. I don’t play WFB but they are the army that interests me most.
They are one of the best looking armies out there, even with their old models. The standard Wood Elves have a great kit that paints well, the Dryads are awesome, and their riders look perfectly ‘in motion’. Such a fantastic army to play around with. A friend has them and while I’m a Dwarf at heart I do love the look of Wood Elves on the tabletop.
BoW Ben
Wood elves are one of those armies that are always getting side lined by me I’m afraid. I think my attention was drawn to them back in the mid to late 90’s when I read a Battle Report , one of my first, between Mike McVey’s Wood Elves , allied with Dwarfs I think, (of all things; I can’t remember who commanded the dwarfs;) versus The Perry brothers (Michael and Alan’s) Empire army. The Wood Elves and Dwarfs won and it was concluded that The Empire lost cause it didn’t have enough specialist troops and stuff that really emphasised the Empire Army’s strengths, like artillery (although they did have three Great Cannon in the Perry Boyz’ Army ) and they were a little limited on the Knights front too, although they did have a 10 strong unit of Reiksguard Knights, patially composed of some what older Empire mounted knight models mounted on un barded steeds; (though in their profile they were barded.) And a five strong unit of Kislev Winged Lancers and several small units of Kislev Horse archers. I think they lacked the availability of Knights Panther back then and Knights of the White Wolf and Knights of The Blazing Sun hadn’t even been promoted to one of the major Knightly orders yet, although they had been mentioned in an article in a previous edition as one of the lesser orders of knights at that stage which I always note as making them inferior to their Knight Panther and White Wolf and Reiksguard brothers.
In my mind I also blamed the loss on the fact that The Empire General – The Emperor Karl Franz II was riding a Giant Pegasus and not his trusty Griffon Death Claw, because they hadn’t got around to releasing and probably sculpting the official model of The Emperor yet so they were using a never the less rather nice Marauder Miniatures Imperial Hero on Giant Pegasus. Gosh! Anyone remember Marauder Miniatures?? They were really nice and a mite chunkier than the Citadel equivalent. Sadly I fear they’ve probably been absorbed in to the Citadel minis umbrella now. tut.
But I remember very distinctly the Celtic inspired (not the Glasgow football team but the ancient peoples of Scotland and England;) paint scheme Mike McVey had used on his regiment of 20 Wood Elf Archers and the unit of spear armed Kin band too, then there was the Great Eagle riding General that he had converted from a Wardancer Hero to ride the Eagle. I even remember the article where he converted it. Then there was the beautifully painted unit of Wardancers them selves too!
But At the time I was toying with the decision of whether to collect a Bretonian army , of which there had been a number of articles which had caught my eye or the Wood Elves which looked pretty gorgeous with McVey’s expert paint job. My paint skills at the time probably would have made a right pig’s ear of it though. Sadly a lot of those miniatures if not all of them are now un available ( unless you’re fortunate enough to stumble upon them on ebay and you’re prepared to scrape off the hideously bad paint job that was done on them by the previous owner.
All of these models now have their modern equivalent I’m sure, but that was a particularly beautiful army and a lot of the newer versions of those models don’t share the same character that those old metal ones did! And then along came the re vamp of the Empire Army to distract my attention and make me fall in love with that army and the constant stream of shiny new miniatures and sexy paint jobs. I swear- I wanted them all at the time
WFB was the last thing I was playing of GWs. And imo still had some tactical depth to it. However it felt like an over powered magic system of an unbelievable randomness really took a lot away from the game. If it was just dangerous that would hce been fine, but the spells did to much damage too.
Hordes also took a lot away from the game. Bogging it down and making people field less veried armies due to sinking so many points in giant units. It only served to sell more models. I never fielded units bigger than 30.
And they also tried to force people to make over sized cavalry unit too by taking away flank bonuses for a unit with less than 10 unit strength and simultaneously stopped a cavalry model counting as 2 unit strength and making them 1 (the same as infinity).
A dilled down magic system and a return to multiple small units would in my mind greatly impove the game. One thing that would be great I all GW lines would be for then to abandon the D6 and move to a D10 or 12 system. As both 40k and WFB have so many units its hard to make them unique without increasingly ridiculous special rules. It would clean up the system and allow room for a more balanced set of forces. But I cannot see that happening.
The “problem” with the last edition, was that Cavalry was too effective. You’d charge, typically cause a massive amount of casualties, then the other chap wouldn’t get to fight back with anything.
Daemon armies were horrific for the same reason.
That isn’t really how Cavalry would work. If Cavalry charge a big blob of people, in a square, then it really shouldn’t work out for them. After the momentum of a charge, they should get bogged down and eventually routed.
So while you could argue that it swung too much in the way of massive hordes of units, you certainly can see what was being attempted to get away from this small shuffling of armies as they attempted to get alpha strikes all lined up.
Part of the problem with Fantasy, is that you have so many different armies and due to the way GW (used to? maybe we’ll a quicker release schedule) release things, you’d spend ages with a book full of stuff that wouldn’t work, which has a knock on effect of stuff just not selling and staying on a shelf.
Maybe there is room for the whole strike n’ flight style of play with Cavalry. They get to voluntarily rout after the charge turn so they can come back for another smack. Doesn’t seem right that they’d hit and then just sit there.
I agree, I think the getting stuck is for them having run into the ranks of the defender – but maybe a Leadership test or something to disengage, maybe with 1 (and only 1) extra attack from the models in basecontact
Different Metas around there world here the small chaff units seem a must or you see your big unit go on a wild goose chase
I would like to see the magic toned down a little but most armies can defend against it
I agree, I think the magic system could be dumbed down a little. I might have to disagree with your small units since Hordes can have their downs as well as ups too. Imho, if all the units had a max size, like they do in 40k, then it might make the game a bit more improved whilst still keeping the option of having huge troop blocks.
I still prefer Kings of War. It plays smoother and less rules intensive. The models are really nice.
I prefer God of Battles to both. Also a much smoother and less rules intensive system than WFB but with a very open approach to minis. I’ve got armies using several different ranges, including Mantic’s undead.
I had a look at Gods of battles, but it is pretty hard to get hold of and in very small numbers. It would be nice to get an overview on game mechanics,etc
The rulebook is on the Foundry website. It’s full colour, 300 pages, with all the rules, army lists and background. GoB designer Jake Thornton has written on it here – http://quirkworthy.com/god-of-battles/. If you want any more info then just ask 🙂
I also prefer Kings of War at this point. Hadn’t seen God of battles before.
I think 8th needs just a few tweaks like how 6th went to 7th ed. Magic needs just a touch of a fix. I can see why the BRB lores were created with the instant death spells as a counter to the fact that people could take giant 80 man blocks of models but they really did go just a touch to far. Changing the auto kill to dealing 1 wound would I think still suffice for the intent but not make people so invested in the topic. that and then making the army rulebook lores #6 spell significantly weaker (dealing just hits so still have to roll to wound, still allowing ward saves or armour saves depending on spells) I don’t know if they kept that up though, I stopped paying attention right around when Empire came out and the warrior priest was a significantly better Necrotect for less or minimally more expensive(I forget now). (yeah one time TK player here)
I’ve since started sinking my teeth into understanding Kings of war and I think there is a lot less WYSIWYG pressure that really opens up modeling opportunities plus the fact that Mantic openly encourages that your block of troops don’t necessarily have to be an actual block of troops gives a nice sense to the rules. The rules are straightforward though a bit simple but then on reflection the realization that you can pretty much build whatever army you want due to the allies system I think it has a lot of potential. I also won’t omit the fact that I love the 15 min setup and cleanup of Kings of War over the possibly 1 hour for WHFB.
I do play WHFB as it is THE big game in the local club, if we discount DBMM and that does not really interest me at all
I like KoW as well and if I where to introduce someone to mass combat i.e. non-skirmish fantasy this would be my choice.
GoB I have yet to try but looking at the authors pedigree – I would love to have a read/go
Come to think of it – Humans vs. Orcs – and a New Bretonians book – could it be that the Brets will be the last 8th – but written for 9th book ? and we will see a box set of Brets and Orc and Goblins ?
Gonna chip in here as this is my fav game system. Yes it’s different to KoW, which I’ve seen played. Yes it’s different to 40k and other skirmish games. Yes it’s rule/army book heavy with all the challenges of balancing. Yes it’s not a perfect tournament ruleset without some form of comp. But for ME, is a spectacle game. Big model count with random elements that can change the game. For ME that makes me feel more like the general and less in control as I’d like to be. The general sets out with a plan, but a paniced unit can break my line and I have to rethink fast. Plus again for ME the depth of the army books, units and fluff allow for lots of building, kitbashing and painting fun. Am I happy to live with the problems this scope brings – yes. If you want to play a game of WFB that really sums up the intent of the game then try Triumph and Treachery – mental fun. Whether 9th comes this summer or not, I’ll still be building armies, terrain and having weekender games with mates that are about narrative and the highs and lows of epic fantasy battle. Long live WFB!
I agree, nothing comes close for spectacle IMHO.
Never said it where a bad game it is my default game after all and while there are tweaks I would like – my personal bugbear being the killing power of cannons when it come to monsters and their riders but tweak it to a D3 and I’d be a happy man and I get my mosterriders back – but then you will hear my dwarf playing mate complain – while not perfectly balanced which games is ? aside from Tic-Tac-Toe ? even in chess the Whites always go fist talk about an advantage,
I recall in the dawn of time reading a document from one of the civilization developers – think it where for Civ3 – going through the Rock, Paper & Scissors system you have in games like Age of Empires, Infantry beat Cavalry beat Shooters beat Infantry and so on …
This does for the most work OK in WHFB, and add magic as the wild horse.
So yes I like it – else I would not use so much time and money on it – even running a campaign in the local club for 12+ players
Enough of my blabbering …
‘Dwarves lacking in the BIG department’?
🙂
Warhammer 8th is an incredible game and i’ll certainly raise a glass on it’s passing if your rumours come true…
I’m a great fan of the rules and don’t really see the need for any changes, though a 40K alliance system would be a great.
Nevertheless I would like a re-release of Fantasy 8th in its present form as the current starter set is lacking. It is mostly made up of marketing material and ‘propaganda’, it could really do with cool counters, rule summary sheets and introductory rules and campaign.
The greatest issue facing 8th edition was never the rules or community support but the huge expense required to start the game. Most people playing it were veterans with long established armies already. To play Fantasy you do need large units of at least 20-25 soldiers. Hoard armies like Skaven and Goblins require more, so charging stupid money for rank and file troops really damaged the game’s popularity. Take a look how much GW are charging for Witch Elves – £30 for 10! It wouldn’t surprise me if Troll Slayers get given a similar price.
I can’t speak to potential new players turned away by price, but I do know that as a set of rules, 8th ed drove a lot of veteran players away in my local area. The main beneficiary has been Warmachine which has overtaken WFB round here in the last few years.
Funny, I heard of quite a few veterans returning after 8th was released.
I can only speak to my local scene. There’s certainly still people playing WFB, but overall there’s been a significant migration to Warmachine.
It’s only anectdotal, but WHFB pretty much died in my area after 8th. Players either migrated to 40k or Warmahordes (or just quit the hobby, sadly). 8th was not well-received here. I’ve had a store owner tell me point blank, “Warhammer used to be a good game,” while standing in front of all of his WHFB stock that he hasn’t sold yet (not the best pitch). He seemed downright crestfallen, like someone had shot his dog. I don’t think he can find players anymore, and he’s got two pretty large armies of his own.
I don’t know anyone who plays anymore (that includes myself). You never saw it being played in the local GW store either, just 40K. There is one club in the area that plays it regularly so it isn’t completely dead, but it’s way behind Warmachine. There’s tournaments for WM pretty much every weekend round here.
I already stated it above, but to keep a count going I’ll say that my experience has been the same as redben and mpopke…8th edition came around, WFB began to die off, Warmahordes players surged.
The latest edition of 40k however has brought about a resurgence of the game though.
8th has definitely had mixed receptions, and has definitely seen a drop off in numbers where I used to game but a boost where I now live, my thoughts on 8th for what little they are worth below. However, anecdotally 6th ed 40k has been very poorly received my old gaming club has gone from have 20-30 people a night playing it down to 2-4. With similar down turns elsewhere that I am aware of.
As a mad collector of all things Dwarf, I think I will go bankrupt in Feb if an updated Dwarf army is released. My wife is going to kill me…I can just hear her now “Why do you need more Dwarfs? What about all those you have not painted in the cupboard?” I had better start thinking of some excuses…. they will be mine, mine, MINE!…mwahahahaha…..
For me the main drawback of warhammer, and the reason i cant see myself pick it up amounts to the following:
1. The scope. Just too many models to build and paint. After state trooper number 40 i would go mad.
2. The removing models by the bucket, type of a game. Why rank your dudes up in neat ranks, only to remove them 5 minutes later due to a single spell?
3. The cost. It is simply too expensive to start a new army. The costs of a 2500 point army is simply too high.
To add some more to the rumor mill…there have been some talk of a few WFB armies being dropped. Ben already touched upon one of them in TK and VC being merged into a single Undead book.
Funny enough all of the armies mentioned, with the exception of the Dwarfs, have been whispered to be on the chopping block. WE and Bretonnians may end up going the way of Chaos Dwarfs…Beastmen will either be merged into another Chaos army or dropped all together.
Going to stress again that these are rumors though…they could have been started by the ravings of a lunatic for all I know. Apparently these armies are the weakest sellers so their demise is due to cutting costs. And GW has had no issue dropping armies before.
Would be a shame with the Bretonnians and WE though…I’m not a fan of GW but those are some iconic armies. And I did always like the look of Beastmen.
Now a skirmish game could be very interesting. If done right it would be something that even a jaded former-GW fan like myself could get into (although I would use other company’s models…)
Dropping would be a terrible ides, so probably current plan. Changing Warhammer so multiple armies are in one book however would keep the models, reduce the workload of development and potential sell more one off units.
Think I will stick to KOW and Fantasy Warriors
Oh and I hope they change the random charges. Such a stupid rule that you could end up only going an inch or two. Iiif they want a random element it should be small. For example all units could charge double their Movment stat +D6. This would will allow for attempts at lucky charges in deprate moments and return some of the calculatable tactics of movement and risk.
Random charges, are a bugbear of mine the execution not the concept. I can see why the 81/2″ dance etc was one of them. I have always though m + 3 + d6 was the way I would go, just seems to feel right when I have played with it.
Not a fan of them either. For unit with M4 to have a random charge distance between 6-16″ is absurd and makes luck too big of a factor.
Indeed it is the fact the random variatiion is greater than even cavalry move that causes the issue imo
Why does everyone hate big units?!?!
Obviously it is too expensive to build units using GW models. But fantasy games clearly are designed for big regiments, rather than tiny units of 5-10. The armies simply did not look realistic.
Some of these younger players simply don’t want to paint proper regiments. Surely this shows their lack of character?
Being in my post-20’s…(ok, fine, I’m 30…) what has made me hesitate doing a large-scale 28mm game is time. Cleaning, assembling, and above all painting an army is incredibly time consuming. And nothing is worse that buying a ton of models, starting to paint them, then losing interest in the game and having a batch of half-painted miniatures.
One of the reasons I feel myself and many gamers these days are gravitating towards skirmish-level games. To use Bushido as an example I think only one faction hits the 40 model mark. If you paint 40 miniatures for KoW or WFB you only have one of several units painted. You paint 40 miniatures for Bushido and you have an entire faction all painted up. This comparison becomes even more stark if you are a slow painter like myself.
Dropzone has similar appeal because, while larger than skirmish level games, you still don’t need nearly as many individual models and being 10mm you can paint them up quicker. There are only a handful of models (mostly dropships) that could be considered large.
I will say that a fully painted WFB or KoW army is very impressive and awesome looking. Many of us simply don’t have the time for it. If anything it is the younger players that have the free time.
A number of people commenting here have touted KoW as being (in their opinion) a superior ruleset to WFB 8th ed. KoW features 40 man units yet no-one has complained about their presence in that game. The difference is that Alessio designed KoW from to incorporate that size of unit from the get go. Rick designed WFB as a skirmish level game. There’s a large amount of micromanagement to WFB that breaks down and bogs down when you start putting units that size onto the table. You have to micromanage their movement, their formations, their individual attacks based upon their individual profile and where they are in the unit. Then you have to roll to hit, and to wound, and then your opponent makes a save, and then you have to remove individual casualties and figure out the whole thing again. Throw in random charges, the real possibility of your massive unit breaking and being ran down even when it’s mostly intact, or being wiped out by a spell, then add the cost of GW minis on top of that and all-in-all what you have left is a very unappealing feature of the game. If I was to compose a list of the reasons why I quit WFB, horde units would be on there and it’d be nothing to do with having to assemble and paint 40 minis.
Lots of small battles have happened in history. And let’s face it even 200 models a side is small really. I do not mind units of 20-25 but over that it just takes away from the game. Long slug feasts are dull. Small units allows for more things to happen in a game. More breaking units and then having to deal with the results of broken lines, or a unit breaking formation to run down a fleeing unit and getting in a bad postion .
The thing about KOW is that you dont have to have 40 models though, as long as the base size is correct you can put as many on as you want…Lots of games have gone this way so you can build diorama bases. Works out cheaper in the long run as well. I have played against players who have 20-25 models on their horde base and it looks fine
Which is another in-built feature of a game that was designed from the start to accommodate units of that size. WFB wasn’t and can’t do this as a result.
Two reasons people hate big units. The first is it takes time to clean, assemble and paint a large unit. The second is warhammer has a clunky system of combat that makes it slow and tedious to play.
The problem with large units is no matter how great you paint individual models many of them are lost in the second let alone third and fourth rank of a big unit. It is hard to be inspired to do a quality paint job or even emotionally invest in a unit where only 50% or less of of your unit is noticed. You cut assemble, use a different shield, different heads, and weapon and all people notice is your leader, drummer, standard bearer and 2 figures out of a 16 man unit. I think people would rather play more than paint more for the majority of large units. I think a high quality snap together unit (note space hulk did both by having high quality miniatures that snapped together) and a relaxing that players must play with a painted unit would help. Imagine buying a 3 boxes of saurus and being able to field them in 2 hours. If need be include a collector box that has all the variations with individual parts as a website exclusive.
As for the speed of play. Ballastic skill is a mess with all its modifiers, etc. Close combat has a lot of bookkeeping to see who won combat. At the end players are rolling usually three times to wound or kill a model. This is clunky for large games. They need to make 1 roll to hit and 1 roll to damage that factors in both armor and toughness into the roll. If you can cut the game down from 90 minutes to 60 you will see it become much more popular to play.
Snap together still need clean up, the space hulk ones certainly did, you could have it on the table in 2 hours but your still going to be cleaning up for 6 before you can spray them. BS mods are better than the cover save mess 40 k has, and it not difficult. True 3 rolls to kill is fairly excessive, but alternatives can present other issues – such as your opponent ahve little to nothing to do in your turn.
Looking from a buying aspect to and ability to move product the goal is to have people buy a unit and if need be assemble in the store to play. I saw people do this with warmachine years ago. They would play a game realize they need/wanted a different model and literally run over, buy it, super glue and field it within a few minutes. You cannot do that with the current models. They are all designed for the hobbyist who will spend hours cleaning, assembling and painting.
With snap fit high quality miniatures you appeal to both the hobbyist and player. The player who wants to field a unit can do so missing one or maybe two games while he assembles, but field it the same night. Later the same player can clean and paint when they have time. The hobbyist can still modify and paint and this is where I recommend having an exclusive online set from GW where it has the 180 components consisting of heads, bodies, weapons and shields. The point is to encourage the impulse buy by players.
My issue of the BS skill is hitting 7+. Roll one die, then roll another die if you get a 6. Lots of modifiers and in many cases you are at best getting 1 out of 12 or so to hit. Then assuming str 3 vs toughness 4 you get 1/3 that wound. Now compare with light armor. You are literally getting 5/216 to kill a model. That is a mess when you are rolling using 40 attacks to kill approximately 1 basic model. It slows the game down tremendously with very little return. What is sadder is you could do a probability chart and have players do a single roll 3d6 or 4d6 per unit, compare to chart to see how many get removed and remove models accordingly.
Fair point on the assembly, the bs thing rarely gets that silly. Plus that the issue of restricting yourself to a six sided dice
The last time I played WFB it was 4th ed. and I didn’t much like it. Every time I have contemplated returning to the fold, it’s never happened because I just can’t compose a legal army to try playing.
I have nearly 800 painted fantasy miniatures (not including humans).
But they are on wrong size bases, mostly from wrong manufacturers, have wrong equipment (even GW models), miss the all-important named superheroes and now the super-sized monsters etc.
The last fantasy mass battle rules I played was Chipco’s Fantasy Rules! which is pretty good (it’s basically an evolution of HotT with rules even a damn furriner like me can understand) but commecially reather dead these days (you can still buy it as PDF though).
I bought Kings of War and might try it out, but quite frankly it feels a little bit too much like a game instead of a simulation to me, e.g. the ability to single out units for attack, by multiple opponents no less, from a battleline — in fact forcing the supporting line to retreat!
Historical gaming has spoilt me. I can no longer just handwave illogicalities away saying “it’s fantasy/magic/science/warp”.
In all honesty very few of the named characters are worth having. Agree with Kings of war – that ‘gamey’ factor was something I found but could kinda except.
Nice article, and it kinda sums up my feelings with the game. I am not a fan of 8th, widely rated to be the best addition – too many of the core mechanics are too me one step short of where they need to be and it lacks reward for the precise movement it used to have. I think it is the addition that is the most ‘gamey’ where consistent success is more reliant on exploiting/utilising game mechanics than on a base strategy.
I won’t call it a luck fest as there are people who win too consistently – although I have found it frustrating to have careful maneuvers and tactical play under done by the look I made 3 10″ plus move charges in a turn and won approaches to play. Something that is a lot worse at small points values. The issue I believe is from the limited selection of play testers – if you consistently use people from top end of tournaments because of the games direction you will end up with an increasingly gamey design. What fantasy needs is a reboot with a massive play test base a’la warmahordes mk2 – but GW will never do that.
However, despite the frustrations I have found a large % of my limited play time given over too it, I have an deep love of the warhammer background (The true background not this editions crappy rewrite) from playing and running far too much WFRP, and for all of the failings I perceive it has as a strategic game it is a tool box to have fun, narrative games. It does require that investment to set up and agree some ground rules, to get the flavour you want but when done it can be rewarding. However, it has certainly thinned the numbers so few of those people I used to play with do so anymore, but in some areas it has had a massive revival so it seems.
There are rumours of 9th edition this year, I hope they are not true – as Rick Priestley said running out a new edition because its when accounts says the new release is due is poor game design and poor for the game. I would like to see the remaining 5 books released, then 9th addressed. There are also rumours of taking to a skirmish system, but it doesn’t really suit the games pedigree, although in early days it had it roots in the growing warbands from LatD/StD and that small level skirmish I cannot see it. As a system it doesn’t work well for skirmishes, and I cannot see it work well for shifting models. There where also rumours of going to 3-4 army books, and combined forces – which if done right I think could be the way to go – there are too many books in current format to support properly.
Dwarves, don’t excite me (Sorry Brennon) for all their great lore and character they have never translated into an army that suits my play style. If they can change that playstyle I will be very happy. Wood elves, excite and worry me – the last book was at the time possibly one of the best designed books in terms of the character of the army matching the way it plays, the potential for amazing new models and rules is fantastic and with great potential comes great wide acres of ball dropping space.
Bretonnians suffer from the same issue as Dwarves, that limited playstyle on the table top (The only fantasy army I don’t have as I won’t have time to paint up each knight as the character they should be). Beastmen and skaven also need a revisit – Beastmen as they went from being that interesting ambush/skirmish army to something that only works one way and Skaven from that poorly written book (FAQ is longer than some rule sets). As I have said I would like them all written for 8th, possibly selfishly as I am not convinced 9th will be one to buy.
As to other mass battle systems, I tried Kings of war and while it flows well, and rewards tactics it is far to passive when its not your turn. War of the ring, I liked but magic was unbalanced, characters ranged from weak to devastating – but the core was an amalgam of the best bits of others including warmaster. What would others recommend?
Have I mentioned God of Battles? lol. Order the rulebook from Foundry and you’ll have all you need. All of the rules and army lists are in it and you can port a number of your existing WFB armies straight over so you won’t even need to buy any minis. If being passive in your opponent’s turn is something you don’t enjoy then GoB gives you the opposite as it uses alternating activations (you activate a unit, then I activate a unit, and so on), and you can use stratagems and miracles to mess around with the activation sequence to add a further level of tactical depth.
Will definitely check it out @redben
Regardless about what system gets a new rules update, i do hope they do away with the randomness.
eg random Warlord traits, random powers etc etc i kind of hate that stuff and before 40k dexes had there own traits i would hardly bother to see what trait i just rolled unless it was a 6 wich made my Lord scoring.
If its fantasy i hope something gets done to hordes ruling, yes hordes not magic. As a 40k player i rather have mulitple smaller units than having to put all my eggs in 1 basket unit, if that unit falls you could lose alot, yes seen my fair share of unlucky rolls where my big unit of Chaos warriors is overrun by random Skaven dudes.
In the end it comes down to: is Games Workshop willing to listen to the community, or do they put there heads in the sand and enter ignore mode.
In 7th edition people were using lots of small units. But unless you literally turn those units into a skirmish they look stupid.
For example a 5 man unit with a standard and a musician – it is a stupid idea.
In 7th edition the game revolved entirely around 5 man units of knights. You could not build large units and therefore it was a problem for people who wanted to build big armies.
You could try Fantasy Hail Caesar that works pretty well
7th ed wasn’t kind to standard units of infantry. If you had an elite unit you were best off running them in two ranks of six to maximise attacks and minimise points cost and even then it was hard to get them into combat. Tarpit units, death stars, and mobile units was where it was at. The problem for me and many that I gamed with, was that the fix was worse than the original issue.
Back in 2nd and 3rd edition days units with 10 figures were the norm mostly. Judging by some of the material I have, 1st edition seems to have had a lot of single figures.
But the game also wasn’t built (quite as much) to sell figures, so having “full command” was not a requirement for every serious unit.
My experience of 3rd ed was that units were pushing out to 16 minis, which was standard in 4th and 5th ed. 6th ed put that up to 20, and as touched on above, 7th ed made the 20 man unit pretty redundant in many cases. The system was originally designed to handle individual minis but it was elastic enough to stretch to 20 man units IMO. 40 is way beyond its breaking point, again IMO.
Do you not think that units of 2 ranks simply look stupid?
At that miniature range you should simply play a skirmish game such as Warmachine. There is no point in ranking up a unit of 10 troops and giving them a command structure and such.
One of the problems with WFB is that it has tried to be all things to all people.
Some of the armies are designed for players who like huge armies (like me). Some of the armies are fantasy and some of them are basically steam punk armies. Some of the armies have a totally different structure to other armies (wood elves and bretonians).
My point has always been this – if you are going to build a game around regiments and units then you ought to have a proper size for those units. Units of 5-10just look wrong.
No, not at all. I’m old enough to have played WFB when small units were standard. I play WarGods which has ranked up units of ten as standard, God of Battles which has ranked up units of 12-16 as standard. None of this is a problem for me. Not that I have any objection to large units, I just want the rules to work.
Redben I am in my 30s and I can remember people using all kinds of armies in 2nd-4th edition. People did not just use small units but it depended upon your personal preference. For example to build a skaven army you could not use units of 10. Also just because people used to play like that does not change the fact that small units look unrealistic.
You say that you “just want the rues to work.” There are also players who would prefer the scale to feel a bit more realistic. Whilst some players are more interested in the rules, obviously some players prefer a more realistic narrative to the armies.
The larger armies actually feel like an “army” on the board. Tiny units look unrealistic on the board because they are not structured the way that a proper regiment would be.
You asked if I thought units made up of two ranks looked stupid, I said I do not, there is nothing further to say on that. It’s a great leap from there to 40 man units so I took your stance to also consider units such as 12 or 16 to be small. If that is the case then I very definitely do not agree as I can, have, and do happily play historical and fantasy wargames with units of that size. If you don’t think those are small then there’s no need to have 40 man units. Ultimately though, and once again stating my opinion, I find that the way the WFB apply to horde units to be a deeply unpleasant gaming experience and were one of the reasons I dropped the game.
And briefly on the evolution of unit size. 16 man units were standardised in 4th ed though they were common for basic infantry in 2nd and 3rd, elite infantry were often smaller. Prior to 6th ed you very rarely saw units bigger than 16.
*the way the WFB rules apply to horde units
I think the 8th ruleset does sort of make larger units more viable BUT pushes gamers to buy buy hoards 40+ so much that well £££ seems to have been the agenda.
A good fantasy ruleset should allow you play with units of all sizes.
Quoting myself from further up the page, this summarises the issues I have with horde units in WFB –
“There’s a large amount of micromanagement to WFB that breaks down and bogs down when you start putting units that size onto the table. You have to micromanage their movement, their formations, their individual attacks based upon their individual profile and where they are in the unit. Then you have to roll to hit, and to wound, and then your opponent makes a save, and then you have to remove individual casualties and figure out the whole thing again. Throw in random charges, the real possibility of your massive unit breaking and being ran down even when it’s mostly intact, or being wiped out by a spell, then add the cost of GW minis on top of that and all-in-all what you have left is a very unappealing feature of the game.”
@redben your right about the entire hoard being wiped out just because you got unlucky with the dice (very bad design) but a lot of people love the “one man counts” mechanic of wargames, I certainly do. I don’t want to play a game where I don’t actually have to have all my models, I want each man to count, and I want to see that unit’s numbers dwindle in front of my eyes (like a pc game). Some of what you listed is not really micromanagement, rolling to hit etc for each model isn’t that much work.
It’s more that you have to figure out exactly which mini in the unit is contributing an attack and how many it is. Collect a bucket of dice together, roll them all, pick out the hits, roll them all again to wound, pick out the wounds and then have your opponent make saves. God of Battles has individual minis contributing dice and individual casualty removal, but it achieves the same effect as WFB in a far smoother and less laborious way. Movement is definitely a micromanagement issue in WFB, especially when changing formation.
Im pretty stoked for the new dwarf models to finally come out, I have been playing 40k for 5 years now and love my tau and greyknights, but fantasy is what I really wanted to play.
Now a few of my local gaming group have decided to start, I have a few buddies with lizardmen, high elves, skaven, and daemons of chaos, and I have been waiting for the new dwarf codex to finally drop so I can play too.
So far I have picked up a battalion, a cannon, and gotten 2 dwarf sets from the battle for skull pass set that came out, a runelord, 2 dwarf lords, and a set of the drunken dwarfs cause I like the models a lot.
I am anxiously waiting to get the codex and a few of the new models that are rumoured to be released.
Screw you guys, the Tomb Kings have some of the best models GW have ever made damn your eyes! I love The Mummy armies!
What bugs me is GW never released “budget slot together easy plastics” boxes, cheaply, for each army – to facilitate the creation of hoards etc. Note how easy it is to create hoards with Mantic (and you DON’T actually need the models in Kings of War…).
Why do people want to ‘squat’ poor Bretonnia? *sob* Without them, who will crush the dishonorable hordes of evil under the iron shod hooves of noble chivalry (and slight amounts of arrogance)? The High Elves, with they’re deceitful and magicy trickery (they’ve got the arrogance thing down though)? The Dwarfs may have they’re highly honorable hearts in the right place, but evil will have come and gone by the time they get their stunty little selves to the battlefield. That leaves the Empire. I’m sure the brave upper classes of the Empire will do fine, just as long as the forces of evil don’t resort to bribery or seduction. Gunpowder. Bah!
As you can probably tell, I was a Bretonnia fan back when I played WFB. Heck, the original release of the Bretonnians back in 5th edition was what convinced me to give Fantasy a try, being a 40k player at the time. I’ve long since dropped out of both of the Warhammer games. I’d be far more likely to try Warhammer Fantasy again than 40k. They’d have to tone down the model count though. Maybe have an Apocalypse style ruleset for fans of massive units and monsters?
I voted for Brets so could give my own reasoning :). I was there for the 5th ed Bret book and more than any release before or since it broke my connection to the world. I didn’t necessarily the Brets to stick to the original incarnation as a Chaos infested nobility and miserable peasantry, but Arthurian knights was a step too far for me. I know 6th ed toned that down but it’s still a personal lowpoint in my WFB career. Plus that 5th ed army was OP. I suspect that Stillman knew cavalry armies in 4th ed were rubbish but the Bret book went too far the other way.
Yeah for people who said they were going to get rid of all 3 though… Brets were once more popular than Empire. Wood elves were once more popular than both High Elves and Dark Elves (until those armies got new books).
Part of the reason they have not been popular for a while is that they have no new book and their rules fail to fit in completely with the new edition. They have never quite fitted in with any edition they are either completely OP or completely unworkable (I suppose the same is true of many deamon armies).
One of the problems I always had with Brets is that the background does not seem to fit in with WFB when you put them alongside a big steampunk style army like skaven.
They were born out of the Perrys War of the Roses range which meant they were always going to be a little out of step with the renaissance era Perry minis that became the Empire, let alone what Jes was doing. The Arthurian thing just pushed it over the top for me and like you, it seemed like they belonged in a different game.
If you look at the 3 separate human armies – WOC, Bret and Empire it shows how Warhammer could almost be made into 2 totally separate games or even 3 separate games. You have some armies trying to be a bit like Lord of the Rings and others trying to be a bit like Lovecraft.
Not only has it stretched the background in a rather cartoonish way, but also it stretches the ability to play a normal game. Some armies just never seem to work because you have dragons going up against hordes of cannons and other such anomalies.
I’d much rather see a Crusader theme than the Arthurian theme; Crusading has an inherently dark aspect to it, combining religious warfare and extreme xenophobia, which fits very nicely with the Warhammer world. I think the purely Arthurian theme is actually and limiting, certainly from a collecting and modelling point of view. I wouldn’t “squat” any of the armies even if I could, but I would make a number of changes to the Bretonian army in terms of their model range – largely to satisfy my own desire for model range that makes it easier to create unique armies with different themes. I find it hard to unleash my imagination on the current Bret range because of the limmited model range and the limited posability of the models that are on offer.
I will refrain from commenting on the rules – I don’t play often enough to make an informed statement about how the rules really affect Brets I would just be saying the bits where I think they have been nerfed in 8th edition which is more whining than anything else. I think they look hard to play if you’re a novice, like me, because they seem to be very unforgiving of even the tiniest mistake; that’s all I will say on that suject.
*and how many dice it is from each mini.
That should be at the bottom of the previous page lol
Not voting as I believe there is a middle way between the squat and full independent support that is better – plus why only those 4? Not sure evidence is that strong on them selling less. A hell of lot of beast armies etc, that don’t see regular play but still get stuff brought. Dwarves could well be one to squat in all honest given how few people enjoy playing against them – not trolling serious asking why just those four is there strong evidence they are considerably weaker than others? particular Dark Elves pre-revamp?
Neither Wood Elves nor Brets have a typical army structure. The rules which apply to them in my experience either make them totally broken and overpowered or totally useless and unworkable. I think the same thing is sometimes true of certain types of Demon armies and Vampires. Armies such as Orcs and Goblins or Empire or dwarves or high elves are a bit less weird and tend to be slightly less unbalanced.
Having said all of this, I don’t believe the rumours anyway. I think that they will bring back all those armies. Wood Elves and Brets used to be the most popular armies in the game (because they were overpowered lol).
It may be the case that having 15 different armies stretches the limit in terms of viable playstyles. Playing against WE in 7th ed they seemed a very gimmicky army and not a lot of fun to play. I did run WE in 5th ed, the fairy stuff was still unappealing but the fluff wasn’t as bad or the army as broken as Brets were. That they were both left until the very end of the 6th ed cycle could be an indicator that they weren’t selling well by that point. As new releases tend to spike sales in an army and GW are combating declining sales, that might provide a strong motivation for GW to give them another book.
I would agree that against the wood elves just after the new book was probably frustrating – although it did match the fluff. However not really much different from the skink cloud now.
I feel Wood Elves should be made a bit more like a normal elf army. I don’t think WFB can withstand a skirmish army as it is too out of step with other armies.
I can see evidence that GW might go down that route. They have drastically reduced the ability to take full skirmish armies in other armies such as beastmen and skaven (at least as far as I can remember, I never see any beastmen armies being played!)
On another note it would also be nice to see the fluff for wood elves become a bit more realistic.
I find the old scenarios published in WD and Citadel Journal back in the 80’s quite endearing. They also sold army sets for the scenarios, they were like 60 figures for an entire “army”.
(Ofcourse back then I couldn’t afford even those)
Yes, it wasn’t huge mass battles but I liked the idea. No huge ubermonsters, no earth shattering magic, just a good old scuffle with a little more structure than just individuals running around (I had RPGs for that).
These days I find it that I have very little patience for fiddly things. This means almost any game beyond small skirmish that has individual figure removal, formation changes for individually based figures etc. If you want mass battle, you should go for element basing, IMHO.
Testify!
Rumours are that in the new edition of Warhammer Fantasy they are going to be cutting down the number of models you need in units to make them ‘regiments’. So, these ten man packs could be all you require…something to think on. And, it does remind me of the old editions.
BoW Ben