PDA

View Full Version : Anyone Else Dreading the 25% cap?



Zoolander
29-04-2010, 00:58
My initial thought to reading that percentages might be coming back was Awesome! When I played back in 4th Ed we dropped the 50% cap to 25 on purpose. However after thinking on it a bit, I am kind of dreading it. I play 7 armies or so and pretty much all but two of them are going to be screwed by this new rule. Before you object see my armies and my reasoning (includes my normal percentage spent on characters):

Daemons - 40-45%. Dropping some heralds can drop that quickly. Heck can't use a greater daemon at all so there's a 20% drop right there.
Dark Elves/Wood Elves - 30-35%. Should be fine with a little adjustment (unless they count assassins which would bump to 35% or so for DE).
Lizardmen - 40%. I just don't see dropping this unless I don't use an EotG.
Skaven - 30-45%. Can be reduced to 30% or so with no trouble but still above the magic number.
Vampire Counts - 30-45%. Seriously? This will castrate VC.
Warriors - 25-40%. I don't see a huge issue here but WoC character cost bank so it's still going to suck.
Tomb Kings - 40%+. If I thought VC would be castrated, TK are going to have their testes shoved down their throats and pulled out their butts, then pounded with a hammer. Even if we pretend the latest rumors are true and TK can march within 12" of the general, and somehow the new magic system doesn't kill the TK magic phase, I still don't see this army working under a 25% limit. Time could prove me wrong but it really doesn't look very optimistic to me.

So basically to make that 25% mark, I basically won't be able to take the fun toys in a standard 2250 battle. No Engine, no Bell or Furnace, no greater daemon, etc. Yes the good news is never having to face a BT again, but the bad news of spending hard cash and sweat collecting and painting these miniatures only to never field them again kinda ruins the good news.

What do you all think? How is this new limit going to affect your armies? List your armies when you discuss.

Please note - I'm not complaining about the limit, and as I said my first impression was good. I used to play at 25% before it was even a limit. But that was then and I don't play HE anymore and with 7th Ed I felt it had really become herohammer.

Sergeant Uriel Ventris
29-04-2010, 01:10
How about we wait for some actual news before we launch into the hyperbolic ranting about how this edition will ruin Warhammer forever?

Feefait
29-04-2010, 01:12
I agree. I hate any sort of limitations. Nothing should restrict you from doing whatever you want to do or buying and playing with everything a company makes. I just do not understand the logic behind limiting what players (buyers) options are.

If you want to sell or see more core used then make them better. I think the game should be more expansive and organic. Add to it, change things - make percentages a tournament rule if you want but don't give me more army construction rules.

For me 25% will probably be a problem with only my LM. oh and any army with special characters who will will now no longer, ever, be used. So no new Queek model or any other named. I am not a powergamer. Even with Lord choices I usually only bring heroes so I can have more troops. I should however have the option to powergame and play/avoid other powergamers as I choose. my group may not even follow the rule. We're pretty good at self policing anyway.

The_Bureaucrat
29-04-2010, 02:10
Well tomb kings can field 2 heroes (and have to) in a 1000 pt game.
Ogre choices are limited to a single bruiser at 1000 points.

Not going to complain too much as it remains to be seen what the actual book looks like and I'm sure there is plenty we don't know.

I would however be disappointed in anything in the 8th that limits army list composition such as 25% cap on characters as it would take out a lot of the interesting choices.

Zoolander
29-04-2010, 02:33
How about we wait for some actual news before we launch into the hyperbolic ranting about how this edition will ruin Warhammer forever?

Excuse me, but I wasn't ranting or being hyperbolic (ok maybe a little with the TK for comedic effect). Grow a sense of humor dude! This is a forum to discuss warhammer both current and soon to be editions. If you don't like discussions don't read them.

It's true we don't know exactly how 8th ed will pan out, but we know they are going to percentages and we have very strong information that states characters will be at 25%. That can change, and I emphasized that in my post as well, but you probably didn't read it. Also note I said "dreading" not "hate" or "dread". The tense in a sentence makes a crucial difference.

But if it helps you sleep at night I'll even add the following disclaimer:

"Assuming the limit is set to 25%, how do you feel it will impact your army list?". Use your imaginations.

InsideReticle
29-04-2010, 02:46
The percentages you're spending on characters are ridiculous. I don't think I run a single list that even comes close to those percentages.

Zinch
29-04-2010, 02:53
The percentages you're spending on characters are ridiculous. I don't think I run a single list that even comes close to those percentages.

I agree.
In any of my armies I field more than 30% of characters, and this is easy to reduce.

Maoriboy007
29-04-2010, 03:12
Reducing characters is easy, doing it and still having a playable and enjoyable list is a lot easier for some armies than it is for others.

The "will you ignore percentages?" already debates this rumour.

Hopefully this rumour is the biggest publicity stunt since the War of the Words Radio Broadcast, if it isn't a rumour it'll still be funny, just not ha-ha funny .

Erloas
29-04-2010, 03:14
I agree. I hate any sort of limitations. Nothing should restrict you from doing whatever you want to do or buying and playing with everything a company makes. I just do not understand the logic behind limiting what players (buyers) options are.
By this same logic though you should also be perfectly fine with someone fielding a 2000 point O&G army with just 9 giants and a warboss. Or having a VC army be nothing but a lord and blood knights.

Without some structure games just don't work. And as is so often seen in every aspect of life, the more options you give someone the more ways they are going to find the screw things up.

greendan
29-04-2010, 03:16
Perhaps the 25% will apply to lords and heroes separately?
Or is that not kosher?

I'm more concerned (well not actually concerned) about the supposed 25% cap on special choices.
I'm running a lot of minotaurs in my army and that could be a vast investment for nothing.
But c'est la vie i suppose.

Zoolander
29-04-2010, 03:21
@Insiderecticle:

Thanks for your feedback. I'm curious what armies you play where 30%+ is "ridiculous". Consider the dark elves. If I take a sorceress on a Pegasus that's 400 right there. A greater daemon is 650. A vampire is 400-500. A TK lord is around 300 (for a king). a magic toad is easily 500. A rat on the bell, 550. That's one character. Just one. Granted with changes to the magic system one mage may (or may not) be enough magic.

I field fighty lords sometimes but like magic so end up taking mages more. With the current system 3 mages can amount to 800 pts in no time, and are needed to ensure spells go through. Do you see my point? Now when I field a dreadlord and two scroll caddies that doesn't generally top 600 pts for all three.

So what lords/armies do you field and what pts do you spend?

R Man
29-04-2010, 03:22
First of all, there is already another topic that covers this. Second of all: Holy hell, that's a lot of heroes! What points value do you play at?

Let's examine a few:


Daemons - 40-45%. Dropping some heralds can drop that quickly. Heck can't use a greater daemon at all so there's a 20% drop right there.

To be fair things like Greater Daemons are very unfair in small games and you should think twice about fielding one. Daemons in general should be able to stand the trimming.


Skaven - 40-45%. Can be reduced to 30% or so with no trouble but still above the magic number.

Aren't Skaven heroes cheap? So why spend so much on them? Surely, you can drop a mage or two, especially if the Magic rumour is true.


Vampire Counts - 40-45%. Seriously? This will castrate VC.

Not this again! Refer to above about the magic rumour.


I agree. I hate any sort of limitations. Nothing should restrict you from doing whatever you want to do or buying and playing with everything a company makes. I just do not understand the logic behind limiting what players (buyers) options are.

This is so wrong I don't know where to begin. But I'll try anyway. You should be restricted, as I have noted before, because a lack of limits means spamming, and power spamming throws of the balance of units.


If you want to sell or see more core used then make them better. I think the game should be more expansive and organic. Add to it, change things - make percentages a tournament rule if you want but don't give me more army construction rules.

It's not that simple. 'make them better'. How could that even work in a game without limits? When pricing a unit, the games designer needs to be aware of what is out there. Of what a standard/typical list looks like and of its composition in order to judge its effectiveness, either by eye or by formula. If these are removed, it becomes impossible to judge overall effectivness because the standard is gone. Many core units only seem bad because they are forced to fight juggernauts and hulking monsters which they were never meant to face unsupported because the slot system thinks a hydra is equal to gyrocopter.


I should however have the option to powergame and play/avoid other powergamers as I choose. my group may not even follow the rule. We're pretty good at self policing anyway.

The problem then comes when one player moves or wants to find new opponents and faces a very different gaming etiquette.

Edit: Zoolander, you seem to have tricked these heroes out with all sorts of options. Just cut back on the trinkets. A 300 point vamp lord is good enough. Even at 2000 points a 'rat on a bell' still leaves 150 points for a few cheap heroes. Try taking a sorceress on something other than a Pegasus. Even a Slaan can be taken for about 350 if you don't load up on magic items and sacred plaques. Just cut back on the bling and you'll fit them. This is of course assuming you play 2000 points. Playing 2225 or 2500 will give you more wriggle room.

chivalrous
29-04-2010, 03:24
I've been keeping to the 5th edition percentages throughout 6th and 7th edition and as a Dark Elf player I've not had too much trouble (although with the most recent book I have, as has been inferred, counting assassins as troop upgrades rather than characters ;) )

I've had a year out of the game though and barely got to play against the new Daemons, let along Beastmen so I'd have to see how the restrictions fare against them.

chaos0xomega
29-04-2010, 03:31
Realistically, I dont think the 25% cap thing is going to come into fruition. Thats 500 pts in a 2000 pt list (which I believe is tournament standard, yes?). Do you have any idea how many units will become non-options at that points level because they are OVER 500 pts?

chivalrous
29-04-2010, 03:40
Realistically, I dont think the 25% cap thing is going to come into fruition. Thats 500 pts in a 2000 pt list (which I believe is tournament standard, yes?). Do you have any idea how many units will become non-options at that points level because they are OVER 500 pts?

Basically anything riding a large monster right ;)

25% is probably a low estimate for characters and I seem to remember the cap was not more than 50% on characters in 5th edition
(25% plus on infantry; not more that 25 on allies, monsters or war machines)

It worked back then and everything was one and a half to two times more expensive back then.

Zoolander
29-04-2010, 03:41
@ R Man:

thanks for your feedback. I apologize to all if this topic was covered in the other post. I did not read that one for the title seemed to be more about whether people would be ignoring the new rules (obviously it moved a little off topic).

I agree with everything you said. Yes the daemon is crappy at 2250. Initially it was because I lacked other models and simply needed filler. But then it became more of a great enjoyment of fielding a greater daemon (regardless of power level they are just cool and I hate leading an army with a hero).

Skaven percentages have a typo. It should be 30-45%. Skaven warlords are cheap (90 pts). Grey seers are not (240 butt naked, 540 or so loaded to the teefers).

Finally I've got to add that magic may become harder to get off not easier. Your opponent gets basically a d6 worth of dispel dice, leaning heavily toward the 4-6 range by taking no magic def at all. And you get 2d6 (both possibly modified somehow by magic levels). Seems a little random to me and random is not an improvement in an already less than reliable phase of the game. However we don't know what the system really is so discussing that point is moot.

Oh and I play 2250.

Zoolander
29-04-2010, 03:52
Basically anything riding a large monster right ;)

25% is probably a low estimate for characters and I seem to remember the cap was not more than 50% on characters in 5th edition
(25% plus on infantry; not more that 25 on allies, monsters or war machines)

It worked back then and everything was one and a half to two times more expensive back then.

Chivalrous,

I used to play 4th ed with the same percentages and never had an issue. That's because the percentages then, as you just pointed out, are DOUBLE what the rumored percentage of 8th ed is (25%). Not to mention lords were cheaper then in many respects, considering magic items weren't even counted in that 50%. How crazy is that?

Darkspear
29-04-2010, 04:11
The percentages do not cause me any worries at all. Clearly GW is changing the game to reemphasize on the soldiers rather than uber fighting heroes and mages.

For my darkelves, I will be just taking a high sorc and a lvl 2. In fact if the new magic rules do not encourage heavy magic, I will drop the high sorc and thus freeing points for either more troops or a fighty general.

For my dwarves, my list barely bursted the 25% mark. Once again the new magic rules may led me to drop my runesmith and freeing points. Alternatively I can tone down my dwarf lord.

Finally for my tombkings. Yes Tomb Kings seem screwed. However they will be the first 8th edition book. It will be highly likely that the TK armywill be just fine and perfectly balanced once the new army book is released.

Seriously, I already own tons of miniatures for all my armies. The rules change will only affect the way I play, they will not affect my wallet in any way. For those players who rely on silly spam lists like multiple EoTG, mass stegadons, Druchii Dragon lords and stuff, my only comment is that you should see this happening long ago. Extreme lists will often be compromised when there is a rules change, it is part of GW's marketing strategy. I never believe in spending excessive money to build extreme lists to win...this is because you may win on the table top but you lose in real life (money down the drain).

outbreak
29-04-2010, 04:13
it's too hard to say until we have the book. GW's new focus is ment to be on people playing at higher points levels where the character cap will still allow you to field what you want.

3Xhume
29-04-2010, 04:40
Why make the percentages a limitation to your friendly game? Everybody has the option to scrap the percentages with the opponent's approval.

As for competitive play, I strongly agree with the direction that GW is working on. Why people spent so much points on their character choices? That is because we have grown familiar with heavy character build in the 7th ed. There is too many uber characters in 7th ed that people tend to forget the core of their army which should be infantries. Why take more bloodletters when you can bring a bloodthirster which is more effective? 25% does limit our fun factor in army building, but they do create a more balanced environment.

IF your choice of gaming should be fielded with greater demons, dragons, and uber monsters/characters, then there is nothing i say will make sense to you. Don't get me wrong, Im fine with monsters. In fact, we should have them because we are playing fantasy game. Its just their rules is overpowering.

I play TK as my main army (have dwarfs as a second and have played bretonnia, wood elves, and dark elves) and I will gladly take one Tomb King and two priest as my character choices in an tournament environment free of dragons, thirster, and imbalance monsters.

Zoolander
29-04-2010, 04:55
For those players who rely on silly spam lists like multiple EoTG, mass stegadons, Druchii Dragon lords and stuff, my only comment is that you should see this happening long ago.

Thanks for your feedback! That's the thing. I'm not running silly spam lists. If I were running unkillable dreadlord on a dragon, I really should have been kicked in the nuts (other than the BT, which I rarely play). But like I said I run a slaan or a VC lord or rat on bell, and that's almost 25% for one character. Kinda sucks. I may have to switch to fighty lords. :shifty:

X3hume:

No, I totally understand. And in fact, I am glad in many respects that they are making core more the focus of the game, as it should be. Back in 4th, we had a minimum limit of 50%+ to spend on core (along with 25% characters), and we loved it. But that was a different game. I guess what I'm feeling is that GW has uns used to the herohammer 30-40% characters and now they're jerking the rug out from under us. Quick note, under 25% rules, I doubt you can take even three characters in a TK list. You'd be limited to two (TK@300, LP@160). And there's another item I may never get to field although I love it. No more casket. LP w/casket is around 300 or so. TK+LP+casket = 600+. More than 25%. So unless heroes all drop in price, or 25% is a faux rumor, I may hate some of my armies in 8th. My Wood Elves are actually about to receive a small jump in power, as very few monsters, steam tanks, and dragons will be seen. Sweet! Blocks of slow infantry is my favorite prey. So it's not all bad! :p

Darkspear
29-04-2010, 05:51
Thanks for your feedback! That's the thing. I'm not running silly spam lists. If I were running unkillable dreadlord on a dragon, I really should have been kicked in the nuts (other than the BT, which I rarely play). But like I said I run a slaan or a VC lord or rat on bell, and that's almost 25% for one character. Kinda sucks. I may have to switch to fighty lords. :shifty:



I understand. I wasn't refering to you actually. Nevertheless, with the new magic rules, you may only need one mage or alternatively just a lvl 2 will do. This is exactly what I intended for my druchii as stated earlier.

Ramius4
29-04-2010, 05:55
No I welcome it. 5th edition got rediculous. 6th edition was damn good. 7th edition rules were the best yet, but army books are fast bringing back the 5th edition type playstyle.

Words like 'special' and 'rare' don't actually mean special or rare anymore...

fantasypisces
29-04-2010, 06:19
There should be no restrictions?

Ok, I'll take a warlord with no items (simply for leadership 7), a bsb with storm banner, 25 clanrats to house both of them in, then 1 Doomwheel and 7 Hellpit Abominations at 2250.

Have fun with that.

Personally, I welcome percentages, I have no problem fitting all the characters I need in for skaven at 25%. The only armies I see it really messing up would be VC and TC.

3Xhume
29-04-2010, 06:21
TK with destroyer of eternities (240) + hierophant with hieratic jar (140) + LP with a dispel scroll (140) should be sufficient to be under 2250pts 25% cap and I may say quite effective. If I want to buff my hierophant or other priest, i just need to tone down TK to GW, golden ankhra/collar of shapesh (which still deadly). I wont complain this setup rather than facing bloodthirster, DE dragon lord, slann + 2 EotG lizzardmen that I just met last tournament (dont ask the result, I think you should have the picture already). Because I play TK, I have no problem with VC :P

3Xhume
29-04-2010, 06:24
@fantasypisces : Im sorry to say but you do know that rare slot will be capped too. Or you may not. The only thing ridiculous for percentages capping is massive number of warmachines in the special slot. Like 20 chukkas if there is no restriction on warmachines.

meanmachine
29-04-2010, 06:59
the problem i see with the percentages is some of the army books are more reliant on their characters than other books

daemons need characters
they want heralds in most units to give the squads their abililty, the greater daemons are their only real monster model, the daemon prince is aweful for his point but now the only decent greater daemon you can fit in 2000 points will be a bloodthirster, loc cant be the lv4 wizard he should be, guo & kos will only be lv1 wizards with 50 points left to use on upgrades.

my daemon army uses 4 herlads and they com to around 800 points

vc need their characters to make the army work.
tc need their characters more

daemons need thier lord for high ld when it comes to taking instability tests, so do vc and tk when they take test after loosing battles

o&g wont care much since their characters can be cheap

also o&g have giants to back then up, the daemons version of a giant is thir greater daemon but that wont be allowed and it costs much more than a giant because it does more

giants, hepit abomination and hydras are just monsters, the greater daemons are monsters and leaders

skaven can still use 2 doom wheels if these new percentages are correct.

Memnos
29-04-2010, 07:11
I'm excited about the list, because so many people are whinging about how they can't buy a Vampire count that always rerolls to hit, is a level 3 wizard, gets more attacks for every wound he causes and gets to slap his opponent in the testicles every time his opponent blinks.

Depending on how standards affect taking objectives, I'm contemplating this as a list:

Ogre Tyrant w/ Cathayan Long Sword, Kineater bigname
Ogre Slaughtermaster w/ Halfling cookbook

5 Ogre Bulls w/ Bellower
5 Ogre Bulls w/ Bellower
5 Ogre Bulls w/ Bellower
5 Ogre Bulls w/ Bellower
5 Ogre Bulls w/ Bellower
5 Ogre Bulls w/ Bellower

70 Gnoblars
70 Gnoblars
70 Gnoblars

75% core, bay-bee! With enough units to bait and enough 'horde' units to deal with lightly armoured killy units. 120 sharp stuff a turn and the Horde rule! And I can fit in 2 Lords in 2000 points.

shelfunit.
29-04-2010, 07:18
daemons need characters
they want heralds in most units to give the squads their abililty, the greater daemons are their only real monster model, the daemon prince is aweful for his point but now the only decent greater daemon you can fit in 2000 points will be a bloodthirster, loc cant be the lv4 wizard he should be, guo & kos will only be lv1 wizards with 50 points left to use on upgrades.

my daemon army uses 4 heralds and they com to around 800 points

daemons need thier lord for high ld when it comes to taking instability tests, so do vc and tk when they take test after loosing battles


Using the 4 most expensive (naked) heralds comes to 460pts, add a 25pt army standard and you have 485pts - at 2250pts that leaves over 75pts of extras to give them, and thus they can have (at least) 1 daemonic gift each as these extras.
At the same time as this many of the heralds are as good naked as other armies lords, so really they are value for their costs in that respect.
I can't see the argument for the lord being needed for high leadership, as they are only +1Ld above the heralds, so you'll only lose 1 less trooper in tests.

meanmachine
29-04-2010, 07:22
Using the 4 most expensive (naked) heralds comes to 460pts, add a 25pt army standard and you have 485pts - at 2250pts that leaves over 75pts of extras to give them, and thus they can have (at least) 1 daemonic gift each as these extras.
At the same time as this many of the heralds are as good naked as other armies lords, so really they are value for their costs in that respect.
I can't see the argument for the lord being needed for high leadership, as they are only +1Ld above the heralds, so you'll only lose 1 less trooper in tests.

ok so what about making you nurgle or slaanesh herald a wizard at all, it cost 50 points to make them a lv1 wizard

if i take a naked lv1 wizard herald of nurgle it costs 160 points, and wheres the fun of characters if you cant upgrade them.
i think a lv1 slaanesh herald costs 150 points
a tzeentch herald will be great since it is already a lv2 wizard and costs 120 points. and for 20 more points he can know all the spells from a lore in the book, but maybe i dont collect tzeench daemons

i dont like that we wont have a option at all to use some of our models even if they havent got any upgrades which is what upgrades are there for

New Cult King
29-04-2010, 07:25
I keep hearing "Oh noes, WH is currently Herohammer!" followed by "Oh noes, soon we'll only have 25%!"

I'm not sure which cries are the loudest.

shredshredxx
29-04-2010, 07:29
absolutely unholy *********** dammit yes.

i play combat vampire counts, other than my knights, my characters are the only thing that gives me any sort of active combat resolution.

i'm seriously pretty bummed about it /:

yabbadabba
29-04-2010, 07:31
If there is a cap on characters it will be, in gaming terms, as a part of a new synergy to the game. If:
core infantry become more effective +
Magic changes to reduce the number of magic users required for effectiveness AND the number of spell caddies goes down +
Cavalry become more effective if they get the charge in +
greater manouveurability +
more effective shooting phase reducing the number of missile units needed for the same effect +
reduction if fear and terror, and these become effects rather than causes =
Less reliance on characters as a whole and the 25% works.

Just an example of how a holisitic view starts to paint a different picture. If even some of these rumours come true, WFB will be a very different game.

shelfunit.
29-04-2010, 07:35
ok so what about making you nurgle or slaanesh herald a wizard at all, it cost 50 points to make them a lv1 wizard

if i take a naked lv1 wizard herald of nurgle it costs 160 points, and wheres the fun of characters if you cant upgrade them.
i think a lv1 slaanesh herald costs 150 points
a tzeentch herald will be great since it is already a lv2 wizard and costs 120 points. and for 20 more points he can know all the spells from a lore in the book, but maybe i dont collect tzeench daemons

i dont like that we wont have a option at all to use some of our models even if they havent got any upgrades which is what upgrades are there for

No one is saying you can't upgrade them, but if you read my point about daemons heralds being near enough the same as other armies lords then only taking 3 heralds and upgrading them as you like seems a fairer option.
If you don't like it, send an email to Matt Ward and co for unfairly raising your expectations that the most overpowered army in 7th ed is going to still be the same in 8th...

Sand
29-04-2010, 07:56
I play TK as my main army (have dwarfs as a second and have played bretonnia, wood elves, and dark elves) and I will gladly take one Tomb King and two priest as my character choices in an tournament environment free of dragons, thirster, and imbalance monsters.Yeah. That's the thing people tend to forget; a lot of the reason you "have" to take fully tooled up characters are so they won't get killed by other fully tooled up characters. It's more or less the same with magic -I know the Empire army I want to play isn't necessarily packed with wizards and priests, but at his point it more or less has to be if I don't want to get magicked to Death.
A lot of the current (imho) less than satisfactory situation regarding characters and magic is the result of an arms race. It was that way back when we had 50% for characters too. You pretty much had to bring at least a lvl. 4 mage, since otherwise you'd be creamed if the opponent did. Guess what was running through your opponents mind while he was at home, penning his army list.

Tomb Kings might honestly have a problem at first though. Even if we have to wait for the new army book I'd still rather that they tailor the game for the future than for books that are two editions old.


absolutely unholy *********** dammit yes.

i play combat vampire counts, other than my knights, my characters are the only thing that gives me any sort of active combat resolution.

i'm seriously pretty bummed about it /:I, on the other hand, also play Vampire Counts and I'm really looking forward to it. It'll be nice to hit a power level where people might actually have fun playing against us :)

Besides, for 5-600 points, you can still get a Vampire Lord, 2 Vampires and a Necromancer and tool them a little bit (admittedly not dramatically).

Botjer
29-04-2010, 08:03
What people tend to forget is that this swings both ways.

You say you NEED your characters.

For what?

Countering your opponents characters?

He will have the same restictions as you do.

Ergo you wont NEED all those points spent in characters.

shadow hunter
29-04-2010, 08:03
I'm looking forward to all the caps. I play Skaven, Vampires, Orcs and Beastmen (although not bought the new book yet).

I dont see any issues. Just means more balance lists from what I see - and as mine were anyway, it wont really effect me. Sure Vampires will need to be toned down slightly - but nothing that'll hurt me too much.

It now means you either have a fighty force or a magic force - and cant have and be good at both. Seems right to me.

Also - I heard the average game point will be higher anyway, meaning you can still fit in those pricey Lords (3000-3500)

Ozorik
29-04-2010, 08:10
Realistically, I dont think the 25% cap thing is going to come into fruition. Thats 500 pts in a 2000 pt list (which I believe is tournament standard, yes?). Do you have any idea how many units will become non-options at that points level because they are OVER 500 pts?

Realistically very few and those that do exist I would be happy to see go as they are generally deathstars. It is also possible to fit in a dragon mounted lord in 2000 points for most armies with the option, even VC can manage it if they really, really want to.

Lots of hyperbole and wailing without any actual thought, as seems usual for this subject.

fantasypisces
29-04-2010, 08:15
@fantasypisces : Im sorry to say but you do know that rare slot will be capped too. Or you may not. The only thing ridiculous for percentages capping is massive number of warmachines in the special slot. Like 20 chukkas if there is no restriction on warmachines.

Yes I'm aware, a poster previously said there should be NO restrictions, i.e. no percents, no force organization, no core/special/rare restrictions.

So I was being sarcastic earlier (meaning that's dumb and it wouldn't work), by saying i would bring the 7 Hellpits and a Doomwheel.

shelfunit.
29-04-2010, 08:24
Do you have any idea how many units will become non-options at that points level because they are OVER 500 pts?

Yes. There will be no units that will become illegal, unless you build them specifically to be illegal.

EDIT: And no characters either - I don't count SCs as they should have stayed "if your opponent agrees..." choices and are a large part of the reason the percentage caps are (probably) being introduced.

EDIT II : Heck, even a Lv4 High elf archmage riding a moon dragon is legal for 2250pts (at 560pts)... ...almost suspiciously so...

EDIT III : Ok, I'll conceed on the chaos lord riding a black dragon (570pts), but come on - that's a bit much anyway...

EldarWonderland
29-04-2010, 08:42
As a relatively recent starter (3 years or so) I can't see what the problem is, and I play Tomb Kings.

It seems daft to me that at the moment to fulfill my army requirements for core(2000pt) I can get away with 3 lots of 10 archers = 240 pts leaving me a shedload of points for specials so I can have a full block of TG, umpteen carrion and ushabti and of course the obligatory scorpion.

Special and Rare are supposed to be just that.

Percentages sound ok to me plus we don;t know what these values are anyway so at the moment it seems that all the cheese-listers are getting their comeuppance and they don't like it.

Bilmengar
29-04-2010, 08:49
Well, if I understand GW right, the 9th is due in 4 to 5 years? Should save this thread and compare it to the rumours for the 9th if somebody drops the rumour that maybe, instead of percentages, 9th will use solots to limit your choices. End of the world zomfg.

Spiney Norman
29-04-2010, 10:52
As a relatively recent starter (3 years or so) I can't see what the problem is, and I play Tomb Kings.

It seems daft to me that at the moment to fulfill my army requirements for core(2000pt) I can get away with 3 lots of 10 archers = 240 pts leaving me a shedload of points for specials so I can have a full block of TG, umpteen carrion and ushabti and of course the obligatory scorpion.

Special and Rare are supposed to be just that.

Percentages sound ok to me plus we don;t know what these values are anyway so at the moment it seems that all the cheese-listers are getting their comeuppance and they don't like it.

The problem (at least in Tomb Kings case) will be the character allowance, not the core-special-rare balance. Being unable to field more than 4 incantations (based on a near naked King and 2 priests) equivalent to 6 casting dice will mean you almost never get any incantations off which for Tomb Kings leaves them utterly crippled, because Tomb Kings rely on their incantations to do everything from move to shoot, to fight in combat.

Also, if you've played Kings for 3 years and are fielding 3x10 archers as core you might want to investigate Chariots a little more closely.

Back to the original question

Yes, the limit is going to be pretty horrendous for at least 3 of my armies. I'm currently painting up my Night Goblins so I'll have a viable army to use once 8th hits and Tomb Kings, Lizardmen and Wood elves get kicked into nerfsville.

Something else I noticed about Tomb Kings, its not actually going to be possible to field them at games below 860 pts minimum because of the character requirement. Bretonnians (who also have 2 compulsory characters) will have a fairly high minimum points size, although I'm not sure exactly what it is. Most other armies can field a character for less than 100 pts (possibly not ogres) so it shouldn't affect them so badly.

EldarWonderland
29-04-2010, 11:25
I was using the 3x10 archers as an example of how to "abuse" the slots system to get the absolute minimum as core rather than as the name suggests...CORE. Personally I like to see several blocks of skellies trudging across the field = one of my regular opponents wonders why I do.....I just like it. I play for fun rather than try to wring out the most excessive list I can - it's no fun to me.

As for lower than 860 - just agree to play Border Patrol rules or find someone different to play against if they say no.

Actually I can use 2x10 archers and a single swarm = 205 pts - bonanza!

Bilmengar
29-04-2010, 11:34
The problem (at least in Tomb Kings case) will be the character allowance, not the core-special-rare balance. Being unable to field more than 4 incantations (based on a near naked King and 2 priests) equivalent to 6 casting dice will mean you almost never get any incantations off which for Tomb Kings leaves them utterly crippled, because Tomb Kings rely on their incantations to do everything from move to shoot, to fight in combat.


Well, but then again there is a rumour about changes in the casting system as well, which means that your whole thought of "king + 2priests = 4 incarnations / 6 Power dice" stems from the 7th-ed ruleset and probably won't be true in 8th edition.

chaos0xomega
29-04-2010, 11:34
Realistically very few and those that do exist I would be happy to see go as they are generally deathstars. It is also possible to fit in a dragon mounted lord in 2000 points for most armies with the option, even VC can manage it if they really, really want to.

Lots of hyperbole and wailing without any actual thought, as seems usual for this subject.

I dont know. Compare this decision to some of GWs other recent decisions, and it just doesn't fit. GW has made a lot of changes to increase sales/the number of things you can fit in an army... This seems to have the opposite effect.

Monachus
29-04-2010, 11:54
but we know they are going to percentages

it's currently a rumour no matter how strong the sources it's still a rumour, having a hissy fit and stomping your foot should probably be reserved until you see it on paper alongside with whatever other changes will be made as these rumours no matter how strongly rumoured generally pan out to be slightly wrong at best

phoenixcrh
29-04-2010, 12:13
25% of 2250 is 562 (rounding down)

Dreadlord, sea dragon cloak, crimson death, armour of eternal servitude, pendant of khaeleth, black dragon = 561.

So bad news you will still get the Druchii Dragon Lord :mad:

15% of 2250 is 337 (rounding down)

*2 war hydras = 350.

So good news no dual hydra until 2500 :D

Agnar the Howler
29-04-2010, 12:41
My lizards are screwed unless magic is changed in such a way that it can't possibly wreck an army of saurus before it even reaches the enemy (because this is the second coolest list I can see after a giant magical floating toad setting things on fire whilst a few smaller lizards hitch a ride on a magical dinosaur of doom).

My EotG takes up a large chunk of points (naked he's around 340pts if i've remembered the points level right, which means he's viable in 1500pts+ but I can't take the froggy too until around 3000pts+) which means if I want to take one, that I sacrifice all other hero and lord slots for it, just to have it mowed down by cannons or other war machines on turn 2-3.

That is probably why i'll be focussing on my WoC for 8th edition games (lizards may be relegated to casual 7th ed games with friends unless I can make them both competative and fun to use (c'mon, who doesn't find it funny that an army of vicious lizards follow the every thought of a giant magical floating toad and his tiny gecko interpretters? For all they know they could be following the wishes of the skink priests as they pretend to be channeling the Slann's thoughts... now I mention it, I did wonder why the mighty Slann wanted me to find some more of those delicious jungle grubs...)

WoC won't be hit too hard in my opinion. Unlike the Lizards, fielding lone wizards for them is viable. They cost 20pts more, but for that they gain better stats, armour and access to better spells (well, until we see the updated lores) and have access to both magic weapons and armour, the latter of which is inaccessible to priests. Which means because they're not spending 275pts+ on a giant cannon magnet, they can spend it on upgrading their current heroes to a competative level. As I see it, WoC will continue to be one of the more competative armies, with some areas taking a bit of a hit, but some recieving a buff in return.

But until I see hard evidence, all this is just me planning what I would do if it were to happen, nothing is set in stone for me yet.

Talos
29-04-2010, 12:46
I like it and cant wait. My skaven are always under 25% so I will have no problem. In fact non of my lists go over any of the % so I wont have to do much to change for the new edition.
Remember the standard game will be going up to 3k so you will be able to include the larger units.

EldarWonderland
29-04-2010, 12:53
3K for a standard game?
Our club is only open for 3 hrs in total on a gaming night - gonna be a very tight squeeze to do a 3K in one night.

Agnar the Howler
29-04-2010, 12:56
Remember the standard game will be going up to 3k so you will be able to include the larger units.

I might be able to include larger units, not will, remember that the standard game level differs between clubs, so it all relies on there being someone to play 3k with you. You can never say that games will do anything, simply because they're never going to be played at exactly the same level every time.

Solar_Eclipse
29-04-2010, 12:59
My standard game is already 3000 points, so im not really perturbed.

Feefait
29-04-2010, 13:05
By this same logic though you should also be perfectly fine with someone fielding a 2000 point O&G army with just 9 giants and a warboss. Or having a VC army be nothing but a lord and blood knights.

Without some structure games just don't work. And as is so often seen in every aspect of life, the more options you give someone the more ways they are going to find the screw things up.

OK so explain to me really how those lists are so awful? I take 50 jezzails and I win. If thats how its played then thats how its played. As long as people are having fun. I'd probably only play them once anyway. :) If the game is about having fun, as I see it, then if you have fun playing with 9 giants go for it. And
at what $40 a pop GW just made $360. Win/Win.
I agree there should be some guidelines, and rules. I like the limits we have to the amount of characters. I'm even cool with the special/rare slot ideas. But adding more limits seems, (sorry) limiting.

Ozorik
29-04-2010, 13:11
GW has made a lot of changes to increase sales/the number of things you can fit in an army... This seems to have the opposite effect.

25% minimal core will have this exact effect, percentages will slightly reduce the sale of some lines but this will be offset by an increase in the sale of core box lines (and possibly special lines, which include goldswords et al). Sales will likely increase overall and economies of scale will also see them making more profit from those sales.

Urgat
29-04-2010, 13:16
3K for a standard game?
Our club is only open for 3 hrs in total on a gaming night - gonna be a very tight squeeze to do a 3K in one night.

It's just an average for tourneys, nobody has to give a damn about any so called "average" game size. If people told you that there would be no 8th edition after all, but still now games should be 3k... well, would you change the size of your game? I'm willing to bet that there won't be a single line in the 8th ed rulebook saying that game size should be 3000pts.

~PrometheuS~
29-04-2010, 13:17
The percentages you're spending on characters are ridiculous. I don't think I run a single list that even comes close to those percentages.

And what armies do you play?

I would say at least half the armies out there at 2000 to 2250 points would get boned over, or be unable to field some choices

VC (need chars to function)
Tomb kings ( same boat as VCs)
Lizardmen (no slans, and EoTG, 1 choice, WTF)
DoC (no greater deamons)
Skaven (no furnace, no bell lists, no bsb as you cant afford to take one, etc)
High Elves (no dragons, WTF grrr)
Dark Elves(same boat as HE)
Orges (there chars are expensive, 2 max maybe..)
WoC (expensive chars... as is)

and so on.......

Goblins be all right though lol

Either way GW shouldnt be making the game and peoples army choice more restrictive, and releasing models people spend good money on, plus the time putting together and painting on, and not being able to use them, is just annoying

Ozorik
29-04-2010, 13:24
I would say at least half the armies out there at 2000 to 2250 points would get boned over, or be unable to field some choices



Please don't make stuff up. Very (very) few choices will be illegal in 2k game and they all involve dragons or special characters and the only armies that will be severely affected are TK and ogres, one of whom will be getting a new book soon and the other may well join DoW in obscurity. You are also completely overlooking the other rules changes such as the new horde rules and the changing magic system.

8th ed will simply require a new, and arguably more interesting, philosophy. There has never been an edition so dominated by characters as 7th, its high time for a change.

Agnar the Howler
29-04-2010, 13:27
@ PrometheuS: Whilst I do agree that Lizards might be slightly shafted, I do have to say that Scar Veterans are still very viable heros, and are arguably one of the best hero choices around, being costed reasonably, having a good amount of weapon and armour choices, being able to take a good mount and having good stats. However they're currently overshadowed by EotGs, and other Steggies, but with the new edition i think they'll make a strong come-back, but again it depends on what is in the rulebook.

I also disagree with the WoC being boned over, as whilst they are expensive, they're tough, like Scar Vets. Exalted Heroes and Sorcs. may be slightly expensive, but the gear they can take and their stats make up for it. It will be hard getting used to less heroes, but I think WoC will be able to cope, besides, it means more points avaliable for hounds to screen your units or mauarders/marauder horsemen to prvoide combat support and terrorise flanks respectively.

Ozorik
29-04-2010, 13:32
My WoC army contains 1 level 2 sorcerer, in other words about 11% characters. If it is doable now it will certainly be doable in 8th.

Spiney Norman
29-04-2010, 13:35
Well, but then again there is a rumour about changes in the casting system as well, which means that your whole thought of "king + 2priests = 4 incarnations / 6 Power dice" stems from the 7th-ed ruleset and probably won't be true in 8th edition.

My guess is from that comment you don't know a whole lot about Tomb Kings. Tomb Kings do not use the same casting system as everyone else, they don't even use casting dice except for dispelling RiP spells, neither did their wizards generate any in 6th/7th Edition. Instead each caster uses incantations which function like bound spells. The theory behind Tomb King magic is that you have a lot of low level spells instead of a few higher level spells, unfortunately, the character limit means they will be reduced to a few low level spells.

Whatever they do to the casting system in 8th Edition it will not affect Tomb Kings until they redo the TK army book. Changes to the dispel system will however affect them.

Darkspear
29-04-2010, 13:39
25% of 2250 is 562 (rounding down)

Dreadlord, sea dragon cloak, crimson death, armour of eternal servitude, pendant of khaeleth, black dragon = 561.

So bad news you will still get the Druchii Dragon Lord :mad:



Oh no we are screwed.

Ayway Spiney Norman, tombkings will be the first book to be released in the new edition. Don't worry, it will be viable again.

~PrometheuS~
29-04-2010, 13:41
Please don't make stuff up. Very (very) few choices will be illegal in 2k game and they all involve dragons or special characters and the only armies that will be severely affected are TK and ogres, one of whom will be getting a new book soon and the other may well join DoW in obscurity. You are also completely overlooking the other rules changes such as the new horde rules and the changing magic system.

8th ed will simply require a new, and arguably more interesting, philosophy. There has never been an edition so dominated by characters as 7th, its high time for a change.

Yeah and taken units of 40 chaos warriors is a viable move.......

You obviously dont play armies like VCs and lizardmen, also the most successful HE and DE list have, guess what, DRAGONS.... also in 2250 points 25 percent charaters give you 562.5 points to spend, its not very much, you wont be seeing any of the good choices...

Things might change with 8th ed, but restricting character choices is not the way to do it

Fantasy is as much about characters as it is about troops

Urgat
29-04-2010, 13:42
You obviously dont play armies like VCs and lizardmen, also the most successful HE and DE list have, guess what, DRAGONS....

heh, guess what? in 8th, the most successful HE lists won't have dragons anymore :p

Johnnyfrej
29-04-2010, 13:50
Hell no! It's about fraggin time!

Ozorik
29-04-2010, 13:53
Yeah and taken units of 40 chaos warriors is a viable move.......

You obviously dont play armies like VCs and lizardmen, also the most successful HE and DE list have, guess what, DRAGONS.... also in 2250 points 25 percent charaters give you 562.5 points to spend, its not very much, you wont be seeing any of the good choices...

Things might change with 8th ed, but restricting character choices is not the way to do it

Fantasy is as much about characters as it is about troops

Why would you be taking 40 warriors?

Dragons are still fieldable in 2k points by everyone except WoC, of course you wont be able to afford much else in the way of characters but given that these characters can dominate games thats a good thing.

VCs will be able to field a moderately equipped lord, a moderately equipped vampire and a necromancer in 2k, perfectly functional.

Lizardmen can field a moderately equipped slann, a moderately equipped scar vet and a lvl 2 skink priest in 2k, perfectly functional.

I genuinely fail to see the problem from a game play perspective.

Bilmengar
29-04-2010, 13:57
My guess is from that comment you don't know a whole lot about Tomb Kings. Tomb Kings do not use the same casting system as everyone else, they don't even use casting dice except for dispelling RiP spells, neither did their wizards generate any in 6th/7th Edition. Instead each caster uses incantations which function like bound spells. The theory behind Tomb King magic is that you have a lot of low level spells instead of a few higher level spells, unfortunately, the character limit means they will be reduced to a few low level spells.

Whatever they do to the casting system in 8th Edition it will not affect Tomb Kings until they redo the TK army book. Changes to the dispel system will however affect them.

you got me there; on the other hand, rumours indicate that you won't have to stick with your AB till the 9th edition comes out, right? So yeah, that cap will affect you now; it probably won't when the new book, written for the 8th ed, comes out?

Agnar the Howler
29-04-2010, 13:58
Lizardmen can field a moderately equipped slann, a moderately equipped scar vet and a lvl 2 skink priest in 2k, perfectly functional.

Naked Slann + Lvl 2 Priest + Naked vet = 460pts, that's not enough points left to moderately equip both the Slann and the Vet, it's not even enough to get your Slann a second dsicipline or even Cupped Hands (which would protect against the 'nastier' miscasts planned for 8th edition).

Ozorik
29-04-2010, 14:00
Naked Slann + Lvl 2 Priest + Naked vet = 460pts, that's not enough points left to moderately equip both the Slann and the Vet, it's not even enough to get your Slann a second dsicipline or even Cupped Hands (which would protect against the 'nastier' miscasts planned for 8th edition).

Yeah, its a bug with army builder it would seem (the disciple cost wasn't added)

still though its perfectly doable.

~PrometheuS~
29-04-2010, 14:03
Why would you be taking 40 warriors?

Dragons are still fieldable in 2k points by everyone except WoC, of course you wont be able to afford much else in the way of characters but given that these characters can dominate games thats a good thing.

VCs will be able to field a moderately equipped lord, a moderately equipped vampire and a necromancer in 2k, perfectly functional.

Lizardmen can field a moderately equipped slann, a moderately equipped scar vet and a lvl 2 skink priest in 2k, perfectly functional.

I genuinely fail to see the problem from a game play perspective.

Moderately equiped means game lost to some armies, VCs dont function well with weak charaters

Agnar the Howler
29-04-2010, 14:03
Yeah, its a bug with army builder it would seem (the disciple cost wasn't added)

still though its perfectly doable.

It's doable, but it's effectiveness can be questioned. In his current form, the Slann will need a TG bodyguard, setting you back by a fair amount of points that could be used on other things in the army like saurus blocks (rumors floating around lead me to believe they could become deadlier) or more skink skirmishers (you can never have enough skink skirmishers).

Ozorik
29-04-2010, 14:07
Moderately equiped means game lost to some armies, VCs dont function well with weak charaters

No it doesn't and I fail to see how you can class a vampire lord as 'weak'.


It's doable, but it's effectiveness can be questioned.

Exactly, the old cookie cutter builds have to be rethought and some hard choices need to be made in army list construction. This does not mean that some armies, aside from the current TK and Ogres, will be in gimped.

Jagosaja
29-04-2010, 14:09
heh, guess what? in 8th, the most successful HE lists won't have dragons anymore :p

Did you get into this game because of troops or because of heroes? Because of Dragons or because of Spearmen? Because of static combat resolution or mad hack and slash? We both know the answer and it is the same for all of us. Well, maybe not for the worst WAAC players, but vast majority of us are not like that.

My oppinion on rules swung lately from one side to the other. At first, I thought the new rumoured rules sucked, but more and more I start to think about them, the more are they fine. This is mainly due to one fact - previously I couldn't separate my army composition from core rules. Once it adopted to my mind that those two are not the same, everything fell into place. So I came to a conclusion - I don't mind altering combat or magic phase, or movement, shooting, outnumbering, in fact anything if they make the game better. If they pick rules that bugged fantasy players and alter/replace them with version of 40k/WOTR rules, it is ok. In fact it should make the game better. I even don't mind the charge distance based on a dice roll.

What I do mind is if I have to buy more models to play an interesting game. I want to buy the book and play with the models I have played the 7th edition with. Also, I do mind if I have to displace models I use just because I have to play much larger battles in order to use them. That is not ok and it does not lead to any progress.

You see, I use four Vampires. And Flaged Blood Knights. And eight Cairn Wraiths. My Lord is mounted on a Hellsteed and tooled up for combat. my two Vampires go in Blood Knights, one is BSB with a Drakenhof. The last Vamp flies on his own. My magic is toned down as I go for combat. This list does not win tourneys. I hope I won't have to dish out anything because this is not an abusive list, just strong. I have a Varghulf and a Black Coach on the shelf, but this is the list I want to use. I love my army. It is a 2500 point army.

Will I absolutely have to use a different army list when the new edition comes? I will adopt to new rules, everybody has to so no problems there. Will I have to take some of the Vamps out, or a Cairn Wraith unit in order to have a valid list? I sure hope not.


Why would you be taking 40 warriors?

Dragons are still fieldable in 2k points by everyone except WoC, of course you wont be able to afford much else in the way of characters but given that these characters can dominate games thats a good thing.

VCs will be able to field a moderately equipped lord, a moderately equipped vampire and a necromancer in 2k, perfectly functional.

Lizardmen can field a moderately equipped slann, a moderately equipped scar vet and a lvl 2 skink priest in 2k, perfectly functional.

I genuinely fail to see the problem from a game play perspective.

Orcs & Goblins will be able to take zillion goblin shamans, and dominate any magic phase. That is not perfectly functional, especially when compared to what Vampires will not be able to take.

Spiney Norman
29-04-2010, 14:15
I was using the 3x10 archers as an example of how to "abuse" the slots system to get the absolute minimum as core rather than as the name suggests...CORE. Personally I like to see several blocks of skellies trudging across the field = one of my regular opponents wonders why I do.....I just like it. I play for fun rather than try to wring out the most excessive list I can - it's no fun to me.

As for lower than 860 - just agree to play Border Patrol rules or find someone different to play against if they say no.

Actually I can use 2x10 archers and a single swarm = 205 pts - bonanza!

Actually you can get a single swarm and 2x5 light cavalry = 195 - cash back!

But skeleton infantry is actually playable in blocks, and chariots are maybe the best thing in the list aside from the scorp so there's never really been a reason to field min core in a TK army.

Spiney Norman
29-04-2010, 14:18
Why would you be taking 40 warriors?

Dragons are still fieldable in 2k points by everyone except WoC, of course you wont be able to afford much else in the way of characters but given that these characters can dominate games thats a good thing.

VCs will be able to field a moderately equipped lord, a moderately equipped vampire and a necromancer in 2k, perfectly functional.

Lizardmen can field a moderately equipped slann, a moderately equipped scar vet and a lvl 2 skink priest in 2k, perfectly functional.

I genuinely fail to see the problem from a game play perspective.

Oh dear, what exactly do you mean by "moderately equipped" for the Lizardmen characters, You have enough points for a bargain basement slann and either a naked scar vet or L2 priest, not both.

Also the only army that can field a dragon at 2K will be High elves, which will be a dragon mage, everyone else has to buy a Lord level character to get access to a dragon.

Still that is a slightly positive side to things, we might see a few more dragon mages, I always thought they were a cool thematic idea, its just no-one fields them.

Ozorik
29-04-2010, 14:18
Orcs & Goblins will be able to take zillion goblin shamans, and dominate any magic phase. That is not perfectly functional, especially when compared to what Vampires will not be able to take.

This won't happen for 2 reasons. Firstly some form of slot system is staying and secondly magic dice will no longer be generated directly by spell casters.


Oh dear, what exactly do you mean by "moderately equipped" for the Lizardmen characters,

As I said it was a bug with army builder so I thought that there was more points spare than was actually the case. It doesn't actually change my point though, Lizardmen are perfectly capable of fielding sufficient characters within a 25% limit at 2000 points.

The armies which can have dragons in 2k are HE, DE, WE and VC (Dogs of war can as well). There may not have many points spare but if you really, really want a dragon in 2k you can have one.

Memnos
29-04-2010, 14:23
I got in to this game because I played Orks in 40K and people liked Fantasy.

I came to like Fantasy better as a game, though the attitude of Orks still was loved.

I came to play the game because I liked the idea of armies and pennons being held aloft. I have started to get on an Araby kick recently, with an unhealthy obsession with painting those glorious Abrakhân guard.

If you did because you love a particular monster, then yes: You'll still be able to field it. You just won't have the most competitive list any more. That's fine. I have played a non-competitive army for years. It's my turn, now. :p


Did you get into this game because of troops or because of heroes? Because of Dragons or because of Spearmen? Because of static combat resolution or mad hack and slash? We both know the answer and it is the same for all of us. Well, maybe not for the worst WAAC players, but vast majority of us are not like that.

Finnigan2004
29-04-2010, 14:39
The argument that people can still take any characters that they want with a 25% cap is patently disingenous. I'm sorry guys, but it is. There will be large changes in what characters can go into an army, and there's no disputing that.

There is nothing wrong with liking the system, if the change goes through. There's nothing wrong with not liking it either. No point in chastising people because they like to play the game differently than you do-- there's way too much of that nonsense going on over this issue (ie. that amount of character is ridiculous anyways).

Telling others how they should enjoy the game the way that you do is pure narcissism. People are entitled not to like a rule, they are entitled to feel that it bones their army by taking choice away in character selection, and they are absolutely right to feel that way because it is their opinion.

People who bought two Eyes of the Gods, and who will not now be able to field it effectively might, quite rightly, be annoyed. No point in getting angry at someone who bought and lovingly painted a character riding a large monster. One can argue that people have to expect some differences in choices with new books and editions, but this one would be more radical if implemented than many past changes have been.

That said, some sort of cap is fine. 25% is very low, in my opinion. If it happens, I'll keep playing. I'll probably use the cap. I might play less WHFB and more Hordes. Simply put, I like making, painting, and playing with big monsters and cool characters. Ultimately though, I'll wait to see how it plays out.

snottlebocket
29-04-2010, 14:43
Looking forward to it myself. About time high powered characters are banished to the gamesizes where they belong.

Ozorik
29-04-2010, 14:45
Telling others how they should enjoy the game the way that you do is pure narcissism. People are entitled not to like a rule, they are entitled to feel that it bones their army by taking choice away in character selection, and they are absolutely right to feel that way because it is their opinion.



Telling others that armies will still function with a cap is completely legitimate though, as is telling them that they can still use exactly the same models (for the most part) should they choose. I'm not saying that a slann in 2000 points is a good idea but it is possible.

TheDarkDuke
29-04-2010, 14:49
The percentages you're spending on characters are ridiculous. I don't think I run a single list that even comes close to those percentages.

Good for you. So you are telling people that the way they build there armies are wrong? Sorry not everyone follows your opinions on how to build a army.

As for me some of my armies will be hit HARD others not to much. with that said if my opponents and I don't like the percentages we're just going to stick with the current force organisation as it does seem like a pointless change to me.

Memnos
29-04-2010, 14:50
Telling others that armies will still function with a cap is completely legitimate though, as is telling them that they can still use exactly the same models (for the most part) should they choose. I'm not saying that a slann in 2000 points is a good idea but it is possible.

I say a Slann in 2000 points is a good idea. Magic is supposed to be more powerful and a 275 point Wizard with a 4+ ward and the ability to roll an extra die to cast and dispel is still fantastic. You'll just see more naked Slann.

Urgat
29-04-2010, 14:50
Did you get into this game because of troops or because of heroes? Because of Dragons or because of Spearmen? Because of static combat resolution or mad hack and slash? We both know the answer and it is the same for all of us. Well, maybe not for the worst WAAC players, but vast majority of us are not like that.

Mmh... I honestly cannot say if you're agreeing with me or not, so I can't really answer :p (well there's nothing to agree with, but I hope you get what I mean, my English is failing me there). Anyway, to answer your quetsion on if I prefer heroes, killy stuff and so on... I'll just point you to my avatar :) And to expend on my comment, I like dragons, in fact I love dragons, they're awesome and stuff, but they're way too powerful to be fielded in a 2000 pts battle, IF (I insist on the if) said dragon also comes with the whole clique of tooled up heroes to support it. being allowed to field something that nasty in lower point battles should force one to sacrifice something else to take it. That's my opinion on the matter.
As for the thread title, btw: hell no, I'm eagerly waiting for the cap.


Good for you. So you are telling people that the way they build there armies are wrong? Sorry not everyone follows your opinions on how to build a army.
Problem for you is that GW seems to share his opinion (according to rumours at least), so comes next edition, if 25% does get in, I'm afraid to say that, indeed, this way to build an army wil be wrong (obviously).

Finnigan2004
29-04-2010, 15:23
Problem for you is that GW seems to share his opinion (according to rumours at least), so comes next edition, if 25% does get in, I'm afraid to say that, indeed, this way to build an army wil be wrong (obviously).

True enough Urgat. The problem for GW is, of course, I will still ultimately decide on the way to build my army. It might just be done with Privateer Press and minis, if I really dislike the new system. Before you ask, Avian, no-- you may not have my models ;). Who knows, I might really like the new system. As I said, I'll wait and see.

If they are going with 25% (especially in conjunction with other large changes), it's a big gamble. They started down on the path with 40k, but did it more prudently with army books. It did not work, so they pulled back (too bad for the Dark Angel players that they got stuck with that garbage book, but better than it happening to everyone).

The gaming population will decide whether it's good or bad, but it will be a fairly radical new direction either way. I hope that they've thoroughly tested it and looked at the reactions of focus groups of gamers, if all of the radical new rules are introduced as rumoured. Note that I say "hope" ;).

Zoolander
29-04-2010, 15:25
There should be no restrictions?

Ok, I'll take a warlord with no items (simply for leadership 7), a bsb with storm banner, 25 clanrats to house both of them in, then 1 Doomwheel and 7 Hellpit Abominations at 2250.

Have fun with that.

Personally, I welcome percentages, I have no problem fitting all the characters I need in for skaven at 25%. The only armies I see it really messing up would be VC and TC.

Please note that I am not condoning the "no restrictions" idea of play. Restrictions are good. I just feel 25% is a little low for some armies to run effectively.


TK with destroyer of eternities (240) + hierophant with hieratic jar (140) + LP with a dispel scroll (140) should be sufficient to be under 2250pts 25% cap and I may say quite effective. If I want to buff my hierophant or other priest, i just need to tone down TK to GW, golden ankhra/collar of shapesh (which still deadly). I wont complain this setup rather than facing bloodthirster, DE dragon lord, slann + 2 EotG lizzardmen that I just met last tournament (dont ask the result, I think you should have the picture already). Because I play TK, I have no problem with VC :P

That's more than 25%. TK will be limited to two characters. Which will really suck, especially at low point games.


I'm excited about the list, because so many people are whinging about how they can't buy a Vampire count that always rerolls to hit, is a level 3 wizard, gets more attacks for every wound he causes and gets to slap his opponent in the testicles every time his opponent blinks.

Depending on how standards affect taking objectives, I'm contemplating this as a list:

Ogre Tyrant w/ Cathayan Long Sword, Kineater bigname
Ogre Slaughtermaster w/ Halfling cookbook

5 Ogre Bulls w/ Bellower
5 Ogre Bulls w/ Bellower
5 Ogre Bulls w/ Bellower
5 Ogre Bulls w/ Bellower
5 Ogre Bulls w/ Bellower
5 Ogre Bulls w/ Bellower

70 Gnoblars
70 Gnoblars
70 Gnoblars

75% core, bay-bee! With enough units to bait and enough 'horde' units to deal with lightly armoured killy units. 120 sharp stuff a turn and the Horde rule! And I can fit in 2 Lords in 2000 points.

You're mocking vampires and you run an Ogre Tyrant? For shame of you. :wtf:


What people tend to forget is that this swings both ways.

You say you NEED your characters.

For what?

Countering your opponents characters?

He will have the same restictions as you do.

Ergo you wont NEED all those points spent in characters.

No. I'm saying something else. I'm saying that characters are fun to use, first and foremost, and I paid good money to use them, and if the game rules suddenly state that I can't use all the miniatures that I paid for, then that will suck. Second, my armies need characters mostly for a specific purpose. For example, my VC and TK need characters to survive. And all you guys complaining about VC lords, trust me - if you had crappy skeletons and zombies as core, you'd want to be compensated somehow, too. And your army doesn't start cumbling to dust if your general dies, so bite me. Of course I want a tough as nails general in that case. I'm not stupid! Your orc boss doesn't do for your army what a TK or VC lord does in mine.

I'd like to point out that someone else earlier on hit the nail on the head. It's not really that we won't be able to field what we want as much as some armies will no longer run effectively or will no longer be fun to play under a 25% system.

25% means:

No great daemons (which is fine because they are no fun to play against but I still paid $100 for two of them which will now collect dust in the closet).
2 characters tops for many armies, some of which need them to exist.
No bell/furnace under most conditions.
No Slaan, as taking a slaan would be your only characters and not very effective or smart.
ETC.

Also keep in mind those that are stating the pt cap will be raised to 3k is a weak rumor at best. More than likely, if they raise it at all, it will be to 2500. But don't count of that.

It's not that it can't be done. But can it be done and still have an enjoyable list to play? In many cases yes. But in many cases, the answer will be a no.

yabbadabba
29-04-2010, 15:38
Sorry Zoolander, I disagree with your conclusion, not just because you are taking the cap in isolation.

Memnos
29-04-2010, 15:39
You're mocking vampires and you run an Ogre Tyrant? For shame of you. :wtf:

Not mocking. Pointing out you don't need a super-character. Because nobody else will, either. I could afford, in fact, under the new edition two lords.




No. I'm saying something else. I'm saying that characters are fun to use, first and foremost, and I paid good money to use them, and if the game rules suddenly state that I can't use all the miniatures that I paid for, then that will suck.

Believe it or not, there are people who have old Slann Jaguar warriors, squats and various models for which there are no rules any more. It happens. For you, you'll be able to use all your models. Just not at the same time.




Second, my armies need characters mostly for a specific purpose. For example, my VC and TK need characters to survive. And all you guys complaining about VC lords, trust me - if you had crappy skeletons and zombies as core, you'd want to be compensated somehow, too. And your army doesn't start cumbling to dust if your general dies, so bite me. Of course I want a tough as nails general in that case. I'm not stupid! Your orc boss doesn't do for your army what a TK or VC lord does in mine.

I'd like to point out that someone else earlier on hit the nail on the head. It's not really that we won't be able to field what we want as much as some armies will no longer run effectively or will no longer be fun to play under a 25% system.


Okay - We have said this before and we'll say it again, because it seems like it's not going through. Your characters won't be as effective but they will still be effective. Want one super-character? You can, but you have to give up something. With Vampire Counts, you give up less than others because your super-character is a caster as well. Let's look at your complaints:



25% means:

No great daemons

You can take a Greater Daemon on 2000 points. He just will be your only character and won't be a level 4 wizard. Big deal. He can still have M 10 and the ability to trash any unit he hits in the flank. So, no: You can have a Greater Daemon. It just won't be as effective as it is, now. A lot of people didn't like how they work now, so this is a feature that pleases most people.



No Slaan, as taking a slaan would be your only characters and not very effective or smart.

Incorrect. He would be slightly more than half your character allotment on 2000 points. Bare-bones, he still has a 4+ ward and can take a single amazing power and you'd still have enough for other characters. Want a single super-Slann? You can have it, but you'll have to give up a lot. That's a good thing, because it means that all-comer lists will be better again.



It's not that it can't be done. But can it be done and still have an enjoyable list to play? In many cases yes. But in many cases, the answer will be a no.

It will be much more enjoyable for anyone other than the top three tier army lists. Much more.

Spiney Norman
29-04-2010, 15:43
Did you get into this game because of troops or because of heroes? Because of Dragons or because of Spearmen? Because of static combat resolution or mad hack and slash? We both know the answer and it is the same for all of us. Well, maybe not for the worst WAAC players, but vast majority of us are not like that.


To be absolutely honest I got into this game because of dinosaurs, Lizardmen were my first army, and still probably my favourite.

But if I were to choose between dragons and spearmen I would choose dragons every time. If you want to play a game with spearmen there are a myriad of excellent historical wargames, many of which are better designed/balanced than warhammer is currently.

Dragons are cool, dragons are big, dragons are awesome to paint and make people go "ooooooohhh" when you're playing a game in the local hobby store and stop and watch you, dragons draw people's attention and cause people to praise your painting skills, spearmen achieve none of those things.

Spearmen are dull and repetitive to paint, they all look broadly the same, they rarely achieve anything heroic or noteworthy in a game, are ignored by any spectators and generally wind up being taken off the table as fast as you put them on.

Besides under the current rules you can have dragons AND spearmen, under the new % restrictions, you just have spearmen :(. And that is why I see the current slot system as superior, because it gives you choice! %s would be great just as long as they were just a little bit bigger, enough to encompass a dragon lord at least, with maybe enough points left for one extra character, like a wizard. I really don't think that's too much to ask...

I think its kinda sad that they want to minimise the amount of "fantasy" elements in Fantasy and turn it into more of a dull, historical spearmen-bash. As I sad above, if I wanted dull spearmen-bash, some people like that I guess, but if I was one of them I wouldn't be playing warhammer fantasy.

Urgat
29-04-2010, 16:09
Spearmen are dull and repetitive to paint, they all look broadly the same, they rarely achieve anything heroic or noteworthy in a game, are ignored by any spectators and generally wind up being taken off the table as fast as you put them on.

but, but... I've had people praise my night goblins :cries:

Erloas
29-04-2010, 16:15
25% means:

No great daemons (which is fine because they are no fun to play against but I still paid $100 for two of them which will now collect dust in the closet).
2 characters tops for many armies, some of which need them to exist.
No bell/furnace under most conditions.
No Slaan, as taking a slaan would be your only characters and not very effective or smart.
ETC.

2 Characters for most armies? At 2k it should be easy to fit 3 characters in, as thats 167 points per character. Considering most heroes are less then 100 points base, 50 points in magic items and a few upgrades that puts you at that with full magic gear. That is even the case with a number of casters. It just means you aren't taking a lord. But who ever said you had to take a lord the second it becomes available?

Can't take a Slaan effectively in 2k? So, why does that matter, especially since you can't take a Slaan currently in 1999 points or less. I know a lot of people play in the 1500-1750 range, and it is usually specifically to avoid having to deal with super powered lord level choices.

And then you have people arguing "I can't take what I can currently take and still have the same amount of power" and well... thats the point. The argument is that it is taking away choices in what can be competitive, but I think its actually adding choices. Right now we have the "choice" of not fielding super powerful lords and as much magic as we can get, we just don't have the choice of doing so and being competitive.

The choice between Spearmen and Dragons... well I would take the spearmen, they are actually more interesting because dragons in Fantasy has become so cliche it really has no meaning any more. A fantasy setting revolving around armies and the people in them is actually something new and different, compared to the individual super powerful heroes and creatures (both in WHFB and fantasy settings in general).
The choice of taking spearmen over dragons is currently there, but its another fake choice. You can take more spearmen instead and leave your dragons at home, but you aren't going to be winning too many games if you do.

There are a lot of "choices" right now, but so many of them don't lead to competitive lists. So the complaints that in the next edition taking a dragon lord is not longer a competitive choice, even though it is still a possible choice. It isn't actually taking options away, its just changing which options are competitive. Although I think in the process it will make a lot more different options viable. Because the counters to less powerful characters and different units is a lot more varied then the counters to tooled up lords on dragons or 14PD.

Heimagoblin
29-04-2010, 16:34
I don't know how many times i'm going to say this but GW should not be trying to limit choices but make everything balanced so that a larger number of line infantry will be able to overun an enemy army with less points invested in their infantry and the question is can the opponent stall the flanks to be able to secure the victory in the centre. The major problem with this is that flyers can go strait over your line and force your hole line to pivet to face. THis is the central issue behind dragon op ness but I can't think how to solve this problem. On a different note-
My personal opinion is that flyers that charge large blocks should be attacked by every member of the unit. It makes alot more sense and would incourage infantry blocks over monsters.

Balance not restriction people.

kyuzo
29-04-2010, 16:46
WoC view: The reason why I am dreading a cap like this is because my army is stagnant. We have marauders and warriors with or without mounts. That is about it aside from some monsters. The only thing that made this army interesting was the ability to run a wide range of different types of characters to fill in almost any role needed. The ability to customize these characters to do crazy and fun things is what is preventing me from doing the same exact things game in and game out.

Some random rule that will not bring balance, but instead change the meta game, is not what is needed. A balance to army books, is what is needed.

Slapping a bandaid on a 10 inch cut won't fix anything.

scar face
29-04-2010, 16:56
Ca't have my *********** dragon under 3k. If I make it a cheap dreadlord+dragon- I still can't have anything else (char.) in 2k

Odin
29-04-2010, 16:59
I'm actually really looking forward to it I think. I normally spend well over 50% on characters in my Chaos army, but mainly because I feel I have to. I need a sorcerer or two at least to counter my opponent's magic. And I need a few combat characters to counter my opponent's combat characters (one thing that can really ruin a warriors/knights regiment's day is a tooled up character with a great weapon or armour-negating weapon). To a certain extent our gaming group has reached the peak of our character arms-race.

The new restrictions, along with rumoured magic and combat changes would seem to suggest I don't need those characters so much. I might even be able to take an all-Khorne army without a sorcerer! (providing they fix frenzy)

Similarly with my Wood Elves, I currently need to spend a lot of points on magic defence because my army is so vulnerable to magic missiles etc. It seems they won't be quite so heavily reliant on that in the new edition.

And for Empire I'm happy, because I'll be able to afford more characters than most of the armies I face.

Tactical Retreat!
29-04-2010, 17:04
It's a good change. Stop the cheese mongering and think outside the box for a little while. You don't need one dragonlord AND 3 mages. Make a choice, get a real theme for your army instead of "warseer copied tournament list #45".

Or failing that, play whack the bloodthirster with a couple of like minded friends now and then. The GW Thought Police will likely let you live even if you don't follow their rules all the time.

Agnar the Howler
29-04-2010, 17:27
I say a Slann in 2000 points is a good idea. Magic is supposed to be more powerful and a 275 point Wizard with a 4+ ward and the ability to roll an extra die to cast and dispel is still fantastic. You'll just see more naked Slann.

If you've been playing someone who's been grabbing a free dispel die as well from their Slann, then you've been cheated; The Focussed Rumination only gives you a free Power Die with every spell attempt, it gives nothing to dispel.

Kayosiv
29-04-2010, 17:48
It seems daft to me that at the moment to fulfill my army requirements for core(2000pt) I can get away with 3 lots of 10 archers = 240 pts leaving me a shedload of points for specials so I can have a full block of TG, umpteen carrion and ushabti and of course the obligatory scorpion.

Special and Rare are supposed to be just that.


As much as I don't like the limiters on characters for many reasons, I agree that far more core is needed. A minimum cap on core will go a long way towards reducing rare/special/character points spent by default, and makes more sense. Core should make up at least a decent chunk of your army.

Spending 150 points on Skinks (less than 10% of my build total) or 240 points on skeletons should not be "enough" core. With that said, I think big badass characters are both fun to paint and fun to use, so I hope that they aren't limited too much. I recently bought a Carnosaur and am in the process of painting it. I really would like to bust it out more often then whenever we happen to play a 3000 point game.

Zoolander
29-04-2010, 17:55
Not mocking. Pointing out you don't need a super-character. Because nobody else will, either. I could afford, in fact, under the new edition two lords.

Well I don't know if you have ever played TK or VC but yeah, it really helps to have a lord. Much more than any other army. Taking a hero to lead those armies can work but isn't very fun, especially when they die and your whole army collapses. You don't have that issue with ogres and maybe a hero level character works for you but I'm saying it doesn't work that well for most of my armies. I didn't get into VC to have my army lead by a necromancer, my Lizardmen to be lead by a skinkchief, etc. I'm sorry you don't have cool lords like my armies do. I'm sorry, but that isn't my idea of fun.


Believe it or not, there are people who have old Slann Jaguar warriors, squats and various models for which there are no rules any more. It happens. For you, you'll be able to use all your models. Just not at the same time.

I never said I wanted to use them all at once. I just want to use them period. I love how the reply to my complaint is "well you can field that character naked". That is neither smart gamewise, nor is it fun. So no thank you, I won't be playing a naked BT. I'm sorry your lords don't mean much to your army but to mine they do.


Okay - We have said this before and we'll say it again, because it seems like it's not going through. Your characters won't be as effective but they will still be effective. Want one super-character? You can, but you have to give up something. With Vampire Counts, you give up less than others because your super-character is a caster as well. Let's look at your complaints:

Before we do let me point out that it's not my fault GW designed many of my armies around crappy core units and uber lords. I can't help that. My woodies could care less about the 25% and so will my DE (after a minor adjustment). But I cannot say the same for my VC and TK. Don't like them having uber lords? Fine. I'll give up my uber lords the day my skeletons can fight on their own without one. Don't hate the playa, hate the game.


You can take a Greater Daemon on 2000 points. He just will be your only character and won't be a level 4 wizard. Big deal. He can still have M 10 and the ability to trash any unit he hits in the flank. So, no: You can have a Greater Daemon. It just won't be as effective as it is, now. A lot of people didn't like how they work now, so this is a feature that pleases most people.

That's because none of them have lords like that. Armies like that are based around the lord. He is the central focus of those armies. I wish they had designed them differently too. Instead of leaving them as they are but limiting points for them it would make more sense to fix the broken lords. And nobody is goin to field a naked lord like that. It's not very battle savvy.


Incorrect. He would be slightly more than half your character allotment on 2000 points. Bare-bones, he still has a 4+ ward and can take a single amazing power and you'd still have enough for other characters. Want a single super-Slann? You can have it, but you'll have to give up a lot. That's a good thing, because it means that all-comer lists will be better again.

Again, that not only isn't very fun, but it isn't smart. So you won't see too many Slaan I would guess.


It will be much more enjoyable for anyone other than the top three tier army lists. Much more.

You seem to be under the conclusion that this discussion is somehow about power. It's not remotely even close to being about that. You obviously didn't read my post very well so I'll point out that my DEs are fine with the 25%. I rarely use a greater daemon but now I never will. DoC will be ok with it but it still sucks that I'll never use $100 worth of minis but apparently that doesn't bother you. But my favorite armies are VC and TK, and TK are at the bottom of the barrel along side ogres. So this isn't about power. And believe me I wish I didn't need 3+ characters to make my TK army work but it does. I would love to not have to spend 40% of my points on characters but that's how the TK roll. I'm sorry you don't see how much that cripples TK to have two characters holding a bunch of worthless bones together. And I doubt you ever will. Your army and heroes can hold their own without a lord.

But I feel your pain, I really do. My TK are in the same boat powerwise as your ogres. Those uber dark elves and daemons are a pain. But the answer isn't a 25% cap. They need to fix the two broken armies at the bottom and the two at the top. Not force a random percentage to keep bloodthirsters from showing up.

Agnar the Howler
29-04-2010, 18:00
As much as I don't like the limiters on characters for many reasons, I agree that far more core is needed. A minimum cap on core will go a long way towards reducing rare/special/character points spent by default, and makes more sense. Core should make up at least a decent chunk of your army.

Spending 150 points on Skinks (less than 10% of my build total) or 240 points on skeletons should not be "enough" core. With that said, I think big badass characters are both fun to paint and fun to use, so I hope that they aren't limited too much. I recently bought a Carnosaur and am in the process of painting it. I really would like to bust it out more often then whenever we happen to play a 3000 point game.

I would also like to see a larger forced Core presence as opposed to a smaller forced Character presence.

I can also see (at least with skinks) some units being half a core choice (so you'd need 4 units of skinks to make up 2 core choices for under 2k) or even not being a choice at all whilst they're under Y amount of models (so you could be forced to take units of 15 skirmishers before they start being a core choice). You could even have a limit based on the units of saurus you have, like 1-2 units of skirmishers/cohorts for every 1 unit of saurus warriors, although that might kill skink-only builds.

Mind you, that's only stuff off the top of my head, so it's not been thought through.

Kayosiv
29-04-2010, 18:02
To be a bit more clear, I'd advocate a system that was a % required core, and a slot system for everything else, seems to have the best of both systems.

Vutall
29-04-2010, 18:22
Just thought I would break down the percentages really quick...

500pt game: 125pt character pts
750pt game: 187(.5) character pts
1000pt game: 250 character pts
1250pt game: 312(.5) character pts
1500pt game: 375 character pts
1750pt game: 437(.5) character pts
2000pt game: 500 character pts
2250pt game: 562(.5) character pts
2500pt game: 625 character pts
2750pt game: 687(.5) character pts
3000pt game: 750 character pts.

So, standard games are normally at 2250. Honestly, I do not see how having 562pts for characters is going to be such a huge hamper, since they are changing everything else as well! Worried about magic defense? Well, magic is rumored to change, so maybe having those 2 200pt a piece scroll caddies isn't necessary! Plus, the focus on infantry means close combat and shooting are much more deadly without going "Well, my 9 WS2 goblins don't do anything but provide protection for my uber lord who kills 10 people in one swing"

You all need ot just wait, and if it bothers you that much, start playing some games now with those percentages (Just on characters!) and see how different it is. I promise you, it really isn't as bad as you think.

ivrg
29-04-2010, 18:35
My WE will have to be changed. Current i go with 3 units of 10 man strong glade guards and 3x8 dryads. So that is 360+288 pts. 648/2250=0.288

i simply have to double up my cores.

I think this is one of the rules that is positive and will stop abuse because more expensive monsters and heroes are usualer better as well. As someone here mentioned the BT will not be an option in a 2250 pts game. And mass sorcery will not be an option either. I think this will ad more tactic options to the game because you have to really consider what thos 25% heroes will do and what you want with them. And in a 3000 or 4000 game if some decides to put a BT in a game then the opponent will have some more things to deal with it.

Forgotmytea
29-04-2010, 18:40
I feel like I'm in a minority here in liking my core :p I started collecting Wood Elves because of the background, and the plastic Glade Guard/Riders/Dryad kits. The characters I take for them are basically just boosts, to add a bit of magical defence or an extra punch with a magic arrow, nothing major. So yeah, in respect to the Asrai, I'm really looking forward to the percentages :)

Similar thing with my Dark Elves, really - I like my small groups of corsairs and my ranks of crossbowmen (not to mention the Cold One Knights - gorgeous models... :D), so again characters aren't that big a thing for me. The biggest monster I run with my DE is a Cold One ;) Assuming these rumours are true, I'm quite looking forward to seeing how armies are tweaked and new strategies developed to deal with the new character-lite armies 8th will bring.

Though, having played Vampire Counts a long time ago when they were still just 'Undead', I do sympathise with VC players. I'm sure something will come up, though, be it a unique rule for them to allow them more flexibility with characters, or just a new bunch of strategies to maximise the vampires they are allowed :)

snottlebocket
29-04-2010, 18:53
Though, having played Vampire Counts a long time ago when they were still just 'Undead', I do sympathise with VC players. I'm sure something will come up, though, be it a unique rule for them to allow them more flexibility with characters, or just a new bunch of strategies to maximise the vampires they are allowed :)

Vampires aren't nearly as bad as they make it sound. They have several units that can march on their own volition. Units that influence the magic phase and vampires start with very solid combat stats to begin with.

The fact that they can no longer sink a ton of points into their characters to create a truly horrific army is no loss.

It hardly matters that they lose a bit of protection or offense on their characters and a bit of power in their magic phase. So does everyone else. if the army tones down a bit, well that's what people have been crying for since their release.

Zoolander
29-04-2010, 19:08
As much as I don't like the limiters on characters for many reasons, I agree that far more core is needed. A minimum cap on core will go a long way towards reducing rare/special/character points spent by default, and makes more sense. Core should make up at least a decent chunk of your army.

Spending 150 points on Skinks (less than 10% of my build total) or 240 points on skeletons should not be "enough" core. With that said, I think big badass characters are both fun to paint and fun to use, so I hope that they aren't limited too much. I recently bought a Carnosaur and am in the process of painting it. I really would like to bust it out more often then whenever we happen to play a 3000 point game.

I think this is a perfect solution! Reminds me of my old 4th ed days. A 50% requirement on core is what they need. Then, if I needed or wanted to field 40% on characters I'd still only have 10% to pay for any specials or rares. So no hydras, no flamers, no black coach. Etc. This is a good solution, to be honest.


To be a bit more clear, I'd advocate a system that was a % required core, and a slot system for everything else, seems to have the best of both systems.

Thanks, Kayosiv. That is better yet.

@Vutall:

I hope you are correct sir. Like I said, for some armies, this isn't anything. I can spend less than 500pts on wood elf characters without hampering the army one bit, or decreasing my fun. Now try that with a skaven list and the screaming bell. VC list, or a TK list. Especially when it comes to undead, you will find that 500 pts just doesn't cut it, because the heroes are so intregal to the army. Again, most armies don't rely on their lords for so much - undead do! They vital to the success of the army and the fun of the person.

@Snottlebocket

Are non VC players really that oblivious to how crucial characters are to the army? I mean really? It's not just that we won't be able to march. It's that our troops on average suck. So unless they are fighting Skaven slaves or Goblins, they will lose most combats they get themselves into. Without the magic to support them, every army can march right over an undead army. Then when you get to the single lone vampire or liche priest and you kill him, the entire army can crumble to dust. Kill one guy, score hundreds if not thousands of points. In the case of TK, not having the magic means not moving, not getting crucial charges off. It's a core element to how those armies work.

Enigmatik1
29-04-2010, 19:28
The fact that they can no longer sink a ton of points into their characters to create a truly horrific army is no loss.

It hardly matters that they lose a bit of protection or offense on their characters and a bit of power in their magic phase. So does everyone else. if the army tones down a bit, well that's what people have been crying for since their release.

I don't think this is an entirely fair assessment given what happens when the Vampire General dies. Sure, it has some merit...but it feels to me like this aspect of the Undead army design is being overlooked.

snottlebocket
29-04-2010, 19:34
I don't think this is an entirely fair assessment given what happens when the Vampire General dies. Sure, it has some merit...but it feels to me like this aspect of the Undead army design is being overlooked.

Even without equipment vampires are tough fast fighters in an entire army that can be 100% relied upon to act as an unbreakable tarpit. If you choose to focus your vampire on things other than combat, it is no trouble at all to prevent him from being killed.

If someone else chooses to construct some sort of horrible butcher as their general, by sinking most of their points into it, it's not hard to avoid him. And if you do end up in combat, it's not an unfair outcome that the vampire dies horribly.

I haven't played vampire counts in the current edition but I'm sure they can still manage fine without a lord entirely. When you no longer have to worry about being able to deal with dragons and greater demons, it's amazing how much you can get done with 500 points worth of heroes.

The only people hit hard by the 25% character cap are those with unrealistic expectations and those unwilling to adapt.

Zoolander
29-04-2010, 19:52
What you fail to grasp snottlebocket is that it's only a nasty tar pit as long as it has the magic to make it so. Otherwise it's a brittle stack of bones that you can hack through in two turns thanks to CR. And no I don't think I'll be happy putting my entire army's life in the hands of a To4 2Wo character. Thank you, no.

Besides as I already mentioned many times, characters are also the fun of the army.

kardar233
29-04-2010, 19:54
The bigger problem with Vampires here is not so much for the players but for their opponents.

It's widely accepted that the "sit back and raise" strategy is possibly the most boring army builds to play against or with, which is why I take a combat Vampire list. The problem is that with the 25% cap, I don't have enough Vampires to go around. Going magic-heavy will now have the additional advantage of having being able to bolster all my units when they need it.

My local player base is probably more WAAC than some of the other people here, but I'm very worried about trying to deal with a DE Dragon with the 25%cap, especially if the rare cap is going to be 20% as I've been hearing. Double hydra too! :cries:

Zinch
29-04-2010, 20:17
Stop, please!

Every threat about this rumour ends in an endless (sorry the pun) argument about VC.

Want to hear a thing? VC are one of the more powerfull armies right now. Beeing able to field a kill-machine character that also is a level 3 wizard is something that should not be a norm. Even less in 2000 or 2250 points battle. Stop claiming please.

You want magic? Take a level 3 Vampire Lord and 3 Necromancers and that's only 420 points, you still have 80 points to equip your lord if you want (or take only 2 necromancers if you wish, in the end they can repeat spells so with the new magic phase it doesn't make any sense to take 3...)

You want combat skills? Take a level 2 Vampire Lord and 2 vampires and you still have 45 points to equip them (and you are fielding three wizards nonetheless!)

Are you VC complaining about your mobility? Your army without magic moves like any other army around here, just put the general near the center and some characters on lonely flanker units (remember that rumours say heavy cavalry would not be allowed to march in the new edition). And if your dire wolves in a lonely flank "only" can move 9", it's not a pity for me. I play dwarfs, so mind you.

And people claiming they will not be allowed to take the miniatures they like in a 2250 points, two options: they lie or math aren't they strength...

You CAN field almost any miniature in a 2250 points game (except a chaos lord in a dragon, I'm sorry, you need more points for that, what a pity...). You cannot field them ALONGSIDE 3 other characters.
I would figure that if you want to play a concrete miniature, you won't worry if you cannot field it with a little mage on his side...

And you know what? I cannot field an anvil of doom and my favourite miniature (Dwarf lord on shieldbearers) at the SAME TIME in a 2000 -2250 points game. Do you see me complaining?

And for the TK... I can understand your worries now (you don't have the rule to march near your general and that's something to complain about, I agree), but the army book will come soon and I bet your magic will be redone completely (maybe its something like the anvil (results in a 2+ and is inmune to dispel dices))

P.S.: Sorry if there's any missspelling or any gramathical error...

Maoriboy007
29-04-2010, 20:28
And all you guys complaining about VC lords, trust me - if you had crappy skeletons and zombies as core, you'd want to be compensated somehow, too. And your army doesn't start cumbling to dust if your general dies, so bite me. Of course I want a tough as nails general in that case. I'm not stupid!

A point that people like to ingnore I'm afraid. In fact the only units that work particularly well independantly of characters are all the most expensive ones in the rare section. And of the rares only the black coach and Wraiths impress me at all, I can't fathom why people give Bloodknights and Varghulfs so much credit.


Not mocking. Pointing out you don't need a super-character. Because nobody else will, either. I could afford, in fact, under the new edition two lords..

In a dwarf army? Or naked? Indeed some armies will ride the restrictions better than others, having cheaper and effective alternatives, VC don't.


Okay - We have said this before and we'll say it again, because it seems like it's not going through. Your characters won't be as effective but they will still be effective. Want one super-character? You can, but you have to give up something. With Vampire Counts, you give up less than others because your super-character is a caster as well. Let's look at your complaints:.

A lord is only as good as the exra points you pay for him. And its not that VC want a super character, the way the book is written you NEED a super character.
What you give up is the points you pay for him. He also takes up nearly all the combat and tactical potential that would normally go into the rest of the army.


You can take a Greater Daemon on 2000 points. He just will be your only character and won't be a level 4 wizard. Big deal. He can still have M 10 and the ability to trash any unit he hits in the flank. So, no: You can have a Greater Daemon. It just won't be as effective as it is, now. A lot of people didn't like how they work now, so this is a feature that pleases most people..

Why didn't they just fix how large monsters/flyers work? Or greater Demons in particular?


It will be much more enjoyable for anyone other than the top three tier army lists. Much more.

Anyone who thinks that the top tieirs are going to dissapear is in for a rude suprise In fact only the VC are going to be shifted anywhere (to the bottom in all likelyhood. DoC and DE will probably not move at all, and heres why.

Affordable effective heros? DE DoC - Check
Effective Core and special that operate well independantly? DE DoC Check
Effective Shooting alternatives? DE DoC Check
Effective magic Defence/power alternatives? DE and DoC check.

If I were a DoC player I could reliably Field
Skulltaker on Jugger
Tzeench know all spells
All Horror core
Flesh Hounds
Flamers
Furies

DE
Pendant Hero
ASF BG (with assassin) and Ring Hotek
Dark Riders & X Bows
Hydra and Repeater Boltthrower

Both list are pure poison that you can build on.


Even without equipment vampires are tough fast fighters in an entire army that can be 100% relied upon to act as an unbreakable tarpit. If you choose to focus your vampire on things other than combat, it is no trouble at all to prevent him from being killed..

Without equipment a naked vampire is just that, naked. He still has 3 wounds and kills the rest of your army when he dies.
And 100% tarpit is quite frankly rubbish, there is a limit to undead resiliance and it ,coincidentally relies on characters.
Its the "crumble" rule not the "unbreakable" rule.


If someone else chooses to construct some sort of horrible butcher as their general, by sinking most of their points into it, it's not hard to avoid him. And if you do end up in combat, it's not an unfair outcome that the vampire dies horribly

Indeed and the risk is much greater for VC as their general has the triple function of keeping his army alive, Keeping them functioning and possibly doing all its fighting, its the reason why he has decent combat stats. He still only has 3 wound and 4s attacks, and many other lords compare in fighting potetial.
Thats why, in self defence, the ultra boring spam caster helm bunker lord is going to be the only real viable option for VC (not my personal preference I might add)


I haven't played vampire counts in the current edition but I'm sure they can still manage fine without a lord entirely. When you no longer have to worry about being able to deal with dragons and greater demons, it's amazing how much you can get done with 500 points worth of heroes..

As someone who has played several armies in the new edition but whose first army is VC , I can tell you that you don't know of what you speak. Undead armies in general function so differently than other armies that people often give them more credit than they are due.


The only people hit hard by the 25% character cap are those with unrealistic expectations and those unwilling to adapt.

Actually, the only people who are hit hard by the cap are
1. those who want to field thier most expensive (and usually best) models
2. People who want to play thier army to its best potential
3. People Whose army has a reliance on characters.
4. People without cheap/effective character alternatives
5. People with affordable/effective combat/magic alternatives
6. People who have affordable/effective troops and Shooting atlternatives.
7. People who dont have to end the game when their general dies.

Personally, I'd be happy with a core percentage requirement and the rest being slots.
This would fix peoples complaints that they dont see enough core on the table.

Maoriboy007
29-04-2010, 20:37
Every threat about this rumour ends in an endless (sorry the pun) argument about VC.

Basically because VC get screwed over as an army book in general, by the change, rather than not being able to field your favourite model as in most army books.

A kill machine costs upwards of 400 points, and I prefer some protection for the win button on my army.

Also all rumours point to drastic changes to the magic system (something also vital to VC)which will greatly reduce its effect on the game. In light of this a precentage limitation is completely unessesary to depower VC.

Granted TK (my other Fave army) get screwed over more, but they have the hope of a new book on the horizon.

stashman
29-04-2010, 20:47
It seems like NO ONE can play there armies with the 8th Ed. And thats good, becuse all will ahve problems :p

Maoriboy007
29-04-2010, 21:23
I wish they would just put us all out of our misery and let us know one way or another whether this rumour is true.
I don't know if I can stand the anticipation, especially if 8th edition turns out to be a complete fubar, it'd be like waiting for the 7th edition OnG rulebook.

burad
29-04-2010, 21:33
How about we wait for some actual news before we launch into the hyperbolic ranting about how this edition will ruin Warhammer forever?

Exactly. None of this is real until it happens. So there's really no point in all this handwringing until the book is actually out.

Heimagoblin
29-04-2010, 21:43
You know I get so frustated by people like Zinch who talk about vampires being horribly broken unless there is a character cap. The vampire counts are not a top tier army, just the highest of the middle tier ones.

Also, any vampire player that can beat my warriors of chaos or lizardmen with 500 points or less on characters aswell as a small rare force (15%) gets to keep all my models because I clearly don't deserve them.

Maoriboy007
29-04-2010, 21:43
Exactly. None of this is real until it happens. So there's really no point in all this handwringing until the book is actually out.

Unless it dioes happen, in which case we will have warmed the argument up nicely by then :)


You know I get so frustated by people like Zinch who talk about vampires being horribly broken unless there is a character cap. The vampire counts are not a top tier army, just the highest of the middle tier ones.

You know, thats probably the most insightful observation on VC I've heard in a long time, you sir deserve a chocolate fish :)

antin3
29-04-2010, 21:55
I like the idea of the 25% cap, if it's true. This game is about pushing models around on the table. But there is so much more to it than that. The fluff is an important aspect of the hobby and it seems to me that WFB has gotten away from that. This game is supposed to about mass ranks with banners flapping in the breeze marching to war against another large army. That's why when I read about dual steamtank, Karl Franz riding a dragon armies I hope that the limitations are true.
I think people who are complaining about the restrictions are only looking at it with a narrow perspective, it isn't only your army that will be effected, all armies are going to be given the ssame limitations. So what, field more troops, get over the current edition and move on. Really, if you want to play games with few miniatures and uber characters then play Warmachine. WFB seems like it is focusing on large scale battles with lots of troops and that is as it should be.

Heimagoblin
29-04-2010, 22:00
Well argued sir, but What I want to see is armies with units 6 ranks deep beating these armies and not those armies not being allowed.

Spiney Norman
29-04-2010, 22:02
I don't know how many times i'm going to say this but GW should not be trying to limit choices but make everything balanced so that a larger number of line infantry will be able to overun an enemy army with less points invested in their infantry and the question is can the opponent stall the flanks to be able to secure the victory in the centre. The major problem with this is that flyers can go strait over your line and force your hole line to pivet to face. THis is the central issue behind dragon op ness but I can't think how to solve this problem. On a different note-
My personal opinion is that flyers that charge large blocks should be attacked by every member of the unit. It makes alot more sense and would incourage infantry blocks over monsters.

Balance not restriction people.

Hear hear!


2 Characters for most armies? At 2k it should be easy to fit 3 characters in, as thats 167 points per character. Considering most heroes are less then 100 points base, 50 points in magic items and a few upgrades that puts you at that with full magic gear. That is even the case with a number of casters. It just means you aren't taking a lord. But who ever said you had to take a lord the second it becomes available?

Can't take a Slaan effectively in 2k? So, why does that matter, especially since you can't take a Slaan currently in 1999 points or less. I know a lot of people play in the 1500-1750 range, and it is usually specifically to avoid having to deal with super powered lord level choices.


I dispute that slann will be non-viable in 2K, I can take a fairly competitive Slann for 395 (BSB, 1 extra discipline & cupped hands) and still have enough for a basic scar vet or L2 skink priest.

I actually would consider fielding a fairly tricked out Slann as my only char acceptable, as long as the changes to the magic phase means medium magic becomes a viable option and you're not going to need a L2 with your L4 to make an impression.


To be a bit more clear, I'd advocate a system that was a % required core, and a slot system for everything else, seems to have the best of both systems.

Thats actually an awesome idea, mandate like perhaps a minimum of 33% (1/3) core and let people spend the rest of the points as they like limited by slots. But alas, the 8th Ed rules will have been finalised long ago.

Zinch
29-04-2010, 22:26
You know I get so frustated by people like Zinch who talk about vampires being horribly broken unless there is a character cap. The vampire counts are not a top tier army, just the highest of the middle tier ones.

Also, any vampire player that can beat my warriors of chaos or lizardmen with 500 points or less on characters aswell as a small rare force (15%) gets to keep all my models because I clearly don't deserve them.

I didn't by ANY means have said that vampires are horribly broken. Reread my post. I only say that beeing "the highest of the middle tier" I'm tired of listening you complaining when anyone else does at the same level

And I know your core units are not a killing machine by themselves, but black knights, blood knights, grave guard? are not they good units? Do they need a character to win a combat against almost any other unit without a character in them?

And if you try to win against WoC or Lizardmen with ANY army of OnG? That's not a challenge? Had you take into account that that WoC player will also only have 500 points of characters? And that its cavalry won't march? And that your horde of zombies will outnumber them 3 or 4x its army in a BRB full of rules to help those type of units?

Please, wait to the rulebook and then complain.

EDIT: thank you Agnar... ;)

Grimstonefire
29-04-2010, 22:31
Something that may be worth adding here... Do not take it as set in stone just yet that the character allocation is going to be 25%. ;)

The conflagration of flaming attacks I would receive if I got this rumour wrong means I am waiting for multiple confirmations before I post anything more on this. ;)

Orktavius
29-04-2010, 22:52
it makes sense that it would be limited to below 30%, anything more then that is just excessive. This game is supposed to be about armies duking it out, not souped up characters with a couple worthless units to make the list legal

Agnar the Howler
29-04-2010, 23:41
I by ANY means have said that vampires are horribly broken.

You may want to make a quick fix there ;)

Maoriboy007
30-04-2010, 00:22
And I know your core units are not a killing machine by themselves, but black knights, blood knights, grave guard? are not they good units?;)

Bloodknights are not. Anyone but a complete muppet should have this Rare Slot 200+ Point unit chasing 60 points of dogs or Harpies through the trees.


Do they need a character to win a combat against almost any other unit without a character in them?;)

Grave guard and Black guard do, or at the very least a character nearby suppourting them with plently of magic.


And if you try to win against WoC or Lizardmen with ANY army of OnG? That's not a challenge?

Just because they committed a crime against the O&G book doesn't meant they need to commit another one.
O&G need fixing, everyone knows that.


Had you take into account that that WoC player will also only have 500 points of characters? And that its cavalry won't march?

WoC have a much better core and combat unit base to fall back on, and its heros are pretty good too.


And that your horde of zombies will outnumber them 3 or 4x its army in a BRB full of rules to help those type of units?

Zombies suck pretty bad with character support, not a great argument.


it makes sense that it would be limited to below 30%, anything more then that is just excessive. This game is supposed to be about armies duking it out, not souped up characters with a couple worthless units to make the list legal

If you want to force through a greater investment in core troops then surely a core percentage requirement is more than sufficient, and allow the reset of the points to have the felxibillty of a slot alignment.
As it is VC get stuck with minium infantry unit that need to be constantly babysat by characters.

Its just a simple fact that some armies will profit a lot more from a percentage limit than others, not changing the power tier problem just shuffling it around a little. I reckon cavalry armies and Gunlines being the power play armies.

Agnar the Howler
30-04-2010, 00:48
Zombies suck pretty bad with character support, not a great argument.

You're saying this as if you're throwing them out and expecting them to slaughter everything. They're a tarpit unit that wins through ranks and numbers, they are not supposed to kill anything, just hold stuff in combat for so long that by the time they've finished killing it there's not enough time to do anything else but sit there, or to hold the enemy in place for a flank charge.

R Man
30-04-2010, 01:04
Bloodknights are not. Anyone but a complete muppet should have this Rare Slot 200+ Point unit chasing 60 points of dogs or Harpies through the trees.

I was un-aware that Every army had access to harpies and dogs. I'll be sure to take some if I ever play as High Elves. They could use the cannon fodder. Seriously, the VC player has a brain too. They aren't reactionary and can decide how units move and can use dogs of their own to stop this. You have a poor view of VC player intelligence if you think they can't spot these and intercept them.


WoC have a much better core and combat unit base to fall back on, and its heros are pretty good too.

Which are slow, expensive and badly outnumbered.


If you want to force through a greater investment in core troops then surely a core percentage requirement is more than sufficient, and allow the reset of the points to have the felxibillty of a slot alignment.
As it is VC get stuck with minium infantry unit that need to be constantly babysat by characters.

Ignoring many things about VC troops that are good. Their crumble ability reliably allows units to hold, even if they get beaten, allowing for counter charges. Fear has always been a huge boon too, though there are rumours that may change this. The big problem with your argument is its premise. Yes the Vamps need characters, but you can still get them and the good stuff. You just have to not deck them out with every option. Instead go for more general characters.


Its just a simple fact that some armies will profit a lot more from a percentage limit than others, not changing the power tier problem just shuffling it around a little. I reckon cavalry armies and Gunlines being the power play armies.

Explain to me how cavalry is supposed to get better with it being prevented from march moving, the stepping up rule granting more return attacks (especially with Great Weapons) and the horde rule means great big blocks become dangerous to engage.

In fact there are armies that suffer far more than VC. Bretonnia has all of its best troops nerfed if 1 save is true and its speed cut in half. In addition, High Elves loose all benefit from ASF. Many other armies loose their invincible builds too. No more STank attack (I bet state troopers go down to skeletons more easily than STanks). In fact, the only armies I can see benefiting are OnG (who, by your own admission, suck anyway) and Empire Combat Armies (who really fears them)? So look at the whole picture for once.

Zinch
30-04-2010, 01:06
You're saying this as if you're throwing them out and expecting them to slaughter everything. They're a tarpit unit that wins through ranks and numbers, they are not supposed to kill anything, just hold stuff in combat for so long that by the time they've finished killing it there's not enough time to do anything else but sit there, or to hold the enemy in place for a flank charge.

This.
I didn't say that zombies will win you the battle. But,they allow you to overmanouver any opponent. Just hold them in combat with your 100-200 points unit and flank charge them!

Seeing people just doesn't stop claiming, I remember when 5th edition changed to 6th (I didn't read this or any forum by that time. I don't know if I even have internet by that time...;)).

5th edition was full of scary profiles in almost any army (except for dwarfs, wich I play... but in 5th edition even Dwarfs could play swarms and unmounted creatures! But that's another story...:)). I remember Empiral Dragons (the big ones) beeing something like:

WS BS S T W I A Ld
8----0- 8 7 7 6 8 10

And Vampire Counts (the strongest ones) something like this:

WS BS S T W I A Ld
9 --- 3 7 6 4 7 5 10

(I'm not exagerating, they were something like this).

Then in 6th edition all the profiles were softed.
Would you try to beat an army of the 6th edition with one of the 5th?

I know that when 6th edition was released they changed all the armybooks, but is an example. You don't know what the rules will do to your army, so wait to see all of them an try all of them to begin to claim

Zoolander
30-04-2010, 01:37
This.
I didn't say that zombies will win you the battle. But,they allow you to overmanouver any opponent. Just hold them in combat with your 100-200 points unit and flank charge them!

Seeing people just doesn't stop claiming, I remember when 5th edition changed to 6th (I didn't read this or any forum by that time. I don't know if I even have internet by that time...;)).

5th edition was full of scary profiles in almost any army (except for dwarfs, wich I play... but in 5th edition even Dwarfs could play swarms and unmounted creatures! But that's another story...:)). I remember Empiral Dragons (the big ones) beeing something like:

WS BS S T W I A Ld
8----0- 8 7 7 6 8 10

And Vampire Counts (the strongest ones) something like this:

WS BS S T W I A Ld
9 --- 3 7 6 4 7 5 10

(I'm not exagerating, they were something like this).

Then in 6th edition all the profiles were softed.
Would you try to beat an army of the 6th edition with one of the 5th?

I know that when 6th edition was released they changed all the armybooks, but is an example. You don't know what the rules will do to your army, so wait to see all of them an try all of them to begin to claim

Close, but not quite. The vampire actually had lower WS, only 3 WO, only 3 AT, and cost about 200 pts naked. He did come with some sort of gaze power though. But he also wasn't a decent mage at all if I recall (lvl 1 or something). So yeah, I think the new vamps are actually more powerful that that. By far.

Agnar, the problem is, only a dumbass would charge the tarpit unit of zombies. However, if there are no characters around to help the zombies they will lose combat by a lot and crumble within a turn or two, so then it's not such a big deal. All of VC troops need character support except for the rares, and especially the core. It doesn't matter if you outnumber and cause fear if you lose combats by 5-10 every round.

deggaroth
30-04-2010, 01:44
Isnt their supposed to be objective scenarios in the game, where only core rank and file troops can take objectives. Wouldn't this make VC stronger, since they can field large amounts of core troops that don't run away or break? Even with 25% characters you get a vamp and a couple necros at 2250-2500 pt levels that everyone plays at. Take a few large blocks, park them on some objectives, and raise them back from the dead as they get pounded. This all but guarantees you at least two objectives assuming you play your cards right with all your other support units.

R Man
30-04-2010, 01:50
Agnar, the problem is, only a dumbass would charge the tarpit unit of zombies. However, if there are no characters around to help the zombies they will lose combat by a lot and crumble within a turn or two, so then it's not such a big deal. All of VC troops need character support except for the rares, and especially the core. It doesn't matter if you outnumber and cause fear if you lose combats by 5-10 every round.

Even at 10 casualties around, a unit of 40 zombies will take 4 round to destroy. This is assuming you don't flank charge, or raise anymore. I would also like to see a unit that can win combat by 5 consistently, that costs even remotely close to that of the Zombies. And it has to beat fear too. Besides, you can buff them up with the Helm of Commandment you can give them WS 7 mainly to protect them from attacks.

Maoriboy007
30-04-2010, 02:52
Honestly, are people that convinced zombies are an awesome VC unit?


You're saying this as if you're throwing them out and expecting them to slaughter everything.

On the contrary, never in my wildest dreams would I expect zombies to do anything in combat, except die in great numbers. In fact the small chance they had of autobreaking units will be gone if the rumoured fear changes are to be beleived.


They're a tarpit unit that wins through ranks and numbers.

And lose by being absolute crap in combat.


they are not supposed to kill anything, just hold stuff in combat for so long that by the time they've finished killing it there's not enough time to do anything else but sit there.

It is possible to do this of course, but without considerable magic support zombies will crumble into dust within a round of combat, two if you're lucky. This means you need characters to babysit them or abandon them, which is kind of the point


or to hold the enemy in place for a flank charge.

Again possible, but generally Zombies add so much to your opponants CR it is generally unsafe to do so.



I didn't say that zombies will win you the battle. But,they allow you to overmanouver any opponent.

That is just wrong, it's very hard to beleive any type of infantry block can be responsibe for outmaneuvering you opponant.


Just hold them in combat with your 100-200 points unit and flank charge them!

Or you could just flank the zombies with some fast cav or hold them from the front with a small unit and tie them up equally as well.
It is the goal of every army general to tie up his opponants most expensive units with something relativly cheaper, zombies can do it well enough in some ways, but are by no means the finest examples of that tactic, That probably goes to any unit of bait and flee cav or skirmishers (especially flyers).



Even at 10 casualties around, a unit of 40 zombies will take 4 round to destroy. This is assuming you don't flank charge, or raise anymore. I would also like to see a unit that can win combat by 5 consistently, that costs even remotely close to that of the Zombies. And it has to beat fear too.

Anything that cost more than Zombies will kill them in numbers, anything that cost the same will just constantly win. Goblins Skavenslaves ans Skinks can quite conceivably hold them at bay without autobreaking, they are that bad in combat.


Besides, you can buff them up with the Helm of Commandment you can give them WS 7 mainly to protect them from attacks.

Thats the whole point of needing character for undead units to work.




And Vampire Counts (the strongest ones) something like this:

WS BS S T W I A Ld
9 --- 3 7 6 4 7 5 10
(I'm not exagerating, they were something like this).

Indeed, pretty much every army had its share of rediculous powerhouses at the time , Empires Karl Franz turned his profile into 10's across the board as I recall, and Chaos was just sickening.
I walked into the game just at the end of this particular era.
The last of the 5th edition books were just starting to move away from this



Then in 6th edition all the profiles were softed.
Would you try to beat an army of the 6th edition with one of the 5th?

Depends which BRB I was using :)
Honestly I enjoyed 6th edition playing VC TK and Empire except gunlines and Cavalry were way too powerful and HoC were just so tough to beat.


I know that when 6th edition was released they changed all the armybooks, but is an example. You don't know what the rules will do to your army, so wait to see all of them an try all of them to begin to claim

But I can speculate fairly acurately based on the assumption some of the rumours could be true.


I was un-aware that Every army had access to harpies and dogs. I'll be sure to take some if I ever play as High Elves..

Insert Great eagle,any unit of Fast Cav and Skirmishers here.


Seriously, the VC player has a brain too

And it tastes lovely, braaaaaaaaains! :skull:


They aren't reactionary and can decide how units move and can use dogs of their own to stop this.

They could use the cannon fodder...

Which is more points spent on just controlling the already expensive Blood Knight , not to mention charge reactons allow you opponant to use his blockers better. In the end your opponant can spend the same amount on blockers as you and it is still just as likey the scramble will prevent your Bloodknight point sink going where you want it to.

I'm not saying that Bloodknights don't hit hard or even that some fine play and a bit of luck can't manage them into combat, just the expense and difficulty involved belies the reputation their admittedly excellent statline gives them. If that sort of thing floats your boat then good on ya



Which are slow, expensive and badly outnumbered..

Marauders (mounted and on foot) are excellent for the cost as are dogs, Chaos Knights and Chariots are as well costed as they have ever been and are better than Bloodknights IMO. And no slower than any other unit.


Ignoring many things about VC troops that are good. Their crumble ability reliably allows units to hold, even if they get beaten, allowing for counter charges..

And lousy combat ability can keep them losing combats, and that reliability is pretty interdependant on character support (a lot) either through combat or magic.
They dont have any real means of forcing opponants into those combats either, as they only have a single magic missile of any note and no real shooting either.
I have no illusions about VC , they are a very decent army that do certain things very well and other things very badly, but a whole lot of the good is going to go south.


Fear has always been a huge boon too, though there are rumours that may change this

One of the changes I actually agree with, although a measly +1 to CR is a pretty steep depowering.


The big problem with your argument is its premise. Yes the Vamps need characters, but you can still get them and the good stuff. You just have to not deck them out with every option. Instead go for more general characters

You need to pay a hefty sum just to protect your lord considering he has the I win button on his forehead, scrimping on this is suicide. Scrimping on character ability tends to be a good way to lose them, the rub is that Undead generally need to spread that character support across the whole army.
NAked characters generally lead to bunker characters (booooorrrriiinnngg)


Explain to me how cavalry is supposed to get better with it being prevented from march moving,

Still charge like 14" though, and get a decent armour save? If this is true, Bloodknights are even more worthless.
Still if this one pans out then maybe Cavalry won't be quite so good.


the stepping up rule granting more return attacks (especially with Great Weapons)

This rule will be awful if it applies to Saurus Chaos Warriors and Black Guard, the horror.


and the horde rule means great big blocks become dangerous to engage

Not familiar with the Horde rule as yet


In fact there are armies that suffer far more than VC. Bretonnia has all of its best troops nerfed if 1 save is true and its speed cut in half

Still a 2+ save across the board to a minimum of 5+, the speed thing, well they still win on the charge, just not in turn 2 anymore.


In addition, High Elves loose all benefit from ASF

Depends on whether or not ASF gives an Initiative bonus or not, may as well leave corpse carts at home as well.


Many other armies loose their invincible builds too. No more STank attack (I bet state troopers go down to skeletons more easily than STanks)

And quite a few keep their nasty builds, DoC and DE in particular still have good ones to fall back on.


In fact, the only armies I can see benefiting are OnG (who, by your own admission, suck anyway) and Empire Combat Armies (who really fears them)? So look at the whole picture for once.

DoC and DE will get by perfectly fine and remain unmoved WoC and LM have excellent core and specials to fall back on.

Maoriboy007
30-04-2010, 03:20
Look, we seem to be going out on a tangent here so heres how I see it in brief.

Due to the nature of the armies VC & TK are going to be hit particularly hard by any sort of character limitation, especially in view of changes to Fear and magic already rumoured.

The power levels of most other books won't be particularly affected, short of not fielding their more expensive characters, but relying on them less anyway, and having good alternatives.

The character limitation is really unnessesary in light of the changes to fear and magic, and is less important than a change to Army books in particular and changes to other rules (such as terrain and improvements to core infantry)

We would be better served by an increased core requirement if such is really viewed as nessesary.

Kevlar
30-04-2010, 03:27
Oh well I enjoyed fielding my Vermin Lord for a couple of months. He is fun, not very effective, but fun.

Now it looks like I will just have to field dual furnace monk units and the rest of my army in censer bearers and giant rats. No fun but it will win a lot more than I do now.

R Man
30-04-2010, 04:05
That is just wrong, it's very hard to beleive any type of infantry block can be responsibe for outmaneuvering you opponant.

Ive done it before. Against Cavalry too. Its not that hard, especially if you have spells that promote movement, like Van Hells, or your opponent underrates a unit.


Anything that cost more than Zombies will kill them in numbers, anything that cost the same will just constantly win. Goblins Skavenslaves ans Skinks can quite conceivably hold them at bay without autobreaking, they are that bad in combat.

I am aware of Zombies Quality. But these units must pass their fear tests first. And anything costing more points is more points not fighting your wights.


Thats the whole point of needing character for undead units to work.

I hardly think the Helm of Commandment is going to break the bank.


Insert Great eagle,any unit of Fast Cav and Skirmishers here.

Eagles are rare choices and take away from bolt throwers that are desperatley needed to kill heavy cavalry and infantry. And Elven Fast Cavalry and skirmishers are also pretty expensive.


Which is more points spent on just controlling the already expensive Blood Knight , not to mention charge reactons allow you opponant to use his blockers better. In the end your opponant can spend the same amount on blockers as you and it is still just as likey the scramble will prevent your Bloodknight point sink going where you want it to.

But the Undead units can still have an influence on the fight. They are not static either and can contribute once they are done. Undead also have Van Hells so you can get out of bad situations more easily.

And not every army will bring blocking troops. The point isn't about the quality of BK's one way or another, its about how units are used together.


Marauders (mounted and on foot) are excellent for the cost as are dogs, Chaos Knights and Chariots are as well costed as they have ever been and are better than Bloodknights IMO. And no slower than any other unit.

Marauder Infantry are good, but they are not exceptional. Mounted also lack numbers as do chariots so will fall to SCR. Chaos Knights are good, yes. But they are not going to be able to march and tarpit them with zombies, against whom their killing power is wasted. Then you can flank them with Black Knights who have S6, Killing Blow and can move through trees.


And lousy combat ability can keep them losing combats, and that reliability is pretty interdependant on character support (a lot) either through combat or magic.
They dont have any real means of forcing opponants into those combats either, as they only have a single magic missile of any note and no real shooting either.
I have no illusions about VC , they are a very decent army that do certain things very well and other things very badly, but a whole lot of the good is going to go south.

Magic support might very well be easier, meaning VC can remain magically potent without the same investment. You have also forgot that never running away, while losses are suffered, is much better than loosing your entire unit. All forms of Wights are potent, Ghouls have 2 poisoned attacks and fear can break up a co-ordinated charge before it happens. Now at least. You also have spells which are spammable, one of the cheapest caster heroes (necromancers) and you can cast spells (remember the Book) which allows you extra movement. The army also has many fast units, one of which can move through terrain without penalty in addition to being a heavily armed Juggernaut with killing blow.

And what kind of units can mincemeat the undead? Sure there are many who can beat them in a straight fight. But only a few elite ones can hit them anywhere near as hard as you say.

In addition: Gaze of Nagash, Curse of the Years, Wind of Death. 3 spells that can cause death at a range. One can destroy an entire unit if you roll well.


You need to pay a hefty sum just to protect your lord considering he has the I win button on his forehead, scrimping on this is suicide. Scrimping on character ability tends to be a good way to lose them, the rub is that Undead generally need to spread that character support across the whole army.
NAked characters generally lead to bunker characters (booooorrrriiinnngg)

Even at 2000 points you can still give up to 100 points of equipment to a lord and still have room for a vamp and a necro. Which by the way, is the total amount of points most other lords can spend. Besides, who can kill him? A naked Vamp Lord is tougher than 80% of Characters and the other 20% are going to go even tougher at 2000 points. At anything over 2000 points you can do it better. There are also other ways to spread your movement across a battlefield, Blood Knights, a second vamp (which is affordable), the Varghulf, and Van Hells.


This rule will be awful if it applies to Saurus Chaos Warriors and Black Guard, the horror.

In most cases, Chaos Warriors and Black Guard will go first anyway. So Saurus are the only ones who benefit. No, wait, anyone who is slow benefits, including: Empire Infnatry, Dwarves, Dwarves with Great Weapons, Orcs and Undead.


Not familiar with the Horde rule as yet

No one is quite sure what it will look like, but speculation states that if a unit is a certain size (40 and 50 have both been suggested) than the unit will fight in 3 ranks. There have been a few other suggestions, such as requiring a frontage of 10 (but the whole front gets to attack which is the key part).


Still a 2+ save across the board to a minimum of 5+, the speed thing, well they still win on the charge, just not in turn 2 anymore.

It becomes very nasty though when facing great weapons (which always strike back), or guns which tear through armour. And against these attacks its a 6 anyway. Its not much on its own, but it is spread across the whole army. And with being slowed they will be subjected to more shooting than normal.


Depends on whether or not ASF gives an Initiative bonus or not, may as well leave corpse carts at home as well.

I have heard no rumours on what ASF will become. So at the moment it's up in the air.


DoC and DE will get by perfectly fine and remain unmoved WoC and LM have excellent core and specials to fall back on.

But the rules doesn't help them, which is what I sated. P.S: Wights are excellent specials.

Lusall
30-04-2010, 04:35
From what I know, percentages are comming back but we don't know how they'll be applied. (After all...if it was a blanket "this is what you must have for core" then High Elves would be effed. ;) )

So let's wait a few and see, yeah?

Vulcan7200
30-04-2010, 05:18
Anything that cost more than Zombies will kill them in numbers, anything that cost the same will just constantly win. Goblins Skavenslaves ans Skinks can quite conceivably hold them at bay without autobreaking, they are that bad in combat.

I find this to be kind of a silly statement. There's ALOT of infantry in the game, who can yes, inflict wounds, but simply don't have the number of attacks needed to cause them to crumble in one or two turns. For not too many points you can get 40 Zombies. In order to kill them in 2 turns, they would need to cause 10 wounds each combat, have enough ranks to match the zombies, a standard, and not be outnumbered by them. Since everyone will hit them on 3's, that's what? 15 attacks that need to be thrown out, for 2/3rds of them to hit? And that's not even counting the fact that those attacks have to ALL get a wound. Then add in that you CAN still cast Innvocation, even if you can't cast it as much as before, it's unlikely you'll get NONE of them off if you really needed to keep them up. I think you're really selling Zombies short.

Memnos
30-04-2010, 06:17
Well I don't know if you have ever played TK or VC but yeah, it really helps to have a lord. Much more than any other army. Taking a hero to lead those armies can work but isn't very fun, especially when they die and your whole army collapses. You don't have that issue with ogres and maybe a hero level character works for you but I'm saying it doesn't work that well for most of my armies. I didn't get into VC to have my army lead by a necromancer, my Lizardmen to be lead by a skinkchief, etc. I'm sorry you don't have cool lords like my armies do. I'm sorry, but that isn't my idea of fun.


Because tone is impossible to discern on the internet, I'm unsure if you were just trying to be funny or if you honestly have no idea what you're talking about.

I showed how you could fit two Lords in 2000 points if slots were taken away, using 25% characters.

You can also have 2 Lords for Vampire Counts, or 2 Lords for Lizardmen(Including a Slann, who is perfect at only 275 points).

If you're the type of person who needs to spend 1000 points on a Slann, you will need to change your game. that's simply the way it is. Sometimes, the game changes and you have to change with it.

You can have characters. Just don't take 100 points of magic items plus a 300 point mount. Or take a character and a mount and magic items and don't take other characters.

That's just what you're going to have to live with.

VoodooJanus
30-04-2010, 06:21
You'll just see more naked Slann.

That alone is enough to make me fear 8th edition :D.

Zestyfork
30-04-2010, 06:33
I like the idea of a core minimum requirement better, as I rarely use special or rare units all that often. I usually sink my points into characters and core.

On the topic off vampire counts, I dislike the army all together. (not that I dislike people who play the army). I HATE having to cut through zombie swarms to then be charged by a vampire in a decent combat unit.

At my local club, Vampire count players often max their character slots and have a unit of skeletons or whatever to compensate for the core minimum. Seeing 3 units of zombies pop-up per turn is going to cause you trouble.

It comes down to choice (for all armies point of view, not just Vampires), to either having one buffed hero or a couple of weaker ones.

Memnos
30-04-2010, 06:37
That alone is enough to make me fear 8th edition :D.

The fear of naked toad-men is a legitimate one. Now you have me rethinking 8th! :(

The_Bureaucrat
30-04-2010, 06:42
I find this to be kind of a silly statement. There's ALOT of infantry in the game, who can yes, inflict wounds, but simply don't have the number of attacks needed to cause them to crumble in one or two turns. For not too many points you can get 40 Zombies. In order to kill them in 2 turns, they would need to cause 10 wounds each combat, have enough ranks to match the zombies, a standard, and not be outnumbered by them. Since everyone will hit them on 3's, that's what? 15 attacks that need to be thrown out, for 2/3rds of them to hit? And that's not even counting the fact that those attacks have to ALL get a wound. Then add in that you CAN still cast Innvocation, even if you can't cast it as much as before, it's unlikely you'll get NONE of them off if you really needed to keep them up. I think you're really selling Zombies short.

This really is a pointless argument and I don't see why we are talking about zombies in the first place but just to prove you wrong:

55 Clanrat slaves with spears, Mus and Champ will kill 4.88 Zombie a combat phase (which also happen to cost 172 points the same as 40 zombies with standard and Mus)

11 attacks *2/3*2/3=4.88
4.88+4.88 crumble clanrat turn 1
4.88+4.88 crumble VC turn 1
4.88+5.88 crumble Clanrat turn 2
4.88+6.88 crumble Vc turn 2
=42 zombies in 2 turns

I can't even tell you the last time I saw zombies in a VC list (and not just summoned). They are horrible. They serve a purpose in holding things up but will almost never kill things on their own.
Can we move on ?

Dungeon_Lawyer
30-04-2010, 06:47
So basically to make that 25% mark, I basically won't be able to take the fun toys in a standard 2250 battle. No Engine, no Bell or Furnace, no greater daemon, etc. Yes the good news is never having to face a BT again, but the bad news of spending hard cash and sweat collecting and painting these miniatures only to never field them again kinda ruins the good news.

What do you all think?

Dont worry you will be able to use all those things again in 9th when GW reverses course again.

tadaka
30-04-2010, 06:49
Personaly the 25% rule is one of the reasons im thinking of comeing back to fantasy (I did not leave due to the current rules I just did not feal like playing). I hate all the armys I see with 2 cheap min size core units and then 50% hero/lords. If I had my way it would be changed to 50% core but I do agree that haveing slots on hero/lord/special/rare would be good to keap down spam lists.

8th will be no different then any other new rules set. The book comes out people yell and scream then change with the new tactics and the game goes on.

Heimagoblin
30-04-2010, 06:49
When your opponent forms thee very radical "line" formation the zombies will get in the way of your other units, you won't get a flank charge, and will die leaving you with wasted points. You cannot use the argument that you will get any important vanhels off because you won't if you're playing anyone who knows the meaning of dispel scrolls or dispel dice if you get a low score.

Heimagoblin
30-04-2010, 06:55
I was un-aware that Every army had access to harpies and dogs. I'll be sure to take some if I ever play as High Elves. They could use the cannon fodder. Seriously, the VC player has a brain too. They aren't reactionary and can decide how units move and can use dogs of their own to stop this. You have a poor view of VC player intelligence if you think they can't spot these and intercept them.- Every army has re-directers



Which are slow, expensive and badly outnumbered.

The same speed as you, units of 12 cost 24 of you guys so units as a whole cost the same and will win in combat.

Ignoring many things about VC troops that are good. Their crumble ability reliably allows units to hold, even if they get beaten, allowing for counter charges. Fear has always been a huge boon too, though there are rumours that may change this. The big problem with your argument is its premise. Yes the Vamps need characters, but you can still get them and the good stuff. You just have to not deck them out with every option. Instead go for more general characters.

You don't seem to understand vc, the decking out is the reason their characters are feared. They come with no amour and not much magic and need the equipment

Explain to me how cavalry is supposed to get better with it being prevented from march moving, the stepping up rule granting more return attacks (especially with Great Weapons) and the horde rule means great big blocks become dangerous to engage.

true.

In fact there are armies that suffer far more than VC. Bretonnia has all of its best troops nerfed if 1 save is true and its speed cut in half. In addition, High Elves loose all benefit from ASF. Many other armies loose their invincible builds too. No more STank attack (I bet state troopers go down to skeletons more easily than STanks). In fact, the only armies I can see benefiting are OnG (who, by your own admission, suck anyway) and Empire Combat Armies (who really fears them)? So look at the whole picture for once.

Brettonians have been nerfed to if the no marching is true but they will just have to beef out their knight units and try to do enough damage on the frontal charge which is a viable build anyway and user possible trample attacks and that it is also harder to ignore armour. Vc are worst off hear.

Shadowsinner
30-04-2010, 07:00
well from what I've been hearing, 3000 point games are going to be quite common (3k is the new 2250)

I just finished a concept 3k list for dark elves which includes a lvl 3 mage, a lvl 1, a bsb cauldron, and a small assassin for under 750 points which is no problem.

I think the issue people are having is that in smaller games they won't be able to field the characters they like, which I believe clashes with the theme of 8th edition which is about huge armies and little characters.

now its about one or two powerful characters amidst the horde rather than 4 demi gods and their small gang of miscreants

Vulcan7200
30-04-2010, 07:05
This really is a pointless argument and I don't see why we are talking about zombies in the first place but just to prove you wrong:

55 Clanrat slaves with spears, Mus and Champ will kill 4.88 Zombie a combat phase (which also happen to cost 172 points the same as 40 zombies with standard and Mus)

11 attacks *2/3*2/3=4.88
4.88+4.88 crumble clanrat turn 1
4.88+4.88 crumble VC turn 1
4.88+5.88 crumble Clanrat turn 2
4.88+6.88 crumble Vc turn 2
=42 zombies in 2 turns

I can't even tell you the last time I saw zombies in a VC list (and not just summoned). They are horrible. They serve a purpose in holding things up but will almost never kill things on their own.
Can we move on ?

I agree, it's a silly thing to argue about, and it was my mistake, that I thought the original poster of that meant two combat rounds, not full turns, in which case you are correct.

As for the topic at hand, I can't wait for percentages. I'm a fan of change. Trying to do something new (Well, I guess it's not really NEW, since it was in older editions) can help keep the game fresh. I don't believe it will be as game breaking as others think it will be, for most. Bretonnian and Tomb Kings will suffer the most, since they are both required to bring two heroes, but even them I think will be viable.

Ulrig
30-04-2010, 07:06
Honestly...The over-powered characters is what made me quit WHFB. This also goes for all my friends also, its just stupid how powerful you can make some heroes. I think it will be one of the best things to ever happen to WHFB.

Master Jeridian
30-04-2010, 09:22
I agree with the pro side.

I'm sick of dragon mounted lords and their cast of casters laying waste to armies.

As said, 3000pts may be the new 'standard' 750pts is a lot to spend on characters.


This rumour, along with others related to boosting ranked infantry and nerfing herohammer, really encourage me about 8th Ed.

Spiney Norman
30-04-2010, 09:24
People who bought two Eyes of the Gods, and who will not now be able to field it effectively might, quite rightly, be annoyed. No point in getting angry at someone who bought and lovingly painted a character riding a large monster. One can argue that people have to expect some differences in choices with new books and editions, but this one would be more radical if implemented than many past changes have been.


I'm assuming you mean Engines of the gods, and its not really about having two of them. Even fielding one is not really an option at 2000pts, as you wouldn't even have enough for a Scar Veteran as well, and having a Ld6 general is a bit too optimistic, even for lizardmen.

Ovassilias
30-04-2010, 11:02
Actually, the only people who are hit hard by the cap are
1. those who want to field thier most expensive (and usually best) models

like what?...stegadonsx4?2x steam tanks and a dragon? 6+blood knights with a bsb drake banner?...i dont understand this, with the percentantage u can still field anything u like or want..u just cant spam it or abuse it.


2. People who want to play thier army to its best potential

by this u mean have all the "broken" entries in a book multiple times?im just asking cause full potential of any army is in the hands of a player usually not on the broken units.


3. People Whose army has a reliance on characters.

the only 2 armies that will need more thinking are VC and TK cause their characters reflect on the army. I have both and seriously some ppl need to relax about 1k+ tooled up characters and think how to use the army.


4. People without cheap/effective character alternatives

ok...since a lot are freaking with the vamp chars, just because u have the option to tool up your chars doesnt mean u HAVE to. A vampire hero with extra lvl and avatar is 150pts. He is a lvl 2 caster with 3 str5 attacks that has 3 spells!!!! and either 3+save,4 attacks 5+sv or str7. cheap alternative?????


5. People with affordable/effective combat/magic alternatives

ill take a corpse cart and 15+ ghouls anyday....how much more affortable u mean?


6. People who have affordable/effective troops and Shooting atlternatives.

affortable and effective troops (aka core), ghouls, corpse cart, dire wolves.
runner ups, skeletons that get +1 from a banner and a save if thats your flavor.


7. People who dont have to end the game when their general dies.

well thats up to the player...if u fancy sending your vamp lord against the heaviest enemy unit unsupported...well your asking for trouble.

the Vampire Lord is the No1 supporting character, hes job is to make the undead work, if u want someone to run around and kill things chaos is the answer or daemons.



Actually, the only people who are hit hard by the cap are

the power gamers who only want to play a game with 1k+ characters, maxed out broken rare and special and ignore the rest of the book, have no idea how an army works and have learned to rely on the characters way too much then they should.

Memnos
30-04-2010, 11:07
the power gamers who only want to play a game with 1k+ characters, maxed out broken rare and special and ignore the rest of the book, have no idea how an army works and have learned to rely on the characters way too much then they should.

I'm uncertain if powergamer is the right word. They've come to rely upon a single build for winning. Maybe it's successful, maybe it isn't. Regardless, they're complacent.

I suspect most have never undergone an edition change and had to mix up their army.

Frankly, I think it's just whinging. It's happened at least since 1997 on the GW message boards and probably far earlier than that(Though I have no experience with the whinging prior to that.)

Spiney Norman
30-04-2010, 13:22
like what?...stegadonsx4?2x steam tanks and a dragon? 6+blood knights with a bsb drake banner?...i dont understand this, with the percentantage u can still field anything u like or want..u just cant spam it or abuse it.

Actually, it would still be possible to field 4 stegadons even with the percentage restrictions

Chief on Ancient Steg (with warspear and still enough pts left over for a scar vet as general)

2x special steg (totals at less than 25% of 2K)
1x Ancient Steg

The reason you don't see that many stegaspam armies is because they're not actually that good. Ancient stegs are fair for their points, but the special version isn't really that good. At the end of the day there are much more powerful builds for Lizardmen that you should be worrying about, like Slann + Temple guard pts denial anvil for example.

Besides, if they get rid of slots in favour of percentages, it will actually be possible to field 2 basic Slanns at 2250, if they both had the extra dice per spell discipline and a block of Temple Guard to hide in, well, you get the picture...

Finnigan2004
30-04-2010, 14:10
the power gamers who only want to play a game with 1k+ characters, maxed out broken rare and special and ignore the rest of the book, have no idea how an army works and have learned to rely on the characters way too much then they should.

Sorry, but this part is stereotyping nonsense. Please do not try to project your biased opinions on other people who may not enjoy to play a game the same way that you do. It really drags the debate down.

Tactical Retreat!
30-04-2010, 14:23
No. He is right. Only the power gamers are hurt by these changes, so they are the ones moaning and crying.

Finnigan2004
30-04-2010, 14:27
No, you are wrong. Unless you have played and interviewed every person that does not like the changes, you have no idea why they don't like them. It would be like me saying that everyone that does like the changes is a scrub who does not know how to win the game. The rhetoric is really silly. Everyone is entitled to their own point of view, but they are not entitled to their own set of made up facts.

kyuzo
30-04-2010, 14:33
No. He is right. Only the power gamers are hurt by these changes, so they are the ones moaning and crying.

At least you admit that the game is being made retard friendly so that all the baddies wont be embarassed by how bad they do.

Erloas
30-04-2010, 14:48
This really is a pointless argument and I don't see why we are talking about zombies in the first place but just to prove you wrong:

55 Clanrat slaves with spears, Mus and Champ will kill 4.88 Zombie a combat phase (which also happen to cost 172 points the same as 40 zombies with standard and Mus)

11 attacks *2/3*2/3=4.88
4.88+4.88 crumble clanrat turn 1
4.88+4.88 crumble VC turn 1
4.88+5.88 crumble Clanrat turn 2
4.88+6.88 crumble Vc turn 2
=42 zombies in 2 turns

I can't even tell you the last time I saw zombies in a VC list (and not just summoned). They are horrible. They serve a purpose in holding things up but will almost never kill things on their own.
Can we move on ?

So you aren't giving the zombies a single wound back ever? With the new rules they are going to have at least 5 attacks back, likely 10 (and potentially 30 with the vague horde rule) and they should be killing some rats. And if after 2 full turns of combat the VC player hasn't managed to get any unit in to support the zombies (it doesn't have to be a character) they either completely fail as a general or the zombies were specifically sacrificed to tie up the unit.
If you turn it around though and look at what the slaves would do against a better block of infantry, they would likely get charged, take 3-4 wounds, break and be run down in a single round of combat.

deggaroth
30-04-2010, 15:57
No. He is right. Only the power gamers are hurt by these changes, so they are the ones moaning and crying.

One can raise a good argument for why players who play character heavy armies, shouldn't be fielding them for fluff reasons. After all, other posters have stated: warhammer is about armies, not four dudes and their small band of drinking buddies. Defining people who play character heavy armies as power gamers is IMO flawed. A power gamer is by definition, someone who fields a maxed out list from a top tier army. These are the guys who went and purchased entire Daemon armies, giving all the actual fluff DOC players a bad name. Thus, you could raise the argument that power gamers will be least effected by these changes, because they're just going to do the same by fielding a maxed out list from a top tier 8th army.

Shadowsinner
30-04-2010, 16:10
well to be fair I suppose anyone would complain if they've spent the past few years eating fine cuisine, only to learn they'll now have to eat with the rest of the crew.

Tactical Retreat!
30-04-2010, 16:21
Thus, you could raise the argument that power gamers will be least effected by these changes, because they're just going to do the same by fielding a maxed out list from a top tier 8th army.

Indeed. But they are going to have to buy a huge load of new models to restructure their armies into 8th edition power houses.

That makes me, and GW, happy little boys. Though for different reasons.

Erloas
30-04-2010, 16:58
Thus, you could raise the argument that power gamers will be least effected by these changes, because they're just going to do the same by fielding a maxed out list from a top tier 8th army.

While it is true that a power gamer will always be a power game and no set of rules will change that, the hope is that the power gap between those power gamer lists and the more balanced lists will be reduced.

And for most fluffy lists, (not themed, themes are really easy to make broken) that try to follow the examples given by GW's books and examples probably won't change all that much, because those are generally core heavy and either have lower powered heroes or a single named character and a few weak secondary characters.

The problem with a lot of the power gamer lists isn't that they can't be beat, its that it takes a fairly specific design to balance/counter them.

The counter to a 600 point lord on dragon, 2 monsters, and 3 tooled up heroes in a unit of knights takes a very specific built to counter. Mostly because they all have the same counter and not all armies can take enough of that counter to handle all of that at once. Or if the army is a 16PD magic heavy army, the only counter to that is a lot of magic users yourself and not leaving the hero choices left to do anything else with, and the only other option is suicide units or the ability to snipe characters which is not equally available in all armies and isn't that hard to avoid for the caster.

However if the new rules make it so the best lists are large blocks of X units, with support from weaker characters and smaller units of knights... well then the counters to those units is a lot more varied. They are counters that every army has access to, because it has more to do with what you do with the army rather then having the right things on the field before you start.

Spiney Norman
30-04-2010, 17:02
Yeah, but an army that has a variety of ways to counter it is by definition, NOT a power-gamer army.

I'm just a bit miffed because I can't use my fav models any more. If I could have enough points to take a carnosaur and a L2 wizard, maybe even a naked scar vet as well, that would make me happy. As it is I wont be able to fit the Carnosaur in until 2250, and that'll be on his own.

I'm also not overly please that my second army Tomb Kings will be nerfed beyond recall

JayC707
30-04-2010, 19:26
I highly doubt that 25% is the correct % for lords/characters.

It would completely remove the use of A LOT of units/models.

I would most probably quit instantly and sell my army on eBay considering I would be unable to run my lords on Dragon - which is the reason I chose my army and my favorite model.

Tactical Retreat!
30-04-2010, 20:41
I highly doubt that 25% is the correct % for lords/characters.

It would completely remove the use of A LOT of units/models.

I would most probably quit instantly and sell my army on eBay considering I would be unable to run my lords on Dragon - which is the reason I chose my army and my favorite model.

Unless it is a Chaos Lord you would still be able to run a dragon. It's just not possible to run him with a harem of wizards/bsbs too.

Grimstonefire
30-04-2010, 20:43
I have been told by several people that the rumoured 25% for characters is correct. Damn, size 1 is still fairly big.:(

Tactical Retreat is correct, dragons will still be perfectly useable. You'll just need to play bigger games to get the same amount of characters in. How expensive is a typical dragon build anyway?

VonUber
30-04-2010, 21:08
im not dreading the cap with my armys, except chaos.. chaos characters are way expencive points wise.

The current one if im correct is 25% on chars including mounts. Core is 25%+ , special is 25%? (i can see it being 30-40%, 25% really screws over most armys, like chaos or high elves). and 15% rare? I can see it being that.

Most of my armys fit those but not my chaos.

R Man
30-04-2010, 23:12
Every army has re-directers

Whats your point?


The same speed as you, units of 12 cost 24 of you guys so units as a whole cost the same and will win in combat.

Undead units can be regenerated, and will never be run down as well as causing fear.


You don't seem to understand vc, the decking out is the reason their characters are feared. They come with no amour and not much magic and need the equipment

They also come with T5, S5 and 2 magic levels. And that's not the point. Its not that you have to take a naked Vamp. As noted, you can add up to 100 points of magic items, and still have enough for 3 necromancer left over if you want to go combat.


Brettonians have been nerfed to if the no marching is true but they will just have to beef out their knight units and try to do enough damage on the frontal charge which is a viable build anyway and user possible trample attacks and that it is also harder to ignore armour. Vc are worst off hear.

1stly, you suggest that big units are the way to go? Thats not a good idea. Putting too many points into an attack is ripe to be squished by guns, it has little maneuverability and costs a lot. It is no solution. Not enough details are known about the trample to make an effective judgment. And the ignoring armour also counts against the Bretonnians, especially on the charge.

The thing is, Vamps are going to get weaker. But they are not unique in this as other armies are also taking hits. Stop acting like its specifically targeting you. Second of all, VC are quite powerful anyway, so they should still be able to hold up well. 3rd of all, despite your character emphasis others have shown that it is still possible to take a lord at 2000 points and give him reasonable equipment.


So you aren't giving the zombies a single wound back ever? With the new rules they are going to have at least 5 attacks back, likely 10 (and potentially 30 with the vague horde rule) and they should be killing some rats. And if after 2 full turns of combat the VC player hasn't managed to get any unit in to support the zombies (it doesn't have to be a character) they either completely fail as a general or the zombies were specifically sacrificed to tie up the unit.
If you turn it around though and look at what the slaves would do against a better block of infantry, they would likely get charged, take 3-4 wounds, break and be run down in a single round of combat.

I would also like to point out that spearmen are perfect for this horde slicing. Pick a more elite unit, one that relies on fewer more powerful attacks and the situation is very different. Like 20 Dwarf Warriors with GW and full command will likely only kill 3 and be outnumbered. So they will only kill 5 a turn. Try it with Executioners and White Lions too.

Zoolander
01-05-2010, 04:20
I have been told by several people that the rumoured 25% for characters is correct. Damn, size 1 is still fairly big.:(

Tactical Retreat is correct, dragons will still be perfectly useable. You'll just need to play bigger games to get the same amount of characters in. How expensive is a typical dragon build anyway?

Well, a HE prince on a dragon costs 538 with a shield and lance. Not enough for even one magic item in a 2250 game, and not fieldable at all in a 2000 pt game. So, you see my point in that, yes, it's often possible to make the 25% but many times, it's totally not worth it, is very poor point allocating, tatically suicidal, and not very fun.

Orktavius
01-05-2010, 04:29
Gee...almost makes you think GW wants you to save the super critters and uber lords for larger games as opposed to them running around all the time

R Man
01-05-2010, 04:44
Well, a HE prince on a dragon costs 538 with a shield and lance. Not enough for even one magic item in a 2250 game, and not fieldable at all in a 2000 pt game. So, you see my point in that, yes, it's often possible to make the 25% but many times, it's totally not worth it, is very poor point allocating, tatically suicidal, and not very fun.

No. A HE prince on a STAR dragon costs 538 points with a shield and Lance. And it actually costs 529, though you'd probably take Dragon Armour which brings it up to 538.

A HE prince on a Sun Dragon costs 380, which leaves 120 points for items and other characters. Honestly, it does handicap you, but it's doable.

Grimstonefire
01-05-2010, 10:31
How much is a decent archmage/ dragon mage build on sun dragon? Including the items.

Basically in a 2000pt list, taking a cheap dragon is a gamble that the rest of your battle line can survive without heroes (or one really cheap one).

artisturn
01-05-2010, 17:09
Not dreading the cap but it will certainly change the way I play my VC army.

Just means I can't bring all vampires any more but I still have Necromancers and Wright Kings and their lower point costs will allow me to meet the cap.

I can still bring two vampires only thing I can't do is fully load them up with goodies anymore now only my general will be some what loaded up with toys for battle.

And I already play with large units of core in my lists so I am looking forward to new rules that will benefit Core troops.

Edahlo
01-05-2010, 23:28
This rule is pathetic, no thanks. I'd rather play with 7th ed rules until 9th. I play Vamps and Lizzies, and this rule takes all the fun away, both from a playing and modelling/painting point of view.

Grimstonefire
01-05-2010, 23:51
If anyone is interested, there are 2 rumours I am hearing at the moment, and I do believe one of them will happen (I don't know which :cries:):

25% Characters (Lords and Heroes)
25% Lords and 25% Heroes

Lords can lead small armies if you want, within the points

I would actually prefer it to be 30% characters, for a bit of flexibility without herohammer spam.

R Man
01-05-2010, 23:59
Well, you never know (until its out) but armies with more expensive characters may get 33% (1/3) for characters while everyone else gets 25%. It would still help to limit spam, but would still allow more expensive armies to invest in characters to an extent.

Zurubbu
02-05-2010, 00:05
The 25% cap thing is propably the only good thing i've heard about 8th edition. Hitting in initiative, "step up", random charge range and random amount of power/dispel dice is what is bad IMO.

Of course i might be proven wrong but it sounds crappy in my head at least.

Spiney Norman
02-05-2010, 01:42
If anyone is interested, there are 2 rumours I am hearing at the moment, and I do believe one of them will happen (I don't know which :cries:):

25% Characters (Lords and Heroes)
25% Lords and 25% Heroes

Lords can lead small armies if you want, within the points

I would actually prefer it to be 30% characters, for a bit of flexibility without herohammer spam.

25% in total is overly restrictive, it gives near zero flexibility for a lot of armies

25% lords and 25% heroes (presumably for a 50% max) would be interesting, it would hardly be game-shattering, but it would allow combinations like Slann/EotG, but would stop the uber maxed-out builds like a gifted up bloodthirster or Star dragon Prince.

It would also make Tomb Kings viable (as you could easily fit a chariot King, two priests and a casket), which I'd personally be quite happy about.

Erloas
02-05-2010, 03:12
If anyone is interested, there are 2 rumours I am hearing at the moment, and I do believe one of them will happen (I don't know which :cries:):

25% Characters (Lords and Heroes)
25% Lords and 25% Heroes

Lords can lead small armies if you want, within the points
If that is the case then they may as well not put a limit at all. As has been shown, with the exception of only a few specific lord builds, none of the rest pass the 25% limit at 2k anyway. And 25% for 3 hero level characters doesn't change a huge amount either.

I would agree though that 33% seems like a bit better number because it keeps people limited but still gives people a reasonable amount of options.

Kayosiv
02-05-2010, 03:32
If anyone is interested, there are 2 rumours I am hearing at the moment, and I do believe one of them will happen (I don't know which :cries:):

25% Characters (Lords and Heroes)
25% Lords and 25% Heroes


Interesting. 25% lords and 25% heroes doesn't seem to limit much, but then again the few things that it does limit are the things that REALLY need limiting in small games. I

Ramius4
02-05-2010, 04:53
Percentages are only limiting if the current slot system is still a part of it. Believe me, I played 5th ed all the way through. A 25% Lord 25% Hero system without slots would be even more 'herohammer' than it is now.

Dokushin
02-05-2010, 05:10
This might be tangential, but I am, in fact, dreading the new percent system.

On the whole I think it's a good idea, and will be good for the game. However, I play Lizardmen -- no! this isn't what you're thinking! I really don't care about the hero cap or whatever, I'll stuff a Slaan in or I won't, whatever.

What I'm dreading specifically is the 50% core. That's how the game should play, I agree, but I have exactly three core options, and they each have one equipment addon. (Plus one more unit if Jungle Swarms will be allowed to "count", and plus one more unit option if Krox can be used). What this means is half of every lizardman army is going to be very similar to the other half. You can change the units around and mess with the mixture, but what you've got is skirmishers, good infantry, and bad infantry. Those are units that add little tactical ability to a game and little variety to the army.

Yeah, I know, cry more, whatever. It just seems like 1000 points of Saurus and Skinks is going to make my army a lot like the army of every other LM player, where before I highly valued the diversity of my list (6th ed skink skirmisher spam notwithstanding). There's not much room to express yourself in that -- especially since for a lot of people (including me) it's not even going to be a question of which ones, since you'll have to field just about all of your models to hit 1000 points.

R Man
02-05-2010, 05:55
All sources seem to indicate that the min requirement will be 25%. But 50% would seem a little extreme.

dragonet111
02-05-2010, 07:11
Remember the time when Bretonnian armies can choose 75% of Heroes:evilgrin:

Love my regiment of heroes.

Back to the question I don't think It's that a problem beside nobody know how the new edition works so if they choose to bring back the percentage I will wait to see if it's broken or not.
Does anyone knows if the point limit to be able to field a lord is still here?

Ozorik
02-05-2010, 07:16
If anyone is interested, there are 2 rumours I am hearing at the moment, and I do believe one of them will happen (I don't know which :cries:):

25% Characters (Lords and Heroes)
25% Lords and 25% Heroes


The second is almost certainly wrong, it changes absolutely nothing so whats the point of even having a cap? 500 point lords with 500 points of powerful support characters are the problem that exists now, the reason that the cap would be introduced would be to prevent this happening (as well as restrict lopsided army list construction). No one needs 50% characters, especially when you take into account the magic changes.

jamesterjlrb
02-05-2010, 07:51
As an Gobbo player, i'm happy, more characters in 2000 pts!

Volker the Mad Fiddler
02-05-2010, 08:53
This might be tangential, but I am, in fact, dreading the new percent system.

On the whole I think it's a good idea, and will be good for the game. However, I play Lizardmen -- no! this isn't what you're thinking! I really don't care about the hero cap or whatever, I'll stuff a Slaan in or I won't, whatever.

What I'm dreading specifically is the 50% core. That's how the game should play, I agree, but I have exactly three core options, and they each have one equipment addon. (Plus one more unit if Jungle Swarms will be allowed to "count", and plus one more unit option if Krox can be used). What this means is half of every lizardman army is going to be very similar to the other half. You can change the units around and mess with the mixture, but what you've got is skirmishers, good infantry, and bad infantry. Those are units that add little tactical ability to a game and little variety to the army.

Yeah, I know, cry more, whatever. It just seems like 1000 points of Saurus and Skinks is going to make my army a lot like the army of every other LM player, where before I highly valued the diversity of my list (6th ed skink skirmisher spam notwithstanding). There's not much room to express yourself in that -- especially since for a lot of people (including me) it's not even going to be a question of which ones, since you'll have to field just about all of your models to hit 1000 points.

1. The rumors seem to be 25%+ core, not 50%+.
2. I want to feel for you, but as an Empire player I could argue that I have less choice in core- just humans with equipment options.
Your characterization of the LM core is off. You have missile troops/skirmishers [skinks], redirectors/fast ranked light infantry [ranked skinks], fast medium infantry [ranked skinks with krox] and heavy infantry [saurus].
The Empire has missile troops [handguns, crossbows], skirmishers [archers], medium infantry [state troops, free company] and heavy cav. [knights].
So the Empire which has consistently been the one of [if not] the most diverse lists in the game have the same number of choices for tactical roles as the LM.

As for your bad infantry, you are thinking too much in the context of the current metagame. We don't know that much about 8th yet so ranked skinks and skink/krox units might be a lot more useful [think about a 12" march to claim objectives late in a game]. I say don't get worked up about anything until we actually know. Worrying about the future just makes you miss the wonders of the present.

Bassik
02-05-2010, 09:01
In my Skaven army, I have a rat on a bell and an engineer, so.. not worried at all.

yabbadabba
02-05-2010, 09:29
The more this goes on the only thing I am beginning to dread is the amount of whining when the rulebook does come out.

crouchingotter
02-05-2010, 10:03
Look...

IF there is a character cap of 25% max then yes, at 2000pts, you are going to be limited.

So what do you think is likely if this is the case? Maybe 2000pts won't be the normal game size anymore. Hmmmm?

Anyway, the point is that you don't know for certain. You'll find out in July. Enjoy 7th for next few months and then when 8th comes out you'll know EVERYTHING! :)

maze ironheart
02-05-2010, 10:38
(Clap Clap Clap) This is not aimed at anyone except the new rules So if the standard battle is 3000pt's I can really see new players starting warhammer and paying like over 400 pounds maybe more:eek: to play a regular game.It's like lets sort the problom of people whinning about DoC and VC I know lets make a 25% cap on characters (Hit's Head with Hand).

Foxbat
02-05-2010, 11:01
As a High Elf player I am concerned about the 25% cap on Characters/Specials/Rares.

For discussion purposes, let’s consider a 2000 pt list with under the proposed Min 25% Core, max 25% Rare/Special/Characters and that the slot limits remain.

Right off the bat, the max that a HE player can spend on Rare units would be 400 pts, this means that a HE player is already REQURIED to spend 100 pts MORE than the minimum Core amount. Assuming one spends 1000 pts on Special/Characters, this means a total spend of 600 pts on Core. That’s a whopping 30%, more than 3x what is the minimum requirement today.

Now what could a High Elf army list look like under these restrictions? Well something like:
Characters (496 pts, ~25%)
- Archmage, 4th Level, Pendant of Vengence, 2xDispel Scroll, and Silver Wand
- Noble, GW, DA, Shield, Loremaster’s Cloak, and Mask of Merlord
Core (705 pts, ~35%)
- 10 x Archers
- 20 x LSG, Full Command, Lion Standard
- 20 x LSG, Full Command
Special (498 pts, ~25%)
- 14 x Sword Masters, Full Command, Standard of Balance, Talisman of Loec
- 9 x Phoenix Guard, Musician, Standard Bearer, Banner of Sorcery
Rare (300 pts, ~15%)
- 2 x RBT
- 2 x GE
Stats
- Points: 1999 pts with a WPS of ~19.5
- Magic: 7-9 PD, 4 DD, 2 DS, 5 Spells
- Shooting: 50xS3, 12xS4 or 2xS6
- Close Combat: 57xS3, 13xS4, 29xS5, 3xS6
- Armour Save: 15-None, 4x6+, 63x5+, 1x4+ (not taking into account HW&S options)
- Ward Save: 9x4+

While others may discuss the merits of alternative Core combinations like using only Spears & Archers, the overall problem remains the same, not enough high strength attacks to offset our low toughness and low armour save stats. Others may wish to migrate to a more combat list using DPs or SH in the special slots (of course these units may not be able to march!) with various Character combinations, but the problem remains the same, too few units with high strength hits.

If anything, the change to a percentage composition system may result in High Elf lists migrating toward gun lines composed predominantly of bows and RBTs. Why, because for every Rare slot not occupied by an RBT means that a High Elf player must take additional Core points.

Now for the big question, will High Elf player have more fun playing under a % system? I don’t think so if we are forced to field gun lines. For one thing, I know if I were to field 4 RBTs and bows in my local gaming area, I would just hear endless whines of how my list is pure cheese, no matter how uncompetitive the list really is.

So no, I am not looking forward to a percentage system being added unless there is some kind of major fix for the HE army book released within months of the 8th edition rule book.

yabbadabba
02-05-2010, 11:31
(Clap Clap Clap) This is not aimed at anyone except the new rules So if the standard battle is 3000pt's I can really see new players starting warhammer and paying like over 400 pounds maybe more:eek: to play a regular game.It's like lets sort the problom of people whinning about DoC and VC I know lets make a 25% cap on characters (Hit's Head with Hand). that makes no sense I am afraid Maze Ironheart. A new player will not spend £400 on a new army to play the game because they will not know any better about how to play. They will start either with the rulebook+battalion box set or the core game box. Then through trial and error they will build up to that 3k points and hopefully arrive there having had plenty of experience and able to make full use of the rules and their tactics. Like all of us the money spent will be an investment and if they follow through the right way then they will also have an army capable of surviving future rules changes. Also you have based that without even considering the rest of the rulebook. There could be a scenario set at 500 pts, and some campaign rules using 1k-2.5k armies.
The key thing for any beginner is what it will always be - the painting.

logan054
02-05-2010, 12:52
The second is almost certainly wrong, it changes absolutely nothing so whats the point of even having a cap? 500 point lords with 500 points of powerful support characters are the problem that exists now, the reason that the cap would be introduced would be to prevent this happening (as well as restrict lopsided army list construction). No one needs 50% characters, especially when you take into account the magic changes.


I think people are getting wish listing and rumours mixed up, i agree it would be totally pointless to have the cap at 50% heroes or 25% of each type, i think it also goes against the lord leading smaller armies rumour.

I dont see why people are so upset by these changes, the focus of the game will be on units, what harm could that actually do?

Spiney Norman
02-05-2010, 13:00
1. The rumors seem to be 25%+ core, not 50%+.
2. I want to feel for you, but as an Empire player I could argue that I have less choice in core- just humans with equipment options.
Your characterization of the LM core is off. You have missile troops/skirmishers [skinks], redirectors/fast ranked light infantry [ranked skinks], fast medium infantry [ranked skinks with krox] and heavy infantry [saurus].
The Empire has missile troops [handguns, crossbows], skirmishers [archers], medium infantry [state troops, free company] and heavy cav. [knights].
So the Empire which has consistently been the one of [if not] the most diverse lists in the game have the same number of choices for tactical roles as the LM.


Sorry, how can you possibly justify describing T2 6+ AS troops "medium infantry", more like ultra-light infantry if you ask me. Ranked skinks are the worst option in the LM list, even if they do have a Kroxigor with them.

Saying Empire has limited choice in core by arguing they're just all humans with different equipment options is rather like saying Skaven have limited choices because, heck they're all just big rats with different equipment options.

I think a man with WS4, a sword and shield, is different enough from a man in full plate armour with a lance riding a barded warhorse or a skirmishing scout with a longbow for the Empire core section to be considered to have plenty of variety (being an Empire player myself).

I for one am expecting my Empire to do tons better than my Lizardmen in 8th Edition. Lizardmen rely on expensive heroes which will no longer be fieldable, whereas Empire rely on a few cheap heroes to support large troop formations. The new Horde rule and step-up is going to give Empire more attacks than they have currently and lost of new options how to play. Empire are actually one of the few armies that will be able to fit a monster-mounted Lord into a 2K list if you wanted to, I can easily build a good griffon Lord for 300-350pts, which still leaves room for a wizard, maybe two.

slayerofmen
02-05-2010, 13:00
I think people are getting wish listing and rumours mixed up, i agree it would be totally pointless to have the cap at 50% heroes or 25% of each type, i think it also goes against the lord leading smaller armies rumour.

I dont see why people are so upset by these changes, the focus of the game will be on units, what harm could that actually do?

it harms peoples ability to take a dragon riding, giant sword wielding psycho who goes stabby stabby and doesn't cost enough..and this to them sucks because it means they will have to paint and collect an army not collect a dragon lord to play with and paint two units to put on the board with it at anything less then 3000pts.

things like dragons at 2250pts or less is the reason why this is a good idea, not everyone has a bolt thrower or something to insta gib the biggest beasties, plus the fact having your game ruled by above described option isn't that fun, id still play against it i just wouldn't have fun

Talos
02-05-2010, 13:27
so far the only people against the 25% cap seem to be lizardmen,VC and tk players. Could that say something about those army books more than the new core rules.

Erloas
02-05-2010, 14:04
(Clap Clap Clap) This is not aimed at anyone except the new rules So if the standard battle is 3000pt's I can really see new players starting warhammer and paying like over 400 pounds maybe more:eek: to play a regular game.It's like lets sort the problom of people whinning about DoC and VC I know lets make a 25% cap on characters (Hit's Head with Hand).

I don't know about you, but the games I like to play the least are when people go all out on their characters. Its not just DoC and VC, though they are the worst. Many armies can field a lot of points in characters, not all of them are as cheesy as others, but for what I want in a game they are all less fun then troop heavy lists.

And as for new players having to start at 3k, they don't even start at 2k now. Most people start at 500-1000 points. It is generally quite a while before they even get to 1500. And while I might have 3-4k worth of DE models I still end up playing the majority of my games at 1500, with 1k and 2k being probably equally played besides that. The groups I've been with tend to stay below 2k just to avoid the high powered lord level options.

Spiney Norman
02-05-2010, 14:11
so far the only people against the 25% cap seem to be lizardmen,VC and tk players. Could that say something about those army books more than the new core rules.

What exactly do you think it is saying about them? The books are quite different, VC are possibly a little over-powered in the current edition, while Lizards are broadly well balanced aside from the potential for an odd broken build, TK on the other hand are a long way below the competitive curve.

logan054
02-05-2010, 14:22
it harms peoples ability to take a dragon riding, giant sword wielding psycho who goes stabby stabby and doesn't cost enough..and this to them sucks because it means they will have to paint and collect an army not collect a dragon lord to play with and paint two units to put on the board with it at anything less then 3000pts.

things like dragons at 2250pts or less is the reason why this is a good idea, not everyone has a bolt thrower or something to insta gib the biggest beasties, plus the fact having your game ruled by above described option isn't that fun, id still play against it i just wouldn't have fun

So the long and the short of it is no harm really :)

Tae
02-05-2010, 14:23
so far the only people against the 25% cap seem to be lizardmen,VC and tk players. Could that say something about those army books more than the new core rules.

And yet DoC and DE players, both of whom have books and army builds far more open to abuse than any of the above, both seem to be, by in large, fine with it.

Tactical Retreat!
02-05-2010, 15:10
And yet DoC and DE players, both of whom have books and army builds far more open to abuse than any of the above, both seem to be, by in large, fine with it.

At least no more Kairos + blue scribes, or supa bloodthirsters that take on armies by themselves

Spiney Norman
02-05-2010, 15:18
At least no more Kairos + blue scribes, or supa bloodthirsters that take on armies by themselves

Unless you're playing 3K points *ducks*

Nasher
02-05-2010, 15:40
You guys crack me up no end.
3000pts was a standard game size in 3rd ED Spiney, so it may come round again
Percentages as used for armies goes back to third ED. Which considering the direction of the rumours are hinting at 8th is going to play that way. Although significantly better as 3rd Ed had major issues.

Number of reason you may not care so much about percentages are characters will be of little value past one or two. Dragons, hydras, blood thirster etc.. may be nerfed significantly.
Magic items may have thier own seperate percentage max as well as in 3rd ED. Just hang on to you pats cause we're just about to take a wild ride in two months time.

meanmachine
02-05-2010, 17:58
is there stilll a chance that the percentages will be for the base cost and not including the extra items

or is that pretty much guaranteed not to happen

Heimagoblin
02-05-2010, 18:24
Hardcore hero limitations will not solve anything at all, doc and de both get more powerful compared to most other armies due to core casters, cheap heoroes and just generally being good at everything else anyway. Also, dragon lords are not the only things that will be cut out if 25% characters is true, for example I will have to drop my lv2 sorceror on chariot in order to allow for my exalted hero. That is a perfectly balanced unit I now can't use with the rest of my army.

grumbaki
02-05-2010, 21:28
Hardcore hero limitations will not solve anything at all, doc and de both get more powerful compared to most other armies due to core casters, cheap heoroes and just generally being good at everything else anyway. Also, dragon lords are not the only things that will be cut out if 25% characters is true, for example I will have to drop my lv2 sorceror on chariot in order to allow for my exalted hero. That is a perfectly balanced unit I now can't use with the rest of my army.

Let's look at it this way. At 2k points DE probably can't afford 4 wizards with assassins hidden throughout the army, and at 2k points DoC have some of their nasty options stripped away.

For your WoC army, have you considered toning down the heroes abit? I mean, at 2k points you still have 500 points to play with. You can still fit in 4 heroes with that limit, just not with all of the toys you are used to. Or take the lvl 2 in a chariot along with your exalted. I really doubt that even fully kitted the two will be over 500 points.

Sure, the limit is overinclusive. Some valid options will have to be dropped which were not overpowered. But I would rather that a few non-cheesy builds be dropped than for the new edition to still be underinclusive, as it is right now. Nobody finds it fun to fight a fully tooled bloodthirster backed up by 3 heralds, nor is it fun to fight a dragon-mounted dreadlord with 2 hydras and magical backup where each lvl 2 can generate extra power dice and use them all without level restrictions.

The cap is overall a good thing. So just :D and be flexible.

Foxbat
02-05-2010, 22:50
Sure, the limit is overinclusive. Some valid options will have to be dropped which were not overpowered. But I would rather that a few non-cheesy builds be dropped than for the new edition to still be underinclusive, as it is right now. I would rather have the limit at 35% and learn how to beat the periodic cheese build than have a few books still being able to field effective character set-ups while too many other army books can't. It only gets worse if those same books that need more characters also have poor Core unit selections.

Drasanil
02-05-2010, 23:16
I think the cap(s) is(are) a great idea, I play DE and never went for cheesed out dragonhydraspam, it'll be nice to see more Dark Elf armies on the table as opposed to a Lord taking his pets out for a morning strole.

I also hope they get rid of the slot system, it did nothing but encourage cookie cutter armies where players were more or less forced to go for the most effective units per category and build bunkers of various types, as opposed to fielding a several smaller elite units as flankers and support for your core.