Ogre Kingdoms

How happy are you with the latest addition to the stable of Warhammer armies?

Very happy. In particular Brian Nelson has done an amazing job on the plastics, and Phil Kelly has produced a fantastic book, rich in Warhammer flavour and humour.

Do you have an Ogre army yourself?

I don't, I've been sticking to my Dwarfs lately, though I might branch out into some Lizardmen this year.

The "Dogs of War" rule for Bulls, Ironguts, Leadbelchers and Maneaters is unusual. Do you see this as a way of allowing people to choose from a wider variety of Dogs of War units, or merely as an upgrade for the current Dogs of War Ogre entry?

It was a straightforward way to demonstrate the mercenary nature of the Ogre race, something that has been long established in their character. We're still trying to resolve the best way to incorporate Dogs of War and Regiments of Renown, and here was an opportunity to keep the idea alive in the game system.

If you had to have one of the Ogre Big Names, which would you choose?

Some might say I should be a Mawseeker (+1T but suffer from Stupidity).

Were there any unit ideas that didn't make it through the design process?

As Phil mentioned in his WD article, there was another variant of Rhinox-pulled war machine based upon a bolt thrower. Most of the imagery ended up being used in one place or another, which is the benefit of having a pretty blank sheet to start with.

In most of the army books, there is a selection of special characters, some old, some new. With regards to the Ogres, are these special character concepts that didn't seem as strong as Skrag and Greasus, or were they created specifically for that page?

No, we felt they were all pretty strong, but decided that Greasus and Skrag were the 'Big Two' that needed to be included. We had a similar situation with Tomb Kings - the army was new and so didn't have the established canon of characters that most other races have. They serve as inspiration to players and maybe ideas that we revisit with miniatures and rules in the future.

Warhammer 7th Ed

Anything you can tell us about the next edition of WHFB, specifically in regards to the magic system? Are you planning or hoping to release "trial rule systems" like what was done in 3rd ed. 40k with the trial assault rules and trial vehicle rules?

The use of the website in relation to Games Development is something that is currently the subject of ongoing discussions. In particular, Jervis Johnson has had much experience of this with the Fanatic Vaults and when he's got some free time, we'll certainly be picking his brains regarding ways that we might be able to open up ideas to wider scrutiny. However, we want to avoid the situation that arose with the 40K trial rules, which caused some confusion and were adopted in many areas as official. Any preview material we publish will definitely be for feedback only and won't be in any way official until we produce a new rulebook.

Magic on the whole works well, and needs to remain a viable tactic for players that wish to invest points in a magical aspect to their army. Generally speaking, we're looking at the number of dice generated and who can use them, and the variance between wizards of different power levels. We'll also get an opportunity to look at the spell lores.

Are you actively gathering material for 7th edition yet and if so can you give any hints as to how it is being approached?

We've been actively gathering material since the release of 6th edition. On the whole, the brief is to clarify and contextualise, rather than change. All of the published army books must remain consistent with any rules changes. The main aim is to present the rules as clearly as possible and, where changes may be made, to remove elements that feel counter-intuitive. The emphasis is on the gameplay aspects that cause the most confusion, such as charging, fleeing and combat resolution. There's likely to be less changes than many people might be expecting.

How far down the road are we looking to see 7th Edition?

Past the traffic lights, right at the roundabout, fourth door on the left...

Put another way, 6th edition remains the definitive Warhammer and will be for some time to come.

What areas of the rules are likely to receive attention when 7th edition is written... and why?

See my earlier answer. Obviously it's too early to talk about specifics. Bearing in mind that many of the areas we'll be looking at are those highlighted by players as being problematic, a lot of the discussion around possible changes focuses on the same areas that players are talking about.

Wood Elves

At this point, can you give an estimated release quarter for the Wood Elves?

That's not my job; you'll have to keep an eye on the website and WD. However, astute net observers will be able to piece together a rough idea from several sources already!

Will Scarlocs Archers return in some form?

There are no plans to return them to the game at the moment, although they remain a part of the Wood Elf background.

Will there be different Treeman types e.g. ash or oak?

No.

As this is the third 'Elf' book do you think you have learned anything from the other two that can be applied to wood elves?

We certainly want to retain the flavour and style of the other two Elf books. The army, on the other hand, is quite different because of the Forests Spirits elements, and so the Wood Elves work in quite a different way.

Can you say (yet) how many plastic Wood Elf boxes there will be?

Again, I can't give out specific release information. Given the level of plastics commitment to other recent Warhammer projects, I think players can formulate a good idea of what to expect from the Wood Elves.

There is lots of talk of tree/forest spirits (formally known as dryads) being a large part of the army, and even being able to take these a pure force (ala Daemonic armies from Hordes of Chaos). Are there plans for multiple types of spirit (combat, shooting, big scary ones - tree men) or will there be a singular entry that can fulfil different roles (as the Dryads were able to in a sense with their aspects). Finally, will the Spirits suffer from some for of Instability like Daemons or will they operate as a regular 'mortal' unit.

Without getting into details, I can confirm that the Forests Spirits side of the army has been expanded. Athel Loren and the Wood Elves are one and the same and we want players to be able to represent this in their armies. Suffice to say, the playtesters have been hard at work trying out the various permutations of this flexibility!

Will the Wood Elf plastics (and all other) be designed in the same way as the new Chaos Warriors?

Each plastic set is planned and designed on its own merits and requirements. Elves with bows are very different from hulking great warriors with armour and cloaks. As with everything, each plastic set that we produce adds to our thinking for the future, and we hope to keep best practices and evolve the quality and functionality of regiment sets each time we make a new one.

Dogs of War & Kislev

Have the Studio put any thought into releasing a list of non-Human Dogs of War Heroes and Lords? A DoW magic item list?

Dogs of War are a really big grab-bag of ideas and opportunities at the moment, and we have no definite plans for them. They will remain a part of the Warhammer game (hard not to since they are part of the army lists in the books!). There's a series of conflicting ideas present in the Dogs of War at the moment, including DoW, Regiments of Renown and the Tilean aspects. These need to be separated and dealt with properly. We're not planning any DoW support at the moment, and I would rather deal with them properly with a specific supplement than nips and tucks here and there through WD.

Have they put any thought into releasing expanded Hero level choices for Kislev (especially Ice Witches)? A limited Kislev magic item list?

It was originally intended to accompany the Kislev Allies release with an army list later one, but development time became short and we never had the chance to write it. We may revisit Kislev again in the future, but there is nothing scheduled at the moment.

What, if any, direction are the DoW being taken?

One idea that I have, and it's only an idea, is to expand the mercenary aspects of armies in larger battles, perhaps using the format of the Allies contingents in a slightly different fashion. This would allow players to use individual units as they do now, but in larger battles to have a mix of their main army, allies, mercenaries and so on. The important point would be to make them feel more mercenary and not simply allies by a different names.

Will they simply be a compilation of various Allied Contingents with some other characters added in?

I would hope we would make something much more interesting than that.

Will we see them (the DoW) within the next few years?

I couldn't say for sure at the moment.

In some of the army books, there are names of various mercenary units never before heard of. Of these, which would you most like to see released?

I've got a soft spot for Ludwig's Wondrous Grenadiers, but that's probably because I came up with the name!

Are we likely to see any more of the original Regiments of Renown making a comeback, ala Mengil Manflayer or Ruglud?

If we were to do new Regiments of Renown I suspect there would be a mix of new ideas and old classics in there.

Chaos Dwarfs

What are your plans for Chaos Dwarves?

There is no plan at the moment, I have to say. However, they remain part of the Warhammer world, as evidenced by the Hell cannon release and the references in Ogre Kingdoms. If it fits in with our wider strategy we may well produce a Chaos Dwarfs army in the future. As a Dwarfs player, I certainly think there's a great army in the concept, but it's more than a matter of good ideas, there are all sorts of dull but essential real world and commercial factors involved in this sort of decision.

If someone were to write a minor update to the RH Chaos Dwarf list and send it in to GW, what would the chances of that update being
a) Looked at?
b) Printed in White Dwarf?
c) Used for kindling?

c) Several of the codes in the Chaos Dwarf range are now out of production and cannot be supplied. Until we can provide a proper range of miniatures, it is poor customer service to promote the Chaos Dwarfs in any way. It seems harsh on existing players, I know, but it is the more honest route. We can't in all conscience encourage players to collect Chaos Dwarfs while their future as an army is uncertain; we'd rather players accept that there are no Chaos Dwarfs as an army at the moment, and then be overjoyed if we do get a chance to produce an army, rather than get their hopes up and be shattered that we cannot follow through later on.

The Chaos Dwarf crew of the Hell cannon have been described as being used to test the water as to a new look for the range. Would you say this experiment has been successful, and were you happy with the look?

In order to produce the Hell cannon, we had to conceptualise around the idea a little, and I'm certainly pleased with the direction. The core images of the Chaos Dwarfs are sound and remain solid, - the eastern, Babylonian, industry-gone-mad aspects - we simply need to find a less caricatured rendering that is more appropriate to the grim world of Warhammer.

Elves, High & Dark

Can we expect High Elves to be one of the earliest armies to be updated in 7th edition given the dissatisfaction of the current army?

No. The driver for any revisit will primarily be the miniatures range, and there are certainly armies ahead of High Elves in that regard. The issues with High Elves, and Dark Elves, are nowhere near as severe as some people are trying to make out. There are lots of personal peccadillo?s being released into the wilds at the moment, and players have to retain their perspective. High Elves continue to be a popular and successful army, which contains competitive army options if players are inclined to play that way.

Are they going to add a larger variety of magic items to the Dark Elves, especially lower point value items? Right now it seems like there is only 1-2 useful items a Beast Master can actually take, and Assassins only have a very few usable combinations of items they can get. I'm not sure how much of a problem for other armies this is, but I don't like having to take the same magic items all the time because I don't have any good alternatives.

When we get back to Dark Elves, we'll certainly be looking at the Magic Items selection, as we would with any army. Without considering it in detail, which it is too early to do, I couldn't say what direction we might take. It may be the case that the designer intended the choices to be more limited for Beastmasters and Assassins because they have other attributes that warrant their selection without making ordinary heroes pointless...

Are you going to release any more Dark Elf hero blisters? Right now the ONLY way to get a noble or highborn is by conversion (or to use Malus Darkblade).... we don't even have our own basic hero...

We would like to revisit parts of ranges that are incomplete (as we did during Storm of Chaos), and the characters side of Dark Elves is a little thin. Luckily, there is a range of gorgeous champion models for the various elite regiments, which make great characters as well.

Also some of the mounts, specifically the Dark Pegasus, for nobles or Beast Master to ride has to be converted, and its either a Bretonnian model for the base, which doesn't look very 'dark' or we have to get moritha (which is rather expensive just for conversion purposes) and cut and file her legs off just to stick another hero on (which we have to convert ALSO because we can't get any of them normally). Would it be possible to see more of the Dark Elf mounts available without this problem?

Conversions have always been and will always be a part of collecting an army. It is important that we provide the right 'components', and the decision to include the legs on the Pegasus itself perhaps might have been taken differently if we were to remake the model now.

Chaos

Is there going to be any more Chaos stuff in the distant pipeline? I heard rumours of power-specific Knight and Warrior sprues, and plastic knights for that matter...

Heard mention? You mean my designer's notes for Storm of Chaos? We have made sure that there is plenty of room to expand the plastics range for Chaos in the future, though for the time being Chaos is taking a step back as we focus on some of the other armies - they've had over two years of attention, time for someone else to feel the lurve!

Why can't Beastman Chariots have Marks of Chaos? Particularly in regard to the fact you can only have Undivided characters in them.

Chariots, to all intents and purposes, are mobile impact hits waiting to happen. If Beasts chariots had Marks, they would invalidate Warrior Chariots simply because of their points value. It was for the same reason that we took out the Marauder chariots.

Are the Norse merely part of Chaos now? Marauders are Norse obviously- so are ALL Norse Chaos?

I'm continually amazed at this - have people actually READ Hordes of Chaos? In particular, the piece of colour text regarding the Were? To say that any of the marauders are one single thing is foolish - it's like saying that all the Indo-European peoples that crossed the continent for centuries were all the same. The point to remember is that Norsca lies mostly under the shadow of Chaos, and if one doesn't want to wake up to find they've grown hedgehogs instead of legs, one pays proper respect to the gods. The Norse, in particular, are a people with their own culture, traditions and society; they are war-like and respect strength and power, but they're only 'evil' if you happen to be living in the village they're raiding! The Kurgan, on the other hand...

Considering that Beasts of Chaos upon its release only got about half the model range redone, with the (older) rest looking very out of place compared to the new one, and half the new models being of very low quality (Trolls/Ogres), I felt that BoC is a pretty low-priority army and not taken as "seriously" by GW as the other armies (Especially the chaos Mortals). While the book for the most part is lovely, I feel they haven't been getting the support they should have. What're your thoughts on this?

I disagree. The fact that they have their own book and are a distinct part of the range shows that we consider them an important part of Warhammer! The sheer scope of Chaos, with basically a requirement for five different versions of many characters and units, make it a very unwieldy range to produce and manage. Given the wide number of commitments the Studio has at any given time, we have to divide resource as sensibly as possible. Generally, we'd like to think that when we remake models they are an improvement, however, if we were to have remade more of the range, this would have impacted heavily on the rest of the release schedule and the project might not have been possible at all. We can't do everything for everyone at once, and so instead opted to do what we could and leave our options open for later development and releases.

With regards to the Slaangor and Tzaangor, can you explain why they haven't been released yet, or at least why the Khorngor and Pestigor were released? Would it be possible for some concept art for the Slaangor and Tzaangor to be released, so people have some idea how they could convert them?

See above. We know from experience that Khorne and Nurgle are the most popular gods, by some margin, and so were our priority. Slaangor and Tzaangor will be something we'll get back to - at the moment they are an opportunity for some suitably Chaotic colour schemes (Tzaangor work well with leopard spots and tiger stripes for that exotic look, for instance, while albino Slaaneshi Bestigor are also very distinctive).

Were you at all disappointed with the Chaos Horde of The End Times' rather pitiful progress in the Storm of Chaos?

I was surprised, rather than disappointed. Given popular opinion regarding the potency and flexibility of the Chaos army, I thought they would make a better showing. I think it better to refer to my concluding thoughts for a more in-depth discussion of why I thought the result ended up the way it did.

Would you say that Chaos, as an army, is possibly over-played when compared to other armies such as Tomb Kings and Orcs & Goblins? I know when I go gaming, I tend to see more Chaos armies than anything else.

Chaos has always been and will always be a pivotal part of Warhammer, and it was our aim with the 6th edition iteration to return them to their rightful place they enjoyed during their heyday of the Realms of Chaos books. It's interesting that the greenies are mentioned in the question, because these are actually one of our most popular armies - not least because they have been in two of the three boxed game versions of Warhammer (or perhaps vice versa?). Maybe players in your area just don't like gobbos!

Are there any plans to "put back" Malal into chaos?

None at all. Aside from any old copyright issues, I personally find the idea of the anti-Chaos Chaos god inconsistent with the way Chaos is supposed to work. However, the idea of personifying the self-destructive side of Chaos is an interesting one and formed much of the inspiration behind Be'lakor.

Other Races

Any chances of getting plastic Dwarfs that have knees?

What does a Dwarf need knees for? He's not going anywhere.

Will an army of Cathay or Araby ever see light of day?

As an army? Unlikely. There is a Warmaster Araby army being done at the moment, though. It's a sad fact that we currently cannot continually keep adding armies to the ranges - the range is simply too large for many people to stock as it is. We are looking at ways that we can manage this better, particularly with regard to the use of direct sales, and if we can resolve these issues we may have more freedom to explore these areas in the future. However, a whole army is a massive commitment of resource, and with Warhammer we already have a huge choice of images and playing styles - it is debateable whether a new army is good service to our customers, rather than using that time and manpower to deepen and broaden our existing armies..

What army lists are to be contained in the Lustria Campaign book?

You'll have to wait for an official announcement for that. There are some good guesses floating around...

Mermen?! You mentioned a while ago Gav, how you'd like to revisit that old classic. Just wondering if that was at all founded and/or what you were taking at the time of making that statement?

It started as a gag, but it's also a great fantasy archetype. Nigel Stillman wrote up a Fishmen Regiment of Renown years ago, which was a giggle, and we even put Fishmen onto our design schedule for a while, just as a placeholder. I doubt anything will happen, but you never know!

When will there be an official FAQ for the Bretonnian Army Book?

As mentioned earlier, we're currently resolving some issues regarding how to use the website to the best effect for Games Dev, and Q&As are part of that discussion.

More a suggestion that a question, but would the studio consider putting 'test' army lists in White Dwarf for some of the minor human realms, such as Tilea, Estelia, and Araby?

No. At the end of the day, we produce a miniatures wargame, and unless we were able to provide the miniatures for players to use, it's nothing more than an exercise in rules for rules' sake, something we continually try to avoid. Rules and army lists have to be considered in the wider context of the hobby - that of modelling and actually gaming.

Is there any chance there's gonna be a revised Snotling list, even if only as an appendix? Pleeeeeeeeeaaaaaaseee?

What's wrong with the one you've got?

General WHFB

As well as plans for Chaos Dwarves etc. are their any army books you would like to redo, like Skaven or Dwarves?

As I mentioned previously, the main driver for a revisit is the state of the attendant miniatures range. With the games systems being their most stable in a long time, the idea of a 6th book or 7th edition book is no longer appropriate. Over the coming years we will come back to armies, update models and their army books or codexes, and this is likely to continue for as long as people keep playing. The cycle of these revisits, on the other hand, will be a lot slower, allowing us time and resource to explore other avenues of the hobby and gaming.

It is easy to not accept the present, to continually regret decisions made in the past or to forever look forward to the next revision. However, the army books and ranges as they currently stand are what we have, and what we must play with. There will always be a part of a book that you would, in hindsight, do differently, but acceptance of this and patience that there will be an opportunity to come back to it as part and parcel of the discipline of a games developer; and a player for that matter.

How will you encourage younger gamers to play fantasy? Is Ogre Kingdoms the way forward?

Why would we want to? We create games that appeal to us, and luckily for us that appeal has spread to other people. If the appeal of Warhammer is for more committed, slightly older gamers, than so be it. Though it may not get quite as many new starters, those that pick it up tend to stay in the hobby. Warhammer is in a very healthy place right now, there's no need to change the formula.

What are your thoughts on the Storm of Chaos outcome?

Please see my conclusions on the Storm of Chaos website. On the whole, I was every pleased, and in fact overwhelmed in particular by the response to the background and players participation in creating their own storylines. It makes me very confident for future activities of this kind, and I think we're more likely to let players 'run the show' in the future, than to try to create the kinds of narratives we did with Eye of Terror and Storm of Chaos.

Are there any areas of Warhammer in which you would encourage gamers to send in contributions (as opposed to "Fix High Elf" revisions)? What does GW want to see from gamers these days?

There is already a wide discussion of various topics from individual armies, the general games mechanics or particular miniatures. It is far more useful for use to browse along these fields of thought rather than to receive specific suggestions ro queries; at the end of the day 'groundswell' opinion over an extended period is more of an influence on our thinking than any individual point. As they said in the British Telecom ad, just keep talking!

How will the distinction between errata and Q&A be in future? It seems to me that lately various things (like actual rules changes and additions) have been addressed in Q&A instead of errata.

There have been some contradictions in the approach of late. We'll be able to make more comment on how this will be handled in the near future.

Where do you see Warhammer in 10 years time? Will we have armies from all continents? eg. Nippon, Ind. Or do you think its better to leave areas unexplored and to people's imagination?

Certainly we need to leave areas of mystery to excite the imaginations of ourselves and players alike. In ten years time, I see a lot more plastics, and a wider variety of gaming styles. With the army book range nearly complete, we can look at other types of supplements, including larger and smaller battles, sieges, allies, mercenaries and all the rest. Overall, I see it as still being a really fun place to be.

Any plans for more fluff books in the same vein as Loathsome Ratmen?

Black Library is dedicated to releasing more background books, but they are a separate division of the company. You would be better off directing this question to a member of Black Library staff.

Do you know that every time someone uses the word 'fluff' instead of 'background', a kitten dies?

Do you intend to bring out some form of book which has all of the FAQ's and Updates since 6th Edition started? Its currently very hard to keep track of what questions have been answered where etc. At the very least perhaps some form of list on the GW site explaining what Annual/Chronicles has what FAQ/Update would be helpful.

Not as a book (although that was the idea behind the Annuals). We do want to make the website a more functional resource for this information.

Which game mechanic do you like best, which do you like least?

Although there are some issues with it, I really like the Ratling Gun in principle - the idea that you have to decide whether to keep turning the handle and rolling more dice is good fun. It's a question of caution versus greed (the problem being that caution is too effective at the moment).

Worst mechanic? Not sure there's one in particular, but I have a deep unsettling feeling for any games system that requires you to roll low instead of high. There's something not right with wanting a dice to come up a 1 instead of a 6!

Is there any chance on convincing Forge World to up its production rates for fantasy miniatures?

Essentially, making resin kits is still very much cottage industry-style production process, and the guys already work flat out producing what they do!

Allgemeiner Teil des Interviews hier.
40k Teil des Interviews hier.

+D+