"Warhammer Fantasy Battles 9th edition" Topic

Sorry for the multiple posts, apparently I am having browser issues…

------------------------------

Looks like GW is going to release a new Warhammer Fantasy Battles game, presented along the lines of the Horus Heresy for 40k (as a "historical" era).

This will give fans of the older version the ability to play WHFB and use the "Legends" miniatures in rank and file.

I wouldn't jump & say its going to be WHFB 9e. I think it's going to be a variant of AoS, but with WHFB movement & unit rules.

Damon.

I was thinking Old World figures in AoS.

andy

They already did Old World figures in AoS, back at the launch. So I think it will be more than just statting those up (& many are still being used in current AoS anyway…).

Damon.

I presume you are referring to this news about "Warhammer: The Old World".

link

I would not hold my breath:

this is a long way off. Years. More than two. Like three or more. Definitely not soon.

Sorry, Warhammer Fantasy Battle 9th edition was hyperbole.

I think they are going to make some sort of mass combat, i.e. squares, rank and flank game.

You are right, probably based on AoS and using the "Old World" miniatures.

The cynic in me says there will be new miniatures created with this reincarnation, and they won't be in scale with our old WHFB models.
But if it brings people to the hobby, I'm all for it.

I'll be keeping an open mind. WHFB 3rd is what got me into mass figure wargaming, so my propensity for nostalgia is high ;)

The cynic in me says there will be new miniatures created with this reincarnation, and they won't be in scale with our old WHFB models.

Knowing GW this is quite possible.

AoS was horrible.

Plus I do not trust GW to put out anything good these days.

They are bringing back Square bases for the game too. Probably ending up bing more popular than Age of Sigmar.

Quite a few love AOS but I don't see any appeal in it.

Our club has plenty of figures and rulesbooks to play more than one version of WFB. Sadly though we can't seem to muster enough interest in playing WFB. I doubt a new "old" warhammer book or look will change that. I suppose a perfect release would be a version of 3rd that supported all the existing units?

As long as they make certain Armies stronger than others than you are right very few individuals will want to come back to it.

All armies need a chance to win and that hasn't been the case since late 5th Edition and on.

Need to focus on maneuver and forcing the Min-Maxing out of the game.

AoS has been a success for GW. WHFB was in decline even after SoC, End Times etc. to try to push more sales. Some of the problems were obvious- it had high barriers to entry in terms of model count, prep, and rules complexity. The game itself was slow in a market that has moved increasingly to faster, skirmish scale games. It was an overly complex way to do a squares/rank 'n flank game but still had major rules oddities making it a bad fit for beer 'n pretzels casual gaming as well as more serious tactical combat.

AoS let's players get in quickly and mix forces more freely. The rules have been pared down and it plays faster. The result is customers who can quickly get playing and try new forces/combinations without tremendous outlay. Grogs may whine, but they could still use their figs (and play an older ruleset if they want). AoS is not my bag (as a fan of the Old World), but is clearly successful at what it is- playing with soldiers and monsters.

Since they have been rolling out some alternative games with compatible figs, this seems to be a continuation. I would guess that they have more of the WHFB renaissance fantasy feel than the AoS revamped aesthetic. Plus, it lets them do some updates of old favorites (Karl Franz, Malekith, etc.). Probably with new "mass battles" rules (as if WHFB was ever more than some guys taking a flag for a walk) for those with lots of figs.

As to bringing back square bases- dear god why? They look worse, suck for skirmish games, and if you want a larger scale game, you should be playing one where they don't fiddle with each individual and are on unit bases anyway.

I would presume they are looking at lessons learned from AoS along the lines of what Jamurp referenced in the beginning of his post. Kind of like "take the good from that & use it to develop the next generation of WFB. Before it went down (or exploded, as the case may be) there was a lot of talk of moving over to the LOTR format, eliminating 3 die rolls just to see if you score an unsaved wound. That would speed up the game & be more "beer & pretzels" friendly.

I never left WFB, so the early notice is nice. I doubt I'll switch to 9e (the same as I didn't go to 8e) unless they cover ALL of the armies. I didn't collect Bretonnian & Wood Elf armies you have them sit on the shelf.

But, now I know I have about 3 years to make a dent in painting my metal & plastic piles before the new mini's come out.

Its true that WHFB had its problems esp 8th edition. It could use a massive upgrade and maybe that's what's coming (or they just figured everyone had converted to round bases and now is the time to switheroo and make them buy square base stuff).

WHFB had plenty of slow awkward mechanisms quite open to question, however, there is no question for which the Age of Silly is the answer.

We have no where to go but up so this is at least of glimmer of hope.

TomT

It would seem fairly redundant to go to the bother of releasing a game based on the old world and declare that square bases are coming back and then do a game based off AOS.

That's not to say many of the lessons they learned off the experience of AOS can not be applied to the Old world project. The generals handbook and the way it revisits the points cost on a yearly basis seems like a great idea.

While my guess is no better than anyone elses I am expecting to see a game that very much reflects the feel if not the exact mechanics if the previous verion of the game. It is clear though that some work around making the game more entertaining at different points level is needed. Like Tom T above says it is a glimmer of hope and until I see any reason to think otherwise I will hold onto that.

It will be interesting to see if they speed up gameplay. "To hit, to wound, to save" is incredibly clunky by today's standards.

Bolt Action has it better: Roll to hit, roll to kill.

Apparently, Mantic did a response video (KoW).
youtu.be/mKN5awPhbIs

Repaint: I would argue that even 2 rolls is unnecessary for most games- "hit" and "wound" is a stupid D&D trope thing. Offensive capability and defensive survivability should be baked into the ratings with the roll determining overall effect. Multiple subsequent rolls is generally just sloppy legacy design.
However, since keeping players involved is a good thing, probably best to do it as a contested roll. But don't do it for every individual trooper in a unit based game, for crying out loud!

Yes the old hoary mass d6 multiple rolls (and for good measure lets have a re-roll rule) is dumb and dated. But still survives (see for instance CMON's Song of Ice & Fire just released this year – does no one ever learn/innovate?). Phil Barker found a better way to do interactive melees way back at the dawn of DBX.

Still the mass systems sell (see for instance Bolt Action…) Mass rolling of d6 seems to be some kind of lava light for gamers – strangely soothing in its high sample size predictability. Always seemed like a lazy busy work for games design style to me.

Interesting to see if they adapt a different approach then rolling mass d6. Squares bases massed together on movement trays do have some significant advantages over round.

At least they have responded to consumer demand for a return of the much more interesting Old World over Age of Sigmar. I went to all the trouble of doing a Knights & Knaves supplement just to keep this world alive in some format so I'm happy to see it may come back.

Lets go, like Charlie Brown in football season, with some unwarranted optimism.

TomT

Mass dice rolling is a boon for players like me who roll on the lower spectrum of the bell curve way too often. I shudder to think an entire line can collapse or elite unit lost by an arbitrary "1" being rolled.

It may be a psychological think, but I'll cling to it anyway (along with a variety of die rolling rituals to please the Dice Gods).

Then move away from using D6's and go to D10's or even better D20's.

Sure those low rolls will still happen but far less likely.

Chances of rolling a "1" with a D6 = 16.67%

Chances of rolling a "1" with a D20 = 5.0%

But GW went crazy with their current rules and you are not rolling five or so dice per turn but dozens of dice per turn.

So the game is no longer about skill but who can roll more dice better.

Oh and who can cheese out their army with the best Min/Max'ing.

Hmmm…

Well, I have suggested this in the past, a WFB as a sub game.

Square bases show hope. I suspect GW has realised, just because they went round the world is still square, and they want a slice of the pie, again. Ronnie's probably shedding round base KOW plans as we speak (I speak in jest).

The Time Line suggests all new moulds. Re casts could be quicker.

I hope for metal. Probably plastic though. However people still do metal, even after GW gave it up, so maybe they have learnt a lesson there also and want some of that pie again also?

The appeal of Lotr, that may be running low on steam (how many moria gobs does one need to buy?), and everyone else enjoying the fruits of square based mass traditional fantasy, it's a no brainer. Probably why it took them so long?

It will be interesting to see if they speed up gameplay. "To hit, to wound, to save" is incredibly clunky by today's standards.

I would not hold my breath, considering that the AoS rules released in July 2015 retained this three step combat resolution, as well as the employment of D6 as the only type of dice and I-go-you-go turn structure. This despite the fact that the rules in principle could be built from scratch and did not need to have backwards compatibility with existing products (e.g. army books).

Bolt Action has it better: Roll to hit, roll to kill.

In the context of mid 20th century warfare, where armour and superhuman toughness are not common features, and most small arms hits are serious enough to take the target out of combat at least until they have visited a field dressing station, I think that a plain to hit roll could be well sufficient against personnel targets (though scoring that hit should not be too easy under most circumstances).

However, in the context of massed fantasy battle games, Fantasy Warriors (released by Grenadier circa 1991) had the two step structure that you described: first roll to determine hits, second to determine casualties (taking into account at the same time both attackers weapon and strenght, and the targets armour and toughness).

If it's years off, why tell us now? That's a question (obviously!).

Things can go to pot in that time, management may change, market may change, so on. It may still not happen. So why letvthe cat from the bag if they just came up with the idea?

Perhaps they want people to hold off buying from other manufacturers and rule publishers? Maybe they are just looking for feedback to see if there is enough interest and where (what armies, mechanics) that interest lies.

Lots of questions, lots of time to come up with the wrong answers. Fun for all the family.

I always thought the advantage of the three roll resolution is maintain player interaction and create some drama every game turn.You have to remember unlike historical games WFB had at its height, lots of teenagers with very low attention spans, playing the game and after attending many local store game days have never heard players complaining about this system.Of course in the store the games were generally under 1,500 points, I agree that when you went over 3k the system could become clunky.Perhaps the answer would have been a WFB version of 40k's Apocalypse?

You get the same interaction with two rolls. But with d6 more rolls gives you more modifiers, more distinctions.

andy

A very vague memory, but were the Lords of the Rings games a two dice system?

Two rolls. But you have to apply them to each grouping of figures (a pair unless one side outnumbers the others).

andy