8th Ed. (Not SO) Premature 9th speculations

[Mr Phat]

if Faeit 212 is correct on his leaked schedule (he was last time) we have 9th incoming.

January - Tyranids (Out)
February - Dwarfs (Sighted in the weekly White Dwarf cover)
March - Imperial Knights (Supported with White Dwarf and Dataslate rules support)
April - Imperial Guard (said to be renamed a la the Sister codex to Astra Militarum)
May - Wood Elves
June / July - Orks, Warhammer 40,000 "not 7th" book
July / August - Warhammer Fantasy 9th (book, or boxed set - unknown details)
September - Warhammer 40,000 "not 7th" (Boxed Set)
October - Blood Angels
November - WFB Army (Bretonnia getting the most chatter)
December - Hobbit - Holiday Bundles

while crossing my fingers for Wood Elf players that this is true I would like to ask you guys about your

Wishlisting
Predictions
guesses and the sort.

go! if not because you are convinced that 9th is incoming
then for the sake of discussing game mechanics and ideas of them.


I for one have an idea that the following will change to some degree...an idea..no claims:

- Toughness will be worth more in combat than it is now
pure guess, which I cant argue for more than a gut feeling and that I see higher toughness
being valued higher than usual in the new books when comparing unit types across armies.

- magic phases will rely more on channeling
due to the channel/PD re-rol heavy items and abilities in newer books.

- Poison attacks will change
would be the only explanation for the few attacks on the Troglodons profile, as well as its poor shooting. My guess is that poison will be easier activated somehow, if not in ranged then in close combat. It would also makes sense since our NEW CORE UNIT *Fog-horn* can now get poison attacks. It would make sense to variate them from the other choices.

- Supporting attacks will change
PF as the only real reason for this.

- cannons will get some kind of scatter penalty
I haven't met any player yet that didn't agree that it would make sense that canons lost some of their accuracy, even though some are more hesitant to admit it than others. Usually have something to do what side of the barrel they are on.

- regeneration will change to the new system shown in new books
Transcending healing and the Hydra heralds this.
also: the Blade of Realities doesn't mention regeneration saves. While I see that it makes sense fluffwise I think it does little sense game-wise.

- Monsters and riders will change in the way they effect each-other.
A lot of loose rumors tells about rider and mount sharing wounds and saves, making them more survivable for people wanting to field (read: buy) them. While I judge this as pure self-created rumours I tend to agree with the need behind it. Could be depending on the cannons I guess.

 

[Pinktaco]

Re: Premature 9th speculations

As I've said before: I'd love to see ridden monsters change somehow. Shared wounds/saves would be fine for me.
That coupled with nerfed cannons would make it a no brainer to include the carnosaur every once in a while.

Also, if supporting somehow changed or if our PF rule got a much needed FAQ the troglodyte would probably also be much more, making our CORs our truly only "weak" unit. That would be great.

So yeah, I'm hoping for changes like that but on the same time I haven't put my hopes too high. I'll just wait and see and roll with whatever they give us.

 

[hdctambien]

Re: Premature 9th speculations

I'd like to see flank charges break steadfast.

And get rid of True Line of Sight.

 

[Putzfrau]

Re: Premature 9th speculations

in my opinion 9th wont be coming out this year.

but then again, who knows.

I like steadfast.

I don't like losing a wizard straight off to an unlucky miscast. Obviously uber spells would have to be adjusted to make up for this.

Someway to get better saves onto monster mounts (looking at you carnosaur). Whether an item or rule idc.

 

[Mr Phat]

Re: Premature 9th speculations

I'd like to see flank charges break steadfast.

And get rid of True Line of Sight.

I think steadfast is important, while I do agree that it fills too much...at least in my meta.
Yet, I dont think they will change it.
Paired with the horde rule it gives a pretty good motive for buying more models

True line of sight is stupid in my opinion..at least for a GAME.
Too many times does it become a case of children arguing what their toys can and cannot do.

I dont think it will change though, as its such a simple rule that players can easily make their own.
We did, our tournaments did and no one asks why.



--- Have any of you semi-traitors....hm..I mean..fellas with more armies see a pattern on other army forums?
what are the elves complaining about?
what is the chaos boys expecting?
it might be too early, but somehow it seems realistic that the chatter goes as Warseer debates if or if not we get 9th as this schedule shows.

 

[Kimiko]

Re: Premature 9th speculations

Harry on Warseer said 9th edition on 2015.... and he's 99.9% sure everytime.

 

[Mr Phat]

Re: Premature 9th speculations

Harry on Warseer said 9th edition on 2015.... and he's 99.9% sure everytime.

I was unaware of this.

But tell me: Is it Hastings or Harry that have expressed that his knowledge is thinning out as he aint getting any NEW intel anymore, due to him not being employed there anymore?

I see them are both VERY reliable but a change of schedule could have happened.



... or are you referring to the comment that said "new ebook rulebooks wont be made obsolete so soon after" , cause that could mean a lot of things.


it might sound as im pushing it a bit, but I just wanna be sure really, as im looking forward to 9th a whole lot.

 

[Putzfrau]

Re: Premature 9th speculations

9th will not be coming out this year in my opinion. 8th has been going very well, and really only needs some minor tweaks.

The books, for the most part, have been quite balanced in comparison to previous editions, and have been pretty ewll received.

I think we'll have a new book for every army under 8th before 9th comes out.

I wouldn't count on 9th until 2015. Honestly 40k might even get a new edition before fantasy does. 40k is an absolute mess right now, and you could argue its their "flagship" game. The competitive scene is dying, the most recent book has been received with pretty much absolute disdain, and power armies are boring to play and to play against.

i imagine GW will focus on getting 40k back on its feet before it muddies the waters of FB which is going pretty well.

 

[hardyworld]

Re: Premature 9th speculations

On warseer, I've heard both sides of the coin (2014 or 2015 for 9th Ed.). I have no idea when it'll come, but you know its going to be here eventually.

Wishlisting:

1. Corrections/clarifications to the rulebook as included in the 8th Ed. FAQ and other general language cleanup.
2. More emphasis on smaller games (300-1000 pts). More basic rules for Legendary Battles.
3. Winds of Magic dice roll works slightly differently (and scales well for different size games).
4. Channeling Magic becomes more influential (such as: each mage rolls the number of channel dice equal to their level).
5. Mage level bonus to cast/dispel is lessened (possibly +1 for lvl1/2 and +2 for lvl3/4).
6. Minor spell fixes for additional balance. Spell classifications are changed slightly (allowable targets/etc.).
7. Miscast table takes into account how many dice were rolled when trying to cast the spell (chart is D6+#die rolled where higher numbers on the chart are more destructive).
8. Cannons and Rock Lobber rules work slightly differently (different scatter rules, but Ballistic Skill of crew will matter).
9. Losing combat to a fear/terror-causing enemy will have some additional effect (maybe -1 Ld that affects steadfast?)
10. Regeneration works differently (like the new Hydra).
11. Cavalry get some small bonus (possibly disrupt ranks with only 1 rank of cavalry).
12. Breath weapons work differently (Possibly no longer 'one use only' and in close combat do D6 hits instead of 2D6.)
13. Magic Resistance works differently (possibly roll a D6 for every level of magic resistance a unit has when any spell effect would apply to the unit, friend or foe, if any '6' is rolled the spell effect doesn't affect the unit...rare things may cause you to reroll any successful MR rolls, such as the effects of a Miscast).
14. Charge reactions are allowed against models with Random Movement, but only if the unit passes a leadership (or maybe initiative?) test first.
15. Monsters & Handlers rules are cleared up.
16. Characters on Ridden Monsters work slightly differently (possibly normal shooting & template weapons both distributed on monster on 1-5, and on character on 6). A character on a flying mount may join units of fliers with the same mount.
17. Fragile Alliances aren't nearly as fickle.
18. Victory Points are calculated slightly differently (possibly 1/2 points for units, but not models). Return of more Victory types (Narrow Victory/Loss). Range of Draw/Narrow Victory/Victory/Crushing Victory is defined by percentage of point difference divided by smaller army size (0%-5% Draw, 5%-15% Narrow Victory, 15%-30% Victory, 30%+ Crushing Victory).
19. The inconsistent term 'unmodified leadership' is removed from the game and a clear term and rules take it's place (such as 'Profile Leadership' which is the value in a model's statline).
20. Flank and Rear modify the leadership value of Steadfast units (-1 Ld & -2 Ld respectively); this only applies if the Steadfast unit itself is being attacked in the Flank/Rear.
21. Bound spells always use exactly 1 Power Die to cast; add the rolled value to the Bound Spell's Power level. A roll of a '1' does not cast and subsequently roll a D6 on a miscast chart (chance for: no additional effect, bearer takes damage, or item to no longer cast bound spells).
22. Rework the Common Magic Items list to better balance the point costs as needed (Crown of Command, Standard of Discipline, etc.) and remove lesser used items.
23. In challenges, attacks that have its hits distributed as shooting still distribute as shooting; however, the FIRST hit automatically hits the challenger, all subsequent hits from an attack distribute as normal.
24. In challenges, an attacking character can always apply all their attacks within a challenge in an attempt at maximizing their overkill. This is so attacks at lower initiative are not lost and gameplay fully meets the purpose/theme of the overkill rule.
25. Conga-line strategy is removed from the game (skirmishers in forrest, WoC Chosen, etc.) by limiting the rank-to-file ratio. Units that consist of multiple models may never finish the movement phase with their file-to-rank ratio greater than 4:1. So a unit of swarms with 4 models could all be in a line, but once you add a 5th swarm to the unit, its frontage must be at least 2 wide.
26. By default, provide infantry characters who are not within a unit with the benefits of the skirmish special rule (for the benefit of characters shooting with ranged weapons).
27. Give spears an additional bonus in CC when a unit wielding these are charged in their front (possibly, units that charge units equipped with spears in their front take an impact hit, at the spear-man's strength, for each file of spear-man they are in base to base contact with). This should make the trade for spears-&-shield vs. hand-weapon-&-shield slightly fairer for units where there is no cost difference between the equipment options.
28. Thunderstomp attacks may target enemy units with the Stomp special rule in the form of a single stomp hit. This would 'step down' the Thunderstomp attacks the same way Terror is lowered to Fear when engaging enemy units that cause Fear.
29. Clean up the characters section concerning declaring charges out of a unit.
30. Clean up random moment issues concerning the initial wheel-in-place before movement and how it is affected by the 1" rule and charging units in its flank.
31. Require charging fliers to 'close the door' while mid-air so that both fliers and units charged by them can both not take positional advantage by requiring the 'close the door' wheel on the ground. This will help maximize models in close combat every time.

I'm sure I've missed quite a bit...but 8th Ed. was generally pretty great.

 

[Putzfrau]

Re: Premature 9th speculations

I like most of what you said, but not alliances.


The current state of allies is part of the problem in 40k. Maybe I'm just a little shell shocked but I don't want the same issue to creep into FB

 

[Lizard King]

Re: Premature 9th speculations

I hope that 9th is just a nice tidy-up and clarification on 8th.

Perhaps some emphasis on smaller games, but apart from that its a pretty sound edition.

 

[Qupakoco]

Re: Premature 9th speculations

Anymore hearsay/heresy about 9th combining army books? I recall reading that at one point.

 

[Lizard King]

Re: Premature 9th speculations

Anymore hearsay/heresy about 9th combining army books? I recall reading that at one point.

It just seems so counter intuitive to GWs philosophy of money first... Why sell all the books as one? When you can make people spend £30 on each one... Even with a pricey book... I don't think it will happen. I think we're being trolled o.0

For example... New Combined Army Book = £100 (for example)

Current (15 Armies x £30) = £450 for all the books

 

[olderplayer]

Re: Premature 9th speculations

When the digital rulebook came out late last year there was some official GW response about not selling something that would be obsolete in the coming year. The most solid rumor is of a new rule book oriented to smaller battles and beginners as a means of over-coming to prohibitive cost of entry to play the 8th edition game right now. GW is well aware of the fact that its own stores and its still loyal FLGS's are having difficulty converting people to WHFB due to the size of the typical battle and the rules not being scalable. This is supposedly going to address that issue by creating essentially some kind of smaller scale "warbads" like rule book. However, given GW#'s reluctance to reign in and knock the heads of some of its design team, the concern is that they will get carried away again with a bunch of silly random rules, rather than create a simpler and easier to play rule book for beginning battles and smaller battles.

 

[n810]

Re: Premature 9th speculations

Anymore hearsay/heresy about 9th combining army books? I recall reading that at one point.

Yea I have head that rumor for every release since 6th edition.

 

[Mr Phat]

Re: Premature 9th speculations

When the digital rulebook came out late last year there was some official GW response about not selling something that would be obsolete in the coming year. The most solid rumor is of ae new rule book oriented to smaller battles and beginners as a means of over-coming to prohibitive cost of entry to play the 8th edition game right now. GW is well aware of the fact that its own stores and its still loyal FLGS's are having difficulty converting people to WHFB due to the size of the typical battle and the rules not being scalable. This is supposedly going to address that issue by creating essentially some kind of smaller scale "warbads" like rule book. However, given GW#'s reluctance to reign in and knock the heads of some of its design team, the concern is that they will get carried away again with a bunch of silly random rules, rather than create a simpler and easier to play rule book for beginning battles and smaller battles.

I read that, but there is tons of ways to prevent it from being obsolete.
Free update for all buyers, or cheap upgrade for all buyers.
There, it isnt obsolete.

but I agree that the statement points more on the opposite, just pointing out that GW have done the like before, and that the above statement can easily be worked around.

 

[Mr Phat]

Re: Premature 9th speculations

So, I fell over this:

via Tim on Faeit 212
-Elves roll 3W6 to determine an attack, dwarf roll 1W6 (This has been clarified to be charge-range)
-Movement will be simplified
-Armor saves will change, shield give a special save (my thought is by special save they mean that it will only be a shield needed for parry saves instead of Handweapons+Shield)
-Skirmishers return to the rules from the 7th (didnt play then, can someone clarify how this hurts / benefits us?)
-2.500p will be the new standard Size for Battles (Slann + Olblood more archieveable)
-Rules for special dangerous Terrain will be dropped (naarw..but I love Curse of Anraheir)


With the re-thinking of shields one could hope that our TG will be able to use them along their halberds.
Perhaps something like "halberds can be used with a shield if the user has S4 or greater on its profile".

 

[MI_Tiger]

Re: Premature 9th speculations

-Skirmishers return to the rules from the 7th (didnt play then, can someone clarify how this hurts / benefits us?)

In 7th, Skirmishers had no fixed formation (not even a loose one like in 8th) and they had 360 degree line of sight which makes them even more flexible. However, the lack of a formation meant that if they were charged, they lined up on the charger rather than the other way around. This meant that you had to use them differently if you wanted them to redirect enemy units (by fleeing).

 

[IronJaw]

Re: Premature 9th speculations

--- Have any of you semi-traitors....hm..I mean..fellas with more armies see a pattern on other army forums?
what are the elves complaining about?
what is the chaos boys expecting?
it might be too early, but somehow it seems realistic that the chatter goes as Warseer debates if or if not we get 9th as this schedule shows.

I think that a good number of Dwarven guys where a little disappointing with the new book. After reading it, it seems that they just tweaked some rules/stats, added a little more fluff to progress the timeline, and threw in a few new models to sell.

Granted, it's seems that they begrudgingly accept the book as a "buff" and are happy with what they got. Very dwarf like if ya' ask me.

A lot of people seem happy with the tweaks (You'll start seeing more Close Combat oriented armies. Most of the changes where little CC tweaks that sorta' guided and nudged lists to non-gun-line troops.) but a few people where disappointing that more wasn't done, especially since the rumor was that the Dwarves had been sitting around for a while waiting to be launched.

I've heard someone mention that they /could/ have taken some stuff out of the 8th edition book and kept it back for 9th. But I doubt it. It seems that 9th will be flier heavy, just like 8th is Monstrous Infantry heavy, and the "big" change/centerpiece model is the Gyro-Chopter/Bomber. Which isn't nearly as cool as any other army centerpiece/model...

In the end? Other than flier heavy armies, not much will change. No "Slayer" themed armies, or "Ranger" armies like people wanted.... Just the same ol' Gun line/Artillery line/ Armor line.

 

[Mr Phat]

Re: Premature 9th speculations

I've heard someone mention that they /could/ have taken some stuff out of the 8th edition book and kept it back for 9th. But I doubt it. It seems that 9th will be flier heavy, just like 8th is Monstrous Infantry heavy, and the "big" change/centerpiece model is the Gyro-Chopter/Bomber. Which isn't nearly as cool as any other army centerpiece/model...

Had this feeling myself.

A new skinkpriest model covered in coatl feathers, but no rules for it?
A book mentioning new lizards in lustria never spoken of before, but nothing to show them?
(Disclaimer: havnt read that part myself but dosnt it say something about "Voxosaurs" or something along those lines?)
I realise that they have done this before, but why expand the fluff when there still isnt models and rules for the rest?

Also: the army pictures in the book shows 1 single unit of saurus with goldlined heads...1 out of 4-5 units.
*cough* spawning teaser *cough*
They made the excuse that it was just "for flavour and varity of colour" , but that is some cruel BS if its true, since they had to know how much we wish for that to return.

combine this with GW , black library and Forgeworld merging (FW products in GW stores from 7th april)
and putting into consideration that GW will be using battle-scrolls to implement new features to the different armies I
think we can conclude that we have 1 or 2 things coming to us in the form of POST-book material.

guesswork, but thats what I would do if I had these things lined up.

Thats why im asking if any other forums had any "gutfeelings" regarding 9th, so we can cross-refer the signs.