PDA

View Full Version : The direction for 8th Ed.



Petey
03-03-2009, 03:49
In each edition of the game, for fantasy or 40k the game designers seem to have a vision of where they want the game to go. In the nineties, both games went to brighter colors and a sillier theme. These last years (since ravening hordes) the games have gotten darker and the rules more streamlined. What do folks want to see on a grand scope; more of the same, or a divergence? simpler or more complex? gritty or more high fantasy?

Runt Nosher
03-03-2009, 04:07
I know that I would LIKE to see a grittier, true to form pitched battle type setting, but with the latest army books I get the feeling they are leaning toward more of a 'high' fantasy approach. With High Elf Dragons getting a buff, Special Character Shaggoths, and generally just more better monsters as special/rare/character choices that would be stating the obvious. When you look at what an individual RnF foot slogger unit is capable in 7th I would say 'high' fantasy is also the trend. Black Guard doing what they do, ward saves and regeneration being almost common place among the last 5 books, it is definitely not just Infantry/Cavalry/Hero hammer anymore but an approach to a FANTASY GAME, and that's the main reason that I play it.

OldMan
03-03-2009, 11:40
I would hate it becaming even more high fantasy. In my opinion WFB was always too unrealistic and too high fantasy, especialy when compared to its RPG incarnation.

I also want more complex rules. I dont want WFB becoming new WH40. Besides, i miss redirecting charges, and overlaping.

2d6
03-03-2009, 11:52
Warhammer is all about high fantasy, and while i'd like to keep away from the herohammer of 3rd edition there has to be dragons, wizards and other large nasties.

There are other options for those who want more down to earth and grittier games
(Warhammer ancient battles for one, you can still use fantasy miniatures if you prefer)

I'm happy with the current style, the major change i'd like to see is fine tuning of magic,
which currently swings between being dominant, or doing nothing.

W0lf
03-03-2009, 11:54
darker and more complicated.

simpler ftl

Hubman
03-03-2009, 12:03
I voted for both "Change" and "More of the same".

Change because I would really like to see a huge improvement in the army books - balance has been sliding a lot since the introduction of 7th Edition.

More of the same because the core rules really aren´t that bad: only a few minor tweaks are needed to keep this game playable. Some rules require actual change (weapons particularly) while others merely need better writing to make them more clear for all.

Kind regards,

Hubman

redben
03-03-2009, 12:15
Warhammer is all about high fantasy, and while i'd like to keep away from the herohammer of 3rd edition there has to be dragons, wizards and other large nasties.

3rd ed? I want to see a return to the slightly more complex rules of 3rd ed. I can't say I regarded it as Herohammer.

Having recently returned to the game after a long absence I missed Ancient Battles. It's a game I would love to try.

Ixquic
03-03-2009, 12:38
Getting rid of Gav Thorpe was a good step, now if Matt Ward is banned from ever touching an army book again it might turn out great.

selone
03-03-2009, 12:58
Indeed Ixquic though he left us with the VC and DE book, I just wish they'd produce a rules book with the rules in.

Desert Rain
03-03-2009, 16:10
The rules are good, just a few tweeks are needed to make them work really well.
I don't like the current inflation of über-troops which seems to be appearing in every army book in at least one way. Less focus on these über-units and the characters and more focus on more 'ordinary' units, like in the 6th edition.
Magic items and huge monsters are a big part of the game and I definetly want them to stay, though some of them needs to be toned down.
I would also prefer if the game got darker and grittier, a little closer to how it's described in the novels and in WFRP.

Bac5665
03-03-2009, 16:22
I want

weapons other than HW+S to matter.
Dragons not to be so game changing.
Overall, as little rock-paper-scissors as possible.

Those are the big changes warhammer needs.

galad
03-03-2009, 16:38
I did not pick any of those choices. I would prefer for them to clarify the rules and balance out the army books more. Making the army rock-paper-scissors where one army is better against another army is fine IMO but the current trend is rock-paper-scissors where rock beats paper and scissors and that needs to stop.

Ixquic
03-03-2009, 17:00
Rock paper scissors is stupid since if I'm scissors why the hell would I ever want to play rock?

zak
03-03-2009, 17:07
I did not like the recent dumbing down of the rules that I have seen since 5th edition. They have tried to make it easier to play for the new 'young' players, whereas I prefered the more individual rules that were in 5th edition. They really need to sort out magic as I don't think they have ever got it right so far in any edition.

Harwammer
03-03-2009, 17:11
The rules need to be simpler; this will not neccesary impact tactical complexity.

They need the 5th ed rule book art back; cold ones sniffing butts, etc.

Condottiere
03-03-2009, 17:11
Slightly more realistic combat rules and more balanced lists.

RossS
03-03-2009, 17:24
I would like to see a return to, what some on this board, seem to define as "low fantasy;" less of an emphasis on heroes and monsters, and more of an emphasis on movement and core units.

Also, I really want to see the return of wit and humor to the game and its setting. The "grim dark" is getting out of hand.

Hiratu
03-03-2009, 20:39
I agree with the above post. I'd like to see less of an imphasis on how "dark" everything is, we get it GW the warhammer world is a scary place to live, move on.

Also, would like to see the role of characters changed somehow. Right now they are (for the most part) either killy, magic support, or a combo of the two (VC, TK). There's got to be some way to differentiate them more than just varying levels of those roles.

Peegore
03-03-2009, 21:27
My thoughts are along the lines of Condottiere and W0lf.

The slide towards simpler rules over the last few editions doesn't seem to have reduced the number of FAQ's and rules queries at all, nor does it seem to have pulled the kiddies away from 40K into fantasy.

Give the rules ( and the players ) the complexity they deserve ( heck, for beginners/ kids/ lightweights, just supply a 'lite' version of rules with the 8th edition box set and let them be happy with that ). And playtest the ar$e off them. and the army books.

And bring back Toumas Pirinen. Top man, he was... In fact a testament to how lacklustre some of the recent staff have been is that I just can't remember their names as I'm typing.... Oh and Adrian Wood. That man was an orc...

Let's just all be thankfull they are still in business I suppose... ( What .. no Games Workshop... 50% of Warseer posters would go cold turkey due to the lack of " cr*ppy and broken " rules to complain about ;) Oh, other 50%. They'd grab their 6th edition books and exclaim " well, they had it about right I suppose... and I like lapping around and 4 frontage anyway")

I voted more complex BTW.

-Grimgorironhide-
03-03-2009, 21:37
I think the core rules are quite solid bar some twicks and getting a better magic phase balance.

Currently the army books are what have been causing the real imbalance. IMO They should get the dominators (VC's and Daemons and possibly DE (but they really just need a few point adjustmants. ie. 15pt Black guard, 200pt Hydra, POK 55pts) and the weaker books (Oand G,Ogres, BOC etc.) and put them into a ravening Hordes type list so that they we don't have to wait for them all to be better balanced.

cheers.

ScalySkin
03-03-2009, 22:53
I would like to see the march blocking rules changed, I think units should always be able to march, but any enemy unit within 8" should get a free attack against that unit. This would make it harder for players to take the boring play for a draw option.

Necromancy Black
04-03-2009, 01:23
I want mroe complicated, layered system of rules. But....

I WANT RULES THAT ARE ACTUALLY WRITTEN WELL!!!!

At GW's current rate a simpleir rules set is still going to be full of poor rules, loop wholes and situations without rulings.

Petey
04-03-2009, 02:11
I would like to see the march blocking rules changed, I think units should always be able to march, but any enemy unit within 8" should get a free attack against that unit. This would make it harder for players to take the boring play for a draw option.

March blocking is basically there to make shooting armies work at all, since panic doesn't. I might agree that they need a reform, like to say that you can't march if the enemy nearby is Unit Strength 5+, etc or something, but then you ld need to make great eagles have a special rule or be bought in larger unit sizes than one.
I would like the rules to be more like medieval/ancient combat, but they re really a long way from that. The more reading I've been doing lately, as well as analysis from history buffs that I trust, tells me that Warhammer is way off, and seems unrepairable, oh well, i can only hope it gets better...

Conotor
04-03-2009, 02:35
I think it should be more intuitive. Spearmen and halberdiers should beat cavalry, infantry with shields should beat shooting, ect.

There also needs to be more intensive to cross the table, so more combat occers.

Shooting also needs to be more strategic.

Stmr5000
04-03-2009, 02:40
I agree with the above post in that spears need some kind of bonus against cavalry. It has been established since Babylon that horses hate running at a metal wall of spikes. However, cavalry also needs some kind of bonus on the charge, like a minus to their opponents leadership.

Master Stark
04-03-2009, 02:42
Well, an alternating activation sequence rather than the you-go-I-go system would be a great place to start.

Make all striking in initiative order rather than chargers always go first, GW's always go last, etc. Then you could add initiative bonuses for certain things. +2 for charging, +2 for halberds, +2 for lances, etc.

Volker the Mad Fiddler
04-03-2009, 03:05
My thoughts are along the lines of Condottiere and W0lf.

The slide towards simpler rules over the last few editions doesn't seem to have reduced the number of FAQ's and rules queries at all, nor does it seem to have pulled the kiddies away from 40K into fantasy.

Give the rules ( and the players ) the complexity they deserve ( heck, for beginners/ kids/ lightweights, just supply a 'lite' version of rules with the 8th edition box set and let them be happy with that ). And playtest the ar$e off them. and the army books.

And bring back Toumas Pirinen. Top man, he was... In fact a testament to how lacklustre some of the recent staff have been is that I just can't remember their names as I'm typing.... Oh and Adrian Wood. That man was an orc...

Let's just all be thankfull they are still in business I suppose... ( What .. no Games Workshop... 50% of Warseer posters would go cold turkey due to the lack of " cr*ppy and broken " rules to complain about ;) Oh, other 50%. They'd grab their 6th edition books and exclaim " well, they had it about right I suppose... and I like lapping around and 4 frontage anyway")

I voted more complex BTW.

I can't see Tuomas coming back. I got to talk to him while he was visiting the film school [video game design program] and he seemed much happier at Action Pants than GW. Of course, I can't speak for him, but it would very much surprise me to see him at GW again.

Hubman
04-03-2009, 11:00
Well, an alternating activation sequence rather than the you-go-I-go system would be a great place to start.

Make all striking in initiative order rather than chargers always go first, GW's always go last, etc. Then you could add initiative bonuses for certain things. +2 for charging, +2 for halberds, +2 for lances, etc.

I disagree with your first remark: the turn system is sound and has been for as long as I play it. It is very difficult to change it into something new and better - I certainly don´t see a solution that would actually improve the game. Furthermore, from playing games that did have alternating movement/combat (based on initiative more or less), I learnt that it is very difficult if not impossible to develop a coherent plan and stick to it. Your plan could be disrupted with every move the enemy makes and you could wound up doing nothing of your first choice plan - instead you keep responding to your enemy´s plan. In the WFB turn sequence, at least you get to execute your own plan. It might not all be succesful mind you!;)

Weapon changes are badly needed yes. Great Weapons, spear and halberds really require some working over.

Kind regards,

Hubman

Master Stark
04-03-2009, 14:58
I disagree with your first remark: the turn system is sound and has been for as long as I play it.

It works, in the same way that a model-T ford works. It will get the job done, but there are better ways to do it.


It is very difficult to change it

Well, it's a wishlist isn't it? I can only wish...


I learnt that it is very difficult if not impossible to develop a coherent plan and stick to it. Your plan could be disrupted with every move the enemy makes and you could wound up doing nothing of your first choice plan - instead you keep responding to your enemy´s plan.

You can't make a plan, because you keep responding to your enemies plan?

Well, if your enemy has a plan, and you are responding to it, then I can only conclude it must be possible to form plans in alternating action sequence games!

The GW system is built around the I-GO-U-GO system, and it's what we know and love. But a system that lets both players move their forces more-or-less simultaneously is a much more accurate mirror of an actual battle. Further, it allows players immediate responses, and keeps both players involved in each turn.

As it is, if you trust your opponent, you can simply go outside for a smoke, or eat a sandwhich or something during his movement phase, because all you are needed for is charge reactions.

It all comes down to personal taste, really. And GW gamers in particular are extremely resistant to change, which of course will colour their opinion of anything 'new'. But those who get out and play other games from other companies soon realise how much fun it would be to port some rules from other games into WHFB, and how much WHFB would benefit from it.

Hubman
04-03-2009, 16:24
You can't make a plan, because you keep responding to your enemies plan?

Well, if your enemy has a plan, and you are responding to it, then I can only conclude it must be possible to form plans in alternating action sequence games!

You got me there Master Stark...I used the wrong word. Substitute "enemy´s plan" for "enemy´s moves". Moves aren´t necessarily part of a larger plan.:) Should have been more sharp, I was setting myself up for that response!:(

While I understand that change can be frightening, it can be an improvement too. I was sceptical of 6th Edition at first, but after it came out I was convinced very fast... It was something that needed to be done and in a way I feel that most lessons of 6th Edition have now become lost in the horrors of the 7th Edition army book rules creep...:mad:

I will welcome a change for the better. As of now I´ve not seen a reason why the turn system would have to be changed. Perhaps you can enlighten me? What do the competitor´s games use instead of "I go, you go"?

Kind regards,

Hubman

Stmr5000
04-03-2009, 21:22
Maybe they should change it to a model similar to LotR, where you and your opponent both do your movement, then move on to magic, then shooting, then combat. Also, always strike first needs to be changed a little bit. Say if your opponents initiative is two or three higher then yours, the strike first doesn't count.

Nicha11
04-03-2009, 22:11
I can't believe so many people want the background to be darker.

Any more dark and my Lizardmen will be sitting around in corners smoking pot all day and composing depressing lyrics.

In 40k the grim dark has gotten over the top, I don't want that to happen to fantasy too.

On a related topic most of fantasy's grim dark stems from "Chaos is going to win everntually".
Personnaly I think that this is just Gw saying "Look Chaos players just because you haven't won yet after X1000 years of trying doesn't mean you won't.

Because at the rate Chaos is going the next Everchosen is going to be greeted by automatic fire when he leaves the wastes.

Tae
05-03-2009, 00:02
I don't know whether you would call it making the rules 'simpler' or not, but what I would, personally, love to see is something more akin to 40k in terms of things being more clear cut.

Maybe it's just the gaming group I'm in, but 40k never has anywhere near the amount of 'time-wasting' with continuous questioning of the rules. In virtually every game there seems to be another situation/circumstance that isn't EXACTLY covered by the rules so ends up in another debate/rulebook flicking session.

And this isn't because the group is filled with kids (which, ironicly, our 40k player base is) as it includes a good 3/4 UK GT finalists.

Don't get me wrong, I love the tatical requirements for manouvering, charge arcs etc. etc. but just sometimes it makes me want to just bang my head against the desk and scream in frustration at the irritation of it sometimes.

wallacer
05-03-2009, 01:11
I would like the rulebook to contain rules for skirmish games, rules for sieges, loads of different scenarios and rules for running campaigns.

ChaosVC
05-03-2009, 01:21
I know the rules for sieges was not very well recieved, I have played only a couple of sieges in my whole 9 years of warhammer and find it rather dull. I hope there are some improvement to it.

Master Stark
05-03-2009, 05:49
You got me there Master Stark...I used the wrong word. Substitute "enemy´s plan" for "enemy´s moves". Moves aren´t necessarily part of a larger plan.:) Should have been more sharp, I was setting myself up for that response!:(

;)

You gotta be careful on teh intarwebs!


I will welcome a change for the better. As of now I´ve not seen a reason why the turn system would have to be changed. Perhaps you can enlighten me? What do the competitor´s games use instead of "I go, you go"?

Kind regards,

Hubman

It certainly doesn't need to be changed. I just think it would be a beneficial change.

You'd definately have to rethink your ideas of moving your army, and of having a 'plan'. Every time you move a unit, your opponent gets a chance to respond. Which makes you think a lot harder about how you are going to implement your plan. It challenges a player a lot more, because you can't just forge ahead with your plan simply because your opponent doesn't get a chance to react until his turn. He can move to interrupt your plan, so you have to be able to anticipate his reactions to your moves, and have your counter-moves planned in advance.

It's much more involving for both players, and is much more 'realistic' (although I use the term with reservation) because it gets both forces moving at once.

There are various ways to implement a system like this. You can take it in turns activating units, or you can break your force into groups and take it in turns to move a group, or you can use a system like LotR where you move your forces, then I move my forces, then you shoot, then I shoot.

Hubman
05-03-2009, 08:12
I would like the rules to be more like medieval/ancient combat, but they re really a long way from that. The more reading I've been doing lately, as well as analysis from history buffs that I trust, tells me that Warhammer is way off, and seems unrepairable, oh well, i can only hope it gets better...

Hey Petey,

Can you elaborate please? Why is it way off and why should it be beyond repair?

From reading ancient texts (like Polybios and Livy) on 4th to 2nd century BC warfare, I noticed that 4th and 5th Edition WFB were very much in line with what I read in the ancients. Then 6th and 7th Edition eliminated some of the typically ancient rules, like Panic tests for the army when your general is killed and Panic tests while in combat. In my view the units give WFB the medieval flavour, while ancient warfare supplies the bulk of the actual rules.

Yes, certain weapons aren´t as useful as they were in real history, notably the longbow, spear and halberd. It is very difficult to give them their historic abilities against cavalry without upsetting other game mechanics (armour saves). Generally, infantry armed with spears or halberds that stood against cavalry usually beat the horsemen. However, that rarely occurred as the medieval heavy cavalry were shock troops and most infantry -despite their arms- dared not to stand and receive...they often wavered and fled. This would be historically correct but much harder to implement in the game.

Kind regards,

Hubman

Hubman
05-03-2009, 08:25
It certainly doesn't need to be changed. I just think it would be a beneficial change.

You'd definately have to rethink your ideas of moving your army, and of having a 'plan'. Every time you move a unit, your opponent gets a chance to respond. Which makes you think a lot harder about how you are going to implement your plan. It challenges a player a lot more, because you can't just forge ahead with your plan simply because your opponent doesn't get a chance to react until his turn. He can move to interrupt your plan, so you have to be able to anticipate his reactions to your moves, and have your counter-moves planned in advance.

It's much more involving for both players, and is much more 'realistic' (although I use the term with reservation) because it gets both forces moving at once.

There are various ways to implement a system like this. You can take it in turns activating units, or you can break your force into groups and take it in turns to move a group, or you can use a system like LotR where you move your forces, then I move my forces, then you shoot, then I shoot.

I don´t mind more of a challenge, but there are time constraints as well. In my experience I´ve found that the movement phase takes the longest simply because the player has to conjure up an image of what will happen if he moves unit X to position Y - what will the enemy do? And he has to do this for very unit... Exchanging the current turn system for an initiative-based flowing movement system will certainly be more challenging to most, but it would also increase the time each movement phase would take. I realise your and the enemy´s movement phase would be merged, but despite the merging I think there will be an increase in the amount of time a movement phase requires as players will need to think more.

I know a few players who are too slow to play a 6-turn battle in 2 hours already. I sometimes struggle with that too when playing HE/WE. I´m quicker with LM and Brets.

I find that in the current system, opponents already get a chance to disrupt your own plans whenever they move.

Kind regards,

Hubman