PDA

View Full Version : Why WFB really needs to get back to basics....



LuciusAR
16-09-2008, 17:26
Having had a good read through the Chaos rumours thread Iíve realised Iíve noticed a disturbing trend in the release of new WFB armies. Itís something Iíve suspected with the new High Elves and Demons books (I havenít read the Dark Elf book yet). Itís quite simple; WFB now has far too many rules. Iím not talking about the core rule book, but the umpteen special rules it now seem obligatory for every army to have. I honestly think itís getting out of control and I not only is the flow of the game is being broken but I believe itís to the detriment of any rule set when there are numerous exceptions each individual rule. Itís now almost not worth developing tactics which revolve around the core rules, most game winning strategies Iíve recently seen seem to involve exploiting a faction specific rule or a utilising a combination of faction specific items. I honestly think that when a game reaches the point where what combination units/items you choose to take becomes more important than the central concepts of manuvreing and command and control then the game is well and truly broken. WFB is trapped in a horrible cycle of oneupsmanship with each new release, and this needs to be broken.

I honestly believe the best way forward for WFB is to bring the whole thing back to basics. Keep special rules only for those factions that truly require them (Undead for example) and let all the other armies function through the main rules. If the Stat line is not sufficient to differentiate between factions then the stat line needs to be changed. In other words lets get back to WFB being a game which rewards actual military tactics and understanding of the core mechanics rather than picking uber combos or writing hyper efficient (yet ultimately soulless) lists.

Interestingly enough GW do utilise this model with LotR, now I donít want this to turn this into a WFB vs LotR thread (and I will close the thread if it turns into one) however Iíve noticed in games Iíve played of both systems LotR seems to flow far more smoothly and generally doesnít suffer from half the balance issues WFB does. I personally attribute this to the fact that LotR has virtually no special rules/Items and that the few it does have are far more subtle than the WFB ones. As a result all factions work within the core rules thus it reward superior knowledge/utilisation of said core rules rather than relying on exceptions to the core rules which apply only to one player. Perhaps WFB has a few things to learn from its younger sibling?

Malorian
16-09-2008, 18:07
I think the more rules you have the better the game.

I'd rather have each army be distinctly different and have their own flare then have each army basically the same.

There is a trend in gamers to rely on the army's special rules for their tactics rather than those in the core rule book, but it is to their own down fall. Each army should still take full advantage of baiting/counter-charging/etc. if they want to do their best. The extra special rules just add to them.

When the new HE came out with ASF many said that movement was now useless as the HE could always just take the charge and be fine. Now that people have played it out they have found this isn't true and the weak elves still take a beating after they make their first strikes so they still have to pick and choice their battles. A wise HE general is one that will bait your uber unit so that it can be flanked with his dragon princes rather than just stand there and mindlessly swing your sword.

pigi314159
16-09-2008, 19:45
I think you argument fails to acknowledge that special rules impact the basic tactics used.

For example, High Elf Swordmasters can be used just as effectively as a defensive or offensive unit. Whether they charge or receive the charge is of little consequence.

Skaven Ld bonus makes suicidal battles turn in your favor.

etc.

The special rules are only a facet of what defines each army. Equipment and unit composition creates much more flavor than the rules IMO.

For example, let us look at the three elf factions. Nearly identical statlines (affectionately nicknamed statline Elf). So let's remove the argument and assume Welf takes no forest spirits.

Wood Elves are extremely lightly armored (and by that I mean the best you'll get is Eternal Guard), but have extreme mobility with everything (minus eternal guard) able to become skirmishers or fast cavalry. This means they can never stand up against a head on charge, and must use maneuverability to gain the advantage of unfair combats against their opponents.

Dark Elves, while still lightly armored relative to some of the uber cavalry armies, can take a little more beating. They have hard hitting cavalry (Cold One Knights) but lack the range with accuracy the other elves have. This makes them a little more offensive in my eyes. They lack a true defensive unit who stands a chance against a head on charge. (Witch Elves, Corsairs, even Black Guard will take massive casualties in sustained combat against something with S3)

High Elves are probably the heaviest armored (Dragon Princes) and have multiple threats on the board. They, IMO, are the all-around elves. Wanna sit back and shoot? Wanna charge head on? They can do it all. They can be tailored to suit how you wish to play.

Same statlines, 3 different flavors...before I considered rules. The rules simply enhance the flavor. What the rules do, IMO, is define a subset of tactics that work the best with any given army. You could build an all melee phalanx style Eternal Guard Welf list, but you'd lose a lot of the benefits that being Welf grants.

In short, yes the "special rules" define the tactics that might work best. But there is no substitute for actually using those tactics. Relying on the rules alone will not save you. (Our High Elf player has yet to win despite ASF.)

PARTYCHICORITA
16-09-2008, 20:18
I think the more rules you have the better the game.

I'd rather have each army be distinctly different and have their own flare then have each army basically the same.



I agree with this 100%

Aulbath
16-09-2008, 20:41
@LuciusAR - Warmaster is EXACTLY the game you want.

Shimmergloom
16-09-2008, 20:42
The trend started before high elves. Wood elves were the first book that came out which had a laundry list of special rules for every single unit. Dwarfs were better about it, but still had more special rules than the old book had.

Then greenskins did away with many old special rules and replaced them with worse and more complicated special rules for animosity, black orcs and squig hoppers and fanactics that many people don't understand and play wrong.

Empire threw out a bunch of new rules for warrior priests which complicates the game and the return of the steam tank with it's own set of special rules that make no sense and ignore the main rulebook. yes it's a war machine. Yeah right.

It's just that the newest books from High elves onward overpower their special rules across the board for free. While previous army books were paying for their special rules.

Crazy Harborc
16-09-2008, 21:14
Having special rules for each army can be a pain. That said.......Wargaming does try to take into account the way armies behaved/fought in the days of old. GW is still trying to put out a set of "fantasy" wargaming rules.

If most of the games you play are with "a usual group of regulars", why not talk over those "special rules" and work around all those special rules. Write down what you guys come up with.;)

Ozorik
16-09-2008, 21:26
Special rules by themselves arent much of a problem, there arnt really all that many of them and on the whole they dont unbalance things to much.

What I have a problem with is armies who take token core choices and max out on rares or armies who are lead by special characters as standard. That a list composition or sportmanship issue though.

Gazak Blacktoof
16-09-2008, 21:28
I agree that in principal a lot of the game should be decided by the basic statlines of troops and how you move them but I don't think that Warhammer can get away from special rules entirely.

There are too many similar units that the designers want to avoid duplicating. The three elven factions, human knights, human infantry and the two types of undead need special rules to differentiate them.

You could have huge overlaps in the game but that doesn't encourage people to purchase more than one army and its just not as much fun to duplicate troops in my opinion.


Could more be done to reduce the number of special rules by altering the basic mechanics? Yes.

Shimmergloom
16-09-2008, 22:06
Well most of those problems are created by GW screwing over players by continuously splitting armies into smaller armies to make old armies obselete. And now they have to pack on special rules to make the new armies uber to entice people into buying the new army.

There was no reason to split the chaos army into 3 independent books. That was pure greed. Chaos had all sorts of flavor and fluff when the player could decide if he wanted to play a mixed force or a pure force or a mono god army or undivided, etc.

Now you have to play mortals(although they are stealing most of the beast book in the process) or daemons only or beasts only. Which means you get BS special rules heaped onto deamons to entice people to play them instead of throwing out their models onto eBay.

Same with undead. Another army who would have benefitted if they just kept them together and allowed you to theme your army if you wished after Tomb Kings or Vampire Counts or Necros.

Before you know it they'll be army books coming out called Empire: Cult of Ulric and Greenskins: Goblins and Greenskins: Orcs and Lizardmen: Southlands. All to dilute your choices even more and get packed with special rules to compensate.

Malorian
16-09-2008, 22:20
What they did with the chaos book was unfortunate but also required.

Although I'm big into having more options, when you can mix armies you introduce a lot more headaches. During play testing they have to compare it to every other army, and if you add into the mix having to try out all of the different list combinations you get with mixing it with other lists you are bound to make huge mistakes.

And you think they make make mistakes now...

Spitting those three armies is quite a bit different than breaking up the orcs and goblins.

At the same time it is great when they come out with specialist lists like the gnoblar list in white dwarf, or allow for things like the sacred spawnings or skaven clans.

Cherrystone
16-09-2008, 22:29
Special rules are fine but i think recently alot of WFB troops have been undercosted, and rarly take into account these extra benefits. Unless theres a complete restart its only going to get worse.

As for High Elves, ASF could of been avoided if the Initiative stat was made more useful in the development of the 7thy edition rules (like it was in 3rd) but it seems GW dont want to take any 'risks' to improve the game.

EvC
16-09-2008, 22:32
Some times it really does seem needless. Like Marauder Horsemen being able to re-roll pursuit rolls now. Is it really worth it? Okay it's not hard to remember, but with 50 special rules per army book, the more extraneous silly rules, the more likely someone is to forget an actual important rule.



When the new HE came out with ASF many said that movement was now useless as the HE could always just take the charge and be fine. Now that people have played it out they have found this isn't true and the weak elves still take a beating after they make their first strikes so they still have to pick and choice their battles. A wise HE general is one that will bait your uber unit so that it can be flanked with his dragon princes rather than just stand there and mindlessly swing your sword.

Tell that to my Tyrant and his regenerating Irongut bodyguards who were chopped up by Swordmasters who applied the awesome tactic of "move forwards as close to enemy unit as possible", followed by my other unit of Ironguts who were beaten by White Lions applying the equally fantastic tactic of "charge baiting unit and expose flank, then survive anyway owing to the fact they killed half the models in contact before they could strike", whilst my Gorger died to Bolt Thrower crewmen, and my Hunter taking two wounds from a Dragon Prince champion. Although that was just plain bad luck :D

LuciusAR
16-09-2008, 22:43
@LuciusAR - Warmaster is EXACTLY the game you want.

Preaching to the converted my friend :). I already love Warmaster for precisely the reasons outlined. A victory in Warmaster generally comes from superior tactical ability (and a bit of luck) rather than a superior list (at least IMHO). However I do love my 28 mm models and as I said before recently LotR seems to be satisfying my love of big beautiful models and intricate tactical game play atm.

As for the earlier poster who stated that 'more rules the better the game', couldn't disagree more. A game should have as many rules as necessary no more no less. Chess is probably the most tactical game in the world with rules I could teach a child in under an hour. Many of WFB's rules seem to me to only exist in order to paper over the cracks and maintain the status quo between factions. The same effect could be achieved if almost all the rules were thrown away with the added bonus of making the game smoother.

And contrary to the other posted who claimed that without special rules all factions would be the same, I honestly believe this to be a very flawed argument. The Stat line and available units in a list 'should' be enough to give every army a unique feel and playstyle. See 'LotR' and 'Warmaster' for examples of this in action, If not then the Statline and army list structure are flawed and require reexamining.

To take the example of the ASF rule. Its my position that the Initiative stat 'should' be sufficient to represent a units speed in combat, it shouldn't require a special faction specific rule to accurately represent an Elves speed. If it does then the Initiative stat isn't doing its job right and its use within the core game needs to be re-examined rather than simply plastering over it with a special rule.

Malorian
16-09-2008, 22:49
EvC:

Assuming his sword masters were 7 wide they should have only killed 1 irongut (4 wounds).

Assuming it was only a unit of 3 iron guts and the tyrant (even with no gear) you should have killed 5 of them.

You outnumber with a fear and they auto-break.

If they were a fully ranked uber unit of swordmasters then you should have been redirecting them with gnoblars.

Edit: I know you already said it was bad luck, but I just wanted to do the math so everyone could see that the squishy elves should die.

Llew
16-09-2008, 23:02
The quality of design behind a ruleset can be judged by its need for special rules: the more special rules required, the shoddier the design.

Let's put it this way -- if the only way to make armies unique in your game is by adding special rules that contravene and bypass your core rules, you didn't put enough thought into the mechanics of your core rules. Given that WFB is supposed to be "beer and pretzels" wargaming, it should be simple. Loads of special rules runs directly counter to the stated aim.

LotR is an example of an elegant, well-designed game. Warmaster appears that way to me (and I love the Command mechanic), although I haven't been able to try it for lack of players. There are many games that prove that GW is capable of good games design, but their flagship Warhammer products are dodgy at best.

Shimmergloom
16-09-2008, 23:47
Although I'm big into having more options, when you can mix armies you introduce a lot more headaches. During play testing they have to compare it to every other army, and if you add into the mix having to try out all of the different list combinations you get with mixing it with other lists you are bound to make huge mistakes.

That's such a falsehood. Chaos was mixed all through 6th edition and nearly 2 years of 7th and how often were you hearing they were overpowered? How often were people claiming that GW just didn't playtest them at all? Beasts and Warriors were considered middle tier even before 7th and daemons were considered unplayable. Mixed armies were the best bet, but they were not high tier either.

Instead they split the book and we already have a massive cheese army called daemons. The split didn't simplify things at all. It's just looking to create 3 overpowered armies. instead of one army that could be themed several different ways.


Assuming his sword masters were 7 wide they should have only killed 1 irongut (4 wounds).

Well first, like he said every HE player will move up in their movement phase to keep the ogre player from getting a bull charge. So that's nullified.

If it was a tyrant and 3 guts that starts at US 12. If the SM were just 15 strong which is a common amount than that starts at US15.

14 SMs w/champ. 15 attacks, 10 hits, 6.7 wounds. He had cast a spell to allow regen, which should regen that to 3.35 wounds. So one dead gut. 2 guts left w/champ 7 attacks, 3.5 hits, 2.94 wounds. Tyrant 5 attacks, 3.35 hits, 2.87 wounds. 3 more dead.

Assuming the SM unit was just 15 with one rank and standard, then the SM have 4 wounds + standard + rank. For CR 6.

The guts and tyrant get 6 kills + standard fo CR 7. Both have US9 remaining so no insane courage roll for the SM.

So under the best of circumstances the guys w/tyrant can only win by 1, after charging and having a freaking uber spell cast on the unit that gives them regen. Without that regen under average circumstances that gut and tyrant unit would have had the floor wiped with them and would have lost about 4-5 and started running for the hills.

Yes, ASF has no effect at all.

Gazak Blacktoof
17-09-2008, 00:03
And contrary to the other posted who claimed that without special rules all factions would be the same, I honestly believe this to be a very flawed argument. The Stat line and available units in a list 'should' be enough to give every army a unique feel and playstyle. See 'LotR' and 'Warmaster' for examples of this in action, If not then the Statline and army list structure are flawed and require reexamining.

To take the example of the ASF rule. Its my position that the Initiative stat 'should' be sufficient to represent a units speed in combat, it shouldn't require a special faction specific rule to accurately represent an Elves speed. If it does then the Initiative stat isn't doing its job right and its use within the core game needs to be re-examined rather than simply plastering over it with a special rule.


As I said I agree in principal but the number of units available in warhammer make it very difficult to allow differentiation without other conditions above those of the models' stat-line. Sometimes its also easier to implement a special rule than it is to create additional stat values, this is certainly the case in Warhammer and 40K where the way the design scheduling works means that concepts are initiated mid way through an edition. Sometimes its just more fun to have a special rule with its fluff text.

Even if Warhammer wasn't an established system or if there wasn't a bottom line to consider, creating the differences needed using just a D6 and not using special rules would be next to impossible. If you could, would the iterative differences make the units fun to play with or would unit A be the same as unit B with +1 fight (lord of the rings)?

The new chosen for chaos have +1 weapon skill (similar enough to lord of the rings fight characteristic) but they also have a special rule that means the unit will be a bit different every time you play. I think that special rule is a plus. I also think that the army wide re-roll panic rule is a plus because its different to just increasing the leadership (courage in lord of the rings) as the consequences are substantially different. Marks are another special rule but they add huge variety, that's another plus for me.

You have to take into account that Warhammer is the way it is because the people that designed it (and a lot of the people who play it) wanted a bucket load of magic items and magic with funky rules. A lot of the special rules are there by design, not by accident.

Comparisons to warmaster and lord of the rings are poor arguments for change in my opinion- Each game is unique- You already play warmaster so what's the point in having warmaster in warhammer scale? Why not simply use warhammer models for games of warmaster or play warmaster with warmaster models?


As an aside, I agree that the initiative characteristic doesn't do what it should for some units and ASF is a horrid patch that screws over a lot of lighter units as it robs them of their charge bonuses.

gorenut
17-09-2008, 00:26
I think the general blanket statement of saying more rules = bad is wrong. I think there should be special rules to make each army feel more unique.. that has already been said by other posters and I totally agree with them. I think the real fault is when there are special rules that aren't thought-out very well. ASF is probably the biggest offender. It's not that I think its overpowered, but it just straight-up changes so much of the game and generates so many complaints.. overall it just seems not that thought-out. On the other hand.. the most recent, Dark Elves.. I think it was applied well. Hatred alone isn't so special, but it seems to go very well with the DE army. It totally helps represent an army that excels when on the offensive. I know some will argue that they hate you have to always pursuit, but it just furthers the general thinking in advance to make sure those traps aren't set up.

xragg
17-09-2008, 00:42
I have to give credit to the LotR ruleset also. I play a Gondor/Fiefdom themed force against my friends Harad and another friends White Hand Orcs. We have all used varying lists and different heros. We have also used the base encounters, special scenarios, large battles, and even linked encounters. All but 2 of our games so far have come down to the last turn or two. I am not saying everyone should drop WHFB and play LotR. I am only agreeing that GW did a wonderful job at balancing a game without tons of rules to bog you down with, while at the same time each force retains the flavor it is supposed to have.

Even though I own the demon book, I have yet to play them in a real game. I know I will probally lose my first game with them just because I am not familiar with all their rules. Its one thing to read the book, and another to play against it. A game should not be decided just because I dont know the impact of your special rules. Having unique army rules is fine, but they shouldnt overshadow the core rules of the BRB.

zak
17-09-2008, 00:44
I don't think that a rule set can be judged upon how good or bad it is because of how many special rules it has. I don't think the game is over complicated and I don't think it was ever considered to be a beer and pretzel game (that's 40k). If anything Warhammer has been made easier over the years and there now seems to be less rules and many have put this down to GW dumbing the game down for the young ones.

Off topic - ASF is not game breaking. HE are still lightly armoured t3 troops. Either charging or being charged by SM is death! Therefore don't charge them. Shoot them, magic them, chariot them or if you don't have any of those 3 then tie them up with cheap units so they make little impact in the game.

Malorian
17-09-2008, 00:50
Shimmergloom: I never said the chaos mixtures were over powered. I said due to all the combinations playtesting would be very difficult. Any time one book was updated you'd have to make sure it still mixed well with the other books.

Bull charge against HE is a simple matter of staggering your units. Not only that but also ogres are faster than HE infantry so they can be the ones to move up and bait. I didn't include it in the math, I just mentioned it as a usual tactic.

If you really want to do "what usually happens":
-there would be an overly expensive tyrant there
-you would have to factor in their fear test
-they would be redirected with gnoblars allowing for a flank charge
-that 1 model in the back rank would have been knocked off with the sharp shuff meaning only 2 are there to fight back
-and the bull charge could easily kill both of them before they got to attack.

(You unit of 15 swordmasters with a banner are 237 points and 20 gnoblars and 4 ironguts are 232 points)

theunwantedbeing
17-09-2008, 00:57
I dont mind blanket rules.

Bretonnians - Lance formation, Peasant Duty
Empire - nothing
Orcs - Animosity
Dwarves - Always march, less fleeing/persuing
High elves -ASF
Dark elves -Hatred
Wood elves - move through woods, move and shoot without penalty
Ogres - ????

You get the idea.
We're not in a situation where everyone has all the same special rules so it's not a problem.

As for stat changes...
Well differing stats dont work to allow dwarves to always march, and tomb kings not to march ever. So we need more than just stats.

The main problems tend to occur when we see power play and various "unbeatable combo's" people turn up with.
Often these are either hideously annoying and difficult to avoid, or are nigh impossible to win on their terms, but easy as hell to deal with in real life where you just flank them and they run off.

Shamfrit
17-09-2008, 01:01
Because removing the special rules or to place all the Army Specific 'Unique' rules into the BRB would be a whopping great walk in the park now, wouldn't it?

No, didn't think so.

Magic The Gathering: is a prime example of where 'special rules' and 'Core Mechanics' work incredibly well together. In each 'Core Set' or a Block where a new mechanic is introduced with a keyword, such as 'Flying' or 'Flash,' the description of the ability is placed in italicised reminded text. In each subsequent set that keyword will simply be just that, a keyword. This special rule is something that every Magic The Gathering player, except for those who're very new to the game will know, remember, and be able to interact with regardless of the deck or play style they're using. They know that a card with the Flying Mechanic cannot be blocked by a creature without Flying etc etc.

We have two variants of this in Warhammer:

Universal Keyworded Rules: Such as Flammable, Regeneration, Hatred, Fear, Frenzy, Terror, Unbreakable, Always Strike First, Stupidity etc.

Specific Army Keyworded Rules: Forest Spirit, Expendable, Cold Blooded, Daemonic, Undead, Relentless, Warpstone Weapons, Daemonic Gifts, Valour of Ages, Eternal Hatred.

There is absolutely no difference between these two types except for the frequency in which they appear. 'Forest Spirit' and 'Flammable' are identical in nature, the only exception being that Flammable appears in multiple army books, whereas Forest Spirit will only ever appear in one. It is not possible to post every army specific mechanic into the BRB. There is no need to. If not known a special rule, which isn't 'special' in anyway, might cause you some concern; so just ask your opponent to briefly outline the workings of their army prior to the start of the game (,excluding magic and hidden items obviously,) so you can be prepared to deal with the consequences of not knowing 'Forest Spirits' are immune to poison and so on.

Perhaps Games Workshop or yourselves could make a 2-3 page summary sheet of every army specific rule there is, to allow the players that need it a chance to learn them all. I'm fortunate enough to want to play as other people's armies, read other army books, experiment with lists and learn the ins and outs of my potential enemies. It doesn't take that long, it doesn't cost a penny (thanks to the likes of Army Builder and the wonder that is the internet) and will help you improve your 'game' ten-fold - and what did you do?

You did a little bedtime reading.

*End rant.*

Shimmergloom
17-09-2008, 03:54
If you really want to do "what usually happens":
-there would be an overly expensive tyrant there
-you would have to factor in their fear test
-they would be redirected with gnoblars allowing for a flank charge
-that 1 model in the back rank would have been knocked off with the sharp shuff meaning only 2 are there to fight back
-and the bull charge could easily kill both of them before they got to attack.

Why would you assume the HE player would be dumb enough to charge gnoblars that he knows will flee, so that the Ogre player can flank charge him later?

Too often these tactics require you to be facing absolute newbie players to be effective.

1. The tyrant is already in the unit with the example. The ogres still only win by 1 with a tyrant and regen. Making him more expensive doesn't do much to increase his combat ability here. You can give him a great weapon, magic great weapon, some tailsmans, etc. The most common builds and tenderizer, wyrdstone, a big name like mawseeker, hvy armor, luck gnoblar. The tenderizer would only help in challenges, which the HE player should know to decline and let his champ fall back to avoid giving the ogre player lots of free CR.

2. fear tests. The SM have LD9. 10 with a nearby general who is ALWAYS around whenever greenskins talk about their low LD. So he's here now too. Fear is not likely to be a factor in the charge. But there is an 8.3% chance they will fail the fear test on the charge.

3. gnoblars are much slower than ogres. They also have their own animosity they have to pass in order to move up to redirect anyway. Much greater chance (17%) that the gnoblars will fail their animosity check than there is that the SM would fail a fear test caused by charging ogres.

So while we're looking at Reality. Reality is that the HE's own redirectors will be there to deal with the gnoblars. Such as eagles, shadow warriors or chariots.

4. Again this assumes the HE player is fine with just charging a redirecting 40pt gnoblar unit so it can be charged in the flank the following turn. Instead of just using their own re-directors or shooting or magic to move the gnoblar out of the way without charging them. Nothing says the SM have to fall into an obvious trap.

For the record gnoblars are BS 3. Shooting at SM chargers, with multi-shot makes them needing 6's just to hit. 5 wide that's 10 shots, with .57 unsaved wounds. No guarantee they'll even kill a single elf. The odds are only slightly saying they will if you round that up.

5. For the bull charge to kill anyone you have to be at least 6" away. And again HE players will move right up close to the Ogres to negate this. That's what people do. They know how to exploit the special rules of weaker armies, while their special rules always work. That's what power creep is.

Bull charge, we'll show'em animosity rolls, ambush, detachments, even hatred(which is still more powerful than the others and they get it for free) these are things that can be exploited.

ASF, Unbreakable, 5+ wards, always move through woods/difficult terrain, cold-blooded, tomb king spellcasting, relentless. These are special rules that just work. There's no exploitation. They just work.

All special army rules are not created equally. You have many armies paying for rules that don't always work, or hurt them more than help them. And some armies getting ASF or 5+ wards or a laundry list of other rules that just always work.

Kerill
17-09-2008, 04:06
More special rules are great as long as they are costed well and useful. Units should be more than just their stats and special and rare units should sometimes have special rules to indicate why they are great at X/Y/Z.

Malorian
17-09-2008, 04:35
Shimmergloom:

1. The fact is that you are paying 200 points when 2 regular ogres would be mroe effective.

2. Swordmasters are Ld 8. Not bad, but not a suer thing either.

3. they are fast enough. They can move up 4 and use their sharp stuff up to 8 giving them an effective foot range. Six wide (what you need to screen 3 ogres) will on average get 12 shots hitting on 5s, wounding on 5s, and the swordmasters have a 5+ save. So 88.9% of the time they can kill that model.

I went equal point for point. If you want to add eagles and what every then the ogres will just have that much more as well. All that is certain is your unit of 15 swordmasters with a banner are 237 points and 20 gnoblars and 4 ironguts are 232 points.

4. If you don't charge them the gnoblars can just move right up to you and force you to either charge or slowly try and move around. You don't really have a choice. In my standard 2000 ogre list I ahve 6 units of gnoblars. How many eagles do you have? And did I mention your eagles lose combat if they dare charge my gnoblars?

That's a big thing ogres have over any other army. Cheap cheap non panic causing throw away infantry. I can easily have 120 gnoblars and totally control your movement.

5. As I said all the ogres have to do is stager themselves so that there is always a nuit further back that can get the bull charge. In the case of gnoblars you just have the unit far enough ahead so that a failed charge (or overrun if needed) should leave the opponent more than 6 inches away.


I've come to notice Shimmergloom, that while I try and use the units available to develop tactics that can counter any other army, you are happy just to insist that GW is out to get you and each army is uber powerful and unfair. Kind of a glass is or isn't half full thing really. I stay possitive and find ways to make it work, and you give up and complain.

Storak
17-09-2008, 06:17
I've come to notice Shimmergloom, that while I try and use the units available to develop tactics that can counter any other army, you are happy just to insist that GW is out to get you and each army is uber powerful and unfair. Kind of a glass is or isn't half full thing really. I stay possitive and find ways to make it work, and you give up and complain.

claiming that your glass is half full, doesn t make any sense, when it actually is EMPTY.

high elves won the Vegas tournament. ogres didn t make it into the top 30s. fact.

http://warseer.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2937094&postcount=22

Scorpioni
17-09-2008, 06:48
you shouldn't be basing your arguments on a single tournament (or even multiples). fact.

All those results show is that deamons of chaos are popular (very!), the high elf player had luck with his opponents or was just the best general, daemons are easily exploited by powergamers/ WAAC-players, all the good ogre players were home sick in bed, etc...

Everyone knows the ogre kingdom armybook is one of the weaker books in warhammer (only beaten imho by the old dark elf book) but you must remember they are in a very good position to spank asur butt due to movement 6, multiple wounds, bull charge,...

I'm not attacking anyone but using results from tournaments to prove your point is yanking my chain.

Shimmergloom
17-09-2008, 07:23
Shimmergloom:

1. The fact is that you are paying 200 points when 2 regular ogres would be mroe effective.

2 more ironguts rather than the tyrant that he had in his example would do about 3 wounds which equals what the tyrant did. They should win on outnumber now, but if you are saying that ogre tyrants are weak, then that's just silly.

The guts without the regen spell would have had 6.7 wounds done to them instead of 3.35. 7 kills + standard + rank = CR9. So 2 dead guts, 3 striking back instead of 2 and no tyrant.

10 attacks, 5 hits, 4.2 wounds + standard = CR5. SM US11, guts US9. So the SM win 10 to 5. So that's really just hardly more effective than a tyrant.


2. Swordmasters are Ld 8. Not bad, but not a sure thing either.

If they are LD8 then that could make a difference, but since general's are still always said to be everywhere in these examples, they are still LD10 and won't fail their fear test.



3. they are fast enough. They can move up 4 and use their sharp stuff up to 8 giving them an effective foot range. Six wide (what you need to screen 3 ogres) will on average get 12 shots hitting on 5s, wounding on 5s, and the swordmasters have a 5+ save. So 88.9% of the time they can kill that model.

If they move only 4 inches so that they can throw their sharp stuff then you are completely negating the speed of the M6 ogres. I'm sure HE players will be pretty happy for you to move slowly toward them and let them move their cav and chariots out onto your flanks while your gnoblars just move 4 inches at a time with your ogres behind them.

I'm not sure where you are getting an 89% avg kill ratio for one sword master. But anyway if you are happy to sit there and maybe kill one elf a turn while his RBT's and magic are shooting back at you, then I'm sure he'll be happy too. He never has to charge your gnoblars if he realizes you are just trying to trap him into charging them so you can flee then hit his flank with ogres. Instead he'll sit there and let his support move up to redirect any ogres that you move up or get the flanks of your ogres if they ever do come in.




4. If you don't charge them the gnoblars can just move right up to you and force you to either charge or slowly try and move around. You don't really have a choice. In my standard 2000 ogre list I ahve 6 units of gnoblars. How many eagles do you have? And did I mention your eagles lose combat if they dare charge my gnoblars?

The HE certainly have a choice. They can panic your LD5 gnoblars with shooting or magic. Or they can just sit there cause those gnoblars are blocking your ogres too. Your bull or gut units can't move past those gnoblars any faster than the SM can. But his eagles, chariots and knights can easily move around them.


That's a big thing ogres have over any other army. Cheap cheap non panic causing throw away infantry. I can easily have 120 gnoblars and totally control your movement.

you can't have more gnoblars than bull units. So that's also 6 bull units you have to run. 18 naked bulls minimum cost 630pts so that you can spend another 240 on gnoblars. And naked bulls just are not going to get the job done.

It is funny that you think your M4, animosity suffering gnoblars will control movement over M5 infantry, M8 and 9 cav and chariots and M20 fliers.


5. As I said all the ogres have to do is stager themselves so that there is always a nuit further back that can get the bull charge. In the case of gnoblars you just have the unit far enough ahead so that a failed charge (or overrun if needed) should leave the opponent more than 6 inches away.

And we went over this. If you are smart enough to stagger your units then you must assume you will have a smart enough opponent to not fall into the trap of charging gnoblars just so they can get counter charged later. Or assume that the enemy HE player will not just march up his infantry unsupported. If you have 6 gnoblar units and 6 bull units then certainly he's not going to march up 1 SM unit into a trap to get butchered by waiting ogres.

He'll move up chariots or knights onto the flanks and threaten your own flanks and force you to reposition your own ogres to keep from being flanked by chariots or knights. Then he can charge in his SM into the gnoblars and have your ogres threatened on 2 sides. Now you charge his SM's and watch him flee so he can flee and then hit your flank with a lion chariot or dragon prince unit the next turn.



I've come to notice Shimmergloom, that while I try and use the units available to develop tactics that can counter any other army, you are happy just to insist that GW is out to get you and each army is uber powerful and unfair. Kind of a glass is or isn't half full thing really. I stay possitive and find ways to make it work, and you give up and complain.

And I notice that you seem to think that every opponent has never played warhammer before and should fall into every warhammer 101 bait and flee tactic.

When 2 equal opponents are playing each other, superior tactics should win. However that is not what happens when weak armies face uber armies. Instead the weaker army has to hope his opponent fluffs his dice rolls to have a shot at winning.

Daemons vs Ogres are not an equal contest when in the hands of 2 equal opponents. Or Greenskins vs VC or Daemons vs pretty much anyone, or a beast player vs any top tier army.

But continue to keep your head in the sand and feel that GW pumping out books which ruin the fun of the game for everyone is A-ok.

The Red Scourge
17-09-2008, 07:39
I dont mind blanket rules.

Bretonnians - Lance formation, Peasant Duty
Empire - nothing
Orcs - Animosity
Dwarves - Always march, less fleeing/persuing
High elves -ASF
Dark elves -Hatred
Wood elves - move through woods, move and shoot without penalty
Ogres - ????

What do you mean empire has nothing?? Empire has warrior priests, detachments, pigeon bombs (yes thats artillery hero choices).

Chiron
17-09-2008, 07:58
They should move away from special rules and make the system a d10 system, allowing for more variation in stat lines to provide the difference between armies...

*flees*

Lennart.nevanoja
17-09-2008, 09:00
i dot think that the spec rules them selfs are the problem. but GW have said that they no longer gonna letter power gamers decied for the other to play so the new armies are on purpous alot harder and have more spec rules. i agree with Malorian and pigi314159.

EvC
17-09-2008, 10:09
Bull charge against HE is a simple matter of staggering your units.

Welcome to actual games of Warhammer, where terrain and opponents' interactions dictate the game. Staggering your units only works on an open field- and you can't have a Tyrant and regeneration cast upon every unit at once. You get one unit, two at best.


If you really want to do "what usually happens":
-there would be an overly expensive tyrant there

Check.


-you would have to factor in their fear test

Standard of Balance on Swordmasters. Hoping for an LD9 fear check failure is not a good strategem. Maybe it with you - we've all read your reports and your fantastic luck - but not with the rest of us ;)


-they would be redirected with gnoblars allowing for a flank charge

They had already been used to redirect the other unit of elite infantry. After I'd flanked them I had hoped for an easy victory... but ASF meant that I was losing as many wounds from my Ironguts a turn as he was losing models.

And why would the Swordmasters charge the Gnoblars knowing a flank charge was on the cards? They'd just charge the Gnoblars with their own flanking unit instead to get it out the way. Or flee themselves (if they didn't have the Standard of Balance). Or shoot them with 10 Archers and probably kill 4-5 and perhaps panic them. All in context.


-that 1 model in the back rank would have been knocked off with the sharp shuff meaning only 2 are there to fight back

Yes, what I learnt from the battle was keep shooting, never engage. I killed 4 using the Bangstick on turn one; my Leadbelchers did well also. It's a shame that's what the special rule means: shoot them. Never try and club them to death like a proper Ogre...


-and the bull charge could easily kill both of them before they got to attack.

Lol. Once again I am reminded how poor your opponents really are...


(You unit of 15 swordmasters with a banner are 237 points and 20 gnoblars and 4 ironguts are 232 points)

About 300 for the actual unit, 120 points for a redirecting Seaguard unit (Yes, the High Elves can do it as well! At least he still attempted some tactics, even if they merely gifted me points), compared to 600 for the Ogres and Tyrant, that are fighting on my terms.

Edit: this isn't all just to complain about ASF, but rules that are totally luck-based and end up removing the fun from the game. I don't want to have to spend all game running away and firing off potshots against Elves, and don't think that's what my strategy should have to be...

Embalmed
17-09-2008, 10:09
In a sense I agree with OP, in a sense I don't.

I really don't mind special rules for different armies, it makes them special and I like that.

However I have noticed that some special rules appear to come too cheap in terms of points lately and also that some of the general special rules have been 'cheapened' in the sense that models who don't IMO qualify for them still gets them.

For instance: why do DE Hate everyone so much? Is it reasonable that they hate everyone more than Lizardmen hate their arch enemies skaven and chaos who have ruined their cities and destroyed their civilisation? I think the latter hatred should be a lot stronger.

Should those HE skirmisher guys really strike before charging Wardancers? I mean a tight formation of spearmen forming a hedge of spears ok, but a loose formation of guys with hand weapons? I don't think that feels right, in that comparison I think wardancers should be quicker even if they don't choose that special dance.

Valaraukar
17-09-2008, 10:34
Not to mention DE monsters all getting hatred too despite no increase in points!

I still think special rules are required after all this is a Fantasy war game and you need out of the ordinary abilities and effects to make it so, but the recent wave of massive blanket rules and the huge number of special characters does smack to me of some very cynical marketing to sell more new models etc.

Lord Lucifer
17-09-2008, 11:25
<SNIP> I honestly think that when a game reaches the point where what combination units/items you choose to take becomes more important than the central concepts of manuvreing and command and control then the game is well and truly broken.<more SNIPage>
Don't ever, EVER look at WarMachine then. Just don't, you'll hate it.

I agree with your point, though. When victory is determined more by exploitation of unit/army-specific special rules than by your command of the core mechanics, the game is horribly broken.
BUT the game has not yet reached this point. Even if it appears to be trending that way, it isn't necessarily going to get to the point of being horribly broken. It may simply be plateauing in what is 'the standard' for all armies. And I'm yet to feel the game is held ransom by rules exploits, although admittedly I don't play as often as I used to.



I think the more rules you have the better the game.

I'd rather have each army be distinctly different and have their own flare then have each army basically the same.

I agree with this 100%

I disagree. The number of rules does not improve a game, nor worsen it, until taken to excess in either direction (too few rules and the game becomes limited, too many and it becomes too much of a hassle to keep track of and increasingly more difficult to balance/more open to exploitation of unintended loopholes)
What matters are the strength of the core mechanics the game relies on, and whether or not the 'special rules' render them irrelevant.

Currently, the game purrs like a kitten.

Would you two contend that 5th edition Fantasy is superior to 6th and/or 7th edition?
I suspect the majority view is that 5th edition (that was loaded with exception-based Special Rules) was inferior, or would be if the current WFB gaming community were all familiar with it, as almost complaints about 7th ed. (and 6th ed. before it) that I have seen or heard, were so much worse in 5th ed.

Which isn't to say 5th ed. wasn't fun, because there was a unique thrill on horribly abusing the system and making it your bitch (with your opponent's consent, of course), and then spending half an hour playing Magic Phase Poker each turn (upwards of 5000pts tended to get like that :D).
But I have to admit that in terms of general game quality, 6th and 7th ed. have been increasingly better.


@LuciusAR - Warmaster is EXACTLY the game you want.

It isn't. He enjoys WFB on the strength of its' core mechanics. What he likes about Warhammer is similar to what Warmaster offers, though.
No, what Lucius really wants, although he perhaps does not realize it, is Warhammer Ancient Battles (which rocks, by the way)

orkz222
17-09-2008, 11:40
I agree with this 100%


I think the more rules you have the better the game.

I'd rather have each army be distinctly different and have their own flare then have each army basically the same.




I rather play RISK if i need some basic dice rolling games

back to basics :wtf:

Ward.
17-09-2008, 12:35
I agree with the OP, but first

I like special rules, they're an easy way to add flavour without over complicating the core rules. Almost my way of envisioning each race interacting with the physical world differently from each other as well.

What I would like to see though is better definition of special rules so that they interact better with the core rules, although the latest books have pulled this off pretty well.

Mireadur
17-09-2008, 13:12
@LuciusAR - Warmaster is EXACTLY the game you want.

no, it is not. WM is totally different from whfb. WH historical may be a choice though. Changing games doesnt resolve the issue anyway.

Thommy H
17-09-2008, 13:30
Not to mention DE monsters all getting hatred too despite no increase in points!


Remember that there's no magic formula. The reason you sometimes see things made better without an increase in points cost is because those options weren't getting used in players' armies as much as they should have been. All choices in a given category of the army list should be equally appealing - hydras ought to appear as often as bolt throwers. If they aren't, then obviously hydras are too expensive for what they are, or not good enough for the points.

There seems to be an assumption amongst gamers that things are balanced at whatever cost they started at, and modifications of points or abilities make them unbalanced - in fact, often things weren't quite right to start with or the game has moved on, making them less appealing compared to everything else in the metagame.

The aim of the quality/points ratio should be to create a list (or an entire game system) in which every option is equally appealing. That's the acid test for balance. If two units that cost exactly the same points present a difficult choice...that's balance.

Back on topic: I don't think it matters. If you can keep track of all the special rules in a game, it's not a problem. If you think it's a problem because of some vague, wishy-washy concept of "game balance" or "clean ruleset" then you don't actually have a problem with the game itself, you have a problem with the system. Some roleplayers don't like GURPS because it has too many rules - they move onto a different system because it isn't for them. If Warhammer's reliance on special rules offends you, it's probably not the system for you because it's been like that for a long, long, long time now.

If you don't like class/level systems, don't play D&D. If you don't like team sports, don't play football. If you don't like fighting games don't play Tekken. If you don't like special rules, don't play Warhammer. There's other games out there - Warhammer does not claim to be all things to all people.

N1AK
17-09-2008, 13:39
The quality of design behind a ruleset can be judged by its need for special rules: the more special rules required, the shoddier the design.


I call BS, Warmachine/Hordes are fantastically precise rulesets with hundreds of 'special rules'.

Some of the new Warhammer books have gone special rule heavy, I personally think some things simply have to many (Shadowblade having 13 special items and rules).
Special rules done well allow for core unit stats to be kept simple, as the wackier stuff is handled by special rules. A great example of this is High Elves, ASF gives them something that differentiates them from WE/DE. Doing this with statistics would require a change in the initiative system so that charging/great weapons and other magic items all modify Init.

Finnigan2004
17-09-2008, 14:41
Lol. Once again I am reminded how poor your opponents really are...

I have never played Malorian or his group because Alberta is a ways from B.C. (not nearly as far as the U.K., mind you), so I'm not sure how bad they actually are. I totally understand your comment, if you made the trip all the way from the U.K. to play them, and were let down by the quality of their opposition. Sorry to hear that.

If, on the other hand, you have not actually played them and your comment is just a bit of border line trolling, sorry for the misinterpretation.

isidril93
17-09-2008, 15:26
well at least they are making just one rule for the whole army. imagine if half the high elf army had asf and the other half had someting else. that would be confusing. warhammer is good as it is and the new books are justifying all the special rules with army wide rules.

Malorian
17-09-2008, 15:28
See this is why people think ogres suck, they don't know how to use gnoblars.

My 2000 list has:

Bruiser
2 butchers
4X 3 bulls with extra handweapons
3X 3 ironguts
2X 3 naked bulls
6X 20 gnoblars deployed 6X3+2
2X gorgers

Those gnoblars make a screen that covers almost the whole board (36 models for a long way), and if I stick to one side or if I can use terrain, you are going to HAVE to deal with them if you want to get to my ogres. Most of the screen is also in the range of my general for Ld.

Behind each unit of gnoblars is a unit of ogres so if one unit fails bickering then it only stops that one unit.

With that screen I can bait, redirect or do anything I want to control the movement phase. I don't care how fast you are.

Is this unbeatable? Of course not. I've had my fair share of losses from a TK player that can get past baits and redirects with magical movement, or hills lined with warmachines, but overall I win a LOT more than I lose.

My opponents are not drooling retards or anything like that. It's just that instead of giving up and saying that power creep is ruining the game I just read my army book, came up with a tactic, and made it work.

Getting back to the original topic, this is why I don't thing the special rules make that much of a difference. The special rules can add or change aspects of the game but in the end it's the same core rules with the same core tactics and any army that goes with multiple units with a plan in mind will do better than the uber deathstar one trick pony.

Lord Lucifer
17-09-2008, 15:42
I call BS, Warmachine/Hordes are fantastically precise rulesets with hundreds of 'special rules'.

Depends on what he means by Quality.
I don't think he's referring to how well-written the rules are, but rather to the core mechanics of WarMachine.

Basically, free movement with a damage system with a direct impact on performance through destruction of limbs etc.
It's all well and good, and works nicely. Hell, it may even be balanced. But it's pretty damn limited.
People don't play WarMachine for the core mechanics, they play it for the exploits, which really seem to be the 'heart' of the game.
It's fun, but gimmicky as all get-out, and if reduced to bare mechanics, lags far, far behind WFB in terms of a satisfying tactical challenge.

But the exploit here is intentional, it's a part of the design principle of the game ("Nothing's unbalanced because everything's unbalanced"), so it doesn't stand as an example of a poor game because special rule synergy IS the core of the system.
If they released a game just on the core mechanics and then had to bodge together rules to fix it... well that would most likely suck. At the very least it'd be a poor ruleset. Which would later be refined into a good one.

EvC
17-09-2008, 15:48
If, on the other hand, you have not actually played them and your comment is just a bit of border line trolling, sorry for the misinterpretation.

Lol, nice of you to fight fire with fire, my fellow troll. However, I think with this post I am about to transcend to the title of Troll King, and thereby make all trolls core and able to use my massive leadership value as their own ;)


It's just that instead of giving up and saying that power creep is ruining the game I just read my army book, came up with a tactic, and made it work.

I can't believe you're actually mounting your high horse and replying like this! It's wonderful, especially since just last week I read through all of your Ogre battle reports for tips, and commented on what I noticed. What happened when you used this list against the High Elves, who are so easily baited and made to do whatever you want?


Result: Absolute slaughter for the high elvesÖ

And why? Well, many reasons (Bad luck for one! ;) ), but I think what I liked best was: "[The Comet] killed 2 ogres from the bruisers unit and that fled forward going over the gnoblars and ended right infront of the swordmasters. The 2 gnoblars that were just ran over by the panicing bruiser paniced themselves and ran. At this point he could start his normal turnÖ he charged the brusiers unit who had to flee and were run down. The swordmasters overran into the ironguts and they were quickly killed as well."

Yep, sounds like your massive Gnoblar screens did wonders! Using a Bruiser for General to give you only Ld8 so you could take 20 units also seemed to be a big hit ;)

But I'm just messing with ya now :) I'd like to try a Gnoblar heavy army, but I don't have the heart to buy or paint 3 more boxes of the buggers... and as I did show earlier, I'm actually quite good at redirecting, the White Lions in my example, remember? Except my reward for a flank charge was a loss!

Malorian
17-09-2008, 15:56
Yes, the comet has ways of of screwing plans up.

Looks like I'll have to challenge the local HE player to a game with my ogres in order to set this straight.

GavT
17-09-2008, 16:24
I don't think there's a definitive link between more rules equalling bad design, or less rules equalling good design. I think that the absence of a rule can be as poor as including an unnecessary one. Special rules should only be used for two purposes:

1. To better express a characteristic of the race or troop type.

2. To add entertainment to the actual gameplay.

In the first case, there are many strange and different creatures in Warhammer. It is often desirable that certain traits and abilities that are unique to them in the background are expressed through their rules. These create the dynamics and flavour of the armies and the constituent units. This also creates a connection between the background and the tabletop. If we are told that Goblins are fractious and frequently infight, we hope to see that represented in the rules. Trolls have corrosive vomit. Dragons can breath fire. Empie Engineers have access to strange and devastating weaponry. This can wrong if an unimportant aspect of the background is given undue prominence, or a feature of the background that is not unique to the troop type is given a special rule in some circumstances but not in others. This begs the question of why Unit A gets the special rule while Unit B does not.

In the second case, the actual mechanics of the special rule can add to the narrative of the battle or provides excitement and tension in its own right. The Giant special attacks are one of the best examples of this. Whether on the giving or receiving end, having a Giant stuff a character in his trousers is just plain fun! Similarly (and despite not being quite unpredictable enough) the Skaven ratling gun is a great mechanic that has the player representing the actual actions of the firer by deciding whether to keep turning the handle (rolling another dice) or playing it safe. Similarly, guessing ranges for war machines, deciding how many dice to put into a spell and so on all bring the player down to the level of the model and facilitates the more roleplay aspects of the game.

If a special rule conforms to one or both of these criteria, then I don't see a problem. If, on the other hand, it is both out-of-place and unduly mechanistic it's probably addressing an issue best left to profiles and points values.

One caveat: sometimes a special rule is the only way to make a certain unit tactically viable. For instance, variations on the immunity to panic/ don't cause panic rule make some units worth taking when otherwise their presence would be more of a hindrance than a help to the army.

Cheers,

GAV

enyoss
17-09-2008, 20:10
I do have to agree a little with the original poster though, in that I do think there are a few too many special rules around. Basically, I feel a little daunted that I can know the BRB back to front (hypothetically ;)) and still be caught completely unawares by all of the special rules my opponent's army can bring to bear.

I'm not against a limited number of special rules at all though. For example, Orcs and Goblins have always had a few without being too confusing. However, even I get mixed up with the Wood Elf special rules and I play with the buggers!

I'm not trying to say we should dumb down the rules, but I still think a little streamlining, in the name of elegance, might not be a bad thing. I think introducing more `generic' special rules in the corresponding section of the BRB would be more to my tastes, rather than the case by case basis that seems to be the current fashion.

Cheers,

enyoss

Shimmergloom
17-09-2008, 21:38
See this is why people think ogres suck, they don't know how to use gnoblars.

My 2000 list has:

Bruiser
2 butchers
4X 3 bulls with extra handweapons
3X 3 ironguts
2X 2 naked bulls
6X 20 gnoblars deployed 6X3+2
2X gorgers


I will assume there's a typo there. Cause bull units are 3+ unit size and you have 2 units of only 2 bulls.

As for the units, there's nothing there that should scare a sword master unit. Or heavy HE cav unit. And you simply don't have good enough shooting to force anyone to charge a gnoblar bait unit instead of countering with their own shooting and magic to panic you off the board.

But for the sake of argument if you do somehow find a HE player who will charge the gnoblars and let themselves be flanked by one of your 2 hand weapon bull units. For this to happen the HE player pretty much has to think they are not going to be able to flee and get away from the bulls. So they are too close for a bull charge.

3 bulls in the flank against a unit of 15 SM's 7 wide will have 3 SM's striking first.

6 attacks, 4 hits, 2.68 wounds. 1 dead ogre. 2 bulls attacking back. I'll assume your 3 bull units have champs. 9 attacks, 4.5 hits, 3.02 wounds, 2.53 unsaved wounds. 3 dead elves.

HE has standard, numbers and 3 kills. Bulls have flank and 3 kills. Assume they have standard with their 2nd bull(meaning the SM's killed the musician).

Tie 5-5. HE win because of their living musician.

Again ASF ruins superior movement/tactics by their opponent.

An HE player can be rewarded for poor movement and falling into traps. While the Ogre player is punished for outplaying the HE player.

zak
18-09-2008, 00:46
Shimmergloom - While I agreed with the majority of your post. I disagree that ASF is broken in relation to killing off tactics in the movement phase. You are referring to one unit. The Swordmasters. They are great in combat even when flanked as your example shows. But, I think that most players have come to the conclusion that SM are best left alone in combat and disposed off in other ways. Any other HE unit just doesn't survive as well to a flank charge by naked bulls, let alone some Ironguts.

Shamfrit
18-09-2008, 00:53
Not to mention they train for centuries upon centuries and can wield Great Weapons like standard longswords - I don't care what you charge them with - they are going to cause you some concern.

EvC
18-09-2008, 03:24
Any other HE unit just doesn't survive as well to a flank charge by naked bulls, let alone some Ironguts.

*vough* Stubborn White Lions or 4+ ward save Phoenix Guard- but that's due to the nicely thought-out rules they have ;)

ChaosCajun
18-09-2008, 03:34
I like the new army specific rules that make the armies different and have their own rules. As far as exploiting tactics, I remember exploitations in each prior edition, usually involving taking something to extremes, like 50 seaguard on a hill backed by RBT's or 100 goblins with a fear banner and nets. Someone always looks for a way to exploit something in this game. One drawback to all the army specific rules is that you need to learn more about your opponent or buy their book, which GW loves all the way to the bank.

Tarax
18-09-2008, 09:39
Remember that there's no magic formula. The reason you sometimes see things made better without an increase in points cost is because those options weren't getting used in players' armies as much as they should have been. All choices in a given category of the army list should be equally appealing - hydras ought to appear as often as bolt throwers. If they aren't, then obviously hydras are too expensive for what they are, or not good enough for the points.


The aim of the quality/points ratio should be to create a list (or an entire game system) in which every option is equally appealing. That's the acid test for balance. If two units that cost exactly the same points present a difficult choice...that's balance.

I quite agree. There are some armies that have those no-brainer choices you see everytime. That just means those things (items, units, etc) are unbalanced, ie too cheap not not include. Other units, items, etc. of course then being too expensive to choose.
The choice people make when building an army has to depend on personal favorites and style of play.


If you don't like class/level systems, don't play D&D. If you don't like team sports, don't play football. If you don't like fighting games don't play Tekken. If you don't like special rules, don't play Warhammer. There's other games out there - Warhammer does not claim to be all things to all people.

I have a problem with this. Although I agree with what you say. My problem is that I don't know other gaming systems that let me play with the same miniatures in a similar setting, ie Fantasy. I know there are several system that deal with WWII or Napoleontic and people can alternate between them. Warhammer Historical comes close to WFB, but there you don't have Elves and Dwarfs.

maze ironheart
18-09-2008, 09:59
I think that WFB is just trying to have special rules for each army so they have a different charm to them cause if they all had the same rules what would be the point playing as other armys just my oppinuion.

Valtiel
18-09-2008, 10:13
I think that WFB is just trying to have special rules for each army so they have a different charm to them cause if they all had the same rules what would be the point playing as other armys just my oppinuion.

I agree with this (and several of the other posts made in this topic). I think in 6th edition there weren't really that many special rules to most armies and units that had were only the few elite units (such as Daemons and... others). I quite like they are giving more special rules out to make every army unique but I am almost feeling a bit too many have been given to some. The High Elves really have some special infantry now, sometimes with several special rules (White Lions are Stubborn, ASF, better save against shooting, can walk through forests).

But I guess the way the game is, Elves will need special rules to really do well against some opponents (considering high WS isn't always that great, and Initiative is sometimes useless if you break on the charge, here I think about Dark Elves and Wood Elves as well mind you) unless they were just reduced a lot in points. With the new Warriors of Chaos book coming I am excited because it seems the units in it will not be that dependent on too many special rules to win (2 attacks on almost every model is a testimony to that). While they have some few things that can change that (Warshrine, challenges) I think it will be an army that will beat the opponent through great stats rather through great rules... at least I hope so.:D

I hope any of this made sense... and btw thanks for a nice post GavT!

maze ironheart
18-09-2008, 10:19
I was once against high elves ASF but when I faced them I kicked the heck out of them he just stood their and did not move big mistake.

GavT
18-09-2008, 10:19
I think the original question has got a little side-tracked in discussions about balance. So, to give an example to discuss - one that doesn't invite comment on another developer - let's take a look at Dark Elves Corsairs. First of all, let's assume that they have the correct points value so the discussion is about representation rather than balance. Which of the following would you find most acceptable with regards to representation of the troop type, differentiation from other units and complexity?

1. Corsairs have the Elf profile and the fact that they have two hand weapons or hw and repeater handbow gives them their role and flavour.

2. Corsairs have the Elf profile, two hand weapons or hw and repeater handbow and their sea dragon cloaks have a special rule.

3. Corsairs have the Elf profile, two hand weapons or hw and repeater handbow and their sea dragon cloaks, plus the Slavers special rule.

There's no right or wrong answers to this, just different preferences. I'm curious to see where different folks are on the elegance > complexity scale.

Cheers,

GAV

LuciusAR
18-09-2008, 10:26
Hi all

Sorry I havenít responded to my own thread but I havenít been in front of a PC for well over 24 hours so Iíve only just managed to catch up.

Any firstly thanks for your responses, I was particularly please to see a response from Mr Thorpe himself. Itís always nice when someone so connected with the hobby we love takes the time to share his thoughts and very interesting they were too. I hope the Mods have given the ***** who made the immature response to him the spanking he deserved.

Regarding those who have said I should give WAB a go, well I already have and I do really enjoy it for the reasons I have already stated there just not many players around here, and I already love Warmaster but just donít play it as often as I wish I could. As for Warmachine, which someone said I would hate, too late my friend Iím afraid I already tried it and I didnít like it, exactly because it rewarded exploitation of combos as opposed to solid tactical play. Iíve literally have a game last 10 minutes because my opponent loosed a combo on turn 2 that unless you know each faction inside out you wouldnít have seen coming. Decided at that point that it wasnít for me.

Now just to clear a few things up, Iíve no issue with special rules per-say and used sparingly and subtly they can add an ĎXí factor to a game. LotR for example seems to have the balance right, special rules that donít change play drastically, a Heroes role with their special rule(s) would still be much the same without it, just not Ďquiteí as effective. There are only a few that cover entire factions and whilst these can add an edge they donít change the basic tactics that faction will need to utilize in order to prevail or indeed those their opponent would use to defeat them.

My real issue is when they vastly alter the style of play (eternal hatred, ASF) for a faction (or their opponents) and when it becomes almost compulsory for each faction to have its own set of special rules. Let be honest how many armies in WFB now operate entirely within the core rules? Empire is the only one I can think of and even they have the Detachment rule, so no not even them on reflection. To quote The Incredibles ďWhen everyoneís Special, no one will be.Ē. So when special rules become common place, they cease to become Ďspecialí rules and become the dominant defining attribute of said faction instead. That should be covered by the core mechanics and statline.

Kikit The Manipulator
18-09-2008, 10:27
Which of the following would you find most acceptable with regards to representation of the troop type, differentiation from other units and complexity?

1. Corsairs have the Elf profile and the fact that they have two hand weapons or hw and repeater handbow gives them their role and flavour.

2. Corsairs have the Elf profile, two hand weapons or hw and repeater handbow and their sea dragon cloaks have a special rule.

3. Corsairs have the Elf profile, two hand weapons or hw and repeater handbow and their sea dragon cloaks, plus the Slavers special rule.

There's no right or wrong answers to this, just different preferences. I'm curious to see where different folks are on the elegance > complexity scale.

Cheers,

GAV

I would rather have number 3 (Even though I have no clue what those rules are). I find that making the units special does indeed add special flavor to the game. Like having Zombies always strike last, it makes it more interesting and amusing.

N1AK
18-09-2008, 10:33
I think the original question has got a little side-tracked in discussions about balance. So, to give an example to discuss - one that doesn't invite comment on another developer - let's take a look at Dark Elves Corsairs. First of all, let's assume that they have the correct points value so the discussion is about representation rather than balance. Which of the following would you find most acceptable with regards to representation of the troop type, differentiation from other units and complexity?

1. Corsairs have the Elf profile and the fact that they have two hand weapons or hw and repeater handbow gives them their role and flavour.

2. Corsairs have the Elf profile, two hand weapons or hw and repeater handbow and their sea dragon cloaks have a special rule.

3. Corsairs have the Elf profile, two hand weapons or hw and repeater handbow and their sea dragon cloaks, plus the Slavers special rule.

There's no right or wrong answers to this, just different preferences. I'm curious to see where different folks are on the elegance > complexity scale.

Cheers,

GAV

Personally I would of found option 1. to be insufficient. DE already have a high attack low armour combat unit (Witches) and without special rules the two would be far too similiar.

The Slavers rule is something I wouldn't have cared if it was missing, although it fits the character of the unit I don't think it brings all that much to the game.

N1AK
18-09-2008, 10:45
Hi all

Now just to clear a few things up, Iíve no issue with special rules per-say and used sparingly and subtly they can add an ĎXí factor to a game. LotR for example seems to have the balance right, special rules that donít change play drastically, a Heroes role with their special rule(s) would still be much the same without it, just not Ďquiteí as effective. There are only a few that cover entire factions and whilst these can add an edge they donít change the basic tactics that faction will need to utilize in order to prevail or indeed those their opponent would use to defeat them.

My real issue is when they vastly alter the style of play (eternal hatred, ASF) for a faction (or their opponents) and when it becomes almost compulsory for each faction to have its own set of special rules. Let be honest how many armies in WFB now operate entirely within the core rules? Empire is the only one I can think of and even they have the Detachment rule, so no not even them on reflection. To quote The Incredibles ďWhen everyoneís Special, no one will be.Ē. So when special rules become common place, they cease to become Ďspecialí rules and become the dominant defining attribute of said faction instead. That should be covered by the core mechanics and statline.

I don't think anyone is trying to say you're wrong, you're expressing a completely valid personal opinion. What seems to be evident is everyone has there own personal preference regarding how many special abilities and the like a game should have.

Chess has loads of special rules. 6 different sets of movement rules, castling and others. Are you aware of the rule "En Passant"? for example (http://www.conservativebookstore.com/chess/enpass.htm) I know I wasn't for years.
Someone could have an equally valid opinion that chess isn't as strategic as tic tac toe because it relies too much on 'rules abuse and comboing'.

I do think special rules can go too far (Again I think 13 items and abilities) reaches the point where even the player using the model is likely to forget something he can do.
However fairly balanced army wide special rules are a very different matter. The High Elf ASF might cost you one game against them, but it's easy to remember that from then on (if High Elves were T5 and you didn't know it would be the same). Most people 'know' the army wide rules of the Warhammer armies, in much the same way they know Elves are fast, Dwarves are tough and Ogres hit hard.

Shamfrit
18-09-2008, 10:59
Okay, elegance > Complexity...let's have a look (thanks for posting again by the way :D).


1. Corsairs have the Elf profile and the fact that they have two hand weapons or hw and repeater handbow gives them their role and flavour.

Role? Flavour? What flavour would that be then? They'd be, ermm, two attack low range missile troops - which make them indistinguishable from a good 70% of other Elf Units. In this instance, it'd be the models that differentiate them.


2. Corsairs have the Elf profile, two hand weapons or hw and repeater handbow and their sea dragon cloaks have a special rule.

I understand this to be the case for the 6th edition Corsairs? It makes them different as it gives them 2 attacks over Dark Elf Warriors and a better save and a better save still against shooting - this is not a complex unit, but neither is it different enough from the remaining unit choices available to have warranted a single special rule in the first place.


3. Corsairs have the Elf profile, two hand weapons or hw and repeater handbow and their sea dragon cloaks, plus the Slavers special rule.

Yep, I'm going for the third option as a preference. Now we have a statistical difference and a flavoursome (it's all about teh itty bitty flavurs...sorry for bringing Lol Catz into this...:cool:) and Slavers + Sea Dragon Cloaks are both incredibly simple rules that make the Corsairs a valued choice in game - of course, that might be the Frenzied Banner, but it's all relative.

EDIT: And Unwanted, I demand you stop following me! Hehe.

logan054
18-09-2008, 11:22
I don't think there's a definitive link between more rules equalling bad design, or less rules equalling good design. I think that the absence of a rule can be as poor as including an unnecessary one. Special rules should only be used for two purposes:

1. To better express a characteristic of the race or troop type.

2. To add entertainment to the actual gameplay.

While i agree with this i feel sometimes special rules have just been added for the sake of it or to influence the sale of unit types. I think a prime example of this is the blanket rule of ASF for HE, for me, no matter i can see how this reflects anything HE, perhaps if DE had the same rule but they dont. Im yet to see how this even adds entertainment to a game, in my experience all its dont is force people to either use more cavalry, chariots or shooting which in the long run makes the game far less enjoyable to play.

From the New WoC book the rule marauders rerolling purse moves :wtf: I mean they are on horses, dosnt that mean they should be good at catching infantry anyways :rolleyes:

When i think of rules that add characters and entertainment i think things such as (again new WoC book), eye the gods table, very fluffy or bret vows, dwarfs getting -1 to flee and purse moves, orc animosity, unruly.

I guess it all depends on what your classing as entertainment, perhaps its just promting the most powerful builds of the game and crushing people with your 2nd gen slann or sitting back with 100 thunderers and cannons, that certainly isnt mine.

theunwantedbeing
18-09-2008, 11:23
Option 3, for the slaver rule.

As thats what makes a corsair a corsair.
A master with a handbow and a sea dragon cloak is not a corsair, he is a master with a handbow and a sea dragon cloak.

Similarly a master with 2 hand weapons is not a witch elf, although if you docked the witch elf special rules he would be...which would be rather boring.

Special rules are what make an army interesting.
Vampire counts and Daemons would be stuck without them, we'de have cannons be able to swat ethereal troops and all sorts of silliness that makes the game both rediculous and pointless.

@Shamfrit the Narroq
Unwanted is following you eh?
I havent seen him in this thread, infact he rarely turns up at all......maybe your losing your marble(s).

Chadjabdoul
18-09-2008, 11:50
I believe that the OP has made a very valid point.
Perfection is achieved not when you cannot add, but when you cannot take anything away (iīm sure such a quote comes up in civ4 at some point).
Overall, the core 7th edition rules are probably the best (have been around since 4th).
However, the enormous amount of special rules that tend to pop up nowdays in every armybook have made the game worse and less balanced IMO.
I totally agree with the argument that if everyone is special then nobody is.
Itīs not that special rules shouldnīt exist, some add flavour to the game (animosity, undead etc) and have a solid place in the game.
However, a look at the wood elves book, clearly shows that the author (the infamously incompetent mr ward) could find no way of creating a valid army without adding loads of special rules even in core troops.
Gav made a valid argument about the 2 reasons justifying special rules. Fit with the background, and add to the game. Those special rules that do that make for a better game. There are others, though, that donīt.
Overall, I agree with the OP, and believe that WFB, despite solid core rules, has gotten sidetracked with all those extras coming up in armybooks, and has lost its balance.
Going back to basics is probably the only way of regaining that balance.

Brimstone
18-09-2008, 12:34
A number of unpleasant posts and comments either removed or edited out of posts.

If you diagree with someone that's fine but please do it in a calm manner and explain your point of view.

To others, please use the report button in future rather than responding in kind.

The Warseer Inquisition

Gazak Blacktoof
18-09-2008, 12:40
I totally agree with the argument that if everyone is special then nobody is.

I don't, its an over simplification of the issue. If everything is different that doesn't make everything the same.


With regards to the corsairs I really like the new slaver rule. Its great from a background perspective, gives you added bragging rights when you take your enemy's best warriors as slaves and immediately makes the unit beneficial in a combat from a tactical stand point. So I'd certainly choose option 3 of those presented.

The problem as I see it is with the new marauder cavalry rules that somebody also mentioned. For whatever reason the author of that army book chose not to duplicate the corsair rule and instead create yet another rule. The two rules seem to function in a very similar manner so there doesn't seem to be a reason for a new rule in this instance. Its not as if the new rule is complex, but why is it there?

Perhaps Gav might shed some light on the subject.

EvC
18-09-2008, 12:46
Really enjoying seeing Gav's perspective on these things. Corsairs are a fine example; in 6th edition they really were just a throwaway infantry unit without any real value. I think option 3 is the best of the choices. To be honest, I wish Lothern Seaguard had gotten the same treatment- and new plastics to boot! But with their extra rules, do Corsairs have a place on the tabletop?

...well, maybe they do, maybe they don't. I've faced the new Dark Elves a fair few times now and I don't think I've seen them on the tabletop yet! When I've seen friends using them as well it's always been with the Frenzy banner, basically making them slightly better-armoured Witch Elves, which is quite telling. S3 multiple attack-infantry is mostly ignored, which is sad.

I did have a recent game where I ended up facing the following hero though:
-Hag with +D3 attacks, +1S compared to opponent's toughness, in a unit with ASF. Combined with her own hatred, frenzy, etc. I have to say, heroes with 8 high strength ASF attacks re-rolling misses is when you've gone a bit too far with the wacky rules! I had a game a while back where my Vampire Lord managed to chop through 8 Night Goblins in a turn, breaking the unit and running down three cowardly characters in the unit- and I thought that was actually quite fitting, whilst my opponent thought it was outrageous. Imagine how he'd have felt if it was a basic hero who had done it! On the negative side she was very fragile so when she didn't kill both of my regenerating Ogres in contact she was duly squished in return which was satisfying, but she was hellish to face. I do miss the days when heroes didn't have 8 attacks a piece...

Shamfrit
18-09-2008, 13:05
In that example though EvC you're using a completely insane disciple of a God of War, driven to a frenzy beyond all comparison with two whirling blades of poisoned death. Of course she's going to have multiple attacks that can flay units alive, it might be a return to 'Herohammer' (, which is a term I dislike intently) but it's representative of the character the rules are portraying. A 'Death Hag' with 3/4 attacks has no more combat potential than any other sane and less aggressive character. If that was the case, she just wouldn't cut it.

You're possibly not inferring defences in your opinion though. She might very well have an impressive amount of offence, but she's Toughness 3, with, at best a 5+ ward save unless she's mounted on a Cauldron of Blood; then you've just made your insanely heavy and hard hitting character an absolute sitting duck. It's all swings and roundabouts with glass characters, Witch Elves are definitely one of the prime examples of that.

-theunwantedbeing: It's alright, my marbles got traded in Year 6. for some Pogs - I know it was you ;)

EvC
18-09-2008, 13:21
A 'Death Hag' with 3/4 attacks has no more combat potential than any other sane and less aggressive character. If that was the case, she just wouldn't cut it.

False dichotomy. 6-8 attacks, ASF, Hatred, S5. Perhaps poison as well- I'm not sure if Hags get it by default. Oh, and she was a BSB. She can be powerful without needing every combat bonus in the book (And I believe she does actually have pretty much every combat bonus in the book!). 5 attacks, hatred, ASF from unit and S4 would be a pretty good representation, I believe. As is, she's as good a fighter as Konrad von Carstein. I believe there is a point where it becomes silly- but of course, I'm always going to be the one who notices (or imagines!) the silliness, because against me an opponent will always roll the 3 extra attacks. Just like the opposing High Elf player who always rolls 6s to wound with Bolt Thrower crewmen, or the Daemon player making 70% of his ward saves.


You're possibly not inferring defences in your opinion though. She might very well have an impressive amount of offence, but she's Toughness 3...

I know this is the internet, but that doesn't mean that when I make an argument I pretend that no counterpoint exists. Note that I specifically said in my post: "On the negative side she was very fragile..." so PLEASE don't even suggest I'm ignoring her downside! Note however, that this hero has ASF thanks to being in the Black Guard unit (if only she were in a Witch Elf unit, then it would be a valid concern), so if anyone wants to kill her, they have to engage her and go through 8 high powered attacks first. I was just lucky that (once again) I managed to get a regeneration buff up on my Ogres. Geez, without that spell I might as well not even bother playing! Plus I had to do a naughty tactical charge to get two ogres in contact and have a chance at squishing her- and I don't like having to play dirty to stand a chance ;)

Shamfrit
18-09-2008, 13:23
Sorry EvC I completely overlooked that you'd said that; I wasn't trying to be a hard-****.

Now you've said she's a Battle Standard in addition to being in Black Guard (whomever you're playing deserves to be shot for that) I can see that it's far too over the top. In Witch Elves it isn't nearly as overbearing - was Kouran in there as well?

EvC
18-09-2008, 13:39
My opponent did espouse an "if it's in the book it's legal" attitude, but that did not extend to special characters, fortunately! Champion-level special characters are another area where I believe that the game has taken a hit, I really do disagree with their presence Gav! Hero special characters are usually really fun though :)

I was supposed to be playing against an army with Crone Hellebron today- I was looking forward to it, though not if she too was in an ASF Black Guard unit. Remember the days when the rules sought to limit over the top combos? Like you could give a Lahmian Vampire ASF, but she could not have a powerful magic weapon or even a great weapon... now you get to have your cake, eat it and then spit it out all over your opponent. Waaagh! Oh well I've got Dwarfs instead- pray for me that there's no Anvil, another special rule laden abomination (well it's not that bad really :) ).

Shamfrit
18-09-2008, 13:44
I am perfectly guilty of extorting army books for the benefit of winning myself, but a Death Hag in a unit of Black Guard, purely to give them Always Strike First (which I believe they have access too irrespective of a Battle Standard?) is taking my comfort zone and stomping all over it.

I'm sure I don't need to tell you how to deal with 5+ save T3 elves, you play Skaven after all *grin,* what will you be using against Dwarves, out of interest?

EvC
18-09-2008, 13:51
Actually I don't play Skaven, they're one of the armies I have the least experience with (Even though last time I played them I was still correcting my opponent on 90% of their rules, cheeky git so deserved it when his Grey Seer's head blew up and took the Screaming Bell with him!). I'm focussing on Ogres at the moment, now that's a fun army... just not too powerful! :)

Shamfrit
18-09-2008, 14:12
Ah, Ogres vs. Dwarves won't be fun. Especially with the Rune of Wrath and Ruin (or something along those effects.)

But - please tell me you use Scraplaunchers?

They eat through blocks of Dwarf Infantry!

Finnigan2004
18-09-2008, 14:53
Lol, nice of you to fight fire with fire, my fellow troll. However, I think with this post I am about to transcend to the title of Troll King, and thereby make all trolls core and able to use my massive leadership value as their own ;)

I'm not ready to swear loyalty to you yet, that second post was way too good natured. I also have some concerns that if we take the field with a whole army of fellow trolls, it might look a little like my stupid (literally) ogre blood bowl team. It's funny on a blood bowl field, but not as funny when facing opponents with real weapons. O.K., when facing opponents with more weapons anyhow.

On the rest of the post, I'm with you actually. I'd love to field my ogre kingdoms with a horde of gnobblar support, but it will never happen because I will never, ever paint them-- not even the ones that came in the army box. Ogre models are way cooler, and I even got two forge world rhinox riders (I'll get the third when my kidney clears ebay). It's easy to see why one would leave gnobblars at home; given the choice of using and painting maneaters, rhinox riders, ironguts, and even basic bulls. I realize that this limits some tactics though.

I do feel a little sorry for Malorian on the battle report because the comet can do that. I saw a battle last week where the best player I know was playing the best army I've seen (mostly Slaanesh daemons), and he lost on the first turn when a comet smashed into his army and took literally a third of his models including a herald and a general due to a bit of poor rolling (well, a lot of poor rolling). It happens sometimes.

Storak
18-09-2008, 16:23
I think the original question has got a little side-tracked in discussions about balance. So, to give an example to discuss - one that doesn't invite comment on another developer - let's take a look at Dark Elves Corsairs. First of all, let's assume that they have the correct points value so the discussion is about representation rather than balance. Which of the following would you find most acceptable with regards to representation of the troop type, differentiation from other units and complexity?

1. Corsairs have the Elf profile and the fact that they have two hand weapons or hw and repeater handbow gives them their role and flavour.

2. Corsairs have the Elf profile, two hand weapons or hw and repeater handbow and their sea dragon cloaks have a special rule.

3. Corsairs have the Elf profile, two hand weapons or hw and repeater handbow and their sea dragon cloaks, plus the Slavers special rule.

There's no right or wrong answers to this, just different preferences. I'm curious to see where different folks are on the elegance > complexity scale.


hatred wasn t mentioned. neither a banner, nor the cauldron effecting the unit that turn.

the real problem is with the assumption. the more special rules, the harder it is to get the point values right, especially looking at combinations.
and the slaver rule actually is a very good example, as it isn t very strong but really just a "flavor".
special rules effect new army books as well. the ASF rule of the HE forces ASF options on other fragile units, as they would simply die without it. with older army books not getting updated before another edition, they suffer badly from this spreading special rules.
3 to 4 special rules (and 2 attacks, btw) have become the norm among elite infantry. looking at my BO, who just carry around a mostly useless 2hander, i feel slightly left behind. again.

from a game-developing perspective, a major reason for such minor "flavor" rules is, to complicate comparisons between troops. sometimes it even works on the dev...

Malorian
18-09-2008, 16:29
from a game-developing perspective, a major reason for such minor "flavor" rules is, to complicate comparisons between troops. sometimes it even works on the dev...

Are you seriously trying to suggest that the reason special rules are added is so that it's harder for people to determine if they are unbalanced? That developers are actually using it as a trick to sneak in power creep?

logan054
18-09-2008, 16:39
The problem as I see it is with the new marauder cavalry rules that somebody also mentioned. For whatever reason the author of that army book chose not to duplicate the corsair rule and instead create yet another rule. The two rules seem to function in a very similar manner so there doesn't seem to be a reason for a new rule in this instance. Its not as if the new rule is complex, but why is it there?

Perhaps Gav might shed some light on the subject.

That be me then ;) i stand by what i said on this matter, this special rule really isnt needed, i mean the basic rules of a horse purse move vs a infantrys flee move automatically indicate that cavalry is generally very good at chasing down infantry. Its really just a special rule for the sake of being a special rule, in itself i dont see how it fits either criteria Gav has posted. In many ways its like my mum when she used to decorate the house every year, nothing actually needed doing but she was bored and was trying to fix things that wernt broken, infact the last time she put a boarder upside down, reminds me of a game i play :angel:

Storak
18-09-2008, 16:41
Are you seriously trying to suggest that the reason special rules are added is so that it's harder for people to determine if they are unbalanced? That developers are actually using it as a trick to sneak in power creep?

i did not mention power creep in this context. this is not a conspiracy theory.

but yes, special rules make it more difficult, to compare units. this is good from a developers perspective and from a players perspective, as a hard comparison might make certain units not used at all and will lead to lots of complains.
it just gets bad, when things go wrong.

ZeroTwentythree
18-09-2008, 16:41
1. Corsairs have the Elf profile and the fact that they have two hand weapons or hw and repeater handbow gives them their role and flavour.

2. Corsairs have the Elf profile, two hand weapons or hw and repeater handbow and their sea dragon cloaks have a special rule.

3. Corsairs have the Elf profile, two hand weapons or hw and repeater handbow and their sea dragon cloaks, plus the Slavers special rule.



One thing I'd like to address is context. My answer to the above question would vary depending on how many other units/characters/monsters have other special rules. I think it's great for each army to have its share of elite or funky units that get special rules. But when almost every entry in the book comes with special rules it's an overload.





There's no right or wrong answers to this, just different preferences. I'm curious to see where different folks are on the elegance > complexity scale.



My simple answer would be that the more special rules, the more conflicts there are between them, and the more time players spend:

1. Looking up special rules.
2. Working out the conflicts between special rules.
3. Having to learn their opponents special rules.
4. Learning to counter those special rules.
5. Working out the differences between how one person/gaming group interprets a rule vs. how their opponent interprets it.

The end result is that it takes the focus off the tabletop. And that's why I play games. Or at least a big part of it. I love modeling and painting, and I do like the WFB background. But when I get together for a game, I want to push figures around, roll dice, and have my army's fate determined by what's happening on the table top. I don't want to play Warhammer Fantasy Bookkeeping.

And that's what, in my opinion, the game is at risk of becoming. Games are being determined before a figure hits the table when one player can come up with a particular army build that can only be countered if the opponent has managed to show up with the proper counter-build. More time is spent trying to learn the fine points of the rules rather than solid on-table tactics.

I've been playing WFB through all but the first two editions. I enjoy a nice balance between detail/rules and ease of play. I'm one of those old-timers who really enjoyed 3rd edition, but in the end, it was nice to see the game streamlined as it evolved past that. However, my observation is that all the complexity and weight of rules has been creeping in, except that it's scattered through not only the core rules, but the dozen or so army books, rather than all in one place. My cynical side says this is probably great for business, as we have to buy each and every army book just to get all the rules to fully understand what you're up against. I don't know if that's a conscious decision, but I preferred having it all in one or two spots.

As I mentioned in another recent thread, another problem with the complexity of special rules is that they are done piecemeal. Each one is developed and written out of context with the next army book, the one after that, etc. This is where we get inconsistencies in similar/near-identical special rules (see the discussions of the recent FAQs) and conflicts that were never imagined when a particular rule was written.

I don't think that there is necessarily a clear cut conflict between "elegance" and "complexity". But because of the way in which the WFB rules are developed, and the scale (quantity) of the special rules being pushed to the point of every unit being unique, I think WFB is losing the "elegance" that I personally believe peaked in 6th edition.

6th seemed to be such a refining of the previous editions, and the core rules of 7th took a small step forward. But now, to me, it seems that WFB is taking a turn into a significantly different direction, similar to something like the Privateer Press Games, where everything is unique and covered with special rules, and army building is the most important step in the game.

I think that many of the newer army books have also given solutions to each army's traditional weaknesses (through special rules, but especially through magic items and unique units like the Anvil), thus leveling off the armies a bit. So where the simpler versions of the armies were defined more by their concentration of one or two troop types, but maybe a complete lack of others, there seems to be a wider selection of troops available for all armies in an attempt to cover all the bases. I personally don't have a huge problem with this, though I think this is part of what I think some people are talking about with "all armies being the same."

In contrast, Warhammer Ancients has a similar core system, with the addition of some game-wide rules (fire & flee, FBIGO, massed archery, Warbands, etc.), and many of the armies get some additional rules (Oracles for the Greeks, Drilled for the Romans, Strategicon for Byzantines, etc.) that help give each army it's unique angle, without becoming overbearing. Each army is also defined by what they get & don't get.

(I've been playing for a long time, and I've played many other games besides WFB (including most of GW's other games.) While I can't say WFB is "the best" or "my favorite," it's got a lot going for it and certainly ranks near the top. Just as a point of reference. ;) )

Phew. I'm rather long winded today. I hope someone reads all that. ;)

Kerill
18-09-2008, 16:59
I'm all for fluffy rules, but it seems that core fluff is being discarded and rules being added that add nothing or detract from the army and its history. Without turning this into a "what happened to chaos thread" some things really need more thought and there needs to be real thought about army balance.

The new corsair rules are cool, fluffy and make the unit worthwhile- what more could you ask for. But:

A few things:
The re-roll to pursuit for marauder cavalry as noted is a bit silly. Might be useful for me as a chaos player but I don't see marauder cavalry as being faster than hatred filled dark elves on elven steeds at running the enemy down. At the same time it seems the new book requires sorcerors of Tzeentch, master strategists and weavers of clever schemes and mighty magic have to challenge a prince on a star dragon to mortal combat- this just feels SO wrong.
Dwarves with the ability to scout???
Intrigue at court- I stopped playing high elves when I read this rule, it didn't fit the HE fluff or history (since apart from the schism they have far less infighting than empire/orcs and goblins, any chaos etc.) and even though it has now gone I simply don't find HE interesting any more.
At the same time some cool rules from the past have been lost:
Swordmasters chopping arrows out of the air (a sweet rule that really gave the impression that they were masters of the sword).
The old fire and flee of elf light cavalry.

For balance, the VC magic phase and daemons in general really should have raised some issues in the playtesting phase about how much better they are than any other army in the warhammer universe. I just hope that GW find a good way to balance these things rather than simply ramping up the power of every other army.

Ethlorien
18-09-2008, 17:18
At the same time some cool rules from the past have been lost:
Swordmasters chopping arrows out of the air (a sweet rule that really gave the impression that they were masters of the sword).

Woah, woah, woah. They could do what? Now that's a fluffy rule I could learn to love! When was this going on (PM me if you'd rather, as I don't want to detract from the real topic of conversation here).

txamil
18-09-2008, 18:00
Here is your parameter.

* (P1) the rules must be expressed in general terms;
* (P2) the rules must be publicly promulgated;
* (P3) the rules must be prospective in effect;
* (P4) the rules must be expressed in understandable terms;
* (P5) the rules must be consistent with one another;
* (P6) the rules must not require conduct beyond the powers of the affected parties;
* (P7) the rules must not be changed so frequently that the subject cannot rely on them; and
* (P8) the rules must be administered in a manner consistent with their wording.

txamil
18-09-2008, 18:06
7th is
2. no only in one book. Special rules, even those specific to one army need to be in the Rulebook or available for free online somehwere (which makes sense!)
5. Sometimes problem
7. Is a bit of a problem. But I'm okay with this one WHEN it means more armies get done, as it in 7th.

Gazak Blacktoof
18-09-2008, 18:18
Woah, woah, woah. They could do what? Now that's a fluffy rule I could learn to love! When was this going on.

That would be 5th edition. I can't remember all of the rules from the high elf book then but I believe that any shooting at the sword masters of strength 4 (?) or less was at -1 to hit.

Yes it was a very characterful rule.


There might be better ways to address high elves than a bucket load of special rules but I preferred the army as it fought then to the ASF army that currently exists. In this case more was more in my opinion.

ZeroTwentythree
18-09-2008, 19:12
7th is
2. no only in one book. Special rules, even those specific to one army need to be in the Rulebook or available for free online somehwere (which makes sense!)



That's one of my complaints, that the game has become a matter of learning the new special rules for a given army, then on to the next set of special rules. This is especially true if you're not buying every single book. If you don't own them all, then you don't have access to the full rules required to play the game.

As I said above, my chief issue is that I want to play the game on the table with figures and dice, not Warhammer Fantasy Bookkeeping.

Malorian
18-09-2008, 20:21
This is especially true if you're not buying every single book. If you don't own them all, then you don't have access to the full rules required to play the game.

Which is why I buy every book :D

But at the same time I think it's still good to have some mystery in the game. Just like you don't know exactly what magical items the characters have, I think it's good if people don't know (forget) the special rules of a unit.

What's the point of being immune to fire if your opponent knows it and thus just flames another unit?

What's the point of magic resistance if players just blast other units with magic?


In a recent game I went to try and take a few wounds off a stank with my stagadon. I smashed into it, did no wounds, and then my opponent let me know that when you do impact hits to a stank you take impact hits back! My stegadon took two wounds and ran away.

It was hillarious and the thing that sticks out most about the game. I'll never make that mistake again, but the fact that I didn't know all the rules to begin with is what made the game interesting.


I'm sure everyone will remember that HE has ASF and lizardmen have cold blooded, but it's the other interesting rules (like kroz charging through skinks or skinks being able to hide in water) that really add to the game and allow players to surprise each other and have a laugh.

Zerosoul
18-09-2008, 20:55
That's one of my complaints, that the game has become a matter of learning the new special rules for a given army, then on to the next set of special rules. This is especially true if you're not buying every single book. If you don't own them all, then you don't have access to the full rules required to play the game.


Rubbish. You don't need to have any book to know how to play the game. All you need is one of the two players to have the requisite books, which is required anyway.

ZeroTwentythree
18-09-2008, 21:21
If you don't have all the rules for the armies you're facing, then you are playing against the rules, not necessarily your opponent's skill, until you learn all of his rules.

That applies less and less with fewer special rules.

While I understand Malorian's point regarding mystery in the game (call it "fog of war" if you'd like ;) ) that unfortunately doesn't apply across the board. If you spend the money on all the books, you can be better prepared. If you don't, then you're going to make a lot of poor tactical decisions your first dozen games against a particular army.

Not having the rules also means you can't keep any eye on your opponents use of their rules, either.

For example, the OK book came out and for the first several games I was getting my Skaven tails handed to me. I didn't own the book. Later I discovered that leadbelchers have to roll to hit and shouldn't have been auto-hitting. Similar thing happened with a VC opponent recently when I discovered some of his rules & stats weren't quite as good as he was playing them.

Zerosoul
18-09-2008, 21:27
If you don't have all the rules for the armies you're facing, then you are playing against the rules, not necessarily your opponent's skill, until you learn all of his rules.

That applies less and less with fewer special rules.

While I understand Malorian's point regarding mystery in the game (call it "fog of war" if you'd like ;) ) that unfortunately doesn't apply across the board. If you spend the money on all the books, you can be better prepared. If you don't, then you're going to make a lot of poor tactical decisions your first dozen games against a particular army.

Not having the rules also means you can't keep any eye on your opponents use of their rules, either.

For example, the OK book came out and for the first several games I was getting my Skaven tails handed to me. I didn't own the book. Later I discovered that leadbelchers have to roll to hit and shouldn't have been auto-hitting. Similar thing happened with a VC opponent recently when I discovered some of his rules & stats weren't quite as good as he was playing them.

So ask your opponent to see his rulebook if something doesn't sound right or seems too good. Or stop playing people who cheat.

ZeroTwentythree
19-09-2008, 04:27
So, for example, my opponent says (and this is only one example of what happened) his black knights are WS4, I should ask to see his book. He says they have a 1+ save, I should ask to see his book. If I question every stat my opponent gives me, I would be asking to see his book every five minutes and would never finish a game.

Condottiere
19-09-2008, 05:35
I don't know many of the rules and units that make up the majority of Army Books, and perhaps lazily, I rely on my opponents to represent their values in good faith. If it turns out there was something overlooked or wrong, both of us remember that for next time. If I am in a position where I'm forced to rely on an opponent that I don't quite trust, then yes, I'll be asking to see that book or rule every five minutes.

prophet
19-09-2008, 05:37
stop phasing out halflings !!!

Tarax
19-09-2008, 08:37
Haven't been upto speed with all responses, so please forgive me if something has already been said.

People talk about armies having special rules which make them different from each other. Surely the different stats makes armies different? An Elf wouldn't be much of an Elf if he had the same WS as a Goblin, the T of a Dwarf and the Ld of a Skaven.
No, to me the armies are different because of their stats and the background which justifies that.

In wargames on historical periods, like WWII and Napoleontic, different armies didn't have different stats. These are almost all the same. Perhaps some elite units have other rules, but that makes them elite (special).

Some armies can have special rules, but only if it fits the background and is used to override general rules. Best example is animosity.
Some special rules do not fit with the background or are not well-represented with the rules. The HE-rule from the previous edition, Intrigue at Court, would fit with the background, but even HE would have the best general at the head of their army. He (or she) would come from one of the factions at court, and not decided upon when battle commences.
The new Eternal Hatred rule for DE does not fit with the background. The rule is explained as being based on the contempt DE have with all other races. But contempt does not stir up hate. Thinking someone is beneath you does not make you hit him better. Hatred is rage and is more akin to Frenzy. Contempt is more the attitude with which you fight and comes close to soemthing like Immune to Fear, because you think you can take on Fear-causing creatures even though they could be tougher or scarier then you originally thought.

Ward.
19-09-2008, 09:17
The new Eternal Hatred rule for DE does not fit with the background. The rule is explained as being based on the contempt DE have with all other races. But contempt does not stir up hate.

Contempt certainly can stir up feelings of hate, the Internet is proof of that.

Condottiere
19-09-2008, 09:20
Unfortunately, true.

The Red Scourge
19-09-2008, 09:36
For example, the OK book came out and for the first several games I was getting my Skaven tails handed to me. I didn't own the book. Later I discovered that leadbelchers have to roll to hit and shouldn't have been auto-hitting. Similar thing happened with a VC opponent recently when I discovered some of his rules & stats weren't quite as good as he was playing them.

So you played against a cheating opponent Ė or at least one who wasn't 100% clear on the rules, which happens to the best of us. That could have happened despite you having the rulebook.

I personally couldn't care to check up on my opponents armies. I really like the "Fog of War". Yes, I'll learn my opponents strengths and weaknesses the hard way, but I'll have fun from the surprises, when my plans are foiled by that little trick up the sleeve Ė and an excuse to cry "Broken Cheese" ;)

Yes, WFB has a lot of rules to distinguish each and every army, but each and every army is a bit more unique than a WWII and/or a napoleonic, where the difference lies in the colour scheme.

Yes, some of those rules might be a bit too much, but they make for a game with a lot of flavor and variety. I have very different experiences when I pull out my chaos knights, from when my wood elves march across the table top.

The vast amount of rules will of course give openings for focussed "powerbuilds", but casual gentleman players will refrain from those, and tournaments will have army composition rules to discourage this. So do they really pose a problem, unless you deliberately search out the environment, where the "cheese list" are used?

GavT
19-09-2008, 10:06
One thing I'd like to address is context. My answer to the above question would vary depending on how many other units/characters/monsters have other special rules. I think it's great for each army to have its share of elite or funky units that get special rules. But when almost every entry in the book comes with special rules it's an overload.

That's a very good point. I agree and special rules should come in two flavours. The first is army special rules that define the army's character. The second is special rules for the most unique and defining units within the army.


My simple answer would be that the more special rules, the more conflicts there are between them, and the more time players spend:

1. Looking up special rules.
2. Working out the conflicts between special rules.
3. Having to learn their opponents special rules.
4. Learning to counter those special rules.
5. Working out the differences between how one person/gaming group interprets a rule vs. how their opponent interprets it.



Yep, again very true. In understand your comment about playing the opponent and not the rules, and this applies to veterans and beginners alike. I think it is sporting behaviour to ensure that your opponent understands the special rules of your army to avoid bad situations (and bad feelings). So, for example, you should ask your opponent what they know about your army and explain any pertinent facts at the start of play. This doesn't mean revaling all of your tricks and items, but for instance, if you they have never played Dark Elves before, you might want to point out that is is possible for your units to include Assassins and that your Witch Elves are Frenzied.

Years back, when playtesting Realm of Chaos for 4th ed, there was a playtester who had a rather strong desire simply to win. I was playing Dwarfs and, in ignorance of the new rules, I used my Anvil to cast lightning bolts at his Dragon Ogres. This made them frenzied... Now, is it the fault of the developer for including the special rule, or the fault of my opponent for not warning me of the consequences of my action?


I think that many of the newer army books have also given solutions to each army's traditional weaknesses (through special rules, but especially through magic items and unique units like the Anvil), thus leveling off the armies a bit. So where the simpler versions of the armies were defined more by their concentration of one or two troop types, but maybe a complete lack of others, there seems to be a wider selection of troops available for all armies in an attempt to cover all the bases. I personally don't have a huge problem with this, though I think this is part of what I think some people are talking about with "all armies being the same."

One of the issues that arises when developing an army is expanding the choice of units. This comes with the risk that a new unit either doulbes up on an existing unit, creating a greater chance of one of them being better by default. The alternative is that the army's capabilities change (its strengths and weaknesses) and it loses its character. This is very true of armies that already have a very broad range of units. Not putting cavalry into Dwarfs is an easy choice, giving them a new war machine or not, isn't.

The same applies when adding special rules. Sticking with Dwarfs, one of the longest periods of head scratching I've ever had was whether to introduce the Relentless rule or not. This is the rule that allows them to march within 8" of the enemy. I was torn between wanting players to have an alternative to the gunline approach and compensating for the inherent lack of movement in the army. In the end I added it, convinced that while it slightly militate against movement 3 it didn't affect the most drastic downsides, that of short charge range and flee/ pursuits. It also added to the gameplay experience of both players by giving the Dwarfs a more offensive tactical option. The fact that some Dwarf players now field more combat-oriented armies hopefully vindicates the decision.



Phew. I'm rather long winded today. I hope someone reads all that. ;)

I did! Do I get a prize?

Cheers,

GAV

Tokamak
19-09-2008, 10:19
Years back, when playtesting Realm of Chaos for 4th ed, there was a playtester who had a rather strong desire simply to win. I was playing Dwarfs and, in ignorance of the new rules, I used my Anvil to cast lightning bolts at his Dragon Ogres. This made them frenzied... Now, is it the fault of the developer for including the special rule, or the fault of my opponent for not warning me of the consequences of my action?


It's a beautiful example actually. I mean, it would really fit in a storyline of unknowing dwarves making their problem even bigger. I would actually enjoy that if it happened to me.

Then again, it's a rare occasion that ignorance of certain rules work in such an amusing way.

During the SoC campaign, I charged my ardboys orc army head on to a dwarf slayer army. I wiped them completely off the tabl...battlefield. Little did I know that I had made very few attacks that weren't strength five, and my opponent has been silently keeping a tally of how many dwarves died from a strength 5 attack (almost every single one of them, thank you mr. giant), which resulted in a massacre for me.

The most sour examples I had with special rules and what not were skaven. Nothing wrong with the army itself, but the smallest models suddenly apear to have weapons that would make Donalt Rumsvelt have to change his pants, and tiny characters with grotesque magic items totally butchering my army.

You simply can't have a realistic chance against the Skaven without intensively studying their book before playing. Surely that can't ever have been the intention behind the army.

EvC
19-09-2008, 13:42
Which is why I buy every book :D

But at the same time I think it's still good to have some mystery in the game. Just like you don't know exactly what magical items the characters have, I think it's good if people don't know (forget) the special rules of a unit.

What's the point of being immune to fire if your opponent knows it and thus just flames another unit?

What's the point of magic resistance if players just blast other units with magic?


In a recent game I went to try and take a few wounds off a stank with my stagadon. I smashed into it, did no wounds, and then my opponent let me know that when you do impact hits to a stank you take impact hits back! My stegadon took two wounds and ran away.

Here's another one, one of my first games against new Dark Elves. My Vampire Lord charges a unit of Spearmen, out comes an assassin to take her on. I'm told the Assassin has various abilities, like Manbane, so he was S6 when striknig my Lady. This meant he was wounding on 3+ rather than 5+, and got two wounds on my Vampire before he was duly dispatched. Later on in the game, my Lady's Skeleton bodyguards had been stomped and blasted to death whilst she had healed back a single wound, and she was struck by a couple of Bolt Thrower Bolts. As this is me we are talking about, both bolts wounded and I failed both of my 4+ ward saves, so she died, turning a massive win for me into a big loss.

And then yesterday I was looking in the Dark Elf book, and saw this little rule by the Gifts of Khaine section- if you're immune to poison, you're immune to the effects of the venoms on Assassin blades- like Manbane, for example. And, yes, my Lady was indeed immune to poison. So she shouldn't have taken those two wounds, and would have most likely survived. But should I really have been expected to know that, in my first games against Dark Elves? My opponent didn't know I had the immune to poison armour to inform me... so I was just plain screwed by an excess of special rules and abilities. Still, it's something I'll remember in the future, but this will happen time and time again to other players...

Kerill
19-09-2008, 14:03
I'm afraid I'd see that as your fault EvC for not reading the dark elf book. A good general studies his opponents army and tactics before entering battle ;)

Ziji zhi bi, bai zhan bu dai

@GAV the relentless rule for dwarves is one of those rules that makes sense from the game point of view but doesn't make sense to my concept of "fantasy logic" or whatever you want to call it. Dwarves would be no more relentless than the shambling undead who fear nothing, so the undead should get it. Alternatively if the rule had a different explanation (dwarf tactic, some rune) then I would have accepted it wholeheartedy. That's another thing that can "break" a special rule for me- whether the logic behind it fits in the warhammer world, hence the problem with, for example the marauder horsemen rule, if it was phrased along the lines of how the horsemen surround their enemy to cut off escape or something that would make more sense to me. Or if the horsemen could get a free shot with their axes javelins (in the backs of the fleeing unit as they are chasing them down).

ZeroTwentythree
19-09-2008, 14:22
That's a very good point. I agree and special rules should come in two flavours. The first is army special rules that define the army's character. The second is special rules for the most unique and defining units within the army.



And I'm 100% comfortable with that. But I thin what I (and others) have and issue with is when this is overloaded and all but one or two units in an army have special rules, stacked with multiple army-wide special rules, stacked with a couple rule-heavy unique items/monsters/machines.

This also depends on the scale of the game. I've always felt that WFB is best with plenty of elements to maneuver on the table. That's my bias. If it was a small skirmish game involving only a few units/figures, a greater level of detail would enhance the game. (I have fond memories of long campaigns using the Chaos Warbands rules from the old hardback RoC 3rd ed. books, for example.)




Yep, again very true. In understand your comment about playing the opponent and not the rules, and this applies to veterans and beginners alike. I think it is sporting behaviour to ensure that your opponent understands the special rules of your army to avoid bad situations (and bad feelings).


This, along with your example of the DE is very good. And many of us do this, especially if our opponent is new to the game.

But there is, once again, a big difference between a couple of elite/unique units having special rules, and most of the army having multiple special rules.

As I said, if it's the core rules that everyone has learned, I don't mind the complexity. So I wouldn't necessarily count things like frenzy or hatred as being "special rules."




The same applies when adding special rules. Sticking with Dwarfs, one of the longest periods of head scratching I've ever had was whether to introduce the Relentless rule or not. This is the rule that allows them to march within 8" of the enemy. I was torn between wanting players to have an alternative to the gunline approach and compensating for the inherent lack of movement in the army. In the end I added it, convinced that while it slightly militate against movement 3 it didn't affect the most drastic downsides, that of short charge range and flee/ pursuits. It also added to the gameplay experience of both players by giving the Dwarfs a more offensive tactical option. The fact that some Dwarf players now field more combat-oriented armies hopefully vindicates the decision.


This is a good example, and personally I'm fairly content with the dwarfs in spite of the point I am/was trying to make. ;) But I think the important thing is that the rules/armies work in the end.

Similar to my point in reference to the context of your multiple choice corsairs question (where I said it depended on how many other special rules there were in the army), the relentless rule is pretty good when taken out of context, and very good when taken in the context of Throek + anvil, miners, rangers, oathstone, and that movement rune. While they are one of my favorite opponents, a dwarf army like that can really dictate much of the movement phase.






I did! Do I get a prize?


I will put your cookie in the mail at lunch time. :)

Thanks for answering.

EvC
19-09-2008, 16:26
I'm afraid I'd see that as your fault EvC for not reading the dark elf book. A good general studies his opponents army and tactics before entering battle ;)

I did read the Dark Elf book. I did not however glean every single nuance in the entire damn book, and only a complete ***** would expect me to do so (I am probably in the top percentile for knowing the rules, and I don't get it from a flick through the books, then what hope is there for everyone else?). Unless you expected me to purchase the Dark Elf Spearhead to learn all the rules in advance, in which case you'd be an even more complete specimen of a *****. Fortunately your wink suggests you're being light-hearted rather than moronic, for which I am grateful :D

logan054
19-09-2008, 17:15
Years back, when playtesting Realm of Chaos for 4th ed, there was a playtester who had a rather strong desire simply to win. I was playing Dwarfs and, in ignorance of the new rules, I used my Anvil to cast lightning bolts at his Dragon Ogres. This made them frenzied... Now, is it the fault of the developer for including the special rule, or the fault of my opponent for not warning me of the consequences of my action

While thats a nice fluffy special rule does that mean that every special rule that is included is really all that fluffy or even adds to game to make for a better experience? I go back to my example of the new marauder horsemen, what exactly does they do for a game of warhammer, for me it just seems to give people less reasons to even use infantry, i can say i see this as a positive thing.

Dont get me wrong i think certain special rules actually make sense on units, killing blow on and magic resistance on bloodletters (made me think back to the 5th ed ones), the wizard rule for horrors (mind you this is a double edged sword because while on one side its really cool the other it seems to promote the 30powerdice list) personally i think this could have been better as a bound spell that changed as per unit size, Daemonettes i can understand, the seems to make sense (even if strength 4 would have been better), the ASF locus rule just dosnt make sense for me, i cant see the reason why the good of pleasures daemons gain this rule, i actually think the HoC rule was far more fluffy.

What am i saying special rules are all well and good when they make some sort of sense in context of the unit type, rules that are there just for the sake of unit it really arent.

Shamfrit
19-09-2008, 19:08
You're not expected to buy or read other army books at all EvC...

Just consider them to be £12 'Spies.'

Gazak Blacktoof
19-09-2008, 21:22
I did read the Dark Elf book. I did not however glean every single nuance in the entire damn book, and only a complete ***** would expect me to do so (I am probably in the top percentile for knowing the rules, and I don't get it from a flick through the books, then what hope is there for everyone else?).

Its often the case that when you add something to a game (unless its exceedingly simple) you rarely know get it right the first time you use it

I've played a lot of games and I don't think I've ever gotten the rules correct the first time I've played them through. The same thing happens when you add a new army to warhammer.


Its certainly handy if one person knows all of the rules being used in a game though as it helps avoids situations such as the one you're discussing. In warhammer that means spending a lot of dosh on books or having cooperative friends who will lend you their army books.

Shimmergloom
20-09-2008, 00:16
I'm afraid I'd see that as your fault EvC for not reading the dark elf book. A good general studies his opponents army and tactics before entering battle

lol.

I wonder how this would play with other game systems?

Well if you want to really enjoy halo 3, you have to buy these other 14 xbox games to get the full picture.

I can't wait to put together this model airplane. Wait. I have to buy 14 more model airplanes to get all the parts for this one model aiplane that I want?

it's time for our weekly poker night. Hmmm. Seems to be some cards missing? You mean I have to buy 14 more packs of cards to get all 52 playing cards?

Wow, I've been waiting all month to read the latest issue of spidey. Wait. I can't understand what's going on. Did I miss something? I have to read 14 other marvel comics to understand what's going on in spidey? This is stupid!

And it was stupid, which is why marvel comics went bankrupt in the late 90's, spent years digging themselves out of it and even now, pretty much only exists because of their movie franchises.

So yeah, keep telling people they need to buy all 15 books or it's their fault if they don't know the rules. You can't just call everyone who misses a new special rule a cheater. It's GW's fault for just piling special rule upon special rule on every unit in the book, which contradict each other are often overpowered and nearly require an extra college degree to understand.

ghost of scubasteve
20-09-2008, 00:50
ive stopped playing/buying fantasy until the each-nex-dex-more-power inflation stops

Crazy Harborc
20-09-2008, 01:47
I'll save some space and not quote GavT's post # 102.

He makes good points. hits more than one nail on the head. I say give the man a gold star....a well done on the facts/points he put in post # 102.;)

Curufew
20-09-2008, 05:30
Is it possible to have a points formula thing for Warhammer that other fantasy games such as AoA employ for their unit creation ?

logan054
20-09-2008, 09:33
I'll save some space and not quote GavT's post # 102.

He makes good points. hits more than one nail on the head. I say give the man a gold star....a well done on the facts/points he put in post # 102.;)

yeah many good points with half truths, for every good special rule or its implication in the game there is a bad one.

Ward.
20-09-2008, 12:06
Is it possible to have a points formula thing for Warhammer that other fantasy games such as AoA employ for their unit creation ?

Yes, I believe avian created one for 6th edition that was pretty accurate.

Shamfrit
20-09-2008, 14:37
The free download of Army Builder gives you 80% of the rules and options available to each army.

Problem solved.

GavT
21-09-2008, 13:58
yeah many good points with half truths, for every good special rule or its implication in the game there is a bad one.

I don't know how half-truths come into it when someone is offering an opinion. I've been careful not to claim that any specific rule is appropriate or not (or good and bad as you put it), so I don't quite know what you're getting at.

I think the consensus is, as it so often turns out, everything in moderation. For Warhammer a balance of special rules seems desirable, though everybody's personal threshold for how many rules are too much and which ones should go differs slightly.

To state my overall opinion, I believe that the first port of call when creating an army's flavour is unit choices, magic lores and rules and magic items. There's a lot that can be done with these basics. Next is adding one or two army special rules that capture the essence of the army rather than try to represent every single facet of their nature, training or organisation. Lastly, individual units within the army should be given special rules for the reasons I gave earlier (representation of troop type and additional gameplay entertainment). On top of this, where there is an existing special rule - killing blow, poison, unbreakable, etc - these should be considered first before new rules are invented.

Cheers,

GAV

logan054
21-09-2008, 16:03
well the way that came across to me atleast was that special rules are great, heres ones example, however if your saying on in moderation then we are on same page (you should be happy however i think our version of the Daemonettes are far better and more fluffy than the current incantation :) ) I think you need however read my earlier post for more clear understand of my view rather than one random post.

Just wondering can you think of any examples that you can think off when you've been like "hmm, did you really need to do that?"

darkace77450
21-09-2008, 17:41
I can't help but agree with the OP. It seems blatantly clear to me that GW is trying to make each new army that much better than the previous armies so they can up sales and make profit (which they have had trouble doing the last few years). The special rules don't strike me as "fluffy" or done to add flavor to armies, but instead to make models "must haves" that everyone will want to put into their army.

There should be little doubt that the game is unbalanced now. If I told you you could pick any army and had unlimited access to any painted models and that you were going to be playing an opponent of equal tactical abilities, then told you I would shot dead the loser of the game, which army book would you be reaching for when writing your list? I'll bet it's not Orcs and Goblins, or Ogre Kingdoms, or a whole host of older books.

Let's try to shed light on the subject with another question. If you were to clone yourself, and your clone had the exact same tactical and strategic abilities that you do and both of you knew the ins-and-outs of each army book equally well, and you played OnG/OK/Empire against his DoC/VC/HE, who would win a series of best of three games (fluke-luck games not withstanding)?

Like others have said, the winner of a game should be he who has the best ability to use tactics on a battlefield (or gaming board) and not by who has the hardest combination of troops and magic items/special characters and most certainly not based on who runs the most recent (imho broken-to-hell) army list.

If you look at the stat lines and special rules of an Empire State Troop and a HE Spearman, both armed with equal equipment, then look at the points cost, there is no way one can argue that they are shooting for balance over number of models sold.

We need more of "my unit beat your unit because I out maneuvered you" and less of "my unit beat your unit despite the fact that you outmanevered me because it has better stats and more special rules and doesn't cost as many points as it should".

AGC
21-09-2008, 17:55
A fasciniating discussion so far, but one hasn't really been asked is the question of where to stop?

For instance it was stated that only an army's most distinctive units should have special rules. But that begs the question how many rules to give it?

For instance Corsairs are (I believe) Dark Elf pirates who ride the high seas in black arks. Hence the aforementioned "Slavers" rule. I can think of another couple they could have as well, but they don't. So once it's been decided that a unit should have a special rule what is the criteria for deciding how many special rules it should have and which ones?

zak
21-09-2008, 19:35
It seems blatantly clear to me that GW is trying to make each new army that much better than the previous armies so they can up sales and make profit

Although the newer armies do seem powerful only the DoC IMHO are OTT. The VC are hard, but have obvious weaknesses (target the general) and the DE and HE are by no means unbeatable. In fact the DE book is possibly the best book GW have released for balance. GW need profit, but by ruining the game with complete inbalance is surely counter productive.


For instance it was stated that only an army's most distinctive units should have special rules. But that begs the question how many rules to give it?

In my opinion a unit only needs a special rule/s to make it either fit the background or to differentiate it from another similar unit. This is especially important for the armies with similar basis (ie. High Elf/Dark Elf or Empire/Brettonia). I don't think you will ever please everyone with these special rules as it's clear that some believe less is more, whereas others prefer more.

Shimmergloom
21-09-2008, 22:01
I think the half truths come into play when something like Relentless or Animosity is mentioned as fluffy special rules to justify them. No one has ever said that all special rules are bad.

There are many good special rules. The problem is special rules are not all created equally and many units are heaped with special rules which throws balance out the window. ASF for free w/points decreases are not equal to Animosity + points increases. Relentless is not equal to 5+ ward saves and regen madness.

Added to that there are far, far too many armies out there that just ignore major portions of the main rulebook.

EvC
21-09-2008, 22:15
One thing I like about Dark Elves getting so powerful (and therefore... popular) is that there is actually a point to taking fear/panic/terror-causing items in all comers lists, as there is a chance they will cause your opponents major problems... at least, some of them.

Shimmergloom
21-09-2008, 22:36
I think the army rules that let entire armies just ignore break tests, fear, terror and panic should be done away with.

Those armies should have to play those rules just like everyone else.

Unbreakable, ItP, cause fear and cause terror should be limited to units, not entire armies.

Cause fear epecially needs to be given the nerf stick when GW likes to make it apply to entire armies.

GavT
21-09-2008, 22:38
Just wondering can you think of any examples that you can think off when you've been like "hmm, did you really need to do that?"

I've very deliberately been discussing only rules that I wrote, and of course I think they're all deserved ;) Well, in Warhammer. Although, perhaps the special Slayer army victory points rule for S5 hits was a darling. And then there's... :angel: I think most rules taken individually can be debated in isolation, but a lot of the decision will depend on the starting point of whether one thinks there are too many or not. If one thinks there are too many rules, those special rules are going to be looked at more critically than by a player who doesn't mind the number of rules.

I think it is something that the games developers should always bear in mind when designing armies and overall would err on the side of caution.



I think the half truths come into play when something like Relentless or Animosity is mentioned as fluffy special rules to justify them.

Background representation is one reason for including a special rule, but I did mention others. I explained that Relentless was for reasons of gameplay choice not background, for instance. Greenskins have had some form of Animosity for so long I think there would be a genuine uproar should it ever be removed.



No one has ever said that all special rules are bad.

I think we're on the same page then! :)

Shimmergloom
21-09-2008, 22:48
I explained that Relentless was for reasons of gameplay not background. Greenskins have had some form of Animosity for so long I think there would be a genuine uproar should it ever be removed.





Those are still both special rules though. Whenever I bring up how Wood elves for example are an army packed with special rule on top of special rules, a wood elf player will throw back at me 'oh yeah well what about your book? It's the same thing.' The difference however is that animosity is a negative and greenskins are in 7th edition paying points for that negative. Relentless is a positive, but such a small positive when compared to other army wide rules that it is IMO a rule that should be left out of the discussion entirely.

When you want to discuss if special rules are ruining the game, then you need to discuss the ridiculous nature of the DoC book or VC book where every unit has a half page of special rules. Or the HE book and DE book where HE gets ASF for free and DE got Hatred and several unit points DECREASES.

And it's a truly messed up system where Maruaders get a new special army wide rule to re-roll panic tests and a points decrease that makes them 4pts each. I'm really waiting to see 1pt skaven slaves that must be coming at this point and see how the 3pt goblin decision is still defended after that.

Tokamak
21-09-2008, 22:48
I've even grown fond of the new quell animosity, I wouldn't want to see that go.

Jack Spratt
21-09-2008, 22:57
I could not disagree more with the OP
I like the complex rules.
Want fewer rules go play something else. There is quite a few things to choose from. Warmaster as has been mentioned. Have a go at 40k. Or you could try out Warmachine/Horde. Or... have a go at Confrontation or even Ragnarok. Please do not mess up this beautiful game :(

Jack Spratt

Tokamak
21-09-2008, 23:09
I think, in interest of this debate. We should keep a clear distinction in 'too many special rules' and 'too powerfull new armies' which are both two completely different things.

Growing complexity doesn't equal the to some apparent trend of increasingly powerful armies being released. These are two entirely different discussions.

Shimmergloom
21-09-2008, 23:18
I've even grown fond of the new quell animosity, I wouldn't want to see that go.

Then you can always make a house rule where you keep using it to wipe out your boar boyz, big'uns and other units.

Mireadur
21-09-2008, 23:32
There should be little doubt that the game is unbalanced now. If I told you you could pick any army and had unlimited access to any painted models and that you were going to be playing an opponent of equal tactical abilities, then told you I would shot dead the loser of the game, which army book would you be reaching for when writing your list? I'll bet it's not Orcs and Goblins, or Ogre Kingdoms, or a whole host of older books.

hahah funny thought that one. Deciding living or death by a WH game. If the game brings tension and argues as it is, imagine what would happen in this situation.

Going on topic, eventhough i also think theres a bit too many special rules right now, i wouldnt want to go back to 5th edition HE book where the whole army had absolutely nothing and even unit stats were almost the same all across the board!!!

Anyway, i believe the real problem are not special rules themselves but what kind of special rules are given:
Your unit being ITP when charging is an amazing rule, very little game breaking and adds a lot of character to games, while a standard which turns stubborn all your LD9 units in 12' radius, doesnt matter how much it costs, is something that simply shouldnt even exist.

logan054
21-09-2008, 23:32
I've very deliberately been discussing only rules that I wrote, and of course I think they're all deserved ;) Well, in Warhammer. Although, perhaps the special Slayer army victory points rule for S5 hits was a darling. And then there's... :angel: I think most rules taken individually can be debated in isolation, but a lot of the decision will depend on the starting point of whether one thinks there are too many or not. If one thinks there are too many rules, those special rules are going to be looked at more critically than by a player who doesn't mind the number of rules.

So long and the short of it is your playing it safe :P i dont know if i think the rule have to many special rules in the rule book, i do think however sometimes these special rules are applied far to often with the newer armies, as i said before i think some rules really just arent needed (i will point again at the marauder horsemen "i can catch you even better for no reason rule" and yes, im am a chaos player :) ). How exactly would you like to see warhammer progress, do you think the way warhammer armies are going the come 8th ed the armies can continue in the same fashion the 7th ed ones are?

For me personallyy going back to the basics of the topic i would certainly like to see the magic system gutted, i would really like to see the old card system translated into dice, really removing the need to actually take wizards however including them giving a decent advantage to casting. I cant stand now how the system is really all or nothing


I think it is something that the games developers should always bear in mind when designing armies and overall would err on the side of caution.

I wish you had said that to someone when they decided to put ASF as a army wide rule, as you may be able to tell i loath the idea. Dont get me wrong i liked Lotr, its just im not playing Lotr and i feel now with so many things with access to it it becomes far less special.

Shimmergloom
21-09-2008, 23:47
For me personallyy going back to the basics of the topic i would certainly like to see the magic system gutted, i would really like to see the old card system translated into dice, really removing the need to actually take wizards however including them giving a decent advantage to casting. I cant stand now how the system is really all or nothing

Yeah some of that would be cool. I use to love shiney baubles so much because it was like the old rebound card.

If not in a dice system, which would be difficult to translate, I'd like some of those cards in as common magic scrolls. Like a rebound scroll, mental duel scroll and destroy magic scroll(limit 1 per army).

Also change the dispel dice rule to allow armies which take no spell casters(including things such as warrior priests and horrors as spell casters) to generate D6 + 2(or 4 for dwarfs with no runesmiths and no anvil of doom) dispel dice. To curb the need for a scroll caddy.

Mireadur
21-09-2008, 23:51
I've very deliberately been discussing only rules that I wrote, and of course I think they're all deserved Well, in Warhammer. Although, perhaps the special Slayer army victory points rule for S5 hits was a darling. And then there's... I think most rules taken individually can be debated in isolation, but a lot of the decision will depend on the starting point of whether one thinks there are too many or not. If one thinks there are too many rules, those special rules are going to be looked at more critically than by a player who doesn't mind the number of rules.

I think it is something that the games developers should always bear in mind when designing armies and overall would err on the side of caution.

In truth i believe the best army books have always been written by you and your appealing for the ''fluffy'' rules.

The real problem is the different criteria between developers. While in 6th edition your books were somehow conservative comparing them to the most hardass ones, in 7th has happened the opposite: The best 2 books ive ever seen (in composition, variety and utility of all units) but scaring when comparing unit pricing with other army books.

Muad'Dib
22-09-2008, 00:13
I think I have to agree with OP. Right now, the situation with special rules really seems to be getting out of control...
Did Black Guard really need stubborn AND ItP AND Eternal Hatred?
Did Daemons need killing blow, poison etc. on every troop type ? (which IMO had catastrophic effect of every unit being either overpriced - like Beasts of Nurgle, Bloodletters - or underpriced - see Fiends of Slaanesh, Flesh Hounds) Did Keeper of Secrets really need AFS for free?
Why didn't GW fix the general problem with elite infantry, instead of giving HE AFS...
Can't really say about the newest WoC book, but even from the rumours it seems that they slapped on some stuff just for the heck of it - like Marauder Horsemen rerolling pursuit, or Chaos Knights causing fear...(while getting a decrease in points!)
Do we need special rules in order to diffrentie between units/armies ? YES
But they need to be applied with
1) common sense
2) internal and external balance in mind
3) point cost in mind.
Right now it seems more like
"O, Phoenix Guard is a little weak...yes, 4+ ward save will fix their problems !"

By the way, anyone here considers major stat boosts - like A2, W2 or WS6+ on the same level as special rules ? Cause they, too, seem to be given away like candies those days, and have same effect (if not bigger) on overall balance as AFS slapped on everything.

Right now the solution to make units viable seems to be two things - either make them dirt cheap - like DE warriors or Orc Boyz, or make them cost around 15 points and give them A2 and a bunch of special rules. And it really seems like every army book is making the weak units cheaper, and the elite units even more elite then those of the previous book.

Shimmergloom
22-09-2008, 00:22
Well W2 yes, I can't think of any infantry with W2 though.

A2 for special units and up is ok. And solves alot of the elite infantry problems from 6th. And there were major elite infantry problems last edition. The main problem now is that instead of balancing it, they unbalanced it in the other direction.

Elite infantry were by large underpowered in 6th. So let's overpower them in 7th.

Not logical. And feeds into the idea that decisions are based on selling models and not on making a coherent and decently balanced game.

ZeroTwentythree
22-09-2008, 00:31
I could not disagree more with the OP
I like the complex rules.
Want fewer rules go play something else. There is quite a few things to choose from. Warmaster as has been mentioned. Have a go at 40k. Or you could try out Warmachine/Horde. Or... have a go at Confrontation or even Ragnarok.


Warmaster is a good game for that, but I don't think the rest are even comparable types of games, and I know at least WM & Hordes are even more dependent upon special rules.

But I think we're all allowed to have a friendly discussion about the newer direction of the game (more special rules in each army) without is devolving to "go play something else." :(



I think, in interest of this debate. We should keep a clear distinction in 'too many special rules' and 'too powerfull new armies' which are both two completely different things.

Growing complexity doesn't equal the to some apparent trend of increasingly powerful armies being released. These are two entirely different discussions.

I agree completely. The two issues seem to be getting confused, I'm assuming because people are upset with particular rules (I think a few have been named) being, in their opinion, unbalanced.

I'm enjoying the discussion of more rules vs. fewer rules, though, so would still like to hear more opinions on the original topic.

Senbei
22-09-2008, 01:04
Well most of those problems are created by GW screwing over players by continuously splitting armies into smaller armies to make old armies obselete.

Agreed. I played undead... Then GW split the army in two. Half of my army is now useless, so I pack it up and start a new one... A zombie horde with wights and Necromancers... So GW changes the rules so that Necromancers can't lead armies and that Zombies are by far the worst statted troops in the entire game despite being quite expensive points-wise.


On another point, of the wargaming groups I have been part of the general concensus is that 3rd ed WFB is the best and most balanced WFB rules set ever written due to the lack of army-specific rules. (though I think that this is debatable due to the later Chaos rules. Orcs and undead did have special rules, but it was just 'undead' and 'ethereal' for the non-living things and the ole ball-and-chain, animosity and giant for the orcs).

Valaraukar
22-09-2008, 05:52
Elite infantry were by large underpowered in 6th. So let's overpower them in 7th.

Not logical. And feeds into the idea that decisions are based on selling models and not on making a coherent and decently balanced game.

You say this but I see a lot of people on here saying all cavalry armies or cavalry armies with the minimum of core infantry tacked on are the only tactically viable army choice. I think this was an effort to make infantry a more viable choice tactically along with the increase in points of cavalry for 7th Ed that we saw with O&G but was then abandoned. I think this was to try and make a more balanced game it's just a shame they did not carry on with their initial intentions.

Gobbo Lord
22-09-2008, 13:04
Having just moved from Warhammer to Hordes after watching nigh on immortal Nurgle Deamons advance and walk over my Greenskinned horde, 150 points of Skulltaker effortlessly dealing with my 350 point tooled up Warboss, and each army seemingly getting cheaper and cheaper with new rules whilst i stare dumbfounded at my Orc Boar Boyz. I should point out that, yes, Hordes has a simple effective rules set which changes with the multiple special rules and combinations each unit has. However, each faction can stand up to the others. I have played 6 games so far and have never thought "My god I literally dont have the ability to counter this" as I was increasingly with my Greenskins (friendly play).

Marauder Horsemen is a great example. In the new book they are 1 point more than a spider rider. they already have better stats and reroll panic. Spiders have Wall Crawlers but Animosity to balance that. A points difference for this alone seems wrong. However the horsemen get a reroll pursuit rule, for no points. Why?

Curufew
22-09-2008, 14:07
Marauder Horsemen is a great example. In the new book they are 1 point more than a spider rider. they already have better stats and reroll panic. Spiders have Wall Crawlers but Animosity to balance that. A points difference for this alone seems wrong. However the horsemen get a reroll pursuit rule, for no points. Why?

So people will buy the shiny new marauder horsemen :angel:

darkace77450
22-09-2008, 14:29
So people will buy the shiny new marauder horsemen :angel:

I think what frustrates so many veterans more so than the game being broken is the fact that the quoted statement is so transparently obvious. The GW higher-ups decided to:
1) make units better so that more people will want to run them
2) make units cost fewer points so that people will be able to run more of them,
which in turn makes them need more of the models to fill out an army
3) up the monetary cost of these units so GW can bank more money when
people buy these units for their army

I have enjoyed WFB for a long time. But with the current super-creep of armies and the special-rules-bonanza that is going on, I am sadly sitting the current edition out (still playing the occasional game of 6th edition with friends), as I don't think I should reward GW with any of my money for putting out what I feel is an inferior product.

I am hoping that when 8th edition rolls around, it will be a clean slate with all armies getting back to the basics of infantry, cavalry, war machines, and characters (I could do with FAR fewer special characters though) that all perform pretty much the same as counterparts in other armies with different stat-lines and special rules only where warrented (Relentless for dwarves, Undead for undead, etc; not re-roll pursuit rolls for the heck of it, etc).

EvC
22-09-2008, 14:36
Actually they're not upping the monetary costs- units like Marauder Horsemen and Chaos Knights will be the bargainicious price of £12 for 5. Quite a lot better than £30 for 5 they are currently!

cafard
22-09-2008, 14:59
On another point, of the wargaming groups I have been part of the general concensus is that 3rd ed WFB is the best and most balanced WFB rules set ever written due to the lack of army-specific rules. (though I think that this is debatable due to the later Chaos rules. Orcs and undead did have special rules, but it was just 'undead' and 'ethereal' for the non-living things and the ole ball-and-chain, animosity and giant for the orcs).

That pretty much sums up my preference in this debate. The 3rd ed. with its Warhammer Armies book is my favourite take on generic vs. special rules. There's precious few of them, and they're all contained in the rulebook. Most armies have bows/crossbows, most armies have chariots, most armies have armoured and unarmoured troops. The base race stats (hence point cost) and min/max number of each unit makes the difference between armies, and the rest is about tactics. Too bad i only have my wife with whom to play the old way. :(

The Realm of Chaos books don't exactly fit in that simplicity indeed. But there's already a chaos army in the Armies book, so there's no huge need to use them. Where these books shine is in champion vs champion warbands matchups, on a skirmish scale where all these special rules don't get too heavy and even become the point.

On a side note, it's interesting though to see how the frame of mind evolves over the years. When i started miniature gaming in the early 90s, coming from cardboard chits wargames, the *miniatures* themselves - not the rules - were what gave our armies their 'flavour', despite close enough army lists. These days, with miniatures more commonly available, it seems an army is considered flavourless if it doesn't provide a radically different gaming style, hence the special rules. Is the 'count-as' phenomenon in 40k a return to the days when miniatures/conversions/painting were good enough to define one's army?


Ah, there it is. I'm siding against special rules, and my ramblings just flagged me for the 'Old Grumbler' one. To put thing into perspective, i still have fun with the modern rules, even against my lady's wood elves, which incur a one way trip to Specialruleland. ('twas just better'n ye olde days ;))

Kerill
22-09-2008, 15:07
Spider riders get to move through terrain without penalty, have poisonous attacks and come with spear and shield as standard- Marauder horsemen have actually gone up by 1 point in the new book. To add spears and shields to marauder horsemen costs 3 points (so 17 points in the new book) poison is worth 1-2 points so they will be 18-19 points, 50% more expensive than the spider riders.

Try not to let the Greenskin "Doom wagon of ultimate despair" drag down another thread though.

Tokamak
22-09-2008, 15:08
Actually they're not upping the monetary costs- units like Marauder Horsemen and Chaos Knights will be the bargainicious price of £12 for 5. Quite a lot better than £30 for 5 they are currently!

Oh don't worry, it's not charity, GW will make more profit out of the new plastic sets, if only because the transport and metal costs are rising. However, it's indeed a win/win situation as I absolutelylove the way the new cavalry sets are being released. I can't wait for the day plastic boar riders will see the light.

EvC
22-09-2008, 15:09
Which is a good thing (The whole "everyone wins" thing I mean, not the cost of goods increasing), I feel the need to point out.

ZeroTwentythree
22-09-2008, 15:18
On a side note, it's interesting though to see how the frame of mind evolves over the years. When i started miniature gaming in the early 90s, coming from cardboard chits wargames, the *miniatures* themselves - not the rules - were what gave our armies their 'flavour', despite close enough army lists. These days, with miniatures more commonly available, it seems an army is considered flavourless if it doesn't provide a radically different gaming style, hence the special rules. Is the 'count-as' phenomenon in 40k a return to the days when miniatures/conversions/painting were good enough to define one's army?



I come from a similar background, though I was playing other miniatures wargames. I totally agree about the miniatures helping define the armies.

But I would also add that the baseline stats and troop availability also did.

For example...

Elves had more archers & cavalry options, have better M, WS, BS and I.

Dwarves had harder hitting shooting (crossbows, artillery), but slower M, I and better T & LD.

Empire had a good balanced mix of troops & stats, but were non-specialists.

Bretonnians were different from empire in focusing on the extremes: heaby elite cavalry and dirt cheap crappy infantry.

...and so on. None of that has really changed. It's just that with the introduction of so many additional rules, (mainly newer) players seem addicted to them and fail to notice the obvious differences above without the special rules.

Again, I think that certain rules do help define armies, like forest walkers for WE or relentless for dwarves. But you could pull a ot of the rest of the "extras" out an lose none of the overall flavor or playing style of the armies, while streamlining the pace of the game, limiting arguments, and as I can't say this enough times, bringing it back to a game of player vs. player rather than army list vs. army list.

That said, I don't think it will ever go back. I think too many players (again, especially newer players) would get really pissed if all the special rules were pulled out.

Personally, I've been leaning more and more towards Warhammer Ancient Battles. (I do like a number of the more recent core-rule changes/additions to WFB, though) The lists are a lot similar to what I described as my "ideal" above and the game runs more smoothly for it.

But I do still have a fondness for fantasy games and, in the end, I'm stuck playing whatever I can find opponents for. I've had very little luck finding local opponents for anything other than WFB. (Or 40k, which I'm not interested in.)

King Vyper
22-09-2008, 15:48
I come from a similar background, though I was playing other miniatures wargames. I totally agree about the miniatures helping define the armies.

But I would also add that the baseline stats and troop availability also did.

For example...

Elves had more archers & cavalry options, have better M, WS, BS and I.

Dwarves had harder hitting shooting (crossbows, artillery), but slower M, I and better T & LD.

Empire had a good balanced mix of troops & stats, but were non-specialists.

Bretonnians were different from empire in focusing on the extremes: heaby elite cavalry and dirt cheap crappy infantry.

...and so on. None of that has really changed. It's just that with the introduction of so many additional rules, (mainly newer) players seem addicted to them and fail to notice the obvious differences above without the special rules.

Again, I think that certain rules do help define armies, like forest walkers for WE or relentless for dwarves. But you could pull a ot of the rest of the "extras" out an lose none of the overall flavor or playing style of the armies, while streamlining the pace of the game, limiting arguments, and as I can't say this enough times, bringing it back to a game of player vs. player rather than army list vs. army list.

That said, I don't think it will ever go back. I think too many players (again, especially newer players) would get really pissed if all the special rules were pulled out.

Personally, I've been leaning more and more towards Warhammer Ancient Battles. (I do like a number of the more recent core-rule changes/additions to WFB, though) The lists are a lot similar to what I described as my "ideal" above and the game runs more smoothly for it.

But I do still have a fondness for fantasy games and, in the end, I'm stuck playing whatever I can find opponents for. I've had very little luck finding local opponents for anything other than WFB. (Or 40k, which I'm not interested in.)

I love WAB and I feel your pain. The WAB ruleset and books are a window of what WHFB could be. So many of the concepts in WAB would make so much sense in WHFB.ex: Furious Charge, Warband Rules, Drilled, Chariots, Light Infantry, Skirmishers, Massed Bow Fire, Shieldwall, Mixed Weapons, Combined units, Phalanx rules.

logan054
22-09-2008, 16:31
So people will buy the shiny new marauder horsemen :angel:

People would have bought them anyways, they are Core, they are a cheap way to get the 3 min core, they high movement, they can warmachine, mage hunt, etc, all this special rule means is people have less reason to buy other units.

Mireadur
22-09-2008, 21:46
its ironical now they announced a hardcore pricing rise, petroleum barrel went down a 30%

Shamfrit
22-09-2008, 22:35
Spider riders get to move through terrain without penalty, have poisonous attacks and come with spear and shield as standard- Marauder horsemen have actually gone up by 1 point in the new book. To add spears and shields to marauder horsemen costs 3 points (so 17 points in the new book) poison is worth 1-2 points so they will be 18-19 points, 50% more expensive than the spider riders.

Try not to let the Greenskin "Doom wagon of ultimate despair" drag down another thread though.

Leadership 6, Weapon Skill 2, Initiative 2.

I don't give a damn that they can move through woods unhindered, when they get to where they're supposed to be they've no staying power and they pretty much auto-fear elves. And it takes a miracle stint of good rolling to charge with Leadership 6.

Yeah, Marauders are fairly priced :rolleyes:

But I do apologise. I shouldn't join in with bringing this up again. Marauders are fair too good without the pursuit re-roll. The question here isn't which of the two units is the better (because I'd say Marauders, any day of the week) it's a question more of 'is a special rule for free fair to every other unit that had to pay for it?' Greenskins aside, this is being applied to some armies and units whilst others have to pay through the nose for the same if not worse level of improvement. The Orc and Goblin debate might be tired, old and repeated throughout the internet, but it is still a valid point if dealt with in the right sentiment.

But then again, if your army was mistreated as much as Orcs and Goblins where, wouldn't you be inclined to rant and rave or leave the army?

logan054
22-09-2008, 23:08
marauders are the same points as empire swordsmen with the same equipment, same stats, larger bases, no detachment rule, i take it you think empire swordsmen are underpriced as well then?

Shamfrit
22-09-2008, 23:13
Comparing Cavalry and Infantry is simply not going to get anywhere. Empire Swordsmen are Ws4, 4+ Save Rank and File troops with Detachment Support, within the Empire list they are well costed and well rounded, probably should be more, or the other Core Units less (depending on how you look at it I suppose) but that's irrelevant. Marauders have a special rule for no apparent cost. Fast Cavalry that re-rolls panic, re-rolls Pursue and comes with 2 Str 5 attacks on the charge? (Unless I am mistaking them for something else?) compared to Spider Riders is just a one sided comparison.

logan054
22-09-2008, 23:34
who said anything about cavalry, i was talking about infantry marauders, you know the ones that cost the same points as empire swordmens with the same equipment, empire swordsmen 6pts, marauder 4pts + light armour 1pts + shield 1pts - 6pts

come on mate, use abit of common sense

Shimmergloom
23-09-2008, 00:30
Spider riders get to move through terrain without penalty, have poisonous attacks and come with spear and shield as standard- Marauder horsemen have actually gone up by 1 point in the new book. To add spears and shields to marauder horsemen costs 3 points (so 17 points in the new book) poison is worth 1-2 points so they will be 18-19 points, 50% more expensive than the spider riders.

Try not to let the Greenskin "Doom wagon of ultimate despair" drag down another thread though.

Well first the maruaders have +1M, +2WS, BS, +2I and +1LD over spider riders and wolfriders other than wolves having +1M over the mauraders. Marauders can also be marked.

Spiders and wolves both have animosity which should make them get a 1-2 discount, in addition to the lower stats and the the positive special rules which marauders are getting for free. Wolves have fast cav as their only positive special rule. Poison is only on the spiders not the goblins and if it's worth 2 pts each then witch elves should cost much more than savages and skinks should cost much more than 6pts each and yet they don't.

This all fits in with the earlier complaint that GW is pasting special rules onto units to cloud the points cost issues.

It's clear however that a 12pt wolf rider which fears elves(20% of all armies) can't move 17% of the time and therefore misses out on 18" of movement is not = to a 14pt marauder which can always move, can re-roll panic checks and can re-roll pursuit moves, has much higher stats overall, can be marked by chaos all for 2 more points.

Complete B.S.

Same with marauders vs goblins. 1pt for a buttload of higher stats, no fear elves, no animosity and can re-roll panic checks.

Crazy Harborc
23-09-2008, 00:54
NOT a flame here folks.......;)

The average age of GW systems users is likely still under 21. The brain completeness/mental matureity of the male human brain occurs between 20 and 23.

Adult experiences are just getting started for most of GW's players. Especially the average newbies.

The male ego "needs" to win. Rules that don't allow each player to always win are not balanced. Army by army, Special rules are not balanced or fair unless a given player's army has one/them. Srs are bad when other players have them too.

Attitude(s), the reasons we play, who we play against/with, are what makes rules good/bad/broken. Opps......almost forgot cheesy.;)

Valaraukar
23-09-2008, 08:41
Shimmergloom: Marauder horsemen do not come with spears or any armour so not quite a fair comparison but yes for their points they work out better but everyone knows O&Gs got screwed particularly in the cavalry department compared to other 7th ed books however that said they are not that overcosted from my experience of using them.

Kerill
23-09-2008, 10:56
Sigh, Spider riders then.

M7 and move through terrain > than M8, but lets assume they are equal
Currently spider rider- 13 points (and 1 point for poison so we'll make it 12 points)
Marauder with spear and shield- 17 points
Spider rider- +2Ws, +2I- 2 points
+1 LD- 1 point
Re-roll pursuit- 1 point

Spider rider with Ws4, I4, Ld7 and re-roll pursuit(removing 1 point for poison)= 16 points.
Spider riders are thus cheaper and fairly costed. We can say that the disadvantage of animosity (which it usually if not always is)- 1 point.
Seems pretty fair to me.

Boar boyz on the other hand are horrifically overpriced but that's a different issue.

Skinks- going from human base stats at 3 points. +2M- +2 points= 5 points
-2LD, -1T= -3 points= 2 points
Cold blooded= +1/2 point= 3/4 points
Blowpipe- 1 point= 4/5 points
so poison is worth 1-2 points on a skink.

Shimmergloom
23-09-2008, 11:20
Shimmergloom: Marauder horsemen do not come with spears or any armour so not quite a fair comparison but yes for their points they work out better but everyone knows O&Gs got screwed particularly in the cavalry department compared to other 7th ed books however that said they are not that overcosted from my experience of using them.

Wolf riders don't come with spears either.

And lt armor does not cancel out the higher WS, I, LD, BS of marauder horsemen.

The +1M wolves have is more than cancelled out by animosity which will cost them a charge or 18" of movement a game or worse wipe or nearly wipe the unit out if you roll a 1 during a waaagh! with them.

Muad'Dib
23-09-2008, 11:25
Kerill, I think you shouldn't really add shield to marauder horsemen in this comparison. Job of Fast cavalry is to hunt other light units, march block and ocasionally hit flanks. Marauders are good to go in those roles without the need to add a shield to make them more expensive...
In the same way I don't think that poison on spiders is any plus for the O&G in this comparison. Fast cavalry is not there to get kills, and poison on mounts will deal usually only 1 wound.
Thus I would say the marauder horsemen indeed come off better in the most important stats - LD, re-roll panic and re-roll pursuit. The goblins have mobility advantage, but they also have animosity.

Kerill
23-09-2008, 11:26
(Sigh)

Wolf rider with light armour and spear 13 points, 5+ save
Marauder as noted 17 points with same kit 5+ save
Wolf rider has +1M (1 point, reduce them to M8 and 12 points)
Add +2Ws and +2I- 2 points
Add +1LD- 1 point
Add re-roll pursuit- 1 point
16 points, 1 point cheaper than marauders. Assume the animosity "curse" is worth -1 point- again the cost is equivalent.

logan054
23-09-2008, 11:28
Same with marauders vs goblins. 1pt for a buttload of higher stats, no fear elves, no animosity and can re-roll panic checks.

Then its the same with empire swordsmen vs goblins who have the detachment rule, difference is that Empire have handguns, crossbows, archers. cannons to back them up. I dont think i have ever seen anyone complain about empire swordsmen... You also get less in combat vs empire swordsmen.

Valaraukar
23-09-2008, 11:29
Spider riders however do come with them I believe and both have the option of taking bows which can make them more versatile. My point was that this example of imbalance by comparing between armies is not very useful as everything has to be taken in context and as I have said there was marked change in design philosophy after the O&G book in terms of cavalry cost. Whilst this certainly does leave an imbalance there seems little point in perpetuating this argument as everyone already knows O&G cavalry is overpriced especially the boar boys. Also as chaos have little shooting which can also be used to counter fast cavalry and harry small units is not available to chaos which may result in a slight points drop as a result it's all about context and not just as simple as two near identical or even identical units should cost the same in different armies as overall this may still result in an imbalance.

Shimmergloom
23-09-2008, 11:41
(Sigh)

Wolf rider with light armour and spear 13 points, 5+ save
Marauder as noted 17 points with same kit 5+ save
Wolf rider has +1M (1 point, reduce them to M8 and 12 points)
Add +2Ws and +2I- 2 points
Add +1LD- 1 point
Add re-roll pursuit- 1 point
16 points, 1 point cheaper than marauders. Assume the animosity "curse" is worth -1 point- again the cost is equivalent.

Mauraders are 14pts each. +1 for shields and +1 for spears make them 16pts.
Wolves are 13pts with spears.
-1pt for M8
+2pts for +2WS and +2I = 14pts.
+1LD = 15pts.
Re-roll pursuit = 16pts.
Re-roll panic checks = 17pts.
No Fear elves which are 20% of warhammer armies and animosity which makes that M9 worthless for 1 turn a game should be +2pts = 19pts.
The ability to take Marks of Chaos, we'll throw that in for free.

So that would mean making wolves 19pts to be equivalent to M. Horsemen who are 16pts kitted out the same.

M. Horsemen are getting a 3pt discount. Wolf riders went up 2pts from 6th to 7th edition.

So yeah.

Kerill
23-09-2008, 12:44
I think you'll find shields are 2 points for marauder horsemen, and pricing fear of elves at 2 points? Remarkable indeed.
Re-roll panic is an army wide rule, I would be stretched to agree that that and "fearing elves" (with Ld7) is worth a single point.

Still if we assume your fear elves is worth 2 points, a basic human is 3 points, goblins have -1Ws and I (-1 point) and 1 less leadership (-1 points) and since you believe animosity is so terrible (-1 point) that in your opinion goblins should cost minus 2 pointw each since they are such a liablility an O&G general should be add 2 points to his army for each one he takes so that a 2000 point army with 200 free goblins should gain an extra 400 points to spend for his army.

Tokamak
23-09-2008, 12:48
Cross army comparisons of individual units is useless anyway.

logan054
23-09-2008, 12:53
I think you'll find shields are 2 points for marauder horsemen, and pricing fear of elves at 2 points? Remarkable indeed.
Re-roll panic is an army wide rule, I would be stretched to agree that that and "fearing elves" (with Ld7) is worth a single point.

Still if we assume your fear elves is worth 2 points, a basic human is 3 points, goblins have -1Ws and I (-1 point) and 1 less leadership (-1 points) and since you believe animosity is so terrible (-1 point) that in your opinion goblins should cost minus 2 pointw each since they are such a liablility an O&G general should be add 2 points to his army for each one he takes so that a 2000 point army with 200 free goblins should gain an extra 400 points to spend for his army.

would that mean i would also lose vps for killing them :rolleyes:

Gobbo Lord
23-09-2008, 13:23
Back to special rules..... The game is gaining too many in my opinion. differences in troops should be saved for stats and point values.

Black Guard have ITP, Stubborn, Warrior Elite....they can gain ASF through a banner and Magic Resistance through an item for the champion. Hell, upgrade the champion to a special character (These guys show up way too often thes days) and they are Unbreakable. Thats six special rules available to one unit.

Tactically flank charging some one? ASF Elves will see to that, or Slime Trail, or Witches Brew, or......

Special Rules are all to often negating the tactical manuvering of the game. When you are not rewarded for setting up a flank or rear charge, Or beaten because the enemy wont ever run and can ridiculessly spam extra skeletons into the fight causing them to only need to win by 1 after a few rounds to break you, then something is wrong.

Shimmergloom
23-09-2008, 16:31
I think you'll find shields are 2 points for marauder horsemen, and pricing fear of elves at 2 points? Remarkable indeed.
Re-roll panic is an army wide rule, I would be stretched to agree that that and "fearing elves" (with Ld7) is worth a single point.

Still if we assume your fear elves is worth 2 points, a basic human is 3 points, goblins have -1Ws and I (-1 point) and 1 less leadership (-1 points) and since you believe animosity is so terrible (-1 point) that in your opinion goblins should cost minus 2 pointw each since they are such a liablility an O&G general should be add 2 points to his army for each one he takes so that a 2000 point army with 200 free goblins should gain an extra 400 points to spend for his army.

It'd be great if you actually read my post. I have fear elves + animosity at 2pts total. And yes getting a special rule that makes you fear 20% of all warhammer armies that do not have the fear special rule is worth at least something in points. And animosity is worth more than 1pt in points reductions. So .5 for the fear elves, 1.5 for animosity and you get 2pts.

And you really no nothing about greenskins if you think that goblins have ld7. They are ld6 or ld5 for night goblins.

Shamfrit
23-09-2008, 16:55
Black Guard have ITP, Stubborn, Warrior Elite....they can gain ASF through a banner and Magic Resistance through an item for the champion. Hell, upgrade the champion to a special character (These guys show up way too often thes days) and they are Unbreakable. Thats six special rules available to one unit.

Uggg, I'm with you on this one Gobbo Lord. Especially since there's usually a Dreadlord/Khaeleth and/or a 7odd attack Death Hag in the unit as well - and then Crimson Death on the Champion, just for kicks.

lord mekri
23-09-2008, 16:57
i myself am quite torn on the issue of special rules. having played warhammer for a number of years (very beginning on 6th edition), as well as a littel bith of WAB and a lot of Mordhiem, i think speicla rules are needed, but may have beocme a bit over used. in truth, i thingk the 6th edition army books were the best we have had so far.
i like the 7th, put it seems like the stakes are being raised, so to speak. its becomeing all about gimmicks.
this is where i am torn. see, fundimentally, if you want a well balanced, tactical game, were it all boils down to tactics and the core rules, WAB does it in spades. in fact, the game is so well designed and so dependant on core rules that it almost doesnt matter what army you play. the stats are nearly idenetical all across the baord (which makes sence, they are all humans). and "army rules" are so small that they barely register.

WFB is not the same as WAB. WAB is about historical armies. WFB is about elves and dwarfs and orcs and vampire and chaos and humans from different eras. WAB doesnt have magic, WFB does.
now, if you just like the Fantasy models, there is nothing to stop you from using themin WAB. empire and brets, and dogs of war fit well withthe mideival seetings, and high elves, wood elves, and warriors of chaos work well in the earlier eras. you just give up all the special thingks about them, like being faster or tougher or better at this or that, and magic. but since one woudlbe doping this because they dont like speicla rules, then that shouldnt be a problem, eh?

hmmm... actually, ranting just gave me my fixed opinion....

for great basics, no frills, no special rules war gaming - WAB
for special rule galore in all its fantasy glory - WFB 7th ed.
for a great fantasy game with fewer special rules - WFB 6th ed.

as a friend of mine once said... just because a game gets a new edition doesnt ean you actually need to use it. if you are not into the tourney scene, and just play mostly at a club or with friends, there is not reason you can;t agree to play 6th instead of 7th. as long as you all agree. and if you the only one who wants to go back... then maybe you need to think about why?

i dont even know what i was trying to say... LOL

ZeroTwentythree
23-09-2008, 17:19
i thingk the 6th edition army books were the best we have had so far.


I agree.

While I look fondly back on 3rd ed, as other people have commented, I think 6th ed. was more streamlined.

I think the WE book is the breaking point for me. (Which is funny, since it's most likely my next army, though I'll only be using limited troop choices.)



in fact, the game is so well designed and so dependant on core rules that it almost doesnt matter what army you play. the stats are nearly idenetical all across the baord (which makes sence, they are all humans). and "army rules" are so small that they barely register.



I totally disagree. Just taking the 2 armies in the core book -- Romans and "Barbarians" -- they play completely different.

The same can be said for most of the other armies. Some periods may be a little more same-y, (I'm not as familiar with chariot era or dark ages), not not most. But that's done largely with army comp, minor stat changes, and a few special rules. Hundred Years War French play differently than HYW English who play differently than the Scots, etc. Greeks play different from Persians who play different from Scythians, etc. You wouldn't mistake one of those for the other.

Prior to the WFB special rule deluge, that's how WFB was as well.




as a friend of mine once said... just because a game gets a new edition doesnt ean you actually need to use it. if you are not into the tourney scene, and just play mostly at a club or with friends, there is not reason you can;t agree to play 6th instead of 7th. as long as you all agree. and if you the only one who wants to go back... then maybe you need to think about why?


I think the gaming crowd is (unfortunately) too obsessive about "official" and "GT rulings" and such.

In fact, I rarely see anyone tweaking rules, scenarios, etc. any more. My old gaming group stuck with 3rd ed. for a long time after 4th ed was released, but it made it difficult to get new players to come in, and made it awkward to play outside the group (stores, conventions, other friends, etc.) The same thing would be true of trying to stick with 6th ed.

Duke Georgal
23-09-2008, 17:43
Cross army comparisons of individual units is useless anyway.

I appreciate the brevity and accuracy of this statement.

I hope that the points costs of some units are calculated by the game designers in comparison to how much extra "punch" they add to a certain army list.

lord mekri
23-09-2008, 18:16
I agree.

While I look fondly back on 3rd ed, as other people have commented, I think 6th ed. was more streamlined.

I think the WE book is the breaking point for me. (Which is funny, since it's most likely my next army, though I'll only be using limited troop choices.)



i play wood elves (among many others) and have to say that while they are swamped with special rules, they are one of the few examples of an army that needs thier special rules to work. this is becuase they are designed to be an army that fights in a way completely at odds with how warhammer armies work. the game rules are not deigned to allow a stiectly skirmish/fast cav army to work well. granted, i think perhaps the number of individual rules coudl have been toned down or simplified, but the fact of the matter is even toned down they need more rules to work thatn most armies.
i am curiosu to see 7th editions version of them - i thigk they might actually get less special rules (because they will likely get one larger army wide rule instead.)



I totally disagree. Just taking the 2 armies in the core book -- Romans and "Barbarians" -- they play completely different.

The same can be said for most of the other armies. Some periods may be a little more same-y, (I'm not as familiar with chariot era or dark ages), not not most. But that's done largely with army comp, minor stat changes, and a few special rules. Hundred Years War French play differently than HYW English who play differently than the Scots, etc. Greeks play different from Persians who play different from Scythians, etc. You wouldn't mistake one of those for the other.

Prior to the WFB special rule deluge, that's how WFB was as well.



you may be right (as i have limited experience - i only payed the two from the main book - i have read others, and want to steer clear of anything past the 1100's), but even the two in the book while playing a buit different dont fele that extreme to me. the best comparison i can make woudl be it felt liek playing 6th ed dark evles next to 6th ed high elves, stiking mostly with core choices (say @ 2000pts, 5 core, 2 special, 1 rare). while a bit different, you kinda have to look for it.
in WAB, yes, the barbarians have more troops, and are a bit scarier on the charge. the general is tougher. the romans are more liekly to hold, have better leadership. they balance very nicely agaisnt each other.
but untimitaly, if you look at armies form the same periods, they basically get the same troop types, with the same stats, with small variations. and i thing we can all agree you shoudlnt face the trojan war greeks with the HYW English.
but perhaps i just need a more subtle pallette to apreicate the differences.



I think the gaming crowd is (unfortunately) too obsessive about "official" and "GT rulings" and such.

In fact, I rarely see anyone tweaking rules, scenarios, etc. any more. My old gaming group stuck with 3rd ed. for a long time after 4th ed was released, but it made it difficult to get new players to come in, and made it awkward to play outside the group (stores, conventions, other friends, etc.) The same thing would be true of trying to stick with 6th ed.


this is of course quite true. its completely dependant on your personal wants and enviroment. i play the same few guys most of the time, so if we wanted to limit ourselves we could. that being said, we love going to games day, and play the tourney there, so we have to stay current. that being said, the armies/games we use at home are quite different to what would go to games day. for isntance, no special characters at home unless agreed well in advance, and only in senarios. at tourny? if they are allowed, bring them. if only to counter the ones that will be across the table from you.
and while in a game at home i might break out the eternal gaurd... they will never see a tournament.

EvC
23-09-2008, 19:19
I appreciate the brevity and accuracy of this statement.

I hope that the points costs of some units are calculated by the game designers in comparison to how much extra "punch" they add to a certain army list.

I think a good way of extrapolating the comparison would be to imagine two typical armies containing the units we're comparing. I'll bet that the Goblin player would happily sacrifice a 6-strong spider rider or wolf rider unit to destroy an enemy 5-man Marauder Horsemen unit- but the Chaos player probably would not want to sacrifice his Horsemen to get rid of a Goblin Spider/ Wolf Rider unit.

Sheena Easton
23-09-2008, 20:48
Special rules alone aren't a problem - increasing use of special rules (especially when they are nothing more than a "rule of cool" like ASF, Eternal Hatred, Marauder Horsemen pursuit..) combined with ever decreasing points costs is a problem.

Personally, I think constantly adding in Special Rules makes things rather bland and takes away from the whole game as well as taking away a lot of the imaginary elements of the background / rules blend (for example a Marauder horseman is an outrider mercelessly running down enemies because it has that rule, not because that is what I imagine them being if that makes sense...).

Worst use of these special rules tacked on has to be ASF for High Elves - mostly because it is obvious that it was plucked straight from the bad CGI scene in the Fellowship Of The Ring film... looking back across different editions, the best army book for the HE was the 4th Ed - which aside from a select few such as Swordmasters fighting in I order, and Eltharion hating O&G units, didn't have a plethora special rules and weren't defined by them: they were defined by background, role within the (background and list) army and models.

Shamfrit
23-09-2008, 21:08
True Sheena, but that's a damned cool scene nevertheless.

Shimmergloom
23-09-2008, 21:43
True Sheena, but that's a damned cool scene nevertheless.

Where's their ASF when Sauron shows up?

Oh that's right, GW game designers must not have watched that far into the movie.

Muad'Dib
23-09-2008, 22:13
Where's their ASF when Sauron shows up?

Oh that's right, GW game designers must not have watched that far into the movie.
Sauron was one step ahead of them and bought Noxious Vapours to counter the AFS...

logan054
23-09-2008, 22:15
Sauron had the "models in base to base contact with the ASF rule now always strike last" see inspiration for VC (seeing as hes kinda like nagash i guess :confused: )

See they did what all the way through the film, you just didnt realize :P

txamil
24-09-2008, 00:37
i play wood elves (among many others) and have to say that while they are swamped with special rules, they are one of the few examples of an army that needs thier special rules to work. this is becuase they are designed to be an army that fights in a way completely at odds with how warhammer armies work. the game rules are not deigned to allow a stiectly skirmish/fast cav army to work well.

I think this is a good point. 6th was a little dull. I really like the direction 7th is going. It's 5th based on troops instead of heroes. The transition I'll admit I'm not super fond of.

And with all due respect, I'm not surprised Skaven players loved 6th ed. By the way, which army had the most special rules in 6th? :rolleyes:
This is the whole pot, kettle, black thing.

Kerill
24-09-2008, 03:06
I agree wood elves need their special rules, so do most armies. The example of Dark Elf units isn't that overwhelming either since most of it isn't their special rules, it's the magic items which allow them. Elven elites do need something to make them different from each other as well as all effective enough to be worthwhile taking.

@Shimmergloom you had already boosted the leadership to 7 for one point, trust me I am fully aware of the army stats.

Shimmergloom
24-09-2008, 03:22
I had boosted ld to 7 for one point, but took away animosity and fear elves for another 2pts.

So your logic that ld7 wolf riders would not have to worry about fear elves is pointless since those ld7 wolf riders would not have the fear elf rule as they were costing about 19pts to get all the rules, stats and abilities of a marauder horsemen, who gets them for 16pts each and if shields continue to be +2pts in the new book, then you are better off without the shields and staying at 15pts each w/spears but only a 6+ save. 5+ save is pretty meaningless vs shooting anyway. I know this from my orcs and spider riders.

If given the choice I would take the old 10pt wolf riders with no armor or spears or 11pt spider riders with no spears or shields any day of the week over the 13pt varieties of both. They like M. Horsemen should primarily exist to draw fire, magic and charges. Anything else is a bonus. So keep them as cheap as possible. At most give them spears if you have a few spare points. Anything else is just giving free extra VPs to the enemy.

Kerill
24-09-2008, 03:34
Tell you what shimmergloom, lets do this via pm and let everyone else continue their discussion freely.

Shimmergloom
24-09-2008, 03:40
I'm not sure why this needs to be PM'd. You think 14pts for M. Horsemen with a buttload of higher stats and positive special rules is just right compared to 12pt wolfriders with lower stats and 2 negative special rules.

You're never going to convince me that these points values are fair and I doubt you'll ever think they are unfair, so there's no need to continue arguing about it, here or in PMs.

kdh88
24-09-2008, 04:21
Special rules alone aren't a problem - increasing use of special rules (especially when they are nothing more than a "rule of cool" like ASF, Eternal Hatred, Marauder Horsemen pursuit..) combined with ever decreasing points costs is a problem.

Personally, I think constantly adding in Special Rules makes things rather bland and takes away from the whole game as well as taking away a lot of the imaginary elements of the background / rules blend (for example a Marauder horseman is an outrider mercelessly running down enemies because it has that rule, not because that is what I imagine them being if that makes sense...).

Worst use of these special rules tacked on has to be ASF for High Elves - mostly because it is obvious that it was plucked straight from the bad CGI scene in the Fellowship Of The Ring film... looking back across different editions, the best army book for the HE was the 4th Ed - which aside from a select few such as Swordmasters fighting in I order, and Eltharion hating O&G units, didn't have a plethora special rules and weren't defined by them: they were defined by background, role within the (background and list) army and models.

I agree to a large extent. Most unique special rules should be on an army level, with units being defined by stats, equipment and maybe one or two of the basic special rules, not counting "category" rules like Fast Cav or Swarms, or list building restrictions like "character X may not join unit type Y".

Lizardmen are a pretty good example of this. You've got a unique army special rules (cold blooded), a few "signature commons" (poison, scaly skin, aquatic and fear) that show up in other armies but are particularly important to LM and a few unique unit rules (Krox charging through skinks, and Spout Flames for instance). The only units that really have a large number of rules are Chameleon Skinks, Slann and Stegadons. Yet, you still get plenty of differentiation within the list (helped by the Sacred Spawnings), and it plays very differently from other armies. The only place it gets a bit wierd are areas where the book is showing its age (like Salamanders not being Monsters and Handlers). The Empire does this pretty well too; it's got one major unique rule (detachemnts), with most of its units being defined by their equipment, statline and a basic special rule; the exceptions are the rare choices and character options.

Incidentally, High Elves are what you get when this philosophy goes wrong and the army defining trait is badly implemented. Specifically, Speed of Asuryan has a detrimental effect on the metagame by encouraging gunlines and uber-magic and causes a number of illogical situations. This could have been avoided without greatly hurting the army by using Always strike in I order instead. The extra slots don't put enough pressure on those slots to force seperation between armies, and wouldn't have been needed with a bit of unit reshuffling. Neither of these were helped by pricing issues or special characters (looking at you Teclis).

Shimmergloom
24-09-2008, 04:42
Always striking in initiative order wouldn't have solved the problem. Most armies don't have high enough I to not worry about striking last when charging.

So dwarfs and empire would still deal with playing against HE by using shooting.

Greenskins would still have to use mass chariots, fanatics and war machines.

Lizzies would still have to use magic and sallies.

And beasts and ogres would still be screwed over.

Instead the ASF rule should have been limited to spears, sea guard and swordmasters, with a magic item that allowed it for one character. And non-scouting shadow warriors(when upgraded to scouts become special), reavers and 1 unit of silver helms if your general is mounted, moved to core.

ZeroTwentythree
24-09-2008, 05:57
And with all due respect, I'm not surprised Skaven players loved 6th ed. By the way, which army had the most special rules in 6th? :rolleyes:
This is the whole pot, kettle, black thing.


Since no one specifically mentioned skaven, I'll assume you're referring to the guys with the skaven icons (me & Shamfrit), in which case you'd be just a little off the mark since we both expressed a preference for fewer special rules. :rolleyes:

Aside from that, I play/played O&G, Empire, and the "Ravening Hordes" versions of Daemons and WE in 6th, so it's not like I'm solely a skaven player.

Not everyone is concerned with making one single army an all-conquering force in the game, in the first place. Most of the previous replies from both sides of the "special rules" issue have been expressed as being in the interest of a more balanced game -- not making one army better than the rest. So if you really want to start yet another "army X and everyone who plays it are teh cheezes" thread, please take it elsewhere. :rolleyes:

Tarax
24-09-2008, 07:21
for great basics, no frills, no special rules war gaming - WAB
for special rule galore in all its fantasy glory - WFB 7th ed.
for a great fantasy game with fewer special rules - WFB 6th ed.


I agree mostly with this. Just one difference, 7th edition is better than 6th, it's just the army books that have come out since then that are worse. Well, maybe not Empire and... wait, yes, Empire too, with 2 Steam Tanks, etc.

Rioghan Murchadha
25-09-2008, 07:04
I agree mostly with this. Just one difference, 7th edition is better than 6th, it's just the army books that have come out since then that are worse. Well, maybe not Empire and... wait, yes, Empire too, with 2 Steam Tanks, etc.

Really? You preferred the 6th ed steam tank rules? The ones where a great many armies could do literally damn near nothing about it?

Tarax
25-09-2008, 07:33
Really? You preferred the 6th ed steam tank rules? The ones where a great many armies could do literally damn near nothing about it?

Actually, in 6th ed there was no Steam Tank in the Army book, just in the Annual/Chronicle.

Embalmed
25-09-2008, 08:06
After giving it some thought I must say I can understand how GW arrived at something like ASF for HE and Hatred for DE. Elite infantry needs to become better, Elves are elite by fluff and what else was there to do? They can't really increase stats. I suppose they could have some 'superior workmanship' rule to make elven equiment better (like gromril), but that would just mean new special rules, which is even worse than old special rules. Besides, what is really needed for elite inf is the ability to defeat very hard hitting units attacking in the front, and ASF provides that.

Though I would maintain that ASF should be reserved for the guys with spears and SMs

silence
25-09-2008, 11:23
If you don't like all the special racial rules, but enjoy many of the core mechanics of WFB have any of you considered WAB?

Personally I like the amount of rules each race gets, makes the game more fantastical rather than true to real world. Its great to have units that can do unique things above and beyond what we mere mortals can manage.
I really enjoy both WFB and WAB, but definatly like all the extra special rules of WFB, and think they should be kept.

DeathlessDraich
25-09-2008, 20:24
Many players who start Fantasy fail to master or even understand basic tactics because they are overwhelmed by certain apparently spectacular abilities of some units or magic item combos until of course they meet a player who knows how to deal with them.
However instead of 'going back to basics' some novices embark on another search for a more potent combo!

Having said that I'm definitely in favour of the unique rules/abilities that distinguishes 1 army from another.

More could be done to make these rules more interesting.

Mireadur
25-09-2008, 21:52
I think 7th ed books, being far from perfect and pleasant, are way more fun and worked up than the 6th ed series.

The main problems with them, and which are responsible of all the 7th ed drama, are the commercial decision made by GW of removing the 0-1 limits to sell more minis and the apparent lack in coherency and communication between developers when writing the books (O&G versus the other).

Rioghan Murchadha
27-09-2008, 04:55
Actually, in 6th ed there was no Steam Tank in the Army book, just in the Annual/Chronicle.

How is that relevant? It was still an official part of the empire army, or did you miss the big stamp in chronicles that said "Official Rules"?

It was also oodles more annoying than the current incarnation of the STank.

Ward.
27-09-2008, 07:55
Always striking in initiative order wouldn't have solved the problem. Most armies don't have high enough I to not worry about striking last when charging.


But it would have made it a lot easier to swallow, none of this bloodthirster striking after bolt thrower crew shenanigans.

Mireadur
27-09-2008, 08:52
I think the 1st person who mentioned the ''always in innitiative order'' meant the rule just for the purposes of 2 handed weapons not striking last. But charges would still strike first as of the BRB.

So yes, it would change a lot of things since would force the HE player to gain the charge advantage or probably get owned. However, it wouldnt solve then the elf pussyness :p

Tarax
27-09-2008, 10:58
How is that relevant? It was still an official part of the empire army, or did you miss the big stamp in chronicles that said "Official Rules"?

It was also oodles more annoying than the current incarnation of the STank.

I was only speaking of the Army Book. The Chronicles came later and brought things that weren't in the Army Books, like Special Characters, which the Games Developers hadn't worked out by then.

Some people don't like Special (or Named) Characters and would complain about that.

On its own, the Empire Army Book (6th ed) was good.

Kerill
27-09-2008, 11:47
The 6th edition steam tank was obscenely powerful (largely due to how hard it was to hurt), but I wish they had left some of the cool options for the stank like the fighting platform etc. since they made it more interesting.

Shamfrit
27-09-2008, 11:58
Sword Masters used to strike in Initiative Order and ignored the fact that they had Great Weapons, so it's not as if that sort of thing for High Elves hasn't been thought of before. ASF for the army is not overpowering on any unit except Sword Masters, it's as simple as.

Nomad
27-09-2008, 21:23
Does anyone else think that the new High Elves book would be better if they only had ASF when fighting enemies to the front? It seems like it would have made High Elf elite infantry more viable than last edition, while still forcing them to stay fairly mobile to avoid being flanked, and avoiding weirdness like flank charges being more effective than rear charges against High Elves.

Manny Xero
28-09-2008, 06:01
I honestly think that special rules are fine as long as the are not totally over riding the core rules.
Imagine a unit of Drunk Goblin Beserkers:
M4 WS3 BS3 S3 T3 W1 I2 A2 Ld6
Stupidity, ASF in the first round of combat.

This would be an very interesting unit to take because of the special rules. Stupidity on Ld6 means that they are very prone to fumbling around. GW has already done units like that (Chaos Trolls, etc) Having the ASF variant makes them actractive too as they can take a charge. This is much better than the same unit with no special abilites, as they can take a charge. It is also better than the same unit with the basic ASF as an enemies I stat is not put to waste and takes away from the game.

clanfield
28-09-2008, 07:47
iv been gameing with the high elves scince 3rd eddition and i feel the currant codex is the best one scince the yellow backed 4th eddition book
that being said asf seems stupid to me i liked the sword masters being unique in this regard what the high elves needed they sort of got which was a points adjustment however the high elves are still a bland army not fluff wise but in the equipment that they are offerd they do what they say on the tin however they and the dark elves are now a mirror of each other the druchi being aggresive and the asur defensive seems to me that the designer went woot cool i can do thie uber thing isnt that fun
which is apprant in the latest white dwarf with the notes on the new space marine codex the designers run lose and the books arnt realy checked anymore
kind sucks

lparigi34
02-10-2008, 15:06
ASF + Strikes Last

Should be changed by default so they nullify each other, making the unit to fight in initiative order. GW are not less heavy 'cos you have better reflexes...

just my cent...

Malorian
02-10-2008, 15:21
Does anyone else think that the new High Elves book would be better if they only had ASF when fighting enemies to the front? It seems like it would have made High Elf elite infantry more viable than last edition, while still forcing them to stay fairly mobile to avoid being flanked, and avoiding weirdness like flank charges being more effective than rear charges against High Elves.

Flanked HE units are still in big trouble even with ASF, and even though they will often get more attacks when hit in the rear they are still down 2CR for being hit in the rear. (Plus rear charges just don't happen that often unless it's a dragon, and in that case the HE unit is doomed anyway.)