Druchii.net

When is 9th coming out? And are there any rumors on those?

I'm not up on it 100% but there are rumours that it has been pushed back into 2015 in order to ensure that all of the armies get an 8th ed book. That beings said it's looking like Dwarves are Feb 2014 leaving WE & Brets for the rest of the year, we could feasibly see it prior/post-Christmas rush(s). But that's purely speculation on my part.

rumours are 2015, or this summer.

there are rumours that WE, brets and other older armies are not going to be supported and 9th is coming out just after they announce that.
There are also rumours that they WILL give each army a new book and bring 9th in '15

One can never know for sure... besides, what's the big deal? it's not like we'll get a 9th edition AB soon after :p

Wow, that was fast. Hownlong has 8th ed been around because it feels like five years.

Any rumors on a skaven release in the works?

i haven't read anything about skaven anywhere so far.
That's why i find it hard to believe that 9th will be released this year.
They still have 4 armies to update, and even though there are rumours about discontinuing certain less populair armies (brets, WE and beastmen apparently) i cant see them stopping skaven. I really hope they keep supporting all armies. I always liked playing against brets but they could use an update!

If they discontinued, people would be super pissed. Whole collections become useless. But then again, alienating their customer base is kinda their thing... That is a good point about your hunch for 9th ed being this summer.

If they were discontinueing due to lack of popularity Tomb Kings would have been gone long ago, and dark elves would have been a few ever faithful super nerds considering 6th ed. As is they got updates, and as Brettonia gets mentioned more times then not, I think its safe to say they are sticking around.

Beastmen also seem to be a go to bad guy for empire and chaos fluff, so I doubt they would go away. Dwarvesa just need a few miner tweeks on here a unit and there a unit, and they probably will get some massive multi kit set peice, but otherwise are still pretty decent for the upteenth edition.

I think it would be financial suicide if they up and gave these units the ax. They have Chaos Dwarves in Forge World for crying out loud; I think GW can handle a few of the more mainstay armies.

If they are "retired" then they would be mail order like the Dark elder were for years. As for 9th the big concern, and what has always been the concern is the entry level to the game. In 40K I can spend $60 and get a full unit of 10 guardians, glue them together and plonk them on the board for a battle as I paint them. For Fantasy I spend the same amount and get 10 spearmen. Which are basically useless unless I spend an extra $180 to get the full unit of 20, and even then 20 spearmen probably should be 25 -30. Imagine the goblin/skaven players costs!!

In 40K I spend the whole $240 and can have a reasonable skirmish, esp if I bought an elite type army like marines or chaos. In fantasy 1 unit. With the advent of 8th units just got bigger to be more effective in a lot of cases. I do love the fact the battles look so epic but the entry level just scares people off.

The most recent rumours on Warseer are saying that 9th edition is going to be a scale down to skirmish battles.

GW have apparently caught on to the fact that the high start up costs, and high army costs are shrinking the player pool.

But again...just rumour and hearsay

If they do something like they had in 6th then there is a skirmish component that could be used. It was essentially a scaled down version of mordheim which was actually kinda fun for campaigns etc...but not balanced at all for the most part. I could see something like LotR (which is quite a well written system though most of us "hammer"heads are biased against it) for fantasy skirmish.

I don't think they will go to far in the downscale. The majesty of fantasy battles is that its the only game that has the grand sweep of regiments and monsters clashing with each other. However reducing unit sizes to 7th ed sizes would be a start. When you completely revamp the game like that you risk losing the dedicated player base that you actually already have.

Loved the skirmisher rules.
The roleplaying part was outstanding.
The game was much quicker.
It allowed for very few models to play significantly. It allowed to experiment with few units and few rules at a time.
But that was very unbalanced. The effect of magic, fast cavalry and 1+ armour was too strong.

I wish 9th ed to look very similar to 8th ed with only a few discrepancies corrected:
- magic slightly toned down, especially in small games; could be revamped in order to allow a more stable selection of spells (such as level x could pick up any spell from 1 to x);
- terrain less random;
- some rules slightly simplified
- some rules made more realistic (how come a lord can use a sword from the top of his dragon? How come he can be hit by goblins? how come a magic user is forced to fight in the first rank?)
- true LOS from model's eye to model's body replaced by base's LOS from model's base to target's base, which should not cross any other base.

With these rules, mostly similar to 8th edition, I wish to have several options:
- alliances, inspired by T&T
- larger games, like they have in WH40k, with deadlier and simplified hit/wound/armour process in melee, and deadlier magic
- smaller games, skirmish like, inspired by Mordheim or LotR
- magic-focused games, i.e. Storm of Magic
- standard games with victory points like in 7th ed, or many scenarios.

Actually, most of it is already there.

My thing is that I think 8th ed is very well balanced right now. I thoroughly enjoy playing fantasy ever since 8th came out. I enjoy not having "HeroHammer". The entry cost is a little absurd, yes. But if I were them, I would find a way to lower the price of the models. According to any business class ever, seems the best course of action.
But then again, the company insists that it isn't a game company, but a miniatures company. However, I think they're being out competed on that front by many many other miniatures companies who offer similar quality for significantly lower price. The game is one of the few things that is keeping them in business, but they seem to be blind to that.

Heaven help us. Didn't we just barely get into 8th ed? At least 6th ed was around for 6 or so years before they brought in 7th and hordes of unwanted changes. *eyeroll*

Here's a novel idea. Why not just revive 6th ed. Make one or few *very* minor tweaks and call it 9th. As far as I'm concerned, 6th was the best version by far.

Wasn't 6 the edition were the fall of your first rank would prevent you from striking back?

xFallenx wrote:Wasn't 6 the edition were the fall of your first rank would prevent you from striking back?

That persisted all the way through 7th. 8th is the edition where 'step up' came into play. But then we got stupid 'steadfast'.

I'll take steadfast & step up over the prior every single day of the week. That rule alone is what caused me to drop the game until 8th.... saying that you'd think my painting would have improved between editions... sadly that wasn't the case. HaHa.

I like steadfast and I like step up.

What I don't like is that the only way to break steadfast is to have more ranks. There should be multiple means of breaking steadfast (at least disruption should, but it doesn't)

Dalamar wrote:I like steadfast and I like step up.

What I don't like is that the only way to break steadfast is to have more ranks. There should be multiple means of breaking steadfast (at least disruption should, but it doesn't)

Agreed!! This would have made the steadfast more reasonable and realistic.

And terror should actually be better than fear... and not worse.

Agreed dalamar. But how is terror worse?

Jvh792 wrote:But how is terror worse?

Unpredictability.
Normally, if you charge, you can predict if the opponent will stand or flee.
Terror introduces some pure randomness that chess-like players are unconfortable with.
As a result, the terror-causing charger could find itself failing its charge, standing alone in LOS of opponent's cannons, instead of being safely in melee, or having pursued much further than those LOS.

Compared to this drawback, terror has the advantage of causing fear to more troops than mere fear, and sometimes, it is actually an advantage to see that the target just flees despite the opponent wishing it to hold.

That the balance be positive or negative is an opinion to be made by each gamer.

Jvh792 wrote:Agreed dalamar. But how is terror worse?

It is also worse because in 7th edition you had to pass a terror check to 'charge' at the terror causer. Now it ONLY applies when being charged. Moreover in 7th edition you took terror checks for being near Terror causers. The balance was that it was only once per game.

If your an Undead player you not liking the 8th edition.

One rummer that is 100% true is prices will increase by double digits.

Not sure this game would be around if not for E-Bay.

Well I checked out this thread as I have just got back into WHFB after a long break and was wondering what the latest rumours were. Mainly to see if investing in 8th is a good idea.
I'm shocked to hear that Wood Elves and Brets could get the chop. Both were very popular when I was playing 6th edition. I have both armies and it would sadden me to see them dropped. Although I'm lucky enough to be able to game with friends that wouldn't mind out dated armies being used. They let me use my Space Wolves and Dark Eldar !

But that is the best part about rumour threads too.... They are just rumours!!

(Sorry that I have nothing to actually add to this thread)