PDA

View Full Version : Initiative order and charges.



Gyulkus Chaos Saurus
26-04-2010, 20:07
So according to grimstonefire's stickied 8th edition rules rumors, fighting in initiative order is now a "reliable" rumor. I do not like this at all. Why would they do something like that? Why would anyone ever want to charge now? If my basic infantry have spears (which alot of armys do) then why charge when I can stand still, get more attacks, and still strike first (or last, which would happen anyway. They've ruined some of the strategy in my opinion. Does anyone think this is a good thing? and if so why?

Also Charges apparently aren't going to double your movement anymore, and are now your normal movement value plus a D6 or 2D6. This is silly considering that a charge could now be like 5 inches and its just too random and stupid to be able to build a strategy invloving charges. What does this really add tot he game?

Kayosiv
26-04-2010, 20:10
I'd imagine there'd be at least some bonus to initiative for chargers, or at least that is how I understood it worked in previous editions.

Random example based on nothing, chargers get +2 initiative.

Talos
26-04-2010, 20:14
This is one of the rumours I am a bit worried about. I think it will take a little bit of skill out of the game as there is not much point setting up charges.
But will have to see how it actually works and if there is any bonus for charging or any disadvantage to being charged.

Gyulkus Chaos Saurus
26-04-2010, 20:14
While that would be better I suppose, I still dont understand what was wrong with the old system. if its not broken don't fix it.

Emeraldw
26-04-2010, 20:14
I'd imagine there'd be at least some bonus to initiative for chargers, or at least that is how I understood it worked in previous editions.

Random example based on nothing, chargers get +2 initiative.

We could also get some offensive bonus as well, like +1 str (+1 attack might be a little much, especially with two ranks).

Right now, movement matters far more than Initiative. This change will be a good improvement towards making that Int stat rather valuable.

Edit: It wasn't broken, it was just more or less useless. Charging means a lot and under the current 7th ed system, things with high movement like monsters or cavalry would charge in with little to fear. And with the ability to wipe out the front rank, they could charge units even in the front if they have proper killing power and nothing can attack back. Now, they have to respect what infantry they charge more than before.

Replicant253
26-04-2010, 20:18
Although concerned I am tentatively in favour. Like yourself I am wondering what the point of charging will be and I am theorizing that you will get a healthy bonus to your initiative if you are the charger or some other bonus, an extra attack as per 40k, or perhaps even both.

I like that they are making initiative stat mean something. This way they won't need silly army wide ASF rules to help out certain armies (which I agree need it), that ability becomes enshrined in a base core rule stat.

So at this stage reserved optimism.

Idle Scholar
26-04-2010, 20:18
Also with the step up rule I'd expect most of the time both sides will get their full two ranks of attacks anyway, provided they're not small units before combat begins.

SeaSwift
26-04-2010, 20:29
@ Replicant 253 - don't call army-wide ASF silly. Sure it was a wierd remedy to a poison that didn't need to be there/ was solvable through an easier method, but the resulting Army Book (I guess HE...) was a pretty internally and externally balanced book, I think. (Avoiding conversation about Star Dragons, that is...)

However, I agree about Initiative meaning something. I don't like the 'Extra Attack' thing, because then spears will have just as many attacks on the charge as staying put and recieving it, like spears are s'posed to do. In fact, they will have more, since if 2 ranks attack, then three for spears, then assuming you have a frontage of 5 and no characters that's 15 attacks for spearmen. Charging, 2 ranks will attack twice = 20 attacks. No way.

Grimstonefire
26-04-2010, 20:59
With the picture constantly changing, getting to see the 8th ed puzzle is hard.

Why they would feel the need to change to striking in initiative order is beyond me really. Logically I can see the reasons why, if models fight in initiative order they should extend that to charging as well. But that is one thing I thought worked perfectly well before.

Chargers potentially striking last is a strange thought, especially against a cavalry charge.

Until we get to see the whole picture I think trying to look at something (only rumoured) in isolation is not good. For instance, there has been rumoured a change to ASF, and to overrun 'impact' hits. Both of which could shed some light on why they changed to initiative combat.

vinush
26-04-2010, 21:06
This just makes me think the game is turning into Warhammer Fantasy: 40k edition.

Combat in initiative order, double 6 and double 1 are miscasts, no weapon bonuses to strength, etc.

I may just end up playing 7th edition and ignoring 8th!

What worries me the most is that it is supposed to be a totally new game rather than an update to the old game, but older army books will still be useable in the new game. How?!?

THE \/ince

CaliforniaGamer
26-04-2010, 22:09
No bonus for charging is so counter-intuitive and bizarre I simply dont buy it at all. Why would you ever charge? Random ranges, failed charges putting your butt in awkward positions. The risk vs. reward simply isnt there.

There HAS to be something more to this: either an impact hit at base strength, init bonus, +1 attack, +1 to hit...something.

Avian
26-04-2010, 22:14
Seems to me that what you want to do is set up combo charges, with multiple units charging the same enemy unit, now that you can get a lot more out of your fighting stats than before.



No bonus for charging is so counter-intuitive and bizarre I simply dont buy it at all. Why would you ever charge? Random ranges, failed charges putting your butt in awkward positions. The risk vs. reward simply isnt there.
Where is the risk, exactly?

Hicks
26-04-2010, 22:28
I don't really care if charging doesn't make you strike first, but I kinda agree that it should still grant some kind of bonus.

But even if it doesn't, it doesn't mean that charging becomes useless at all. Close combat units will still need to charge if they want to kill stuff and flank and back charges still give you a pretty big advantage.

Grimstonefire
26-04-2010, 23:16
The other benefits of course are that you can line up charges for overrun moves if you are the aggressor. Also, the timing of combats are crucial. If you need to beat an enemy before another unit arives to flank/rear charge you, you need it to be over quickly. These are both very good reasons to charge.

It also levels the playing field for dwarfs! Until you remember they will probably be striking last as standard.

CaliforniaGamer
27-04-2010, 00:35
Seems to me that what you want to do is set up combo charges, with multiple units charging the same enemy unit, now that you can get a lot more out of your fighting stats than before.



Where is the risk, exactly?

Risk=failed charge which exposes you to either an overpowering counter charge or a lethal exposing of a flank/rear.

Reward=nothing if attacks are purely in int. order. Your best bet is merely to turtle and let the enemy come to you, withering them if you can in the magic and shooting phases.

this would eventually lead to the dreaded Failhammer.

there HAS to be some advantage for charging: +1 to hit, +1 attack, something.

SideshowLucifer
27-04-2010, 01:40
I'll go on a limb and say there will be an initiative bonus for charging, as well as the ability to overun if your break your enemy.

Bedsheets
27-04-2010, 02:00
I think a lot of heads will be turned in July.

ChaosVC
27-04-2010, 02:28
Yay! GW is giving us a whole new warhammer 41k!!!

Solar_Eclipse
27-04-2010, 02:29
Yay! GW is giving us a whole new warhammer 41k!!!

Yay! The complaining has started!!! I couldn't wait!!!

Seriously, they are so different its not funny.

vinush
27-04-2010, 04:47
You speak like you've read the new edition solar.

THE \/ince

ChaosVC
27-04-2010, 04:51
I can't wait for my AP1 sword. XD

Dark14
27-04-2010, 07:09
looks like 40k to me but what can you expect from gw nowadays. To bad the real players will leave and play the old way in there own groups. All this is doing is shifting the problems from monsters/cav to GW's/gunlines. If you are not moving fast dwarves will NEVER try to move...nor will you catch my wood elves or shadestars. Without marching bolt throwers will make double there points back i believe to. No more manouvering either.

Crovax20
27-04-2010, 07:25
whinefest has started indeed. What do we know right now? Charges will get a random d6 element added to it. Combat will be in initiative order.

That reads like suck doesn't it? However, when we contemplate the situation, why would we add a random d6 to charging if it does not give you any bonus what so ever. Of course flanking would still net you bonuses, but was flanking so overpowered in the current edition? No because everyone can do it and its not based on some uber stats of your army. And with random charge distances you level the playing field even more between different armies.

So it seems to me there is something missing here, random charge and combat in initiative order and ??????. It seems like we will just have to wait untill someone comes out and tells us if there is a missing part to the charging rumors right now. For all we know the charger could get 1 free CR, +1 to hit, -1 for the opponent to hit him, +2 leadership bonus, there are so many variables they could add to the charge that would stop work quite well with the step up rules.

Dark14
27-04-2010, 07:33
we have a lack of faith in a company that has fed us poorly for to long. We have very good reason to believe it will become the "other" game and its one race that all gamers hate. 40k marines get more hate than all other games even WOW....

Griefbringer
27-04-2010, 07:41
Sounds like a return to WHFB 3rd edition to me: back then charging did not made you strike first, instead you received +1 to hit on the first turn of combat and +1 to combat resolution (and some weapons could also provide additional bonuses on charge).

yabbadabba
27-04-2010, 08:04
To bad the real players will leave and play the old way in there own groups..... I've lost count of the number of times GW has announced bringing out a new edition of a game and somebody prophesises armageddon.

The "real" players are the ones who are still here edition after edition from when they started, adapting, moving with the flow and getting the maximum amount of enjoyment out of every rule set. "Real" players accept the challenges of the changes, and don't just run off because someone moves the goal posts. "Real" players accept that GW are a business and will try and get money out of their gamers with every new edition. "Real" gamers look forward to these new editions and take the time to understand the changes in a holisitic way.

Dareus
27-04-2010, 08:43
"Real" gamers don't play crappy games just because they are made by their favorite company.

And this sounds like crap up to now. To be honest I don't really understand people telling everyone NOT to complain about really bad rumours (or what they think to be bad rumours). Of course final judgement only can be made with all facts known but in a discussion forum like this one I see critically discussing rumours as perfectly legit just as telling everyone that anything will be fine (without knowing all the facts, too).

Concerning the return to the 3rd Edition of Warhammer....
I started with the 4th so I might be wrong on this but there weren't that many units with 2+ attacks and strenght 4 upwards around back then, were they? That might turn out to be a real difference as back then a unit which fought and won might have won another battle after the first one. In the current enviroment a unit which fought and won a battle is likely to be "used up". And you can't change much about this by charging/striking first and getting less attacks back. Just move in contact (or not ... silly stuff) and dice it out.

Urgat
27-04-2010, 08:48
we have a lack of faith in a company that has fed us poorly for to long.

And yet you still play their games. Maybe it's time for a reassessment don't you think?

ahtf
27-04-2010, 09:37
Nothing wrong in commenting bad rumors etc. But the doomsday prophesis becomes abit boring to read, especially when they are based on rumors.

I dont have anything against the supposed change of the charge rule. I hope however tha charges will give you a bonus to iniative in the first round of combat. Like someone else posted the change will lead to people beeing more careful when charging big infantry blocks.

the only thing that really worries me with the new rule is that some armies will be horrible new armybooks come out. Seriously my tombking will not hit first in many fights... :/ and since most of them are quite squishy it will make close combat quite horrible.

ChaosVC
27-04-2010, 09:51
Hmm so if charges really becomes a dicy thing instead of a good judgment? Who would want to risk a bad dice roll by declaring a charge that have a good chance of failing and get charged instead ? Or does it really even matters since striking first depends on initiative. What exactly is the benefit of pulling off a charge now then? Gaining time?

logan054
27-04-2010, 09:54
While that would be better I suppose, I still dont understand what was wrong with the old system. if its not broken don't fix it.

I imagine the reason they have done this is so infantry cant actually fight of cavalry, current system is far from perfect hence why most armies are just characters, cav and monsters. What it it also does is makes I value alot more important because currently its only really used in prolonged combats and i can think of alot that dont last more than a turn.


To bad the real players will leave and play the old way in there own groups. All this is doing is shifting the problems from monsters/cav to GW's/gunlines. If you are not moving fast dwarves will NEVER try to move...nor will you catch my wood elves or shadestars. Without marching bolt throwers will make double there points back i believe to. No more manouvering either.

Yeah they say that every edition, funny thing is those people are still playing and enjoying the current edition, i seem to recall everyone wanting to to play 6th and ignore 7th because of the miscate tables.


I've lost count of the number of times GW has announced bringing out a new edition of a game and somebody prophesises armageddon.

Well, you obviously cant count very high, we are only on 7th ed now :p

ChaosVC
27-04-2010, 09:59
I imagine the reason they have done this is so infantry cant actually fight of cavalry, current system is far from perfect hence why most armies are just characters, cav and monsters. What it it also does is makes I value alot more important because currently its only really used in prolonged combats and i can think of alot that dont last more than a turn.




That has little to do with the core rules and alot to do with bad army book designs.

Avian
27-04-2010, 10:00
Or does it really even matters since striking first depends on initiative. What exactly is the benefit of pulling off a charge now then? Gaining time?
With the performance of each unit becoming somewhat more predictable, you would seek combined charges to overwhelm the opponent, or, if your unit is powerful enough to overwhelm the enemy on its own, you would seek to avoid having the enemy do a combined charge.

logan054
27-04-2010, 10:03
That has little to do with the core rules and alot to do with bad army book designs.

Thats debatable, while the books are part of equation the other part is how the army books interact with the core rules, currently with the way magic works, how important getting the charge is this promotes the use of wizards and Cav.

Odin
27-04-2010, 11:02
It's ridiculous to complain about this rumoured change at this stage. The strike first bonus will be replaced with some other bonus, we just don't yet know what it will be. So there's no point saying they've got rid of the tactical advantage of charging - they might even have increased to tactical advantage of charging! (I'd like to see it give you +1CR to represent the momentum of the charge putting your enemy on the back foot - I'd also like to see an Initiative bonus for spears at the very least)

As for the random charge moves, I suspect it will simply lead to an adaptation of tactics to get the best chance of a charge. And it seems likely that musicians will provide some sort of bonus to movement, perhaps they will allow a re-roll of charge distances, making it much more reliable... we just don't know.

All I do know is that the current system is very unsatisfactory. At the moment, Initiative is irrelevant in the first round of a combat (whereas it should be crucial I think) - it provides no benefit at all. Strength on the other hand provides a double benefit of increasing the chances of wounding and increasing your armour save modifier. The system is extremely biased towards strength over skill, and I think that needs to be balanced out a bit.

Don't forget, striking in two ranks regardless of casualties (if true) would minimise the advantage of striking first as well.


While that would be better I suppose, I still dont understand what was wrong with the old system. if its not broken don't fix it.

It is broken, as explained above.

Odin
27-04-2010, 11:11
looks like 40k to me but what can you expect from gw nowadays. To bad the real players will leave and play the old way in there own groups. All this is doing is shifting the problems from monsters/cav to GW's/gunlines. If you are not moving fast dwarves will NEVER try to move...nor will you catch my wood elves or shadestars. Without marching bolt throwers will make double there points back i believe to. No more manouvering either.

Yeah, the dwarfs will never bother moving again. That is, unless they need to capture objectives...:rolleyes:

Odin
27-04-2010, 11:14
I've lost count of the number of times GW has announced bringing out a new edition of a game and somebody prophesises armageddon.

The "real" players are the ones who are still here edition after edition from when they started, adapting, moving with the flow and getting the maximum amount of enjoyment out of every rule set. "Real" players accept the challenges of the changes, and don't just run off because someone moves the goal posts. "Real" players accept that GW are a business and will try and get money out of their gamers with every new edition. "Real" gamers look forward to these new editions and take the time to understand the changes in a holisitic way.

Amen to that. I've been playing since the launch of 4th edition, and I don't think my gaming group has been so excited about a new edition since ever. New challenges, hopefully fixed magic system, no more clumsy long thin missile units... can't wait.

Asher
27-04-2010, 11:35
It's ridiculous to complain about this rumoured change at this stage.

Stop being sensible Odin! We should keep it real, and complain about a rules set we don't now much about. That's what proper WHFB players do! :chrome:

yabbadabba
27-04-2010, 11:59
Its getting boring looking at ostriches backsides all over the place. Bad luck to all the doomsayers - may your prophecies be cruelly dashed on the harsh sharp rocks of reality based enthusaism.

To those who love a challenge, I look forward to seeing you all on the other side. Again ;)

Jagosaja
27-04-2010, 12:08
Yes, this is a whine, but I am sick and tired af all the people saying that no matter what GW throws at us it is great just because it is GW. And I have to answer abour real gamers.

Well, real gamers play games on the first place, not Warhammer. What you are refering to are fanatics, fans to put it shorter. These people will stick to Warhammer no matter what, because they are fans. Real players enjoy playing games. If the game is no longer enjoyable they play something else they will enjoy in. Fans stick to the game.

Games Workshop is a business, and as such they have to look at customers and their needs. Not all needs have to be said out loud, sometimes one has to see beyond that. If Fantasy turns out to be similar to 40k, one does not have to be a prophet to know many real players will leave. I suppose GW is smarter.

A company that sells its products can divide them in three categories, all equally necessary. First group consists of best selling products, biggiest profit makers. Second group are less popular products, and the third consists of the least popular products. In the number of types, or different products, the third group is naturally the most numerous, and so the first group has the least number of products. A company has to produce different products, trying for all of them to be as best as they can in order to reach group A, to make most profit.

GW made lousy Razorgors, thay make no Black Knights, there are armies that date from 6th edition and models much much farther. These products are desired, yet they are not produced. Instead, we get more Empire soldiers and Orcs & Goblins. That is the wrong strategy, pushing only in one direction, neglecting a big portion of customers.

Sure, this is a hobby and many will stick to it because it is a sort of an addiction, but don't tell anyone he/she is not a real player if he calls quits because he doesn't like the new rules. A trust in company and loyalty is a powerful thing, but losing trust is even more.

With this in mind I sure hope my army will not get worthless with the new edition, since GW exist because we buy its products, not the other way around. Well, not entirely since fans will buy empty bases if Gw tells them these are new Spirit Hosts.

And please, don't "cruelly dash others on the harsh sharp rocks" just because they don't share your oppinion. I am not calling you a fool for blindly trusting a company that sells overpriced products that are, by the way, just getting worse. I value products, not company. And, most of all, I value myself.

Odin
27-04-2010, 12:15
Yes, this is a whine, but I am sick and tired af all the people saying that no matter what GW throws at us it is great just because it is GW. And I have to answer abour real gamers.


I haven't seen anybody say anything like that.

There is a lot of abuse thrown at GW regarding the balance of their rules and army books, some of it justified. So instead of just papering over the cracks, they seem to be doing a thorough job of rebuilding Warhammer from the foundations. And they get abuse for that as well, before anyone knows how it will actually work. I know GW don't always get in right, and if fact I fully expect there to be some big teething problems with 8th edition, before 9th edition fixes them. That's just being realistic. But it's still far better than ignoring the fundamental problems with the system, just making a few tweaks and releasing a new book with lots of pretty new pictures but still most of the same flaws.

Asher
27-04-2010, 12:32
And I have to answer abour real gamers.

Unfortunately your answer doesn't have much to do with the issue at hand.

It's silly to assume that if someone doesn't detest the rumored rules, he is automaticly a fanboi (to put it in common internet terminology).

Some people like where WH is headed, unfortunately this seems to be hard to accept.

Most people have mixed feelings about the rules but are sensible enough to constrain themself from giving premature judgements of the whole package.

It's absolutely acceptable not to like 8th ed. But it's silly to judge it by a hand full of rumors or single rules. This has been shown again and again in the past 5 years; just look at the 5th ed. of 40k.

Col. Dash
27-04-2010, 12:56
I am not a fanboi(Fanboy as the character was called). I like some of the rules changes that are fairly reliable, percentages, magic, even the d6(2d6 for cav) doesnt bother me. This initiative one has me worried the most. I like using great weapons on guys, and as I fight in real life with weapons and armor I have never been happy with their rules in game. A person charging with a great weapon in RL 95% of the time is going to get the first hit in, its the nature of the beast. A spear will get a shot off before anyone else without a spear 100% of the time. During the fight, pollaxes(halberds) and greatswords are not slow weapons, they have multiple striking surfaces and can be used in almost any position. Point in fact I was literally thrown into the air from a backhanded greatsword shot to the face from the area just above the quillions(cross guard) just last week and it snapped both my chin strap and my visor buckle. They also have pommels and quillions that can be used like small maces. Going last is silly, anyone who is fighting in a battle with a great sword generally knows how to use them to their best advantage. So I think Initiative after the first round of combat is a great idea. First round of combat should always go to charging great weapons(or spears) first and then smaller weapons on a more init based order.

Nuada
27-04-2010, 14:12
Not many people will give a positive reply, so i thought i'd voice mine.

I like the idea of charging going by initiative. I've hated chargers striking first since it was introduced in 4th edition. I think charging gave you +2 initiative, and maybe +1 to hit bonus (can't remember, it's 20 yrs since i played that edition) and weapons modified int.
I think the tactics now will revolve around pairing off your units against an enemy unit you want to be fighting against, rather than the charger wins. Movement and jostling for position on the field will become even more important than before. Some (most) will disagree, but i'm glad they changed it back to how it was.

VonUber
27-04-2010, 14:25
in 3rd ed you got +1 to hit when you charge and it was done in I order.
If the +D6 thing is true, knowing my luck i will roll allot of 1s. Means most of us will go gun lines... warhammer fantasy has become a slightly more difficult than 40k... gay.

Odin
27-04-2010, 15:04
in 3rd ed you got +1 to hit when you charge and it was done in I order.
If the +D6 thing is true, knowing my luck i will roll allot of 1s. Means most of us will go gun lines... warhammer fantasy has become a slightly more difficult than 40k... gay.

No, you don't know what warhammer fantasy has become, none of us do.

gogs78
27-04-2010, 15:10
I really hate the sound of this random charges nonsense.:wtf:
Movement phase has always been crucial for me personally.
So if this rule were to come in your knights could charge anything between 10 and 20 inches?
Nonsense.

Malorian
27-04-2010, 15:15
I really hate the sound of this random charges nonsense.:wtf:
Movement phase has always been crucial for me personally.
So if this rule were to come in your knights could charge anything between 10 and 20 inches?
Nonsense.

This is why I put very little faith in that rumor.


I'm a player who watches how far each unit is moved so I know exactly how far apart they are and thus in or out of charge range.

I think random charge range would wipe out that part of the tactical gaming, and when you put those numbers to it you can clearly see how silly it would be.

gogs78
27-04-2010, 15:22
This is why I put very little faith in that rumor.


I'm a player how watches how far each unit is moved so I know exactly how far apart they are and thus in or out of charge range.

I think random charge range would wipe out that part of the tactical gaming, and when you put those numbers to it you can clearly see how silly it would be.

I do the same thing. So i really hope its not true!

xragg
27-04-2010, 16:02
The random charge distance is not going to happen. Otherwise having units with different movement rates of 4, 5, and 6 would be pointless as it all comes down to how well you roll a d6 on a charge. Why would I care that my elves move 1 inch faster then humans if I have to plan on what I roll on a random d6 when charging.

Bac5665
27-04-2010, 16:02
I don't care about attacking in I order. We already do that anyway after the charge, and if charging gives a +2 bonus to I, then its basically the same thing. Its just more complicated for little purpose, so dumb, but more or less irrelevant.

Its the step up rule that is downright horrific. It categorically, mathematically makes every infantry unit without S4+ and A2+ worse against every infantry unit. All S3 infantry unit will take way more casualties than it does now while dealing out relatively little more than it does now. Core infantry will lose its only defense, which is a good offense. What this means is that the core infantry we'll be requires to take huge amounts of will be WORSE than now, when they are all but useless anyway.

Very bad design rule.

Oh, and I have know idea why people think random charges won't happen. Everyone knowledgeable seems to agree its coming. Just because its the second worst idea GW could have had (see step up for the worst) doesn't make it less likely. I'd say it makes it more likely, giving GWs track record for understanding their own game.

Shimmergloom
27-04-2010, 16:19
Edit: It wasn't broken, it was just more or less useless. Charging means a lot and under the current 7th ed system, things with high movement like monsters or cavalry would charge in with little to fear. And with the ability to wipe out the front rank, they could charge units even in the front if they have proper killing power and nothing can attack back. Now, they have to respect what infantry they charge more than before.

ok, this is understandable. But they appeared to have already tried to fix this with letting the 2nd rank step up to fight when front rankers are killed.

So taking away the ability to strike first when charging is complete overkill.

Sure it might not matter as much to infantry, since they are likely to still be allowed to strike even if you take wounds. But what about cav? Especially fast cav? Or skirmishers or even some monsters? And Monster infantry.

Seriously orc boar boyz are I2. Even if they get +1I for charging and +1 for having spears, that's only I4. There's so much out there which is going to get to strike before them even when they charge.

Do you really want to charge in your boar boyz to see them wiped out before they even get to attack? Even if they aren't wiped out, they can still take major damage before any who are left alive get to fight back.

Razhem
27-04-2010, 16:24
I haven't seen anybody say anything like that.

There is a lot of abuse thrown at GW regarding the balance of their rules and army books, some of it justified. So instead of just papering over the cracks, they seem to be doing a thorough job of rebuilding Warhammer from the foundations. And they get abuse for that as well, before anyone knows how it will actually work.
Of course they are going to get abuse for it. Changing the core is a good thing, but only if the army rules are changed with it, because not changing them is simply retarded and is what happened to confrontation to make it an unplayable game. They changed edition and changed a lot of core rules, but left the stats and point costs untouched, surprise surprise, it was a broken mess that had to go trough another half edition that only created even more clutter till the game commited suicide.

My point is unless that 500 page book has 100 pages dedicated to make alllllll the army books fiedl worthy for 8th edition, than it will be a bloody waste of time and we'll have 9th edition in 4 years.

Spinocus
27-04-2010, 16:25
If this is true then charging units that attack the flanks or rear of an enemy unit should get considerable boost to their combat values in the first round (preferably bonuses to their Init stat or To-Hit rolls). In the absence of ASF it just sounds wrong if a low Initiative unit slams into the flank/rear of a unit with a higher Initiative unit (of comparable value or power) and has to wait for the defenders to take their swings before in the same fashion as if they were defending to the front! Historically speaking being flanked from the sides or worse, attacked from the rear almost always spelled disaster for the receiving unit, regardless of its quality. In the pre-gunpowder/early gun-powder era rare was the case when a flanked unit recovered from such an event and when they did it was usually units of high quality and/or discipline.

ewar
27-04-2010, 16:31
For those people who dont think GW are capable of introducing completely retarded rules - I point you in the direction of kill points for 5th ed 40k. Lots of people said "No, it'll never happen, the flaws are just too obvious". Until the ugly little words were staring at them from the page.

Now, I'll moderate that by saying I really, truly hope that GW don't want to make a horrible game and will compensate for all these changes. Not having some kind of charging bonus just flies in the face of common sense, so I'll wait till the book is out.

Random charges, as I've said elsewhere, is just insane. Combined with shoot in 2 ranks, this may propagate a whole new era of gunlines. My DE playing mate has already said he needs to get painted up 40 rxbs for his core requirement - I don't fancy my chances charging a random distance towards them!

Still, fingers crossed, it'll all be ok and the whole thing will pass like the millenium bug and we can carry on obsessing over little plastic men in safety.

Nuada
27-04-2010, 16:31
and we'll have 9th edition in 4 years.

Of course you will. I thought everyone knew that 40k and WHFB are released about every 4 years. Those two systems will always rotate. The specialist games won't (warmaster, blood bowl etc) and often have the rules streamlined by fans.
8th isn't out to fix the rules of 7th. It was always going to come out.

Razhem
27-04-2010, 16:45
Of course you will. I thought everyone knew that 40k and WHFB are released about every 4 years. Those two systems will always rotate. The specialist games won't (warmaster, blood bowl etc) and often have the rules streamlined by fans.
8th isn't out to fix the rules of 7th. It was always going to come out.

No doubt, but the real tragedy is hat you will have armies that have books from the 6th edition era when it happens.

Shimmergloom
27-04-2010, 17:07
Probably. If you count Dwarfs as being a 6th book, then that's 5 6th edition books out there now.

GW only managed to get 10 books out for 7th. It's safe to assume that greenskins, empire and HE will get 8th books. So there's a good chance a book or 2 from 6th will be left out in the cold for a long long time.

ghostline
27-04-2010, 17:24
To be honest we should of seen this coming.

The 2 biggest complaints among new players to fantasy are about the Strict movement rules, and the tediousness and "perceived" lame close combat phase(everyone stands in a line and hit's each other with there purse, the side that has more people standing in neat little lines that waves neato banners around wins).

Now it's moving towards a more Lax and Random Movement phase. With Close combat being more akin to what you see in those epic battle scenes depicted in the rule book/movies.

We should of seen this coming, instead of thinking 8th was just going to "fix demons and VC".

Malorian
27-04-2010, 17:28
To be honest we should of seen this coming.

The 2 biggest complaints among new players to fantasy are about the Strict movement rules, and the tediousness and "perceived" lame close combat phase(everyone stands in a line and hit's each other with there purse, the side that has more people standing in neat little lines that waves neato banners around wins).

Now it's moving towards a more Lax and Random Movement phase. With Close combat being more akin to what you see in those epic battle scenes depicted in the rule book/movies.

We should of seen this coming, instead of thinking 8th was just going to "fix demons and VC".

People who say that are better suited for 40k.

The vet fantasy players I know love the game because of the movement phase.

Lordsaradain
27-04-2010, 17:44
Charges having random range is so F*ING stupid. :@

MalusCalibur
27-04-2010, 17:53
People who say that are better suited for 40k.

The vet fantasy players I know love the game because of the movement phase.

I think that was his point - I'm not sure he believes those things personally.

8th edition is coming, as it always was planned to, and its plan is to make Fantasy more like 40K. 40K sells more (probably mostly down to Space Marines, it must be said), and appeals more 'to the kids' which, like everyone else, GW seems adamant to cater to. You can't have complex movement rules or the requirement to think tactically in a game for kids, after all*. No, better that there's bucket loads of dice to throw and tons of models to remove, and no need to have to worry about whether or not you can make a charge - let the dice do that for you.
People who are 'on 8th ed's side', so to speak, constantly tell us that a) We don't know all the changes yet so can't judge the edition based on what we know, and b) That these are still rumours and might not be true. And yet it seems to me that, with the book only just over a month away, if any of these major changes were to not be true, then they would already have been debunked? The 'its too stupid for GW to actually put in' stuff won't fly either - 40K's Kill Points is a prime example. And I'd love to hear some examples of what these 'hidden' rules could be, that are going to magically make all the changes into good ideas.

Tangental rant aside, removing charging striking first is ludicrous, given the other proposed changes to combat. There is no reason to charge (besides weapons like lances, assuming they still have a similar effect), and the proposed random distance will ensure that you won't want to risk it anyway. Like almost all of 8th's proposed changes, a terrible idea.

Crovax20
27-04-2010, 18:21
I love the notion that 40k is for kids. At my LGS our club evenings are 14+ and the majority is well over 20 and plays 40k. The warhammer fantasy players are the minority.

Regardless, as far as we know right now, nobody knows if there is some advantage to charging or not. I have yet to read any of the rumorkings post with certainty that there will be no bonus. The striking first part of charging might very well be something that belongs to the past. Now this is pure speculation of course, but I reckon we will see something like +1 strength/+1 cr/ +1 to hit/ -1 to hit for opponent. Pick and choose one of those and you still get a reason to get the charge off, but it won't be the end all be all that charging currently is for a lot of units.

Lord Inquisitor
27-04-2010, 18:43
@ Replicant 253 - don't call army-wide ASF silly. Sure it was a wierd remedy to a poison that didn't need to be there/ was solvable through an easier method, but the resulting Army Book (I guess HE...) was a pretty internally and externally balanced book, I think.
It was silly, silly, silly. Even if it was internally balanced silly, it's still daft. Against High Elves the game changes totally, and the rule changed the army from a finesse army that relied on its speed to one that didn't care if it charged or not. It took out a lot of the skill to the game.


No bonus for charging is so counter-intuitive and bizarre I simply dont buy it at all. Why would you ever charge? Random ranges, failed charges putting your butt in awkward positions. The risk vs. reward simply isnt there.

There HAS to be something more to this: either an impact hit at base strength, init bonus, +1 attack, +1 to hit...something.
I'm firmly of the opinion that there will be a charging bonus of some kind. I'm hoping it isn't +2 initiative (as this may often be situational) while +1S or +1A would be more tangible. Until and unless I hear that there's really no charging bonus then I'm going to assume there is some as-yet unknown charging bonus.

Anyway - assuming there is some advantage to charging - I think a move to Initiative would be a great idea. Certain units like cavalry might need an initative bonus, but I think it'll add tactical complexity as the initiative of units will be considered - it's very rare that I find it comes into play except with ASF vs ASF fights.

Random distances added to charges does sound silly. I dislike single-dice rolls with that much importance. 40K, for example, has "Run" moves that are a single D6 and these can often be crucial and I find the unpredictability of such moves irritating, particularly when units are running across clear terrain.

That said, I do like 40k's terrain mechanism (i.e. a random move through cover, although it's more dependable than "Running" as it's 2D6-pick-the-highest) and I prefer that much to Fantasy's terrain mechanics, which I despise. This turns tactical choices from an exact science to a weighing of the odds - and that's no great blasphemy against Warhammer, we do that every time we commit a unit to combat. So a random charge range addition could work to keep both players on their toes and try to maintain back-up plans. But I still don't like it ... I feel that there's going to be a lot more bitching and "if only" comments...

TeddyC
27-04-2010, 18:49
While that would be better I suppose, I still dont understand what was wrong with the old system. if its not broken don't fix it.


but it might become broken when coupled with other changes

Bilmengar
27-04-2010, 19:08
well, I don't play Fantasy (yet), but I have been painting woodelves for a while now, so my insight into actual gaming is very limited (or 'nonexistend', to use that word.)

But, as I have gathered from reading this forum, ASF on the charge is mainly important because dead models don't strike back; so the attacker maximizes damage dealt (because all of his models may strike) and minimized damage recieved (because not every enemy model may strike back.

Now there is the rumour of stepping up. This would means you could not prevent the enemy from striking back, as long as he has enough models in his unit to step forward; in return, he can't prevent you from striking by going first as long as you, too, have enough models to take the losses without losing models from the front row(s).

So, for big blocks of Infantry, and if stepping up is true, ASF or not ASF on the charge does not change the outcome of the battle. And, that seems to be another point of the rumour, GW wants to empathize big units of 'basic grunts'...

Now to something completely different: small units of elite fighters, cavalry and the like. They seem to rely on breaking the enemy on the charge, because in subsequent turns they would fight in I order anyways and that obviously is a bad, bad thing.

now, who gets the most trouble out of this? Hard hitters with low i and a bad defense, obviously. Old system: they charge, they kill, enemy looks at them from the second row and decides to run. Rumoured changes: they will lose models even before they strike, which means less attacks and, as a result, will not win the combat by a high margin (or not at all). They indeed suffer from those changes; but even if they would strike first, they would lose some models themselves due to the enemy stepping up, so they might not work as previously anyways.

Almost the same goes for heavy hitters with high I, except for them still striking first obviously. Take more losses, and since they seem to have less SCR in most cases, harder to win the combat.

Well, if they got an bonus to their I on the charge, what would change? I don't know how far the attributes are spread in WHFB, but +1 might not make a difference: 2+1 still loses vs 4; 4+1 still wins vs. 3. If they had the same stat, it would matter, as they now strike first; if their i is one point lower, it would also matter, as they now strike simultaneously, obviously. If on the other hand the bonus to i was big, like +4 big or whatnot, it would matter in almost every case, but why would they change the system to this if the effect was almost the same as the old ASF?

And there still units that have "kindfofasf", because if they have more i than their opponent, they still strike first. Well' d'oh. But really, the bigger change is, IMHO, the stepping up rule, because now the charger will take more losses then before and, in some cases, deal less damage then before.

To the question as to "why should I charge then?": Why do you charge now? "D'oh, because I strike first, dumbass." Yeah, but why do you charge? Why all this violence? Why not sit there for a picnic, have a nice chat and a cup of tea? Well, maybe WHFB is called a "wargame" because, you know, you want to kill units. In the current system, because you gain VPs; in the next edition maybe because they sit on an objective. or give VPs. Or some other reason. You want to fight, that is what you painted all those minis for, and if you want to fight, someone has to charge.

So, one side changes; you don't charge "because, otherwise, I could not win the combat"; the other side, not so much, "because that unit standing there should not be standing there, huzzah". Well, I might be biased because I paint wood elves, but if you say "bah, why should I charge?", I would have a great time sitting on my objective shooting you from yours. So you still want to charge; to prevent me from a) shooting b) from keeping my objective.
If you now play against someone who has not as many archers as the WE, there still is the point of "well, you don't want to charge, but neither do I, and I sit on the objective, hoho".

What I want to say with this: you don't charge because you strike first, but you charge because you can't kill the enemy by insulting his mother. And that is already the case in 7th edition. This will be true in 8th edition. Now, the way to win a combat changes. Definitely. So what? There will still be a winner and a loser in the end, and you want to make sure you are the winner. Maybe engaging him with a big block of (core? :p) infantry, you know, and ramming your glass cannons- sword I mean - into his flank or rear to tip the combat in your favour.

That would shift the gameplay, yeah. It is the 8th edition, not the 7th revisited. Units that are now imba might be subpar afterwards. The contrary may also happen. The relative strenght of armys might change; now, that seems not the be terrible, either, if you regard the often proclaimed power gap between, lets say, deamons and (insert weak army here). Armybooks are written with a given game mechanic in mind, and if those change, the armybook might not be "balanced" anymore; but then again, they will eventually write a new book for those armies. Excuse me if I drift to 40k for a second: some of the oder codices (Tau, for example) have wargear or rules that don't apply anymore (target priority, anyone?). But you can still play Tau, leaving out that which has no effect under the current ruleset. Even Dark Eldar, the oldest codex out there, can be played under the current rules, and, according to some DE Players out there still can beat the crap out of anyone.

As said, some units will get worse, and that might mean you don't want to field them anymore. This might be the case for some units you love. Question is, qhy do you love them? If it is because they were strong, well, there is now another one at top, play them. If you like the models or the fluff or your paintjob, you can still field them; If you change their role, they might still be useful, for you. Maybe not in a tourney-heavy enviroment, but then again, that was always true for some units. If you play an army because it wins you tournaments, sorry, but that is no rule given to a specific armybook...

Last, but not least: Those are a) rumours and b) rumours on parts of the ruleset. You can't just take 7th edition and say ",well, if I would not have ASF on charge, it would suck". Well, yeah, true, but this will be 8th edition. not 7th with ASF on charge removed. You can onl judge a rule in its context, the complete ruleset it is a part of...

Malorian
27-04-2010, 19:13
As I was starting to think about how these changes would effect army biulds I began forming two kinds of lists:

-Those with solid troops that not only hit hard but have good defense could happily go combat heavy

-Everything else (even those that hit hard but don't have good defense, or who have good defense but don't hit hard) would depend more and mroe on shooting (I would say magic except for the other changes that have been suggested).

I really would hate to see the return of gunlines, but with this current set of rumors and think that's just what is going to happen.

Col. Dash
27-04-2010, 19:48
Do note, the random charging thing is not simply d6 for infantry and 2d6 for cav. Its their movement +d6 and 2d6. Just thought I would add that to clarify things a bit so maybe it is not seen so negatively. This also means those units might be able to charge farther than the might normally be able to. The init thing still bugs me though.

vinush
27-04-2010, 20:29
So what you're saying is that possibly it's 2M+D6" for charging, so if a unit of men with M4 charge, they would charge 8+D6"?

THE \/ince

Razhem
27-04-2010, 20:51
So what you're saying is that possibly it's 2M+D6" for charging, so if a unit of men with M4 charge, they would charge 8+D6"?

THE \/ince

No, that would be retarded, he means basic move, as in 4" + 1d6.

Col. Dash, I think people pretty much assumed this was how it would work. The problem isn't the distance, it's the randomness on the phase that makes fantasy a tactical game, you take away the manoeuvring of fantasy and you only have dice rolling and target priority.

Odin
27-04-2010, 20:53
So what you're saying is that possibly it's 2M+D6" for charging, so if a unit of men with M4 charge, they would charge 8+D6"?

THE \/ince

No, he said it's your move +D6, not double your move +D6.

Shimmergloom
27-04-2010, 21:01
To the question as to "why should I charge then?": Why do you charge now?

You charge now for a multitude of reasons. The plain fact is that if you no longer get to strike first when charging, coupled with infantry nearly always getting all attacks back(which I like, but would like more if it was limited to spear and halberd armed units), means that many of the reasons you charge now are going to be nullified.

For instance I can charge now because I know that it gives me the opportunity to take out a lesser character or pin a unit in place for a turn or 2, by feeling that I can hurt them enough on the charge that I can win the combat and run them down.

There's less reason now for me to charge in I1 or I2 saurus or orcs if they are just going to get decimated by the I4 and I5 units they are facing, before they can strike back.

And that's not even getting into do I even want to charge at all to see my I4 warlord get cut down by his I6 Vamp lord without even getting to strike back.

And no one has still address how this is going to affect cav. I'm no fan of heavy cav, but I gotta think, I'd be pretty pissed if my orcs or empire knights charged in and never got to strike first over a big portion of troops out there.

And that doesn't even mention how it seems like squig hoppers, my favorite greenskin unit, really seem to be all but worthless with these rules.

leeoaks
27-04-2010, 21:37
From my point of view is that as long as they dont simplify the system and its fun to play i'm in. however if gw simplify the system and remove the skill part to warhammer and make it random i won't play any GW systems ever again.

Another thing i will add is that whatever system they bring out it will aim to screw the majority of normal armies out there to make loads of money. so if you only have 2000pts prepare to have to stick your hand in your pockets and purchase new minis.

Grimstonefire
27-04-2010, 21:40
A random idea, what if they made ASF work more like impact hits for the first round of combat only? Thereafter they strike only in initiative order like everyone else?

As in; whether a unit with ASF is charged, or charges, their initial round of attacks will instead be treated as impact hits on the enemy unit.

It circumvents the need for coming before strike first, but I guess it would be a bit harsh against cavalry charges...

Swordmasters would therefore still strike first, even with a strike last weapon (for the first round at least).

Spiney Norman
27-04-2010, 21:47
Risk=failed charge which exposes you to either an overpowering counter charge or a lethal exposing of a flank/rear.

Reward=nothing if attacks are purely in int. order. Your best bet is merely to turtle and let the enemy come to you, withering them if you can in the magic and shooting phases.

this would eventually lead to the dreaded Failhammer.

there HAS to be some advantage for charging: +1 to hit, +1 attack, something.

Chariots will still have an incentive to charge, heavy cavalry might do (lances?), but I expect few people will use them because they will move slower than most basic infantry (no marching).

With the changes to magic it looks like magic domination will no longer be possible so I guess the gunline will be king, with their shooting everything in 2 ranks. Bring on blocks of 20 Empire crossbowmen/handgunners with 2x 10 detachments of crossbowmen/handgunners backed up by 4 great cannons and 2 helstorm rocket batteries all lead by an engineer with pigeon bombs.

CaliforniaGamer
27-04-2010, 22:03
Chariots will still have an incentive to charge, heavy cavalry might do (lances?), but I expect few people will use them because they will move slower than most basic infantry (no marching).

With the changes to magic it looks like magic domination will no longer be possible so I guess the gunline will be king, with their shooting everything in 2 ranks. Bring on blocks of 20 Empire crossbowmen/handgunners with 2x 10 detachments of crossbowmen/handgunners backed up by 4 great cannons and 2 helstorm rocket batteries all lead by an engineer with pigeon bombs.

This is precisely why Im worried. Balance has not been adressed at all with these rumours, just the imbalances have been moved to different army books.

Avian
27-04-2010, 22:44
If on the other hand the bonus to i was big, like +4 big or whatnot, it would matter in almost every case, but why would they change the system to this if the effect was almost the same as the old ASF?
Indeed. One should assume that if and when rules change, they are changed because the designers want the outcome to be different, and are not simply looking to achieve the same result using a different method.

Thus if your unit is looking to get a disadvantage that is so obvious that you could spot it after five seconds, then it is presumably because the designers want your unit to get a disadvantage (assuming, as always, that the rumours are correct, which they may or may not be).

corvo
28-04-2010, 02:12
as an orc and goblin player, i think i may get my joke bowline list out for 8th edition. Orc infantry really did need that strikes first on the charge.
I am impressed that they managed to make boar boys even worse.

~PrometheuS~
28-04-2010, 03:10
Not looking forward to 8th ed, if they put in all these stupid rules, i think i might go play 40k lol :eek:

ChaosVC
28-04-2010, 03:52
Well, 2 more months till the crap or candy is out of the bag.

Knowing how GW never listens to good feedback but always embrace dumb **** ones...

Or whoever gave us the rumour is a 40k player and he is trying to screw around with you all MWahahahahahaha!!!

Vulcan7200
28-04-2010, 04:11
I think people might be over exagerating the consequences of some of these rumors.

Gun lines are already in the game. It's a way some people already play, and this change, really won't effect them. Striking first, was not important for defeating a gun line. Most of them, are not really that great at melee anyways, and will still lose in close combat once you close in.

It also seems some people are of the opinion, that there will be NO charge bonus, which I really doubt is true. But even if it is, there are still reasons to charge. Unless you just let the enemy move around how they want, in a stubborn refusal to move forward, you'll likely be moving in to block their infantry, with your own. Sure, it may not matter who gets the charge off, but there's no reason to NOT charge either. Unless you plan to kill them off with harsh language and mean stares, you do still need to get YOUR guys into melee range.

Movement, will also still be very important for the game. Yes, it does take away one aspect of it. But you still have to position your army correctly. Your army can still be flanked. You can still be shot at by ranged units, that need to be taken care of. You might even need to be taking objectives (Which is a rumor I've heard circling around as well). I just honestly don't think this will effect the entire game as drastically as some people think.

Shimmergloom
28-04-2010, 05:00
Gun lines are already in the game. It's a way some people already play, and this change, really won't effect them.

They are already here. And people already hate them. The one liability to the gunline is that if you can get into combat with them then they can start to be taken out.

However if your charge ranges are so much less because you are M4 and rolled a 2 to charge, then the guns get another turn to decimate you.

And if shooting gets to shoot in 2 ranks standard, that's alot more shots which can be coming your way.

And finally, the 2 biggest gunlines are dwarfs and empire. Neither have good Int. So one reason for them to be more agressive by charging is taken away, since very often they will not get to strike first.

Think of the dwarf player who loved the rumor of M * D6 for charging cause they might get to charge up to 9"!! Now think of the dwaf player learning, that he now gets to potentially charge 9" into chaos warriors who get to strike first over him.

Vulcan7200
28-04-2010, 05:20
They are already here. And people already hate them. The one liability to the gunline is that if you can get into combat with them then they can start to be taken out.

However if your charge ranges are so much less because you are M4 and rolled a 2 to charge, then the guns get another turn to decimate you.

And if shooting gets to shoot in 2 ranks standard, that's alot more shots which can be coming your way.

And finally, the 2 biggest gunlines are dwarfs and empire. Neither have good Int. So one reason for them to be more agressive by charging is taken away, since very often they will not get to strike first.

Think of the dwarf player who loved the rumor of M * D6 for charging cause they might get to charge up to 9"!! Now think of the dwaf player learning, that he now gets to potentially charge 9" into chaos warriors who get to strike first over him.

I wasn't really commenting on the D6 charge rumor, since that one I find hard to believe. And agree completely, that, that would screw up the game. I was speaking about the change to charging allowing you to always strike first.

And you're right. The two biggest gunlines are Dwarf and Empire, which don't have that good of Int. So charging them wouldn't have changed at all, with the new charge rumors. And I know people hate gunlines, I'm just saying that I don't think they will become more common place, just because of these changes. For one, not everyone WANTS to sit back, and do a static gunline. People who actually like to be aggressive, will still be that way.

As for the Dwarf player who charges the Chaos Warriors, I'm not too worried about that. Chaos Warriors are better then Dwarf Warriors in nearly ever regard. I have no qualms with the Dwarf player losing that fight, even if he charges. The Dwarf has other ways of dealing with the Warriors, so his can focus on taking out units that are less likely to wipe the floor with him.

Shimmergloom
28-04-2010, 12:25
Dwarf warriors maybe, but there's plenty of units in the dwarf book that are comparable to CW's in combat. As it stands now, if a dwarf baits and flees and countercharges, he stands a good chance at killing some warriors on the charge before they can strike back.

Now he can't and will lose combat by as much when charging, then if he got charged.

So yes, a gunline army has lost a reason to charge instead of continuing to shoot. And like you said, not everyone wants to sit back. But that's NOW. Give players less reason to want to charge and they'll find other things to do.

Chiron
28-04-2010, 12:59
I'll go on a limb and say there will be an initiative bonus for charging, as well as the ability to overun if your break your enemy.

Likewise, I've been saying that making charges Int based and then adding bonuses to Int for different types of weapons/charging for years

I'm a prophet!

My ideal situation:
Combat order based on Int value
Charging doubles Int value or adds +1
Spears doubles Int value to the front arc
Halberds double Int value vs Cavalry

Avian
28-04-2010, 14:37
I'm a prophet!

My ideal situation:
Combat order based on Int value
Charging doubles Int value or adds +1
Spears doubles Int value to the front arc
Halberds double Int value vs Cavalry
Hey, one out of four isn't bad. Okay, so it's only 25%, but it could be worse! ;)

SideshowLucifer
28-04-2010, 14:48
I love panic in a vacume. Gun lines won't move huh? Objectives say they will likely need to. Dwarves will lose to chaos warriors? What if the unit of Dwarves is a lot larger then the chaos warriors and they can step up and still get all those attacks after the warriors are done?

Seriously, I have played this game since second edition and things change all the time. I have even sat an edition or two out of both the GW games because I didn't like them (including this current horrible version). It happens. I welcome the return of the older games I used to love. Right now the game reminds me of Warbands of characters, cav,and monsters running rampent rather then the clash of large armies. Bring on the changes.

Chiron
28-04-2010, 15:05
Hey, one out of four isn't bad. Okay, so it's only 25%, but it could be worse! ;)

Just a wishlist rather than an indepth prophecy, I've been playing long enough to know that GW doesnt fully implement a good idea all at once. I look forward to 9th

Erloas
28-04-2010, 15:48
Well I find some of the "justifications" for why these changes will make the game suck kind of ironic.
Everyone admits that 40k is a much better selling game, so it must be a game more people like to play, and pretty much everyone says that 40k is a much more balanced game. Then they complain that these changes will make the game more like 40k, a game that more people like and is better balanced.
And the "these changes will make gunlines pop up everywhere," well having more of the unit shoot and still fighting at I even if you get charged, and random movement ranges (for fleet/running, and through terrain) are all rules already in place in 40k, a game based on guns, and they didn't create a huge increase in gunlines. In fact most armies don't, and Tau and Guard, the only two armies that can, are usually still better off with a decent amount of moving.
I used to dislike 40k and though it sucked. But I did take it up fairly recently and the game is a lot better then I thought it would be. Its still not perfect, but it is pretty good. There is still going to be a big difference between Fantasy and 40k though, even with these changes. I do think that 40k shows that some of these ideas can work though.


Now I think movement is going to be just as important, but for different reasons. Rather then movement meaning everything so you can get the charge it is going to mean everything to make sure your own units are protected from counter/flank charges. It will make it harder for one super unit to do everything because no unit will be able to work alone. An army will have to work together as an army rather then as a collection of several independent units.
As it is, most of the higher movement armies, like elves, would always be getting the charge anyway and would strike first. Now they are still going to strike first because of higher I. At the same time though, most high I armies are also fairly fragile and don't do well in battles of attrition, so they get the bonus of always going first, but they are also going to be taking more wounds in the process, its more of a draw then a huge gain or loss.
As it is, most of the low I units are also the more defensively designed units, thinks like Dwarfs and Lizardmen are fairly durable. And even the middle ground like humans are horde like and can take a fair amount of punishment and they rarely won by getting the charge and wiping out the front rank of the enemy anyway. They are all built to take battles of attrition.

Daemons however don't fair well in battles of attrition, and while they might still kill a lot, they are also going to start taking a lot more attacks back and they don't have the numbers to do that for long. And undead, they've always had low I, but it didn't matter because with magic they often got the charge and got to go first anyway. But they are weak enough that even normal troops can kill them... but normal troops didn't have the attacks to do it, and now they will have more.

Odin
28-04-2010, 20:07
pretty much everyone says that 40k is a much more balanced game.

That's because there's only one army in 40K.

Scallat
28-04-2010, 20:22
That's because there's only one army in 40K.

Ok, you just won this thread. That was incredible.

Orktavius
28-04-2010, 21:09
There's only one army? HOLY CRAP MY ORKS ARE A LOST SPACE MARINE CHAPTER :O

Grimstonefire
28-04-2010, 21:30
@Odin
Lol. It should make things easier to balance...

Spiney Norman
28-04-2010, 23:23
Well I find some of the "justifications" for why these changes will make the game suck kind of ironic.
Everyone admits that 40k is a much better selling game, so it must be a game more people like to play, and pretty much everyone says that 40k is a much more balanced game. Then they complain that these changes will make the game more like 40k, a game that more people like and is better balanced.
And the "these changes will make gunlines pop up everywhere," well having more of the unit shoot and still fighting at I even if you get charged, and random movement ranges (for fleet/running, and through terrain) are all rules already in place in 40k, a game based on guns, and they didn't create a huge increase in gunlines. In fact most armies don't, and Tau and Guard, the only two armies that can, are usually still better off with a decent amount of moving.
I used to dislike 40k and though it sucked. But I did take it up fairly recently and the game is a lot better then I thought it would be. Its still not perfect, but it is pretty good. There is still going to be a big difference between Fantasy and 40k though, even with these changes. I do think that 40k shows that some of these ideas can work though.



40K sells better than fantasy for 2 reasons. The models are more expensive (like Ģ20 for 5 plastic marines + accessories) and the 40K setting is generally appreciated by a wider audience than the Fantasy setting, which draws more people to play the game.

40K probably is more balanced, at least it doesn't have an equivalent to the Fantasy Daemons of Chaos or VC in the current Metagame, it does have several "left behind" armies though, like Daemon hunters and Necrons which don't really exist competitively. Plus the dominance of Space Marines means the rest of the armies suffer greatly with regards to the frequency at which they get updated.

A lot of people say that 40K is less tactical than Fantasy, thats actually not true, 40K has some very tactical armies, my Eldar are tactically very unforgiving, and so are Tau currently. The problem is that the way GW markets 40K is 40K=Space Marines, and SM are the original "blunt-instrument" army, and have all the tactical depth of a dwarf gunline or Bretonnian Knight charge.

Shadowsinner
28-04-2010, 23:40
actually 40k is a much cheaper game by comparison. While say 6 models cost 30 bucks, the unit I am purchasing them for usually only consists of 5-12 models anyway... to whereas say in fantasy you get 5 metal models for twenty bucks, but you need to make a unit of 20. I figure the average 40k player spends about 400 per army, while the average fantasy player spends about 600+

MarkC
29-04-2010, 02:19
No bonus for charging is so counter-intuitive and bizarre I simply dont buy it at all. Why would you ever charge? Random ranges, failed charges putting your butt in awkward positions. The risk vs. reward simply isnt there.

There HAS to be something more to this: either an impact hit at base strength, init bonus, +1 attack, +1 to hit...something.

Not having bonuses for charging might lead to less aggressive and less exciting games, but its hardly counter-intuitive and bizarre.

From memory, the ancient's ruleset Field of Glory doesn't have bonus for charging and it claims to be based on being a realistic rule set. Essentially one side charges, the other can countercharge, and at the large scale unit side of things there's no net bonus for charging.

I personally think that charging into a unit with ranks of spears and then striking first with your hand weapon (as per the current rules) rewards aggressive play but when you stop and think about it is actually counter-intuitive and bizarre.

Regards

Mark C

meanmachine
29-04-2010, 07:19
if the rumours about different size models comes into the game i think it would be great if you charge something smaller than you you get to strik 1st automactilly

e.g

infantry charging swarms will go 1st
cavalry or ogre size models charging infantry will go 1st
monsters charging will go 1st

the monsters chraging and always going 1st may seem a bit otk but when you take into account it is 1 model with limted attacks up against 2 ranks of attacking infantry now, i think it should have a chance to weaken them 1st

so i think this seems fare, if you can now attack in 2 ranks big monsters and cavalry charging should be able to weaken you squad by going 1st before you you attack them

chaospantz
29-04-2010, 08:16
Sweet, now all my DE will have always strike first because of that extra point of initiative. To me this sounds like just another reason to consider playing only 40K or to find a different fantisy game all together. Truth be told though I'll feel better about the game once I have the book in my hand and can read it for myself. Least for the time being all these rumors flying around have caused me to stop buying fantisy stuff.

Botjer
29-04-2010, 08:18
I made a ruleset where you play fantasy armies using 40k rules. and except when it comes to über units like khorne chosen, stiking in iniative order works like a charm. and the +1 attack means alot more action.

EldarWonderland
29-04-2010, 09:17
I played Tomb Kings vs 40K orks once as my son and I had no opponents at that club night.

Unusual, and Ghazkull Thrakka minced a block of skellies and my GW wielding Prince but we managed.

If gunlines predominate then I suppose I'll just have to have 3 scorpions and a 5-unit swarm burrowing up behind them :)

ChaosVC
29-04-2010, 09:28
All warhammer 8th ed need now is a choice for drop pods for deep strikes.

Chiron
29-04-2010, 09:34
I made a ruleset where you play fantasy armies using 40k rules. and except when it comes to über units like khorne chosen, stiking in iniative order works like a charm. and the +1 attack means alot more action.

Hell 2nd ed 40k and fantasy were more or less straight versions of each other, had some good fun playing Brets v Marines

guillaume
29-04-2010, 10:19
I think that when the dust settles, and we are all reading the book over and over, we will appreciate the new rules.

The change to initiative order is a welcome "grand change" to the rule. This will have an impact on how we play combat. Good.

The new second rank fighting: great, more casualties, games get shorter and bloodier in combat, as they should be.

Charge changes: pinch of salt here.The D6 charge is a MAJOR act of randomness. Normally i applaud randomness in warhammer because it makes things more FUN. Skavens are a particularly random army. And they are fun to play.

But charges are a major aspect of the rule for ALL armies. You get into combat by charging.

I am baffled to see how they operationalize this change: step up and initiative fighting make some kind of sense. Random charges does not.

I know warhammer has NO ground in reality, the designers have said it over and over again, but that is a serious change to something that shouldn't be random. heroes/champions, do not send their units randomly into combat. It is well calculated and well thought of to avoid any randomness which could cost the lives of fighters.

In either case, i am sure they must have thought of something to counter that randomness.

In the end, we'll all be playing by the rules anyways. So many people were saying "i wont play with 7th edition, Magic sucks in 7th....blabla..." But we all play with the BRB. So. We'll just have to wait and see.

keep calm and carry on, as the Queen would say.

Spiney Norman
29-04-2010, 10:38
actually 40k is a much cheaper game by comparison. While say 6 models cost 30 bucks, the unit I am purchasing them for usually only consists of 5-12 models anyway... to whereas say in fantasy you get 5 metal models for twenty bucks, but you need to make a unit of 20. I figure the average 40k player spends about 400 per army, while the average fantasy player spends about 600+

That totally depends which army you choose and what size army you want. Model for model 40K is more expensive than fantasy, but individual armies can be cheaper or more expensive based on cost of models etc.

The main difference is that 40K tends to be played most commonly at 1000-1500 whereas with fantasy the min size for a decent game is 2K because of how the org chart works. 40K Apocalypse armies cost a lot more to build than fantasy.

Don't get me wrong, Fantasy is catching up price wise, but when they start marketting space marines at 5 for Ģ20, the price of greatswords/bestigors doesn't seem to terrible any more.

Odin
29-04-2010, 11:06
I should probably add that there is another main reason why 40K is more balanced, which is that you roll a lot of dice. Generally in close combat, the whole unit gets to fight, which means you are rolling a lot of dice, which evens out the probabilities a bit - luck is less of a factor.

In WHFB at the moment you'll often only have around 5-6 attacks from a unit, a little bit of luck one way or the other can see you win a combat or lose it horribly. Double the number of attacks (by making the second rank fight) and the combat becomes more predictable, which means it's more determined by tactics than one or two good or bad dice rolls.

Deathjester
29-04-2010, 11:26
I've seen this kind of complaint over and over in my time as a gamer (and i've even been involved in it once or twice):

OMG this change or that change will end the world..... Everyone will stop playing. Or I'll stop playing.

Actually it's hardly ever happened, it's happened to me once (sort of (I had most of my stuff stolen at the same time as the rules changed, and it was too expensive to get back into it)).

Once the new rules are released and everyone's playing with them, you'll either a) sell up and get out or b) realise you've got Ģ10,000 tied up in the hobby and it's pretty pointless to throw it all away!

In the likely event that option B occurs you'll continue playing, whining about the rules occasionally for a few months and then forget about it.

By nature we're a world of whiners and moaners, but when it get's right down to it we never really do anything about it!

Crovax20
29-04-2010, 11:37
I think that when the dust settles, and we are all reading the book over and over, we will appreciate the new rules.



Charge changes: pinch of salt here.The D6 charge is a MAJOR act of randomness. Normally i applaud randomness in warhammer because it makes things more FUN. Skavens are a particularly random army. And they are fun to play.

But charges are a major aspect of the rule for ALL armies. You get into combat by charging.

I am baffled to see how they operationalize this change: step up and initiative fighting make some kind of sense. Random charges does not.

I know warhammer has NO ground in reality, the designers have said it over and over again, but that is a serious change to something that shouldn't be random. heroes/champions, do not send their units randomly into combat. It is well calculated and well thought of to avoid any randomness which could cost the lives of fighters.

In either case, i am sure they must have thought of something to counter that randomness.


Latest rumors are suggesting its actually 2d6 (pick highest) for units that have movement of up to 6 and 3d6 (disregard lowest) for units with movement 7 or more.

So that counters the randomness a bit. Some rumors/wishlisting added to that say that a musician might add 1 inch to your charge and a banner allows you to reroll a single charge dice.

Odin
29-04-2010, 12:11
Latest rumors are suggesting its actually 2d6 (pick highest) for units that have movement of up to 6 and 3d6 (disregard lowest) for units with movement 7 or more.

So that counters the randomness a bit. Some rumors/wishlisting added to that say that a musician might add 1 inch to your charge and a banner allows you to reroll a single charge dice.

Yup, and that sounds a lot better to me. An element of randomness so that nothing is guaranteed just because you're better at guessing distamces than your opponent, but the average charge ranges for units with full command would have gone up from 7th edition distances.

Col. Dash
29-04-2010, 12:50
Lets hope they arent going 40k with this. We keep touching on this. 40k close combat is such a flawed and generic thing I hope it gets completely redone next edition. There are too many dice rolled to the point of stupidness. The only reason I even play are cool models and everyone else does, they havent had a good rules set since 2nd. I love fantasy because the rules make more sense, I am more into fantasy. Generally i am not moving figures and rolling 30 dice. Step up is an ok rule as it makes sense, even the one attack back makes sense as the guys behind the front line are getting pushed back and have to strike over the guys in the front who havent had time to fall down yet or cant because its a crush. From experience this happens quite often.

Initiative is utterly stupid for the first round of combat. A charge is a vicious thing, with success the front line is going to get squished unless they are linebacker size(with malnutrition in the middle ages rampant, its safe to say there were few linebacker sized people if any). The front line of a shield wall will be lucky to stay on its feet, if its well trained the guys behind them will know to dig in and brace the front guys, most units are not much more than peasants and arent the best trained. Usually a charge of this nature is less kill the enemy and more break their line and go through them. This is assuming hand weapon and shields for the most part(which were actually not very common once armor made it on the scene of battle fields because swords were relatively useless against people in real armor.)

A spear on the other hand against all other non-horse mounted weapons should go first regardless of who charged. Its got the range over anything else short of a pike. This is assuming a two handed spear which were relatively common, cheap to produce and easy to use. They dominated the battlefield for infantry weapons. However once you got past the points they should go last, as it is not a close in weapon at all and once you make it past the point all the guy has is an unwieldy pole to defend himself with and hope someone in a back rank can tag the guy.

Short Spear and shield. This is the classic hoplite weaponry used by the Greeks and Spartans. About a 6' spear, usually they would have a short sword or dagger or something for stabbing. These should go at initiative. They have barely any reach as usually you are holding the weapon at its midpoint or at its butt using the shield for bracing(which doesnt work as well when you are using the shield for defense.)

Polearm- These were made to crack armor. They evolved from farming implements into deadly weapons in the age of heavy armor. Pollaxes, pollhammers,(yes those are spelled correctly) halberds, developed from a need to take on a heavily armored opponent, often on horse back. Usually from 6' to 9' in length. The earliest stage after the farming implements were simply swords strapped on(ok a little more advanced than that) to the end of a pole. By the later periods, pollaxes(for the sake of not saying all of them) had developed into very advanced weapons with multiple uses. Take the pollaxe, axe blade for chopping, point for stabbing chinks in the armor, and a hammer of some kind to stun the guy so you can use the pointy end. What drives me up the wall in fantasy is units using a shield and halberd in combat. Pollaxes are extremely heavily weighted at their ends, you cannot effectively use one one handed(note i say effectively, I have used them one handed but 95% of the time I die). Now a throwaway shield is an option, carry it to the fight to deflect arrows and chunk it before melee starts, but never in melee. Polearms should get Initiative first round of combat against anyone but spears. In addition they should get their +1 strength bonus or the Armor Piercing rule or both, polearms were that good.

Great Swords- See polearms, they had their uses, especially against lightly armored opponents, I fight with one, but there is a good reason they get relegated to a supporting weapon (and fencing weapon(no really, look up German longsword fighting)) in the middle ages. In the late middle ages you can find them in the middle of a pike fight, fighting between the lines chopping pike hafts. they were not too useful against armored opponents, but when they inflicted a wound, they hit like a ton of bricks. I say they should fight at Initiative except the first round of combat against hand weapons and give a +1 or +2 strength bonus. Someone fighting with one knows what they are doing and they are not slow weapons by any means. No shield though so arrows would tear them apart.

Lances- There is very little in the middle ages that could stop a heavily armored horseman with a barded horse. Barding by the way usually consisted of cloth or light armor, only in a few instances in the later periods did you see metal armored barding, especially when cloth or padded armor deflected arrows pretty good actually. Pikes were about the only thing that scared armored cav and even then.... While we were still fighing Indians here in the new world with muskets in the 1600s, you still had highly effective heavy cavalry in Europe. Polish Hussars while they didnt win every battle, the won more than they lost and usually were heavily outnumbered. There was a battle I was reading about the other day, 11,000ish infantry(pikes and musketeers mostly), 1500ish Swedish cavalry(mostly light cav), 11 cannons versus a few thousand Polish infantry, 1 cannon, and 3000 Polish Hussars. Within 20 minutes the Swedes were routed off the field and lost over 9500 troops, the Polish lost 100 Hussars. They lost a huge number of their trained warhorses though as they tended to duck behind the horses' head to avoid musket fire. So even in the age of gunpowder, heavy cav was useful(I forgot to mention, their armor was specifically made to stop musket balls). Lances were up to 18' in length, much longer than any spear in use and right up there with pikes. With a longer reach, and almost a ton of horse bearing down on you in a thunderous charge, they were the kings of the battlefield. Back to Fantasy, unless its a pike armed unit, knights with lances should always go first, even before ASF elves(unless the cav themselves are ASF elves). It makes no sense for elves to be able to hit the cav and then run back to get hit by lances. +2 Str.

So in short, here are my views on weapons in fantasy without historical justification if you dont want to read about it.
Spears: two handed, go first against everything except lances and ASF elves(nimble enough to get past the points), no shield.

Polearms: Go first on charge, +1 str or armor piercing or both. two handed weapon in close combat.

Hand weapon shield: Should go first on charge except against spears and polearms and great swords.

Lances: On a charge, goes first against everything even ASF elves. +2 strength

Pikes first against spears.

Sounds complicated but easily done in a charging chart based on weapon charging
Lance: > before all
Polearm: Pike>Spear>Polearm>Great Sword> HW/Shield
Great Sword: Goes before HW/Shield
Spear: Pike> Spear> all the rest
Pike: goes before all
HW/Shield: Only goes before other HW/shields

g0ddy
29-04-2010, 16:57
Likewise, I've been saying that making charges Int based and then adding bonuses to Int for different types of weapons/charging for years

I'm a prophet!

My ideal situation:
Combat order based on Int value
Charging doubles Int value or adds +1
Spears doubles Int value to the front arc
Halberds double Int value vs Cavalry


Do you play Night goblins? ;)

Im sure lots of people would like to see 150 pt units with 30 or 40 init 8 spear attacks :p

~ Zilla

Col. Dash
29-04-2010, 16:58
Hell yeah! (yes I play goblins)

Chiron
29-04-2010, 20:44
Do you play Night goblins? ;)

Im sure lots of people would like to see 150 pt units with 30 or 40 init 8 spear attacks :p

~ Zilla

Yes, because Night Goblins are the most dangerous troops EVER! :eek:

Anyone who charges a block of spears in the front should be made to suffer anyway, cavalry should always be aiming for side attacks. At the moment the amount of suffering they get if they charge the front of them is minimal. I want to see units like Blood Knights, Chaos Knights think about what they are about to do instead of aiming for a unit like NG and only fearing the Fanatics (but not much)

MalusCalibur
29-04-2010, 23:02
Yup, and that sounds a lot better to me. An element of randomness so that nothing is guaranteed just because you're better at guessing distamces than your opponent, but the average charge ranges for units with full command would have gone up from 7th edition distances.

Some things *should* be guaranteed, and I for one think the distance your troops charge into combat should be one of them. Estimating whether or not you're in range to charge has been a huge tactical part of WFB for years. Why should it be taken away? Or do you want everything to be random? Maybe missile ranges should be random too? How about Ld ranges? After all, you don't want to lose a game just because your opponent outplayed you and had his units in the right position!

8th ed seems to be just throwing more control of the game to the whims of dice. Some edition down the line will probably just consist of each player rolling one dice, and the highest wins the game, if this mentality continues.

Avian
29-04-2010, 23:13
I actually wouldn't mind if missile ranges and leadership ranges were more random, particularly the leadership ranges. It feels very artificial to me that the Night Goblins 11" from the general are definitely Ld 9 while the ones 13" away are definitely Ld 5, I'd like a more sliding scale where units closer would be more likely to be able to benefit from the general (ex: roll 4D6, if you are within that range, you can use it). I'd also prefer an archer's skill to influence more the range than the chance of hitting, since units in comparable historic periods didn't much aim as such (ex: range for a bow could be a number of D6 equal to double the BS+1, while short bows could be double BS-1).

g0ddy
29-04-2010, 23:23
Yes, because Night Goblins are the most dangerous troops EVER! :eek:

Anyone who charges a block of spears in the front should be made to suffer anyway, cavalry should always be aiming for side attacks. At the moment the amount of suffering they get if they charge the front of them is minimal. I want to see units like Blood Knights, Chaos Knights think about what they are about to do instead of aiming for a unit like NG and only fearing the Fanatics (but not much)

But shouldnt 300 pts of Blood Knights (5 with command) be able to defeat 150 pts of night goblins quite handily? "Realism" in a fantasy environment like Warhammer can only be applied so far... before it makes you wonder if it really should be applying in the first place.

~ Zilla

Grimstonefire
29-04-2010, 23:32
I'd also prefer an archer's skill to influence more the range than the chance of hitting, since units in comparable historic periods didn't much aim as such (ex: range for a bow could be a number of D6 equal to double the BS+1, while short bows could be double BS-1).


I'm not so sure about this. The range is pretty much decided entirely by the type of bow and the strength of the user, rather than the skills of the archer.

If I could change bows, I would keep the ranges the same, but say for all of them:

Strength: As user.

Chiron
29-04-2010, 23:40
But shouldnt 300 pts of Blood Knights (5 with command) be able to defeat 150 pts of night goblins quite handily? "Realism" in a fantasy environment like Warhammer can only be applied so far... before it makes you wonder if it really should be applying in the first place.

~ Zilla

Its not as if those attacks are really going to kill many blood knights, they will at least kill one which is a vast improvement though.

I dont mind them mincing them, but I would like them to be minced with some consequence instead of putting up less resistance than a soap bubble

Spiney Norman
30-04-2010, 13:31
Lets hope they arent going 40k with this. We keep touching on this. 40k close combat is such a flawed and generic thing I hope it gets completely redone next edition. There are too many dice rolled to the point of stupidness. The only reason I even play are cool models and everyone else does, they havent had a good rules set since 2nd. I love fantasy because the rules make more sense, I am more into fantasy. Generally i am not moving figures and rolling 30 dice. Step up is an ok rule as it makes sense, even the one attack back makes sense as the guys behind the front line are getting pushed back and have to strike over the guys in the front who havent had time to fall down yet or cant because its a crush. From experience this happens quite often.

You have personal experience of being in medieval style, unit based combat and having to hack at the enemy over the upright corpses of your dead comrades???


Initiative is utterly stupid for the first round of combat. A charge is a vicious thing, with success the front line is going to get squished unless they are linebacker size(with malnutrition in the middle ages rampant, its safe to say there were few linebacker sized people if any). The front line of a shield wall will be lucky to stay on its feet, if its well trained the guys behind them will know to dig in and brace the front guys, most units are not much more than peasants and arent the best trained. Usually a charge of this nature is less kill the enemy and more break their line and go through them. This is assuming hand weapon and shields for the most part(which were actually not very common once armor made it on the scene of battle fields because swords were relatively useless against people in real armor.)

We don't really know anything about this yet, if they do resort to initiative order for combat I'm expecting a system of modifiers, +1 for Spears, +2 for charging, +2 for ASF, -3 for Great weapon etc (entirely speculative examples). I think its workable, we'll just have to wait and see.

Razhem
30-04-2010, 13:56
I actually wouldn't mind if missile ranges and leadership ranges were more random, particularly the leadership ranges. It feels very artificial to me that the Night Goblins 11" from the general are definitely Ld 9 while the ones 13" away are definitely Ld 5, I'd like a more sliding scale where units closer would be more likely to be able to benefit from the general (ex: roll 4D6, if you are within that range, you can use it). I'd also prefer an archer's skill to influence more the range than the chance of hitting, since units in comparable historic periods didn't much aim as such (ex: range for a bow could be a number of D6 equal to double the BS+1, while short bows could be double BS-1).

Dicehammer. THE BEST GAME EVAR!!!

Why leave orcs with all the fun of their army doing whatever the hell it wants when we can have it on all the armies!

Odin
30-04-2010, 14:23
Some things *should* be guaranteed, and I for one think the distance your troops charge into combat should be one of them. Estimating whether or not you're in range to charge has been a huge tactical part of WFB for years. Why should it be taken away? Or do you want everything to be random? Maybe missile ranges should be random too? How about Ld ranges? After all, you don't want to lose a game just because your opponent outplayed you and had his units in the right position!

8th ed seems to be just throwing more control of the game to the whims of dice. Some edition down the line will probably just consist of each player rolling one dice, and the highest wins the game, if this mentality continues.

Estimating ranges will still be important, only now it will have to be combined with tactical decisions on the odds of making an 8" charge. You'll have the option to come just within charge range of an enemy unit to tempt them into charging in the knowledge that they could well fall short.

Don't forget, when fleeing from a charge, or fleeing or pursuing from combat it's a random dice roll. Have you ever complained about that? And yet the random dice roll when fleeing from a charge can make the difference between rallying at a safe distance or being run down and slaughtered. We have to make a tactical decision about how close we can risk being, what happens if it goes wrong etc. My guess is that this is how charges will work now, you'll be taking tactical decisions based on the odds (which is pretty much what the whole game is anyway), and one of the elements will be your ability to judge distances.

Plus as Avian says, the new system could seriously cut down on the amount of stand-offs between two units who don't want to get within charge range of each other. In real battles of course, there will often be a counter-charge anyway, so why should one side have a massive advantage just because the turn-based system doesn't allow for counter-charges?

MalusCalibur
30-04-2010, 15:45
Don't forget, when fleeing from a charge, or fleeing or pursuing from combat it's a random dice roll. Have you ever complained about that? And yet the random dice roll when fleeing from a charge can make the difference between rallying at a safe distance or being run down and slaughtered.

Fleeing and pursuing are far less co-ordinated actions than charging, so it makes more sense for them to be random. But the less random elements involved in what is supposed to be controlled movement, the better. You wouldn't like it if your move distance was random every turn, now would you? But it's a similar principle.

Units will still stand at arms length, it'll just be a greater distance. I.e. outside the opposing units maximum possible charge range (so about 10" in the case of normal infantry). All this change will do is allow the dice to dictate even more of the game than they do.

Odin
30-04-2010, 15:56
Fleeing and pursuing are far less co-ordinated actions than charging, so it makes more sense for them to be random. But the less random elements involved in what is supposed to be controlled movement, the better. You wouldn't like it if your move distance was random every turn, now would you? But it's a similar principle.

Units will still stand at arms length, it'll just be a greater distance. I.e. outside the opposing units maximum possible charge range (so about 10" in the case of normal infantry). All this change will do is allow the dice to dictate even more of the game than they do.

I don't think that's true at all. As I said, if the benefits of charging are toned down a bit alongside the random charge range rumours, I can definitely see myself moving units to just inside my enemy's charge range. They are then given the opportunity to charge, but with the distinct possibility that they will fail, giving me the charge.

In any case, my ability to judge distances is only reasonably acceptable, whereas my usual opponent can guess any range up to abut 6' and get it absolutely spot on every time, to within a quarter of an inch. So as a result he almost always gets to charge.

And while I don't want to see WHFB reduced to a contest of who is luckiest with their dice rolls, I also don't think a "guess the distance" competition is any more satisfying.

The Clairvoyant
30-04-2010, 16:00
i actually like these rumours of fighting in initiative order and random charge distances.

to the people saying "what is the point in charging?", well, it may be that it would be better to be in combat than to stand around being shot by archers!

And even if there is no bonus for charging, at least it stops the stalemate of standing just outside charge distance. And maybe that random charge distance will help against those pesky people who insist on fleeing when you charge them. Maybe it'll also mean that M4 troops will actually be able to get the charge on M5 troops instead of always being charged.

I look on both of these rumours as opening up more options than taking them away.

Razhem
30-04-2010, 16:04
i actually like these rumours of fighting in initiative order and random charge distances.

to the people saying "what is the point in charging?", well, it may be that it would be better to be in combat than to stand around being shot by archers!

Thing is, my archers are the ones that are shooting. Of course other factions will still want to engage ASP, beastmen don't have any ranged worth a damn and their magic isn't powerful enough to be the main engine of the list. But what about dwarfs, empire or Dark elves? Lists that can have some amazing shooting, they don't really have any need to engage in melee, specially if they have the advantage rangewise. Hell, if they are lucky, the super mega awesomeness of everything being random can even give them an extra turn of nuking everything because you rolled to low on the charge

Erloas
30-04-2010, 16:37
Hell, if they are lucky, the super mega awesomeness of everything being random can even give them an extra turn of nuking everything because you rolled to low on the charge

On the other hand, it could also mean you get to charge a turn earlier as well. If we assume the 2d6 take the highest for charges there is a about 75% change that M4 units will still charge 8 or more inches. And for M7 units, there is a good chance their charge range will be increased as well (though I don't feel like running the numbers for that one). For the fastest units, m5/6 and m9, they will have a decent chance of moving slower, but for everything else (about 60-70% of units) they will mostly be the same or better.

Avian
30-04-2010, 16:48
If infantry charge the highest of two D6, the chance of moving exactly the distances below are as follows for a M4 unit.

5": 3%
6": 8%
7": 14%
8": 19%
9": 25%
10": 31%

Chance of rolling the below distance or more:

5": 100%
6": 97%
7": 89%
8": 75%
9": 56% <--- i.e. chance of charging further than now
10": 31%


Chance of rolling the below distance or less:

5": 3%
6": 11%
7": 25% <--- i.e chance of charging shorter than now
8": 44%
9": 69%
10": 100%

Spiney Norman
30-04-2010, 16:49
If these rumours re: random charges are true, banners that add D6" to your charge distance are going to become pretty much standard kit in 8th I think

Col. Dash
30-04-2010, 16:59
Actually Spiney yes. I do full combat medievil combat as a hobby including large unit actions and mass melees(actually building a new set of armor as we speak, gotten bored with my old one). My weapon of choice is a bastard sword and trust me, fighting with great weapons is anything but slow. The second strike may not be as fast and allow a little reaction time for the opponent, but the initial strike is much faster than any one handed weapon due to range and having two hands to move the weapon with. Theres no way around it, a great weapon, polearm and spear WILL strike first in combat. You might not hit or the opponent may parry or deflect it, but they will strike first.

Shimmergloom
30-04-2010, 19:18
In real battles of course, there will often be a counter-charge anyway, so why should one side have a massive advantage just because the turn-based system doesn't allow for counter-charges?

If they wanted something like that, I would be in favor of it.

If they made a charge reaction called, 'counter-charge: if enemy charges you and fails its charge, you may counter-charge up to D3(D6 for M7+ units) and count as charging that turn. Add +1 to your roll if you have full command in the unit.

Grimstonefire
30-04-2010, 19:23
Vaguely off topic, but a claymore sword could supposedly cut at least two men in half if used by a strong man. If they were going to a more historical basis it would be nice to make great weapons cause double wounds against enemies with no armour/scaly skin (but cost a fair bit more). That would truly be something to fear..

MalusCalibur
30-04-2010, 19:34
I don't think that's true at all. As I said, if the benefits of charging are toned down a bit alongside the random charge range rumours, I can definitely see myself moving units to just inside my enemy's charge range. They are then given the opportunity to charge, but with the distinct possibility that they will fail, giving me the charge.

Or they'll just move away from you, getting out of your charge range, if the new movement rules work the way I understand them to.


In any case, my ability to judge distances is only reasonably acceptable, whereas my usual opponent can guess any range up to abut 6' and get it absolutely spot on every time, to within a quarter of an inch. So as a result he almost always gets to charge.

I think I see your vested interest in this rules change.


And while I don't want to see WHFB reduced to a contest of who is luckiest with their dice rolls, I also don't think a "guess the distance" competition is any more satisfying.

At least distance estimation is a skill that can be improved. Dice rolls, however, will always be down to probability and randomness, unless you're cheating. I'd far rather learn to judge charge distances well than just let the dice decide.

Shadowsinner
30-04-2010, 19:35
Vaguely off topic, but a claymore sword could supposedly cut at least two men in half if used by a strong man. If they were going to a more historical basis it would be nice to make great weapons cause double wounds against enemies with no armour/scaly skin (but cost a fair bit more). That would truly be something to fear..

my executioners cost enough, thank you very much! :)

Malorian
30-04-2010, 19:36
Vaguely off topic, but a claymore sword could supposedly cut at least two men in half if used by a strong man. If they were going to a more historical basis it would be nice to make great weapons cause double wounds against enemies with no armour/scaly skin (but cost a fair bit more). That would truly be something to fear..

It's killing blow covering that already?

Grimstonefire
30-04-2010, 20:00
Giving great weapons killing blow would be awesome. Especially for Chaos Dwarfs using ravening hordes. :)

@Avian

What about the cavalry ones (3D6, discarding lowest), with the re-roll from the standard? Let's see the maths on that!? :p

@Shadowsinner
As I said, a strong man that would rule out elves. ;) Lol.

Asher
30-04-2010, 20:11
Giving great weapons killing blow would be awesome. Especially for Chaos Dwarfs using ravening hordes. :)


That'd be pretty insane. The Shaggot could killing-blow dragons or any other large target. Also regular Drogers would be extremly scary.

But let's not get carried away by whislisting ... someone might mistake it for actual rumors! :shifty:

Fobster
30-04-2010, 20:59
could the d6 and 2d6 for cav be for who strikes first rather than movement? With the roll added to initiative. I'd like to see a bit more randomness in regards to who goes first in combat. For various reasons charging at someone won't always get you the first hit in real life, nor will being the quickest.

MalusCalibur
30-04-2010, 21:34
could the d6 and 2d6 for cav be for who strikes first rather than movement? With the roll added to initiative. I'd like to see a bit more randomness in regards to who goes first in combat. For various reasons charging at someone won't always get you the first hit in real life, nor will being the quickest.

I actually like that idea more than the rumoured change. It's still changing another guaranteed element to a random one(which I don't like), but it's far better than random charge ranges.

Erloas
30-04-2010, 21:46
real quick, not a break down, just the straight chances
3d6 discarding the lowest
of 216
<7 42 19%
7 27 12%
>7 147 68%

Avian
30-04-2010, 22:07
Stuff (zero decimals)

Exact score:

M+2": 0%
M+3": 1%
M+4": 3%
M+5": 6%
M+6": 9%
M+7": 13%
M+8": 16%
M+9": 17%
M+10": 16%
M+11": 13%
M+12": 7%

That score or higher

M+2": 100%
M+3": 100%
M+4": 98%
M+5": 95%
M+6": 89%
M+7": 81%
M+8": 68%
M+9": 52%
M+10": 36%
M+11": 20%
M+12": 7%

That score or less

M+2": 0%
M+3": 2%
M+4": 5%
M+5": 11%
M+6": 19%
M+7": 32%
M+8": 48%
M+9": 64%
M+10": 80%
M+11": 93%
M+12": 100%


Examples:

M7
Chance of equal move: 13%
Chance of moving further: 68%
Chance of moving shorter: 19%

M8
Chance of equal move: 16%
Chance of moving further: 52%
Chance of moving shorter: 32%

M9
Chance of equal move: 17%
Chance of moving further: 36%
Chance of moving shorter: 48%

Odin
30-04-2010, 23:35
If infantry charge the highest of two D6, the chance of moving exactly the distances below are as follows for a M4 unit.

5": 3%
6": 8%
7": 14%
8": 19%
9": 25%
10": 31%

Chance of rolling the below distance or more:

5": 100%
6": 97%
7": 89%
8": 75%
9": 56% <--- i.e. chance of charging further than now
10": 31%


Chance of rolling the below distance or less:

5": 3%
6": 11%
7": 25% <--- i.e chance of charging shorter than now
8": 44%
9": 69%
10": 100%


Nice one. So a 75% chance of moving as fast as they do now. And a 56% chance of moving faster than they do now. And you're not even taking into account the rumoured bonuses from standards and musicians. I'm pretty rubbish at stats so I don't know what the effect would be of the musician's rumoured re-roll. But even just taking a standard (if the rumours are correct) means those M4 infantry units will charge more than their current charge distance 89% of the time, and nearly 1/3 of the time they will charge 3" more than their current charge distance. Some nerf!

As Erloas says, could very easily mean charging a turn earlier for infantry units.



I think I see your vested interest in this rules change.

At least distance estimation is a skill that can be improved. Dice rolls, however, will always be down to probability and randomness, unless you're cheating. I'd far rather learn to judge charge distances well than just let the dice decide.

It's a fair cop.

Seriously though, I'm not going to get a great deal of enjoyment out of sitting down with a tape measure every night perfecting the art of measuring inches with my eyes. Nothing wrong with it being an element of the art of charging, but I don't see anything wrong with adding an element of calculating probabilities into the charge move as well.

In many ways I think guessing ranges will still be absolutely crucial. Say you have a cavalry unit and you want to position yourself for a charge next turn against an infantry unit. You don't want to give them the chance to back out of range (will they be able to just move back their full 4" move? no idea yet), but you also don't want to get close enough to allow them to charge. So you need to do a quick mental calculation of how far they can charge, what are the odds that you can charge them if they back off to your maximum charge range, leaving you with a failed charge? Then you need to move them the right distance away, using your ability to accurately guess ranges.

Now, in that scenario guessing ranges is still crucial, but there's an extra element of calculating probabilities, which exists throughout WHFB (and as a poker player it's one I relish). I don't see how that is in any way dumbing down or removing a tactical element. Not saying I'm right, just throwing a different perspective out there.

Avian
01-05-2010, 06:53
Right, so if you are M7 and he is M4, you can sit at 10.5" and know he won't be able to charge you, but then there is a 5% chance that you won't be able to charge him.

Grimstonefire
01-05-2010, 10:01
If they had a musician and rolled 6 for bonus they would. :p

Avian
01-05-2010, 10:10
If both sides had a musician, you'd just the same situation slightly further off. ;)

Odin
01-05-2010, 10:46
Right, so if you are M7 and he is M4, you can sit at 10.5" and know he won't be able to charge you, but then there is a 5% chance that you won't be able to charge him.

Ah, not if he's got a standard though, if the rumours are true and it adds +1" to your charge move. You'll need to be 11.5" away from those units to guarantee they can't charge you (unless they have a magic banner which adds to their charge range). And if you're 11.5" away you've got an 11% chance of failing your charge. Unless you've got a standard and musician.

I guess it's more of a tricky tactical decision with a M5 unit against a M4 unit - much closer odds, while the cavalry (as it should be) is almost guaranteed the charge.

I'm going to have to do quite a lot of thinking about this once we know the rules for sure.

Chiron
01-05-2010, 12:13
Am I right in thinking this opens up the possiblity of first turn charges? Particularly for Tomb Kings and Brettonians

Avian
01-05-2010, 18:53
If brets are limited to M+2D6+1, then than maxes out at 21". Tomb Kings frequently charge first round anyway. ;)

Solar_Eclipse
02-05-2010, 05:19
Alright, im a veteran Fantasy AND 40k player, and i am sick and tired of the fantasy elitism.

"Those who dislike randomness can go play 40k"

You know what? When a unit charges in the real world, it doesnt always charge at the same rate. Sometimes it charges faster, sometimes slower. Sometimes its because of moral, uneven ground, enemy fire, the psychological effects of the other force, etc.

Do you know what helped people charge back then?

Pride in the colours, a rousing Musician instilling parade practiced discipline and good leadership.

Standard, Musician, Champion.

The random rules are EXCELLENT, do you know why?

Because they show reality better, they give slower units sometimes the chance to catch a faster one off the back foot, it means that sometimes you cant control everything and just throw the battle into chance. Will your unit make it into that combat? You'd probably need to roll a 5 or a 6, do you feel lucky?

The mark of a good general is to be able to cope with changing battlefield situations.

Im happy about the randomness becoming decreased with good commands, because it means that discipline becomes a tad more important, it shows.

im glad there will be less Monsters and Heroes cluttering up the game with their resilience and killyness because it means that i will be able to use the infantryman, as a Dwarf player the infantry is my backbone.

Dear Fantasy players, your game is just as worthy as any other, if you see or hear a person being Elitist or if you are being Elitist yourself, then stop and think for a second.

If your friends believe the new edition is going to be a gunline and is painting up 50 Repeater crossbowmen/Thunders/Handgunners/etc then maybe, just maybe, its because your friend is a dick, rather than any fault of the rules. I would like to remind you that Gunlines are pretty damn powerful now already and widely acknowledged as unsportsmanlike.

If a friend says he doesnt like the sound of 8th because he cant have his Vampire Lord on Monster mount+4 other vampires+Minimum troops then maybe you should consider this, as its basically min-maxing of the worst kind.


This may not make sense, so if its too long and you didnt read it, just take away this:

Look at the merits of the new edition before crying about the problems and saying that its turning into 40k.

Dokushin
02-05-2010, 05:23
Woah, woah -- so let's say there is no bonus and charging results in initiative order attacking, period.

I think there's nothing wrong with that. See, that means you get no bonus for charging to their front, which is more or less the way it should be -- they see you coming, set up, there's a big clash.

All of you are forgetting that you're getting some pretty huge incidental bonuses for charging to the flank or rear -- destroying their rank bonus and getting static combat res on top of that, in addition (if it still works that way) to removing the champion/musician/standard bearer and spears.

Those benefits alone are huge incentive to set up a charge to the sides or rear, amply rewarding clever setups. The removal of benefits besides that just stops high-M units from getting autobreaks against slower infantry. It's a good thing.

(And I say that as Saurus-heavy Lizardmen, whom will never attack first again, ever.)

dragonet111
02-05-2010, 06:54
I think it can be a good thing, Imagine a shambling horde of zombies attacking ranks of elves (high, dark, sylvan we don't care:D) I clearly picture the elves striking first.

At present I like the rumor.
wait and see now.

Odin
02-05-2010, 14:02
Woah, woah -- so let's say there is no bonus and charging results in initiative order attacking, period.

I think there's nothing wrong with that. See, that means you get no bonus for charging to their front, which is more or less the way it should be -- they see you coming, set up, there's a big clash.


I would bet any money that there will be a benefit to charging (aside from the obvious for lances). One rumours seems to suggest +1CR for the charging side, which we playtested yesterday alongside some of the most solid rumours and it worked pretty well.

Avian
02-05-2010, 15:26
If you want scenarios where people move up to objectives and then hang around there to work, you don't want units to be at a great disadvantage if charged while they are there, because avoiding charges is going to be tougher if you don't want to give up the objective.

I don't think there will be any direct charge bonus, I think the "bonus" will be that if you do manage to win the combat and push the enemy unit off the objective, you win the game. Currently, charge bonuses is there to award aggressive play. If people have to play aggressive anyway, there is no actual need for a reward.

kingjshrulz
10-05-2010, 03:45
For Brets lead by char with the virtue of extra d6 charge that max charge distance will be 8+1+18=27 inches in the first turn. more than enough in a standred setup of 24 inches apart.

ChaosVC
10-05-2010, 04:52
Well I guess people prefer a game of fate where your charge is decided on the fate of the roll, you are excited before you roll the dice, elated to the status of "Yay~ness!!!" when you rolled what you needed but disappointed when you get a bad roll and your plan fell short due to a bad dice roll. Definately fun but how is this tactically more interesting?hmmm....nevermind that then but didn't we play 40k for that kind of fun and excitement?

Avian
10-05-2010, 05:02
Yeah, that's just like rolling dice to see if a unit breaks and runs away from combat. They do that in 40K too, and it's hardly very tactical!



:shifty:

ChaosVC
10-05-2010, 05:43
Yeah, that's just like rolling dice to see if a unit breaks and runs away from combat. They do that in 40K too, and it's hardly very tactical!



:shifty:

Well perhaps its more fun to fomulate a plan with uncertainty then to formulate a fun with at least more certainty that it will work. :eyebrows:

To each his own then.

Avian
10-05-2010, 05:54
And when you engage in combat, you are certain as to whether the units will break or not, then. Yes? Or do you make an estimate and lay your plans if that estimate turns out to be right or wrong?

ChaosVC
10-05-2010, 06:12
And when you engage in combat, you are certain as to whether the units will break or not, then. Yes? Or do you make an estimate and lay your plans if that estimate turns out to be right or wrong?

Well for that, with good judgement and a fixed value for movement, you can plan ahead and make sure you get the charge you wanted. That will influence the odds which is stack against your opponent and make sure you have more certainty of you pulling off a win.

With random movement, you plan, to roll a dice and then "awwwww..." so much for the plan, let alone thinking of breaking your oponents in combat with favourable odds to win one.

Don Zeko
10-05-2010, 07:51
Sure, you can make a plan, but the other guy will also be attempting to charge you. Given equal movement, you're likely to be in a situation where you try to make the longest charge possible, and that means you will periodically come up a bit short. Tell me: how does misjudging charge distance by a quarter inch differ from getting a bad roll on random charge reach?

To me, all of this pre-emptive complaining boils down to "I've gotten used to playing with 7th edition rules and don't want to have to change anything." So many of the people on this thread have conveniently forgotten the balance issues that plague 7th edition warhammer and gone straight to complaining about the least workable ruleset they can construct from current rumors. Why don't we spend a bit more time thinking of how these changes will interact with a percentage system, whether core infantry will become usable again, whether or not this will help you deal with your opponent's hydra or dragon, etc. etc. etc, and then wait for the book to come out before declaring this the End of Warhammer As We Know It?

Memnos
10-05-2010, 07:59
No bonus for charging is so counter-intuitive and bizarre I simply dont buy it at all. Why would you ever charge? Random ranges, failed charges putting your butt in awkward positions. The risk vs. reward simply isnt there.

There HAS to be something more to this: either an impact hit at base strength, init bonus, +1 attack, +1 to hit...something.

I hope it's +1 attack. With the horde rule, a unit of Orcs could potentially get 90 S 4 attacks on the charge.

HAHAHAHAHAH! 'Not elite' my left buttcheek! And that would be less than 400 points for a unit of 50 Orcs with extra choppas.

+1 attacks would definitely improve horde armies.

ChaosVC
10-05-2010, 08:34
Sure, you can make a plan, but the other guy will also be attempting to charge you. Given equal movement, you're likely to be in a situation where you try to make the longest charge possible, and that means you will periodically come up a bit short. Tell me: how does misjudging charge distance by a quarter inch differ from getting a bad roll on random charge reach?

To me, all of this pre-emptive complaining boils down to "I've gotten used to playing with 7th edition rules and don't want to have to change anything." So many of the people on this thread have conveniently forgotten the balance issues that plague 7th edition warhammer and gone straight to complaining about the least workable ruleset they can construct from current rumors. Why don't we spend a bit more time thinking of how these changes will interact with a percentage system, whether core infantry will become usable again, whether or not this will help you deal with your opponent's hydra or dragon, etc. etc. etc, and then wait for the book to come out before declaring this the End of Warhammer As We Know It?

If you can't differentiate between poor judgement from bad dice roll, I can't help you there.

Fredrik
10-05-2010, 09:16
I fully agree Iīm also sick of GW taking away skill because kids canīt be bothered learning to estimate charge ranges and guess ranges.

And yes there is a difference between the skill required a game with stricter movement and line of sight then one with all 360 degree line of site, elitism or not. As long descisions now have more impact on decisions later it will increase the level of thought need behind each move to do well. Maby you just donīt like hearing the trouth.

I do like 40k aswell but more in a casal way as it does not bring the same level of edge to the manouvering. Random charge moves would really ruin the game since then any snot nosed brat with no skill what so ever can without any thought what so ever quite easely with just one better dice roll get charges of first. Not good in my book.

Not even to mention that this in effect gives all shooting armies alteast one more turn of shooting against regular movement (magic fisrt may really change this).

And for all the gun lines canīt hold objectives, take a look at a shooty darkelf army with loads of 18 move shooty fast cav and say again that they cant move. Now they can just get another turn before they move to the empty objective across the board in one turn since ther is no on left standin on the other side.

On a final note Picture this minotaurs 63 pts a popp changing just abaout anything that get to strike back with 2 ranks. Well there goes my 250+ pts unit because of T 4 a 6+ save. These changes just doen not seem really thought trough. Why would you charge anything but a small cav unit with minos or ogres?

SideshowLucifer
10-05-2010, 09:35
I am kinda mixed on the random charge distance. I thinkI understand why they are doing it, but I'm not sure how it will feel in the end. Honestly, I have played games where we stand off for three turns and try and maneuver that inch to try and make sure we can stay just out of charge range. Games that don't have melee until turn three or four aren't very exciting or tactical. There was no skill involved other then patience.

By making it random distances and making the benefit of charging less, then people will be more open to move and risk getting themselves engaged. Honestly, it isn't less skill, it's just a different skill and will likely see the game get some new blood. A lot of the people who don't play WFB say it's becuse of the horrible movement phase and its as much fun as watching paint dry. Let GW mix it up some and see what happens.

Sloeberjong
10-05-2010, 11:28
No bonus for charging is so counter-intuitive and bizarre I simply dont buy it at all. Why would you ever charge? Random ranges, failed charges putting your butt in awkward positions. The risk vs. reward simply isnt there.

There HAS to be something more to this: either an impact hit at base strength, init bonus, +1 attack, +1 to hit...something.

Why? There already are weapons which grant bonussus. Stuff like lances and spears. Indeed Cavalry should get a bonus, and it works fine with those weapons. I don't see why infantry should get a siginificant bonus to charging. It's gonna be a big brawl and if i'm running toward someone who sees me comming I don't think I'll be at any advantage...Besides, flanking should still provide enough bonussus to make it more than worthwhile.

Fighting in initiative order is what I would have liked to see a long time ago, because to me it's counterintuitive and bizarre that a charging unit gets to go first. If im out there on the field I'm not gonna wait for the other guy to swing his sword at me! I'm gonna get him before that if I have the chance! So fighting in initiative order seems a good abstract way of giving faster units a better chance at fighting a slower opponent...

I think people sometimes forget that there already are lots of bonussus for charging in different weapon types. Striking first really was too big of a bonus for charging if you ask me. I think the way the new rules might work gives more weapon options a better chance of getting picked. Like Halberds for example...in 7th infantry would rather have hw+sh because it gives a better save...because most likely you'll be striking last because you're probably gonna be charged. With the new rules you'll have a chance to strike first against slower units (like saurusses or something) and then the extra S will be very nice.

And that's one of many examples I think.

logan054
10-05-2010, 12:05
I fully agree Iīm also sick of GW taking away skill because kids canīt be bothered learning to estimate charge ranges and guess ranges.

Yes it takes skill to charge a unit of cavalry into infantry, what GW have done is found away to make infantry viable and actually bring some new armies to the field. Im sorry but i found warhammer games more and more lacking.

ewar
10-05-2010, 12:16
I'm still not sold on the idea. I just don't see that there was a need to change anything. Fair enough, move to initiative order and changes to fighting and combat res. But there was literally nothing wrong with movement.

My stegadon for instance, can't have banner, musician or champion so now will charge an extremely variable 7" to 12" with a likely result being 9" or 10". I'm pretty certain from experience with lizardmen that slow moving monsters didn't need to be slowed down even more. When you consider that there is no change to marching - how does this come even vaguely close to making sense??

I'm happy for there to be more ranked infantry. But I also don't want to see the same 8 units of 20 across the table every game. Wow, we line up and march at each other. It doesn't matter who charges too much and we're restricted from taking too many unusual units, plus on a 6x4 table there isn't that much room to manouvre.

I can only presume that flyers will become even more useful than they are already (pending any changes to the fly rule).

Lord Solar Plexus
10-05-2010, 13:57
To me, all of this pre-emptive complaining boils down to "I've gotten used to playing with 7th edition rules and don't want to have to change anything."


Then you are rushing to conclusions. Simply labeling every criticism and sceptic comment as "pre-emptive complaining" is frankly ridiculous. Also, the frequency with which this charge is levelled is astonishing when you compare it to the contrary: How many times have 8ed supporters been called fanbois, Don Zeko?

Talk about double standard.



Why don't we spend a bit more time thinking of how these changes will interact with a percentage system, whether core infantry will become usable again, whether or not this will help you deal with your opponent's hydra or dragon, etc. etc. etc, and then wait for the book to come out before declaring this the End of Warhammer As We Know It?

I think about nothing else than how my core infantry is going to profit from any one of these changes, and I honestly don't see much. I have even asked loud and clear on several threads and fora if anyone could explain to me what I could have overlooked but until now, there was just bloodcurdlingly shrill silence. ;)

This isn't the end of the world at all. That's a strawman, you're fighting windmills. I expected core infantry to be better but instead they lose SCR. Oh boy.



And yes there is a difference between the skill required a game with stricter movement and line of sight then one with all 360 degree line of site, elitism or not.


Indeed, the latter is tactically deeper. You do not know where the enemy will be. You have many many more options of where to move, or how far and in what formation. The possibilities are legion, and so you have to think about many more aspects.



I think people sometimes forget that there already are lots of bonussus for charging in different weapon types.
...Like Halberds for example...


Uhm, what? Halberds are a bonus for charging? Are you sure?



in 7th infantry would rather have hw+sh because it gives a better save...because most likely you'll be striking last because you're probably gonna be charged. With the new rules you'll have a chance to strike first against slower units (like saurusses or something) and then the extra S will be very nice.


Excuse me but that makes very little sense. Do we know that HW + shield is going away? If so, than this is the reason someone would prefer halberds. That has nothing to do with charging.

If however both stay the same, I don't see the halberd being much more popular. That better save is even more important because more Saurus will hit you irregardless of how many you killed (as long as you didn't kill two full ranks or some such). In this regard, and in this particular example, striking first is relatively meaningless.

Don Zeko
10-05-2010, 16:45
Then you are rushing to conclusions. Simply labeling every criticism and sceptic comment as "pre-emptive complaining" is frankly ridiculous. Also, the frequency with which this charge is levelled is astonishing when you compare it to the contrary: How many times have 8ed supporters been called fanbois, Don Zeko?

I wasn't trying to label every criticism of 8th edition as illegitimate. I'm concerned about how random charge distances will work out myself. What I have a problem with is the hysterical attitude that fills up these threads on the part of people who, by definition, haven't read the book and don't know what all of the changes will be.

Take initiative order combats, for example. Straight intiative order for all combats would be disastrously bad, but if you mix it into a system of intiative modifiers for charging, certain weapons, etc., then you might have a decent way to fix the poor balance between weapon types in the current edition by making spears more useful without changing the outcomes for most units too much. Without seeing the full rules and playing some games, we don't know, so I don't see how it's worth freaking out over at this point.


I think about nothing else than how my core infantry is going to profit from any one of these changes, and I honestly don't see much. I have even asked loud and clear on several threads and fora if anyone could explain to me what I could have overlooked but until now, there was just bloodcurdlingly shrill silence. ;)

Well let me give it a shot. As I see it, the trouble with core infantry now is that there are way too many units that will absolutely, 100%, beat them in one round of combat every time. Swordmasters, chaos knights, dragons, etc. will all charge in, inflict enough kills to prevent return attacks, and then win combat by at least 5 or 6. Chaos Knights, Cold One Knights and the like will often autobreak them with fear as well.

Yet if the percentage system is instituted, dragons will be basically unheard of in tournament-sized games, so that's one threat gone. And those chaos knights won't be able to march, so you'll have a bit more time to deal with them with shooting, magic, re-directing, or whatever. And if the step up rule or the initiative order rule are instituted, your core infantry should be able to attack, which they couldn't do before, but the chaos knights (cavalry) and the swordmasters (too expensive for deep formations) won't benefit from the rule. And if you do lose, auto-breaking from fear and terror are gone, so your odds of holding out and counter-charging the Knights are much higher. None of these changes will let you reliably beat khorne chaos knights with a core infantry block, but they will increase the infantry's power relative to what it is now by giving them more time to prepare for combat, a somewhat better(but stilll bad) chance of winning the combat, and a chance to at least take one or two of those elite troops with you. In fact, I would say that almost every rules change I've seen will provide at least a slight buff to core spearman units.


This isn't the end of the world at all. That's a strawman, you're fighting windmills. I expected core infantry to be better but instead they lose SCR. Oh boy.

I don't think I'm tilting at windmills at all. There have been several posters promising to leave warhammer forever if they institute an initiative-based system for determining who strikes first, as it will supposedly remove all incentives to charge. Given that we're talking about an expensive board game played with little plastic army men, I don't see how much more of a Sky-is-falling attitude one can get than that.

some_scrub
10-05-2010, 19:04
Honestly, it isn't less skill, it's just a different skill and will likely see the game get some new blood. A lot of the people who don't play WFB say it's becuse of the horrible movement phase and its as much fun as watching paint dry.

I'm all for the optimism, and I'd be the first to admit that we don't really know how the all the changes are going to come together into a single coherent set of rules.

That said, IMO the movement phase of WFB is the best part precisely because it requires skill. In the current system the outcome of a combat between units is determined by a number of factors: dice rolls, who charged, the stats of the units, whether the combat is on a flank etc. Under this system the generals have a significant degree of control over who wins a combat based on who gets the charge and where - positioning of units is very important.

If charging becomes less reliable and less important, that element of the game is removed. Have you ever played against a good unit of black guard with the ASF banner? It's not fun because you know that, no matter how you maneuver your troops, the outcome will be the same. The outcome of the combat is determined by which troops are matched up against the black guard unit and little else. If the changes are right, it seems like this will be, in a literal sense, the rule rather than the exception.

This doesn't mean that there will no longer be skill in playing WFB, but it does mean there will be less skill.

Spiney Norman
10-05-2010, 22:34
To me, all of this pre-emptive complaining boils down to "I've gotten used to playing with 7th edition rules and don't want to have to change anything." So many of the people on this thread have conveniently forgotten the balance issues that plague 7th edition warhammer and gone straight to complaining about the least workable ruleset they can construct from current rumors. Why don't we spend a bit more time thinking of how these changes will interact with a percentage system, whether core infantry will become usable again, whether or not this will help you deal with your opponent's hydra or dragon, etc. etc. etc, and then wait for the book to come out before declaring this the End of Warhammer As We Know It?

I totally disagree, there are two possible responses when you read a rumour for the new edition, either you will see it and like it, or you will see it and not like it, people have as much right and legitimacy to be positive or negative about the rumours they read, blind optimism about the rule changes for 8th is as ridiculous as blind doom-saying.

We know the author of 8th has a terrible track record with Fantasy rules writing, that makes me edgy for a start, and many of the rules don't sound to me like they will work in practice particularly well, nor is there very good justification for the rumoured changes. The rule changes for 8th might be the best thing since sliced bread, or they may be the worst thing to happen to the game ever, we don't know yet, so lets just let people have their say and discuss the rumours as we have them yeah?

As for me, from the rumours I've read its clear the game will play very differently to how it does now, a lot of the rumours don't make sense and many of them sound like the game will be significantly less playable and enjoyable than it is now, overall the rumours as they appear seem to be negative rather than positive, sure there are a few good ideas and bright spots, but overall I don't like the way the game is going.

I'm certainly not going to flip a switch and become an optimistic fool just because someone tells me its wrong to approach these rumours with trepidation.

Fredrik
11-05-2010, 06:36
LSP: No when everything sees 360 (and most things have long range shooting) and move in a skirmish manner you never entierly need to commit to one course of action being able to just as easely rewind earlier moves and stil charge shoot and so on. This makes the game much more forgiving and mistakes are much more easely rectified, requiering less tactical thought with each move.

With this iīm not saying that 40k is for kids or that people playing 40k is stupid in any way (hey I play it to) or that it totally lacks tactics. But I am saying that it does not come close in comparison with the movement tactics needed in a fantasy game because you can much more easely change your gameplan trough more mobile forces.

Back on topic.

Whats up with all the if you donīt agree your are a whining whiner. Iīve played this game (and many many more) for so long that I belive that I can get a fair view of how some changes will effect gameplay or alter a game. If I say I donīt agree with the fact that they (according to rumors) will bring in random elements in to movement and thus exchange skill for luck, thats my opinion and Iīm right to have it without anyone saying that itīs whining. (fleet of foot in 40k is an example of a bad random rule for movement)

This is a discussion where many are likely to have different opionions, so please stop calling people that donīt agree with your point of view whiners.

I also agree with SN that GW of late have given us little reason to trust in thier bigger visions since they seem to totally lack understanding of the game. This above all gives me the shivers when I hear big change is coming. It all boils down to that I donīt trust GW to do a good job with it. Had it been specialist games (GW branch of, why did they put all competent game designers here???) I woundīt have worried as much and thought that they probably would make it good no matter what loosely snatced rumours I heared.

But as it is GW seems to be run by persons with lacking understanding of the game, game design (why not do like alot of others an pretest beta version with the public) and seemingly even in marketing (hushing down rumors and not hyping is insane when thier biggest group all live on the internet and in a media society and have an attentionspan of a small dog). But then again they are hemorraging monet and loosing loads of players to other gamingsystems. Lets hope they lern and change.

Woaw that was a nasy rant.

Well Iīm looking forward to many common magic items as this will hopefully both increase diversety and balance them out.

Iīm also looking forward to a change in magic, itīs interesting to see that they went back towards the older magic card/winds of magic approach of thinking.

I guess we will have to see what gaming system we are all playing come august.

SideshowLucifer
11-05-2010, 15:16
I'm all for the optimism, and I'd be the first to admit that we don't really know how the all the changes are going to come together into a single coherent set of rules.

That said, IMO the movement phase of WFB is the best part precisely because it requires skill. In the current system the outcome of a combat between units is determined by a number of factors: dice rolls, who charged, the stats of the units, whether the combat is on a flank etc. Under this system the generals have a significant degree of control over who wins a combat based on who gets the charge and where - positioning of units is very important.

If charging becomes less reliable and less important, that element of the game is removed. Have you ever played against a good unit of black guard with the ASF banner? It's not fun because you know that, no matter how you maneuver your troops, the outcome will be the same. The outcome of the combat is determined by which troops are matched up against the black guard unit and little else. If the changes are right, it seems like this will be, in a literal sense, the rule rather than the exception.

This doesn't mean that there will no longer be skill in playing WFB, but it does mean there will be less skill.

Yes and no, for me. I do like thecurrent movemnt rules, but I hate when a game bogs into noone moving anything forward. It becomes a test of patience rather then a game with something going on the average person can get in to. Remember, they are marketing this game for people who don't currently play, but trying to make it appeal to those that do.

ewar
11-05-2010, 22:47
Yes and no, for me. I do like thecurrent movemnt rules, but I hate when a game bogs into noone moving anything forward. It becomes a test of patience rather then a game with something going on the average person can get in to. Remember, they are marketing this game for people who don't currently play, but trying to make it appeal to those that do.

A few people have mentioned this, but it's not something I ever see in games. Normally two experienced players won't get into the mexican stand-off situation, as it just doesn't make tactical sense.

When you pick a unit you should have a plan for it, to either make a charge or receive one. If you're receiving you should have options like magic or shooting to force an enemy to come onto you. If you need to get into combat, then generally you'll have a unit that can either make the charge (knights) or get close and force it (any heavy infantry).

If you have two equally matched units facing off, with only who gets the charge off as the decider, then both players have screwed up.

OT: if they bring in random charges, there's nothing we can do about it. However, I have my fingers crossed that the compensation for frustrating movement will be that it won't really make a difference who actually does the charging (whether or not that is a good decision fun-wise).

I personally don't think +1CR is enough of an incentive, especially as so many units are/will be stubborn. It just won't have any impact on real outcomes.

Balerion
11-05-2010, 23:42
I totally disagree, there are two possible responses when you read a rumour for the new edition, either you will see it and like it, or you will see it and not like it, <snip>
That is wholly untrue. The world does not consist of binary sets of opposites.

You can just as easily see a rumour and remain undecided. They're just strands in a tapestry; we're not really at a point yet where you can make any sort of judgment about the whole edition extrapolated from the pithy tidbits of information we've so far received.

ChaosVC
12-05-2010, 01:34
Still waiting for my brand new shiny AP1 sword. 1 and a half month to go...

Dilthar
12-05-2010, 02:49
Ummm...
I see a lot of people complaining about the changes to shooting and how it will encourage gunline armies, but I'm pretty sure the latest rumours up state that only bows will gain this advantage. Which I'm pretty sure is just to make bows a viable choice versus handguns.

I'm pretty sure the empire and dwarves arn't considered the deadliest gunlines because they have quarrelers and huntsmen.

and as far as dark elves are concerned, if repeaters shoot in two ranks, good for them! they are going to need the extra power after the magic heavy approach gets toned down a bit

frankly I'm excited...I think my peasant bowmen are gonna be badass

Col. Dash
12-05-2010, 19:49
I think gunline armies might have some boosts but we will see less of them. Remember that the game is moving to a scenario based system and that is what the new rules are designed for. If you play a straight forward fight every time then yeah, rules abusers will abuse the rules. Remember we will be taking objectives now so standing back and shooting isnt the best of ideas and unlike 40k we dont have transports to zoom us there.

DeeKay
13-05-2010, 00:55
I think almost everybody is reading too much into too little. GW has yet to confirm any of the rumours stated on these forums, so a definitive answer to anything in 8th ed is non-existent as of yet.

Everything people are kicking off about now is based on supposition and a fear of change. There's no shame in that. Change can be scary, especially when something changes that you have a stake in. Obviously people going "oh, i cant wait for ap1 swords" or "this is gonna suck!" don't help. Ignore that, they are as unsure of the new rules set as anyone else is right now, and they are simply expressing that sense of unease.

My advice is to wait, relax, enjoy 7th ed for a few months and play a few games of 8th before passing judgement.

With regards,
Dan.

ChaosVC
13-05-2010, 01:14
I think almost everybody is reading too much into too little. GW has yet to confirm any of the rumours stated on these forums, so a definitive answer to anything in 8th ed is non-existent as of yet.

Everything people are kicking off about now is based on supposition and a fear of change. There's no shame in that. Change can be scary, especially when something changes that you have a stake in. Obviously people going "oh, i cant wait for ap1 swords" or "this is gonna suck!" don't help. Ignore that, they are as unsure of the new rules set as anyone else is right now, and they are simply expressing that sense of unease.

My advice is to wait, relax, enjoy 7th ed for a few months and play a few games of 8th before passing judgement.

With regards,
Dan.

I don't think I am trying to help by the way. Can't I make fun of the rumours?:rolleyes: Do you need help to relax?

Hellebore
13-05-2010, 01:21
I think there should be some kind of charge bonus. Armies like the dwarfs are already defensive, without a bonus to something they are just going to turtle even more, encouraging even more gunlines. Spears are defensive weapons, charging anything with a spear is a bad idea, but for dwarfs its worse because of their low I. Unless they get some kind of I bonus or something, they are actually better off taking the charge instead, because it removes the extra rank.

One of the reasons I dislike the ASF elves. Charging them disadvantages you more than being charged by them.

Taking objectives won't be a big deal if you shoot most of the enemy army to pieces.

As for random charges, it's not really any more different that random chances to hit, wound, or save. You measure the probability of success and go with that. It just means people will be more conservative in their charge declarations.


Hellebore

DeeKay
13-05-2010, 01:31
I don't think I am trying to help by the way. Can't I make fun of the rumours?:rolleyes: Do you need help to relax?

Just used the ap1 sword as an example. I'd like to think I'm fairly relaxed in most regards but it's clear that many people aren't.

With regards,
Dan.

ChaosVC
13-05-2010, 01:53
:rolleyes:So its not relaxing when some one mention an ap1 sword...hmmm Hoookay.

Solar_Eclipse
13-05-2010, 01:55
That is wholly untrue. The world does not consist of binary sets of opposites.


Levi Strauss disagrees with you there :P


Still waiting for my brand new shiny AP1 sword. 1 and a half month to go...

Hey ChaosVC.

Ive noticed that every single post of yours for the last month have been painfully bad trolling by constantly putting a 40k rule into a fantasy situation. Now, this is really getting on my nerves so i would like to give you a challenge.

Make a thread in fantasy general about the similarities the new edition will have to 40k. Then when that 12 word post is complete i would dearly love to disagree and argue against you.

If you don't do this then obviously its clear(er) that you are talking out of your trousers and will you stop trolling with poor wit.

EDIT:

Oh and there is a reason to charge, that reason is objectives. If you turtle then you will lose, simple as that.

So you have to move into the board to compete. Now that you have a clear guide on where the enemy units are trying to move, then youve got a good idea on where they are going and you can plan to tactically use your units against theirs.

ChaosVC
13-05-2010, 02:21
Levi Strauss disagrees with you there :P



Hey ChaosVC.

Ive noticed that every single post of yours for the last month have been painfully bad trolling by constantly putting a 40k rule into a fantasy situation. Now, this is really getting on my nerves so i would like to give you a challenge.

Make a thread in fantasy general about the similarities the new edition will have to 40k. Then when that 12 word post is complete i would dearly love to disagree and argue against you.

If you don't do this then obviously its clear(er) that you are talking out of your trousers and will you stop trolling with poor wit.

EDIT:

Oh and there is a reason to charge, that reason is objectives. If you turtle then you will lose, simple as that.

So you have to move into the board to compete. Now that you have a clear guide on where the enemy units are trying to move, then youve got a good idea on where they are going and you can plan to tactically use your units against theirs.

I think you are missing the point, I am making fun of the rumours. And I don't think I give a crap what you think about my favourite ap1 sword because its mine and you can't have it.:rolleyes:

Oh, I don't think the issue is about the reason of whether to charge or not to charge, its about how silly it can be if every charging move you make depends on the fate of a dice roll in a game where manveuring is important and a game where people love because of its manveuring rules. Don't think you will ever understand this anyway.

Solar_Eclipse
13-05-2010, 05:12
Oh, I don't think the issue is about the reason of whether to charge or not to charge, its about how silly it can be if every charging move you make depends on the fate of a dice roll in a game where manveuring is important and a game where people love because of its manveuring rules. Don't think you will ever understand this anyway.

Well, lets just look at it mathematically.

If a unit of Dwarfen Longbeards with great weapons charges, it moves 6"
In the new rules it moves 3+(2D6 pick the highest)+1= 5" to 10" with it more likely being around 8".

The thing is that the chances of rolling a 1 or a 2 are quite low now, it adds a random element which is:

1. More realistic because charging is alot less disciplined than marching
2. More based on luck, so you have to weigh up another reason to charge

And it also has the possibility of units with a lower movement charging those with a higher movement, which is always nice to have. Rather than the current absolute system.

In this system, those units with Great weapons dont *need* the charge to get their kills, and kills are going to be a main deciding factor. Having a Dwarfen unit that puts out 11 Ws5 S6 attacks is awesome for a dwarf player.

Charging giving a +1 to CR is great, since it makes more sense that charging adds to the static combat res like ranks because it is the force of the charge that is doing the damage, rather than it helping the people strike faster.

the current system is not bad, but it lacks variation and it is very much based on getting the charge=Winning unless you build a defensive army, which is hard to do if your not Dwarfs or a Gunline.

So this variation will provoke a variation in playstyles from certain armies, which can only be a good thing.

ChaosVC
13-05-2010, 06:35
Well, lets just look at it mathematically.

If a unit of Dwarfen Longbeards with great weapons charges, it moves 6"
In the new rules it moves 3+(2D6 pick the highest)+1= 5" to 10" with it more likely being around 8".

The thing is that the chances of rolling a 1 or a 2 are quite low now, it adds a random element which is:

1. More realistic because charging is alot less disciplined than marching
2. More based on luck, so you have to weigh up another reason to charge

And it also has the possibility of units with a lower movement charging those with a higher movement, which is always nice to have. Rather than the current absolute system.

In this system, those units with Great weapons dont *need* the charge to get their kills, and kills are going to be a main deciding factor. Having a Dwarfen unit that puts out 11 Ws5 S6 attacks is awesome for a dwarf player.

Charging giving a +1 to CR is great, since it makes more sense that charging adds to the static combat res like ranks because it is the force of the charge that is doing the damage, rather than it helping the people strike faster.

the current system is not bad, but it lacks variation and it is very much based on getting the charge=Winning unless you build a defensive army, which is hard to do if your not Dwarfs or a Gunline.

So this variation will provoke a variation in playstyles from certain armies, which can only be a good thing.

Well written but not convincing enough. You are only pointing out that armies like dwarves will get an equal chance for charging while missing the fact that while this is good for the dwarfs players who would love to try playing offensive. You are forgetting the fact that it gives an unfair advantage to that particular army who already dominates most of the shooting phase because of the way the army is designed and that its weakness simply have to be its maneuverbility since they are among the better amoured and tougher troops around. Wouldn't this be unfair to armies who are less tough and lightly amoured, relying on their speed and maneuverbility to seize the initiative in the battle field?

While there may be modifiers to help charging units get a better chance of pulling off a charge, it is still based on the fate of a dice roll, having played enough games in 40k, I can tell you the number of times I fail to assault a unit within 3 inches despite have the move thru cover rules is getting on my nerves. So basically it doesn't really help much as long as an important movement like charging is base of the fate of a dice. It doesn't help in foward planning at all.

i)Is this really reaslitic? I would say no and I totally disaggree with you for this one. In fact, no medieval or historical army no matter how undiscipline they may be would not charge and stop half way because they have... "a random urge to stop?" Unit commanders have made the error of misjudging the distance and launched premature assault, but never suddenly stoping because..."erh sir, I think we did not roll high enough on the dice..." And to be honest, how many historical battles have soldiers failing to contact their enemy when charging until the gun powder era (misjudging of distance meant certain death by lead or lead poisoing if your survive
) where commanders do misjudge the distances, but how many times can a commander misjudge the distance for a charge? In this case better get a replacement. And you do have to differentiate between failing a charge due to poor judgment and... a bad dice roll where nothing logical can give us an explaination for that to happen... Maybe a naked woman flying pass the battlefield juggling her undies and singing "I can fly"?

Whether its luck based or not, you already need to weigh the reason for making a decision to charge... making it luck based does not help, its just turn the freaking game into a casino showdown. "Las Vegas style baby!"

One thing about battles is that alot of people fail to realize that its all about attacking and breaking the morale of your enemies, most of the real killing actually took place after a unit is routed. Thats why in WFB, musician and standards give CR because they are morale boasters, so is rank and file.
While it may be fun to have a killy game play, sometimes too much killy can make it look silly. To me I am undecided if the idea of steping up and fighting two ranks is potential fun or not, but it can be potential crutch for most core infantry because this is where they suck more against elites if the rumour is true.

Well the current system has it flaws but its much better than some of the rumoured rules, especially the random charge thing. Having played historcial war games, I can tell you that guessing charge range is one of the rules where historical war gammers find amusing about warhammer simply because... how can you go wrong with running or marching in formation towards your enemy. And "charging" is simply a game term used when engaging your enemy in a fight, you don't necessarily have to run towards them brave heart style. "FREEDOM!!!"

Solar_Eclipse
13-05-2010, 16:13
Well written but not convincing enough. You are only pointing out that armies like dwarves will get an equal chance for charging while missing the fact that while this is good for the dwarfs players who would love to try playing offensive. You are forgetting the fact that it gives an unfair advantage to that particular army who already dominates most of the shooting phase because of the way the army is designed and that its weakness simply have to be its maneuverbility since they are among the better amoured and tougher troops around. Wouldn't this be unfair to armies who are less tough and lightly amoured, relying on their speed and maneuverbility to seize the initiative in the battle field?

Of course not, because those armies have many bonuses such as multiple attacks, higher initiative, poison, killing blow, ASF, etc. All rules which Dwarfs do not have in any form (Slayers have multiple attacks, true, but its not much to worry about).

Charging has the bonus of +1CR, which is nice, Dwarfs dont need much extra combat Res because they have so much of it already. The charge will help, but not so much. What this change does is allow slower armies based on infantry to allow for things such as flank charges and manouvrability.


While there may be modifiers to help charging units get a better chance of pulling off a charge, it is still based on the fate of a dice roll, having played enough games in 40k, I can tell you the number of times I fail to assault a unit within 3 inches despite have the move thru cover rules is getting on my nerves. So basically it doesn't really help much as long as an important movement like charging is base of the fate of a dice. It doesn't help in foward planning at all.

That is, of course, selective memory. The amount of times you have successfully charged is of a magnitude greater than the ones which have failed and have cost you something big.

The dice roll is random, but 2D6 choose the highest +1 is pretty good odds, enough to make you sit back and think if the odds are worth it.

And if you dont charge? what do you lose?

1CR usually.


i)Is this really reaslitic? I would say no and I totally disaggree with you for this one. In fact, no medieval or historical army no matter how undiscipline they may be would not charge and stop half way because they have... "a random urge to stop?" Unit commanders have made the error of misjudging the distance and launched premature assault, but never suddenly stoping because..."erh sir, I think we did not roll high enough on the dice..." And to be honest, how many historical battles have soldiers failing to contact their enemy when charging until the gun powder era (misjudging of distance meant certain death by lead or lead poisoing if your survive

That is a misconstrued view of the game turn. All actions are simultaneous in this, the turn is to facilitate play.

A failed charge is indicative of the unit not maintaining its discipline enough to contact the enemy with the entire weight of the unit behind it, its a loss of nerve, uneven terrain, missed orders and many other things.

The charge is which unit can maintain its discipline enough to coordinate a unit sized attack. This is why Musicians and Standards help, because they are both recognisable symbols of authority which help guide the troops. They are drilled in what musical calls mean what order.


) where commanders do misjudge the distances, but how many times can a commander misjudge the distance for a charge? In this case better get a replacement. And you do have to differentiate between failing a charge due to poor judgment and... a bad dice roll where nothing logical can give us an explaination for that to happen... Maybe a naked woman flying pass the battlefield juggling her undies and singing "I can fly"?

Again, there is no misjudged distances for charging (unless you are talking about massive marches, which have happened in history alot). When you get close in, its all about getting the order out in a way that the troops remain disciplined while charging and keep their wits about them to support the man beside them, represented by +1 CR.



Whether its luck based or not, you already need to weigh the reason for making a decision to charge... making it luck based does not help, its just turn the freaking game into a casino showdown. "Las Vegas style baby!"

No, what it does is allow for less of a difference between Mv 3,4,5 and 6 as they grade up by 1" not 2. 2" means that lower mv races will basically never get the charge, polarising the game the way it is now. Why do you think Dwarfs castle with shooting and HW/Shield? Its because Dwarf generals have recognised that there is no way for them to truly get off a charge, so they dont move, they shoot and they rely on their heavier armour to protect them because when they get charged, they will strike second and they need to protect the combat res.



One thing about battles is that alot of people fail to realize that its all about attacking and breaking the morale of your enemies, most of the real killing actually took place after a unit is routed. Thats why in WFB, musician and standards give CR because they are morale boasters, so is rank and file.
While it may be fun to have a killy game play, sometimes too much killy can make it look silly. To me I am undecided if the idea of steping up and fighting two ranks is potential fun or not, but it can be potential crutch for most core infantry because this is where they suck more against elites if the rumour is true.

While in most of history, that is true, there are cases against it. But yes most of the damage is done when chasing the routing enemy units, rather than killing during combat.

Problem is that that doesnt make for very fun or varied gameplay. Also, though, you WILL cause more casualties by breaking your enemy. You destroy whole units with that.


Well the current system has it flaws but its much better than some of the rumoured rules, especially the random charge thing. Having played historcial war games, I can tell you that guessing charge range is one of the rules where historical war gammers find amusing about warhammer simply because... how can you go wrong with running or marching in formation towards your enemy. And "charging" is simply a game term used when engaging your enemy in a fight, you don't necessarily have to run towards them brave heart style. "FREEDOM!!!"

Oh my...so many things can go wrong when the charge is due.

What happens when a wrong note from your musician means half of your unit tries to do an about face rather than charging?

What happens when your units begin to break because of enemy fire? or even just the potential for enemy fire?

What happens when the ground you are on is uneven? When the enemy is more threatening up close than when they were from far away?

Charging is not just a game turn. When formation combat ruled the day, the charge was pivotal. It stopped the enemy from manouvring and began the dance of outflanking the enemy while keeping your army alive and in high spirits.

and stepping up isnt just a good idea for the game, its accurate too. In Roman Legions at the time of Julius Caesar and beyond the officer would blow a whistle every few moments of combat and the front rank would shove their foe and push to the back of their own unit while the next line came in front. It prevented only a few men from getting too tired.

ChaosVC
13-05-2010, 17:26
Of course not, because those armies have many bonuses such as multiple attacks, higher initiative, poison, killing blow, ASF, etc. All rules which Dwarfs do not have in any form (Slayers have multiple attacks, true, but its not much to worry about).

I think you are missing the point here, first of all dwarves already dominates the shooting phase most of the time, so its the other side that is pressured to go to them, which usually means they get shot up and weaken before they reach the dwarves, and if after all that the dwarves still get the initiative to charge them silly...good game buddy.



Charging has the bonus of +1CR, which is nice, Dwarfs dont need much extra combat Res because they have so much of it already. The charge will help, but not so much. What this change does is allow slower armies based on infantry to allow for things such as flank charges and manouvrability.

True but remember this, the charge is still random based on the rumoured rules... random chances means random chances, not equal chances.



That is, of course, selective memory. The amount of times you have successfully charged is of a magnitude greater than the ones which have failed and have cost you something big.

Not true, it varies from game to game as all these are luck base and you bascially can't tell if your plan is actually paying off until the dice is cast. Which actually makes the decision made less meaningful.



The dice roll is random, but 2D6 choose the highest +1 is pretty good odds, enough to make you sit back and think if the odds are worth it.

And if you dont charge? what do you lose?

1CR usually

Well I really hate to repeat myself and you pretty much know what I am going to say yah?:p



That is a misconstrued view of the game turn. All actions are simultaneous in this, the turn is to facilitate play.

A failed charge is indicative of the unit not maintaining its discipline enough to contact the enemy with the entire weight of the unit behind it, its a loss of nerve, uneven terrain, missed orders and many other things.

The charge is which unit can maintain its discipline enough to coordinate a unit sized attack. This is why Musicians and Standards help, because they are both recognisable symbols of authority which help guide the troops. They are drilled in what musical calls mean what order.

You are a seasoned 40k player, you should know how often an assault that requries dice roll can fail, are you trying to tell me that realistically, that kind of problem fail that often?




Again, there is no misjudged distances for charging (unless you are talking about massive marches, which have happened in history alot). When you get close in, its all about getting the order out in a way that the troops remain disciplined while charging and keep their wits about them to support the man beside them, represented by +1 CR.

Which is also why random charging distance is silly don't you agree?



No, what it does is allow for less of a difference between Mv 3,4,5 and 6 as they grade up by 1" not 2. 2" means that lower mv races will basically never get the charge, polarising the game the way it is now. Why do you think Dwarfs castle with shooting and HW/Shield? Its because Dwarf generals have recognised that there is no way for them to truly get off a charge, so they dont move, they shoot and they rely on their heavier armour to protect them because when they get charged, they will strike second and they need to protect the combat res.

That have to do with intended army designs for the dwarves. Don't want to repeat about why random charging is silly again.



While in most of history, that is true, there are cases against it. But yes most of the damage is done when chasing the routing enemy units, rather than killing during combat.

Problem is that that doesnt make for very fun or varied gameplay. Also, though, you WILL cause more casualties by breaking your enemy. You destroy whole units with that.

Which is also why I am reserving my opinion on this rule about stepping up and fighting in two ranks. Again, it can also encourage a different type of death star in the game, lets wait and see shall we?



Oh my...so many things can go wrong when the charge is due.

What happens when a wrong note from your musician means half of your unit tries to do an about face rather than charging?

What happens when your units begin to break because of enemy fire? or even just the potential for enemy fire?

What happens when the ground you are on is uneven? When the enemy is more threatening up close than when they were from far away?

True, but I don't think it will happen as often as it will be reflected correctly, with dice rolls to simulate the frequency of such things happening, it is going to turn the game into "Fumble Hammer".


Charging is not just a game turn. When formation combat ruled the day, the charge was pivotal. It stopped the enemy from manouvring and began the dance of outflanking the enemy while keeping your army alive and in high spirits.

and stepping up isnt just a good idea for the game, its accurate too. In Roman Legions at the time of Julius Caesar and beyond the officer would blow a whistle every few moments of combat and the front rank would shove their foe and push to the back of their own unit while the next line came in front. It prevented only a few men from getting too tired.

Don't think I am going to disagree with you on the charging and pinning the enemy formation while trying to win the battle on the flanks, that is just a form of engagment and forms varies from time to time due to changing circumstances from weaponary technology to better form of military organisation etc, I assure you that winning the flanks is an overused myth for winning battles. Love to discuss these things with you but don't want to go off topic.

You do have to take into account that charging is still just a game term to represents all kind of different manner of engaging the enemy, from marching in steady pace keeping in line and formation to the celtish frenzied charge.

And how many historical records actually tell us that soldiers would have a sudden urge to stop mid way during a charge and this occur in such a high freqency because all those kind of things that will go wrong actually do happen in history? So often that the random charge distance where the player have a good chance of failing is a good reflection of that happening? I mean really...have you take that into consideration? Shouldn't we be reading all kinds of funny stuff in military history text books about half the army on both sides fumbling all over the battlefield?

IMHO, WFB in 6th and 7th ed is like "chess" during manuveuring and "playing jackpot" during fighting and other stuff. But if the rumoured rules for charging is true, it would be like playing "snake and ladder" half way thru a "chess" game during manuveuring... decisions made by players becomes less meaningful since more elements of the game comes down to the fate of a dice roll.

Chiron
13-05-2010, 17:57
Dwarfs going a few extra inches is not going to stop Chaos Knights being able to outmanouevre them and get them into a bad position. Especially now that objectives are rumoured to be part of the game thus making Dwarf players have to have a strategy other than - "Place Hill in Corner, Form Castle, FIRE"


And how many historical records actually tell us that soldiers would have a sudden urge to stop mid way during a charge and this occur in such a high freqency because all those kind of things that will go wrong actually do happen in history? So often that the random charge distance where the player have a good chance of failing is a good reflection of that happening? I mean really...have you take that into consideration? Shouldn't we be reading all kinds of funny stuff in military history text books about half the army on both sides fumbling all over the battlefield?

Battle of Pharsalus, Ceasar v Pompey. Ceasars troops charge across the battlefield and physically STOP a few metres away from Pompeys troops before reforming and charging the rest of the distance.