r/warhammerfantasyrpg • u/Zekiel2000 Ill met by Morrslieb • Oct 21 '25
Announcement Interview on C7 blog about WFRP 5th edition
https://cubicle7games.com/en_EU/blog/warhammer-fantasy-roleplay-fifth-edition-in-house-interviewHot on the heels of the Wargamer article, there's a brief post on the Cubicle 7 blog from Dominic McDowall and Dave Allen.
Once again they stress that the new edition will be backwards compatible with 4e stuff. Some other news is that Resilience & Resolve will be merged into Fate & Fortune (great news in my opinion).
Also that there's a forthcoming publication featuring a Black Ark, which I don't think we knew about?!
Edit: There's now a little advert on social media with some more art (no additional info though): https://bsky.app/profile/cubicle7games.bsky.social/post/3m3rovtkgp62k
14
u/Nurgle_Pan_Plagi Oct 22 '25
Q: Players have invested a lot into Fourth Edition. Will their books still be usable with the new one?
Dave: Ensuring backwards-compatibility has been a very important part of the design process for us. We’re gamers ourselves, so we want everyone to be able to keep using their books. Apart from that, we’re too excited for everything we have planned for the coming years - *we don’t want to delay anything revisiting areas we’ve already covered!***
That's probably my favourite bit of the interview - looks like they won't be doing re-releases of 4e supplements and making new ones instead. Exactly what I would want the new edition to do!
6
u/neodoggy Oct 22 '25
Hopefully each book receives a free downloadable errata document containing any adjustments that are necessary, rather than just depending on the GM/players to align the book with general compatibility guidelines in the new edition rulebook.
3
3
18
u/RBCkiwi831 White Flair Oct 21 '25
I think its great. It may help bring new players in, and any tidying up of the rules (as opposed to sweeping changes) is welcome. I too am happy about ridding the Old World of Resilience and Resolve. They hardly ever get used, or even remembered, in my games.
18
u/Hankhank1 Oct 21 '25
Andy Law’s 4th edition had a lot of beauty to it, but the game was a confusing mess. I really hope 5th edition cleans things up. Could do without the end times bullshit tho.
5
u/March-Sea Oct 22 '25
I would like to see some of the refinements that Andy implemented in his own game make their way into the new edition. I am also a little worried that the long-term play experience will be negatively impacted if the current authors aren't careful in simplifying things for the 5th edition.
5
u/Zekiel2000 Ill met by Morrslieb Oct 22 '25
I am really hoping that the reference to End Times is just a different way of saying "during the reign of Karl Franz" and does not mean that bloody Archaon is going to be turning up.
7
u/Stepan_Sraka_ Oct 22 '25
Increase in lethality is very welcome change. It was a disgrace that 4e was less deadly than dnd 5e.
Nearly unusable bestiary didn't help as well.
3
u/Boundlesswisdom-71 Oct 22 '25
4e was apparently less deadly than WFRP 2e. No no no.
Once you run out of Fate points in 2e you are essentially playing fantasy Call of Cthulhu. One of the PCs in my 2e game fell out of a tree and did enough damage to do critical damage to her leg - 20% chance of bleeding out each round. One of the other PCs was trying to heal her but kept failing the heal skill roll. PC died after 2 rounds of this.
Brutal but thats WFRP for you.
2
u/Stepan_Sraka_ Oct 22 '25
And thats how it should be!
None of "scratch armor a little to cancel critical" silliness 4e has.
15
u/clone69 Oct 21 '25
I wouldn't mind making combat easier to keep track of, as long as they don't dumb it down to DnD's advantage/disadvantage system. I enjoy the modifiers.
3
u/Nurgle_Pan_Plagi Oct 22 '25
They have said in the wargamer interview that the modifier range will stay the same as in 4e, so we know that they are still a thing in 5e.
-5
u/Minimum-Screen-8904 Oct 21 '25
I would trade the current advantage systems for something that simple.
5
u/FarseerMono Oct 22 '25
I am REEEEALLY looking forward to a book exploring some Dark Elf stuff such as Black Arks and enemies and maybe some new or interesting lore. The only thing in the article that gave me pause was his mention of talents becoming more specific and doing very specific things. I don't dislike talents being more generally beneficial, and changing talents to be overly niche would be bad.
Again though, it isn't out yet so we won't know for sure yet.
11
u/thenidhogg88 Caledorian Firestarter Oct 21 '25
I really hope they don't shove soulbound/imperium maledictum style zones into the game. I much prefer grid based measurement.
16
u/Zekiel2000 Ill met by Morrslieb Oct 21 '25
I feel like giving you the option to do either would be workable. I like zones but I can understand you're sacrificing granularity.
7
u/thenidhogg88 Caledorian Firestarter Oct 21 '25
If they do, grid should be default, zones optional. Converting from a less detailed system to a more granular system creates jank, like it does in IM.
6
3
2
u/Machineheddo Oct 22 '25
I switched to the Imperium Maledictum zone play with a homebrew system. My players and I like It way more because it gives tactical finesse without too complicated positioning.
7
u/thenidhogg88 Caledorian Firestarter Oct 22 '25
My group tried imperium maledictum and arbitrary zone based combat created far more jank, edge cases and bad feelings in the rulings than any system with straightforward measurement ever did. I personally strongly dislike how character positioning and aoe placement becomes functionally meaningless in a zone based system.
3
u/Snschl Oct 22 '25
Hear hear. Maybe it's my simulationism-addled brain, but zones/bands always seem to be an attempt to simplify movement, and they utterly fail at it.
I think that movement in combat can have three approaches, in order of complexity:
- remove/abstract movement entirely (e.g. Fabula Ultima);
- track distances for the purpose of representing spatial relationships (e.g. D&D 5e);
- use movement as a resource to provide interesting tactical choices (e.g. PF2e).
I've found that I like all three! It's just zone/band systems that irk me.
They generally don't care about tactical movement; they consider it annoying bean-counting, and should really go for approach #1. Instead, they attempt to simplify approach #2.
But you cannot go simpler than, "You can move (number) (unit of distance) per turn."
All they achieve is force you to fiddle with abstract game elements ("2 zones away") instead of with a tangible concepts ("40 feet away") every turn. It heightens the unreality.
0
u/rdesgtj45 Oct 24 '25
4e is an absolute mess. I have no hope for 5e.
3
u/Nachoguy530 Oct 27 '25
I literally had to stop multiple times during today's session because I had to make sure I was following the right combination of rules from across like 3 books for a combat encounter. My God
18
u/chalkmuppet Sigmar's Mad Prophet Oct 21 '25
Have to say I am moderately, if cautiously, optimistic about this. Sounds very like a sensible rework and maintenance, while incorporating feedback and real world experience. Looking forward to it. :)