The LAF Games Workshop Discussion Thread

[Vermis]

New players will typically be introduced to whichever rules set is newest and will stay current as that is what's officiated for tournaments etc.

Tournaments are a point, but one that's fairly overstated IMO. Who goes to a GW tournament? Nobody, since GW stopped hosting them. There still are Warhammer tournaments, but from what I hear they tend to come with 'tournament packs' and restrictions, i.e. houserules to change the game into something halfway suitable for tournies, 'cos it wasn't before. What's played is not the standard current rule set.

From the few people I've seen who are most vocal in calling out the 'try another system' argument, I get the impression that the most important thing is pickup games. Turning up at a GW store or GW stockist at any given time and playing whatever other Warhammer player happens to be there at the same time. It is awfully convenient, to be sure, but not so much when the game changes to something you don't like, and the old version is disallowed in-store.
I know what it feels like - something similar happened to me, when the local GW banned Specialist Games and the 'veterans' in quick succession. But maybe that's part of the reason why I get so irritated by some of the moans that it's the end of their gaming hobby. These people have probably played exponentially more games of Warhammer than I have, but from the sounds of things have completely bypassed the part where you introduce yourself to new opponents and get to know regular ones, let alone keep in contact with them in some small way, and even occasionally arrange one or two of those pickup games! Within a couple of weeks of us vets being kicked out of the GW store (a shorter, sharper event than this months-long fretting over the transition from 8th to 9th) just one of our number managed to invite a bunch of us round to his kitchen table, keep us informed of activity in nearby clubs and shops we might not have known of, etc. It beggars belief that it'd be so much more difficult for some of these 8th ed fans to do even a bit of that among themselves, especially with so many others wary of this big, apparent shift to 9th ed skirmish. I can only guess that they're so used to having GW 'do' all this for them, they can't even fathom finding a game some other way, in any other place. Organising something like that must seem like lowering themselves.

There are a couple of other... justifications sometimes added onto that. One is that they simply have no time for anything other than pickup games. Fair enough if it's true, but I still wonder how much of that is a rationalisation to explain their unwillingness to send an email or three. I'm sceptical about that for a bunch of little reasons.

The other is 'support'. Eighth ed is over. GW will stop releasing new stuff for eighth ed. No more things to buy for eighth ed. That means all those established Warhammer players will have to march solemnly to the dumpsters with their complete, viable armi... oh wait a minute...

(Then there's the guy who was quitting before 9th, who asked about the minis-compatible fantasy battles systems out there, then dismissed them all because he'd never heard of them... This is the kind of insular, almost reactionary attitude that GW pickup games have developed, IMO.)

Also, if we're NOT talking about GW, then "most current" usually means "best" in the sense that problems have been worked out, things have been cleared up and organized, etc. and if you don't know GW, then it's easy for new players to assume the most current rules are the ones with the most work behind them and are in the best shape.

Agreed in general, but for those seeming to follow the GW model, I'm a bit skeptical. (Malifaux, for example, suffered from horrendous power creep as the first edition went on. 2nd ed seemed to iron things out to some extent, but I wonder how many new model releases have had increasingly 'marketable' rules since then? And didn't Battlefront take a bit of a nosedive with some version of Flames of War, or did I dream it?)

but GW being the gateway drug (of course this is waning) means you get players who aren't used to that idea yet.

My point is that they're gonna hafta get used to it if 9th ed makes them hiss like a vampire presented with a sunny window. But that adjustment is nowhere near as harrowing as is often made out, even on the face of it.

[Tactalvanic]

All nicely thought out stuff, and this is a nice debate but does it boil down to people being different and wanting different things, and of that a proportion of them don't like change? In that they are comfortable in their insulated space/game as it is.

Its a game, its meant to be a hobby and distraction, we are meant to enjoy, most of us do, although that may well be far broader in scope than just the GW hobby, and there are many ways to enjoy it as such.

Perhaps its also the affect of the version that you first had - lost your innocence to  - like the question about which is your Doctor Who? people tend to fix on the version they grew up with as such - and thats the one they want forever as its the best and screw your changes etc etc.

Or maybe as usual some people are just not happy unless they have something to complain about. Changing from 8th to 9th scratches that itch for them?

So, in that regard it seems as long as I have GW to bitch about sometimes instead of work, on occasion. I am it seems quite happy overall.

Some people perhaps find it difficult to Let it go (oh there's that song for that  )

[Brummie]

I think the only issue with people having problems with new editions, is the obvious factor that Games Workshop needs to make money (its still unique being the only Miniature gaming company to have its own store fronts around the globe) and creating new editions or codexes is a clear way of doing this. So I think in a way, buying into and playing GW products should come with the expectation, at some point they will change things around.

Personally I've always found GW's disposition towards rules and editions to be on par with competative MMORPGs: each patch or edition has no intention of 'balancing' game play or ironing out issues per say, but instead tends to slightly favour one group or faction over another, not enough to make them unbeatable, but enough to make them easier to play and harder to beat, probably as a way to boost sales for that group/faction. Currently it seems everyone now hates Tau or Eldar, because they just obliterate everything from a distance (although I have no experience of this).

That being said I don't buy half the miniatures with the gaming aspect in mind. I purchase them because I like them, building an army that is within the rules is secondary, so GW could completely bulldoze Blood Angels, game wise, tomorrow, it probably won't stop me buying Blood Angels.


It is easier to have a go at GW however, its a far bigger target, that even people who are pretty unfamiliar with the hobby tend to recognise.

AoS could be interesting. As mentioned I was never taken by Games Workshops take on Fantasy, it never really captured my attention, despite having some nice bits and pieces.

[Vladimir Raukov]

...Well, that's pretty much it. AoS = Age of Sigmar. Anything beyond that, nobody outside the GW studio knows! And that's exactly why everyone's in a flap really.

So...there's nothing concrete to worry about yet? I'll panic when I know what to panic about. I do enough freaking out over what ifs already.

AoS could be interesting. As mentioned I was never taken by Games Workshops take on Fantasy, it never really captured my attention, despite having some nice bits and pieces.

That's interesting, I'm quite the opposite. There's a few nice things in the 40K line that grab my attention, but not enough to look past the whole 'everything is terrible forever' side of the story. That and no army piques my interest that much.

[Vermis]

All nicely thought out stuff, and this is a nice debate but does it boil down to people being different and wanting different things, and of that a proportion of them don't like change? In that they are comfortable in their insulated space/game as it is.

Well yes. But my point is that people who want the old thing don't necessarily have to roll over and accept the major change to the game, their main focus of the hobby, if they can just incorporate a few minor changes to how they get their fix of the old version.

Perhaps its also the affect of the version that you first had - lost your innocence to   - like the question about which is your Doctor Who? people tend to fix on the version they grew up with as such - and thats the one they want forever as its the best and screw your changes etc etc.

Or maybe as usual some people are just not happy unless they have something to complain about. Changing from 8th to 9th scratches that itch for them?

You might have a point if it was just more rules churn like the change from 6th ed to 7th. Even then, I still don't think people should necessarily blindly accept change because 'it's a game'; like the eventual imbalance of 7th that drove a lot away, or the changes of 8th that drove even more away. (especially the need for bigger units of more expensive minis) It's the view of many that Warhammer is almost 'dead' at this point - or dead enough for GW to give up on it (it might be seen as spectacularly healthy by smaller businesses) - and that the major changes to 9th, that go way beyond rules churn, are a desperate attempt to shore it up and reignite a bit of it's popularity. I don't know if all that can be so easily handwaved as 'folk just like to complain'.

'Cos we've all heard the rumours that 9th ed is going to be a skirmish game set in various bubble universes, but I've just read a loong sneak peek that, while still just a rumour (with a bit of reliable backup), brings home just how drastic the changes might be. It reads like an entirely different game and setting, with some familiar names and stat categories. If this is at least partly true, it might draw in new players, but a lot of others are going to be cast adrift, through little fault of their own.

[Tactalvanic]

Well yes. But my point is that people who want the old thing don't necessarily have to roll over and accept the major change to the game, their main focus of the hobby, if they can just incorporate a few minor changes to how they get their fix of the old version.

Thats clear and I suspect a lot of people like you, me and others, do just that. With an amount of vocal others that don't, and perhaps because they are more vocal, are more noticeable than others who just get on with what they want to do.

You might have a point if it was just more rules churn like the change from 6th ed to 7th. Even then, I still don't think people should necessarily blindly accept change because 'it's a game'; like the eventual imbalance of 7th that drove a lot away, or the changes of 8th that drove even more away. (especially the need for bigger units of more expensive minis) It's the view of many that Warhammer is almost 'dead' at this point - or dead enough for GW to give up on it (it might be seen as spectacularly healthy by smaller businesses) - and that the major changes to 9th, that go way beyond rules churn, are a desperate attempt to shore it up and reignite a bit of it's popularity. I don't know if all that can be so easily handwaved as 'folk just like to complain'.

'Cos we've all heard the rumours that 9th ed is going to be a skirmish game set in various bubble universes, but I've just read a loong sneak peek that, while still just a rumour (with a bit of reliable backup), brings home just how drastic the changes might be. It reads like an entirely different game and setting, with some familiar names and stat categories. If this is at least partly true, it might draw in new players, but a lot of others are going to be cast adrift, through little fault of their own.

GW as usual will do what they want, as with the ruination rained down with previous changes as you mention, that caused players to leave the product, this will do the same. In that their intended target is always primarily new customers/players, they have a proven record of not caring about existing or previous or even loyal customers - only the new  intake matters. Whatever the outcome, and what this AOS product turns out to be, they don't actually care about the impact on the existing customer base, as long as at year end, they can make it look like a success, or blame someone else for its failure if not. Like the licensed LoTR stuff that they quickly abandoned, even before the last movie came out even. Its just more of the same from them, and AoS will be much easier to drop if its not perceived as successful enough.

What in the end does that leave them? 40K? They move a step closer to a company with nothing to its name other than some IPs?

Having written all that bit I took a look at the linked you provided, and as you say if its accurate, oh dear bye-bye WFB, hellloooo completely different game, Please buy and play it with only GW miniatures... On round bases ...

[Timbor]

Definitely an interesting rumour over there on Dakka.  I guess there are just a few weeks until we find out what exactly is in store.

EDIT: If it is true, Mantic is supposed to be coming out with armylists for 'traditional' fantasy armies, so you can play KoW with your warhammer armies, basically.  My gaming group really likes KoW.  It is fast and simple, you can likely play most of a game without consulting the rulebooks.  No plethora of ridiculous and contradictory special rules for ever. single. army.

[Nord]

So...there's nothing concrete to worry about yet? I'll panic when I know what to panic about. I do enough freaking out over what ifs already.

Here's something concrete for you. All the Warhammer books on the GW website, including the new End Times books, are available until June 26th, then it's Age of Sigmar. Sounds like a complete reset, of the rules at least. I would expect minis to be available until they run out of stock, then perhaps not recast? If you have a burning desire to own a book/mini, maybe get in now before they triple in price on ebay. 

[Major_Gilbear]

Well, from what I have managed to piece together from rumours and best guesses is that:

1) The game will return to an "earlier" style of WHFB, in which there are main factions each with mixed forces. For example, all humans will be under one list, and will likely have some other races in their forces selection too.

2) Keeping the the Warhammer name, and using "big names" from their current IP to help transition players to a new game through providing some sense of familiarity. In practical terms, the game will likely be completely different, and despite the use of IP names, the background will be too. So, despite trying to lull you with things that sound familiar, WHFB as we've known it for some 25 years is basically dead.

3) Back in 4/5E ("Herohammer"), the game size was basically 50-60 models plus some heroic characters; nowadays that's the size and composition of one regiment! I think that with that being the height of WHFB's popularity (with 5E winning award for best Fanasty/Sci-Fi game at Origins), that will be the target game size for the new edition. It's much easier to get away with a few 10-16 models units and some heroes in terms of painting and getting started, and it's much easier for GW to justify high prices for centrepiece models.

4) As the LOTR/Hobbit franchise is dying (... is dead), I wouldn't be shocked to see some of those rules mechanics rolled into the new WHFB rules. Not least because lots of people seemed to like them, and because they fit the size and narrative style of game that the new Age Of Sigmar hints at being.

5) Over time, I have no doubt that we'll see spin-off sub-factions from the new aggregated factions. This has recently been done with 40k, and looks like an easy way to cash in and make more models for a limited time without committing to supporting them long-term (which even with the best will in the world, can become a real millstone).

6) All models remaining usable likely means that a human with a spear = a human with a spear, and that's regardless of whether it's a Bret peasant or an Empire state trooper. I'll bet that the aesthetic of any new stuff is rather different to anything existing though, since AOS is a golden opportunity to dump any IP that cannot be easily defended legally whilst at the same time building on that which can.

For me, I suspect that I will just continue to play older (i.e., 4E to 8E) versions of WHFB and stay at that. Even if the new game is fun enough, I have lots of kit for the previous versions of the games and am not really that bothered by a re-imaging of the game into something different. Afterall, I got into other game systems already because I wanted something different, and there's only so much I can buy/store/play!  

[Tactalvanic]

In the case of GW stuff, they usually get better after they have been abandoned/destroyed/discarded anyway.

To be honest I am thinking more along the lines of "Warhammer Fantasy Battle is DEAD, Long live Warhammer Fantasy Battle".

Failing that there's always Fantasy Warriors 
.

[Nord]

I loved the aesthetic of 4th/5th, with units of 10 elites, or 15 regular troops or maybe 20 horde style units. I also liked the newest version of the rules, seemed more consistent and streamlined than previous sets. The big problem was it was obviously engineered by the bean counters, very destructive, meaning units had to be 50 strong - with the rising prices it simply forced me away. Not played for a couple of years, but I still found the End Times pretty sad really, the destruction of a universe I spent 20 happy years gaming in.  

A new game that returns to older (smaller) units sizes might have some attraction. I can't imagine being interested in the new figures, the recent aesthetic (and continuing price rises) has done nothing for me. If I can get some mileage from my existing collection from the new rules, I will do so, but I doubt it. The new "universe" sounds pretty pathetic really, to me at any rate, so I will probably continue my migration to pastures new. Still searching for that elusive mass fantasy battle ruleset, but I will probably do it with fewer wistful glances over my shoulder.

[Chico]

Well I mosly play WhFB3 when it comes to WhFB and haven't really kept up with latest editions too much (Have played a few games of 8th and enjoyed them though). Anyway even though that being the case I do like the sound of AoS even if a small fraction of the rumours are true it may get me into a GW store to see what all the fuss is about.

As for armies being cut well I'm used to that too having a Fimir, 'Stealer Cult, Chaos Dwarves, Half Orc armies for many years heh

[Timbor]

A friend of mine, after reading the latest rumour of a completely new skirmish-based game made the point that GW is likely trying to win back players who switched to games like Warmachine/Hordes.  In my community, there is a very large player base for WM/H and just a handful of WFB players, so I could see some reasoning in that move.  When I have spoken with many warmachine players, they started off as WFB players first.  IMO GW lost a lot of fantasy players to such skirmish games.

[Brummie]

A friend of mine, after reading the latest rumour of a completely new skirmish-based game made the point that GW is likely trying to win back players who switched to games like Warmachine/Hordes.  In my community, there is a very large player base for WM/H and just a handful of WFB players, so I could see some reasoning in that move.  When I have spoken with many warmachine players, they started off as WFB players first.  IMO GW lost a lot of fantasy players to such skirmish games.

One of the things that put me of GW and ultimately saw me engage with smaller scales was not necessarily the costs (WH/H is equally as expensive) but the army sizes required to play an average game. WH40Ks 'Apocalypse' rules was pretty much the last stretch for me, it put me of big time, regardless of how much I liked the models.

Same with WHFB, although as I said previously I never found that particular fantasy universe particularly interesting. The need for masses of troops just put me off. If I want big armies I'll do smaller scales now.

That's interesting, I'm quite the opposite. There's a few nice things in the 40K line that grab my attention, but not enough to look past the whole 'everything is terrible forever' side of the story. That and no army piques my interest that much.

At first I never found it amazing, and I still have my own sci fi setting which takes up the most of my time (so i can rip of everyone elses universes  ) but I found the more fluff, computer games I played, the more interesting and in depth it got, grim-dark is really just a bit of a melodramatic cover for a universe as twisted as the real one. Which I quite liked, worryingly. 

[3 fingers]

I reckon GW should done a Logan's world game similar to necromunda ,but then if they had,they would dropped it like they did necromunda ,dark future ,lotr etc.