# New Warhammer Rumours



## Too_hot_to_handle (Jan 4, 2007)

Apparently the following scenario led to the direction of the new edition of warhammer. 
Rick Priestly was playing a game of warhammer in wh world, when some things happened he asked his opponent whys that happen it doesn't make sense, and he said because thats what the rules say. he then said well thats not the rules i wrote, well have to see about this.

Also some members of the dev team have said that the new warhammer will be very different from what it is now. They commented that there are many rumours online that are false, as well as some that are pretty accurate, however that even the accurate rumours were mis-leading as the new edition will be so different that the impact will be nothing like people expect. They said the new edition will play alot more like it feels it should. One of them also said that one of the key things will be that models in units will all contribute to the combat, rather than 5 guys fight while the other 20 stand around doing nothing. They felt it didn't seem right that one uber character could charge out against an enemy unit kill the 3 guys facing him and not face any repucussions.

I also heard from a different source, that the new rules will also focus on different mission and set-up types similar to how 40k developed from 4th to 5th, which will promote balanced armys and a strong base of core units rather that hero hammer.


----------



## Inquisitor Aurelius (Jun 9, 2008)

You mean to say that just when they've almost got it right, they pull up stakes and move in an entirely different direction? Fucksakes...

Source?


----------



## Too_hot_to_handle (Jan 4, 2007)

"members of the dev team" for the first parts 

the other source has a mate who works in gw hq, not in games dev or anything just in the offices. He was saying that they are very tight lipped about stuff as obviously they are aware that they shouldn't talk about such stuff, but that also as they have known about stuff for a year or more its hard for them to remember exactly what has been made public knowledge. If you talk about something as though its been announched they will often assume it is. So he said to his mate im looking forward to when the new edition comes out and you have proper missions for warhammer, and his mate said yeah it will mean people actually have more than minimum troops for a change, im fed up of playing armies that are all maxed rares, specials and heroes.


----------



## TheKingElessar (Mar 31, 2009)

Too_hot_to_handle said:


> Apparently the following scenario led to the direction of the new edition of warhammer.
> Rick Priestly was playing a game of warhammer in wh world, ...he then said well thats not the rules i wrote, well have to see about this.


...? Didn't ALESSIO write the rules????


----------



## Cyklown (Feb 8, 2010)

Yeah, but won't that fuck certain armies through their pants? I thought some armies were balanced largely because of their nontroops stuff.


----------



## Inquisitor Aurelius (Jun 9, 2008)

Yup. And it's not like they'll do a new Ravening Hordes; where's the margin?

*Prepares to relegate VC army once more to the shelves.*


----------



## Cyklown (Feb 8, 2010)

Yeah. I don't play Fantasy myself, but I was under the distint impression that Vampires and Eldar, I mean high elves lived on the back of their non-core stuff. Hey, when they did it in 40k it was a good thing. And you guys started with a better thought game (unless I'm heinously wrong based on who I've been talking to. 40k may just attract more whiners).


----------



## TheKingElessar (Mar 31, 2009)

On reflection, Rick probably wrote the first edition, and is just aggravated at the development of the game...then again, players get pissed off all the time - and if GW wrote rules clearly enough that people couldn't misread them so easily then it'd be better for everyone. We would all know what game we were playing, and people wouldn't accidentally House Rule stuff.


----------



## jigplums (Dec 15, 2006)

rick wrote the original


----------



## keytag33 (Apr 20, 2008)

This is making me nervous:scare: I really like Fantasy the way it is. It could use a couple of tweaks but not wholesale change.

Very nervous indeed


----------



## bitsandkits (Mar 18, 2008)

jigplums said:


> rick wrote the original


Rick Priestly is the reason we have Warhammer and warhammer 40k not to mention pretty much everything else in the GW hobby, He is to games design what Jes Goodwin is to sculpting and john blanche is to the art of GW. If hes getting invloved with the core rules again the are in very safe hands.


----------



## TheKingElessar (Mar 31, 2009)

bitsandkits said:


> Rick Priestly is the reason we have Warhammer and warhammer 40k not to mention pretty much everything else in the GW hobby, He is to games design what Jes Goodwin is to sculpting and john blanche is to the art of GW. If hes getting invloved with the core rules again the are in very safe hands.


Yeah, I realised after posting before how silly it was...but I'm not infallible, so I figured I'd not edit it out and pretend like I am.:wink:


----------



## deathbringer (Feb 19, 2009)

Well if all models are going to fight hopefully bretts will get a new army book at the same time, the lance will become defunct and an already underpowered and underplayed army will be extinct

As for a new rules, meh we will get used to them. Not from personal knowledge but from older friends that have played for many years, Rick Priestly is an excellent designer and so I believe the game can only get better

As for becoming more mission based, sounds good to me, on of the positives of 5th ed (for me) was the new mission set ups and the easy way of discerning which mission set up. Added variety and as already said more balanced armies will be needed.

Also if we are getting a complete overhall TimSteve could get his wish and units like spearmen will get a boost and become a viable anti cavalry option. Boo to my bretts if so


----------



## Cyklown (Feb 8, 2010)

It's not my game, so actual gameplay issues are completely out of my league, but I would like to point out that in actual medieval combat it was only the first few ranks that directly fought/effected the melee unless cav broke through or the melee mixed.


----------



## the.alleycat.uk (Jun 11, 2009)

I don't accept the premise that Rick hasn't played a game in so long that he had no idea where the game was heading... That part sounds like made-up name dropping on the part of someone.

Introducing battlefield scenarios sounds like a logical progression for the game, just like 40k it was there in previous editions but everyone kinda defaulted to pitched battle scenarios. Mixing up the tactics in this way sounds likely. Radically different in rules-set; unlikely.


----------



## MaidenManiac (Oct 2, 2008)

Too_hot_to_handle said:


> ...
> Rick Priestly was playing a game of warhammer in wh world, when some things happened he asked his opponent whys that happen it doesn't make sense, and he said because thats what the rules say. he then said well thats not the rules i wrote, well have to see about this...


What if this simply is Rick realizing that he/they have once again failed to make the rules clear, and thus yet again failed to make them work the way they wanted?

A lot of the 5th ed 40k Codices have "hastily" written and unclear shit in them, that could very well be the case again here.




TheKingElessar said:


> ...? Didn't ALESSIO write the rules????


As long as Alessio stays the hell out of Warhammer and sticks to WotR Im all happy:ireful2:



Inquisitor Aurelius said:


> *Prepares to relegate VC army once more to the shelves.*


Only that? I jumped the "I might have 4+ WHFB armies for sale bandwagon" when the first 8th ed rumours started to see the sun:cray:


----------



## TheKingElessar (Mar 31, 2009)

Well, Alessio wrote 7th Ed Fantasy, and, while I don't have an army, I own the rules, and know how to play (no claims about how well...) and the rules seem fine to me. Not great, sure...but fine. What's wrong with them?


----------



## Inquisitor Aurelius (Jun 9, 2008)

MaidenManiac said:


> Only that? I jumped the "I might have 4+ WHFB armies for sale bandwagon" when the first 8th ed rumours started to see the sun:cray:


Heh. Yeah, I doubt I'd ever have the heart to sell the little bastards. If all else fails, I can always stick to playing 7th (not that it's always easy to find a game now, but c'est la vie).



TheKingElessar said:


> Well, Alessio wrote 7th Ed Fantasy, and, while I don't have an army, I own the rules, and know how to play (no claims about how well...) and the rules seem fine to me. Not great, sure...but fine. What's wrong with them?


Not nearly as much as some people like to claim. It's the army books that are broken (and by "army books", I mean "army book". Do I really need to identify it by name?). The system just needs a little fine-tuning. Which is why I'm so annoyed about the rumours of a complete overhaul...:ireful2:


----------



## TheKingElessar (Mar 31, 2009)

Ah, the eponymous Daemons. Well...that was probably judged necessary to shift the range. Daemons as a double release was quite a risky business move. I'm not saying it was right, or that they handled it particularly well...but it could've been a LOT worse.

That said, my experience of Fantasy in 7th is limited to a few games as High Elves, a couple dozen games I've observed (mainly WoC, DE and VC) and a lot of TheoryHammering DE. In 5th I had a very small Brettonian army, cos it came in the box. lol.


----------



## Tim/Steve (Jan 25, 2009)

The only thing that needs to change in the WFB universe is the banning/nerfing of daemons. Anything that is flying should either be weak (like harpies or eagles) or be prohibitive to the rest of the army (like HE/DE eagles which are hugely expensive and take both a lord and a hero choice- but also a bolt thrower/cannon can both kill the rider in 1 shot or quite easily wound the dragon)... but then a bloodthirster turns up, says that he is pretty much always going to kill 5-6 models a turn, can avoid anything strong enough to take him down and if he does get hit by an anti-monster artillery piece he gets a 5+ sqave against it.
- I would want to see a return to a more standard idea of battle: fast things are weak, powerful things are slow and fully ranked up units should always have a chance against single models.

If something like 3" off flying movement for every point of T over 3 would be cool and add in -1" movement for 3+AS -2" for 2+... that way heavy cav are mostly down to 5-6" move, a dragon can only fly 11" (makes sense that an eagle can outfly a dragon) while he bloodthirster could fly 10" or march 14" (ie it can run faster then its could fly... not too surprising given its bulk).


Anyhow, back to the actual rumours- if they do have it that all models in a unit fight I better have a new army book for my ogres. Currently I rely on being able to hit the enemy first and do enough wounds to take little return- I simply dont have the T or AS to take getting hit... and without SCR I need to do a decent amount of damage.
Whgile this would totally screw over my T4 ogres (god Im hoping for a T boost in our new rumoured book) it would do little to something like a bloodthirster- it can happily charge a S3-4 unit knowing full well that even if every member of the unit gets to hit him they'll still not do much damage at all unless they get incredibly lucky.


----------



## TheKingElessar (Mar 31, 2009)

With my (admittedly limited) knowledge of the game, surely WoC, HE, Skaven, Orcs/Goblins and VC are the only ones to really benefit most from that proposed change? Most other armies get little benefit (DE, Dwarfs) no benefit (Tomb Kings, Ogres, Wood Elves, Brettonians) or moderate benefit (Empire, Daemons, Lizardmen)

Giving half the armies in the game a boost seems strange. Especially since among those are 3 of the best.


----------



## Inquisitor Aurelius (Jun 9, 2008)

VC would be royally fucked by 1-round combat and/or a 25% cap to characters. Undead core can't win fights on their own, and the entire army is utterly reliant on its expensive Vampires. Hence my earlier "shelve them" comment. WoC are better off, but they've still got the problem of extremely pricey characters.

Apart from that, I'm not inclined to argue with you.


----------



## maddermax (May 12, 2008)

Inquisitor Aurelius said:


> VC would be royally fucked by 1-round combat and/or a 25% cap to characters. Undead core can't win fights on their own, and the entire army is utterly reliant on its expensive Vampires. Hence my earlier "shelve them" comment. WoC are better off, but they've still got the problem of extremely pricey characters.
> 
> Apart from that, I'm not inclined to argue with you.


Don't believe half that you hear, or most that you read on the internet  Really, there's a lot of crap floating around out there.

I'm pretty sure while they might make some major changes to the mechanics, they won't go to one round combats. Wait for more solid rumours before you decry the new rules, and start talking about shelving armies. Trust me, it always happens, everyone says "this will screw over my army", then the rules come out, and they work well enough. Wait and see.

As for Rick Priestly being involved in the new rules set, I'm sure it's in safe hands. Now, if only he and Tuomas Pirinen (who worked with Rick on 6th Ed) could go and do another edition, that could be interesting... if only they could get him back from the video games industry.


----------



## Inquisitor Aurelius (Jun 9, 2008)

Hm. As I believe I've mentioned in a similar thread, I've seen enough ridiculous rumours prove to be true that I tend to err on the side of credulity. That said, I certainly hope you're right. But as I said, even the much more probable return to percentages would in and of itself leave VC rather screwed, so...


----------



## maddermax (May 12, 2008)

Inquisitor Aurelius said:


> Hm. As I believe I've mentioned in a similar thread, I've seen enough ridiculous rumours prove to be true that I tend to err on the side of credulity. That said, I certainly hope you're right. But as I said, even the much more probable return to percentages would in and of itself leave VC rather screwed, so...


While some ridiculous rumours turn out to be true, a lot of rumours just aren't, especially at this stage. Usually, about 2-3 months before the release you start getting the good info, before that, all sorts of junk is flying around. Plus, some of the rules which you hear and think "that's rediculous", and then you see how are in action, and it suddenly becomes reasonable, once you see what they meant. 

See a lot of the pre-40k 5th ed rumour threads to see examples of both. A lot of people were saying how it would be the end of the road for 40k, how this army or that army would be completely unusable! How no one would stand for this! and yet...

Point is, wait till you have a clearer picture of it. Even a ridiculous rule change could make sense if put in the right context, and that's assuming that it might be true.


----------



## Tel Asra Nejoar (Mar 16, 2010)

personally id be miffed if daemons got nerfed, i dont play them, nor will i. ever. but i think they should be that hard, they are meant to be the toughest things in the warhammer universe, if i could easily take down a bloodthirster i wouldnt be satisfied in the victory. BTW, in fantasy i play dwarfs, so im not exactly a power-gamer, but relish the challenge.


----------



## jigplums (Dec 15, 2006)

i had the conversation with a mate of mine about the whole percentage thing. I dont agree that it would screw VC. depends on the level of the percentages but you will then see more necromancers in lists that are pretty cheap characters, and wight kings etc.

your opp wont have as many uber characters that will be gunning for your lord. They will have more core units as well, so those ghouls and skellies wont be so useless. I don't really think it would make as big a difference as people think, you got to remember it would affect everybody.

However i dont think that will happen, as the rules for army composition are in every army book.


----------



## TheKingElessar (Mar 31, 2009)

I was thinking VC would be better off under the whole 'everybody fights' mechanic, because they are of course the only army (afaik) that can increase unit size mid-game, and over the course of a combat.

I somehow missed the idea of combats being fought for just one round. That sucks. Potentially.


----------



## MaidenManiac (Oct 2, 2008)

TheKingElessar said:


> Well, Alessio wrote 7th Ed Fantasy, and, while I don't have an army, I own the rules, and know how to play (no claims about how well...) and the rules seem fine to me. Not great, sure...but fine. What's wrong with them?


Not so much his work on the Rules (which Im curious how big they were) but more so his work on armybooks thats my beef with him. The really broken 6th ed books were all his work. And honestly, just like Gav never will be forgiven neither should the other half of the CD + CSM fuckups :ireful2:

If you werent into WHFB 6th ed its quite hard to describe how bad Alessios work was. 6th ed WHFB was at least as one sided as the meta game is nowdays, and that was all thanks to an Italian Powergamer writing armybooks...



maddermax said:


> As for Rick Priestly being involved in the new rules set, I'm sure it's in safe hands. Now, if only he and Tuomas Pirinen (who worked with Rick on 6th Ed) could go and do another edition, that could be interesting... if only they could get him back from the video games industry.


Not keeping Toumas Pirinen is the worst decision the Design Team has made for Fantasy in a very very long time. Personally I dont think Toumas will consider going back to GW ever, as far as I understood it they were arguing about payment, and thats never a good thing.



Inquisitor Aurelius said:


> VC would be royally fucked by 1-round combat and/or a 25% cap to characters. Undead core can't win fights on their own, and the entire army is utterly reliant on its expensive Vampires. Hence my earlier "shelve them" comment.


Some kind of "everyone fights" system, or we fight till 1 side is dead will annihilate the VC/TK armies, at least until new books are made. It doesnt matter if you can rebuild the units the next turn when there aint no second turn available. Right now (7th ed) an undead unit must survive 2 CC phases in order to perhaps get rebuilt, since magic is before CC and you can not cast on the opponents turn, thats hard enough. Add to that the fighting prowess of undead core units (which is on the level of Goblins) and things will go downhill _very_ quickly. 

I completely Agree with *Inquisitor Aurelius* in his statements, the only difference is Im not on the "shelve them" boat, Im on the "sell them" boat instead....


----------



## Inquisitor Aurelius (Jun 9, 2008)

maddermax said:


> While some ridiculous rumours turn out to be true, a lot of rumours just aren't, especially at this stage. Usually, about 2-3 months before the release you start getting the good info, before that, all sorts of junk is flying around. Plus, some of the rules which you hear and think "that's rediculous", and then you see how are in action, and it suddenly becomes reasonable, once you see what they meant.
> 
> See a lot of the pre-40k 5th ed rumour threads to see examples of both. A lot of people were saying how it would be the end of the road for 40k, how this army or that army would be completely unusable! How no one would stand for this! and yet...
> 
> Point is, wait till you have a clearer picture of it. Even a ridiculous rule change could make sense if put in the right context, and that's assuming that it might be true.


Hey, I'm not proposing that we all throw our hands in the air and give up the hobby*, nor am I accepting the rumours as gospel truth. All I'm saying is that I've braced myself and am prepared in the (far from impossible) event that the worst, as relates to my VC, should come to pass. Is that unreasonable?




*I've tried quitting repeatedly, actually, but it's never stuck. The little plastic buggers are worse than cigarettes.


----------



## jigplums (Dec 15, 2006)

why dont you actually try playing a game with a mate, using % breakdowns for the armies? i bet its not as bad as you think.
also everyone contributes could be represented in many ways so for example each rank after the 2nd add 1 attack. or they may remove the rule where models that die are assumed to be in the front and dont get to attack, so that any model that could have fought at the beginning of combat may attack if its alive, so that when goblins get raped, at least they get 6/11 attacks back


----------



## maddermax (May 12, 2008)

MaidenManiac said:


> Not keeping Toumas Pirinen is the worst decision the Design Team has made for Fantasy in a very very long time. Personally I dont think Toumas will consider going back to GW ever, as far as I understood it they were arguing about payment, and thats never a good thing.


I dunno, I saw an interview with him from quite a while ago here, and it sounded like it was his decision more than anything. It sounds like table top designing just doesn't make as much money as computer game designing, more than he felt like he was being shafted. It also sounded like he was on reasonable/good terms with GW afterwards (the design team at least, maybe not the company).



Inquisitor Aurelius said:


> Hey, I'm not proposing that we all throw our hands in the air and give up the hobby*, nor am I accepting the rumours as gospel truth. All I'm saying is that I've braced myself and am prepared in the (far from impossible) event that the worst, as relates to my VC, should come to pass. Is that unreasonable?


Haha, well, if you prepare for and expect the worst, then what ever happens I suppose will be a pleasant surprise 



Inquisitor Aurelius said:


> *I've tried quitting repeatedly, actually, but it's never stuck. The little plastic buggers are worse than cigarettes.


You should perhaps consider not smoking them then :laugh: Don't worry, I'm sure they'll develop a patch at some point.


----------



## Tim/Steve (Jan 25, 2009)

jigplums said:


> why dont you actually try playing a game with a mate, using % breakdowns for the armies? i bet its not as bad as you think.


Thats when my HE field Teclis and he gets taken to the cleaners by the 6 goblin shamans that run to the same points total as him... ~8PD plays 14PD, 6-7 spells play 12 and ~6DD against 8DD.
If the switch is made to % and not numbers then spamming of cheap characters with little or no equipment will suddenly take over. Why take a massively expensive vampire lord who you have to carefully protect when you could have 2 cheaper vampires with the same casting power (especially since most VC players dont care about rolling lots of dice to get the spell they want), 1 of whom can be easily hidden away from the fighting ranks to keep your general safe.


----------



## MaidenManiac (Oct 2, 2008)

Tim/Steve said:


> Thats when my HE field Teclis and he gets taken to the cleaners by the 6 goblin shamans that run to the same points total as him... ~8PD plays 14PD, 6-7 spells play 12 and ~6DD against 8DD.
> If the switch is made to % and not numbers then spamming of cheap characters with little or no equipment will suddenly take over...


Agree. 
If the system reverts to % then the magic system must be revamped completely too. In 5th (last % ed) there was a "wind of magic deck" which both players were dealt cards from each magic phase and that limited how much one could cast. With the introduction of 6th and the PD system magic just grows stronger for each taken wizard just like Tim/Steves example says.

Its one hell of a difference to say the least to have cheap Wizards in a %system if the PD/DD system stays. The sum is that the worse your wizards stats the better for your magic phase since that allows you to have even more of them...Everyone will run as many separate lvl 1 or 2 wizards as they can (2 lvl 1 and the rest lvl 2) and spamcast stuff like Fireball and just burn the opponent to cinders.
Fail:nono:

Actually that could be the same for CC heroes too. Filling the front of an Empire w GW equipped cheap Heroes would also ruin the game...
Unless its extremely strict and organized a return of the % system will also mean a return to the real HeroHammer.


Out of curiosity: How many of you guys actually played 4th and 5th? Specially 5th was the "real" HeroHammer, and I can easily tell you that Dwarfs were a lot more fun back in those days


----------



## TheKingElessar (Mar 31, 2009)

I never had the funds, but I have the Dwarf book from then (and had Wood Elf, Dark Elf, High Elf, Brettonia, Lizardmen, Empire, Skaven...should have spent less money on books, more on models, lol!) They looked incredibly fun.

Have to say, since I officially learnt WFB in this (7th) edition, I love the Power Dice system.


----------



## neilbatte (Jan 2, 2008)

I've played 4th & 5th and the percentages were not to bad then but you had to pay for unit champs as well as lords and hero's so unless you want a wizard leading every unit spamming wizards wasn't really an option, although the magic phase worked differently then it even came after the shooting and combat so wasn't as powerful as it is now.
I'm hoping that fantasy doesn't change as drastically as 40k did and hopefully not as frequently (Apart from magic and army book structure) As it doesn't need the continual tweaks to compensate for shite army books . Although this is probably why 40k is the posterboy game for GW as they can tinker more with the rules without really changing much and make more money than on fantasy. GW believe in the if it ain't broke then break it then in a few years break it little bit more but chuck some superglue in there with the bits maxim as thats where the cash is.


----------



## LukeValantine (Dec 2, 2008)

When it comes to this game, like most I am conservative bordering on paranoid so any potential changes will and should be viewed with insane levels of suspicion for how badly they could screw the game over considering the precarious balance of the game that has been established over the last 12+ years.


----------



## Blue Liger (Apr 25, 2008)

I think if a chnage is made to combat it could possibly be done like so:

If I have say a unit of 15 Chaos Warriors (5x3) vsing say a unit of 15 DE Blackguard (5x3), if say the Blackguard managed to kill all 5 Chaos Warriors at the front (in this current ed would mean no attacks for Chaos and then the LD test would be taken etc), but a way I thought of it was beforee the LD test was taken and say the Warriors ran maybe they should get a front rows worth of attacks back that don't have any bearing on the combat results (as in the Warriors then strike back and may kill say 3 Blackguard but these casualties dont count when determining who won CC and therefore don't count for modifying LD).

Just and idea not saying it's great as I haven't played all too long in WHFB, but in my games that I played it could possibly make it so say deathstar unit can be weakened and possibly killed off a bit easier than it just running around at full strength the whole game and ruining the experience of a game.


----------



## AAAAAAAAARRRGGHH (Apr 17, 2009)

Tbh, most deathstars don't need weakening as they aren't that great. They usually leaves the rest of your army lacking some oomph and a canny opponent will use that.

Furthermore, your suggested solution isn't that great either imo (but much better than only 1 round of combat. That's just stupid!) because it makes ASF a considerably worse rule, makes stubborn/unbreakable units really nasty (flagellants ftw! ) and robs armies with fragile troops (mostly elves) of several of their advantages. I wouldn't want my DE fighting WoC anymore if they still get to attack even if I killed their 1st rank (Which is pretty hard to do in the first place).

If anyone doesn't catch my drift: I'm concerned. GW seems to be kings of bad decisionmaking and I live in eternal dread that they might screw over fantasy daemons-style again.


----------

